Articles / Articulos / Aufsätz / Arikoj
“Do I want to learn a language spoken by two million people?”
Mediation choices by mid-term and long-term migrants
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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Definitions of basic terms and the main focus
- 3.Methodology and sampling
- 3.1Subject groups
- 3.2Data collection
- 3.3Mid-term and long-term migrant samples
- 4.Communication strategies
- 4.1Lingua franca
- 4.1.1Lingua franca and long-term migrants
- 4.1.2Lingua franca and medium-term migrants
- 4.2Intercomprehension
- 4.2.1Intercomprehension and long-term migrants
- 4.2.2Intercomprehension and medium-term migrants
- 4.3Translation and interpreting
- 4.3.1Translation and interpreting and long-term migrants
- 4.3.2Translation and interpreting and medium-term migrants
- 4.4Translation technologies
- 4.4.1Translation technologies and long-term migrants
- 4.4.2Translation technologies and medium-term migrants
- 4.5Host language
- 4.5.1Host language and long-term migrants
- 4.5.2Host language and medium-term migrants
- 5.Discussion
- 6.Conclusion and policy recommendations
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (8)
References
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 Journal 1/31:93–118.
Angelelli, Claudia V. 2015. Study on Public Service Translation in Cross-border Healthcare. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, at [URL] (Feb. 13 2018).
Hale, Sandra. 2011. Public Service Interpreting. Kirsten Malmkjær & Kevin Windle, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
House, Juliane. 2003. English as a Lingua Franca: A Threat to Multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics 7/41:556–78.
House, Juliane. 2015. Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present. London & New York: Routledge.
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, at [URL] (Feb. 13 2018).
Pokorn, Nike K., Iva Jevtić & Jaka Čibej. 2018. Interpreting and linguistic inclusion – friends or foes? Results from a field study. The Translator 24/2. (Online publication.: 24 Nov 2017),
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Ayvazyan, Nune & Anthony Pym
Iikkanen, Päivi
2022.
Migrant women, work, and investment in language learning: Two success stories.
Applied Linguistics Review 13:4
► pp. 545 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.