thelinguist.uberflip.com
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2016 The Linguist 9
FEATURES
only of interaction in the courtroom, but also
of the prisoners themselves and of their
remote courtroom at the prison end of the
process – a vantage point which few
researchers have occupied. I wanted a
prisoner's eye view of the courtroom, where
all the other actors, including the interpreter,
were situated. After all, the prisoner/
defendant is one of the most important
actors in the judicial system.
Those in authority may claim that prison
video link works, but for whom does it work?
Observing interpreters communicating both
remotely and face-to-face with prisoners was
fascinating and, occasionally, dismaying. In a
courtroom where video link is not being used
interpreters are almost invisible, since they
are expected to sit next to the defendant in
the dock and whisper what speakers are
saying directly into the defendant's ear (out
of earshot of the court).
My interpreter students were trained in both
simultaneous and consecutive techniques and,
in theory, were able to distinguish between
two different types of talk in court: when the
defendant is being directly addressed, and
when the defendant is being spoken about.
The first requires consecutive technique at
full volume and the second requires
simultaneous chuchotage (at low volume).
Modulating your voice between the two
techniques is a tricky operation for the
interpreter, as court actors often switch
unpredictably from addressing the court to
addressing the defendant. Not one of the
interpreters I observed used notes, instead
relying entirely on memory to deliver their
renditions. Many did not take the
interpreter's oath and, of those who did,
many did not bother to interpret the oath to
the defendant. Hardly any of the interpreters
I saw intervened for repetition or clarification,
even though court acoustics were often poor
and the language of the court can be dense
and formulaic to outsiders. One interpreter
even helped a defendant to compose his
statement outside the courtroom.
The need for a remote approach
Interpreters who work with prisoners via
video link have to make several adjustments
to their behaviour, although in interviews I
conducted, they seemed hardly aware of
these. Since the defendant is no longer in
the courtroom there is no point in using
simultaneous technique (usually reserved for
when the defendant is being spoken about.)
If an interpreter were to use simultaneous
whispered technique the defendant wouldn't
be able to distinguish between the two
overlapping voices.
Since the dock is now empty, there is no
reason for the interpreter to sit there. So
what happens? The interpreter magically
VIRTUAL REALITY
The defendant's experience, attending court
from prison, is very different to those present in
court, including the interpreter (left and below)
