BadalottiProfessional Multilinguals: Some exploratory considerations on language and the identities...

1 Copyright Monash University Linguistics Papers. ISSN 1327-9130. Volume Seven, Number One, May 2010, pp. 112.

1. Introduction

Since the 1980s, multilingualism and related phenomena have gained a great deal of attention. With the relative decline of some nation-states and the increasing flow of people, technology, media, and information occurring between and across countries, multilingualism and multiculturalism have become an important feature of communicative situations of all kinds. Consequently, translators and interpreters (hereafter: T/I) have become more and more prominent. Publications and workshops on how to best work with T/I have been released for various service providers, such as tribunals, hospitals, and government agencies (e.g. Queensland Department of Premier and Cabinet 2004; SWAHS Health Care Interpreting Service 1998/2006; Victoria Regional Information & Advocacy Council 1999; Tebble 1998).

A brief review of the past and current research in the field of multilingualism reveals an increasing number of studies about the neuropsychological aspects of the multilingual brain and multilinguals language practices, as well as issues of multilingual education and multiple languages in the classroom. Research about affective issues (feelings, emotions, identity, attitudes) has also started to appear (e.g. Blackledge & Pavlenko 2004; Pavlenko 2006), and it is relatively easy to find biographies, autobiographies and essays exploring lives in two languages from a more narrative, literary point of view (e.g. Besemeres & Wierzbicka 2007; Kellman 2000; Zournazi 1998). In this range of publications interpreters and translators are, more often than not, absent; the sociological profiling of multilinguals does not seem to include them. Translation has been described as an activity [which] is always doubly contextualized, since the text has a place in two cultures (Bassnett & Lefevere 1990:11). If both the text and the translational activity are acknowledged to have multiple locations, then by the same token the translator/interpreter - the archetype of a multilingual and multicultural individual

FLORIANA BADALOTTIMONASH UNIVERSITY

Professional Multilinguals:Some exploratory considerations on language and the identities of translators and interpreters

The role played by language(s) in the formation and performance of identities is well known and researched, but the affective aspects of multilingualism (emotions, identity, attitudes, etc.) have received marginal attention in the fields of sociolinguistics, literary studies, and psychology. With multilingualism becoming a prominent feature in communicative situations of all kinds, the professional figures of translators and interpreters have become more and more conspicuous. The nature of the profession means that language and multilingual competence is one of its defining dimensions, leading translators and interpreters to be located at the point of contact of two or more cultures. Nevertheless, whereas translation is seen by laypeople as a routine activity performed by multilingual users, professionals experi-ences and points of view as multilinguals are rarely considered. This paper seeks to address, at least partially, this gap in research. Profes-sionals written responses to an email interview regarding their rela-tionship with language and their profession are analysed in view of findings in neurolinguistics, social psychology and Translation Studies, with the aim to offer some considerations on the applicability of tradi-tional theories of language and identity to professional multilinguals.

Key Words: multilingualism, identity, translators, interpreters, professional multilinguals

2 MONASH UNIVERSITY LINGUISTICS PAPERS 2010

- could also be considered as doubly or multiply positioned. This raises the question of the consequences that these multiple positions might have for the personal identifications of language professionals.

In an attempt to answer Pym's appeal for a sociology of ... mediators (2006:2), this paper seeks to address some of the unexplored social, cultural and psychological aspects of translators and interpreters as multilingual and multicultural professionals. The central thesis of this article is that many of the traditional views about multilingualism and identity fail to accurately capture the unique reality of multilingual professionals, for whom languages are the livelihood. The peculiarities of T/I as multilingual professionals will be argued for through a review of current research about multilingualism, as well as through professionals own responses to an email interview.

2. Current perspectives on multilingualism, translation and identity

2.1 Some characteristics of the multilingual brain

In his latest work, Grosjean (2008) sums up the main findings about multilinguals from more than two decades of research. The 1990s were deemed the decade of the brain (Tokuhama-Espinosa 2007) due to the number of studies that concerned themselves with cognitive processes and neurobiological functions such as language learning and use, as well as the innovations in technology and research methods that allowed for non-invasive, real time exploration of such processes.

Research in the field of multilingualism and multilingual individuals has recently undergone a change in approaches and paradigms, rebelling against what Grosjean (2008) terms monolingual bias: a point of view which does not acknowledge multilingualism as a phenomenon in its own right and that conceptualises it as a marked category from the monolingual norm, thus applying monolingual standards and methods to explore and categorise its various manifestations. This perspective has informed and pervaded research in language learning, production and use from the very beginning (Auer & Li 2006), leading to unrealistic constructs such as perfect bilingualism, semi-lingualism, balanced biculturalism/bilingualism, and so on. In fact, more recent studies are moving away from this traditional perspective that saw multilinguals as monolinguals with doubled functionality. Nowadays, due also to the development of in vivo brain imaging techniques such as fMRI (func-tional magnetic resonance imaging, which uses the levels of blood flow and blood oxygenation to individuate active areas of the brain), there is consensus among researchers that linguistic configurations in the human brain (such as hemispheric lateralization) are actually unique and patterns of area activation are specific to in-dividuals: [j]ust as there are no identical faces, there are no identical brains (Tokuhama-Espinosa 2007:117). Whilst a generic dominance of the left frontal and parietal lobes for linguistic behaviour has generally been presumed, evidence is controversial for bilinguals, suggesting that they may have a different cerebral organi-sation. Specifically, the most common claim is that late bilinguals show the activation of different regions of Brocas area when using their two languages, whereas early bilinguals activate the same regions for both languages; and that bilinguals show a higher involvement of the right hemisphere for language processing than monolinguals (e.g. Kim, Relkin, Lee & Hirsch 1997; Wuillemin, Richardson & Lynch 1994; Vaid & Lambert 1979).

However, the data used to substantiate these claims is the subject of discussion, mainly due to the differences in methodology and the variety of factors that are acknowledged to have an impact on language acquisition and use (e.g. age, gender, genetics, length of exposure, language varieties, etc; cf. Paradis 2003 for a critique of these studies). Despite the lack of conclusive results regarding the pattern of precise brain circuits, Tokuhama-Espinosa argues that recent studies point toward multilinguals as utilising greater areas of the brain compared to monolinguals (shown by an enlargement of the corpus callosum; Tokuhama-Espinosa 2007:138; Riehl 2009).

Professional multilinguals

3VOLUME SEVEN, NUMBER ONE

The involvement and activation of different areas of the brain in language processing and use can be justified by the variety of life experiences and situations touched on when acquiring language (for instance the process-ing of emotions in the amygdalae), therefore explaining the activation of multiple areas when language is recalled, spoken, and/or read.

Grosjean (2008) also points out the specificity of language use and acquisition, arguing how the monolingual bias has not allowed the full extent of multilingual behaviour to be investigated. The use of monolingual standards has led to the study of different levels of fluency in different languages as an anomaly, on the basis of which the bilingual or multilingual label was often rejected in favour of others such as alingual or semilin-gual. In fact, as previously mentioned, the notion that a person could be exactly as fluent in one language as in the other is unrealistic; different levels of fluency in different languages are the norm rather than the excep-tion. Grosjean explains this point with what he terms complementarity principle (2008:23; cf. also Grosjean 1982): a persons languages complement each other in the domains of knowledge that they cover, meaning that each language is usually attached to a specific life domain (e.g. work, socialising, education, family, rela-tionships) depending on how, when and why a language was learned. This builds on the widely held notion that languages have different functions and serve different purposes in the life of a multilingual individual. For example, it is common for somebody to know everything related to their job in a particular language, but to use a different one when talking to friends and family or expressing feelings and emotions.

2.2 Multilinguals are not necessarily natural translators

On the basis of the complementarity principle, Grosjean argues that

regular bilinguals are often not very good translators and interpreters ... Unless they have acquired their second language in a manner which involves learning translation equiva-lents ... many bilinguals will find themselves lacking vocabulary in certain domains covered by the other language (2008:24)

Trilingual Michael Clyne echoes this consideration in reference to his daughter, raised bilingually through the one parent-one language strategy. Because she grew up speaking German and English at the same time (unlike Clyne), she had more chances for practising translation and he considers her to be a more competent translator than he is (Clyne 2007:23-24).

It is a consequence of the monolingual bias that translation and interpreting are more often than not consid-ered as a natural activity to speakers of two or more languages. Moreover, especially until the 1970s, transla-tion played a chief role in the foreign language-learning classroom, with translating exercises widely employed in order to consolidate grammatical structures encountered in class (the grammar-translation method; Mun-day 2001:7; Malmkjaer 1998). Nowadays this method has decreased in popularity in comparison to others, for example CLT (Communicative Language Teaching, where the target language is used in real life, functional communication in class). Despite the wavering support of language education specialists, translating is still considered an important part of acquiring a second language by teachers as well as by students (cf. Liao 2006). As such, it is easy to confuse classroom translation with translation carried out at a professional level.

Often being able to translate between languages is seen as a natural consequence of possessing a double/tri-ple/multiple vocabulary, and confused with the readiness of these vocabulary sets in the mind of the speaker. For example, I may know the meaning of the word bread in Italian; but that meaning refers to the word alone and is contextless, taken out of any actual communication. On the other hand, the translation of the word bread is never just of the word alone, but it is of the message that word is part of in a specific situation or communicative context; one could call it a localised meaning. In other words, being able to translate means



being able to localise1 the meaning of a word in another language to fulfil a lexical role and a communicative purpose in that particular situation. The skills to do that belong to the professional. A more useful description of the translation-like strategy adopted by language learners (and, to the same extent, multilingual speakers) is [to] refer back to their native language(s) judiciously [] and make effective cross-lingual comparisons (Naiman et al. 1978:14) or using the first language as a base for understanding and/or producing the second language (Chamot 1987:77). Such definitions are more realistic than the use of the term translation in that they point out the centrality of metalinguistic awareness (i.e. reflection, comparison and analysis) in language acquisition and use, without giving the false impression that language learners and multilingual speakers are automatically translators.

Grosjeans (2008) and Clynes (2007) comments, in a way, reiterate the monolingual bias in that they equate owning several vocabulary sets (or translation equivalents) with translation skills. Their comments seem to overlook the fact that translating and interpreting are learned skills that must be acquired through study and practice and are not solely related to vocabulary readiness in the speakers mind. As a consequence of this point of view it is still difficult to educate the public about the importance of using skilled, trained profession-als for their language needs rather than using bilingual friends or relatives.

2.3 The myth of the mother tongue

According to lay or popular opinions, the assumption of the link between one's language(s) and one's identity remains fundamentally unchallenged. The link between language and identity is a commonplace of Western culture and has been since the age of Romanticism, when nationality, mother tongue and identity (also called the nation/homeland/language model; Dei 2005) were assumed to be one and the same. The mother tongue, as learned in one's country and from one's family, was pinpointed as a major unifying factor, which allowed literature and press to circulate and contribute to the spread of ideologies.

The mother tongue has been acknowledged as playing an important role in the formation of identities by so-ciologists and developmental psychologists through socialization (Bruner 1966). Socialization is defined as the process by which the individual becomes a functioning member of society, through the internalisation (learn-ing and owning) of the laws, rules, customs, habits, and beliefs of that society. Primary socialization happens in childhood and language plays necessarily a central role in it: it is part of the common knowledge to be learnt but it is also the means by which this knowledge is handed down and perpetuated through oral and written communication. However, since people and life circumstances are not static, but subject to change, socializa-tion can also continue later in life (resocialization). A typical example is the experience of migrants learning to comply with new social norms and social expectations that can be very different from their native country. In this case a language acquired later in life is as important to the individuals self as their first language, because it becomes part of their life through the same lengthy, emotional process of learning and internalising.

Psychoanalytic theory, which considered the self essentially finished within the first three years of life, has certainly contributed to reinforcing the idea of the first language as central to the individuals personality. Changes happening later in life are thus ignored and the myth of the mother tongue remains, with the native language still considered (perhaps unconsciously) as playing a major role in the formation of the Self. Novel-ist Eva Sallis, in her significantly titled Foster Mother Tongue, speaks of language as the material to remake myself, leading her to exclaim: How tied a self can be to its language! (Sallis 2007:153). Or, as Kellman puts it in his reflection on translingual writers, There seems something not only painful but unnatural, almost matricidal, about an author who abandons the Muttersprache (2000:3). If assuming that everything related to childhood first memories, first attachments, first experiences is paramount in the formation of the Self, the native language acquires a fundamental role as the main fabric which makes up these memories and relation-ships.

1 In T&I however, localise and localisation are terms used almost exclusively in reference to website and software translation.



This point of view has led to considering multilinguals as essentially torn individuals, for whom identity op-tions were several and unclear. For these reasons, multilingualism has long been considered suspiciously in Western countries, leading to the popular view of it as linguistic schizophrenia (cf. Pavlenko 2006). It seems that, as argued by Auer and Li (2007), the monolingual bias pervades linguistic research to this day, often constructing multilingualism as a problematic situation and deviation from the norm. As a consequence, the idea of the bilingual/bicultural individual as having contrasting, somewhat troubled identity processes still re-mains. Grosjean for example argues that however rare it is for bilingual, bicultural people to identify with both cultures, this should be the ultimate goal, as the other options (identifying only with one or the other culture or rejecting both) are seen as undesirable and leading to feelings of dissatisfaction, uprootedness, marginality and ambivalence (2008:219-220). Bishop and Hicks (2005:194) point out how this kind of monolingual bias derives from the history of linguistic theory as it originated in Western countries, where multilingualism was dismissed and fought in order to maintain the stability and unity of the nation. Despite the current efforts to promote multilingualism, the bias is still difficult to counteract, especially in English-speaking countries. The status of English worldwide is ever rising, making it one of the most sought-after commodities in the global marketplace (Heller 2003).

For translators and interpreters this perspective has meant, in history, a general perception of distrust from the public; figurations of the T/I as having a double head, or accusations of forked tongue, double allegiance, and treason have been a recurring theme in the history of the T/I profession (cf. Kaufmann 2006). Moreover, dur-ing the 20th century, translation has become a widely used metaphor in various fields of cultural studies and so has the figure of the translator, especially in relation to identity and belonging. The image of the translator becomes a synonym of fragmented identity, marginalization and displacement (Strmper-Krobb 2007:253). This perspective seems to be echoed in the literature: from reviews of fictional figures of translators and interpreters (cf. Strmper-Krobb 2007), to self-translating bilingual (translingual) writers (Besemeres 2002; Kellman 2000), and of course multilingual laypeoples accounts (cf. Burck 2004). Among the recurring themes are the constant moving between languages, the interplay of the two in daily life (also described as the voice within a voice; Federman 1996), a sense of conflict, the idea of disguising oneself, and doubleness as trope (Burck 2004).

2.4 Bilingualism does not necessarily mean biculturalism

As argued by Grosjean (2008), bilingualism does not always overlap with biculturalism. The constructs of dominance and balance are used to describe the various cultural identification modes of biculturals. Grosjean suggests that participation in the life of both cultures, adaptation (to some extent) of attitudes and behaviours depending on the context, and blending aspects of both cultures are the main features of biculturalism. From this description, language is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for biculturalism. Language and culture are often conceived as overlapping fields. As shown by researchers in second language acquisition, immersion in the second language cultural environment is instrumental towards the acquisition of the language (e.g. Spolsky 1989; Norton Peirce 1995). However, the circumstance of physically sharing the L2 cultural envi-ronment does not mean that speakers will internalise L2 values, attitudes and practices in their private life, especially if L2 is acquired for work/study reasons rather than for lifestyle reasons (Hoffmann 1989).

On the other hand, biculturalism in the sense discussed above is a defining feature of the T&I professional, whose job entails the transfer of meaning between largely incommensurable codes. As argued by Gouadec, (2007:5-6), the products or concepts being transferred across cultures must be acceptable or made accept-able within the context of the target culture [] Transfer is therefore cultural in nature first. To ensure that this goal is reached, the T/I must necessarily have a full and complete understanding of the item to be trans-ferred, and an insider-level knowledge and understanding of the target culture. For these reasons it can be ar-gued that T&I professionals are not only multilingual, but also necessarily multicultural in the sense described.



3. The study

The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between being multilingual/multicultural and cultural identity from the point of view of translators and interpreters, in their capacity as professional multilinguals.

The participants in this study2 are ten professional (NAATI-accredited) translators and interpreters currently working in Australia. They were contacted by means of an invitation email sent to the AUSIT (T/I profession-al association) E-Bulletin, a listserv of which the researcher is a member. They are from both English-speaking and non-English speaking backgrounds. They have been working in Australia for at least two years and speak between three and four languages, although they usually dont regularly employ more than two working lan-guages. In the quotes below, participants are indicated by their gender (F/M), whether they are translators (T), interpreters (I) or both (T/I) and their known languages as they have indicated them (e.g. English/French/ Italian). My interventions are in square brackets.

The data collected revolves around T/Is own description of their cultural identifications, their relationship with the languages they speak, their multilingualism and their professional role. It is my view that identity processes are inextricable from the individual participating in them; thus, my interest lies in the informants' own views about language, identity and culture, as they choose to present them. In accordance with this view, this study used a semi-structured, open-ended

interview. These are considered the most suitable approach to access an individuals attitudes, perceptions and thoughts as the way questions are formulated allows for individual and unique answers instead of pre-determined ones such as questionnaires and surveys (Silverman 2006). Because of geographical distance and the fact that most participants are freelancers (working very different hours), face-to-face interviews were impracticable; using email interviews (rather than face-to-face interviews) provided participants with open questions designed to stimulate reflection, which they could think about and elaborate in their own time.

3.1 Terminology

Identity, as explored in this study, refers first and foremost to what Giddens (1991:53) describes as the self as reflexively understood by the person in terms of her or his biography. The position of this study is that, coherently with post-structuralist, anti-essentialist philosophical stances (Hall 1996), identity as a universal, discernible core of the self does not exist. It is seen rather as a process in which the individual participates as agent and object at the same time; that is, a process where the knower (individual) is also the known object. As a process, therefore, identity is always in the making and it is inherently unfixed. The only true descrip-tion of it is the account that, at any given time, the agent/actor can give. Reflexivity, people's ability to think about themselves and to have a concept of themselves, is one of the key features of identity (sentimento di identit; Palmonari 1995). It is this capacity for self-knowledge that ensures the continuity of the self across time and space.

Secondly, culture is understood as playing an essential role in this process of making and understanding the self. Social psychologists have explored the construct of culture as a tool that people have at their disposal to make sense of their environment. Culture offers people resources to understand and experience the world in several ways (Mantovani 2004): It mediates the cognitive activity of the person, through language (as interac-tion, conversation, discourse, narration), social categorisation, and metaphor; it constructs maps of reality, i.e. defines the boundaries within which experiences make sense; and it supplies moral models to make deci-sions. Culture is, in other words, a discursive device (Hall 1996:297), which creates representations and is a representation at the same time. It is an axiom of Cultural Studies that culture Vworks like a language (Bark-er & Galasi!ski 2001:2) and as such it links signifiers (symbols) with signifieds (meanings) in peculiar, unique ways. This process is actualised and allowed by language, the cultural practice par excellence.

2 Monash University SCERH approval number 2008000994.



Culture is compounded by all of these aspects: language, customs, traditions, moral rules. These ways of acting in, and understanding the world are specific to a culture as belonging to a social group. Group membership is a central feature of identity and the means by which culture is shared. The Social Identity Theory (SIT) as formulated by Henri Tajfel (1981) views social identity as

the part of an individuals self-concept deriving from his knowledge of his membership of a social group(s) together with the emotional significance attached to that membership (Tajfel 1981:255)

Both reflexivity and group membership are acknowledged to be important aspects of ones self image. Para-phrasing Giddens and Tajfel and combining these two aspects, cultural identity in this study is intended as a part of peoples self-concept deriving from their reflexive understanding of their membership of a cultural group(s).

4. Findings

4.1 Translators and interpreters: Fragmented identities?

From a preliminary exploration of T/Is own ideas about their identifications and roles, a rebellion against the stereotype of the misfit emerges. What T/I try to depict is a comfortable, inclusive relationship with languages, and a complex identity that is not so much rooted in a particular language but in a constellation of them as they have become a part of ones life through schooling, living abroad, relationships and work. Profession-als are quick to affirm the necessity to treat languages as instruments for work, but at the same time they acknowledge how these languages put them in a sort of privileged position, increasing their feelings of cosmo-politanism as well as expertness and competence. It is multilingualism itself, rather than being a speaker of X that assumes the role of a central node in T/Is identifications, around which other dimensions are organised:

I have been exposed to multilingualism and multiculturalism most of my life. I feel it defines my work and myself as an individual, it makes life interesting and exciting (F, T, Portuguese-English,/Italian/Spanish)

Since I've moved here, I feel that being multilingual has become a stronger part of my identity than being Irish, or even English-speaking. It allows me to feel European and part of a wider world of ideas, politics, culture, etc. than I feel I would have access to as a monolingual (F, T, English/French/German)

This kind of result is in line with socio-psychological theories of identity. As Hamers and Blanc argue (2000), the link between language and identity cannot always be articulated in the same way for every individual. Drawing from Tajfels Social Identity Theory (1981), which sees individuals seeking to maintain self-esteem through association with social groups with desirable characteristics, they point out that language consti-tutes only one of the many dimensions of ones identity, which is continually constructed and re-constructed around significant events and contexts in ones life. Identities are acknowledged to be plastic and performa-tive, i.e. changeable and realised through actions; individuals are actively involved in re-elaborating them to adapt to the changes on their life (Weedon 1987; Norton Peirce 1995). Therefore, the salience of a language in defining ones identity is not defined once and for all, and depends on the context in which identity is expressed (Hamers & Blanc 2000:203). Individuals are more likely to indicate language as one of the funda-mental dimensions of their identity when they are in a situation of contact, and possibly conflict, with speak-ers of other languages. For example, one of the participants in the study mentioned how she feels much more



European now that she is in Australia, and how this feeling justifies in a way the cultural differences that she continues to experience here (despite coming from an English-speaking country). She admitted that when she was living in Europe she didnt give much thought to what it meant to be European - whereas now it sets her apart from other Australians.

The themes of doubleness and unease for people between cultures may be a legacy of the Western, monolin-gual and essentialist point of view that sees the relationship between language and identity as immutable and static. The more recent research findings show, on the contrary, that such relationship is subject to a number of individual factors and cannot be pinned down to a one-size-fits-all kind of model (Blackledge & Pavlenko 2004). What emerges from T/Is accounts is, on the other hand, the ease with which they see themselves placed within more than one culture. Perhaps the result of education and professionalisation of the field, T/I seem well aware of their privileged position within society (not so much in terms of financial standing, but in terms of social and cultural status). They acknowledge the coexistence of different languages, cultures and attitudes within themselves and their life stories (often dating back to their families), and they see this coexist-ence as fundamentally harmonious:

It did seem to me [] that the distinction between the mother tongue, and any subse-quently acquired language may have been overstated (M, T, Croatian/English)

I don't identify particularly strongly with any other culture, least of all my native one, and I've definitely adapted and blended my attitudes and behaviours based on my participation of life in different cultures (F, T, English/French/German)

However, where T/I consider themselves well adapted and see their multilingualism and multiculturalism posi-tively, negative perceptions are often experienced from monolingual speakers, often paired with the awareness of the predominantly monolingual Australian culture:

I dont feel that bilingual/bicultural people fit very well within mainstream monolingual culture in [Australia]. The experience is really very different and monolinguals just dont even know or assimilatethat there is another cultural experience that could be valid apart from theirs. One almost has to go about pretending this other part of you doesnt exist because you cant talk about it or show it that can be very uncomfortable (F, T, English/Spanish)

In line with the current approach aimed at promoting multilingualism and multiculturalism (seen as assets rather than burdens) (Clyne 2008; Tokuhama-Espinosa 2007), a deeper understanding and acceptance of multilinguals unique attitudes, behaviours, and experiences need to be also fostered and promoted in schools, government services, and in the workplace, to better cater for multilinguals needs and to benefit from their capabilities.

4.2 Professional identity of T/Is

The glaring absence of T/I informants in multilingualism research reveals that we are still far from acknowl-edging translation and interpreting as learnt skills, and not just as something that comes naturally to speakers of more than one language. This is a notion that T/I in Australia are very aware of:

Australian society seems to think that if you were born overseas, T/I work comes naturally and therefore doesnt deserve the acknowledgement/compensation that other professions (or even trades) command (F, T, English/Italian)

Mostly [] were seen as 1. tradespeople, 2. immigrant workers to be paid low wages, 3. doing a job any moderately bilingual person could do with no training (F, T, English/Spanish)



Some considerations might be made in this respect. Since almost all multilinguals have had some personal ex-perience in interpreting or translating for others and that most language courses to some degree use translation exercises in the curriculum, perhaps translation is seen by linguists as a mechanical activity of less interest than the cognitive, behavioural or socio-cultural characteristics of multilingual people. Is it because within research on multilingualism, T/I is seen as a facilitative resource rather than a tangible asset, as a peripheral rather than central activity? If this is the case, further research into the specificities of translators and interpreters (social, cultural, cognitive and affective) will only help foster education and knowledge of the general public regard-ing the translating and interpreting profession. Secondly, the prevalence of the monolingual bias has also led to a mono-modal bias, where Sign Language and Sign Language interpreting have only recently started to be given the due consideration. Particularly, as Turner (2006) notices, the presence of Deaf interpreters has been constantly ignored by the wider, hearing community, arguing that this is a result of a mono-modal bias, which wouldn't acknowledge Deaf Interpreting as a salient interpreting event; yet the emergence of such instances of interpreting represents a chance for the profession to reconsider issues of power and definition.

On the same note, Translation and Interpreting has been awarded a professional status relatively recently. Specialist courses at tertiary level have started to emerge all over the world in the last forty years, and many countries have introduced a national accreditation system as well as professional associations. As the field is still defining itself as a profession, professional belonging (rather than cultural belonging) may be a more sali-ent aspect of T/Is identity. In this sense, the intercultural space, or intercultures in Pyms (1998, 2002) words, may come to signify and represent the space where T/I belong a space that goes beyond one or the other cul-ture, one which includes and blends aspects of both. In this elected space, the translator/interpreter has a dif-ferent status altogether: he/she is limited by ethical considerations, professional duties and requirements that are specific to the profession and thus separate from notions of 'nationality', 'citizenship' and mother tongue. In other words, in this time of definition and consolidation, professional identification may be more salient than ethnicity- or country-based identifications:

[being a T/I is] very important - defines my relationship with the deaf community; means [I] can help bridge the gap between two communities who frequently misunderstand each other (F, I, English/Auslan)

[being a T/I means] A lot. I would have to redefine myself, if I could not work as a transla-tor any more(F, T, English/German)

Also, it is much more common today for people to change careers several times in the course of their life, and therefore it cannot be assumed that professional loyalty would stay the same throughout ones life, defining a person forever:

The realities of the job market have a much stronger influence on the identities of transla-tors and interpreters than it gets credit forI think the changing nature of the workforce [] combined with generational changes, all make 'being a translator' a very different proposition to what it was say, 20 or even 15 years ago. People generally don't identify as strongly with one particular job title as they used to (F, T, English/French/German)

5. Conclusion

In this paper, I have discussed the marginal role that translators and interpreters have in the landscape of current research on multilingualism, particularly insofar as (cultural) identity and attitudes towards language are concerned. As multilinguals by definition, and subject to specific professional conditions and constraints, translators and interpreters represent a category deserving of attention and interest. I have argued that be-




ing multilingual and/or multicultural does not equate with being a translator; that being multilingual (and the language behaviour that comes with it) is an identity option on its own, without the individual having to constantly choose between his or her linguistic identities; that, moreover, being multilingual is a complex situation, yet it can be experienced and accepted serenely, without necessarily bring about internal conflicts or divisions; and finally, that T/I have a unique professional and cultural status which puts them not only at the intersection of, but above cultures. T/I need to be the first to trust such status in order to move beyond issues of textual faithfulness. I have shown how the link between language, culture and identity is far from simple and straightforward; nowadays the exceptions people moving across countries, people speaking more lan-guages, people comfortably adapting to different environments have become the rule. Adaptability becomes a key skill in todays job market; therefore, even speaking of loyalties for T/I and intending them as something fixed, which the individual cannot change or act on, is revealed to be an inadequate view.

In order for language professionals to benefit from research conducted in the field of multilingualism, the over-all approach needs to be informed by a more flexible, phenomenological perspective to account for the variety of multilinguals' experiences. For these reasons we speak of cultural identities, to account for several available options at different stages in life. On the other hand, because of their cultural position, T/Is various cultural identities seem to merge together in an intercultural identity, where it is the constellation of languages they have lived with, rather than a specific one or a nationality to determine their sense of belonging to a cosmopolitan, adaptable group of multilingual experts.

Ultimately, a deeper insight into T/Is language attitudes and subsequent identification processes may assist in further informing practice, as well as encouraging reflexivity. Reflexivity, as argued by Tymoczko (2007) is central to empowering translators, making them more aware of who they are as individuals and as profession-als. In terms of practice, the awareness of belonging to a specific intercultural space may lead T/I to better trust their status and competence, moving the focus away from issues of 'faithfulness' to one language or the other, and ultimately making T/I more visible (Venuti 1995).

References

Auer, P. & W. Li (eds) 2007. Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Barker, C., & D. Galasinski 2001. Cultural studies and discourse analysis: A dialogue on language and identity. London, Thousand Oaks (CA) & New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

Bassnett, S. & A. Lefevere (eds) 1990. Translation, history and culture. London, New York: Pinter.Besemeres, M. 2002. Translating ones self: Language and selfhood in cross-cultural autobiography. Oxford, New

York: Peter Lang.Besemeres, M. & A. Wierzbicka (eds) 2007. Translating lives: Living with two languages and cultures. St. Lucia,

QLD: University of Queensland Press.Bishop, M. & S. Hicks 2005. Orange-eyes: Bimodal bilingualism in hearing adults from deaf parents.Sign Lan-

guage Studies 5(2):188-230.Blackledge, A. & A. Pavlenko (eds) 2004. Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. Clevedon: Multilin-

gual Matters. Bruner, J. 1966. Studies in cognitive growth. New York: Wiley. Burck, C. 2004. Multilingual living: explorations of language and subjectivity. Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave-

Macmillan. Chamot, A.U. 1987. The learning strategies of ESL Students. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin (eds), Learner strat-

egies in language learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 71-83. Clyne, M. 2007. From bilingual to linguist. In M. Besemeres & A. Wierzbicka (eds), Translating lives: living with

two languages and cultures. St. Lucia, QLD: University of Queensland Press. 12-25.



Clyne, M. 2008. Diverse language skills will open the world to Australians. The Age, 02/01/2008. Dei, F. 2005. Language, culture, identity. In A. K. Isaacs (ed). Language and identitities in historical perspective.

Pisa, Italy: PLUS Edizioni. 1-12. Federman, R. 1996. A voice within a voice: Federman translating/translating Federman. Available from: http://

www.federman.com/rfsrcr2.htm. Accessed on 01/02/2010.Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and self-identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Gouadec, D. 2007. Translation as a profession. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, John Benjamins.Grosjean, F. 1982. Life with two languages: an introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Grosjean, F. 2008. Studying bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hall, S. (1996). The question of cultural identity. In S. Hall & P. Du Gay (eds). Modernity and its futures. Lon-

don, Thousand Oaks, Sage. 274-316. Hamers, J. & Blanc, M. 2000. Bilinguality and bilingualism. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Heller, M. 2003. Globalization, the new economy, and the commodification of language and identity. Journal of

Sociolinguistics, 7(4):473-492. Hoffmann, D. 1989. Language and culture acquisition among Iranians in the United States. Anthropology and

Education Quarterly 20:118-132. Kaufman, F. 2006. L'interprte serviteur de plusieurs matres? In M. Wolf (ed), bersetzen translating tra-

duire: Towards a social turn? Wien, Berlin: LIT. 187-197. Kellman, S. 2000. The translingual imagination. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Kim, K., N. Relkin, K. Lee & J. Hirsch 1997. Distinct cortical areas associated with native and second lan-

guages. Nature 388:171174. Liao, P. 2006. EFL Learners beliefs about and strategy use of translation in English. RELC Journal 37(2):191-

215. Malmkjaer, K. (ed) 1998. Translation & language teaching: language teaching and translation. Manchester: St.

Jerome. Mantovani, G. 2004. Intercultura: e' possibile evitare le guerre culturali? Bologna: Il Mulino.Munday, J. 2001. Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. London, New York: Routledge. Naiman, N., H. Frohlich, H. H. Stern & A. Todesco 1978. The good language learner. Toronto: Ontario Insti-

tute for Studies in Education.

Norton Peirce, B. 1995. Social identity, investment, and language learning. Tesol Quarterly 29 (1):9-31.Palmonari, A. 1995. Processi Simbolici e Dinamiche Sociali. Bologna: Il Mulino. Paradis, M. 2003. The bilingual Loch Ness monster raises its non-asymmetrical head again. Brain and Language

87 (3):441-448. Pavlenko, A. (ed) 2006. Bilingual Minds: Emotional experience, expression and representation. Clevedon: Multilin-

gual Matters. Pym, A. 1998. Method in translation history. Manchester: St Jerome. Pym, A. 2002. Intercultures and the face of nationalist cultures [electronic version]. Available from http://www.

tinet.org/~apym/on-line/intercultures/intnation.pdf. Accessed on 01/02/2010.Pym, A. 2006. On the social and the cultural in translation studies. In A. Pym, M. Shlesinger & Z. Jettmarov

(eds), Sociocultural aspects of translating and interpreting. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub-lishing Company. 1-26.

Queensland Department of Premier & Cabinet, 2004. How to work with interpreters. Available from: http://www.multicultural.qld.gov.au/media/qis_how_to_work_with_interpreter_telephone.pdf Accessed on 01/02/2010.

Riehl, C. 2009. Why bilingualism makes a difference. Paper presented at the Language & Society Centre, Monash University, 18 March 2009.

Sallis, E. 2007. Foster mother tongue. In M. Besemeres & A. Wierzbicka (eds), Translating lives: Living with two languages and cultures. St. Lucia, QLD: University of Queensland Press. 150-159.

Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage. Spolsky, B. 1989. Conditions for second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Motivational factors in the continuation of Japanese language study

Strmper-Krobb, S. 2007. Lost in translation: Fictional translator figures caught between cultures. In A. Pear-son & A. Leahy (eds), Intercultural spaces: Language culture identity. Bern, Frankfurt, Berlin: Peter Lang. 245-255.

SWAHS Health Care Interpreting Service, 1998/2006. SWAHS HCIS Users Guide. Available from: http://www.wsahs.nsw.gov.au/services/hcis/documents/HCIS_UG.pdf. Accessed on 01/02/2010.

Tajfel, H. 1981. Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Tebble, H. 1998. Medical interpreting: Improving communication with your patients [videorecording]. Geelong, VIC, Deakin University Learning Resources Services.

Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. 2007. Living languages: Multilingualism across the lifespan. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers.

Tymoczko, M. 2007. Enlarging translations, empowering translators. Manchester, Kinderhook: St. Jerome Pub-lishing.

Turner, G. 2006. Re-thinking the sociology of sign language interpreting and translation. In M. Wolf (ed), bersetzen translating traduire: Towards a social turn? Wien, Berlin: LIT. 285-293.

Vaid, J. & W. E. Lambert 1979. Differential cerebral involvement in the cognitive functioning of bilinguals. Brain and Language 8(1), 92-110.

Venuti, L. 1995. The translators invisibility: A history of translation. London, New York: Routledge.Victoria Regional Information & Advocacy Council Inc., 1999. How to work with an interpreter. Available from:

http://www.riac.org.au/GVPCP/workwithinterpreter.php Accessed on 01/02/2010. Weedon, C. 1987/1996. Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Wuillemin, D., B. Richardson, & J. Lynch 1994. Right-hemisphere involvement in processing later-learned lan-

guages in multilinguals. Brain and Language 46(4), 620-636. Zournazi, M. 1998. Foreign dialogues: Memories, translations, conversations. Annandale, NSW: Pluto Press.

List of abbreviations

AUSIT Australian Institute of Interpreters and TranslatorsNAATI National Accreditation Authority for Translators and InterpretersSCERH Standing Committee on Ethics in Human Research, Monash UniversityT/I Translators and/or Interpreters (practitioners)T&I Translating and interpreting (professional sector)

Floriana Badalotti is a freelance translator and a PhD candidate in the School of Languages, Cultures and Linguis-tics. She holds a Bachelor of Psychology from the University of Parma, Italy, and a Master of Translation Studies from Monash University. Her research looks at the relationship between multilingualism and identity.

Email: [email protected]

BadalottiProfessional Multilinguals: Some exploratory considerations on language and the identities...

Documents

Transcript of BadalottiProfessional Multilinguals: Some exploratory considerations on language and the identities...