This paper reports on an on-going investigation of conversational implicature in triadic speech events: Interpreter-mediated questionings in criminal proceedings in Danish district courts. The languages involved are Danish and English, and the mode of interpreting is the consecutive mode. The court interpreters are all state-authorized court interpreters and thus fully competent professionals. The centrality of pragmatics in triadic speech events has been demonstrated by a number of studies (e.g. Berk-Seligson 2002, Hale 2004, Jacobsen 2002). Thus, conversational implicatures, which are a normal part of any interaction, occur also in courtroom interaction where questions and answers are not always entirely explicit and straightforward. However, preserving degrees of ambiguity and non-explicitness is very difficult for interpreters who may have to resort to certain strategies to translate the implicatures. This paper presents and discusses eight translation strategies which, at least in theory, are available to interpreters who are confronted by conversational implicature in the speech of primary participants. The paper also presents authentic examples of conversational implicatures in courtroom interaction as well as interpreters' strategies for translating the implicatures. Berk-Seligson, S. (1990). The bilingual courtroom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hale, S. (2004). The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the witness and the interpreter. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Jacobsen, B. (2002). Pragmatic meaning in court interpreting: An empirical study of additions in consecutively-interpreted question-answer dialogues. PhD thesis, The Aarhus School of Business.
3rd International Conference on Public Service Interpreting and Translation, 2008