Category Archives: Sin categoría

by monzo

Panel: Interpreting and Indigenous Languages

Dr. Inge Sichra, Prof. Dr. Christiane Stallaert, Prof. Dr. Raquel de Pedro Ricoy

Panel chair: María Lomeña-Galiano

Injusticias lingüísticas: políticas estatales de exterminio de pueblos indígenas
Dr. Inge Sichra

Mientras los discursos de reconocimiento, protección y protagonismo de los pueblos indígenas han marcado lo que va de este siglo a través de declaraciones, documentos, cuerpos jurídicos y reordenamientos políticos y territoriales que parecían marcar un histórico cambio hacia la plurinacionalidad del estado boliviano, el pragmatismo estatal ha conseguido llevar adelante una nueva colonización de territorios indígenas hasta ahora garantes de lenguas minoritarias. Destruidas las comunidades lingüísticas y de habla a través de extractivismo y ecocidio, la injusticia lingüística apura la desaparición de dos tercios de las lenguas “oficiales” del estado plurinacional y de lenguas aún no tipificadas ni reconocidas como tales por la academia y la oficialidad.

Decolonialidad y justicia lingüística en América Latina. El giro de 1992
Prof. Dr. Christiane Stallaert
La conmemoración del ‘V Centenario del descubrimiento de América’ en 1992, va acompañada de un debate crítico impulsado por intelectuales latinoamericanos, en torno a la ‘colonialidad del poder’. Al mismo tiempo, con el final de la Guerra Fría y de las dictaduras, crece la voz de los oprimidos, que exigen ‘verdad, memoria y justicia’. La vinculación entre estos conceptos ha dado lugar a una concepción alternativa de justicia, conocida como ‘justicia transicional’, que busca reparar la convivencia reparando injusticias o daños sufridos en el pasado. ¿Qué significa este ‘giro de 1992’ para la realidad lingüística del continente latinoamericano? ¿Cómo reparar las ‘injusticias lingüísticas’ sufridas por hablantes de lenguas indígenas durante cinco siglos?

Traducción y poscolonialismo: “No hay una palabra para ‘derechos’ en mi lengua”
Prof. Dr. Raquel de Pedro Ricoy
Con frecuencia se alude al carácter plural y multicultural de la ONU para justificar la inclusión del término “universal” en el título de la declaración de derechos humanos que se aprobó en 1948 (Shaheed y Richter 2018).  No obstante, la universalidad de los derechos humanos, refrendada como incuestionable en la Cumbre Mundial de 2005, se ha puesto en entredicho a partir de argumentos relativistas de índole cultural o moral que señalan las raíces occidentales del concepto, cimentado en principios filosóficos que emergieron en Europa durante la Ilustración, con Locke y Hutcheson como exponentes destacados, y cuestionan su compatibilidad con el respeto a la diferencia cultural (ver Freeman 2017: Ch. 6).
Quienes no suscriben la universalidad de los derechos humanos en ocasiones la asocian a un imperialismo cultural, económico o político (cf. Shaheed y Richter 2018), lo cual resulta pertinente a la hora de abordar cómo se comunican y socializan los derechos en contextos poscoloniales, en los que las estructuras discriminatorias características de la colonialidad, según arguye Quijano (2014: 285), se han perpetuado hasta el presente. En tales contextos, el derecho a la lengua a menudo hace imperativas la traducción y la interpretación para garantizar el acceso de poblaciones indígenas históricamente marginalizadas a sus derechos humanos. Así, la intersección de derechos lingüísticos, derechos indígenas y derechos humanos configura un complejo crisol en el que culturas e identidades estrechamente vinculadas a las lenguas originarias desempeñan un papel esencial.

Esta presentación se centrará en los debates antes mencionados y los relacionará con los retos que planteó la traducción a cinco lenguas originarias peruanas de la Ley de Lenguas Indígenas (2011), cuyo valor es simbólico y no vinculante (de Pedro Ricoy, Howard y Andrade Ciudad 2018) y la difusión de los derechos recogidos en la Ley entre las comunidades indígenas del país. Dichos retos se relacionarán con las asimetrías entre la “mentalidad legal” (Legrand 1996; Glanert 2014) de las potencias coloniales y las de los pueblos indígenas. Asimismo, desde una perspectiva traductológica, se abordarán las supuestas “carencias” de las lenguas indígenas frente a las lenguas hegemónicas de las potencias coloniales para expresar conceptos arraigados en tradiciones jurídicas occidentales, cerrando así el círculo argumental para generar una reflexión sobre cómo se imbrica el papel que desempeñan los derechos lingüísticos en la controversia respeto a la universalidad de los derechos humanos.

Referencias

Congreso de la República del Perú. (2011). Ley que regula el uso, preservación, desarrollo, recuperación, fomento y difusión de las lenguas originarias del Perú. https://centroderecursos.cultura.pe/sites/default/files/rb/pdf/Ley29735Leydelenguas2011.pdf


Freeman, M. (2017, 3ª edición). Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity.
Glanert, S. (2014). Comparative Law–Engaging Translation. Abingdon/Nueva York: Routledge.


Legrand, P. (1996). European Legal Systems Are Not Converging. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 45(1).


de Pedro Ricoy, R., Howard, R. y Andrade Ciudad, L. (2018). “Translators’ perspectives: The construction of the Indigenous Languages Act in Peru’s indigenous languages”. Meta 63(1).

Quijano, A. (2014). “Colonialidad del poder y clasificación social”. En A. Quijano. Cuestiones y horizontes. De la dependencia histórico-estructural a la colonialidad / descolonialidad del poder. Buenos Aires: CLACSO, 285-327.

Shaheed, A. y Richter, R. (2018). “Is ‘Human Rights’ a Western Concept?”. Geneva: International Peace Institute/The Global Observatory. https://theglobalobservatory.org/2018/10/are-human-rights-a-western-concept/

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

On the limits of translation in legal-lay communication

Dr. Philipp S. Angermeyer

In democratic societies, the use of interpreters or translators is widely viewed as a suitable remedy for preserving the rights of individuals who interact with the judicial system but are not proficient in its dominant language. However, this view tends to ignore the effects of interpreting and translation on legal-lay communication. Drawing on pragmatic and sociolinguistic analyses of court interpreting and of written translation in institutional contexts, this talk explores ways in which particular practices of translation may disadvantage and discriminate against speakers of non-dominant languages. 

by monzo

Artificial Intelligence at the service of inclusive language policies: the case of the E- MIMIC Project

Rachele Raus & Tania Cerquitelli

University of Bologna & Politecnico of Torino, Italy

Panel: Language as a means of inclusion in educational and institutional settings

Chair: Maria Margherita Mattioda, Università di Torino, Italy

It is well known how artificial intelligence (AI) learning from big data can contribute to the reiteration of gender bias and forms of exclusion due to the dissemination of stereotyped discourses on minorities, such as migrants and disabled people (Bartoletti 2021, Marzi 2021, Savoldi et alii 2021). The Empowering Multilingual Inclusive comMunICation (E-MIMIC) project led by the Polytechnic of Turin and the University of Bologna, in partnership with the Jean Monnet Centre of excellence Artificial Intelligence for European Integration, aims to promote inclusive communication in real- world scenarios by eliminating non-inclusive language forms in administrative texts written in European countries, starting with those written in Italian and French. The application uses AI algorithms to identify non-inclusive text segments and propose inclusive reformulations. The project starts from the assumption that supervising machine learning through linguistic and discourse criteria can contribute to achieving better quality results. The methodology proposed to identify these criteria rests on the principles of discourse analysis “à la Français” (Dufour, Rosier 2012: 5). In this sense, an attempt is made not to reiterate the non-inclusive ideology present in current discourses (in France and Italy). The application highlights inappropriate segments or words, thus contributing to spreading awareness of discrimination and non-inclusion in language. Moreover, the application suggests possible reformulations, so that the user can choose from the proposed solutions. The AI exploited by the application thus becomes an element in support of linguistic policies that aim at the development of metalinguistic awareness capable of counteracting the circulation of erroneous discursive and linguistic frames, also in the perspective of an eco-critical analysis of discourse (Stibbe 2014). The first tests carried out on the application are encouraging and allow us to extend its implementation to other European languages in addition to Italian and French, taking into account the diatopic variants of the languages analysed.

References

Bartoletti, I. (2021). An Artificial Revolution. On Power, Politics and AI. Edimbourg: Indigo.

Dufour, F., Rosier, L. (2012), Héritages et reconfigurations conceptuelles de l’analyse du discours ‘à la française’ : perte ou profit ?. Langage et Société, 140, 5-13.

Marzi, E. (2021). La traduction automatique neuronale et les biais de genre : le cas des noms de métiers entre l’italien et le français. Synergies Italie, 17, 19-36. http://gerflint.fr/Base/Italie17/marzi.pdf.

Savoldi, B., Gaido, M., Bentivoglio, L., Negri, M., Turchi, M. (2021). Gender Bias in Machine Translation, Transactionsof the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9, 845-874.

Stibbe, A. (2014). An ecolinguistic approach to critical discourse studies. Critical discourse studies, January 2014, DOI: 10.1080/17405904.2013.845789.

by monzo

Promoting multilingualism and inclusiveness in educational settings in the age of AI

Alessandra Molino, Ilaria Cennamo, Lucia Cinato, Marita Mattioda

Università di Torino, Italy

Panel: Language as a means of inclusion in educational and institutional settings

Chair: Maria Margherita Mattioda, Università di Torino, Italy

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems for natural language processing, which increasingly permeate people’s daily life, offer undeniable advantages in terms of speed and efficiency, but also raise social and ethical questions about how AI may undermine socio-cultural and linguistic equality. This paper presents the activities of the panel “Linguistic rights and language varieties in Europe in the age of artificial intelligence”, discussing the role of education in helping new generations recognize and challenge practices that may affect linguistic, social, and gender inclusiveness.

We report on initiatives within the panel aiming at raising awareness among university students, in particular foreign language learners, of the socio-cultural and linguistic implications of neural machine translation (NMT). NMT software such as Google Translate, DeepL, or Reverso is in large use among current, digital native students (Jiménez-Crespo 2017), who may not be fully aware of the risks of such digital resources for the development of their language skills and translation competence, as well as for broader social issues. Through theoretical discussions and translation-related activities, students were encouraged to reflect on the massive presence of certain languages online and the lack

of visibility of others, a situation that may have a negative impact on inclusive access to digital technologies (Ranathunga et al. 2021), multilingualism and, ultimately, the fundamental goal of European integration. The uncritical use of NMT systems may also lead to a progressive phenomenon of language flattening at the levels of register and sociolects, thus affecting the preservation of linguistic diversity. Finally, students were also made aware that current NMT systems are still far from guaranteeing adequate treatment of gendered language (Attanasio et al. 2021). The widespread inability of generating gender-inclusive content may reinforce stereotypes and inequalities.

Preliminary results of the impact of our pedagogic activities will be presented in this paper, making special reference to the initiatives conducted at the University of Turin (Italy).

References

Attanasio, G. & al. (2021). E-MIMIC: Empowering Multilingual Inclusive Communication. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), 2021, 4227-4234, doi: 10.1109/BigData52589.2021.9671868.

Humbley, J., Raus, R., Silletti, A., Zollo, D. (eds) (forthcoming), Multilinguisme et variétés linguistiques en Europe à l’aune de l’intelligence artificielle. De Europa, Special Issue 2022. http://www.deeuropa.unito.it.

Jiménez-Crespo, M. (2017). The role of translation technologies in Spanish language learning. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 4, 181-193.

Ranathunga, S., Lee, E.A., Skenduli, M.P., Shekhar, R., Alam, M., & Kaur, R. (2021). Neural Machine Translation for Low-Resource Languages: A Survey. ArXiv, abs/2106.15115.

by monzo

Translating Refugees. Empirical Findings and Theoretical Considerations

Dilek Dizdar & Tomasz Rozmyslowicz

The paper presents results from a new research project on the role of translation and interpreting in the context of forced migration. In this project, field research is conducted in a German reception facility for refugees. The research interest focuses on an often neglected but central aspect of forced migration: the role of translation and interpretation in the communications between refugees and  authorities. Contrary to the widespread view in everyday life and also in academia, these mediation processes are not neutral and harmless acts of transferring meaning. Rather, they are complex and consequential practices of constructing and processing difference that require in-depth investigation.

The presentation will show how translating and interpreting do not simply cross existing language boundaries, but first and foremost draw them, sorting people by language and assigning them to language communities (Sakai 2018; Dizdar 2021). Under what institutional conditions do such assignments take place? And what consequences do they entail? What does it mean, for example, when refugees from Africa are classified as “French-speaking” and therefore have to speak the language of a former colonial power? What does it mean to be subsumed under a category like “Arabic” when it encompasses a multitude of different and not necessarily mutually intelligible ways of speaking (Dizdar 2021)?

By answering such questions, the presentation aims to reconsider the relation between language and translating/interpreting practices on a theortical level.

Dizdar, Dilek (2021): “Translation als Katalysator von Humandifferenzierung”, in: Dizdar, Dilek/Hirschauer, Stefan/Paulmann, Johannes/Schabacher, Gabriele (Hg.) (2021): Humandifferenzierung. Disziplinäre Perspektiven und empirische Sondierungen. Weilerswist: Velbrück, 135-159.

Sakai, Naoki (2018): „The modern regime of translation and its politics”, in: D’hulst, L./Gambier, Y. (Hg.): A History of Modern Translation Knowledge: Sources, concepts, effects. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins (Benjamins Translation Library 146), 61-74.

Keywords: refugees, translation/interpreting, language, field research, asylum centre.

by monzo

The right to an interpreter – a guarantee of legal security and equal access to public services? 

Kristina Gustafsson, Eva Norström & Linnéa Åberg

Since the 1970s, the Public Administration Act in Sweden has regulated the public service obligation to use interpreters in contact with persons who do not speak Swedish and persons with impaired hearing, sight, or speech (SSB 2017: 900 § 13). Hiring an interpreter is stated as a guarantee for transparency, participation, and legal security. Based on theories about legal security in welfare institutions, the use of public service interpreting as a right and guarantee of legal security and equal access to public services is formally fulfilled every time an interpreter is assigned. Our previous research shows that this does not necessarily guarantee or secure the quality of the interpreting service at hand.

Therefore, this paper seeks to discuss linguistic rights from an ethical and material perspective on legal security. The analysis is based on migrants’ narrations of interpreted encounters in Swedish welfare institutions. The empirical data consists of observations of lectures conducted by interpreters in dialogue with refugees and migrants who take Swedish language courses. In these dialogues, the interpreter describes the regulations and ethics of interpreting and their experiences of interpreting in various welfare settings. The participants react and comment on this information, sharing their own experiences of interpreting services. A significant amount of their testimonies describes shortcomings and feelings of being silenced even if there is an interpreter at hand.        

Hence the paper aims to take public service users’ perspective and analyse discrepancies that arise between the right to public service interpretation as specified in the legislation and the quality of the public service interpretation services offered. Leading questions are raised about the right to speak, understand, and be understood, and who deserves these rights in their contacts with public service authorities.

by monzo

S1.1 La traducción y la interpretación en el reconocimiento del derecho a la lengua de signos española: revisión de políticas lingüísticas

María Luz Esteban Saiz, Saúl Villameriel García, Eva Aroca Fernández, Mónica Rodríguez Varela

En las últimas décadas se está dando una progresiva normalización sociolingüística de la lengua de signos española (LSE) que se extiende también al ámbito de la traducción e interpretación. No obstante, las relaciones entre lenguas y culturas respecto a los procesos de traducción e interpretación de la LSE, en cuanto que lengua minoritaria y minorizada, siguen siendo asimétricas. Así, aunque la capacitación y la acreditación de traductores e intérpretes de LSE han ido evolucionando hasta llegar a la universidad, esta formación resulta insuficiente para cubrir la creciente demanda de profesionales competentes en proporción a las exigencias actuales tanto de la comunidad lingüística signante como de la población en general. 

Esta realidad da lugar a una situación especialmente vulnerable para las personas sordas y sordociegas signantes que, como minoría lingüística y cultural, no ven atendidas sus necesidades de traducción e interpretación de la LSE. Esta comunicación pretende, por tanto, ofrecer una panorámica general sobre la formación de las y los profesionales de traducción e interpretación de la LSE que, por un lado, llame la atención sobre la carencia de planes de estudios al respecto y, por otro, apunte a la necesidad de promover políticas lingüísticas encaminadas al incremento de programas de formación de traductores e intérpretes de LSE. Todo ello con el fin de garantizar el derecho de las personas sordas y sordociegas a usar la LSE en cualquier dominio público o privado.

Palabras clave: derechos lingüísticos, políticas lingüísticas, traducción e interpretación, lengua de signos española, ideologías lingüísticas

by monzo

Literacy, digital literacy, and extreme linguistic vulnerability: Barriers and solutions to access to language justice

Katie Becker

Panel: Inclusive Responses to Language Violence

Katie Becker will present findings from her research about speakers of Indigenous languages in the U.S. immigration system and her work with non-dominant language speakers in the U.S. legal system. In these contexts, the median person seeking interpreting and translating assistance is often assumed to be a Spanish speaker, highly literate, and able to use a computer with ease.

But this is not the case. Many people speak other languages than Spanish–including Indigenous languages and other languages of limited diffusion. One in five American adults is “functionally illiterate.” The digital divide in the United States hits non-English speakers especially hard: only 12% of foreign-born people demonstrate a high level of proficiency with computers and digital tools, and many households simply do not have access to the internet. Each of these factors overlap to create barriers that seem insurmountable.

In this presentation, Katie will explore how these barriers overlap to prevent the most vulnerable from accessing justice in the civil and immigration contexts. Katie will consider how much of the U.S. language-access infrastructure is focused on meeting the needs of Spanish speakers–an important effort, but one that neglects people occupying positions of even more extreme linguistic vulnerability. And many of the proposed access-to-justice solutions like technologized court forms, apps, and machine translation simply will not work for people who cannot read them, who lack access to computers, or who are uncomfortable using technology. She will consider how translators, interpreters, and multilingual navigators can help bridge these language, literacy, and digital-literacy gaps to help people access justice.