Interpreting, Intervening and The Intervention

I think this opinion piece by Claire Smith is worth reading, as she discusses the issue of (lack of) use of interpreters by members of The Intervention task force. Though, I find myself agreeing more with Bob Durnan's comment (read the comments!) about her take on The Intervention per se, and take his point that Barunga Council informed the task force that they did not require interpreters.

At the commencement of the Intervention, I witnessed Barbara McCarthy briefing a group of women in Barunga on what they might expect from the arrival of The Intervention taskforce. She spoke mainly in Standard Australian English, with some Aboriginal English markers thrown in. Not Kriol. The women hung on her every word, and from my impression, understood all of what she said. They certainly asked questions relevant to what she had said. I came away thinking I had been underestimating the English competence of these women.

I think equally, or perhaps even more so than 'interpreters', actual education of what 'these big words' mean is most important. What Barbara McCarthy did was speak clearly and plainly, explaining her terms of reference. It was a great lesson for me. Having interpreters know what English words like 'implement' or 'quarantine' mean is something all together different from there being a ready Kriol equivalent, or straightforward explanatory phrase, which can be employed across the board in meetings with bureaucrats.

Secret's out

People really care about language(s).

Witness:

Joseph lo Bianco's opinion piece in today's Age; yesterday's editorial in the Age; as well as lead topic in the letters section yesterday, with only letters in favour of the Federal Government's proposed push to increase/improve language study in schools being published.

'Course, it could just be Age readers who care. I couldn't find any mention of the government's proposal in cursory searches of The Australian and ABC news websites.

Pushy languages

It seems to me that an oft-heard linguist's lament is 'No one cares about language! (At least, not minority or endangered languages, and let's not even start with the prescriptivists! Or those who confuse literacy and language competency.).'

But I think we might be wrong. I think people care, but maybe they care for the wrong reasons, or based on false assumptions. An example being this article in today's Age about the need for language skills to be taught in all Australian high schools. As well as all the important arguments for why Australian students should acquire LOTEs at school (and the reasons why they don't), it details several facts which made an impression on me:

- "Statistics show Australian students spend less time learning a language than students in any other OECD country."

- "The reports are basically saying that the study of languages other than English is the weakest part of the key learning areas in Australian schools, and they point to the fact that more than 85% of students who graduate from high school today do so without a language other than English."

I also recall a report released a year or three ago which apparently found that Australian high school students have one of the lowest rates of English literacy of all OECD countries. Maybe learning languages and literacy (even in your first language) are linked after all.

The reasons Australian students aren't learning languages at high school are apparently:

- lack of time in curriculum;
- languages are not perceived by parents or teachers as relevant for students' futures;
- language study is perceived to negatively affect ENTER scores;
- lack of qualified teachers (given all the above, is is any wonder there aren't enough Australians qualified to teach LOTEs at high school!).

So, we're a monolingual nation riding high on the supremacy of English globally - a nation doesn't care about learning foreign languages or even achieving English literacy. Only, the article I'm citing above is the 5th most viewed article today on the Age online. And I'm sure we're all aware of the heat any discussion about English literacy generates, especially wrt to Indigenous education.

Why so much interest in language, yet so much grief about language? High school students won't/can't learn LOTEs; Indigenous students are barely allowed and rarely supported to learn their own languages; adults full of their own cultural cringes and inadequacies bequeathing these as well as uninformed 'beliefs' about languages and literacy to the next generation. I'm sure Michael Clyne deals with it in his wonderful book Australia's Language Potential (as he also does in this article, via Jane Simpson at Transient Languages ant Cultures), but it's been a while since I read it, and don't have it at hand. (Am I just another example of someone mouthing off in this debate without fully preparing their point of view? Hmm.)

I guess my point is there's hope. The federal government is making another move towards increasing, improving and standardising LOTE study in schools, and people are interested. However, the report the Age article is based on identifies that 'episodic' interest and support for LOTEs in schools is of itself a major issue in attracting language teachers and students. Maybe this will be taken into account with the current planning.

On a related issue, consider signing this petition in support of compulsory Indigenous Studies in all Australian schools. Watching news reports about the apology to the Stolen Generations, I was really moved and inspired by stories about school classes which had been doing units of study about the issue in the lead up to the apology. The students spoke articulately and with such compassion about the issue that again the reading on my hope-meter soared. I left school 14 years ago and I cannot ever imagine being taught about Indigenous issues with honesty and respect for the subject matter. What a phenomenal change.

The pitfalls of working on endangered languages #1

Elderly speakers are not often in good health.

Note to self: this can impair the execution of certain elicitation tasks. When making recordings designed to elicit deictic gestures, it's probably not empirically sound to work with the speaker who's suffered two strokes and has difficulty moving the right side of their body...