How faithfully do court interpreters render the style of non-English speaking witnesses' testimonies? A data-based study of Spanish—English bilingual proceedings
Restricted accessOtherFirst published online February, 2002
How faithfully do court interpreters render the style of non-English speaking witnesses' testimonies? A data-based study of Spanish—English bilingual proceedings
The results of numerous research studies have revealed that the style in which people deliver their speech impacts on the way they are perceived by others. This is particularly so in the adversarial courtroom, where witnesses' credibility is crucial for winning a case. When witnesses do not speak the language of the courtroom, interpreters are employed to interpret the proceedings accurately. The meaning of `accuracy', however, may not be fully understood by all involved. This article presents the results of a data-based study of Spanish—English court proceedings where it was found that interpreters tend to accurately interpret only the content of witnesses' answers, but constantly alter the style of testimony, either favourably or detrimentally, thus potentially changing the outcome of the case.
Benmaman, V. (1992) `Legal Interpreting: An Emerging Profession', Modern Language Journal76(4), Winter: 445—53.
2.
Berk-Seligson, S. (1988) `The Need for Quality Interpreting Services in the Courtroom', The Courtroom Manager3(2): 10—14.
3.
Berk-Seligson, S. (1989a) `The Role of Register in the Bilingual Courtroon: Evaluative Reactions to Interpreted Testimony', International Journal of the Sociology of Language79: 79—91.
4.
Berk-Seligson, S. (1989b) `The Impact of Politeness in Witness Testimony: The Influence of the Court Interpreter', Multilingua7(4): 441—59.
5.
Berk-Seligson, S. (1990) The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Berk-Seligson, S. (1999) `The Impact of Court Interpreting on the Coerciveness of Leading Questions', Forensic Linguistics6(1): 30—56.
7.
Bradac, J.J. (1990) `Language Attitudes and Impression Formation', in H. Giles and W.P. Robinson (eds) Handbook of Language and Social Psychology , pp. 387—412. New York: Wiley .
8.
Bradac, J.J. and Mulac, A. (1984) `A Molecular View of Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles: Attributional Consequences of Specific Language Features and Communicator Intentions', Communications Monographs51: 307—19.
9.
Bradac, J.J., Hemphill, M.R. and Tardy, C.H. (1981) `Language Style on Trial: Effects of “Powerful” and “Powerless” Speech upon Judgements of Victims and Villains' , Western Journal of Speech Communication45: 327—41.
10.
Carranza, I. (1988) `“Bueno” y la autorreparación', in ERIC (Educational Research and Improvement Center) Clearinghouse , ED390271 FL023465.
11.
Carranza, I. (1998) Conversación y deixis de discurso. Córdoba: Universidad Nacional de Córdoba.
12.
Coates, J. and Cameron, D. (eds) (1988) Women in their Speech Communities . Harlow: Longman.
13.
Conley, J. and O'Barr, W.M. (1990) Rules versus Relationships: The Ethnography of Legal Discourse. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
14.
Conley, J., O'Barr, W. and Lind, E. (1978) `The Power of Language: Presentational Style in the Courtroom', Duke Law Journal78(6): 1375—99.
15.
De Jongh, E.M. (1991) `Foreign Language Interpreters in the Courtroom: The Case of Linguistic and Cultural Proficiency', Modern Language Journal75(3): 285—94.
16.
De Jongh, E.M. (1992) An Introduction to Court Interpreting: Theory & Practice. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
17.
Dueñas Gonzalez, R., Vásquez, V. and Mikkelson, H. (1991) Fundamentals of Court Interpretation: Theory, Policy and Practice. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
18.
Edwards, J. (1979) `Judgements and Confidence Reactions to Disadvantaged Speech', in H. Giles and R. St Clair (eds) Language and Social Psychology, pp. 22—44. Oxford: Blackwell .
19.
Erman, B. (1987) Pragmatic Expressions in English: A Study of `You Know', `You See' and `I Mean' in Face-to-Face Conversation, Pragmatics & Beyond, Vol. 5. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
20.
Fuentes Rodriguez, C. (1993) `Comportamiento discursivo de “bueno”, “bien”, “pues bien”, Estudiios de lingüística, Universidad de Alicante, ELUA9.
21.
Gibbons, P., Busch, J. and Bradac, J. (1991) `Powerful versus Powerless Language: Consequences for Persuasion, Impression Formation, and Cognitive Response', Journal of Language and Social Psychology10(2): 115—32.
22.
Giles, H. (1979) `Sociolinguistics and Social Psychology: An Introductory Essay', in H. Giles and R. St Clair (eds) Language and Social Psychology, pp. 1—20. Oxford: Basil Blackwell .
23.
Giles, H. and Powesland, P.F. (1975) Speech Style and Social Evaluation. London: Academic Press.
24.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968) Psycholinguistics: Experiments in Spontaneous Speech . London: Academic Press.
25.
Grice, P. (1975) `Logic and Conversation', in J. Cole and J. Morgan (eds) Speech Acts: Syntax & Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, pp. 41—58. New York: Academic Press.
26.
Hale, S. (1996a) `Pragmatic Considerations in Court Interpreting' , Australian Review of Applied Linguistics19(1): 61—72.
27.
Hale, S. (1996b) `You Shall Truly and Faithfully Interpret the Evidence: What Does This Mean to the Court Interpreter?', in XIV World Congress of the Fédération Internationales, Vol. 1., pp. 424—31. Melbourne: AUSIT .
28.
Hale, S. (1997a) `The Interpreter on Trial: Pragmatics in Court Interpreting', in S. Carr, R. Roberts, A. Dufour and D. Steyn (eds) The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community. Conference Proceedings, pp. 201—11. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
29.
Hale, S. (1997b) `Clash of World Perspectives: The Discursive Practices of the Law, the Witness and the Interpreter', Forensic Linguistics: The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law4(2): 197—209.
30.
Hale, S. (1997c) `The Treatment of Register in Court Interpreting', The Translator: Studies in InterculturalCommunication3(1): 39—54.
31.
Hale, S. (1999) `Interpreters' Treatment of Discourse Markers in Courtroom Questions', Forensic Linguistics6(1): 57—82.
32.
Hale, S. (2001) `How are Courtroom Questions Interpreted? An analysis of Spanish Interpreters' Practices', in I. Mason (ed.) Triadic Exchanges: Studies in Dialogue Interpreting , pp. 21—50. Manchester: St Jerome .
33.
Hale, S. and Gibbons, J. (1999) `Varying Realities: Patterned Changes in the Interpreter's Representation of Courtroom and External Realities', Applied Linguistics20(1): 203—20.
34.
Hatim, B. and Mason, I. (1990) Discourse and the Translator. Harlow: Longman.
35.
Holmes, J. (1995) Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.
36.
Jucker, A. and Smith, S. (1998) `And People Just You Know Like “Wow”: Discourse Markers as Negotiating Strategies', in A. Jucker & Y. Ziv (eds) Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory, pp. 171—201. Amsterdam : John Benjamins.
37.
Jucker, A. and Ziv, Y. (eds) (1998) Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .
38.
Krouglov, A. (1999) `Police Interpreting: Politeness and Sociocultural Context', The Translator5(2): 285—302.
39.
Lakoff, G. (1975) `Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts', Papers from the 11th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 183—227. Chicago, IL: Linguistics Department, University of Chicago.
40.
Laster, K. (1990) `Legal Interpreters: Conduits to Social Justice?' , Journal of Intercultural Studies11(2): 16—32.
41.
Laster, K. and Taylor, V. (1994) Interpreters & the Legal System. Leichhardt: The Federation Press.
42.
Lay, C.H. and Burron, B.F. (1968) `Perception of the Personality of the Hesitant Speaker', Perceptual and Motor Skills26: 951—6.
43.
Linell, P., Wadenjö, C. and Jönsson, L. (1992) `Establishing Communicative Contact through a Dialogue Interpreter', in A. Grindsted and J. Wagner (eds) Communication for Specific Purposes, pp. 125—42. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
44.
Loftus, E. (1979) Eyewitness Testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45.
McCroskey, J.C. and Mehrley, R.S. (1969) `The Effects of Disorganization and Nonfluency on Attitude Change and Source Credibility', Speech Monographs36: 13—21.
46.
Miller, G.R. and Hewgill, M.A. (1964) `The Effect of Variations in Nonfluency on Audience Ratings of Source Credibility', Quarterly Journal of Speech50: 36—44.
47.
O'Barr, W. (1982) Linguistics Evidence: Language, Power, and Strategy in the Courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
48.
O'Toole, M. (1993) `Communication in the Courtroom: The Impact of Lawyers' Theories of Interpreting/Translation (I/T) upon the Administration of Justice in Australia', Conference Proceedings of the Fourth International Japanese—English Translation Conference , 14—17 July, pp. 166—201. Brisbane: University of Queensland.
49.
Owen, M. (1983) Apologies and Remedial Interchanges. Mouton: The Hague.
50.
Rigney, A. (1997) `The Pragmatics of Question/Answer Structures in a Bilingual Courtroom', paper presented at the Conference of the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators , Seattle, WA.
51.
Rigney, A. (1999) `Questioning in Interpreted Testimony', Forensic Linguistics6(1): 83—108.
52.
Ríos, C. (1997) `Hedges and All That: Is Vagueness Translatable?' , Babe43(1): 1—13.
53.
Schiffrin, D. (1985) `Conversational Coherence: The Role of “Well”' , Language61(3): 640—67.
54.
Schiffrin, D. (1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
55.
Schourup, L. (1985) Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation: Like, Well, Y'Know. New York: Garland .
56.
Serreno, K.K. and Hawkins, G.J. (1967) `The Effects of Variations in Speakers' Nonfluency upon Audiences' Ratings of Attitudes towards the Speech Topic and Speakers' Credibility', Speech Monographs34: 58—64.
57.
Street, R.L., Jr and Hoper, R. (1982) `A Model of Speech Style Evaluation', in E.B. Ryan and H. Giles (eds) Attitudes toward Language Variation: Social and Applied Contexts, pp. 175—88. London: Arnold.
58.
Svartvik, J. (1980) Well in Conversation: Studies in English Linguistics for Randolph Quirk, pp.167—77. London: Longman.
59.
Tannen, D. (1993) `What's in a Frame? Surface Evidence for Underlying Expectations', in D. Tannen (ed.) Framing in Discourse, pp. 14—56. New York: Oxford University Press.
60.
Yule, G. (1997) Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
61.
Zimmermann, R. and Schneider, K. (1987) `Dialogical Aspects of Individual Lexical Research' , Multilingua6(2): 113—30.
62.
Zuck, J.G. and Zuck, L.V. (1986) `Hedging in News Writing', in A.M. Cornu, J. van Parjis , M. Delahaye and L. Baten (eds) Beads or Bracelets?How Do We Approach LSP: Selected Papers from the Fifth European Symposium on LSP, pp. 172—80. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
