Evaluación de la forma de hablar en los tribunales australianos: estudio de intérpretes profesionales chino-ingleses en entornos remotos

Autores/as

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37536/FITISPos-IJ.2023.10.1.339

Palabras clave:

forma de hablar, Interpretación en los servicios públicos, interpretación judicial, interpretación remota

Resumen

Aunque se menciona con frecuencia en los estudios de lingüística y traducción, la manera de hablar no se ha definido con rigor ni se ha evaluado a fondo en la interpretación profesional relacionada con los tribunales en entornos remotos. En términos generales, la manera de hablar describe el modo en que un orador específico expresa sus enunciados en un contexto determinado. En la interpretación cara a cara, sobre todo en juicios gran complejidad, los intérpretes profesionales están obligados por su código ético profesional a "preservar con precisión tanto el contenido como la intención del mensaje original" (véase el Código Ético y de Conducta del Instituto Australiano de Intérpretes y Traductores, 2012, p.10). Sin embargo, poco se sabe sobre la precisión de las interpretaciones de la forma de hablar en las distintas modalidades de interpretación a distancia relacionada con los tribunales. Además, la mayoría de los estudios existentes se centran en las lenguas europeas, y poco se ha explorado en las lenguas no europeas. Teniendo en cuenta estas lagunas, este artículo presenta los antecedentes y las conclusiones iniciales de una investigación experimental con métodos mixtos. El estudio examina el aspecto menos investigado de las interpretaciones inglés-mandarín de la forma de hablar de profesionales titulados en juicios simulados en entornos remotos. Se recogieron un total de 100 cuestionarios para sondear las percepciones, opiniones, estrategias de interpretación y decisiones profesionales de los intérpretes en relación con la interpretación. Las conclusiones pretenden informar sobre las prácticas pedagógicas e inspirar colaboraciones interprofesionales.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Biografía del autor/a

Ran Yi, UNSW Sydney

Ran is a PhD Candidate at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. She is a Level 1 (Advanced) Interpreter/Translator accredited by the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security (P.R.China) with years of experience as a staff interpreter in institutional settings. Inspired by her family serving in the judiciary, she is keenly interested in practice-informed court interpreting and interpreter education.

Citas

Berk-Seligson, S. (1999). The impact of court interpreting on the coerciveness of leading questions. Forensic Linguistics, 6(1), 30–56.

Berk-Seligson, S. (2002). The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. University of Chicago Press.

Berk-Seligson, S. (2009). Coerced confessions: The discourse of bilingual police interrogations. Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213492

Berk-Seligson, S. (2012). Linguistic issues in courtroom interpretation. In The Oxford handbook of language and law. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199572120.013.0031

Berk-Seligson, S. (2017) The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process (2nd Edition). The University of Chicago Press.

Bhatia, V. K., Candlin, C. N., & Engberg, J. (Eds.). (2008). Legal discourse across cultures and systems (Vol. 1). Hong Kong University Press. https://doi.org/10.5790/hongkong/9789622098510.001.0001

Blakemore, Diane (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2003.10416078

Blakemore, D., & Gallai, F. (2014). Discourse markers in free indirect style and interpreting. Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 106-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.003

Braun, S. (2013). Keep your distance? Remote interpreting in legal proceedings: A critical assessment of a growing practice. Interpreting, 15(2), 200-28. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.15.2.03bra

Braun, S. (2016). The European AVIDICUS projects: Collaborating to assess the viability of video-mediated interpreting in legal proceedings. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 173-80. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2016-0002

Braun, S. (2017). What a micro-analytical investigation of additions and expansions in remote interpreting can tell us about interpreters’ participation in a shared virtual space. Journal of Pragmatics, 107, 165-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.011

Braun, S. (2018). Video-mediated interpreting in legal settings in England: Interpreters’ perceptions in their sociopolitical context. Translation and Interpreting Studies. The Journal of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association, 13(3), 393-420. https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00022.bra

Braun, S. (2019). Technology and interpreting. In M. O'Hagan (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Technology. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315311258

Braun, S. & Taylor, J. (Eds.) (2012). Videoconference and remote interpreting in legal proceedings. Intersentia.

Charrow, V. R., Crandall, J. A., & Charrow, R. P. (2015). Characteristics and functions of legal language. In Sublanguage (pp. 175-190). de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110844818-007

Cho, J. (2021). Intercultural Communication in Interpreting. Routledge.

Coulthard, M. (2017). An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language In Evidence. New York, NY: Abingdon, Oxon

Doty, K. (2010). Courtroom discourse. In Historical pragmatics (pp. 621-650). De Gruyter Mouton.

Finkelstein, R. (2011). The adversarial system and the search for truth. Monash University Law Review, 37(1), 135-144.

Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. Oxford: Blackwell.

Gibbons, J., & Turell, M. T. (Eds.). (2008). Dimensions of forensic linguistics (Vol. 5).

Gibbons, J. P. (Ed.). (2014). Language and the Law. Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315844329

Hale, S. B. (2004/2010). The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the witness, and the interpreter. John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.52

Harris, S. (1990). Discourse control and confrontational interaction. In The Pragmatics of Style, L. Hickey (ed). Routledge.

Harris, S. (1995). Pragmatics and power. Journal of pragmatics, 23(2), 117-135.

Henderson, E., Heffer, C., & Kebbell, M. (2016). Courtroom questioning and discourse. Communication in Investigative and Legal Contexts: Integrated Approaches From Forensic Psychology, Linguistics and Law Enforcement. Wiley-Blackwell (pp. 181-208). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118769133

Jacobsen, B. (2003). Pragmatics in court interpreting. In L. Brunette, G. Bastin, I. Hemlin and H. Clarke (eds) The Critical Link 3: interpreters in the community (pp. 223–238). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.46.23jac

Jacobsen, B. (2004). Pragmatic meaning in court interpreting: An empirical study of additions in consecutively-interpreted question-answer dialogues. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 11(1), 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v11i1.165

Jacobsen, B. (2008). Interactional pragmatics and court interpreting: An analysis of face. Interpreting, 10(1), 128-158. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.10.1.08jac

Jacobsen, B. (2010). Interactional pragmatics and court interpreting. Doing Justice to Court Interpreting, 26, 193.

https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.26.10jac

Jacobsen, B. (2012). The significance of interpreting modes for question–answer dialogues in court interpreting. Interpreting, 14(2), 217 - 241. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.14.2.05jac

Jolowicz, J. A. (2003). Adversarial and inquisitorial models of civil procedure. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 52(2), 281-295.

Koppen, P. J. V., & Penrod, S. D. (2003). Adversarial or inquisitorial. In Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Justice (pp. 1-19). Springer.

Lee, J. (2009). Interpreting Inexplicit Language during Courtroom Examination. Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn050

Lee, J. (2015). Evaluation of court interpreting: A case study of metadiscourse in interpreter-mediated expert witness examinations. Interpreting, 17(2), 167 - 194. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.2.02lee

Liao, M. (2012). Courtroom discourse in China. In Lawrence M. Solan and Peter M. Tiersma (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language and law. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199572120.013.0029

Liao, M. Z. (2013). Power in interruption in Chinese criminal courtroom discourse. Language In The Negotiation Of Justice: Contexts, Issues and Applications, 33-48.

Liu, X. (2020). Pragmalinguistic challenges for trainee interpreters in achieving accuracy. Interpreting, 22(1), 87–116. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00035.liu

Lysenko, O. A., & Barbakov, O. M. (2016). A Review of Problems in Legal Interpreting. J. Advanced Res. L. & Econ., 7, 1103.

Marmor, A. (2008). The pragmatics of legal language. Ratio Juris, 21(4), 423-452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2008.00400.x

Martin, J. (1978). The Migrant Presence. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

Mason, I., & Stewart, M. (2014). Interactional pragmatics, face and the dialogue interpreter. In Triadic Exchanges (pp. 63-82). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.10.1.08jac

Mooney, A. (2014). Language and Law. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1400/229697

Ng, E. N. S. (2018). Common Law in an Uncommon Courtroom. Benjamins Translation Library. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.144

Ng, E. (2022). The right to a fair trial and the right to interpreting: A critical evaluation of the use of chuchotage in court interpreting. Interpreting. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00082.ng

O'Barr, W. M. (2014). Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. Elsevier.

Ozolins, U. (1991). Interpreting, Translating and Language Policy. National Languages Institute of Australia.

Pöllabauer, S. (2004). Interpreting in asylum hearings: Issues of role, responsibility and power. Interpreting, 6(2), 143-180. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.2.03pol

Shi, Guang. (2011). A Critical Analysis of Chinese Courtroom Discourse. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 18(1), 157–160. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v18i1.157

Shi, Guang. (2018). An analysis of attitude in Chinese courtroom discourse. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 54(1), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2018-0005

Solan, L. M. (2010). The forensic linguist: The expert linguist meets the adversarial system. In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics (pp. 423-436). Routledge.

Stern, L. (2011). Courtroom interpreting. In The Oxford handbook of translation studies.

Stern, L. (2018). Legal interpreting in domestic and international courts. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Superdiversity, 396-410.

Stern, L., & Liu, X. (2019). Ensuring interpreting quality in legal and courtroom settings: Australian language service providers’ perspectives on their role. Journal of Specialised Translation, 32(1), 90-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2018.1501649

Stygall, G. (2012). Discourse in the US Courtroom. In Lawrence M. Solan and Peter M. Tiersma (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of language and law.

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199572120.013.0027

Susanto, S. (2016). Language in Courtroom Discourse. In International Conference on Education and Language (ICEL).

Tiersma, P. M. (2000). Legal language. University of Chicago Press.

Van Caenegem, W. (1999). Advantages and disadvantages of the adversarial system in criminal proceedings. Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, Review of the criminal and civil justice system in Western Australia, 1, 69-102.

Vargas-Urpi, M. (2018). Judged in a Foreign Language: A Chinese-Spanish Court Interpreting Case Study. The European Legacy, 23(7-8), 787-803.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10848770.2018.1492814

Wadensjö, C. (2001). Approaching interpreting through discourse analysis. Benjamins Translation Library, 33, 185-198. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.33.12wad

Wadensjö, C. (2014). Interpreting as interaction: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315842318

Wagner, A., & Cheng, L. (Eds.). (2011). Exploring courtroom discourse: The language of power and control. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd..

Wagner, A., Sin, K. K., & Cheng, L. (2014). Cultural transfer and conceptualization in legal discourse. The Ashgate handbook of legal translation, 27, 42. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315612706

Woodbury, H. (1984). The strategic use of questions in court. Semiotica, 48, 197-228.

Xu, H., Hale, S., & Stern, L. (2020). Telephone interpreting in lawyer-client interviews: An observational study. The International Journal for Translation & Interpreting Research. 12(1), 18-36. https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.112201.2020.a02

Yi, R. (2022). Does Style Matter in Remote Interpreting: A Survey Study of Professional Court Interpreters in Australia. International Journal of Translation and Interpretation Studies, 2(1), 48-59. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijtis.2022.2.1.7

Descargas

Publicado

2023-04-25

Número

Sección

Dossier monográfico