Cover not available

Article published In: Interpreting
Vol. 24:2 (2022) ► pp.254–278

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

The tale of two countries

Police interpreting in the UK vs in the US

 | University of East Anglia
Published online: 7 April 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00080.fil
Abstract
The aim of this research was to compare the quality of language services and of linguistic evidence obtained in UK police interviews and US police interrogations with suspects, witnesses and victims who speak little or no English and have to communicate via an interpreter. This is the first study of its kind based on substantial real-life data from both jurisdictions, which rely on different types of service provision. The data were annotated using NVivo 12 software and the methodology included a quantitative analysis of miscommunication instances that arise as a result of cross-linguistic or cross-cultural contrasts and a qualitative analysis of the interpreting standards and information details recorded in official transcripts. It was discovered that both countries exhibit some advantageous features in their language service provision. although both also have shortcomings that should be responded to and remedied. The US data reveal that the transcripts there are more detailed and more informative, and are produced bilingually and verbatim; this is not the case in the UK context. However, the use of non-professional interpreters in the US, unlike in the UK, where professional interpreters are employed, is shown to be highly problematic. The article concludes with a summary of empirical insights that can be used to improve evidence-gathering, access to justice in multilingual contexts, policy development and the training of law-enforcement and language professionals around the world.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Police communication and police interpreting: A brief literature review
  • 3.Data and method
  • 4.Data analysis: A comparative quality check
    • 4.1Quality of transcripts
    • 4.2Quality of interpreting
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
References (41)
References
Ainsworth, J. (2008). “You have the right to remain silent … But only if you ask for it just so”: The role of linguistic ideology in American police interrogation law. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 15 (1), 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Curtailing coercion in police interrogation: The failed promise of Miranda v. Arizona. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. London: Routledge, 111–125.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berk-Seligson, S. (1983). Sources of variation in Spanish verb construction usage: The active, the dative, and the reflexive passive. Journal of Pragmatics 7, 145–168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Coerced confessions: The discourse of bilingual police interrogations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Negotiation and communicative accommodation in bilingual police interrogations: A critical interactional sociolinguistic perspective. International Journal of Sociology of Language 2071, 29–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Totality of circumstances and translating the Miranda warnings. In S. Enrlich, D. Eades & J. Ainsworth (Eds.), Discursive constructions of consent in the legal process. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 241–263. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Filipović, L. (2007). Language as a witness: Insights from cognitive linguistics. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 14 (2), 245–267. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). The role of language in legal contexts: A forensic cross-linguistic viewpoint. In M. Freeman & F. Smith (Eds.), Law and language (Current Legal Issues 15). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 328–343. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021a). Confession to make: Inadvertent confessions and admissions in United Kingdom and United States police contexts. Frontiers in Psychology. (accessed 10 March 2022).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(in press). The good, the bad and the ugly: Miscommunication in UK police interviews and US police interrogations. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology.
Filipović, L. & Abad Vergara, S. (2018). Juggling investigation and interpretation: The problematic dual role of police officer-interpreter. Law and Language 5 (1), 62–79.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Filipović, L. & Hijazo-Gascón, A. (2018). Interpreting meaning in police interviews: Applied language typology in a forensic linguistics context. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 151, 67–104.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbons, J. (1990). Applied linguistics in court. Applied Linguistics 11 (3), 229–237. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Forensic linguistics. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, S., Goodman-Delahunty, J. & Martschuk, N. (2019). Interpreter performance in police interviews. Differences between trained interpreters and untrained bilinguals. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 13 (2), 107–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hales, L. & Filipović, L. (2016). Language rights in danger: Access to justice and linguistic (in)equality in multilingual judicial contexts. In L. Filipović & M. Pütz (Eds.), Endangered languages and languages in danger: Issues of ecology, policy and documentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 61–85. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haworth, K. (2010). Police interviews in the judicial process: Police interviews as evidence. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. London: Routledge, 169–194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Tapes, transcripts and trials: The routine contamination of police interview evidence. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof 22 (4), 428–450. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hayes, A. & Hale, S. (2010). Appeals on incompetent interpreting. Journal of Judicial Administration 20 (2), 119–130.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hijazo-Gascón, A. & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2013). Same family, different paths: Intratypological differences in three Romance languages. In J. Goschler & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39–54. 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
Mayfield, K. (2016). The issues and challenges surrounding interpreter-assisted investigative interviews of victims and witnesses. MA dissertation, London Metropolitan University. [URL] (accessed 21 February 2021).
(2017). Language services protocol for law enforcement bodies. [URL] (accessed 21 February 2021).
Milne, R. & Bull, R. (1999). Investigative interviewing: Psychology and practice. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Monteoliva-García, E. (2020). Interpreting or other forms of language support? Experiences and decision-making among response and community police officers in Scotland. Translation & Interpreting, 12 (1), 37–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mulayim, S., Lai, M. & Norma, C. (2015). Police investigative interviews and interpreting: context, challenges, and strategies. Boca Raton: CRC Press.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
(2014). Interpreter-mediated police interviews: A discourse-pragmatic approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 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
(2017). The presentation of rights and obligations in police interviews in the USA. Multilingualism, Forensic Linguistics and the Law Conference, Oslo University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rojo, A. & Valenzuela, J. (2013). Constructing meaning in translation: The role of constructions in translation problems. In A. Rojo & I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and translation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 283–310. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rojo, A., Ramos, M. & Valenzuela, J. (2014). The emotional impact of translation: A heart rate study. Journal of Pragmatics 711, 31–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Russell, S. (2001). “Let me put it simply …”: The case for a standard translation of the police caution and its explanation. Forensic Linguistics 71, 26–48.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tipton, R. (2017). “You are foreign, you are nothing in this country”: Managing risk in interpreter-mediated police interviews with victims of domestic abuse. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 751, 119–138.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). “Yes I understand”: Language choice, question formation and code-switching in interpreter-mediated police interviews with victim-survivors of domestic abuse. International Journal of Police Practice and Research 22 (1), 1058–1076. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
US Department of Justice (2015). [URL]
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Elder, Chi-Hé & Luna Filipović
2025. “I never said that”. Pragmatics and Society 16:2 ► pp. 174 ff. DOI logo
Tosun, Sümeyra & Luna Filipović
2025. Bilingual language processing of evidentiality in a Turkish-English translation and judgment task: the effect of translator training. Language Awareness ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Cifuentes-Férez, Paula
2024.  Approaching the emotional impact of loss of manner in translation: a case study on the reception of translated domestic violence testimonies . Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 56:2 ► pp. 317 ff. DOI logo
Hijazo-Gascón, Alberto, María Gómez-Bedoya & Luna Filipović
2024. Interpreting Swearwords in Police Interviews and Perceived Offensiveness of Insults in the UK and Spain. Applied Linguistics 45:4 ► pp. 718 ff. DOI logo
Defrancq, Bart & Sofie Verliefde
2023. A Dutch discourse marker in interpreter-mediated police interviewing with drafting: A corpus-based approach to dialogue interpreting. Research in Corpus Linguistics 11:2 ► pp. 50 ff. DOI logo
Haworth, Kate, James Tompkinson, Emma Richardson, Felicity Deamer & Magnus Hamann
2023. “For the Record”: applying linguistics to improve evidential consistency in police investigative interview records. Frontiers in Communication 8 DOI logo
Xia, Jianlan & Xiaoyan Bao
2023. Progress, limitations and prospects of police interpreting professionalization in China. Cogent Social Sciences 9:2 DOI logo
Filipović, Luna
2022. Language and Culture as Sources of Inequality in US Police Interrogations. Applied Linguistics 43:6 ► pp. 1073 ff. DOI logo
Filipović, Luna
2025. Grammar and Applied Language Typology. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ► pp. 1 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