Why Judges Deviate from Direct Speech in Interpreter-mediated Court Settings
Published online: 1 October 2008
https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.6.2.08pau
https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.6.2.08pau
Abstract/Résumé
Cet article étudie les registres discursifs employés par un juge danois au cours d’une audience doublée de la médiation d’un interprète, et se focalise sur les différentes formes d’interpellation. S’appuyant sur les acquis de précédentes études quantitatives axées sur la variation stylistique des registres discursifs des juges, et sur une analyse qualitative des transcriptions du compte-rendu d’audience, l’objectif est de déterminer les facteurs à même d’inciter les juges à passer de formes de discours direct prescriptives à des formes d’interpellation indirectes. La section discursive analysée ici est appréhendée à la fois comme texte et comme instantiation d’une interaction sociale, suivant le cadre participatif – participative framework – développé par Goffman. Au travers de cette approche dialogique, l’article fait ressortir les différents modes d’allocution et d’écoute adoptés par les interlocuteurs, et plus particulièrement les différents rapports qu’établit le juge, en cours d’audience, à la parole des autres. Au travers de l’étude des rôles de locuteur et d’auditeur des interlocuteurs, l’article tente ainsi à démontrer que le cadre participatif s’applique avec succès aux études discursives. L’étude fait intervenir plusieurs techniques d’analyse descriptive, et combine des données issues de transcriptions, d’enquêtes, d’observations et d’interviews.
References (32)
Angelelli, C.V. (2004). Revisiting the interpreter’s role. A study of conference, court and medical interpreters in Canada, Mexico and the United States. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Angermeyer, P.S. (2005). Who is ‘you’? Polite forms of address and ambiguous participant roles in court interpreting. Target, 17(2), 303–326.
Berk-Seligson, S. (1990). The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Christensen, T.P (2008). Judges’ deviations from norm-based direct speech in court. Interpreting, 10(1), 99–127.
Christensen, T.P. (forthcoming). User expectations in an authentic interpreter-mediated court setting. Meta.
Clancey, W. J. (1997). Situated cognition. On human knowledge and computer representations. New York: Cambridge University PressCotterill, J.. (2003). Language and Power in Court. A Linguistic Analysis of the O.J. Simpson Trial. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Davidsen, B. (2000). A model for the construction of conversational common ground in interpreted discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 341, 379–405.
Domstolsstyrelsen (2003). Vejledning om tolkning i retten. April 2003. [URL] (accessed 1 February 2005).
Dubslaff, F. & Martinsen, B. (2005). Exploring untrained interpreters’ use of direct versus indirect speech. Interpreting, 7(2), 211–236.
Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis/New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.
Gross-Dinter, Ursula (2006). Erklärung von Dolmetschprozessen mit situativer Kognition. Was beeinflusst den Dolmetscher? MDÜ, 51, 37–40.
Hale, S.B. (2004). The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the witness and the interpreter. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jacobsen, B. (2002). Pragmatic meaning in court interpreting: An empirical study of additions in consecutively interpreted question-answer dialogues. PhD dissertation: Aarhus School of Business.
Jansen, P. (1995). The Role of the Interpreter in Dutch Courtroom Interaction: the Impact of the Situation on Translational Norms. In Jansen, P. (ed.): Translation and the manipulation of discourse: selected papers of the CERA Research Seminars in Translation Studies 1992-1993. Leuven: The Leuven Research Center for Translation, Communication and Cultures, 133–155.
Kadric, M. (2001). Dolmetschen bei Gericht. Erwartungen, Anforderungen, Kompetenzen. Wien: WUV-Universitätsverlag.
Mason, I (2000). Models and methods in dialogue interpreting research. In Olohan, M. (ed.): Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Translation Studies I. Textual and Cognitive Aspects. Manchester: St. Jerome, 215–231.
Pöchhacker, F. and M. Kadric (1999). The hospital cleaner as healthcare interpreter: A case study. The Translator, 5(2), 161–178.
Schäffner, C. (1999). The concept of norms in translation studies. In C. Schäffner (ed.): Translation and Norms. Clevedon: British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data, 1–8.
Schweda Nicholson, N. and B. Martinsen (1997). Court interpretation in Denmark. In S.E. Carr, R. Roberts, A. Dufour and D. Steyn (eds.): The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 259–270.
Tebble, H. (1999). The tenor of consultant physicians: Implications for medical interpreting. The Translator 5(2), 179–200.
Toury, G. (1999). A handful of paragraphs on ‘translation’ and ‘norms’. In: Schäffner, C. (ed.): Translation and Norms. Clevedon: British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data, 9–31.
Wadensjö, C. (1997): Recycled information as a questioning strategy. Pitfalls in interpreter-mediated talk. In Carr, S., Roberts, R., Dufour, A., Steyn, D. (eds.): The Critical Link: Interpreters in the community. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins B.V, 35–52.
Wadensjö. C. (2004). Dialogue interpreting. A monologising practice in a dialogically organised world. Target, 16(1), 105–124.
Wadensjö, C. (2007). Foreword: Interpreting professions, professionalisation and professionalism. In C. Wadensjö, B. Englund Dimitrova & A.-L. Nilsson (Eds.): The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of interpreting in the community. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–8.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 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.