Category Archives: Language in the Media

Tongue-tied UK? Speak for yourself

Posted on by

Two eminent figures have recently issued a familiar challenge to UK plc. Will Hutton writes powerfully in the Guardian: “The crisis in our foreign language studies is part of something much larger and why the coalition government’s rhetoric and programme are so very, very misguided. There is a poverty of vision about what Britain needs to be – apart from a country that balances its public finances and says boo to foreigners.”

And in the current Times Higher Education magazine, Sir  Adam Roberts, as befits his position, is keen to reinforce the value of studying the humanities (including languages) and social sciences: “In a fast-changing world, the flexible skills offered by rigorous study in the humanities and social sciences are of enormous value, and this will be understood in time”. Amen to that.

Why does they feel the need to comment? Well, the number of UK university applicants is down by 7.4 per cent relative to this time last year. This, Roberts states, “will reinforce certain worries about the new funding regime – especially as they affect the teaching of languages”. In particular, applications to European language courses are down by 11.2 per cent and those to non-European languages are down by 21.5 per cent: both decreases are well above the average decline across all subjects.
Here we go again, eh? Why is that, even when the arguments are articulated in every language known to humankind, in the UK the message does not seem to register that it is massively in the national interest to ensure the sustainable, high-quality linguistic capability of our population (and especially our workforce)?

If the splendidly isolationist English-is-enough position beloved of many Britons were ever plausible, it is becoming less so by the day. Why? Because linguistic power goes hand-in-hand with economic strength. Hutton has it exactly right: the waning dominance of Europe and North America in the global marketplace will, as night follows day, be associated with a realignment of linguistic pre-eminence.

Any sociolinguist worth their salt can tell you this. What happened to Cornish? The money moved to the capital cities and those who wanted to earn it needed to adapt to metropolitan language practices. So it will be on the global scale: for Cornish, read English; for London, read China.

When did we become so blinkered about the needs of the economy – “look after the STEM subjects, they’ll drive regeneration” is a message we hear like a broken record – and so complacent about language? Even the much-derided Research Excellence Framework in the UK’s universities recognises that 20% of the value of research is associated with its impact – and how will you generate impact without communicating the benefits of your work to purchasers in a language they understand?

What’s more, if we need new ways to stimulate the global economy (and we plainly do), and if there is any relationship between language and thought (and there plainly is), then understanding how different languages are used in and for the process of thinking must be utterly vital to planning for the world ahead.

It’s a big world and we need to talk with it and think with it. Humans learn languages best in their youth. There’s more to life (and to business) than STEM. No-one should need to spell out what we have to do: it speaks for itself.

Author: Graham Turner

Court Interpreting: Is it worth it?

Posted on by

The title of this post is purposely meant to be controversial. At a time when Public Service Interpreters are meeting together to pressure the government to drop the proposed new framework agreement for interpreting in English and Welsh courts, it seems that some subjects are still to be addressed fully.

Take, for example, the whole question of economic value. While many organisations have, quite rightly pointed out that the new rates of pay are likely to be unsustainable for many interpreters, this seems to be the only argument for giving interpreters decent rates. “Pay us well or we leave the profession” is a powerful slogan but sadly, given that interpreting remains unregulated, it is hardly invincible. After all, it is possible (though not recommended) for a provider to simply hire interpreters who are less picky about rates. Sadly, for all concerned, it is likely to be several years until the damage done by this kind of thinking might be evident and by then, it will be too late.

From a political point of view, the current strategy is relatively low-risk. Sadly, practising interpreters are insignificant as a voting group, especially since they are spread relatively thinly around the country. Even if the new framework doesn’t work, it will likely hold together long enough for someone else to be in power when it all goes to pot.

So what might be the answer? Perhaps we could take the same tack as those who successfully promoted HST2, a high-speed rail link between London and Birmingham. Here, the argument was won by showing the government that they shouldn’t see the £33billion price tag as a cost but as an investment. Why worry about the costs, the reasoning goes, when it is sure to make more than that back?

The bill for court interpreting is a measly £25m per annum. Perhaps it would be possible to make an argument that this too should count as an investment. We could start by mentioning that work by AIIC to standardise conditions and qualifications for conference interpreters has made it easier for companies to find high quality professionals, facilitating international trade and boosting the conference industry. If Britain was known as a place where all interpreting was of a high standard, no matter the context, it would be likely to attract more of the highly skilled immigrants that the government seems to want. This would also mean that everyone could have equal linguistic access to our justice system and that all witnesses would be able to be heard clearly.

Better conditions for interpreters might also boost the number of students trying to enter the profession, increasing further education numbers. A related effect might also be an increased attraction of languages in general, increasing our international competitiveness.

What do you think? Is it possible to make a strong economic case for well-paid court interpreters or even Public Service Interpreters in general? Do we need interpreting to become a regulated profession? How can interpreters win the argument for good pay and conditions? Just what does it take to ensure that interpreting in courts is always of high quality?

Note: Some figures and an argument in this article have been subject to correction after welcome feedback. The author would like to apologise for any offence cause by the original draft.

Language Rights … and Wrongs

Posted on by

Should it be a human right to be able to use your native language wherever you are? Should states protect linguistic minorities, even when resources are right? What is the best strategy to help people see that linguistic diversity is a good thing? These were just some of the subjects covered in a talk by Mairéad Nic Craith from the University of Ulster on Linguistic Heritage and Language Rights as part of the Studies in European and International Cultures and Societies research seminar series.

Mairéad gave us a whistle-stop tour of international and European laws and agreements that were meant to improve or defend language rights in one way or another.  From the UN General Assembly to the Council of Europe, it seems that the subject of languages has never been far from the political scene, a trend which continues to this day.

However, it appears that language rights are extremely easy to get wrong. Mairéad pointed out that, even in Europe, there seems to be an official line drawn between European languages (which get all the rights they could ask for) and non-European languages (which don’t). It also seems to be the case that while languages get rights, language speakers and communities might not. How this actually works was a subject for debate in the room.

The creation of laws to uphold these rights is by no means an easy task either. In fact, academics are split over whether it is better to push states to sign tough, legally binding treaties or to woo them with much vaguer ones. As Mairéad suggested, while the former might seem like a good idea, the success rate with the latter is much greater.

Mairéad’s experience with Irish and Ulster Scots led her to question the audience on the place of Scots here in Scotland. The answer to this question was to question what Scots actually is. It seems that most Scots don’t know the difference between Scots and the bewildering array of accents our nation has to offer. Perhaps readers of this blog can fill us in.

As always, at Heriot-Watt, the question session after the talk was lively. We discussed Scots, the implementation of language rights and political problems that can arise when the rights are put in place. It seems that, while the idea of language rights seems good in theory, the practice is fraught with difficulties, as readers of this blog will probably already know.

So, what about you? Where do you stand on the question of language rights? Should everyone have the right to do business, access services and petition the government in their own language? What if people speak perfect English, should they still be entitled to interpreting and translation in their “other” languages? What is Scots? Do you speak it?

Feel free to leave your views in the comments section

LINCS Lines Up British Sign Language

Posted on by

From 2012, undergraduate students at Heriot-Watt will be presented with an opportunity never before available in the UK: to study British Sign Language (BSL) in a Department specialising in translation and interpreting. (Click here for details.)

Why might you find this exciting? Here are six good reasons.

1.    It’s cool to sign. Don’t believe me? Checkout the official video of Ed Sheeran’s recent track ‘You need me, I don’t need you’ . Nuff style for you?

2.    BSL will expand your mind. You think you know something about how languages work? Until you can sign, your knowledge is sadly limited. Dozens of fine studies now underpin this claim: if you want to read more, you could start with Oliver Sacks’ illuminating and readable Seeing Voices.

3.    The world creates enough barriers for Deaf people: you can be part of the solution. No-one even thought BSL was a language until the 1970s. Eminent linguist Tove Skutnabb-Kangas actually describes the oppression of sign languages as “genocide”. Imagine having your language dismissed every day as empty nonsense by 99% of the population; your signing hands tied to your school chair; your children denied the chance to be educated in a language they could understand. Join the 1%: it’s a matter of social justice.

4.    BSL is one of this country’s indigenous natural languages. No, it’s not ‘English-on-the-hands’ – it is oh so very different. Yes, it has a history across the centuries. No, it’s not artificial. Yes, there are different sign languages in different countries. No, you can’t write it down for everyday purposes – but it has its own heritage of signed literature. And yes, it’s alive and kicking: there are thousands and thousands of Deaf (and hearing) people who use it every day of their lives.

5.    Imagine a language that you get right inside. Until you learn it, it’s hard to describe the feeling: but when you use BSL, you don’t just speak the words – you embody them, you become them, you are them. Sign languages can say anything a spoken language can – from translations of Shakespeare to the speeches of Aung San Suu Kyi – and then some. After all, in which spoken language can you say two words at once? But signers can use their two hands to do just this…

6.    Signing travels better than speech. When FIFA wanted to give Deaf people around the world access to match reports, it was able to produce them in a way that reached out to fans of all nations. What’s going on there? Well, further research is needed – but it’s undeniable that Deaf people enjoy a clear advantage in international encounters.

So, take a good look at our range of courses here and see what sign language could do for you.

Broken Britain: Blame the Interpreters?

Posted on by

“People in Britain who cannot speak English have cost the taxpayer almost £180m in interpreters over the past three years,” says a prominent report by Kevin Dowling and Mark Hookham in a recent Sunday Times article (23.10.11, page 7). In fact, the topic is considered so important by the Sunday Times that it also gets discussed in an opinion piece (‘Immigrant integration gets lost in translation’, by Dominic Raab, Conservative MP for Esher & Walton, page 31) in the same issue of the newspaper.

In the course of these two articles, interpreters are held doubly responsible for the state of the nation. For one thing, they are – we’re told – a huge drain on public resources at a time when we can least afford it. And for another, they stop immigrants settling firmly into the community by enabling them to resist any requirement to learn English.

The “enormous” expense of interpreting services, says the MP, “highlights the hidden costs of uncontrolled immigration”. The solution, we’re told, is pretty straightforward. Interpreters will be hired through a private contractor and paid £22 an hour. Now, let me think, what might suffer if the sums spent on interpreters are so sharply reduced?

Oh, yes – that would be quality. Why is it hard to understand that the knee-jerk of paying poorly will just create different problems?

One, it will mean that experienced professionals will not take on this kind of work. The gaps will be filled by less-qualified people. Now, which other public service professionals – police officers, teachers, doctors who will not be able to do their jobs properly without effective interpreting – would consider £22 an hour to constitute fair and appropriate recognition of their skills?

Two, it will mean that the interpreters available will not be as well-trained for the task. Yet you’d be hard-pressed to spot the clamour for reducing the training required for surgeons or riot police. What’s behind this disparity? Could it be the myth that any bilingual can automatically interpret?

Thirdly, and most importantly, cutting corners and therefore failing to put effective communication in place is a false economy. This Department has argued long and hard for some serious accounting for the real, hidden, long-term costs of inadequate interpreting. Where are the public policy economists who will work with us on this issue? We’re more than ready to take up the challenge.

From 1993-1995, I researched court interpreting (click here http://forestbookshop.com/pages/Categories/0946252483.html for some published results of this research) with one group of minority language users in the UK. I watched from the public gallery as a lengthy trial collapsed owing to inadequate interpreting. That false start alone – back in the mid-90s, mind you – cost over £1m.

And, fortunately, the problems in that instance were noticed. What happens when they’re not? What then is the cost in mis-diagnosis, wrongful imprisonment, lost business and, above all, the loss of human well-being?

Of course money shouldn’t be squandered. And without doubt, it is good to facilitate English-language development enthusiastically and in appropriate ways. But, please, let’s not fool ourselves that the cost of decent interpreting can disappear by magic. These measures will not remove those costs, but only ensure that they come with a side-order of misery.

Author: Graham Turner

Changing the Public Face of Languages

Posted on by

What do a Glaswegian interpreter, a grandmother called Bo and a UK government department all have in common? For one reason or another, all have helped language to make the headlines in the past few years.

Whether it is debates over government spend on court interpreting or funding for endangered languages or even a conference interpreter in a Bingo Hall, the press seem to love a good language story. Yet, sadly, there is not always much reflection on the impression that such stories might make on the public who, in one way or another keep language research and the language industry on their feet.

It seems to me that when languages get into the press, it is for one of two reasons. The first is money. When language services seem to cost a lot of money or linguists are asking for money for some project or department, journalists start writing. Within a few sentences the story comes to the crux: in this time of belt-tightening, why should languages not experience the same funding cuts as everyone else? What makes languages so useful, so interesting and so important that they need the same funding they already get, if not more?

The other stories centre on even simpler concerns: language differences are funny. It seems funny to think that English-speakers might struggle with Glaswegian, which is, of course, a dialect of English. It’s funny to gawk at translation errors. It’s funny to talk about a recent cultural faux pas.

Is this really the impression people will have of languages: expensive but funny?

None of the stories I mentioned actually have to send out this message. There is an interesting alternative. What if, instead of reinforcing the “expensive but funny” image, we worked on building the idea of languages and linguists as bridge builders?

If a company wants to crack a new market, they need linguists to build bridges to their new customers. If a government wants to increase the integration of new arrivals, it will need linguists to build bridges to its new residents. In short, if any two groups of people who do not share a common language wish to communicate, they will need linguists.

Put in those terms, it is far easier to justify the money spent on language research, training and, yes, even translation and interpreting. Rather than money down a very expensive drain, the same cash becomes investment in community cohesion and economic growth. In these troubled times, isn’t that what everyone is after anyway?

– Jonathan