The Linguist is a languages magazine for professional linguists, translators, interpreters, language professionals, language teachers, trainers, students and academics with articles on translation, interpreting, business, government, technology
Issue link: https://thelinguist.uberflip.com/i/857320
thelinguist.uberflip.com AUGUST/SEPTEMBER The Linguist 21 FEATURES elsewhere, usually work alone. When CI and SI are used, therefore, they have to alternate between the two modes without the use of electronic equipment, making it impossible for other NES participants in court to access interpretation provided in chuchotage. Now, jurors are drawn from the local community and are 90% Chinese. Although the Jury Ordinance of Hong Kong requires jurors to have sufficient knowledge of the court language, English will be the second language – or even a foreign language – for 90% of them. Whether these Chinese jurors sufficiently understand the legalese used by legal professionals in court, without the mediation of the court interpreter, is anybody's guess. However, in the light of studies on jury comprehension in monolingual Anglo-American courts, which all point to a serious problem with legalese and technical expert evidence, it is likely that Chinese jurors will experience an even bigger problem with their comprehension of a court speech that is not in their native language. This may have serious implications for the delivery of justice. Despite the ubiquitous presence of the court interpreter, the use of chuchotage means that the Hong Kong courtroom is clearly not fully bilingual from the perspective of jurors and other NES participants. It seems that the use of an electronic mode of SI is the only way for the interpretation to be accessible to all those in need of the service throughout the entire proceedings. Working under constant scrutiny In the early colonial days, when people proficient in both Chinese and English were rare species in Hong Kong, the interpreter was usually the only bilingual in court. Any interpretation problem would most likely go unnoticed, as no one in court was equipped with the knowledge to identify a problem, even if the interpretation struck the court as incomprehensible or absurd. That state of affairs is in stark contrast with the current situation, where interpreters often have to work with others who share their bilingual skills, including judges, counsel and even witnesses. This, coupled with the use of CI for much of the trial, renders the triadic communication relatively transparent to court actors who have knowledge of both Cantonese and English. It is therefore not uncommon for bilingual witnesses to correct an interpreter's rendition, or for a judge to scold an interpreter for a problematic interpretation. Counsel may even exploit their bilingual knowledge to challenge the accuracy of the interpretation and propose an alternative rendition, sometimes strategically. This inevitably subjects court interpreters to immense external pressure as their performance is constantly scrutinised by these other bilinguals, who can always pick on the interpretation for one reason or another. For further information, see Eva Ng's study on interpreting in the HK courtroom (publications.aston.ac.uk /20908/1/Studentthesis-2013.pdf) and her book, Interpreting in an Uncommon Common-law Courtroom. DAY IN COURT Clockwise from top left: Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal; Shatin Magistrates' Court; English-language legal books in the HK High Court Library, with labelling in Cantonese; a solicitor waits outside court; and the entrance to the HK High Court I© SHUTTERSTOCK MANKAMFONG VIA WIKIPEDIA (CC BY-SA 3.0) © SHUTTERSTOCK WING VIA WIKIPEDIA (CC BY-SA 3.0)