Interpreting Questions in Courtroom Examinations: A Study of English-Mandarin Chinese Interpretations of Question Types in Remote Settings

Öz

Impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the increased use of the remote option for justice, such as videoconferencing hearings and interpreting via video or audio link, has brought professional interpreters challenges in achieving accuracy. Empirical studies have found that interpreters tend to alter the pragmatic force of courtroom questions in face-to-face settings. However, little is known about professional interpreting performance in remote settings, particularly in non-European languages. The present article discusses initial findings from a more extensive experimental research project. It focuses on examining the less-investigated English-to-Mandarin Chinese interpretations of lawyer questions by professional interpreters during remote courtroom examinations. Based on the analysis of 2,350 English questions and their interpretations in Mandarin Chinese, this article found that the most prevalent question type used by counsels and interpreted by practitioners during examination-in-chief is interrogative, whereas in cross-examination the predominant question type is declarative, and these findings are consistent with the face-to-face settings. This article intends to inform future pedagogical practice and improve interprofessional understanding between interpreting service users (e.g., judicial officers and lay participants) and service providers (e.g., professional bodies, agencies, and interpreters) in remote settings. This is also intended for interpreter education providers to integrate the interpretations of lawyer questions into the pedagogical design.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• question type
• courtroom examination
• court interpreting
• remote interpreting
• professional interpreters

Kaynakça

1. Angermeyer, Philipp Sebastian. 2015. Speak English or What?: Codeswitching and Interpreter Use in New York City Courts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Berk-Seligson, Susan. 2002. The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3. Berk-Seligson, Susan. 2009. Coerced Confessions: The Discourse of Bilingual Police Interrogations. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
4. Berk-Seligson, Susan. 2012. “Linguistic Issues in Courtroom Interpretation.” In The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law, edited by Lawrence M. Solan and Peter M. Tiersma, 421–434. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Berk-Seligson, Susan. 2017. The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
6. Braun, Sabine. 2015. “Remote Interpreting.” In The Routledge Handbook of Interpreting, edited by Holly Mikkelson and Renée Jourdenais, 352–368. New York: Routledge.
7. Braun, Sabine. 2016. “The European AVIDICUS Projects: Collaborating to Assess the Viability of Video-mediated Interpreting in Legal Proceedings.” European Journal of Applied Linguistics 4 (1): 173–180. doi:10.1515/eujal-2016-0002.
8. Braun, Sabine. 2017. “What a Micro-analytical Investigation of Additions and Expansions in Remote Interpreting Can Tell Us About Interpreters’ Participation in a Shared Virtual Space.” Journal of Pragmatics 107:165–177. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2016.09.011.

9. Braun, Sabine. 2018. “Video-mediated Interpreting in Legal Settings in England: Interpreters’ Perceptions in Their Sociopolitical Context.” Translation and Interpreting Studies. The Journal of the American Translation and Interpreting Studies Association 13 (3): 393–420. doi:10.1075/tis.00022.bra.
10. Braun, Sabine. 2019. “Technology and Interpreting.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Technology, edited by Minako O’Hagan, 271–228. New York: Routledge.
11. Braun, Sabine. 2020. “You are Just a Disembodied Voice Really: Perceptions of Video Remote Interpreting by Legal Interpreters and Police Officer.” In Linking Up With Video: Perspectives on Interpreting Practice and Research, edited by Heidi Salaets and Geert Brone, 47–78. New York: Routledge.
12. Cho, Jinhyun. 2021. Intercultural Communication in Interpreting: Power and Choices. New York: Routledge.
13. Evans, Keith. 1995. Advocacy in Court: A Beginner’s Guide. 2nd ed. London: Blackstone.
14. Gibbons, John. 2003. Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. Oxford: Blackwell.
15. Jacobsen, Bente. 2004. “Pragmatic Meaning in Court Interpreting: An Empirical Study of Additions in Consecutively-interpreted Question-Answer Dialogues.” International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 11 (1): 165–169. doi:10.1558/ijsll.v11i1.165.
16. Jacobsen, Bente. 2008. “Interactional Pragmatics and Court Interpreting: An Analysis of Face.” Interpreting 10 (1): 128–158. doi:10.1075/intp.10.1.08jac.
17. Kebbell, Mark, Steven Deprez, and Graham Wagstaff. 2003. “The Direct and Cross-Examination of Complainants and Defendants in Rape Trials: A Quantitative Analysis of Question Type.” Psychology, Crime & Law 9 (1): 49–59. doi:10.1080/10683160308139.
18. Ko, Leong. 2006. “The Need for Long-term Empirical Studies in Remote Interpreting Research: A Case Study of Telephone Interpreting.” Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series–Themes in Translation Studies 5:325–339. doi:10.52034/lanstts.v5i.167.
19. Liu, Xin. 2020. “Pragmalinguistic Challenges for Trainee Interpreters in Achieving Accuracy: An Analysis of Questions and Their Interpretation in Five Cross-examinations.” Interpreting 22 (1): 87–116. doi:10.1075/intp.00035.liu.
20. Morris, Ruth. 2008. “Missing Stitches: An Overview of Judicial Attitudes to Interlingual Interpreting in the Criminal Justice Systems of Canada and Israel.” Interpreting 10 (1): 34–64. doi:10.1075/intp.10.1.04mor.
21. O’Barr, William. 2014. Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power, and Strategy in the Courtroom. Cambridge: Academic Press.
22. Pöchhacker, Franz. 2022. Introducing Interpreting Studies. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.
23. Roziner, Ilan, and Miriam Shlesinger. 2010. “Much ado About Something Remote: Stress and Performance in Remote Interpreting.” Interpreting 12 (2): 214–247. doi:10.1075/intp.12.2.05roz.
24. Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks. 1973. “Opening Up Closings.” Semiotica 8 (4): 289–327. doi:10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289.
25. Shi, Guang. 2011. “A Critical Analysis of Chinese Courtroom Discourse.” The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 18 (1): 157–160. doi:10.1558/ijsll.v18i1.157.
26. Shi, Guang. 2018. “An Analysis of Attitude in Chinese Courtroom Discourse.” Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 54 (1): 147–174. doi:10.1515/psicl-2018-0005.
27. Skinner, Robert, Jemina Napier, and Sabine Braun. 2018. “Interpreting via Video Link: Mapping of the Field.” In Here or There: Research on Interpreting via Video Link, edited by Jemina Napier, Robert Skinner, and Sabine Braun, 11–35. Gallaudet: Gallaudet University Press.
28. Stone, Marcus. 1995. Cross-examination in Criminal Trials. 2nd ed. London: Butterworths.
29. Wadensjö, Cecilia. 1999. “Telephone Interpreting & the Synchronization of Talk in Social Interaction.” The Translator 5 (2): 247–264. doi:10.1080/13556509.1999.10799043.
30. Yi, Ran. 2022. “Does Style Matter in Remote Interpreting: A Survey Study of Professional Court Interpreters in Australia.” International Journal of Translation and Interpretation Studies 2 (1): 48–59. doi:10.32996/ijtis.2022.2.1.7.
31. Yi, Ran. 2023a. “Assessing the Manner of Speech in Australian Courts: A Study of Chinese-English Professional Interpreters in Remote Settings.” International Journal of Public Service Translation and Interpreting 10 (1): 35–47. doi:10.37536/FITISPos-IJ.2023.10.1.339.
32. Yi, Ran. 2023b. “Human Interpreters in Virtual Courts: A Review of Technology-Enabled Remote Settings in Australia.” Journal of Digital Technologies and Law 1 (3): 712–724. doi:10.21202/jdtl.2023.31.
33. Yi, Ran. 2023c. “Institutional Translation and Interpreting: Assessing Practices and Managing for Quality.” International Journal of Public Administration 46 (14): 1044–1045. doi:10.1080/01900692.2023.2219425.
34. Yi, Ran. 2023d. “The Promise of Linguistic Equity for Migrants in Australian Courtrooms: A Cross-disciplinary Perspective.” Australian Journal of Human Rights 29 (1): 174–180. doi:10.1080/1323238X.2023.2232171.