‘That’s not how we speak’: interpreting monolingual ideologies in courtrooms

ABSTRACT

The paper examines the operation and impact of monolingual ideologies relating to English in interpreter-mediated courtrooms in Australia. This is an issue relevant to courts in many geographical places, especially in Anglophone nations with common law systems. Using recurrent thematic analyses, the paper draws on interviews with 36 court interpreters working in Australia. From the perspective of legal interpreters, the paper explores three specific language ideologies linked to a ‘monolingual mindset’ [Michael Clyne (2005) Australia's Language Potential, UNSW Press.] of courtrooms: accent as a key marker of Australian English according to standard language ideologies; monolingual assumptions that there is only one version of each language; and negative perceptions of the bilingual abilities of court participants from minority backgrounds. The findings illustrate the ‘us-them’ distinction as both a cause and an outcome of the perpetuation of monolingual ideologies, which, in turn, feed into the conditions for the production and reproduction of existing power structures and ideological uses of language, with ramifications for the fairness and justice of legal processes. The paper concludes by highlighting the pervasiveness of monolingual ideologies in courtrooms, the need for multilingual and multicultural training of legal professionals and the relevance of collaboration between interpreters and legal professionals to addressing monolingualism in Australian courtrooms.

KEYWORDS:

• Australia
• courtrooms
• interpreting
• language ideologies
• monolingualism

Disclosure statement

This article shares some data with Cho⁸⁴. Both publications have drawn from my 2018–2020 study on the relationships between power and communication in interpreting.

Notes

84 Cho (2021).

1 Mulcahy (2007).

2 Berman (2001).

3 Allison et al. (2006).

4 Mulcahy (2007), p. 387.

5 The most general permission for interpreters in either criminal or civil matters comes from evidence statutes, e.g. the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and the state laws modelled on it, such as the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW): s 30 of both Acts allows a witness to give evidence through an interpreter ‘unless the witness can understand and speak the English language sufficiently to enable the witness to understand, and to make an adequate reply to, questions that may be put about the fact’. There are further specific interpreter allowances in statute, e.g. a support person at the NSW Children's Court may, with leave of the Court, act as an interpreter for a participant if the participant does not sufficiently speak or understand English per s 102(5), Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW). Similarly, in proceedings under the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Act 2007 (NSW), if the ‘dependent person’ is unable to communicate adequately in English but is able to communicate adequately in another language then they person may be assisted in the proceedings by ‘a competent interpreter’: s 37(5).

6 Berk-Seligson (1990), p. 54.

7 Eades (2003).

8 Angermeyer (2014).

9 See, e.g. Angermeyer (2008, 2014); Goldflam (1997).

10 Hale (2014).

11 Clyne (2005).

12 Lippi-Green (2012).

13 Fairclough (2001), p. 2.

14 Eades (2003).

15 Ellis (2008), p. 314.

16 Australian Bureau of Statistics 2020, ‘Australia's population: over 7.5 million born overseas’, https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/lookup/3412.0Media%20Release12018-19, 11 July 2020.

17 Fozdar and Spittles (2009). As an example of the prominence of this in political and legal discourse, see e.g. Multicultural NSW Act 2000 (NSW).

18 See, e.g. Nolan et al. (2011); Stratton (1999).

19 Watkins (2017).

20 Clyne (2008).

21 Clyne (2008), p. 348.

22 Stern (2018).

23 Clyne (2008).

24 Clyne (2008).

25 Carlin (2016), p. 453.

26 Ramsley and Marchetti (2001).

27 Ramsley and Marchetti (2001).

28 Eades (2003).

29 Goldflam (1997).

30 See Eades (1982, 1994, 1996, 2000).

31 Eades (2000).

32 Roberts-Smith (2009).

33 Roberts-Smith (2009).

34 Hale (2004); Lee (2009); Morris (2010).

35 Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators (2012).

36 Inghilleri (2003).

37 This gradual but important improvement was the focus of discussions at the recent 2020 UNSW Legal Interpreting Symposium [https://aija.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Symposium-2020-invitation_registration-link1.pdf]. The research outreach led by that Symposium’s organisers was demonstrated by the publication of an invitation to the Symposium in the newsletter of the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration [https://aija.org.au/publications-introduction/aija-newsletters/aija-news-november-2020/#UNSW-invitation].

38 Lee (2009).

39 Hale (2001); Hale (2014)

40 Language needs are recognised as a type of ‘special need’ under many Australian statutes, and are explicitly recognised as a vulnerability: for example, the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) s 87ZC defines ‘vulnerable person’ as a person who falls into one or more enumerated categories including ‘(e) persons who are of non- English-speaking background".

41 Ethics approval for the research was obtained from the Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee in 2018 [ ref 5201800438].

42 In the case of one of the languages concerned, formal accreditation from NAATI was not available at that time.

43 Lincoln and Guba (1985).

44 Lippi-Green (2012).

45 Lippi-Green (1994), p. 67.

46 Lippi-Green (1994).

47 Lippi-Green (1994), italics in original, p. 165.

48 Lippi-Green (1994), p. 165.

49 See, e.g. Cutler (1985); Matsuda (1991); Lippi-Green (1994, 2012).

50 Hale, Bond and Sutton (2011).

51 Harris (1990).

52 Inghilleri (2003), p. 26.

53 See, eg, Frumkin (2007); Lippi-Green (1994); Matsuda (1991).

54 See Munro and Derwing (1995).

55 Bresnahan et al. (2002).

56 Hale (2001, 2002, 2004); Kolb and Pöchhacker (2008).

57 Hale, Bond and Sutton (2011).

58 Hale, Bond and Sutton (2011), p. 57.

59 Ramsley and Marchetti (2001).

60 Fran and Smith (2019).

61 The northern part of Sydney is predominantly Anglo in demographics and is generally considered as affluent and privileged, compared with the other areas of Sydney.

62 https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/SSC13006?opendocument#cultural.

63 https://profile.id.com.au/northern-beaches/language.

64 https://profile.id.com.au/cws/language.

65 Grey and Smith-Khan (2020).

66 Blommaert (2013).

67 Gogolin (1997).

68 Gogolin (1997), p. 41.

69 Grey (2021).

70 Versteegh (2014).

71 Versteegh (2014).

72 Arabic is one of the languages spoken in Sudan, and this variety is commonly known as Sudanese-Arabic.

73 Smith-Khan (2020).

74 Blommaert (2013).

75 Angermeyer (2008).

76 Angermeyer (2014).

77 Angermeyer (2014).

78 Bouchard (2010).

79 Sarangi and Slembrouck (2014).

80 Pöllabauer (2004).

81 Angermeyer (2008).

82 See, e.g. Hale (2011); Mikkelson (2008); Morris (2010); Xu (2020).

83 Grey and Smith-Khan (2020); Grey and Smith-Khan (2020).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jinhyun Cho

Dr. Jinhyun Cho is a senior lecturer in the Translation and Interpreting Program of the Department of Linguistics at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia. Her research interests are primarily in the field of sociolinguistics of interpreting and focus on intersections between gender, language ideologies, language policies, neoliberalism, and intercultural communication. She has authored two monographs: ‘English language ideologies in Korea: interpreting the past and present' and ‘Intercultural communication in interpreting: power and choices’.