The right to be seen, heard, and understood
Interpreting power in Australian technology-empowered virtual courtrooms
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12059303 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Ran Yi (0000-0003-1858-3358, National Defense University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Pages | 1-27 |
| Publication date | 2026-03-30 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Australian Journal of Linguistics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0726-8602 • E-ISSN: 1469-2996 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/07268602.2026.2641217 |
| OpenAlex | W7143488090 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 43 |
Australia’s courts operate within one of the world’s most linguistically diverse contexts, home to over 300 languages including numerous Indigenous ones. Ensuring linguistic equity and procedural fairness for all language communities requires attention not only to content accuracy but also to how questions and answers are formulated and interpreted. This study examines how power is embedded and negotiated in interpreter-mediated courtroom discourse by analyzing the effects of interpreting mode, delivery condition (audio-only vs audio-visual), and language direction on pragmatic accuracy (PA). PA is operationalized through speech-style features, particularly fillers and hedges, in lawyers’ questions and defendants’ answers, and their potential implications for power dynamics and evaluations of witness credibility. Using a mixed-methods design combining a controlled interpreting task with a post-experiment questionnaire, the study quantifies PA and examines participants’ perceptions of speech-style features under different interpreting conditions. The findings show that pragmatic rendition accuracy varies systematically by interpreting mode and language direction, with higher accuracy in consecutive interpreting and Mandarin-to-English renditions, while delivery condition shows minimal effects. By foregrounding the intersection of interpreting practice, discourse style, and technology, this paper offers practical recommendations for interpreters, legal practitioners, and policymakers striving toward inclusive and empowering courtroom processes.
Feature (linguistics · Interpretation (philosophy · Power (physics · Dispute Resolution and Class Actions · Energy Law and Policy · Law in Society and Culture
Participation of Second Language and Second Dialect Speakers in the Legal System
The Discourse of Court Interpreting
Relevance and Linguistic Meaning
Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking
How To Do Things With Words
Interpreting Inexplicit Language during Courtroom Examination
Transcribing and translating forensic speech evidence containing foreign languages—An Australian perspective
Language in the Legal Process
Translatability of Speech Style in Court Interpreting
Pragmatic Meaning in Court Interpreting
Incorporating Sociolinguistic Perspectives in Australian Refugee Credibility Assessments
Judicial reliance on the executive
Enhancing Sentiment Analysis and Error Prediction in Lawyer Questioning Through Legal NLP Models
Bringing linguistic research into legal scholarship and practice
Communication with Aboriginal Speakers of English in the Legal Process
Mentoring interpreters of new and emerging languages for Australian courts and tribunals
Manner Matters
Pragmalinguistic challenges for trainee interpreters in achieving accuracy
Does interpreter location make a difference
Interactional pragmatics and court interpreting
Evaluation of court interpreting
The significance of interpreting modes for question–answer dialogues in court interpreting
Justice Under Microscope
Discourse markers in free indirect style and interpreting
What a micro-analytical investigation of additions and expansions in remote interpreting can tell us about interpreters' participation in a shared virtual space
Legal Language
The Invisible Labor and Ethics of Interpreting
Linguistic dimensions of the crimmigration regime
Speech Acts
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1 |
| Citation span | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |