NORMAS DE VALORACIÓN

Many researchers view the interpreter as performing many different roles such as, helper, conduit, or facilitator. Berk- Seligson (2002) reports that in many legal proceedings members of the legal fraternity view the role of an interpreter as being that of an intercultural mediator;

or even an advocate. Steytler (1993) for his part believes that the role of the interpreter is to facilitate communication where one party is not conversant in the language of the record.

However, most researchers are in agreement that the interpreter has one formal task that is unambiguous: to translate accurately, comprehensively and without bias all communications in court to a language which the accused can understand.

Lebese (2011) comes up with some roles that courtroom interpreters play. One is that interpreters can play the role of being conduits where their main duty is to convert all speech from one language to another. Berk-Seligson (2002) on the other hand points out the role of the court interpreter as a facilitator. Here, the interpreter is seen as an intercultural mediator or advocate. Lee (2009) argues that the interpreter in his/her role should be aware of cultural differences and must show cultural sensitivity. The interpreter also has the role of being a language expert. He/she is supposed to know well the two languages involved in the

29

communication event. The interpreter has also been viewed as a bridge or a channel. In this role, he/she is expected to interpret accurately, faithfully and without emotional or personal bias. Actually he/she forms a connection between the accused/witness and the rest of the people in the court.

The interpreter also plays the role of replicator. He/she replicates the original source language message in the target language to have the same effect on listeners (Hale 2004). In some instances, the interpreter also takes on the role of the lawyer by simplifying the language of the court proceedings to enable the client to understand the proceedings. The interpreter can also take on the role of a court orderly by physically managing the accused or witness and finally, they also in some instances take on the role of the magistrate by performing the magistrate’s duties for example explaining the rights of the accused.

The interpreter should adhere to certain standards of interpreting. Some of these are enumerated by Gonzalez et al as:

1. The interpreter shall convey a complete and accurate interpretation.

2. The interpreter shall remain neutral.

3. The interpreter shall maintain confidentiality.

4. The interpreter shall confine himself to the role of interpreting.

5. The interpreter shall be prepared for any type of proceeding or case.

6. The interpreter shall ensure that the duties of his or her office are carried out, under working conditions that are in the best interest of the court.

7. The interpreter shall be familiar with and adhere to all the ethical standards and shall maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct to promote public confidence in the administration of justice (Gonzalez et al, 1991, P.475).

In as much as these are standards expected from an interpreter, there are many circumstances that may arise and prevent the interpreter from meeting these set standards. However, if the process of interpretation is faulty, misunderstandings can easily arise that may also affect the outcome of the case (Matu et al 2012). In the Kenyan courtroom, all records are kept in English which is the official language of the court. The magistrate will therefore heavily rely upon the interpreter’s efficiency so as to keep an accurate recording of the proceedings.

Research on the interpreters’ perception of their role carried out by Matu et al (2012) shows that:

30

1. Interpreters felt the need to clarify issues for the Dholuo- speaking litigants.

2. The interpreters did not desire to omit some utterances by the Dholuo speakers.

3. Interpreters often felt the need to interrupt the speaker on the floor.

4. The interpreters make a conscious effort to solve communication problems in court.

The research by Matu et al is important to my study. First of all, this is the only study to have looked at Dholuo-English courtroom interpretation. The location of their study is also Luo- Nyanza in Kenya. My study compares their location of study to my own and learns from them the divisions of courtrooms in Nyanza. From their study, I also gained insight into some of the roles that interpreters perceive to be their roles. Matu et al however do not examine any linguistic aspects of the courtroom interpretation; theirs is based solely on the opinion of interpreters about what they think they ought to do. My study goes further than that by examining naturally occurring data of actual interpretations to determine whether the set standards are adhered to and whether any meaning loss occurs.

Benmaman (1992) argues that the interpreter must give an accurate, unbiased, comprehensive version, true to the speaker’s style, level of usage and perceived intent. The speaker’s style is a key part of my study. I specifically agree with Benmaman that keeping to the style of the speaker is important for an interpretation to be viewed as faithful. The New Jersey task force of (1984) recognises that interpretation demands a high level of cross cultural awareness and sophistication, including the ability to manipulate dialect and geographical variation, different education levels and register, specialised vocabulary and a wide range of untranslatable words and expressions (Benmaman 1992). In the courtroom, the interpreter must understand the legal process and the legal language which is acutely context specific, and fraught with redundancies, archaisms and intentional ambiguities (ibid: 46). It was interesting in the course of this research to see how the interpreters dealt with legal terms which for the most part do not have any equivalents in the Dholuo language. In recognition of interpreter importance, De Jongh also states that an interpreter must be bicultural as well as bilingual (De Jongh 1992).

The interpretation services in Kenya differ from legal interpreting in the UK and many other countries in that in the UK, public service interpreters, including court interpreters, are all freelance professionals normally listed on the national register and hired on a case by case basis (Ibrahim and Bell 2003) whereas in Kenya, the court clerk also doubles up as the court interpreter as is the case in Botswana as well as Malaysia. The court interpreter is a

31

government employee who is also responsible for duties in the court other than interpretation.

Ibrahim and Bell (2003) enumerate the multiple roles of an interpreter in the Malaysian courtroom which include:

a. Decide the first business of the day.

b. Set dates for hearing.

c. Read and explain the charges.

d. Interpret the facts of a case and the proceedings.

e. Explain the nature and consequences of a plea to the accused.

f. Explain the three alternatives: to plead “guilty” to plead “not guilty” and give evidence under oath or to plead “not guilty” and give evidence while not under oath.

g. Act as the principal assistant to the magistrate/president/judge.

h. Assist an accused if she/he is unrepresented.

i. Maintain discipline and order in the open court.

j. Mark and keep exhibits.

k. Do paper work e.g. prepare warrants for commitment, bail bonds, and write up daily, weekly and monthly reports of cases dealt with in their court.

l. Translate documents.

m. Act as commissioners for oaths.

n. Perform any other activities deemed appropriate and necessary by their superiors (Ibrahim and Bell, 2003, P.57).

These duties are the same as those performed by interpreters in the Kenyan courts. This shows the great amount of pressure already on the interpreter which may be a factor that leads to problems when it comes to doing the actual interpretation in the court. In the Nyando courtroom, I witnessed a magistrate shout at an interpreter to do his work when a witness came into the courtroom and did not know where to stand. At that particular time, the interpreter was also busy taking notes on an on-going case.

In Botswana, Thekiso (2001) provides an interesting description of the courtroom interpretation situation. The magistrates and the court personnel mostly understand both English, the language of the courtroom and Setswana, the national language. However, when a witness or the accused does not understand English, an interpretation is done for their benefit. The loss of meaning is therefore not great for the court personnel and Thekiso gives an example of when during his research, a magistrate corrected an interpreter’s version. In Kenya, the situation is different. There are approximately 68 languages in the country and

32

even though in some cases the magistrate speaks the same language as the person in need of interpretation, this is most often more unlikely than likely.

Some researchers have advocated that the interpreter should be an invisible language facilitator. However, Angelelli (2005) disputes this notion. She says that the interpreter is visible with all the social and cultural factors that allow him/her to co-construct a definition of reality with the other participants to the interaction. She says:

The interpreter is present with all his/her deeply held views on power, status, solidarity, gender, age, race, ethnicity, nationality, socio-economic status, plus the cultural norms and blue prints of those social factors that are used by him/her to construct and interpret reality (Angelelli, 2005, P.16)

This view is enhanced by Angermeyer (2009) in her description of how interpreters behave in the course of their duty. She observes that most interpreters are native speakers of the language they interpret into which is mostly a dominated language and as such, they are often members of the same minority group as the people whom they assist in court. Given this type of situation therefore, they may need to negotiate competing allegiances to communities in contact. This illustrates how the interpreter brings into the interaction a part of him/her. Also, most interpreters tend to view the people they interpret for as clueless and unintelligent as well as ill prepared to meet the requirements of the court. This attitude contributes to the way the interpreter does his/her work. Angermeyer (ibid) observes that when interpreters report speech from English to another less dominant language, they are conscious that their interpretation may be evaluated by the people who speak English, therefore in most cases, they adhere to the norm in English but may fail to adhere to the norm in the other language.

This is usually manifested in instances of self-correction when interpreting the English version, something which is absent when interpreting into the less dominant language. In relation to the invisible interpreter, Vilela (2003) describes the notion as a myth and goes on to argue that the interpreter has an impact on the communicative events involved and the presence of the interpreter significantly alters the way the participants interact. In the courtroom, the participants affected include the judge, the witness, the attorneys and the interpreter him/herself.

In the medical context, the interpreter is expected to remain neutral and transfer information accurately and reliably between the patient and the health professional, avoiding any emotional, physical or verbal interaction with the two parties. The interpreter focuses on the linguistic message only and disregards its social and cultural construction (Hsieh, 2006,

33

2007). In the medical context, another role of the interpreter is that of a cultural broker. Here, the interpreter mediates between two world views; that of the patient and that of the health professional, and provides a cultural framework for facilitating understanding the message.

The interpreter thus assists both parties to negotiate cultural and linguistic barriers in order to achieve a specific communicative goal. In addition, the interpreter may act as a negotiator and advocate for the patient’s life world, his or her personal experiences and circumstances (Greenhaigh et al 2006). This can be compared to the courtroom interpreter in that in the courtroom too, neutrality is expected. As in the hospital, the courtroom interpreter is to avoid emotional, physical or verbal interaction with the other parties. In the medical set up, the miscommunication through misinterpretation can result in grave problems such as misdiagnosis, which may even result in death. In the same way, misinterpretation in court may result in miscarriage of justice. These two settings can therefore be a source of comparison of success or failure of interpretation.

Subsection 2.1.1 examined the various interpreter roles uncovered by other researchers.

These included roles that those researchers observed the interpreters to play and the roles that the interpreters themselves perceived to play. The review took on a comparative nature giving examples from various countries in different continents of the world. Through this review, I was able to during the course of my study compare the roles that I came across and the ones already identified. Thus I determine that I discovered new roles of interpreters hitherto unmentioned. These are discussed in the results sections of chapters 4-6 of this thesis.