Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Can a Bilingual Corpus Tell Us About the Translation and Interpretation of Rape Trials?

  • Published:
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since the enactment of the first Hong Kong bilingual ordinance in 1989, tremendous effort and resources have been put to translating English legal documents into Chinese. Long before the implementation of bilingual legislation, the provision of interpreting services has remained an entrenched practice in the courtrooms of Hong Kong. This study has adopted a corpora approach to re-examine what seems to be reasonable and routine practices of the bilingual, legal system, the impacts of bilingual legislation, translation, and interpretation on trial proceedings. Results generated from the corpus show the problems of anglicized Chinese translation of the Sexual Offences Ordinance under the British Common Law system; and interpreters’ performance which is intricately bound by the discourse practices of the legal professionals as well as the ideology of the bilingual legal system in Hong Kong.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

BDE:

Barrister (for) defendant (speaking in) English

BPE:

Barrister (for) prosecution (speaking in) English

JE:

Judge (speaking in) English

WC:

Witness (speaking in) Chinese

ICT:

Interpreter’s Chinese translation

IET:

Interpreter’s English translation

References

  1. AlcarazVaró, E. 2002. Legal translation explained. UK: St. Jerome.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bickly, G. (ed.). 2005. A Magistrate’s Court in Nineteenth Century Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Proverse.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Berk-Seligson, S. 1990. The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bonelli, E. 2010. Theoretical overview of the evolution of corpus linguistics in The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. Oxford: Routledge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brand, O. 2009. Language as a barrier to comparative law. In Translation issues in language and law, ed. F. Olsen, A. Lorz, and D. Stein, 18–34. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Candlin, C., and V. Bhatia. 1998. Legal communication: A study to investigate the communicative needs of legal professionals. Hong Kong: Law Society of Hong Kong.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Eades, D. 1992. Aboriginal English and the Law: Communicating with Aboriginal English Speaking Clients: A Handbook for Legal Practitioners. Brisbane: Queensland Law Society.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Eades, D. 2008. Courtroom talk and neocolonial control. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Edwards, A. 1997. The practice of court interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gonzaleze, R., V. Vásquez, and H. Mikkelson (eds.). 1991. Fundamentals of court interpreting. U.S.A.: Carolina Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hale, S. 2001. How are courtroom questions interpreted? An analysis of Spanish Interpreters' Practice. In Triadic exchanges: Studies in dialogue interpreting, ed. I. Mason, 21–50 . Manchester: St. Jerome.

  12. Hale, S. 2004. The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse, practices of the law, the witness, and the interpreter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Hale, S. 2008. Controversies over the role of the court interpreter. In Crossing borders in community interpreting, ed. C. Valero-Garcés and A. Martin, 99–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  14. Hale, S. 2011. Interpreter policies, practices and protocols in Australian Courts and Tribunals. A National Survey. Melbourne: AIJA.

  15. Hunston, S. 2002. Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Kischel, U. 2009. Legal cultures—Legal language. In Translation issues in language and law, ed. F. Olsen, A. Lorz, and D. Stein, 7–17. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lambert, J. 2009. The status and position of legal translation: A chapter in the discursive construction of societies. In Translation issues in language and law, ed. F. Olsen, A. Lorz, and D. Stein, 76–95. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Leung, E. 2008. Interpreting for the minority, interpreting for the authority. In Dimensions of forensic linguistics, ed. J. Gibbons, and M.T. Turell, 197–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Leung, E., and J. Gibbons. 2008. Who is responsible? Participant roles in legal interpreting cases. Multilingua 27: 177–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Leung, E. and Gibbons, J. 2009. Utterance particles in Cantonese Courtroom Discourse, International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 11(2) 190–215.

  21. Matoesian, G. 1993. Reproducing rape: Domination through talk in the courtroom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mikkelson, H. 2000. Introduction to court interpreting. UK: St. Jerome.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Morris, R. 1990. Interpretation at the Demjanjuk Trial. In Interpreting: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow, ed. D. Bowen and M. Bowen, 101–107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  24. Morris, R. 1999. The gum syndrome predicaments in court interpreting. In Forensic linguistics, Vol. 6, 1350–1771. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.

  25. Ng, E. 2009a. The tension between adequacy and acceptability in legal interpreting and translation, The Critical Link: Quality in Interpreting—A shared responsibility, edited by S. Hale, U. Ozolins and L. Stern. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 37–54.

  26. Ng, K.H. 2009. The Common law in two voices: Language, law and the post-colonial predicament in Hong Kong. California: Stanford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Sin, K.K. 1992. The translatability of law. In Research in Chinese Linguistics in Hong Kong, ed. T. Lee, and T. Hong, 87–101. Kong: Linguistic Society of Hong Kong.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Tallentire, G. 2005. The Hong Kong (Police) Magistrate in the 1880s and 1990s. In A Magistrate’s Court in Nineteenth Century Hong Kong, ed. G. Bickly, 147–158. Proverse: Hong Kong.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (Eds.) 2009. Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. 2nd Edition.

  30. 李克兴 2010。《浅谈法律术语翻译的原则及方法》。吉林:吉林华桥外国语学院。 [Li, Kexing. 2010. Legal Translation: Theoretical and Practical Approach. China: Jilin Huaqiao Foreign Language Institute.].

  31. 陸文慧 (主編) 2002。《法律翻譯: 從實踐出發》。香港:中華書局。 [Luk, Man-wai (Ed) 2002. Legal Translation: Beginning with Practices. Hong Kong: Chung Hwa Publisher.].

Reports

  1. Association Concerning Sexual Violence Against Women, 2004–2005, 2008–2010 Bi-annual reports.

Cases

  1. Cheng Kai Nam, Gary v HKSAR (2001) HCAL003568/2001.

Websites

  1. Leung, E. 2005. From Legislation to Translation, from translation to interpretation: the narrative of sexual offences. [Online]. Available at: www.cpdb-arts.hkbu.edu.hk [accessed: 2014-06-30].

  2. National Association of Judiciary Interpreters & Translators. 2012. Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities. [Online]. Available at: www.najit.org [accessed: 2014-06-30].

  3. The Department of Justice, HKSAR. The Bilingual Laws Information System (BLIS). [Online]. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.hk [accessed: 2014-06-30].

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Translation Programme, Department of English Language and Literature, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    Ester S. M. Leung

Authors
  1. Ester S. M. Leung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ester S. M. Leung.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leung, E.S.M. What Can a Bilingual Corpus Tell Us About the Translation and Interpretation of Rape Trials?. Int J Semiot Law 28, 469–483 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-014-9400-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-014-9400-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation