Hurdles and horizons of linguistics for social justice

Translation and multilingualism are often associated with social justice, for translation breaks down communication barriers and multilingualism indexes inclusiv-ity. Angermeyer challenges the assumption that translation and multilingualism necessarily advance social justice by pointing out the context dependence of their contribution. Not only are translation and interpreting not always an effective remedy to linguistic inequality, translation and interpreting practices can themselves be a source of such inequality. Angermeyer posits that interpreting practices can be discriminatory when they are provided in ways that prioritize the needs of the institution over those of users who are served by it, pointing to asymmetrical interpreting modes in institutional interpreting as evidence. He also demonstrates that an act of inclusivity could itself be discriminatory — for example, multilingualism could be used punitively to enforce stereotypes by singling out speakers of certain languages as potential offenders of public order. This response paper complements and complicates Angermeyer ’ s intervention. While sharing concerns about problems that arise from certain modes of court interpreting and about the pu-nitive use of multilingualism, this paper invites consideration of wider contexts, including different factors that affect the delivery of a fair trial and the role of private actors in shaping a linguistic landscape. It also highlights some recurring con fl icts and gaps in the discussion of linguistic justice