Doing justice to the manner Interpreting lawyer questioning for multilingual migrants in Australian virtual court proceedings
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
In our globalised world, interpreting the language of law in court is never an easy job. Justifiably, much of the public and professional attention has fixated on the content of the utterances in high-stake institutionalised courtroom discourses, since what is said seems to be more substantive than how it is said when it comes to sentencing and judicial decisions. However, in our study, we establish a counterclaim that the long-neglected manner in which the lawyers and defendants express the content that (re)produced and (re)presented by interpreters in technology-enabled remote criminal proceedings is equally important. To bridge this gap in knowledge, we conducted mixed-methods research, surveying fifty certified interpreters in Australia and triangulating results with their interpreting performance data. Our initial findings point to a mismatch between what they said they would do with what they actually did. Despite expressing ethical decisions on reproducing manner-related features, interpreters still misrepresent lawyers’ questioning techniques, particularly tag questions in court. One possible explanation could be language-specific difficulties in attaining paralinguistic accuracy in interlingual and intercultural transfers. The contributions of this study include (1) increasing linguistic ‘manner awareness’ in specialised court interpreting, (2) promoting interprofessional understanding and collaboration, and (3) compassing targeted pedagogies in future interpreter education.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The documents contained in these directories are included by the contributing authors as a means to ensure timely dissemination of scholarly and technical work on a non-commercial basis. It is understood that all persons copying this information will adhere to the terms and constraints invoked by each author's copyright. These works may not be reposted without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.
Funding data
-
University of New South Wales
Grant numbers HAL SPF02
References
ANGERMEYER, Philipp Sebastian. (2015) Speak English or what?: Codeswitching and interpreter use in New York City courts. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
BERK-SELIGSON, Susan. (2002) The Bilingual Courtroom: court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
BLANKENSHIP, Kevin L. & Traci Y. Craig. (2007) “Powerless language markers and the correspondence bias: attitude confidence mediates the effects of tag questions on attitude attributions.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 26:1, pp. 28-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X06296470
BRADAC, James J.; Micheal R. Hemphill & Charles H. Tardy (1981) “Language style on trial: effects of ‘powerful’ and ‘powerless’ speech upon judgments of victims and villains.” The Western Journal of Speech Communication 45:4, pp. 327-341. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10570318109374054
BRAUN, Sabine. (2017) “What a micro-analytical investigation of additions and expansions in remote interpreting can tell us about interpreter’s participation in a shared virtual space.” Journal of Pragmatics 107, pp. 165-177.
CHI, Huidong. (2021) Problemática textual e interaccional de la interpretación judicial entre el español y el chino en asuntos penales: Estudio descriptivo basado en casos reales. Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Unpublished PhD thesis. http://hdl.handle.net/10803/672854
COULTHARD, Malcolm; Alison May & Rui Sousa-Silva (eds.). (2010/2020) The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. Abingdon & New York: Routledge.
COULTHARD, Malcolm; Alison Johnson & David Wright. (2016) An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. London: Routledge.
DE JONGH, De Elena M. (1992) An Introduction to Court Interpreting: theory and practice. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
DURIK, Amanda; Anne Britt; Rebecca Reynolds & Jennifer Storey. (2008) “The effects of hedges in persuasive arguments: a nuanced analysis of language.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 27:3, pp. 217-234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(78)90015-X
ERICKSON, Bonnie; Allan E. Lind; Bruce C. Johnson & William O. O’Barr. (1978) “Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: the effects of ‘powerful’ and ‘powerless’ speech.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 14:12, pp. 266-279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X08317947
HAZARD, Geoffrey C. & William W. Hodes. (2001) The Law of Lawyering, vol. 2. Austin: Wolters Kluwer.
HOSMAN, Lawrence & Susan A. Siltanen. (2011). “Hedges, tag questions, message processing, and persuasion.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 30:3, pp. 341-349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X11407169
LAKOFF, Robin T. (1979) “Stylistic strategies within a grammar of style.” In: Orasanu, Judith et alii (eds.) 1979. Language, Sex, and Gender. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, pp. 53-78.
LASTER, Kathy & Veronica Taylor. (1994) Interpreters and the Legal System. Sydney: The Federation Press.
LEE, Jieun. (2009) “Interpreting inexplicit language during courtroom examination.” Applied Linguistics 30:1, pp. 93-114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn050
LEE, Jieun. (2011) “Translatability of Speech Style in Court Interpreting.” International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 18:1, pp. 1-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v18i1.1
LIU, Xin. (2020) “Pragmalinguistic challenges for trainee interpreters in achieving accuracy: An analysis of questions and their translation in five cross-examinations.” Interpreting 22:1, pp. 87-116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00035.liu
NAMAKULA, Catherine S. (2022) Fair Trial Rights and Multilingualism in Africa: Perspectives from Comparable Jurisdic-tions. London: Routledge.
NG, Eva (2023) “The right to a fair trial and the right to interpreting: a critical evaluation of the use of chuchotage in court interpreting.” Interpreting 25:1, pp. 87-108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00082.ng
O’BARR, William M. (1982) Linguistic Evidence: language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
OLSSON, John. (2008) Forensic Linguistics. London & New York: Continuum.
SARAT, Austin & Stuart Scheingold (eds.). (1998) Cause lawyering: Political commitments and professional responsibilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
SIMON, William H. (1987) “Ethical discretion in lawyering.” Harvard Law Review 101:6, pp. 1083-1145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1341488
SKUTNABB-KANGAS, Tove & Robert Phillipson. (2023) The Handbook of Linguistic Human Rights. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley and Sons.
SMITH, Russel; Rebecca Savage & Catherine Emami. (2021) Benchmarking the use of audiovisual link technologies in Australian criminal courts before the pandemic. Research Report no. 23. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52922/rr78191
WHITE, Lucie E. (1988). “To learn and teach: lessons from Driefontein on lawyering and power.” Wisconsin Law Review 5, pp. 699-770.
YI, Ran. (2022) “Does style matter in remote interpreting: a survey study of professional court interpreters in Australia.” International Journal of Translation and Interpretation Studies 2/1, pp. 48-59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32996/ijtis.2022.2.1.7
Yi, Ran. (2023a) “The promise of linguistic equity for migrants in Australian courtrooms: a crossdisciplinary perspective.” Australian Journal of Human Rights 29/1, pp. 174-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2023.2232171
Yi, Ran. (2023b) “Interpreting the manner of speech in courts: an overlooked aspect.” Frontiers in Psychology 14, 1209908. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1209908
Yi, Ran. (2024) “Manner matters: linguistic equity through a court interpreter in Australia.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10090-3