Abstract:
This study examines the challenges of equivalence in the interpretation of courtroom discourses of various actors in case proceedings in Kericho Law Courts, Kenya. The research was carried out in Kericho law courts to find out the challenges of equivalence in language issues in interpreting discourses of actors in various cases during the case proceedings.
The purpose of this study was to find out the challenges of equivalence that interpreters encountered in the interpretation of discourses occurring during case proceedings. In essence, the study was intended to examine the challenges of interpretation of language issues such as messages, forms, styles and tone. The observation method was used to collect data.Discourses of six case proceedings were selected for analysis. The case proceedings took between fifteen to forty five minutes each. The data was collected for a period of eight weeks in the months of June and August 2016. Case proceedings were randomly and purposely sampled. The actors in these six cases selected needed the services of the interpreter because they did not understand English, the official language of the courtroom used by the judge and other officials. It was observed that most of those participants who could not understand English were young people and low-class
folks in society. Eight interpreters were involved in various case proceedings. The theory of equivalence was used to analyze the data selected according to the objectives of the study. The theory of equivalence states that equivalence is the foundation of translation because it reminds the interpreter that he will encounter many challenges of language issues in his work of interpreting discourses from one language to another. It also states that there exists no two languages that are similar in forms such as word, clauses, phrases and sentences. The data analyzed was from the questionnaire, the discourses recorded in writing and mainly that was recorded in the voice recorder during the court proceedings. Only the interpreted discourses were of interest in this study. The challenges of equivalence in language issues were centered on message, forms, styles and tone in the ST and its interpretation in the TT. The analysis used was that of the qualitative nature and not quantitative in nature. The interpreters, who were also court
clerks, had no prior formal education in translation before their employment but some have received training on the same during short courses and more importantly they have learnt through experience in their job as everyday interpreters whenever they are needed. It is worthy noting that although the interpreters did not have prior training, they did their best in the job of interpreting the message in the discourses. They went about it through explanations, borrowing and adaptation of the English vocabulary that was used in the ST. Even then the interpreters had challenges in getting the right vocabulary and therefore were forced to use the same words as used, or dropped some or added some words which they deemed necessary. In that case, the meaning intended in the ST changed drastically. It is hereby recommended that it is necessary
that legal officers come up with language equivalence in the vocabularies used in case
proceedings to ease the work of interpreters in court.
