Archives

by monzo

Communication and Deception: towards Forensic Pragmatics

Ioanna Asanakidi

Up to now, a large amount of the literature on forensic linguistics has investigated linguistic cues for identifying deception during testimonies. Such linguistic cues are the propositional forms of implicatures and explicatures. Others have examined the semantic approach in which lying is connected to truth or falsity.
This paper is a preliminary attempt at the detection of deception in criminal discourse from a pragmatic view. I argue that deception derives not only from cognitive, but also from emotional origins. In this sense, the process of lying relies both on language and emotional activity that is reflected in the speaker’s management of behaviour during a testimony. A challenging area in the field of language study is the
so-called “ineffable communicated content” and especially non-verbal communication. I investigate how unintentional non-propositional effects associated with emotional reactions such as anguish, fear, pleasure and contempt may interact with words and could be valuable indicators of truth or falsity to law enforcements, in order to make worthwhile predictions. This paper presents a general framework of unintentional non-propositional effects that trigger emotion and can convey the complicated propositional content of lying. Movements of head, hands and shoulders, blinking, staring, swallowing and higher pitch are some of the paralinguistic features that are examined. The study explores the significance of non-linguistic behaviours to the interpretation of the speaker’s intention to deceive during a testimony and raises questions such as: How do the speaker’s gestures and tone of voice interact with their words? How do these natural behaviours apply to problem solving in criminal cases? The findings will be discussed in light of their implications for future research and potential practice.

Ioanna Asanakidi holds a BA in English and Greek Linguistics and an MA in English Language, Linguistics and Translation from the University of Athens. She is an English Language teacher and Forensics Speech coach in primary and secondary education and a substitute English Professor at the Hellenic Police Academy. Her research interest focuses on forensic linguistics, pragmatics, linguistic behaviour and its underlying neural and cognitive processes.


by monzo

To interpret or not to interpret? Observations on the role of the interpreter in the courts of law in Wales

Professor R. Gwynedd Parry

Language justice is social justice. However, achieving language justice is not a linear but a continual process. One that comprises ongoing education and training of all stakeholders to ensure meaningful access to services for Limited English Proficient (LEP) individuals through translation and interpreting. This research project explores current practices around language access and the provision of translation and interpreting services, in relation to both state and federal language access guidelines in the United States. It does so within the broader framework of language access as a catalyst for achieving greater equity and social justice among minoritized, LEP communities. It builds on existing translation and interpreting research on (in)equities in access to social services for these communities. Accessing information in one’s preferred language and desired modality is critical to their ability to participate fully in all areas of daily life. Despite existing state and federal policies that require health and social services to comply with language access guidelines, the COVID-19 pandemic shined a light on the inconsistencies, and the ad hoc approach to provisioning these services. Thus, this project explores the critical components which are paramount to building language justice and offers a model for increasing interpreter and translator capacity through interprofessional education and training. Lastly, it re-examines existing and considers additional best practices for language access in the U.S.

Keywords: Legal System in Wales; interpreters and translators; official languages.

by monzo

What was the language of the judgment again? – Traces of bilingualism in monolingual trial judgments

Alexander Teutsch

Judicial proceedings tend to favour monolingualism over multilingualism, even where different languages are at play in the courtroom (Maryns, 2012). Courtroom interpretation, for instance, is often considered a technical act, merely transposing oral statements into the “language of the proceeding” (Berk-Seligson, 2017), while prior evidence presented in a foreign language is mostly translated and, where provided orally, rapidly transcribed into a sole language (Bucholtz, 1995; 2007). Even in bi- and multilingual jurisdictions, the preference for a single procedural language leads to the phenomenon of absorption of utterances made in other idioms into that language (Powell, 2008). 

This is exemplified by what this paper claims to be the most evident and misleading representation of the “myth of monolingualism”: the judgment. In framing their decisions, judges mostly pretend all the legal material they cite is in the same language as their judgement. Remarks about sources, i.e. evidence, legislation, or case law, issued in another language are rarely made.This paper aims at uncovering this “myth of monolingualism” of proceedings by showing how, in multilingual jurisdictions, language multiplicity constitutes not just the possibility of having a trial, or parts thereof, in one or another language. More precisely, multilingual courts, operating on a national or subnational level, where legal experts work with different languages on a daily basis, should not be reduced to an “either-or” frame. Rather, they should be seen as working in constant interaction between these languages, by engaging in comparison and translation, in spite of a proceeding officially labelled as monolingual. By analysing “monolingual” judgments issued by first instance judges (giudice di pace/Friedensrichter) in the bilingual province of Südtirol/Alto-Adige (German/Italian) in Italy, this paper shows how overlaps between these two languages occur in judicial reasoning. These include (i) “collages”, being single sentences imported from the other language; (ii) literal translations and summaries; and (iii) direct quotations from the other language.

Keywords: multilingualism; language contact; judicial reasoning; forensic linguistics; 

by monzo

When interpreting does not remove the language barrier: interpreter ethics at odds with due process in U.S. courts

Janis Palma

Non-English-Speakers and Limited English Proficient individuals (jointly referred to as LEPs in this paper) who come before the courts in the United States as criminal defendants face at least two major obstacles to full comprehension of the proceedings against them: being unable to speak or understand the language of the courts and the dramatic differences between the criminal justice system in the U.S. and their home countries. These differences in legal systems are rarely, if ever, taken into account when addressing LEP populations’ due process rights. Several court opinions at the federal level prior to the 1970s culminated in the Court Interpreters Act (28 U.S.C. 1827), which triggered the creation of a nationwide interpreter certification program. Subsequently, however, an independent nonprofit organization produced a Model Code of Ethics for interpreters that has been adopted by nearly every state and professional association. Its practical effect has been to nullify all pre-existing jurisprudence concerning LEPs’ constitutional rights by imposing an accuracy canon on interpreters that disregards the intended listener’s capacity to comprehend what is being interpreted. Based on the language of applicable statutes and court decisions, I exemplify how the current accuracy standard for interpreters in legal settings jeopardizes LEP criminal defendants’ due process rights. Guided by the prevailing theories on interpreting and translation, I argue in favor of revising this section of the Code and propose a new accuracy standard for interpreters in legal settings that takes into account the intended listener while making the proper allowances for evidentiary requirements. I further propose that such standards would necessarily have to be different for each of the settings in which interpreters engage with LEP defendants throughout a criminal prosecution, from initial contact with law enforcement to imposition of sentence.

Keywords: Interpreting, court interpreting, interpreter ethics, judiciary interpreting, accuracy standards, U.S. courts, interpreter certification, translation.

by monzo

Are language rights a component of a fair trial under French criminal procedure?

Agata de Laforcade

Academic Director, Department of Law, Languages and Intercultural Challenges at ISIT

After the transposition of Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, the preliminary article of the French Code of Criminal Procedure containing the most important principles in this area provides that if the suspect or accused does not understand the French language, he or she is entitled to be assisted by an interpreter during any questioning, hearing or interviews forming part of the proceedings, as well as during interviews with his or her lawyer. He or she is also entitled to receive a translation of the documents essential for exercising his or her defense and for guaranteeing a fair trial. Legal enshrinement of language rights during criminal proceedings in the preliminary article was an important step and highly symbolic, but does it mean that language rights are considered today as a real component of the right to a fair trial? The answer to this question is not obvious. This presentation will set out the arguments in favor of considering language rights as a component of a fair trial, and well as some arguments that cast doubt upon the fundamental value of language rights in French criminal proceedings.

Keywords: fair trail, language rights, criminal proceedings