Law and Social Justice
Law and Social Justice. 2025; 2: (1) ; 10.12208/j.lsj.20250001 .
总浏览量: 49
大连理工大学外国语学院 辽宁大连
*通讯作者： 刘鑫,单位：大连理工大学外国语学院 辽宁大连；
本文以孙杨仲裁案双语庭审语料为研究对象，基于目的原则探讨法庭口译员在跨语言司法语境中的角色及其对庭审互动的影响。研究发现，庭审参与者的目的关系呈现动态复合特征，受口译员双重身份的影响，其与上诉方律师存在目的一致关系，而与被诉方证人隐含目的冲突，导致中立性原则的偏离。合作程度与目的关系并非简单对应，目的中性关系下存在不合作现象，目的冲突关系中亦出现形式合作。口译员通过话轮操控、信息过滤等策略显著影响互动走向，如在证人作证时增译以弱化行为主体性，通过打断话轮引导会话进程等。此外，合作程度在语境中动态调整，程序性互动中合作程度较高，而实质性对抗环节则出现合作断裂。研究揭示，法庭口译员不仅是语言转换者，更是具有高度能动性的制度性参与者，其职业规范与机构身份的张力导致目的关系的叠合与异变。这些发现拓展了传统法庭话语研究的单语范式，为优化涉外司法程序中的口译服务规范提供了实证依据。
This study takes the bilingual court proceedings of the Sun Yang arbitration case as its research object and explores the role of court interpreters and their impact on trial interactions within a cross-linguistic judicial context, based on the Goal Principle. The findings reveal that the goal relations among trial participants exhibit dynamic and complex characteristics. Influenced by the interpreter’s dual identity, there is a goal alignment with the appellant’s lawyer, while a latent goal conflict exists with the respondent’s witnesses, leading to a deviation from the principle of neutrality. The degree of cooperation does not correspond simply to the goal relations; non-cooperation occurs under purpose-neutral relations, and formal cooperation appears in goal-conflict relations. The interpreter significantly influences the direction of interactions through strategies such as turn-taking control and information filtering, for example, by adding information to weaken the agency of the speaker during witness testimonies and by interrupting to guide the conversation. Moreover, the degree of cooperation adjusts dynamically according to the context, with higher cooperation in procedural phases but breakdowns in substantive confrontational phases. The study demonstrates that court interpreters are not merely language converters but also highly agentic institutional participants. The tension between their professional norms and institutional identities leads to the overlap and transformation of goal relations. These findings extend the traditional monolingual paradigm of courtroom discourse studies and provide empirical evidence for optimizing interpreting service standards in transnational judicial procedures.
[1] Hale, Sandra. 2008. Controversies over the role of the court interpreter[C]// M. L. Martin & B. J. Nicholls (eds.). Crossing borders in community interpreting: Definitions and dilemmas. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 76: 99-121.
[2] Hale, Sandra. 2021. Court interpreting: The need to raise the bar: Court interpreters as specialized experts[M]// M. Coulthard, A. May and R. Sousa-Silva (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. Abingdon/New York: Routledge, 485-501.
[3] Jacobsen, Bente. 2008. Interactional pragmatics and court interpreting: An analysis of face[J]. Interpreting, 10(1): 128-158.
[4] Jefferson, Gail. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an Introduction[C]// G. H. Lerner (Ed.). Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 13-23.
[5] Lee, Jieun. 2013. A study of facework in interpreter-mediated courtroom examination[J]. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 21(1): 82-99.
[6] Lee, Jieun. 2015. How many interpreters does it take to interpret the testimony of an expert witness? A case study of interpreter-mediated expert witness examination[J]. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 28(1): 189-208.
[7] Liao, Meizhen & Sun, Yadi. 2017. Cooperation in Chinese courtroom discourse[J]. The Pragmatic Turn in Law, 3: 57-82.
[8] Liu, Xin & Hale, Sandra. 2017. Facework strategies in interpreter-mediated cross-examinations: A corpus-assisted approach[J]. The Interpreters' Newsletter: On Corpus-based Dialogue Interpreting Studies, 22: 57-77.
[9] Liu, Xin. 2020. Pragmalinguistic challenges for trainee interpreters in achieving accuracy: An analysis of questions and their translation in five cross-examinations[J]. Interpreting, 22(1): 87-116.
[10] Ng, Eva. 2016. Interpreter intervention and participant roles in witness examination[J]. International Journal of Interpreter Education, 8(1): 23-39.
[11] 邓彦. 2017. 法庭话语言据性策略选择中的交际目的及权势关系[J]. 湖北大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, (44): 20-25.
[12] 胡桂丽. 2009. 目的原则下的刑事审判话语标记语研究[J]. 外语学刊, (4): 56-60.
[13] 廖美珍. 2004. 目的原则与法庭互动话语合作问题研究[J]. 外语学刊, (4): 45-49.
[14] 廖美珍. 2005a. “目的原则”与目的分析(上)——语用研究新途径探索[J]. 修辞学习, (4): 12-16.
[15] 廖美珍. 2005b. “目的原则”与目的分析(下)——语用话语分析新途径[J]. 修辞学习, (4): 17-21.
[16] 廖美珍. 2012. 目的原则和言语行为互动研究[J]. 外语学刊, (5): 78-83.
[17] 李雅楠, 陈海庆. 2016. 目的关系的表征：庭审会话选择问句(不)提醒功能探析[J]. 齐齐哈尔大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, (11): 45-49.
[18] 孙炳文. 2017. 从“言有所为”到“译有所为”——英汉话语标记语的目的等效研究[J]. 外语研究, (34): 34-38.
[19] 吴红军. 2012. 疆维吾尔语庭审话语目的关系分析[J]. 新疆大学学报（哲学·人文社会科学版）, (40): 56-60.
[20] 赵军峰, 陈珊. 2008. 中西法庭口译研究回顾与展望[J]. 中国科技翻译, (3): 45-49.
[21] 赵军峰, 张锦. 2011. 作为机构守门人的法庭口译员角色研究[J]. 中国翻译, (1): 56-60.
[22] 朱珠, 张威. 2021. 近20年国际法庭口译研究回顾：兼论中国法庭口译研究的发展方向[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, (43): 78-83.