Coping Strategies For Hedges In English-Chinese Consecutive Interpreting Of Court Hearing

This report is based on the court hearing of “Dobbs v.Jackson Women’s Health Organization”,which was proceeded by the U.S.Federal Supreme Court on December 1,2021,to decide the constitutionality of the Gestational Age Act passed by the State of Mississippi in 2018.The advocates included Scott G.Stewart,Solicitor General of Mississippi,on behalf of the petitioners,Julie Rikelman,a New York attorney,on behalf of the respondents,Elizabeth B.Prelogar,Solicitor General of Department of Justice for the United States,as amicus curiae supporting the respondents.The nine Justices of the Federal Supreme Court also participated in the proceeding.The material of this interpreting practice is highly legally-specialized,with 12 speakers involved.It covers one-to-one and one-to-many oral arguments,interwoven with interruptions,corrections and repetitions,which to some extent disturb the interpreter’s listening and interpreting.In this interpreting practice,the interpreter finds that the hedges in this material are somewhat typical.The interpreter divides the hedges into two categories: approximators and shields.To deal with hedges,the interpreter adopts such methods as addition,omission,re-construction and logical explicitation to cope with them.In this report,the interpreter classifies typical hedges and summarizes specific interpretation methods.Hopefully,this report will provide guidance for other interpreters in dealing with hedges in court hearing discourse.