Thread: Linguist training

Unlucky,
I think you're hit another nerve in me there. You've got exactly the same motivations as many career linguists, but which simply aren't afforded to them. The linguists motivated by the financial aspects tend to be (not always) the married with family people, and quite rightly so! I have rarely heard any grumblings about pay from people outside of that category. A Corporal linguist can be on approx £31,000 pa anyway!
What you seek in making a difference in operations is what motivates many and when they are put into non-operational and non-linguist roles, they become dispondent etc and we see them signing off or transfering in order to seek a new challenge.
I wish the best of luck to you when you use your language in theatre and I'm sure that you'll love every minute of it when you're out and about! I've not spoken to any DJC volunteer in theatre that hasn't enjoyed it.

I get the impression that some proper grown ups are reading and contributing to this thread, so I'm keen not to look stupid, or to end my career early. What career? Good point. So I'll make this my last post.

Also I also realise that nobody - within or outside Beaconsfield - wants to read whinging & gossip so I'll try to avoid it. If I don't, apologies.

There is a key distinction to make between DJC and other customers, of which DSL has more than most, with widely differing needs. As with all servants of many masters, it is pulled in numerous directions at once, and this is a key weakness to subjects as currently taught.

I only see a section of DSL, I admit that. However I consider the DJC courses the most important. Other wings teach English & prepare Captains and Colonels to loaf around meditteranean cities sipping cappucinos. These seem to be reasonably well run.

That leaves the Arabic and Herrick-related wings, with two streams namely the "proper linguists" and DJC ones. I believe, however, that addressing the DJC courses is more important. For a start, the majority of students are on them, and they *will* be going on ops straight after their training, unlike some "proper linguists". They're also a pretty one-shot weapon too. Remember that there's no career stream for the DJC guys, no incentive or offer to stay on. So if they want to leave after one tour ( the learning one ) they will.

The demands of the "customer" are really quite basic really, by comparison with the sneaky-listening courses and high level ones. The DJC courses are about providing linguists to field units of the Army - not interpreters & translators to high level diplomats or high level G2 functions.

The students need to emerge at roughly L3, motivated & keen to learn more so that they can really contribute. Moreover they need the field skills to ensure that they don't become a liability when attached to a sub unit ( this is a different subject ). They need to be able to speak, listen, question at a reasonable level and perhaps write as well. They don't need to book a hotel room & discuss the intracies of the Iranian constitution. This will come as some suprise to Westminster.

To get them there more money would be great. I admit though that as I'm not an expert I don't have too much idea of where it could be spent. What frustrates me is that we could achieve so much more without doing anything complicated.

Darth - I don't see a simple "Quality v. Quantity" choice. Honestly. We can't just turn out a couple of ace interpreters per year, we need quantity.

"You can only piss with the d.ick you've got" as a wise Pl Sgt told me. And actually the dick has pretty good potential. Not to become some massive strapping pleasure-giving rollercoaster ride Max Hardcore one, but good enough.

This involves using the talents we have better, namely:

The Students - I can say in all honesty that nearly every DJC student is keen. While serving a Bn I never had to compete with enthusiastic LCpls to put together a training programme, but my class and others are teeming with ideas gleaned from inspiration or previous experience language learning, which they're happy to follow through on. This is a great resource - especially since variety is essential in a 15 month course.

The most productive fortnight my course had was when we unofficially ran our own timetable based on tutorials and minimal class time. The ethos was directed study - go away in your own time and learn about X so you can share your findings in the study language or undergo a detailed IOP about it. Go away and listen to these news reports. Come back with questions and requests for clarification.

The same is true of the Arabic course - their most productive week was a study week entirely of personal study while their tutors re-wrote the programme.

These students are wasted in a "send-recieve" culture of 7 hours class room time a day. Instead of being allowed to learn like the intelligent volunteers they are, they're taught like a herd of recruits.

The Native Speakers
The teachers here have enourmous potential. The teachers here have degrees, doctorates, previous high ranks in the Afghan Army... but they're hamstrung by a template written by someone in Chicksands, ages ago, who nobody has actually met or held to account.

They just need to be taught a common simple, workable teaching method and how to use the assets we have. More money? We have special electronic white boards which are never used, and language labs which are hardly used. Our class didn't use a language lab for over 6 months. Then, after pleading and bullying, we did. But the tutor ( an pleasant and clever guy ) didn't know how to use it or prepare materials. So we had to sit with headphones on, reading aloud. When he wanted to listen he stared across the class of 10 and tried to tell by lip-reading whether your pronunciation was correct. Of course, we didn't have a English translation, but it was a start.

A further asset - Arabic and Afghan students. Have there been any joint-lessons? Of course not.

"and in some languages students refuse to attend lessons" - I wonder what a 'Field Army CO' would have to say to this?

Good point - and exactly the one I wanted to make. I don't expect AGC(ETS) to kow-tow to their teeth arm peers, or weep in front of the mirror in the morning, although its understandable. :D

But we don't put them through 11 months of interminable platoon attacks and drill to lead fighting patrols in Gereshk. Its simply so they understand the field Army's ethos, and share it. In practice this means ensuring that the dominant culture of what is a military school, is a military culture, rather than a buck-passing Civil Servant "well there are lots of stakeholders involved, and we're doing whats in the job spec, and we can't be horrid to the contractors" one.

This means understanding that the majority of students are not going to be in a Spanish training school, or Nimrod. The majority of them will be wearing body armour and carrying a rifle 15 months after arriving, as important enablers.

It means also understanding that expecting students to do the majority of their learning in theatre is stupid - stupid when you consider that we could send people for ICLT to friendly Dari-speaking countries, or for immersion training at the US Language School in Germany. But we don't.

Maybe we do need:

a root and branch examination of what is taught and how - considering all of its customers. Once this and the appropriate current course and assessment design is done, it needs a full-on TDA capability to make sure that QA and design refreshes can take place. It also needs the J1-9 re-examining.

But I suspect that more pressingly we need an application of basic military logic. A system that doesn't wait for politicans to arrive with sacks of cash, or academics to arrive with new academic policies but - in the meantime - is subject to regular review internally and ad hoc improvement, disseminates information, enables students to learn, disciplines the ones who don't, and prepares them for their roles by working out what they are early, and making sure they're fit linguistically, tactically and physically to undertake them.

This is basic military sense, and it should be provided. I think its something to do with enthusiasm and grip. Perhaps I'm being snide, but when you think back to RMAS, were the aspirant AGC (ETS) cadets the competitive, pushy ones who really wanted to throw themselves in? I doubt it. They needn't all be, but there do need to be some in establishments like DSL.

Personnel volunteering for the language courses ... have no real idea of the work at the end of it (and aren't pre-selected) and have volunteered to leave their career stream. Why? Because they either want to get away from work they don't like or... can't think of an or. So you end up with a group of people happy just to be on a long attendance course who then have to be spread across roles in an ad hoc fashion, leading to people being posted to roles with some fairly significant caveats in terms of skills/experience.

True. But I don't notice a huge swathe of volunteers from the regular Army stepping forward. Or many of the current batch staying for ages? Why? Because there's no point. Once they finish their two tours, their only option is another two. Or to transfer to the Int Corps where they can end up in non-linguists roles in which they haven't been trained and don't use their key skill.

What I do see is a lot of people like me. I volunteered to leave my career as a Management Consultant with only the vaguest idea of my career stream. And to my knowlege my military experience is ( two tours as an infantry officer ) isn't very likely at all the influence my post. It could do, but given the number of fat-bottomed-RAF-Admin-girls who can't handle a rifle or pass a BPFA going to FHTs for example, I doubt some great mind is at work.

Like Unlucky_Alf, I'm a bit of a sad bastard. I genuinely do want us to win in Afghanistan. I want to be part of it and think I can contribute. I've been offered tours as an Inf Officer or FAC but I would much rather do so in a way that is intellectually challenging for me, and more likely to be involved in reconstructing Afghanistan and winning the minds of the Afghans I meet than helping to flatten the place and alienate them.

There's no career for me, although I live in hope. But its what I want to do. I'd probably do it for less, but I'd rather we as an army simply did the whole thing better.

Charlie

God, I hope that one day this will all be resolved and we can all get together and have a big hug.

Originally Posted by Charlie_Cong

I

Like Unlucky_Alf, I'm a bit of a sad fatherless.

I resent or should that be resemble that remark

I couldn't agree more about the opportunities provided by the student body on DJC courses (and some very experienced linguists going round again on new or refresher language training) to use the different available techniques for learning rather than the "throwing shit at a wall" technique currently prevalent at Beaconsfield.

But obviously, this would require a responsive teaching environment that takes account of the personnel in each class. Not going to happen.

I also totally agree about the value of the 'reading week'. It's established good practice in just about every proper university in the UK. so why does Beaconsfield feel it's above that?

To my mind, a balance between teaching (grammar) and training (exercises - by which i mean doing stuff, not 40 mins in the language lab) would keep everyone on their toes and really add to the quality of the output.

I would quibble about your dismissal of 'interpreters' for the field army; currently about half of the DJC output do exactly that (or not, in some cases!) but completely agree with your point about the failures in secondary skills (huntin', shootin', fishin', runnin') rather undermining their utility, whatever their language base.

I think you're spot on about the way the Brass has ignored this issue. I think there's a touching level of 'back-patting' on this post about linguist quality. I think that people don't know of interpreters being criticised is mainly down to an awareness within the Army as a whole that the training is inadequate and an acceptance that anything is better than nothing. Which, while being a sensible attitude on Ops doesn't get you any closer to better people in the long-term. It's time for some fairly serious questions to be asked - starting with the 1* at DISC.

Finally (for now) i take your point about lost capacity as people leave dispirited - not by their tour, in which the better ones do learn a lot, but by the prospect of further training at Beaconsfield, or disappearing down a career rat-trap (pace young Alf). A lot of people have been through DJC courses over the last five years, yet they are still training from scratch rather than cherry-picking upgrade trainees.

Sorry, I simply don't think it's good enough. If my salary wasn't paid from the public purse, I'd be seriously unimpressed by what my taxes are paying for....

p.s. Also agree re: teaching potential vs teaching delivery. A bit more time training teachers would lead to a hell of an improvement in their work. But less haste, more speed would, as a whole, be my solution to all of this....

As an asside (aside?) to this thread-I administer MLAT to potential linguists of all 3 services on a regular basis. Almost to a man and woman they know they want to do languages, but have no idea what jobs they can do. Sure they have phoned the number on the payslip or got the message "go do MLAT" from their CoC but they aren't getting the info they require.

There is a disjunct between the policy/requirement creators and the troops.

New poster here - be gentle with me.

First off lets put the boot into ETS, DSL and, for some reason female RAF, (many of whom have done a fantastic job terping in Telic & Herrick).

Or let's not, everyone does their bit.

Back to the start of the thread and some worthy comments throughout, no one has mentioned a key factor - Unrealistic expectations of the person using the 'Terp'.

No matter how trained or experienced linguistically, or how good at soldiery airmanry and sailory they might not be,

'Terps' are not:

Bilingual - they do not know every last word that has ever been used in that country. Or the names of every village, nickname or piece of slang.

The fount of all knowledge on traditions, history geography and culture

There to prevent embarrassment, but of course they have to
when some says ('ask 'em where Shin Bet is!)
OR 'get what you can out of them, we're going for scran'

Experts on nuclear fission, smelting, CBRN components, entomology or any other ology.

They are howevr expected to be.

I could go on, but you've probably stopped reading anyway....

Education is a 2-way street

I think you rightly sum up the dichotomy between military employment of terps - either vastly under-employed as the person being 'terped for is a control freak or the diametric opposite!

But a good 'terp spends as much time controlling the Brit as the foreigner - managing expectation, explaining the problems with dialect/slang/jargon, etc etc - but should never forget that their job is to interpret the meaning.

So if someone says, "We're off to scran. Tell 'im to sling his hook" you actually translate, "Thank you very much for your time and effort, which is much appreciated. We are very sorry but we have to go to an important meeting with the Colonel as we must tell him this vital information. We wish you a safe journey, and thanks again!"

Bang on, Fly

I'm off on OPTAG in January and I will be paying close attention to the "how to work with interpreters" lesson. Bear in mind that to be classed as an "interpreter" in the real world usually means natural/parental or close to lingustic ability, ie bilingual AND a post grad diploma/MA in the mechanics and ethics of interpreting. see the adverts in the Linguist magazine.

Perhaps the problem is in the nomenclature-the individuals should be called translators not interpreters. Part of the difficulty of using interpreters of either nationality is you have no idea what they are saying. The alternative example to the one Fly uses is.

"tell him we are sorry we have to go and thanks for your tiime" can easily become "the infidel pig says he is going to go and get permission to slit your throat and bury you in a pig hide before he goes and rapes your sister"

Apologies if this has already been mentioned elsewhere, but what possibilities are available for TA members as linguists?

I'm fluent in Croatian and I'm pretty sure I could learn any language given the chance. I have just joined Royal Signals TA (getting attested on Saturday).

Regards

Mali

Best to post this on the TA forum - the devil is in the detail on this.

But i believe that ETS (V) - interpreters pool - is only open to officers.

DJC courses in operational (Herrick/Telic) languages are open to all on an FTRS basis - details quickly found with a google search.

But in general, I think you'll find that your Croat is a bonus rather than a raison d'etre and that the opportunities for learning a new language are limited to what DJC is offering. That, of course, may change - especially for you, with regard to our commitment in the Balkans.

This thread has restored my faith in ARRSE and particularly the Int Corps forum. I am not, nor have I ever been, a linguist in the Corps, but I have spent the last few days lapping up the contents of this thread and have been warmed by the balance and knowledge brought to the arguments. In addition it is apparent that those involved are widely well thought of by the rest of the military and have a strong desire to do the best job they can.

It has been a pleasure to read and I hope you all get what you deserve to help you do the job.

Many thanks too for introducing me to the noun "terp" and the verb "to terp". Next time I turn up at a provincial nick with some dodgy eastern european in "my care" I look forward to baffling everyone and walting it up with my new terminology!

Top Bombing! :D

Originally Posted by Bound_Apprentice

Many thanks too for introducing me to the noun "terp" and the verb "to terp".

quite! i always thought the correct noun was "interrupter"

Originally Posted by Come_fly_With_Me

Best to post this on the TA forum - the devil is in the detail on this.

But i believe that ETS (V) - interpreters pool - is only open to officers.

DJC courses in operational (Herrick/Telic) languages are open to all on an FTRS basis - details quickly found with a google search.

But in general, I think you'll find that your Croat is a bonus rather than a raison d'etre and that the opportunities for learning a new language are limited to what DJC is offering. That, of course, may change - especially for you, with regard to our commitment in the Balkans.

The courses are open to the TA, provided they do FTRS , and commit to 2 tours (from memory).

What as in "JAFI"? - This upsets me greatly.

doorman makes a good first post: the military interpreter is distinct from his civilian counterpart because he generally lacks the near-native fluency. This is acknowledged as 'not being trainable'. What (s)he should have is the military, political and cultural context to apply language knowledge (including the commander's intent - which should be pre-briefed).

Employing interpreters correctly (and expecting the right things of them) is a difficult sketch to manage: part of it falls to the interpreter, part to the CoC. What 'terps do with the info is another matter altogether (Danny James anyone?)

Mali: The TA Pool of Linguists is what you're after. Given the opinions expressed here about the AGC(ETS), I hasten to add that I am not aware of paramilitary schoolies walting it up in classrooms around the country. I believe it is managed by CVHQ AGC, which is a slightly different beastie. Croat isn't much in demand, but if you think you're trainable, give DOLSU a ring, and find out what opportunities there may be for you in the future.

Nothing like an ARRSE thread to focus minds wonderfully...