Article published in:
Vol. 16:2 (2014) ► pp. 191208


Angermeyer, P.
(2009) Translation style and participant roles in court interpreting. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13 (1), 3–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berk-Seligson, S.
(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
Bot, H.
(2005) Dialogue interpreting as a specific case of reported speech. Interpreting 7 (2), 237–261. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bot, H. & Wadensjö, C.
(2004) The presence of a third party: A dialogical view on interpreter-assisted treatment. In J.P. Wilson & B. Droždek (Eds.), Broken spirits: The treatment of traumatised asylum seekers, refugees, war and torture victims.Hove/New York: Brunner-Routledge.Google Scholar
Brennan, M.
(1994) Cross-examining children in criminal courts: Child welfare under attack. In J. Gibbons (Ed.), Language and the law. London/New York: Longman, 199–216.Google Scholar
Cheung, A.
(2012) The use of reported speech by court interpreters in Hong Kong. Interpreting 14 (1), 73–91. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, T.P.
(2008) Judges’ deviations from norm-based direct speech in court. Interpreting 10 (1), 99–127. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colin, J. & Morris, R.
(1996) Interpreters and the legal process. Winchester: Waterside Press.Google Scholar
d’Ardenne, P., Farmer, E., Ruaro, L. & Priebe, S.
(2007) Not lost in translation: Protocols for interpreting trauma-focused CBT. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 35, 303–316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dubslaff, F. & Martinsen, B.
(2005) Exploring untrained interpreters’ use of direct versus indirect speech. Interpreting 7 (2), 211–236. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, R.
(1998) A critical examination of the use of interpreters in the qualitative research process. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 24 (1), 197–208. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gile, D.
(2009) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Rev. edn. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
González, R.D., Vásquez, V.F. & Mikkelson, H.
(1991) Fundamentals of court interpretation: Theory, policy, and practice. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hale, S.B.
(2004) The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the witness and the interpreter. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hale, S.
(2011) Interpreter policies, practices, and protocols in Australian courts and tribunals: A national survey. Melbourne: Minuteman Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, H.
(1998) Reported speech and survivor identity in on-line bone marrow transplantation narratives. Journal of Sociolinguistics 2 (1), 53–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, B.
(1990) Norms in interpretation. Target 2 (1), 115–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hengst, J., Frame, S., Neuman-Stritzel, T. & Gannaway, R.
(2005) Using others’ words: Conversational use of reported speech by individuals with aphasia and their communication partners. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 48 (1), 137–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holsanova, J.
(2006) Quotations as a vehicle for social positioning. In Hausendorf, H. & Bora, A. (Eds.), Analysing citizenship talk. Discourse approaches to politics, society and culture.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 251–275. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, E.
(2006) Conflicts in how interpreters manage their roles in provider-patient interactions. Social Science and Medicine 62 (3), 721–730. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jie, X. & Zhong, Y.
(2008) Locating users of interpretation in the court: An impact analysis of literal and meaningful renditions in a mock court situation. Babel 54 (4), 327–342. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnen, T. & Meyer, B.
(2007) Between connectivity and modality: Reported speech in interpreter-mediated doctor-patient communication. In J. Rehbein, C. Hohenstein & L. Pietsch (Eds.), Connectivity in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 395–417. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Komter, M.
(2005) Understanding problems in an interpreter-mediated police interrogation. In S.L. Burns (Ed.), Ethnographies of law and social control. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing, 203–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laster, K. & Taylor, V.
(1994) Interpreters and the legal system. Leichhardt, NSW: The Federation Press.Google Scholar
Lee, J.
(2010) Interpreting reported speech in witnesses’ evidence. Interpreting 12 (1), 60–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leinonen, S.
(2004) Professional stocks of interactional knowledge in the interpreter’s profession. In C. Wadensjö, B.E. Dimitrova & A. Nilsson (Eds.), The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of interpreting in the community. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 227–240.Google Scholar
Maley, Y.
(1994) The language of the law. In J. Gibbons (Ed.), Language and the law. London/New York: Longman, 11–50.Google Scholar
Lings, K.K.
(1988) Dynamisk tolkning. Herning: Special-pædagogisk forlag.Google 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
Martinsen, B. & Dubslaff, F.
(2010) The cooperative courtroom. Interpreting 12 (1), 21–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mikkelson, H.
(2000) Introduction to court interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
(2008) Evolving views of the court interpreter’s role: Between Scylla and Chrybdis. In C. Valero-Garcés & A. Martin (Eds.), Crossing borders in community interpreting: Definitions and dilemmas. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 81–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Metzger, M.
(1999) Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Moeketsi, R.
(2000) The do’s and don’ts in court interpreting: A functional approach to a professional code. Language Matters 30 (1), 222–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moore, C.W.
(2003) The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Murray, C.D. & Wynne, J.
(2001) Researching community, work and family with an interpreter. Community, Work and Family 4 (2), 151–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Myers, G.
(1999) Functions of reported speech in group discussions. Applied Linguistics 20 (3), 376–401. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ng, K.
(2009) The common law in two voices: Language, law, and the postcolonial dilemma in Hong Kong. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Niska, H.
(1999) Status quaestionis: Community interpreting in Sweden. In M. Erasmus (Ed.), Liaison interpreting in the community. Pretoria: Van Schaik, 138–142.Google Scholar
Phelan, M. & Parkman, S.
(1995) How to do it: Work with an interpreter. British Medical Journal 311, 555–557. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, F.
(2004) Introducing interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Roberts-Smith, L.
(2009) Forensic interpreting: Trial and error. In S. Hale, U. Ozolins & L. Stern (Eds.), The Critical Link 5: Quality in interpreting – a shared responsibility. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shlesinger, M.
(1991) Interpreter latitude vs. due process: Simultaneous and consecutive interpretation in multilingual trails. In S. Tirkkonen-Condit (Ed.), Empirical research in translation and intercultural studies: Selected papers of the TRANSIF seminar, Savonlinna 1988. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 147–155.Google Scholar
Tannen, D.
(1989) Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Takimoto, M. & Koshiba, K.
(2009) Shift in footing in a multi-party interpreting situation: The choice of pronouns by an interpreter and its effects. Monash University Linguistics Papers 6 (2), 1–9.Google Scholar
van de Mieroop, D.
(2012) The quotative ‘he/she says’ in interpreted doctor-patient interaction. Interpreting 14 (1), 92–117. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wadensjö, C.
(1998) Interpreting as interaction. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Wallmach, K.
(2002) Seizing the surge of language by its soft, bare skull: Simultaneous interpreting, the truth commission and Country of my skull . Current Writing 14 (2), 64–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zetterstrand, S.
(2004) Direct speech in legal settings. NAJIT position paper. Washington, DC: National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators.
Cited by

Cited by 7 other publications

No author info given
2018.  In Common Law in an Uncommon Courtroom [Benjamins Translation Library, 144], Crossref 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. Crossref logo
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2020.  In Translator and Interpreter Education Research [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ],  pp. 61 ff. Crossref logo
Amuzu, Evershed K., Akua Campbell & Seth Ofori
2020. “That’s not my understanding”. Language and Dialogue 10:3  pp. 389 ff. Crossref 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. Crossref logo
Dayter, Daria
2021. Dealing with interactionally risky speech acts in simultaneous interpreting: The case of self-praise. Journal of Pragmatics 174  pp. 28 ff. Crossref logo
Ren, Wen & Juan Huang
2019.  In Translation Studies in China [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ],  pp. 135 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 august 2021. 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.