Cover not available

Article published In: Interpreting
Vol. 17:2 (2015) ► pp.167–194

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

Evaluation of court interpreting

A case study of metadiscourse in interpreter-mediated expert witness examinations

 | Ewha Womans University
Published online: 3 September 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.2.02lee
The present paper examines the metadiscourse of court interpreting, with a focus on the evaluative language used in relation to interpreting of expert witness testimony. The study explores interactional resources such as hedges, boosters, attitude markers, self-mentions and engagement markers, employed by participants in the interpreter-mediated South Korean courtroom examinations of three English-speaking expert witnesses. Extracts analysed for this paper, involving a total of four interpreters, are taken from two court cases (four extracts each from a civil case, featuring experienced conference interpreters, and a criminal case, with unskilled interpreters). In courtroom settings, where the interpretation of expert testimony is frequently contested, this study demonstrates metadiscursive representation of stance management during professional communication, which is closely linked with facework and rapport management. The analysis indicates that hedging is far more frequently used than boosters, and that various attitude markers and engagement markers are used in evaluating interpretations and ensuring their accuracy. Legal professionals and interpreters alike display their evaluative, affective and epistemic orientation in the interdisciplinary professional discourse, and personal interaction, of the courtroom examinations analysed here.
References (68)
Ahn, J. (2009). A study on the meaning and function on shortened-form discourse markers ‘com’ and ‘mak’. Hankwuk Sacenhak (Korean Lexicography) 141, 199–223.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
An, Y.-M. (2013). A study on the usage aspect of the ‘katta’. Korean Semantics 411, 79–110.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2009). Translation style and participation roles in court interpreting. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13 (1), 3–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 91, 93–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bondi, M. & Mauranen, A. (2003). Editorial: Evaluative language use in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2 (4), 269–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bucholz, M. & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural approach. Discourse Studies 7 (4/5), 585–614. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Ste¤enson, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication 10 (1), 39–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2009). Meta-discourse as a source for exploring the professional image(s) of conference interpreters. Hermes 421, 71–91.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Englebretson, R. (2007). Stancetaking in discourse: An introduction. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behaviour. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
González, R.D., Vasquez, V. & Mikkelson, H. (2012) Fundamentals of court interpretation: Theory, policy and practice (2nd ed.). Durham: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hobbs, P. (2002). Tipping the scales of justice: Deconstruction an expert’s testimony on cross-examination. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 151, 411–424. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hölker, K. (1991). Französisch: Partikelforschung. Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik 11, 77–88.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 251, 156–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. The Journal of Business Communication 35 (2), 224–245. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse . Discourse Studies 7 (2), 173–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E. (2005). Discourse and metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 371, 1325–1353. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Joo, K. (2000). The function of ‘com’ in conversation. Kwukekwumwunhak (Korean language and Literature) 1261, 75–99.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jucker, A.H. (1993). The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 191, 435–452. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2006). Stance-taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text & Talk 261, 699–731. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2007). The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 183–219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, H. (2011). An interactional analysis of the meanings and functions of -nun kes kathta ‘(I) think’ in Korean conversation. Language and Linguistics 521, 25–51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, H. (1999). The meaning of Korean discourse marker ‘mwe’. Tamwhawa Inci (Discourse and Cognition) 6 (1), 137–157.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
. (2011). A study of legal interpreting service providers’ and users’ perceptions of the norms in legal interpreting. Penyekhakyenkwu (Translation Studies) 12 (3), 197–224.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2013). A study of facework in interpreter-mediated courtroom examination. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 21 (1), 82–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2014). A pressing need for the reform of interpreting service at asylum settings: A case study of asylum appeal hearings in South Korea. Journal of Refugee Studies 271, 62–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2015). How many interpreters does it take to interpret the testimony of an expert witness?: A case study of interpreter-mediated expert witness examination. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 28 (1), 189–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leung, E. & Gibbons, J. (2008). Who is responsible? Participant roles in legal interpreting cases. Multilingua 271, 177–191. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Locher, M.A. & Watts, R.J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1), 9–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luuka, M.R. (1994). Metadiscourse in academic texts. In B.L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell & B. Nordberg (Eds.), Text and talk in professional context. Uppsala, Sweden: ASLA, 77–88.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luzón, M.H. (2012). “Your argument is wrong”: A contribution to the study of evaluation in academic weblogs. Text & Talk 32 (2), 145–165. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maley, Y. (2000). The case of the long-nosed potoroo: The framing and construction of expert witness testimony. In S. Sarangi & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Discourse and social life. Essex: Longman, 246–269.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, J. & White, P. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matoesian, G.M. (1999). The grammaticalization of participant roles in the constitution of expert identity. Language in Society 281, 491–521. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2008). Role conflict as an interactional source in in the multimodal emergence of expert identity. Semiotica 171, 15–49.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. & Bondi, M. (2003). Evaluative language use in academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 21, 269–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McEntnee-Atalianis, L.J. (2013). Stance and metaphor: Mapping changing representations of (organizational) identity. Discourse & Communication 7 (3), 319–340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miguelez, C. (2001). Interpreting expert witness testimony. In I. Mason (Ed.), Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome, 3–19.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moreno, A.I. & Suárez, L. (2008). A framework for comparing evaluation resources across academic texts. Text & Talk 28 (6), 749–769. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pym, A. (1999). “Nicole slapped Michelle”: 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
Querol-Julian, M. & Fortanet-Gomez, I. (2012). Multimodal evaluation in academic discussion sessions: How do presenters act and react? English for Specific Purposes 311, 271–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shuy, R. (2006). Linguistics in the courtroom: A practical guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures. London/New York: Continuum, 11–46.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. & Franklin, P. (2009). Intercultural interaction: A multidisciplinary approach to intercultural communication. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stern, P.J. & Ballard, L.E. (n.d.) “Lost in translation”: Dealing with interpretation issues in international litigation. [URL] (accessed 30 October 2014).
Stygall, G. (2001). A different class of witnesses: Experts in the courtroom. Discourse Studies 3 (3), 327–349. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, G. & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–27.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tracy, K. (2011). What’s in a name? Stance markers in oral argument about marriage laws. Discourse & Communication 5 (1), 65–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vande Kopple, W.J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 261, 82–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wharton, S. (2012). Epistemological and interpersonal stance in a data description task: Findings from a discipline-specific learner corpus. English for Specific Purposes 311, 261–270. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winiecki, D. (2008). The expert witnesses and courtroom discourse: Applying micro and macro forms of discourse analysis to study process and the ‘doings of doings’ for individuals and society. Discourse & Society 19 (6), 765–781. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yu, K. (2008). The NSM-based approach to a Korean discourse marker: com . Tamhwawa Inci (Discourse and Cognition) 15 (1), 89–109.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Cavents, Dries, July De Wilde & Jelena Vranjes
2025. Towards a multimodal approach for analysing interpreter's management of rapport challenge in onsite and video remote interpreting. Journal of Pragmatics 235 ► pp. 220 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Wenkang, Yao Yao, Rui Xie & Dechao Li
2025. Can artificial intelligence mirror the human’s emotions? A comparative sentiment analysis of human and machine interpreting in press conferences. Behaviour & Information Technology ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Ren, Wen & Lu Wang
2023. A corpus-based study of metadiscourse features in Chinese-English simultaneous interpreting. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
Yi, Ran
2023. Interpreting the Manner of Speech in courts: an overlooked aspect. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
Yi, Ran
2025. Tech-empowered equity: advancing linguistic justice through digital scholarship. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 40:1 ► pp. 381 ff. DOI logo
Lee, Jieun & Seoyeon Hong
2021. Help me to help you to help me: a conversation analytic study of other-initiated repairs in a case of Korean–Russian interpreter-mediated investigative interviews in South Korea. Perspectives 29:4 ► pp. 522 ff. DOI logo
Abdel Latif, Muhammad M. M.
2018. Towards a typology of pedagogy-oriented translation and interpreting research. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 12:3 ► pp. 322 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