Translation and power at the European union
Abstract The present article discusses the topic of ‘power and translation’ at European Union institutions. The article starts by warning against over‐generalising any one particular translation situation, and advocates the need for taking into account some of the major differences between countries, between various epochs in history, as well as the translators’ foreign‐language abilities. The article then addresses very specific ‘language and power’ issues. At the European Union, language domination is tied to political power, with English and French being the ‘core languages’ for daily work; however, this domination is eroded when documents are discussed in expert and political fora. Nevertheless, the differences in foreign language acquisition — in the various EU member states — mean that some states have more influence, and more ‘power’, than they would normally be entitled to, according to the number of their inhabitants.
Dollerup: Complexities of EU language work
The article discusses some of the numerous parameters that must be taken into account in studies of language work at European Union institutions, let alone the European Union. Initially listing the central EU institutions, which in their totality constitute the international organisation with the largest language staff, the article proceeds to discuss diachronic and synchronic views of the language scene. Then it deals with the translation procedures employed, including simultaneous conference interpreting. It attempts to set up a distinction between two extremes, viz. simple and complex translational situations and concludes that even such a distinction is often inadequate. The use of core languages in much EU work, notably in daily work at the EU institutions is discussed in terms of their usefulness as repositories and records of a collective negotiation process as well as the fear that they may imply political domination, a view analysed from synchronic and diachronic angles. The article concludes with a general caution against generalising too much from individual studies. This article will focus on European Union language work. The main emphasis is on making some salient features clear to outsiders. To insiders, the present article will offer an angle with a bite. I believe that it is important for Europeans to discuss the EU constructively. The EU is – also in linguistic terms – a unique entity. This is in itself one reason why it is doubtful that anti-Europeans can conduct worthwhile discussions on EU language work: without a major perspective, the discussion gets bogged down in uninteresting detail. My comments are based primarily on studies of the European Commission in Brussels. In 1975, the University of Copenhagen was asked to help with some linguistic problems so I spent three one-month stints in Brussels. I had access to whatever and whoever I wanted and everybody cooperated. Since then, I kept in touch. In 1991, I taped the interpreting proceedings at expert meetings for one solid week. In 2000, I interviewed key persons in the Interpreting and Translation Services at the Commission and paid a brief visit to the Parliament. 2001. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 9: 4 2 The diffuse discussions Discussions of language work at the EU institutions are often diffuse. Among the reasons are (a) that scholars are often unaware of the limitations of their perspective, (b) that they sometimes draw too many general conclusions from the insights they gain, (c) that the EU is a much more dynamic entity than is commonly realised. ... // 272 ...In other words, it exhibits more adaptability and flexibility than many people give it credit for, (d) that some things are not spelled out by the EU institutions mostly for ‘political’ reasons, among these a legitimate wish to keep criticism at a minimum. And, I would add (e) that the general public has a very fuzzy idea of the institutions it comprises – a feature not eased by name changes and near synonymous names, by excessive use of acronyms, capitalisation according to complex rules and limiting the sense of many words in the public domain to specific (and often unclear) meanings. Concerned with describing EU language work in a way understandable to outsiders, this article does not follow EU terminology on these points. One can approach language work in the European Union from a large number of angles. They overlap in complex ways, so what is offered here is (and must
Early Missionaries and the Ethnolinguistic Factor During the ‘Invention of Tribalism’ in Zimbabwe
There is evidence from across the disciplines that at least some of the contemporary regional names of African tribes, dialects and languages are fairly recent inventions in historical terms. This article offers some evidence from Zimbabwe to show that missionary linguistic politics were an important factor in this process. The South African linguist Clement Doke was brought in to resolve conflicts about the orthography of Shona. His Report on the Unification of the Shona Dialects (1931) shows how the language politics of the Christian denominations, which were also the factions within the umbrella organization the Southern Rhodesia Missionary Conference, contributed quite significantly to the creation and promotion of Zezuru, Karanga and Manyika as the main groupings of dialects in the central area which Doke later accommodated in a unified orthography of a unified language that was given the name Shona. While vocabulary from Ndau was to be incorporated, words from the Korekore group in the north were to be discouraged, and Kalanga in the West was allowed to be subsumed under Ndebele. Writing about sixty years later, Ranger focusses more closely on the Manyika and takes his discussion to the 1940s, but he also mentions that the Rhodesian Front government of the 1960s and 1970s deliberately incited tribalism between the Shona and the Ndebele, while at the same time magnifying the differences between the regional divisions of the Shona, which were, in turn, played against one another as constituent clans. It would appear then that, for the indigenous Africans, the price of Christianity, Western education and a new perception of language unity was the creation of regional ethnic identities that were at least potentially antagonistic and open to political manipulation. Through many decades of rather unnecessary intellectual justification, and as a result of the collective colonial experience through the churches, the schools and the workplaces, these imposed identities, and the myths and sentiments that are associated with them, have become fixed in the collective mind of Africa, and the modern nation states of the continent now seem to be stuck with them. Missionaries played a very significant role in creating this scenario because they were mainly responsible for fixing the ethnolinguistic maps of the African colonies during the early phase of European occupation. To a significant degree, these maps have remained intact and have continued to influence African research scholarship.