Sign Language Court Interpreters in Turkey: Professionalization and Impartiality

Year 2021, , 26 - 56, 30.06.2021

Özgür Şen Bartan , Mehtap Aral , Şahin Karabulut

https://doi.org/10.29228/transLogos.30

Abstract

Interpreters in court settings have a significant role to play. A party in a court who does not speak the language of the country will be dependent on a court interpreter to present their claim accurately, unbiasedly, fairly, and effectively; and therefore, well-trained and professional interpreters are needed. However, worldwide (Witter-Merithew and Johnson 2004; Napier and Haug 2016) and particularly in Turkey (Conker 2017; Gökce 2018), it is reported that there are problems concerning education, language skills, and other professional conditions of sign language court interpreters. This study investigates the professional profile of sign language court interpreters in Turkey. The research was conducted through an online survey which focuses mainly on the components of professionalization (Tseng 1992), professional interpreters’ knowledge and skills (experience, training, accreditation, in-service training), professional working conditions (payment, security), professional association, and professional ethical standards, specifically impartiality (Judicial Council of California 2013). The online survey was administered to 23 Turkish Sign Language court interpreters from 10 different cities in Turkey. Briefly, the results strikingly suggest that none of the interpreters, who are mostly CODA (child of deaf adult) (91%), graduated from translation and interpreting programs of the universities, which is seen as one of the major hindrances among participants in terms of professionalism. Most of the interpreters with more than ten-years-experience are exposed to unstable jobs with low payments and have a profession other than sign language interpreting due to financial concerns. Regarding impartiality, the general tendency of the participants reveals that they serve for both the victim and the defendant parties (52%) and that they are in a conflict of interest such as interpreting for someone they know (74%). The results of the study indicate that it may not be an easy task to be professional and impartial under these circumstances. Finally, the findings of this study have a number of important implications for future practices such as sign language court interpreter training and professionalization.

Keywords

sign language interpreting, court interpreters, professionalization, ethical standards, impartiality

References

• Australian Sign Language Interpreters’ Association. 2007. “Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Professional Conduct.” https://aslia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/ASLIA-Code-of-Ethics.pdf.
• Bajčić, Martina, and Katja Dobrić Basaneže. 2016. “Towards the Professionalization of Legal Translators and Court Interpreters in the EU: Introduction and Overview.” In Towards the Professionalization of Legal Translators and Court Interpreters in the EU, edited by Martina Bajčić and Katja Dobrić Basaneže, 1–14. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.
• Barsky, Robert F. 1996. “The Interpreter as Intercultural Agent in Convention Refugee Hearings.” The Translator 2 (1): 45–63. doi:10.1080/13556509.1996.10798963.
• Büyüköztürk, Şener, Özcan Erkan Akgün, Funda Demirel, Şirin Karadeniz, and Ebru Kılıç Çakmak. 2009. Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Ankara: Pegem.
• Chen, Yaling, and Posen Liao. 2016. “A Revised Model for the Professionalization of Court Interpreting in Taiwan.” Compilation and Translation Review 9 (2): 137–164. https://ctr.naer.edu.tw/v09.2/ctr090205.pdf.
• Conker, Nesrin. 2017. “The Professionalization of Sign language Interpreting in Turkey: Interpreter Training and Public Interpreting Services.” Master’s thesis, Boğaziçi University.
• Doğan, Aymil. 2003. Sözlü Çeviri Çalışmaları ve Uygulamaları [Interpreting studies and practice]. Ankara: Hacettepe Doktorlar.
• Doğan, Aymil. 2004. “Mahkeme Çevirmenliği.” [Court interpreting.] Çeviribilim ve Uygulamaları Dergisi, no. 14, 1–23. http://www.ceviribilim.hacettepe.edu.tr/tr/menu/sayi_14_2004-43.
• Doğan, Aymil. 2010. “Mahkeme Çevirmenliğinin Dünyadaki Gelişim Aşamaları ve Türkiye’deki Mevcut Durumu.” [Court interpreting: Developmental stages in the world and the existing situation in Turkey.] Çeviribilim ve Uygulamaları Dergisi, no. 20, 29–52. http://www.ceviribilim.hacettepe.edu.tr/tr/menu/sayi_20_2010-48.
• Duman, Duygu. 2018. “Toplum Çevirmenliğine Yorumbilgisel Bir Yaklaşım: Sağlık Çevirmeni ve Öznellik.” [A hermeneutic approach to community interpreting: Healthcare interpreter and subjectivity.] PhD diss., Yıldız Technical University.
• Gökce, İmren. 2018. “The Norms of Sign Language Interpreting in Turkey: The Interpreters’ Self-Perceptions on Their Role.” Master’s thesis, Dokuz Eylül University.
• Grbić, Nadja. 2015. “Profession.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, edited by Franz Pöchhacker, 321–326. London: Routledge. Hale, Sandra Beatriz. 2007. Community Interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Haynes, Stephen N., David C. S. Richard, and Edward S. Kubany. 1995. “Content Validity in Psychological Assessment: A Functional Approach to Concepts and Methods.” Psychological Assessment 7 (3): 238–247. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238.
• Hertog, Erik. 2015. “Legal Interpreting.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, edited by Franz Pöchhacker, 230–234. London: Routledge.
• Ho, Chen-En, and Tzei-Wei Chen. 2014. “A Preliminary Study on the Professionalization of Legal Interpreting in Taiwan.” In (Re)visiting Ethics and Ideology in Situations of Conflict, edited by Carmen Valero Garcés, 293–304. Spain: Universidad de Alcalá (UAH).
• Judicial Council of California. 2013. “Professional Standards and Ethics for California Court Interpreters.” https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/CIP-Ethics-Manual.pdf.
• Katschinka, Liese. 2016. “An ISO Standard for Interpreting Services in Judicial Settings.” In Towards the Professionalization of Legal Translators and Court Interpreters in the EU, edited by Martina Bajčić and Katja Dobrić Basaneže, 14–23. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.
• Marschark, Marc, Rico Peterson, and Elizabeth Winston, eds. 2005. Interpreting and Interpreter Education: Directions for Research and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Mikkelson, Holly. 1996. “The Professionalization of Community Interpreting.” In Global Vision: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association, edited by Muriel M. Jerome-O’Keefe, 77–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Mikkelson, Holly. 2016. Introduction to Court Interpreting. New York: Routledge.
• Morris, Ruth. 2015. “Courtroom Interpreting.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, edited by Franz Pöchhacker, 91–93. London: Routledge.
• Napier, Jemina, and Della Goswell. 2013. “Sign Language Interpreting Profession.” In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, edited by Carol A. Chapelle, 5204–5210. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Napier, Jemina, and Tobias Haug. 2016. “Justisigns: A European Overview of Sign Language Interpreting Provision in Legal Settings.” Law, Social Justice and Global Development, no. 2. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/lgd/lgd_issue_2016_2/napier__haug_20162.pdf.
• Özkaya, Esra. 2015. “Konferans Çevirmenliğinde Normlar Işığında Tarafsızlık Kavramı.” [Impartiality in conference interpreting in the light of interpreting norms.] PhD diss., Istanbul University.
• Özkaya, Esra. 2018. “Konferans Çevirmenliğinde Tarafsızlık Kavramının Norm Temelli Değerlendirmesi.” [Norm-based assessment of impartiality in conference interpreting.] In Türkiye’de Sözlü Çeviri: Eğitim, Uygulama ve Araştırmalar [Interpreting in Turkey: Training, practice and research], edited by Ebru Diriker, 113–152. Istanbul: Scala.
• Pöllabauer, Sonja. 2004. “Interpreting in Asylum Hearings: Issues of Role, Responsibility and Power.” Interpreting 6 (2): 143–180. doi:10.1075/intp.6.2.03pol.
• Resta, Zoi, and Anastasios Ioannidis. 2016. “A Sociological Approach to the Professionalization of Court Interpreting in Greece.” In Towards the Professionalization of Legal Translators and Court Interpreters in the EU, edited by Martina Bajčić and Katja Dobrić Basaneže, 66–82. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
• Solow, Sharon Neumann. 2000. Sign Language Interpreting: A Basic Resource Book. Silver Spring: Linstok Press.
• Tahir Gürçağlar, Şehnaz, and Ebru Diriker. 2004. “Community Interpreting in Turkey.” Çeviribilim ve Uygulamaları Dergisi, no. 14, 73–91. http://fs.hacettepe.edu.tr/ceviribilim/dosyalar/sayilar/2004.pdf.
• Tseng, Joseph. 1992. “Interpreting as an Emerging Profession in Taiwan: A Sociological Model.” Master’s thesis, Fu Jen Catholic University.
• UNHCR Austria, ed. 2017. Handbook for Interpreters in Asylum Procedures. Vienna: UNHCR Austria.
• Wit, Maya de. 2012. Sign Language Interpreting in Europe. Self-published. Baarn: Create Space.
• Witter-Merithew, Anna, and Leilani Johnson. 2004. “Market Disorder within the Field of Sign Language Interpreting: Professionalization Implications.” Journal of Interpretation 14 (1): 19–55. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxyaWRwdWJsaWNhdGlvbnNwcm9qZWN0fGd4OjZlNDljYjIzZjU4YjIyMmQ.
• Yücel, Bihter Esin. 2018. “Mahkeme Çevirmeninin Görünürlüğü ve Rolü.” [The role and the visibility of the court interpreter.] PhD diss., Istanbul University.