Omission in Possible: the Forensic Linguistics Autopsy of the Court Interpreting Praxis

Taufiq Jati Murtaya, Sulis Triyono

Abstract


To have a proportional rendition, an interpreter has to deal with the dilemmatic decision of technique employment. In fact, in a case of court interpreting there are a bunch of oppressive moments, since its impact is exclusively stroke on the hearings’ route; and generally in the law enforcement constitution. For that fundamental circumstance, this article links the perspectives to achieve the goal how the court interpreting should be held from the notion of one of the interpreting strategies, namely the omission and the conceptual perspective of forensic linguistics. Here, this article reviews some points of view from both sides; and scrutinizes what lies beneath so the findings are beneficial for the court interpreting practices and studies. This article articulates that the omissions are taken for the sake of the prosecution flawless systemic process. Thus, the interpreter should be aware of the nuance of the two main conditions of the witness examination session i.e. the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination. More importantly, the forensic linguistics considers this as the effort in a working condition of the court interpreter to keep the most proportional judicial atmosphere in balance in terms of symmetrical and asymmetrical relation. This article then proposes the significance of having more knowledge on forensic linguistics for a court interpreter in doing and learning court interpreting.


Keywords


court interpreting; omission; forensic linguistics

Full Text:

PDF

References


Altman, J. (1994). Error analysis in the teaching of simultaneous interpretation: A pilot study. In S. Lambert and B. Moser-Mercer (eds) Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 25-38.

Ariani, M. G., Sajedi, F., and Sajedi, M. (2014). Forensic Lingistics: A Brief Overview of the Key Elements. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 158, 222-225.

Barik, H.C. (1975). Simultaneous Interpretation: Qualitative and Linguistics Data. Language and Speech, 18, 272-279.

Barik, H. C. (1994). “A description of various types of omissions, additions and errors of translation encountered in simultaneous interpretation”. In S. Lambert and B. Moser-Mercer (eds) Bridging the gap: Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 121-137.

Berk-Seligson, S (1988). The Important of Linguistics in Court Interpreting. La Raza L.J, 2, 14-28

Coulthard, M and Johnson, A. (2010). The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. London and New York: Routledge.

Dimitrova, B. E. (1995). Omission in Consecutive Interpretation: Evidence of a Decision Coomponent. Stockhol Slavic Studies 24, 73-88.

Gile, D. (1999). Testing the Effort Models’ tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting – a contribution. Hermes 23: 153-172.

Gile, D. (2009). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.

Hale, S. B. (2004). The Discourse of Court Interpreting Discourse Practice of the Law, the Witness and the Interpreter. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company

Hale, S. B. (2006). Themes and Methodologocal Isuues in Court Interpreting Research. Linguistica Anvertpiensia, 5, 205-228.

Hale, S. B. (2007). Community Interpreting. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ibrahim, Z. (2007). “The Interpreter as Advocate Malaysian Court Interpreting as a Case in Point”. In C. Wadensjö and B. E. Dimitrova (eds) The Critical Link 4. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 205-213.

Jones, R. (1998). Conference Interpreting Explained. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.

Korpal, P. (2012). Omission in Simultaneous Intepreting as a Deliberate Act. Translation Research Projects, 4, 103-111.

Leonard, R. A. (2005). Forensic Linguistics Applying the Scientific Principles of Language Analysis to Issues of the Law. The International Journal of the Humanities, 3.

Linell, P. and Luckmann, T. (1991). Asymmetries in dialogue: some conceptual preliminaries’,in Marková, I. and Foppa, K. (eds) Asymmetries in Dialogue. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1–20

Livingston, S., Singer, B. & Abramson, T. (1994). Effectiveness Compared: ASL Interpretation Versus Transliteration. Sign Language Studies, 82, 1-53.

McMenamin, G. R. (2002). Forensic Linguistics Advances in Forensic Stylistics. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Moris, R. (1999). The Gum Syndrome: Predicaments in Court Interpreting. Forensic Linguistics 6, 6-29.

Mouritsen, C. A. (2017). Corpus Linguistics in Legal Interpretation. International Journal of Language and Law, 6, 67-89.

Murtaya, T. J. (2017a). Parallel Corpora Investigation: A Grounbreaking Breakthrough of Indonesian CIS (Corpus-based Interpreting Studies. UNY Press, 578-585.

Murtaya, T. J. (2017b). Reviewing Interpreting Fidelity Assessment: What to Concern about and What to Do. Sanata Dharma University Press, 247-256.

Napier, J. (2004). Interpreting Omissions A New Perspective. John Benjamin Publishing Company ,6:2, 117-142.

Olsson, J. (2008). Forensic Linguistics: Second Edition. London: Continuum.

Perkins, R and Grant, T. 2013. Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences, Second Edition. Birmingham: Elsevier Ltd.

Pöchhacker, F. (2001). Quality Assessment in Conference and Community Interpreting. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 46, 410-425.

Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing Interpreting Studies. London and New York: Routledge.

Pym, A. (2008). On Omission in Simultaneous Interpreting. Risk Analysis of a Hidden Effort. John Benjamins, 83-105.

Shuy, R. W. (2006). Linguistics in The Courtroom A Practical Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Susanto, R. and Murtaya, T. J. (2017). Translation vs Interpreting in the Perspective of Neurolinguistics. Faculty of Language and Arts, State University of Semarang, 467-471.

Udina, N. (2017). Forensic Linguistics Implications for Legal Education: Creating The E-textbook on Language and Law. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 237, 1337-1340.

Viaggio, S. (2002). “The quest for optimal relevance: The need to equip students with a pragmatic compass”. In G. Garzone and M. Viezzi (eds) Interpreting in the 21st century: challenges and opportunities. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 229-244.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijclts.v.6n.1p.50

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2013-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

International Journal of Comparative Literature and Translation Studies

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.