Cover not available

Article published In: Interpreting
Vol. 22:1 (2020) ► pp.87–116

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

Pragmalinguistic challenges for trainee interpreters in achieving accuracy

An analysis of questions and their interpretation in five cross-examinations

 | Dalian University of Technology
Published online: 10 April 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00035.liu
Abstract
In cross-examination, questions are used by counsel as powerful tools to control witness testimonies. In bilingual courtrooms, conveying the subtlety in the use of questions from one language to another is crucial for all participants. However, achieving a high level of accuracy is extremely demanding due to the intricacy of courtroom discourse and the complexity of interpreting in such an institutional setting. Drawing on a moot court exercise at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, this study investigates the most common pragmalinguistic challenges for trainee interpreters in achieving accuracy when interpreting cross-examination questions from English to Mandarin. Findings show that it can be challenging to produce pragmatically accurate renditions: Mandarin interpretations have an overall weakened illocutionary force compared to the original English questions. In particular, declaratives, reported speech declaratives, modal interrogatives, and tag questions are found to be difficult to interpret into Mandarin. This paper also explores the way the illocutionary force of the interpreted questions deviates from the original and the possible causes for this shift. Findings point to the need to enhance pragmatic competence among trainee interpreters, which in turn will require specialised training for interpreters working in legal settings.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Interpreting courtroom questions
    • 1.2Accuracy of court interpreting
  • 2.The study
  • 3.The overall illocutionary force of English questions and their Mandarin interpretation
  • 4.Question type and illocutionary accuracy
    • 4.1Pragmalinguistic challenges related to cross-linguistic differences
      • 4.1.1Modal interrogative
      • 4.1.2Declarative with ratification tag
      • 4.1.3Declarative with auxiliary tag
      • 4.1.4Polar interrogative
    • 4.2Pragmalinguistic challenges despite the availability of cross-linguistic equivalence
      • 4.2.1Declarative
      • 4.2.2Reported speech declarative
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (44)
References
Berk-Seligson, S. (1999). The impact of court interpreting on the coerciveness of leading questions. Forensic Linguistics 6 (1), 30–56.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Coerced confessions: The discourse of bilingual police interrogations. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Conley, J. M. & O’Barr, W. M. (2005). Just words: Law, language, and power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulthard, M. & Johnson, A. (2007). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crezee, I. H. M., Teng, W. & Burn, J. A. (2017). Teething problems? Chinese student interpreters’ performance when interpreting authentic (cross-) examination questions in the legal interpreting classroom. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 1–20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Jongh, E. M. (1992). An introduction to court interpreting: Theory and practice. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eades, D. (2010). Sociolinguistics and the legal process. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, B. & Freedgood, L. (1999). Interpreter alterations to pragmatic features in trial testimony. Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics. Stamford, CT: American Association for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
González, R., Vasquez, V. & Milkkelson, H. (1991). Fundamentals of court interpretation: Theory, policy and practice. Nurham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, S. (2001). How are courtroom questions interpreted? An analysis of spanish interpreters’ practices. In I. Mason (Ed.), Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 21–50.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Community interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). The need to raise the bar: Court interpreters as specialized experts. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, S. & Gibbons, J. (1999). Varying realities: Patterned changes in the interpreter’s representation of courtroom and external realities. Applied Linguistics 20 (2), 203–220. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, S. & Napier, J. (2013). Research methods in interpreting: A practical resource. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heffer, C. (2005). The language of jury trial: A corpus-aided analysis of legal-lay discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holt, E. & Johnson, A. (2010). Socio-pragmatic aspects of legal talk: Police interviews and trial discourse. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. London: Routledge, 21–36.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobsen, B. (2004). Pragmatic meaning in court interpreting: An empirical study of additions in consecutively-interpreted question-answer dialogues. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 11 (1), 165–169. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laster, K. & Taylor, V. L. (1994). Interpreters and the legal system. Sydney: The Federation Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Translatability of speech style in court interpreting. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 18 (1), 1–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liao, M. (2002). Cong wenda xingwei kan Zhongguo fating shenpan xianzhuang (The status quo of Chinese courtroom trials from linguistic perspective). Yuyan Wenzi Yingyong/Applied Linguistics 41, 25–36.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). A study on courtroom questions, responses and their interaction: A linguistic perspective. Beijing: Law Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, X. & Hale, S. (2018). Achieving accuracy in a bilingual courtroom: The effectiveness of specialised legal interpreter training. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 12(3), 299-321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matoesian, G. (2000). Intertextual authority in reported speech: Production media in the Kennedy Smith rape trial. Journal of Pragmatics 32 (7), 879–914. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Nailing down an answer: Participations of power in trial talk. Discourse Studies 7 (6), 733–759. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morris, R. (1995). The moral dilemmas of court interpreting. The Translator 1 (1), 25–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ng, E. (2013). Garment, or upper-garment? A matter of interpretation? International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 26 (3), 597–613. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pérez González, L. (2006). Interpreting strategic recontextualization cues in the courtroom: Corpus-based insights into the pragmatic force of non-restrictive relative clauses. Journal of Pragmatics 38 (3), 390–417. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pope, E. N. (1976). Questions and answers in English. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rigney, A. C. (1999). Questioning in interpreted testimony. Forensic Linguistics 6 (1), 83–108.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shao, J. (2014). Xian dai han yu yi wen ju yan jiu (zeng ding ben) (Studies on Modern Chinese interrogatives (revised edition)). Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stern, L. (2004). Interpreting legal language at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia: Overcoming the lack of lexical equivalents. JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation 21, 63–75.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Courtroom interpreting. In K. Malmkjær & K. Windle (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of translation studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 325–342.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tiersma, P. M. (1999). Legal language. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walker, A. G. (1987). Linguistic manipulation, power and the legal setting. In L. Kedar (Ed.), Power through discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 57–80.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woodbury, H. (1984). The strategic use of questions in court. Semiotica 481, 197–228. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xu, S. (1999). Yi wen ju tan xun gong neng de qian yi (Transmutation of the question function of interrogatives). Zhong Guo Yu Wen (Chinese Language) 268 (1), 3–11.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Huang, Yujie, Andrew K F Cheung, Kanglong Liu & Han Xu
2025. Can sentiment analysis help to assess accuracy in interpreting? A corpus-assisted computational linguistic approach. Applied Linguistics DOI logo
Trebits, Anna
2025. Foreign language anxiety and enjoyment concurrently shape pragmatic and grammatical awareness in learners of English as a foreign language—how communicative context modulates their relationship. Language Awareness ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Burn, Jo Anna
2023. The Use of Self-Reflection to Develop Intercultural and Pragmatic Competence in the Legal Interpreting Classroom. In New Advances in Legal Translation and Interpreting [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 197 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Xin & Chunli Wang
2023. How Does Interpreter’s Intonation Affect the Pragmatics of Courtroom Questions? A Case Study of Chinese-English Court Interpreting. In New Advances in Legal Translation and Interpreting [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo
Ran, Y.
2023. Human Interpreters in Virtual Courts: A Review of Technology-Enabled Remote Settings in Australia. Journal of Digital Technologies and Law 1:3 ► pp. 712 ff. DOI logo
Yi, Ran
2023. Interpreting the Manner of Speech in courts: an overlooked aspect. Frontiers in Psychology 14 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 12 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