Cover not available

In:Interpreting in Legal and Healthcare Settings: Perspectives on research and training
Edited by Eva N.S. Ng and Ineke H.M. Crezee
[Benjamins Translation Library 151] 2020
► pp. 21–44

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

Chapter 1
Linguistic disadvantage before the law

When non-native English-speaking witnesses waive their right to an interpreter

ORCiD logo with link | The University of Hong Kong
Published online: 3 June 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.151.01ng
Abstract
This chapter builds on my research into the interactional dynamics in the unique bilingual Hong Kong courtroom, where interpretation is, by and large, provided for the linguistic majority. Drawing on authentic courtroom data, this study demonstrates how non-native English speaking (NNES) witnesses, by waiving their right to an interpreter, can be disadvantaged due to their linguistic incompetence. It explores how NNES witnesses are further disadvantaged in the antagonistic process of cross-examination, as counsel frequently violate the Gricean Cooperative Principle. It also discusses how this might compromise the access of other NNES court participants such as jurors to the trial in its entirety in the special context of the Hong Kong courtroom, and potentially impact the delivery of justice.
Article outline
  • 1.Mind the gap: Inequality before the law
    • 1.1Legal language
    • 1.2Power asymmetries in the courtroom
    • 1.3Strategic use of language in court
    • 1.4Objectives of cross-examination
  • 2.Second language or dialect speakers in court
  • 3.The bilingual Hong Kong courtroom
    • 3.1Court language(s)
    • 3.2The ubiquity of interpreters in court
    • 3.3Modes of interpreting used in court
  • 4.Aim of the study and research data
  • 5.Conceptual framework
  • 6.Data analysis and findings
    • 6.1Decoding problems
      • 6.1.1Absent or non-responsive answer
      • 6.1.2Responding with apologies
      • 6.1.3Clarifications requests (with or without apologies)
    • 6.2Encoding problems
      • 6.2.1Grammatical errors and mispronunciation
      • 6.2.2Short answers or minimum feedback
  • 7.Summary and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
References (49)
References
Atkinson, J. Maxwell, and Paul Drew. 1979. Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berk-Seligson, Susan. 2009. Coerced Confessions. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown-Blake, Celia, and Paul Chambers. 2007. “The Jamaican Creole Speaker in the UK Criminal Justice System.” The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 14 (2): 269–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Census and Statistics Department. 2016a. Population Aged 5 and over by Usual Language and Year, 2006, 2011 and 2016 (A107). [URL] (accessed September 23, 2019).
. 2016b. Thematic Household Survey Report No. 59. [URL] (accessed September 23, 2019).
Charrow, Robert P., and Veda R. Charrow. 1979. “Making Legal Language Understandable: A Psycholinguistic Study of Jury Instructions.” Columbia Law Review 79 (7): 1306–1374. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Conley, John, and William O’Barr. 1998. Just Words: Law, Language, and Power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cooke, Michael. 1995. “Aboriginal Evidence in the Cross-cultural Courtroom.” In Language in Evidence: Issues Confronting Aboriginal and Multicultural Australia, edited by Diana Eades, 55–96. Sydney, NSW: University of New South Wales Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996. “A Different Story: Narrative Versus ‘Question and Answer’ in Aboriginal Evidence.” Forensic Linguistics 3 (2): 273–288.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cotterill, Janet. 2003. Language and Power in Court. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danet, Brenda, and Bryna Bogoch. 1980. “Fixed Fight or Free-For-All? An Empirical Study of Combativeness and the Adversary System of Justice.” British Journal of Law and Society 7 (1): 36–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danet, Brenda. 1980. “‘Baby’ or ‘fetus’?: Language and the construction of reality in a manslaughter trial”. Semiotica 32 (3–4): 187–220. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Department of Justice. 2018. “Key Figures and Statistics.” [URL] (accessed September 23, 2019).
Duff, Peter, Mark Findlay, Carla Howarth, and Tsang Fai Chan. 1992. Juries: A Hong Kong Perspective. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dumas, Bethany K. 2000. “Jury Trials: Lay Jurors, Pattern Jury Instructions, and Comprehension Issues.” Tennessee Law Review 67 (3): 701–742.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eades, Diana. 1995. “Cross Examination of Aboriginal Children: The Pinkenba Case.” Aboriginal Law Bulletin 3 (75): 10–11.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. “I Don’t Think It’s an Answer to the Question: Silencing Aboriginal Witnesses in Court.” Language in Society 29 (2): 161–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. “Language and Disadvantage before the Law.” In Dimensions of Forensic Linguistics, edited by John Gibbons, and M. Teresa Turell, 179–195. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Susan. 2001. Representing Rape: Language and Sexual Consent. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbons, John. 1999. “Language and the Law.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19: 156–173. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. “Questioning in Common Law Criminal Courts.” In Dimensions of Forensic Linguistics, edited by John Gibbons, and M. Teresa Turell, 115–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Act, edited by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra. 1997. “The Interpreter on Trial: Pragmatics in Court Interpreting.” In The Critical Link: Interpreters In the Community, edited by Silvana E. Carr, Roda Roberts, Aideen Dufour, and Dini Steyn, 201–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, Sandra. 1984. “Questions as a Mode of Control in Magistrates’ Courts.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 49: 5–27.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maley, Yon, and Rhondda Fahey. 1991. “Presenting the Evidence: Constructions of Reality in Court.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 4 (10): 3–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McKimmie, Blake M., Emma Antrobus, and Chantelle Baguley. 2014. “Objective and Subjective Comprehension of Jury Instructions in Criminal Trials.” New Criminal Law Review 17 (2): 163–183. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mellinkoff, David. 1963. The Language of the Law. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nakane, Ikuko. 2010. “Partial Non-use of Interpreters in Japanese Criminal Court Proceedings.” Japanese Studies 30 (3): 443–459. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. “Language Rights of Non-Japanese Defendants in Japanese Criminal Courts.” In Language and Citizenship in Japan, edited by Nanette Gottlieb, 155–174. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. “Minority Language Speakers and Disadvantage before the Law: Challenges for Applied Linguistics.” Linguistics and the Human Sciences 11 (1): 9–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ng, Eva. 2009. “The Tension between Adequacy and Acceptability in Legal Interpreting and Translation.” In The Critical Link 5: Quality Interpreting – A Shared Responsibility, edited by Sandra Hale, Uldis Ozolins, and Ludmila Stern, 37–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “Garment, or Upper-garment? A Matter of Interpretation?” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law – Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 26 (3): 597–613. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. “Do They Understand? English Trials Heard by Chinese Jurors in the Hong Kong Courtroom.” Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito 3 (2): 172–191.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Barr, William M. 1982. Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power, and Strategy in the Courtroom. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salhany, Roger E. 2006. Cross-examination: The Art of the Advocate. 3rd ed. Markham, Ontario: LexisNexis Canada.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel, Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1977. “The Preference for Self-correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53 (2):361–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steele, Walter W., and Elizabeth G. Thornburg. 1988. “Jury Instructions: A Persistent Failure to Communicate.” North Carolina Law Review 67: 77–119.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter Meijes. 1993. “Reforming the Language of Jury Instructions.” Hofstra Law Review 22 (1): 37–78.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. Legal Language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. “Communicating with Juries: How to Draft More Understandable Jury Instructions.” Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2009–44. [URL] (accessed September 2019).
. 2010. “The Origins of Legal Language.” Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2009–44. [URL] (accessed September 2019).
Walker, Anne Graffam. 1987. “Linguistic Manipulation, Power and the Legal Setting.” In Power through Discourse, edited by Leah Kedar, 57–80. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woodbury, Hanni. 1984. “The Strategic Use of Questions in Court.” Semiotica 48 (3–4): 197–228.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Legal references
Jury Ordinance, Cap 3 § 4(1c) (1999).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Official Languages Ordinance, Cap 5 § 3 (1974).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Ng, Eva
2023. The right to a fair trial and the right to interpreting. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 25:1 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
李, 静
2023. A Review of Foreign Courtroom Discourse Studies. Modern Linguistics 11:05 ► pp. 2311 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue