1887
Volume 42, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0272-2690
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9889
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Migrants’ intended length of stay influences their choices between using a lingua franca, language technology, ad-hoc interpreters and translators, intercomprehension, or learning the host country’s dominant language. To study this influence, data were collected through a questionnaire, semi-structured interviews, and a focus-group discussion from 15 long-term migrants (university language teachers) and eight mid-term migrants (teachers at two international schools) working in Slovenia. The results show that the long-term migrants all learned the host language, while the most common mediation strategy of the mid-term migrants was use of a lingua franca. Ad-hoc interpreters and translators were used not only in healthcare but also for the translations of official documents. Moreover, the French-speaking mid-term migrants attempted to learn the host language and often ended up learning English, while the group of native English speakers tended to form a linguistic enclave. It is argued that the preferred mediation strategy depends not just on the intended length of stay but also on the status of the migrant’s L1 in the particular host country.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lplp.00025.pok
2018-06-28
2018-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alanen, Julia
    2009 Language Access is an Empowerment Right: Deprivation of Plenary Language Access Engenders an Array of Grave Rights Violations. International Legal Studies Program Law Journal1/3:93–118.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Angelelli, Claudia V.
    2015Study on Public Service Translation in Cross-border Healthcare. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, athttps://goo.gl/UU2wBf (Feb. 13 2018).
    [Google Scholar]
  3. González Núñez, Gabriel
    2016Translating in Linguistically Diverse Societies: Translation policy in the United Kingdom. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Hale, Sandra
    2011 Public Service Interpreting. Kirsten Malmkjær & Kevin Windle , eds.The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. House, Juliane
    2003 English as a Lingua Franca: A Threat to Multilingualism?Journal of Sociolinguistics7/4:556–78.10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2003.00242.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2003.00242.x [Google Scholar]
  6. 2015Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present. London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Kocijančič Pokorn, Nike , Marija Milavec Kapun & Danica Rotar Pavlič
    2017 Uvodne misli. In: Hirci, Nataša et al. Večjezični priročnik za lažje sporazumevanje v zdravstvu: Multilingual Aid for Better Communication in Healthcare. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani, 12–17, athttps://goo.gl/hMLYUo (Feb.13 2018).
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Pokorn, Nike K. , Iva Jevtić & Jaka Čibej
    2018 Interpreting and linguistic inclusion – friends or foes? Results from a field study. The Translator24/2. (Online publication.: 24 Nov 2017), doi: 10.1080/13556509.2017.1396406
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2017.1396406 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lplp.00025.pok
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lplp.00025.pok
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error