Abstract:
This paper aims to investigate and evaluate the intricacies of accuracy in
simultaneous court interpreting and challenges the view that accuracy is
unattainable. It hypothesizes that there is an overlapping and vague
understanding of the 'accuracy' of court interpreting; and by applying a
multidisciplinary model, accuracy becomes attainable. The theoretical
framework derives its concepts principally from models of error analysis
in court interpreting and from a communicative, pragmatic and semiotic
model. It applies a qualitative methodology to data collected from an
open session of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon where a witness is
cross-examined, and their simultaneous interpretation from/into
English/Arabic. It concludes that there is vagueness in understanding
what an 'accurate' court interpreting is and that accuracy is possible, but it
is attainable neither through the interpreter's impartiality by sticking
blindly to the code of ethics, nor through his blatant mediation.
