How faithfully do court interpreters render the style of non-English speaking witnesses' testimonies? A data-based study of Spanish—English bilingual proceedings

Discourse Studies

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 25-47

  Hale, Sandra ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

court interpreters; discourse markers; hedges and fillers; hesitations; K E YWORDS: accuracy of interpretation; style

Indexed keywords

EID: 84993812353     PISSN: 14614456     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/14614456020040010201     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Benmaman, V. (1992) ‘Legal Interpreting: An Emerging Profession’, Modern Language Journal 76(4), Winter: 445—53.
2. Berk-Seligson, S. (1988) ‘The Need for Quality Interpreting Services in the Courtroom’, The Courtroom Manager 3(2): 10—14.
3. Berk-Seligson, S. (1989a) ‘The Role of Register in the Bilingual Courtroon: Evaluative Reactions to Interpreted Testimony’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 79: 79—91.
4. Berk-Seligson, S. (1989b) ‘The Impact of Politeness in Witness Testimony: The Influence of the Court Interpreter’, Multilingua 7(4): 441—59.
5. Berk-Seligson, S. (1990) The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6. Berk-Seligson, S. (1999) ‘The Impact of Court Interpreting on the Coerciveness of Leading Questions’, Forensic Linguistics 6(1): 30—56.
7. Bradac, J.J. (1990) ‘Language Attitudes and Impression Formation’, in H. Giles and W.P. Robinson (eds) Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, pp. 387—412. New York: Wiley.
8. Bradac, J.J. and Mulac, A. (1984) ‘A Molecular View of Powerful and Powerless Speech Styles: Attributional Consequences of Specific Language Features and Communicator Intentions’, Communications Monographs 51: 307—19.
9. Bradac, J.J., Hemphill, M.R. and Tardy, C.H. (1981) ‘Language Style on Trial: Effects of “Powerful” and “Powerless” Speech upon Judgements of Victims and Villains’, Western Journal of Speech Communication 45: 327—41.
10. Carranza, I. (1988) ‘“Bueno” y la autorreparación’, in ERIC (Educational Research and Improvement Center) Clearinghouse, ED390271 FL023465.
11. Carranza, I. (1998) Conversación y deixis de discurso. Córdoba: Universidad Nacional de Córdoba.
12. Coates, J. and Cameron, D. (eds) (1988) Women in their Speech Communities. Harlow: Longman.
13. Conley, J. and O'Barr, W.M. (1990) Rules versus Relationships: The Ethnography of Legal Discourse. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
14. Conley, J., O'Barr, W. and Lind, E. (1978) ‘The Power of Language: Presentational Style in the Courtroom’, Duke Law Journal 78(6): 1375—99.
15. De Jongh, E.M. (1991) ‘Foreign Language Interpreters in the Courtroom: The Case of Linguistic and Cultural Proficiency’, Modern Language Journal 75(3): 285—94.
16. De Jongh, E.M. (1992) An Introduction to Court Interpreting: Theory & Practice. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
17. Dueñas Gonzalez, R., Vásquez, V. and Mikkelson, H. (1991) Fundamentals of Court Interpretation: Theory, Policy and Practice. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
18. Edwards, J. (1979) ‘Judgements and Confidence Reactions to Disadvantaged Speech’, in H. Giles and R. St Clair (eds) Language and Social Psychology, pp. 22—44. Oxford: Blackwell.
19. Erman, B. (1987) Pragmatic Expressions in English: A Study of ‘You Know’, ‘You See’ and ‘I Mean’ in Face-to-Face Conversation, Pragmatics & Beyond, Vol. 5. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
20. Fuentes Rodriguez, C. (1993) ‘Comportamiento discursivo de “bueno”, “bien”, “pues bien”, Estudiios de lingüística, Universidad de Alicante, ELUA 9.
21. Gibbons, P., Busch, J. and Bradac, J. (1991) ‘Powerful versus Powerless Language: Consequences for Persuasion, Impression Formation, and Cognitive Response’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology 10(2): 115—32.
22. Giles, H. (1979) ‘Sociolinguistics and Social Psychology: An Introductory Essay’, in H. Giles and R. St Clair (eds) Language and Social Psychology, pp. 1—20. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
23. Giles, H. and Powesland, P.F. (1975) Speech Style and Social Evaluation. London: Academic Press.
24. Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968) Psycholinguistics: Experiments in Spontaneous Speech. London: Academic Press.
25. Grice, P. (1975) ‘Logic and Conversation’, in J. Cole and J. Morgan (eds) Speech Acts: Syntax & Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, pp. 41—58. New York: Academic Press.
26. Hale, S. (1996a) ‘Pragmatic Considerations in Court Interpreting’, Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 19(1): 61—72.
27. Hale, S. (1996b) ‘You Shall Truly and Faithfully Interpret the Evidence: What Does This Mean to the Court Interpreter?.’, in XIV World Congress of the Fédération Internationales, Vol. 1., pp. 424—31. Melbourne: AUSIT.
28. Hale, S. (1997a) ‘The Interpreter on Trial: Pragmatics in Court Interpreting’, in S. Carr, R. Roberts, A. Dufour and D. Steyn (eds) The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community. Conference Proceedings, pp. 201—11. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
29. Hale, S. (1997b) ‘Clash of World Perspectives: The Discursive Practices of the Law, the Witness and the Interpreter’, Forensic Linguistics: The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 4(2): 197—209.
30. Hale, S. (1997c) ‘The Treatment of Register in Court Interpreting’, The Translator: Studies in Intercultural Communication 3(1): 39—54.
31. Hale, S. (1999) ‘Interpreters' Treatment of Discourse Markers in Courtroom Questions’, Forensic Linguistics 6(1): 57—82.
32. Hale, S. (2001) ‘How are Courtroom Questions Interpreted?. An analysis of Spanish Interpreters' Practices’, in I. Mason (ed.) Triadic Exchanges: Studies in Dialogue Interpreting, pp. 21—50. Manchester: St Jerome.
33. Hale, S. and Gibbons, J. (1999) ‘Varying Realities: Patterned Changes in the Interpreter's Representation of Courtroom and External Realities’, Applied Linguistics 20(1): 203—20.
34. Hatim, B. and Mason, I. (1990) Discourse and the Translator. Harlow: Longman.
35. Holmes, J. (1995) Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.
36. Jucker, A. and Smith, S. (1998) ‘And People Just You Know Like “Wow”: Discourse Markers as Negotiating Strategies’, in A. Jucker & Y. Ziv (eds) Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory, pp. 171—201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
37. Jucker, A. and Ziv, Y. (eds) (1998) Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
38. Krouglov, A. (1999) ‘Police Interpreting: Politeness and Sociocultural Context’, The Translator 5(2): 285—302.
39. Lakoff, G. (1975) ‘Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts’, Papers from the 11th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 183—227. Chicago, IL: Linguistics Department, University of Chicago.
40. Laster, K. (1990) ‘Legal Interpreters: Conduits to Social Justice?.’, Journal of Intercultural Studies 11(2): 16—32.
41. Laster, K. and Taylor, V. (1994) Interpreters & the Legal System. Leichhardt: The Federation Press.
42. Lay, C.H. and Burron, B.F. (1968) ‘Perception of the Personality of the Hesitant Speaker’, Perceptual and Motor Skills 26: 951—6.
43. Linell, P., Wadenjö, C. and Jönsson, L. (1992) ‘Establishing Communicative Contact through a Dialogue Interpreter’, in A. Grindsted and J. Wagner (eds) Communication for Specific Purposes, pp. 125—42. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
44. Loftus, E. (1979) Eyewitness Testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45. McCroskey, J.C. and Mehrley, R.S. (1969) ‘The Effects of Disorganization and Nonfluency on Attitude Change and Source Credibility’, Speech Monographs 36: 13—21.
46. Miller, G.R. and Hewgill, M.A. (1964) ‘The Effect of Variations in Nonfluency on Audience Ratings of Source Credibility’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 50: 36—44.
47. O'Barr, W. (1982) Linguistics Evidence: Language, Power, and Strategy in the Courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
48. O'Toole, M. (1993) ‘Communication in the Courtroom: The Impact of Lawyers' Theories of Interpreting/Translation (I/T) upon the Administration of Justice in Australia’, Conference Proceedings of the Fourth International Japanese—English Translation Conference, 14—17 July, pp. 166—201. Brisbane: University of Queensland.
49. Owen, M. (1983) Apologies and Remedial Interchanges. Mouton: The Hague.
50. Rigney, A. (1997) ‘The Pragmatics of Question/Answer Structures in a Bilingual Courtroom’, paper presented at the Conference of the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators, Seattle, WA.
51. Rigney, A. (1999) ‘Questioning in Interpreted Testimony’, Forensic Linguistics 6(1): 83—108.
52. Ríos, C. (1997) ‘Hedges and All That: Is Vagueness Translatable?.’, Babe 43(1): 1—13.
53. Schiffrin, D. (1985) ‘Conversational Coherence: The Role of “Well”’, Language 61(3): 640—67.
54. Schiffrin, D. (1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55. Schourup, L. (1985) Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation: Like, Well, Y'Know. New York: Garland.
56. Serreno, K.K. and Hawkins, G.J. (1967) ‘The Effects of Variations in Speakers' Nonfluency upon Audiences' Ratings of Attitudes towards the Speech Topic and Speakers' Credibility’, Speech Monographs 34: 58—64.
57. Street, R.L., Jr and Hoper, R. (1982) ‘A Model of Speech Style Evaluation’, in E.B. Ryan and H. Giles (eds) Attitudes toward Language Variation: Social and Applied Contexts, pp. 175—88. London: Arnold.
58. Svartvik, J. (1980) Well in Conversation: Studies in English Linguistics for Randolph Quirk, pp.167—77. London: Longman.
59. Tannen, D. (1993) ‘What's in a Frame?. Surface Evidence for Underlying Expectations’, in D. Tannen (ed.) Framing in Discourse, pp. 14—56. New York: Oxford University Press.
60. Yule, G. (1997) Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
61. Zimmermann, R. and Schneider, K. (1987) ‘Dialogical Aspects of Individual Lexical Research’, Multilingua 6(2): 113—30.
62. Zuck, J.G. and Zuck, L.V. (1986) ‘Hedging in News Writing’, in A.M. Cornu, J. van Parjis, M. Delahaye and L. Baten (eds) Beads or Bracelets?. How Do We Approach LSP: Selected Papers from the Fifth European Symposium on LSP, pp. 172—80. Oxford: Oxford University Press.