This article was downloaded by: [UNISA University South Africa], [Samuel Lebese]On: 11 January 2012, At: 23:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Southern African Linguistics andApplied Language StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rall20

A pilot study on the undefined role ofcourt interpreters in South AfricaSamuel Lebese aa Department of Linguistics, University of South Africa, PO Box392, Pretoria, South Africa

Available online: 11 Jan 2012

To cite this article: Samuel Lebese (2011): A pilot study on the undefined role of courtinterpreters in South Africa, Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 29:3,343-357

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2011.647498

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. Theaccuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independentlyverified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever causedarising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of thismaterial.

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2011, 29(3): 343–357Printed in South Africa — All rights reserved

Copyright © NISC (Pty) Ltd

SOUTHERN AFRICAN LINGUISTICSAND APPLIED LANGUAGE STUDIES

ISSN 1607–3614 EISSN 1727–9461DOI: 10.2989/16073614.2011.647498

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies is co-published by NISC (Pty) Ltd and Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group

A pilot study on the undefined role of court interpreters in South Africa

Samuel LebeseDepartment of Linguistics, University of South Africa, PO Box 392, Pretoria, South Africa

e-mail: lebessj@unisa.ac.za

Abstract: In South Africa, legislation that clearly defines the role of court interpreters does not exist. Court interpreters find themselves performing tasks which should be the responsi-bility of other legal officials. This study considers how the lack of a clearly defined role for court interpreters affects the very quality of their interpreting. The study takes both a top-down and a bottom-up approach. In the top-down approach, a sample of South African legislation and related texts is analysed to determine whether the role of court interpreters have been clearly defined. The bottom-up approach deals with abstracts of proceedings in the courtroom in English and Setswana, focusing on the role played by court interpreters during trials. This study aims to shed more light on the role of court interpreters and to show how a defined role could lead to better quality interpreting. The court cases used in the study were collected during 2010 from the Brits Magistrates’ Court in the North West province.

IntroductionIn South Africa, the role of court interpreters is not clearly defined by any legislation. In the case of State versus Naidoo (1962: 631), for instance, Judge Williamson, in addressing issues on the role of court interpreters, remarked that:

It is surprising that in relation to the Courts of this country where interpretation of evidence and statements forms such an important and vital element in the placing before judicial officers and jurors evidence from so many persons who speak in tongues strange to the Court and jurors, that there appears to be no statutory provision, Rule of Court or regulation governing the position of interpreters.

In her investigation of the nature of verbal interaction in the courtroom, including court interpreting, Moeketsi (1999: 143) observed that ‘the dismal performance of the interpreter is a result of poor training and lack of proper definition of the interpreter-role’. This unclear defini-tion of the role of court interpreters has led to legal officials forming their own views and opinions on what the role of court interpreters should be. We face the difficulty that court interpreters find themselves performing tasks which are by rights the responsibility of other legal officials such as magistrates. This occurs where the magistrate asks or even instructs court interpreters to explain the rights of the accused person directly, instead of interpreting the magistrate’s communication of these rights to the accused.

The duty of the interpreter is to translate the meaning of the speaker’s words into the language of the listener, and it is in this respect that the quality of his or her interpreting should be judged. In this case, quality refers to the accuracy of the message.

This article reports on a study which investigated the effects of this lack of clear definition in the role of court interpreters on the quality of court interpreting, in particular, in instances where court interpreters are forced to perform duties beyond those of language facilitator.

MethodologyIn the study on which this article is based, these aims were addressed by using both a top-down and a bottom-up approach. In the top-down approach, legal documents and related texts were examined, whilst in the bottom-up approach, abstracts of proceedings in the courtroom were analysed. In the top-down approach, legislation was scrutinised to determine the extent to which the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

ISA

Uni

vers

ity S

outh

Afr

ica]

, [Sa

mue

l Leb

ese]

at 2

3:25

11

Janu

ary

2012

Lebese344

role of court interpreter is defined and whether or not a poor definition of this role has a detrimental effect on the quality of court interpreting.

In the bottom-up approach, court cases were examined for references by magistrates to the role of court interpreters. Court recordings translated from English into Setswana were analysed to determine the role played by court interpreters during trials. It was hoped that this kind of research would shed more light on the role of the interpreter and on how a clearly defined role might improve the quality of interpreting. Ten court cases dealing with offences committed between 2007 and 2010, obtained from the Brits Magistrates’ Court in the North West province during 2010, were analysed. The author chose the Brits Magistrates’ Court because he had acted as court interpreter at this particular court. However, at the time of writing, he was no longer employed as an interpreter although he had maintained good relations with the court personnel. He was thus granted permis-sion to access the court recordings for the purposes of research.

The next sections provide a brief review of research in this area, followed by a discussion of the methodology followed in this study. The analysis of the data is then presented and, finally, conclu-sions and recommendations are made.

Brief review of research This section explores the general definition of interpreter as well as the definition of the role of the court by interpreting theorists. The definition of the role of a court interpreter will be investigated in terms of different themes. Legislation will be examined to determine whether the role of court interpreters have been clearly defined. Lastly, excerpts from court cases will be presented in order to establish whether judges have made references to the role of court interpreters.

General definition of the role of the interpreter

Interpreters as helpersAccording to Roy (1993), family members have always interpreted for deaf persons, and their only view of themselves is as helpers. This practice has led to the view that there is no distinction between a helper and an interpreter. The helper is a role which allows for extreme personal involve-ment by interpreters, but this role is inappropriate because it denies the people involved control over their lives and responsibilities.

Interpreters as conduitsThe changing expectations of consumers and the profession’s own need to see itself as rendering a professional service gave rise to the conduit model (Roy, 1993). According to this model, interpreters used the concept of a machine to describe their role, and this idea disassociated the interpreter from the ‘helper’ view. It clarified a desire on the part of the interpreter to be seen as rendering a professional service while refraining from taking over the decision-making responsibili-ties of either party involved in an interpreting event (Roy, 1993).

Interpreter as communication facilitatorAs the machine description began to fail, interpreters and those involved in their training turned to academic arenas to find alternative views. They moved to a description of the interpreter as a communi-cation facilitator. The ‘channel’ now became a ‘language and communication facilitator’ who made communication easier by adapting to the particular system desired by each individual. The description of the interpreter as a facilitator was built on the basic notions of communication theory that defined a basic communication event as consisting of a sender, a message, and a receiver (Roy, 1993).

Interpreter as bilingual, bicultural specialistThis definition derives its meaning from the fact that an interpreter works in two languages, that is, the source language and the target language. This role acknowledges the fact that interpreters must be sensitive to the notion that they are communicating across cultures as well as across languages. Descriptions of cultural sensitivity include being aware of regional or dialectal differences in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

ISA

Uni

vers

ity S

outh

Afr

ica]

, [Sa

mue

l Leb

ese]

at 2

3:25

11

Janu

ary

2012

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2011, 29(3): 343–357 345

language, non-verbal differences, different attitudes towards time, and different forms of personal address, among others (Roy, 1993).

The role of a court interpreter

Theme 1: Court interpreter as a conduitThe definition of the role of a court interpreter as a conduit came about because the interpreter was expected to interpret everything that a court participant said without becoming personally involved. Berk-Seligson (1990/2002) mentions that court interpreters should not exist as a distinct verbal participant in their own right, but that they should be instruments through which one language (the source language) enters and another (the target language) exits.

According to Berk-Seligson (1990/2002), judges and attorneys like the interpreter to be merely a conduit, akin to a mechanical device which converts all speech that is not English into English for the benefit of judge, attorney, and court record. However, Pöchhacker (2008) rejects this view and mentions that scholarly research on the role of the interpreter has revealed the shortcomings of the argument that interpreters are mere conduits transferring verbal messages from one language to another. The question of whether a court interpreter should act as a conduit is still being debated as the conduit model has its shortcomings (Roy, 1993).

According to Channon (1982), good court interpreters should have the ability to translate without adding to the questions asked or to the answers given. They must be completely impartial and take no personal interest in the outcome of the case and should remain unaffected by anything they see or hear.

High court judges in the Australian case, Gaio versus R (1960), 104 CLR 419, defined the role of court interpreters as a translation machine in an attempt to avoid hearsay when obtaining evidence through the interpreter. Understandably, the court is wary of any alterations that may be made by the interpreter to the original evidence of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) witnesses, so the conduit model may seem a fitting method to prevent the interpreter from assuming a potentially intrusive role (Marzochi, n.d.). This severely restricted role of court interpreters is based on the notion that the interpreter, who is compared to a conduit, is engaged in linguistic transfer, namely linguistic encoding and decoding. This mechanical and non-participatory role does not necessitate the interpreter’s intervention in ensuring effective communication (Lee, 2009). Thus, according to Morris (1993), the conduit interpreter is not expected to request or provide clarification.

The interpreter-as-conduit model has been challenged by courts and tribunals as well as by scholars and practitioners of interpreting. Researchers into court interpreting have been critical of risks arising from formal adherence to the conduit model, which may result in distortion and miscommunication (Morris, 1993, 1995). A report by the Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department (1991) states that court interpreters are facilitators of communication, not translation machines. There have been some landmark cases that have set the tone for redefining the role of the interpreter in legal settings in Australia (Lee, 2009). Cases such as Gradidge versus Grace Bros Pty Ltd (1988) 93 FLR 414 and Perera versus Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) 92 FCA 507 prescribed the role of court interpreters as removing language barriers and placing the non-English speaker in a position that would be as close as possible to that of an English speaker (Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department, 1991; Barnett, 2006). These legal decisions point to progress in the legal sector’s perception of the interpreting process and the interpreter’s role (Lee, 2009).

Theme 2: Court interpreter as a facilitatorIn her investigation of the role of court interpreters, Berk-Seligson (2006) found that, in many legal proceedings, judges and attorneys perceived the role of the interpreter as that of a facili-tator, an intercultural mediator, and even an advocate. Steytler (1993) notes that the role of a court interpreter is to facilitate communication where one party is not conversant in the language of the record. According to Steytler (1993), an interpreter’s formal task is unambiguous. It is to translate accurately, comprehensively, and without bias all communications in court to a language which the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

ISA

Uni

vers

ity S

outh

Afr

ica]

, [Sa

mue

l Leb

ese]

at 2

3:25

11

Janu

ary

2012

Lebese346

accused can understand. He or she should deliver expert service and assume a neutral position in the contest between the parties. However, Lee (2009) has a different view of the role of court interpreters and believes that any facilitative role is inappropriate because it amounts to filtering or embellishment.

Cultural differences and culturally bound terms or expressions often pose challenges in interpreting, requiring the interpreter’s discretion and judgment about the best possible renditions. In most interpreting settings, this may warrant addition or explanation. However, in court interpreting, the provision of opinion or extra information is generally regarded as overstepping the bounds of court interpreters’ role. While some scholars support cultural intervention for the sake of effective communication, others take a more conservative position, mainly to protect the professional identity of court interpreters and to avoid ethical problems. They argue that court interpreters should not assume the role of an expert, nor attempt to explain cultural concepts or beliefs which may have a bearing on the case. Nevertheless, when it comes to cultural information that is neither signifi-cant nor controversial, many maintain that an interpreter who is aware of cultural differences should point out any information pertinent to the case at the proper time in the proper manner. Thus, a lack of cultural sensitivity on the part of court interpreters may produce untoward consequences (Lee, 2009).

Theme 3: Court interpreter as a language expertIn a survey of interpreting students and interpreters seeking national accreditation, Guthrie (1986) found that the role of a ‘language expert’ was often seen as one of the court interpreters’ responsi-bilities. However, providing an expert opinion is a different matter from clarifying cross-cultural and cross-linguistic issues. When there is a need to clarify a linguistic ambiguity or cultural reference or to resolve a dispute about interpreting in court proceedings, and expert opinion is sought, interpreters or linguists may be sworn in to give expert testimony on the grammar, meaning, or usage of particular words or expressions (Lee, 2009).

Theme 4: Court interpreter as a channel or bridgeIt is not only scholars and judges in the courts of law who have defined the role of a court interpreter. Court interpreters themselves have defined their role. Professional interpreters often describe their role as one of a person in the middle by using the metaphor of a channel or bridge through which communication between two people can occur. As a channel, the interpreter is required to reproduce a message from one speaker to another faithfully, accurately, and without emotional or personal bias entering into the interpretation. In other words, interpreters must simulta-neously render messages without changing the message’s intent and with uncommon accuracy, while maintaining a stance of impartiality and neutrality. To be specific, interpreters may not introduce topics, change topics, or ask questions of their own, interject their opinion or give advice, and, most importantly, they must keep the entire transaction confidential. The performance of this role has been compared to a machine, a window, a bridge, and a telephone line, among others, in an attempt to reduce the complexity of the role to a simple, singular analogy (Roy, 1993).

Theme 5: Court interpreter as a replicatorAccording to Hale (2004), court interpreters’ aim should be to replicate the original source language message in the target language in a manner that has the same effect on the listeners.

Theme 6: Court interpreter as a lawyerThe duty of the lawyers is, among others, to simplify the language of court proceedings so that their clients are in a position to understand these proceedings. Accordingly, the function of the lawyers is to translate to their clients the charge and to formulate a response in terms of permissible legal pleas. When an undefended accused is involved, the interpreter often plays the role of the lawyer, deviating from literal translation to bridge the gap between legalese and lay person’s language. The interpreter will convey to the accused only what is intelligible to him (Steytler, 1993).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

ISA

Uni

vers

ity S

outh

Afr

ica]

, [Sa

mue

l Leb

ese]

at 2

3:25

11

Janu

ary

2012

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2011, 29(3): 343–357 347

Theme 7: Court interpreter as a court orderlyA court orderly is a police official who is in the courtroom during court proceedings.

One of the functions of the court orderly in the district court is the physical management of the accused in and out of the dock during the daily remand and bail proceedings. The first task of the day is thus the quick and efficient dispatch of cases which have not been set down for trial. The remand procedure exhibits a great measure of cooperation between the court orderly, the interpreter, the prosecutor, and the magistrate. The prosecutor will request a remand, and it will almost without exception be granted by the magistrate without further discussion. The interpreter must approach the proceedings in the same expeditious way by interpreting, as a rule, only the court order, that is the date to which the proceedings are remanded. Neither the application nor the reason for it will be interpreted (Steytler, 1993).

In case 87 DC, Steytler provides the following scenario:Accused: (Zulu) Please, I ask for payment so that I will be out.Interpreter: (Zulu) That is not my business. Go down! (Indicating towards the cells.)

The interpreter in the above instance should, according to Steytler, have interpreted the accused’s actual words instead of giving answers because the accused had asked the court a question, not the interpreter in his or her personal capacity.

Theme 8: Court interpreter as a magistrateAccording to Steytler (1993), studies have shown that the interpreter plays an active role in the court ‘staking out his own coercive role’. It has been found that the interpreter has a degree of control over the production of evidence by prompting witnesses to speak and even silencing them when there may be an objection to their evidence. The task of controlling witnesses, which falls properly within the domain of the presiding officer, is thus routinely usurped by interpreters who pre-empt judicial intervention.

The following section investigates South African legislation in order to establish whether the role of court interpreter has been clearly defined in the Magistrates’ Act and in the Constitution.

Legislation

The Magistrates’ Court Act 44 of 1944Section 6 (2) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 44 of 1944 states that:

If in a criminal case, evidence is given in a language with which the accused is not in the opinion of the court sufficiently conversant, a competent interpreter shall be called by the court in order to translate such evidence into a language with which the accused professes or appears to the court to be sufficiently conversant, irrespective of whether the language in which the evidence is given is one of the official languages or of whether the representative of the accused is conversant with the language used in the evidence or not.

The Magistrates’ Court Act (1944: 10) makes mention of ‘a competent interpreter’. The use of this adjective in describing the interpreter is not explicit enough to determine a clear role for the interpreter. According to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (Hornsby, 2000), competent means ‘having enough skill or knowledge to do something well or to the necessary standard’. The Act refers to the interpreter’s role to translate.

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 93 of 1996Section 35 (3) (k) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 93 of 1996 (RSA, 1996) states that ‘every accused person has the right to a fair trial, which includes the right to be tried in a language that the accused understands or, if that is not practicable, to have the proceedings interpreted in that language’.

Although the Constitution does not state explicitly that an interpreter is to interpret the proceed-ings to the accused person in the language that the accused understands, by implication, the person who is to interpret the proceedings is a court interpreter. The Constitution does not, however, define the role of court interpreters.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

ISA

Uni

vers

ity S

outh

Afr

ica]

, [Sa

mue

l Leb

ese]

at 2

3:25

11

Janu

ary

2012

Lebese348

The following section examines court cases for references to the role of court interpreters by judges.

Court cases

Lack of legislation defining the role of an interpreterState versus Naidoo (1962 (2) SA 631 AD)In the case State versus Naidoo (1962: 631), Judge Williamson stated that ‘Interpreters are in continual daily use throughout the different Courts and the practice in regard to their use has developed over many years. Although there is no statutory authority for their appointment, Courts seem always to have recognized them’.

Court interpreter as an impartial conveyer of wordsState versus Mabona (1973 (2) SA 614 AD)In the case State versus Mabona (1973: 614), Judge Thompson stated that ‘the role of an interpreter ought to be that of an impartial conveyer of the words of the maker of the statement, and not the interrogator of him’. At another point in the proceedings of this case, Judge Thompson noted that it is not in the interests of justice that such officials (court interpreters) institute independent enquiries, be it before or after interpreting for the justice of the peace. The phrase ‘ought to’, according to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (Hornsby, 2000), is a short form, especially in British English, for what you expect or would like to happen. Judge Thompson does not, however, mention the legislation that defines the role of court interpreters.

Court interpreter as an expert witness State versus Mpopo (1978 (2) SA 426 AD)In the case of State versus Mpopo (1978: 426), in defining the role of court interpreters, Judge Corbett said:

A species of expert witness is telling the Court in a language understood by the Court (and by any recorder) what it is the witness is actually saying. What the expert or interpreter tells the Court becomes the actual evidence in the case put before the Court and recorded.

Judge Corbett (1978) provides a description of court interpreters but does not define their role. He observes merely that the interpreter is the chosen expert whose function is to translate the words used by the witness into the language of the Court.

Findings from study of court proceedingsThe following are extracts from ten court cases heard at the Brits Magistrates’ Court in the North West province during June 2010. Three cases were recorded in longhand and seven were mechan-ically recorded. The author was given permission by the magistrate and the prosecutor to sit in the area used by court officials and to take notes during the proceedings. The purpose of this was to observe the role played by court interpreters during a court case.

Case study 1: Shoplifting This case involved a woman in her 20s who was accused of shoplifting clothes from a branch of the clothing chain Edgars in Brits. It was her first appearance in court. In this case, the following was recorded:Prosecutor: Your worship, this is a first appearance.Magistrate: Mr Interpreter, please explain the accused’s rights.Interpreter: O a simolla go tlhagella mo kgotlatshekelo kajeno. O ka ipatlela lloyara e o tla ipatel-

lang yona. Ga o sena tšhelete, o ka kopa loyara mo legal aid yona ke mahala, ga o e patele kgotsa o ka nna wa ipuellela. [You are appearing before court for the first time today. You may seek a lawyer which

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

ISA

Uni

vers

ity S

outh

Afr

ica]

, [Sa

mue

l Leb

ese]

at 2

3:25

11

Janu

ary

2012

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2011, 29(3): 343–357 349

you will have to pay for yourself. If you do not have money, you may ask for a lawyer from Legal Aid. This is free, you do not pay for it. Or you may speak for yourself.]

The annexure obtained by the researcher from this particular court regarding the accused’s rights on his or her first appearance in court reads as follows:

You are entitled to be represented by an Attorney or Advocate of your own choice whom you have appointed out of own funds. If you cannot afford a legal representative you may apply to the Legal Aid Officer for assistance. If your application is successful, an independent legal representative will be appointed for you by the Legal Aid Officer. Do you understand?What do you wish to do?

What happened in this case was that the magistrate did not explain the accused’s rights himself, which was his task. Instead, he asked the interpreter to explain the rights to the accused. Mikkelson (1998) is against this practice, observing that ‘interpreters are to limit their activities strictly to the practice of interpreting. A judge or lawyer would be the best person to explain legal procedure and concepts’.

Several points are at issue here. Firstly, it is not clear whether the court interpreter explained these rights fully and correctly. Secondly, it is not the interpreter’s duty to explain the rights to the accused person. In terms of the Magistrates’ Court Act 44 of 1944, the procedure is that the magistrate explains the rights and the interpreter interprets what he or she says. A situation where court interpreters are involved in a task other than their own makes it impossible to judge the accuracy of the interpretation unless you know what is written in the annexure explaining these rights.

When one compares the explanation given by the court interpreter and what appears in the annexure concerning the rights of the accused, there is a difference. Firstly, the annexure does not contain the words ‘You are appearing before court for the first time today’. In this case, the court interpreter adds the following: ‘You may see a lawyer’ whilst the annexure reads ‘You are entitled to be represented by an Attorney or Advocate of your own choice’.

Case study 2: Assault Case study 2 was a case of assault which involved two adult males. The accused allegedly assaulted the complainant with his fists. In this case, the following was recorded: Prosecutor: The state calls the first witness, Mr Tshepo Baloyi (not his real name).Magistrate: What are your full names?Interpreter: Maina a gago ke mang?

[What are your names?]Witness: Ke nna Tshepo Baloyi.

[I am Tshepo Baloyi.]Interpreter: Tshepo Baloyi, your worship.Magistrate: Mr Interpreter, please swear him in.Interpreter: A o tla bolela ka go ikana kgotsa go na se se ka go thibelang go ikana? O a ikana

gore o tla bua nnete, nnete yotlhe, nnete fela. Bua o re Modimo nthuse. Sworn in. [Will you speak under oath or do you have an objection to taking an oath? Do you swear that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, only the truth? Say, so help me God. Sworn in.]

In this particular case, the interpreter was asked to administer the oath. Morris (1996) notes that within the legal system, interpreters are sometimes considered to have duties that go beyond the role of a linguistic (and perhaps cultural) mediator. This certainly seems to be the position in this case. But, in terms of the Magistrates’ Court Act 44 of 1944, this should be the responsibility of the magistrate, and the interpreter is only required to interpret the communications made during the administration of the oath.

Case study 3: Murder This case study was a murder trial in which the accused, an adult male, allegedly knifed the deceased, also an adult male, at a tavern. The deceased died from the stab wounds. In this case, the following was said:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

ISA

Uni

vers

ity S

outh

Afr

ica]

, [Sa

mue

l Leb

ese]

at 2

3:25

11

Janu

ary

2012

Lebese350

Prosecutor: After the accused stabbed the deceased, how far did the deceased walk before he fell?

Interpreter: Morago ga gore molatofadiwa a tlhabe moswi, moswi o tsamaile sekgala se se kana kang pele a wela fa fatshe? [After the accused stabbed the deceased, what distance did the deceased walk before he fell?]

Witness: O tsamaile go tloga fa go fitlha fale. [He walked from here to there, witness pointing out the distance.]

Interpreter: Your worship, the deceased walked from here to there before he fell. It is about three metres.

Magistrate: Yes, but that is not the evidence before this court. Mr Prosecutor, what is the distance which the witness has pointed out?(No interpretation.)

Prosecutor: It is about three metres, your worship.(No interpretation.)

Magistrate: Advocate, are you in agreement?(No interpretation.)

Advocate: Indeed so, your worship.(No interpretation.)

Magistrate: Thank you. You may precede Mr [Prosecutor].In this case the magistrate objected to the estimation of the distance made by the interpreter

because the witness himself did not make mention of ‘three metres’. The interpreter was felt to be taking it upon himself to mention the distance after it was pointed out by the witness. The interpreter did not interpret the discussion between the prosecutor, the magistrate, and the advocate to either the accused or the witness. The accused and the witness were not made aware of the potential problem.

An incident such as this might have had repercussions which could have had a damaging effect on the character of the witness in that, later in the trial, he could have been confronted with the issue of the distance of three metres which he had not in fact mentioned. This could also have affected the quality of interpreting as well as the outcome of the case. What the interpreter should have done under these circumstances was to have interpreted what the witness had said and then to heave pointed out the distance to the magistrate. It was the magistrate’s duty to ascertain the distance.

Case study 4: Assault Case study 4 was a case of assault in which the accused allegedly assaulted the complainant with a golf club. The accused and the complainant were adult males. In this case, the following was said:Prosecutor: Where did the accused assault you with a golf club?Interpreter: Molatofadiwa o go otlile fa kae ka golf stick?

[Where did the accused hit you with a golf club?]Witness: O ntšhapile mo (indicating his shoulder).

[He hit me here] (indicating his shoulder).Interpreter: He assaulted me on the shoulder.

In this case, the interpreter did not interpret the words ‘he hit me here’. Instead, he interpreted the witness’s non-verbal communication and mentioned the body part that the witness had indicated without mentioning that what he was saying was the body part that the witness had pointed out. In this case, unlike in Case study 3, the interpreter was not criticised by the magistrate. Instead, the magistrate wrote down what the interpreter said, accepting the interpreter’s version even though the witness had not mentioned the word ‘shoulder’ but had only pointed to it. What should have happened in this instance was that the interpreter should have said ‘he hit me here’: your worship, the witness is indicating his shoulder’.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

ISA

Uni

vers

ity S

outh

Afr

ica]

, [Sa

mue

l Leb

ese]

at 2

3:25

11

Janu

ary

2012

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2011, 29(3): 343–357 351

Case study 5: Theft caseThe following is an abstract from a recorded case which was held in the district court. The accused was an adult male who was appearing in court on a charge of the theft of 15 kilograms of iron rods. In this case, the following was said:Prosecutor: The accused is charged with theft in that on or about the 7th day of July 2009 at

Majakaneng, in the district of Brits, the accused did unlawfully and intentionally, steal the following items, to wit 15 kilograms of iron, the property or in the lawful posses-sion of Mack Phokela.

Interpreter: Jaanong molato o o pharwang ka ona ke wa go utswa. O ba reng ka di 7 tsa July 2009 ko Majakaneng mo Brits, o utswutse ditshipi tse tsa Mack phokela. O a o utlwisisa molato? O a o dumela kgotsa o a o phega? [Now the charge against you is one of theft. Where they say on the 7th of July 2009 at Majakaneng in Brits, you stole 15 pieces of iron rods belonging to Mack Phokela. Do you understand the charge? Do you plead guilty or not?]

Accused: Ke a o phega. [I plead not guilty.]

Interpreter: Not guilty, your worship.In this case, the court interpreter spoke in the second person, saying the following ‘where they

say…’. The interpreter seems to distance himself, making it clear to the accused that what has been said was not said by him. The interpreter also includes questions, asking the accused whether he understands the charge and whether he pleads guilty or not. It is the duty of the presiding officer to ask the accused whether he understands the charge and what his plea to the charge is. The interpreter must interpret in the first person so as to avoid confusion. Relevant in this instance is the code of ethics of Multilingua Translation/Interpreting Services (n.d.) as well as the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT, n.d.).

Case study 6: Plea concerning reckless or negligent driving In the following case the accused was an adult female charged with reckless or negligent driving. In this case the following was said:Prosecutor: The charge against the accused is reckless or negligent driving in that on or about

the 11th of October 2008, at or near Letlhabile road, the public road in the district of Brits, the accused did wrongfully drive a vehicle, to wit, a Ford Sierra with registration number FXP 395 GP, recklessly or negligently.

Interpreter: Ausi, molato wa gago ke wa go kgweetsa botlhaswa, ne. O latofatswa gore ka di 11 tsa October 2008, mo Letlhabile mo kgaolong ya Brits, o dirile ka fa go fosagetseng wa kgweetsa sejanaga, e leng Ford Sierra sa plate number FXP 395 GP, mo tseleng e e dirisiwang ke botlhe, wa se kgweetsa botlhaswa. Wa tlhaloganya se go tweng o se dirile?

[Sister, your case is one of driving carelessly, ne. You are accused that on the 11th of October 2008, at Letlhabile in the district of Brits, you did wrong and drove a motor vehicle, which is a Ford Sierra with plate number FXP 395 GP, on the road that is used by all, and drove it carelessly. Do you understand what they say you did?]

Accused: Ke a tlhaloganya. [I understand.]

Interpreter: I understand the charge.The court interpreter in this case is taking on the duty of the magistrate by asking the accused,

Wa tlhaloganya se go tweng o se dirile? [Do you understand what they say you did?]. It is not the duty of court interpreters to ask an accused whether he or she understands. The interpreter ought to interpret what is said, and the magistrate is the one to ask the accused whether he or she understands the charge.

Case study 7: Plea concerning the possession of daggaIn the following case, the accused was an adult male who was arrested for being in possession of dagga. In this case the following was said:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

ISA

Uni

vers

ity S

outh

Afr

ica]

, [Sa

mue

l Leb

ese]

at 2

3:25

11

Janu

ary

2012

Lebese352

Prosecutor: The accused is charged with possession of drugs, in that on or about the 12th of August 2010 and at or near Carel de Wet Avenue in the district of Brits, the accused did unlawfully have in his possession an undesirable dependency producing substance, to wit 285g of dagga. As the court pleases.

Interpreter: Ja wena o rwesiwa molato wa go fumanwa o tshwere matekwane. Ka di 12 tsa kgwedi yona e e sa tswang go feta, mo seterateng se bitswang Carel de Wet, o ne o tshwere matekwane a a etsang 285g. Wa utlwa rra? [Yes, you are accused of being found in possession of dagga. On the 12th of this past month, on the street called Carel de Wet, you were in possession of dagga weighing 285g. Do you hear, sir?]

Accused: Ee, rra. [Yes, sir.]

Interpreter: I understand the charge put to me.Interpreter: O ipona molato kampo ga o ipone molato?

[Do you plead guilty or not guilty?]Accused: Ke ipona molato.

[I plead guilty.]Interpreter: I plead guilty.Attorney: I have prepared a statement in terms of section 112(1) (b). May I please read it into

the record.Magistrate: Yes, you may proceed, sir.Attorney: I, the undersigned, Theo Matome …Interpreter: Wena o Theo Matome.

[You are Theo Matome.]Attorney: State under oath that…Interpreter: O bua jwale o ikanne.

[You say this under oath.]Attorney: I am the accused in this matter.Interpreter: Ke wena o qoswang.

[You are the one who is accused.]Attorney: Of being in possession of dagga.Interpreter: Wa go fumanwa o tshwere matekwane.

[Of being found in possession of dagga.]Attorney: I am pleading guilty to this offence.Interpreter: O ipona molato nyeweng ena.

[You plead guilty on this charge].Attorney: I submit that I plead guilty voluntarily.Interpreter: Ga o a gapeletsiwa go dumela molato ona. O a dumela ka bowena.

[You are not forced to plead guilty. You plead guilty voluntarily.]Attorney: I plead guilty for the following reasons.Interpreter: O re o dumela molato ona ka mabaka a a latelang.

[You say you plead for the following reasons.]Attorney: On the 12th day of August 2010, I was walking in Carel de Wet Street in Brits.Interpreter: O re letsatsing leo la di 12 August o ne o tsamaya mona seterateng sa Carel de Wet

mo Brits. [You say that on the 12th August you were walking here on Carel de Wet Street in Brits.]

Attorney: I was approached by a member of SAPS who requested to search me.Interpreter: Jwale, e be e re ha o tsamaya, leponisa le be re hei monna ema ke o setšhe.

[Now as you were walking the police then said, hey, man, stop, let me search you.]Attorney: He found dagga in my possession.Interpreter: Wena wa fitlhelwa o tshwere matekwane go wena.

[You were found in possession of dagga.]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

ISA

Uni

vers

ity S

outh

Afr

ica]

, [Sa

mue

l Leb

ese]

at 2

3:25

11

Janu

ary

2012

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2011, 29(3): 343–357 353

In this case, the court interpreter is heard taking over the duty of the magistrate by asking the accused Wa utlwa rra? [Do you hear, sir?] Court interpreters should only interpret what has actually been said, and it is the duty of the magistrate to ask the accused whether he or she understands or hears what the charge is against him or her. The interpreter also usurps the duty of the magistrate when he asks the accused O ipona molato kgotsa ga o ipone molato? [Do you plead guilty or not guilty?] When the accused’s attorney read his client’s statement, he read it in the first person, but the court interpreter interprets it in the second person. This can be seen in the following interpretations: O re o dumela molato ona ka mabaka a a latelang [You say you plead guilty on the following reasons] and O re letsatsing leo la di 12 August o ne o tsamaya mo seterateng sa Carel de Wet mo Brits. [You say on that day of the 12th of August you were walking on Carel de Wet Street in Brits.]

Case study 8: Trial on reckless or negligent drivingIn the following case, the accused was an adult male who was charged with reckless or negligent driving. In this case, the following was said:Prosecutor: You may proceed, take it step by step.Interpreter: Ja o ka tswelapele wa tlhalosetsa lekgotla gore ka lona letsatsi leo go diragetse eng.

O tlhalose slow gore ba kgone go kwala dinoutsu, ne? [Yes, you may proceed and explain to the court what happened on that day. You must explain slowly to enable them to take down notes, ok?]

Witness: Ka letsatsi leo ke ne ke tsamaya mo N4 ke tla mosebetsing. [On that day I was travelling on the N4 on my way to work.]

Interpreter: On that day I was driving on the public road. I was on my way to work. Witness: Ne ke setse troko morago.

[I was following a truck.]Interpreter: The truck was in front of me. I was following that truck.Witness: Ga ke ntse ke latelana le troko eo, e nngwe e tla ko morago.

[Whilst I was following that truck, the other one came from behind.]Interpreter: And the other truck was behind me. The truck that was following me.Prosecutor: So you know the driver of the truck that overtook you.Interpreter: A na wa mo itse driver wa truck e e leng gore e ile ya go ovatheika?

[Do you know the driver of the truck that overtook you?] Witness: Ee, ke driver e ka gore ka nako … (Interpreter interrupts.)

[Yes, it is this driver because …] (Interpreter interrupts.)Interpreter: Utlwella. Ba go botsa gore a na driver wa truck e e leng gore e go ovatheikile, wa mo

itse. [Listen, they ask you whether you know the driver of the truck that overtook you.]

Witness: Ee. [Yes.]

Interpreter: Yes.Prosecutor: Who is the driver of that truck?Interpreter: Ke mang driver wa truck eo?

[Who is the driver of that truck?]Witness: Ke Mr Themba.

[It is Mr Themba.]Interpreter: It’s Mr Themba.

In this case the court interpreter was also interpreting in the second person. The interpreter said to the witness Utlwella. Ba go botsa gore a na driver wa truck e leng gore e go ovatheikile, wa mo itse. [Listen, they ask you whether you know the driver of the truck that overtook you.]

Case study 9: Plea concerning reckless or negligent drivingIn this case, the accused was an adult male represented by an advocate. The accused was charged with reckless or negligent driving. In this case, the following was said:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

ISA

Uni

vers

ity S

outh

Afr

ica]

, [Sa

mue

l Leb

ese]

at 2

3:25

11

Janu

ary

2012

Lebese354

Prosecutor: As the court pleases your worship. The charge against the accused is reckless or negligent driving. In that on or about the 16th of June 2007, and on the Letlhabile – Maboloka road, a public road in the district of Brits, the accused did drive a vehicle, to wit a Nissan Sentra with registration number CHC 680 NW, recklessly or negligently.

Interpreter: A o tlhaloganya se ne o se bolellwa gore ka di 16 tsa June 2007, mo tseleng ya Letlhabile – Maboloka o draivile koloi ya Nissan Sentra ka botlhaswa le go se tlhokomele. O a tlhaloganya.[Do you understand what you were told, that on the 16th of June 2007, on the Letlhabile – Maboloka road you drove a Nissan Sentra vehicle carelessly and without care? Do you understand?]

Accused: Ee. [Yes]

Interpreter: I do understand the charge.Magistrate: And how do you plead?Interpreter: O ipona o le molato kgotsa o se molato?

[Are you guilty or not?]Accused: Ga ke ipone molato.

[I plead not guilty.]Interpreter: Not guilty.Advocate: As the court pleases, your worship. The plea of not guilty is in accordance with my

instructions and furthermore the accused elects to exercise his rights to remain silent.(No interpretation.)

Magistrate: To shorten the proceedings, does the accused admit that on the 16th of June 2007, on the Letlhabile – Maboloka road, he drove a Nissan Sentra with registration number CHC 680 NW?(No interpretation.)

Advocate: Indeed so, your worship.(No interpretation.)

Magistrate: Do you confirm so, sir?Interpreter: O a netefatsa gore ka letsatsi le o ne o draiva koloi ya Nissan Sentra, ya registration

number ya CHC 680 NW? [Do you confirm that on this day you were driving a Nissan Sentra vehicle with registration number CHC 680 NW?]

Accused: Ee. [Yes.]

Interpreter: Correct, I confirm. Once the court interpreter had interpreted the charge to the accused, she added the following:

‘Wa tlhaloganya?’ (Do you understand?) It is the function of the magistrate to ask the accused whether he or she understands the charge, not the court interpreter. In addition, the interpreter failed to interpret the communications made by the advocate representing the accused.

Case study 10: Plea concerning assault with the intent to cause grievous bodily harmIn this case the accused was an adult male charged with assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The complainant was an adult male person. In this case the following was said:Prosecutor: The charge against the accused is that on or about the 28th day of November 2009,

at or near Nkele’s tavern at Majakaneng, in the district of Brits, the accused did unlawfully and intentionally assault the complainant, an adult male person, by hitting him with a bottle with intent to cause him grievous bodily harm.

Interpreter: O latofatswa ka molato wa go otla ka maikemisetso a go ntsha dikgobalo tse di masisi mo mmeleng. Go twe ka di 28 tsa November 2009, gona mo Nkele’s tavern mo Brits, o ile wa otla ena mongongoregi, wa mo ntsha dikgobalo tse di masisi mo mmeleng. A na wa utlwisisa molato o e leng gore ba go latofatsa ka ona?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

ISA

Uni

vers

ity S

outh

Afr

ica]

, [Sa

mue

l Leb

ese]

at 2

3:25

11

Janu

ary

2012

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2011, 29(3): 343–357 355

[You are accused of hitting with an intention to do grievous bodily harm. It is said that on the 28th of November 2009, here at Nkele’s tavern in Brits, you hit the complainant and caused him grievous bodily harm. Do you understand the charge that you are accused of?]

Accused: Ga ke o tlhaloganye. [I do not understand it.]

Interpreter: I do not understand the charge.Accused: O tlile mo a re nna ke mo tlhabile ka ka thipa … (Magistrate interrupts.)Magistrate: Hey, hey, listen. Listen and understand what is said. Don’t tell us what you want us to

hear. You understand?Interpreter: Utlwella ne. O se ke wa re tlhalosetsa se wena o batlang gore rona re se utlwelle.

O utlwelle gore rona ra reng, ne. O latofatswa ka molatowa go betha motho ka maikemisetso a go mo gobatsa mo mmeleng wa gagwe. Ka di 28 tsa November 2009, ko Nkele’s tavern, gona mo Brits, wena o ile wa betha mongongoregi, wa mmetha ka lebotlolo. [Listen, alright. Do not explain to us what you want us to hear. You must listen to what we are saying. You are accused of hitting a person with the intention to injure him on his body. On the 28th of November 2009, at Nkele’s tavern, here in Brits, you did hit the complainant, you hit him with a bottle.]

Accused: Ga ka mmetha … [I did not hit him …] (Magistrate interrupts.)

Magistrate: Do you understand what is being said?Interpreter: O a tlhaloganya se ba go bolellang sona?

[Do you understand what they are telling you?]Accused: Wa itse ga ke tlhaloganye.

[You know, I do not understand.]Magistrate: Listen, listen, either you plead guilty or not guilty.Interpreter: Utlwella, bolela gore o ipona molato kgotsa ga o ipone molato. [Listen, say whether you plead guilty or not guilty.]Accused: Nna ga ke ipone molato.

[I plead not guilty.]Interpreter: Not guilty.

In this case the interpreter, after interpreting the charge, added a question, asking the accused A na wa utlwisisa molato o e leng gore ba go latofatsa ka ona? [Do you understand the charge that they accuse you of?]. It is the task of the magistrate, not court interpreters, to ask the accused person whether he or she understands the charge. Secondly, the interpreter uses the second person instead of the first person. This is evident in the sentence …molato o e leng gore ba go latofatsa ka ona [the charge which you are accused of].

DiscussionAn examination of legal documents and articles on legal matters reveals that South African legisla-tion does not define the role of court interpreters clearly. This results in a situation where court interpreters find themselves performing duties which are the responsibility of other court officials. This trend is confirmed in the abstracts of the court cases which were analysed in this study. These cases also reveal that the absence of a clearly defined role for court interpreters detracts from the quality of interpreting because the message is not accurately transferred during interpreting proceedings. The Magistrates’ Court Act 44 of 1944, which governs criminal proceedings in Magistrates’ courts, defines the role of court interpreters as to ‘translate’. The Act does not states explicitly as to how they must conduct themselves when translating, in other words, ethics are not explained. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 93 of 1996 (RSA, 1996) is not explicit regarding the role of court interpreters either.

Judges have conflicting views on the role of court interpreters. This is evident in State versus Naidoo (1962: 631), where Judge Williamson mentioned that there appeared to be no legislation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

ISA

Uni

vers

ity S

outh

Afr

ica]

, [Sa

mue

l Leb

ese]

at 2

3:25

11

Janu

ary

2012

Lebese356

governing the position of interpreters. Conversely Judge Thompson, in State versus Mabona (1973: 614), stated that ‘the role of an interpreter ought to be that of an impartial conveyer of the words of the maker of the statement, and not the interrogator of him’.

A brief review of the literature reveals that more than one definition of court interpreters’ role exists and that there is as yet no consensus. This lack of a clear definition of the role of court interpreters could affect not only the functioning of an interpreter but also the quality of his or her interpreting.

RecommendationsIn order for it to be seen that justice is done, the Magistrates’ Court Act 1944 (RSA, 1996) should be amended to include an explicit definition of the role of court interpreters. Interpretation of evidence and statements by court interpreters form an important and vital element in the placing before judicial officers and jurors of evidence from many people who speak in tongues strange to the court and jurors (State versus Naidoo, 1962: 631) and their role should be explicitly defined. The training of court interpreters is also of utmost importance. Moeketsi (1999) mentions that the dismal performance of the interpreter is a result of poor training and the absence of a proper definition and protection of the interpreter’s role by the law.

By explicitly defining the role of court interpreters, legislation will protect both court interpreters and those who use their services. It is also important that court interpreters know the extent to which they may be involved in interpretation during a trial. A clear definition of the role of the interpreter in court proceedings deserves urgent attention. Discussion between legal professionals and court interpreters is essential, and this should be informed by empirical studies in order to promote mutual understanding of the role of the interpreter and to enhance the quality of interpreting in the courtroom.

My suggestion for a definition of the role of court interpreters is as follows: The role of court interpreters shall be that of a neutral, competent, and professional facili-tator of communication in the judicial process between court participants who do not speak the same language, by converting the meaning of the verbal and non-verbal communication of the speaker, in an understandable manner, into the language of the listener, whilst taking into account the cultural differences between these participants.

‘Neutral’ implies that court interpreters should not take sides. In other words, he or she should interpret everything that is said, irrespective of whether it is prejudicial to the party or not. ‘Competent’ means that court interpreters should have the skill to interpret proficiently and expertly.

The term ‘professional facilitator’ means that court interpreters must have undergone formal theoretical and practical training at an institution of higher education and that his or her perform-ance is guided by a code of conduct. In addition, the interpreter must be a member of an accredited professional body. Witter-Merithew and Johnson (2004) observe that a profession is an established field of expertise governed by standards of behavior to which practitioners comply.

ConclusionIn South Africa, legislation does not clearly define the role of court interpreters, and this leads to legal officials forming their own views and opinions of this role. This is evident in instances where court interpreters are instructed to perform the task of the magistrate. In other instances, court interpreters themselves overstep the boundaries of their position and take over the duties of the magistrate. This article suggests that a clear definition of the role of court interpreter could lead to better interpreting.

ReferencesBaker PWE, Erasmus HJ & Farlam IG. 1980. Handbook on the Magistrates’ Court Act and rules.

Cape Town: Juta. Barnett M. 2006. Mind your language: Interpreters in Australian immigration proceedings. University

of Western Sydney Law Review 10: 109–138.Berk-Seligson S. 1990/2002. The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

ISA

Uni

vers

ity S

outh

Afr

ica]

, [Sa

mue

l Leb

ese]

at 2

3:25

11

Janu

ary

2012

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2011, 29(3): 343–357 357

2nd edition. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Berk-Seligson S. 2006. Court interpreting. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.Channon OV. 1982. The role of the court interpreter. South African Journal on Human Rights. 9(2):

223–236.Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department. 1991. Access to interpreters in the Australian

legal system. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Gaio versus R. 1960. CLR. 419 at 430.Gradidge versus Grace Bros Pty Ltd. 1988. 93 FLR 414.Guthrie P. 1986. Interpreting and Translating: A profile of NAATI Candidates. Report presented to

the State Assessment Panel for Translators and Interpreters.Hale S. 2004. The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practice of the law, the witness and the

interpreter. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Hornsby AS. 2000. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 6th edition. New York: Oxford University

Press.Lee J. 2009. Conflicting views on court interpreting examined through surveys of legal professionals

and court interpreters. Interpreting 11(1): 35–56.Magistrates’ Court Act 44 of 1944. 1994. In Baker PWE, Erasmus HJ & Farlam IG (eds) 1980.

Handbook on The Magistrates’ Court Act and Rules. Cape Town: Juta.Marzocchi C. (n.d.) On norms and ethics in the discourse on interpreting. Available at: http://www.

open-starts.units.it/dspace/bitstream/10077/2474/1/07.pdf [accessed 9 August 2008].Mikkelson H. 1998. Towards a redefinition of the role of the court interpreter. Interpreting 3(1):

21–45.Moeketsi RH. 1999. Discourse in a multilingual and multicultural courtroom: A court interpreter’s

guide. Pretoria: Van Schaik.Morris R. 1993. The interlingual interpreter: Cypher or intelligent participant? International Journal

for the Semiotics of Law 6(18): 271–291.Morris R. 1995. The moral dilemmas of court interpreting. The Translator 1(1): 25–46.Morris R. 1996. Interpreters and the legal system. Waterside Press. Winchester.Multilingua Translation/Interpreting Services. n.d. Code of ethics. Available at: www.multilingua.

co.za [accessed 10 February 2010].NAJIT (The National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators). n.d. Code of

ethics. Available at: www.najit.org [accessed 13 October 2010].Perera versus Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. 1999. 92 FCA 507, Australia:

Federal Court, 28 April 1999. Available at: http//www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6bc0.html [accessed 13 October 2010].

Pöchhacker F. 2008. Interpreting as mediation. In Valero-Garcés C & Martin A (eds) Crossing borders in community interpreting. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp 9–26.

RSA (Republic of South Africa). 1996. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. Act 108 of 1996. Pretoria: Government Printers.

Roy C. 1993.The problem with definitions, descriptions and the role of metaphors of interpreters. Journal of Interpretation 6(1): 127–154.

State versus Mabona. 1973. In Hoexter J, Duncan G, Barnett M & Buchanan BA (eds) The South African Law Reports, 1962. Volume 2. Cape Town: Juta.

State versus Mpopo. 1978. In Duncan G, Barnett M, Buchanan JL & Fisher DS (eds) The South African Law Reports, 1978. Volume 2. Cape Town: Juta.

State versus Naidoo. 1962. In Hoexter J, Duncan G, Barnett M & Buchanan BA (eds) The South African Law Reports, 1962. Volume 2. Cape Town: Juta.

Witter-Merithew A & Johnson L. 2004. Market Disorder within the field of sign language interpreting: Professionalization implications. Journal of Interpretation 2: 84–93.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

ISA

Uni

vers

ity S

outh

Afr

ica]

, [Sa

mue

l Leb

ese]

at 2

3:25

11

Janu

ary

2012