Interpreting reported speech in witnesses’ evidence

Lee, Jieun

doi:10.1075/intp.12.1.03lee

Cited by 48 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, the results of a national survey of judicial officers and interpreters in Australia showed that both groups prefer to use direct speech (Hale 2011). It is therefore interesting to note reported cases of interpreters alternating between direct and reported speech (Angermeyer 2009;Cheung 2012;Lee 2010).…”

Section: Direct Speech In Court Interpretingmentioning

confidence: 96%

The use of reported speech and the perceived neutrality of court interpreters

Cheung

2014

INTP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A mock trial, with two-way consecutive interpreting between Cantonese and English, was used to test perceptions of a court interpreter’s neutrality when interpreting into Cantonese in reported rather than direct speech. Monolingual Cantonese speakers played the part of witnesses using the interpreter. Three groups were created: a control group (16 participants), receiving interpretation of all English utterances into Cantonese in direct speech; and two experimental groups (17 participants each). The experimental groups received interpretation with occasional switches to reported speech. These were introduced by third person pronouns (e.g., “he said”) for one group (the ‘pronoun group’), and by professional titles (e.g., “the judge said”) for the other group (the ‘title group’). Participants afterwards completed a questionnaire, assessing neutrality and alignment on a 5-point Likert scale. The title group not only perceived the interpreter to be aligned with the English speakers, but also gave a significantly different assessment of neutrality from the control group. The pronoun group perceived the interpreter to be aligned with them, but did not differ significantly from the control group in their perception of neutrality. Use of pronouns or professional titles in the reporting clauses thus affected the interpreter’s perceived neutrality differently.

show abstract

Section: Direct Speech In Court Interpretingmentioning

confidence: 96%

The use of reported speech and the perceived neutrality of court interpreters

Cheung

2014

INTP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1.For instance, Berk-Seligson 1990Biernacka 2019;Christensen 2011;Dhami et al 2017;Fraser and Freedgood 1999;González et al 2012;Goodman-Delahunty et al 2014;Hale 1997Hale , 1999Hale , 2001Hale , 2004Jacobsen 2004Jacobsen , 2008Lee 2009Lee , 2010Lee , 2011Liu and Hale 2018;Mason 2015Mason , 2018Mason and Stewart 2001;O'Barr 1982;Rigney 1999;Teng et al 2018;Wong 2020. 2.For a detailed explanation of the research project and the findings, see Orozco-Jutorán 2018 and 2019.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dealing with legal terminology in court interpreting

Jutorán

2023

Handbook of Terminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The target of court interpreting is to ensure equal access to justice to all persons who are not proficient in the language spoken in a court of law. In that context, dealing effectively with legal terminology is crucial to interpret accurately and to keep the legal intent of the message. This chapter first explores the main difficulties of court interpreting, focusing on legal terminology. Then, some of the different existing models and criteria for accuracy in court interpreting are introduced. Finally, a training approach to help court interpreting students to create their own glossaries is presented, going from monolingual to bilingual research.

show abstract

“…Despite the lack of codified standards, ongoing linguistic research in Belgian Assize Courts (Gallez 2010;Maryns 2012Maryns /2013 has revealed a tendency for judges to prefer an unwritten protocol of triadic communication: the rationale is that this maximizes transparency, maintaining important features of the client's communication -both verbal and non-verbal. According to this protocol, interpreters are encouraged to use: (a) short consecutive interpreting when addressing the court to interpret the turns of their minority language clients; and (b) simultaneous whispered interpreting for minority language clients who need to follow what is said by majority language speakers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Orality and authenticity in an interpreter-mediated defendant’s examination

Gallez

Maryns

2014

INTP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This case study examines how a court's perception of the defendant's socio-legal identity may be affected by interpreting. Since this perception relies largely on language, interpreters are expected to minimise their impact on the dynamics of direct communication between primary participants. The analysis focuses on an interpreter-mediated defendant's examination, recorded in an attempted murder case tried before the Belgian Assize Court, identifying possible departures from the principles of orality and authenticity. The recordings include exchanges, not necessarily audible to the court, between the defendant and the interpreter. Our analysis shows that: (a) the participation framework (directness) of the defendant's input is altered, while the relative inaudibility of the interaction between defendant and interpreter deprives the jury of access to authentic features of the defendant's delivery; (b) the interpreter's intervention may shift the defendant's oral exposition into a different style, and hence condition the way the defendant is eventually perceived by the jury.

show abstract

Interpreting reported speech in witnesses’ evidence

Cited by 48 publications

References 18 publications

The use of reported speech and the perceived neutrality of court interpreters

The use of reported speech and the perceived neutrality of court interpreters

Dealing with legal terminology in court interpreting

Orality and authenticity in an interpreter-mediated defendant’s examination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About