Volume 19, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This paper investigates an interpreter’s handling of a distinctive ‘paternalistic’ (following Tates et al. 2002) participation framework in a Belgian criminal court, whereby the defendant is the topic – but not the addressee – of the interaction. The hearing analysed, which was recorded and transcribed, was part of a drugs trial. An experienced court interpreter provided consecutive and whispered interpreting, almost always asymmetrically, so that the French-speaking defendant could follow everything said to/about her in Dutch; the Dutch-speaking bench and counsel listened to the defendant’s French. The paternalistic participation framework seems to prompt various strategies by the interpreter, leading her to disregard major aspects of the code of ethics she works by. First, she sets up a separate participation framework with the defendant as the addressee of the interpretation (the ‘interpreter’s dyad’), systematically using the deictic coordinates of this framework in presenting the court’s interaction. Second, she tends sometimes to position herself in the role of principal, arguably as a result of the dyad arrangement. Finally, though interpretation is required only for the defendant, the latter’s French is occasionally interpreted into Dutch for the court –sometimes at the interpreter’s own initiative, possibly to protect the interests of the defendant in response to a verbal challenge from the judge.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anderson, R. B. W.
    (1976/2002) Perspectives on the role of interpreter. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London: Routledge, 208–217.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Angermeyer, P.
    (2005a) “Who is you”. Polite forms of address and ambiguous participant roles in court interpreting. Target17 (2), 203–226. doi: 10.1075/target.17.2.02ang
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.17.2.02ang [Google Scholar]
  3. (2005b) “Who is ‘I’?” Pronoun choice and bilingual identity in court interpreting. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics11 (2), 31–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (2015) Speak English or what? Codeswitching and interpreter use in New York City courts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bednarek, G.
    (2014) Polish vs. American courtroom discourse: Inquisitorial and adversarial procedures of witness examination in criminal trials. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137414250
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137414250 [Google Scholar]
  6. Berk-Seligson, S.
    (1990) The bilingual courtroom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bot, H.
    (2005) Dialogue interpreting in mental health. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chang, C. & Wu, M.
    (2009) Address form shifts in interpreted Q&A sessions. Interpreting11 (2), 164–189. doi: 10.1075/intp.11.2.04cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.11.2.04cha [Google Scholar]
  9. Christensen, T.
    (2008) Judges’ deviations from norm-based direct speech in court. Interpreting10 (1), 99–127. doi: 10.1075/intp.10.1.07chr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.10.1.07chr [Google Scholar]
  10. Dubslaff, F. & Martinsen, B.
    (2005) Exploring untrained interpreters’ use of direct vs indirect speech. Interpreting7 (2), 211–236. doi: 10.1075/intp.7.2.05dub
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.7.2.05dub [Google Scholar]
  11. Fenton, S.
    (1997) The role of the interpreter in the adversarial courtroom. In S. E. Carr , R. Roberts , A. Dufour & D. Steyn (Eds.), The critical link: Interpreters in the community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 29–34. doi: 10.1075/btl.19.05fen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.19.05fen [Google Scholar]
  12. 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. doi: 10.1075/intp.16.1.04gal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.16.1.04gal [Google Scholar]
  13. Gallez, E. & Reynders, A.
    (2015) Court interpreting and classical rhetoric: Ethos in interpreter-mediated monological discourse. Interpreting17 (1), 64–90. doi: 10.1075/intp.17.1.04gal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.1.04gal [Google Scholar]
  14. Garwood, C.
    (2012) Court interpreting in Italy. The Interpreters’ Newsletter17, 173–189.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Goffman, E.
    (1981) Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hale, S.
    (2004) The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the witness and the interpreter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.52
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.52 [Google Scholar]
  17. Jacobsen, B.
    (2008) Interactional pragmatics and court interpreting: An analysis of face. Interpreting10 (1), 128–158. doi: 10.1075/intp.10.1.08jac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.10.1.08jac [Google Scholar]
  18. Jefferson, G.
    (2004) A glossary of transcript symbols. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 13–31. doi: 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  19. Mason, I. & Stewart, M.
    (2001) Interactional pragmatics, face and the dialogue interpreter. In I. Mason (Ed.), Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting. London: Routledge, 51–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Mason, M.
    (2008) Courtroom interpreting. Lanham: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Mikkelson, H.
    (2000) Introduction to court interpreting. Manchester: St Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (2008) Evolving views of the court interpreter’s role: Between Scylla and Charybdis. In A. Martin & C. Valero Garcés (Eds.), Crossing borders in community interpreting: Definitions and dilemmas. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 81–97. doi: 10.1075/btl.76.05mik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.76.05mik [Google Scholar]
  23. Nicholson, N. & Martinsen, B.
    (1997) Court interpretation in Denmark. In S. E. Carr , R. Roberts , A. Dufour & D. Steyn (Eds.), The critical link: Interpreters in the community. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 259- 270. doi: 10.1075/btl.19.27sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.19.27sch [Google Scholar]
  24. Nakane, I.
    (2014) Interpreter-mediated police interviews. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137443199
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137443199 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ng, E.
    (2013) Who is speaking? Interpreting the voice of the speaker in court. In C. Schäffner , K. Kredens & Y. Fowler (Eds.), The Critical Link 6: Interpreting in a changing landscape. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 249–266. doi: 10.1075/btl.109.19ng
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.109.19ng [Google Scholar]
  26. Pesquié, B.
    (2002) The Belgian system. In M. Delmas-Marty & J. Spencer (Eds.), European criminal procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 81–141.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Pöchhacker, F.
    (2004) Introducing interpreting studies. London: Routledge.. 10.4324/9780203504802
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203504802 [Google Scholar]
  28. Roy, C.
    (1996) An interactional sociolinguistic analysis of turn-taking in an interpreted event. Interpreting1 (1), 39–67. doi: 10.1075/intp.1.1.04roy
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.1.1.04roy [Google Scholar]
  29. Tates, K. , Elbers, E. , Meeuwesen, B. & Bensing, J.
    (2002) Doctor-parent-child relationships: A pas de trois . Patient Education and Counseling48, 5–14. doi: 10.1016/S0738‑3991(02)00093‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-3991(02)00093-9 [Google Scholar]
  30. Traest, P.
    (2002) Judicial control on the gathering and reliability of technical evidence in a continental criminal justice system. Paper read at the16th International Conference of the International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law. Available online: www.isrcl.org/Papers/Traest.pdf (accessed5 August 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Wadensjö, C.
    (1995) Dialogue interpreting and the distribution of responsibility. Hermes: Journal of Linguistics14, 111–129.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (1998) Interpreting as interaction. London/New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (2004) Dialogue interpreting: A monologising practice in a dialogically organised world. Target16 (1), 105–124. doi: 10.1075/target.16.1.06wad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.16.1.06wad [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): court interpreting; interpreting ethics; paternalistic interaction
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