Reviewed by I. M. Laversuch Nick, University of Cologne

This book makes a much needed contribution to the body of linguistic research devoted to investigating discourse between differentially empowered agents within professional settings (e.g. doctor:patient; and police-officer:witness). The specific thematic focus of this book is the crucial role that interpreting plays in assuring equal access to and protection under the law. Consequently, the work directly confronts the tenacious prejudice that court interpreting is of minimal importance.

After the outstanding introduction provided by the editors, the first of eight articles begins with a fascinating contribution entitled ‘Interpreting at the Tokyo war crimes tribunal’ by Kayoko Takeda (9–27). This riveting case study provides many fascinating insights into the tribunal’s operation during the prosecution of Japan’s former wartime Prime Minister, Hideki Tojo. In doing so, it also powerfully illustrates how court interpreting is ‘conditioned by the social, political, and cultural contexts of the settings in which the interpreted even takes place’ (25).

More contemporary evidence of this assertion can be found in Shira L. Lipkin’s contribution ‘Norms, ethics, and roles among military interpreters’ (84–100). The investigatory focus of this chapter is Israel’s Yehuda military court. This case study of soldier-interpreters vividly demonstrates the extent to which a hostile social environment can adversely affect the services interpreters can provide and defendants can receive. This reality is in sharp contrast to the principle stating that ‘interpreters shall ensure that the duties of his/her office are carried out under working conditions that are in the best interest of the court’ (87). Obviously, this mandate grossly exaggerates the control that many interpreters actually have within the courtroom.

This professional reality is underscored by Susan Berk-Seligson’s case study ‘Judicial systems in contact’ (29–53). As the author describes in this study of Ecuador, interpreting services are a luxury which the state can ill afford to offer its multilingual multiethnic population. Thus, despite the fact that Article 2 of Ecuador’s Ancestral Languages bill guarantees the right to use one’s ancestral language in all administrative proceedings, professional court interpreting is a rarity. Importantly, the disjunction between legislation and implementation is sadly not uncommon; even in nations which would, at least theoretically, have the financial wherewithal to provide such professional language services.

What happens when this moral mandate is ignored is illustrated in the account by Bodil Martinsen and Friedel Dubslaff of a trial gone horribly wrong (126–62). Incredibly, although the court interpreter featured in their study openly admitted to being unable to properly translate the defendant’s statements due to inadequate training, the presiding judge allowed the trial to continue. When later asked to explain this decision, the judge offered the following justification: ‘[I]n view of my knowledge of French, I can’t tell how poor or not the interpretation was’ (153). In order to bring such miscarriages of justice to light, more linguistic investigations into courtroom discourse are essential. This book is an excellent step in the right direction.