Cover not available

Article published In: Interpreting
Vol. 17:1 (2015) ► pp.64–90

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

Court interpreting and classical rhetoric

Ethos in interpreter-mediated monological discourse

 | KU Leuven
Published online: 30 March 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.1.04gal
This case study is based on a transcript of an authentic criminal proceeding in a Belgian Assize Court, where Dutch is the official language and the French-speaking defendant receives simultaneous whispered interpretation of the prosecutor’s closing speech. Examining six excerpts from the speech, which is addressed to the judges and the lay jury, the analysis compares the Dutch original with the French interpretation. The specific focus of the study is the Aristotelian concept of ethos, i.e. the image the speaker seeks to convey of himself by foregrounding his professional expertise, integrity and goodwill towards the audience. Since the rhetorical devices he uses for this purpose are often absent from the interpretation in the extracts analysed, the strategic persuasiveness of his speech is weakened. This means that the defendant is likely to gain an incomplete, misleading perception of his own case. In the light of the examples presented here, the authors argue that the theory of classical rhetoric affords a useful framework for exploring interpreter-mediated legal monologues in a dialogical perspective.
References (49)
Amossy, R. (2001). Ethos at the crossroads of disciplines: Rhetoric, pragmatics, sociology. Poetics Today 22 (1), 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2010). La présentation de soi. Ethos et identité verbale. Paris: PUF. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aristotle (1991). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. Newly translated with Introduction, Notes, and Appendixes by G.A. Kennedy. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Atkinson, J.M. & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court: The organization of verbal behaviour in judicial settings. London: Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bastow, T. (2008). Defence discourse II: A corpus perspective on routine and rhetoric in defence discourse. In A. Mayer (Ed.), Language and power: An introduction to institutional discourse. London/New York: Continuum, 138–162.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baumlin, J.S. (2001). Ethos. In T.O. Sloane (Ed.), Encyclopedia of rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 263–277.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berk-Seligson, S. (1990). The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Braet, A. (2007). Retorische kritiek. Overtuigingskracht van Cicero tot Balkenende. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. (1978). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M. (2000). The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatics 321, 1439–1465. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
D’hondt, S. (2009). Good cops, bad cops: Intertextuality, agency, and structure in criminal trial discourse. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42 (3), 249–275. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emmel, B.A. (2005). Some dialogic aspects of monologic argumentation in the courtroom. Studies in Communication Sciences 4 (3), 217–231.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Felton Rosulek, L. (2010). Prosecution and defense closing speeches. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. London: Routledge, 218–230. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frydman, B. (2007). La contestation du jury populaire. Symptôme d’une crise rhétorique et démocratique. Questions de Communication 121, 103–117. 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 dissertation, KU Leuven.
Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2006). Themes and methodological issues in court interpreting research. In E. Hertog & B. van der Veer (Eds.), Taking stock: Research and methodology in community interpreting. Linguistica Antverpiensia 51, 205–228.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2007). Community interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herrick, J.A. (2005). The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction. Boston: Allyn and Beacon.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobsen, B. (2002). Pragmatic meaning in court interpreting: An empirical study of additions in consecutively interpreted question-answer dialogues. PhD dissertation, The Aarhus School of Business.
Jasinski, J. (2001). Sourcebook on rhetoric: Key concepts in contemporary rhetorical studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kienpointner, M. (1995). Rhetoric. In J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman & J. Blommaert (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics. Manual. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 453–461. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Komter, M. (1998). Dilemmas in the courtroom: A study of trials of violent crime in the Nether­lands. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, J. (2009). Interpreting inexplicit language during courtroom examination. Applied Linguistics 30 (1), 93–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maingueneau, D. (2007). Analyser les textes de communication. Paris: Armand Colin. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mason, I. & Stewart, M. (2001). Interactional pragmatics, face and the dialogue interpreter. In I. Mason (Ed.), Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome, 51–70.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matoesian, G. (2005). Struck by speech revisited: Embodied stance in jurisdictional discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9 (2), 167–193. 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
Plantin, C. (2009). La personne comme ressource argumentative: ethos et résistance à l’autorité. In P. Charaudeau (Ed.), Identités sociales et discursives du sujet parlant. Paris: L’Harmattan, 55–70.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing interpreting studies. London/New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Poulakos, J. (2001). Sophists. In T.O. Sloane (Ed.), Encyclopedia of rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 732–733.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pym, A. (1999). Nicole slapped Michelle: On interpreters and theories of interpreting at the O. J. Simpson trial. The Translator 5 (2), 265–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rudvin, M. (2006). The cultural turn in community interpreting: A brief analysis of epistemological developments in community interpreting literature in the light of paradigm changes in the humanities. In E. Hertog & B. van der Veer (Eds.), Taking stock: Research and methodology in community interpreting. Linguistica Antverpiensia 51, 21–41.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rudvin, M. & Tomassini, E. (2011). Interpreting in the community and workplace: A practical teaching guide. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saville-Troike, M. (2003). The ethnography of communication: An introduction. London: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shlesinger, M. (1991). Interpreter latitude versus due process: Simultaneous and consecutive interpretation in multilingual trials. In S. Tirkkonen-Condit (Ed.), Empirical research in translation and intercultural studies. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 147–155.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tindale C.W. (2004). Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traest, P. (2001). The jury in Belgium. Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal 72 (1), 27–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tulkens, F. & van de Kerchove, M. (1997). Introduction au droit pénal. Aspects juridiques et criminologiques. Bruxelles: Story-Scientia.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2005–2006). Online course in relevance theory and pragmatics. University College London. Department of Phonetics and Linguistics.
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

de Oliveira Fernandes, Daniel & Steve Oswald
2022. On the Rhetorical Effectiveness of Implicit Meaning—A Pragmatic Approach. Languages 8:1 ► pp. 6 ff. DOI logo
Guo, Yijun
2021. Contrastive images of journalists and Chinese premiers in interpreter-mediated press conferences: a case study of Chinese ‘xiexie’. Perspectives 29:4 ► pp. 507 ff. DOI logo
Defrancq, Bart & Sofie Verliefde
2017. Interpreter-mediated “paternalistic” interaction in a judge-centered courtroom. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 19:2 ► pp. 209 ff. DOI logo

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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue