When Court Interpreters Speak for Themselves: Linguistic Intervention in Japanese Criminal Trials

This study examines the practices of linguistic intervention by court interpreters in Japanese courtrooms, particularly when they overtly engage in the questioning of defendants. The study defines linguistic intervention as the interpreter's verbal behaviour that suspends translations of the speaker's preceding turn. Drawing on ethnographic field notes from interpreter-mediated trials at the Tokyo District Court, this study analyses six excerpts in which two interpreters’ active interventions were observed. Note-taking was adopted as an alternative and necessary methodology in response to the court's prohibition on recording devices. With reference to various forms of intervention, ranging from those that promote interlocutors’ participation to those that do not, the study analyses potential reasons for speaking for themselves and their consequences. The findings identify several reasons for the interpreters’ intervention: providing additional information they deem relevant; handling unexpected situations; clarifying their own understanding; requesting time to interpret; and seeking more concise answers. Furthermore, interpreters were observed to differ in their standards for professional role boundaries, and they were not always transparent with the interacting parties about their interventions. The observed interventions also highlight how they fundamentally stem from a prevailing literalist view in Japan's legal system, in which the gap between institutional expectations and interpreters’ practical needs to address contextualised meaning contributes to obstructive interventions.