Mayela Zambrano, University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
In this paper, I analyze a case of legal discursive practice in a United States court where an unqualified interpreter was used to provide access to an LEP (Limited English Proficiency person) in the case Ponce v. State of Indiana. In 2014 the Indiana Supreme Court overturned a 40-year sentence due to mistranslations of the defendant’s rights. The need to provide adequate access to resources that aid comprehension becomes evident precisely when considering the defendant’s rights. By studying in depth the cultural and linguistic mediation in this particular case, we can gain a better understanding of the syntactic, pragmatic and lexical and semantic choices made by an unqualified interpreter in the courtroom. The analysis will point to common errors in this situation to advocate for the need to truly guarantee equal access to the legal system.
Keywords: discourse analysis; legal interpreting; mistranslation; LEP; United States; legal system; interpreters; certification