antiCiPation in siMultaneous
7. disCussion oF the data
InthispartofthepaperI wouldliketohighlightsomedatafromthequestionnaire,pointing
tosixaspectsofcourtinterpreting,andreflectonfindingsoftheinternationalliteratureof
courtinterpreting.
7.1 howtochooseaninterPreter?
asshowninFigure 2,tenrespondentsreportedthattheychooseaninterpreterfromtheregister
ofcourtinterpreters,whichhasnotactuallybeenofficiallydrawnupinHungary.Judgeshave
a listofexpertstheycanchoosefromanda registerofcourtinterpreterswouldhelpthem,too.
directive2010/64/eurequiresmemberstatestotakemeasurestoensuretheproperqualityofin- terpretationandtranslationandmemberstates“shallendeavour”(butarenotrequired)toestab-lisha registerofappropriatelyqualifiedtranslatorsandinterpreters.accordingtothereportofthe
europeanuniononimplementingdirectives2010/64/euand2012/13/eu,seventeenmember
stateshaveprovidedsucha registerandineighteuropeancountriesthathavea register,courts
areobligedtouseitwhenchoosinga legalinterpreter(Fra2016:46–47).oneofHungary’s
neighbours,austria,hasa registerofcourtinterpretersandasseenintheresearchofKadrić
conductedinVienna,judgestreatthisregisterasa guaranteeofquality(Kadrić2009:118).
oneoftherespondentsgavea differentanswertothisquestion:intheiropinionthePublic
Prosecutor’sofficeshouldappointtheinterpreter.accordingtoSection60oftheHungarian
actCXLof2004onthegeneralrulesofadministrativeProceedingsandServices (1)Iftheofficerinchargedoesnotspeakthelanguageoftheclientoranyother
partytotheproceeding,an interpreter shall be engaged.(emphasisbytheauthor) accordingtoSection114oftheHungarianactXIXof1998onCriminalProceedings
(1)Ifa personwhosenativelanguageisnotHungarianintendstouseinthe
courseoftheproceedingstheirnativelanguage,or–pursuanttoandwithin
thescopeofaninternationalagreementpromulgatedbylaw–theirregional
orminoritylanguage,an interpreter shall be employed(unofficialtranslation,
emphasisbytheauthor).
Itis,however,notspecifiedwhichauthorityneedstoemploytheinterpreter.anotherrespond-ent’sanswerwasthattheylookforaninterpreterontheInternet.Intheeventa registerof
certifiedcourtinterpreterswereavailableontheInternet,itcouldbeanappropriateanswer.
notonlytheinterpretersbutalsothecourthastheresponsibilityforensuringtheproper
qualityofinterpretation.Thisisonlyachievablewhenjudgesareabletoappointa qualified
interpreter.aswritteninthegermanliterature,theinterpreterhastogivea faithfuland
completerenderingbutthisisonlypossiblewhentheinterpreterisqualifiedandpreparedfor
therespectiveproceeding(driesenandPetersen2011:6).Seealsomyinvestigationofwritten
protocolswhereduetotheinterpretingmistakesofanunqualifiedinterpretera newproceed-inghadtobeopened(FarkasnéPuklus2017:173–176).
MártaFarkasnéPuklus
7.2 isaninterPreteraccordingtotheProvisionsanexPertornot?
Ingermanyandinaustria,interpretersarenotexpertsbecausetheycannotaddanycontent
totherelevantcase.However,thecourtcanappointtheinterpreterasa languageexpertif
thereisa forensicissuetobedecidedon(driesenandPetersen2011:6,Kadrić2009:49–51).
accordingtotheHungarianprovisionstherulesforexpertsshallalsobeappliedforinter-preters(seealsoFarkasnéPuklus2016,Horváth2013)butinterpretersusuallydonotget
accesstodocuments.Courtinterpretersarerarelyabletoconsultdocumentsandprepare
fortheproceedings,althoughthiswouldbeessentialandwouldcontributetothesuccessof
interpreting.
Whenaskedaboutprovidingdocumentstointerpreterspriortothehearing(Question6.,
Figure3.),75%ofthejudgesrespondedthattheydonotdoso,meaningthatinterpretersare
unabletoprepareforthatspecificcase.Thisleadstothequestionofwhetheraninterpreteris
reallyregardedasanexpertornot.
However,thisisthecasenotonlyinHungary:“manylegaltranslationandinterpretation
associationsstatedthattherearenoproceduresinplacetoprepareinterpretersortranslators
forspecificcases”(Fra2016:58).ThedanishresearcherBenteJacobsen(alsovice-chairman
oftheassociationofdanishauthorisedTranslatorsandInterpreters)mentionsthat“[i]nter- pretersareassumedtoneednopreparationfora trial.Therefore,theyrarelygetpriorinforma-tionaboutthecase,includingtheallegedoffenceorthetypeofoffender/victim.Interpreters
aremainlyregardedas[…]individualswhoseonlyjobistocopywordsfromonelanguage
intoanother(alinguisticphotocopier)”(Fra2016:58).
7.3 whereistheinterPreterseated?
Mosttypicallytheinterpreterisseatednexttotheforeignlanguageparticipantorinthecase
ofquestioningsuspectedoraccusedpersonsorhearingwitnessestheinterpreterstands(see
Figure4).Sixjudgeswrotethatthereisnoassignedseatfortheinterpreterandthreerespond-entsaddedtheremarkthattheinterpreterusuallysitsnexttotheprosecutor(twoanswers)or
nexttotheaccusedperson(oneanswer).Thesituationisquitedifferentforexampleinaustria,
wherecourtinterpretersusuallysitnexttothejudge.Thishasa symbolicalimportanceaswell:
courtinterpretersareappointedbythecourtandtheyrepresentneutrality.Iftheysitnextto
thejudgeitmightimplicatethattheyarepartofthehierarchicalsystemofthecourtaswell.
InHungaryseatingassignmentsmightconveythemeaningthatinterpretersarethereforthe
foreign-languagepartyandthiscouldraisequestionsofloyalty,too(seealsoCsörgő2013).
7.4 interPretingmodesandinterPretedParts
Whenjudgeswereaskedaboutthedifferentinterpretingmodes,allofthemansweredthat
consecutiveinterpretingisthemosteffective(seeFigure5).Therewasonlyoneaddedanswer
forthesimultaneousmodeandanotherforchuchotage,orwhisperingtotheforeignlanguage
participant.
InordertoachievesufficientinterpretingMikkelson(2000)arguesthattextpassagesof
maximum100words(oneortwosentences)shouldbeinterpretedconsecutively,asinterpret-ersneednotonlyrememberfactsandcontentbutalltheextra-linguisticelementsaswell
(Mikkelson2000:71).
angermeyer(2015)alsostatesthat“[i]fthegoalistoputnon-englishspeakersonan
equalfootingwithenglishspeakers,theconsistentuseofshortconsecutiveinterpretingap-pearsmorelikelytoguaranteeequalityofaccesstoinformationproducedduringthetrial”
(angermeyer2015:214).
IntheHungarianliteratureFarkasnéPuklus(2016)considersthefluencyofcommunica-tionandthespeedoftheproceedingandthereforearguesinsomepartsoftheproceedings
–especiallyatthebeginningofthehearing(openingstatement)–forwhisperinterpreting.
Kadrić(2004)admitsthattheinterpretingmodesusedinaustria–usuallyconsecutive
orsummaryinterpreting(althoughitisnotclearwhatismeantbythisterm)–shouldbe
reviewedinordertosecureequalrightsforforeign-languageparticipants.Forexample,she
pointsoutthatinthecaseofsummaryinterpretingtheforeignparticipant’srighttoaskques-tionsatanystageoftheproceedingmightbeviolated.
Themajorityofjudgesreportedthatinterpretationoftheentirehearingtakesplace(Figure
8.),althoughinsomecasesitwasmorelimited.ItisthestanceofTheHungariannational
officefortheJudiciary(oBH)thatthejudgehasnosayastohowmuchofthehearingis
interpreted,andthereforeaftertheoBHreviewthequestionwasremovedfromthesecond
version.
7.5 functionandroleoftheinterPreter
respondingtoQuestion 14onthefunctionofinterpreters,judgesbelievedthatcourtinter-pretersactaslanguage mediators,helpers of a foreign language participant, court assistants, foreign language experts, foreign language and cultural expertsorintercultural communication experts.It
isimportantthatnotonlytheinterpreterbutalsojudgesandlawyersshallbeawareoftherole
andfunctionthataninterpreterplaysinthecourseoftheproceeding.Hale(2004)formulates
that“[i]nterpretersmustfirstbecomeawareoftheirresponsibilitiesasprofessionals,”and
Secondly, lawyers must become aware of the difficulties of the interpreting
processandrecognisethatitisanactivitythatrequiresfullyqualified,trained
professionals;theymustfullyunderstandtheroleoftheinterpreter;takere-sponsibilityfortheirownspeechratherthanexpectinterpreterstoclarifytheir
utterancesorensurethecomprehensionisreached;andtheymusttreatinter-preterswiththerespecttheydeserve,asequalprofessionals(Hale2004:2).
asseenfromtheresponsesinFigure 7,somejudgesexpecttheinterpretertohelpthecourt,
toprovideassistancetothecourtortohelptheforeignlanguagespeaker.However,thein-terpreter’staskisactuallytoremovethelanguagebarrierandtotransformtheutterancesin
a pragmaticallycorrectformandnotwordforword(Hale2004:12).asMikkelsonstates,
the“[i]nterpreter’staskisnottoensurethatthedefendantunderstandstheproceedings”
(Mikkelson1998:22).Interpretersarenotmachinesor“partofthefurniture”ofthecourt-room,becausetheyareanactiveparticipantofthecommunicationprocess(Berk-Seligson
1990:55).Interactionwilloccurduetothepresenceoftheinterpretertriadic(Hale2004:10)
andinterpretersmightplayanevenmoreactiveroleandhavemoreinfluencethanexpected
bytheparticipantsofthecommunicationprocess(Jacobsen2003:239).
MártaFarkasnéPuklus 7.6 faultyinterPreting
IfwelookatthesummoningoftheinterpreterusuallyusedinHungary,wecanfindthat
courtinterpretersarebeingappointedbythecourttoprovideprofessionalandaccuratetrans-lationandtheirattentionisdrawntotheconsequencesoffaultytranslation.Intheanswers
ofthejudgestothequestionastowhatfaultyinterpretingmeanstheexpressiontranslation
wasusedby14respondents(SeeTable1).Morrissaysthattypically“[c]ourtinterpretersare
nottointerpret –thisbeinganactivitywhichonlylawyersaretoperform,buttotranslate –a termwhichisdefined,sometimesexpresslyandsometimesbyimplication,asrendering
thespeaker’swordsverbatim”(Morris1995:26).althoughinHungarianwehaveourown
expressionforinterpreting(tolmácsolás)andyetanotherforinterpretation(értelmezés)judges
tendtousethetermtranslation(fordítás)forbothoralandwrittenrenderings.
ItisformulatedintheHungarianactCof2012ontheCriminalCode(Perjury,Section
272)that
(1)anywitnesswhogivesfalsetestimonybeforetheauthorityconcerning an essential circumstance of a case,orsuppressesevidenceisguiltyofperjury.
(2)Theprovisionsrelatingtoperjuryshallbeappliedtoanypersonwho:
a)givesfalseopinionasanexpertorfalseinformationasa specialadviser;
b)falselytranslatesasaninterpreterora translator…(unofficialtranslation,
emphasisbytheauthor).
TheadjectivefalselywasusedinthewordingoftheCriminalCodebutitisnotfurtherspeci-fiedwhatthatmeans.Intheanswersofjudgesastowhattheythinkfaultyinterpretingmeans
relevant factswerementionedthreetimes(e.g.“He does not translate what is said regarding relevant facts.”)andtheimportanceofadequate rendering(expressionslikeinterpreting or translating according to reality, verbatim if possible, text-true)appearedin17answers.Itisoften
theexpectationoflegalprofessionalsthatliteral,verbatiminterpretationshalltakeplaceinthe
courtroom.Verbatiminterpretationismostlyimpossibleintheinteractionoftwolanguages
becauseofthedifferencesofthelanguagestructureandasa consequenceoftheinterpreta-tionprocess(gonzálezetal.1991:17).Someresearchersarguefor“accuracyofmessageand
intention”andconsider“[a]ccuracyasa pragmaticreconstructionofthesourcelanguageinto
thetargetlanguage”(Hale2004:3,House1977).
Ineightanswersofthejudges,intentionalitywasalsomentioned(e.g.“It means that the interpreter intentionally does not translate the meaning of what is said in Hungarian.”),which
impliestheimportanceofa deliberateactionbeforethecourt.Intheexhaustiveanswerof
oneoftherespondentsthereisevena detailedexplanationgiven(withmoredetailsthanin
theapplicablelegalprovision):
Therulesapplicabletoexpertsshouldalsoapplyforinterpreters,theyarewarned
abouttheconsequencesoffaultyinterpreting–itistheobligationofthejudge
laiddowninlegalprovision.Inmyopinion,faultyinterpretingmeansthatthe
interpreterintentionallymistranslateswhatissaidduringtheproceedings.If
theinterpreterstatesthatheorshedoesnotunderstandcertainlegalexpressions
orisnotawareoftheircontentthenthisisnotfaultyinterpreting:inthiscase
thejudgeneedstosupplytherelevantinformationandifthisisnotsufficient,
anotherinterpreterneedstobeappointed.
Inthispartofthepaper(chapters7.1–7.6)I discussedsixaspectsofcourtinterpretingthat
mightbeimportantfromtheinterpreter’spointofviewandrelevantforthecommunicational
context.otheraspectsaretobeanalysedinthelightoffurtherresearchdata.
8. ConClusion
Themaintargetofmyresearchistoinvestigatewhatthelegalside–especiallyjudges–expects
fromtheinterpreterandhowthecommunicationeventwiththeinterpreterinthecourtroom
canbedescribedwithallitslinguisticandextra-linguisticaspects.Theresearchconsistsofthree
parts:FirstI investigatetheexpectationstowardscourtinterpretersthrougha questionnaire
thatwasansweredintwophases.Secondly,I consultwrittenprotocolsofinterpreter-mediated
courtroomproceedings.andthirdlyI analyserecordingsfromcourtroomproceedingswherean
interpreterisinvolved.duetotheresultsofthethreeresearchpartsI hopetogainmoreinsight
intotheroleofthecourtinterpreter“[w]hotakespartinaninteractionthatisconstrainedby
theinstitutioninwhichitisembedded”(angelelli2004:83).Thisarticleanalysestheresultsof
thefirstpart:theopinionofthejudgeswhorespondedtothequestionnaireinitsfirstversion.
althoughtheresultscannotberepresentativeduetobeinglimitedtooneregion,I tried
toshowsomeinterestingaspectsoftheinterpreter-mediatedcommunicationeventinthe
courtroom.Theanalysedanswersandtheshownaspectsdemonstratethattheinterpreter
oftenneedstoseekfora balancebetweentheexpectationofjudgesandhisorherknowledge
oftheroleandresponsibilityofaninterpreter(angermeyer2015:100).
accordingtotheresultsofthefirstversionofthequestionnaire(territorialcompetenceof
theMiskolcregionalCourt)andtothenegotiationswithtwolegalexpertsoftheHungarian
nationalofficefortheJudiciary(oBH),thequestionshadbeenspecifiedanda secondversion
prepared(onequestionneededtoberemoved,seechapter7.4andone–Question13.–modified).
regardingthesecondversiona germanarticlewillbepublishedsoon(FarkasnéPuklus2018).
Thisarticleandtheongoingresearchareanattempttoraiseawarenessofthelegalsidein
Hungarytocourtinterpretingandtoargueforfurtherresearchandimprovedconditionsfor
interpretersinHungariancourtrooms.
references
angelelli,C.2004.Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role: A Study of Conference, Court, and Medical Interpreters in Canada, Mexico and United State.amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.
angermeyer,P.S.2015.Speak English or What? Codeswitching and Interpreter Use in New York City Courts. newYork:oxforduniversityPress.
Berk-Seligson,S.1990.The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process.
universityofChicagoPress:Chicago.
Csörgő,Z.2013.Kihezésmihezlegyenlojálisa bíróságitolmács?[Towhomandtowhatshall
thecourtinterpreterbeloyal?]Fordítástudomány Vol.15.no.2.51–71.
MártaFarkasnéPuklus
denzin,n.K.1978.The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods.engle-woodCliff,nJ:PrenticeHall.
driesen,C.,PetersenH.-a.2011.Gerichtsdolmetschen – Grundwissen und -fertigkeiten.Tübingen:
narrVerlag.
FarkasnéPuklus,M.2016.Bíróságitolmácsolás–alapelvekéselvárások.[Court interpreting–principlesandexpectations.] FordítástudományVol.18.no.2.40–52.
Farkasné Puklus, M. 2017. dolmetschen im ungarischen gerichtssaal – einblick in das
ProtokollvonzweiFällen.In:Sprache und Recht. Übersetzer und Dolmetscher als Mittler zwischen Sprachen und Rechtssystemen.Berlin:BdÜFachverlag.170–180.
FarkasnéPuklus,M.2018.Sprachliche und außersprachliche Faktoren des Gerichtsdolmetschens – erste Ergebnisse eines ungarischen Forschungsprojektes. Inpress.
Fra(europeanunionagencyforFundamentalrights).2016.Rights of suspected and accused persons across the EU: translation, interpretation and information.Luxembourg:Publications
officeoftheeuropeanunion.
gamal,M.Y.2008.Courtinterpreting.In:Baker,M.(ed.)Encyclopedia of Translation Studies.
London:routledge.63–67.
gonzález,r.d.,Vásquez,V.F.,Mikkelson,H.1991.Fundamentals of Court Interpreting.
Theory, Policy, and Practice. durham:CarolinaacademicPress.
Hale,S.2004. The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the witness and the interpreter. amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.
Hale,S.2010.Theneedtoraisethebar:Courtinterpretersasspecialisedexperts.In:Coulthard, M.,
Johnson,a.(eds)The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics.London:routledge.440–454.
Horváth,I.2012.Interpreter Behaviour. A psychological approach.Budapest:HangnyelviskolaBt.
Horváth,I.2013.Bírósági tolmácsolás.[Courtinterpreting.]Budapest:eLTeeötvösKiadó.
Horváth,I.2014.a tolmácsoláshozvalójogtóla bíróságitolmácsképzésig.[Fromtheright
tointerpretationtocourtinterpretertraining.]Fordítástudomány Vol.16.no.1.5–16.
Horváth,I.2017.(ed.)Tolmácsolás a bíróságon. Esettanulmányok a bírósági tolmácsolás gya- korlatából.[Interpretingatcourt.CasestudiesoncourtInterpreting.]Budapest:HVg-oraCLap-ésKönyvkiadóKft.
House,J.1977.A Model for Translation Quality Assessment.Tübingen:günternarrVerlag.
Jacobsen,Bente2003.Pragmaticmeaningincourtinterpreting:anempiricalstudyofad-ditionsinconsecutivelyinterpretedquestion-answerdialogues.Journal of LinguisticsVol.
2004no.32.237–249.
Jakobson,r.1959.onlinguisticaspectsofTranslation.In:r.a.Brower(ed.)On Trans-lation.newYork:ouP.232–239.
Kadrić,M.2004.SichtbaregerechtigkeitingedolmetschtenVerhandlungen.JuridikumVol.
2004.no.4.195–200.
Kadrić,M.2009.Dolmetschen bei Gericht. Erwartungen, Anforderungen, Kompetenzen.Wien:
WuV.
Kalina,S.2002.InterpretersasProfessionals.Across Languages and CulturesVol.3.no.2.169−187.
Katschinka,L.2016.anISoStandardforInterpretingServicesinJudicialSettings.In:
Bajčić,M.,dobrićBasaneže,K. Towards the Professionalization of Legal Translators and Court Interpreters in the EU.Cambridge:CambridgeScholarsPublishing.14–22.
Katschinka,L.2017.20228–eineISo-normfürdasdolmetschenbeigerichtenundBe-hörden.In:Sprache und Recht. Übersetzer und Dolmetscher als Mittler zwischen Sprachen und Rechts systemen.Berlin:BdÜFachverlag.393–400.
Klaudy,K.2003.Fordítás és tolmácsolás az ezredfordulón. 30 éves az ELTE Fordító- és Tolmács-képző Központja. Jubileumi évkönyv 1973-2003.[Translationandinterpretingattheturn
ofthemillenium.30yearsoftheeLTe’sTranslationandInterpretingTrainingCenter.
JubileeYearbook1973–2003.] Budapest:Scholastica.
Mikkelson,H.1998.Towardsa redefinitionoftheroleoftheCourtInterpreter.Inter preting Vol.3.no.1.21–45.
Mikkelson,H.2000.Introduction to Court Interpreting.Manchester:St.JeromePublishing.
Morris,r.1993.Images of the Interpreter: A Study of Language-switching in the Legal Process.
unpublishedPh.d.dissertation,departmentofLaw,Lancasteruniversity,england.
Morris,r.1995.TheMoraldilemmasofCourtInterpreting.The TranslatorVol.1.no.1.
25–46.
Morris,r.2010.Imagesofthecourtinterpreter.Translation and Interpreting StudiesVol.5.
no.1.20–40.
Szabari,K.1999.Tolmácsolás, Bevezetés a tolmácsolás elméletébe és gyakorlatába.[Interpreting.
Introductionintothetheoryandpracticeofinterpreting.] Budapest:Scholastica.
Szabó,M.(ed.)2010.Nyelvében a jog.[rightinthelanguage.]Miskolc:BíborKiadó.
Vinnai,e.2014a.azelső„jogésnyelv”kutatáshazánkban.[Thefirst“lawandlanguage”re-searchinHungary.]Alkalmazott Nyelvészeti Közlemények – Interdiszciplináris tanulmányok Vol.9.no.1.60–67.
Vinnai,e.2014b.a magyarjoginyelvkutatása.[Hungarianlegallanguageresearch.] Glossa Iuridica.A magyar nyelv és a magyar jogi műnyelv megújulása Vol.1.no1.29–48.
Vinnai,e.2017.Tolmácsolása jogieljárásban.[Interpretinginlegalproceedings.]Miskolci Jogi Szemle Vol. XII.specialissue.133–142.
websources
Thedirective2010/64/euoftheeuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilontherightto
interpretationandtranslation
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CeLeX:32010L0064 TheoriginalenglishversionofVademecumanditstranslations
http://eulita.eu/sites/default/files/VadeMeCuM%20-%20guidelines%20for%20a%20 more%20effective%20communication%20with%20interpreters%20and%20translators.
euLITa:europeanLegalInterpretersandTranslatorsorganisationpdf www.eulita.eu
FraeuropeanunionagencyforFundamentalrights,rightsofsuspectedandaccused
personsacrosstheeu:translation,interpretationandinformation