While using a court interpreter will lessen language obstacles between parties in legal proceedings, the rendition of the speaker's message into a different language may not always convey the speaker's intended message because the words needed to convey the message may exist in the target language but the concept they represent may not. Awareness of some of the differences that exist at the intersection of law, language and society when different cultures come in contact may contribute to better communication with non-English speakers through a court interpreter. The following are examples of concepts arising in a criminal law context in the U.S. and of the misunderstandings that may occur when they are interpreted into Spanish but not explained. Although the examples given often refer to the understanding of these concepts that a native of Mexico may have, the reader is encouraged to relate them to communicating with clients from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds.

The difference between a felony and a misdemeanor is not necessarily clear in Civil Code countries, such as Mexico. Many of these nations have three different kinds of offenses rather than two. An approximation would be what we consider major felonies, minor felonies and petty offenses. Thus, whichever word your court interpreter uses to convey felony or misdemeanor into language x, it may not be a true match. It is recommended that you, the attorney, defines the term for the client as you say "the offense you are charged with is a felony, this means that you could face a sentence of..."

The 51 criminal codes of the United States are more specific in naming offenses than those of Civil Code countries. For example, Mexico has a Penal Code chapter entitled "Robo" that includes theft, robbery, armed robbery, aggravated robbery and shoplifting. Each one of these would be considered a different offense under the various criminal codes of the United States. The equivalent of burglary takes four to eight words to express in Spanish.

All concepts having to do with release require definition: parole, probation, release on own recognizance, supervised release, pretrial release, work furlough, work release, release to a third party - including pretrial release agencies. There are no direct equivalents for these concepts in many other systems of law, languages and societies, and many of these concepts and names of programs vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction within the United States. Thus, it is recommended that counsel always define these terms after naming them, and that you do not use acronyms. Ask your client "Do you know what I mean by probation, by parole, by pretrial release services?" If the client replies "no", proceed to define. If the clients says "yes" ask the client to tell you what it means.

The Miranda warnings contain many concepts that are culture bound. "Right to remain silent" does not necessarily convey the meaning of not incriminating oneself. "Everything you say" means everything you say about the offense the police are investigating. "Right to counsel" probably has equivalents in most languages, but "afford" may not. "Having a lawyer present" does not convey in other languages, nor to members of other cultures, the intended meaning of having a lawyer present to assist and advise. "Do you want to make a statement" does not convey the necessary specificity in Spanish: make a statement about what? In fact, the English does not provide the specificity either, but the content and intent of Miranda is widely known and understood in contemporary American culture and society.

Thus, if you want to know if and how your clients were read their rights, it is suggested that you do not ask if they were "mirandized" -a perfect example of a culture bound term. Do not ask if they were "given" their rights and do not ask if they were "read" their rights. Think what would happen to those questions in English once we remove all the cultural and societal knowledge that goes with Miranda. What you should do is ask your clients if the officer read to them, or gave them to read on their own, a card or paper that, in their own language, told them the following:
 

1. they were under no obligation to talk to the police about the incident,

2. if they talked to the police about it, the information could be used to prosecute them,

3. they could ask for a lawyer to defend them exclusively and free of charge before talking to the police,

4. their lawyer could be present while they talked to the police, and

5. these are legal rights they have under the law of this state/country. "Do you understand what they mean? Do you want to talk to me about what happened?"

This is a classic example of a word that exists in almost every language, representing a completely different reality in every one of them and to every society that speaks the language. While we know trial to represent the proceeding during which evidence will be heard by the finder of fact, be it the judge or the jury, this is not a concept shared by all societies or languages. Jury trials are not held in Mexico and most countries in Central and South America, yet they are in some of these nations. Further, the word most frequently used by English/Spanish court interpreters when rendering trial into Spanish refers to the entire prosecution of a case in most Spanish speaking nations, not to the proceeding during which evidence is heard by the trier of fact. Thus, if you ask your clients "Do you know what a trial is?" and your clients reply "yes," you still don't know whether the meaning of trial as you know it is understood. Thus, if your clients reply that they do know what a trial is, ask the clients to tell you what it means in their own words.

The word jury also exists in other languages, but in the case of Spanish it does not refer to the same concept as the English word jury. It is a word Spanish speakers seldom use and it derives from the verb to swear -avow- in Spanish. Thus, trial by jury in Spanish may sound to a native speaker like a judgment by a sworn one, which is too general a meaning to be understandable. Sworn to do what? It would be best to define, in English, trial by jury, bench trial, jury. This will allow the interpret to interpret your definitions into the target language.

The English language is said to be a Germanic language. This is true as far as establishing its birth place. When the Normans invaded Great Britain they brought their culture with them. The English language incorporated to its vocabulary lots of Latin via French, while Norman law was over imposed on the existing system. Legal English thus developed lots of couplets or frozen language expressions that contain both a Germanic and a Latin origin word meaning approximately the same thing, such as fit and proper, aid and abet, cease and desist. Spanish, being a modern grandchild of Latin, does not require this redundancy to express these concepts; if these concepts are rendered into Spanish as a couplet they come out much like fit and fit, aid and aid, or cease and cease. Thus, do not be surprised if you utter a phrase full of these couplets and your interpreter is done speaking before you are.

When asking defendants to waive or give up their rights, their perception may well be that all legal rights are being waived for all time, including rights relating to events in the future on matters having nothing to do with the case at hand. In the case of monolingual speakers of Spanish, a factor that contributes to the confusion is that to waive in Spanish also means to resign as in resigning from a job. You may want to advise your clients -in English and through a court interpreter- that waiving ones' rights means to give up one's trial rights only and as to this charge only.

Many languages and societies do not have a word or a legal concept equivalent to plea. The meaning of the word most commonly used for plea in Spanish overlaps with that of statement and testimony. If the defendant wishes to enter a guilty plea, the attorney should explain that this means that the defendant admits guilt, recognizes having committed the offense, and that upon hearing this admission of guilt the judge will enter a finding of guilt and sentence the defendant. Again, the concepts of guilty, not guilty and no contest pleas need to be defined for your clients. In the case of a plea of no contest, the interpreter assigned to the case will arrive at an equivalent term in the target language that, hopefully, will be used consistently throughout the pendency of the case.

Concepts and words for jail and prison differ from language to language and from society to society. For instance, the Spanish word for prison does not mean federal or state correctional institution, but rather being held either in county jail, the courthouse hold or a state or federal correctional institution. If counsel wishes the non-English speaking defendant to understand the difference between jail and prison, definitions of these U.S. concepts need to be provided in English and then interpreted into the target language.

The number and order of given names and of surnames vary from society to society, beyond the boundaries of language. Natives of Mexico tend to use two surnames, those belonging to their father and to their mother, but they may not have a middle name. The father's surname is given first, thus Juan Silva Ramírez is Juan, son of Mr. Silva and Ms. Ramírez. Juan José Silva Ramírez is Juan José, son of Mr. Silva and Ms. Ramírez. In order to avoid confusion you should ask your client: "What is your father's surname? Your mother's? Your first name? Do you have a middle name?" If your client belongs to a social group where two surnames are used, you may hyphenate them in order to preserve the proper order: Juan José Silva-Ramírez, but remember that hyphenation is a function of English grammar, not Spanish. Do not ask your client if the surnames are hyphenated, they certainly are not in Spanish and the question may not be understood. If Juan José Silva-Ramírez marries Beatríz Sánchez-Guzmán, Beatríz either becomes Beatríz Sánchez de Silva or remains Beatríz Sánchez-Guzmán. If they had a daughter named Alicia, she would be Alicia Silva-Sánchez. It is important to remember that this is not the case in all Spanish speaking social and cultural groups. Do not assume, ask.

In other languages and cultures the surname is listed first, followed by a marker of the persons's gender, which is followed by the given name or names. If you don't want your client to be listed with a myriad of AKAs that are actually permutations of the same true name, ask your client through the interpreter which are the given names and which are the surnames.

Some societies consider the use of first names during first encounters as friendly, others as overly familiar or even as disempowering. Western Americans tend to view it as friendliness, New Englanders view it as overly familiar, members of oppressed groups may view it as disempowering, older Americans as disrespectful. Some languages -regardless of the cultural mores of the different social groups that speak that same language- give the speaker the option of addressing people not only by using first or last name, but also by combining these two possibilities with formal and informal pronouns. Most social groups consider consultation with counsel as a formal situation. It is recommended that you don't address the non-U.S. client or witness by their first names until a relationship has been established, if ever, especially if they are considerably older than you are.

Clients are frequently asked questions regarding their formal education. Much as in English, words such as primary school, secondary school, college, etc., do exist in Spanish, although they represent a different reality for different social groups. In Mexico primary school consists of six grades and is government sponsored, but in rural areas there may not be adequate transportation available to school; secondary school comprises grades seven, eight and nine and is both public and obligatory, but transportation problems are even greater than those encountered in attending primary school; preparatory school covers grades ten, eleven and twelve. Although there are some public preparatory schools, they are in urban areas and out of the reach of most rural families. Further, this level of education is not obligatory. Therefore, there is no equivalent of the U.S. concept of "High School," since it includes all or part of the Mexican concepts of secondary school and all of preparatory school, but there is no conceptual equivalent of grades 7-12 as public, obligatory and at nearly everyone's reach.

The court interpreter is neither a cultural anthropologist nor a comparative law scholar. It may be that a non-native speaker of English does not need a foreign language court interpreter nearly as much as an explanation of the legal concepts and proceedings as they come up during the pendency of the case. If you can communicate in English with your client, you may want to ask yourself if, foreign accent aside, "do my client and I communicate any better or worse in English than is the case with my English speaking clients?" These are some questions you may ask your client: "How long have you been in this country? Do you speak English with your friends? At work? Have you gone to school in either language/country? What is it you don't understand, the legal concepts or the English words I am using? Would you understand them in your native language? Do you realize that the court interpreter says the same things I am saying, only in your native language? The interpreter is not going to explain things to you, do you want me to explain these things to you in English or through the interpreter?"

On the other hand, your client may prefer to speak in the native language in order to do so more eloquently and without a foreign accent which may impede understanding by the listener, even though everything you say in English is understood. This should be a consideration if your client is to testify.

The following are general recommendations when speaking through an interpreter:
 

1. Never use acronyms or shorthand, speak in full words. DUI, DA, Recog, etc. are impossible to interpret, let alone understand in English.

2. Always define legal concepts, nature of proceedings and settings, do not just name them.

3. Always explain the roles of the parties involved, such as judge, prosecutor, supervised release officer, probation officer, interpreter, trial assistant, etc.

• Aronsson, Karin. 1991. "Social interaction and the recycling of legal evidence." Miscommunication and problematic talk. Ed. by Nicholas Coupland, Howard Giles and John W. Weimann, 215-43. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

• Beach, Wayne A. 1990. "Intercultural problems in courtroom interaction." Intercultural communications: a reader. Ed. L.A. Samovar and R.E. Porter, 215-21. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

• Berk-Seligson, Susan. 1990. The bilingual courtroom: court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: U Chicago P.

• Briere, Eugene J. 1978. "Limited English speakers and the Miranda rights." TESOL Quarterly. 12, 235-45.

• Castro, María Cristina. MS. Interlingual communication and pragmatic alterations in legal discourse. Unpublished MA Thesis. Arizona State University, 1994.

• Conley, John M. and William O'Barr. 1990. Rules vs. relationships: The ethnography of legal discourse. Chicago: U Chicago P.

• Crystal, David. 1987. The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge: U Cambridge P.

• Cunningham, Clark D. 1992. "The lawyer as translator, representation as text: Towards an ethnography of legal discourse." Cornell Law Review 77. 1298-1387.

• Linell, Per. 1991. "Accommodation on trial: processes of communicative accommodation in courtroom interaction." Contexts of accommodation: developments in applied sociolinguistics. Ed. by Howard Giles, Justine Coupland and Nicholas Coupland, 103-30. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

• Milroy, James. 1984. "Sociolinguistic methodology and the identification of speakers' voices in legal proceedings." Applied sociolinguistics. Ed. by Peter Trudgill, 51-72. London: Academic Press.

• Milroy, Lesley. 1984. "Comprehension and context: successful communication and communicative breakdown." Applied sociolinguistics. Ed. by Peter Trudgill, 7-31. London: Academic Press.

• O'Barr, William. 1982. Linguistic evidence: Language, power and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic Press Inc.

• Roy, John D. 1990. "The difficulties of limited-English-proficient individuals in the legal setting." The language scientist as expert in the legal setting: issues in forensic linguistics. Ed. by Robert W. Rieber and William A. Stewart, 73-83.

• Stephan, Cookie W. and Walter G. Stephan. 1986. "Habla inglés? The effects of language translation on simulated juror decisions." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 16-7.577-89.

• Valdes, Guadalupe. 1990. "When does a witness need an interpreter? Preliminary guidelines for establishing language competence and incompetence." La Raza Law Journal. 3.1-27.