Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

International Journal of Legal Discourse

Editor-in-Chief: Cheng, Le

Managing Editor: Sun, Yuxiu

See all formats and pricing
More options …

Interpreting legal arguments. Insights from the first ICC trial

Emanuele Brambilla
Published Online: 2017-12-12 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2017-0010


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.

Keywords: legal argumentation; court interpreting; International Criminal Court (ICC); pragmatic equivalence


  • 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.Google Scholar

  • Bendazzoli, Claudio. 2010. Corpora e interpretazione simultanea. Bologna: Asterisco.Google Scholar

  • Berk-Seligson, Susan. 1990. The Bilingual Courtroom. Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Bertea, Stefano. 2005. Does arguing from coherence make sense? Argumentation 19(4). 433–446.CrossrefGoogle 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.Google Scholar

  • Feteris, Eveline T. 1999. Fundamentals of legal argumentation. A survey of theories on the justification of judicial decisions. Dordrecht: Springer.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Garzone, Giuliana. 2006. Perspectives on ESP and popularization. Milano: CUEM.Google Scholar

  • Hale, Sandra. 2004. The discourse of court interpreting. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Krouglov, Alexander. 1999. Police interpreting: politeness and sociocultural context. The Translator 5(2). 285–302.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Martin, Philippe. 2005. Linguistique de l’oralité: description de la prosodie et analyse instrumentale. The Interpreters’ Newsletter 13. 15–24.Google Scholar

  • Marzocchi, Carlo. 1998. Interpretare il discorso argomentativo. Teoria, aspetti e problemi. Trieste: Scuola superiore di lingue moderne per interpreti e traduttori.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.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).Google Scholar

  • Plantin, Christian. 2005. L'argumentation : Histoire, théories, perspectives. Paris: PUF - Presses Universitaires de France.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Shlesinger, Miriam. 1998. Corpus-based interpreting studies as an offshoot of corpus-based translation studies. Meta: Translators’ Journal 43 (4). 486–493.CrossrefGoogle 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.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.Google Scholar

  • Van Eemeren, Frans H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Van Eemeren, Frans H. & Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. The Pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Walton, Douglas. 2002. Legal argumentation and evidence. University Park (PA): The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

  • Walton, Douglas. 2008. Informal logic: A pragmatic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Second Edition).Google Scholar

  • Walton, Douglas, Chris Reed & Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-12-12

Accepted: 2017-03-17

Published Online: 2017-12-12

Published in Print: 2017-12-20

Citation Information: International Journal of Legal Discourse, Volume 2, Issue 2, Pages 177–194, ISSN (Online) 2364-883X, ISSN (Print) 2364-8821, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2017-0010.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in