Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on July 9, 2009 3:11 AM Derek, I don't understand what you are saying.  ...  I don't understand what you mean about job security.  Can you explain?

Sure! I am of the opinion that your average working translator and interpreter, Joe Five Cents or Doris Hockey Mom, does not give a hoot about producing "perfect" translations but concentrates primarily (or even exclusively) on getting a gig and getting paid for it. Your average working translator and interpreter works most likely unidirectionally. He/she passionately supports the notion that translators and interpreters ought to translate and interpret only into their mother tongues because that at least leaves half of the market for him/her to earn in. He/she sees bidirectional translation and interpreting as intrusion in his/her share of the market and hence as taking the bread out of his/her mouth.

That is why I suggested that a better poll would have been:

[ ] Are you competent and fluent, spoken and written, in your source languages?

[ ] Are you doing anything seriously to become competent and fluent, spoken and written, in your source languages?

Whether a translator or interpreter actually gets regular work in both directions is a secondary consideration, in my opinion, and is a different subject.

Just a thought!

Derek

Derek, for this quality-orientated pro it is a very different matter. For me, even if I was to reach AIIC A in my source language, I would still only ever translate unidirectionally. I would and do interpret both ways. However, given the massive variety of genres, registers, terminology, etc, I would not presume to translate professionally and generally into my source language since it would take a lifetime to gather the same breadth of knowledge and facility in different linguistic situations as I have in my target language.

In interpreting, it is a different matter as, perversely enough, I have more "booth hours" and "stage hours" going from my mother tongue to my second language than vice-versa. This is simply a quirk due to the conferences I have worked at and the organisations I have worked with. However, even here, in some fields, I would only work in the same directionality as I do in translation and working into my native language is still my preference.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on July 8, 2009 10:40 PM I personally think that most of the interpreting associations and examining bodies are totally wrong by claiming that a person should only interpret into their native language: they represent the old school. Interpreter, in my opinion should be fully bilingual, but also the organizations should not try to determine where the person was born, where they went to school etc. The knowledge of both languages should be the only basis for any determinations. For me, an interpreter who could interpret only in one direction is a little bit like a pianist playing with one hand only.

It is quite normal in conference work since interpreters at the top international organisations are expected to work from two (or more) "foreign" languages into their mother tongue. Besides, in most high-level conferences, one booth will only ever output one language. Thus, you might have an "English" booth with two interpreters interpreting from say French, German, Dutch and Spanish into English. Another booth might have two interpreters going from English, German, Dutch and Spanish into French and so on.

I have interpreted both ways for several different reasons. However, I actually agree with the way the big recruiters work. Having worked at conferences where this system was used, I can say that it reduces confusion and ensuring that one booth outputs one language allows other smart tricks like the "pivot" system. The best justification for it, however, is quite simply that it means that people always know where to find "their" language and the interpreters never have to muck about with the channel change switch.

Outside of the conference world, in community work, the healthcare, legal and medical sectors however, I agree that interpreters must be able to interpret both ways. In the conference world, it is simply unnecessary. We must not confuse the two worlds.

Originally written by Jonathan Downie on July 9, 2009 9:19 AM  ... it seems that you can work into your B language (another language in which you have perfect command).

Wouldn't you think that an institute with such pretentions would be more careful with their choice of language, especially in a crucial definition? What do they mean by "perfect command"? Do they mean "essentially error free" or do they mean merely "would be mistaken for a native speaker even by experts" or do they mean "good enough to get by on most occasions and for most purposes"?

How does one get tested for "perfect command"? Are there any public examinations for which the marking rules specify 100% freedom from all errors, orthographic, grammatic, stylistic, phonetic, for a pass, everything else is a fail? I never heard of them. In my opinion, "perfect command" is a purely theoretical concept, unachievable for normal mortals, and certainly well out of place in the definition of a 'B' language.

It is beyond my comprehension why the predicate "good enough" (or "competent") cannot get a foothold in most translation circles, many still seem to insist on "perfection"! Yet in a commercial situation, most lay clients are happy to accept "good enough" as the determinant for the translation quality to be delivered, even academic clients are willing to accept it. It is high time that translators came back down to earth, I never yet heard an interpreter talk about (or write about) perfection and I doubt that very many spend much time aspiring to it! "Perfect command" is not necessary, competence is sufficient.

Derek

Your average working translator and interpreter works most likely unidirectionally. He/she passionately supports the notion that translators and interpreters ought to translate and interpret only into their mother tongues because that at least leaves half of the market for him/her to earn in. He/she sees bidirectional translation and interpreting as intrusion in his/her share of the market and hence as taking the bread out of his/her mouth.

So you are not addressing the existence of a small organization in Canada when there is a large organization.  You are addressing the notion that this small organization is promoting the "mother tongue" notion. 

But our large, national organization --- which by the way does not offer membership to customers (agencies) --- does not promote this notion.  This idea does not exist in Canada to any large measure as far as I can tell.  Not in the professional organization, and not among any Canadian agencies.  Certainly not among my end clients.  They want to know whether I am competent to do the work - end of story.

It was suggested that professional organizations the world over promote "mother tongue".  Mine doesn't.  Of the two who were quoted, one seems to be tiny if it only has 120 members nation-wide, and the other (like the ATA) has clients as members, which I find strange. 

Maxi

[ ] Are you competent and fluent, spoken and written, in your source languages? [ ] Are you doing anything seriously to become competent and fluent, spoken and written, in your source languages?

Well put!

On the AIIC/CTIIC thing, IMHO, most national organisations don't pay too much attention to conference interpreting, given that it is largely centred on Paris, Brussels, Strasbourg, New York and Switzerland. There are therefore (relatively) few full-time, exclusing conference interpreters in each other country, certainly not enough for national associations to bother too much about. I know that with ITI, at least, one could substitute "community interpreter" for "interpreter" in most cases.

I would imagine that fuller definitions of the terms used in the paper are available but I am not sure where. I do know that this classification is more for self-use than otherwise. However, your eligibility for entry is assessed by fellow interpreters. The details are on the section on joining.

As far as "pretensions" go, AIIC is the largest and oldest organisation for conference interpreters. It need not have any pretensions as it is what it says it is. It is its size, prestige and age that has allowed it to form agreements on pay and conditions with the largest conference interpreter employing organisations. For conference interpreting, AIIC membership is far more important to me than national association membership as conference interpreting employers set great store by it. It has received some criticism lately, apparently. However, it has managed to do what most national organisations have not: actually set pay and conditions with clients.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against national organisations. I am a member of one. However, I have found that personally, they offer little for conference interpreters. Sad, but true.

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on July 9, 2009 2:31 PM So you are not addressing the existence of a small organization in Canada when there is a large organization.  You are addressing the notion that this small organization is promoting the "mother tongue" notion.

Sorry about that, I messed up. I was not thinking so much about organizations but about the individual members. And I thought that we were discussing the motivation for some translators being dead set against bidirectional translation/interpreting and others who see it as the norm.

Derek

Jonathan, we are discussing translation.  You began by stating that most national translation organizations promote the mother-tongue policy. When asked about this you put forth two interpretation organizations, including one in Canada ---- but not the main organization.  A smaller interpreters organization cannot be considered to represent official national policy on translation, when there is a large and recognized organization of translators and interpreters.

In regards to the importance of translation and interpretation nationally - it must be remembered that this country is officially bilingual, where even the federal leader of the country is expected to give speeches in both French and English.  In your list of countries you have mentioned New York, but not Ottawa.  Yet in a bilngual country, the nation's capital would be a hub of interpretation and translation activity.

At this point I would suggest that we don't know whether most translation organizations promote the mother tongue view.  The ATA does: I don't think it applies here.  The British interpretation organization seems to - does Britain have a translation organization or does the interpretation organization serve both?  What about other countries?

Maxi

Originally written by Derek Thornton on July 9, 2009 10:07 AM Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on July 9, 2009 2:31 PM So you are not addressing the existence of a small organization in Canada when there is a large organization.  You are addressing the notion that this small organization is promoting the "mother tongue" notion.  Sorry about that, I messed up. I was not thinking so much about organizations but about the individual members. And I thought that we were discussing the motivation for some translators being dead set against bidirectional translation/interpreting and others who see it as the norm. Derek

Yes, it was confusing for a bit.

In regards to the motivation --- when it's a policy of an organization that contains both service providers and clients, maybe it's a "quick fix answer" since it has non-professionals in the mix (the clients).

Maxi