Article published in:
Interpreting
Vol. 19:1 (2017) ► pp. 69–96

The effect of interpreting modes on witness credibility assessments

| University of New South Wales
| Charles Sturt University
| University of Western Sydney
Research into court interpreting has shown that interpreters can have an impact on the case in many different ways. However, the extent to which this occurs depends on several factors, including the interpreter’s competence, ethics and specialized training in court interpreting, as well as working conditions. One little explored aspect is whether use of consecutive vs. simultaneous interpreting can impact jurors’ perception of a witness or other interpreted party. This paper reports on the results of a large-scale experimental study, with a simulated trial run in different conditions, involving a total of 447 mock jurors. The aim was to identify any differences in the way jurors in Australian courts might assess the evidence of an accused called as a witness, in a monolingual hearing as well as when interpreted consecutively and simultaneously from Spanish to English. Overall, jurors’ recollection of case facts did not differ significantly for the three conditions, though it was lower for consecutive during the afternoon. Jurors also found consecutive more distracting; on the other hand, the consecutive mode was associated with significantly more favourable perception of the accused’s evidence than simultaneous interpreting or monolingual communication. Although jurors found the prosecution to be less convincing when the accused’s evidence was interpreted consecutively compared to the other proceedings, the interpretation mode made no difference to the verdict.
Keywords: consecutive interpreting, witness credibility, court interpreting, interpreter position, simultaneous interpreting


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 01 June 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.19.1.04hal
References
Baigorri-Jalón, J
(2000/2014) From Paris to Nuremberg: The birth of conference interpreting (transl. by H. Mikkelson & B. S. Olsen). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berk-Seligson, S
(1990/2002) The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) The impact of court interpreting on the coerciveness of leading questions. Forensic Linguistics 6 (1), 30–56.Google Scholar
Boccaccini, M. T
(2002) What do we really know about witness preparation? Behavioral Sciences and the Law 20 (1/2), 161–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brodsky, S. L., Griffin, M. P. & Cramer, R. J
(2010) The witness credibility scale: An outcome measure for expert witness research. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 28 (6), 892–907. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brodsky, S. L., Neal, T. M., Cramer, R. J. & Ziemke, M. H
(2009) Credibility in the courtroom: How likeable should an expert witness be? Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online 37 (4), 525–532.Google Scholar
Camayd-Freixas, E
(2005) A revolution in consecutive interpretation: Digital voice recorder-assisted CI. The ATA Chronicle 34 (3), 40–46.Google Scholar
Chaiken, S
(1980) Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39 (5), 752. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J
(1988) Statistical power analysis for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Colin, J. & Morris, R
(1996) Interpreters and the legal process. Winchester: Waterside Press.Google Scholar
Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department
(1991) Access to interpreters in the Australian legal system. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
Conley, J. M., O’Barr, W. M. & Lind, E. A
(1978) The power of language: Presentational style in the courtroom. Duke Law Journal 61, 1375–1399.Google Scholar
Cooper, J., Bennett, E. A. & Sukel, H. L
(1996) Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior 20 (4), 379–394. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gaiba, F
(1998) The origins of simultaneous interpretation: The Nuremberg Trial: Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
Gany, F., Kapelusznik, L., Prakash, K., Gonzalez, J., Orta, L., Tseng, C.-H. & Changrani, J
(2007) The impact of medical interpretation method on time and errors. Journal of General Internal Medicine 22 (2), 319–323. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gile, D
(2001) Consecutive vs. simultaneous: Which is more accurate? The Journal of the Japan Association for Interpretation Studies 1 (1), 8–20.Google Scholar
Gzour, A
(2001) Lockerbie trial. In Interpreting at international courts and tribunals. Court interpreting in the Netherlands . July 4th to 7th 2001. Minutes.
Hale, S
(2001) How are courtroom questions interpreted? An analysis of Spanish interpreters’ practices. In I. Mason (Ed.), Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome, 21–50.Google Scholar
(2004) The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the witness and the interpreter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Community interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Interpreter policies, practices and protocols in Australian courts and tribunals: A national survey. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Judicial Administration.Google Scholar
Hale, S. & Napier, J
2016). “We’re just kind of there”: Working conditions and perceptions of appreciation and status in court interpreting. Target. 28 (3), 351–371. Crossref
Hale, S. & Stern, L
(2011) Interpreter quality and working conditions: Comparing Australian and international courts of justice. Judicial Officers Bulletin 23 (9), 75–81.Google Scholar
Hamidi, M. & Pöchhacker, F
(2007) Simultaneous consecutive interpreting: A new technique put to the test. Meta (21), 276–289. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hertog, E
(2002) Language as a human right: Challenges for legal interpreting. In G. Garzone & M. Viezzi (Eds.), Interpreting in the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 145–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacobsen, B
(2012) The significance of interpreting modes for question-answer dialogues in court interpreting. Interpreting 14 (2), 217–241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J
(2009) Conflicting views on court interpreting examined through surveys of legal professionals and court interpreters. Interpreting 11 (1), 35–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindsay, R. C., Wells, G. L. & O’Connor, F. J
(1989) Mock-juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. Law and Human Behavior 13 (3), 333–339. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi, J
(2003) DRAC interpreting: Coming soon to a courthouse near you? Proteus 12 (2), 7–9.Google Scholar
Lotriet, A
(2002) Can short interpreter training be effective? The South African truth and reconciliation commission experience. In E. Hung (Ed.), Teaching translation and interpreting 4: Building bridges. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 81–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Luus, C. & Wells, G. L
(1994) The malleability of eyewitness confidence: Co-witness and perseverance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology 79 (5), 714. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martin, A. & Ortega Herráez, J. M
(2013) From invisible machines to visible experts: Views on interpreter role and performance during the Madrid train bomb trials. In C. Schäffner, K. Kredens & Y. Fowler (Eds.), Interpreting in a changing landscape: Selected papers from Critical Link 6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 101–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martin, A. & Taibi, M
(2012) Complexities of high profile interpreting: The case of the Madrid train bomb trial. Interpreting 14 (2), 145–164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mikkelson, H
(2010) Consecutive or simultaneous? An analysis of their use in the judicial setting. Across the Board. [Australian Sign Language Interpreters Association] 51, 4–7.Google Scholar
Mondak, J. J
(1990) Perceived legitimacy of Supreme Court decisions: Three functions of source credibility. Political Behavior 12 (4), 363–384. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morris, R
(1989a) Court interpretation: The trial of Ivan John Demjanjuk: A case study. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 21, 27–37.Google Scholar
(1989b) Eichmann v. Demjanjuk. Parallèles. Cahiers de l'École de traduction et d'interprétation 111, 9–28.Google Scholar
(1998) Justice in Jerusalem: Interpreting in Israeli legal proceedings. Meta 43 (1), 1–10. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) The Eichmann and Demjanjuk trials: A comparison. Paper presented at the AIIC Court Interpreting Seminar , The Hague.
O’Barr, W. M
(1982) Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Orlando, M
(2014) A study on the amenability of digital pen technology in a hybrid mode of interpreting: Consec-Simul with notes. Translation & interpreting. The international journal of translation and interpreting research 6 (2), 39–54.Google Scholar
Ozolins, U
(2004) Survey of interpreting practitioners. Melbourne: VITS LanguageLink.Google Scholar
Pallant, J
(2010) SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, D
(2003) A comparison of simultaneous and consecutive interpretation in the courtroom. International Journal of Disability, Community & Rehabilitation 2 (1). http://​www​.ijdcr​.ca​/VOL02​_01​_CAN​/articles​/russell​.shtml (accessed 27 June 2016).Google Scholar
Ruva, C. L. & Bryant, J. B
(2004) The impact of age, speech style, and question form on perceptions of witness credibility and trial outcome. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34 (9), 1919–1944. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. J. & Malandro, L. A
(1985) Courtroom communication strategies. New York: Kluwer Law Book Publishers.Google Scholar
Stern, L
(2011) Courtroom interpreting. In K. Malmkjaer & K. Windle (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of translation studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 325–342.Google Scholar
(2012) What can domestic courts learn from international courts and tribunals about good practice in interpreting? From the Australian war crimes prosecutions to the international criminal court. T & I Review 21, 7–30.Google Scholar
Stern, L., Ozolins, U. & Hale, S
(2015)  Inefficiencies of court administration despite participants’ goodwill . Journal of Judicial Administration, 25 (2), 76–95.Google Scholar
Tabachnik, B. G. & Fidell, L. S
(2013) Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar

Full-text

The effect of interpreting modes on witness credibility assessments
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Arumí, Marta & Mireia Vargas-Urpi
2018. Annotation of interpreters’ conversation management problems and strategies in a corpus of criminal proceedings in Spain. Translation and Interpreting Studies 13:3 ► pp. 421 ff. Crossref logo
Doherty, Stephen, Natalie Martschuk, Jane Goodman-Delahunty & Sandra Hale
2022. An Eye-Movement Analysis of Overt Visual Attention During Consecutive and Simultaneous Interpreting Modes in a Remotely Interpreted Investigative Interview. Frontiers in Psychology 13 Crossref logo
Goodman-Delahunty, Jane, Natalie Martschuk, Sandra B. Hale & Susan E. Brandon
2020.  In Advances in Psychology and Law [Advances in Psychology and Law, 5], ► pp. 83 ff. Crossref logo
Hale, Sandra, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Natalie Martschuk & Stephen Doherty
2021. The effects of mode on interpreting performance in a simulated police interview. Translation and Interpreting Studies Crossref logo
Orlando, Marc
2021. L’interprétation consécutive-simultanée. À la découverte d’un mode hybride. Traduire :245 ► pp. 76 ff. Crossref logo
Rengifo, Andres F., Diba Rouzbahani & Jennifer Peirce
2020. Court Interpreters and the Political Economy of Bail in Three Arraignment Courts. Law & Policy 42:3 ► pp. 236 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 april 2022. 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.