This article explores the perceptions of interpreters on the use of the Khelovedu dialect in the courtroom. The purpose is to examine how linguistic variation, particularly non-standard dialects, shapes courtroom dynamics and impacts access to justice. Khelovedu, also known as ‘Khelo khela kha maabane’, is a non-standard dialect spoken by the Balovedu people in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Khelovedu is not formally taught in schools and lacks a standardised orthography, which makes the use of Khelovedu in legal contexts especially complex. Given these complexities, examining interpreters’ perceptions of non-standard dialects such as Khelovedu is crucial for understanding how linguistic diversity influences courtroom dynamics and the equitable delivery of justice.

There is a growing global interest in how dialects and linguistic variation affect courtroom dynamics, especially regarding fairness, credibility and access to justice. The use of dialects in the courtroom is perceived differently throughout the world. The use of dialects in the courtroom, to borrow a phrase from Ramothwala, Cekiso & Mandende (2025), can be described as a ‘double-edged sword’. For example, accurate interpretation in a speaker’s dialect can prevent misunderstandings that might potentially lead to wrongful convictions. On the other hand, interpreters who are unfamiliar with non-standard dialects can lead to errors in testimony.

A study by Eades (2008) in Australia has revealed that speakers of marginalised dialects were interrupted more and given fewer opportunities to express themselves in the courtroom. It can be argued that the above case does not constitute fairness. Eades’ study highlights the challenges that speakers of non-standard dialects often face in the courtroom. Similarly, a study by Kibbee (2020) has shown that speakers of non-standard dialects are at a great disadvantage as far as fairness and justice are concerned in the courtroom. The consequences of restricting or limiting the use of non-standard dialects in courtrooms are also reported in a study conducted by Hunter et al. (2022). This study revealed that individuals speaking regional dialects faced misunderstandings and prejudice in court, leading to misinterpretation of testimonies and reduced access to justice.

In a South African context, several studies have explored how language choice influences fairness and justice in the courtroom. These include studies by, but not limited to, Kaschula, Docrat, and De Vries (2020), and De Vries and Docrat (2022). These studies have indicated a monolingual bias when it comes to court language, often favouring English over other languages. This bias is typically based on the assumption that English is widely understood. However, such bias can be detrimental, as observed in the Senzo Meyiwa murder trial, a high-profile case involving the killing of the South African soccer star in 2014. Proceedings revealed significant linguistic challenges, with witnesses testifying in isiZulu and interpretation inconsistencies raising concerns about fairness and accuracy in the trial process. Kaschula et al. (2020) revealed that legal practitioners often ignore clients’ home languages, even when clients share them, as a result of systemic norms. This practice is tantamount to monolingual bias, which marginalises other languages. The systemic norms need to be challenged because not every person can understand and/or fully express themselves in designated court languages, especially official languages. Furthermore, this bias undermines the Constitution of South Africa (Republic of South Africa 1996), specifically Section 35(3), which stipulates that every accused person has the right to be tried in a language they fully understand; and, where that is not practicable, to have proceedings interpreted. In the context of Khelovedu, which is a non-standard dialect, having proceedings interpreted can prove to be challenging as the dialect is not standardised. As Khelovedu is not taught at school, as established by Ramothwala (2024), it can be argued that Khelovedu interpreters are therefore not trained to interpret in Khelovedu. Khelovedu speakers, and speakers of other dialects, will inevitably face challenges in the courtroom as a result of the limited training in interpretation and the lack of legal terminology in their dialect. The above prompted the researchers to explore the perceptions of magistrates and interpreters on the use of Khelovedu in the courtroom.

More specifically, this study was motivated by an observation made by the primary researcher, in which he observed instances when Khelovedu was used in one of the courts in Tzaneen, Limpopo Province. It was important to elicit the perceptions of interpreters, to highlight challenges and the potential value of using Khelovedu in court proceedings. In addition, the researchers were also interested to learn whether the use of Khelovedu, as observed by the primary researcher, is a true reflection of the policy prescripts or whether the interpreters are smuggling the dialect into the courtroom. This study was underpinned by the following research questions:

A theoretical framework is important as it provides a foundation for analysis, guides the interpretation of findings and ensures that the study is anchored in established scholarly perspectives. This study found relevance in adopting social justice theory, which emphasises fairness, equity, and the protection of marginalised voices, and is discussed in the following subsection.

This literature review situates the study within the broader legal and sociolinguistic context of language use in courtrooms. The review begins by examining the South African legislative framework governing language use in judicial settings, with particular attention to whether the framework accommodates dialectal diversity. The review then explores global research on the use of dialects in legal systems, followed by South African scholarship on courtroom interpreting and language-related challenges in legal proceedings. The final section identifies gaps in the existing literature, which motivate the present study on the use of Khelovedu in courtroom interpreting.

This study employed a qualitative, exploratory design to generate in-depth, contextually grounded insights into the use of Khelovedu in courtroom interpretation. Fieldwork was conducted in two regional courts in the Mopani District, Limpopo Province, selected purposively because they serve jurisdictions with a high concentration of Balovedu court users and make frequent use of interpreter-mediated proceedings. The term Balovedu refers to an ethnic group in Limpopo, who speak Khelovedu, a Northern Sotho dialect, and are historically ruled by the Rain Queen Modjadji. Focusing on two courts allowed for close examination of institutional practices, interpreter decision-making and recurring linguistic challenges within a shared sociolinguistic context. While the limited number of sites restricts statistical generalisation, the courts are typical of rural regional courts in Limpopo, thereby supporting analytic transferability to similar multilingual judicial settings. Purposive sampling was used to select four court interpreters, two from each court. This constituted the full complement of interpreters at the selected courts, which are small regional courts. All selected participants had direct experience of interpreting proceedings involving Khelovedu, making them information-rich cases for the purposes of this study. The study did not aim for representativeness but for information-rich cases capable of illuminating the complexities of interpreting a non-standard dialect in formal legal contexts. Data were collected through comprehensive, semi-structured interviews examining: (1) the frequency and contexts of Khelovedu use; (2) interpreters’ normative and practical evaluations concerning fairness; efficiency and due-process implications; and (3) the linguistic and institutional limitations affecting accuracy (e.g. orthography, terminology deficiencies, euphemism and training). Interviews were conducted face-to-face in a confidential setting, audio-recorded with consent, and transcribed verbatim to ensure forensic accuracy and capture interactional cues relevant to conveying meaning.

An iterative, theory-driven content analysis was conducted. A preliminary coding framework was guided by social justice theory and research on court interpreting and language policy. The framework was refined through ongoing comparison to identify patterns across four areas: use, perceptions, policy interface and challenges. Emerging categories were also incorporated into the analysis. Credibility and confirmability were strengthened through member checking (participants evaluated analytic summaries for accuracy), peer debriefing among the research team, and the maintenance of an audit trail that documented coding decisions and reflexive notes regarding positionality and linguistic ideology. Dependability was assured through a transparent approach to data collection and analysis, while a detailed description of the setting, participant roles and procedural context facilitated transferability. Ethical safeguards included informed consent, anonymisation, secure data storage, and clear separation between research and legal advice.

Reliability was further supported through member checking, also called participant validation. Following the analysis, the researchers presented the findings to the participants to confirm whether the findings accurately reflected their statements. This process was intended to validate the findings and ensure that the interpretations truly represented their experiences.

The data are systematically categorised to clarify how Khelovedu operates within courtroom interpretation practices and the extent to which it aligns with or diverges from the policies and principles of procedural fairness.

Firstly, we present an analysis of usage patterns, explaining the circumstances and motivations behind interpreters’ use of Khelovedu, as well as how demands from Balovedu participants influence language choices. Secondly, we analysed perceptions of value, capturing the assessments of interpreters and magistrates regarding Khelovedu’s impact on understanding, engagement and effectiveness. Thirdly, we consolidate participants’ views on the policy interface, emphasising how constitutional guarantees of language rights are used to support dialect usage in the absence of specific directives regarding non-standard varieties. Finally, we identify operational barriers, including accuracy issues, lexical and terminological inconsistencies, a lack of standardised orthography, culture-specific euphemisms, and inadequate training or accreditation, along with their implications for legal precision and due process. Collectively, these aspects outline a coherent practice-policy framework in which the goal of inclusiveness is clear but not sufficiently backed by institutional structures.

The study’s findings reveal a clear tension between practice and policy: interpreters in Mopani courts use Khelovedu to ensure understanding and engagement for Balovedu defendants, witnesses and complainants, citing constitutional provisions for fair trial and language rights (Republic of South Africa 1996 section 35). However, interpreters face practical challenges, such as the lack of a standardised orthography, limited or nonexistent legal terminology and euphemistic expressions. These findings speak directly to national debates on language standardisation and linguistic legitimacy, in which standard varieties are often treated as inherently more ‘legal’ or reliable than dialects, despite their limited reach in multilingual communities. Examined through a social justice framework (Rawls 1971), the interpreters’ approach promotes participatory equality and due process by prioritising comprehensible language use, aligning with South Africa’s multilingual policy goals. Nonetheless, the absence of institutional support shifts responsibility to individual interpreters, reinforcing existing language ideologies that normalise improvisation rather than systematic accommodation. This reliance increases the risk of semantic slippage and procedural inaccuracies, particularly where interpreters must approximate meaning without agreed terminology.

International research (Eades 2008; Hunter et al. 2022; Kibbee 2020) demonstrates that dialectal mismatches can lead to interruptions, misinterpretations and credibility concerns, while local studies continue to document English-dominant courtroom norms and persistent gaps in interpreter capacity (De Vries & Docrat 2022; Kaschula et al. 2020). Critically, while interpreter improvisation enables access in the short term, it raises questions about whether accuracy can be consistently guaranteed in the absence of linguistic infrastructure, especially in legally sensitive domains such as sexual offence testimony. Research on court interpreting cautions that unmanaged lexical gaps and culturally bound euphemisms can influence evidentiary value and judicial outcomes, underscoring that access to one’s dialect and interpretive accuracy must be treated as interdependent constitutional requirements rather than competing priorities.

Theoretically, the data illuminate how language ideology and institutional power operate within courts: a preference for ‘standard’ varieties – particularly English – persists despite the sociolinguistic realities of Limpopo, where Khelovedu is widely spoken. From a social justice perspective, formal recognition of language rights is insufficient if the actual linguistic practices of communities remain unsupported. The interpreters’ positive orientation towards Khelovedu thus represents a form of micro-level resistance to monolingual and standard-language ideologies, even as their reported challenges reflect well-documented interpreter constraints, including lexical gaps, strategic approximation and cognitive strain in conveying culturally embedded meanings.

Situated within South Africa’s legislative framework, the findings highlight a policy gap regarding dialects. Although constitutional and statutory instruments promote multilingualism, they remain largely silent on non-standard variants, compelling frontline practitioners to devise ad hoc solutions. The study, therefore, contributes to national debates by showing that dialect inclusion without supporting linguistic infrastructure risks falling short of constitutional guarantees of accuracy, even as it advances access and participation.

Addressing this inequality requires systemic interventions: (1) formal recognition of regionally significant dialects in justice-sector language policies; (2) dialect-sensitive interpreter training and certification; (3) collaboratively developed legal glossaries and interpretive guidelines for Khelovedu; and (4) case-type-specific preparatory briefings to mitigate ambiguity arising from euphemistic language.

Overall, the study confirms that incorporating Khelovedu enhances access to justice in practice, but also demonstrates that linguistic inclusion must be institutionally supported to ensure that constitutional commitments to fairness and accuracy are fully realised.

Interpreters in Mopani courts consider using Khelovedu essential for understanding, participation and fair-trial rights, and they already use it practically when Balovedu speakers appear. However, accuracy and legal precision are compromised by structural gaps, such as the absence of a standard orthography, limited legal terminology, euphemistic expressions and a lack of formal training or accreditation in Khelovedu, which forces improvisation and risks semantic drift or procedural errors.

Embedded within South Africa’s social justice and multilingual legal framework, the study reveals a policy–practice disconnect: while the law affirms linguistic inclusion, dialect use lacks institutional support, leaving frontline actors to bear the equity burden without consistent tools or guidance.

The study, therefore, recommends that the authorities officially recognise regionally important dialects (e.g. Khelovedu) in Department of Justice (DoJ) & Constitutional Development (CD) language policies and court State Official Practitioners (SOPs), with clear cues for when to use them, on-record notes of dialect choice, and magistrate guidance that explicitly encourages interpreter clarification when lexical gaps occur.

Authorities are also encouraged to build capacity through dialect-aware short courses and continuous professional development, which will provide additional accreditation for competence in Khelovedu.

Incorporate structured mentorship and peer review, alongside targeted case pairing or co-interpreting for complex or sensitive issues. Co-develop a living Khelovedu–Sepedi–English legal glossary and a practical style and orthography guide. Implement secure digital lookup tools and enable remote access to Khelovedu specialists, supported by reliable dual-channel recordings to assist with audits and appeals. Ultimately, it is recommended to institutionalise monitoring (e.g. frequency of dialect requests, clarification events, time to disposition, appeal grounds citing interpretation) and expand research to other dialects and/or regions, refining policies and resources to ensure that inclusion is matched by safeguarded accuracy.