Tran 826: Community based interpreting Week 3 Understanding the Code of Ethicssimilarities and differences to spoken language interpreting
Interpreting in educational settings
Range of educational contexts
Challenges
Role of the educational interpreter
*
*
Contribution to discussions
At today’s lecture, Marcel introduced background of signed language interpreters, and how they work in educational settings. It was quite enlightening.
*
*
Reply:
*
*
*
*
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; Pöllabauer, 2004)
*
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
*
The courtroom is a highly ritualised speech event.
*
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 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.
*
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.
*
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.
*
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).
*
Use of honorifics (“Your Honour”
Text written to be read
Use of technical terms
Examination-in-chief is carried out by one lawyer to his/her witnesses.
*
Examination-in-chief is followed by ‘cross-examination’, which is the examining of the same witnesses by the opposing side’s lawyer.
The purpose of cross-examination is to cast doubt and discredit that evidence.
*
Courtroom questions
Oral cases are based primarily on the spoken testimony of witnesses.
Evidence is presented in the form of ‘questions’ and ‘answers’.
*
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).
*
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.
*
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-in-chief or
to discredit the evidence or the credibility of the witness during cross-examination (Drew, 1992).
*
Because examination-in-chief and cross-examination 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 witness’s answers to a limited choice.
The questions asked in examination-in-chief, are friendlier, less constraining and less coercive.
*
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 non-controversial, initial information, such as personal details.
In all other instances they are disallowed by the rules of evidence
*
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\ Doesn’t she?/
a negative statement with a falling tone followed by a positive tag with a rising tone,
She doesn’t like cooking\ Does she?/
a positive statement with a falling tone followed by a negative tag with a falling tone, and
She likes cooking\ Doesn’t she?\
*
Tag questions
a negative statement with a falling tone followed by a tag with a falling tone
She doesn’t like cooking\ Does she?\
Constant polarity tag
Invariant tag
*
Examples
Mr, x, the fact is you’re making all this up, aren’t you?
You’re an honest person, are you?
How would you interpret these questions into your LOTE?
What are their pragmatic implications?
*
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?
*
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?
*
Examples of questioning techniques in examination-in-chief and cross-examination
(DVD: 1.10-11-1.13.36)
You see, Well, Now, So, etc
These have a pragmatic function in conversation, and a very important one in the courtroom
*
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”
*
Usually prefaces “I put it to you that” clauses
*
Used predominantly in examination in chief
Used to maintain control, mark progression
*
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.
*
Other strategies
Use of sarcasm: This can be used to humiliate the witness.
Eg.
*
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, that’s different to what you just told us, isn’t it?
W: Yes, it is.
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:
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 don’t know, I did not…I don’t 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.
*
Rules vs relations orientations
What does accurate interpreting mean?
How do you interpret aggressive questions from cross-examiners?
*
E.g., Jieun Lee’s PhD on Korean courtroom interpreting:
“Did you pull up the blanket?”
No direct equivalent in Korean
Affected the responses from witness
*
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 defendant, deaf witness
2 x Auslan interpreters