Equal access to the courts in translation: a corpus-driven study on translation shifts in waivers of counsel

References

• Agrifoglio, M. (2004). Sight translation and interpreting: A comparative analysis of constraints and failures. Interpreting, 6(1), 43–67. doi:10.1075/intp.6.1.05agr
   Google Scholar
• Alcaraz Varó, E., & Hughes, B. (2001). El español jurídico [Legal Spanish]. Barcelona: Ariel Derecho.
   Google Scholar
• Alcaraz Varó, E., & Hughes, B. (2002). Legal translation explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
   Google Scholar
• Alcaraz Varó, E., & Hughes, B. (2007). Diccionario de términos jurídicos [A dictionary of legal terms]. Madrid: Ariel Derecho.
   Google Scholar
• Angelelli, C. V. (2015). “Justice for all? Issues faced by linguistic minorities and border patrol agents during interpreted arraignment interviews.” MonTI, 7, 181–205. doi:10.6035/MonTI.2015.7.7
   Google Scholar
• Baixauli-Olmos, L. (2013). A description of interpreting in prisons: mapping the setting through an ethical lens. In C. Schäffner, K. Kredens, & Y. Fowler (Eds.), Interpreting in a changing landscape: selected papers from Critical Link 6 (pp. 45–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/btl.109.06bai
   Google Scholar
• Becerra, J. (2008). Diccionario de terminología jurídica norteamericana - Dictionary of United States legal terminology. Mexico DF: Escuela Libre de Derecho.
   Google Scholar
• Berk-Seligson, S. (1990/2002). The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berk-Seligson, S. (2011). Negotiation and communicative accommodation in bilingual police interrogations: A critical interactional sociolinguistic perspective. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 207, 29–58. doi:10.1515/ijsl.2011.002
   Google Scholar
• Biel, Ł. (2009). Corpus-based studies of legal language for translation purposes: Methodological and practical potential. In C. Heine & J. Engberg (Eds.), Reconceptualizing LSP. Online proceedings of the XVII European LSP symposium (pp. 1–15). Aarhus, Denmark. Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University.
   Google Scholar
• Biel, Ł. (2014). Phraseology in legal translation: A corpus-based analysis of textual mapping in EU law. In L. Cheng, & K.K. Sin (Eds.), The Ashgate handbook of legal translation (pp. 177–192). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Borja Albi, A., & Prieto Ramos, F. (Eds.). (2013). Legal translation in context: Professional issues and prospects. Bern: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, S. (2013). Keep your distance? Remote interpreting in legal proceedings: A critical assessment of a growing practice. Interpreting, 15(2), 200–228. doi:10.1075/intp.15.2.03bra
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cao, D. (2007). Translating law. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Cao, D. (2010). Legal translation. In L. van Doorslaer, & Y. Gambier (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies – Vol. 1 (pp. 191–195). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/hts.1.leg1
   Google Scholar
• Capie, J. M. (2015). Fools rush in where lawyers would better tread: The right to self-representation and related standards of competency. Touro Law Review, 31(4), 893–918.
   Google Scholar
• Dueñas González, R., Vásquez, V.F., & Mikkelson, H. (2012). Fundamentals of court interpretation: Theory, policy, and practice (2nd ed.). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Duro Moreno, M. (2005). Introducción al derecho inglés: La traducción jurídica inglés-español en su entorno [Introduction to English law: English-Spanish legal translation and its environment]. Madrid: Edisofer.
   Google Scholar
• Engberg, J. (2013). Comparative law for translation: The key to successful mediation between legal systems. In A. Borja Albi & F. Prieto Ramos (Eds.), Legal translation in context: Professional issues and prospects (pp. 9–25). Bern: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Executive Order 13166. (2000). Improving access to services for persons with limited English proficiency. Federal Register, 65(159), 50121–50122.
   Google Scholar
• Faber, D., & Hjort-Pederson, M. (2013). Expectancy and professional norms in legal translation: A study of explicitation and implicitation preferences. Fachsprache, 1/2, 42–62.
   Google Scholar
• Fowler, A. (2013). Business as usual? Prison video link in the multilingual courtroom. In C. Schäffner, K. Kredens, & Y. Fowler (Eds.), Interpreting in a changing landscape: Selected papers from Critical Link 6 (pp. 25–248). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/btl.109.18fow
   Google Scholar
• Flowerdew, L. (2004). The argument for using English specialized corpora to understand academic and professional language. In T.A. Upton, & U. Connor (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 11–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/scl.16.02flo
   Google Scholar
• Garner, B. A. (Ed.). (2004). Black’s law dictionary. 8th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Gavioli, L. (2002). Some thoughts on the problem of representing ESP through small corpora. In B. Ketteman, & G. Marko (Eds.), Language and computers: Studies in practical linguistics (pp. 293–303). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
   Google Scholar
• Gotti, M. (2012). Text and genre. In P.M. Tiersma, & L.M. Solan (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language and law (pp. 52–66). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hale, S. (2004). The discourse of court interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey, M. (2002). What’s so special about legal translation? Meta: Journal des traducteurs, 47(2), 177–185. doi:10.7202/008007ar
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Interpreters in the Courts of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1827. (1978).
   Google Scholar
• Kurzon, D. (1986). It is hereby performed … : Explorations in legal speech acts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Li, X. (2014). Sight translation as a topic in interpreting research: Progress, problems, and prospects. Across Languages and Cultures, 15(1), 67–89. doi:10.1556/Acr.15.2014.1.4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maley, Y. (1994). The Language of the law. In J. P. Gibbons (Eds.), Language and the law (pp. 11–50). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Martínez-Gómez, A. (2014). Interpreting in prison settings: An international overview. Interpreting, 16(2), 233–259. doi:10.1075/intp.16.2.05mar
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, M. (2008). Courtroom interpreting. New York: University Press of America.
   Google Scholar
• Mason, M. (2015). The role of interpreters in adjudicating blame: An examination of clitics and active-passive voice in a Spanish-English bilingual criminal trial. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 10(2), 187–202. doi:10.1075/tis.10.2.02mas
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattila, H. E. S. (2012). Legal vocabulary. In P. M. Tiersma & L. M. Solan (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language and law (pp. 27–38). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mellinkoff, D. (1963). The language of the law. Eugene, OR: Resource Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, M. A., Davis, L. W., Prestidge, A., & Eggington, W. G. (2011). Finding justice in translation: American jurisprudence affecting due process for people with limited English proficiency together with practical suggestions. Harvard Latino Law Review 14 Harv. Latino L. Rev. 117, 154.
   Google Scholar
• Molina, L. M. (2008). Language access to Louisiana courts: A failure to provide fundamental access to justice. Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law 10 Loy. J. Pub. Int. L. 1, 26.
   Google Scholar
• National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators. (2006a). Language assistance for law enforcement. NAJIT position paper. Retrieved May 10, 2016, from http://www.najit.org/documents/LanguageforLawEnforcement2006.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators. (2006b). Modes of interpreting: Simultaneous, consecutive, and sight translation. NAJIT position paper. Retrieved May 10, 2016, from http://www.najit.org/documents/Modes_of_Interpreting200609.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Center for Access to Justice. (2016). The 2016 justice index. Retrieved May 15, 2016, from http://justiceindex.org/2016-findings/language-access/.
   Google Scholar
• National Center for State Courts. (2011). Guide to translation of legal materials. Retrieved March 26, 2016, from http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/accessfair/id/232
   Google Scholar
• National Center for State Courts. (2015). Language need and interpreter use study. Accessed March 26, 2016, from http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/lr-2015-Language-Need-and-Interpreter-Use-Study.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Oakes, M. P., & Ji, M. (Eds.). (2012). Quantitative methods in corpus-based translation studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Olohan, M. (2004). Introducing corpora in translation studies. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Olsen, F., Lorz, A., & Stein, D. (Eds.). (2009). Translation issues in language and law. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Pöchhacker, F., & Kolb, W. (2009). Interpreting for the record: A case study of asylum review hearings. In U. Ozolins, L. Stern, & S. Hale (Eds.), Critical link 5: Quality in interpreting. A shared responsibility (pp. 119–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/btl.87.10poc
   Google Scholar
• Pommer, S. (2006). Rechtsübersetzung und rechtvergleichung: Translatologische fragen zur interdisziplinarität. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, A. (2014). Loss of innocence and of protection: A review of the right to counsel and waiver laws across the United States, specifically finding that Georgia should further increase protection of juveniles’ rights. John Marshall Law Journal 8 J. Marshall L.J. 101: 101–125.
   Google Scholar
• Roy, C., & Napier, J. (2015). The sign language interpreting studies reader. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, D., & Hale, S. (2009). Interpreting in legal settings. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Šarčević, S. (1997). New approach to legal translation. Boston: Kluwer Law International.
   Google Scholar
• Šarčević, S. (2005). The quest for legislative bilingualism and multiculturalism: Co-drafting in Canada and Switzerland. In J.-C. Gémar, & N. Kasirer (Eds.), Jurilinguistics: Between law and language (pp. 277–292). Montreal: Bruylant.
   Google Scholar
• Šarčević, S. (2012). Challenges to the legal translator. In P. M. Tiersma & L. M. Solan (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language and law (pp. 187–199). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Šarčević, S. (Ed.). (2015). Language and culture in EU law: Multidisciplinary perspectives. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Shue, B. A. (2011). Rights to language assistance in Florida: An argument to remedy the inconsistent provisions of court interpreters in state and federal courts. FIU Law Review 6 FIU L. Rev. 387, 434.
   Google Scholar
• Swabey, L., & Mickelson, P. G. (2008). Role definition: A perspective on forty years of professionalism in Sign Language interpreting. In C. Valero-Garcés & A. Martin (Eds.), Crossing borders in community interpreting: Definitions and dilemmas (pp. 51–81). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/btl.76.04swa
   Google Scholar
• Tipton, R., & Furmanek, O. (2016). Dialog interpreting: A guide to interpreting in public services and the community. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Trosborg, A. (1991). An analysis of legal speech acts in English Contract law. Hermes, 6, 65–90.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Justice. Language Access Plan. (2012). Retrieved March 26, 2016, from https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/open/legacy/2012/05/07/language-access-plan.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Vidal Claramonte, M. C. A. (2013). Towards a new research model in legal translation: Future perspectives in the era of asymmetry. Linguistica Antverpiensia, 12, 182–196.
   Google Scholar
• Wadensjö, C. (1992). Interpreting as interaction: On dialogue-interpreting in immigration hearings and medical encounters. Linköping: Linköping University.
   Google Scholar