Recontextualization and production roles
Representations of interpreting in court transcripts
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25071/2564-2855.41Keywords:
participation framework, production format, language and the law, court interpretation, court transcriptionAbstract
In a courtroom setting, a witness who is not a native speaker of the official language receives the services of a court interpreter, and the trial is transcribed by court reporters. In other words, once an utterance is produced by the witness, it undergoes two kinds of recontextualization involved in this process: it is 1) interpreted by the interpreter, and 2) recorded by the transcriptionist. This study investigates court transcripts of trials involving non-native witnesses and analyzes the shift of production roles when their utterance is interpreted and transcribed utilizing Goffman’s (1979) participation framework. The study found that the court transcripts represented the witnesses with inconsistency and vagueness, which blurs the animator and the author of the utterance at each phase, while holding the witness as the principal. In legal settings, this could lead to the witness being held accountable for the inconsistency rooted in the recontextualizations.
References
Angermeyer, P. S. (2015). Speak English or what?: Codeswitching and interpreter use in New York City courts. Oxford University Press.
Conley, J. M., & O’Barr, W. M. (1990). Rules versus relationships: The ethnography of legal discourse. University of Chicago Press.
Eades, D. (2010). Sociolinguistics and the legal process. Multilingual Matters.
Eades, D. (2012). The social consequences of language ideologies in courtroom cross-examination. Language in Society, 41(4), 471–497. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404512000474
Goffman, E. (1979). Footing. Semiotica, 25(1–2), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1979.25.1-2.1
Hale, S. (2002). How faithfully do court interpreters render the style of non-English speaking witnesses’ testimonies? A data-based study of Spanish–English bilingual proceedings. Discourse Studies, 4(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040010201
Jones, T., Kalbfeld, J. R., Hancock, R., & Clark, R. (2019). Testifying while black: An experimental study of court reporter accuracy in transcription of African American English. Language, 95(2), e216–e252. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2019.0042
Office of Transcription Services. (2008). Administrative Directive #1-08, the Uniform Transcript Format (UTF). http://www.mass.gov/doc/uniform-transcription-format/download
Tiersma, P. M. (2006). Some myths about legal language. Law, Culture and the Humanities, 2(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1191/1743872106lw035oa
von Mengden, F., & Kuhle, A. (2020). Recontextualization and language change. Folia Linguistica, 54(1), 253–281. https://doi.org/10.1515/flih-2020-0008
Court Interpreters Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1827. (1988). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1827
United States of America v. Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, 2015 D. Mass. 1:13-cr-10200.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Dasom Jeon
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
Under the following terms:
-
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
-
NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
