Article published In:
InterpretingVol. 24:2 (2022) ► pp.254–278
The tale of two countries
Police interpreting in the UK vs in the US
The aim of this research was to compare the quality of language services and of linguistic evidence obtained in UK police interviews and US police interrogations with suspects, witnesses and victims who speak little or no English and have to communicate via an interpreter. This is the first study of its kind based on substantial real-life data from both jurisdictions, which rely on different types of service provision. The data were annotated using NVivo 12 software and the methodology included a quantitative analysis of miscommunication instances that arise as a result of cross-linguistic or cross-cultural contrasts and a qualitative analysis of the interpreting standards and information details recorded in official transcripts. It was discovered that both countries exhibit some advantageous features in their language service provision. although both also have shortcomings that should be responded to and remedied. The US data reveal that the transcripts there are more detailed and more informative, and are produced bilingually and verbatim; this is not the case in the UK context. However, the use of non-professional interpreters in the US, unlike in the UK, where professional interpreters are employed, is shown to be highly problematic. The article concludes with a summary of empirical insights that can be used to improve evidence-gathering, access to justice in multilingual contexts, policy development and the training of law-enforcement and language professionals around the world.
Keywords: police interpreting, transcripts, quality control, UK, US
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Police communication and police interpreting: A brief literature review
- 3.Data and method
- 4.Data analysis: A comparative quality check
- 4.1Quality of transcripts
- 4.2Quality of interpreting
- 5.Conclusions
- Acknowledgments
- Notes
-
References
References (41)
Ainsworth, J. (2008). “You have the right to remain silent … But only if you ask for it just so”: The role of linguistic ideology in American police interrogation law. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law
15
(1), 1–22. 
(2010). Curtailing coercion in police interrogation: The failed promise of Miranda v. Arizona. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. London: Routledge, 111–125.
Berk-Seligson, S. (1983). Sources of variation in Spanish verb construction usage: The active, the dative, and the reflexive passive. Journal of Pragmatics 7, 145–168.
(2009). Coerced confessions: The discourse of bilingual police interrogations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2011). Negotiation and communicative accommodation in bilingual police interrogations: A critical interactional sociolinguistic perspective. International Journal of Sociology of Language
207
1, 29–58.
(2016). Totality of circumstances and translating the Miranda warnings. In S. Enrlich, D. Eades & J. Ainsworth (Eds.), Discursive constructions of consent in the legal process. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 241–263.
Filipović, L. (2007). Language as a witness: Insights from cognitive linguistics. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law
14
(2), 245–267.
(2013). The role of language in legal contexts: A forensic cross-linguistic viewpoint. In M. Freeman & F. Smith (Eds.), Law and language (Current Legal Issues 15). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 328–343.
(2019). Evidence-gathering in police interviews: Communication problems and possible solutions. Pragmatics and Society
10
(1), 9–31.
(2021a). Confession to make: Inadvertent confessions and admissions in United Kingdom and United States police contexts. Frontiers in Psychology. (accessed 10 March 2022).
(accessed 10 March 2022). (Ed.) (2021b). Police interviews: Communication challenges and solutions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(in press). The good, the bad and the ugly: Miscommunication in UK police interviews and US police interrogations. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology.
Filipović, L. & Abad Vergara, S. (2018). Juggling investigation and interpretation: The problematic dual role of police officer-interpreter. Law and Language
5
(1), 62–79.
Filipović, L. & Hijazo-Gascón, A. (2018). Interpreting meaning in police interviews: Applied language typology in a forensic linguistics context. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics
15
1, 67–104.
Gibbons, J. (1990). Applied linguistics in court. Applied Linguistics
11
(3), 229–237.
(2003). Forensic linguistics. London: Blackwell.
Hale, S., Goodman-Delahunty, J. & Martschuk, N. (2019). Interpreter performance in police interviews. Differences between trained interpreters and untrained bilinguals. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer
13
(2), 107–131.
Hales, L. & Filipović, L. (2016). Language rights in danger: Access to justice and linguistic (in)equality in multilingual judicial contexts. In L. Filipović & M. Pütz (Eds.), Endangered languages and languages in danger: Issues of ecology, policy and documentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 61–85.
Haworth, K. (2010). Police interviews in the judicial process: Police interviews as evidence. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. London: Routledge, 169–194.
(2018). Tapes, transcripts and trials: The routine contamination of police interview evidence. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof
22
(4), 428–450.
Hayes, A. & Hale, S. (2010). Appeals on incompetent interpreting. Journal of Judicial Administration
20
(2), 119–130.
Hijazo-Gascón, A. (2019). Translating accurately or sounding natural? The interpreters’ challenges due to semantic typology and the interpreting process. Pragmatics and Society
10
(1), 73–95.
Hijazo-Gascón, A. & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2013). Same family, different paths: Intratypological differences in three Romance languages. In J. Goschler & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39–54.
Krouglov, A. (1999). Police interpreting: Politeness and sociocultural context. The Translator
5
(2), 285–302.
Mayfield, K. (2016). The issues and challenges surrounding interpreter-assisted investigative interviews of victims and witnesses. MA dissertation, London Metropolitan University. [URL] (accessed 21 February 2021).
(2017). Language services protocol for law enforcement bodies. [URL] (accessed 21 February 2021).
Milne, R. & Bull, R. (1999). Investigative interviewing: Psychology and practice. Chichester: Wiley.
Monteoliva-García, E. (2020). Interpreting or other forms of language support? Experiences and decision-making among response and community police officers in Scotland. Translation & Interpreting,
12
(1), 37–54.
Mulayim, S., Lai, M. & Norma, C. (2015). Police investigative interviews and interpreting: context, challenges, and strategies. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Nakane, I. (2007). Problems in communicating the suspect’s rights in interpreted police interviews. Applied Linguistics
28
(1), 87–112.
(2014). Interpreter-mediated police interviews: A discourse-pragmatic approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pavlenko, A. (2008). “I’m very not about the law part”: Nonnative Speakers of English and the Miranda Warnings. TESOL Quarterly
42
(1), 1–30.
(2017). The presentation of rights and obligations in police interviews in the USA. Multilingualism, Forensic Linguistics and the Law Conference, Oslo University.
Pounds, G. (2019). Rapport-building in suspects’ police interviews: The role of empathy and face. Pragmatics and Society
10
(1), 97–124.
Rojo, A. & Valenzuela, J. (2013). Constructing meaning in translation: The role of constructions in translation problems. In A. Rojo & I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and translation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 283–310.
Rojo, A., Ramos, M. & Valenzuela, J. (2014). The emotional impact of translation: A heart rate study. Journal of Pragmatics
71
1, 31–44.
Russell, S. (2001). “Let me put it simply …”: The case for a standard translation of the police caution and its explanation. Forensic Linguistics
7
1, 26–48.
Tipton, R. (2017). “You are foreign, you are nothing in this country”: Managing risk in interpreter-mediated police interviews with victims of domestic abuse. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses
75
1, 119–138.
(2021). “Yes I understand”: Language choice, question formation and code-switching in interpreter-mediated police interviews with victim-survivors of domestic abuse. International Journal of Police Practice and Research
22
(1), 1058–1076.
US Department of Justice (2015). [URL]
Wilson, L. & Walsh, D. (2019). Conflicts of role, trust and emotion in interpreter-assisted police interviews. Pragmatics and Society
10
(1), 122–151.
Cited by (6)
Cited by six other publications
Elder, Chi-Hé & Luna Filipović
Hijazo-Gascón, Alberto, María Gómez-Bedoya & Luna Filipović
2024. Interpreting Swearwords in Police Interviews and Perceived Offensiveness of Insults in the UK and Spain. Applied Linguistics 45:4 ► pp. 718 ff. 
Defrancq, Bart & Sofie Verliefde
2023. A Dutch discourse marker in interpreter-mediated police interviewing with drafting: A corpus-based approach to dialogue interpreting. Research in Corpus Linguistics 11:2 ► pp. 50 ff.
Haworth, Kate, James Tompkinson, Emma Richardson, Felicity Deamer & Magnus Hamann
2023. “For the Record”: applying linguistics to improve evidential consistency in police investigative interview records. Frontiers in Communication 8
Xia, Jianlan & Xiaoyan Bao
2023. Progress, limitations and prospects of police interpreting professionalization in China. Cogent Social Sciences 9:2
Filipović, Luna
2022. Language and Culture as Sources of Inequality in US Police Interrogations. Applied Linguistics 43:6 ► pp. 1073 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 september 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.