Court Interpreter s Dilemma: Word Translation vs. Cultural ......ˇˆ˙ Court Interpreter[s Dilemma:...
Transcript of Court Interpreter s Dilemma: Word Translation vs. Cultural ......ˇˆ˙ Court Interpreter[s Dilemma:...
-
�������������������������
� � � �
Court Interpreter[s Dilemma:Word Translation vs.
Cultural Interpretation
Nadamitsu Yoko
As Japan hosts an increasing number of foreign workers and visitors,
more non-Japanese are appearing as defendants in the country[scourts. Most of these defendants are not fluent in Japanese and
require court interpreters. Based on in-depth interviews with court
interpreters, this paper considers the practicality of the law[s atti-tude toward accuracy of translation and the interpreter [ s role.Courts define “accurate” translation as word-for-word code switch-
ing, which strives for formal correspondence. This position on
translation is based on the assumption that what is said in one
language can be said and understood in another with no loss of
substance, form or e#ect. In such a view, the interpreter[s act isregarded as a mechanistic process in which the interpreter functions
transparently as a mere conduit for words. It appears that the
courts do not understand the communicative complexities involved
in translation process and tend to undervalue the interpreter[s role.In reality, however, the interpreters play a more active, significant
role than the court system recognizes. This interview survey illus-
trates how the interpreters handle the intercultural translation prob-
lems faced at court. Important points raised in this paper include
the following: the interpreters need to use their discretion and
judgment to convey the speaker[s intent and not merely thespeaker[s words. While trying to retain maximal correspondence ofform and content, they also seek “dynamic equivalence,” based on
����������
59
-
the idea that the translated message should have the same e#ect on
the target-language listeners as the message had for the source-
language listener. They pay close attention to the cultural and
social context not only of verbal messages but also communication
styles and non-verbal cues of the speakers. This study suggests
that courts need to have a more realistic understanding of the
interpreter[s role and recognize their professional status as keyplayers in court proceedings.
�����: ������ ���� �� ����� ����
1. ������� ������������ !"� #$%&'(!)* �+,*�-� �./0#*�� 12(3#&'�+0������$*45678�9�� #*: ;?@A�BCDE� 1998�(!)*F>>G�HI0J� ����KL�C,ME>GJ;����NO(P"� ��QR�STUC�E���>G�V5�WJ 1989�XY9��ECZL[2 #* �\]^Z 1998�: _`��=0V5�aSb)EcSd*C� 1987�� 358��� 1996�(J 6295�eC� f( 17.6g�h(,*C#i: j2�����KL��khJ&'l(m*nop�qr�stu0P"� v�w_0���STUCx*678��y #*: 1997�(!)*
-
����������� ������ �1993� �� �������������������� !� "�#$%�&'��(�������� �)�*+,-./0��#$%�&'������*��12�345� 617�-.89:� ���;��0� ?@A�BC ����DEFGHI� ( ��J�����+K�LM������� ���:54�N-� O��A�BC�������PQ��R454�= "����S��T�1U/�VW(�X�YZ0[�S\�1
-
2. ���������������� �source language:�� SL���������
����� ���� �target language: ��TL��� ��������������� � � ��!"��#��$%�&'�(�)*�!+,� TL ��,�-"��.+/� 0��12��!�3�� �3�!45672��!8,�!'97!:1� �������!;?@�AB>� CD�>?� E!�FG�.!H���2� IJ� KL� MN�� ON����.�� ��P�QR
��3ST3�UV��W�,� GW�� �X�YZ[�2\�]!^,�_`abc�AB>de� f�!gh!;"��ij#%��$%k(�� "�!&l�mn�:1�� �'!opq(r� s()
.!��)tu���P�Zv��� w*���.�k%xGr��$�� +,���-!���.!��^,�(�yz/� +,��.{P!��� |P!|��.s},V~P!P�/er�F�,0�)$(�� 1�!�$�� !%�� +,��
�� �1� ��P!23!n3� �2� 4)�+5��2'� �3� 'XGr2���� �4� �$!mn� �5� �X)L6o!=�.!07�Wr�� ��� p! 5�,V8���1� ��P�3)!23�93�UV��W�,� w*2!)$�� �er��P�:!�!;!de�p�k(�� ]��$�� �¤P� ¥¦§� �§� .{P� |P�.¨��3)(�P!?�������� q!R� 0@!I�A�p��U� qr©r!?��BFMC��p��%xGrV,�� � ,/��.{PD3VkE��ªV«3V��W¬� +,$®�3¯� �#V+,��P�3VFWr���2� +,$�� +5°��4G±2���GªVtU$%�(��
� � �H$!²%� �.!+5��� �I³��� �.!�;��1��´� � �´J� !+5)%�!^,�.kµG3V,�ur �W�,� �¶K�¶K|·�� �¥K�¥KL·�� �.!M�� �1F�¸¹
¨�X_`abc�AB>º» N 13¼ �2001O�
62
-
��� ��������� ���������������� ��� ����������������� � !�"�#������$" �#%&!�'(���)�*��+,�����3� �-!�� �./0� ��1&�2��345��!���� 6�7�89��,� �0:�;!�5� �*?5�=�@>?5� A:��#+,�!.��� "�(,0�� BC,�#(��D!�E0��,+F%�� 6�7�89G>*�0���*�!��� H��I���J?5�G , �D!�� "�(��0:��
-
����
3. ��������: �������������������� ������������������� SL��������� TL�� !������ "#$�%$�&'()�*+,����� -.�/��01�����Nida �1964� �� �2�345�6�789-.:;<��!�=� >?�� 2 @�ABC����
-
��������������� ��������� ������������������� �!"� #$�%&'�()��
'��*��+,-.����/ �0� %&'1�2����34�56!����7�� 8���9�� %&'1�:;?�@AB�1���C� 8�D������EFG�� ?H�EH���IJ��=�!��EKL���=��M���" �/ �F� �E��NOPQ!RS%T�UV����WG� 8�D!���%&��XEF8���YZ ���� [\]��^_ �/ E`E� abcdefghijNOPQ�?6����k!��� [l���m��8�NOPQ!n���m���o�pIq" �KL���5�/ %&'�Yr� �'�stu 0� >?�@k!@� �B�1���C� 8�D�y"�?6���� �z{|�}E�!~-.����/ E`E� "����E���7�\��E9��7���/
4. ������ �������"8��Yr" 9���1�� 8�D!�lv#�#K�$���/ L!%8�&'o�� 8� 10� 11�%"8�D!�v&'�or9� �( 1997� �y)��� ����/ �`��D*\�Z�...��`l�8���8� E� ��!���F���xE9� `��+������� �10�� �`��,�7=���4� -Z 9���� ¡Q� ./Z|dc¢iN��Xu�� �11 � =�!�YZ ��!"8�D���/ �"8�£i¤¥¦§��¨�� �©2!0ª« 1990� ��� �18�|� 8�Dy¬���?H|,�
-
������ ������������������������ ���� ��������� � !!�"#�� �$�� ����%� &'()���*+,�-��.�� /012%� ����345�6(7��89:;��?#@A��$�BCD(8*�E�F2:���GHI�+���� ��HJ� K�L(F��MN����%� SL(45OP TL�QR����*34BST�(MNUVW.0� XYZ[\ �formal equivalence� F2�]+34^_(��3`8*6�� ���(�a�(8*�bc��d�(-��%� ���(�ae� 3�3
fgh`�� i�� ���Ej� �.:k`�IeJ����K�LleXYZ[\^_(�F2� ��� �$��'� 5 ���Ej� �mf�n�op%q��(rd�I�Rs�%��7�� .,.��(8*�K�L(���t.:� uvw`�x-�,I�� �`y�Morris �1995� %� z{|}~C(.�.:H��������e�� &�z{|}~C(MNUF��K�L(��%� �1(34�3`���%� �(34�-���R�g� 3
��fgh`�����7H@�"I*�� ��*34��:���.0� "��� Laster � Tayor �1994� %����(�a ���Ej� �bc���� K�(Ue����.0� �(��%� ��5���(3�3�.:(�Z\ 0#�e� ¡¢�K��%� ��� �,�(£¤3�%�¥� �����*¦ 3 e��3
3�.:§H�¥:%����� K�L%¨(8*�¡¢�K�(U,�� ¡¢4��"I���5�(3e©ª�QR"I:����*«¬`�02���� �$��'� ���Ej� �mfn� ¦ 3�.:(� !�¥��e����*� Morris �1995�5Laster�Tayor �1994�%� �(8*�����(f,I0®¯% legal fiction ��Z°O� ��±�����.0� Wadensjö �1998� -� ��Z°O� �3².� �(8*��³%� ���´.0z{|}~Ce� 34µ����(z{|}~C�%u������pn��� ���(¶·�¸±
u�6z{|}~C¹º ¦ 13» �2001¼�
66
-
��������������������������������������� ���� �!"���#$%���&'()�� Fenton �1997��� �����*+ 3��� �!"�����,+-� ����./0�� ���#�12��#0� ��34�56�+��78�
49�� +#+� :����.;?@ABC�D��E���FG������ H�3IJ0��K��0)���.LM�� ���NOPQ�RS�� ���� R��� :��� �� �T�U.�2�+� ;CVW@X��#�� YZ���� ���[\�+#����.]M�)�� �^_� `�0�a����bc�T�U.�de�fg+.�#�� �h0)������34G�K�� Ri�����jk��lmn9�op� ���:�q���Er�� �sn��t��u�v^�w����� xy�U.�� �z���-{� ��
��|�������������+� ���}��� ���'~� �� 0�p-G�����.]M���U.�+�#G-��� ���3IJ%�� Fenton � ���w9$���+�$9���� �������/�o��D�����!G- active player ���e��"^�D��#���J� ���$0)p� %m� ��� �&��s�3I+�jk����}���,��w�0� �����L�*��'�{��(�� +��w.���0)�� �a���)*n�+-�� �����0� +�0��^-p� ,� �¡�-^�U.����¢£n9���.¤0)�� +#+� /¥���¦� �0+§� � ����¨� �#1�w�0� ���e-��|�}©28n9����+-$� :9�]M#$34+����H����ª�� �«¬� �]M��®��� ���T�U.�¯^����%°.#� T�U.�/50� :�®±��U�²³C´�65+����#� :�]µ�7¶��w������ ]·¸8+���������C¹º=@9»�kG-�
�����65��¼$
67
-
5. ������������������������� �8 ��� ���� �������
�������� �1��� � 9���������� !"�#$%&'�()*�!+#,-� 6��./#�01$2 �345��67���8&9�� �:�;�?@A�'�8�
�8� 8� G8!�#� 6��� 3�� G� 1��C�6 3 �� 1 �&W�$2 �����6� 8��������� ���� 10��� >'�8�������� � ���� 8���� G8����G�� � ���� 1� 2�� �8�������� � ���� 6��&W�$2 ���J�6� � 6.4�Z�� ����M{1J�6N�0f�2 '�()*�6� ./!�$%& #� '�()*�!� 7�#�~�(#$8�2 �~#$� �:�rb��tuC `|N����¡"�$S� ¢H#$`6� �1� �:�£¤ � �2� ¥¦�§¨©ª«� �3� d¬*®�¯°�©>('� �4� #=8��±�A��5� =$²%� 5³&��'&3$2 ´�� �'#$ 5³&�}�����IJK!µ¶#f�N·(x�2
�1� �:�£¤ �:�£¤
-
������������� ������ ������������ . . .��������������� � !��"�����#$���� . . .�%���&'�(���� ))*�� +�,����-��*�� +�,����-��./�01� . . .+�2/%3�4+�2/%3�4/� 5/�%6� 78���%3��6429�(�.��-:;/� 5/�%6� 78���%3��6429�(�.��-:;�?(�?(0� ��2�@��,��ABC�DE-�01FG� 0� HI�BC���HI�BC����. . . ���>J���:
DK����.�:-� . . .LM6ND� %>OE��� . . .OPQR���OPQR���� . . . �@���S-�01F� ��3�
�TU� �+�,��� ��-�V%W�"� ����� � !>X1(YJZ[\� ���]�/^_BC[��`��(� QR
�2(%6abcda��V%> �+�,��� ���e� �2�� @����>�OYbBC"Z#�e(f���g'h�E2��/���F-� � �+�,��� ��-ij>OY�BC�k�E2�(�A-�� �V%lm>n��� op!�qr1(����� %>FijstDg'uPtDS-����ED� vw%�2�� �xyz"QRS�����{|}~>�/����E�� �V%� �+�� >X1(��"(���� @�%���>��>��(�?P� >g'h�E2��"��(� �>� vw%�3�� HI%OY>X1(�@�%�QR>)��(/�� �V%BC�OY8��>1(@�0��>����(�BC��(�A-���>�@�0�� ¡��(
�� ¢��£1F->� �BC}>�QR¤�?(� ¥¦ �1998b��@�§¨©|��-ª«�E� �V%� �BC� ��(�A-��@�§� �¬� 0?P� �V%BC"-4�@�§�^¨>?/}0®Ke(��¯s^0?(��(� °�� f�±�>²���-0?(�� ��³´>?(�V%µ¶·"AF->ij1(���-«0� vw%w�t����{|}~>¸�
vw%�¹º1(»¼«
69
-
������������� �������������������������������� !��" �����#$���%&�!�� '�()" ����*��" �������+��,-�.��� Wagatsuma�Rosett �1986�" *����/0"
*�����12�3456�78��9�" ���:;��(�
-
���������������������� ���� ��� ������� �� !��� "#� $%�"#�&'(��� . . ."#�)���*��� �+,-��*�"#�)���*��� �+,-��*���� . . .� .,/���� �����01� �&'(��� )�� �+�&'(��� )�� �+,�� 2345�,�� 2345�*��� 67849:;
-
������������� ���������������� ����������� ���� ��!" ��� #�� �$�%���� &'( )*+,-./�"��$�%���� &'( )*+,-./�"���� �� 0�/����1#23��4� *56����1#2����/��� 7��6�8����9:� �����;< =03�?0��@�AB/C+������2�
!�D�3� �2�/ � ��E��FGH��IJKLM#NO2�4P QRST�RU#V�WX������/� YZ[�4\]( ^9_`6�,-.��*��ab0� Fc!"�%d� YZ[�03ef�gh ��i+�!��*��� jklm�;n�4�o�03��*�pD�!�D4� �0q��0�� �XrIJKLM#NO2sTtRu�v@q �+wx 4FGy��*��z{03�����*�4*����|}�/~6� %�3�� �+�� Berk-Seligson �1990� ����4� !��T#sTtRu�� �3� kD )@q�AB�@$X*��k~0�;�03�$6�3�� ;�4� TR2[��kD��4������ !�%��[�TtRu� 2� +# �70�/��� )�� !��� �3� )@q�kD AB�� �. �trustworthiness�� �convincingness�� -�competence�� . �intelligence� ��� :�� X��2M#1;0�� ��� 0%�gXQ# # �Sir� �e¡���� �polite� ���������¢£�� e¡�������� 4¤¥¦3 §�3AB����� ��� �5¨ 40��TR2[��©ªT«L¬®����� ¯°�±²89�³"´03��� �.���4���6������ -�.��4� 3����������AB���������*�*�4� kDµ¶�TR2[ ���=·)�3� /��X6d� !�D�� @$wx%��*��¸03�� %6 � ��
¹FGIJKLM#NO2|} º 13» �2001¼�
72
-
�� “I[m twenty-one” ���� “I am twenty-one years old” ��
�������� �������� ���������� �hyperfor-mal� �������� !"�#� $��%&�'����(�)*�+,� 3-��./0+���1�� 2� 34(5�6789: �;�1��?@A� �B�C D Berk-Seligson EF#� '�G(�H IJ+KH�L��M� “powerful filter” �N��OP��Q� ���� R��S��+T��D�+A$������9�CU�� '���V�+WX&��YZ�[\�� ]��^_��` !"+��'�G�2 ab#c�d�C WXe8fQg�� hi�j��� Bucholtz �1995� #� WXe8fQg+^_��[\� �$�kId�hi�����?� lmgn��oU�� � p����������� �B � �� � �q rs� �tuvQwxt�qWXy�z+{|��YZ�D�#�}~�B�� V�#2�B��?� WX�����? �^_��? �#2���������C'�G�2#� � D�+��� '���G (����U�`� q �/0+���$��D�U�I����C ^'��&����� y��D��}~ B������?� WXe8fQg�B�'�G X�+Z�D����n� �eQg+����(� ]��#����& S��(���UC '�G�2(� ��DA+��s�'�����D�#k��Z�C
�4� &e8fQg�H(I�Z�D�+ ¡�KH�L���¢�#� &e8fQg£¤�#��&e8fQg�?�IZ�¥�(B�C Laster �1990�#� ¦§¨(�'�+� ��©ª�«¬Z�� �H(��H����4( ¡�®Y�����ab��C G#� &�� I�(� ��_ ¯�+°��±��£¤ ¡�KH����D�+²�� ³´µ�¶G?� · Z�`� � ¸
!¹'�G(º�Z� »¼
73
-
����������������� ������� ��������� !"� �#�$%��&��'(�)*�+,-./0� 1��234056 ���78� .�+,9:;?�4�@�ABCD�� Laster �EF�G1HBIJKL�M���NO�P&�
1����Q��$��� ���RS��1T��U� VWT�X�RS��1T��U� VWT�X�Y&PZ6��[1T��U� X\]�^��T_01T��UY&PZ6��[1T��U� X\]�^��T_01T��U� `
-
������������������������������� ��� ����4 � �!"#$%�&'(&)*�� +,-���� .����/01� �2�3�����45�6�7-� 89:;�?@ABC$�D
-
�������� ������������������� ������ �!"#$�%&'(�� �)*+� �polvo� �,-.�/01� �2� �3�4� �5� �6�78�9���.�� 6�:-/��;��? ������@A�BCDEFDG/HI��,-�
. . . �)*+�=�JK���L MNO��L� P�,�������� . . .QR�ST/ �2��2� U�.VL-� WX�/�����-� 2�JK���L�,-� �L9YU�,�=�L�,��,-Z[/�4��:\� ��]� Q���^����_Q-,-�/�U���,-� `a����_b��Q-,-������Q-��� c����� QRS�� �3�4� �c�R�,��3�4� �c�R�,���2�
de�:-�fg� ����hi/DE�����j �)*+� /kl����mn����Ao���pq�rsR�� tX/���@A�BC�,�,-uv/9�wx� yC�z{�|E�Ao/}:~�6-����/�U��,E�c,C��TL/�,.��,�/���� ��Z[�sU�j����9�� /������1�( �/Q�#���,��
�� �R��j�=>O6 �3Qj�,U�,-�� ��4,��4�c QRc���\� ��/�>�'�c (�'�cK�>�'�c (�'�cK�c�R�,� . . . >U�_ ¡���U��,sO��¢ £¤/�U��sO>�_� ���U�,-�� ��-���U�,-�� ��-¥U�,�� Q��U�,-��sU�j��¥U�,�� Q��U�,-��sU�j�� ��1�
WX��9R¦ ��� �,�§¨�-V/'©ª���� TL�,�/«¬��� Q���®� ¯°�@±����sU�j�>]-�
²³´µ¶©·¸(¹º ® 13» �2001¼�
76
-
�������� ���� ����������� ������������� !"��#$� %&��'�$�(�$�)*�+,����%-./��01���+2 �3�� 45����6��7�89:3;�� ?�@�A�B&��C�� DE��F�6����G�H*�IJK�LMN,� O
-
���������� ������� �������������� ������������� ���� �!�"#$%&'(��� ��) ���!����*+,-./01 2���3$45��6���7 8'�9+����� 2: �;�
-
�1� ���������������� JJIA��������� ������� ������������ !�"#� ���$��%��&' (�)�����*+�&,-./�0�12� �3���45�6�789��:���&'
2� ��; ��������2��� �� �1996� 3? 4�� 60�61�� ��@A���B�����CDEF�� �GHI�� �1999� 11? 8��� ������I8JK�� �GHI�� �2000� 1? 5��� ��&����� ���I�� �2000 � 1 ? 27 �� 29 ��L� ������(M&� ����&'
3� 1960�!*+�N"O#�L��P�QR&S�T$�%UV��� 1978�� �&'�W����� �Court Interpreters Act��K�� &'�W�XY&��Z([�)\A�]^�*_+�,����&7R`abcd�efg�h-V.R+&A�/�� ����0Y&iV�j1kY+7'l7� i��2�m2� ���������no�.�7A�3*+45M&iV�p6V�2� �&'�W���.�noqr� �Federal Court In-terpreters Examination� �78�
-
�������� ���������� �169�� �� �������������������������� ������ !"�#�$�
���%
7� Laster �1990� �� &'()*+,�-�.�����$�"���/0�1"� 2��3$45�6��789�:���� Gaio v. TheQueen �1961� 104 CLR 419 8;�-�.�-�?�1$@A
���% �B�� Justice Menzies ����$��/08:�B� “Let it besupposed that there were a machine that itself translated from one language
to another so that one party to a conversation both spoken and heard in his
own language; . . . In my opinion, Arthur, �the interpreter,� like such amachine, was merely a translator.” �p. 17� ��C���%
8� ����2�D�� �1��4�EF���:% G;8HI�����J�KL� �B'��� ���� "M���N�� ��8OP�"��7�Q�
:% R:� ST����$�����U���V.8� G�$W�:% �J��XY�� �Z�� �!"��[\]B:�����%
9� #�^_8�� O[Barr �1982� �`a�� �8b��� #$�c��%\d8&B�ef8'\gh(I�#�$"i_8:% )��j:����klk$*m:no� p8 4q+�(r'stuv'w �powerful vs.powerless, narrative vs. fragmented, hypercorrection, simultaneous speech���k� efxy8c��zi��#�$,�:%
10� ���{|}$5~����:���� -� Minnesota Statev. New Chue Her�i��% Dunnigan� Downing �1995��� #�'($*m� �����.��/0}� ����:5�*w$ �1F�k� �FN� $5���_i� �k8:��82B�#��
-
67�75������ �2000� ��������������!� �������� 15� �6�7����������
���� ��!" � �1990� �����#$%&'()*� �+,�-. / �1994� �01234567����89:� �;�2���?�@AB� �1993� 44�1�C��DE��FGH� �1998� �IJ�K4567ALM����8NO@PAMQRST������8�@N���G�U���VWXYZ[� 139�191��\F ] �^����_`Ma� �0bc� �1996d 3e 4C� 60�61��fghij �1996a� �����8��kl �4���0123@8mn� �JJIA �o� 8� �13�15��C^���p��
fghij �1996b� �����qr��kl��0123@8mn� �JJIA �o� 9� �7�10��C^���p��
fghij �1997� �����stu�IJ�K89:@vw� �?�@AB�48�10� �60�71��C��DE��
�xyz{J|}^���~3�� �� �1999d 11e 8C��� 8d4567���K8�� �1998� ��+�� 50. 3� ���� ��!"��"�����!E � �1998� �� 10d xy� "������4� �� �2000d 1e 5C��� �1995� �^���l8 ¡4¢a£� �;�2��
¤F� �1998� �¥¦§¨*��8©st� ª� fghij � �IJ@��«¬��PAM��8�®4� �96�107�� �Z¯�
���7����� �°C� �2000d 1e 27C� 29��ª� �1998a� �±²³� ���´*�� ª� fghij � �IJ@��«¬��PAM��8�®4� �16�27�� �Z¯�
ª� �1998b� �Cµ¶:�·8¸¹� ª� fghij � �IJ@��«¬��PAM��8�®4� �3�9�� �Z¯�
Berk-Seligson, S. �1990�. The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in thejudicial process. Chicago�London: The University of Chicago Press.
Bucholtz, M. �1995�. Language in evidence: The pragmatics of translation andthe judicial process. In M. Morris �Ed.�, Translation and the law: AmericanTranslators Association Scholarly Monograph Series �pp. 293�316�. Amster-dam�Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Dunnigan, T., & Downing, B. T. �1995�. Legal interpreting on trial: A case
�����º�»7�w¼
81
-
study. In M. Morris �Ed.�, Translation and the law: American TranslatorsAssociation Scholarly Monograph Series �pp. 293�316�. Amsterdam�Philadel-phia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Fenton, S. �1997�. The role of the interpreter in the adversarial courtroom. InS. E. Carr, R. Roberts, A. Dufour, & D. Steyn �Eds.�, The critical link:Interpreters in the community��Papers from the First International Confer-ence on Interpreting in Legal, Health, and Social Service Settings �Geneva Park,Canada, June 1�4, 1995�. �pp. 29�34�. Amsterdam�Philadelphia: John Benja-mins Publishing Company.
González, R. D., Vásquez, V. F., & Mikkelson, H. �1991�. Fundamentals ofcourt interpretation: Theory, policy, and practice. NC: Carolina Academic
Press.
Laster, K. �1990�. Legal interpreters: Conduits to social justice? The Journalof Intercultural Sutides, 11 �2�, 15�32.
Laster, K., & Taylor, V. �1994�. Interpreters & the legal system. N.S.W.: TheFederation Press.
Morris, R. �1995�. The moral dilemmas of court interpreting. The translator,1 �1�, 25�46.
Nida, E. A. �1964�. Toward a science of translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Niska, H. �1995�. Just interpreting: Role conflicts and discourse types in court
interpreting. In M. Morris �Ed.�, Translation and the law: American Transla-tors Association Scholarly Monograph Series �pp. 293�316�. Amsterdam�Phila-delphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
O[Barr, W. M. �1982�. Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in thecourtroom. NY: Academic Press.
Wadensjö, C. �1998�. Interpreting as interaction. London: Longman.Wagatsuma, H., & Rosett, A. �1986�. The implications of apology: Law and
culture in Japan and the United States. Law and Society Review, 20, 461�498.
����������� � 13� �2001��
82