Volume 22, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study explores interaction in two authentic interpreter-mediated police interviews with suspects. The analysis focuses on the interpreting regime used: stand-by interpreting. The interactional regime in the analysed interviews featured exolingual communication in English between a Spanish-speaking suspect with emerging competencies in English and English-speaking interviewers, with intermittent interpreter participation. Drawing on Conversation Analysis and interactional sociolinguistics, this study analyses how the interpreting regime was negotiated, how it was constructed over the course of the interviews, and the observable function of interpreting episodes. The analysis revealed a markedly collaborative nature of stand-by interpreting, differences in the distribution of interactional power over interpreting episodes among the three participants depending on their activity role and the interview phase, and the multimodal nature of turn-management. Interpreting was used selectively as a resource to either repair or prevent miscommunication, aligning with the way the interpreting regime was set up. Rather than advocating for or against the stand-by mode of interpreting, this paper describes its features in the police interview and highlights both its potential and its risks for communication in interpreter-mediated police interviews as a discourse genre.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anderson, L.
    (2012) Code-switching and coordination in interpreter-mediated interaction. InC. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 115–148. 10.1075/btl.102.06and
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102.06and [Google Scholar]
  2. Angermeyer, P. S.
    (2008) Creating monolingualism in the multilingual courtroom. Sociolinguistic Studies2 (3), 385–403. 10.1558/sols.v2i3.385
    https://doi.org/10.1558/sols.v2i3.385 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2013) Multilingual speakers and language choice in the legal sphere. Applied Linguistics Review4 (1), 105–126. 10.1515/applirev‑2013‑0005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2013-0005 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2015) Speak English or what? Codeswitching and interpreter use in New York City courts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Baraldi, C. & Gavioli, L.
    (2012) Understanding coordination in interpreter-mediated interaction. InC. 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]
  6. Berk-Seligson, S.
    (2009) Coerced confessions: The discourse of bilingual police interrogations. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110213492
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213492 [Google Scholar]
  7. Blommaert, J., Collins, J. & Slembrouck, S.
    (2005) Spaces of multilingualism. Language & Communication25, 197–216. 10.1016/j.langcom.2005.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2005.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  8. Böser, U.
    (2013) So tell me what happened! Interpreting the free recall segment of the investigative interview. Translation and Interpreting Studies8 (1), 112–136. 10.1075/tis.8.1.06bos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.8.1.06bos [Google Scholar]
  9. Böser, U. & La Rooy, D.
    (2018) Interpreter-mediated investigative interviews with minors: Setting the ground rules. Translation and Interpreting Studies13 (2), 208–229. 10.1075/tis.00012.bos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.00012.bos [Google Scholar]
  10. Bot, H.
    (2005) Dialogue interpreting in mental health. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cicourel, A. V.
    (1992) The interpenetration of communicative contexts: examples from medical encounters. InA. Duranti (Ed.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 291–310.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Davitti, E.
    (2013) Dialogue interpreting as intercultural mediation: Interpreters’ use of upgrading moves in parent-teacher meetings. Interpreting15(2), 168–199. 10.1075/intp.15.2.02dav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.15.2.02dav [Google Scholar]
  13. (2015) Interpreter-mediated parent-teacher talk. Multilingual Matters, 176, 200.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2018) Methodological explorations of interpreter-mediated interaction: Novel insights from multimodal analysis. Qualitative Research19 (1), 7–29. 10.1177/1468794118761492
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794118761492 [Google Scholar]
  15. Drummond, N.
    (2009) Investigative interviewing – The PRICE model in Scotland. International Investigative Interviewing Research Group Bulletin1 (1), 24–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Du, B.
    (2015) The silenced interpreter: A case study of language and ideology in the Chinese criminal court. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law ‒ Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique28 (3), 507–524. 10.1007/s11196‑015‑9431‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-015-9431-z [Google Scholar]
  17. English, F.
    (2010) Assessing non-native speaking detainees’ English language proficiency. InM. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. Abingdon/New York: Routledge, 440–454.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gallai, F.
    (2013) “I’ll just intervene whenever he finds it a bit difficult to answer”: Exploring the myth of literalism in interpreted interviews. Investigative Interviewing: Research and Practice (II-RP)5 (1), 57–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gallez, E.
    (2014) Ethos et interprétation judiciaire. Une analyse ethnographique de l’interprétation dans une cour d’assises belge: une étude de cas. PhD thesis, KU Leuven.
  20. Grant, T., Taylor, J., Oxburgh, G. & Myklebust, T.
    (2015) Exploring types and functions of questions in police interviews. InG. Oxburgh, T. Myklebust, T. Grant & R. Milne (Eds.), Communication in investigative and legal contexts: Integrated approaches from forensic psychology linguistics and law enforcement. Malden/Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 15–38. 10.1002/9781118769133.ch2
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118769133.ch2 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gumperz, J. J.
    (1982) Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  22. (1990) Conversational cooperation in social perspective. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society16 (1), 429–444. 10.3765/bls.v16i0.1682
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v16i0.1682 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hale, S. B.
    (2007) Community interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230593442
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230593442 [Google Scholar]
  24. Haworth, K.
    (2009) An analysis of police interview discourse and its role (s) in the judicial process. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham.
  25. Heritage, J.
    (2005) Conversation Analysis and institutional talk. InK. L. Fitch & R. E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction. Hove: Psychology Press, 103–147.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2009) Conversation Analysis as social theory. InB. S. Turner (Ed.), The new Blackwell companion to social theory. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 300–320. 10.1002/9781444304992.ch15
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444304992.ch15 [Google Scholar]
  27. Heritage, J. & Clayman, S.
    (2011) Talk in action: Interactions identities and institutions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Heydon, G.
    (2005) The language of police interviewing: A critical analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230502932
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230502932 [Google Scholar]
  29. Jacquemet, M.
    (2013) Transidioma and asylum: Gumperz’s legacy in intercultural institutional talk. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology23 (3),199–212. 10.1111/jola.12027
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jola.12027 [Google Scholar]
  30. Jefferson, G.
    (1983) An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter. Tilburg: Tilburg University Department of Language and Literature.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kendon, A.
    (1967) Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica26, 22–63. 10.1016/0001‑6918(67)90005‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(67)90005-4 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2004) Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511807572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572 [Google Scholar]
  33. Knapp-Potthoff, A. & Knapp, K.
    (1987) The man (or woman) in the middle: Discoursal aspects of non-professional interpreting. InA. Knapp-Potthoff & K. Knapp (Eds.), Analyzing intercultural communication. Berlin: de Gruyter, 181–211. 10.1515/9783110874280.181
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110874280.181 [Google Scholar]
  34. Komter, M.
    (2005) Understanding problems in an interpreter-mediated police interrogation. InL. B. Stacy (Ed.), Ethnographies of law and social control (Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance 6). Bingley: Emerald, 203–224. 10.1016/S1521‑6136(04)06011‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1521-6136(04)06011-7 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kredens, K.
    (2017) Making sense of adversarial interpreting. Language and Law = Linguagem e Direito4 (1), 17–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Krouglov, A.
    (1999) Police interpreting. Politeness and sociocultural context. The Translator5 (2), 285–302. 10.1080/13556509.1999.10799045
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1999.10799045 [Google Scholar]
  37. Krystallidou, D.
    (2013) The interpreter’s role in medical consultations as perceived and as interactionally negotiated: a study of a Flemish hospital setting, using interview data and video recorded interactions. PhD thesis, Ghent University.
  38. Krystallidou, D., Remael, A., De Boe, E., Hendrickx, K., Tsakitzidis, G., Van de Geuchte, S., & Pype, P.
    (2018) Investigating empathy in interpreter-mediated simulated consultations: An explorative study. Patient Education and Counselling101 (1), 33–42. 10.1016/j.pec.2017.07.022
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2017.07.022 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lai, M. & Mulayim, S.
    (2014) Interpreter linguistic intervention in the strategies employed by police in investigative interviews. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal15 (4), 307–321. 10.1080/15614263.2013.809929
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2013.809929 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lang, R.
    (1978) Behavioral aspects of liaison interpreters in Papua New Guinea: Some preliminary observations. InD. Gerver & H. W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language interpretation and communication. New York: Plenum, 231–244. 10.1007/978‑1‑4615‑9077‑4_21
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9077-4_21 [Google Scholar]
  41. Martinsen, B. & Dubslaff, F.
    (2010) The cooperative courtroom: A case study of interpreting gone wrong. Interpreting12 (1), 21–59. 10.1075/intp.12.1.02mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.12.1.02mar [Google Scholar]
  42. Maryns, K.
    (2006) The asylum speaker. Language in the Belgian asylum procedure. Manchester: St Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Mason, I.
    (Ed.) (1999) Dialogue Interpreting. Special issue of The Translator5 (2).
    [Google Scholar]
  44. (2009) Models and methods in dialogue interpreting research. InM. Olohan (Ed.), Intercultural faultlines. Manchester: St Jerome, 215–232.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. (2012) Gaze, positioning and identity in interpreter-mediated dialogues. InC. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpretingAmsterdam: John Benjamins, 177–199. 10.1075/btl.102.08mas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102.08mas [Google Scholar]
  46. Metzger, M.
    (1999) Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Meyer, B.
    (2012) Ad hoc interpreting for partially language-proficient patients. InC. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpretingAmsterdam: John Benjamins, 99–113. 10.1075/btl.102.05mey
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102.05mey [Google Scholar]
  48. Milne, B. & Powell, M.
    (2010) Investigative interviewing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Monteoliva-García, E.
    (2017) The collaborative construction of the stand-by mode of interpreting in police interviews with suspects. PhD thesis, Heriot-Watt University.
  50. Müller, F.
    (1989) Translation in bilingual conversation: Pragmatic aspects of translatory interaction. Journal of Pragmatics13 (5), 713–739. 10.1016/0378‑2166(89)90075‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(89)90075-1 [Google Scholar]
  51. Nakane, I.
    (2007) Problems in communicating the suspect’s rights in interpreted police interviews. Applied Linguistics28 (1), 87–112. 10.1093/applin/aml050
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml050 [Google Scholar]
  52. (2009) The myth of an invisible mediator: An Australian case study of English-Japanese police interpreting. PORTAL Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies6(1). 10.5130/portal.v6i1.825
    https://doi.org/10.5130/portal.v6i1.825 [Google Scholar]
  53. (2010) Partial non-use of interpreters in Japanese criminal court proceedings. Japanese Studies30 (3), 443–459. 10.1080/10371397.2010.518603
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10371397.2010.518603 [Google Scholar]
  54. (2011) The role of silence in interpreted police interviews. Journal of Pragmatics43 (9), 2317–2330. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.013 [Google Scholar]
  55. (2012) Language rights of non-Japanese defendants in Japanese criminal courts. InGottlieb, N. (Ed.), Language and citizenship in Japan. London: Routledge, 167–186.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. (2014) Interpreter-mediated police interviews: A discourse-pragmatic approachBasingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137443199
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137443199 [Google Scholar]
  57. Ng, E.
    (2018) Common Law in an Uncommon Courtroom. Judicial interpreting in Hong Kong. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.144
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.144 [Google Scholar]
  58. Pasquandrea, S.
    (2011) Managing multiple actions through multimodality: Doctors’ involvement in interpreter-mediated interactions. Language in Society40 (4), 455–481. 10.1017/S0047404511000479
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404511000479 [Google Scholar]
  59. Pavlenko, A.
    (2008) “I’m very not about the law part”: Nonnative speakers of English and the Miranda warnings. TESOL Quarterly42 (1), 1–30. 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2008.tb00205.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00205.x [Google Scholar]
  60. Pöchhacker, F.
    (2016) Introducing interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315649573
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315649573 [Google Scholar]
  61. Reddy, M. J.
    (1979) The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. InOrtony, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 284–310.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Rock, F.
    (2017) Shifting ground: Exploring the backdrop to translating and interpreting. The Translator23 (2), 217–236. 10.1080/13556509.2017.1321977
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2017.1321977 [Google Scholar]
  63. Rossano, F.
    (2012) Gaze in conversation. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781118325001.ch15
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch15 [Google Scholar]
  64. Roy, C. B.
    (2000) Interpreting as a discourse process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Russell, S.
    (2000) ‘Let me put it simply…’: The case for a standard translation of the police caution and its explanation. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law7 (1), 26–48. 10.1558/sll.2000.7.1.26
    https://doi.org/10.1558/sll.2000.7.1.26 [Google Scholar]
  66. Russell, S. C.
    (2001) Guilty as charged? The effect of interpreting on interviews with suspects. PhD thesis, University of Aston in Birmingham.
  67. Schegloff, E. A.
    (2007) Sequence organization in interaction: Volume 1: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  68. Streeck, J.
    (2014) Revisiting Kendon’s ‘Gaze direction in two-person conversation’. InM. Seyfeddinipur & M. Gullberg (Eds.), From gesture in conversation to visible action as utterance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 35–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Traverso, V.
    (2012) Ad hoc-interpreting in multilingual work meetings. InC. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 149–176. 10.1075/btl.102.07tra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102.07tra [Google Scholar]
  70. Vranjes, J., Bot, H., Feyaerts, K. & Brône, G.
    (2018) Displaying recipiency in an interpreter-mediated dialogue. Eye-tracking in Interaction: Studies on the role of eye gaze in dialogue, 10, 303–324. 10.1075/ais.10.12vra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.10.12vra [Google Scholar]
  71. Wadensjö, C.
    (1995) Dialogue interpreting and the distribution of responsibility. Hermes: Journal of Language and Communication in Business14, 111–129.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. (2001) Interpreting in crises. InI. Mason (Ed.), Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting. Manchester: St Jerome, 71–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. (2014) Interpreting as interaction. London: Longman. 10.4324/9781315842318
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315842318 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): multimodality; negotiation; police interview; stand-by interpreting
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