1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Digital Translation
  4. Volume 10, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 10, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2949-6861
  • E-ISSN: 2949-6845
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In the United States, legal language services are shaped by both and standards, which encompass not only the professional profile of court interpreters but also the provision of legal translation and interpreting services. This article investigates the potential influence of ASTM and ISO standards on current language services implementations in U.S. court settings in light of the current configuration of and standards. Specific emphasis is placed on the utility of consensus-based standards such as ASTM and ISO due to the unique configuration of language services, particularly given procurement and bidding practices, which complicate the current legal T&I landscape. Possible avenues for integration of ASTM and ISO standards are explored in light of infrastructure-specific as well as translator- and interpreter-specific requirements. The article concludes with a discussion of the compatibility of standards with current practices in the U.S. legal T&I sector.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dt.00005.mel
2023-12-15
2024-12-09

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/dt.00005.mel
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. American Bar Association (ABA)
    American Bar Association (ABA) 2021 Formal Opinion 500: Language Access in the Client-Lawyer Relationship. 6 October 2021. Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Center for Professional Responsibility: ABA.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Angelelli, Claudia V., et al
    2007 “The California Standards for Healthcare Interpreters: Ethical Principles, Protocols and Guidance on Roles and Intervention.” InThe Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of Interpreting in the Community, edited byCecilia Wadensjö, Birgitta Englund Dimitrova and Anna-Lena Nilsson, 167–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.70.19ang
     https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.70.19ang [Google Scholar]
  3. ASTM
    ASTM 2007 Standard Guide for Language Interpretation Services. ASTM F2089:2007. West Conshohocken: ASTM International.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. ASTM
    ASTM 2015 Standard Practice for Language Interpreting. ASTM F2089:2015. West Conshohocken: ASTM International.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. ASTM
    ASTM 2020 Standard Practice for Assessing Language Proficiency. ASTM F2889-11:2020. West Conshohocken: ASTM International.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. ASTM
    ASTM 2022 Standard Guide for Testing Interpreting Performance. ASTM F3516-22:2022.. West Conshohocken: ASTM International.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Baixuli-Olmos, Lluís
    2021 “Ethics Codes for Interpreters and Translators.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Translation and Ethics, edited byKaisa Koskinen and Nike K. Pokorn, 297–319. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781003127970‑23
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003127970-23 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bancroft, Marjorie, et al
    2013 “Interpreting in the Gray Zone: Where Community and Legal Interpreting Intersect.” Translation & Interpreting5 (1): 94–113. 10.12807/ti.105201.2013.a05
     https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.105201.2013.a05 [Google Scholar]
  9. Braun, Sabine
    2019 “Technology and Interpreting.” InRoutledge Handbook of Translation and Technology, edited byMinako O’Hagan, 271–288. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315311258‑16
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315311258-16 [Google Scholar]
  10. Carranza-Gallardo, Emilio V., and David Guadalupe Toledo-Sarracino
    2022 “Intérpretes de lenguas indígenas en el Sistema de justicia penal: el caso de un imputado mixteco en Baja California.” Revistas Aristas: Investigación Básica y Aplicada9 (17): 26–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Curtis, Karen
    2021 Is the Jury Still Out on ISO 20771? An Analysis of the Potential Value of ISO 20771 for the UK Legal Translation Market. MA thesis, University of Surrey.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. De Jongh, Elena M.
    2008 “Court Interpreting: Linguistic Presence v. Linguistic Absence.” The Florida Bar Journal82 (7): 21–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 2012 From the Classroom to the Courtroom: A Guide to Interpreting in the U.S. Justice System. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ata.xvii
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.xvii [Google Scholar]
  14. Department of Justice
    Department of Justice 2023 “On Choosing a Language Access Provider.” April 11, 2023. https://www.justice.gov/crt/choosing-language-access-provider
  15. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
    Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division 2010 “Letter to Courts re: LEP.” 16 August. AccessedJune, 2023. https://www.lep.gov/sites/lep/files/resources/final_courts_ltr_081610.pdf
  16. Dueñas González, Roseann, Victoria F. Vásquez, and Holly Mikkelson
    2012 The Fundamentals of Court Interpretation, 2nd edition. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Dunne, Keiran J.
    2012 “The Industrialization of Translation: Causes, Consequences and Challenges.” Translation Spaces1 (1): 143–168. 10.1075/ts.1.07dun
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.1.07dun [Google Scholar]
  18. General Services Administration (GSA)
    General Services Administration (GSA) 2016/2020 Foreign Language Services Ordering Guide. Language Services Procurement Committee: GSA. www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/Foreign_Language_Services_%281%29.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Hlavac, Jim
    2013 “A Cross-national Overview of Translator and Interpreter Certification Procedures.” Translation & Interpreting5 (1): 32–65. 10.12807/ti.105201.2013.a02
     https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.105201.2013.a02 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2015 “Formalizing Community Interpreting Standards: A Cross-national Comparison of Testing Systems, Certification Conventions and Recent ISO Guidelines.” International Journal of Interpreter Education7 (2): 21–38.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC)
    International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) 2019 AIIC Guidelines for Distance Interpreting. Task Force on Distance Interpreting: AIIC.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. ISO
    ISO 2014 Interpreting – Guidelines for Community Interpreting. ISO 13611:2014. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. ISO
    ISO 2018 Interpreting Services – General Requirements and Recommendations. ISO 18841:2018. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. ISO
    ISO 2017 Simultaneous Interpreting – Quality and Transmission of Sound and Image Input – Requirements. ISO 20108:2017. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. ISO
    ISO 2016 Simultaneous Interpreting – Equipment – Requirements. ISO 20109:2016. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. ISO
    ISO 2016 Simultaneous Interpreting – Permanent Booths – Requirements. ISO 2603:2016. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. ISO
    ISO 2016 Simultaneous Interpreting – Mobile Booths – Requirements. ISO 4043:2016. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. ISO
    ISO 2019 Interpreting Services – Legal Interpreting – Requirements. ISO 20228:2019. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. ISO
    ISO 2019 Translation, Interpreting and Related Technology – Vocabulary. ISO 20539:2019. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. ISO
    ISO 2020 Legal Translation – Requirements. ISO 20771:2020. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. ISO
    ISO 2022 Interpreting Services – Conference Interpreting – Requirements and Recommendations. ISO 23155:2022. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. ISO
    ISO 2022 Simultaneous Interpreting Delivery Platforms – Requirements and Recommendations. ISO 24019:2022. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Judicial Conference of the United States (JCUS)
    Judicial Conference of the United States (JCUS) 2021 U.S. Courts Design Guide. JCUS.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Kibbee, Douglas A.
    2016 Language and the Law: Linguistic Inequality in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139178013
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139178013 [Google Scholar]
  35. Killman, Jeffrey
    2020 “Interpreting for Asylum Seekers and Their Attorneys: The Challenge of Agency.” Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice28 (1): 73–89. 10.1080/0907676X.2019.1615518
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2019.1615518 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2021 “Translation in the Shadows of Interpreting in US Court Systems: Standards, Guidelines and Practice.” InInstitutional Translation and Interpreting: Assessing Practices and Managing for Quality, edited byFernando Prieto Ramos, 62–83. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429264894‑6
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429264894-6 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lee, Robert Joe
    2021 “Court Interpreter Certification Testing Bibliography.” Court Interpreting Research. https://courtinterpretingresearch.com/resources
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Lopez, Peter S.
    1974 Justice System Interpreter Certification – Task Force Report. Denver: Institute for Court Management.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Mellinger, Christopher D.
    2017 “Equal Access to the Courts in Translation: A Corpus-driven Study on Translation Shifts in Waivers of Counsel.” Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice25 (2): 308–322. 10.1080/0907676X.2016.1248985
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2016.1248985 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2020 “Core Research Questions and Methods.” InBloomsbury Companion to Language Industry Studies, edited byErik Angelone, Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow and Gary Massey, 15–35. London: Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781350024960.0006
     https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350024960.0006 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2021 “Interpreting and Language Access: Spoken Language Interpreters in U.S. Educational Contexts.” InAdvances in Educational Interpreting, edited byElizabeth A. Winston and Stephen C. Fitzmaurice, 44–67. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv2rh287v.7
     https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2rh287v.7 [Google Scholar]
  42. Mellinger, Hillary
    2022 “Interpretation at the Asylum Office.” Law & Policy44 (3): 230–254. 10.1111/lapo.12192
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12192 [Google Scholar]
  43. Mikkelson, Holly
    1996 “The Professionalization of Community Interpreting.” InGlobal Vision: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association, edited byMuriel Jérôme-O’Keeffe, 77–89. Alexandria, VA: ATA.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 2014 “Evolution of Public Service Interpreter Training in the U.S.” FITISPos International Journal11: 9–22. 10.37536/FITISPos‑IJ.2014.1.0.6
     https://doi.org/10.37536/FITISPos-IJ.2014.1.0.6 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2017 Introduction to Court Interpreting. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315689586
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315689586 [Google Scholar]
  46. 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.” Interpreting25 (1): 87–108. 10.1075/intp.00082.ng
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00082.ng [Google Scholar]
  47. Rabadán-Gómez, Marina
    2016 “Professionalisation and Standardisation of Public Service Interpreting.” InChallenges and Opportunities of Public Service Interpreting, edited byThéophile Munyangeyo, Graham Webb and Marina Rabadán-Gómez, 47–85. Palgrave. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑45000‑5_3
     https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-45000-5_3 [Google Scholar]
  48. Riemland, Matt
    2022 “US Voter Rights in Translation: Semantic Shifts in Spanish Renderings of “Felony”.” Translation Spaces11 (2): 303–328. 10.1075/ts.22004.rie
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ts.22004.rie [Google Scholar]
  49. Roberson, Len, Deb Russell, and Risa Shaw
    2011 “American Sign Language Interpreting in Legal Settings: Current Practices in North America.” Journal of Interpretation21 (1): Article 6.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Roziner, Ilan, and Miriam Shlesinger
    2010 “Much Ado about Something Remote: Stress and Performance in Remote Interpreting.” Interpreting12 (2): 214–247. 10.1075/intp.12.2.05roz
     https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.12.2.05roz [Google Scholar]
  51. Tseng, Joseph
    1992 Interpreting as an Emerging Profession in Taiwan – A Sociological Model. Unpublished MA thesis, Fu Jen Catholic University, Taiwan.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Wallace, Melissa
    2015 “A Further Call to Action: Training as a Policy Issue in Court Interpreting.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer9 (2): 173–187. 10.1080/1750399X.2015.1051769
     https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2015.1051769 [Google Scholar]
  53. Wright, Sue Ellen
    2020 “Standards for the Language, Translation and Localization Industry.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Translation and Technology, edited byMinako O’Hagan, 21–37. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315311258‑2
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315311258-2 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/dt.00005.mel
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): ASTM standards; ISO TC37/SC5; language access; legal interpreting; professionalization

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error