Cover not available

Article published In: Babel
Vol. 71:4 (2025) ► pp.500–526

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Corpus-driven study of interpreters’ use of Cantonese utterance particles in sentence-initial position in bilingual courtroom discourse

ORCiD logo with link | Heng Sang University of Hong Kong
Published online: 18 February 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.24130.won
Abstract
This corpus-driven study examines how court interpreters utilize Cantonese utterance particles (UPs) in sentence-initial positions within the bilingual discourse of Hong Kong’s courtrooms. By analyzing 57,145 utterances from five sexual assault trials, we find that interpreters systematically employ UPs to manage interactions in court. Notably, the particles 咁 (gam) and 嗱 (na) account for 84% of sentence-initial occurrences, highlighting their significance in this context. Statistical analysis reveals significant differences in UP usage patterns across different cases (p < .001, η2 = .878), suggesting the presence of intentional pragmatic strategies. The findings indicate that interpreters use UPs not only to regulate turn-taking but also to assert authority and adjust pragmatic force during witness examinations. This research enhances our understanding of the role of language in legal settings and emphasizes the importance of UPs in facilitating effective communication in bilingual courtroom environments.
Résumé
Cette étude examine les caractéristiques distinctives des particules d’énonciation en cantonais utilisées par les interprètes dans le discours en salle d’audience. Les données sont basées sur cinq procès concernant des affaires d’agression sexuelle entendues dans les tribunaux de Hong Kong. Les salles d’audience de Hong Kong sont uniques, car elles utilisent à la fois l’anglais et le cantonais comme langues parlées. Les systèmes linguistiques diffèrent, avec des phénomènes linguistiques souvent présents dans une langue mais inexistants dans l’autre. Les particules d’énonciation et un dispositif linguistique en cantonais absent en anglais représentent un défi pour les interprètes judiciaires, qui doivent maintenir l’authenticité de la langue source tout en utilisant les ressources linguistiques disponibles dans l’autre langue.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Literature review
  • Utterance particles in cantonese legal discourse and interpreter-mediated courtroom interaction
  • Methodology
  • Results
    • Raw findings
    • Statistical analysis
      • Chi-square analysis
      • Hypotheses and findings
      • Fisher’s exact pair test
      • ANOVA analysis
      • Tukey HSD pairwise comparison analysis
    • Qualitative results
  • Conclusion
  • References
References (35)
References
Austin, John Langshaw. 1962. How To Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berk-Seligson, Susan. 1990. The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Coerced Confessions: The Discourse of Bilingual Police Interrogations. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay. K. 1993. Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bourgerie, Dana Scott. 1987. “Particle of Uncertainty: A Discourse Approach to the Cantonese Final Particles.” MA thesis, Ohio State University.
Bourgerie, Dana Scott. 1990. “A Quantitative Study of Sociolinguistic Variation in Cantonese.” Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University.
Bourgerie, Dana Scott. 1998. “Expanding the Scope of the Sentence-Final Position: Post-Posed Modals in Cantonese.” In Studies in Cantonese Linguistics, edited by Stephen Matthews, 133–46. Hong Kong: Linguistic Society of Hong Kong.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. “Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena.” In Questions and Politeness, edited by Esther Goody, 56–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. “Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of View.” In Subject and Topic, edited by Charles Li, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chan, Marjorie K. M. 2002. “Chinese: Gender-Related Use of Sentence-Final Particles in Cantonese.” In Gender Across Languages: The Linguistic Representation of Women and Men, vol. 21, edited by Marlis Hellinger and Hadumod Bussman, 57–72. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 1980. A First Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. London: Andre Deutsch.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eades, Diana. 2010. Sociolinguistics and the Legal Process. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fowler, Yvonne. 1997. “The Courtroom Interpreter. Paragon and Intruder?” In The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community, edited by Silvana Carr, Roda Roberts, Aideen Dufour, and Dini Steyn, 191–200. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fung, Roxanna Suk Yee. 2000. “Final Particles in Standard Cantonese: Semantic Extension and Pragmatic Inference.” Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University.
Gibbons, John. 2003. Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra. 1997. “The Treatment of Register Variation in Court Interpreting.” The Translator 31: 39–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. The Discourse of Court Interpreting. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Law Ann Yan Kei. 2002. “Cantonese Sentence Final Focus Particles and the CP Domain.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, edited by Ad Neeleman and Reiko Vermeulen, 375–398.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leung, Ester, and John Gibbons. 2009. “Interpreting Cantonese Utterance Final-Particles in Bilingual Courtroom Discourse.” Interpreting: International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 111: 190–215. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leung, Ester. 2005. Legislation to Translation, From Translation to Interpretation: The Narrative of Sexual Offences in the Courtrooms of Hong Kong. Online Dataset. [URL]
Leung, Wai Mun. 2009. “A study of The Cantonese Hearsay Particle Wo from a Tonal Perspective.” International Journal of Linguistics 11: 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. “A Study of Evidential Particles in Cantonese: The Case of wo3 and wo5.” The Buckingham Journal of Language and Linguistics 41: 29–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Charles and Sandra Thompson. 1981. A Functional Reference Grammar of Mandarin Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luke, Kang Kwong. 1990. Utterance particles in Cantonese Conversation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matthews, Stephen, and Virginia Yip. 2011. Cantonese: A Comprehensive Grammar, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ng, Eva N. S. 2013. “Who Is Speaking?: Interpreting the Voice of the Speaker in Court.” Interpreting in a Changing Landscape: Selected papers from Critical Link 6, edited by Christina Schäffner, Krzysztof Kredens, and Yvonne Fowler, 249–266. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John R., and Daniel Vanderveken. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Solan, Lawrence, and Peter Meijes Tiersma. 2005. Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia. 2013. Interpreting as Interaction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wakefield, John C. 2011a. “The English Equivalents of Cantonese Sentence-Final Particles: A Contrastive Analysis.” Ph.D. diss., Polytechnic University of Hong Kong.
2011b. “Disentangling the Meanings of Two Cantonese Evidential Particles.” Chinese Language and Discourse 21: 250–293. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wong, Cecilia Lok Yee. 2023. “A Corpus-Based Study of Interpreters’ Non-Renditions and Power Manifestations in Courtrooms of Hong Kong.” In Corpora in Interpreting Studies: East Asian Perspectives, edited by Andrew K. F. Cheung, Kanglong Liu, and Riccardo Moretto, 161–180. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue