Language and Economics Mutual Incompatibilities or a Necessary Partnership文档格式.docx

1、 international organisations; economic disadvantage系列号ISSN 1466-4208集合名CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING年2003卷4期1地域Victoria, Australia文件大小184.25 KB页数17描述Misunderstandings betweeneconomic approachesto language andthefieldof language policy/language planning arise from deficienciesin the literature

2、of both camps. This paper examines four examples: （1） liaison interpreting, where traditional economic analysispoints to surprisingbenefits of engaging interpreters,often not recognised by practitionersthemselves; （2） sometimes exaggeratedclaims by language professionals for the economic benefitsof

3、studying languages; （3） unresolved issuesin language use in international organisations and trade; and （4） misinterpretations of links between multilingualism and disadvantage. Lack of understanding by economists of language issuesisoftenmatchedby illiteracyin economics on the partof language profes

4、sionals.原始链接School of Social Sciences, La Trobe University, Victoria, AustraliaMisunderstandings betweeneconomic approaches to language andthe fieldof languagepolicy/language planning arise from deficiencies in the literature of both camps. Thispaper examines four examples: （1） liaison interpreting,

5、 where traditional economicanalysispoints to surprisingbenefits of engaging interpreters,often not recognised bypractitioners themselves; （2） sometimes exaggeratedclaims by language professionalsfor the economic benefits of studying languages; （3） unresolved issues in language usein international or

6、ganisations and trade; and （4） misinterpretations of links betweenmultilingualismand disadvantage. Lack of understanding by economists of languageissues is oftenmatchedby illiteracyin economics on the part of language professionals.Keywords: Economic benefits of languages, interpreting, language lea

7、rning,international organisations, multilingualism, economic disadvantageIntroductionFranois Grins paper in this volume identifies several crucial intersectionsbetween languages and economics, and alerts us to a field insufficiently theo-rised and insufficiently attended to by language analysts in p

8、erforming realisticeconomic calculations of language policy.Yet despite the efforts of authors such as Grin, a gap still exists betweeneconomic approaches to language and the field of language policy/languageplanning. Reasons for this aremany,with deficiencies to be observed in both thelanguage poli

9、cy and the economic literature. This paper looks briefly at fourexamples, where: （1） economic illiteracy has prevented the recognition of bene-fits that can flow in some language professional fields, taking examples frominterpreting; （2） economic justifications dominate the rationale for particularl

10、anguage programmes but these programmes struggle to realise their economicclaims, taking examples from programmes promoting language study foreconomic purposes; （3） economic issues in language use arise in internationalaffairs, taking examples from international organisations and the regulation oftr

11、ade; （4） speaking another language is automatically equated with economicdisadvantage and analysed accordingly, taking examples fromeconomic analy-ses of benefits and costs of multilingualism and majority/minority languages. Costs and Benefits of Language ServicesOne field where economic benefits ha

12、ve often not been recognised has beenthat of interpreting, particularly in relation to the worldsmost common formofinterpreting liaison interpreting in situations of immigration or contact withindigenous or deaf communities,where languageminority persons and the insti-tutions that serve them need a

13、means of communication.Over the past fewdecades, social systems around the world have acknowledged the need forlanguage services, but what is considered to constitute an adequate servicediffers widely, and such services have often developed haphazardly.Generally,those desiring to improve services ha

14、ve rarely been able to muster economicargument, while administrators or professionals unsympathetic to such provi-sion could cite cost as well as any other reason for inaction （Hornberger, 1998）.At the same time as interpreters worked in difficult circumstances to promotetheir field, methods of econ

15、omicmanagement particularly in the case of publicinstitutions such as the health orwelfare systems were changing rapidly, directlyunder the influence of economics and cost-benefit analysis. Public （and someprivate）medical systemshave beenmostheavily influenced by this atomisationoforganisational and

16、 professional functions into econometric units, particularlywith the development ofDiagnostic Reference Group （DRG） and similar analysesthatbreakdownmedical costs into discrete andcomparableunits, so that standardcosts can be identified for anymedical procedure froma tonsillectomy to a livertranspla

17、nt to set benchmarks for performance and funding.One novel link between language and economics is suggested here: if indeed itis possible to impute a value for a medical procedure, then it is possible to countwhat has been wasted if a particular procedure cannot be carried out or needs tobe duplicat

18、ed for example, if a non-speaker of the dominant language is admit-ted to a hospital but is wrongly discharged due to communication failure andneeds to be admittedagain, thenwe can place a value on this failure of communi-cation if there is a value for admission and for procedures that may need to b

19、erepeated. In virtually any imaginable case, the cost of interpreting to ensure accu-rate diagnosis and treatment the first time would be miniscule compared to thecost of othermedical procedures.Of course, such an attempt to count communi-cation costs itself is dependent upon the medical organisatio

20、n accurately beingable to identify that the cause of discharge or inadequate treatment has beencommunication problems such a state of transparency still rarely obtains, forvarious reasons, more political and organisational than medical. Significantly, such funding formulae as DRGs in no instances in

21、clude thefactor of communicatingwith patientswho do not speak thedominant language;in all instances provisions of language services where made at all are ad hocone-off items, or submerged in allied health operating budgets, or in some otherwaynot integrated into themainstreamofmedical fundingwhether

22、 for hospitalsor clinics, health maintenance organisations or health insurance systems.Neither administrators （with their often limited understanding of interpreting）nor interpreters （with usually a complete ignorance if not fear of economics） areinclined to imagine economic benefits, rather than co

23、sts, can be identified.Themost substantial study of such costs and benefits has been that ofNazneen（1998） in an American study looking at the effect of providing interpreters on anumber of key output variables for hospitals servicing large populations ofLimited English Proficiency patients. These va

24、riables include length of stay,number of tests performed, number of undefined diagnoses, number of outpa-tient visits, aswell as looking at effects on the number of sick days for the patients,and payments by medical insurance companies. At the theoretical level, Nazneen works out a series of costs a

25、nd benefits thatmust be taken into accountfor a total understanding of the impact of interpreters, including benefits tomedi-cal staff, patients, hospital organisations and insurance companies. Empirically,she looks at a largeMassachusettshospital settingwhich does provide interpret-ers and compares

26、 it to some other health care settingswith varying provisions ofinterpreters, and uses comparativedata from1989 to 1995 to showthat the provi-sion of interpreters reduced length of stay, number of unnecessary tests, numberof visits and uncertainty of diagnosis, as well as in some instances saving li

27、ves.Benefits also accrued to medical staff and insurance companies.Nazneen argues that the full benefits of interpreter services are seriously under-estimated, and it has only been （in the American situation） legal action by patientsthat has forcedmedical providers to act. Importantly, her study ide

28、ntifies benefitsnot only to health institutions but also to levels of payouts made by insurancecompanies.Given that themedical field is increasingly characterisedbymarketingfor patients rather than a more traditional meeting of needs of publicly definedpatients, the economic aspects of her conclusio

29、ns have resonance for the future. Ethnicmarketing has already arrived in themedical administrationliterature, e.g.Building market share in the Latino community （Stevenson, 2002）.Nazneen also takes another step, highly unusual in reckonings of cost-benefitanalyses of language, of looking at different

30、 levels of training of interpreters,giving a spectrum from the totally untrained helper to one fully trained to meethospital exigencies and costs the various levels. Her conclusion is the strongerin that she shows that even if the cost of training is fully covered by the hospitalorhealth provider, b

31、enefits would still flow. This is a significant finding, in thatwhat counts as an interpreter tends to be of little interest to the economist （or inmany cases the hospital administrator）, and inmostmedical systems the processof certification and training of medical interpreters is still rudimentary. Y