Volume 20, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This experimental study examined whether non-renditions are linked to the court interpreter’s perceived impartiality. A witness examination was simulated in three variations on a scripted role play, with consecutive interpreting between Cantonese and English. A sample of female Cantonese speakers, divided into two experimental groups and a control group, each played the part of the witness in one role play; the interpreter and the English-speaking bench (judge and defense attorney) were always played by the same three actors. In two experimental groups, the interpretation included some utterances with no source speech counterpart (non-renditions): a Cantonese non-rendition group (16 individuals) had procedural and textual non-renditions addressed to them in Cantonese, without English interpretation for the bench; an English non-rendition group (15 individuals) heard some brief exchanges between the interpreter and the bench, with no Cantonese interpretation. A control group (15 individuals) was not exposed to non-renditions. All three groups completed a questionnaire after the role play. The English non-rendition group rated the interpreter significantly lower than the others on impartiality, and was also the only group to comment unfavorably on the interpreter. A possible explanation is that the Cantonese speakers in this group could not follow the English non-renditions and felt excluded.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Amato, A.
    (2007) The interpreter in multi-party medical encounters, in C. Wadensjö , B. Englund Dimitrova & A. -L. Nilsson (Eds.), The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of interpreting in the community, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 27–38.10.1075/btl.70.06ama
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.70.06ama [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, R. B. W.
    (1976) Perspectives on the role of interpreter. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Translation: Applications and research. New York: Gardner Press, 208–228.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. AUSIT
    AUSIT (2012) AUSIT Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct. ausit.org/ausit/documents/code_of_ethics_full.pdf
  4. Baraldi, C. & Gavioli, L.
    (2012) Understanding coordination in interpreter-mediated interaction. In C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–22.10.1075/btl.102.01intro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102.01intro [Google Scholar]
  5. (2014) Are close renditions the golden standard? Some thoughts on translating accurately in healthcare interpreter-mediated interaction. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer8 (3), 336–353.10.1080/1750399X.2014.972029
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2014.972029 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barnett, M.
    (2006) Mind your language: Interpreters in Australian immigration proceedings. University of Western Sydney Law Review10, 109–138.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Berk-Seligson, S.
    (1990) The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2002) The impact of politeness in witness testimony. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London/New York: Routledge, 278–292.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Borgersen, E. & Shapiro, S.
    (1997) The role of class action litigation in achieving child welfare reform: A study in public conflict resolution. Negotiation Journal13 (3), 283–299.10.1111/j.1571‑9979.1997.tb00133.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.1997.tb00133.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Cambridge, J.
    (2005) The public service interpreter’s face: Rising to the challenge of expressing powerful emotion for others. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses51, 141–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cheung, A. K.
    (2012) The use of reported speech by court interpreters in Hong Kong. Interpreting14 (1), 73–91.10.1075/intp.14.1.04che
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.14.1.04che [Google Scholar]
  12. (2014) The use of reported speech and the perceived neutrality of court interpreters. Interpreting16 (2), 191–208.10.1075/intp.16.2.03che
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.16.2.03che [Google Scholar]
  13. Christensen, T. P.
    (2011) User expectations and evaluation: A case study of a court interpreting event. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology19 (1), 1–24.10.1080/09076761003728554
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09076761003728554 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cirillo, L.
    (2012) Managing affective communication in triadic exchanges: Interpreters’ zero-renditions and non-renditions in doctor-patient talk. In C. J. Kellett Bidoli (Ed.), Interpreting across genres: Multiple research perspectives. EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste, 102–124.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Dubslaff, F. & Martinsen, B.
    (2005) Exploring untrained interpreters’ use of direct versus indirect speech. Interpreting7 (2), 211–236.10.1075/intp.7.2.05dub
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.7.2.05dub [Google Scholar]
  16. Edwards, R. , Temple, B. & Alexander, C.
    (2005) Users’ experiences of interpreters: The critical role of trust. Interpreting7 (1), 77–95.10.1075/intp.7.1.05edw
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.7.1.05edw [Google Scholar]
  17. Farini, F.
    (2013) The pragmatics of emotions in interlinguistic healthcare settings. Research in Language11 (2), 163–187.10.2478/v10015‑012‑0025‑5
    https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-012-0025-5 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gallez, E. & Maryns, K.
    (2014) Orality and authenticity in an interpreter-mediated defendant’s examination: A case study from the Belgian Assize Court. Interpreting16 (1), 49–80.10.1075/intp.16.1.04gal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.16.1.04gal [Google Scholar]
  19. Gavioli, L.
    (2012) Minimal responses in interpreter-mediated medical talk. In C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 201–227.10.1075/btl.102.09gav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102.09gav [Google Scholar]
  20. Gile, D.
    (2003) Quality assessment in conference interpreting: Methodological issues. In A. Collados Aís , M. Fernández Sánchez & D. Gile (Eds.), La evaluación de la calidad en interpretación: Investigación. Granada: Editorial Comares, 109–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2009) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/btl.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.8 [Google Scholar]
  22. Giles, H. , Willemyns, M. , Gallois, C. & Anderson, M. C.
    (2007) Accommodating a new frontier: The context of law enforcement. In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Social communication. New York: Psychology Press, 129–162.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. González, R. D. , Vasquez, V. F. & Mikkelson, H.
    (2012) Fundamentals of court interpretation: Theory, policy and practice. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gustafsson, K. , Norström, E. & Fioretos, I.
    (2013) The interpreter ‒ a cultural broker?In C. Schäffner , K. Kredens & Y. Fowler (Eds.), Interpreting in a changing landscape: Selected papers from Critical Link6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 187–202.10.1075/btl.109.15gus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.109.15gus [Google Scholar]
  25. Hale, S. & Luzardo, C.
    (1997) What am I expected to do? The interpreter’s ethical dilemma. A study of Arabic, Spanish and Vietnamese speakers’ perceptions and expectations of interpreters. Antipodean. The Australian Translation Journal1 (October), 10–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hale, S. B.
    (2004) The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the witness, and the interpreter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/btl.52
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.52 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2007) Community interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230593442
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230593442 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hertog, E.
    (2013) Legal interpreting. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Jansen, P.
    (1995) The role of the interpreter in Dutch courtroom interaction: The impact of the situation on translational norms. In J. Tommola (Ed.), Topics in interpreting research. Turku: University of Turku, 11–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Jie, X. & Zhong, Y.
    (2008) Locating users of interpretation in the court: An impact analysis of literal and meaningful renditions in a mock court situation. Babel54 (4), 327–342.10.1075/babel.54.4.02jie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.54.4.02jie [Google Scholar]
  31. Kelly, A. M.
    (2000) Cultural parameters for interpreters in the courtroom. In R. Roberts , S. Carr , D. Abraham & A. Dufour (Eds.), Critical link 2: Interpreters in the community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 131–152.10.1075/btl.31.16kel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.31.16kel [Google Scholar]
  32. Koo, A.
    (2009) Truth through court interpreters. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof13 (3), 212–224.10.1350/ijep.2009.13.3.323
    https://doi.org/10.1350/ijep.2009.13.3.323 [Google Scholar]
  33. Laster, K. & Taylor, V.
    (1995) Compromised “conduit”: Conflicting perceptions of legal interpreters. Criminology Australia6 (4), 9–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Le, E. , Nguyen, V. N. & Ménard, N.
    (2009) Interpreters’ identities: An exploratory study of Vietnamese interpreters in Vietnam. TranscUlturAl1 (2), 93–116.10.21992/T9SG9N
    https://doi.org/10.21992/T9SG9N [Google Scholar]
  35. Marcus, L. J. , Dorn, B. C. & McNulty, E. J.
    (2011) Renegotiating health care: Resolving conflict to build collaboration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Mendoza, N. A. , Hosch, H. M. , Ponder, B. J. & Carrillo, V.
    (2000) Well… ah…: Hesitations and hedges as an influence on jurors’ decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology30 (12), 2610–2621.10.1111/j.1559‑1816.2000.tb02452.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02452.x [Google Scholar]
  37. Merlini, R. & Favaron, R.
    (2005) Examining the “voice of interpreting” in speech pathology. Interpreting7 (2), 263–302.10.1075/intp.7.2.07mer
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.7.2.07mer [Google Scholar]
  38. Metzger, M.
    (1999) Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Mikkelson, H.
    (2000) Introduction to court interpreting. St. Jerome Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Moore, C. W.
    (2003) The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Morris, R.
    (1999) The gum syndrome: Predicaments in court interpreting. Forensic Linguistics6, 6–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Napier, J.
    (2011) “It’s not what they say but the way they say it”. A content analysis of interpreter and consumer perceptions towards signed language interpreting in Australia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2011 (207), 59–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Ng, K. H.
    (2009) Court interpreters’ office. In M. S. Gaylord , D. Gittings & H. Traver (Eds.), Introduction to crime, law and justice in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 169–184.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Niska, H.
    (1995) Just interpreting: Role conflicts and discourse types in court interpreting. In M. Morris (Ed.), Translation and the law, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 293–316.10.1075/ata.viii.21nis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ata.viii.21nis [Google Scholar]
  45. Pöchhacker, F.
    (2012) Interpreting participation: Conceptual analysis and illustration. In C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 45–69.10.1075/btl.102.03poch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102.03poch [Google Scholar]
  46. Pöllabauer, S.
    (2004) Interpreting in asylum hearings: Issues of saving face. In C. Wadensjö , B. Englund Dimitrova & A. -L. Nilsson (Eds.), The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of interpreting in the community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Rosenberg, B. A.
    (2002) A quantitative discourse analysis of community interpreting. InTranslation: New ideas for a new century. Proceedings of the XVI FIT Congress. Paris: FIT, 222–226.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Sanheim, L.
    2003 Turn exchange in an interpreted medical encounter. In M. Metzger , S. Collins , V. Dively & R. Shaw (Eds.), From topic boundaries to omission: New research in interpretation. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 27–54
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Takimoto, M. & Koshiba, K.
    (2009) Interpreter’s non-rendition behaviour and its effect on interaction: A case study of a multi-party interpreting situation. Translation & Interpreting1 (1), 15–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Tannen, D. & Wallat, C.
    (1993) Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse. New York: Oxford University Press, 57–76
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Tebble, H.
    (2012) Interpreting or interfering?In C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 23–44.10.1075/btl.102.02teb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102.02teb [Google Scholar]
  52. ten Thije
    (2009) The self-retreat of the interpreter: An analysis of teasing and toasting in intercultural discourse. In K. Bührig , J. House & J. ten Thije (Eds.), Translational action and intercultural communication. Manchester: St. Jerome, 114–154.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Vargas-Urpi, M.
    (2014) Public service interpreting for Chinese immigrants in Catalonia: A study based on interpreters’, coordinators’ and users’ views. Language and Intercultural Communication14 (4), 475–499.10.1080/14708477.2014.934691
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2014.934691 [Google Scholar]
  54. Wadensjö, C.
    (1998) Interpreting as interaction. New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): court interpreting; non-rendition; perceived impartiality; role play
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