The Pragmatic Impact of Grammatical Structures in Courtroom Interpretation and Translation

Courtroom interpretation and translation require a nuanced understanding of not only vocabulary but also the pragmatic impact of grammatical structures. This paper examines the pragmatic impact of grammatical structures on interpretations in the Kisii Law Courts. Using data collected from actual proceedings, the paper analyzes how seemingly minor grammatical differences can have significant consequences for the accuracy and fairness of the legal process. By applying Mey's (2001) Pragmatic Act Theory (PAT), we analyze how modal verbs, passive voice and nominalisation function within the context of the courtroom, influencing the interpretation of witness testimonies, judge's instructions, and lawyer's arguments. Specifically, we explore the use of passive voice within the context of PAT, analyzing how these choices interact with the social context and speaker intention. We will also examine the pragmatic effects of passivisation on agency, responsibility, and the focus of witness testimony, examining how they shape the understanding of events and culpability. It is crucial for court interpreters and translators to accurately convey the intended meaning and effects of pragmatic acts in court proceedings. Keywords: Pragmatic Act Theory, court interpretation and translation, passive voice, nominalisation, modal verbs