【Abstract】Todays legal system generally demands that the interpreter function as a “faceless voice，” a conduit， that is， in a “neutral” and non-intrusive way. However， the conduit model subjects interpreters to communicative conflicts and dilemmas in practice， and have aroused much controversy among scholars. This paper attempts to analyze limitations and deficiencies of the traditional model the redefine the role of court interpreters.

【Key words】Critical Study; the Role; Court Interpreter

【作者簡(jiǎn)介】傅雪婷（1989.11-），女，浙江金華人，浙江水利水電學(xué)院，講師，碩士研究生，研究方向：英語(yǔ)語(yǔ)言學(xué)、翻譯學(xué)。

Ⅰ. Introduction

Interpreters have become increasingly ubiquitous in the courts of the world. It is argued that “Interpreters dont have a problem with ethics; they have a problem with the role” （cited In Roy 1993： 347）. As a result， the issue of interpreters role has become great concern to both researchers and practitioners in the field. Interpreters， who are considered officers of the court， are strictly forbidden to give advice or provide explanations to clarify intended meaning， and are often instructed by judges to provide a verbatim interpretation （Mikkelson 2008： 81）. However， the interpreters guided by the conduit model confront communicative conflicts and dilemmas in practice， and scholarly research has revealed the shortcomings of the argument. It is necessary to “devise a conception of the role of legal interpreters which more accurately reflects professional needs and experiences” （Laster and Taylor 1995： 9）. This paper attempts to prove that its difficult for court interpreters under the guidance of ‘the conduit model to accomplish his work smoothly and satisfactorily. The author renders the court interpreters role as a communication facilitator. The paper hopes to illustrate the role of court interpreters by analyzing its legal paradigm， as well as the conflicts and dilemmas， and finally reconceptualise the role of court interpreters.

Ⅱ. The legal paradigm： the interpreter as conduit

Over the decades， various images have been used by legal actors to describe court interpreters， including a transmission belt， a court reporter， a bilingual transmitter， a translating machine， a （mere） conduit or channel， a cipher， a mouthpiece， and a means of communication， etc. （Morris 1993： 221–223）. The conduit model， which was once quite prevalence in the court in the United States， could be explained as “a technical solution to avoid the enormous evidentiary problems associated with the exclusion of evidence as hearsay” （Laster and Taylor 1995： 9）. Morris， who makes an extensive survey of legal documents， highlights that judges and attorneys hope the interpreter to “achieve perfect identity…between the source and target texts or utterances” （Morris 1995：? 29）. She terms the legal view on court interpreters role as a “l(fā)egal fiction”， that is “L2=L1， and that the instrument of this equation [i.e. the court interpreter] uses no discretion or freedom of will whatsoever in achieving the goal set by the law” （Morris 1993： 136）. Thus， the “conduit approach” is adopted to perceive the court interpreter as an invisible pipe， with words entering on one language and exiting completely unmodified-in another language. The narrow conception of the interpreter as “mere conduit” expressly excludes the human elements of successful communication. In other words， rather than a complex human interaction， the legal interpreter was regarded merely as a mechanical service （Laster and Taylor 1995： 9）. In the courtroom， they have to pass along every element of meaning of the source language message， which is so-called “verbatim requirement”， even if the information is incomprehensible， inappropriate or offensive.

In the court-room， one advantage of this view is to preserve the judges and attorneys traditional control and dominance of proceedings and “deny the potential impact that interpreters might have on the linguistic strategies deployed in trial proceedings” （ibid： 10）. In this way， the court can function effectively as a monolingual legal setting. Furthermore， this view allows the legal profession to impose a seemingly “objective” standard of good interpreting （ibid.）. Lastly， “l(fā)egal attitudes to court interpreting may also be explained in terms of juridical rejection of an antipathy towards the alien element that is the non-English-speaking individual” （Morris 1995： 28）.

Ⅲ. The conflict and dilemma for the court interpreter

Interpretation in the legal context is a vexed notion involving faithful rendition of speech and excluding transmission of any meaningful concepts or intentions of the speaker （Keratsa 2005）. It is therefore considered as a mechanistic process that makes interpreters feel compelled to reflect any unstated information in order to help avoid the miscommunication. Under this circumstance， interpreters have to face conflicts and dilemmas which are intrinsic in the interpreting activity. As Morris notes that “the laws attitude to interpreters simply does not allow interpreters to use their discretion or act as mediators in the judicial process. The activity of interpretation is held by the law to be desirable and acceptable for jurists， but utterly inappropriate and prohibited for court interpreters.” （Morris 1995： 26）

First， the legal language is bureaucratic， which is characterized by technical jargon， convoluted sentences， long adjective-noun clusters， and the passive voice. In the courtroom， apart from legal practitioners， it is quite impractical for other legal participants like defendants or witnesses to get the whole meaning from it. Under this circumstance， interpreters often have the tendency to adjust the either the level of formality by raising it when interpreting into the courtroom language， or lowering it， when interpreting into the language of the claimant， in order to establish mutual comprehension （ibid.）. However， accuracy in legal contexts stands for total equivalence of a claimants utterances， including dialectal correspondence， stylistic features of speech etc. （Keratsa 2005）.

Secondly， the dilemma may occur when the interpreter and the witness belong in the same cultural community while the court does not allow the interpreter involved in the process personally by elaborating the claimants utterances. As Robert Barsky argues， sometimes interpreters provide appropriate contextual information to minimize the damage resulting from behaviour， which is unacceptable in the host culture （Robert 1996： 55）. This is “typical in Convention Refugee hearings where interpreters often feel that they should recast information in order to extinguish cultural differences that may interfere in the process and avoid any cross - cultural communication breakdowns” （Keratsa 2005）.

Thirdly， unclarity is another critical issue causing dilemma for court interpreters， which includes either unclear material or the speakers words. According to Morris， rules imposed by the court usually forbid the court interpreter to address questions directly to a witness （1995： 33）. To clarify runs against the ‘to be invisible man for court interpreter， while not to clarify the confusion means the interpreters have to conjecture.

Fourthly， moral dilemmas are more severe when the court interpreters deal with the deaf who needs to communicate in the legal sphere. Since the interpreters are the only communicative link between deaf people and the adjudicating body， deaf people often view the interpreter as an advocate or an ally. In these settings it is very difficult for the interpreter to be an invisible presence by performing simple translation tasks， since there are inherent differences between sign and spoken language and concepts that need to be clarified （Brennan 1999：233）. Brennan compares the English language and British Sign Language （BSL） in courtroom settings， and he alludes to an on-going problem for the court interpreter which is the fact that speakers usually use English generic terms because of no direct equivalents in BSL （ibid.）. Therefore， in order to ensure a concrete and eligible interpretation， the court interpreter has to make additions during the process.

All above are only several occasions when the court interpreter has to face dilemmas in legal settings. The traditional prescription of court interpreter is problematic since “it is restricted to an inflexible and transparent translation process” （Keratsa 2005）. It is necessary to give more latitude the court interpreter to ensure effective communication in the legal setting.

Ⅳ.Reconceptualising the role of interpreter

Studies have shown that according to interpreters own experiences， there are always ambiguities in the interpreters role. Subtle combinations of roles are required to accommodate the demands of changing circumstances （Laster and Taylor 1995： 13）. Thus， a more sophisticated conceptualisation of the role which recognises its importance， fluidity， and potential power is of high demand. Laster & Taylor redefine the role by using the phrase “communication facilitator” （ibid.）.

This formulation， on the one hand， recognizes that interpreters are not “advocates”， because they do not initiate independent ideas and strategies， nor do they have the power within the system to implement these （ibid.）. On the other hand， this definition allows interpreters to perform an active role. Under this perspective， both the speakers intention and the listeners comprehension could be took into consideration， resulting in the effective communication in the legal sphere; the interpreters are given more space to use tactics for exploring misunderstandings， clarifying context， investigating intention， and illustrating meaning.

According to Laster & Taylor， a broader conception of “communication facilitators” has significant implications for the training， accountability and ethical responsibility of interpreters， areas in which further empirical research is indicated （ibid： 14）.

參考文獻(xiàn)：

[1]Barsky， Robert. The Interpreter as Intercultural Agent in Convention Refugee Hearings[J]. The Translator， 1996，2（1）：45-63.