24
腖腒腑腙腍腃腐腗腄腆腘腏腔 ῌῌ腕腉腓腋腈腇腅腀腎腁腆腂ῌῌ 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[s courts. 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 is regarded 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 the speaker[s words. While trying to retain maximal correspondence of form and content, they also seek “dynamic equivalence,” based on 59

Court Interpreter s Dilemma: Word Translation vs. Cultural ......ˇˆ˙ Court Interpreter[s Dilemma: Word Translation vs. Cultural Interpretation Nadamitsu Yoko AsJapanhostsanincreasing

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    5

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • �������������������������

    � � � �

    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