TRAN826 Community based

interpreting
Week 9
Interpreter-mediated communication
in court
Jemina Napier
Dept. of Linguistics
Faculty of Human Sciences
Macquarie University
1

Review of Week 8
Overview of signed language interpreting
similarities and differences to spoken
language interpreting

Interpreting in educational settings

Range of educational contexts

Uniqueness to sign language interpreting
Challenges
Teacher education as opposed to interpretermediated education
Role of the educational interpreter

Contribution to discussions
At todays lecture, Marcel introduced background of signed
language interpreters, and how they work in educational
settings. It was quite enlightening.
BUT one thing he mentioned came as quite a shock to me. He
pointed out that signed language interpreters in primary
and maybe secondary schools need to do a lot more than
interpreters should do. They act as tutors teaching
disabled children in their courses, sometimes as mentors
giving the children advice over their behaviours, and even
as parents comforting the children when they feel down. We
all agree that although these acts far exceed interpreters
duty, they are necessary for disabled children, as these
children need much more help from interpreters than normal
people to get to know whats happening. It seems that the
interpreters are undoubtedly free to do anything they think
is right, not bound by the Code of Ethics.

 However, I have some doubts about this. What

if they are doing too much and cross the line
when not restricted by Code of Ethics? As We
all know that interpreters, including signed
language interpreters, are specifically
trained to be interpreters. Few of them have
undergone Child Education Training, or have
learnt Child Psychology. What if they
unknowingly hurt the children, or mislead them
when they are doing jobs that are beyond their
duty? Is it really OK for signed language
interpreters not to consider Code of Ethics?
What do think?

Reply:
It is a very good question. I remember that in Marcels
lecture, he mentioned that apart from NAATI code of
ethics, sign language interpreters also have their own
code of Ethics that they need to abide by. However, since
last week when we talked about interpreting in business
settings, I have already begun to doubt whether code of
ethics is practical or not. From when we began to learn
this course, we knew that there was a code of ethics that
translators and interpreters need to abide by, and
memorized it because it would be tested in exams. But
after this weeks lecture, I think that the code of
ethics is not very applicable in some situations, and
interpreters should develop their own code of ethics
based on the NAATI one and common sense.

What I think is that interpreters, especially sign language

interpreters should not just be confined to the code of
ethic, but it does not mean that interpreters should always
break the law. It really depends on different situations.
Interpreters in educational settings are not only
interpreters, but they also need to play other roles. Just
as what Jones, B.E (1999) mentioned in his paper, New
Roles for educational interpreters: Winston describes
that interpreting, tutoring, aiding and consulting are the
roles that educational interpreters play.

I remember when my cousin and I took her baby to the playground, we

came across a lady who also comes from China. Her little boy goes to a
child care centre twice a week, and her boy does not understand English.
This lady told us that since her boy did not know English, she applied an
interpreting service for him. And it worked very well. She told us that the
interpreter came to the centre for the whole day and helped the boy to get
used to life at the child care centre, and told him some routines and daily
practices, and also asked him many questions, such as what does he like?
What language does he prefer to speak? What does he like to eat?
Sometimes, when the boy did something wrong, the interpreter acted as a
staff at the child care centre and told him what he cannot do. Also the
interpreter accompanied him when they were playing games and when they
were having lunch. After that, the interpreter told everything that the child
care centre wanted to know. During the whole day, the boy became
dependent on the interpreter, because the interpreter was the only person
that understood Chinese.

I think this interpreting service is excellent,

because it brought the child and the centre close
and they began to understand each other.
Interpreters in this particular educational setting
do not just interpret, but doing a lot more.
However, in tertiary education, interpreters may
not be competent when it comes to tutoring.
Therefore, it is better for them to discuss with
lecturers to see how it will be worked out.

Legal interpreting research

Majority of research on legal interpreting - focuses on
court interpreting and the challenges of interpreting
legalese

(Berk-Seligson, 1990; Brennan & Brown, 2004; Hale, 2004; Russell, 2002; Lee, 2009)

Some discussion of police interviews, tribunals or

hearings (Gibbons, 1995; Krouglov, 1999; Leung, 2003; Pllabauer, 2004)
Typically person requiring the interpreter is the victim,
witness, defendant or complainant (Fowler, 2003; McCay & Miller,
2001; Miller, 2001)

An introduction to courtroom
interpreting
A number of issues surround
courtroom interpreting:

The structure of the legal system

The discourse of the courtroom
The language of the courtroom
Interpreting skills
Interpreting ethics
(based on the work of Sandra Hale)
10

The Common Law system

The courtroom is a highly
ritualised speech event.
Each participant has a clearly
defined role which stipulates
what they can say, when, to whom
and in what manner.

11

Set rules of evidence

There are set rules of evidence that
govern what is admissible and what is
inadmissible in a case. Some examples are:
hearsay the witness cannot report what
someone else has told him/her,
the witness is not to express personal
opinions or to speak for someone else, and
the witness can only answer questions
relevantly and cannot ask questions.

12

The adversarial system

In Australia and most other English
speaking countries, the courtroom
operates in an adversarial system.
There are two opposing parties trying to
convince the Bench or the jury that their
version of the facts is the correct one,
regardless of the truth.
In this metaphorical battle, words become
the most important tool.
Language is manipulated by lawyers for
their own purposes: to persuade, to
convince or to confuse, to accuse or to
cast aspersions.
13

Criminal Cases
All criminal cases start at the Local
Court with a Committal Hearing, which
is designed to act as a filter.
At the Committal Hearing the
magistrate (who presides over the
Local Court), decides whether there is
enough prima facie evidence to
commit the defendant to trial.
Trials are held in the District and
Supreme courts (depending on the
crime) before a judge and a jury.
14

Burden of proof
In criminal cases, it is up to the
Prosecution to prove beyond reasonable
doubt (standard of proof) that the
defendant or accused is guilty.
In a civil case, the plaintiff (party who
lodges the claim) must prove on the
balance of probabilities that they
deserve to receive compensation from the
other party.
Because the burden of proof is always on
the accuser, the Prosecution or the
Plaintiffs side always start the case.
15

Structure of hearings
and trials
In hearings, the case is addressed to
the magistrate who makes a ruling at the
end.
In trials, the case is addressed to the
jury who decide on the verdict
(according to fact). The judge decides
on the sentence (according to law).
Trials start with an introduction to the
jury from both sides. Then the giving
of evidence commences. This is done by
way of examination-in-chief, crossexamination and re-examination. There
are summations at the end.
16

Legal discourse
Too complicated for the lay person to
understand
Use of honorifics (Your Honour
Text written to be read
Use of technical terms
Unusual prepositional phrases
Formality
Conflict of vagueness & overprecision
17

Video clip
Barristers submission

TRAN838 DVD: text 8

18

Examination-in-chief
(Direct examination)
Examination-in-chief is carried
out by one lawyer to his/her
witnesses.
The purpose of examination-inchief is to elicit the evidence
from the witness in a favourable
light.

19

Cross-examination
Examination-in-chief is followed by
cross-examination, which is the
examining of the same witnesses by the
opposing sides lawyer.
The purpose of cross-examination is to
cast doubt and discredit that evidence.
Re-examination is carried out by the
same lawyer who did the examination-inchief, but only when new information
arose out of cross-examination.

20

Courtroom questions
Oral cases are based primarily on the
spoken testimony of witnesses.
Evidence is presented in the form of
questions and answers.
Only the powerful participants of the
court are allowed by the rules of
evidence to ask the questions,
creating an imbalance of power.
Lawyers are have the institutional
power to set the agenda and to control
the exchange between lawyer and
witness.
21

Courtroom questions
This way they can construct the story
that best suits their case in a way
that is relevant to the court
(Bennett & Feldman, 1981).
Witnesses cannot introduce
information that they may feel is
relevant if the questioning lawyer
does not allow it.
Lawyers exert their control of the
content through the strategic use of
questions.
22

The purpose of courtroom qns

Questions in the courtroom are very
rarely asked to elicit information
unknown to the questioner.
One basic rule taught to lawyers is
never to ask a question to which
they do not know the answer.
If they do this they lose control,
as an unexpected answer can produce
a change in the line of questioning
which may be detrimental to their
case.
23

The purpose of courtroom qns

The purpose of questions in the
courtroom is to either test the
veracity or credibility of the
evidence presented in examination-inchief or
to discredit the evidence or the
credibility of the witness during
cross-examination (Drew, 1992).
The pragmatic function of lawyers
interrogations varies according to
the intention behind them, regardless
of their grammatical form.
24

Different question types

Because examination-in-chief and crossexamination vary in purpose, the types of
questions asked in each of these also
varies.
The questions asked in cross-examination
are more accusatory, more aggressive and
more coercive, constraining the witnesss
answers to a limited choice.
The questions asked in examination-inchief, are friendlier, less constraining
and less coercive.

25

Different types of questions

Questions that elicit free narratives are
more common in In-chief
Yes/no questions are more common in Cross.
Leading questions are permitted in
examination-in-chief only to elicit noncontroversial, initial information, such
as personal details.
In all other instances they are disallowed
by the rules of evidence
Leading questions are encouraged in Cross,
as counsels objective is to coerce the
witness into giving a damaging answer

26

Tag questions
Six main types of tag questions in English.
a positive statement with a falling tone
followed by a negative tag with a rising
tone,
She likes cooking\ Doesnt she?/

a negative statement with a falling tone

followed by a positive tag with a rising
tone,
She doesnt like cooking\ Does she?/

a positive statement with a falling tone

followed by a negative tag with a falling
tone, and
She likes cooking\ Doesnt she?\

27

Tag questions
a negative statement with a falling
tone followed by a tag with a falling
tone

She doesnt like cooking\ Does

she?\

Constant polarity tag

She likes school, does she?\

Invariant tag

She was there at the time,

isnt that correct?
28

Examples
Mr, x, the fact is youre making
all this up, arent you?
Youre an honest person, are you?
How would you interpret these
questions into your LOTE?
What are their pragmatic
implications?

29

I put it to you
declarative questions
I put it to you, Mrs X, that you
did in fact, steal the items.
What does I put it to you that
mean?
How would you interpreting it into
your LOTE?

30

Modal Interrogatives
Can you tell the court what
happened?
Would you like to tell the court
what happened?
What is the surface structure of
these questions?
What mood are they in?
What is their pragmatic function?
How would you interpret them?
31

Video clip
FILM: A FEW GOOD MEN
Examples of questioning
techniques in examination-inchief and cross-examination
(DVD: 1.10-11-1.13.36)

32

Discourse Markers
You see, Well, Now, So, etc
These have a pragmatic function
in conversation, and a very
important one in the courtroom
Research has found that
interpreters tend to omit them in
their interpretation

33

Well
Indicates dissatisfaction with
the answer
Eg. Well, do you think that you
might answer the question that I
just asked you?
This marker is used predominantly
in cross-examination
Can be paraphrased as yes, but
34

You see
Indicates proclaimed knowledge
Used only in cross-examination
Usually prefaces I put it to you
that clauses
Eg. You see, I put it to you that
you were yelling and screaming at
the time.

35

Now
Used predominantly in examination
in chief
Used to maintain control, mark
progression
Eg. Now, let me take you to the
night of the accident

36

So
Marks a conclusion
A logical sequence
Equal to therefore

37

Other strategies used in court

Status manipulation This is where
lawyers attack the character of the
witness based on the witness
behaviour, demeanour, habits, etc,
rather than the content of the
testimony itself.
A common example is to the portrayal
of victims of rape as women who
invited the attention and therefore
were asking for it
38

Other strategies
Use of sarcasm: This can be used
to humiliate the witness.
Eg.
C: Youd seen a knife before?
C: Theyve all got shiny blades,
havent they?

39

Other strategies
Distorting modality and the infallibility
trap: Eg.1
C: Do you remember what you said in the
record of interview?
W: Not really
C: Could it have been I wanted to hurt
him?
W: It could have been.
C: Now, thats different to what you just
told us, isnt it?
W: Yes, it is.

40

Other tactics
Choice of wording: The connotation of
words can impact the responses.
Loftus (1979) hit vs smash.
Danet (1980) mentions the uses of foetus
vs baby boy in a manslaughter case.
There are other examples of words with
different connotations used to incite
different perception in the jurors.
Eg:
Skinny vs Slim
Singy vs frugal
Terrorist vs Freedom fighter

41

Other tactics

Repetition
Reformulation
Eg. W: I did not tell him everything
C: Yes, we shall get to that. You did not tell
them everything, did you, so you concealed
certain things did you not?
W: I know I only told them, I dont know, I did
notI dont know.
Presuppositions: When did you stop beating your
wife. Loftus (1979) found that the use of the
definite as opposed to the indefinite article
produced a presupposition and influenced
witnesses answers.
Eg. Did you see the broken glass vs did you see
any broken glass.

42

Witness testimony
Content vs manner
Powerful vs powerless
Hesitations, fillers, hedges,
upward intonation
Rules vs relations orientations

43

Accurate and ethical

interpreting in the
What does accurate interpreting
courtroom

mean?
How do you interpret aggressive
questions from cross-examiners?
What if you do not agree with the
way witnesses are being treated?

44

Role of interpreter
When and if to clarify?
Impact on perception of witnesses
E.g., Jieun Lees PhD on Korean
courtroom interpreting:
Did you pull up the blanket?
No direct equivalent in Korean
Affected the responses from witness

45

Sign language interpreting in

court
Visibility of interpreter & visual
encoding in sign language (Brennan & Brown, 1997)
Consecutive more effective than
simultaneous (Russell, 2002)
Sign language can effectively convey
legal concepts (Napier & Spencer, 2008)
Deaf people can serve as jurors as they
understand the content of courtroom
discourse (Napier, Spencer & Sabolcec, 2009)

46

Video clip
Episode of Janus (ABC courtroom
drama)
Deaf defendant, deaf witness
2 x Auslan interpreters

47