Cross-linguistic communication and public policy: the institutionalization of community interpreting
- Autores: Sofía García Beyaert
- Directores de la Tesis: Joan Subirats i Humet (dir. tes.)
- Lectura: En la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona ( España ) en 2016
- Idioma: español
- Tribunal Calificador de la Tesis: Ricard Gomà Carmona (presid.), Jacint Jordana Casajuana (secret.), Reinhilde Meylaerts (voc.)
- Materias:
- Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
-
Dialnet Métricas: 2 Citas
- Resumen
For members of society with restricted proficiency in the main societal language(s), community interpreting services most often mean the critical difference between enjoying basic rights or basic rights violation. Community interpreting, however, can only service society efficiently provided adequate infrastructure is in place; hence the need for public policy in matters of cross-cultural communication, which, to date, is rather exceptional.
With the general goal of gaining a more sophisticated understanding of what is involved in the institutionalization of community interpreting, this study relies on close empirical observation, systematic analysis, and conceptual developments to generate policy-relevant information that can help promote effective assistance for cross-linguistic communication. Agenda-setting and problem definition are key features to institutionalization. For that reason, I aim at identifying what the essence of the public problem is and at developing strategic ways to convey it.
My study is guided by the following overarching research question: What is public about the individual need for autonomous communication despite language barriers? Such question is addressed from a descriptive perspective (what is actually public?) as well as a normative one (what should be public?). A third axis of my research question is secondary: it addresses recommendations for the institutionalization of community interpreting (what can be done?) The methodology design consists of an in-depth qualitative analysis of the case of Ontario, focusing on five (potential) policy subsystems. I used qualitative research software to code and analyze my empirical data collected through semi-structured interviews with key informants and documentary research. Based on my empirical data, and using conceptual tools from the field of public policy analysis, I describe and compare five different sub-units of analysis—five (potential) policy sub-systems—to paint a granular picture of the situation of community interpreting in Ontario.
My findings can be summarized as follows: (1) There is a general lack of public policies for communication assistance, which negatively impacts the public good; (2) Addressing the issue of cross-linguistic communication from a trans-sectorial and trans-ministerial perspective would bring clear benefits; (3) A crucial characteristic of this policy issue is the lack of singular, cohesive, easily identifiable target groups. In the case of Ontario, French speakers, victims of gender-based violence, and members of the Deaf community are the exceptions—and, not coincidentally, represent the only fields in which substantial progress has been made; (4) The absence of a discrete affected group that can feel entitled to policy actions and that can be constructed as deserving by society at large has a negative impact on the likelihood for this policy issue to reach the decision agenda; (5) Identity plays an important role in the institutionalization of community interpreting at different levels: (a) without a group identity, it is difficult to generate advocacy actions; and (b) hegemonic groups, which have vested interests in preserving their identity-based advantages, tend to zealously oppose language policies that do not benefit their own languages.
Through the exploration of aspects of identity, justice and recognition from the field of political theory, I argue that a conceptual reorientation away from identity-based claims and toward the right to communication presents a fresh, accessible, and practical approach that can help advance the institutionalization of community interpreting. Such frame not only captures the normative essence of the problem at hand, it also helps move away from connotations of collective language identity that are, in my analysis, a hindrance to the recognition of individual rights to effective communication. I argue that if both the granting side and the claiming side of this social issue are able to see past identity, it will become easier for (potential) grantors to establish sympathy toward individuals affected by communication barriers, and it will become more likely that (potential) claimants will identify the problematic situations of miscommunication as a shared experience of injustice that can and needs to be prevented.
