Court interpreting and classical rhetoric
Ethos in interpreter-mediated monological discourse
This case study is based on a transcript of an authentic criminal proceeding in a Belgian Assize Court, where Dutch is the official language and the French-speaking defendant receives simultaneous whispered interpretation of the prosecutor’s closing speech. Examining six excerpts from the speech, which is addressed to the judges and the lay jury, the analysis compares the Dutch original with the French interpretation. The specific focus of the study is the Aristotelian concept of ethos, i.e. the image the speaker seeks to convey of himself by foregrounding his professional expertise, integrity and goodwill towards the audience. Since the rhetorical devices he uses for this purpose are often absent from the interpretation in the extracts analysed, the strategic persuasiveness of his speech is weakened. This means that the defendant is likely to gain an incomplete, misleading perception of his own case. In the light of the examples presented here, the authors argue that the theory of classical rhetoric affords a useful framework for exploring interpreter-mediated legal monologues in a dialogical perspective.
References (49)
Amossy, R
(
2001)
Ethos at the crossroads of disciplines: Rhetoric, pragmatics, sociology.
Poetics Today 22 (1), 1–23.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Amossy, R
(
2010)
La présentation de soi. Ethos et identité verbale. Paris: PUF.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aristotle
(
1991)
On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. Newly translated with Introduction, Notes, and Appendixes by
G.A. Kennedy. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Atkinson, J.M. & Drew, P
(
1979)
Order in court: The organization of verbal behaviour in judicial settings. London: Macmillan.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bastow, T
(
2008)
Defence discourse II: A corpus perspective on routine and rhetoric in defence discourse. In
A. Mayer (Ed.),
Language and power: An introduction to institutional discourse. London/New York: Continuum, 138–162.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baumlin, J.S
(
2001)
Ethos. In
T.O. Sloane (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 263–277.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Berk-Seligson, S
(
1990)
The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Braet, A
(
2007)
Retorische kritiek. Overtuigingskracht van Cicero tot Balkenende. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C
(
1978)
Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bucholtz, M
(
2000)
The politics of transcription.
Journal of Pragmatics 321, 1439–1465.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
D’hondt, S
(
2009)
Good cops, bad cops: Intertextuality, agency, and structure in criminal trial discourse.
Research on Language and Social Interaction 42 (3), 249–275.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Emmel, B.A
(
2005)
Some dialogic aspects of monologic argumentation in the courtroom.
Studies in Communication Sciences 4 (3), 217–231.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Felton Rosulek, L
(
2010)
Prosecution and defense closing speeches. In
M. Coulthard &
A. Johnson (Eds.),
The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. London: Routledge, 218–230.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Frydman, B
(
2007)
La contestation du jury populaire. Symptôme d’une crise rhétorique et démocratique.
Questions de Communication 121, 103–117.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gallez, E
(
2014)
Ethos et interprétation judiciaire. Une analyse ethnographique de l’interprétation dans une cour d’assises belge: une étude de cas. PhD dissertation, KU Leuven.
Gibbons, J
(
2003)
Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Oxford: Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hale, S.B
(
2006)
Themes and methodological issues in court interpreting research. In
E. Hertog &
B. van der Veer (Eds.),
Taking stock: Research and methodology in community interpreting. Linguistica Antverpiensia 51, 205–228.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hale, S.B
(
2007)
Community interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Herrick, J.A
(
2005)
The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction. Boston: Allyn and Beacon.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jacobsen, B
(
2002)
Pragmatic meaning in court interpreting: An empirical study of additions in consecutively interpreted question-answer dialogues. PhD dissertation, The Aarhus School of Business.
Jasinski, J
(
2001)
Sourcebook on rhetoric: Key concepts in contemporary rhetorical studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kienpointner, M
(
1995)
Rhetoric. In
J. Verschueren,
J.-O. Östman &
J. Blommaert (Eds.),
Handbook of pragmatics. Manual. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 453–461.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Komter, M
(
1998)
Dilemmas in the courtroom: A study of trials of violent crime in the Netherlands. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lee, J
(
2009)
Interpreting inexplicit language during courtroom examination.
Applied Linguistics 30 (1), 93–114.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Maingueneau, D
(
2007)
Analyser les textes de communication. Paris: Armand Colin.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mason, I. & Stewart, M
(
2001)
Interactional pragmatics, face and the dialogue interpreter. In
I. Mason (Ed.),
Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome, 51–70.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Matoesian, G
(
2005)
Struck by speech revisited: Embodied stance in jurisdictional discourse.
Journal of Sociolinguistics 9 (2), 167–193.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Morris, R
(
1995)
The moral dilemmas of court interpreting.
The Translator 1 (1), 25–46.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Plantin, C
(
2009)
La personne comme ressource argumentative: ethos et résistance à l’autorité. In
P. Charaudeau (Ed.),
Identités sociales et discursives du sujet parlant. Paris: L’Harmattan, 55–70.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pöchhacker, F
(
2004)
Introducing interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Poulakos, J
(
2001)
Sophists. In
T.O. Sloane (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 732–733.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pym, A
(
1999)
Nicole slapped Michelle: On interpreters and theories of interpreting at the O. J. Simpson trial.
The Translator 5 (2), 265–283.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rudvin, M
(
2006)
The cultural turn in community interpreting: A brief analysis of epistemological developments in community interpreting literature in the light of paradigm changes in the humanities. In
E. Hertog &
B. van der Veer (Eds.),
Taking stock: Research and methodology in community interpreting. Linguistica Antverpiensia 51, 21–41.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rudvin, M. & Tomassini, E
(
2011)
Interpreting in the community and workplace: A practical teaching guide. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Saville-Troike, M
(
2003)
The ethnography of communication: An introduction. London: Blackwell.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Shlesinger, M
(
1991)
Interpreter latitude versus 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D
(
1986/1995)
Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tindale C.W
(
2004)
Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traest, P
(
2001)
The jury in Belgium.
Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal 72 (1), 27–50.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tulkens, F. & van de Kerchove, M
(
1997)
Introduction au droit pénal. Aspects juridiques et criminologiques. Bruxelles: Story-Scientia.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wadensjö, C
(
1998)
Interpreting as interaction. London/New York: Longman.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, D
(
2005–2006)
Online course in relevance theory and pragmatics. University College London. Department of Phonetics and Linguistics.
Cited by (3)
Cited by 3 other publications
de Oliveira Fernandes, Daniel & Steve Oswald
2022.
On the Rhetorical Effectiveness of Implicit Meaning—A Pragmatic Approach.
Languages 8:1
► pp. 6 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Guo, Yijun
2021.
Contrastive images of journalists and Chinese premiers in interpreter-mediated press conferences: a case study of Chinese ‘xiexie’.
Perspectives 29:4
► pp. 507 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Defrancq, Bart & Sofie Verliefde
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.