Who is responsible? Participant roles in legal interpreting cases

Bibliographic Data

ID11293488
AuthorsEster S M Leung (0000-0001-6362-6754, Hong Kong Baptist University, corresponding author), John Gibbons (0000-0002-4942-8740, Hong Kong Baptist University)
Year2008
Volume27
Issue3
Pages177-191
Publication date2008-08-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueMultilingua (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0167-8507 • E-ISSN: 1613-3684
PublisherWalter de Gruyter GmbH (PUBLISHER • DE)
DOI10.1515/multi.2008.010
OpenAlexW2057060656
LanguageEN
Citations received6
References cited1

Goffman (1981) provides the framework for the analysis of the different & ‘participant’ roles played by speakers in conversation. They are: the role of the ‘animator’, the sounding box from which utterances comes; the ‘author’, the agent who puts together, composes, or scripts the lines that are uttered; and that of the ‘principal’, the party to whose position, stand, and belief the words attest. Legal interpreters often face various dilemmas with regard to the participant roles they play in the courtroom. Whether interpreters should allow their personal belief and ideology to influence their interpreting, taking on the role of ‘principal’, and whether they can and should interpret only what makes sense to them, and so playing the role of the ‘author’. This is the core issue that is examined in this paper

Conversation · Epistemology · Face (sociological concept · Ideology · Interpreter · Linguistics · Participant observation · Political science · Principal (computer security · Scripting language · Social science · Sociology · Communication · Computer Science · Interpreting and Communication in Healthcare · Law · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub