Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation and Interpreting Studies
Vol. 10:2 (2015) ► pp.187–202

The role of interpreters in adjudicating blame

An examination of clitics and active-passive voice in a Spanish-English bilingual criminal trial

This paper provides a linguistic analysis of the interpreter’s role in shaping the discursive reality of the Spanish-English bilingual courtroom. The paper examines the interpreter’s rendition of morphosyntactic features, specifically clitic pronouns and active-passive voice using excerpts from an actual jury trial. The aim of the study is to show how the interpreter’s treatment of linguistic features in exchanges between attorneys and witnesses may attribute agency to the defendant, and possibly suggest a relationship between the defendant and his alleged associates or victims that is not intended in the original utterance. The findings of this study are expected to contribute to the field of courtroom interpreting by providing further insight into the relationship between an interpreter’s rendition of morphosyntactic features in attorney-witness exchanges and the attorney’s and witness’s ability to convey meaning and intent in a bilingual courtroom.

Keywords: Spanish-English bilingual courtroom, linguistic intent, courtroom discourse, Spanish clitic pronouns, active-passive voice
Published online: 21 January 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.10.2.02mas
References
Adelsward, Viveka, Aronsson Karin, and Per Linell
1988 “Discourse of Blame: Courtroom Construction of Social Identity from the Perspective of the Defendant.” Semiotica 711: 261–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benmaman, Virginia
2000 “Interpreter Issues on Appeal.” Proteus 9 (4): 1–9.Google Scholar
Berk-Seligson, Susan
1983 “Sources of Variation in Spanish Verb Construction Usage: The Active, the Dative, and the Reflexive Passive.” Journal of Pragmatics 71: 145–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999 “The Impact of Court Interpreting on the Coerciveness of Leading Questions.” The Journal of Forensic Linguistics 61: 30–56.Google Scholar
2002 The Bilingual Courtroom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny
2005 “Syntactic Variation and Spoken Language.” In Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social, ed. by Leoni Cornips and Karen P. Corrigan, 81–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuervo, Maria C
2003 Datives at Large. Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT.Google Scholar
2008 “La Alternancia Causativa y su Interacción con Argumentos Dativos.” Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada 46 (1): 55–79.Google Scholar
Danet, Brenda
1980 “Language in the Legal Process.” Law and Society Review 141: 445–564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dueñas Gonzalez, Roseann, Victoria Vásquez, and Holly Mikkelson
2012 Fundamentals of Court Interpretation. Theory, Policy and Practice. North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra
1996 “You Shall Truly and Faithfully Interpret the Evidence: What Does this Mean to the Court Interpreter.” In XIV World Congress of the Fédération Internationales , Vol. 11, 424–431. Melbourne: AUSIT.
1997 “The Interpreter on Trial: Pragmatics in Court Interpreting.” In The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community Conference Proceedings, ed. by Silvana E. Carr, Roda P. Roberts, Aideen Dufour, and Dini Steyn, 201–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999 “Interpreters’ Treatment of Discourse Markers in Courtroom Questions.” The Journal of Forensic Linguistics 6 (1): 57–82.Google Scholar
2010 “Court Interpreting. The Need to Raise the Bar: Court Interpreters as Specialized Experts.” In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson, 440–454. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harris, Sandra
1984 “Questions as a Mode of Control in Magistrates’ Courts.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 491: 5–27.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1996 “Severing the External Argument from its Verb.” In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, ed. by Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luchjenbroers, June
1997 “ ‘In Your Own Words...’: Questions and Answers in a Supreme Court Trial.” Journal of Pragmatics 271: 477–503. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, Marianne
2008 Courtroom Interpreting. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Matthews, Gladys, and Enrica J. Ardemagni
2013 “Judicial Interpretation Education in U.S. Colleges and Universities: The Path to Academic Recognition.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 8 (1): 73–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec
1993 “Implications of Asymmetries in Double Object Constructions.” In Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar I, ed. by Sam A. Mchombo, 113–151. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Marchis, Mihaela, and Artemis Alexiadou
2013 “The Syntax of Clitics Revisited: Two Types of Clitics.” Lingua 1271: 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morris, Ruth
1999 “The Gum Syndrome: Predicaments in Court Interpreting.” The Journal of Forensic Linguistics 6 (1): 7–29.Google Scholar
Parodi, Teresa, and Ianthi-Maria Tsimpli
2005 “ ‘Real’ and Apparent Optionality in Second Language Grammars: Finiteness and Pronouns in Null Operator Structures.” Second Language Research 21 (3): 250–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina
2008 Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Shuy, Roger
1998 The Language of Confession, Interrogation and Deception. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
2005 Creating Language Crimes. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sikorska, Margaret
2009 “Low Applicative Datives in Spanish as a Second Language: Acquisition of Semantics and Morphosyntax.” RESLA 221: 327–250.Google Scholar
Solan, Larry, and Peter Tiersma
2005 Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tiersma
1993 “Linguistic Issues in the Law.” Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America 69 (1): 113–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan
1995 “Aspects of the Syntax of Clitic Placement in Western Romance.” Linguistic Inquiry 261: 79–124.Google Scholar
Walker, Anne
1987 “Linguistic Manipulation, Power, and the Legal Setting.” In Power Through Discourse, ed. by Leah Kedar, 57–80. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Wheatcroft, Jacqueline W., Graham F. Wagstaff, and Mark R. Kebbell
2004 “The Influence of Courtroom Questioning Style on Actual and Perceived Eyewitness Confidence and Accuracy.” Legal and Criminological Psychology 9 (1): 83–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xiao, Richard, Tony McEnery, and Yufang Qian
2006 “Passive Constructions in English and Chinese: A Corpus-Based Contrastive Study.” Languages in Contrast 6 (1): 109–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zagona, Karen
2002 The Syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Jutorán, Mariana Orozco
2023. Dealing with legal terminology in court interpreting. In Handbook of Terminology [Handbook of Terminology, 3], ► pp. 570 ff. DOI logo
Laplante, Marianne
2022. “Whenever we pull the race card, they can be like: ‘De quoi vous parlez?’”. Working papers in Applied Linguistics and Linguistics at York 2 ► pp. 51 ff. DOI logo
Mason, Marianne
2018. Negotiated exchanges in the Spanish–English bilingual courtroom. Perspectives 26:5 ► pp. 663 ff. DOI logo
Mellinger, Christopher D.
2017. Equal access to the courts in translation: a corpus-driven study on translation shifts in waivers of counsel. Perspectives 25:2 ► pp. 308 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 april 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.