In 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States, headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, made a landmark decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona:The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have a lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966: 437) Extending the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination from the courtroom to the police station, the Miranda decision aimed to safeguard suspects and the court against false and coerced confessions, obtained through deception, physical abuse, threats of punishment, deprivation of basic needs, and prolonged and exhausting interrogations. Once informed of their rights, suspects may relinquish them, "provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently" (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966: 444), that is "with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it" (Colorado v. Spring, 1986: 573). If the defense can prove that the defendant waived their rights unknowingly, unintelligently, or involuntarily, their inculpatory statements may be deemed inadmissible, thus weakening the basis for the conviction.Judges, however, tend to be skeptical of the claims that this or that defendant did not understand their rights. So do many journalists, firmly convinced that, thanks to ubiquitous police and court dramas, even the most casual TV viewers are conversant with their rights: "Anyone who's ever watched "Law & Order" has a pretty good understanding of Miranda rights", asserted an editorial in the New York Post. i Police officers may even reference pop culture before reciting the rights: "Okay, basically and you've heard the Miranda warning on Cops and TV and stuff" (Feld, 2006: 76). Chief Justice William Rehnquist summarized this view succinctly in Dickerson v. United States: "Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture" (2000: 443). And if they are indeed part of our national culture, who, if anyone, does not understand the warnings and the rights they are intended to convey? Why native speakers of English do not always understand their rightsExperts concur that 80% of adult and 90% of juvenile custodial suspects customarily waive their rights and talk to the police without a lawyer present (

No abstract

This chapter explores phase shifts, which occur when dynamic systems enter a period of fluctuation that results in a new stable pattern (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). Phase shifts remain elusive in L2 writing research due to a lack sufficiently dense data to detect them and a lack of recognition when they occur. Moreover, the majority of L2 writing research involving phase shift analysis focuses on cognitive factors analyzed with quantitative tools, thus neglecting qualitative methods and the influence of external social factors that may impact change. This chapter examines the definition of phase shifts, reviews relevant complexity theory-inspired quantitative and qualitative methodologies for analyzing L2 writing, and proposes adapting quantitative descriptive research techniques (Ortega & Iberri-Shea, 2005) to investigate social ecosystem variables that may lead to phase shifts.

In recent years, English as a second language (ESL) educators have developed a variety of online resources for addressing legal issues. The problem is that the authors’ understanding of laws and police procedures varies greatly, and so does their familiarity with relevant research, the breadth of topical coverage, and the quality of police‐themed units, discussion questions, and lesson plans. The aim of this article is to offer a research‐based approach to the integration of legal topics in ESL curricula. This discussion draws on the authors’ collective experience with public advocacy (Communication of Rights Group, 2015), research on the Miranda rights (Pavlenko, 2008; Pavlenko, Hepford, & Jarvis, 2019), and teaching the Miranda rights and other legal topics to diverse ESL populations, ranging from international college students to middle school pupils.

No abstract