Translation Quality assessment of Court interpreting in Jessica’s case on March 29th
Translation Quality assessment of Court interpreting in Jessica’s case on March 29th
Ardika Widiatmoko (143211026)
Miftahul Huda (143211027)
This discussion focused on question-answer dialogues interpreting in a courtroom setting. It is investigates the interpreting process in criminal proceedings in Indonesia courts. The research attempts to assessment the translations quality of interpreter in courtroom on Jessica’s case. Which is the court interpreter as mediator uses the consecutive strategy to interpret the language in courtroom. The assessment used the theory of Yumiko Tateyama and helped by the rater to assess the quality of the translation. The assessment shows the interpreter used the structure, vocabulary, fidelity and naturalness skills to interpret the cross-language.
Keyword : Court Interpreting, Consecutive Interpreting, Translation Quality Assessment.
Interpreting is a special type of communicative, which is this communicative take place when the member of the communicative use different language or there is cross-language culture communications, and use the Interlingua or interpreter as the cross-language mediator. Interpreting itself can be described in simple terms : “(T)he interpreter has first to listen to the speaker, understand and analyze what is being said, and then resynthesize the speech in the appropriate form in a different language...” (Jones, 1996: 6). The interpreter as a mediator listen to the speaker says and translates the utterance in to the target language users or the audience, so the users will understand what the speaker meant. (Kohn; Kalina 1996). There are many ways to perform the interpreting, among the traditional forms of community interpreting. Interpreting is communicative activity which has been practiced since very ancient times. Initially, those engaging in it had no special training. However, with professional standards rising and the technical facilities, interpreting has now developed and become specialist activity. Today the standards achieved by professional interpreters are not usually attainable by untrained bilingual speakers, and hence special training is generally required.
There are many types of interpreting, the two classical types of interpreting are simultaneous interpreting and consecutive interpreting. Simultaneous interpreting translates the source-language and providing the target language massage at the same time. (Selescovitch, 1978a) in simultaneous interpretation the interpreter is isolated in a booth. He speaks at the same time as the speaker and therefore has no need to memorize or jot down what is said, moreover the processes of analysis-comprehension and of reconstruction-expression are telescoped. The interpreter works on the message bit by bit, giving the portion he has understood while analyzing and assimilating the next idea. Consecutive interpreting is the oldest form of interpreting, but professional interpreters consider it the most difficult mode. Until the early 1940s, consecutive interpreting was the only mode of interpreting used. Due technological innovations, simultaneous came into use after World War II, and consecutive interpreting has become less frequent in conference interpreting. The court room interpreting also called as legal interpreting. Legal interpreting refers to interpretation that take place in a legal setting such as a courtroom or an attorney’s office, where in some proceeding or activity related to law is conducted. (Sandra hale) the field of legal interpreting is wide and complex. Interpreters commonly work in all tiers of the legal process, including police interviews and interrogations, lawyer-client conference, tribunal hearings and court hearings. (Bowen and Bowen, 1980) Consecutive interpreter have components, the following component are : (1) discourse in the source language, (2) understanding and analyzing this discourse, and (3) reconstituting it in the target language.
The research analyzes the type of consecutive interpreting used by the interpreter in court interpreting of Jessica’s case. As with simultaneous interpreting, there is difference between consecutive interpreting that interpreted in courtroom and that interpreted in conference. Conference interpreters generally wait until the speaker has gone on for several minutes ( Kalina, 2002).
This discussion focused on question-answer dialogues interpreting in a courtroom setting. It is investigates the interpreting process in criminal proceedings in Indonesia courts. Which is the court used Indonesian as the main language of the court and the interpreter as the mediators of cross-language who will translate the Indonesian-English language, because of the witnesses are foreign that used English. The investigation centers on question answer dialogues that are the questioning of defendants and witnesses by judges, prosecutors and defense counsels.
The research attempts to assessment the translations quality of interpreter in courtroom on Jessica’s case. Which is the court interpreter as mediator uses the consecutive strategy to interpret the language in courtroom. Consecutive interpreting is interpreting type which is the interpreter waits until the speaker has finished before beginning the interpretation. (Seleskovitch, 1978a) inconsecutive interpretation the interpreter does not start speaking until the original speaker stopped. He therefore has time to analyze the message as a whole, which makes it easier for him to understand the meaning. The fact that he is there in the room, and what the speaker has stopped talking before he begins, means that he speaks to his listeners face and he actually becomes the speaker.
The hearings were held in Jakarta, starts on January 2016 and over around on October 2016, the hearing of this case goes up to 32 trials. The court employed the interpreter as the mediator of the cross-language in the courtroom. The courtroom used Indonesian as the main language, and the witness used English. Every questions and statements by the parties were translated by the interpreter to the source language users. However, the interpreter must not omit a single element of meaning, whether verbal or non-verbal. As the example when the interpreter makes a mistake on providing the target language, the interpreter apologized to the audience and asked the source language user about the statement, and then repairs the mistake of target language.
This qualitative research is descriptive manner, because the researcher collects the data, make an analysis and conclusion based on the research. Qualitative method is a research method which is used to observe natural object situation (Sugiyono, 2014:1). This method, the data collected from the video of the court interpreting that happened on March, 29th 2016 in Jessica’s case courtroom. According to Moleong (2002:2) a qualitative research is a research which does not included any calculation or numeration because the datumare produced in the form of word. It is associated with generating and developing an understanding. The data of this research collected by transcript the conversation of cross-language in the courtroom in Jessica’s case on March 29th 2016. The collecting and analysis the data based on the contexts.
The assessment of the interpreting quality used the theory of Yumiko Tateyama, 1. Fidelity : The completeness and the accuracy, there are no over or under translation and distortion of meaning. 2. Vocabulary : the effective and consistent the word choose and usage. 3. Structure : the grammatical of the translation and clarity of sound. 4. Naturalness. (Basic interpreting skill, 2008).
A. Data and Source of the Data
The researcher Assess the translation quality of the interpreter on court interpreting during interpret the cross-language in the courtroom. The data are the bilingual conversation that happened in the courtroom, the data are in form of verbal and then the researcher transcript the conversation into written form.
B. Research Instrument
The researcher needs instruments to support and help the identifying the study. The instruments help to collecting the data of the research and make the researcher easier to finish the research. There are main instrument and supporting instrument. The main instrument is the researcher, because a qualitative research uses the researcher as the main point of the instrument. The researcher have role as the planner, collector, and analyst the data. The researcher also has the report of analysis result. The data gives to the rater to assess the quality of the translation, the rater are Indonesian, not the student of English Department. The supporting instruments are, the video of Jessica’s case courtroom, papers, pen, laptop, electronic dictionary.
C. Technique of Collecting Data
The first technique of collecting data is watching the court interpreting video on March 29th 2016. While watching the videos the researcher also writes down the conversation of the interpreter and the cross-language that happened in the courtroom.The researcher write down the source language and then write down what the interpreter said as the target language. And then based on that data the researcher analysis the quality of the translation of the interpreter on translating the source language to the target language.
D. Technique of Data Analysis
The researcher collects the data and also analyzes the data to find the problem solving of the research and find the result of the study. This research use content analysis which is content analysis has deductive and inductive form. A qualitative research uses the deductive form to analyze the research. Stages of the analysis the data :
Watching the video of Jessica’s case courtroom on march 29th 2016
Collecting the data from the Jessica’s case courtroom on March 29th 2016 video by write down the conversation of cross-language conversation.
Data is given to the rater to be assessed the quality of the translation of the cross-language in Jessica’s case.
Make a final assessment by make an average all of the rater’s assessment and then make a conclusion how the quality of the translation by the interpreter in Jessica’s case.
The first analysis of the research is making an average score based on the data quality assessment score by the rater. The quality assessment of the transform of the source language to target language used fidelity (completeness and accuracy), vocabulary, naturalness and structure techniques, the data are collect from every chunking of the interpretation. Then the researcher analyzes which chunking used the techniques and put mark on the techniques columns.
Fidelity is the completeness and accuracy of the interpretation, there are no under or over translation and distortion of meaning.
Score 1 : Adequate, the interpreter has many distortion of meaning and many errors.
Score 2 : Good, the interpreter has some of distortion of meaning and errors.
Score 3 : Very good, the interpreter has completeness and accuracy.
The grammatical of the translation and clarity of sound.
Score 1 : Adequate, the interpreter has many grammatical errors on conveying the messages.
Score 2 : Good, the interpreter has some grammatical errors on conveying the messages.
Score 3 : Very good, the interpreter has conveying message grammatically very good.
The effective and consistent the word choose, usage and appropriate with the standard of Bahasa and consistent.
Score 1 : Adequate, the interpreter has many lack of consistency and use many inappropriate standard of bahasa.
Score 2 : Good, the interpreter has some lack of consistency and use some inappropriate standard of bahasa.
Score 3 : Very good, the interpreter has consistency and appropriate standard of bahasa.3.Naturalness
Natural, means conveying the messages the interpreter could make it flowing smooth, using appropriate style and register, clarity of voice, and very good in self-control.
Score 1 : Adequate, the interpreter has many lack in the flow, clarity of voice, self control, and using inappropriate style.
Score 2 : Good, the interpreter has some lack in the flow, clarity of voice, self control, and using appropriate style.
Score 3 : Very good, the interpreter has aspect in the flow, clarity of sound, self control and using appropriate style.
Looking at the result, the researcher assesses the quality of the interpretation. The researcher makes an average score based on all of the rater’s quality assessment scores. It explains below:
No - Criteria of Quality - Score - Explanation
1. Fidelity - 2.3 - Good
2. Structure - 2.3 - Good
3. Vocabulary - 2.4 - Good
4. Naturalness - 2.4 - Good
The researcher used Yumiko Tateyama to assess the quality of interpretation. There are 4 techniques, they are fidelity (Average score 2.3), structure (Average score 2.3), vocabulary (average score 2.4) and naturalness (Average score 2.4).
Having reviewed from the result above by assesses the quality of interpretation of the interpreter in court interpreting of Jessica’s case. The quality of the cross-language transform by the interpreter in Jessica’s case is good, the interpreter good in used fidelity, structure, vocabulary and naturalness skill when interpret the language.
Bente jacobsen (2002). Pragmatic meaning in court interpreting : an empirical study of addition in consecutively interpreted question-answer dialogue. PhD thesis.
Rigney A.C (1999) questioning in interpreted testimony. Forensic linguistic 6(1). 83-108
NC Steytler. S, Afr. J. On Hum.Rts. 205 (1993) Implementing language rights in court : the role of the court interpreter.
Ruth Morris (1999). The gum syndrome : Predicaments in court interpreting.
Mikkelson, Holly (1998). Toward a redefinition of the role of the court interpreter. Interpreting, volume 3. No. 1, pp. 21-45(25)
Interpreting skills, Yumio Tateyama 2008