CAPITULO IV: APROVECHAMIENTO DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES
14. APROVECHAMIENTO SOSTENIBLE DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES
As explained at the start of the chapter, many of the meetings in the data set contained sections of interaction which did not fit within the communicative activity type of legal advice-giving. Their primary purpose was not seeking or giving legal advice. These sections of interaction were characterized by a shift of focus away from advising the client on his or her particular issue, shifts in role and participant positionings, and changes in communicative style and/or strategy, substantive enough that I identify them as “additional activity types”. In this study, they are of particular significance for the primary research question of how individuals communicate in multilingual and intercultural legal advice meetings: they involve shifts in the kinds of communicative resources used, the bringing in of additional contexts to the interaction, and changes in interactional role and thus in the potential for agency and control for each participant. These additional activity types serve both to contrastively highlight the interactional characteristics of the legal advice communicative activity type, and (in some cases) to illustrate the potential for participants to find other ways of being and communicating within the forum of the meeting, enhancing their agency or individual identities beyond the confines of the legal advice activity.
Figure 5.5 below illustrates all the various communicative activity types evident within the advice meetings in this family reunion advice data set.
189
The seven additional activity types identified in the family reunion advice meeting data are divisible into two main categories: professional task-related activity types (shaded grey spheres in Figure 5.5, along with legal advice-giving, and discussed in section 5.3.1), and interpersonal relations-related activity types (shaded orange spheres in Figure 5.5, and discussed in section 5.3.2). One of the additional activity types, small talk, did not involve the lawyer and has therefore been bracketed in Figure 5.5. I discuss these activities below, drawing on examples from the transcripts. Firstly, I examine the function of each additional activity type in the interaction(s) and its impact on the main activity of legal advice-giving, and secondly, I consider the significance of each additional activity type for the research questions. 5.3.1 Professional task-related activity types
Professional task-related activity types appeared in three meetings, Meetings 15 (witness statement work), 16 (witness statement work and advice on language) and 17 (form filling). They occurred alongside the legal advice-giving activity in each case, underlining that (as mentioned in Chapter One, section 1.5) legal advice-giving is only one of a range of functions that a legal advisor performs with and for clients, and that meetings can sometimes involve two or more tasks.
(a) Witness statement work. The main purpose of Meetings 3 and 4 is to prepare and finalise a
witness statement to support the fresh applications for visas for Khalid’s wife and younger children. This activity therefore serves the function of actioning part of the advice delivered in Meeting 1. Julia arranges for the same professional interpreter to attend both meetings. In Meeting 3, the witness statement work consists of Julia asking Khalid a series of questions, the interpreter acting as linguistic intermediary by interpreting Julia’s questions and Khalid’s answers between Arabic and English, and Julia using Khalid’s replies to draw up a written narrative in English on her laptop. This will be presented to the legal system as Khalid’s own words and account. Witness statement-taking is a recognized activity type in legal-lay communication, and has been researched in other legal contexts such as police interviews (Komter, 2006a; Rock, 2001) and asylum interviews (Maryns, 2006). Data extract 20 below illustrates the typical interaction:
Data extract 20
Speaker Original language Translation to English
1 J are you still (.) on jobseekers al↑lowance (.)°Khalid°
2 Int B "ﻞﻤﻋ ﻦﻋ ﻦﯿﺜﺣﺎﺒﻟا" تاﺪﻋﺎﺴﻣ ﻰﻘﻠﺘﺗ ﺖﻟزﺎﻣ ﻞھ do you still receive jobseekers allowance?
190
4 Int B yes, yes
5 J so would you (.) you know (.) realistically (.) say that (.) um (2) paying yourself (.) for DNA tes↓ting
6 Int B um (.) [(xxxx)
7 J [for for all of the chil↓dren
8 Int B ؟ﻞﯿﻠﺤﺘﻟا تﺎﻘﻔﻧ ﻞﻤﺤﺗ ﻊﯿﻄﺘﺴﺗ ﻞھ will you be able to
afford DNA cost?
9 K ؟ﻚﻟذ ﻲﻟ ﻦﯾأ ﻦﻣ(.) ﻊﯿﻄﺘﺳأ ﻦﻟ
no, I will not (.) how?
Meeting three transcript, 40:52 – 41:24
In this extract, Julia’s questions are aimed at producing a statement containing factual information about the prohibitive cost of DNA tests for Khalid in his current circumstances, a point she wants to make in the statement. In one or two instances during the activity, Julia steps out of role to voice a meta-commentary on this process of entextualization, as for example she does with this comment on her questions in extract 20: ‘what I’m trying to get across in the statement is that (.) um (...) you know it- (.) it’s something that you want to do (.) but you can’t because of the, the financial cost of it’ (Meeting three transcript, 42:22). Julia here gives reasons for her somewhat intrusive questioning, excusing the threat to Khalid’s face presented by the question in a positive politeness move (Brown & Levinson, 1987) also observed in other research on lawyer-client interaction (Trinch, 2001).
Analysis. In this activity, the lawyer, client and interpreter generally keep to the defined roles of
question-poser, respondent, and interpreter, and the discourse type resembles that observed in the information-gathering phase (phase 2) of legal advice meetings. There are some key differences between this activity type, and phase 2 of legal advice activity, however: Julia’s questions are here aimed at eliciting a story that will be read by others, and she also has a second role as entextualizer of the client’s narrative (Maryns, 2006), using her laptop in the meeting to type out an “official” version of the narrative that is being elicited through the question-and- answer interaction. The interaction therefore results in the co-production of a legally significant text, evident in much of the transcript (although not in the extract above) in the shape of frequent pauses punctuated by the sound of typing.
In Meeting 4, in contrast to Meeting 3, the witness statement work involves the interpreter sight- translating the finished English language written statement out loud into spoken Arabic, whilst Khalid listens to check its contents, and a different discourse type emerges. Early on in the meeting Julia announces the purpose of the meeting: ‘okay so, today (...) um what we’d like to do
191 is to read back your statement, and whilst you’re doing that I will try and get as much of the applications done as we can’ (Meeting four transcript, 03:31). After some advice and discussion about the current stage of Khalid’s legal matter, Julia exits the room to print off the statement, during which absence Khalid asks the interpreter a question and she replies that she will ask Julia. When Julia re-enters the room with the statement, she hands it to the others, as seen in extract 21 below (speaking turns in which Khalid’s question are dealt with are omitted from lines 2 to 5):
Data extract 21
Speaker Original language Translation to English
((sound of door opening and closing, Julia
comes back in with statement))
1 J °there you go° (.) if I can just ask you to start reading that back- [(xxxx)* 2 Int B [yeah- er
((data omitted))
3 J ((data omitted))
4 Int B ((data omitted)) ((data omitted))
5 Int B ((data omitted)) ((data omitted))
((silence 2 seconds))
6 Int B ﻲھ هﺬھstatement اذإ ﺎﮭﺗءاﺮﻘﺑ مﻮﻗﺄﺳ ،ﻚﺑ ﺔﺻﺎﺨﻟا ﺎﻨﻟ ﮫﻟﻮﻗ .. ءﻲﺷ يأ ةأ ﺢﯿﺤﺼﺗ يأ ﻚﯾﺪﻟ
this is your statement, I will read. it if you have any correction or anything else, tell us **
7 K mmm
*Observation notes: ‘J gives copy statement to K and Int B and asks them to read it over’ **Observation notes: ‘K and Int B both looking at statement, focused on it. K gets his glasses out’ Meeting four transcript, 07:05 – 07:53
At line 1 Julia expressly keys the change in activity type, by asking the interpreter and Khalid to read the statement back. The interpreter however interrupts to raise Khalid’s question. Once this has been dealt with, it is the interpreter who assumes interactional control and effects the shift into the new activity, by pausing before addressing Khalid in Arabic at line 6, to announce the reading over. At line 7 Khalid acknowledges this with an ‘mmm’; he engages in the change in activity by putting his glasses on and focusing on the document. During the sight-translation, Khalid intervenes only once, to correct a mistake in the statement. Julia occupies a passive role throughout, only intervening to correct the mistake in the soft copy of the statement on her laptop once alerted to it.
192
Analysis. The marked shift in roles and interactional control here, with the lawyer becoming
passive, the interpreter taking over as the main speaker (although acting as a kind of ‘animator’ (Goffman, 1981a, p. 144) through translation of the co-authored statement, and not as ‘principal’, p.144) and the client in the position of authority (to agree or not with the statement’s contents), together with the focus on the written document, provide the interactional contrast between the activities of witness statement work in this meeting and legal advice-giving and are relevant to subsidiary RQ1.3. This discourse type within the witness statement activity reflects the legal requirement that a witness statement should be authored by the witness and represent the witness’s own words – although ironically the statement must also be written in English unless a court direction provides otherwise (in which case a written translation to English is required) (Practice Direction 32, Civil Procedure Rules, see Ministry of Justice, n.d.). Directed by this hidden institutional frame, Khalid therefore becomes the expert and the source of authority in this activity, but requires the linguistic mediation of the interpreter to help him check whether the contents of the statement are accurate. Also, and of relevance to subsidiary RQ1.1, documents enter into the interaction in a different way to that previously seen in the data – as a product of the interaction. The interdependence of talk and text in the legal communication field, discussed in Chapter Two (section 2.1.2), is evident here in a different way. (b) Advice about language. Also within Meeting 4, a third activity type emerges when Julia asks the interpreter’s advice on the spelling in English of the Arabic vowel alif ( ا) in names during the correction of the statement. Data extract 22 below is taken from the discussion, which begins after Julia has checked the spelling of the name ‘Ahmad’:
Data extract 22
Speaker Original language
1 J just they get really- (.) I’ve (.) noticed recently they’re getting really pedantic about (.) a’s (.) and e’s (..) and they don’t understand that (.) I think there’s, there’s quite often a mistake in transla↑tion between (..) um: (.) Arabic and Eng↑lish (.) about the a?
2 Int B about the a (.) yeah yeah
3 J yeah? yeah?
4 Int B yeah, the pronunciation
5 J so (.) people will write it as an e?
6 Int B Ahmed with e?
7 J yeah, rather than ↑a and vice ver↑sa, and then surnames sometimes it comes up
8 Int B with a, yeah
9 J it’s come up with a couple of cases where it’s not been t- translated [(.) proper↑ly
193
10 Int B [yeah 11 J um so the Home Office are (.) raising that as an is↑sue saying it’s a different
(..)
12 Int B [spelling (.) yes, yes
13 J [particularly with family names, family names that’s (.) and it- (.) it is, it seems to be just the a and the e
14 Int B °interesting° (.) because Ahmad erm (..) it’s- it’s er we used to write it with a (.) yeah (.) nobody can write it with e at all but some of the family ↑names ↓yes instead of saying al er- they say (.) el (.) a- according to the, to th↑eir accent or dialect
15 J yes, yeah
16 Int B because it is different from one country to another
17 J °yeah°
18 R mmm
19 Int B so from Iraq to Sudan it’s- (.) their pronunciation is- is different absolutely (..)
20 J yeah
21 Int B so this is the problem, yeah
22 J it is it is causing problems at the minute so just °making sure°
23 Int B uh huh
Meeting four transcript, 19:41 – 21:03
In this exchange, Julia asks the interpreter about the correct spelling in English of an Arabic name containing an alif, which is pronounced differently in different varieties of Arabic, and which consequently can appear as an ‘a’ or an ‘e’ in transliterations of Arabic into the Roman alphabet. Julia describes this as a ‘mistake in translation’ (line 1), explaining that this often causes problems with the Home Office (who, like asylum decision-making institutions elsewhere in Europe (Jacquemet, 2015), treat the accurate and consistent spelling and remembering of names, places and dates as a central indicator of credibility – see Appendix A for further information about credibility). In the course of Julia’s explanation, the interpreter confirms at lines 4 and 14 that the problem is connected to variable pronunciation. Line 23 of the extract marks the end of this activity, and after briefly explaining to Khalid what has been discussed, the interpreter recommences the statement sight-translation, thereby again verbally cueing and controlling the shift from one activity to another.
Analysis. In a marked shift from the witness statement activity in Meeting 4 (within which this
activity is embedded), this activity involves a change of topic into metalinguistic commentary, and takes place entirely in English. Roles shift, in that Khalid is not involved, and the interpreter becomes the (linguistic) expert whom Julia consults for advice – a role that (as discussed in Chapter Two) Ahmad (2007) argues should be more explicitly recognized in interpreted lawyer- client interactions. The different interactional roles, the shift in topic, and the shift in the linguistic
194
resources used, all signal that this is a new activity and bring with it a different, more agentive, interactional positioning for the interpreter which is interesting for subsidiary RQ1.3.
(c) Form filling. The final professional task-related additional activity type, filling out visa
application forms online, occurred in Meeting 5 with Jamal. Like the witness statement activity, this activity serves the function of actioning advice delivered in a previous meeting with Jamal and in other sections of Meeting 5. Julia had asked Jamal in the previous meeting to bring his family’s identity documents to her, so that she can fill in the online visa application forms for him. Although Meeting 5 was curtailed and rearranged to deal with advice on Jamal’s brother, two phases of form-filling activity did take place. Data extract 23 features the identity documents (brought along as soft copies on Jamal’s phone, and now printed out in hard copy) and the Client Record Form (see Chapter Four, section 4.5.2), which are lying on the meeting room table, and are referred to in talk:
Data extract 23
Speaker Original language
1 J now I have these (.) this information (.) I can start (.) the applica↓tions
2 Jamal yeah
3 J okay ‘cause I’ve got the passports now
4 Jamal mmm
5 J okay? (.) um (4) ((sound of a piece of paper being moved)) is that the right number for you?
6 Jamal (7) yeah
7 J yeah? (.) um (.) so- (.) what I’ll do is I’ll see if I can get (.) er: our interpreter 8 Jamal but I have a: new (.) new er (..) another address
9 J YOU’VE got a new ad↓dress
10 Jamal yeah
11 J okay not (.) this one
12 Jamal yeah
13 J no (..) okay what’s the new address?
14 - (17) ((silence and sound of writing on paper)) *
15 - (33) ((sound of lawyer typing on the laptop, then something being written down))
16 J ((whispering)) okay
*Observation notes: client writes down his new address on record form and puts the pen down on the table Meeting five transcript, 08:46 – 10:21
Announcing the activity in line 1, Julia refers to the identity documents using the deictic word ‘these’, making the link between having the documents (containing necessary information) and
195 being able to start preparing the applications. Julia shifts into the form filling activity at line 5 with a brief silence. During this, Julia looks over the Client Record Form in front of her containing Jamal’s personal details, and in lines 5 to 7 she checks the telephone number with Jamal. Jamal also notices that his address is out of date, and in the exchange at lines 8 to 14, Julia and Jamal work together using pen and paper to record his current address. A long period of silence follows at line 15 as Julia inputs this information into the online form. Analysis: The internal interactional organization in this activity type contrasts sharply with every other activity present in the data, particularly with regard to how documents of various kinds, and technology, are heavily relied on as means for, and tools of communication (RQ1.1). The form filling activity, both here and in the other sequence in Meeting 5 in which it occurs, is characterized by Julia typing to input information from documents and questioning the client to check information; and the client verifying and providing information in both verbal and documentary form. Verbal exchange is limited to short questions and responses, long silences are common as information is input, and pen, paper and copies of documents are used as central means of transferring and verifying information. Julia is again in control of the interaction, but she is heavily dependent on the client to provide necessary information. In this extract, the use of documents as a means of communication, and the more functional purpose, resulted in a lesser need for verbal communication – less sophisticated linguistic resources were required. The additional activity types within the professional task-related activity grouping (5.3.1) exhibit variety in terms of their ‘framing dimensions’ and interactional characteristics, particularly shifts of agency, but they all share related purposes of achieving work-related tasks complementing and supporting the legal advice-giving. In contrast, the activities in the second additional activity type grouping discussed in section 5.3.2 below share the very different purpose of establishing and consolidating relational bonds between meeting participants. 5.3.2 Interpersonal relations-related activity types In three meetings with Khalid and Ismail, two clients that Julia has acted for previously and has (according to my observations) a familiar relationship with, activities within the second category of interpersonal relations-related additional activity types cement and solidify interpersonal relationships by foregrounding contexts which are shared between the parties. Significantly for the primary and subsidiary research questions, in these activity types linguistic resources are used more flexibly, in ways that contrast with the rest of the meeting interaction, and interactional roles shift and blur.
196
(d) Sharing stories about family reunion. Towards the end of Meeting 1 with Khalid, a long
discussion takes place between Khalid, Julia, and the NGO support worker Steve in which stories about experiences of the family reunion process are shared. The activity lasts over ten minutes, and comprises a mixture of anecdotes, personal experience narratives and personal opinions. Steve initiates the discussion, who after the next meeting has been arranged, changes topic to ask the general question: ‘given that probably most: people have this (.) issue with documents (.) in Sudan (..) how does anyone ever get granted a visa?’ (Meeting one transcript, 60:55). This comment is interpreted for Khalid, but then Julia responds with a long turn at talk, explaining that very detailed applications with supporting representations are needed, and citing a recent Red Cross report about the range of administrative failings within refugee family reunion procedures which are causing hardship for families (see Beswick, 2015). Julia’s response is summarized only briefly in Arabic by the interpreter before Julia continues, mentioning that refugees are being scared into getting into debt to pay for DNA tests, but still being refused. Again this is summarized in Arabic by the interpreter, whilst in overlapping English speech Julia’s commentary to Steve continues as she expresses that there ought to be an investigation into how family reunion cases are dealt with, and that there have been moves to put this on the political agenda. Data extract 24 continues the exchange:
Data extract 24
Speaker Original language Translation to English
1 J >you know< (.) wi- with the new
immigration bill they’re trying to push for an amendment (.) to support family reunion but (.) it’s just
2 S mmm
3 J the political appetite’s just not there (...) in this government [(..) it’s sad
4 S [it’s completely in breach of the spirit of the Con↑vention isn’t it?
5 J it’s i- (.) I mean it is entirely in the
Con↑vention about how: refugees should be supported to integrate into society [and t- 5 S [yeah (.)
yeah
6 J >you know< it’s an international principle of family law let alone refugee law (.) that: you know family unity is ↑paramount (..) and if you’re in a if you >are a refugee< and you’ve fled your >country of origin< and you’re