Cover not available
Article published In:
The Role of ISO/TC 37 Standards for Translators, Interpreters, Terminologists and Beyond
Edited by Hendrik J. Kockaert
[Digital Translation 10:2] 2023
► pp. 133–155

ASTM and ISO standards in U.S. legal language services

Questions of professionalization and language access

ORCID logo | University of North Carolina at Charlotte
ORCID logo | Independent Researcher
ORCID logo | Independent Researcher

In the United States, legal language services are shaped by both de jure and de facto standards, which encompass not only the professional profile of court interpreters but also the provision of legal translation and interpreting services. This article investigates the potential influence of ASTM and ISO standards on current language services implementations in U.S. court settings in light of the current configuration of de jure and de facto standards. Specific emphasis is placed on the utility of consensus-based standards such as ASTM and ISO due to the unique configuration of language services, particularly given procurement and bidding practices, which complicate the current legal T&I landscape. Possible avenues for integration of ASTM and ISO standards are explored in light of infrastructure-specific as well as translator- and interpreter-specific requirements. The article concludes with a discussion of the compatibility of standards with current practices in the U.S. legal T&I sector.

Keywords: ISO TC37/SC5, ASTM standards, legal interpreting, language access, professionalization
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Current standards and practices in U.S. legal language services
    • 2.1De jure standards
    • 2.2De facto standards
    • 2.3Procurement of legal language services
  • 3.Language access and standards
    • 3.1Infrastructure-specific requirements
    • 3.2Interpreter-specific requirements
  • 4.Potential integrations of ASTM and ISO standards in the U.S. context
    • 4.1Hiring entities, institutions, and court administrators
    • 4.2Legal professionals
    • 4.3Interpreters
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 15 December 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dt.00005.mel
References
American Bar Association (ABA)
2021 Formal Opinion 500: Language Access in the Client-Lawyer Relationship. 6 October 2021. Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Center for Professional Responsibility: ABA.Google Scholar
Angelelli, Claudia V., et al
2007 “The California Standards for Healthcare Interpreters: Ethical Principles, Protocols and Guidance on Roles and Intervention.” In The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of Interpreting in the Community, edited by Cecilia Wadensjö, Birgitta Englund Dimitrova and Anna-Lena Nilsson, 167–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ASTM
2007 Standard Guide for Language Interpretation Services. ASTM F2089:2007. West Conshohocken: ASTM International.Google Scholar
2015 Standard Practice for Language Interpreting. ASTM F2089:2015. West Conshohocken: ASTM International.Google Scholar
2020 Standard Practice for Assessing Language Proficiency. ASTM F2889-11:2020. West Conshohocken: ASTM International.Google Scholar
2022 Standard Guide for Testing Interpreting Performance. ASTM F3516-22:2022.. West Conshohocken: ASTM International.Google Scholar
Baixuli-Olmos, Lluís
2021 “Ethics Codes for Interpreters and Translators.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Ethics, edited by Kaisa Koskinen and Nike K. Pokorn, 297–319. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bancroft, Marjorie, et al
2013 “Interpreting in the Gray Zone: Where Community and Legal Interpreting Intersect.” Translation & Interpreting 5 (1): 94–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, Sabine
2019 “Technology and Interpreting.” In Routledge Handbook of Translation and Technology, edited by Minako O’Hagan, 271–288. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carranza-Gallardo, Emilio V., and David Guadalupe Toledo-Sarracino
2022 “Intérpretes de lenguas indígenas en el Sistema de justicia penal: el caso de un imputado mixteco en Baja California.” Revistas Aristas: Investigación Básica y Aplicada 9 (17): 26–32.Google Scholar
Curtis, Karen
2021 Is the Jury Still Out on ISO 20771? An Analysis of the Potential Value of ISO 20771 for the UK Legal Translation Market. MA thesis, University of Surrey.Google Scholar
De Jongh, Elena M.
2008 “Court Interpreting: Linguistic Presence v. Linguistic Absence.” The Florida Bar Journal 82 (7): 21–32.Google Scholar
Department of Justice
2023 “On Choosing a Language Access Provider.” April 11, 2023. [URL]
Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
2010 “Letter to Courts re: LEP.” 16 August. Accessed June, 2023. [URL]
Dueñas González, Roseann, Victoria F. Vásquez, and Holly Mikkelson
2012 The Fundamentals of Court Interpretation, 2nd edition. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dunne, Keiran J.
2012 “The Industrialization of Translation: Causes, Consequences and Challenges.” Translation Spaces 1 (1): 143–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
General Services Administration (GSA)
2016/2020 Foreign Language Services Ordering Guide. Language Services Procurement Committee: GSA. [URL]
Hlavac, Jim
2013 “A Cross-national Overview of Translator and Interpreter Certification Procedures.” Translation & Interpreting 5 (1): 32–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 “Formalizing Community Interpreting Standards: A Cross-national Comparison of Testing Systems, Certification Conventions and Recent ISO Guidelines.” International Journal of Interpreter Education 7 (2): 21–38.Google Scholar
International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC)
2019 AIIC Guidelines for Distance Interpreting. Task Force on Distance Interpreting: AIIC.Google Scholar
ISO
2014 Interpreting – Guidelines for Community Interpreting. ISO 13611:2014. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
2018 Interpreting Services – General Requirements and Recommendations. ISO 18841:2018. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
2017 Simultaneous Interpreting – Quality and Transmission of Sound and Image Input – Requirements. ISO 20108:2017. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
2016 Simultaneous Interpreting – Equipment – Requirements. ISO 20109:2016. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
2016 Simultaneous Interpreting – Permanent Booths – Requirements. ISO 2603:2016. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
2016 Simultaneous Interpreting – Mobile Booths – Requirements. ISO 4043:2016. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
2019 Interpreting Services – Legal Interpreting – Requirements. ISO 20228:2019. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
2019 Translation, Interpreting and Related Technology – Vocabulary. ISO 20539:2019. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
2020 Legal Translation – Requirements. ISO 20771:2020. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
2022 Interpreting Services – Conference Interpreting – Requirements and Recommendations. ISO 23155:2022. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
2022 Simultaneous Interpreting Delivery Platforms – Requirements and Recommendations. ISO 24019:2022. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
Judicial Conference of the United States (JCUS)
2021 U.S. Courts Design Guide. JCUS.Google Scholar
Kibbee, Douglas A.
2016 Language and the Law: Linguistic Inequality in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Killman, Jeffrey
2020 “Interpreting for Asylum Seekers and Their Attorneys: The Challenge of Agency.” Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 28 (1): 73–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021 “Translation in the Shadows of Interpreting in US Court Systems: Standards, Guidelines and Practice.” In Institutional Translation and Interpreting: Assessing Practices and Managing for Quality, edited by Fernando Prieto Ramos, 62–83. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Robert Joe
2021 “Court Interpreter Certification Testing Bibliography.” Court Interpreting Research. [URL]
Lopez, Peter S.
1974 Justice System Interpreter Certification – Task Force Report. Denver: Institute for Court Management.Google Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D.
2017 “Equal Access to the Courts in Translation: A Corpus-driven Study on Translation Shifts in Waivers of Counsel.” Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 25 (2): 308–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020 “Core Research Questions and Methods.” In Bloomsbury Companion to Language Industry Studies, edited by Erik Angelone, Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow and Gary Massey, 15–35. London: Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021 “Interpreting and Language Access: Spoken Language Interpreters in U.S. Educational Contexts.” In Advances in Educational Interpreting, edited by Elizabeth A. Winston and Stephen C. Fitzmaurice, 44–67. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellinger, Hillary
2022 “Interpretation at the Asylum Office.” Law & Policy 44 (3): 230–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mikkelson, Holly
1996 “The Professionalization of Community Interpreting.” In Global Vision: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association, edited by Muriel Jérôme-O’Keeffe, 77–89. Alexandria, VA: ATA.Google Scholar
2014 “Evolution of Public Service Interpreter Training in the U.S.” FITISPos International Journal 11: 9–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Introduction to Court Interpreting. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rabadán-Gómez, Marina
2016 “Professionalisation and Standardisation of Public Service Interpreting.” In Challenges and Opportunities of Public Service Interpreting, edited by Théophile Munyangeyo, Graham Webb and Marina Rabadán-Gómez, 47–85. Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riemland, Matt
2022 “US Voter Rights in Translation: Semantic Shifts in Spanish Renderings of “Felony”.” Translation Spaces 11 (2): 303–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberson, Len, Deb Russell, and Risa Shaw
2011 “American Sign Language Interpreting in Legal Settings: Current Practices in North America.” Journal of Interpretation 21 (1): Article 6.Google Scholar
Roziner, Ilan, and Miriam Shlesinger
2010 “Much Ado about Something Remote: Stress and Performance in Remote Interpreting.” Interpreting 12 (2): 214–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tseng, Joseph
1992 Interpreting as an Emerging Profession in Taiwan – A Sociological Model. Unpublished MA thesis, Fu Jen Catholic University, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Wallace, Melissa
2015 “A Further Call to Action: Training as a Policy Issue in Court Interpreting.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (2): 173–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, Sue Ellen
2020 “Standards for the Language, Translation and Localization Industry.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Technology, edited by Minako O’Hagan, 21–37. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar