Investigating language and discourse issues of translation and interpreting in legal and healthcare professional settings

The recognition of interpreting as an activity which ensures the protection of human rights was already expressed in the Commission’s Communication entitled A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism, which reported that “interpreters contribute to safeguarding human and democratic rights” (2005: 11). Although Shlesinger & Pöchhacker (2010: 2) argue that a feature of court interpreting concerns access to justice, which aims to put “the interpreting-dependent individual on an equal footing with those who speak the language of the court”, inadequate and non-professional interpreting leads to major human rights violations. The recent wave of immigration, which is having a huge impact on the political stability of the European Union as far as the harmonisation of asylum policies are concerned, should prompt Member States to regulate public service interpreting in a national legal framework, since the presence (or absence) of an interpreter in courts can make the difference between freedom and captivity. Yet, it seems that most European countries are either outsourcing interpreting services to private agencies (as in the case of the United Kingdom) or are not willing to enhance the professionalisation process of public service interpreters and cultural mediators (as in the case of Italy). In the first case, Slaney (2012) underlines that the framework agreement recently signed by the UK Ministry of Justice with the company entitled Applied Language Solutions has led to “a significant reduction in terms and conditions offered to public service interpreters, which has proven to be a major disincentive and is not by any means sufficient to attract and retain professional court interpreters”. As for Italy, the general unawareness of the role interpreters play in courts leads to postponed trials and, in some cases, to criminals being released due to a lack of sufficient evidence (Corriere online 2010). Several studies (Ballardini 2005; Garwood 2012; Rudvin & Spinzi 2013; Falbo & Viezzi 2014; Sandrelli 2014) have pointed out several anomalies of the Italian judicial system, such as the lack of a national register and the absence of a national accreditation system. These inadequacies have a negative impact on the professionalisation process of court interpreting in Italy, as well as on interpreters’ self-perception of their professional status and role during dialogic interactions. The objective of the present paper is to illustrate qualitative and quantitative data provided by a national survey addressed to court interpreters in Italy. A special focus will be placed on issues related to professional practice, the perception of their professional status, the role they play during the interaction and, above all, on the possible solutions interpreters propose to speed up the professionalisation process.status: publishe