Volume 33, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0924-1884
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9986
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This article examines how the voices of trial participants are mediated by court interpreters. The research focuses on closing statements articulated by defendants in Chinese criminal trials, the last chance for their voices to be heard prior to sentencing. Drawing upon the concept of voice and theories of speech acts and pragmatic equivalence, and based on the discourse analysis of seven authentic trial recordings, this study reveals how the discursive performance of the defendant is constructed, altered, and sometimes undermined through interpreting. The findings reveal that speech acts performed by the defendant are often not maintained in the interpreted renditions and that the concept of closing statements is difficult to convey. It is argued that when interpreters fail to convey the pragmatic force of defendants’ utterances, the voice of the defendants is not fully heard, which places them at a disadvantage and impacts upon their right to equality and justice. The article also reveals system-bound constraints on the effective provision of language assistance and the safeguarding of defendants’ legal rights.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Austin, John L.
    1962How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures by J. L. Austin. Edited byJ. O. Urnson. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bai, Bing, and Jincun Cheng
    2007 “刑事庭审被告人最后陈述权探析 [A study on the right of the accused to closing statement in criminal trials].” Journal of Chengdu Electromechanical College39 (2): 86–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Berk-Seligson, Susan
    2002The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2017The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. 2nd ed.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Biernacka, Agnieszka
    2019Interpreter-Mediated Interactions of the Courtroom: A Naturally Occurring Data Based Study. Berlin: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑06834‑4
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-06834-4 [Google Scholar]
  6. Blommaert, Jan
    2005a “Bourdieu the Ethnographer: The Ethnographic Grounding of Habitus and Voice.” The Translator11 (2): 219–236. 10.1080/13556509.2005.10799199
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2005.10799199 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2005bDiscourse: A Critical Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610295
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610295 [Google Scholar]
  8. Cao, Deborah
    2002 “Finding the Elusive Equivalents in Chinese/English Legal Translation.” Babel48 (4): 330–341. 10.1075/babel.48.4.03cao
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.48.4.03cao [Google Scholar]
  9. 2007Translating Law. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853599552
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599552 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2010 “Legal Translation.” InHandbook of Translation Studies, edited byYves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, vol.1, 191–195. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hts.1.leg1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hts.1.leg1 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cheung, Andrew K. F.
    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. Cook, Guy
    1989Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Coulmas, Florian
    1981 “‘Poison to Your Soul’: Thanks and Apologies Contrastively Viewed.” InVolume 2: Conversational Routine – Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech, edited byFlorian Coulmas, 69–92. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Du, Biyu
    2016The Bilingual Trial: Access to Interpreting, Communication and Participation in Chinese Criminal Courts. PhD diss.University of Hong Kong.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2019 “Multilingualism in Legal Space: The Issue of Mutual Understanding in ELF Communication between Defendants and Interpreters.” International Journal of Multilingualism16 (3): 317–335. 10.1080/14790718.2018.1455687
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2018.1455687 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dubslaff, Friedel, and Bodil Martinsen
    2005 “Exploring Untrained Interpreters’ Use of Direct versus Indirect Speech.” InHealthcare Interpreting: Discourse and Interaction, edited byFranz Pöchhacker and Miriam Shlesinger, special issue ofInterpreting7 (2): 211–236. 10.1075/intp.7.2.05dub
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.7.2.05dub [Google Scholar]
  17. Gill, Kathleen
    2000 “The Moral Functions of an Apology.” The Philosophical Forum31 (1): 11–27. 10.1111/0031‑806X.00025
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0031-806X.00025 [Google Scholar]
  18. Goffman, Erving
    1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. González, Roseann Dueñas, Victoria Félice Vásquez, and Holly Mikkelson
    1991Fundamentals of Court Interpretation: Theory, Policy, and Practice. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gruber, M. Catherine
    2014“I’m Sorry for What I’ve Done:” The Language of Courtroom Apologies. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199325665.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199325665.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hale, Sandra Beatriz
    1996 “Pragmatic Considerations in Court Interpreting.” Australian Review of Applied Linguistics19 (1): 61–72. 10.1075/aral.19.1.04hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.19.1.04hal [Google Scholar]
  22. 2004The 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]
  23. 2007Community Interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230593442
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230593442 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2010 “Court Interpreting.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, edited byMalcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson, 440–454. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203855607.ch29
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855607.ch29 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2014 “Interpreting Culture: Dealing with Cross-cultural Issues in Court Interpreting.” Perspectives22 (3): 321–331. 10.1080/0907676X.2013.827226
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2013.827226 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2015 “Approaching the Bench: Teaching Magistrates and Judges How to Work Effectively with Interpreters.” MonTI7: 163–180. 10.6035/MonTI.2015.7.6
    https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2015.7.6 [Google Scholar]
  27. Harris, Brian
    1990 “Norms in Interpretation.” Target2 (1): 115–119. 10.1075/target.2.1.08har
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.2.1.08har [Google Scholar]
  28. Harvey, Malcolm
    2000 “A Beginner’s Course in Legal Translation: The Case of Culture-bound Terms.” InLa traduction juridique: Histoire, théorie(s) et pratique / Legal Translation: History, Theory/ies, Practice (Proceedings, Geneva, 17–19 February 2000), edited byGREJUT, 357–369. Bern/Geneva: ASTTI/ETI.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2002 “What’s So Special about Legal Translation.” Meta47 (2): 177–185. 10.7202/008007ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/008007ar [Google Scholar]
  30. Heffer, Chris
    2013 “Projecting Voice: Towards an Agentive Understanding of a Critical Capacity.” Working Papers in Language and Literature. Cardiff: Cardiff University.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 2018 “When Voices Fail to Carry: Voice Projection and the Case of the ‘Dumb’ Jury.” InMeaning and Power in the Language of Law, edited byJanny H. C. Leung and Alan Durant, 207–235. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316285756.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316285756.010 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2019 “Ways of Losing Voice While Using It.” InRethinking Language, Text and Context: Interdisciplinary Research in Stylistics in Honour of Michael Toolan, edited byRuth Page, Beatrix Busse, and Nina Nørgaard, 237–253. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. House, Juliane
    1977A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2015Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present. Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Hu, Xitong
    2017 “对刑事速裁程序保留被告人最后陈述的反思 [Challenges to the reservation of last statement by defendants in the criminal immediate judgement procedure].” Law Science Magazine38 (7): 133–140.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hymes, Dell
    1996Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrative Inequality: Toward an Understanding of Voice. London: Taylor and Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Li, Changsheng
    2008 论对抗式刑事审判 [On the adversary criminal trial]. PhD diss.Southwest University of Political Science and Law.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Marszalenko, Jakub E.
    2016 “Conduits, Communication Facilitators, and Referees: Revisiting the Role of the Court Interpreter in the Japanese Context.” SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpreting9 (2): 29–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Mikkelson, Holly
    1998 “Towards a Redefinition of the Role of the Court Interpreter.” Interpreting3 (1): 21–45. 10.1075/intp.3.1.02mik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.3.1.02mik [Google Scholar]
  40. Morris, Ruth
    2008 “Missing Stitches: An Overview of Judicial Attitudes to Interlingual Interpreting in the Criminal Justice Systems of Canada and Israel.” InDoing Justice to Court Interpreting, edited byMiriam Schlesinger and Franz Pöchhacker, special issue ofInterpreting10 (1): 34–64. 10.1075/intp.10.1.04mor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.10.1.04mor [Google Scholar]
  41. Poon, Wai-yee Emily
    2002 “The Pitfalls of Linguistic Equivalence: The Challenge for Legal Translation.” Target14 (1): 75–106. 10.1075/target.14.1.04poo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.14.1.04poo [Google Scholar]
  42. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation.” Language50 (4): 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  43. Šarčević, Susan
    1997New Approach to Legal Translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 2012 “Challenges to the Legal Translator.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Language and Law, edited byPeter M. Tiersma and Lawrence M. Solan, 187–199. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  46. Shlesinger, Miriam
    1991 “Interpreter Latitude vs. Due Process: Simultaneous and Consecutive Interpretation in Multilingual Trials.” InEmpirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies: Selected Papers of the TRANS-SIF Seminar, Savonlinna 1988, edited bySonja Tirkkonen-Condit, 147–155. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Shlesinger, Miriam, and Franz Pöchhacker
    2008 “Introduction: Doing Justice to Court Interpreting.” InDoing Justice to Court Interpreting, edited byMiriam Schlesinger and Franz Pöchhacker, special issue ofInterpreting10 (1): 1–7. 10.1075/intp.10.1.01shl
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.10.1.01shl [Google Scholar]
  48. Siems, Mathias
    2018Comparative Law. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316856505
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316856505 [Google Scholar]
  49. Tiffen, Brian Witney
    1974The Intelligibility of Nigerian English. PhD diss.University of London.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Wang, Jian, and Bingjun Yang
    2007 “我国法庭口译面临的机遇与挑战 [On the opportunities for and challenges to court interpretation in China].” Journal of Sichuan International Studies University23 (3): 115–120.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Yu, Qihuo
    2008 被告人最后陈述权研究 [On the defendant’s last statement]. Master thesis. Southwest University of Political Science and Law.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Zhu, Yao
    2010 “被告人最后陈述权实证研究 – 以中国法院网直播的50个案件为素材 [Empirical study on the right of the accused to closing statement – based on 50 cases broadcast by China Court website].” Journal of Hunan University (Social Sciences)24 (6): 131–135.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Zhu, Yupeng, and Yuanlu Yu
    2014 “刑事诉讼翻译制度的缺陷及重构 [On the defects of the criminal court interpreting system and its reconstruction].” Journal of Shanxi Politics and Law Institute for Administrators27 (2): 103–105.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): closing statements; court interpreting; pragmatic equivalence; speech acts; voice
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