Who is ‘you’?Polite forms of address and ambiguous participant roles in court interpreting
New York University
This paper investigates the use of forms of address by court interpreters, combining a participation framework approach to dialogue interpreting with a sociolinguistic analysis of intra-speaker variation. Based on transcripts from interpreter-mediated court proceedings in New York City, the paper explores how interpreters respond when the participant status of their target recipients changes from addressee to unaddressed overhearer. The interpreters are found to design their utterances primarily to conform to institutional norms and not to the expectations of target recipients, who rely on politeness features as cues for their participant status. Adding to recent research on discourse processes in dialogue interpreting, the paper explores how the interpreter’s task becomes more complex when more than two primary participants are present.
In recent years, research on dialogue interpreting has increasingly been concerned with the ways in which interpreter-mediated interaction differs from monolingual interaction with respect to discourse processes such as managing turn-taking, establishing reciprocity of understanding, and identifying participant roles (cf. Wadensjö 1998, 2004, Metzger 1999, Roy 2000, Davidson 2002, among others). Drawing in particular on the work of the sociologist Erving Goffman, these studies have contributed to an increased understanding of the interpreter’s role in the interaction, and they have provided a new basis upon which to identify, discuss, and evaluate interpreters’ practices and ideologies.
Angermeyer, Philipp Sebastian
2006 ‘Speak English or what?’: Codeswitching and interpreter use in New York City Small Claims Court. New York University. [Ph.D. Dissertation]
1984 “Language style as audience design”. Language in society 13. 145–204.
1990The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson
1987Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Roger and Albert Gilman
1960 “The pronouns of power and solidarity”. Thomas A. Sebeok, ed. Style in language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press 1960 253–276.
Cedergren, Henrietta J. and David Sankoff
1974 “Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reﬂection of competence”. Language 50:2. 333–355.
Clark, Herbert H.
1992Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Clark, Herbert H.
1996Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Conley, John M. and William M. O’Barr
1990Rules versus relationships: The ethnography of legal discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2002 “A model of the construction of conversational common ground in interpreted discourse”. Journal of pragmatics 34. 1273–1300.
[ p. 225 ]
Ervin-Tripp, Susan M.
1972 “On sociolinguistic rules: Alternation and co-occurrence”. John J. Gumperz and Dell Hymes, eds. Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston 1972 213–250.
Giles, Howard, Nikolas Coupland and Justine Coupland
1991 “Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence”. Howard Giles, Justine Coupland and Nikolas Coupland, eds. Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics. Cambridge/Paris: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme/Cambridge University Press 1991 1–68.
1955 “On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction”. Psychiatry: Journal for the study of interpersonal processes 18. 213–232.
1981Forms of talk. Oxford/Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
2004The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the witness and the interpreter. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
1990 “Norms in interpretation”. Target 2. 115–119.
Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason
1997The translator as communicator. London: Routledge.
1972 “Models of interaction of language and social life”. John J. Gumperz and Dell Hymes, eds. Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston 1972 35–71.
2003 “Habitus, ﬁeld and discourse: Interpreting as a socially situated activity”. Target 15. 243–268.
2002Pragmatic meaning in court interpreting: An empirical study of additions in consecutively interpreted question–answer dialogues. Department of English, Århus School of Business. [Ph.D. Dissertation.]
1999Cross-cultural dimensions of politeness in the case of Polish and English. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
2001Dolmetschen bei Gericht: Erwartungen, Anforderungen, Kompetenzen. Vienna: WUV, Universitätsverlag.
Knapp, Karlfried and Annelie Knapp-Potthoff
1985 “Sprachmittlertätigkeit in der interkulturellen Kommunikation”. Jochen Rehbein, ed. Interkulturelle Kommunikation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr 1985 450–463.
1969 “Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula”. Language 45:4. 715–762.
1972Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
1999 “Introduction”. The translator 5. 147–160.
ed.2002Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome.
1999Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.