Call this ACTION LEARNING!: November 2008 Archives

Over the past few days, I have been spoken to in Flemish by a stranger on a few occasions, and what happens? My brain shuts down completely - I can't think of words in English, let alone in Vlaamse! I know, I know. I was teasing Mahmoud before, and now I'm having the same problem! Then again, today I said negentien and he wrote 18, and I said, "Nee achttien, negentien," and he wrote 19 and said "achttien?"

Soon afterwards, as I insisted that I am zesenveertig, Patricia and Marsi both did the basic math, 2008-1963 = 45. How is it possible that I convinced myself (for weeks if not months, mind you) that I am a year older than I actually am? Marsi was triumphant: "Then you are the same age as my mother!"

I knew I was in trouble this morning when I met Hucine on the way to class and he addressed me in goed Nederlands. Bouchra was already on my case last week. The first time I wrote some answers on the board, and Anne asked de klasse if there were any mistakes, Bouchra nailed as many of my errors as she could! (I'm just waiting for my chance to get even, hehehe!) ;-)

Friendships are developing . . . Topi has already promised to take me to Uganda. :-) Mahmoud encouraged Tolu when she hesitated over reading out loud: "Just try! You have to!" Ayman wants to tell me his story. Marinela was delighted that Bulgaria was listed first, "as it should be," in the last blogpost. (I think we are going to have to keep houd onze ogen op haar! That's "keep our eyes on her." Denk ik!)

Meer slaap zal helpen. Austublieft!

I have been slowed down for the past ten days or so with the research project at the European Parliament (EP) because of institutional policy concerning the provision of interpretation.

There is a rule (or a custom?) that only formal meetings will be interpreted and informal meetings will not. Theoretically, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) can request interpretation for informal meetings (such as, presumably, a conversation with a researcher), but then they (or their national delegation) has to foot the bill. Or something like that. I've had to postpone three meetings so far on this account: I'll get a phone call or email from an MEP's assistant, and we wade through a conversation sorting out my expectation that if we need a simultaneous interpreter they have access to the resources to get one, while they have assumed that if *I* need an interpreter (!) then I'll bear the burden of dealing with the logistics and expense.

The structure of this arrangement (framed as resource scarcity or a too-costly expense) appears generally unquestioned by MEPs themselves. Here I am, as a "participant" coming up against (i.e., speaking in and with, perhaps even being spoken by?) one of the precise discursive dynamics I wish to examine. By "participant" I mean to refer to two aspects of role: that of a person engaging multilingually in a multilingual setting, and as a researcher immersed in the environment that I am studying.

The reasons provided as to why I should "assure the interpretation," involve the cost and/or the time/labor involved to generate the request. I am a bit befuddled, as the hoops I would have to go through are extensive (to say the least) and (I imagine) more costly - if not in sheer euros paid in service fees/wages (although possibly), then certainly in the waste of duplicating a service which is already streamlined to a high degree of sophistication.

Although the burden placed on language minorities in general are not the target of this research project, as I experience my own reactions - cognitive and emotional - and observe the reactions/comments of the EP officials, I am struck by what must be a kind of resonance. Surely I could (somehow?) manage to find and hire and pay appropriately qualified interpreter(s) with the right language combination(s), but only at the sacrifice of many, many other tasks - some of which are also essential.

The normative discourse - by which I mean, the things commonly said in response to questions about extending the provision of simultaneous interpretation beyond the explicitly formal - include

• drawing a parallel between the resources/costs of me (an individual) with the state (an institution);


• claiming the cost is prohibitive (e.g., that money should be spent on other more pressing concerns, or the people won't put up with it, etc.), and/or that


• it is fair to treat all languages in the same way (via the formal/informal distinction, in this case).

At the moment I am particularly interested in the last point, concerning a perception of fairness if the boundary is "very clear" and all languages are treated "the same." It is well-established which settings in the EP are formal and will be interpreted and which are not. The rigidity of this structure not only eases the bureaucratic strain of having to treat particular cases, it also precludes discussion of other criteria which may be more salient. My hypotheses of salience involve long-term effectiveness over short-term efficiency, clearer policy framing as to when/why simultaneous interpretation is necessary, and also more reality-based decision-making about when simultaneous interpretation is either unnecessary or purely for symbolic reasons.

My underlying thesis is that the orientations as to when, where, and why to use simultaneous interpretation (SI) are formative of identity:

At the moment, my immediate concern is that the EP officials at the Cabinet level who are charged with making the decision about whether or not to enable SI for this research project will say no. I can imagine many reasons why this might be their answer, all of which are sensible within the current/dominant framework. To say yes, however, would allow me to include the viewpoints of MEPs who need SI the most, and thus have - perhaps - the most significant things to share concerning their experiences and perspectives. Otherwise the information I have to work with will be skewed. :-(

I keep thinking about a critique sociolinguist Jan Blommaert makes of the social scientific field of critical discourse analysis (which is my main methodology). In the following quote, Blommaert summarizes several points in the larger context of globalization; I think they apply equally well to the European Parliament:

"...one of the problems with discourse analysis was its assumption of choice for participants in communication . . . one needs to take into account the significant constraints imposed on people in communication, constraints that found their origins in the structures of their societies and the differences in structure between societies . . ." (2005, p. 234)

My own guilt stares me in the face: the assumption that MEPs have a real choice to provide interpretation for research conversations with me. I don't think I'm being particularly selfish or self-centered in thinking that they might consider talking with me worthy; rather, I imagine these short conversations as roughly approximate to those informal negotiating sessions with peers in which a crucial compromise on key legislation will get hammered out.

If an MEP has responded to the initial invitation to participate in this research project, they have done so for a reason. I would very much like to learn the substance of these reasons! If I cannot, then the rest of Blommaert's statement excerpted above becomes relevant:

". . . all kinds of influences operate at the same time in the same communication event. But they do not operate in the same way. Simultaneity involves stratification, with some influences that are more immediate than others, more visible, and more open to conscious exploration, negotiation, and manipulation. This stratification is a crucial site of inequality, for it is governed by asymmetrical patterns of access. Such patterns operate both within and between societies..." (emphasis added, 2005, p. 234)

That "asymmetrical pattern of access" has my attention. The rigidity of providing SI for formal settings and not informal ones has the appearance of fairness because it applies one yardstick to all situations. The measurement of what qualifies as "formal" and what (by default) is "informal" is unquestioned - perhaps (as I may discover but I hope not), unquestionable.

Tensions are inevitably involved with simultaneous interpretation between languages. For instance, interpreters are invested in the management of the communication process so that they can adequately discern and convey interlocutor's meanings. Interlocutors, meanwhile, are concerned with controlling the meanings being conveyed. These themes are evident in the discourse of professional interpreters talking about the challenges of providing simultaneous interpretation, as well as in the discourse of interlocutors talking about using interpretation services. One might presume that simultaneously interpreted communication is most effective when interpreters and interlocutors participate together to create meaningful interaction, yet the respective priorities of interpreters and interlocutors seem to be posed in opposition - as if there is no way to accommodate both sets of role-based needs.

Few opportunities exist for interpreters and interlocutors to hash out the implications of these differing prioritizations. Public opinion about simultaneous interpretation, therefore, is primarily shaped by expressions of frustration about the limits imposed by necessity. This seems particularly to be the case concerning simultaneous interpretation (SI) at the European Parliament. The actual gains and benefits of simultaneous interpretation as a cultural practice are not specified. Instead of naming and emphasizing the deep values embedded in acts of participation in simultaneous interpretation, justifications are presented in expansive rhetoric.

The right of an elected Member [of Parliament] to speak, read and write in his or her language lies at the heart of [the European Union] Parliament's democratic legitimacy(1).

Such abstract descriptions reduces simultaneous interpretation to the symbolic representation of lofty ideals (specifically democracy, legitimacy, transparency and efficiency (2)) that have little bearing on the nitty-gritty day-to-day workings of politics and nothing, unfortunately, to do with forging the common identity so vital to a cohesive European citizenry.

As I teeter on the cusp of early conversations with Members of the European Parliament about simultaneous interpretation in the Parliament, my current case in point being the section In quale lingua: languages within the European Parliament, in the 7th edition of Corbett, Jacobs, and Shackleton's The European Parliament. A reviewer explains:

"The authors take it as a central aim of the book to present the achievements of the Parliament in a good light," even though Corbett, Jacobs & Shackleton emphasize "the fact that verbal flourishes are somewhat diminished by the fact that debates must be translated into the parliament's 23 official languages." In its favor, the authors do say that the European Parliament has a "unique moral claim:" it "is the only element of the [EU] system over which all of the citizens have a roughly equal say, be they from Luxembourg, Romania or the UK." Corbett, Jacobs & Shackleton conclude that the European Parliament is the one institution "where nearly all members can, realistically, have a significant impact upon the making of laws."

The diction of Corbett, Jacobs & Shackleton in the section on languages, however, is strikingly negative: "unusual" (p. 38), "difficult" (p. 38), "burden" (p. 39), "costs ... [are] very great" (p. 39) and "very substantial" (p. 40), "complicates" (p. 39), "slows down" (p. 39), "also...indirect costs" (p. 40), "significant . . . impacts" (p. 40), "considerable time elapses" (p. 40), "constraints" (p. 41), "problems" (p. 41), "a new weapon" (p. 41), "translation gaps" (p. 41), "further delays" (p. 41), "restrictions" (p. 41), "suffer" (p. 41), "misunderstandings and unnecessary amendments" (p. 41), "constraints imposed" (p. 41), "further constraints" (p. 42), "a brake on spontaneity and comprehension" (p. 42), "careful planning" (p. 42), "controversial" (p. 43), "cut back" (p. 43), "apology" (p. 45), "continually reviewed" (p. 45), and "tension" (p. 45).

Recent conversations with interested persons keep adding dimensions to the scope of negative critique. For instance, comparisons between the quality of interpretation provided by the English booth ("they are just summarizing!") with the Spanish booth ("they are the best!") Always - and I do mean always! - the first comment people make about my research topic involves some problem, difficulty, challenge, or other assessment, assumption, or observation about what is wrong with simultaneous interpretation.

Footnotes:

(1) Quoted in Lauridsen, Karen M. "A European Union with 20+ languages:
A major challenge for the interpreting services" (ELC Information Bulletin 8 - April 2002), http://web.fu-berlin.de/elc/bulletin/8/en/lauridsen2.html retrieved online 1 November 2008, attributed to Patrick Twidle; Ginsburgh, Victor A., Ortuño-Ortín, Ignacio and Weber, Shlomo. "Disenfranchisement in Linguistically Diverse Societies. The Case of the European Union" (CORE Discussion Paper No. 2004/80, January 2005, 2008 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=747344 retrieved online 1 November 2008.
(2) "Our policy of official multilingualism as a deliberate tool of government is unique in the world. The EU sees the use of its citizens' languages as one of the factors which make it more transparent, more legitimate and more efficient." Welcome to the Europa Languages Portal! http://europa.eu/languages/en/home retrieved 1 November 2008.