Proactive Efforts to Educate Attorneys and Judges on the Role of the Court Interpreter in the United States (US), at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and at the International Criminal Court (ICC)
Schweda Nicholson Nancy | Department of Linguistics and Program in Legal Studies, University of Delaware, USA | nsn@udel.edu
Published online: 1 October 2005
https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.3.2.09sch
https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.3.2.09sch
Abstract/Résumé
Le présent article traite des séances de formation destinées aux avocats qui préparent à représenter les accusés devant le Tribunal Pénal International pour l’ex-Yougoslavie et/ou la Cour Pénale Internationale. Les séminaires touchent surtout les techniques de plaidoirie et la pratique du droit devant les tribunaux internationaux. Dans le contexte américain, l’article décrit aussi une formation parrainée par le Barreau de l’Etat du Delaware pour les avocats, les juges, et d’autre personnel juridique. En général, cette contribution insiste sur l’importance d’éduquer les avocats par rapport au rôle de l’interprète auprès des tribunaux. Par ailleurs, l’article souligne <comment travailler avec les interprètes>, une habileté qui manque souvent. Il y a des défis linguistiques et extralinguistiques à comprendre. Les modes d’interprétation (simultanée, consécutive et relais) s’élaborent aussi bien que les situations variées dans lesquelles les différents modes sont employés. Enfin, l’article fournit des renseignements en ce qui concerne les formations à l’avenir et insiste sur le besoin d’un engagement continuel des interprètes experts dans ce domaine très spécialisé.
References (30)
Berk-Seligson, S. (1999). The impact of court interpreting on the coerciveness of leading questions. Forensic Linguistics, 6(1), 30–56.
Bošković, M. (2003). Croatian<>English: Background, experiences and resources. In Brennan, Scott (Ed.). Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association, November 5-8, 2003, Phoenix, AZ. (pp. 253–269). Alexandria, VA: American Translators Association.
Browne, W. (2001). Serbo-Croatian. In Garry, J. and Rubino, C. (Eds.). Facts about the World’s Languages: An Encyclopedia of the World’s Major Languages, Past and Present. (pp. 629–632). New York: The H. H. Wilson Company.
Code of Ethics for Interpreters and Translators Employed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. (1999). (IT/144). The Hague: [URL]
Crooker, C. (1996). The Art of Legal Interpretation. Portland, OR: Portland State University Continuing Education Press.
(2002). BCS – A practical approach. In Ĺučić, R. (Ed.). Lexical Norm and National Language: Lexicography and Language Policy in South Slavic Languages after 1989. (pp. 49–52). Műnchen: Verlag Otto Sagner.
Edwards, A. (1995). The Practice of Court Interpreting. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Finegan, E. (1999). Language: Its Structure and Use. (Third Edition). Ft. Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Hale, S. (1999). Interpreters’ treatment of discourse markers in courtroom questions. Forensic Linguistics 6(1), 57–82.
Hanlen, T. (2004). The newest additions to the Certification Program: Croatian→ English and English→Croatian. The ATA Chronicle, September issue, 49–50.
ICDAA Report, Sénégal Mission. 11-16 July, (2005). (Available through the ICDAA).
Ĺučić, R. . (2002). Lexical Norm and National Language: Lexicography and Language Policy in South Slavic Languages after 1989. Műnchen: Verlag Otto Sagner.
Rules of Procedure and Evidence. (2003). International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. (IT/32/Rev. 28). July 28. United Nations.
Schweda Nicholson, N. (2004). Díaz v. State of Delaware: An appeal based on language and interpreter issues. Presentation at the American Translators Association Annual Conference, October, Toronto, Canada.
(1994). Professional ethics for court and community interpreters. In Hammond, D. (Ed.). American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series, Volume VII: Professional Issues in Translation and Interpretation. (pp. 79–97). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(1992). The provision of interpretation services for lesser-used languages in the United States courts: A language planning perspective. Language Problems and Language Planning 16(1), 38–52.
(1989a).
Ad hoc court interpreters in the United States: Equality, inequality, quality? Meta XXXIV(4), 711–723.
(1989b). Linguistic perspectives on courtroom language and interpretation services. In Aguirre, A. (Ed.), Northeast Conference on Legal Interpretation and Translation. (pp. 65–74). Wayne, NJ: The Consortium of Educators in Legal Interpretation and Translation at Jersey City State College.
(1987). Linguistic and extralinguistic aspects of simultaneous interpretation. Applied Linguistics 8(2), 194–205.
(1986). Language planning and policy development for court interpretation services in the United States. Language Problems and Language Planning 10/2, 140–157.
Shannon, C. and Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.