El factor humano en traduccióne interpretación en lo serviciospúblicos (TISP). Investigación ytestimonios de la primavera 2020

UA

H O

BR

AS

CO

LEC

TIVA

SH

UM

AN

IDA

DES

85

El factor humano en traduccióne interpretación en lo serviciospúblicos (TISP). Investigación ytestimonios de la primavera 2020

Carmen Valero Garcés (Ed.)

SERVICIO DE PUBLICACIONES

El contenido de este libro no podrá ser reproducido,ni total ni parcialmente, sin el previo permiso escrito del editor.Todos los derechos reservados.

© Universidad de Alcalá, 2020Servicio de PublicacionesPlaza de San Diego, s/n28801 Alcalá de Henareswww.uah.es

I.S.B.N.:978-84-18254-15-4Depósito legal: M-26071-2020

Composición: Solana e Hijos, A. G., S.A.U.Impresión y encuadernación: Solana e Hijos, A.G., S.A.U.Impreso en España

Interpreter-medIated polIce IntervIewIng cum draftIng (ImpId): the Interpreter’s role as a co-producer of the wrItten record

Sofie VerliefdeGhent University

RESUMENEste artículo evalua el papel del intérprete durante los interrogatorios policiales mediados por un intérprete y el impacto del intérprete como participante activo en el proceso de en-textualización que transforma el lenguaje hablado en su equivalente escrito. A menudo se considera que los intérpretes «interpretan para el informe policial» aplicando una serie de estrategias con el fin de facilitar la tarea del agente responsable de la redacción del informe. De esta manera, el intérprete influye en el proceso de la redacción del informe redactado y asume un papel de coproductor del informe policial.

Palabras clave: Interpretación dialógica, informe policial, entextualización.

ABSTRACT

IThis paper examines the role of the interpreter during interpreter-mediated police interviews and the interpreter’s impact on the entextualisation process transforming spoken language into recordable text. Interpreters are frequently seen to ‘interpret for the record’ applying a number of strategies with a view to facilitate the task of the recording police officer. In doing so, the interpreter has an impact on the drafting process of the written record and assumes a role as co-producer of the written police record.

Key words: Dialogue interpreting, Entextualisation, Police record.

INTRODUCTION

In the Belgian judicial system, the written police record is of paramount importance (De-francq and Verliefde 2018). Although the police interview is an oral proceeding, it typi-

170 SOFIE VERLIEFDE

cally results in the drafting of a written police record (Komter 2006, Smets and Ponsaers 2011, Määtä 2015). This written record is a key document in the subsequent handling of the suspect’s case, as it constitutes an important source of factual information about events situated in the past and is produced to be used as a piece of evidence in future court proceedings (Komter 2006, Smets and Ponsaers 2011, Defrancq & Verliefde 2018).

The drafting of a police record is a complex process requiring the police of-ficer to coordinate different activities such as talking, listening and typing (Komter 2006, van Charldorp 2011). In most cases, the interviewing police officer is also responsible for the drafting of the written record during the interview. This drafting process functions as a turn on its own in the interaction. In interpreter-mediated in-terviews, interpreters grant turn status to the drafting process and are known to man-age the interaction with a view to protecting the interests of the written police record (Pöchhacker & Kolb 2009, Defrancq & Verliefde 2018). Although the drafting of the written record is in principle the responsibility of the police officers conducting the hearing, interpreters are known to attend to the needs of the drafting process and to assume at least some responsibility for the quality of the written record (Pöchhacker and Kolb 2009, Defrancq and Verliefde 2018). The fact that the interpreter has to back-translate and sign the written record at the end of the interview, also increases his/her responsibility for the accuracy thereof (Määttä 2015).

In this paper, we intend to examine the interpreter’s role as an active participant in the entextualisation process transforming spoken language into recordable input. Section 1 focusses on the interpreter’s access to the text of the written record while it is being drafted. Section 2 focusses on how the interpreter is using this text access and on the different strategies applied by the interpreter with a view to facilitating the task of the recording police officer.

The materials we have collected consist of audio and video recordings of 12 in-terpreter-mediated interviews, totalling 32 hours of recorded interviews, in different police stations in Flanders. The police interviews were conducted in 7 different lan-guages and involved 8 different sworn interpreters. We also obtained copies of the 12 written police records drafted during the interviews. The interviews were completely anonymised and transcribed using the conventions laid down in Jefferson (2004).

1. THE INTERPRETER’S ACCESS TO THE TEXT OF THE WRITTEN RECORD

Before the start of the interview, the interpreter is given a short oral briefing by the police officer, but has no access to the case file, nor to previously drafted written records. After the interview, the text of the drafted record is printed out and handed over to the interpreter, who has to back-translate the entire text of the written record for the suspect and correct it when necessary, after which the interpreter is asked to sign the record with the suspect.

INTERPRETER-MEDIATED POLICE INTERVIEWING CUM DRAFTING (IMPID)... 171

This paper focusses of the interpreter’s access to the text of the written record during the police interview, while the written record is being drafted.

The interpreter’s text access largely depends on the infrastructure in the interview room. Figures 1a and 1b show two different layouts of the interview room, with the different positions of the participants.Figures 1a and 1b. Layout of the interview room and position of participants

P

P

I

S

L

P

P S

I

L

fIgures 1a and 1b. layout of the IntervIew room and posItIon of partIcIpants

Figure 1a shows both police officers (P) seated on the same side of the desk. One of them has access to the computer to type the police record. The suspect (S) is seated across the desk, facing the police officers, and the suspect’s lawyer (L) is sitting behind his or her client. The interpreter (I) takes position next to the suspect, facing both police officers. In this setting, text access is impossible.

Figure 1b shows another possible setting in the interview room. The interpreter (I) in this setting takes position at the short end of the desk and has potential access to the text on the computer screen. The interpreter is still dependent on the police of-ficer’s willingness to show the information on the computer screen to have effective text access.

It should however be noted that the interpreter is not always at liberty to choose his or her position. In some interview rooms, the suspect’s chair, and in some cases those belonging to the lawyer and the interpreter, are bolted to the floor and cannot be moved. In these interview rooms, the interpreter has no choice but to sit next to the suspect.

In our data collection, text access was impossible in 5 out of 12 cases. In 7 cases, text access was possible and in 4 of those 7 cases, the interpreter effectively took the opportunity to interact with the text.

Section 2 examines how the interpreter uses this text access and the strategies the interpreter is seen to apply to facilitate the task of the drafting police officer.

172 SOFIE VERLIEFDE

2. INTERPRETING ‘FOR THE RECORD’: STRATEGIES FACILITATING THE RECORDING OFFICER’S TASK

Pöchhacker and Kolb’s research (Pöchhacker and Kolb 2009) has shown that in asy-lum hearings, interpreters are frequently seen to ‘interpret for the record’ and tend to adjust to the needs of the drafting process of the written record. In this section we will examine the interpreter’s role as an active participant in the entextualisation process transforming spoken language into recordable input. We will mainly focus on the interpreter’s role as a co-producer of the written record and examine three of the strategies we have seen the interpreter apply with a view to facilitate the record-ing task of the police officer: (a) spelling names and contextualizing cultural infor-mation, (b) detecting and correcting errors and (c) back-translating the text on the screen during the interview. We will illustrate these strategies with excerpts drawn from the transcripts of the different hearings we have recorded.

2.1. SPELLING NAMES AND CONTEXTUALIZING CULTURAL INFORMATION

The first excerpt is drawn from an interview with a Romanian-speaking suspect. Although familiar with the case file, the police officer may still experience difficul-ties recording foreign names, which may complicate what is supposed to be a simple information exchange. In this excerpt, the suspect was asked to state the name of his last girlfriend. Aware of the difficulties the police officer may encounter spelling foreign names, the interpreter not only states the name the suspect gave but immedi-ately spells it without being asked by the police officer to do so.

Figures 1a and 1b. Layout of the interview room and position of participants

P

P

I

S

L

P

P S

I

L

INTERPRETER-MEDIATED POLICE INTERVIEWING CUM DRAFTING (IMPID)... 173

Throughout this interview, the interpreter almost systematically spells out the proper names to ensure their correct entry in the written record. Moreover, the inter-preter does not limit herself to spelling names but also contextualizes information that normally remains unexplained, as shown in the next excerpt, where the suspect is asked to write down his current address (lines 1-4).

While the interpreter is handing the piece of paper, on which the suspect has writ-ten his address, over to the police officer, she points out that the address contains more information than the police officer is used to. Without being asked, she ex-plains that the address not only contains the name of the city but also the name of the province (lines 6-11). Even with this contextualization work, the police officer still has to ask for further explanation (line 16) because of his lack of familiarity with the geographic divisions in this foreign city. The interpreter further explains (lines 17-19) that the address also contains the name or number of the building and the number

174 SOFIE VERLIEFDE

of the entrance. In spelling names and contextualizing information, the interpreter facilitates the police officer’s recording task.

2.2. DETECTING AND CORRECTING ERRORS

The next example illustrates the second strategy we have seen interpreters apply. In this fragment, the interpreter is using her text access to back-translate (see also 2.3) the answer that has been written down to the suspect. While reading the text on the police officer’s screen, she notices that the police officer has written down an incorrect name (line 2922). She verifies with the suspect and asks him to confirm the correct name: the name of the ex-husband of the suspect’s wife (line 2925-2928) and instructs the police officer to correct the name (line 2929). Finally, the police officer corrects the name in the written record (line 2933).

When the interpreter does not have screen access, errors are more likely to go unnoticed. Our data collection contains an example drawn from an interview where

INTERPRETER-MEDIATED POLICE INTERVIEWING CUM DRAFTING (IMPID)... 175

text access was impossible. In this particular example, the suspect was talking about his whereabouts on the 1st of June. The police officer however misunderstood the date and recorded the 1st of July in the police record. As the interpreter did not have access to the text of the written record, this error went unnoticed and was not cor-rected. Inconsistencies like this one in the police record can have serious implica-tions for the suspect as the record might give the impression that the suspect is lying about the dates, which is not the case.

2.3. BACK-TRANSLATING THE TEXT ON THE SCREEN DURING THE INTERVIEW

Our data collection shows that when granted text access, the interpreter uses it to back-translate the answers the police officer has typed up so far. When back-trans-lating the text of the written record while it is being drafted, the interpreter is giving the suspect access to the substance of the typing and the opportunity to detect and correct errors or changes in tone or wording, as illustrated in the next excerpts.

In this excerpt, the suspect has explained that two police officers came to arrest him on the suspicion of having threatened his brother-in-law with a knife. When translating what the police officer has recorded so far, the interpreter is interrupted by the suspect (lines 6-7), who noticed an error (line 7): he was not arrested for vio-lence but for threats.

176 SOFIE VERLIEFDE

As a result of the sight-translation by the interpreter, the suspect is given the op-portunity to detect and correct an error that might have remained undetected without screen access.

The next example is drawn from a Greek interview in a case of alleged sham relationships. The interviewee is talking about the relationship between her boy-friend and her parents. She is trying to explain that they have a normal relationship with mutual respect. The interpreter is back-translating what the police officer has recorded so far (lines 1-2). This allows the interviewee to detect a change in tone that occurred during the entextualisation process when the police officer was trans-forming the interviewee’s answer into a written format. In line 4 the interviewee is indicating that the wordings of the police record sound a little negative and that they do not reflect what she meant to say. This interruption is followed by a short nego-tiation (lines 5-10) on how to reformulate the interviewee’s answer to better reflect what the interviewee has said. In the police record, a sentence is added to clarify the interviewee’s answer.

These errors or changes in tone and wording might have gone unnoticed if the interpreter had not had access to the text of the written record while it was being drafted.

INTERPRETER-MEDIATED POLICE INTERVIEWING CUM DRAFTING (IMPID)... 177

3. CONCLUSION

In Flemish police stations, it is not exceptional to grant interpreters access to the text of the written record while it is being drafted. This text access is mainly determined by considerations of space, physical position and the police officer’s willingness to share the information on his computer screen. Our data collection shows that interpreters are actively using this text access and apply a number of strategies with a view to facilitating the task of the recording police officer, such as spelling names and contextualizing cultural information, detecting and correcting errors that might have remained unnoticed without screen access and back-translating the text of the written record while it is being drafted, thus giv-ing the suspect access to the substance of the record and the opportunity to detect and correct errors and changes in tone or wording. In doing so, the interpreter seems to be actively involved in the drafting process of the written record, as a co-producer thereof.

REFERENCES

Defrancq B. and Verliefde S. 2018. Interpreter-mediated drafting of written records in police interviews. A case study. Target-international Journal of Translation Studies, 30(2), 212-239.

Jefferson G. 2004. Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction. Conversa-tion Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, edited by Lerner G., 13-31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Komter M. 2003. The construction of record in Dutch police interrogations. Infor-mation Design Journal, 11(3), 201-213.

Komter M. 2006. From Talk to Text: The interactional Construction of a Police Record. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39(3), 201-228.

Määttä S. 2015. Interpreting the Discourse of Reporting. The Case of Screening Interviews with Asylum Seekers and Police Interviews in Finland. The interna-tional Journal for Translation and Interpreting, 7(3), 21-34.

Maryns K. 2006. The Asylum Speaker. Language in the Belgian Asylum Procedure. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.

Pöchhacker F. and Kolb W. 2009. Interpreting for the record. A case study of asylum review hearings The Critical Link 5, 119-134,

Smets L. and Ponsaers P. 2011. Het Proces-verbaal van een Verdachtenverhoor. Een Bron van Informatie? Diverse Formats van Geschreven Communicatie tussen Politie en Parket. Cahiers Politiestudies, 4(21), 123-144.

van Charldorp T. 2011. The Coordination of Talk and Typing in Police Interroga-tions. Crossroads of Language, Interaction and Culture, 8(1), 61-92.

178 SOFIE VERLIEFDE

van Charldorp T. 2013. The intertwining of talk and technology. How talk and typ-ing are combined in the various phases of the police interrogations. Discourse & Communication, 7(221).

van Charldorp T. 2014. What happened? From talk to text in police interrogations. Language & Communications, 36, 7-24.