NCJ Number
159009
Journal
Criminology Australia Volume: 6 Issue: 4 Dated: (May 1995) Pages: 9-14
Date Published
1995
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This article explores empirically the extent to which Australian lawyers and interpreters adhere to the law's conception of the role of interpreter as "conduit."
Abstract
Prosecutors, defense counsel, and interpreters involved in eight county court criminal trials were interviewed to determine their experiences of interpreted evidence during the course of a trial. The interviews sought to establish each profession's understanding of the role of the interpreter in the context of the linguistic and cultural issues that emerged in the individual cases in which they were involved. Participants were asked open- ended questions about interpreting issues in the court system, such as training, working relationships, and the needs of interpreters. A total of 21 interviews were conducted. Under the conduit model for testimony supplied through an interpreter, the interpreter is viewed as a mechanical device who transmits interpreted testimony as though there were no language barriers or modifications in communication as a result of changing the words of one language spoken by a particular individual into the words of another language as interpreted by a particular individual. Based upon the findings of this study, the authors recommend that the model of the interpreter be changed from that of a conduit to a "communication facilitator." "Communication" embraces the cerebral, nonverbal, and cultural dimensions of human interactions; "facilitator," rather than "conduit" credits the interpreter with a more active and discretionary role. Given the increased recognition of the discretionary role of the interpreter, this role should become more professionalized through increased education and accountability. 9 references