Interpreting accent in the courtroom

Sandra Hale, Nigel Bond and Jeanna Sutton

Abstract

Findings from research conducted into interpreted court proceedings have suggested that it is the interpreters’ rendition that the judiciary and jurors hear and upon which they base their evaluations of witnesses’ testimony. Previous research into the effect of foreign accent of witnesses indicated particular foreign accents negatively influence mock jurors’ evaluations of the testimony. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of interpreters’ foreign accents on the evaluation of witnesses’ testimony. Contrary to previous research, our results indicated that participants rated the witness more favourably when testimony was interpreted by an interpreter with a foreign language accent. Accented versions were all rated as more credible, honest, trustworthy and persuasive than the non-accented versions. This paper discusses the findings in the light of methodological concerns and limitations, and highlights the need for further research in the area.

Keywords
Table of contents

Research into interpreted court proceedings has shown that witnesses who speak through interpreters are evaluated on the way interpreters render their utterances (Berk-Seligson 1990/2002, 1999; Fraser and Freedgood 1999; Hale, 2001; Hale 2002; Hale 2004; Kolb and Pöchhacker 2009; Rigney 1999). In other words, it is the interpreter’s rendition that becomes the evidence that judicial officers and jurors hear and upon which they base their evaluations of that testimony. Interpreter competence in the court setting ranges from the highly competent to the barely bilingual. Much has been written about the need for highly trained, specialised court interpreters to minimise any avoidable influences that interpreters may cause (Hale 2010; Martinsen and Dubslaff 2010; Morris 2008). However, while issues of accuracy of content and style of the original can be addressed by training, [ p. 49 ]there may be other issues that can potentially influence fact finders’ evaluations of witnesses that have little or nothing to do with interpreter competence. These include factors such as gender, appearance, or accent—factors that have not yet been explored. This paper will deal with one of those: the influence of foreign accent on the evaluation of interpreted testimony.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Allport, G. W.
1954The nature of prejudice. Reading: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Australian Bureau of Statistics
2006 “Language Spoken at Home by Proficiency in Spoken English by Sex, Australia (Australia)”. Census of Population and Housing. Australian Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar
Berk-Seligson, S.
1990/2002The 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
Bresnahan, M., Ohashi, R., Nebashi, R., Liu, W. and Morinaga Shearman, S.
2002 “Attitudinal and affective response toward accented English.” Language and Communication 22:2. 171–185.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Community Relations Commission for a Multicultural NSW
2010 “Appendix 5, Language Services Statistical Information”. Annual Report 2009/10. 134.Google Scholar
Fraser, B., and Freedgood, L.
1999 “Interpreter alterations to pragmatic features in trial testimony”. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, 21.Google Scholar
Frumkin, L.
2007 “Influences of accent and ethnic background on perceptions of eyewitness testimony”. Psychology, Crime and Law 13:3. 317–331.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Giles, H.
1970 “Evaluative reactions to accents”. Educational Review 22. 211–227.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., Trudgill, P. and Lewis, A.
1974 “The imposed norm hypothesis: A validation”. Quarterly Journal of Speech 60. 405–410.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., and Davies, A.
1979 Prestige speech styles: The imposed norm and inherent value hypotheses In McCormack, W. and Wurm, S. eds. Language in anthropology IV: Language in many ways. The Hague, Mouton 1979 307–348.Google Scholar
Giles, H. C. Sasoon
1983 “The effect of speaker’s accent, social class background and message style on British listeners’ social judgments”. Language and communication 3. 305–313.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, S.
2001 “How are Courtroom Questions Interpreted? An Analysis of Spanish Interpreters’ Practices”. I. Mason, ed. Triadic Exchanges. Studies in Dialogue Interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome 2001 21–50.Google Scholar
2002 “How faithfully do Court Interpreters render the style of non-English speaking witnesses’s testimonies? A data based study of Spanish-English bilingual proceedings”. Discourse Studies 4:1. 25–47.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 60 ]
2004The discourse of court interpreting. Discourse practices of the law, the witness and the interpreter. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “The need to raise the bar. Court interpreters as specialized experts”. M. Coulthard and A. Johnson eds The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. London and New York: Routledge 2010 440–454.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. W.
1993 “Contact theory of intergroup hostility: A review and evaluation of the theoretical and empirical literature”. International Journal of Group Tensions 23. 43–65.Google Scholar
Kolb, W., and Franz Pöchhacker
2009 “Stories Retold: Interpreting in Asylum Appeal Hearings”. D. Russell and S. Hale eds. Interpreting in Legal Settings. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press 2009.Google Scholar
Lambert, W.
1967 “A social psychology of bilingualism”. Journal of Social Issues 23. 91–109.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Lindemann, S.
(2005) “Who speaks ‘broken English’?: US undergraduates’ perceptions of nonnative English 1”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15:2. 187–212.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Lippi-Green, R.
1994 “Accent, standard language ideology and discriminatory pretext in the courts”. Language in Society 23. 163–198   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
1997English with an accent: Language, ideology and discrimination in the United States. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Martinsen, B., and Dubslaff, F.
2010 “The cooperative courtroom. A case study of interpreting gone wrong”. Interpreting 12:1. 21–59.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Milroy, J. and L. Milroy
1992Authority in language: Investigating language prescription and standardization. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Morris, R.
2008 “Missing stitches. An overview of judicial attitudes to interlingual interpreting in the criminal justice systems of Canada and Israel”. Interpreting 10:1. 34–64.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Nesdale, D. and R. Rooney
1996 “Evaluations and stereotyping of accented speakers by preadolescent children”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 15. 133–154.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Patchen, M.
1999Diversity and unity: Relations between racial and ethnic groups. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, T. F., and Tropp, L. R.
2006 “A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90:5. 751–783.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Rickford, J. and Traugott, E.C.
1992 “Symbol of powerlessness and degeneracy, or symbol of solidarity and truth? Paradoxical attitudes toward pidgins and Creoles”. Greenbaum, S.C. Davies, R., and Jupp, T., eds Language and discrimination: A study of communication in multi-ethnic workplaces. London, Longman 1992 252–261.Google Scholar
Rigney, A.
1999 “Questioning in interpreted testimony”. Forensic Linguistics 6:1.83–108.Google Scholar
Ryan, E.B. and Giles, H.
1982Attitudes towards language variation: social and applied contexts. London: Edware Arnold.Google Scholar
Sobral Fernandez, J. and Prieto Ederra, A.
1994 “Presentacion, discurso, y persuasión en testigos”. Revista de Psicología Social 9. 13–18.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 61 ]