Judicial Interpreter’s Role Issues: Conduit and Agent in Relation to Accountability

Abstract

This article presents an analysis of judicial interpreter roles as have been viewed by judicial and interpreting communities, expanding on Hale’s (2008) five judicial interpreter roles by adding semantic sub-divisions of three key concepts: conduit, agent, and accountability, which are: conduit 1 (verbatim translator), conduit 2 (accurate translator), conduit 3 (one who translates only); agent 1 (one who makes independent decisions), agent 2 (one who exerts power or influence), agent 3 (a legal representative); and accountability 1 (for the content), accountability 2 (for translation accuracy), and accountability 3 (for undertaking the job). The article concludes that the only viable role would be conduit 2, an accurate translator, who must also make conscious translation decisions as agent 1, which, while exonerating the interpreter from accountability 1 (for the content), would still present accountability 2 (for accuracy) and accountability 3 (for undertaking the job) as agent 1, who made conscious free judgments.