Clarification of the issues in language analysis
A rejoinder to Fraser and Verrips
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19535506 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Tina Cambier-Langeveld (0000-0002-8126-9102, Immigration and Naturalisation Service, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2012 |
| Volume | 19 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 95-108 |
| Publication date | 2012-06-22 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International Journal of Speech Language and the Law (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1748-8885 • E-ISSN: 1748-8893 |
| Publisher | University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1558/ijsll.v19i1.95 |
| OpenAlex | W2120582016 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 2 |
Volume 18.1 (2011) of this journal presented two responses to my article ‘The role of linguists and native speakers in language analysis for the determination of speaker origin’, published in volume 17.1 (2010). Both Helen Fraser and Maaike Verrips pick up on eight cases presented in my article, and question whether these cases have any implications for the ‘Guidelines’. The responses compel me to bring forward a direct connection between the eight cases and the ‘Guidelines’. In this rejoinder, the impact of the eight cases on the ‘Guidelines’ is spelled out. Secondly, various arguments relevant to the ‘linguist vs native speaker debate’ are distinguished, in order to increase understanding of the controversy. Finally, this rejoinder reflects on how this debate could have become polarised
Economics · Epistemology · Linguistics · Sociology · Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies · Linguistic Variation and Morphology · Multilingual Education and Policy · Philosophy · Psychology
| Citations per year | 0.3 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2016 - 2025 (10) |
| Highly cited | No |