The effect of interpreting modes on witness credibility assessments
Sandra Beatriz Hale | University of New South Wales
Natalie Martschuk | Charles Sturt University
Uldis Ozolins | 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
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.19.1.04hal
References
Baigorri-Jalón, J
Berk-Seligson, S
Boccaccini, M. T
Brodsky, S. L., Griffin, M. P. & Cramer, R. J
Brodsky, S. L., Neal, T. M., Cramer, R. J. & Ziemke, M. H
Camayd-Freixas, E
Chaiken, S
Cohen, J
Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department
Conley, J. M., O’Barr, W. M. & Lind, E. A
Cooper, J., Bennett, E. A. & Sukel, H. L
Gaiba, F
Gany, F., Kapelusznik, L., Prakash, K., Gonzalez, J., Orta, L., Tseng, C.-H. & Changrani, J
Gile, D
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
Hale, S. & Napier, J
Hale, S. & Stern, L
Hamidi, M. & Pöchhacker, F
Hertog, E
Jacobsen, B
Lee, J
Lindsay, R. C., Wells, G. L. & O’Connor, F. J
Lotriet, A
Luus, C. & Wells, G. L
Martin, A. & Ortega Herráez, J. M
Martin, A. & Taibi, M
Mikkelson, H
Mondak, J. J
Morris, R
(2001) The Eichmann and Demjanjuk trials: A comparison. Paper presented at the
AIIC Court Interpreting Seminar
, The Hague.
O’Barr, W. M
Orlando, M
Pallant, J
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).
Ruva, C. L. & Bryant, J. B
Smith, L. J. & Malandro, L. A
Stern, L
Stern, L., Ozolins, U. & Hale, S
Full-text
Cited by
Cited by 6 other publications
Arumí, Marta & Mireia Vargas-Urpi
Doherty, Stephen, Natalie Martschuk, Jane Goodman-Delahunty & Sandra Hale
Goodman-Delahunty, Jane, Natalie Martschuk, Sandra B. Hale & Susan E. Brandon
Hale, Sandra, Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Natalie Martschuk & Stephen Doherty
Orlando, Marc
Rengifo, Andres F., Diba Rouzbahani & Jennifer Peirce
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.