RECURSOS DIDÁCTICOS INFORMÁTICOS Y TICS

Whereas in 2.1 and 2.1.1 I examined courtroom interpretation and the role of interpreters respectively, in this section, I look at a comparison of interpreters from various parts of the world and the qualifications that they are expected to have in order to perform their interpretation duties well. This is important for my study as it enables me to draw comparisons between the different countries mentioned and Kenya which is the location of the study. Through these comparisons, I can make recommendations on what type of competencies an interpreter ought to have in order to have better results. This is useful if my study is to have any meaningful impact not only in the linguistic world but also in the courtroom. It is Berk-Seligson who draws attention to the importance of interpreter competency by stating

34

Interpreters generally do the best they can, and are sincere in their effort to be precise and faithful to the foreign language testimony. Yet if they are not highly qualified to do their job, the product of their efforts is bound to be faulty. No amount of oath-swearing can guarantee high quality interpreting from an interpreter who does not have the necessary competency (Berk-Seligson, 2002, P. 204).

In the United States, the court interpreters’ act was passed in 1978, after which the administrative office of the country courts initiated a programme for certification of federal court interpreters. This office developed rigorous professional standards and certification procedure which would identify the individuals capable of interpreting. An examination was designed by a group consisting of language specialists, international conference interpreters, court interpreters, and test construction specialists that would make it possible to establish minimum levels of competency and demonstration of required qualifications before an interpreter may be admitted to status as a certified federal court interpreter (De Jongh 1990).

In North Carolina specifically, to become a certified interpreter, one must pass a written and oral examination created by the National Centre for State Courts Consortium for Language Access in Courts and attend an orientation and a skill building workshop. Additionally, the interpreter must pass a criminal background check prior to certification (Kerby et al 2010).

There are however instances in the North Carolina state where the language that needs to be interpreted into does not have any qualified interpreter. In such cases, the judge will ask in the courtroom whether there is someone who knows the said language to interpret. Many times it is the relative of the accused or witness and the court is forced to use them despite the obvious conflict of interest (Kerby et al 2010). In Australia, the interpreters are accredited.

The National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters does the accreditation.

It also sets the accreditation standards for interpreters and has several levels of accreditation for different languages (Hale 1999).

In a pilot study on the role of court interpreters in South Africa, Lebese (2011) comes to the conclusion that in South Africa, a legislation that clearly defines the role of courtroom interpreters does not exist. This is the same for Kenya where my study is based. The situation in Kenya is even more complex. The court clerk often also doubles up as the court interpreter.

The only qualification that they have is their ability to speak the language of the witness or accused as well as speak English. No training on interpretation whatsoever is provided for the courtroom interpreter in Kenya and the assumption is that if one can speak a language, then

35

they are automatically able to translate it into another language. This notion is dispelled by Moeketsi (1999a) who states “the dismal performance of the interpreter is as a result of poor training and lack of proper definition of the interpreter role” (Moeketsi, 1999a, P.43). I concur with Moeketsi and add that in Kenya, the training is not poor, rather it is non-existent.

Moeketsi (1999b) examines the South African interpreters’ situation. She explains, that the interpreter is a full time government employee, a civil servant. He/she is assigned to a specific courtroom where he/she works with a particular magistrate. The interpreter and the magistrate normally then establish a working relationship where the magistrate more or less looks at the interpreter as his/her own. The interpreter becomes a personal assistant to the magistrate. He/she often therefore knows the weaknesses and the strengths of that particular magistrate. In the Kenyan situation, the interpreter works with whichever magistrate is presiding over a case at that particular time. He/she too is a civil servant. In the South African courtroom, the interpreter is normally the only person in the courtroom who comes from the same linguistic, social and cultural background as the defendant and therefore will often show empathy. The relationship described here usually has an impact on how interpretation is made as is shown in an example given by Moeketsi (ibid)

Magistrate: Your case is postponed until May 5^th. You will remain in custody until that day

Interpreter: It means that your case is postponed to the 5^th of May this year. For now, you will stay inside that is; in jail until that day. Do you understand? You may step down

In this example, the interpreter out of empathy for the defendant tries to put the magistrate’s words into a fuller explanation that he believes can be understood better by the defendant. In so doing, he adds words that the magistrate did not utter and goes against the chief principle of courtroom interpretation where one is to remain faithful to the language used in the source text. This is also a common occurrence in the Kenyan Courtroom. The court clerk is almost always working in a court that is near his/her home town. He/she shares not only the language of the defendant but also their culture, as well as social background and the tendency to empathise therefore arises. This situation is further compounded by the fact that most lay participants who come to the courtroom are overwhelmed by the unfamiliar and overbearing court procedures causing them to panic and rely on the interpreter. Matters are further complicated by those who appear in the courtroom without any legal representation expecting the interpreter to double up as their lawyer as well.

36

Vilela (2003) also examines court interpreters in Venezuela. In that country, training programs and regulatory frameworks do not exist. The court interpreter takes on the dual role of interpreting in the courtroom as well as serving as social actors. The Venezuelan scenario resonates with that of Kenya in both the lack of training and in the fact that the court interpreters in both countries serve as social actors. Researchers agree that it is essential to have a comprehensive training but it is mandatory to have instructions on standards of conduct and good practice in educating interpreters (Mikkelson and Mintz, 1997, and Moeketsi and Wallmach, 2005).

Lipkin (2010) brings to light the situation of the competency of interpreters in the Yehuda military court in Jerusalem. This is a court that performs different functions chief of which is the trying of suspected terrorists and other offenders in the West Bank area. In Yehuda, the interpreters are recruited as a part of a compulsory army service for a period of three years and undergo a short course at some stage (not necessarily at the beginning) (Lipkin, 2010, P.93). The chief qualification they have is that they can speak Hebrew and Arabic. Like in Kenya, the Yehuda interpreters perform multiple duties in the courtroom. They maintain law and order, usher in people and do other additional administrative issues. In Lipkin’s findings she notes that the interpreters do not view the interpretation they do in the court as their main duty, in fact, they value the other duties they engage in more than the actual interpretation. In drawing conclusions, Lipkin draws attention to the triadic nature of the courtroom interaction.

This is a very complex legal-linguistic situation which determines the actions of the interpreter. It determines how interpreters function and has an impact on their status. The other factor that influences interpreters’ competence in Yehuda is the military legal system which is strict and clear cut. In this courtroom, the clients felt that they could trust the interpreter as they were the only people who understood their language but by their own admission, the interpreters mainly provided only a summary of what had been said especially when interpreting from Hebrew to Arabic. Lipkin concludes that by allowing the interpreter to exercise his own discretion in deciding what to translate, the level of neutrality is reduced.

Angelelli (2005) examines interpreter competency among medical interpreters. She believes that it is very important to properly train interpreters and suggests some keys issues that should be included in their training which are:

1. Any training should have meaningful testing in language proficiency and specific health care interpretation skills.

2. Complete graduate equivalent course work.

37

3. Expose the students to the types of interpreting situations they will eventually participate in, i.e. the contextualization of interpreting.

4. Provide courses in dialectology, the varieties of language and language register which would help interpreting students contextualize language use and language users.

5. Courses on issues specific to health care settings.

She also advocates that the students be educated in six different areas which are: information processing, interpersonal communication, linguistics, professional, setting specific and socio-cultural. Even though Angelelli focuses on medical interpreting, these are tenets that can be borrowed in courtroom interpreting and then be tailored specifically to fit into it because the principles of interpreting remain the same and it is only the setting that differs. Currently, interpreter certification in those countries that have it measures the interpreters’ ability to interpret in the different modes i.e. consecutive, simultaneous and sight. The certification also tests memory of terminology in both languages for which the interpreter is seeking certification.

Gonzalez and Auzmendi (2009) examine court interpreting in Basque. On interpreter competence, they describe two different scenarios. The largest group of interpreters are the full time interpreters who work in the autonomous community of the Basque country. Most of those hold a degree in Basque Philology and there are those who hold a degree in translation and interpreting. They have solid training and are well prepared to face the job (Gonzalez and Auzmendi, 2009, P.140). There are other interpreters in other areas who are only required to have secondary level education and have passed a Basque language examination. This contrasts sharply to the Kenyan situation where the interpreters do not undergo any special training related to interpretation.

In section 2.1, I examined courtroom interpreting. I defined what courtroom interpreting entails and detailed the expectations that there are for a good courtroom interpretation to be deemed to have taken place. Through this literature review, I was able to determine the benchmarks set for the courtroom interpreter to achieve in various settings and countries.

These benchmarks enabled me judge whether or not the Dholuo interpreter delivered the legal equivalent of the message. However, my research was able to determine that some expectations of what the interpreter should be able to do are unrealistic given factors such as differences in language structure, culturally bound language, differences in register and extrinsic factors such as constraints of time, lack of training and additional responsibilities. I

38

also examined interpreter competency where I was able to identify the different qualifications and credentials that interpreters in different parts of the world have. I juxtaposed this with the Kenyan situation in order to create comparison and contrast that enabled me explain the importance of interpreter competency. Section 2.2 that follows explains different types of meaning shifts and how they occur.