Reflexivity

In addition to the transmission of information, the larger and deepest purpose of simultaneous interpretation is to generate and maintain common culture among people from different cultures.

As hoped, the opportunity to present on my dissertation fieldwork in-progress forced my brain to synthesize the trends and patterns that I have been noticing during this year of research at the European Parliament, as well as find words to express what I think these trends and patterns suggest about mono- and multilingualism. The effort to explain my perceptions moved me far along the analytical path; since returning to fieldwork many of the findings have crystallized further.
A few weeks ago, after more backbrain simmering, I finally uttered the statement highlighted above, distilling the years of talking with interested colleagues (and anyone else who would listen, thanks Arne!) into a single, comprehensible idea.
Purposes are human creations, not physical facts, so there is plenty of room to disagree. I am anticipating a conversation that will take place in Philadelphia in August (”Interpreting as Culture“), and other conversations that I hope grow from there and link from/with other sources (such as Ryan Commerson’s brilliant master’s thesis applying the work of Stuart Hall).
The feedback provided by participants at my presentations at Heriot Watt University in Edinburgh is affirming (thanks!) and helpful. For this post, I am only including the comments that relate specifically to my thesis.
1) “Why,” wrote one participant, “do people want [simultaneous interpretation] to be like a mono-lingual exchange? Why are they so uncomfortable with interpreted interaction…[?]”

I am not sure that interlocutors (or interpreters, for that matter) are consciously aware of comparing the process of interpreted interaction to what it is like to talk with someone in the same language. We are so accustomed to the ease of monolingual communication – it is like the fish not being aware of water or the bird, air. It is, for most of us, our typical environment, the way we get along with nearly everybody, practically all of the time. So when the exceptional circumstance of an interpreted interaction occurs . . . on what other basis could we imagine to evaluate it?

Not only that, but we also have the collusion of academic discourse reinforcing the unquestioned common sense. One professional sign language interpreter wrote,

“…reflecting [on] how my practice is so heavily influenced . . . it’s shocking to reflect on how thoroughly ‘old’ theories of interpreter (’translator’?) role of ‘heard and not seen’ (invisible conduit) have become/are becoming so entrenched, particularly in a place where multi-lingual, multi-cultural awareness should be richest.”

2) That “place” is the European Parliament, about which another participant mused, “Do politicians really want to understand each other?”

Based on the interviews with European Parliament interpreters four years ago, I can say that some interpreters think not! Or at least, not all the time, or not within the constraints of particular structures – such as the plenary sessions (which get the most publicity and thus seem to represent SI at the EP, even though I am inclined to argue more real interpreting gets done in every other setting than that one).

3) “Don’t we get ‘third cultures,’ ‘communities of practice,’ all the time, everytime?” asks another researcher?

Of course we do, but the question is whether that “third culture” is substantively different than what we get without interpretation! The discourses about simultaneous interpretation that I’ve been learning privilege the same kind of characteristics that are prominent in monolingual communication. This was reflected in questions from another participant:

4) “How is this speed in communication (even though passive) … effecting our expectations of it? Our response? Interaction between cultures? Dealing with relationships?”

There’s no definitive answer – we are all co-creating the ways we engage the imperative of speed in collaborative/complementary fashion, consciously or not. Which leads directly into another question posed by another researcher:

5) “Will there be a paradigm shift? Would I like it?” And a participant’s observation: “Despite of promotion of language diversity/equality, for practical/political/power reasons, lingua franca will still be the fate.”

In response, I would distinguish, here, between communities of practice and third cultures. Perhaps this is a naive distinction, but culture is a more-or-less passive development of aggregated relational actions into coherent systemic wholes. (At some point there are leaders, religious figures, etc., who justify the parts and defend the whole.) A community of practice is intentional from the outset. While, as one participant/researcher wrote, “The language produced by interpreters – the form – is indeed a message,” I would say this language constitutes discourse but does not necessarily represent a community of practice until we take hold of the form in order to wield it for specific purpose.

I submit that a purpose which could bind simultaneous interpreters into a community of practice across the gamut of “interpreters in triadic interactions and ’stream-of-language’ events like the European Parliament” (quoting from a participant) is the co-construction of intercultural community premised on language difference.

In addition to the transmission of information, the larger and deepest purpose of simultaneous interpretation is to generate and maintain common culture among people from different cultures.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Someone tipped me off that the European Parliament has hired someone to make a film on the process of simultaneous interpretation (SI) from an elected Member’s point-of-view. I imagine they were carefully vetted in order to give the perspective that the Parliament wishes people to have regarding the purposes, uses, and effectiveness of interpretation. I agree that more people need to understand the value of SI, although I’m skeptical of the vision promoted by the official public relations and policy organs of the European Union. I think their view is unfortunately limited by an inherited and ingrained one-dimensional conception of what SI can do, as well as what it actually does do.
Nonetheless, all of their previous efforts do a nice job of creating desire to become a professional interpreter working at this highest of the high, most elite level of SI.

And from a different (still officially sanctioned) angle:

And some critiques:

Popularity: 1% [?]

and how will we cope?

“Ideas about changing the organization of society in the long run are clearly needed, quite apart from strategies for dealing with an immediate crisis. I would separate out three questions from the many that can be raised. First, do we really need some kind of “new capitalism” rather than an economic system that is not monolithic, draws on a variety of institutions chosen pragmatically, and is based on social values that we can defend ethically? Should we search for a new capitalism or for a “new world”–to use the other term mentioned at the Paris meeting–that would take a different form?”

“The most immediate failure of the market mechanism lies in the things that the market leaves undone. Smith’s economic analysis went well beyond leaving everything to the invisible hand of the market mechanism. He was not only a defender of the role of the state in providing public services, such as education, and in poverty relief (along with demanding greater freedom for the indigents who received support than the Poor Laws of his day provided), he was also deeply concerned about the inequality and poverty that might survive in an otherwise successful market economy.”

“Keynes can be our savior only to a very partial extent, and there is a need to look beyond him in understanding the present crisis. One economist whose current relevance has been far less recognized is Keynes’s rival Arthur Cecil Pigou, who, like Keynes, was also in Cambridge, indeed also in Kings College, in Keynes’s time.”

“Pigou not only wrote the classic study of welfare economics, but he also pioneered the measurement of economic inequality as a major indicator for economic assessment and policy.[7] Since the suffering of the most deprived people in each economy–and in the world–demands the most urgent attention, the role of supportive cooperation between business and government cannot stop only with mutually coordinated expansion of an economy. There is a critical need for paying special attention to the underdogs of society in planning a response to the current crisis, and in going beyond measures to produce general economic expansion.”

Popularity: 1% [?]

Culture(s) and discourse(s) are among the most unmanageable elements of international business. “You can’t model panic.” Patterns of cultural interaction and, especially, the range of interpretations of these patterns, have profound effects on the design and implementation of business plans. For instance, are differences of language a problem or a benefit? Do the homogenizing effects of using English as the language of international management outweigh the constant adaptation required by working multilingually? Discourses about simultaneous interpretation (SI) at the European Parliament (with its 23 working languages) pit danger and loss against loss and resignation. “Loss” of fluency and clarity worries professional interpreters at the European Parliament (EP) and “loss” of direct contact between interlocutors (users of interpreting services, in this case Members of the EP) seem – counterintuitively – to express anxieties about multilingualism and the possibilities for control. Understood as a practice of intercultural communication, the tensions made evident when simultaneous interpretation is used are a vital source of creativity typically overlooked because of conditioned (monolingual) preferences for using a shared language.

Contemporary social theory can help us understand participation in dialogue interpreting as a cultural form of communication. In addition to transferring information between people who do not share the same language, using an interpreter is a type of communication practice with implications for identity. The roles and norms for participating in simultaneous interpretation constitute social rituals that contribute to the maintenance of linguistic and cultural difference. To the extent that participants are aware of the significance of participation, the stronger a contribution can be made to creating more just and equitable global societies.

Popularity: 1% [?]

I was introduced in this Coordinator’s Meeting as a researcher looking at “how we can cope with our language system.” This is the first time I’ve heard someone here characterize my research: that statement boils it down quite nicely!
Coordinator’s meetings occur just prior to Committee Meetings with the goal of delineating in advance the lines of engagement from each political group in the imminent debate. Every political group selects an individual to become the group expert on work being done in each of the Parliament’s permanent or temporary working committees. Someone (an MEP not present in this meeting) likened the role of a Coordinator to the position of a political commissar in the old Soviet system.
In this particular Coordinator’s meeting there were six men and eleven women from various countries, no simultaneous interpretation. The Chair (a position that rotates among the Coordinators – at least in this case) provided an overview of the agenda and invited questions and input. Not everyone spoke, but of those who did their English was readily understandable despite accents, except for one person whose accent became more prominent for a few phrases. In my notes, I recorded this incident as “lapsed into thicker accent, hard to follow (for me).” I remember that I was listening without extra effort, suddenly lost comprehension for a brief span (probably less than ten seconds), and then the words became distinctly audible again. I was not taking content notes at the time, which is why I added the caveat “for me” – someone who was really following the message, and/or knows this person well or is used to their style, and/or knows the topic in detail, may not have experienced a comparable disconnect. No one asked, so I have to presume I was the only one who struggled in that moment – or that there is a culture of not asking, or some criteria as to when one asks and when one does not ask.
A Coordinator provided some background on dynamics between his group’s Shadow Rapporteur and the Rapporteur of one of the Reports on the agenda, explaining that there is deviation from usual practice in terms of procedures (respective to the field addressed by the report) and that the Rapporteur is not engaging with the Shadows as much as last year’s Rapporteur had done, which this Coordinator characterized as “strange.”
Note: The role labels are fantastic, aren’t they? The Rapporteur is the person responsible for writing the final Report, which means he or she must coordinate the organization of required data and – especially – the negotiations among the different political parties about differing viewpoints, strategies, and concerns. The Shadow Rapporteurs work as liaisons between the Rapporteur and each political group. As a team altogether, the Shadows and the Rapporteur work out kinks or at least clarify exactly where the sticking points are and what they consist of. The Shadows are specific liaisons from a political group to a particular Report, whereas the Coordinators are liaisons from the political group to a Committee as a whole. (Right? Usually Coordinators are not also Rapporteurs or Shadow Rapporteurs, but sometimes two roles may be assigned to a single person.)
The Coordinators specified what’s missing in the current version of the Report that still needs to be addressed, emphasizing the stance of their political group and pointing out which areas are sensitive but nonetheless need to be pressed. A particularly harsh criticism from . . . (I think it was from the European Commission, who is an institutional partner in the crafting of legislation) . . . was noted as “not balanced” and “unacceptable.” In short, “we will have to make many amendments.”
Another topic was highlighted by the Chair as the one that might become “the most politically sensitive.” It was unclear to me, later, whether this same issue was characterized as “the hardest topic” or if that description was being applied to a different – although related – matter. Some praise was given for previous accomplishments that can now be built upon. The praise may have been prelude for mentioning an area that will prove challenging: “I know we won’t agree on this, but I put it out.” Background information was added on “an on-going thing, not here in the report. I tell you in case it comes up in discussion . . . we fear the usual suspects will bring it in . . .” and an assertion that the point-of-view of those most closely involved is that “we feel no foul play.” Finally, a new/breaking concern was shared, including references to previous similar situations and the warning, “this will be the hottest topic for the next months.”
While the general conversation was conducted all in English, there were a few side conversations that occurred periodically around the table in other languages. No one was perturbed; I noticed these asides because of the dilemma that kind of interaction sometimes poses for signed language interpreters… when a side conversation is loud enough for many in the room to overhear, do you interpret into signed language so the Deaf person(s) present are privy to the same information? And (more sticky, given the general imbalance of power), do you interpret into spoken language the side conversations among Deaf persons that can be seen and understood by other signers in the room? The twin dilemma of accessibility/power centers around the interpreter’s forced choice between the general conversation and the side conversation: which is most important/relevant to be conveyed? Is the interpreter the individual best suited to make this judgment call? And – if not the interpreter, then with whom does the responsibility rest?
As with the Intergroup Meeting I observed, the absence of simultaneous interpretation did not seem to adversely the communication of the group in the immediate interaction, but I wonder about the ripple effect of the loss of contextual information to the interpreters which shapes the nuances and subtleties of the utterances they interpret. Interpreters can hardly orient an interlocutor’s text to a precise reference point that the interpreter does not know is implied, such as:

• deviations from past practice
• predictions of political sensitivity or particular difficulty
• issues not in the report but expected to be raised
• perceptions or conclusions regarding those issues
• the intended target of amendments being the continuation of an historical stance or to soften criticism or to provide balance

Popularity: 1% [?]

My sense of urgency about coming to grips with transformations within the field of possibilities for professional interpretation is promoted by various factors, some of which I hope are transient while others are reaffirmed on nearly a daily basis.
One of these days a chapter will be published concerning a dominant theme of interpreter discourse four years ago at the European Parliament, “A Discourse of Danger and Loss: Interpreters on Interpreting for the European Parliament.” This year, Members of the European Parliament also refer to “bad English,” but few of the Members seem actually upset by it. The neutral label is “Brussels English.” The growth of a new argot arising from the interaction of various “Englishes” is inevitable; arguing against it is an outlet for frustration that does little to stop the erosive effect on conference interpreting in this exceptional house.
An announcement about interpretation was included in the “buro telegram” distributed within political group meetings last night:

In order not to prolong the chaos surrounding the 23 different official languages (largely underused) at ACP/EU meetings, a compromise has been reached between the General Secretariat and members of the assembly: translation will be carried out in 6 languages – English, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese (+ where necessary, the language of the Council presidency). Interpreting into a particular language will only be carried out if at least 3 of the MPs in question confirm their attendance at the latest 2 weeks before the meeting.

My attention is drawn to two features of the language used in making this announcement: negative framing and conflation. “The chaos surrounding . . . largely underused [languages]” continues the negative framing of simultaneous interpretation services in the Parliament (and, by extension, within the European Union as a whole). The conflation caused by using the generic term “translation” to refer specifically to the provision of simultaneous interpreters is a lapse in diction at best, a foreshadowing of the extension of this limited regime to the actual provision of translated documents at worst.
Meanwhile many of the Members that I’ve spoken with describe constraints on the provision of interpretation services to working groups and delegations, and most are unaware of an experimental initiative piloted last year aimed at providing “personalized interpretation” to rapporteurs. I wonder how many Members may have asked their respective rapporteurs to use this service in order to develop understandings, negotiations, and compromises on matters relevant to their Committee work? I am also curious where the interpreters are in promoting assignments to these smaller-scale venues? The absence of interpreters in the “compromise” statement above may not indicate their literal absence from those negotiations (via appropriate representation), but it certainly reflects the low regard given institutionally to their professional expertise: if they did participate in the decision-making process, this is not transparent.
Please note that I specify institutional regard in the preceding statement! Members are generally satisfied with the high quality of service that is provided by interpreters at the European Parliament and appreciate the incredible task of coordination organized by the Interpreting Directorate. As far as being a tool, the system of simultaneous interpretation in its formal deployment seems to function as well as anyone expects it to. My questions and concerns have more to do with the dynamics surrounding talk about interpretation, and how these dynamics reflect societal trends concerning languages and multilingualism in general.
For instance, I was struck by two behaviors of language use that I observed in the political group meeting that I was allowed to attend. Overall, three languages were primary – French, English, and Italian. I would estimate that each language was used for roughly the same amount of time. Turn-taking was orderly; every now and then interjections were made into a Member’s speech, and on a few occasions there was a low-level background murmur as Members dis-attended the designated speaker to conduct private conversations with colleagues. The language of interjections did not always match the language of the designated speaker, nor was there any obvious pattern in the ways languages changed between speaker turns: sometimes Members used a language different than the speaker just before them and sometimes they used the same language as the speaker they followed. With more observation and attention to these details there may be patterns with significant implications. For now I will just mention the possibility of a relation between the two particular aspects that leapt into awareness as I listened.
First was the use of English to assert control. The meeting was called to order in English, and once most Members were paying attention the chairperson then switched to speaking in French. Later, when there was a spurt of quick interjections and repartee, the chair shifted back to English and continued in English, as did Members speaking from the floor, until the burst of energy was contained. English was used a third time in the group to overcome a rising tide of murmurs that swelled into the background during a Member’s somewhat lengthy turn (compared with the average time spent speaking up until that point, again estimated rather than timed).
This last occurrence caught my attention, because it was the first time I heard this particular speaker use English instead of Italian. The vice-chairperson had already spoken several times. I had at first assumed she was speaking French (and perhaps some of her turns at the very beginning while calling the meeting to order were in French), but as I watched the working interpreters (behind glass in their booths overlooking the room) I realized she was speaking Italian. It was a bit of a departure then, when she took up her turn following the colleague’s long statement and used a combination of the choice of English and a slight increase in volume to quiet the group and draw everyone back to the central, shared task.
Prior to the collective re-focusing of the group, I had noticed that the murmuring – which became louder and more pervasive than any which had preceded it – occurred while the language being spoken was English. As the side conversations increased I wondered – is there more permission and/or ability to be distracted during colleague’s use of English than during the use of other languages that may require Members to use the interpretation services? I noticed that very few of those present had their headphones on during this particular turn, and of those that were wearing them it is difficult to confirm whether they were actually listening to the interpretation or not, as the headphones were worn half-cocked (one ear on, one ear off) and/or their attention was directed to a laptop.
I will need to observe more frequently to confirm the following intuition, as there are competing possibilities for the significant drift of concentrated focus, such as disinterest in the particular topic being spoken about or a disaffection for the particular Member speaking, to name the two most obvious possibilities. Perhaps my assumption that the side conversations were deviations from the official topic is completely mistaken and the murmuring constituted serious consultation with colleagues concerning the nuances of the issue as Members thought through their own stances in relation to it?
I think the matter is worth much closer examination, because if the Members were talking about other issues than the one officially on the floor, and the reasons were not explicitly due to the nature of the topic or the speaker, then something peculiar may come into view concerning English as a language of control:

• English is used authoritatively to command attention and
• English is most readily escaped as the locus of attention.

I speculate: is it possible that the widespread familiarity with English – which allows one to avoid the headphones (and therefore any/all interpretation) – also enables the drifting of focused attention? If so, then one of the reasons for choosing interpretation over un-interpreted listening is to enhance individual commitment to the group task.

Popularity: 1% [?]

There has never been as much peaceful cooperation among the governments and peoples of Europe as occurs within the structure of the European Union. “It is not so long ago,” I have been reminded regularly, “that we were killing each other.” Professional, simultaneous interpreters enact a cornerstone of the EU project innumerous times every single day, but the tangible outcomes of using interpreters are lost in rhetoric about multilingualism and the political nature of language use. The basic truth that everyone communicates best in his or her mother tongue is suppressed by extensive promotion of language learning and various regimes of “controlled multilingualism” administered by the European Institutions. The human desire for direct communication enables critique of interpreter errors, diluting focus on the long-term positive effects of sustaining linguistic diversity through the consistent, proactive use of simultaneous interpretation.
I spend a lot of time with professional interpreters, working as one myself between American Sign Language and English for communication among deaf and non-deaf people in the U.S., as well as attending international conferences and mingling with interpreters while conducting research. Much of my worldview has been shaped by my academic interpreter training program and professional continuing education. Most particularly, however, I have learned about interpreting from formal and informal conversations with Deaf people about their experiences of using interpreters in the communities where they live, work, pursue education and civic participation, raise children, and sometimes have to deal with medical and legal issues. Europeans seem not to know very much about the extensive professional training or widespread infrastructure of providing interpretation for Deaf persons that has been developed in the US, the UK, and Australia. This is a small point as far as my current research project goes, but it is relevant to the extent that there are viable other models “out there” for how to do professional simultaneous interpretation.
Having a point of contrast is useful. Be forewarned that I state the differences between “conference interpreting” at the European Parliament and “community interpreting” for deaf and non-deaf people in the U.S. in stark extremes in order to make certain that the distinctions are clear.
First and foremost, conference interpreting at the European Parliament is exclusively concerned with information. Community interpreting for the Deaf is also concerned with the exchange of facts, ideas, and opinions, but is equally – and sometimes more so – concerned with the social relations between participants. The use of professional community interpretation is a linguistic accommodation for institutional inequalities, and the interpreter is understood as a powerbroker not only of meaning, and also of present and future opportunities. By contrast, in the European Parliament interpreters are understood as necessary cogs in a bureaucratic machine: everyone hopes they don’t break down.
The “controlled multilingualism” of the European Parliament is a service provided to “bodies” – plenary sessions, political groups, and some working committees – not an accommodation for individual human beings. The language(s) are divorced from the people who speak them; one could go so far as to say that conference interpreting makes people irrelevant. For instance, this interpreter or that interpreter in the booth doesn’t matter (despite the fact that expertise in the area of discussion facilitates flow, and continuity over several meetings is the best guarantor of accuracy). Or suppose a Polish MEP and an Estonian MEP wish to jointly develop some particular agenda? No interpreter will be provided: perhaps one of them knows the other’s language enough to get by, or both know English to varying degrees, but neither equation enables their best persuasion or negotiation skills. Probably they must rely on the ability of their own assistants to translate written correspondence. Where is the dialogue and debate?
I offer these examples because they will be familiar, but the point I am most interested in is this separation of language from its speakers. Discourse analysts from various social scientific backgrounds debate the relative hierarchy of what language does to us (e.g., Blommaert, a sociolinguist), and what we do with language (e.g., Billig, a discursive psychologist). I am interested in a middle ground between these two extremes: developing ideas and applications concerning what we can ask language to do for us. One reason that interpreting at the European Parliament is special is the way it pigeonholes live human language into a tight modern technological box.
Yes, the preceding is a critique: there are problems with the systemic removal of the human from language-based communication. Offering this critique, however, is not to argue that the system should be done away with or even radically revised. Rather, what is needed is clarity concerning the circumstances when dis-embodied conference interpreting is effective for the purposes it is intended to serve, clear definitions of the other capabilities and possibilities created by using simultaneous interpretation, and guidelines for determining the circumstances when a community model is necessary to accomplish the important other things that language can do in multilingual, transnational societies and both domestic and international commerce. This leads to the more important reason why interpreting at the European Parliament is special: the Members of the European Parliament who depend upon conference interpretation to do their political work are the premiere experts on its use.

Popularity: 1% [?]

BBC correspondent Andrew Marr presented the first inaugural Tony Bevins Prize for investigative journalism, also called “Rat Up A Drainpipe Award” to Deborah Haynes, a journalist who reported on interpreters in Iraq. Marr told the Society of Editors [on 11 November] that the newspaper industry needs to do more to “market itself” and explain “why newspapers matter”.
Of course, my mission is to explain why interpreters matter, and expand the marketing on our behalf. All of the following links are to articles by Deborah Haynes (either solo or in a team), below are additional articles by others.

Deborah Haynes on Iraqi Interpreters:

US, British Firms Win Iraqi Contracts (13 March 2004), first mention of the death of a interpreter in Iraq

Letter from Interpreters working in Language Support (3 March 2007) and Denial of Refugee Status (22 June 2007) [resource provided by Deborah Haynes]

Abandoned – the 91 Iraqis who risked all (7 August 2007)

‘If we stay when the British troops pull out, then the militia will kill us’ (7 August 2007)

Interpreters beg for asylum as militants show them no mercy: Britain has rebuffed appeals from Iraqis who risked their lives helping the Army (7 August 2007)

Britain employs 600 Iraqis who might need asylum, not 20,000 (9 August 2007)

Interpreters caught in the middle (10 August 2007)

Prepared to stay and work to the end – despite the dangers (11 August 2007)

This is the story of two brothers who worked for the British: one is dead, the other fears for his life (15 August 2007)

Britain has a moral duty to Iraqi staff, says Baghdad envoy (17 August 2007)

Sectarian militias seek revenge on interpreters’ family and friends (21 August 2007)

Britain ready to back down on asylum for its interpreters in Iraq (23 August 2007)

Exiled interpreters left in limbo as they wait for salvation from Britain (21 September 2007)

Scared and alone, interpreters are finally offered a way out (6 October 2007)

‘If we get asylum we will live. If we do not we will die. It is that simple’ (8 October 2007)

Interpreters who helped troops will get aid to relocate with families (9 October 2007)

Relief turns to anxiety as interpreters fear betrayal (11 October 2007)

‘I don’t want my kids to watch me slaughtered like a useless sheep’ (19 Nov 2007)

Visa red tape ‘blocking road to freedom’ for Army’s Iraqi interpreters (19 November 2007)

Britain’s breach of honour over Iraq interpreters (12 December 2007) also posted on The Project on Defense Alternatives, The Commonwealth Institute’s “War Report: Iraq Archives – Humanitarian Crisis and Human Rights”

Iraqi interpreters seeking asylum in Britain will be refused entry until 2009 (13 December 2007)

Hundreds of Iraqi Interpreters Denied Chance to Live in the UK (9 Jan 2008)

Iraqi interpreters and families prepare for new lives in Britain (14 March 2008)

Iraqi interpreters fly out to a new life in Britain (8 April 2008)

A life spent waiting (13 June 2008)

Interpreters stranded in Jordan fear they’ve been forgotten (13 June 2008)

Other nations are showing the way, with compassion and respect (13 June 2008)

Amnesty award for interpreter series (18 June 2008)

No softening of asylum rules for the Iraqis who risked their lives (11 September 2008)

Case study: son was sent tape of murder (11 September 2008)

Outrage at ‘cynical’ manipulation of scheme to resettle Iraqi aides (12 September 2008)

Iraqi who risked all for Britain is left to his fate in Basra (9 December 2008)

Related:
Outrage over betrayal of Iraqi interpreters (7 August 2007) by Michael Evans
Do the Right Thing: Britain must not abandon its bravest allies in Iraq (7 August 2007)
Brown intervenes over the Iraqi interpreters denied political asylum (8 August 2007) by Francis Elliott, Greg Hurst, and Michael Evans
‘Interpreters for the British will be killed if they are left behind’ (11 August 2007) by Ben McIntyre
What’s Arabic for ‘we’ll stand by you’? The Iraqi interpreters are tainted as collaborators (17 August 2007) by Ben McIntyre
Get out or die, security force chief tells interpreters for British Army (14 September 2007) by Martin Fletcher
Matter of Interpretation: Britain should be as generous as possible to Iraqis who have risked their lives (6 October 2007)
Ministerial statement on Iraqi interpreters
Statement issued by David Miliband, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 9 October 2007
Interpreters can choose cash for resettlement or new life in UK (10 October 2007) by Richard Beeston
Iraqi interpreters – once more by Oliver Kamm (28 February 2008)
Iraqi interpreters and families prepare for new lives in Britain also posted at Signs of the Times which includes a timeline stating:

• “August 12 An interpreter claims that about 60 colleagues have been killed working for the British” and
• “September 16 A man believed to be an interpreter is beaten in front of his pregnant wife and killed”
• (note: both lack link or reference).

Britain shamed as Iraqi interpreters are resettled in squalid tower blocks (13 June 2008) by Michael Evans and Sam Coates
Comment added to blog reposting of Iraqi who risked all for Britain is left to his fate in Basra

This is absolutely despicable. The British are no better than the Bush Administration for not harboring Iraqi interpreters who helped them when they needed them.
The Iraq Veterans’ Refugee Aid Association is going to do everything we can to help brave Iraqis like Mohammed.~Luis Carlos Montalvan

Where are your tributes to justice and courage now, Gordon Brown? (12 September 2008)

Tangential:
Top Ten UK-US Words Lost in Translation (15 August 2008)
Amnesty International UK Awards for 2008 also posted via the Women News Network Breaking News Portal.
Deborah Haynes wins award for Iraq reports (11 November 2008)
Facebook Group: Asylum for Iraqi Interpreters & Employees of Armed Forces
Nominations for 2008 Intrranet Linguist Awards include Deborah Haynes and Eric Camayd-Freixas, who I blogged about on 11 July 2008, on his Breaking Role to Serve Justice. The list is also posted at PR-USA.net.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Grrl is rocking, there’s no doubt!

I wrote about another music video that she has interpreted in her wonderful style, from artificial code to organic language. In Cry Me A River, she has adapted the lyrics about a heterosexual (male/female) relationship to apply to the cross-cultural interaction of Deaf and “hearing” (non-deaf).

Popularity: 1% [?]

Fog shrouded my arrival in Luxembourg, persisting through the first day. The second morning dawned grey but sparkling.



What a treat to listen through headphones to an interpretation into English of Professor Joanna Nowicki’s talk on intercultural communication, or – as she prefers to label it – intercultural mediation. Her critique of ‘the American way [of teaching about] intercultural communication” was quite sharp: it “becomes one dimensional very fast.” She generalized about management programs that simply direct their students: “with people of this nationality, do that, with people of that nationality, do this.” I am not convinced that my friends in the School of Management at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst are receiving so stark a reduction, but I am familiar with trends in my department (Communication) that could lend themselves to such simplistic categorizations. No doubt Professor Nowicki’s critique applies in general, if not to every case. She also describes “the American way” as “very pragmatic,” explaining that, for Americans, the results of research must be useful.

Research and the real world
Personally, I am inclined to agree with the goal of research needing to have practical use: theory alone is dancing in air. Beautiful, yes. And exclusive. Again, however, it is unclear to me how generally this categorization applies to all American research, as there is only one official pragmatist in the UMass Communication Department and the critical emphasis leans strongly toward the theoretical. Application to the real (not abstract) world receives rather short shrift. Perhaps I am a bit more European in style, as I conceptualize theory and practice as blended in actual experience. Where Professor Nowicki did nail me in my American-ness was with her characterization of American researchers of intercultural communication moving quickly to “giving advice.”

Popularity: 1% [?]