Cover not available
Article published In:
Interpreting
Vol. 17:1 (2015) ► pp.64–90

Court interpreting and classical rhetoric

Ethos in interpreter-mediated monological discourse

| KU Leuven
This case study is based on a transcript of an authentic criminal proceeding in a Belgian Assize Court, where Dutch is the official language and the French-speaking defendant receives simultaneous whispered interpretation of the prosecutor’s closing speech. Examining six excerpts from the speech, which is addressed to the judges and the lay jury, the analysis compares the Dutch original with the French interpretation. The specific focus of the study is the Aristotelian concept of ethos, i.e. the image the speaker seeks to convey of himself by foregrounding his professional expertise, integrity and goodwill towards the audience. Since the rhetorical devices he uses for this purpose are often absent from the interpretation in the extracts analysed, the strategic persuasiveness of his speech is weakened. This means that the defendant is likely to gain an incomplete, misleading perception of his own case. In the light of the examples presented here, the authors argue that the theory of classical rhetoric affords a useful framework for exploring interpreter-mediated legal monologues in a dialogical perspective.
Keywords: monological legal discourse, ethos, court interpreting, persuasion, classical rhetoric
Published online: 30 March 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.1.04gal
References
Amossy, R.
(2001) Ethos at the crossroads of disciplines: Rhetoric, pragmatics, sociology. Poetics Today 22 (1), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) La présentation de soi. Ethos et identité verbale. Paris: PUF. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aristotle
(1991) On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. Newly translated with Introduction, Notes, and Appendixes by G.A. Kennedy. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J.M. & Drew, P.
(1979) Order in court: The organization of verbal behaviour in judicial settings. London: Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bastow, T.
(2008) Defence discourse II: A corpus perspective on routine and rhetoric in defence discourse. In A. Mayer (Ed.), Language and power: An introduction to institutional discourse. London/New York: Continuum, 138–162.Google Scholar
Baumlin, J.S.
(2001) Ethos. In T.O. Sloane (Ed.), Encyclopedia of rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 263–277.Google Scholar
Berk-Seligson, S.
(1990) The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braet, A.
(2007) Retorische kritiek. Overtuigingskracht van Cicero tot Balkenende. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.Google Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C.
(1978) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M.
(2000) The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatics 321, 1439–1465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W.
(2007) The importance of not being earnest. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’hondt, S.
(2009) Good cops, bad cops: Intertextuality, agency, and structure in criminal trial discourse. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42 (3), 249–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emmel, B.A.
(2005) Some dialogic aspects of monologic argumentation in the courtroom. Studies in Communication Sciences 4 (3), 217–231.Google Scholar
Felton Rosulek, L.
(2010) Prosecution and defense closing speeches. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. London: Routledge, 218–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frydman, B.
(2007) La contestation du jury populaire. Symptôme d’une crise rhétorique et démocratique. Questions de Communication 121, 103–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallez, E.
(2014) Ethos et interprétation judiciaire. Une analyse ethnographique de l’interprétation dans une cour d’assises belge: une étude de cas. PhD dissertation, KU Leuven.
Gallez, E. & Maryns, K.
(2014) Orality and authenticity in an interpreter-mediated defendant’s examination. Interpreting 16 (1), 49–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, J.
(2003) Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gile, D.
(2009) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Themes and methodological issues in court interpreting research. In E. Hertog & B. van der Veer (Eds.), Taking stock: Research and methodology in community interpreting. Linguistica Antverpiensia 51, 205–228.Google Scholar
(2007) Community interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herrick, J.A.
(2005) The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction. Boston: Allyn and Beacon.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, B.
(2002) Pragmatic meaning in court interpreting: An empirical study of additions in consecutively interpreted question-answer dialogues. PhD dissertation, The Aarhus School of Business.
Jasinski, J.
(2001) Sourcebook on rhetoric: Key concepts in contemporary rhetorical studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kienpointner, M.
(1995) Rhetoric. In J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman & J. Blommaert (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics. Manual. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 453–461. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Komter, M.
(1998) Dilemmas in the courtroom: A study of trials of violent crime in the Nether­lands. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lee, J.
(2009) Interpreting inexplicit language during courtroom examination. Applied Linguistics 30 (1), 93–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maingueneau, D.
(2007) Analyser les textes de communication. Paris: Armand Colin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, I. & Stewart, M.
(2001) Interactional pragmatics, face and the dialogue interpreter. In I. Mason (Ed.), Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome, 51–70.Google Scholar
Matoesian, G.
(2005) Struck by speech revisited: Embodied stance in jurisdictional discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9 (2), 167–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morris, R.
(1995) The moral dilemmas of court interpreting. The Translator 1 (1), 25–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plantin, C.
(2009) La personne comme ressource argumentative: ethos et résistance à l’autorité. In P. Charaudeau (Ed.), Identités sociales et discursives du sujet parlant. Paris: L’Harmattan, 55–70.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, F.
(2004) Introducing interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poulakos, J.
(2001) Sophists. In T.O. Sloane (Ed.), Encyclopedia of rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 732–733.Google Scholar
Pym, A.
(1999) Nicole slapped Michelle: On interpreters and theories of interpreting at the O. J. Simpson trial. The Translator 5 (2), 265–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudvin, M.
(2006) The cultural turn in community interpreting: A brief analysis of epistemological developments in community interpreting literature in the light of paradigm changes in the humanities. In E. Hertog & B. van der Veer (Eds.), Taking stock: Research and methodology in community interpreting. Linguistica Antverpiensia 51, 21–41.Google Scholar
Rudvin, M. & Tomassini, E.
(2011) Interpreting in the community and workplace: A practical teaching guide. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saville-Troike, M.
(2003) The ethnography of communication: An introduction. London: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlesinger, M.
(1991) Interpreter latitude versus due process: Simultaneous and consecutive interpretation in multilingual trials. In S. Tirkkonen-Condit (Ed.), Empirical research in translation and intercultural studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 147–155.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D.
(1986/1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tindale C.W.
(2004) Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
Traest, P.
(2001) The jury in Belgium. Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal 72 (1), 27–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tulkens, F. & van de Kerchove, M.
(1997) Introduction au droit pénal. Aspects juridiques et criminologiques. Bruxelles: Story-Scientia.Google Scholar
Wadensjö, C.
(1998) Interpreting as interaction. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Wilson, D.
(2005–2006) Online course in relevance theory and pragmatics. University College London. Department of Phonetics and Linguistics.
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

de Oliveira Fernandes, Daniel & Steve Oswald
2022. On the Rhetorical Effectiveness of Implicit Meaning—A Pragmatic Approach. Languages 8:1 ► pp. 6 ff. DOI logo
Defrancq, Bart & Sofie Verliefde
2017. Interpreter-mediated “paternalistic” interaction in a judge-centered courtroom. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 19:2 ► pp. 209 ff. DOI logo
Guo, Yijun
2021. Contrastive images of journalists and Chinese premiers in interpreter-mediated press conferences: a case study of Chinese ‘xiexie’. Perspectives 29:4 ► pp. 507 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 november 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.