Abstract
This Chapter provides an overview of courtroom interpreting generally, making a concerted effort to clarify and demystify the interpreting process for both legal scholars and practitioners alike. The four different interpreting techniques commonly utilized in a courtroom setting are discussed, as are the different roles that court interpreters are frequently expected (inappropriately) to play. The Chapter then examines the standard of accuracy required from court interpreters, focusing on the perpetual debate between verbatim (word-for-word) translations and pragmatic (meaning-for-meaning) translations. The conclusion is reached that neither standard is sufficiently accurate on its own to create an adequate interpretation. Next, a theoretical model of interpreting is presented based upon Gile’s Effort Model. Gile posits that interpreters continuously work at the edge of their cognitive ability and therefore make errors not necessarily because they lack the required linguistic abilities or information, but because their mental capacity at any particular moment may be insufficient to process the information or utilize the abilities they do possess. In elaborating on this theory, the Chapter is able to emphasize not only the inevitability that interpreting errors will be made, but also to highlight the environmental or systematic issues that can lead to an increase in such mistakes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Noting that “[j]udges and trial attorneys spend enormous energy sharpening their use of language, but most consider interpreters too blunt an instrument to accurately convey their exact intent across language barriers” (Tuck 2010, p. 906).
- 2.
It is also necessary in this context to note that the exact terms and structures of interpreting to which this Chapter will refer do not always align with the terms and structures used in the interpreting studies community. The decision to alter specific terms and occasionally reorganize basic interpreting structures was made with the intent to render the area more understandable to attorneys and members of the legal profession. The author is aware that this reorganization removes occasional complexities that are necessary for a full discussion of interpreting studies. However, the complexities removed are those that have limited application to the concept of a fair trial; and as such, were unnecessary for this work.
- 3.
It is also possible for courtroom interpreters to use electronic equipment that allows them to provide their translation only to those individuals using a personal headphone (as is the long existing practice in international courts), but such equipment is largely considered beyond the financial reach of domestic courts (Mikkelson 2000, p. 73).
- 4.
“Lawyers design their questions in order to achieve a number of clearly identifiable ends. Accusations, challenges, justifications, denials, and rebuttals may all be packaged as questions and answers” (Fowler 1995, p. 194).
- 5.
It should be noted, though, that some interpreters use the opposite approach: reducing their decalage during difficult segments, then lagging further behind during easier segments as a method of recuperation.
Bibliography
Andres, D. (2002). Konsekutivdolmetschen und Notation. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Benmaman, V. (1992). Legal Interpreting: An Emerging Profession. Modern Language Journal, 76, 445–454.
Berk-Seligson, S. (1990). The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Berk-Seligson, S. (2002). The Impact of Politeness in Witness Testimony: The Influence of the Court Interpreter. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The Interpreting Studies Reader (pp. 279–292). London: Routledge.
Cardenas, R. (2001). “You Don’t Have to Hear, Just Interpret!”: How Ethnocentrism in the California Courts Impedes Equal Access to the Courts for Spanish Speakers. Court Review, 38(Fall), 24–31.
Chabasse, C., & Dingfelder Stone, M. (2015). Capacity Management in Interpretation: Efforts, Directionality, and Language Pair Considerations. In D. Andres & M. Behrs (Eds.), To Know How to Suggest…: Approaches to Teaching Conference Interpreting (pp. 75–102). Berlin: Frank & Timmer.
Chang, W. B. C., & Araujo, M. U. (1975). Interpreters for the Defense: Due Process for the Non-English-Speaking Defendant. California Law Review, 63, 801–823.
Corsellis, A., & Fernández, L. F. (2001). Code of Ethics and Conduct and Guidelines to Good Practice. In E. Hertog (Ed.), Aequitas: Access to Justice Across Language and Culture in the E.U. (pp. 77–87). Antwerpen: Lessius Hogeschool.
Craney, G. (1989–90). Language v. the Law. Barrister, 16, 20–23, 27, 42.
Davis, L. W., & Hewitt, W. E. (1994). Lessons in Administering Justice: What Judges Need to Know About the Requirements, Role, and Professional Responsibilities of the Court Interpreter. Harvard Latino Law Review, 1, 121–176.
de Jongh, E. (1991). Foreign Language Interpreters in the Courtroom: The Case for Linguistic and Cultural Proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 75, 285–295.
de Jongh, E. (1992). An Introduction to Court Interpreting: Theory & Practice. Lanham: University Press of America.
de Jongh, E. (2008, July/August). Linguistic Presence v. Linguistic Absence. Florida Bar Journal, 82, 20–32.
Dingfelder Stone, M. (2015). The Theory and Practice of Teaching Note-Taking. In D. Andres & M. Behrs (Eds.), To Know How to Suggest…: Approaches to Teaching Conference Interpreting (pp. 145–166). Berlin: Frank & Timmer.
European Commission. (2009). Final Report: Reflection Forum on Multilingualism and Interpreter Training. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
Fowler, Y. (1995). The Courtroom Interpreter: Paragon and Intruder? In S. E. Carr, R. P. Roberts, A. Dufour, & D. Steyn (Eds.), The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community (pp. 191–200). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gile, D. (2002). Conference Interpreting as a Cognitive Management Problem. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The Interpreting Studies Reader (pp. 162–177). London: Routledge.
Gile, D. (2009). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training (Rev. ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
González, R., Vásquez, V. F., & Mikkelson, H. (1991). Fundamentals of Court Interpretation: Theory, Policy, and Practice. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.
Grabau, C. M. (1996). Court Interpreting: View from the Bench. State Court Journal, 20(1), 6–11.
Hale, S. (2001). The Complexities of the Bilingual Courtroom. Law Society Journal, 2001, 68–72.
Hale, S. (2002). How Faithfully Do Court Interpreters Render the Style of Non-English Speaking Witnesses’ Testimonies? A Data-Based Study of Spanish-English Bilingual Proceedings. Discourse Studies, 4(1), 25–47.
Hale, S. (2004). The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse Practices of the Law, the Witness and the Interpreter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hale, S. (2007). Challenges of Court Interpreting: Intricacies, Responsibilities and Ramifications. Alternative Law Journal, 32, 198–202.
Hayes, A., & Hale, S. (2010). Appeals on Incompetent Interpreting. Journal of Judicial Administration, 20(2), 119–130.
Heller, D. J. (1994–95). The Language Bias in the Criminal Justice System. Criminal Law Quarterly, 37, 344–383.
Ibrahim, Z. (2007). The Interpreter as Advocate: Malaysian Court Interpreting as a Case in Point. In C. Wadensjö, B. Englund Dimitrova, & A.-L. Nilsson (Eds.), The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of Interpreting in the Community (pp. 205–213). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ibrahim, Z., & Bell, R. T. (2003). Court Interpreting: Malaysian Perspectives. In L. Brunette, G. L. Bastin, I. Hemlin, & H. Clarke (Eds.), The Critical Link 3: Interpreters in the Community (pp. 211–222). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jacobsen, B. (2003). Pragmatics in Court Interpreting: Additions. In L. Brunette, G. L. Bastin, I. Hemlin, & H. Clarke (Eds.), The Critical Link 3: Interpreters in the Community (pp. 223–238). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kadric, M. (2000). Interpreting in the Austrian Courtroom. In R. P. Roberts, S. E. Carr, D. Abraham, & A. Dufour (Eds.), The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community (pp. 153–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Laster, K., & Taylor, V. L. (1994). Interpreters and the Legal System. Sydney: The Federation Press.
LaVigne, M., & Vernon, M. (2003). An Interpreter Isn’t Enough: Deafness, Language, and Due Process. Wisconsin Law Review, 2003, 843–936.
Mason, M. (2008). Courtroom Interpreting. Lanham: University Press of America.
Matu, P., Odhiambo, K., Adams, Y., & Ongarora, D. (2012). The Court Interpreters’ Role Perception: The Case of English-Dholuo Interpreters in Subordinate Courts in Nyanza Province, Kenya. Greener Journal of Social Sciences, 2(4), 121–126.
Mikkelson, H. (1998). Towards a Redefinition of the Role of the Court Interpreter. Interpreting, 3(1), 21 [online]. Available at: https://works.bepress.com/holly_mikkelson/17/. Accessed 21 Nov 2017.
Mikkelson, H. (1999). Court Interpreting at a Crossroads. In Annual Conference of the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators [online]. Available at: http://works.bepress.com/holly_mikkelson/10/. Accessed 21 Nov 2017.
Mikkelson, H. (2000). Introduction to Court Interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Mikkelson, H. (2008). Evolving Views of the Court Interpreter’s Role: Between Scylla & Charybdis. In C. Valero-Garcés & A. Martin (Eds.), Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting: Definitions and Dilemmas (pp. 81–98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mikkelson, H. (2010). “Verbatim Interpretation” Revisited. Proteus, 19(1), 1 [online]. Available at: https://works.bepress.com/holly_mikkelson/22/. Accessed 21 Nov 2017.
Morris, R. (1995). The Moral Dilemmas of Court Interpreting. The Translator, 1(1), 25–46.
Morris, R. (1999). The Gum Syndrome: Predicaments in Court Interpreting. Forensic Linguistics, 6(1), 6–29.
Morris, R. (2001). Eichmann vs. Demjanjuk or Plus c’est la même chose, plus ça change…. In AIIC Court Interpreting Seminar – The Hague [online]. Available at: https://40be6ebe-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/ruthmorris13/AIICHagueEichmannvsDemjanjuk.pdf. Accessed 21 Nov 2017.
National Association of Judiciary Interpreters & Translators. (2005). NAJIT Position Paper: Summary Interpreting in Legal Settings. Washington, DC: NAJIT [online]. Available at: https://najit.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/SummaryInterpreting200609.pdf. Accessed 21 Nov 2017.
Pantoga, H. (1999). Injustice in Any Language: The Need for Improved Standards Governing Courtroom Interpretation in Wisconsin. Marquette Law Review, 82, 601–664.
Ramler, S. (2007). The Origin and Challenges of Simultaneous Interpretation: The Nuremberg Trial Experience. Interpretation Studies, 7, 7–18.
Riccardi, A. (2005). On the Evolution of Interpreting Strategies in Simultaneous Interpreting. Meta, 50(2), 753–767.
Safford, J. B. (1977). No Comprendo: The Non-English-Speaking Defendant and the Criminal Process. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 68, 15–30.
Stern, L. (2011). Courtroom Interpreting. In K. Malmkjær & K. Windle (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies (pp. 325–342). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taibi, M., & Martin, A. (2012). Court Translation and Interpreting in Times of the “War on Terror”: The Case of Taysir Alony. Translation & Interpreting, 4(1), 77–98.
Tuck, B. M. (2010). Comment: Preserving Facts, Form, and Function When a Deaf Witness with Minimal Language Skills Testifies in Court. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 158, 905–955.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dingfelder Stone, J.H. (2018). Courtroom Interpreting. In: Court Interpreters and Fair Trials. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75355-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75355-3_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-75354-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-75355-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)