Intercultural Crisis Communication

Translation, Interpreting and Languages in Local Crises

Christophe Declercq, Federico M. Federici

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781350097070
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Translating & Interpreting
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Intercultural Crisis Communication poses pertinent questions and provides powerful responses to crises that have characterised the modern world since 2010. Language mediation in situations of disaster, emergency and conflict is an under-developed area of scholarship in Translation Studies. This book responds to a clear need for research drawn from practical experiences in the field and explores the crucial role of translation, interpretation and mediation in contexts of crises. Particular consideration is given to situations where rare or minority languages represent a substantial obstacle to humanitarian operations. Contemporary case studies from the USA, Africa, Europe, and Armenia provide major examples of crisis communication that call for more efficient language mediation. Such examples include Syrian displacement, the refugee crisis in Croatia and Italy, international terrorism and national public administration, interpreting in conflict and for Médecins sans Frontières, as well as the integration of refugee doctors for employment in the UK. With contributions from experts in the field, this volume is of international relevance and provides a multifaceted overview of intercultural communication issues and remedies during crises.

Section One

Integrating People in Movement in Regional Crises

1

The Counternarratives of Migrants and Cultural Mediators

Stefania Taviano

As the language of communication on a global scale par excellence, the status of English is particularly complex for a number of reasons. To start with, it is no longer defined or identified as a single language, but rather as a family of languages (Crystal, 2003). Furthermore, the World Englishes paradigm emphasizes the ‘polymorphous nature of the English language worldwide’ (Rudby and Saraceni, 2006: 13), leading to the use of Englishes to identify this language family. This approach is one among many possible ones examining the role and status of English today, and this variety of analytical approaches, together with the subsequent diversity of definitions, ranging from EFL (English as a Foreign Language), to Global English and International English, equally testify to its complexity. One of the issues complicating things even further is its double nature as both a global and a local language: English exists simultaneously as a language of international communication and as multiple local varieties of English.

Following English as a lingua franca (ELF) scholars, such as Seidlhofer (2007, 2011), Jenkins (2015), I have argued that ELF is a hybrid language inevitably affected by the languages and cultures of its speakers (Taviano, 2010, 2013). It can be empowering, particularly when its speakers appropriate the language and make it their own, for instance when it has a central role in constructing their identity, as in the case of migrant writers (Polezzi, 2012a) and activist artists (Taviano, 2016). At the same time, however, the opposite is true and knowledge of English, or better a lack of it, can have a significant impact preventing people from having access to well-paid jobs as well as affecting their social status. It can also contribute to power imbalance in high-stakes encounters, such as asylum claims.

ELF permeates the destiny of migrants and asylum seekers as a language of communication when interacting with police officers, social workers and asylum commissioners. ELF is intrinsically related to the importance of translation and interpreting in intercultural crisis communication, the themes addressed in this book. The centrality of migrants’ languages as well as translation and interpreting practices, particularly in contexts of inequality and injustice, however, has so far been given scarce attention, with few exceptions (see Angelelli, 2015; Guido, 2015; Inghilleri, 2017). This chapter is thus an attempt to start filling such a gap through an interdisciplinary perspective, combining ELF and Translation Studies, focusing on the relationship between language and identity, on the one hand, and current critical notions of citizenship as affected by translation and migration, on the other. It does so by taking into account the role of cultural mediators as well as asylum seekers’ perspectives, such as those narrated through the Storie migranti project (Storie migranti, 2011).

Challenging cultural and linguistic marginalization

As Hobsbawm and Ranger (1983) argue, the marginalization and homogenizing categorization of migrants, far from being a neutral act, is the consequence of socially and politically oriented discourses. Such discourses, as commonly known, are based on notions of identity as well-defined, fixed entities. In Bucholtz and Hall’s view, establishing identities involves downplaying differences while inventing similarities. The Other can thus be perceived in opposition to those ‘socially constituted as the same’ (2004: 371). More precisely:

In most cases difference implies hierarchy, and the group with the greater power establishes a vertical relation in terms beneficial to itself. Such ideological ranking enables the identities of the more powerful group to become less recognizable as identities; instead, this group constitutes itself as the norm from which all others diverge. (2004: 372)

This is clearly the case for the hierarchical relationship between Europeans and migrants/asylum seekers, whereby, as Bucholtz and Hall further explain, the first group’s identity is unmarked in contrast with the identities of migrant groups. Migrants are often easily recognizable and, thus, ideologically and socially marked, particularly due to their use of language(s) that differ from the norm. Precisely because identity is a social and cultural phenomenon (ibid., 377), as Bucholtz and Hall rightly emphasize, there is often an imbalance between cultural ideologies and social practices, between what we believe about people of various social backgrounds in terms of their language and behaviour, and the actual linguistic and social practices which tend to be far more complex and strategic than expected (Bucholtz and Hall, 381–382). Challenging predominant assumptions in which language is simply considered a reflection of one’s identity and culture is central to rethinking the relationship between Europe and migrants as the Other. This approach crucially recognizes that language, as a key cultural resource, is also a resource for the production of identity.

It is by taking into account the social and cultural constraints through which migrants and asylum seekers engage with their surrounding contexts that we can better understand how their use of language affects their identities, which are understood as historically, politically and socially produced. In this sense, it is particularly useful to conceptualize ELF as a translational lingua franca, as I have done elsewhere (Taviano, 2018). This means approaching ELF as a language in which translation, intended in a broad sense as the coexistence of several languages, is embedded in, thus making evident the political role of translation, translators, interpreters and cultural mediators, as Polezzi emphasizes (2012b).

Cultural mediators deserve particular attention since they play a pivotal function in welcoming migrants to EU countries, such as Italy, whose borders are currently being reinforced through the enclosure of migrants in identification camps where they are all categorized as non-European/Other. However, in Italy such figure is far from being fully recognized in professional terms with subsequent low hourly rates and the lack of a single definition, with multiple terms adopted varying from ‘cultural mediator’ to ‘intercultural mediator’. In 2014 the EU co-funded with the Italian Ministry of the Interior a project aimed to better identify the skills and competencies required to become an intercultural mediator (see Melandri et al., 2014). The latter’s low professional profile is in contrast with the complexity of a role which goes well beyond that of facilitating communication between migrants and civil servants, as Amato and Garwood (2011) and Katan (2015), among others, argue. The debate on the relationship between the role of translators and interpreters and that of cultural mediators, which is also framed as a debate about language skills, on the one hand, and metalinguistic competences, such as the ability to listen and understand people’s needs and to resolve conflicts, on the other, continues to take place among academics and interpreters and mediators themselves.

The lack of a commonly recognized definition (see Rudvin and Spinzi, 2014) and professional recognition on a national level in Italy is indicative of the contradictions inherent in the profession of the cultural mediator and how this figure is perceived. The role of community interpreters, as they are defined in English, and cultural mediators, as well as the differences between the two (see Martin and Phelan, 2010), has been and continues to be studied from a variety of critical approaches, as Vargas-Urpi shows (2011). These include anthropological perspectives, such as Bahadir’s (2004) view of the ideal interpreter-ethnographer as a professional who can understand both cultures and undertake different roles, depending on the context. There are also sociological approaches, such as Inghilleri’s (2003), which draw on both sociological and Translation Studies theories to argue for mediation as ‘a socially situated activity’, and applied linguistics approaches which emphasize how interaction between participants affects the message being conveyed – as in the case of the difference in use and tone of the imperative between English, on one hand, and Romance languages on the other (Mason and Steward, 2001). Finally, there are psychological approaches (see Valero Garcés, 2005) that focus on the cultural mediator’s skills in facing particularly stressful contexts, such as court appearances and hospitals.

Needless to say, interdisciplinary approaches that take into account the connection between language and the context in which the former is produced, as well as the hierarchical relations existing among participants, are particularly useful. This is largely because all the approaches mentioned above can be combined to contribute to a better understanding of cultural mediation as a socially produced profession (Inghilleri, 2003). As such, it needs to be contextualized to shed light on the impact that the social, political and cultural backgrounds of the actors involved, both individually and while communicating with others, can have.

According to Taronna (2015), for instance, experiences and processes of cultural mediation can contribute to transforming our views of language, negotiation, neutrality and resistance. Taronna argues that cultural mediators function as ‘activists in the creation of cross border networks of solidarity’ within a ‘community of practice’ based on common values and narrations contributing to a translational and translocal sense of citizenship (2015: 173). Interestingly enough, before Taronna’s study, ELF scholars, such as Seidlhofer (2007), had adopted Wenger’s notion (1998) of community of practice in their conceptualization of ELF as a fluid language of international communication, rather than as a precise and codified variety of English. Such views of ELF as a dynamic language, constantly shaped by its speakers, parallel Taronna’s argument on translation practices and cultural mediation as acts of resistance in the Mediterranean.

At the centre of translation and cultural mediation practices are migrants and cultural mediators who determine the dynamics of such interactions and, at the same time, are affected by the norms and expectations about who they are and what they are supposed to do. Inghilleri’s study on the interpreters’ ‘uncertainty zones’ (2005: 70) examines precisely such contradictions; other scholars have similarly focused on the problematic status of a professional figure who can be conceived on the one hand as a social worker, who is required to intervene, and on the other as a neutral and objective interpreter (see Merlini, 2009; Katan, 2015). Such pressure and expectations placed on cultural mediators make them vulnerable and render their work particularly demanding, as Minervino and Martin (2007) have shown. However, it is through precise translation and mediation practices as acts of negotiation and narration of the self that both migrants and cultural mediators can play an active role in putting forward cross-border notions of citizenship.

Translation as the interconnecting link

The interconnections between migration and translation were addressed at the 2018 symposium Mutations in Citizenship. Activist and Translational Perspectives on Migration and Mobility in the Age of Globalisation, held at the University of Manchester, which took its title from Aihwa Ong’s argument about ‘mutations in citizenship’ (2006: 499). While migration is intrinsic to human history and, thus, historically and geographically vital for the ‘evolution of the social and physical world’, as Inghilleri (2017) claims, traditional notions of citizenship, closely related to nation states and dating back to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, are, and continue to be, challenged by ever-growing migratory flows in the current dynamic and borderless world. Staggering figures, such as those of stateless people, estimated to be at least 10 million by the UNHCR, as Inghilleri points out (2017), confirm that such notions are no longer valid. Like Ong, translation scholars taking part in the symposium have for a long time now been arguing for a renegotiation and rethinking of the concept of citizenship. This might involve strategies adopted by migrant artists, as explored in Inghilleri’s presentation at the symposium, or new understandings of the nexus between translation and migration, which, given the centrality of both practices and phenomena, have been addressed by several scholars in a variety of fields in the last few years. Polezzi (2012b), for instance, argues that migration seen from a translation perspective reminds us that it is people who travel, as well as texts. This assumption, which is at the basis of new ways of conceptualizing citizenship, is also central to my argument on the role of cultural mediators and migrants, first and foremost as human beings.

The second section of this chapter focuses precisely on those cases and sites in which renegotiation of identities, and thus of citizenship, has occurred. Needless to say, other cases studies, such as those collected by eight Italian universities through the AIM project (Analysis of Interaction and Mediation), testify to different mediation practices. The consortium has collected hundreds of mediated encounters, some of which have been examined by Amato and Garwood (2011). The excerpts in Table 1.1 are taken from interactions between Italian-speaking doctors, migrant women from Nigeria and Ghana, and mediators in a family planning clinic:¹

Table 1.1 Mediated interactions between doctors and migrant patients (Amato and Garwood, 2011)

	Back translation
General doctor: Usa il condom lei di solito? Mediator: Do you use condom normally? Patient: No. Mediator: You don’t use condom? So what do you use to avoid pregnancy? General doctor: [Sta prendendo Arianna.] General doctor: Are you taking pills? Patient: Yes.	General doctor: Do you usually use condoms? General doctor: [She is taking the pill, Arianna.]
Doctor: OK (…) Va bene. Questa gravidanza com’è andata? Mediator: Eh io lo so dottoressa perchè lo vedo [al consultorio] [è andata così così perchè la gravidanza è andata bene, cioè a un certo punto, dottoressa ha fatto l’ecografia e ha visto che il bambino non è cresciuto bene e poi.].	Doctor: Ok. Fine. How is the pregnancy going? Mediator: I know because I see her [at the clinic]. [It is not going that well, at some point, doctor, she had a scan and she saw that the child was not growing properly and then.]

In these dialogues the migrant woman is either partially or totally excluded. In the first case when the mediator takes the initiative to ask her what contraceptives she is taking, thus inverting doctor and mediator’s roles, and then when the doctor addresses the mediator directly, she is side-lined. While, in the second exchange, the mediator transforms the interaction even further by totally excluding the migrant’s voice. In Amato and Garwood’s view, cases such as these are quite telling of mediated interactions whose dynamics are inevitably controlled by doctors and mediators with a frequent risk of minimizing or silencing the migrant’s voice due, among other things, to time constraints and lack of qualified staff. However, they conclude hoping that further studies and the dissemination of their results might lead to an improvement in cultural mediators’ skills and the adoption of best practices. Similarly, Angelelli (2015) emphasizes the importance of quality interpreting given that access to justice by linguistic minorities can be hindered by those same figures who are supposed to ensure it. This was the case, among others, of a Spanish-speaking driver who was sent to jail, and only subsequently set free, because his answers were misinterpreted by the ad hoc telephone interpreter during an interview by a US Border Patrol. More generally, research shows that the use of non-professional, ad hoc interpreters can cause miscommunication leading to medical errors, for instance in Emergency Departments (see Cox and Lázaro Gutiérrez, 2016), and that, in the absence of formal legislation and policy guidance, public service interpreting offered to EU citizens might not be appropriate, thus resulting in unequal access to cross-border healthcare (Angelelli, 2015b).

Resistant translation practices

The cultural mediators whose interviews I report here, and who prefer to remain anonymous,² testify instead to mediation practices and processes that seek to create spaces of negotiation and resistance, as mentioned above. Far from offering such cases as exemplary, I have chosen to present the experiences of both a Nigerian (CM1) and an Italian mediator (CM2), as both profiles represent a snapshot of the mediators who can be employed in Italy. The small sample offers an insight into ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle Page
• Title Page
• Contents 
• List of Illustrations
• Notes on Contributors
• Words of Empathy, Access and Relief
• Section 1 Integrating People in Movement in Regional Crises
• Section 2 Integrating Intercultural Communication in Crisis-Affected Health Settings
• Section 3 Integrating Cross-National Representations of Local Crises
• Index
• Imprint