A study on the perceptions of court interpreters’ roles in criminal trials in Korea: Based on discourse analyses of Chinese interpretation and interviews of Chinese interpreters

Since 2008, Korean scholars of interpretation and translation have suggested that interpretation in legal contexts should become a specialized profession. Pointing to cases in advanced countries, they call for a certification system for court interpreters, as well as better rates and specialized training courses.
However, the court interpretation system has not improved over the past seven years.
This study began with a question in mind: how do court interpreters working in the Korean and Chinese languages perceive their role, given that there was insufficient institutional support for this profession for a long time?
The purpose of this study is to examine, in a concrete way, the difficulties that arise in the course of providing interpretation for Chinese speakers in legal contexts in Korea and to determine the implicit norms that Korean-Chinese court interpreters are following. By doing so, it becomes possible to determine how the relevant institutions are influencing court interpreters'' beliefs and the choices they make.
Ultimately, the study will also explore how court interpreters come to view their role when they have insufficient institutional support, and the resulting implications for the field of court interpretation.
This is a qualitative study that uses ethnographic research methods, while relying on prior research in the field of institutional translation and the metaphorical roles of court interpreters as its theoretical background. It uses discourse analysis and interview-based research to analyze the data in a qualitative manner.
Through discourse analysis and interview-based research, the study came to the following conclusions.
First, regarding difficulties facing court interpreters, interpreters are often expected to interpret witness testimony without understanding important context such as the circumstances of a case. Although this is an inherent problem in the field of court interpretation, it is intensified when court interpreters are not given basic background information such as the details of arraignments and other matters subject to examination.
The study also addressed Chinese speech characteristics, including dialect, as well as the fact that levels of speech differ widely between minority-language speakers with lower levels of education and Koreans with legal backgrounds who are involved in trial proceedings.
Furthermore, the study identified additional reasons that interpreters were dissatisfied with their work; these included irregular schedules, inconsistent rates and inadequate remuneration. The psychological burden of working in such a taxing field also cannot be overlooked.
Secondly, regarding norms in court interpretation, there is insufficient consensus between interpreters and professionals with law-related backgrounds who participate directly in trial proceedings. As a result, time pressure and institutional expectations sometimes force interpreters to prioritize time-efficiency over other considerations and prevent them from abiding by their code of ethics.
Lastly, using discourse analysis and interview-based research, the study looked at the effects of the court interpreters'' view on their work and the factors involved in shaping that view.
A court interpreter''s primary role is that of a facilitator for the institution, one who follows the judge''s instructions. However, under the current circumstances in which interpreters have weak standing in the court proceedings interpreters must give priority to time-efficiency, part of the expectancy norm, rather than the code of ethics. This could increase barriers to fair court proceedings, as the interpreter''s role shifts to that of institutional agent.
As the discourse analysis shows, interpreters play a mediating role, enabling communication between people who speak different languages and belong to different cultures. This role can be both positive and negative; However, when the mediating role becomes paramount, an excessive workload may be forced on court interpreters and the focus of their work can shift toward representing the interests of defendants.
Furthermore, interviewees mentioned the stress caused by demands for literal translation by people with legal backgrounds, who often expect the interpreter to function as a "conduit" or a translation machine. Ideally, court interpreters should faithfully convey the full message behind the original words, but it is important to know that even the most highly skilled interpreter can fail to do so as a result of difficulties inherent in the field of court interpretation. Therefore, the judiciary will need to understand those problems and devise measures to ensure fairness in trials that involve foreigners.
Above all, if employment conditions for court interpreters do not improve, it is likely that interpreters will tend to play a more active "assistant" role, thus becoming partial to their institutions or to the judiciary to obtain greater recognition, instead of maintaining impartiality. This situation gives interpreters an incentive to prioritize smooth proceedings over accuracy. Also, the lack of standardized norms and complementary training courses for court interpreters is a significant barrier that prevents them from building greater expertise.
When the field of court interpretation is not a specialized profession, as is the case under the current system, asymmetries in power are heightened and so are barriers to fair court proceedings.
In this regard, court interpreters should keep in mind their roles as facilitators for their institutions and as public experts with a duty to deliver accurate and neutral interpretations under the direction of the court. At the same time, the court needs a clearer understanding of court interpreters'' role in court proceedings, and there is a need at the government level for institutional measures to ensure expertise and impartiality on the part of court interpreters.