The inherent power inequalities present in the courtroom are constantly negotiated and maintained through the use of language. For this reason, it is imperative that all interlocutors understand what is being said. When a witness does not speak the language of the court, an interpreter becomes necessary. The interpreter renders speech from one language into another, preserving the style, register, and propositional content of the original utterances to the best of their ability. As past research has shown, some features of powerless language i.e. discourse markers and hedges, are systematically omitted and added in interpretation.;This thesis seeks to further explore the impact that inconsistent interpretation of these features has on courtroom interactions, and the effect this has on juror evaluations of a witness. A discourse analysis based case study was performed using testimony from a Spanish speaking witness in a nationally televised U.S. murder trial, and a mock jury survey was conducted using recordings adapted from this case. Numerous patterns were found in the interpreter's treatment of discourse markers and hedges, and these patterns were consistent with those observed by other researchers. The mock jury survey contained some unexpected results. No overall difference was found between the opinions of participants who heard a recording containing many discourse markers and hedges and those who heard a recording nearly devoid of these features. However, differences were found when results were broken into the categories of men vs. women and participants who had testified in court vs. those who had not. Research on court interpreters' treatment of powerless language features has far reaching implications, especially for those individuals who rely on interpreting services to ensure that their constitutional rights are upheld.
展开▼
