Cover not available
Article published In:
Interpreting
Vol. 20:2 (2018) ► pp.232–258

Non-renditions and the court interpreter’s perceived impartiality

A role-play study

 | Hong Kong Polytechnic University
This experimental study examined whether non-renditions are linked to the court interpreter’s perceived impartiality. A witness examination was simulated in three variations on a scripted role play, with consecutive interpreting between Cantonese and English. A sample of female Cantonese speakers, divided into two experimental groups and a control group, each played the part of the witness in one role play; the interpreter and the English-speaking bench (judge and defense attorney) were always played by the same three actors. In two experimental groups, the interpretation included some utterances with no source speech counterpart (non-renditions): a Cantonese non-rendition group (16 individuals) had procedural and textual non-renditions addressed to them in Cantonese, without English interpretation for the bench; an English non-rendition group (15 individuals) heard some brief exchanges between the interpreter and the bench, with no Cantonese interpretation. A control group (15 individuals) was not exposed to non-renditions. All three groups completed a questionnaire after the role play. The English non-rendition group rated the interpreter significantly lower than the others on impartiality, and was also the only group to comment unfavorably on the interpreter. A possible explanation is that the Cantonese speakers in this group could not follow the English non-renditions and felt excluded.
Keywords: non-rendition, court interpreting, perceived impartiality, role play
Article outline
  • 1.Non-renditions
  • 2.Participants’ perceptions of interpreters
    • 2.1Non-renditions and institutional participants
    • 2.2Non-renditions and lay participants
  • 3.Research method
    • 3.1Research design
    • 3.2Participants
    • 3.3Role play
    • 3.4Questionnaire
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Quantitative results
    • 4.2Qualitative results
      • Positive evaluations
      • Negative evaluations
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 24 September 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00011.che
References (54)
References
Amato, A. (2007). The interpreter in multi-party medical encounters, in C. Wadensjö, B. Englund Dimitrova & A. -L. Nilsson (Eds.), The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of interpreting in the community, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 27–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, R. B. W. (1976). Perspectives on the role of interpreter. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Applications and research. New York: Gardner Press, 208–228.Google Scholar
AUSIT (2012). AUSIT Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct. [URL]
Baraldi, C. & Gavioli, L. (2012). Understanding coordination in interpreter-mediated interaction. In C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Are close renditions the golden standard? Some thoughts on translating accurately in healthcare interpreter-mediated interaction. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 8 (3), 336–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnett, M. (2006). Mind your language: Interpreters in Australian immigration proceedings. University of Western Sydney Law Review 101, 109–138.Google Scholar
Berk-Seligson, S. (1990). The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2002). The impact of politeness in witness testimony. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London/New York: Routledge, 278–292.Google Scholar
Borgersen, E. & Shapiro, S. (1997). The role of class action litigation in achieving child welfare reform: A study in public conflict resolution. Negotiation Journal 13 (3), 283–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cambridge, J. (2005). The public service interpreter’s face: Rising to the challenge of expressing powerful emotion for others. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 511, 141–157.Google Scholar
Cheung, A. K. (2012). The use of reported speech by court interpreters in Hong Kong. Interpreting 14 (1), 73–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). The use of reported speech and the perceived neutrality of court interpreters. Interpreting 16 (2), 191–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christensen, T. P. (2011). User expectations and evaluation: A case study of a court interpreting event. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 19 (1), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cirillo, L. (2012). Managing affective communication in triadic exchanges: Interpreters’ zero-renditions and non-renditions in doctor-patient talk. In C. J. Kellett Bidoli (Ed.), Interpreting across genres: Multiple research perspectives. EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste, 102–124.Google Scholar
Dubslaff, F. & Martinsen, B. (2005). Exploring untrained interpreters’ use of direct versus indirect speech. Interpreting 7 (2), 211–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edwards, R., Temple, B. & Alexander, C. (2005). Users’ experiences of interpreters: The critical role of trust. Interpreting 7 (1), 77–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farini, F. (2013). The pragmatics of emotions in interlinguistic healthcare settings. Research in Language 11 (2), 163–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gavioli, L. (2012). Minimal responses in interpreter-mediated medical talk. In C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 201–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, D. (2003). Quality assessment in conference interpreting: Methodological issues. In A. Collados Aís, M. Fernández Sánchez & D. Gile (Eds.), La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: Investigación. Granada: Editorial Comares, 109–123.Google Scholar
(2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giles, H., Willemyns, M., Gallois, C. & Anderson, M. C. (2007). Accommodating a new frontier: The context of law enforcement. In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Social communication. New York: Psychology Press, 129–162.Google Scholar
González, R. D., Vasquez, V. F. & Mikkelson, H. (2012). Fundamentals of court interpretation: Theory, policy and practice. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, K., Norström, E. & Fioretos, I. (2013). The interpreter ‒ a cultural broker? In C. Schäffner, K. Kredens & Y. Fowler (Eds.), Interpreting in a changing landscape: Selected papers from Critical Link 61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 187–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, S. & Luzardo, C. (1997). What am I expected to do? The interpreter’s ethical dilemma. A study of Arabic, Spanish and Vietnamese speakers’ perceptions and expectations of interpreters. Antipodean. The Australian Translation Journal 11 (October), 10–16.Google Scholar
(2007). Community interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hertog, E. (2013). Legal interpreting. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jansen, P. (1995). The role of the interpreter in Dutch courtroom interaction: The impact of the situation on translational norms. In J. Tommola (Ed.), Topics in interpreting research. Turku: University of Turku, 11–36.Google Scholar
Kelly, A. M. (2000). Cultural parameters for interpreters in the courtroom. In R. Roberts, S. Carr, D. Abraham & A. Dufour (Eds.), Critical link 2: Interpreters in the community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 131–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koo, A. (2009). Truth through court interpreters. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 13 (3), 212–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laster, K. & Taylor, V. (1995). Compromised “conduit”: Conflicting perceptions of legal interpreters. Criminology Australia 6 (4), 9–14.Google Scholar
Le, E., Nguyen, V. N. & Ménard, N. (2009). Interpreters’ identities: An exploratory study of Vietnamese interpreters in Vietnam. TranscUlturAl 1 (2), 93–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcus, L. J., Dorn, B. C. & McNulty, E. J. (2011). Renegotiating health care: Resolving conflict to build collaboration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Mendoza, N. A., Hosch, H. M., Ponder, B. J. & Carrillo, V. (2000). Well… ah…: Hesitations and hedges as an influence on jurors’ decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30 (12), 2610–2621. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merlini, R. & Favaron, R. (2005). Examining the “voice of interpreting” in speech pathology. Interpreting 7 (2), 263–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metzger, M. (1999). Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Mikkelson, H. (2000). Introduction to court interpreting. St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Moore, C. W. (2003). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. San Franscisco: Jossey-BassGoogle Scholar
Morris, R. (1999). The gum syndrome: Predicaments in court interpreting. Forensic Linguistics 61, 6–29.Google Scholar
Napier, J. (2011). “It’s not what they say but the way they say it”. A content analysis of interpreter and consumer perceptions towards signed language interpreting in Australia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2011 (207), 59–87.Google Scholar
Ng, K. H. (2009). Court interpreters’ office. In M. S. Gaylord, D. Gittings & H. Traver (Eds.), Introduction to crime, law and justice in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 169–184.Google Scholar
Niska, H. (1995). Just interpreting: Role conflicts and discourse types in court interpreting. In M. Morris (Ed.), Translation and the law, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 293–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, F. (2012). Interpreting participation: Conceptual analysis and illustration. In C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 45–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöllabauer, S. (2004). Interpreting in asylum hearings: Issues of saving face. In C. Wadensjö, B. Englund Dimitrova & A. -L. Nilsson (Eds.), The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of interpreting in the community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39–52.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, B. A. (2002). A quantitative discourse analysis of community interpreting. In Translation: New ideas for a new century. Proceedings of the XVI FIT Congress. Paris: FIT, 222–226.Google Scholar
Sanheim, L. 2003. Turn exchange in an interpreted medical encounter. In M. Metzger, S. Collins, V. Dively & R. Shaw (Eds.), From topic boundaries to omission: New research in interpretation. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 27–54Google Scholar
Takimoto, M. & Koshiba, K. (2009). Interpreter’s non-rendition behaviour and its effect on interaction: A case study of a multi-party interpreting situation. Translation & Interpreting 1 (1), 15–26.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. & Wallat, C. (1993). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse. New York: Oxford University Press, 57–76Google Scholar
Tebble, H. (2012). Interpreting or interfering? In C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 23–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ten Thije. (2009). The self-retreat of the interpreter: An analysis of teasing and toasting in intercultural discourse. In K. Bührig, J. House & J. ten Thije (Eds.), Translational action and intercultural communication. Manchester: St. Jerome, 114–154.Google Scholar
Vargas-Urpi, M. (2014). Public service interpreting for Chinese immigrants in Catalonia: A study based on interpreters’, coordinators’ and users’ views. Language and Intercultural Communication 14 (4), 475–499. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Li, Ruitian, Kanglong Liu & Andrew K. F. Cheung
2023. Interpreter visibility in press conferences: a multimodal conversation analysis of speaker–interpreter interactions. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10:1 DOI logo
Yi, Ran
2023. Interpreting the Manner of Speech in courts: an overlooked aspect. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
Li, Ruitian, Andrew K. F. Cheung & Kanglong Liu
2022. A Corpus-Based Investigation of Extra-Textual, Connective, and Emphasizing Additions in English-Chinese Conference Interpreting. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Zhang, Yifan & Andrew K. F. Cheung
2022. A corpus-based study of modal verbs in Chinese–English governmental press conference interpreting. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 november 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.