As most language specialists will be aware, the role of the interpreter is a complex one, one that goes beyond the simple rendering of speech; one set of words and phrases, from one language into another.
In theory, the job is to do what it says on the tin; that is, whilst remaining as faithful as possible to the original statement, to interpret the meaning of an utterance and to communicate any given message as effectively as possible. Varying situations call for a varying approach and set of rules appropriate to the context. The set of considerations and methods of mediating between parties within a legal context are clearly of paramount importance, particularly when considering that justice could potentially be put at stake and an innocent individual’s freedom lost if sides are not afforded the opportunity to put their point across as clearly as they possibly can. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR - 1966) highlights the rights of any individual accused of a crime who does not understand or speak the language of the country to the services of a court appointed translator, often sourced by organisations who specialise in legal translation services. However, not all countries are in compliance with the treaty and the ones that are often focus solely on the rights of the accused in the courtroom, bypassing the lengthy interrogation process that can occur before a case reaches court and the importance of other key players such as witnesses who do not necessarily have a reasonable command of language 1. As scholars addressing these weaknesses in the legal system have highlighted, the importance of language 2 is reduced almost to zero when we also take into account the fact that it is often left up to the individual judge to decide whether an interpreter is required for proceedings or not, and that official transcripts, regardless of the presence of another language in the courtroom, only record utterances in language 1, meaning that any interaction between interpreter and the accused has no legal status whatsoever. We could therefore claim that this situation transforms our interpreter from a mere language machine, absorbing one set of words and translating them for the benefit of the court, into a significant player, one could argue the most significant, as they transform themselves into the position of the accused; the nuances and tone of their translation becoming crucial to the outcome of court proceedings. The risk of unqualified interpreters being put into this powerful position therefore becomes all the more frightening and undermines the justice system that so many put their faith into. A crucial part of learning a foreign language is to absorb the cultural norms of the people who speak that language and a profound understanding of any cultural differences that may unnecessarily jeopardise the case of the accused must be correctly interpreted and conveyed in the courtroom. With scholars such as Buschholtz claiming that linguistic problems in the courtroom relate directly to problems such as the disproportionate number of Spanish speakers in the U.S. prison system and the increasing numbers of non-english speaking refugee and immigrant families on our own tiny island, the vulnerability of these people to the potential inadequacies of our legal system becomes all the more relevant as time goes by, and it is only through the establishment of professional, specialist organisations who can provide the correct support and training for the rapidly disappearing number of linguists in this country that we can truly hope to combat these problems.
Written by Lucy Rock, Professional Linguist and Associate of Expert Language Solutions
