Cover not available
Article published In:
Interpreting
Vol. 16:1 (2014) ► pp.49–80

Orality and authenticity in an interpreter-mediated defendant’s examination

A case study from the Belgian Assize Court

| KU Leuven
| Ghent University
This case study examines how a court’s perception of the defendant’s socio-legal identity may be affected by interpreting. Since this perception relies largely on language, interpreters are expected to minimise their impact on the dynamics of direct communication between primary participants. The analysis focuses on an interpreter-mediated defendant’s examination, recorded in an attempted murder case tried before the Belgian Assize Court, identifying possible departures from the principles of orality and authenticity. The recordings include exchanges, not necessarily audible to the court, between the defendant and the interpreter. Our analysis shows that: (a) the participation framework (directness) of the defendant’s input is altered, while the relative inaudibility of the interaction between defendant and interpreter deprives the jury of access to authentic features of the defendant’s delivery; (b) the interpreter’s intervention may shift the defendant’s oral exposition into a different style, and hence condition the way the defendant is eventually perceived by the jury.
Keywords: court interpreting, discursive identity construction, (meta)pragmatics, institutional literacy
Published online: 10 March 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.16.1.04gal
References (61)
Bauman, R. (2004). A world of other’s words . London: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berk-Seligson, S. (1990). The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Briggs, C. (1993). Generic versus metapragmatic dimensions of Warao narratives: Who regiments performance? In J. Lucy (Ed.), Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 179–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bucholtz, M. (2000). The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatics 321, 1439–1465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheung, A. K. F. (2012). The use of reported speech by court interpreters in Hong Kong. Interpreting 14 (1), 73–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, J. (2011). Indexicalities of language contact in an era of globalization: Engaging with John Gumperz’s legacy. Text & Talk 31 (4), 407–428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conley, J. M. & O’Barr, W. (1990). Rules versus relationships: The ethnography of legal discourse . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cotterill, J. (Ed.) (2002). Language in the legal process . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulthard, M. (2004). Whose voice is it? Invented and concealed dialogue in written records of verbal evidence produced by police. In J. Cotterill (Ed.), Language in the legal process . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 19–34.Google Scholar
Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (Eds.) (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dueñas Gonzalez, R., Vásquez, V. & Mikkelson, H. (1991). Fundamentals of court interpretation: Theory, policy and practice . Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Eades, D. (2010). Sociolinguistics and the legal process . Bristol: Multilingual Matters.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallez, E. (2010). Advantages of a horizontal transcription format for interpreter-mediated interactions. Paper presented at Critical Link 61, 26–30 July 2010, Aston University, Birmingham.Google Scholar
Gentile, A., Ozolins, U. & Vasilakakos, M. (1996). Liaison interpreting: A handbook . Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system . Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist 96 (3), 606–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). Introduction to Part IV. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity . New York: Cambridge University Press, 359–373.Google Scholar
Hale, S.B. (1997). The treatment of register variation in court interpreting. The Translator 3 (1), 39–54.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Community interpreting . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). The need to raise the bar: Court interpreters as specialized experts. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics . London: Routledge, 440–454.Google Scholar
Hale, S. B. & Gibbons, J. (1999). Varying realities: Patterned changes in the interpreter’s representation of courtroom and external realities. Applied Linguistics 20 (2), 203–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haviland, J. (2003). Ideologies of language: Reflections on language and US law. American Anthropologist 1051, 764–774. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heydon, G. (2005). The language of police interviewing: A critical analysis . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holt, E. & Johnson, A. (2010). Legal talk. Socio-pragmatic aspects of legal talk: Police interviews and trial discourse. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics . London: Routledge, 21–36.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, B. (2008). Interactional pragmatics and court interpreting: An analysis of face. Interpreting 10 (1), 128–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, H. A. (1993). The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 191, 435–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. (2009). Interpreting inexplicit language during courtroom examination. Applied Linguistics 30 (1), 93–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Interpreting reported speech in witnesses’ evidence. Interpreting 12 (1), 60–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maley, Y. & Fahey, R. (1991). Presenting the evidence: Construction of reality in court. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 4 (1), 3–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maryns, K. (2012). Multilingualism in legal settings. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds.), Routledge handbook of multilingualism . London: Routledge, 297–313.Google Scholar
(2013). Procedures without borders: The language-ideological anchorage of legal-administrative procedures in translocal institutional settings. Language in Society 42 (1), 70–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, I. (2006). On mutual accessibility of contextual assumptions in dialogue interpreting. Journal of Pragmatics 381, 359–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matoesian, G. (1999). Intertextuality, affect, and ideology in legal discourse. Text 19 (1), 73–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehan, H. (1996). The construction of an LD student: A case study in the politics of representation. In M. Silverstein & G. Urban (Eds.), Natural histories of discourse . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 253–276.Google Scholar
Mertz, E. (1994). Legal language: Pragmatics, poetics, and social power. Annual Review of Anthropology 231, 435–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction . 2nd edition. Basingstoke: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Morris, R. (1995). The moral dilemmas of court interpreting. The Translator 1 (1), 25–46.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Dies, Attard or Lockerbie? Enlightened and unenlightened judicial views of interpreters in English-speaking legal systems. In F. Pöchhacker, A. L. Jakobsen & I. M. Mees (Eds.), Interpreting studies and beyond: A tribute to Miriam Shlesinger . Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur, 103–119.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. & Blackledge, A. (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, F. & Kadric, M. (1999). The hospital cleaner as healthcare interpreter: A case study. The Translator 5 (2), 161–178.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sarangi, S. & Roberts, C. (Eds.) (1999). Talk, work and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheffer, T. (2006). The microformation of criminal defense: On the lawyer’s notes, speech production and a field of presence. Research on Language and Social Interaction 391, 303–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (2006). In other words: Variation in reference and narrative . New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, M. (1991). Interpreter latitude vs. due process: Simultaneous and consecutive interpretation in multilingual trials. In S. Tirkkonen-Condit (Ed.), Empirical research in translation and intercultural studies . Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 147–155.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1993). Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In J. Lucy (Ed.), Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics . New York: Cambridge University Press, 33–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication 231, 193–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. & Urban, G. (Eds.) (1996). Natural histories of discourse . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1984). Coherence in spoken and written discourse . New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar
Traest, P. (2001). The jury in Belgium. Revue Internationale de Droit Penal 72 (1), 27–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tulkens, F. & van de Kerchove, M. (1997). Introduction au droit pénal. Aspects juridiques et criminologiques . Bruxelles: Story-Scientia.Google Scholar
Urban, G. (2006). Metasemiosis and metapragmatics. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics . Oxford: Pergamon Press, 88–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Den Wyngaert, C. (2006). Strafrecht, strafprocesrecht & internationaal strafrecht . Antwerpen: Maklu.Google Scholar
Vermeulen, G. (2006). Strafwetboek, wetboek van strafvordering en bijzondere wetten (25ste bijgewerkte druk). Antwerpen: Maklu.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics . New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction . London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Cited by (15)

Cited by 15 other publications

Chi, Huidong
2024. El intérprete como coordinador del intercambio comunicativo: análisis de su voz propia en el proceso judicial. Revista de Llengua i Dret :81 ► pp. 134 ff. DOI logo
Hale, Sandra, Natalie Martschuk, Jane Goodman-Delahunty & Julie Lim
2024. Juror perceptions in bilingual interpreted trials. Perspectives ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Bestué, Carme & Mireia Vargas-Urpí
2023. You speak some Spanish? Indicators of interpreters’ (non-) performance in Spanish criminal courts. Revista de Llengua i Dret :79 ► pp. 116 ff. 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
Licoppe, Christian & Clair-Antoine Veyrier
2019. O intérprete judiciário como mediador sequencial: a gestão de respostas em audiências de direito de asilo interpretadas consecutivamente. In Fronteiras linguísticas em contextos migratórios, ► pp. 59 ff. DOI logo
Licoppe, Christian & Clair-Antoine Veyrier
2020. The interpreter as a sequential coordinator in courtroom interaction. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 22:1 ► pp. 56 ff. DOI logo
Määttä, Simo K. & Mari Wiklund
2019. Réparations conversationnelles dans un entretien d’asile interprété par téléphone. Langage et société N° 166:1 ► pp. 161 ff. DOI logo
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2018. Towards a typology of pedagogy-oriented translation and interpreting research. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 12:3 ► pp. 322 ff. DOI logo
Cheung, Andrew K. F.
2017. Non-renditions in court interpreting. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation 63:2 ► pp. 174 ff. DOI logo
Cheung, Andrew K. F.
2018. Non-renditions and the court interpreter’s perceived impartiality. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 20:2 ► pp. 232 ff. DOI logo
Defrancq, Bart & Sofie Verliefde
2017. Interpreter-mediated “paternalistic” interaction in a judge-centered courtroom. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 19:2 ► pp. 209 ff. DOI logo
Defrancq, Bart & Sofie Verliefde
2018. Interpreter-mediated drafting of written records in police interviews. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 30:2 ► pp. 212 ff. DOI logo
한현희
2016. Trend and Challenges in Interpreting Studies Research in Korea: Basing on Comparison with Trend in Interpreting Studies Research Overseas. The Journal of Translation Studies 17:2 ► pp. 251 ff. DOI logo
Gallez, Emmanuelle & Anne Reynders
2015. Court interpreting and classical rhetoric. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 17:1 ► pp. 64 ff. DOI logo
Monzó Nebot, Esther
2015. Understanding legal interpreter and translator training in times of change. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9:2 ► pp. 129 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 october 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.