Category Archives: Linguistic Justice

by monzo

Linguistic (in)justice, global migration and social work

Dr. Kristina Gustafsson, Associate professor and senior lecturer in Social Work, Linnaeus University, Sweden

A social worker and a recently arrived young mother from Syria meet at a social services office in Sweden. An interpreter is there to facilitate communication. The school principal had reported concerns about the
wellbeing of the mother’s daughter to the social services. This situation had become rather frequent in Sweden when, in February 2022, social events evidenced a collapse in confidence between social child
care and protection services and families with migration experiences. Parents shared their desperation in public demonstrations about their children being targets for forced legal restraints, international organizations directed threats towards Swedish social services, spreading disinformation about how these
authorities kidnapped migrant children and sold them as slaves to pedophiles. How do we look at these events? My presentation will use a linguistic justice framework to discuss the intersections among (1) social work as multilingual work; (2) the monolingual national framework and legacy of the Nordic
countries, and (3) the increase of multilingual clients in social work due to global migration. Power asymmetries within social work will be revealed and exclusion and oppression as well as inclusion and emancipatory practices will be highlighted. An emphasis will be placed on the need for linguistic
awareness and for developing multilingual competences at all levels of social work, including education, policies, practices, and research.

by monzo

Language rights and linguistic justice in international law: Lost in translation?

Dr. Jacqueline Mowbray

While there is no single ‘right to language’ in international law, a range of international legal provisions protect languages and their speakers. These includeminority rights, which protect the rights of minorities to ‘use their own language’; non-discrimination rights; rights to freedom of expression; rights to culture; and other rights, such as the right to a fair trial, which can be used incidentally to protect language interests in certain situations. This paper considers the extent to which these rights are capable of delivering linguistic justice, and the assumptions embedded in international law as to the role of translation and interpretation in that process. Drawing on insights from other disciplines, including particularly sociolinguistics and translation studies, I argue that the conceptualisation of both ‘linguistic justice’ and ‘translation’ within international law is deficient in certain key respects. In particular, in focusing on translation as a primary means of protecting language rights and addressing injustices associated with language use, international law conceals injustices which can result from the process of translation itself. As a result, the promise of language rights fails to translate into linguistic justice.

by monzo

Linguistic justice in the justice sector: Legal multilingualism management in Canada during COVID-19

María Sierra Córdoba Serrano

In a multilingual – but officially bilingual – country like Canada, translation (understood broadly) has often been conceptualized as a cultural-linguistic value. However, I have argued elsewhere for the need to move away from a model of multilingualism management that is primarily predicated on identity arguments and toward a broader framework based on the idea of access and human rights, a minimum threshold that, once defined, would apply to any language group. The state would develop a policy framework that guarantees accommodations for all language groups beyond official languages in well-defined “high-risk” situations in which fundamental human rights could be compromised (i.e., when accessing justice, healthcare, or education).

Building on the idea of “risk” and the fact that crisis settings can be placed at the high end of the spectrum of high-risk situations, I will focus on legal multilingualism management during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, and I will analyze the existing translation policies and practices within the Abitibi judicial district of Quebec.

The impact of the pandemic on access to justice in Canada has been disproportionate, affecting certain segments of the population more than others, especially marginalized individuals, including speakers of official and non-official minority languages (Action Committee, 2021, online). Adopting a top-down approach, I will begin by analyzing relevant language policy instruments to determine if they contemplate emergency situations, and then move to other documents related to the courts’ emergency preparedness planning to see whether language needs are contemplated. Through interviews with key stakeholders, I will then analyze the language management practices within the district in question.

Ultimately, I want to illustrate how lessons learned from managing legal multilingualism in crisis settings in Canada can inform the development of a policy framework and best practices for the provision of language access services in high-risk situations beyond crises.

Keywords: legal multilingualism management, Canada, crisis translation.

by monzo

Communication in the public sector and linguistic justice: overcoming language barriers in healthcare

Nicole Marinaro

The proposed presentation would outline some preliminary findings of a study focusing on the extent to which language policy in selected European states are effective in reducing language barriers in the public healthcare sector. I do this in the wider framework of an interdisciplinary study aimed at evaluating the management of communication towards autochthonous and allochthonous minority language speakers.

A rich body of literature deals with the problems that can arise due to ineffective communication in healthcare, which, as Mamadouh and el Ayadi (2018, p.92) point out, “can threaten the individuals’ life or basic human rights”. Therefore, the need “to ensure equality of treatment by providing access to the service through the user’s language” seems particularly compelling (Dunbar and McKelvey, 2018, p.95).

The main ways to overcome language barriers in the short term are the provision of interpretation services and translation of documents, and/or reliance on bilingual medical staff, the benefits of these measures having widely been shown (cfr., among others, Flores, 2005 and Karliner et al., 2007). Nonetheless, “the absence of a statutory framework or comprehensive binding policy creates the conditions for inconsistency in provision” (Dunbar and McKelvey, 2018, p.95; see Dunbar, 2006; Phelan, 2012); existing initiatives often “represent ad hoc responses to linguistic realities” relying on the action of single providers.

The methodology employed in the study would draw on the framework of policy evaluation (see, for instance, Grin and Gazzola, 2013). The evaluation of  the effectiveness of language policy in reducing language barriers builds on the concept of “linguistic unease” (Iannàccaro et al., 2018), which has the potential to connect linguistic justice to the sociolinguistic context in which the speaker lives, and allows to shift the focus to the consequences for the actors affected by the policies examined rather than to the formal compliance with abstract rights.


References


Dunbar, R. (2006) Is there a duty to legislate for linguistic minorities? Journal of Law and Society, 33(1), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2006.00354.

Dunbar, R. and McKelvey, R. (2018) Must states provide services to migrants in their own languages?. In: Grin et al., ed. The MIME Vademecum: Mobility and Inclusion in Multilingual Europe, Geneva: MIME Project, 94–95.

Flores, G. (2005) The impact of medical interpreter services on the quality of health care: a systematic review. Medical Care Research and Review, 62(3), 255–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558705275416.

Grin, F., Conceição, M.C., Kraus, P.A., Marácz, L., Ozolina, Ž, Pokorn, N.K. and Pym, A. (eds.) (2018) The MIME vademecum: Mobility and inclusion in multilingual Europe, Geneva: MIME Project.

Grin, F. and Gazzola, M. (2013) Assessing efficiency and fairness in multilingual communication: theory and application through indicator. In: Berthoud, A.-C., Grin, F. and Lüdi F., eds. Exploring the dynamics of multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 365-386.

Iannàccaro, G., Dell’Aquila, V. and Gobbo, F. (2018), The assessment of sociolinguistic justice: parameters and models of analysis. In: Gazzola M., Wickström, B.-A. and Templin, T., eds. Language Policy and Linguistic Justice: Economic, Philosophical and Sociolinguistic Approaches. Berlin / New York: Springer, 363-391.

Karliner, L. S., Jacobs, E. A., Chen, A. H., and Mutha, S. (2007) Do Professional Interpreters Improve Clinical Care for Patients with Limited English Proficiency? A Systematic Review of the Literature. Health Services Research, 42(2), 727–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00629

Mamadouh, V. and el Ayadi, N. (2018) Is English sufficient to reach out to newcomers before they learn the local language(s)?. In: Grin et al., eds. The MIME Vademecum: Mobility and Inclusion in Multilingual Europe, Geneva: MIME Project, 92-93.

Phelan, M. (2012) Medical Interpreting and the Law in the European Union. European Journal of Health Law, 19(4), 333–353. https://doi.org/10.1163/157180912X650681

Keywords: language policy, linguistic justice, healthcare, minorities, translation and interpreting, public sector.

by monzo

The Regulations of the Chilean Constitutional Convention and multilingual deliberation: legitimacy, inclusion, linguistic justice, and hegemonic monolingualism

Marco Espinoza

The constitutional moment in Chile has been highly participative and characterized by the political incorporation of traditionally excluded groups. Conversation and public deliberation have been central in this process. In this context, the diversity of languages and communicative practices has become so relevant that the Convention’s General Regulations explicitly state a series of principles acknowledging the importance of linguistic matters for the deliberative work the Convention (and their relation to rights, non-discrimination, and democratic participation). These include plain language, gender-inclusive language, and linguistic diversity. This presentation focuses on those principles concerned with plurilingualism, multilingual deliberation, and translation of documents from Spanish to the different languages of the territory. 

The analysis and discussion will first focus on the debates, arguments, and agents involved in the promotion of this type of language regulations and language regime for the workings of the Convention. This will be followed by a critical discussion of these regulations in relation to legitimacy, inclusion, and linguistic justice. It is argued that these principles and regulations mainly operate on a symbolic level as a legitimating mechanism of the Convention itself as a representative and inclusive institution. The fact that these regulations are entirely written in Spanish, the absence of actual multilingual deliberation, interpretation, and the multiple translations, are a clear indication of the language hierarchies in the territory, and reproduce assumptions about the monolingual functioning of society. It is concluded that the Regulations, despite their possible interpretation as an attempt at linguistic justice, contribute to validate the hegemonic monolingualism in Spanish that characterizes the country’s institutions, and can hardly contribute to prefigure a context of multilingual deliberation and participation in Chilean institutions. 

Keywords: Chilean constitutional convention, multilingual deliberation, linguistic justice, hegemonic monolingualism.

by monzo

Achieving Language Justice through Increased Capacity for Provisioning Professional Translation and Interpreting Services

Indira Sultanic

Language justice is social justice. However, achieving language justice is not a linear but a continual process. One that comprises ongoing education and training of all stakeholders to ensure meaningful access to services for Limited English Proficient (LEP) individuals through translation and interpreting. This research project explores current practices around language access and the provision of translation and interpreting services, in relation to both state and federal language access guidelines in the United States. It does so within the broader framework of language access as a catalyst for achieving greater equity and social justice among minoritized, LEP communities. It builds on existing translation and interpreting research on (in)equities in access to social services for these communities. Accessing information in one’s preferred language and desired modality is critical to their ability to participate fully in all areas of daily life. Despite existing state and federal policies that require health and social services to comply with language access guidelines, the COVID-19 pandemic shined a light on the inconsistencies, and the ad hoc approach to provisioning these services. Thus, this project explores the critical components which are paramount to building language justice and offers a model for increasing interpreter and translator capacity through interprofessional education and training. Lastly, it re-examines existing and considers additional best practices for language access in the U.S.

Keywords: language justice, language access, interprofessional collaboration, meaningful access, interpreting, translation

by monzo

Interpreting bilingual legislation in Canada: Can “Shared Meaning” cause Linguistic Injustice?

Karine McLaren

Professor of Law and Director of the Centre de traduction et de terminologie juridiques (http://www.cttj.ca)

Panel: Linguistic equality and justice in the face federal diversity: A Canadian perspective

Chair: Karine McLaren

The classic canons of statutory interpretation are well-settled. Today, Elmer Driedger’s modern contextual approach is widely accepted as Canadian courts’ preferred approach to statutory interpretation. Yet the existence of bilingual statutes in Canada adds a fourth dimension to the interpreters’ toolbox, one that is foreign to the standard interpreters’ toolbox, carefully constructed over centuries and shared by common law traditions. The “shared meaning rule”, derived from the equal authenticity of English and French versions of Canadian statutes, thus “seeks to fill a void” left by the contextual interpretive approach. It does so by adding a step to the interpretive process, which, in the event of linguistic discordance, focuses on the meaning that is shared between the words respectively in the two language versions of the offending disposition. 

Not surprisingly, the unmistakable “textualist bend” of this approach has led to criticisms:  

«Linguistic analysis of the text is the servant, not the master, in the task of ascertaining Parliamentary intention. A blinkered focus on the textual variations might lead to an interpretation at odds with the modern rule because, standing alone, linguistic considerations ought not to elevate an argument about text above the relevant context, purpose and objectives of the legislative scheme». Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Khosa, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339, at 39. Our goal in this paper is two-fold: First, illustrate, by reference to case-law, the inconsistent weight given to the Shared Meaning Rule by Canadian courts and its consequences on citizens affected by their rulings. Second, lay the foundations of an interpretative paradigm which frees itself of the excessive weight attributed to the very letter of the (bilingual) law and reflects the evolution of contextual Statutory Interpretation.