Abstract
This study examines accuracy in the translation and transcription of evidentiary audio recordings in the Australian context. Verbatim translation requested by crime agencies and courts is investigated and translation and transcription methods are suggested with reference to conversation analysis. The purpose of evidentiary audio recordings dictates a faithful translation; however, the prevalent ‘written to be read’ translation and transcription styles used by crime agencies can jeopardise the output, given the problems created in reflecting the speakers’ intentions, moods, power and attitudes. The credibility of transcripts when tendered in evidence in court hinges on the quality of the translation. In addition to the stylistic accuracy of the translation of speakers’ interactions, the present paper argues that important discursive information exhibited in the suprasegmental features in conversation should be documented on transcripts, including prosodic and paralinguistic elements, such as intonation, timing of responses and volume. When strategically used, these features can help in placing the last pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, and producing ‘audible’, ‘written to be read as if spoken’ texts.
Highlights
Translation of audio recordings is the transfer of meaning from one spoken language to another, which involves the transcription or conversion of speech into a written text
Evidentiary audio recording (EAR) is the spoken material recorded by crime agencies, using various methods, such as listening devices and telephone interception, to track suspected criminal activity
The conversation is in Lebanese Arabic mixed with English, between two males charged with a criminal offence and awaiting a court hearing
Summary
Translation of audio recordings is the transfer of meaning from one spoken language to another, which involves the transcription or conversion of speech into a written text. Having the foreign language transcribed alongside its English translation (cf Edwards, 1995), without having systematic recourse to and documentation of the conversation’s prosodic and paralinguistic cues, is marginally useful when it comes to refreshing the memory of the translator or the bilingual reviser of the original in cross-examination This exercise runs the risk of treating the original as a written text in the translation process and in court. A functional-pragmatic translation approach (House, 2001) or communicative translation method (Newmark, 1988) – subject to clarity of the recording, and availability of context and co-text – take into consideration the prosodic features in the listening process but without having them documented This could attract legitimate argument by the defence and often be deemed inadmissible in court on grounds of subjective interpretation. These inherent peculiarities of EAR lead to calling into question the adequacy and consistency of the prevalent translation method, which motivates the present study
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
