Papers by Sofía García-Beyaert
PSI is a unique form of interpreting because it addresses a matter of public concern. After explo... more PSI is a unique form of interpreting because it addresses a matter of public concern. After exploring what constitutes a matter " of public concern " and looking at arguments for government intervention, this article draws on theoretical frameworks from the academic field of public policy analysis to consider how an issue enters the public policy cycle. As a result, agenda-setting is identified as the first point of intervention in institutionalizing professional PSI. Further, it is argued that de-emphasizing language difference and focusing on communication rights is an effective strategy for framing PSI as a matter of public concern.
SP
La ISP es un tipo de interpretación singular porque responde a una cuestión de interés pú-blico. Después de explorar qué constituye una cuestión «de interés público» y de considerar argumentos que justifican una intervención gubernamental, el presente artículo recurre a contribuciones teóricas del ámbito académico del análisis de políticas públicas para entender bajo qué circunstancias una determinada cuestión desencadena un ciclo de política pública. Como resultado, el llamado agenda-setting queda identificado como primer punto de in-tervención hacia la institucionalización de la ISP profesional. Se aboga además por restarle énfasis a la diferencia lingüística y poner el acento en el derecho a la comunicación como estrategia más eficaz para fomentar una percepción generalizada de la ISP como cuestión de interés público. Palabras clave: interpretación en el ámbito comunitario, interpretación en los servicios públicos, derecho a la comunicación, institucionalización, políticas públicas.
Routledge Handbook of Interpreting Studies
Language interpreting serves communicative purposes. Who does it serve, how and why? At the other... more Language interpreting serves communicative purposes. Who does it serve, how and why? At the other end of interpreting service provision, contractors, public regulators and end users have a key role in the development of interpreting as a profession. Looking at the big picture and locating interpreting within it brings our attention to networks of actors, other than the interpreters themselves, with diverse – and divergent – interests. To study such actors, this chapter turns the interpreting activity inside out: it places the focus not so much on the activity itself but rather on the locus of interpreting in the social fabric.
Competing conceptions and behaviours around language and communicative needs are explored through three case studies. The first case study is one of a simple configuration of actors around the circumstances in which conference interpreting first became professionalised at the time when AIIC was born. The second case focuses on sign language interpreting and the way the need for it is conceptualised. The third and final case shows higher complexity both in terms of the variety of actors involved in the analysis and in terms of the existence of divergent interests. It explores the situation of court interpreting in the United Kingdom, Spain and Ireland.
Two analytical tools are provided to approach the study of external players in the development of the interpreting profession. Firstly, a typology of players reflecting the logic of service provision helps identify categories for analysis. Secondly, after the presentation of the case studies, a diagram maps out factors of variation in the configuration of players.
The more complex the configuration of players the more relevant it is to gain a sophisticated understanding of the map of players. ‘Ideational factors’ such as different players’ representations of the need for interpreting or their vested interests are worth particular attention.
García-Beyaert, S., Serrano Pons, J. 'Recursos para superar las barreras lingüístico-culturales e... more García-Beyaert, S., Serrano Pons, J. 'Recursos para superar las barreras lingüístico-culturales en los servicios de salud'. En Manual de atención al inmigrante. Morera J., Alonso, A. Huerga, H. (Eds.) Madrid: Ergón 2009
Teaching Documents by Sofía García-Beyaert
The special contribution of community interpreters is enabling communicative autonomy in the prov... more The special contribution of community interpreters is enabling communicative autonomy in the provision of community services across language barriers. To explore this special contribution, this section offers a fictional example (the story of a patient and domestic violence victim named Monica) to highlight the concept of communicative autonomy. Communicative autonomy goes to the heart of community interpreting: why the profession exists, what it is meant to accomplish and how it can be most effective. Monica’s case shows how communicative autonomy is the main impact of the community interpreter at the micro level—for the parties in the interpreted encounter—and also at the macro level, as a contribution to society as a whole.
The purpose of this document is to support the education and training of community interpreters. ... more The purpose of this document is to support the education and training of community interpreters. It does so by providing structured and detailed guidelines for professional conduct in accordance with principles and values that underlie widely accepted practice in the field. The concept of communicative autonomy is introduced in this document as a fundamental principle. Communicative autonomy is defined here as the capacity of each party in an encounter to be responsible for and in control of his or her own communication (despite language and cultural barriers).
Books by Sofía García-Beyaert
Thesis Chapters by Sofía García-Beyaert
For members of society with restricted proficiency in the main societal language(s), community in... more 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.
Uploads
Papers by Sofía García-Beyaert
SP
La ISP es un tipo de interpretación singular porque responde a una cuestión de interés pú-blico. Después de explorar qué constituye una cuestión «de interés público» y de considerar argumentos que justifican una intervención gubernamental, el presente artículo recurre a contribuciones teóricas del ámbito académico del análisis de políticas públicas para entender bajo qué circunstancias una determinada cuestión desencadena un ciclo de política pública. Como resultado, el llamado agenda-setting queda identificado como primer punto de in-tervención hacia la institucionalización de la ISP profesional. Se aboga además por restarle énfasis a la diferencia lingüística y poner el acento en el derecho a la comunicación como estrategia más eficaz para fomentar una percepción generalizada de la ISP como cuestión de interés público. Palabras clave: interpretación en el ámbito comunitario, interpretación en los servicios públicos, derecho a la comunicación, institucionalización, políticas públicas.
Competing conceptions and behaviours around language and communicative needs are explored through three case studies. The first case study is one of a simple configuration of actors around the circumstances in which conference interpreting first became professionalised at the time when AIIC was born. The second case focuses on sign language interpreting and the way the need for it is conceptualised. The third and final case shows higher complexity both in terms of the variety of actors involved in the analysis and in terms of the existence of divergent interests. It explores the situation of court interpreting in the United Kingdom, Spain and Ireland.
Two analytical tools are provided to approach the study of external players in the development of the interpreting profession. Firstly, a typology of players reflecting the logic of service provision helps identify categories for analysis. Secondly, after the presentation of the case studies, a diagram maps out factors of variation in the configuration of players.
The more complex the configuration of players the more relevant it is to gain a sophisticated understanding of the map of players. ‘Ideational factors’ such as different players’ representations of the need for interpreting or their vested interests are worth particular attention.
Teaching Documents by Sofía García-Beyaert
Books by Sofía García-Beyaert
Thesis Chapters by Sofía García-Beyaert
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.
SP
La ISP es un tipo de interpretación singular porque responde a una cuestión de interés pú-blico. Después de explorar qué constituye una cuestión «de interés público» y de considerar argumentos que justifican una intervención gubernamental, el presente artículo recurre a contribuciones teóricas del ámbito académico del análisis de políticas públicas para entender bajo qué circunstancias una determinada cuestión desencadena un ciclo de política pública. Como resultado, el llamado agenda-setting queda identificado como primer punto de in-tervención hacia la institucionalización de la ISP profesional. Se aboga además por restarle énfasis a la diferencia lingüística y poner el acento en el derecho a la comunicación como estrategia más eficaz para fomentar una percepción generalizada de la ISP como cuestión de interés público. Palabras clave: interpretación en el ámbito comunitario, interpretación en los servicios públicos, derecho a la comunicación, institucionalización, políticas públicas.
Competing conceptions and behaviours around language and communicative needs are explored through three case studies. The first case study is one of a simple configuration of actors around the circumstances in which conference interpreting first became professionalised at the time when AIIC was born. The second case focuses on sign language interpreting and the way the need for it is conceptualised. The third and final case shows higher complexity both in terms of the variety of actors involved in the analysis and in terms of the existence of divergent interests. It explores the situation of court interpreting in the United Kingdom, Spain and Ireland.
Two analytical tools are provided to approach the study of external players in the development of the interpreting profession. Firstly, a typology of players reflecting the logic of service provision helps identify categories for analysis. Secondly, after the presentation of the case studies, a diagram maps out factors of variation in the configuration of players.
The more complex the configuration of players the more relevant it is to gain a sophisticated understanding of the map of players. ‘Ideational factors’ such as different players’ representations of the need for interpreting or their vested interests are worth particular attention.
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.