References

Court/Legal interpreting

Debra Russell University of Alberta

Interpreters, whether they are spoken language interpreters or signed language* interpreters, work in a range of environments including legal settings, and events that involve legal discourse. The legal right to have an interpreter in the courtroom and/or in legal matters has been well established through several legislative bodies, as early as the 1966 United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The rights of litigants to access interpretation in order to protect individual rights have been well documented, for example, the European Union places an obligation on countries to provide interpreters for legal matters, and there is a great deal of lobbying across many continents to make interpreter provision a right, and not a matter of discretion (Gibbons & Grabau 1996; Hertog 2010; Laster & Taylor 1994; Mikkelson 2000; Phelan 2011).

As well, recent studies have exposed the complex nature of interpreting in legal settings, addressing questions such as the evaluation of witness testimony though interpretation (Hale, Bond & Sutton 2011), the accuracy of interpretation when using simultaneous* and consecutive interpreting* (Russell, 2002), perceptions of role of the interpreter (Hale & Russell 2008; Mikkelson 2000; Morris 1998), preparation approaches used by interpreters with legal personnel (Russell 2008), the linguistic decisions interpreters make that impact an interpreted interaction (Berk-Seligson 1990/2002; Hale 2001, 2004; Jacobsen 2008; Kolb & Pochhacker 2008; Wadensjo 1998) and the abilities of Deaf jurors to participate in the judicial system (Napier &. Spencer 2008) to name but a few of the topics that have received research attention.

Two dominant themes that have emerged across many studies are the differing perceptions of the interpreter’s role in a legal proceeding, and how accuracy is determined in interpretation. Court and legal personnel have traditionally viewed the interpreter as a “machine” or “conduit ”, who will provide literal word for word interpretation, which courts often perceive as the most accurate interpretation. However, interpreters that conceptualize the task of interpreting from a bilingual and cultural context, view their work very differently, and this has led to considerable challenges in legal settings (Berk-Seligson 1990; Mikkelson 2000; Morris 1998). Much of the research emphasis has pointed to the need for highly trained, specialized interpreters in order to offer the most effective interpreting possible, while reducing the influence
of the interpreter on the interpreted event. As well, we see research exploring the interpreter’s involvement in interpreter-mediated events, resulting in new understandings of what impartiality and neutrality may mean for interpreter involvement and alignment in events.

Across various language communities, studies have shown that producing accurate and/or impartial interpretation in legal settings is a huge problem especially when using untrained interpreters (Hale 2004; Morris 1998). This research, along with the movement to professionalize interpreting, has led to the wide-spread development of training opportunities for interpreters in general, and specifically in the provision of targeted education for legal interpreting.

While the majority of available data-driven studies stem from courtroom or police interview studies, there are numerous other events that involve legal discourse and recent studies have explored areas such as refugee hearings (Kolb & Pochhacker 2008), interpreting legal matters via Video Relay Services (Roberson, Russell & Shaw 2012) (see Remote interpreting⁴*) and serving Deaf jurors (Napier & Spencer 2008). A relatively recent development in the field of signed language interpreting has been the inclusion of Deaf interpreters who work in teams with non-deaf interpreters in order to meet the communication needs of the consumers and the situation (Stone 2009).

However, one of the challenges that persist in the field of interpretation has been the setting of professional standards for interpreters serving community settings, including interpreting legal interactions. While some countries have stringent requirements (for example, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, Canada) demanding qualified spoken and signed language interpreters with academic and/or professional accreditation qualifications, there are many legal systems that continue to use incompetent and untrained interpreters, resulting in significant problems for the consumers of interpreting services and decreased job satisfaction among interpreters (Hale 2011; Phelan 2011) (see Quality in interpreting***).

Napier (2004) compared testing models across several countries, suggesting that countries with formal testing systems have increased the awareness of the role of professional interpreters and demonstrated leadership in the area of accrediting both signed and spoken language interpreters. The need for legal interpreting certification has also been stressed in recent literature (Witter-Merithew & Nicodemus 2011; Roberson, Russell & Shaw 2012). The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf in the United States of America offers a specialist certificate for signed language interpreters in legal settings. This degree of specialist legal training and resulting certification for either spoken or signed language interpreting is not typical of many countries, regardless of the stage of development of the profession of interpreting.

Several professional organizations representing spoken and signed language interpreters have emerged as a strong lobby for advancing standards, introducing
codes of conduct and assessment and certification standards (for example, Chartered Institute of Linguists in the United Kingdom, the Canadian Translators and Interpreters Council (CTIC), the National Accreditation Authority of Translators and Interpreters of Australia (NAATI), and the European Forum of Sign Language Interpreters (efsli)). As well. Critical Link¹ conferences have drawn international participation from both spoken and signed language researchers, interpreters and educators to explore community interpreting*, and the organization has had a significant role in shaping the research agenda in legal interpreting. Five conference proceedings have been published, demonstrating the diversity of research methodologies and breadth of topical areas that are being studied in this field (see Benjamins Translation Library for a complete list of all five volumes). Hertog (2010) argues that community interpreting, and in particular, the professional research community, developed significantly after the first Critical Link Conference. Numerous research journals now address interpreting research and legal interpreting is often featured in the articles (see Meta, Journal of Interpretation, Interpreting, The Translator, the International Journal of Interpreter Education, etc. ).

The area of interpreting legal discourse and working in legal settings continues to develop as an area of specialization. The number of research projects studying legal interpreting continues to grow globally, enhancing our understanding of the complexity and realities of legal interpreting and bridging research and practice between spoken and signed language interpreters (Russell & Hale 2008).

References

Gibbons, Llewellyn & Grabau, Charles. 1996. “ProtecUng the rights of linguistic minorities: Challenges to court interpretation. ” New England Law Review 30 (227).

Hale, Sandra, Bond, Nigel & Sutton, Jeanna. 2011. " Interpreting accent in the classroom. ” Target 23(1): 48-61.

Hale, Sandra. 2001. “How are courtroom questions interpreted: An analysis of Spanish interpreters’ practices. ” In Triadic Exchanges. Studies in Dialogue Interpreting, I. Mason (ed. ), 21-50. Manchester: St. Jerome.

Hale, Sandra. 2011. “The positive side of community of interpreting: An Australian case study. ” Interpreting 13 (2): 232-248.

Hertog, Erik 2010. “Community interpreting. ” In Hanbook of Translation Studies, vol. 1, Yves Gambier & Luc van Doorslaer (eds), 49-54. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Jacobson, Bente. 2008. “Court interpreting and face: An analysis of a court interpreters strategies for conveying threats to own face. ” In Debra Russell & Sandra Hale (eds), 51-72.

⇐ Предыдущая 123 4 Следующая ⇒