Cultural Mediation in Translation Series: Bilingualism in Intercultural Mediation

Foreword

In an increasingly globalized world, the ability to effectively mediate between cultures through translation and interpreting is more critical than ever. The objective of this research series is to facilitate the integration of theoretical frameworks with practical applications in cultural mediation. Additionally, it seeks to enhance comprehension of the function of cultural mediation in translation and interpreting, offering both theoretical insights and practical strategies to facilitate intercultural communication in global contexts.

This series will examine the multifaceted roles of cultural mediators, dissecting how they can overcome intercultural challenges and enhance communication in multilingual contexts. By delving into both the theoretical underpinnings and real-world applications, the series will provide readers, including students, practicing professionals, and scholars, with the essential tools and knowledge to understand and implement effective cultural mediation strategies. A mixed-method approach will be employed, with theoretical discussions accompanied by case studies drawn from real-world translation scenarios. This will ensure that each subtopic is supported by examples from contemporary practice, thereby illustrating the application of theories in tangible settings. Furthermore, this series will add to the existing body of knowledge by synthesizing current theories and practices in cultural mediation while offering new insights into its application in professional translation and interpreting contexts. The goal is not only to inform but also to inspire a deeper appreciation of the intricacies involved in translation and interpreting, highlighting the vital role of cultural mediation in fostering global understanding and cooperation. Various studies related to bilingualism in cultural mediation will complement the content of this series, investigating its impact on the process, its necessity, and the role of culture in translation. It is the combination of theoretical analysis and case studies, augmented by illustrative examples, that renders this series distinctive.

The series is divided into the following chapters:

Cultural Mediation in Translation Series: Bilingualism in Intercultural Mediation

In the current globalized world, intercultural mediation is booming and is increasingly needed. The term, however, can be understood in different ways depending on the context. Generally, a cultural mediator is known as the person who facilitates mutual understanding between a person or a group of people (e.g. the migrant/refugee population) and a caregiver (e.g. a doctor) by providing two-way verbal translation (interpreting) and helping them overcome cultural barriers (Translation without borders, 2017).

This initial chapter of the series, entitled "Cultural Mediation in Translation", is based on the definition of intercultural mediation and the approaches of mediation, that are directly related to the conflict management aspect (Liddicoat, 2015). Consequently, this concept is elucidated through an examination of the fundamental intercultural communication principles and competencies that underpin the role of mediators, with a view to enhancing communication and understanding between participants. This article integrates the concept of bilingualism into those principles to provide a brief introduction to it as part of the theoretical framework. This integration begins with an overview of the term "bilingualism" and includes an examination of the stereotypes associated with it, the concept of "biculture", and a discussion of bilingualism as a component of intercultural competencies, which is the main point of this chapter.

An Approach to the Concept of Intercultural Mediation

Liddicoat (2015) defined the concept of intercultural mediation as “a problem-solving activity that deals with communication breakdown caused by cultural differences” (p. 3). His approach was based on Meyer's definition of the mediation component of intercultural communication as “the ability to handle cross-cultural problems which result from cultural differences” (1991, p. 137). An alternative perspective on intercultural mediation, as proposed by Liddicoat (2015), is that it can be conceptualized as a relational and interpretative activity (p. 4). This can be understood as an active engagement with diversity as a process of meaning-making (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013, p. 54). Thus, intercultural mediation was conceptualized as a means of resolving the challenges inherent in intercultural communication. These challenges were frequently perceived as the defining characteristics of any communication across cultures (Fitzgerald, 2002). On one hand, multiple studies describe cultural mediation as one of the fundamental components of intercultural competence. This is evidenced by the work of Buttjes and Byram (1991b), Byram (2002), Zarate et al. (2004), and Liddicoat and Scarino (2013). Intercultural mediation facilitates contact between languages and cultures with individuals and groups through cultural practices, values, and norms (Liddicoat, 2014). On the other hand, Byram (2002) explained mediation as “the capacity for explanation of cultural phenomena, a recognition of the relativity of cultural concepts and the negotiation of meaning within and across cultural frames” (p. 48).

Mediation also encompasses a range of additional competencies. These include the ability to negotiate meaning, to be able to compare cultures through critical thinking, and to be aware of the relativity of cultural terms, as defined by Buttjes and Byram (1991). That means that intercultural mediation conveys analysis and performance (Liddicoat and Scarino, 2013) as well as interpretation and action (Meyer, 1991). Furthermore, nowadays, intercultural mediation is more conceived as an interpretation process, this entails that understanding, explaining, commenting, interpreting, and negotiating are abilities required to share an understanding or reach an agreement between people of different cultural backgrounds and intercultural mediators, as elucidated by Iriskhanova et al. (2004). This interpretative approach determines that the mediator focuses on alternative and multiple perspectives, instead of centering the view on his own cultural and linguistic framework, in order to accept different interpretations. In their 2002 study, Byram et al. define this as the "ability to make the strange familiar and the familiar strange" (p. 19). In this sense, the role of the mediator does not only solve communication problems but also interpret the language in use.

Some studies discuss that intercultural mediation is a process that exists beyond the domain of language, where intercultural competence and, consequently, bilingualism do not play a pivotal role. Consequently, intercultural mediation is not considered relevant during the process of learning a language (Dervin and Liddicoat, 2013) but plays an important role in the representations of others (Gohard-Radenkovic et al., 2004b). In this context, mediation refers to how an individual perceives others, their cultures, and their interpretations outside the domain of language, solely in conceptual terms (Liddicoat, 2014). Nevertheless, there has been some research (e.g., Cuenat and Bleichenbacher, 2013) that does accept mediation as a linguistic ability. Cultural mediation depends on the language knowledge in which the mediation happens. Thus, language is understood as a mediation tool rather than a part of the mediation process (Cuenat and Bleichenbacher, 2013). Furthermore, it suggests that mediation is a second language activity rather than a phenomenon that can occur in any language that forms part of a speaker's linguistic repertoire. 

Language is not merely a conduit for intercultural communication; it is itself an act of intercultural mediation, shaped by the cultural norms and values of each language community (Liddicoat, 2009). Language is the act of mediation that involves the interpretation of language and cultures. For bilinguals and language learners, language is the ultimate place for intercultural communication and, as Gohard-Radenkovic et al. (2004a) stated, “semantics and pragmatics are of special importance as it is in the practices of language in use that the relationship between language and culture becomes most salient” (p. 27). In this article, attention is focused on the first approach, which posits that intercultural mediation is a problem-solving action, and the last approach, which asserts that language is in itself intercultural communication and mediation, with bilingualism also involved. 

Intercultural mediation can cross all types of mediation through the conflict management aspect. According to Siddiqui (2024), there is also a debate on the subject of conflict resolution about the diverse approaches and mediation styles. However, it is known that there are three general types of mediation approaches: facilitative or interest-based mediation, evaluative mediation, and rights-based mediation (Siddiqui, 2024). Facilitative meditation employs interest-based perspectives, self-determination of the parties with respect to conflict resolution, and third-party communication that promotes understanding by focusing on the interests and including creative solutions outside the normative. Evaluative mediation provides suggestions and aims to make decisions and give opinions, using specific criteria to evaluate evidence and arguments. Finally, right-based mediation encompasses the identification of pertinent evidence and facts alongside the application of pertinent legislation and regulations.

Conflict Management and Resolution

How conflict is managed and resolved is contingent upon the cultural perspective, as evidenced by the findings of Tinsley et al. (2001), who observed the utilization of disparate strategies following the cultural context. He applied his study to the case of Americans, Germans, and Japanese, with each case study focusing on different aspects of the conflict.

The American approach was characterized by a focus on the pragmatic integration of individual conflict parties. The German approach emphasized the importance of regularity and the compilation of information. In contrast, the Japanese sought to resolve the conflict more expediently. This highlights that the strategies used during the conflict are different depending on the culture. To solve the conflict, both parties must reach an agreement, or a third party has to be consulted to mediate. This is mainly the role of the mediator, and the mediation process can entail additional cultural characteristics depending on the mediator’s focus, which should be impartial. The resolution of a conflict is made possible by the presence of three key factors: respect, flexibility, and the freedom to consider alternative points of view and creative solutions. Therefore, conflict parties must consider other perspectives and be able to communicate outside the language. The presence of sufficient intercultural competencies facilitates the conflict management process, as the comprehension of disparate cultural norms and languages is pivotal in identifying a resolution to the conflict. The ability to communicate in two languages can prevent intercultural misunderstandings that may arise during discussions or conflicts between individuals from different cultural backgrounds. Even if there is a “second” language and hypothetically there is higher mastering from the “first" language, the knowledge of both languages will help to mediate a conflict, being the intercultural aspect the main competence during communication. The greater the number of languages one can master, the more effectively and effortlessly one can manage intercultural communication.

Intercultural Competences

The main intercultural principles are respect, openness, curiosity, culture, learning from others, core skills development, understanding each other, and reaping the inner and outer dividends. Those principles, led by the mediator, improve communication and understanding between participants. There are diverse definitions of intercultural competencies or principles, depending on the language and culture (see Deardorff, 2009; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009 for examples). Intercultural competencies can be defined as the “communication and behavior that is both effective and appropriate when interacting across difference” (Deardorff, 2009). Intercultural competencies are inextricably linked to human rights, which are founded upon the principles of interrelatedness, equality, respect, dignity, participation, inclusion, and empowerment (Donders and Laaksonen, 2014). Furthermore, they facilitate more harmonious human interactions across a multitude of differences, including age, gender, religion, socio-economic status, political affiliation, ethnicity, and so on, within a society or across borders. Intercultural competencies involve linguistic knowledge, empathic and tolerant communication, cultural context development, and knowledge of foreign cultures' behavioral and psycho-mental codes (Liddicoat, 2016).

According to Byram, “mediation is used to describe one of the functions of the intercultural speaker”. The term intercultural speaker is equivalent to cultural mediator (Byram and Zarate, 1997). At the same time, this author considers mediator and mediation as an element of intercultural speaker (2021, p. 54-56). In addition, as referenced by Byram (2021), the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001) included mediation as a language activity (2001, p. 14) that covers two other activities, translation and interpretation (2001, p. 99). However, mediation was not described in levels of competence. Nowadays there are more references to mediation in language teaching such as the analysis of the term presented by Stathopoulou (2015), where the implications for language teaching and assessment are discussed. Another example is the study from Kohler (2015), which focuses on language teachers and how they act as mediators of a new language and culture to their learners. The Companion Volume with New Descriptors (Council of Europe, 2018a) makes explicit that mediation can happen within the same language or from one language to another. In mediation, the user or learner creates bridges and supports to construct meaning.

Stereotypes Definitions Related to Bilingualism

According to Dumas (2010), bilingualism is stereotyped because monolinguals consider bilingualism and plurilingualism as “different” and in some ways, they have a negative connotation. Before delving into this author's explanation of bilingualism, it is essential to define and discuss the concept of stereotype, as it is a pivotal and frequently debated term in the context of intercultural competence and the different visions of bilingualism. Dumas (2010) defines the concept of stereotype as “a fixed collective representation, which can revert to different forms depending on cultural aspects and the level of education of individuals” (p. 3). Other authors refer to the term “as a set of images preconceived and fixed, general and divided, of things and beings that someone has under the influence of his social environment” (Morfaux, 1980, p. 34) or “as what our culture has already defined for us, and we tend to perceive that which we have picked out in the form stereotyped for us by our culture” (Hinton, 2000; Lippmann, 1922, p. 81).

Essentially, in the fifty years after Lippmann's work, numerous scholars have characterized stereotypes as inaccurate or overly broad generalizations (Brigham, 1971). As evidenced by the definitions provided by various authors, the formation of stereotypes is influenced by a number of factors, including cultural norms, educational background, and social environment. That is the common point between all the definitions. Dumas' work elucidates the phenomenon of stereotyping in bilingualism and the tendency for monolingualism to prevail, particularly due to ignorance and the influence of prevailing trends. 

Hinton (2000) affirms that stereotypes are defined by collectives or the fact of belonging to a group and that those stereotypes are false assumptions since they are governed by the similarities within a group and do not contemplate differences. Hinton considers that, despite their veracity, the prevailing view is that they are employed cognitively and are becoming increasingly salient in the domains of language and culture, enabling a fuller understanding of their societal function. “Stereotyping is an intergroup process. Self-categorization theory argues that, by focusing on the social group we perceive ourselves to be a member of at any particular moment, stereotypes reflect the realities of the groups at that particular moment” (Hinton, 2000). Consequently, perceiving the members of another group as members of our own diminishes our capacity to stereotype.

Dumas (2010) also mentions group membership as a stereotyping reason. She asserts that upon transitioning from a monolingual to a bilingual or hybrid identity, individuals tend to perceive themselves as distinct from the majority and as occupying multiple social positions simultaneously. This concept is frequently reflected in her work through the frequent use of the term "neither...nor...". Dumas (2010) explains that the ones that emit negative value judgments and representations and transmit prejudices, and thus create stereotypes, are the “pure thinkers”, the ones who adhere to a monolingual, monocultural, homogeneous, and monolithic norm. While Hinton's work focuses on the influence of stereotypes on language and culture, Dumas' approach is more specific, directly linking pure thinking to the origin of stereotypes. She posits that monolingualism and monolithic identity are key factors in the formation of stereotypes related to bilingualism. 

However, both authors suggest that stereotypes are mostly false assumptions, that indeed can have a determined function from the cognitive and linguistic point of view and that are usually caused by the fact of belonging or not being part of some concrete groups. This article adopts the approach of Dumas (2010) on stereotypes towards bilingualism. It is argued that the ability to speak diverse languages is an advantage in intercultural communication and thus an intercultural competence that can be used in intercultural mediation. Monolingualism and “pure thinking” or monolithic identities, on the contrary, stereotype bilingualism and can exacerbate intercultural conflicts, impeding the process of communication between cultures.

Attitudes Towards Bilingualism

According to Dumas (2010), the identity of a bilingual by birth would be made up of a set of characteristic traits that would allow the individual in question to be recognized as a speaker capable of using two linguistic codes in everyday life and of establishing their bilingual individuality in the eyes of others. The individual is represented as one who has achieved a state of perfect equilibrium in their command of two linguistic codes situated within the context of two distinct cultural horizons. This challenges the conventional notion of a monocultural, monolithic, and almost ethnic identity formation. She states that bilingualism has long been rejected because it was thought to interfere with the construction of identity. Indeed, according to the proponents of “pure thought”, individuals should focus on a culture and a language rather than diversifying their linguistic, cultural, and religious heritage. Bilingualism leads to an identity representation of diversity, of too much freedom of expression, not circumscribed by a national ethnic mold, as conceived by "pure thought". This image of “neither…nor” is represented by a single pure linguistic and national reference, and that can be dangerous and affect intercultural competencies, almost impede them, even deprive them of their existence. Furthermore, she elucidates that certain languages are perceived as inferior to others. These languages are purported to be undervalued due to their inability to facilitate socio-professional advancement.

Dumas’ first reflection on bilingualism leaves it as a phenomenon surrounded by prejudices and stereotypes that can impede the educational progress of children, pose psychological risks associated with the coexistence of two languages, and affect linguistic and cultural diversity. In the past, as Dumas explains, bilingualism was seen as a negative feature and a huge source of stereotypes, prejudices, and educational inconveniences. Opinions started to change thanks to Lambert who found positive effects on bilingualism in 1962. “Superiority has been found in divergent thinking, analytical approach towards language, communicative sensitivity, and field independence" (Baker, 1988). Cummins (1976) introduced the Threshold Hypothesis theory, which shows that a threshold level of linguistic competence needs to be acquired in order to achieve beneficial cognitive aspects of bilingualism, and, according to Baker (1988), the causes of bilingualism could be the positive findings. These alternative perspectives do not explicitly attribute the prejudices against bilingualism to monolingualism. The concept of stereotype was not as relevant then and does not have as much cause and effect as in Dumas' work. Dumas' discussion of bilingualism pertains to its acquisition from birth, rather than to its underlying causes. However, she does address the observable effects of bilingualism. She ultimately establishes, as do the majority of authors in the most recent studies, that bilingualism and plurilingualism are advantageous tools for a successful future and can confer numerous benefits in one's professional career.

Biculture in Bilingualism

One specific attitude towards bilingualism is the one from Agar (1991), who affirms that language and culture are inextricably linked. In 1994, he coined the term "languaculture" to encapsulate this concept. According to his statements, bilingualism is defined as including biculture, and this is reciprocally defined by bilingualism. This broadens the field of bilingualism and intercultural competencies even further, if possible. His perception of bilingualism goes further than Dumas's. Although they share a similar vision and Dumas (2010) also relates monolingualism to only one culture and bilingualism to more than one, she does not extend her analysis beyond this point. Furthermore, she does not engage with the concept of "culture" itself, nor does she reflect on the notion of biculture and the relationship between language and culture. Agar (1991) states that two languages have two different conceptual systems. The bicultural approach encompasses the study of identity, attitudes, behavior, and feelings. “For L2 learners who want to be communicatively competent in L2, rich points are areas that must be organized separately and will move the bilingual into a metacultural 'Zwischenwelt' or 'between worlds'" (Agar, 1991, p. 35). Agar's approach differs from that of other authors in that he considers culture and language to be equally fundamental concepts. This is evident in his discussion of biculturalism and bilingualism within the meta-cultural "Zwischenwelt", a concept he explores in his work. Unlike other authors, he emphasizes that the two concepts are inextricably linked, representing a distinctive perspective within the field of intercultural competences. 

Bilingualism as part of Intercultural Competences?

Ultimately, it must be established whether there is a genuine correlation between bilingualism and intercultural competence. Consequently, the concepts of "identity" and "culture" play a significant role in determining the impact of biculturalism on intercultural communication. By defining the term “identity” and relating it to the term “culture”, a connection between both concepts will be established as a basic background in the field of intercultural communication. Norton uses the term identity “to reference how a person understands his or her relationship to the world, how that relationship is constructed across time and space, and how the person understands possibilities for the future” (2000, p. 5). Dumas (2010) suggests that an individual's identity is derived from their need to relate to and belong to people and their culture. Languages play an integral role in the construction of identity, regardless of whether an individual is monolingual, bilingual, or multilingual. As Zarate and Byram (2008) said in their first paper on intercultural competence (1997), to act interculturally is to bring into a relationship two cultures. To participate in the different cultures to which we belong, to adapt our behavior according to the cultures, and to combine traits from our different cultures. This last definition breaks the concept of biculture, which denotes the coexistence of two distinct cultures. Does the necessity for intercultural skills arise when two distinct cultures and languages are in question, if no potential for interaction exists between them?

Agar (1994) states that culture is not an inherent attribute of individuals. Rather, it is a phenomenon that exists between them. He describes intercultural competencies as “mythic figures” that “identify discourse-rich points that prevent task performance. This leads to a view of languaculture that will map in interesting ways onto the many differences that make up our contemporary, multicultural world”. Byram (2021), on the other hand, sets the following competencies for intercultural communication: linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence, and discourse competence. All individuals must possess the ability to comprehend, embody, acquire, and dedicate themselves to the subject matter. In light of the insights provided by the cited authors, it is pertinent to inquire whether bilingualism is a prerequisite for effective communication across cultures.

To conclude this first article of the series, there is a need to answer the first question: can bilingualism/biculturalism be regarded as an intercultural competency? If there is no intent to view the prefix "bi" as a separation in accordance with Agar's biculturalism, which describes two distinct cultures and languages, and bilingualism is considered as a construction instead, the answer to the question would be affirmative. Based on Byram’s model of intercultural competencies and his first definitions of cultural and intercultural competencies (1997), if the prefix “bi”, regardless of Agar’s theory on biculturalism, implies a division, consequently, bilingualism and biculture cannot be classified as intercultural competences and, therefore, are not part of intercultural communication. Tomyuk et al. (2019) states that “if bilingualism is natural and is present in a communicative environment for a child who has grown up in a bilingual environment, then for bilingualism it is typical to learn a second language in the learning process and the occasional use of the academic language in the communication process” (p. 4). Tomyuk et al. (2019) conducted a study that expanded the knowledge of bilingual practices and their role in intercultural communication. The study proved that bilingual practices are increasing with the involvement and development of intercultural competence. “The development of intercultural competencies as an ability to understand and perceive the identity of another culture, and to build a dialogue of cultures is becoming increasingly important” (Tomyuk et al., 2019). Bilingualism provides a foundation for the acquisition of cultural and linguistic knowledge, which in turn facilitates mutual understanding and the development of linguistic awareness of cultures. Hence, bilingualism is indeed an intercultural competence.

Conclusion

“Bilingualism and hence multilingualism represent undeniable linguistic and cultural assets for the integration and socio-professional success of more and more young people, who are forced to find work outside their country” (Dumas, 2010). The reduction of prejudices and stereotypes, which at first glance seems straightforward, is in fact one of the most challenging barriers to overcome. It is also one of the most crucial steps in developing and benefiting from intercultural skills and competencies across different social and cultural identities. Nevertheless, if consideration is given to Dumas' vision, it can be seen that bilingualism by birth is based on stereotypes, which is a contradiction given that, according to Hinton, stereotypes are mostly false and tend to be negative. Furthermore, bilingualism, as many authors have already stated, may have very positive findings in the personal, educational, and labor fields, which challenges the beliefs held in the past. The assertion that biculturalism and bilingualism are mutually reinforcing is a compelling one. Without one, the other is arguably inconceivable.

In conclusion, it can be stated that intercultural mediation is directly implied in linguistic practices, and therefore involves specific principles and competencies that can be developed through language learning and acquisition, even during childhood. Bilingualism is considered as the union of different languages and cultures, can be a bridge between two parties, and is a competence that a mediator can use to manage and solve conflict, as many recent studies have proved. It is also a valuable tool in intercultural communication.

As reflected in the last section of this first series' chapter, bilingualism can be considered as part of intercultural competencies in the process of intercultural mediation if the concept is understood as a bridge between cultures, rather than a division. The intercultural skills that come with being bilingual make mediating between cultures much more accessible. The linguistic skills, among all the others, developed during a process of cultural mediation make them essential components of a translation action. Consequently, cultural mediation represents an additional process that can be incorporated into a multitude of disciplines, including that of translation.