DISCOURSE DISFLUENCIES IN BILINGUAL COURT HEARINGS

Main Article Content

Niklas TORSTENSSON
Barbara GAWRONSKA

Abstract

In about 9% civil and criminal cases that are settled in Swedish District courts every year, i.e. in roughly 10 000 court hearings, an interpreter is employed when at least one of the involved parties speaks another language than Swedish. In this paper, aspects of interpretation in the courtroom are discussed in general, and examples from court proceedings are used to analyse disfluent situations. The role of the interpreter is viewed, and compared to that of other participants’ in the discourse. Aspects of legal rights for the individual are discussed in relation to examples from other language communities. The results show that the confusing situations and misinterpretations are not only dependent on the decisions made by the interpreter. The attitudes and the linguistic behaviour of all discourse participants may contribute to the disfluencies.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
TORSTENSSON, N., & GAWRONSKA, B. (2009). DISCOURSE DISFLUENCIES IN BILINGUAL COURT HEARINGS. Comparative Legilinguistics, 1, 60-72. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2009.01.05
Section
Articles

References

  1. Abelin, Å. Boyd, S. (2000) Voice quality, foreign accent and attitudes to speakers. In Proceedings of FONETIK 2000, Inst för språk, Högskolan i Skövde, pp. 21-24.
  2. Bayard, D., Weatherall, A., Gallois, C. & Pittam, J. (2001) Pax Americana? Accent attitudinal evaluations in New Zeeland, Australia and America. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5/1, 2001 pp. 22–49.
  3. Cunningham-Andersson, U & Engstrand, O. (1988) Attitudes to immigrant Swedish - a literature review and preparatory experiments. Phonetic Experimental Research, Institute of Linguistics, University of Stockholm (PERILUS) 8, pp. 103-152.
  4. Doeleman, R. (1998) Native reactions to nonnative speech, PhD thesis, Studies in Multilingualism 13. Tilburg University Press.
  5. Eades, D. (2002) ‘Evidence Given in Unequivocal Terms’: Gaining Consent of Young Aboriginal People in Court. In Cotteril, J. (ed.) Language in the legal process. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, UK.
  6. Gile, D. (2001) The Role of Consecutive in Interpreter Training: A Cognitive View. Communicate14. (http://www.aiic.net).
  7. Gile, D. (1995) Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. J. Benjamins Publishing Co. Amsterdam.
  8. House, J. (1998) Politeness and Translation. In Hickey, L. (ed.) The pragmatics of translation. Multilingual Matters Ltd, UK.
  9. McAllister, R. (2000) Perceptual foreign accent and its relevance for simultaneous interpreting. In Hyltenstam, K. & Englund-Dimitrova, B. (eds.) Language Processing and Simultaneous Interpreting. J. Benjamins Publishing Co. Amsterdam.
  10. Munday, J. (2001) Introducing Translation Studies, London and New York: Routledge.
  11. Newmark, P. (1988) A textbook of translation, New York and London: Prentice-Hall.
  12. Nida, E. A. (1964) Toward a Science of Translating, Leiden: E. J. Brill.
  13. Rodman, R. (2002) Linguistics and the law: how knowledge of, or ignorance of, elementary linguistics may affect the dispensing of justice. Forensic Linguistics 9(1) 2002.
  14. Venuti, L. (1995) The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London and New York: Routledge.