Language and law are considered to be inseparable since language is needed to frame and understand the law. In the Philippines, English is widely used in the legal domain; hence, it is the language employed in court trials. To accommodate court participants who speak languages other than English to actively take part in court proceedings, the court recognizes the value of court interpreting. Court interpreting is perceived to promote successful communication among court participants who speak languages other than the court’s official languages. It helps the judges and jury in courts of law to ensure that a message is accurately conveyed and that fair decisions are derived. However, there are cases in which misinterpretation occurs. For instance, an interpreter may have problems translating words in a witness’ testimony from English to Filipino and vice versa, leading to communication breakdown. To avoid this problem, court interpreting should ensure that qualities such as accuracy and completeness are observed. Taking into account the canons set by the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators, Inc. (NAJIT), the Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators (AUSIT), and the European Legal Interpreters and Translators Association (EULITA), this study investigated interpreting norms used in selected Philippine courtrooms. Using a qualitative approach, 11 audio-recordings of court proceedings were transcribed and analyzed to determine norm adherence by court interpreters. Findings revealed that court interpreters in the selected court trials adhere to the norms of accuracy, impartiality, competence, professional conduct, and professional relationships. The results of the analysis suggest that the selected court interpreters can successfully perform their interpreting duties in spite of seeming differences in court practices. To promote standard court interpreting practices in the country, this study recommends the creation of court-interpreting policies and guidelines that will serve as bases for court interpreters’ actions and decisions in relation to their jobs. Specially, these proposed policies and guidelines will highlight the need for code of ethical conduct, qualification standards, enhanced training, certification and language-proficiency test.
Keywords: Court interpreting, forensic linguistics, language and law, norms of interpretingAli, S.A., & Algane, M.A.A.A. (2013). The role of forensic translation in courtrooms contexts. Arab World English Journal Special Issue on Translation, 2, 171-180. https://awej.org/images/AllIssues/Specialissues/Translation2/12abs.pdf
Angermeyer, P.S. (2009). Translation style and participant roles in court interpreting. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 13(1), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00394.x
Australian Institute for Interpreters and Translators (AUSIT) Code of Ethics.b
Berk-Seligson, S. (1990). The bilingual courtroom. Court interpreting in the judicial process. Chicago University Press.
Chilingaryan, K., & Gorbatenko, O. (2017). Training court interpreting issues. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 237, 1081-1086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2017.02.159.
Commission of the European Communities. (2003). Green paper on procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings. Throughout the European Union.
EU of The European Parliament and of the Council. (2010). Right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2016). Providing interpretation and translation services in criminal proceedings.
Gamal, M.Y. (2009). Court interpreting. In M. Baker, & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies. (2nd ed.)(pp. 63-67). Routledge.
Gonzalez, A. (1996). Incongruity between the language of law and the language of court proceedings: The Philippine experience. Language and Communication, 16(3), 229-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(96)00012-2.
Gural. S.K., & Chemezov, Y.R. (2014). Analysis of efficiency of translation quality assurance tools. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 154, 360-363. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.163 Hale, S. (2010). Court interpreting. The need to raise the bar: Court interpreters as specialized experts. In M. Coulthard, & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 440-454). Routledge.
Hermans, T. (1996). Norms and the determination of translation: A theoretical framework. In R. Álvarez, & M. Vidal (Eds.), Translation, power, subversion (pp. 25-51). Multilingual Matters. b5
Jiménez-Ivars, A., & León-Pinilla, R. (2018). Interpreting in refugee contexts. A descriptive and qualitative study. Language & Communication, 60, 28-43. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.01.009.
Kalina, S. (2015). Ethical Challenges in different interpreting settings. MonTI, 2, 63-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2015.ne2.2
Koo, A. (2009). Truth through court interpreters. International Journal of Evidence & Proof. 13(3), 212-224. https://doi.org/10.1350%2Fijep.2009.13.3.323
Kościałkowska-Okońska, E. (2010). Interpreters in the courtroom: The importance of competence and quality. Comparative Linguistics, 2, 39-48. https://doi.org/10.14746/ cl.2010.2.03
Lebese, S.J. (2015). Formulation of court interpreting models: A South African perspective. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics, 44, 61-80. https://doi.org/10.5774/44-0-191.
Lee, J. (2009). Conflicting views on court interpreting examined through surveys of legal professionals and court interpreters. Interpreting, 11(1), 35-56. https://doi. org/10.1075/intp.11.1.04lee
Lee, J. (2011). Translatability of speech style in court interpreting. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 18(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v18i1.1
Loyola, M. (2016). The profile and empathy level of helping professionals. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 4(3), 26-33. http://www.apjmr.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/07/APJMR-2016.4.3.04.pdf.
Madrunio, M.R. (2014). Power and control in Philippine courtroom discourse. International Journal of Legal English, 2(1), 4-30.
Martin, I.P. (2013). Is justice lost in translation? Court interpreting in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 43, 1-17.
Marzocchi C. (2005.) On norms and ethics in the discourse on interpreting. https://core. ac.uk/download/pdf/41171611.pdf
Mikkelson, H. (1998). Towards a definition of the role of the role interpreter. Interpreting, 3(1), 21-45. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.3..1.02.mik
Mizon, M.N. (2018). Declining of English proficiency in the Philippines. http://udyong.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9802:declining-of-englishprofeciency-in-the-philippines&catid=90&Itemid=126.
Morallo, A. (2018). Filipino graduates’ English skills lower than target for cab drivers in Dubai, study says. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/02/08/1785840/filipino-graduates-english-skills-lower-target-cab-driver-dubai-stud-says
NAJIT Federal Court Interpreter Act (1978, Amendment, 1988). Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI).
Nartowska, K.(2017). Is the impartiality of the interpreter in the courtroom utopia? Professional ethics and the participation of an interpreter in criminal proceedings. In C.V. Garcés (Ed.), Superando limites en traduccion e interpretacon en loss servicios públicos (pp. 67-73). Servicio de Publicaciones Universidad de Alcala.
National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators, Inc. (NAJIT). Code of ethics and professional responsibilities. https://najit.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ NAJITCodeofEthicsFINAL.pdf.
Ng. E.(2015). Teaching and research on legal interpreting: A Hong kong perspective. MonTI, 7, 243-270.
Niska, H. (1995). Just interpreting: Role conflicts and discourse types in court Interpreting. In M. Morris (Ed.). Translation and the law (pp. 293-316). John Benjamins.
Reyes, J. (2015). Loób and kapwa: An introduction to a Filipino virtue ethics. Asian Philosophy, 25(2), 148-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/09552367.2015.1043173.
Schetzer, L., Mullins, J., & Buonamano, R. (2003). Access to justice & legal needs: A project to identify legal needs, pathways and barriers for disadvantaged people in NSW. Background paper. Law and Justice Foundation of NSW, Sydney. http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/report/background.
Schjoldager, A. (1995). An exploratory study of translational norms in simultaneous interpreting. Methodological reflections. Journal of Linguistics, 8(14), 65-87.
Shuttleworth, M., & Cowie, M. (1999). Dictionary of translation studies. ST. Jerome Publishing. Supreme Court of the Philippines A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC February 16, 2010. Rules of Court.
Supreme Court of the Philippines A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC February 16, 2010. Rules of Court. Rules 128-134, Revised Rules in Evidence: Interpretation of Documents.
Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines. (2011). RTC Manual, VI, 1 2.2.3. https:// lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_p-06-2206_2011.html
Toury, G. (1978). The nature and role of norms in literary translation. In J.S. Holmes et al. (Eds.). Literature and translation: New perspectives in Literary studies. (pp. 83- 100). Acco.
Tsuda, M. (1995). Interpreting and translating for Filipino suspects/defendants in Japan: Selected cases and reflections of participants observer. Philippine Sociological Review, 43(1/4), 139-160. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23898538