경찰통역 담화에서 의문문 유형과 기능: 제도대화의 특징을 중심으로 = Types and functions of interrogative sentences in the interpreting of police-suspect interviews: Focused on the features of institutional talk

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study intends to examine the types and functions of interrogative sentences used in the interpreting of police-suspect interview discourse in Korea. The findings of this analysis are as follows: First, the Korean police usually employed wh-interrogative sentences to ask for information from foreign suspects while using negative yes-no questions or declarative questions to refute the statements of foreign suspects. This attests to the fact that police officers use different types of interrogative sentences based on their investigation strategies.
Second, foreign suspects made a number of questions about the intention of police officers’ questions or others. In particular, they asked questions the most when they were read their Miranda rights. This was mainly caused by the imbalance of knowledge between the two sides, which is one of the features found in institutional discourse. In the end, foreign suspects use a question as a means to protect their rights and make a statement favorable to themselves.
Third, interpreters asked questions mainly about the case under examination to foreign suspects and police officers. This was also attributable to the imbalance of information and knowledge between the parties involved. In addition, interpreters sometimes asked additional questions to foreign suspects to get exact answers to the questions asked by police officers. This shows that interpreters use questions to confirm the accuracy of their interpretation or lead foreign suspects to provide answers appropriate to the questions police officers ask.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이원표, "한보청문회에서의 질문 분석: 제도상황과 화자의 태도 표현2" 6 (6): 26-52, 1998

2 이원표, "한보청문회에서의 질문 분석: 제도상황과 화자의 태도 표현1" 6 (6): 1-25, 1998

3 김민지, "한국형 미란다 경고의 문제점과 개선 방안" 한국형사정책연구원 23 (23): 53-89, 2012

4 이유진, "한국 형사재판 법정통역사의 역할 인식에 관한 연구: 중국어 통역 담화분석 및 통역사 면접조사를 중심으로" 한국외국어대학교 2015

5 이유진, "한국 법정통역인의 사회적 역할에 관한 연구" 한국통역번역학회 18 : 111-136, 2016

6 이지은, "통역이론: 경찰통역 원칙과 직무윤리"

7 이유진, "중국어 통역사의 법정통역 규범 인식 연구 - 정확성 관련 규범을 중심으로" 한국통역번역학회 18 (18): 103-130, 2016

8 박용익, "의사-환자 대화의 제도적 특징과 유형학" 한국텍스트언어학회 21 : 207-237, 2006

9 이지은, "사법통역인의 순차통역 평가 사례 연구" 한국언어연구학회 20 (20): 99-118, 2015

10 이지은, "사법통역의 이론과 실제" 이화여대 출판문화원 2017

11 이지은, "법정통역 담화분석연구: 사례연구를 중심으로" 191-198, 2011

12 이지은, "법정신문에 사용되는 질문유형과 통역" 한국통역번역학회 13 (13): 127-146, 2011

13 이지은, "다문화사회와 사법통역" 집문당 2012

14 이지은, "난민재판 통역의 질에 대한 고찰: 통역인의 역할에 관한 사례연구를 중심으로" 한국통역번역학회 14 (14): 213-236, 2012

15 진제희, "기능단계별로 나타난 의료면담의 제도 대화적 특징 연구" 한국사회언어학회 14 (14): 137-164, 2006

16 홍서연, "경찰통역 담화 연구: 한러 대면 및 전화통역 담화의 대화분석을 중심으로" 한국외국어대학교 2019

17 Woodbury, H, "The strategic use of questions in court" 48 : 197-228, 1984

18 Freed, A., "The form and function of questions in informal dyadic conversation" 21 : 621-644, 1994

19 Haworth, K., "The dynamic of power and resistance in police interview discourse" 17 (17): 739-759, 2006

20 Benmaman, V., "The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community" John Benjamins 179-190, 1997

21 Heritage, J., "Talk in Action: Interaction, Identities, and Institutions" Wiley-Blackwell 2010

22 Drew, P., "Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings" Cambridge University Press 470-520, 1992

23 Drew, P., "Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings" Cambridge University Press 3-65, 1992

24 Nakane, I., "Problems in communicating the suspect’s rights in interpreted police interviews" 28 (28): 87-112, 2007

25 Thornborrow, J., "Power Talk: Language an Interaction in Institutional Discourse" Longman 2002

26 Lakoff, R., "My life in court" 85 : 171-179, 1985

27 Aldridge, M., "Linguistic manipulation in legal discourse: Framing questions and “smuggling” information" 14 (14): 85-107, 2007

28 Zimmerman, D., "Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance" Newbury House 105-129, 1975

29 Gonzalez, R. D., "Fundamentals of Court Interpretation" Carolina Academic Press 1991

30 Hale, S., "Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting" John Benjamins 99-122, 2008