Culture in Court

When Minor Differences Have Major Consequences

In a courtroom or other legal proceedings, all parties must be afforded equal opportunities to be heard and understood. However, when individuals from different cultural backgrounds meet, even minor differences in communication may give rise to significant misunderstandings. In this context, the interpreter plays a pivotal role. The interpreter does not merely transfer words from one language to another, but ensures that all parties receive an accurate account of what is actually being said, without cultural differences leading to unwarranted misinterpretations.

‍

Eye contact provides a useful illustration. In Norway and much of the Western world, eye contact is generally interpreted as a sign of openness and credibility. By contrast, in Japan, Korea, and parts of Africa, lowering one’s gaze may instead signal respect toward authority. The Japanese sociologist Chie Nakane has demonstrated how hierarchical relationships in Japanese culture influence both language and body language. In Latin America, sustained eye contact may be perceived as confrontational or interpreted in an entirely different way. In judicial contexts, such distinctions can affect the perceived credibility of testimony. While interpreters are not responsible for clarifying body language, they must remain aware that spoken words may be understood differently depending on such cultural codes.

‍

Silence is another example. Within Norwegian legal culture, extended pauses during examination or testimony may be interpreted as hesitation or reluctance to respond. In several East Asian societies, however, silence is regarded as a sign of respect and reflection. The American cultural psychologist Richard Nisbett has written about how many Asian societies emphasize harmony and indirect communication, which shapes both language and behavior in encounters with authority figures. In court, this may result in testimony being incorrectly perceived as untrustworthy when, in reality, it merely reflects a different communicative norm.

‍

Interruptions also vary in meaning. In Norway, Germany, and other Northern European countries, it is customary to allow others to finish speaking; interruptions are thus readily perceived as disrespectful. In Southern Europe and the Middle East, the opposite is often true: speaking over another may be taken as a sign of engagement and active participation. Linguist Gerry Philipsen has demonstrated that such conversational patterns are not primarily about politeness in the conventional sense, but rather about how respect is expressed in practice — through participation rather than restraint.

‍

In judicial proceedings, such differences may interfere with the flow of communication. Nevertheless, interpreters must manage overlapping speech and ensure that no substantive content is lost.

‍

Finally, differences arise in the manner of expression itself. In countries such as Norway, Germany, and the United States, communication is typically direct and explicit. In other cultures — for example, in Japan, Brazil, or several Arab countries—much of the intended meaning is conveyed through tone of voice, body language, or what remains unsaid. The American anthropologist Edward T. Hall described this as the distinction between “high-context cultures” and “low-context cultures,” the former placing greater weight on implicit meaning and social signals rather than explicit statements.

‍

For interpreters, this requires reproducing precisely what is spoken without adding independent interpretation, while also remaining mindful that different communicative conventions may lead to misunderstandings in court and potentially necessitate follow-up questions.

‍

Why Interpreters Are Essential for Legal Safeguards

For interpreters, this responsibility is considerable: they must remain accurate, impartial, and professional, irrespective of cultural conventions. For those engaging interpreter services, it is a safeguard to know that the interpreter upholds these standards, thereby ensuring that cultural differences do not compromise the fairness of judicial proceedings.

‍

Hofstede Insights, an international research body specializing in cross-cultural communication, has demonstrated through extensive analysis how societies differ in their approaches to authority, uncertainty, and directness in communication—all of which may influence legal processes.

‍

Professional legal interpreting is therefore far more than the translation of words. It is a function that ensures all voices are heard on equal terms and that communication remains precise and equitable—regardless of language or culture.