The present paper examines the metadiscourse of court interpreting, with a focus on the evaluative language used in relation to interpreting of expert witness testimony. The study explores interactional resources such as hedges, boosters, attitude markers, self-mentions and engagement markers, employed by participants in the interpreter-mediated South Korean courtroom examinations of three English-speaking expert witnesses. Extracts analysed for this paper, involving a total of four interpreters, are taken from two court cases (four extracts each from a civil case, featuring experienced conference interpreters, and a criminal case, with unskilled interpreters). In courtroom settings, where the interpretation of expert testimony is frequently contested, this study demonstrates metadiscursive representation of stance management during professional communication, which is closely linked with facework and rapport management. The analysis indicates that hedging is far more frequently used than boosters, and that various attitude markers and engagement markers are used in evaluating interpretations and ensuring their accuracy. Legal professionals and interpreters alike display their evaluative, affective and epistemic orientation in the interdisciplinary professional discourse, and personal interaction, of the courtroom examinations analysed here.
Ahn, J. (2009). A study on the meaning and function on shortened-form discourse markers ‘com’ and ‘mak’. Hankwuk Sacenhak (Korean Lexicography) 141, 199–223.
An, Y.-M. (2013). A study on the usage aspect of the ‘katta’. Korean Semantics 411, 79–110.
Angermeyer, P.S. (2009). Translation style and participation roles in court interpreting. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13 (1), 3–28.
Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 91, 93–124.
Bondi, M. & Mauranen, A. (2003). Editorial: Evaluative language use in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2 (4), 269–271.
Bucholz, M. & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural approach. Discourse Studies 7 (4/5), 585–614.
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Ste¤enson, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication 10 (1), 39–71.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behaviour. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
González, R.D., Vasquez, V. & Mikkelson, H. (2012) Fundamentals of court interpretation: Theory, policy and practice (2nd ed.). Durham: Carolina Academic Press.
Hobbs, P. (2002). Tipping the scales of justice: Deconstruction an expert’s testimony on cross-examination. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 151, 411–424.
Hölker, K. (1991). Französisch: Partikelforschung. Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik 11, 77–88.
Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 251, 156–177.
Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. The Journal of Business Communication 35 (2), 224–245.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7 (2), 173–192.
Ifantidou, E. (2005). Discourse and metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 371, 1325–1353.
Kim, H. (2011). An interactional analysis of the meanings and functions of -nun kes kathta ‘(I) think’ in Korean conversation. Language and Linguistics 521, 25–51.
Lee, H. (1999). The meaning of Korean discourse marker ‘mwe’. Tamwhawa Inci (Discourse and Cognition) 6 (1), 137–157.
Lee, J. (2009). Interpreting inexplicit language during courtroom examination. Applied Linguistics 30 (1), 93–114.
Lee, J. (2011). A study of legal interpreting service providers’ and users’ perceptions of the norms in legal interpreting. Penyekhakyenkwu (Translation Studies) 12 (3), 197–224.
Lee, J. (2013). A study of facework in interpreter-mediated courtroom examination. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (1), 82–99.
Lee, J. (2014). A pressing need for the reform of interpreting service at asylum settings: A case study of asylum appeal hearings in South Korea. Journal of Refugee Studies 271, 62–81.
Lee, J. (2015). How many interpreters does it take to interpret the testimony of an expert witness?: A case study of interpreter-mediated expert witness examination. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 28 (1), 189–208.
Leung, E. & Gibbons, J. (2008). Who is responsible? Participant roles in legal interpreting cases. Multilingua 271, 177–191.
Locher, M.A. & Watts, R.J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1), 9–33.
Luuka, M.R. (1994). Metadiscourse in academic texts. In B.L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell & B. Nordberg (Eds.), Text and talk in professional context. Uppsala, Sweden: ASLA, 77–88.
Luzón, M.H. (2012). “Your argument is wrong”: A contribution to the study of evaluation in academic weblogs. Text & Talk 32 (2), 145–165.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maley, Y. (2000). The case of the long-nosed potoroo: The framing and construction of expert witness testimony. In S. Sarangi & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Discourse and social life. Essex: Longman, 246–269.
Martin, J. & White, P. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Matoesian, G.M. (1999). The grammaticalization of participant roles in the constitution of expert identity. Language in Society 281, 491–521.
Matoesian, G.M. (2008). Role conflict as an interactional source in in the multimodal emergence of expert identity. Semiotica 171, 15–49.
Mauranen, A. & Bondi, M. (2003). Evaluative language use in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 21, 269–271.
McEntnee-Atalianis, L.J. (2013). Stance and metaphor: Mapping changing representations of (organizational) identity. Discourse & Communication 7 (3), 319–340.
Miguelez, C. (2001). Interpreting expert witness testimony. In I. Mason (Ed.), Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome, 3–19.
Moreno, A.I. & Suárez, L. (2008). A framework for comparing evaluation resources across academic texts. Text & Talk 28 (6), 749–769.
Pym, A. (1999). “Nicole slapped Michelle”: Interpreters and theories of interpreting at the O. J. Simpson trial. The Translator 5 (2), 265–283.
Querol-Julian, M. & Fortanet-Gomez, I. (2012). Multimodal evaluation in academic discussion sessions: How do presenters act and react?English for Specific Purposes 311, 271–283.
Shuy, R. (2006). Linguistics in the courtroom: A practical guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures. London/New York: Continuum, 11–46.
Spencer-Oatey, H. & Franklin, P. (2009). Intercultural interaction: A multidisciplinary approach to intercultural communication. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stern, P.J. & Ballard, L.E. (n.d.) “Lost in translation”: Dealing with interpretation issues in international litigation. [URL] (accessed 30 October 2014).
Stygall, G. (2001). A different class of witnesses: Experts in the courtroom. Discourse Studies 3 (3), 327–349.
Thompson, G. & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–27.
Tracy, K. (2011). What’s in a name? Stance markers in oral argument about marriage laws. Discourse & Communication 5 (1), 65–88.
Vande Kopple, W.J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 261, 82–93.
Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. London: Longman.
Wharton, S. (2012). Epistemological and interpersonal stance in a data description task: Findings from a discipline-specific learner corpus. English for Specific Purposes 311, 261–270.
Winiecki, D. (2008). The expert witnesses and courtroom discourse: Applying micro and macro forms of discourse analysis to study process and the ‘doings of doings’ for individuals and society. Discourse & Society 19 (6), 765–781.
Yu, K. (2008). The NSM-based approach to a Korean discourse marker: com. Tamhwawa Inci (Discourse and Cognition) 15 (1), 89–109.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Ren, Wen & Lu Wang
2023. A corpus-based study of metadiscourse features in Chinese-English simultaneous interpreting. Frontiers in Psychology 14
Yi, Ran
2023. Interpreting the Manner of Speech in courts: an overlooked aspect. Frontiers in Psychology 14
Lee, Jieun & Seoyeon Hong
2021. Help me to help you to help me: a conversation analytic study of other-initiated repairs in a case of Korean–Russian interpreter-mediated investigative interviews in South Korea. Perspectives 29:4 ► pp. 522 ff.
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2018. Towards a typology of pedagogy-oriented translation and interpreting research. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 12:3 ► pp. 322 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 november 2024. 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.