27.1977, Review: Discourse; Text/Corpus Ling; Translation: an der Kleij (2015)

[The LINGUIST List via LINGUIST]

LINGUIST List: Vol-27-1977. Fri Apr 29 2016. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 27.1977, Review: Discourse; Text/Corpus Ling; Translation: an der Kleij (2015)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Anthony Aristar, Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté, Sara Couture)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2016
                   25 years of LINGUIST List!
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Sara  Couture <sara at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:25:09
From: Laura Smith-Khan [laura.smith4 at students.mq.edu.au]
Subject: Interaction in Dutch asylum interviews

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36136237


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/26/26-3257.html

AUTHOR: Susanne van der Kleij
TITLE: Interaction in Dutch asylum interviews
SUBTITLE: A corpus study of interpreter-mediated institutional discourse
SERIES TITLE: LOT dissertation series
PUBLISHER: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT)
YEAR: 2015

REVIEWER: Laura Smith-Khan, Macquarie University

Reviews Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY

“Interaction in Dutch asylum interviews: A corpus study of
interpreter-mediated institutional discourse” sets out Susanne van der Kleij’s
doctoral research findings, based on the analysis of 14 recorded second-stage
asylum interviews from the Dutch Immigration and Naturalization Service (IND).

In Chapter 1, van der Kleij provides an overview of the IND, explaining the
different procedural stages through which asylum seekers pass, with special
attention to the role and nature of interpreting. She describes past reviews
of interpreting and its regulation in this setting, and outlines subsequent
adjustments to interpreter training, selection and participation in the IND,
as well as the revision of a code of conduct for interpreters. She describes
institutional discourse in general and asylum interviews in particular,
explaining the roles of different participants. Finally, she presents her
research questions: the discrepancy between law and practice, “relation
between source and translation”, rendition quality and the role of the
interpreter. 

Chapter 2 presents existing research on interpreter-mediated institutional
discourse, allowing van der Kleij to explain the theoretical framework of her
research. Her approach involves two of Chesterman’s (1993, 1997) production
norms: the relation norm and the communication norm, the former relating to
the similarity between the original utterance and its interpreted rendition
and the latter relating to “communication and social practices” (p. 30).
Drawing on existing literature, she explains how interpreting and translation
can be measured for similarity on four levels: information level, pragmatic
level, form level and speaker level. 
She argues that dialogue interpreters are active co-constructors of discourse,
making choices and interacting with other participants. As well as providing
renditions of the other participants’ speech, they may take on a coordinating
role, influencing turn-taking by interjecting to interpret, seek
clarification, or offer extra information. Finally, she argues that
interpreters participation is influenced by production norms (both relation
and communication norms), along with their beliefs about the institutional
setting. While these norms may be difficult to identify, she proposes three
strategies present in the interviews that may reflect these underlying norms.
These elements – turn-rendition pairs, clarification sequences and
non-translated turns, therefore form the basis of her analysis, set out in
Chapters 4 to 6. 

In Chapter 3 van der Kleij summarises her methodology, outlining how she
collected her corpus and selected data. The corpus is made up of interviews
with African asylum seekers, including eight where the language used was
English or French and six using “non-western” languages, Swahili and Somali
(15 interviews were collected, but one was excluded due to sound quality).
This meant that some direct communication between the officer and asylum
seeker was possible in some cases (for French or English) but not others. It
also created the possibility to analyse how speakers using different varieties
of English, French or Dutch communicated. For those interested in conducting
similar research, issues regarding gaining consent and cooperation are
outlined in detail. Van der Kleij explains that many potential participants
declined her request, especially amongst the interpreters. However, she was
fortunate to have the support of the head of the IND, which ultimately meant
that she was successful in gathering sufficient data. It is worth conceding
the possible bias in the sample – those interpreters least comfortable with
having their performances scrutinized excluded themselves. 

While renditions (utterances by a speaker, transformed into another language,
to an interlocutor) constitute the majority of the interpreter’s turns, van
der Kleij notes that there are exceptions. After explaining the transcription
and translation methods, she explains how she analysed the three discourse
components – turn-rendition pairs, clarification sequences and non-translated
turns, giving examples and providing information on the type, length and
frequency of each component across the interviews.  

Chapter 4 presents findings relating to the first of these three components,
turn-rendition pairs. Against the expectation of IND’s code of conduct that
all renditions are exact translations, van der Kleij notes varied levels of
similarity of turn-rendition pairs in the data. She explains that deviations
on any of the four levels (mentioned above) may constitute production
strategies, and “[d]etermining which production strategies interpreters apply
in asylum interviews will provide insight in how norms function as a framework
in interpreter-mediated institutional discourse” (p. 109).

She divides her analysis between mutations (additions or omissions in the
renditions in relation to the turns they represent), and modifications (mainly
changes in part order and form of address, along with some other shifts).
Given their frequent occurrence, she concludes that these changes are “the
rule rather than the exception”, and that they demonstrate the active role
interpreters take in the communication.  

Van der Kleij then presents conclusions, first discussing how similarity was
affected on each of the four levels, but arguing that (except in extreme
cases), interpreting “does not seem to jeopardise a reliable account of the
asylum seeker’s narrative” (p. 161). Most important, though, is the simple and
clear conclusion that “an interpreter cannot fully conform to the relation
norm and the communication norm at the same time” (p. 166). In other words,
the institutional expectation that interpreters conform to relation
requirements on all levels is unrealistic. As van der Kleij argues, the
preceding analysis demonstrates that when interpreters apply production
strategies aimed at optimising communication, some level of similarity will be
lost. She declares the institution responsible for deciding to what degree
this imbalance is acceptable and identifying strategies to counter
unacceptable deviances. 

In Chapter 5 van der Kleij explores clarification sequences in the data,
identifying three categories. The first are those involving repeating or
confirming something that has been said (when it has been misheard, forgotten
or not understood). These make up the majority (75%) of identified sequences.
The second involves the recipient requesting more specific details about an
utterance. The third are those requesting additional information. These latter
two are triggered by the recipient’s expectations about what an acceptable
utterance should be. While the first type are in line with the code of
conduct, van der Kleij argues that using clarification for specification or
addition risks placing actors outside their institutionally assigned roles.
For example, the interpreter may directly ask follow-up questions from the
asylum seeker, rather than leaving this to the officer. Further challenges may
occur given that often clarification sequences involve only two of the
participants – when they are not interpreted to the third participant, the
exchange remains inaccessible to them. 

This chapter presents the problematic Interview 15 in detail: in that
interview, the interpreter, who speaks Dutch as a first language, appears to
have great difficulty understanding the asylum seeker’s Ugandan English. The
examples given fall into the first clarification category, but demonstrate
some of the challenges of language issues. For example, she notes that the
asylum seeker appears to simplify his narrative and leave out details to
accommodate the interpreter. Also, the officer, who has some English
comprehension, sometimes interjects to assist the interpreter, or responds to
untranslated utterances, taking on a different role.  

Van der Kleij notes that either the officer or interpreter usually initiates
the second and third category clarifications. She draws a parallel with shifts
mentioned in Chapter 3: sometimes interpreters seek to improve or refine the
participants’ utterances in line with their beliefs or understanding about the
interview and application process, and this can motivate them to seek specific
or additional information – they believe they know what the officer expects. 
She notes that while officers are supposed to allow the asylum seekers to
recount their narrative without interruptions and wait for a questions stage
towards the end of the interview, they sometimes interject to prompt addition
or specification. This is a means of controlling the pace and detail of the
narrative.  

Presenting her conclusions to Chapter 5, van der Kleij first relates
clarification sequences back to the four levels of similarity. She argues that
the appropriateness of clarification sequences depends on whether they resolve
issues of similarity and that the three different types of clarification exist
on a spectrum of appropriateness, with those seeking to confirm information
being most appropriate, and those seeking to add information the least. She
argues that clarification use is somewhat limited by the discourse scenario:
since each participant has a different role, their ability to interject and
seek clarification is restricted. This is especially so for asylum seekers,
who are expected to proffer information rather than seek it. Further, she
notes that power imbalances mean that the asylum seeker is the least likely to
push outside the expected boundaries of their role, while other participants
may feel more comfortable doing this. Finally, van der Kleij once again
explores the effect of the communication norm. Communicative reasons can
explain why participants may initiate a sequence even when relation
appropriateness and the discourse scenario discourage it. Interpreters may
seek specific details or additional information to communicate the narrative
in a more institutionally desirable way, officers may interject for
efficiency, and asylum seekers may seek explanations to ensure they
communicate accurately and within institutional expectations. 

Chapter 6 presents the third and final section of analysis, this time focusing
on non-translated turns and their coordinating function. Van der Kleij
identifies two categories – those that are devices to control turn-taking and
those that aim to optimise communication. She provides examples of turn-taking
devices, including those aimed at maintaining the turn-taking sequence, for
example “continuers” and “fillers”. These contrast with “stopper” devices,
aimed at interrupting a speaker. When successful, these are likely to result
in renditions being left out (not translated). Optimizing communication can
also lead to a number of non-translated turns. This may involve the
interpreter repairing a previous error, or repeating, reformulating or
explaining an officer’s question to ensure understanding. Finally, van der
Kleij observes a set of turns in which two of the speakers discuss the meaning
of a turn, without the interpreter relaying this to the other participant. 

Van der Kleij also discusses the “divergent participation frameworks” that
explain some of the non-translated turns. For example, proper nouns or names
or short words like “yes”, “no” or “okay”, may not require interpreting.
Further, she discusses the interviews in which the officer has some knowledge
of the language the asylum seeker is using with the interpreter, or vice
versa. She notes that this can be helpful for picking up errors, but may
displace the expected roles of the participants, with the interpreter shifting
into a mediator or supervisor role, stepping in to help clarify rather than
interpreting everything. Finally, non-translated turns may arise from
divergent participation when the officer asks the interpreter to cover a
certain amount of information or questions with the asylum seeker directly,
rather than interpreting these utterances from the officer. Finally, van der
Kleij notes that non-translation may occur with meta-commentary on the
discourse. This might relate to language issues or turn-taking, or interview
logistics. 

Van der Kleij concludes once again by arguing these various non-translated
turns often result from the discourse scenario: participants are influenced to
maintain/regain a certain turn-taking order, and promote certain roles. She
again refers to this balancing between the relation and communication norm.
Optimising communication may sometimes lead to non-translated turns, often
excluding one of the participants who cannot understand what is being said.
This demonstrates the power and responsibility the interpreter has to judge
what to translate and what to leave out. While van der Kleij’s analysis does
not reveal any complaints about this exclusion, she concedes that power
dynamics may discourage asylum seekers from speaking up to raise this issue. 

Chapter 7 presents a conclusion and discussion, based on the above analyses.
Van der Kleij primarily concludes that interpreters are active discourse
participants, who go beyond providing renditions by co-constructing the
discourse and optimising communication. She summarises the conclusions
presented in Chapters 4 to 6, but also presents an overview of the differences
across each of the 14 interviews included in this analysis. She once again
discusses how interpreters effectively have two roles: both interpreting and
coordinating, and that the data demonstrate the need to find a compromise
between the relation and communication norms that inform these roles. She then
considers both the theoretical and practical implications of the research,
arguing that her findings demonstrate that strict codes of conduct do not
acknowledge the interpreter’s real role. If anything, relying on such codes
alone can actually create challenges for asylum seekers. When the code
reflects a very restricted understanding of the interpreters’ role (largely
ignoring the coordinating activities), it can be difficult for asylum seekers
to appeal or complain about their performance. 

Not all participants have linguistic access to the interpreters’
decision-making since usually only interpreters can understand both the
utterances and their renditions. This means that they have an important role
in constructing the official narrative. Importantly, van der Kleij advocates
recording the interviews to allow for greater accountability. She notes that
while the officers have some opportunities to evaluate the interpreters’
performance, the asylum seekers’ opportunities to do so seem more limited:
although they are given the opportunity to comment, and are also asked if they
understand the interpreter, van der Kleij noted that even including the
extreme circumstances of interview 15, none of the asylum seekers capitalized
on this opportunity.  
 
EVALUATION

This book makes a valuable contribution to a growing body of studies on
interpreter-mediated communication in asylum procedures. Relying on strong,
well-argued evidence, van der Kleij’s findings support pre-existing claims
that dialogue interpreters are social actors whose role is often more complex
than institutional discourses recognise.  

Perhaps the only shortcoming is that van der Kleij does not analyse the IND’s
written record of the interviews, which forms the official version from which
a decision is made – something she acknowledges. While this was understandably
beyond the scope of what was already a very detailed and systematic study, she
concedes that this makes it difficult to evaluate the effects of the practices
identified in the research. Were the choices the interpreters made between
relation and coordination really all as harmless as suggested? A comparative
analysis of the written record alongside the interview data (as for example in
Maryns (2006)) would have allowed greater evaluation of the effects of the
production and recipient strategies she so carefully describes. 

Nonetheless, the findings presented in this book are important and well
argued. By challenging prevailing assumptions about the role of the
interpreter in this setting, van der Kleij helps continue a conversation about
the way institutional discourse impacts the asylum seeker experience, which
will hopefully lead to fairer procedures and outcomes.  

REFERENCES

Chesterman, Andrew. 1993. From 'Is' to 'Ought': Laws, Norms and Strategies in
Translation Studies'. Target 5(1). 1-20. 

Chesterman, Andrew. 1997. Memes of translation: the spread of ideas in
translation theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Maryns, Katrijn. 2006. The Asylum Speaker: Language in the Belgian Asylum
Procedure. Manchester: St. Jerome.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Laura Smith-Khan is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Linguistics at
Macquarie University. Under the supervision of Professor Ingrid Piller, Laura
is conducting research on language and communication in Australia’s refugee
policy and procedures. 

As part of a team from the Sydney Centre for International Law, she has also
conducted multi-site fieldwork across six countries, researching disability in
refugee camps and urban refugee settings. With Chief Investigators, Professors
Mary Crock, Ron McCallum and Ben Saul, she has presented the project findings
at the United Nations and Harvard Law School, as well as in published reports,
articles and book chapters. 

Laura holds a Bachelor of Arts (Languages) (Distinction) and a Bachelor of
Laws (Hons) (University of Sydney), a Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice
(Australian National University) and a Master in Applied Linguistics (Monash
University). She has been admitted as a legal practitioner and has worked with
refugees in a para-legal capacity. She teaches at Sydney Law School and
Macquarie Law School.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2016
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

This year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise $79,000. This money 
will go to help keep the List running by supporting all of our 
Student Editors for the coming year.

Don't forget to check out Fund Drive 2016 site!

http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/

For all information on donating, including information on how to 
donate by check, money order, PayPal or wire transfer, please visit:
http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

The LINGUIST List is under the umbrella of Indiana University and 
as such can receive donations through the eLinguistics Foundation, 
which is a registered 501(c) Non Profit organization. Our Federal 
Tax number is 45-4211155. These donations can be offset against 
your federal and sometimes your state tax return (U.S. tax payers only). 
For more information visit the IRS Web-Site, or contact your financial 
advisor.

Many companies also offer a gift matching program, such that 
they will match any gift you make to a non-profit organization. 
Normally this entails your contacting your human resources department 
and sending us a form that the eLinguistics Foundation fills in and 
returns to your employer. This is generally a simple administrative 
procedure that doubles the value of your gift to LINGUIST, without 
costing you an extra penny. Please take a moment to check if 
your company operates such a program.

Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-27-1977	
----------------------------------------------------------