Abstract
The terminological problems and pragmatic challenges interpreters regularly face in courts are often posed by judges’ and lawyers’ recourse to argument strategies. However, the analysis of legal argumentation in courtroom interaction has been substantially overlooked in interpreting scholarly settings. Against this background, the paper outlines the preliminary findings of the ArgIntIus project, bridging argumentation theory and court interpreting studies. The project is based on a parallel corpus of selected trials at the International Criminal Court (ICC); building on the assumption that familiarity with the argumentative routines of legal experts plays a crucial role in providing quality interpreting services, the project aims at detecting recurring argument strategies used in ICC trials and analysing their renditions by experienced interpreters, with a view to promoting the quest for pragmatic equivalence in interpreter-mediated courtroom interaction. The paper focuses on the trial of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo and draws on argumentation theory to analyse judicial discourse. The findings suggest that specific argument strategies are recurrently implemented by ICC lawyers; particularly, the relativity of legal arguments stands out, as their use often varies depending on whether the arguer is a member of the prosecution or the defence team. Notably, legal arguments are regularly reproduced by ICC interpreters who, thus, appear to be aware of the pragmatic implications of legal argumentation. A number of argument strategies and their respective interpretations are discussed, together with the training implications of the research project and the contribution of argumentation theory to court interpreting studies.
References
Ballardini, Elio. 2014. L’interprete traduttore nel procedimento penale italiano: quale formazione alla luce delle recenti direttive europee? In C. Falbo & M. Viezzi (eds.), Traduzione e Interpretazione per la Società e le Istituzioni, 59–72. Trieste: EUT.Search in Google Scholar
Bendazzoli, Claudio. 2010. Corpora e interpretazione simultanea. Bologna: Asterisco.Search in Google Scholar
Berk-Seligson, Susan. 1990. The Bilingual Courtroom. Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bertea, Stefano. 2005. Does arguing from coherence make sense? Argumentation 19(4). 433–446.10.1007/s10503-005-0510-2Search in Google Scholar
Braun, Sabine. 2014. Comparing traditional and remote interpreting in police settings: Quality and impact factors. In C. Falbo & M. Viezzi (eds.), Traduzione e interpretazione per la società e le istituzioni, 161–176. Trieste: EUT.Search in Google Scholar
Feteris, Eveline T. 1999. Fundamentals of legal argumentation. A survey of theories on the justification of judicial decisions. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-015-9219-2Search in Google Scholar
Gambier, Yves. 2008. Stratégies et tactiques en traduction et interprétation. In G. Hansen, A. Chesterman & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (eds.), Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research: A tribute to Daniel Gile, 63–82. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/btl.80.07gamSearch in Google Scholar
Garssen, Bart. 1999. The nature of symptomatic argumentation. In F. H. Van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & C. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, 225–227. Amsterdam: SICSAT.Search in Google Scholar
Garzone, Giuliana. 2006. Perspectives on ESP and popularization. Milano: CUEM.Search in Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra. 2004. The discourse of court interpreting. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/btl.52Search in Google Scholar
Krouglov, Alexander. 1999. Police interpreting: politeness and sociocultural context. The Translator 5(2). 285–302.10.1080/13556509.1999.10799045Search in Google Scholar
Martin, Philippe. 2005. Linguistique de l’oralité: description de la prosodie et analyse instrumentale. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 13. 15–24.Search in Google Scholar
Marzocchi, Carlo. 1998. Interpretare il discorso argomentativo. Teoria, aspetti e problemi. Trieste: Scuola superiore di lingue moderne per interpreti e traduttori.Search in Google Scholar
Mazzi, Davide. 2011. ‘Palmerston bustles around with the foreign policy of this powerful nation, like a furious and old drunkard…’: on the discursive formulation of argument by analogy in history. In F. H. Van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden & G. Mitchell (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference for the Study of Argumentation, 1221–1233. Amsterdam: SICSAT.Search in Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm & Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1958. Traité de l’Argumentation. La Nouvelle Rhétorique. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles (6ème édition, 2008).Search in Google Scholar
Plantin, Christian. 2005. L'argumentation : Histoire, théories, perspectives. Paris: PUF - Presses Universitaires de France.10.3917/puf.plant.2005.01Search in Google Scholar
Reisigl, Martin. 2014. Argumentation analysis and the Discourse-Historical Approach: a methodological framework. In C. Hart & P. Cap (eds.), Contemporary critical discourse studies, 67–96. London & New York: Bloomsbury.Search in Google Scholar
Reisigl, Martin & Ruth Wodak. 2009. The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis, 87–121. London: SAGE Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam. 1998. Corpus-based interpreting studies as an offshoot of corpus-based translation studies. Meta: Translators’ Journal 43 (4). 486–493.10.7202/004136arSearch in Google Scholar
Stern, Ludmila. 2004. Interpreting legal language at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: overcoming the lack of lexical equivalents. The Journal of Specialised Translation 2. 63–75.Search in Google Scholar
Stern, Ludmila. 2012. What can domestic courts learn from international courts and tribunals about good practice in interpreting? From the Australian war crimes prosecutions to the International Criminal Court. T & I Review 2. 7–30.Search in Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/aic.2Search in Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans H. & Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. The Pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511616389Search in Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans et al. (eds.). 1996. Fundamentals of argumentation theory. A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Viezzi, Maurizio. 2014. Multilinguismo, interpretazione e democrazia. In C. Falbo & M. Viezzi (eds.), Traduzione e interpretazione per la società e le istituzioni, 9–18. Trieste: EUT.Search in Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2002. Legal argumentation and evidence. University Park (PA): The Pennsylvania State University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2008. Informal logic: A pragmatic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Second Edition).Search in Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511802034Search in Google Scholar
Zarefsky, David. 1995. Argumentation in the tradition of speech communication studies. In F. H. Van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & C. A. Willard (eds.), Perspectives and approaches. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Argumentation. Vol. 1, 32–49. Amsterdam: SICSAT.Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
