The Linguist is a languages magazine for professional linguists, translators, interpreters, language professionals, language teachers, trainers, students and academics with articles on translation, interpreting, business, government, technology
Issue link: https://thelinguist.uberflip.com/i/807252
PEACEMAKERS: Mediation can be used in many contexts, including gang violence 12 The Linguist Vol/56 No/2 2017 www.ciol.org.uk FEATURES schools and health care, and even in such unexpected contexts as environmental disputes or youth mediation (e.g. gangs). The mediator (an impartial person) facilitates communication between the parties, guides the conversations and monitors the process in an efficient and equitable manner, searching for a solution that is acceptable to all. In England and Wales, in the wake of the heightened profile of mediation, the Civil Mediation Council (CMC) was established in 2003 to promote the merits of commercial and civil mediation, and to represent the interests of mediation providers. Currently, the CMC has a membership of some 70 provider organisations and 400 individual mediators. In family cases, the general approach is now that the courts should be used only as a last resort. National Family Mediation asserts that its providers deliver around 30,000 mediations in England and Wales per year, with full agreement being achieved in 83% of cases. Bilingual mediators Most mediation takes place in a monolingual setting, usually in the language of the legal system. But even here, the multilingualism of our societies will force itself in by the back door. When two Turkish-speaking neighbours in Belgium have a conflict and it comes to a mediation process to try and resolve the dispute, the first option will be to turn to a Turkish-speaking mediator. In Belgium, the Federal Mediation Commission lists 24 languages in which mediation can be offered. The practice has obvious advantages – time, cost, cultural rapport, ease of communication, etc – but there is no language test for these mediators. They themselves indicate in which language they feel proficient enough to work. When parties speak different languages one hopes that the parties and mediator(s) will not all switch to a shared, though not necessarily adequately mastered, third language, nor that one party will reluctantly agree to speak the other party's language. These options entail major risks, as one needs to express one's emotions, expectations and nuances in a foreign language, which in the latter case involves a real power imbalance and the mediator would, in any case, have to be very wary of potential misunderstandings and the risk of unfairness to one party. In bilingual mediation each party decides to speak their own language. Both languages are understood by all, but for reasons of accuracy and nuance, emotions and stress, or simply equality of arms, one decides to express oneself in the language in which one feels at ease and through which one attempts to assert one's own identity and voice in the conflict. In such a situation, one or two bilingual mediators are needed, proficient in both languages, so that the whole mediation process can be conducted in the languages of the parties. The mediators do not have to interpret, nor is there a need for an interpreter. The bilingual mediation process proceeds as if it were monolingual. In a different scenario, each party decides to speak their own language but the language of one party is not sufficiently understood by the other party. In these situations, the bilingual mediator will also have to interpret. In the case of two mediators, the bilingual mediator will need to interpret both for the other mediator and between the parties. As a mediator relies on being able to reframe statements and invite responses to de-escalate conflict in favour of more constructive interaction, all through the means of language, it is understandable that the prospect of placing this in the hands of an unknown third party – the interpreter – whose renditions into another language, moreover, cannot be monitored, may seem unattractive. The use of a bilingual co-mediator, who can undertake the role of mediator and interpreter, appears to allow mediators to retain control of the mediation dynamics so crucial to their practice. However, in the literature on bilingual mediation, the language issue – i.e. the degree of proficiency in both languages – is rather taken for granted. In addition, the problem of the mediator(s) also having to interpret raises concerns about cognitive overload, potential perceived preferential treatment of the interpreted party and, importantly, blurred professional roles – one bound to progress the mediation process, the other bound to reproduce faithfully whatever is voiced by the speaker(s). Interpreters required? Data from the Understanding Justice questionnaire, which asked mediation practitioners and organisations in the six partner countries about the practice of managing the language difference in mediation, indicate that language difference is far from rare. However, awareness of the potential complexities of working across languages and of the impact of the ad hoc methods chosen for managing language difference is low. Thus, we return to the possibility of investigating the provision of interpreters in mediation. The question arising is whether third-party interpreting in mediation can be made a reliable option, just as it is now commonplace in other judicial activities. Language difference in mediation is likely to increase, and finding sufficient bilingual mediators is unlikely to be possible. Interpreting in mediation needs to be provided by qualified legal interpreters who master the whole range of legal interpreting competences. 3 In addition, they need to master the specific knowledge-based competences – for instance, knowledge of the legal mediation instruments and process, an understanding of the role of mediators and There is a clear risk of empathy – on the basis of ethnicity, gender, language or whatever – with one of the parties