Lost in legal translation: language rights, interpreter mediation, and procedural inequality in Indonesia’s multilingual courtrooms
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.67490/ijll.v1i2.920Keywords:
court interpreting, language rights, legal translation, procedural inequality, sociolegal discourseAbstract
Background: Indonesia’s multilingual legal order places courtroom language access at the centre of fair-trial protection, because defendants, witnesses, and justice seekers may encounter state law through Bahasa Indonesia, foreign languages, regional languages, indigenous languages, or sign-language mediation in criminal and civil proceedings. Objective: This study examines how language rights, interpreter mediation, and procedural inequality are articulated across public Indonesian legal and courtroom-related materials. Method: Using a qualitative corpus-assisted sociolegal design, this study analyses 34 public documents comprising legal norms, court-service texts, courtroom event reports, contextual human-rights standards, and scholarly sources, coded through a language-rights matrix, an interpreter-mediation grid, and a procedural-inequality register. Results: The findings show that language access is recognised across several institutional registers, but its operational mechanism is unevenly specified. Interpreter mediation becomes most visible when multilingualism disrupts ordinary courtroom procedure, especially in foreign-defendant cases, disability-related access, remote testimony, or documented interpreter presence. Implication: Procedural inequality appears as a gap between formal audibility and effective participation, where understanding, response, repair, and accountability remain unevenly distributed. Novelty: The novelty of this study lies in reframing courtroom interpreting in Indonesia as a condition of mediated legal participation rather than a technical supplement to legal translation within multilingual justice systems and access-to-justice research.
Downloads
References
[1] J. Cho, ““That’s not how we speak”: Interpreting monolingual ideologies in courtrooms,” Griffith Law Review, vol. 30, pp. 50–70, 2021, doi: 10.1080/10383441.2021.1932234.
[2] A. J. Runcieman, “Translanguaging in court proceedings: How interpreter pedagogy needs to address monolingual ideologies in court interpreting that delegitimize litigants’ voices,” International Journal of Interpreter Education, 2021, doi: 10.34068/ijie.14.01.03.
[3] B. Du, “How interpreting influences defendants’ participation: A discursive study of zero renditions and non-renditions in court interpreting,” International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 2024, pp. 185–208, 2024, doi: 10.1515/ijsl-2023-0054.
[4] M. Karrebaek, M. Kirilova, and S. H. Sørensen, “You may now speak to your lawyer: When interpreters mediate judges’ information to the accused,” Language and Law / Linguagem e Direito, 2023, doi: 10.21747/21833745/lanlaw/9_2a8.
[5] X. Zhao and J. Huang, “Interpreter mediation as other-initiated self-repair in court: Effects on the defence in Chinese bilingual criminal trials,” Lingua, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2024.103850.
[6] R. Yi, “Access to court interpreting as social inclusion for migrants in Australia: An analysis of courtroom examination questions and answers,” Comparative Legilinguistics, 2024, doi: 10.14746/cl.2024.60.5.
[7] W. Ana, “Court interpreting and access to justice for foreign defendants in Bali,” Glosains: Jurnal Sains Global Indonesia, 2026, doi: 10.59784/glosains.v7i1.662.
[8] E. Tampubolon, “Unfair access to justice for non-Indonesian speakers,” Dialogia Iuridica, 2024, doi: 10.28932/di.v16i1.10039.
[9] V. R. Sari, B. Santoso, and A. Jauharoh, “The existence of sign language interpreters in assisting deaf individuals in the creation of notarial deeds,” Ascarya: Journal of Islamic Science, Culture, and Social Studies, 2024, doi: 10.53754/iscs.v4i1.671.
[10] P. L. F. Dwany, “Language rights and legal identity: A sociolinguistic study of indigenous language representation in Indonesian law,” Indonesian Journal of Linguistics and Legal Discourse, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 41–50, 2026.
[11] D. Kibbee, “Addressing linguistic inequality in legal settings,” , 2020, doi: 10.17863/cam.61993.
[12] J. D. Stone, “Undervaluing the right to an interpreter: How societal and judicial interests threaten the fairness of multilingual criminal proceedings,” UCL Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 2022, doi: 10.14324/111.444.2052-1871.005.
[13] G. McEvoy, “Language proficiency and the right to an interpreter when accessing a fair trial,” The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research, 2023, doi: 10.12807/ti.115202.2023.a09.
[14] R. Yi, “The promise of linguistic equity for migrants in Australian courtrooms: A cross-disciplinary perspective,” Australian Journal of Human Rights, vol. 29, pp. 174–180, 2023, doi: 10.1080/1323238x.2023.2232171.
[15] P. Angermeyer, “Beyond translation equivalence: Advocating pragmatic equality before the law,” Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 174, pp. 157–167, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.12.022.
[16] W. Ana, M. Susini, and K. Subagia, “Dilemmatic role of legal interpreters in assisting foreigners in legal setting,” International Linguistics Research, 2022, doi: 10.30560/ilr.v5n2p23.
[17] M. A. S. Ibrahim, H. O. H. Abdalla, M. E. M. Idris, S. Eldouma, N. M. M. Abdallah, E. A. M. Taha, and I. M. H. Rushwan, “The role of legal translation in ensuring fair trial rights for Arabic-speaking immigrants in U.S. courts,” Journal of Cultural Analysis and Social Change, 2025, doi: 10.64753/jcasc.v10i2.2215.
[18] P. Jerónimo, “Legal translation and the challenges of overcoming language barriers in court practice: Evidence from Portuguese courts,” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, vol. 38, pp. 2613–2638, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s11196-025-10304-w.
[19] C. Wadensjö, “The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process,” The Translator, vol. 26, pp. 313–316, 2020, doi: 10.1080/13556509.2020.1851483.
[20] P. Angermeyer, “Translation as discrimination: Sociolinguistics and inequality in multilingual institutional contexts,” Language in Society, vol. 52, pp. 837–859, 2022, doi: 10.1017/s0047404522000422.
[21] S. Li, “Translation policies for courtroom interactions with ethnic minorities at a Chinese court: Integrating ethnographic fieldwork and complexity theory,” The Translator, vol. 29, pp. 193–209, 2023, doi: 10.1080/13556509.2023.2203362.
[22] Z. Chen, “Crossing linguistic barriers: The court interpreter’s balancing act with limited language proficiency in legal discourse,” Academic Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences, 2024, doi: 10.25236/ajhss.2024.070629.
[23] M. L. García, “A scandalous presence in the courtroom: Indigenous immigrant interpreters and the politics of language ideologies in US courts,” PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 2024, doi: 10.1111/plar.12576.
[24] Y. Ran, “Human interpreters in virtual courts: A review of technology-enabled remote settings in Australia,” Journal of Digital Technologies and Law, 2023, doi: 10.21202/jdtl.2023.31.
[25] R. Jimenez and R. Ballesteros-Lintao, “A norm-based analysis of court interpretation in selected Philippine criminal cases,” Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 2020, doi: 10.59960/8.a6.
[26] J. H. C. Leung, “Hurdles and horizons of linguistics for social justice,” Language in Society, vol. 52, pp. 882–893, 2023, doi: 10.1017/s0047404523000635.
[27] W. B. M. Setiyawan, “Forensic linguistic evidence in Indonesian courtrooms: A study of language use in criminal verdicts,” Indonesian Journal of Linguistics and Legal Discourse, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2026.
[28] Sadani, “Linguistic construction of justice: A pragmatic analysis of judges’ reasoning in Indonesian constitutional court decisions,” Indonesian Journal of Linguistics and Legal Discourse, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 31–40, 2026.
[29] D. Setiaji, “Legal language and power: A critical discourse analysis of anti-corruption laws in Indonesia,” Indonesian Journal of Linguistics and Legal Discourse, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 13–21, 2026.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Gerry Kadamehang (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License