INTERPRETERS IN THE COURTROOM: THE IMPORTANCE OF COMPETENCE AND QUALITY

Main Article Content

Ewa KOŚCIAŁKOWSKA-OKOŃSKA

Abstract

Court interpreting is becoming an increasingly important issue in Translation Studies and interpreting research. The article will be devoted to the analysis of the concepts of competence and quality and their manifestation in the court interpreter’s work. It is assumed that the interpreter’s competence is accomplished in three basic fields, i.e., linguistic (embracing the perfect command of the mother tongue and the foreign language), cultural (knowledge on two cultural realities) and cognitive (combining such cognitive factors as intelligence, experience, general knowledge or motivation). Quality is the concept in interpreting closely related with successful performance and communication (with all its aspects). The attempt at quality description, apart from subjective impressions resulting from our understanding of the importance of features that good – competent – translation and effective communication should have, cannot be devoid of focusing on three principal factors, i.e., the interpreter (as the text author/ producer), interpreting process and product, which is the result of this process and involvement (and competence) on the part of the interpreter. All the above aspects pose a real challenge for the court interpreter.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
KOŚCIAŁKOWSKA-OKOŃSKA, E. (2017). INTERPRETERS IN THE COURTROOM: THE IMPORTANCE OF COMPETENCE AND QUALITY. Comparative Legilinguistics, 2, 39-48. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2010.2.03
Section
Articles

References

  1. Bühler, Hildegund. 1986. Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters. Multilingua 5, 4: 231 - 235.
  2. Fillmore, Charles, J. 1977. "Scenes-and-frames semantics". In Linguistic Structures Processing, ed. A. Zampolli, 55-81. Amsterdam: N. Holland.
  3. Garber, N. 2000. "Community Interpreting: A Personal View". In The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community, eds. R. Roberts, S. Carr, 9-20. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  4. Gile, Daniel.1995. Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam: Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  5. Hale, Sandra. 2008. "Controversies over the role of the court interpreter". In Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting, eds. Carmen Valero-Garces and Anne Martin, 99-121. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  6. Hônig, Hans. 1991. "Holmes‘ "Mapping Theory" and the Landscape of Mental Translation Processes". In Translation Studies – the State of the Art Proceedings of the First James. S. Holmes Symposium on Translation Studies, eds. K. Van Leuwen-Zwart, and T. Naaijkens, 77-89. Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi.
  7. Kadric, Mira, Klaus Kaindl and Franz Pôchhacker. 2000. Translationswissenschaft. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.
  8. Kiraly, Don. 2000. A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education. Empowerment from Theory to Practice, Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.
  9. Kopczyński, A. 1994. "Quality in conference interpreting: Some pragmatic problems". In Bridging the gap. Empirical Research in simultaneous interpretation, eds. SylvieLambert and Barbara Moser-Mercer, 87-100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  10. Krings, P. 1986. „Translation Problems and Transaltion Strategies of Advanced German Leaners of French". In Interlingual and intercultural communication, discourse and cognition in translation and second-language acquisition studies, eds. Juliane House and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, 263-276. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
  11. Kurz, Ingrid. 1989. "Conference Interpreting: User Expectations". In Coming of Age: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association, ed. D.L.Hammond,143-148. Medford/New Jersey: Learned Information.
  12. Kurz, Ingrid. 1993. Conference Interpretation: Expectations of different user groups. The Interpreter‟s Newsletter, 5. Universita degli Studi di Trieste, SSLM. 13-21.
  13. Lôrscher, Wolfgang. 1992 "Form- and Sense-Oriented Approaches to Translation". In Translation and Meaning, part 2, eds. Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Marcel Thelen, 403-414. Rijkshogeschool Maastricht. Faculty of Translation and Interpreting. part 2.
  14. Lôrscher, Wolfgang. 1991. Translation Performance, Translation Process, and Translation Strategies, Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
  15. Marrone, S. 1993. Quality: A Shared Objective. The Interpreter‟s Newsletter, 5, 35-41.
  16. Mesa, A.-M. 2000. "The Cultural Intepreter: An Appreciated Professional. Results of a Study on Interpreting Services: Client, Health Care Worker and Interpreter Points of View". In The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community, eds. Roda Roberts and Silvane Carr, 67-79. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  17. Mikkelson, Holly. 2000. Introduction to Court Interpreting. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.
  18. Mikkelson, Holly. 2008. "Evolving views of the court interpreter‘s role: Between Scylla and Charybdis". In Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting, eds. Carmen Valero-Garces and Anne Martin, 81-97.Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  19. Moser, P. 1995. Simultanes Konferenzdolmetschen. Anforderungen und Erwartungen der Benutzer. Endbericht, im Auftrag von AIIC. Wien: SRZ Stadt und Regionalforschung.
  20. Niska, Helge. 2007. „From helpers to professionals: training of community interpreters in Sweden". In The Critical Link 4. Professionalisation of interpreting in the community, eds. Cecilia Wadensjô, Birgitta Englund Dimitrova and Anna-Lena Nilsson, 297-310. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  21. Niska, Helge. 1995. "Just Interpreting: Role Conflicts and Discourse Types in Court Interpreting". In Translation and the Law, ed. Marshall Morris, 293-316. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  22. Nord, Christiane. 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing
  23. Pôchhacker, Franz and Miriam Schlesinger. 2002. The Interpreting Studies Reader. London/New York: Routledge
  24. Pym, Anthony. 1992. Translation and Text Transfer. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
  25. Risku, Hanna. 1998. Translatorische Kompetenz. Kognitive Grundlagen des Übersetzens als Expertentätigkeit, Tubingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.
  26. Shreve, Gregory, M. 1997. ―Cognition and the Evolution of Translation Competence‖. In Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting, ed. Joseph H. Danks et al., 120-137. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage.
  27. Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1992 "The professional translator of tomorrow: language specialist or all-round expert?". In Teaching Translation and Interpreting: Training, Talent and Experience, eds. Cay Dollerup and Anne Loddegaard, 9-22. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  28. Sternberg, Robert. J. 1999. Cognitive Psychology, Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
  29. Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  30. Viezzi, Maurizio. 1996. Aspetti della Qualita in Interpretazione. Trieste: SSLMIT.
  31. Wilss, Wolfram. 1996. Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behavior. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.