论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】Today’s legal system generally demands that the interpreter function as a “faceless voice，” a conduit， that is， in a “neutral” and non-intrusive way. However， the conduit model subjects interpreters to communicative conflicts and dilemmas in practice， and have aroused much controversy among scholars. This paper attempts to analyze limitations and deficiencies of the traditional model the redefine the role of court interpreters.
【Key words】Critical Study; the Role; Court Interpreter
【作者簡介】傅雪婷（1989.11-），女，浙江金华人，浙江水利水电学院，讲师，硕士研究生，研究方向：英语语言学、翻译学。
Ⅰ. Introduction
Interpreters have become increasingly ubiquitous in the courts of the world. It is argued that “Interpreters don’t have a problem with ethics; they have a problem with the role” （cited In Roy 1993： 347）. As a result， the issue of interpreters’ role has become great concern to both researchers and practitioners in the field. Interpreters， who are considered officers of the court， are strictly forbidden to give advice or provide explanations to clarify intended meaning， and are often instructed by judges to provide a verbatim interpretation （Mikkelson 2008： 81）. However， the interpreters guided by the conduit model confront communicative conflicts and dilemmas in practice， and scholarly research has revealed the shortcomings of the argument. It is necessary to “devise a conception of the role of legal interpreters which more accurately reflects professional needs and experiences” （Laster and Taylor 1995： 9）. This paper attempts to prove that it’s difficult for court interpreters under the guidance of ‘the conduit model’ to accomplish his work smoothly and satisfactorily. The author renders the court interpreters’ role as a communication facilitator. The paper hopes to illustrate the role of court interpreters by analyzing its legal paradigm， as well as the conflicts and dilemmas， and finally reconceptualise the role of court interpreters.
Ⅱ. The legal paradigm： the interpreter as conduit
Over the decades， various images have been used by legal actors to describe court interpreters， including a transmission belt， a court reporter， a bilingual transmitter， a translating machine， a （mere） conduit or channel， a cipher， a mouthpiece， and a means of communication， etc. （Morris 1993： 221–223）. The conduit model， which was once quite prevalence in the court in the United States， could be explained as “a technical solution to avoid the enormous evidentiary problems associated with the exclusion of evidence as hearsay” （Laster and Taylor 1995： 9）. Morris， who makes an extensive survey of legal documents， highlights that judges and attorneys hope the interpreter to “achieve perfect identity…between the source and target texts or utterances” （Morris 1995：
【Key words】Critical Study; the Role; Court Interpreter
【作者簡介】傅雪婷（1989.11-），女，浙江金华人，浙江水利水电学院，讲师，硕士研究生，研究方向：英语语言学、翻译学。
Ⅰ. Introduction
Interpreters have become increasingly ubiquitous in the courts of the world. It is argued that “Interpreters don’t have a problem with ethics; they have a problem with the role” （cited In Roy 1993： 347）. As a result， the issue of interpreters’ role has become great concern to both researchers and practitioners in the field. Interpreters， who are considered officers of the court， are strictly forbidden to give advice or provide explanations to clarify intended meaning， and are often instructed by judges to provide a verbatim interpretation （Mikkelson 2008： 81）. However， the interpreters guided by the conduit model confront communicative conflicts and dilemmas in practice， and scholarly research has revealed the shortcomings of the argument. It is necessary to “devise a conception of the role of legal interpreters which more accurately reflects professional needs and experiences” （Laster and Taylor 1995： 9）. This paper attempts to prove that it’s difficult for court interpreters under the guidance of ‘the conduit model’ to accomplish his work smoothly and satisfactorily. The author renders the court interpreters’ role as a communication facilitator. The paper hopes to illustrate the role of court interpreters by analyzing its legal paradigm， as well as the conflicts and dilemmas， and finally reconceptualise the role of court interpreters.
Ⅱ. The legal paradigm： the interpreter as conduit
Over the decades， various images have been used by legal actors to describe court interpreters， including a transmission belt， a court reporter， a bilingual transmitter， a translating machine， a （mere） conduit or channel， a cipher， a mouthpiece， and a means of communication， etc. （Morris 1993： 221–223）. The conduit model， which was once quite prevalence in the court in the United States， could be explained as “a technical solution to avoid the enormous evidentiary problems associated with the exclusion of evidence as hearsay” （Laster and Taylor 1995： 9）. Morris， who makes an extensive survey of legal documents， highlights that judges and attorneys hope the interpreter to “achieve perfect identity…between the source and target texts or utterances” （Morris 1995：