Cover not available

Article In: Interpreting: Online-First Articles

Language assistance in the Criminal Court

How fair is it to substitute written translation with oral interpreting?

 | Ghent University
 | Ghent University
 | Ghent University
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
European Union Directive 2010/64/EU introduces a defendant’s right to receive written translations of documents in criminal proceedings but at the same time it allows Member States to substitute written translations with oral translations or summaries. Through an instrumental case study, this article investigates the implementation and adequacy of substituting written translations with oral interpreting for defendants with limited Dutch proficiency in criminal proceedings at the Court of First Instance in Ghent, Belgium. Our findings reveal that the Court systematically relies on the oral alternative. However, we argue that oral assistance cannot serve as an adequate substitute. This is because of the processes of discursive filtering and entextualization that take place when procedural documents travel between different participants through the criminal-law process, from written to spoken form and from one language into another. These processes may cause reductions, distortions and comprehension gaps. Consequently, defendants with limited proficiency in the language of the proceedings have unequal access to case files and procedural information.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review: Textual travel in legal–lay communication
  • 3.Data collection and analysis methods
    • 3.1Context of data collection
    • 3.2Case file analysis
    • 3.3Survey data
    • 3.4Interview data
  • 4.Findings
    • 4.1Case file analysis
      • 4.1.1Provision of written language assistance
      • 4.1.2Provision of oral language assistance
    • 4.2Survey data analysis
    • 4.3Interview data analysis
      • 4.3.1Reported practices at the Ghent Court of First Instance
      • 4.3.2Reported perceptions and beliefs regarding the oral alternative
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Stage of oral reproduction from the case file: Spoken summary of written documents
    • 5.2Stage of interpreting
    • 5.3Stage of reception and interactional uptake: Limited understanding and no written fallback
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
References (51)
References
Adler, M. (2012). The Plain Language Movement. In L. M. Solan & P. M. Tiersma (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language and law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 67–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Angelelli, C. V. (2004). Medical interpreting and cross-cultural communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Angermeyer, P. S. (2009). Translation style and participant roles in court interpreting. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13(1), 3–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2014). Translation as re-narration. In J. House (Ed.), Translation: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 158–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bauman, R. & Briggs, C. L. (1990). Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology 191, 59–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berk-Seligson, S. (2017). The bilingual courtroom: court interpreters in the judicial process, 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bloch, A. (2019). Het strafdossier, een straf dossier. Brugge: Die Keure.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolden, G. B. (2000). Toward understanding practices of medical interpreting: Interpreters’ involvement in history taking. Discourse Studies 2(4), 387–419. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2), 77–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. (1995). Language in evidence: The pragmatics of translation and the judicial process. In M. Morris (Ed.), Translation and the law. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 115–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Captured on tape: Professional hearing and competing entextualizations in the criminal justice system. Text & Talk 29(5), 503–523. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cotterill, J. (2002). ‘Just one more time …’: Aspects of intertextuality in the trials of O. J. Simpson. In J. Cotterill (Ed.), Language in the legal process. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 147–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dainow, J. (1966). The civil law and the common law: Some points of comparison. American Journal of Comparative Law 15(3), 419–435. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Defrancq, B., Verliefde, S. & Vandenbroucke, M. (2022). “Bij ons gaat dat zo”: Empirische inzichten over aangehaalde cultuurverschillen tijdens getolkte politieverhoren in schijnrelatieprocedures in België. Cahiers Politiestudies 641, 85–108.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Delva, S., Van Hoof, S. & Maryns, K. (in press). The right to translation in Belgian criminal proceedings: Between legal obligations and practical constraints.
D’hondt, S., Beyens, K., Machiels, B., Blommaert, J., Meeuwis, M. & Verschueren, J. (2004). Interculturele communicatie in rechtbanken. Brussels: Politeia.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fair Trials. (2015). Roadmap practitioner tools. Interpretation and translation directive. [URL] (accessed 19 March 2026).
Fingas, M. (2019). The right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings — challenges and difficulties stemming from the implementation of the Directive 2010/64/EU. EuCLR European Criminal Law Review 9(2), 175–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gallai, F. (2013). “I’ll just intervene whenever he finds it a bit difficult to answer”: Exploding the myth of literalism in interpreted interviews. Investigative Interviewing: Research and Practice (II-RP) 5(1), 57–78.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gunn, J. & Mevis, P. (2018). Adversarial versus inquisitorial systems of trial and investigation in criminal procedure. In K. Goethals (Ed.), Forensic psychiatry and psychology in Europe: A cross-border study guide. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 3–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, S. (2004). The discourse of court interpreting. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Approaching the Bench: Teaching magistrates and judges how to work effectively with interpreters. MonTI. Monographs in Translation and Interpreting 71, 163–180.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heydon, G. (2013). From legislation to the courts: Providing safe passage for legal texts through the challenges of a police interview. In C. Heffer, F. Rock & J. Conley (Eds.), Legal–lay communication: Textual travels in the law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 55–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hodgson, J. (2006). Conceptions of the trial in inquisitorial and adversarial procedure. In A. Duff, L. Farmer, S. Marshall & V. Tadros (Eds.), Judgment and calling to account. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 223–242.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
House, J. (2006). Text and context in translation. Journal of Pragmatics 38(3), 338–358. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Komter, M. (2019). The suspect’s statement: Talk and text in the criminal process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Linell, P. (1998). Discourse across boundaries: On recontextualizations and the blending of voices in professional discourse. Text & Talk 18(2), 143–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lundmark, T. (2012). Charting the divide between common and civil law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maryns, K. (2013). ‘Theatricks’ in the courtroom: The intertextual construction of legal cases. In C. Heffer, F. Rock & J. Conley (Eds.), Legal–lay communication: Textual travels in the law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 107–125. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maybin, J. (2017). Textual trajectories: Theoretical roots and institutional consequences. Text & Talk 37(4), 415–435. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morris, R. (1995). The moral dilemmas of court interpreting. The Translator 1(1), 25–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Taking liberties? Duplicity or the dynamics of court interpreting. In D. Russell & S. Hale (Eds.), Interpreting in legal settings: Volume 4. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 1–25.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Park, J. S. -Y. & Bucholtz, M. (2009). Introduction. Public transcripts: Entextualization and linguistic representation in institutional contexts. Text & Talk 29(5), 485–502. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2023). Language proficiency as a matter of law: Judicial reasoning on Miranda Waivers by speakers with limited English Proficiency (LEP). International Journal for the Semiotics of Law — Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 37(2), 329–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pejovic, C. (2001). Civil law and common law: Two different paths leading to the same goal. Poredbeno Pomorsko Pravo 40(155), 7–32.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, F. (2016). Introducing interpreting studies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rock, F., Heffer, C. & Conley, J. (2013). Textual travel in legal–lay communication. In C. Heffer, F. Rock & J. Conley (Eds.), Legal–lay communication: Textual travels in the law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Russell, D. & Hale, S (Eds.) (2012). Interpreting in legal settings: Volume 4. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tiersma, P. M. (1999). Legal language. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Charldorp, T. C. (2014). “What happened?” From talk to text in police interrogations. Language & Communication 361, 7–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van den Wyngaert, C., Vandromme, S. & Traest, P. (2022). Strafrecht en Strafprocesrecht in Hoofdlijnen. Antwerpen: Gompel & Svacina.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Koppen, P. J. & Penrod, S. D. (2003). Adversarial or inquisitorial. In P. J. van Koppen & S. D. Penrod (Eds.), Adversarial versus inquisitorial justice: Psychological perspectives on criminal justice systems. Boston: Springer, 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vandenbroucke, M. & Defrancq, B. (2021). Professionally unaligned interpreting in Belgian marriage fraud investigations and its consequences. The Translator 27(1), 12–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vanden Bosch, Y. (2011). Taalbarrières voor anderstaligen: Gelijke toegang tot het recht en de rechter door een effectieve en kwalitatieve inzet van gerechtsvertalers en tolken. In Vlaams Pleitgenootschap bij de balie te Brussel — Conférence du jeune barreau de Bruxelles (Ed.), De Taal van het Proces — La Langue du Procès. Antwerpen: Intersentia, 65–114.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Het recht op vertolking en vertaling in strafzaken & de omzetting van de EU-richtlijnen. Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht 18(2), 79–107.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verliefde, S. (2022). Interpreter-mediated police interviewing cum drafting: Interpreters’ access to and handling of the written record. PhD dissertation, Ghent University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verliefde, S. & Defrancq, B. (2023). Interpreter-mediated access to the written record in police interviews. Perspectives 31(3), 519–547. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xu, H. (2021). Roles, ethics and lawyers’ reactions: An ethnographic study of interpreters’ role performance in interpreted lawyer–client interviews. Multilingua 40(5), 617–646. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue