1. The police interview is a crucial part of law enforcement, but there is a lack of research on interlingual police interviews despite the increasing need for interpretation in multicultural societies.
2. Legal interpreting takes place within an institutional context that determines power distribution among participants, and interpreters face role conflict and overload.
3. The interpreter's use of discourse markers alters the Enhanced Cognitive Interview, regardless of its type, phase or language combination, highlighting the importance of pragmatic competence in legal interpreter mediation as social intervention.
The article "Pragmatic competence and interpreter-mediated police investigative interviews" provides a critical review of the literature on legal interpreting practice, focusing on role conflict and role overload. The author argues that interpreting can empower practitioners and the people they work for, and engage stakeholders through an emphasis on pragmatic competence. However, the article has several potential biases and limitations.
One-sided reporting is evident in the article's focus on interpreter-mediated police interviews, neglecting other contexts where interpreters are needed, such as healthcare or education. This narrow focus limits the generalizability of the findings to other fields. Additionally, the article does not provide evidence for some of its claims, such as the assertion that interpreting can empower practitioners and stakeholders.
The article also has a promotional tone towards legal interpreting as a profession. While it is important to advocate for professional standards and ethics in any field, this advocacy should be balanced with critical analysis of potential risks or limitations. The article does not explore counterarguments or potential drawbacks of interpreter-mediated police interviews.
Furthermore, the article's discussion of power relations among participants in legal interpreting relies heavily on Bourdieu's theory of social practice. While this theory can provide useful insights into power dynamics in institutional settings, it may not fully capture the complexity of interactions between individuals from different cultural backgrounds.
Overall, while the article provides a valuable contribution to understanding legal interpreter mediation as social intervention, its potential biases and limitations should be taken into consideration when evaluating its findings. Future research should aim to address these limitations by exploring other contexts where interpreters are needed and providing more balanced analysis of potential risks and benefits.