Cover not available

Article published In: Interpreting
Vol. 22:2 (2020) ► pp.262–287

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

The collaborative and selective nature of interpreting in police interviews with stand-by interpreting

 | Heriot-Watt University
Published online: 7 July 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00046.mon
Abstract
This study explores interaction in two authentic interpreter-mediated police interviews with suspects. The analysis focuses on the interpreting regime used: stand-by interpreting. The interactional regime in the analysed interviews featured exolingual communication in English between a Spanish-speaking suspect with emerging competencies in English and English-speaking interviewers, with intermittent interpreter participation. Drawing on Conversation Analysis and interactional sociolinguistics, this study analyses how the interpreting regime was negotiated, how it was constructed over the course of the interviews, and the observable function of interpreting episodes. The analysis revealed a markedly collaborative nature of stand-by interpreting, differences in the distribution of interactional power over interpreting episodes among the three participants depending on their activity role and the interview phase, and the multimodal nature of turn-management. Interpreting was used selectively as a resource to either repair or prevent miscommunication, aligning with the way the interpreting regime was set up. Rather than advocating for or against the stand-by mode of interpreting, this paper describes its features in the police interview and highlights both its potential and its risks for communication in interpreter-mediated police interviews as a discourse genre.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Multilingualism and hybrid interactional regimes
    • 1.2Coordination in interpreter-mediated encounters
  • 2.Case study
  • 3.Methods and analytical approach
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Setting up the interpreting regime
      • 4.1.1Setting up the interpreting regime and meta-comments about interpreting
      • 4.1.2Meta-comments about interpreting
    • 4.2Selecting the interpreter: Transitions, devices and function of interpreting episodes
      • 4.2.1Initiation of triadic sequences in police interviews with stand-by interpreting
      • 4.2.2Interpreter-selection devices and the function of interpreting episodes
  • 5.Discussion
  • Note
  • References
References (73)
References
Anderson, L. (2012). Code-switching and coordination in interpreter-mediated interaction. In C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 115–148. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Angermeyer, P. S. (2008). Creating monolingualism in the multilingual courtroom. Sociolinguistic Studies 2 (3), 385–403. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Multilingual speakers and language choice in the legal sphere. Applied Linguistics Review 4 (1), 105–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Speak English or what? Codeswitching and interpreter use in New York City courts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baraldi, C. & Gavioli, L. (2012). Understanding coordination in interpreter-mediated interaction. In C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berk-Seligson, S. (2009). Coerced confessions: The discourse of bilingual police interrogations. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blommaert, J., Collins, J. & Slembrouck, S. (2005). Spaces of multilingualism. Language & Communication 251, 197–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Böser, U. & La Rooy, D. (2018). Interpreter-mediated investigative interviews with minors: Setting the ground rules. Translation and Interpreting Studies 13 (2), 208–229. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bot, H. (2005). Dialogue interpreting in mental health. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cicourel, A. V. (1992). The interpenetration of communicative contexts: examples from medical encounters. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 291–310.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Interpreter-mediated parent-teacher talk. Multilingual Matters, 1761, 200.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Methodological explorations of interpreter-mediated interaction: Novel insights from multimodal analysis. Qualitative Research 19 (1), 7–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drummond, N. (2009). Investigative interviewing – The PRICE model in Scotland. International Investigative Interviewing Research Group Bulletin 1 (1), 24–32.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du, B. (2015). The silenced interpreter: A case study of language and ideology in the Chinese criminal court. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law ‒ Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 28 (3), 507–524. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
English, F. (2010). Assessing non-native speaking detainees’ English language proficiency. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. Abingdon/New York: Routledge, 440–454.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gallai, F. (2013). “I’ll just intervene whenever he finds it a bit difficult to answer”: Exploring the myth of literalism in interpreted interviews. Investigative Interviewing: Research and Practice (II-RP) 5 (1), 57–78.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gallez, E. (2014). Ethos et interprétation judiciaire. Une analyse ethnographique de l’interprétation dans une cour d’assises belge: une étude de cas. PhD thesis, KU Leuven.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grant, T., Taylor, J., Oxburgh, G. & Myklebust, T. (2015). Exploring types and functions of questions in police interviews. In G. Oxburgh, T. Myklebust, T. Grant & R. Milne (Eds.), Communication in investigative and legal contexts: Integrated approaches from forensic psychology linguistics and law enforcement. Malden/Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 15–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990). Conversational cooperation in social perspective. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 16 (1), 429–444. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, S. B. (2007). Community interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haworth, K. (2009). An analysis of police interview discourse and its role (s) in the judicial process. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2005). Conversation Analysis and institutional talk. In K. L. Fitch & R. E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction. Hove: Psychology Press, 103–147.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Conversation Analysis as social theory. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), The new Blackwell companion to social theory. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 300–320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Clayman, S. (2011). Talk in action: Interactions identities and institutions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heydon, G. (2005). The language of police interviewing: A critical analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacquemet, M. (2013). Transidioma and asylum: Gumperz’s legacy in intercultural institutional talk. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 23 (3),199–212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1983). An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter. Tilburg: Tilburg University Department of Language and Literature.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica 261, 22–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knapp-Potthoff, A. & Knapp, K. (1987). The man (or woman) in the middle: Discoursal aspects of non-professional interpreting. In A. Knapp-Potthoff & K. Knapp (Eds.), Analyzing intercultural communication. Berlin: de Gruyter, 181–211. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Komter, M. (2005). Understanding problems in an interpreter-mediated police interrogation. In L. B. Stacy (Ed.), Ethnographies of law and social control (Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance 6). Bingley: Emerald, 203–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kredens, K. (2017). Making sense of adversarial interpreting. Language and Law = Linguagem e Direito 4 (1), 17–33.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krouglov, A. (1999). Police interpreting. Politeness and sociocultural context. The Translator 5 (2), 285–302. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krystallidou, D. (2013). The interpreter’s role in medical consultations as perceived and as interactionally negotiated: a study of a Flemish hospital setting, using interview data and video recorded interactions. PhD thesis, Ghent University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krystallidou, D., Remael, A., De Boe, E., Hendrickx, K., Tsakitzidis, G., Van de Geuchte, S., & Pype, P. (2018). Investigating empathy in interpreter-mediated simulated consultations: An explorative study. Patient Education and Counselling 101 (1), 33–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lai, M. & Mulayim, S. (2014). Interpreter linguistic intervention in the strategies employed by police in investigative interviews. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal 15 (4), 307–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lang, R. (1978). Behavioral aspects of liaison interpreters in Papua New Guinea: Some preliminary observations. In D. Gerver & H. W. Sinaiko (Eds.), Language interpretation and communication. New York: Plenum, 231–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maryns, K. (2006). The asylum speaker. Language in the Belgian asylum procedure. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mason, I. (Ed.) (1999). Dialogue Interpreting. Special issue of The Translator 5 (2).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Models and methods in dialogue interpreting research. In M. Olohan (Ed.), Intercultural faultlines. Manchester: St Jerome, 215–232.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Gaze, positioning and identity in interpreter-mediated dialogues. In C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 177–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Metzger, M. (1999). Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meyer, B. (2012). Ad hoc interpreting for partially language-proficient patients. In C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 99–113. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Milne, B. & Powell, M. (2010). Investigative interviewing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Monteoliva-García, E. (2017). The collaborative construction of the stand-by mode of interpreting in police interviews with suspects. PhD thesis, Heriot-Watt University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, F. (1989). Translation in bilingual conversation: Pragmatic aspects of translatory interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 13 (5), 713–739. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nakane, I. (2007). Problems in communicating the suspect’s rights in interpreted police interviews. Applied Linguistics 28 (1), 87–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). The myth of an invisible mediator: An Australian case study of English-Japanese police interpreting. PORTAL Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies 6(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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
(2011). The role of silence in interpreted police interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (9), 2317–2330. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Language rights of non-Japanese defendants in Japanese criminal courts. In Gottlieb, N. (Ed.), Language and citizenship in Japan. London: Routledge, 167–186.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Interpreter-mediated police interviews: A discourse-pragmatic approach Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pasquandrea, S. (2011). Managing multiple actions through multimodality: Doctors’ involvement in interpreter-mediated interactions. Language in Society 40 (4), 455–481. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. (2008). “I’m very not about the law part”: Nonnative speakers of English and the Miranda warnings. TESOL Quarterly 42 (1), 1–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, F. (2016). Introducing interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Ortony, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 284–310.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rock, F. (2017). Shifting ground: Exploring the backdrop to translating and interpreting. The Translator 23 (2), 217–236. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rossano, F. (2012). Gaze in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roy, C. B. (2000). Interpreting as a discourse process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Russell, S. (2000). ‘Let me put it simply…’: The case for a standard translation of the police caution and its explanation. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 7 (1), 26–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Russell, S. C. (2001). Guilty as charged? The effect of interpreting on interviews with suspects. PhD thesis, University of Aston in Birmingham.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: Volume 1: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Streeck, J. (2014). Revisiting Kendon’s ‘Gaze direction in two-person conversation’. In M. Seyfeddinipur & M. Gullberg (Eds.), From gesture in conversation to visible action as utterance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 35–55.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traverso, V. (2012). Ad hoc-interpreting in multilingual work meetings. In C. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 149–176. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vranjes, J., Bot, H., Feyaerts, K. & Brône, G. (2018). Displaying recipiency in an interpreter-mediated dialogue. Eye-tracking in Interaction: Studies on the role of eye gaze in dialogue, 101, 303–324. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wadensjö, C. (1995). Dialogue interpreting and the distribution of responsibility. Hermes: Journal of Language and Communication in Business 141, 111–129.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Interpreting in crises. In I. Mason (Ed.), Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting. Manchester: St Jerome, 71–87.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Interpreting as interaction. London: Longman. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Kohutych, Ivan, Volodymyr Fihurskyy, Nataliya Maksymyshyn & Valentyn Muradov
2024. Certain aspects of communication with persons interrogated in court in criminal proceedings. Social Legal Studios 7:3 ► pp. 234 ff. DOI logo
Mora-Rodriguez, Michael
2024. Multilingual police interaction: a conversation analysis of crime control in border checks. Multilingua 43:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
王, 春丽
2022. Multimodal Interpreting Studies: A State-of-the-Art Review and Prospects. Modern Linguistics 10:11 ► pp. 2598 ff. DOI logo
Napier, Jemina
2021. Understanding the Implications of Sign Language Brokering. In Sign Language Brokering in Deaf-Hearing Families, ► pp. 299 ff. DOI logo
Napier, Jemina
2021. Signing Deaf Communities and Language Brokering. In Sign Language Brokering in Deaf-Hearing Families, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Napier, Jemina
2022. Review of Salaets & Brône (2020): Linking up with Video: Perspectives on interpreting practice and research. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 24:1 ► pp. 147 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