The role of the court interpreter in the United States, as in many other countries, has been defined by the legal profession in light of important precepts of the adversarial justice system. Interpreters, who are considered officers of the court, are strictly forbidden to give advice or provide explanations to clarify intended meaning, and are often instructed by judges to provide a “verbatim” interpretation. However, scholarly research on the role of the interpreter has revealed the shortcomings of the argument that interpreters are mere conduits transferring verbal messages from one language to another. This paper will examine the dichotomy between the need for interpreter neutrality in an adversarial setting and the limitations this imposes on their ability to convey the full meaning of culture-bound terms. It will conclude with some suggested guidelines for navigating the treacherous waters between the Scylla of literal interpretation and the Charybdis of active intervention in the communicative event.
2011. EU Terminology in Interpreter Training: Selected Problem Areas Connected With EU-Related Texts. Research in Language 9:1 ► pp. 111 ff.
Li, Jian, Ning Ye & Anne Wagner
2020. A memetic exploration of court interpretation
. International Journal of Legal Discourse 4:2 ► pp. 181 ff.
Monzó Nebot, Esther
2015. Understanding legal interpreter and translator training in times of change. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9:2 ► pp. 129 ff.
Nam, Won Jun
2016. T&I field training for undergraduate students: a case study of Korean undergraduate students’ peripheral participation into the community and their furthered understanding of the role of interpreters/translators. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 10:1 ► pp. 44 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 may 2023. 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.