Article published In: Interpreting
Vol. 16:2 (2014) ► pp.191–208
The use of reported speech and the perceived neutrality of court interpreters
Published online: 22 September 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.16.2.03che
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.16.2.03che
A mock trial, with two-way consecutive interpreting between Cantonese and English, was used to test perceptions of a court interpreter’s neutrality when interpreting into Cantonese in reported rather than direct speech. Monolingual Cantonese speakers played the part of witnesses using the interpreter. Three groups were created: a control group (16 participants), receiving interpretation of all English utterances into Cantonese in direct speech; and two experimental groups (17 participants each). The experimental groups received interpretation with occasional switches to reported speech. These were introduced by third person pronouns (e.g., “he said”) for one group (the ‘pronoun group’), and by professional titles (e.g., “the judge said”) for the other group (the ‘title group’). Participants afterwards completed a questionnaire, assessing neutrality and alignment on a 5-point Likert scale. The title group not only perceived the interpreter to be aligned with the English speakers, but also gave a significantly different assessment of neutrality from the control group. The pronoun group perceived the interpreter to be aligned with them, but did not differ significantly from the control group in their perception of neutrality. Use of pronouns or professional titles in the reporting clauses thus affected the interpreter’s perceived neutrality differently.
References (49)
Angermeyer, P. (2009). Translation style and participant roles in court interpreting. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13 (1), 3–28.
Berk-Seligson, S. (2002). The impact of politeness in witness testimony. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds.), The interpreting studies reader. London/New York: Routledge, 278–292.
Bot, H. (2005). Dialogue interpreting as a specific case of reported speech. Interpreting 7 (2), 237–261.
Bot, H. & Wadensjö, C. (2004). The presence of a third party: A dialogical view on interpreter-assisted treatment. In J.P. Wilson & B. Droždek (Eds.), Broken spirits: The treatment of traumatised asylum seekers, refugees, war and torture victims.Hove/New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Brennan, M. (1994). Cross-examining children in criminal courts: Child welfare under attack. In J. Gibbons (Ed.), Language and the law. London/New York: Longman, 199–216.
Cheung, A. (2012). The use of reported speech by court interpreters in Hong Kong. Interpreting 14 (1), 73–91.
Christensen, T.P. (2008). Judges’ deviations from norm-based direct speech in court. Interpreting 10 (1), 99–127.
d’Ardenne, P., Farmer, E., Ruaro, L. & Priebe, S. (2007). Not lost in translation: Protocols for interpreting trauma-focused CBT. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 351, 303–316.
Dubslaff, F. & Martinsen, B. (2005). Exploring untrained interpreters’ use of direct versus indirect speech. Interpreting 7 (2), 211–236.
Edwards, R. (1998). A critical examination of the use of interpreters in the qualitative research process. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 24 (1), 197–208.
Gile, D. (2009). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Rev. edn. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
González, R.D., Vásquez, V.F. & Mikkelson, H. (1991). Fundamentals of court interpretation: Theory, policy, and practice. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Hale, S.B. (2004). The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the witness and the interpreter. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hale, S. (2011). Interpreter policies, practices, and protocols in Australian courts and tribunals: A national survey. Melbourne: Minuteman Press.
Hamilton, H. (1998). Reported speech and survivor identity in on-line bone marrow transplantation narratives. Journal of Sociolinguistics 2 (1), 53–67.
Harris, B. (1990). Norms in interpretation. Target 2 (1), 115–119.
Hengst, J., Frame, S., Neuman-Stritzel, T. & Gannaway, R. (2005). Using others’ words: Conversational use of reported speech by individuals with aphasia and their communication partners. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 48 (1), 137–156.
Holsanova, J. (2006). Quotations as a vehicle for social positioning. In Hausendorf, H. & Bora, A. (Eds.), Analysing citizenship talk. Discourse approaches to politics, society and culture.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 251–275.
Hsieh, E. (2006). Conflicts in how interpreters manage their roles in provider-patient interactions. Social Science and Medicine 62 (3), 721–730.
Jie, X. & Zhong, Y. (2008). Locating users of interpretation in the court: An impact analysis of literal and meaningful renditions in a mock court situation. Babel 54 (4), 327–342.
Johnen, T. & Meyer, B. (2007). Between connectivity and modality: Reported speech in interpreter-mediated doctor-patient communication. In J. Rehbein, C. Hohenstein & L. Pietsch (Eds.), Connectivity in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 395–417.
Komter, M. (2005). Understanding problems in an interpreter-mediated police interrogation. In S.L. Burns (Ed.), Ethnographies of law and social control. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing, 203–224.
Laster, K. & Taylor, V. (1994). Interpreters and the legal system. Leichhardt, NSW: The Federation Press.
Lee, J. (2010). Interpreting reported speech in witnesses’ evidence. Interpreting 12 (1), 60–82.
Leinonen, S. (2004). Professional stocks of interactional knowledge in the interpreter’s profession. In C. Wadensjö, B.E. Dimitrova & A. Nilsson (Eds.), The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of interpreting in the community. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 227–240.
Maley, Y. (1994). The language of the law. In J. Gibbons (Ed.), Language and the law. London/New York: Longman, 11–50.
Marcus, L.J., Dorn, B.C. & McNulty, E.J. (2011). Renegotiating health care: Resolving conflict to build collaboration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Martinsen, B. & Dubslaff, F. (2010). The cooperative courtroom. Interpreting 12 (1), 21–59.
. (2008). Evolving views of the court interpreter’s role: Between Scylla and Chrybdis. In C. Valero-Garcés & A. Martin (Eds.), Crossing borders in community interpreting: Definitions and dilemmas. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 81–97.
Metzger, M. (1999). Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Moeketsi, R. (2000). The do’s and don’ts in court interpreting: A functional approach to a professional code. Language Matters 30 (1), 222–242.
Moore, C.W. (2003). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Murray, C.D. & Wynne, J. (2001). Researching community, work and family with an interpreter. Community, Work and Family 4 (2), 151–171.
Myers, G. (1999). Functions of reported speech in group discussions. Applied Linguistics 20 (3), 376–401.
Ng, K. (2009). The common law in two voices: Language, law, and the postcolonial dilemma in Hong Kong. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Niska, H. (1999). Status quaestionis: Community interpreting in Sweden. In M. Erasmus (Ed.), Liaison interpreting in the community. Pretoria: Van Schaik, 138–142.
Phelan, M. & Parkman, S. (1995). How to do it: Work with an interpreter. British Medical Journal 3111, 555–557.
Roberts-Smith, L. (2009). Forensic interpreting: Trial and error. In S. Hale, U. Ozolins & L. Stern (Eds.), The Critical Link 5: Quality in interpreting – a shared responsibility. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Shlesinger, M. (1991). Interpreter latitude vs. due process: Simultaneous and consecutive interpretation in multilingual trails. In S. Tirkkonen-Condit (Ed.), Empirical research in translation and intercultural studies: Selected papers of the TRANSIF seminar, Savonlinna 1988. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 147–155.
Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Takimoto, M. & Koshiba, K. (2009). Shift in footing in a multi-party interpreting situation: The choice of pronouns by an interpreter and its effects. Monash University Linguistics Papers 6 (2), 1–9.
van de Mieroop, D. (2012). The quotative ‘he/she says’ in interpreted doctor-patient interaction. Interpreting 14 (1), 92–117.
Wallmach, K. (2002). Seizing the surge of language by its soft, bare skull: Simultaneous interpreting, the truth commission and Country of my skull
. Current Writing 14 (2), 64–82.
Zetterstrand, S. (2004). Direct speech in legal settings. NAJIT position paper. Washington, DC: National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators.
Cited by (18)
Cited by 18 other publications
Liu, Wanli, Xuequn Wang & Yibai Li
Wong, Cecilia Lok Yee
2025. Corpus-driven study of interpreters’ use of Cantonese utterance particles in sentence-initial position in
bilingual courtroom discourse. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation / Revista Internacional de Traducción 71:4 ► pp. 500 ff.
Guo, Wei, Xun Guo, Junkang Huang & Sha Tian
Määttä, Simo & Tuija Kinnunen
Xu, Han
Yao, Mengni, Sha Tian & Wenming Zhong
Li, Ruitian, Kanglong Liu & Andrew K. F. Cheung
Yi, Ran
Zhang, Yifan & Andrew K. F. Cheung
Dayter, Daria
Amuzu, Evershed K., Akua Campbell & Seth Ofori
Ren, Wen & Juan Huang
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
Cheung, Andrew K. F.
2018. Non-renditions and the court interpreter’s perceived impartiality. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 20:2 ► pp. 232 ff.
Cheung, Andrew K. F.
2022. Listeners’ perception of the quality of simultaneous interpreting and perceived dependence on simultaneous interpreting. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 24:1 ► pp. 38 ff.
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 march 2026. 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.