ABSTRACT
Much has been said and written about incompetent interpreting in the courtrooms. Yet, little seems to have been done to achieve systematic improvements that will lead to a better administration of justice. Multiple factors contribute to this impasse, but its underlying cause seems to be the general lack of recognition of the complex nature of court interpreting as a highly specialized activity (Christensen 2008). Many are quick to criticize the interpreter’s performance, but few are willing to advocate rigorous pre-service university training, to provide adequate working conditions and to pay professional rates that are commensurate with the difficulty of the task (Morris 2008). On the one hand, courts are happy to employ untrained bilinguals to act as interpreters at very little expense; on the other, they wonder why these poorly paid, untrained individuals are not performing satisfactorily (Berk-Seligson 2008). The answer should be obvious, yet little is being done at the systemic level to rectify this anomaly. Either the legal professionals do not see the connection, or they do not consider the issue important enough to take any action. What should indeed be surprising is that, given the current employment conditions, poor remuneration and lack of recognition, there are still many highly trained, competent and professional interpreters in the market whose work is undervalued, unrecognized and unacknowledged. There also seems to be an underlying misconception, as implied by the introductory
quotation, that it is only the accused who does not understand the language of the courtroom who needs interpretation in order to ensure a fair trial. The fact is that when one participant cannot understand or be understood, it is the legal process itself that
suffers and justice cannot be done. A lawyer’s best efforts to ask the most strategic questions in order to elicit the answers that will benefit his/her case can be thwarted by inadequate interpretation. A jury’s attempts to evaluate the credibility of a witness can be frustrated by inadequate interpretation. A magistrate’s evaluation of the evidence presented in another language will be flawed if based on inadequate interpretation. I use the word inadequate deliberately. Inadequate does not refer only to the interpreter’s level of competence, but also to the interpreter’s specialist training in court interpreting and prior preparation. In addition, the interpreter’s opportunity to render an adequate interpretation depends heavily on the physical working conditions and the behavior of all the participants involved in the interaction. The 2007 Critical Link 5 Congress1 highlighted the necessity for all participants of
interpreted interactions to assume some of the responsibility for the quality of the interpretation and the success of the communication. The misconception that interpreters perform “a purely mechanical function, much like a hearing aid, microphone, or typewriter” (NSWLRC 2004: 62), portrays interpreting as an activity devoid of thought, judgment or effort and removes from the main speakers any responsibility to help the interpreter understand and render the message accurately. Interpreted proceedings cannot be expected to be the same as monolingual proceedings, no matter how competent the interpreter. Allowances must be made in order to accommodate the interpreter. Before the event, interpreters need to be briefed with as much background information as possible in order to adequately prepare. During the event, speakers’ turns at talk must be clear and of manageable length, and the interpreter should be given permission to interrupt the proceedings if and when clarification is required or a reasonable request warranted. The physical working conditions are also important, including proper acoustics so the interpreters can hear the speakers clearly, comfortable seating to allow for note taking and reference material, access to drinking water and permission to take regular breaks. Ideally, for long trials, interpreters should work in pairs, which is the current practice in conference interpreting. This creates a quality assurance mechanism, because the interpreters can monitor each other’s performance, as well as take regular breaks. However, even if such conditions were granted, only competent interpreters with the correct specialist training would be able to offer a quality service.
