Cover not available
Part of
Interpreting in Legal and Healthcare Settings: Perspectives on research and training
Edited by Eva N.S. Ng and Ineke H.M. Crezee
[Benjamins Translation Library 151] 2020
► pp. 21–44

Chapter 1
Linguistic disadvantage before the law

When non-native English-speaking witnesses waive their right to an interpreter

ORCID logo

This chapter builds on my research into the interactional dynamics in the unique bilingual Hong Kong courtroom, where interpretation is, by and large, provided for the linguistic majority. Drawing on authentic courtroom data, this study demonstrates how non-native English speaking (NNES) witnesses, by waiving their right to an interpreter, can be disadvantaged due to their linguistic incompetence. It explores how NNES witnesses are further disadvantaged in the antagonistic process of cross-examination, as counsel frequently violate the Gricean Cooperative Principle. It also discusses how this might compromise the access of other NNES court participants such as jurors to the trial in its entirety in the special context of the Hong Kong courtroom, and potentially impact the delivery of justice.

Keywords: non-native English speaker, communication problem, conversation analysis, turn-taking, repair, Gricean maxims, cooperative principle, linguistic disadvantage
Article outline
  • 1.Mind the gap: Inequality before the law
    • 1.1Legal language
    • 1.2Power asymmetries in the courtroom
    • 1.3Strategic use of language in court
    • 1.4Objectives of cross-examination
  • 2.Second language or dialect speakers in court
  • 3.The bilingual Hong Kong courtroom
    • 3.1Court language(s)
    • 3.2The ubiquity of interpreters in court
    • 3.3Modes of interpreting used in court
  • 4.Aim of the study and research data
  • 5.Conceptual framework
  • 6.Data analysis and findings
    • 6.1Decoding problems
      • 6.1.1Absent or non-responsive answer
      • 6.1.2Responding with apologies
      • 6.1.3Clarifications requests (with or without apologies)
    • 6.2Encoding problems
      • 6.2.1Grammatical errors and mispronunciation
      • 6.2.2Short answers or minimum feedback
  • 7.Summary and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 3 June 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.151.01ng
References
Atkinson, J. Maxwell, and Paul Drew
1979 Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berk-Seligson, Susan
2009 Coerced Confessions. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown-Blake, Celia, and Paul Chambers
2007 “The Jamaican Creole Speaker in the UK Criminal Justice System.” The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 14 (2): 269–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Census and Statistics Department
2016a Population Aged 5 and over by Usual Language and Year, 2006, 2011 and 2016 (A107). [URL] (accessed September 23, 2019).
2016b Thematic Household Survey Report No. 59. [URL] (accessed September 23, 2019).
Charrow, Robert P., and Veda R. Charrow
1979 “Making Legal Language Understandable: A Psycholinguistic Study of Jury Instructions.” Columbia Law Review 79 (7): 1306–1374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conley, John, and William O’Barr
1998 Just Words: Law, Language, and Power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cooke, Michael
1995 “Aboriginal Evidence in the Cross-cultural Courtroom.” In Language in Evidence: Issues Confronting Aboriginal and Multicultural Australia, edited by Diana Eades, 55–96. Sydney, NSW: University of New South Wales Press.Google Scholar
1996 “A Different Story: Narrative Versus ‘Question and Answer’ in Aboriginal Evidence.” Forensic Linguistics 3 (2): 273–288.Google Scholar
Cotterill, Janet
2003 Language and Power in Court. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danet, Brenda, and Bryna Bogoch
1980 “Fixed Fight or Free-For-All? An Empirical Study of Combativeness and the Adversary System of Justice.” British Journal of Law and Society 7 (1): 36–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danet, Brenda
1980 “ ‘Baby’ or ‘fetus’?: Language and the construction of reality in a manslaughter trial”. Semiotica 32 (3–4): 187–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Department of Justice
2018 “Key Figures and Statistics.” [URL] (accessed September 23, 2019).
Duff, Peter, Mark Findlay, Carla Howarth, and Tsang Fai Chan
1992 Juries: A Hong Kong Perspective. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Dumas, Bethany K.
2000 “Jury Trials: Lay Jurors, Pattern Jury Instructions, and Comprehension Issues.” Tennessee Law Review 67 (3): 701–742.Google Scholar
Eades, Diana
1995 “Cross Examination of Aboriginal Children: The Pinkenba Case.” Aboriginal Law Bulletin 3 (75): 10–11.Google Scholar
2000 “I Don’t Think It’s an Answer to the Question: Silencing Aboriginal Witnesses in Court.” Language in Society 29 (2): 161–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 “Language and Disadvantage before the Law.” In Dimensions of Forensic Linguistics, edited by John Gibbons, and M. Teresa Turell, 179–195. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, Susan
2001 Representing Rape: Language and Sexual Consent. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, John
1999 “Language and the Law.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19: 156–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2008 “Questioning in Common Law Criminal Courts.” In Dimensions of Forensic Linguistics, edited by John Gibbons, and M. Teresa Turell, 115–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul
1975 “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Act, edited by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra
1997 “The Interpreter on Trial: Pragmatics in Court Interpreting.” In The Critical Link: Interpreters In the Community, edited by Silvana E. Carr, Roda Roberts, Aideen Dufour, and Dini Steyn, 201–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Sandra
1984 “Questions as a Mode of Control in Magistrates’ Courts.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 49: 5–27.Google Scholar
Maley, Yon, and Rhondda Fahey
1991 “Presenting the Evidence: Constructions of Reality in Court.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 4 (10): 3–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKimmie, Blake M., Emma Antrobus, and Chantelle Baguley
2014 “Objective and Subjective Comprehension of Jury Instructions in Criminal Trials.” New Criminal Law Review 17 (2): 163–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellinkoff, David
1963 The Language of the Law. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
Nakane, Ikuko
2010 “Partial Non-use of Interpreters in Japanese Criminal Court Proceedings.” Japanese Studies 30 (3): 443–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “Language Rights of Non-Japanese Defendants in Japanese Criminal Courts.” In Language and Citizenship in Japan, edited by Nanette Gottlieb, 155–174. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2015 “Minority Language Speakers and Disadvantage before the Law: Challenges for Applied Linguistics.” Linguistics and the Human Sciences 11 (1): 9–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ng, Eva
2009 “The Tension between Adequacy and Acceptability in Legal Interpreting and Translation.” In The Critical Link 5: Quality Interpreting – A Shared Responsibility, edited by Sandra Hale, Uldis Ozolins, and Ludmila Stern, 37–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Garment, or Upper-garment? A Matter of Interpretation?” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law – Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 26 (3): 597–613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “Do They Understand? English Trials Heard by Chinese Jurors in the Hong Kong Courtroom.” Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito 3 (2): 172–191.Google Scholar
O’Barr, William M.
1982 Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power, and Strategy in the Courtroom. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salhany, Roger E.
2006 Cross-examination: The Art of the Advocate. 3rd ed. Markham, Ontario: LexisNexis Canada.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel, Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks
1977 “The Preference for Self-correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53 (2):361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steele, Walter W., and Elizabeth G. Thornburg
1988 “Jury Instructions: A Persistent Failure to Communicate.” North Carolina Law Review 67: 77–119.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter Meijes
1993 “Reforming the Language of Jury Instructions.” Hofstra Law Review 22 (1): 37–78.Google Scholar
1999 Legal Language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2009 “Communicating with Juries: How to Draft More Understandable Jury Instructions.” Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2009–44. [URL] (accessed September 2019).
2010 “The Origins of Legal Language.” Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2009–44. [URL] (accessed September 2019).
Walker, Anne Graffam
1987 “Linguistic Manipulation, Power and the Legal Setting.” In Power through Discourse, edited by Leah Kedar, 57–80. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Woodbury, Hanni
1984 “The Strategic Use of Questions in Court.” Semiotica 48 (3–4): 197–228.Google Scholar

Legal references

Jury Ordinance
, Cap 3 § 4(1c) (1999).Google Scholar
Official Languages Ordinance
, Cap 5 § 3 (1974).Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Ng, Eva
2023. The right to a fair trial and the right to interpreting. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 25:1 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Ng, Eva
2023. Trials heard by a foreign ear. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law DOI logo
李, 静
2023. A Review of Foreign Courtroom Discourse Studies. Modern Linguistics 11:05 ► pp. 2311 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.