Cover not available
Article published In:
The Role of ISO/TC 37 Standards for Translators, Interpreters, Terminologists and Beyond
Edited by Hendrik J. Kockaert
[Digital Translation 10:2] 2023
► pp. 133–155

ASTM and ISO standards in U.S. legal language services

Questions of professionalization and language access

ORCID logo | University of North Carolina at Charlotte
ORCID logo | Independent Researcher
ORCID logo | Independent Researcher
In the United States, legal language services are shaped by both de jure and de facto standards, which encompass not only the professional profile of court interpreters but also the provision of legal translation and interpreting services. This article investigates the potential influence of ASTM and ISO standards on current language services implementations in U.S. court settings in light of the current configuration of de jure and de facto standards. Specific emphasis is placed on the utility of consensus-based standards such as ASTM and ISO due to the unique configuration of language services, particularly given procurement and bidding practices, which complicate the current legal T&I landscape. Possible avenues for integration of ASTM and ISO standards are explored in light of infrastructure-specific as well as translator- and interpreter-specific requirements. The article concludes with a discussion of the compatibility of standards with current practices in the U.S. legal T&I sector.
Keywords: ISO TC37/SC5, ASTM standards, legal interpreting, language access, professionalization
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Current standards and practices in U.S. legal language services
    • 2.1De jure standards
    • 2.2De facto standards
    • 2.3Procurement of legal language services
  • 3.Language access and standards
    • 3.1Infrastructure-specific requirements
    • 3.2Interpreter-specific requirements
  • 4.Potential integrations of ASTM and ISO standards in the U.S. context
    • 4.1Hiring entities, institutions, and court administrators
    • 4.2Legal professionals
    • 4.3Interpreters
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 15 December 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dt.00005.mel
References (53)
References
American Bar Association (ABA). 2021. Formal Opinion 500: Language Access in the Client-Lawyer Relationship. 6 October 2021. Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Center for Professional Responsibility: ABA.Google Scholar
Angelelli, Claudia V., et al. 2007. “The California Standards for Healthcare Interpreters: Ethical Principles, Protocols and Guidance on Roles and Intervention.” In The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of Interpreting in the Community, edited by Cecilia Wadensjö, Birgitta Englund Dimitrova and Anna-Lena Nilsson, 167–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ASTM. 2007. Standard Guide for Language Interpretation Services. ASTM F2089:2007. West Conshohocken: ASTM International.Google Scholar
. 2015. Standard Practice for Language Interpreting. ASTM F2089:2015. West Conshohocken: ASTM International.Google Scholar
. 2020. Standard Practice for Assessing Language Proficiency. ASTM F2889-11:2020. West Conshohocken: ASTM International.Google Scholar
. 2022. Standard Guide for Testing Interpreting Performance. ASTM F3516-22:2022.. West Conshohocken: ASTM International.Google Scholar
Baixuli-Olmos, Lluís. 2021. “Ethics Codes for Interpreters and Translators.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Ethics, edited by Kaisa Koskinen and Nike K. Pokorn, 297–319. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bancroft, Marjorie, et al. 2013. “Interpreting in the Gray Zone: Where Community and Legal Interpreting Intersect.” Translation & Interpreting 5 (1): 94–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, Sabine. 2019. “Technology and Interpreting.” In Routledge Handbook of Translation and Technology, edited by Minako O’Hagan, 271–288. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carranza-Gallardo, Emilio V., and David Guadalupe Toledo-Sarracino. 2022. “Intérpretes de lenguas indígenas en el Sistema de justicia penal: el caso de un imputado mixteco en Baja California.” Revistas Aristas: Investigación Básica y Aplicada 9 (17): 26–32.Google Scholar
Curtis, Karen. 2021. Is the Jury Still Out on ISO 20771? An Analysis of the Potential Value of ISO 20771 for the UK Legal Translation Market. MA thesis, University of Surrey.Google Scholar
De Jongh, Elena M. 2008. “Court Interpreting: Linguistic Presence v. Linguistic Absence.” The Florida Bar Journal 82 (7): 21–32.Google Scholar
Department of Justice. 2023. “On Choosing a Language Access Provider.” April 11, 2023. [URL]
Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. 2010. “Letter to Courts re: LEP.” 16 August. Accessed June, 2023. [URL]
Dueñas González, Roseann, Victoria F. Vásquez, and Holly Mikkelson. 2012. The Fundamentals of Court Interpretation, 2nd edition. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dunne, Keiran J. 2012. “The Industrialization of Translation: Causes, Consequences and Challenges.” Translation Spaces 1 (1): 143–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
General Services Administration (GSA). 2016/2020. Foreign Language Services Ordering Guide. Language Services Procurement Committee: GSA. [URL]
Hlavac, Jim. 2013. “A Cross-national Overview of Translator and Interpreter Certification Procedures.” Translation & Interpreting 5 (1): 32–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Formalizing Community Interpreting Standards: A Cross-national Comparison of Testing Systems, Certification Conventions and Recent ISO Guidelines.” International Journal of Interpreter Education 7 (2): 21–38.Google Scholar
International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC). 2019. AIIC Guidelines for Distance Interpreting. Task Force on Distance Interpreting: AIIC.Google Scholar
ISO. 2014. Interpreting – Guidelines for Community Interpreting. ISO 13611:2014. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
. 2018. Interpreting Services – General Requirements and Recommendations. ISO 18841:2018. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
. 2017. Simultaneous Interpreting – Quality and Transmission of Sound and Image Input – Requirements. ISO 20108:2017. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
. 2016. Simultaneous Interpreting – Equipment – Requirements. ISO 20109:2016. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
. 2016. Simultaneous Interpreting – Permanent Booths – Requirements. ISO 2603:2016. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
. 2016. Simultaneous Interpreting – Mobile Booths – Requirements. ISO 4043:2016. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
. 2019. Interpreting Services – Legal Interpreting – Requirements. ISO 20228:2019. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
. 2019. Translation, Interpreting and Related Technology – Vocabulary. ISO 20539:2019. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
. 2020. Legal Translation – Requirements. ISO 20771:2020. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
. 2022. Interpreting Services – Conference Interpreting – Requirements and Recommendations. ISO 23155:2022. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
. 2022. Simultaneous Interpreting Delivery Platforms – Requirements and Recommendations. ISO 24019:2022. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
Judicial Conference of the United States (JCUS). 2021. U.S. Courts Design Guide. JCUS.Google Scholar
Kibbee, Douglas A. 2016. Language and the Law: Linguistic Inequality in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Killman, Jeffrey. 2020. “Interpreting for Asylum Seekers and Their Attorneys: The Challenge of Agency.” Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 28 (1): 73–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. “Translation in the Shadows of Interpreting in US Court Systems: Standards, Guidelines and Practice.” In Institutional Translation and Interpreting: Assessing Practices and Managing for Quality, edited by Fernando Prieto Ramos, 62–83. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Robert Joe. 2021. “Court Interpreter Certification Testing Bibliography.” Court Interpreting Research. [URL]
Lopez, Peter S. 1974. Justice System Interpreter Certification – Task Force Report. Denver: Institute for Court Management.Google Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D. 2017. “Equal Access to the Courts in Translation: A Corpus-driven Study on Translation Shifts in Waivers of Counsel.” Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 25 (2): 308–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020. “Core Research Questions and Methods.” In Bloomsbury Companion to Language Industry Studies, edited by Erik Angelone, Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow and Gary Massey, 15–35. London: Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021. “Interpreting and Language Access: Spoken Language Interpreters in U.S. Educational Contexts.” In Advances in Educational Interpreting, edited by Elizabeth A. Winston and Stephen C. Fitzmaurice, 44–67. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellinger, Hillary. 2022. “Interpretation at the Asylum Office.” Law & Policy 44 (3): 230–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Jérôme-O’Keeffe, 77–89. Alexandria, VA: ATA.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Evolution of Public Service Interpreter Training in the U.S.” FITISPos International Journal 11: 9–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Introduction to Court Interpreting. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rabadán-Gómez, Marina. 2016. “Professionalisation and Standardisation of Public Service Interpreting.” In Challenges and Opportunities of Public Service Interpreting, edited by Théophile Munyangeyo, Graham Webb and Marina Rabadán-Gómez, 47–85. Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riemland, Matt. 2022. “US Voter Rights in Translation: Semantic Shifts in Spanish Renderings of “Felony”.” Translation Spaces 11 (2): 303–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberson, Len, Deb Russell, and Risa Shaw. 2011. “American Sign Language Interpreting in Legal Settings: Current Practices in North America.” Journal of Interpretation 21 (1): Article 6.Google Scholar
Roziner, Ilan, and Miriam Shlesinger. 2010. “Much Ado about Something Remote: Stress and Performance in Remote Interpreting.” Interpreting 12 (2): 214–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tseng, Joseph. 1992. Interpreting as an Emerging Profession in Taiwan – A Sociological Model. Unpublished MA thesis, Fu Jen Catholic University, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Wallace, Melissa. 2015. “A Further Call to Action: Training as a Policy Issue in Court Interpreting.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 9 (2): 173–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, Sue Ellen. 2020. “Standards for the Language, Translation and Localization Industry.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Technology, edited by Minako O’Hagan, 21–37. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar