The interlingual interpreter — Cypher or intelligent participant?

Conclusion

The final question that arises here is whether interpreters' behaviour—in adding a word here or deleting a word there, as in the examples given above — actually justifies the suspicion of legal participants that they are not being told “literally” what the witness is saying. Interpreters argue that a literal rendering may confuse or mislead. Legal figures accuse interpreters of using their own words.

Legal etiquette frequently precludes interpreters from identifying cultural or linguistic factors that are generating miscommunication, such as in the example given above of designating a particular winter. The mechanical, non-participatory role ascribed to interpreters in the lega setting further leads the legal “professionals” to denigrate the standing of the individuals performing language-switching. Failure to treat interpreters as participants, e.g. by supplying them with all documentation, including photographic material, leads to inaccuracies. The mechanical view of interpreters frequently precludes them from participating at their own initiative, either to request clarification of unclear material or to provide clarification where speakers' referents are based on different worlds of knowledge. I suggest that it is high time that the legal profession re-examined its attitudes towards foreign-language interpreters, and towards their product — interlingual interpretation.