restored message - I hit the delete button accidentally.  This is the one Derek replied to earlier.

Derek, sorry - you seemed to be explaining the existence of this small organization in Canada, and that's the part I didn't understand.  I had written:

I just researched the AIIC.  It seems to be an organization of Canadian interpreters with a total membership of only 120 members across the entire country!

Meaning that I was wondering about this organization, given the existence of the CTTIC - and there was such a small representation. 

You responded to this by saying:

Might this not be a job security thing? Maybe the interpreters in the French-speaking areas are worried about those with English mother tongue taking away all the into-French work as well and this rule, if it is one, is intended to prevent that happening?

So you seem to be saying that a tiny organization of interpreters of any number of languages exists here, while at the same time the large national organization exists, becuase of job security and francophone interpreters.  I cannot see the connection.  We don't know that these interpreters are francophone, and I have no idea how this would link to job security.

Maxi

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on July 9, 2009 3:07 AM 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

On interpreting, the centres I mentioned are seen as hubs because of the presence of international organisations. In terms of the number of conference interpreters there, they dwarf even national capitals by a long way.

On translation, Britain has TWO translator's organisations. The Chartered Institude of Linguists (CIoL)and the Institute of Translation and Interpreting (ITI). IMHO, both have a "mother tongue" policy. I do know that this seems to be the case with ITI. This is also the general policy taught in some of the universities there, though perhaps not all. On the other hand, many also offer courses in interpreting into your mother tongue. Visiting speakers from the industry do seem to underline the traditional view though.

I accept that it was translation that was under discussion. Personally, I agree with the traditional policies to a large extent. The exception would be in the case of minority languages where there is a shortage of qualified or experienced translators. In those cases, I can see the need for bidirectional translation.

Personally, I agree with the traditional policies to a large extent.

The traditional policy that I agree with states that if you are competent to translate into the language, you may do so.  Very often such competency ends up being the mother tongue or native language, but not always.  Perhaps some universities or organizations have adopted another view in the meantime, but I prefer to go with common sense and experience.

If such a statement were in fact prevalent across most national organizations (which I doubt), then I suggest a campaign be launched against it, since it is prejudicial as in "prejudgment".  It means that no matter how well a person studies, how proficient he or she becomes, what the results of that person's efforts are in fact, an arbitrary statement exists locking him or her out of work based on a theory of what this person can achieve.  How can one be for such a thing?

Maxi

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on July 9, 2009 3:07 PM 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.

That is a little too simplistic, Maxi. In their brochure for translation customers the ATA claims:

In other words, the ATA says that if you can get away with it responsibly then go ahead. And the careful editing by a native speaker is recommended only before going to press! Not all translations end up going to press so there is still a market out there for the "just good enough" translations.

The ATA offers certification, both in and out of English, but without any requirement regarding direction. There is nothing to prevent an English speaker being certified translating into Chinese, Croatian, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, and Ukrainian provided he/she can pass the test (3 passages, 225-275 words each, not more than 17 error points in each passage! So you can see that the ATA is far from requiring "perfect command" of the target language!).

The ATA states that:
"Certification offers objective evidence to both translator and client that the
translator possesses professional competence in a specific language combination."

As we say in German: "Die kochen auch nur mit Wasser"! In my opinion, it is the translators who exaggerate the quality required, not the translator's associations.

Derek

Derek, I find a lot of what I read on the ATA site questionable, not in the least that customers are members.  Would you expect patients to be members in a professional doctors' association, or home owning families to be members of an architects' association?

The part you have quoted, however, is outrageous!!!  "The translator who flouts..." starting with the word "flout" - and the nonsense that follows.

All I can say is that I'm glad that I live where I do, and belong to the association that I belong to. 

The ATA offers certification, both in and out of English, but without any requirement regarding direction.

In comparison to ours, their certifcaiton doesn't seem to mean much either.   Certification exams here, as far as that goes, involves the language direction.  Therefore our organization does not have to resort to speculation and dubious advice - either the candidate is capable because he has passed the exam, or he's not capable and has not passed the exam.  If he can, then he can.

Maxi

The only requirement is to pay the fee, preferably on time, and to pay for the exam: they probably do not even require an exam for certain things, just the membership fee. Nobody has asked me in my life whether I belonged to any organizations while applying for work, other than terrorist organizations while applying for jobs that required clearance.

Nobody has asked me in my life whether I belonged to any organizations while applying for work.

I have never applied for work in translation.  I have only freelanced.  However when I offer my services, ATIO membership is frequently needed.  If a government official tells a client that his translation must be done and certified by a certified translator (equivalent to notary public swearing) then of course the client will ask me whether I am a proper member of such an organization. 

Maxi

See, it is different in the United States, Maxi. The most they require, in my experince, is a sworn translation. Even if somebody belongs to ATA the translation still has to be sworn where a sworn translation is required.

Who is this "they" who require a sworn translation at the most? 

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?

by Derek

The same can be asked of the target language. Shouldn't translation agencies or organizations focus more on this rather than stubbonly sticking to the "guideline" that "translators should only translate into their native language"? I always hold the opinion that they should re-phrase the guideline (if there's any) to be something like "proficiency in the target language should be of native level".