1887
Volume 22, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In cross-examination, questions are used by counsel as powerful tools to control witness testimonies. In bilingual courtrooms, conveying the subtlety in the use of questions from one language to another is crucial for all participants. However, achieving a high level of accuracy is extremely demanding due to the intricacy of courtroom discourse and the complexity of interpreting in such an institutional setting. Drawing on a moot court exercise at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, this study investigates the most common pragmalinguistic challenges for trainee interpreters in achieving accuracy when interpreting cross-examination questions from English to Mandarin. Findings show that it can be challenging to produce pragmatically accurate renditions: Mandarin interpretations have an overall weakened illocutionary force compared to the original English questions. In particular, declaratives, reported speech declaratives, modal interrogatives, and tag questions are found to be difficult to interpret into Mandarin. This paper also explores the way the illocutionary force of the interpreted questions deviates from the original and the possible causes for this shift. Findings point to the need to enhance pragmatic competence among trainee interpreters, which in turn will require specialised training for interpreters working in legal settings.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00035.liu
2020-04-10
2020-10-01
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Berk-Seligson, S.
    (1999) The impact of court interpreting on the coerciveness of leading questions. Forensic Linguistics6 (1), 30–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (2002) The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (2009) Coerced confessions: The discourse of bilingual police interrogations. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110213492
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213492 [Google Scholar]
  4. Conley, J. M. & O’Barr, W. M.
    (2005) Just words: Law, language, and power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Coulthard, M. & Johnson, A.
    (2007) An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203969717
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203969717 [Google Scholar]
  6. Crezee, I. H. M., Teng, W. & Burn, J. A.
    (2017) Teething problems? Chinese student interpreters’ performance when interpreting authentic (cross-) examination questions in the legal interpreting classroom. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 1–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. De Jongh, E. M.
    (1992) An introduction to court interpreting: Theory and practice. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Eades, D.
    (2010) Sociolinguistics and the legal process. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847692559
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847692559 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fraser, B. & Freedgood, L.
    (1999) Interpreter alterations to pragmatic features in trial testimony. Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics. Stamford, CT: American Association for Applied Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gibbons, J.
    (2003) Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. González, R., Vasquez, V. & Milkkelson, H.
    (1991) Fundamentals of court interpretation: Theory, policy and practice. Nurham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hale, S.
    (2001) How are courtroom questions interpreted? An analysis of spanish interpreters’ practices. InI. Mason (Ed.), Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 21–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (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]
  14. (2007) Community interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230593442
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230593442 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2010) The need to raise the bar: Court interpreters as specialized experts. InM. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hale, S. & Gibbons, J.
    (1999) Varying realities: Patterned changes in the interpreter’s representation of courtroom and external realities. Applied Linguistics20 (2), 203–220. 10.1093/applin/20.2.203
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.2.203 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hale, S. & Napier, J.
    (2013) Research methods in interpreting: A practical resource. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Heffer, C.
    (2005) The language of jury trial: A corpus-aided analysis of legal-lay discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230502888
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230502888 [Google Scholar]
  19. Holt, E. & Johnson, A.
    (2010) Socio-pragmatic aspects of legal talk: Police interviews and trial discourse. InM. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. London: Routledge, 21–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Jacobsen, B.
    (2004) Pragmatic meaning in court interpreting: An empirical study of additions in consecutively-interpreted question-answer dialogues. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law11 (1), 165–169. 10.1558/ijsll.v11i1.165
    https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v11i1.165 [Google Scholar]
  21. Laster, K. & Taylor, V. L.
    (1994) Interpreters and the legal system. Sydney: The Federation Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lee-Wong, S. M.
    (1994) Imperatives in requests: Direct or impolite – observations from chinese. Pragmatics4 (4), 491–515. 10.1075/prag.4.4.01lee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.4.4.01lee [Google Scholar]
  23. Lee, J.
    (2009) Conflicting views on court interpreting examined through surveys of legal professionals and court interpreters. Interpreting11 (1), 35–56. 10.1075/intp.11.1.04lee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.11.1.04lee [Google Scholar]
  24. (2011) Translatability of speech style in court interpreting. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law18 (1), 1–34. 10.1558/ijsll.v18i1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v18i1.1 [Google Scholar]
  25. Leung, E. & Gibbons, J.
    (2009) Interpreting cantonese utterance-final particles in bilingual courtroom discourse. Interpreting11 (2), 190–215. 10.1075/intp.11.2.05leu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.11.2.05leu [Google Scholar]
  26. Liao, M.
    (2002) Cong wenda xingwei kan Zhongguo fating shenpan xianzhuang (The status quo of Chinese courtroom trials from linguistic perspective). Yuyan Wenzi Yingyong/Applied Linguistics4, 25–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2003) A study on courtroom questions, responses and their interaction: A linguistic perspective. Beijing: Law Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Liu, X. & Hale, S.
    (2018) Achieving accuracy in a bilingual courtroom: The effectiveness of specialised legal interpreter training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer12(3), 299-321. doi:  10.1080/1750399X.2018.1501649
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2018.1501649 [Google Scholar]
  29. Matoesian, G.
    (2000) Intertextual authority in reported speech: Production media in the Kennedy Smith rape trial. Journal of Pragmatics32 (7), 879–914. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00080‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00080-6 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2005) Nailing down an answer: Participations of power in trial talk. Discourse Studies7 (6), 733–759. 10.1177/1461445605055424
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605055424 [Google Scholar]
  31. Morris, R.
    (1995) The moral dilemmas of court interpreting. The Translator1 (1), 25–46. 10.1080/13556509.1995.10798948
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1995.10798948 [Google Scholar]
  32. Ng, E.
    (2013) Garment, or upper-garment? A matter of interpretation?International Journal for the Semiotics of Law26 (3), 597–613. 10.1007/s11196‑012‑9290‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-012-9290-9 [Google Scholar]
  33. Pérez González, L.
    (2006) Interpreting strategic recontextualization cues in the courtroom: Corpus-based insights into the pragmatic force of non-restrictive relative clauses. Journal of Pragmatics38 (3), 390–417. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.05.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  34. Pope, E. N.
    (1976) Questions and answers in English. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Rigney, A. C.
    (1999) Questioning in interpreted testimony. Forensic Linguistics6 (1), 83–108.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Searle, J. R. & Vanderveken, D.
    (1985) Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Shao, J.
    (2014) Xian dai han yu yi wen ju yan jiu (zeng ding ben) (Studies on Modern Chinese interrogatives (revised edition)). Beijing: The Commercial Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Stern, L.
    (2004) Interpreting legal language at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia: Overcoming the lack of lexical equivalents. JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation2, 63–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (2011) Courtroom interpreting. InK. Malmkjær & K. Windle (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of translation studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 325–342.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Tiersma, P. M.
    (1999) Legal language. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Walker, A. G.
    (1987) Linguistic manipulation, power and the legal setting. InL. Kedar (Ed.), Power through discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 57–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Woodbury, H.
    (1984) The strategic use of questions in court. Semiotica48, 197–228. 10.1515/semi.1984.48.3‑4.197
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1984.48.3-4.197 [Google Scholar]
  44. Xu, S.
    (1999) Yi wen ju tan xun gong neng de qian yi (Transmutation of the question function of interrogatives). Zhong Guo Yu Wen (Chinese Language) 268 (1), 3–11.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00035.liu
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00035.liu
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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