“We’re just kind of there”Working conditions and perceptions of appreciation and status in court interpreting
Sandra Beatriz Hale and Jemina Napier
University of New South Wales | Heriot-Watt University
In considering the challenges for court interpreters, much of the previous research has concentrated on the linguistic aspects of the interpreting process. This paper explores the issue from the perspective of working conditions and professional status. One hundred and ninety-four practicing court interpreters in Australia were surveyed about their experience with working conditions, court protocols and professional status, as well as their opinions about what affects the quality of their work and what improvements may be necessary. The findings of this study give a picture of the reality of court interpreting practice, as compared to the ideal, and generate recommendations for the training of interpreters to work in court, the education of legal personnel on how to work with interpreters in court, and practical suggestions regarding the provision of court interpreting to ensure high quality services.
Research on court interpreting has demonstrated how challenging it can be from a linguistic perspective (e.g., Berk-Seligson 1990; Hale 2004; Jacobsen 2008; Napier 2013; Russell 2002). Other considerations have also been given to the role of interpreters in the courtroom (Angelelli 2004; Fenton 1997; Mikkelson 1998; Turner and Brown 2001). Previous surveys of key stakeholders in the judicial system (i.e., interpreters, lawyers, judicial officers) have typically focussed on their perceptions of working practices and on the impact of interpreting on courtroom discourse or the judicial process (Lee 2009; Morris 2008; Roberson, Russell, and Shaw 2011), but there has been little discussion on the link between working conditions of court interpreters and the perceptions of their professional status.
Angelelli, Claudia V.
2004Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role: A Study of Conference, Court, and Medical Interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
1997 “The Role of the Interpreter in the Adversarial Courtroom.” In The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community, ed. by Silviana E. Carr, Roda P. Roberts, Aideen Dufour, and Dini Steyn, 29–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
1984 “The Changing Nature of Professional Control.” Annual Review of Sociology 10: 1–20.
1967Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books.
1997 “The Bilingual Individual.” Interpreting 2 (1/2): 163–188.
2004The Discourse of Court Interpreting. Discourse Practices of the Law, the Witness and the Interpreter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2005 “The Interpreter’s Identity Crisis.” In Translation and the Construction of Identity (IATIS Yearbook 2005), ed. by Juliane House, M. Rosario Martín Ruano, and Nicole Baumgarten, 14–29. Seoul: IATIS.
Miller, Maxwell Alan, Lynn W. Davis, Adam Prestidge, and William G. Eggington
2011 “Finding Justice in Translation: American Jurisprudence Affecting Due Process for People with Limited English Proficiency Together with Practical Suggestions.” Harvard Latino Law Review 14: 117–154.
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.
2011 “ ‘It’s Not What They Say but the Way They Say It.’ A Content Analysis of Interpreter and Consumer Perceptions of Signed Language Interpreting in Australia.” In Translators and Interpreters: Geographic Displacement and Linguistic Consequences, special issue of International Journal of the Sociology of Language 207: 59–87.
2013 “ ‘You Get That Vibe’: A Pragmatic Analysis of Clarification and Communicative Accommodation in Legal Video Remote Interpreting.” In Sign Language Research Uses and Practices: Crossing Views on Theoretical and Applied Sign Language Linguistics, ed. by Laurence Meurant, Aurélie Sinte, Mieke Van Herreweghe, and Myriam Vermeerbergen, 85–110. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; Nijmegen: Ishara Press.
2011 “American Sign Language/English Interpreting in Legal Settings: Current Practices in North America.” Journal of Interpretation 21 (1): 1–16.
2009 “Forensic Interpreting: Trial and Error.” In Critical Link 5. Quality in Interpreting: A Shared Responsibility, ed. by Sandra Hale, Uldis Ozolins, and Ludmila Stern, 13–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2010The Kaleidoscope of Practice: A National Survey of Translators and Interpreters. Unpublished research report. Sydney: Macquarie University.
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 2: 7–30.
Stern, Ludmila, Uldis Ozolins, and Sandra Hale
2015 “Inefficiencies of Court Administration despite Participants’ Goodwill.” Journal of Judicial Administration 25 (2): 76–95.
Turner, Graham H., and Richard Brown
2001 “Interaction and the Role of the Interpreter in Court.” In Interpreting Interpreting: Studies and Reflections on Sign Language Interpreting, ed. by Frank J. Harrington, and Graham H. Turner, 152–167. Coleford: Douglas McLean.