Agnieszka Biernacka is a legal translator and interpreter, court interpreting researcher and trainer at the Institute of Applied Linguistics, University of Warsaw, Poland, as well as author of a monography on court interpreting and of papers on court interpreting and legal translation. She also is a member of several professional organizations (PSH, AESLA, EST).

• ContentsAbbreviationsIntroductionPart I Theoretical Background for the Research into Court Interpreting1 Court interpreting: contextualization1.1 Court interpreting within the context of community interpreting the context of community interpreting1.2 Historical dimension of court interpreting1.3 Principles of ethics in court interpreting1.4 Interpreters and the right to a fair trial: Polish perspective1.4.1 Past legislation concerning court interpreters in Poland1.4.2 The Polish Act on the Profession of Sworn Translator1.4.3 The Polish sworn translator’s code1.4.4 Professional associations of sworn translators in Poland1.4.5 Sworn translator’s training in Poland1.5 Conclusions2 Interpreters as active participants in the communicative events: literature review2.1 Ethnomethodological insights into court interpreting2.1.1 Garfinkel’s approach to interaction2.1.2 Goffman’s ritualized face–to–face interactions2.1.3 Institutional talk2.2 Shift from a conduit metaphor to active participation2.3 Visibility of the interpreter involved in the trilogue2.3.1 The interpreter’s active participation as manifested by asking and answering questions2.3.2 Additions and omissions introduced in the interpretations2.3.3 Modifications of the main speakers’ styles2.4 ConclusionsPart II Empirical Study of Episodes of Interpreter-Mediated Interactions in the Polish Courtroom3 Methodology and preliminary constraints in the research into interpreter-mediated courtroom talks3.1 Collecting data for qualitative research in court interpreting3.1.1 The Court’s permission3.2 Data processing for CA3.2.1 Transcribing the recordings3.2.2 Quality of the collected material3.2.3 Collected material: sample size and languages3.2.4 Data presentation3.3 Integrated research in interpreter-mediated court interactions3.3.1 Classification of the collected material according to the mechanisms in interaction3.3.2 Interpreter’s renditions and interpreter’s utterances: evolution of the model3.3.3 Integrating the results: correlation of interaction mechanisms and interpreter’s renditions3.4 Conclusions4 Interpreters as participants in the turn-taking system of courtroom talks4.1 The next speaker selected by the current speaker4.1.1 The primary party selected as the next speaker4.1.2 The interpreter selected as the next speaker4.2 The next speaker self-selects4.2.1 The interpreter self-selects4.2.2 The primary party self-selects4.3 Conclusions5 Overlaps and gaps in the interpreter-mediated interactions5.1 Overlaps5.1.1 Interpreter-included overlaps5.1.2 Interpreter-excluded overlaps5.2 Gaps5.2.1 Interpreter-created gaps5.2.2 Primary-party created gaps5.2.3 Multiple gaps5.3 Conclusions6 Adjacency pairs as components of bilingual institutional talk6.1 Counters in courtroom interactions6.1.1 Judge-created counters6.1.2 Primary party-created counters6.2 Judge-initiated preferred and dispreferred responses6.3 Upgrades6.3.1 The Judge’s assessment upgraded6.3.2 The Witness’s/Defendant’s assessment upgraded6.4 Over-answering yes-no questions6.5 Under-answering yes-no questions6.6 Same evaluation6.6.1 Lawyer-interpreter same evaluation6.6.2 Witness-interpreter same evaluation6.7 Downgrades6.7.1 Judge’s assessment downgraded6.7.2 Witness’s/Defendant’s downgraded assessment6.8 Conclusions7 Pre- and post-expansions in the interpreters’ renditions7.1 Pre-expansions7.1.1 Interpreter-created pre-expansion7.1.2 Primary party-created pre-expansion7.2 Post-expansions7.2.1 Interpreter-created post-expansions7.2.2 Primary party-created post-expansions7.3 Multiple expansions7.4 Conclusions8 Insert expansions in communicative events8.1 Post-first insert expansions8.1.1 Interpreter-created post-first insert expansions8.1.2 Primary party-created post-first insert expansions8.2 Pre-second insert expansions8.2.1 Interpreter-created pre-second insert expansions8.2.2 Primary party-created pre-second insert expansions8.3 Multiple-insert expansions8.3.1 Interpreter-created multiple-insert expansions8.3.2 Primary party-created multiple-insert expansions8.3.3 Multi-party multiple-insert expansions8.4 Conclusions9 Repairs as responses to problems in bilingual interactions9.1 Self-initiated self-repair9.1.1 Interpreter-created problem in conversation9.1.2 Primary party-created problem in conversation9.2 Self-initiated other-repair9.2.1 Interpreter-created problem in conversation9.3 Other-initiated self-repair9.3.1 Interpreter-created problem in conversation9.3.2 Primary party-created problem in conversation9.4 Other-initiated other-repair9.4.1 Interpreter-created problem in conversation9.5 Conclusions10 Discussion on the results and recommendations for further researchBibliographyIndex

Agnieszka Biernacka is a legal translator and interpreter, court interpreting researcher and trainer at the Institute of Applied Linguistics, University of Warsaw, Poland, as well as author of a monography on court interpreting and of papers on court interpreting and legal translation. She also is a member of several professional organizations (PSH, AESLA, EST).

• ContentsAbbreviationsIntroductionPart I Theoretical Background for the Research into Court Interpreting1 Court interpreting: contextualization1.1 Court interpreting within the context of community interpreting the context of community interpreting1.2 Historical dimension of court interpreting1.3 Principles of ethics in court interpreting1.4 Interpreters and the right to a fair trial: Polish perspective1.4.1 Past legislation concerning court interpreters in Poland1.4.2 The Polish Act on the Profession of Sworn Translator1.4.3 The Polish sworn translator’s code1.4.4 Professional associations of sworn translators in Poland1.4.5 Sworn translator’s training in Poland1.5 Conclusions2 Interpreters as active participants in the communicative events: literature review2.1 Ethnomethodological insights into court interpreting2.1.1 Garfinkel’s approach to interaction2.1.2 Goffman’s ritualized face–to–face interactions2.1.3 Institutional talk2.2 Shift from a conduit metaphor to active participation2.3 Visibility of the interpreter involved in the trilogue2.3.1 The interpreter’s active participation as manifested by asking and answering questions2.3.2 Additions and omissions introduced in the interpretations2.3.3 Modifications of the main speakers’ styles2.4 ConclusionsPart II Empirical Study of Episodes of Interpreter-Mediated Interactions in the Polish Courtroom3 Methodology and preliminary constraints in the research into interpreter-mediated courtroom talks3.1 Collecting data for qualitative research in court interpreting3.1.1 The Court’s permission3.2 Data processing for CA3.2.1 Transcribing the recordings3.2.2 Quality of the collected material3.2.3 Collected material: sample size and languages3.2.4 Data presentation3.3 Integrated research in interpreter-mediated court interactions3.3.1 Classification of the collected material according to the mechanisms in interaction3.3.2 Interpreter’s renditions and interpreter’s utterances: evolution of the model3.3.3 Integrating the results: correlation of interaction mechanisms and interpreter’s renditions3.4 Conclusions4 Interpreters as participants in the turn-taking system of courtroom talks4.1 The next speaker selected by the current speaker4.1.1 The primary party selected as the next speaker4.1.2 The interpreter selected as the next speaker4.2 The next speaker self-selects4.2.1 The interpreter self-selects4.2.2 The primary party self-selects4.3 Conclusions5 Overlaps and gaps in the interpreter-mediated interactions5.1 Overlaps5.1.1 Interpreter-included overlaps5.1.2 Interpreter-excluded overlaps5.2 Gaps5.2.1 Interpreter-created gaps5.2.2 Primary-party created gaps5.2.3 Multiple gaps5.3 Conclusions6 Adjacency pairs as components of bilingual institutional talk6.1 Counters in courtroom interactions6.1.1 Judge-created counters6.1.2 Primary party-created counters6.2 Judge-initiated preferred and dispreferred responses6.3 Upgrades6.3.1 The Judge’s assessment upgraded6.3.2 The Witness’s/Defendant’s assessment upgraded6.4 Over-answering yes-no questions6.5 Under-answering yes-no questions6.6 Same evaluation6.6.1 Lawyer-interpreter same evaluation6.6.2 Witness-interpreter same evaluation6.7 Downgrades6.7.1 Judge’s assessment downgraded6.7.2 Witness’s/Defendant’s downgraded assessment6.8 Conclusions7 Pre- and post-expansions in the interpreters’ renditions7.1 Pre-expansions7.1.1 Interpreter-created pre-expansion7.1.2 Primary party-created pre-expansion7.2 Post-expansions7.2.1 Interpreter-created post-expansions7.2.2 Primary party-created post-expansions7.3 Multiple expansions7.4 Conclusions8 Insert expansions in communicative events8.1 Post-first insert expansions8.1.1 Interpreter-created post-first insert expansions8.1.2 Primary party-created post-first insert expansions8.2 Pre-second insert expansions8.2.1 Interpreter-created pre-second insert expansions8.2.2 Primary party-created pre-second insert expansions8.3 Multiple-insert expansions8.3.1 Interpreter-created multiple-insert expansions8.3.2 Primary party-created multiple-insert expansions8.3.3 Multi-party multiple-insert expansions8.4 Conclusions9 Repairs as responses to problems in bilingual interactions9.1 Self-initiated self-repair9.1.1 Interpreter-created problem in conversation9.1.2 Primary party-created problem in conversation9.2 Self-initiated other-repair9.2.1 Interpreter-created problem in conversation9.3 Other-initiated self-repair9.3.1 Interpreter-created problem in conversation9.3.2 Primary party-created problem in conversation9.4 Other-initiated other-repair9.4.1 Interpreter-created problem in conversation9.5 Conclusions10 Discussion on the results and recommendations for further researchBibliographyIndex

Agnieszka Biernacka is a legal translator and interpreter, court interpreting researcher and trainer at the Institute of Applied Linguistics, University of Warsaw, Poland, as well as author of a monography on court interpreting and of papers on court interpreting and legal translation. She also is a member of several professional organizations (PSH, AESLA, EST).

• ContentsAbbreviationsIntroductionPart I Theoretical Background for the Research into Court Interpreting1 Court interpreting: contextualization1.1 Court interpreting within the context of community interpreting the context of community interpreting1.2 Historical dimension of court interpreting1.3 Principles of ethics in court interpreting1.4 Interpreters and the right to a fair trial: Polish perspective1.4.1 Past legislation concerning court interpreters in Poland1.4.2 The Polish Act on the Profession of Sworn Translator1.4.3 The Polish sworn translator’s code1.4.4 Professional associations of sworn translators in Poland1.4.5 Sworn translator’s training in Poland1.5 Conclusions2 Interpreters as active participants in the communicative events: literature review2.1 Ethnomethodological insights into court interpreting2.1.1 Garfinkel’s approach to interaction2.1.2 Goffman’s ritualized face–to–face interactions2.1.3 Institutional talk2.2 Shift from a conduit metaphor to active participation2.3 Visibility of the interpreter involved in the trilogue2.3.1 The interpreter’s active participation as manifested by asking and answering questions2.3.2 Additions and omissions introduced in the interpretations2.3.3 Modifications of the main speakers’ styles2.4 ConclusionsPart II Empirical Study of Episodes of Interpreter-Mediated Interactions in the Polish Courtroom3 Methodology and preliminary constraints in the research into interpreter-mediated courtroom talks3.1 Collecting data for qualitative research in court interpreting3.1.1 The Court’s permission3.2 Data processing for CA3.2.1 Transcribing the recordings3.2.2 Quality of the collected material3.2.3 Collected material: sample size and languages3.2.4 Data presentation3.3 Integrated research in interpreter-mediated court interactions3.3.1 Classification of the collected material according to the mechanisms in interaction3.3.2 Interpreter’s renditions and interpreter’s utterances: evolution of the model3.3.3 Integrating the results: correlation of interaction mechanisms and interpreter’s renditions3.4 Conclusions4 Interpreters as participants in the turn-taking system of courtroom talks4.1 The next speaker selected by the current speaker4.1.1 The primary party selected as the next speaker4.1.2 The interpreter selected as the next speaker4.2 The next speaker self-selects4.2.1 The interpreter self-selects4.2.2 The primary party self-selects4.3 Conclusions5 Overlaps and gaps in the interpreter-mediated interactions5.1 Overlaps5.1.1 Interpreter-included overlaps5.1.2 Interpreter-excluded overlaps5.2 Gaps5.2.1 Interpreter-created gaps5.2.2 Primary-party created gaps5.2.3 Multiple gaps5.3 Conclusions6 Adjacency pairs as components of bilingual institutional talk6.1 Counters in courtroom interactions6.1.1 Judge-created counters6.1.2 Primary party-created counters6.2 Judge-initiated preferred and dispreferred responses6.3 Upgrades6.3.1 The Judge’s assessment upgraded6.3.2 The Witness’s/Defendant’s assessment upgraded6.4 Over-answering yes-no questions6.5 Under-answering yes-no questions6.6 Same evaluation6.6.1 Lawyer-interpreter same evaluation6.6.2 Witness-interpreter same evaluation6.7 Downgrades6.7.1 Judge’s assessment downgraded6.7.2 Witness’s/Defendant’s downgraded assessment6.8 Conclusions7 Pre- and post-expansions in the interpreters’ renditions7.1 Pre-expansions7.1.1 Interpreter-created pre-expansion7.1.2 Primary party-created pre-expansion7.2 Post-expansions7.2.1 Interpreter-created post-expansions7.2.2 Primary party-created post-expansions7.3 Multiple expansions7.4 Conclusions8 Insert expansions in communicative events8.1 Post-first insert expansions8.1.1 Interpreter-created post-first insert expansions8.1.2 Primary party-created post-first insert expansions8.2 Pre-second insert expansions8.2.1 Interpreter-created pre-second insert expansions8.2.2 Primary party-created pre-second insert expansions8.3 Multiple-insert expansions8.3.1 Interpreter-created multiple-insert expansions8.3.2 Primary party-created multiple-insert expansions8.3.3 Multi-party multiple-insert expansions8.4 Conclusions9 Repairs as responses to problems in bilingual interactions9.1 Self-initiated self-repair9.1.1 Interpreter-created problem in conversation9.1.2 Primary party-created problem in conversation9.2 Self-initiated other-repair9.2.1 Interpreter-created problem in conversation9.3 Other-initiated self-repair9.3.1 Interpreter-created problem in conversation9.3.2 Primary party-created problem in conversation9.4 Other-initiated other-repair9.4.1 Interpreter-created problem in conversation9.5 Conclusions10 Discussion on the results and recommendations for further researchBibliographyIndex