Mona Baker & Gabriela Saldanha. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd edition)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page65

interpretingwhenawitnessisinthedock,simultaneousinterpretingwhenthe

witnessoraccusedislisteningtoanothertestimonyorfollowingothereventsin

thecourtroom(fromdepositionstosentencing),liaisoninterpretingoutsidethe

courtroomwithcouncil,andevenchuchotage(i.e.whisperedinterpreting)in

somecases(seeCONFERENCEINTERPRETING,HISTORICALAND

COGNITIVEPERSPECTIVESforanexplanationofvariousmodesof

interpreting).Forinstance,Shlesinger(1989b)reportsthatchuchotagewas

usedinTheStateofIsraelv.IvanJohnDemjanjuk(1987–8)torenderthe

entireproceedingsintoUkrainianforthedefendant.

Courtworkalsoincludessighttranslationofdocumentsproducedincourt.

Moreover,itisnotuncommonforthebenchtoasktheinterpreter,overashort

recess,toproduceawrittentranslationofanexhibit,atranscriptofatelephone

conversationorsubtitlesforavideorecording.Thevariousmethodsof

interpretingusedinthecourtroomallhavetheirshortcomings.Forinstance,

O’Tool(1994b)observesthatconsecutiveinterpretingleadstolackof

spontaneityandnaturalnessofcommunication,andMorris(1995)reportsthe

uneasecreatedinthecourtroombyacousticinterferencefromwhispered

interpreting.IntheUKLockerbietrial(2000–2001),thetwoLibyan

defendantscomplainedtothebenchthattheywereunabletofollowthefour

simultaneousinterpretersappointedbytheUnitedNations.Thesimultaneous

modeinevitablymeansthattheinterpreterhastoanticipateinformationand

delivertheinterpretedutterancesatafastpace.Theinterpreterswereequipped

witha‘slowdown’buttoninthiscase,butthebenchwasconcernedaboutand

drewtheprosecutor’sattentiontothefactthattheinterpreterswerelagging

behind.Onestrategyusedbysimultaneousinterpreterstoavoidlaggingbehind

isanticipation,butthisisproblematicinthecontextofthecourt:unlike

conferenceinterpreting,courtroominterpretingrequiresattentiontodetail,

chronologyandfactsthatmayseemredundanttotheinterpreter.The

shortcomingsassociatedwithdifferentmodesofinterpretingsuggestthatwhile

allowingcommunicationtotakeplaceinthecourtroom,interpretingoftenslows

downthecourtprocedures,especiallyincaseswhereinexperiencedinterpreters

areused(RobertsSmith1989).

Toenablecommunicationtoproceedsmoothlyinthecourtroom,all

interlocutorsaregenerallyinstructedtospeakinthefirstperson,whichentails

ignoringthephysicalpresenceoftheinterpreter.Theplacewheretheinterpreter

isseatedthereforeplaysasignificantroleinaidingorhinderingthe

communicationprocess.Seatingtheinterpretertoofarawaycreatesacoustic

difficultiesforthecourtandtheinterpreteralike.Conversely,seatinghimorher

tooclosetoonepartycangivetheimpressionthattheinterpreterisnot

impartial.

Impartiality,whichistheraisond’êtreofcourtinterpreting,placesaspecial

constraintonthecourtinterpreter,whohastodistancehimorherselffrom

witnessesandtheirimmediatefamilies,evenwhentheythemselvesareinneed

oftheinterpreter’sservices.Thetaskismademoredifficultbythefactthat

judicialconcernforguaranteeingtheimpartialityoftheinterpreterhasgivenrise

totheprincipleofexcludingtheinterpreterfrompretrialconferencesandthe

viewingofrelevantdocumentspriortothecommencementofatrial(Gonzalez

etal.1991:177,291).Thejudicialviewthatpriorknowledgeofthecasecould

affecttheinterpreter’simpartialityis,tosomeextent,understandable.However,

itseemsunrealistictoexpectaninterpretertowalkintoacourtroomwithout

anyknowledgeofthetopic,terminologyorchronologyofthecaseandstillbe

abletoperformefficiently,especiallygiventhefactthatbacktrackingand

requestsforclarificationonthepartoftheinterpreteraregenerallydiscouraged

andseenasinterruptingcourtprocedures.Itisalsounrealistictoexpectan

interpretertoremaintotallyunaffectedbythenarrativesrecountedincourt.The

AcholiinterpreterJulianOcittireportedlybrokedownduringthetrialof

UgandanoppositionleaderDrKizzaBesigyeinApril2006asonestatewitness

narratedhowhekilledtenpeople.WBSTelevisionreportedthat‘[c]ourtwas

thenadjournedforatenminutebreaktoallowher[theinterpreter]tocompose

herself,beforeanotherinterpreterwasbroughtin’(Ntimbal2006).Similar

traumaticexperiencesofcourtinterpretinghavebeenreportedinconnection

withtheTruthandReconciliationtrialsheldafterthefallofapartheidinSouth

Africa(Baker2006a:32)andcasesofchildabuse(BrennanandBrown

1997:62).

Page66

Likeotherprofessionalssuchaslawyers,courtinterpretersareboundby

professionalETHICS,andthereshouldarguablythereforebenoneedto

excludethemfromcertainproceduresinordertoensuretheirimpartiality.Like

conferenceinterpreters,theytooneedtobebriefedaboutthematerialthey

havetodealwith,thetopicslikelytoberaisedandthedocumentstobesight

translated.Prioraccesstoinformationincourtinterpretingisamongthemost

hotlydebatedissuesbetweenthecourtinterpretingprofessionandthejudiciary.

Inadditiontothesedifficulties,courtinterpretersalsohavetocontendwith

extralinguisticpressuressuchasspeed,interrupteddelivery,stressandmental

fatigue,andtheextremevarietyoftopicsraisedandissuesdiscussed.These,

andthewiderangeofinterpretingmodesthathavetobemasteredandused

skilfully(consecutive,simultaneous,chuchotageandsighttranslation),all

contributetothecomplexityofcourtinterpretingandhighlighttheimportanceof

specializedandregulartrainingforcourtinterpreters.

Thetrainingofcourtinterpreters

AnumberofcountriessuchastheUnitedStatesandAustraliahavemadesome

efforttoensuretheavailabilityofformaltraining,examinations,andcertification

systemsforcourtinterpreters.IntheUnitedStates,theCourtInterpreterActof

1978anditsamendmentin1988soughttoregulatetheprofession(Angelelli

2004).COMMUNITYINTERPRETINGinAustraliatendstoinvolveagreat

dealoflegalinterpreting,andthishasledtoprofessionalethicsbecomingan

integralpartoftheinductionprocessfornewlyaccreditedinterpreters.Australia

hasalsopioneeredtheprovisionofleafletson‘HowtoWorkwithInterpreters’;

theseaimtoeducatethepublictomakethebestuseofinterpreters.

Therearevirtuallynoacademicinstitutionsthatprovidetrainingincourt

interpretingspecifically.However,somecolleges,particularlyintheUnited

StatesandCanada,offershortcoursesspecificallydesignedforcourt

interpreters.Withtheemergenceoftranslationstudiesasafullyfledged

academicdiscipline,moreattentionisnowbeingpaidtotheneedtoprovidefull

academictrainingincourtinterpreting(LasterandTaylor1994).Inanattempt

tobridgethegapbetween‘generalist’academictrainingininterpretingandthe

specificstandardsandskillsrequiredintheprofessionalworld,serioussteps

havealsobeentakeninAustralia,theUnitedStatesandelsewheretoprovide

certificationofcourtinterpreters.BerkSeligson(1990/2002)pointsoutthatno

matterhowethicallyawarecourtinterpretersmightbe,qualityinterpretingcan

onlybeguaranteedthroughformaltraining.InAustralia,theCommunity

RelationsCommissioninthestateofNewSouthWales,thelargestproviderof

translatingandinterpretingservicesinthecountry,introducedamandatoryone

weekinductionprogrammeforpractisingcourtinterpretersin2000,inabidto

ensurebetterquality.

ThesituationisalsochanginginSouthAfricawhereaDiplomainLegal

TranslationandInterpretingwasintroducedatUNISA(UniversityofSouth

Africa)in1998(MoeketsiandWallmach2005).InJapan,theeightHigh

Courtswhichmaintainalistofmorethan3000‘qualified’interpretershave

beenofferingageneraltwodayinductioncoursesince1997(Arai1997).

Tsuda(2002)describesaMaster’sprogrammeinTranslationattheOsaka

UniversityofForeignStudieswhichhasastrongcomponentofcourt

interpreting.

Finally,itisworthnotingthatAIIC(theInternationalAssociationofConference

Interpreters)doesnotrecognizeevenregularcourtinterpretingexperienceas

equivalenttoits‘200conferencedays’mandatoryrequirementformembership.

Thereisnointernationalassociationthatrepresentscourtinterpreters,butthe

UnitedStatesdoeshaveanonlinenetworkofjudicialinterpreters(NAJIT).The

InternationalAssociationofForensicLinguists(IAFL)dedicatesagreatdealof

itsworktocourtroomdiscourseandthepracticeofcourtinterpreting.

Seealso:

ASYLUM;COMMUNITYINTERPRETING,CONFERENCE

INTERPRETING,HISTORICALANDCOGNITIVEPERSPECTIVES;

CONFERENCEINTERPRETING,SOCIOCULTURALPERSPECTIVES;

DIALOGUEINTERPRETING;SIGNEDLANGUAGEINTERPRETING;

TRAININGANDEDUCATION.

Furtherreading

Altano1990;BerkSeligson1990/2002;Gonzalez