Assessing the Manner of Speech in Australian Courts: A Study of Chinese-English Professional Interpreters in Remote Settings
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37536/FITISPos-IJ.2023.10.1.339Keywords:
Court interpreting, manner of speech, remote interpreting, Public service interpretingAbstract
Professional interpreters are bound by the code of conduct to interpret everything that has been said in courts. In particular, the manner that the propositional content is conveyed in the target language. Using the experiment method and questionnaire instruments, the mixed-methods research investigates the manner of speech and its interpretation in virtual courtroom discourse during remote interpreting. The working article presents the initial findings from two questionnaire instruments: one for demographics and general knowledge about speech style and discourse markers, the other for views and strategies related to the manner of speech in the interpreted utterances. Questionnaire data collected from fifty consented interpreters revealed the three main views on the rendition of the manner of speech: complete disregard as “irrelevant”, verbatim rendition without pragmatic considerations, and pragmatic equivalents for its possible impact on the court decision, ethical conduct, and professionalism. The findings intend to inform future pedagogical practice.
Downloads
References
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
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Ran Yi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
a. Authors retain copyright and guaranteeing the journal the right to be the first publication of the work as licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b. Authors can set separate additional agreements for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in the journal (eg, place it in an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
c. It allows and encourages authors to disseminate their work electronically (eg, in institutional repositories or on their own website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as to a subpoena more early and most of the published works (See The Effect of Open Access) (in English).
