Tri-lingual Translation and Interpretation
IFSW General Meeting, Geneva, Switzerland, 10-12 July 2002
Agenda item 10.9
The Constitutions and By-Laws of both the IFSW and the IASSW commit each organisation to operating in a tri-lingual setting: English, French and Spanish. The reason for this decision is not absolutely clear although no doubt will be linked to the fact that the United Nations operate using 6 official languages and it is self-evident that our forebears would have been keen to discharge the remit on the grounds of good communication.
For a number of years both organisations have endeavoured to fulfil this commitment through translation and interpretation. For the purposes of this paper the accepted definitions of both terms are – translation pertains to written communication and interpretation to oral communication. Both organisations have, as far as possible committed themselves to the use of the highest quality translation and interpretation services.
As the IFSW will not be holding a Conference in 2002 the costs associated with translation of the General Meeting must be borne by the IFSW budget. The costs for 3 days full interpretation would have been (6 hours actual translation per day) 11,160.00 Swiss francs or USD 7,500.00.
Financial costs, significant and important as they are, must also be considered alongside all of the cost to individuals who would otherwise be unable to participate in conferences, meetings and decision-making at an international level.
The current minimum expectations for both organisations are outlined below:
World Conference
IFSW
Executive Meeting
Other Meetings/Documents
The IFSW will provide translation on an "as needs" basis. Over recent times, there has been an increase in the number of documents that have been translated, however, this has relied heavily upon the goodwill and voluntary work of member organisations. For example, the definition of social work has now been translated into nine languages. This work has been undertaken by members in the linguistic groupings who have sufficient internal expertise to manage the process.
While the Executive Committee of the IFSW would have the authority to alter this policy (it is contained in the By-Laws) it is clearly a very sensitive issue and one which would in effect require the General Meeting endorsement.
IASSW
At the time of writing this paper the precise details of IASSW’s needs have to be confirmed. However to the best of knowledge they are similar to IFSW for the General and Executive meetings.
Other Meetings/Documents
The IASSW provides translation of its Newsletter. No doubt there are a number of documents that have to be translated over time. At the present stage IASSW are responsible for managing the process on the development of Global Qualifying Standards for Social Work Education and Training. This is a significant undertaking and will result in a comprehensive final document.
At a March 2002 International Steering Committee meeting held in Canberra, in preparation for Adelaide 2004, the question of interpretation and translation was subject to considerable debate.
It was acknowledged that the costs incurred in meeting the tri-lingual requirement for both organisations were very high. It was also acknowledged that many other international organisations no longer operate in a tri-lingual manner at conferences, relying on English as the floor language. Equally it was acknowledged that our organisations have a long and deep commitment to principles of social justice in particular, access and equity and one of the key ways in which we discharge this is through a tri-lingual approach.
This having been said, the current situation raises many questions. Some, but not all, are presented here for our joint discussion and consideration.
1. It could be argued that we should not attempt to operate in a tri-lingual manner unless we can meet appropriate standards of interpretation and translation at all events and in all relevant written communication. The reality, however, is that our finances would not allow either organisation to reach such a standard in the foreseeable future.
2. If we remain committed to a tri-lingual process, to what level should be extend the service of translation and interpretation? Should it be for all documents? If not, which documents and why? Should we provide tri-lingual interpretation at all meetings whether or not there is an actual need for either French or Spanish? To what degree are we discriminating against other major language groups across the world, particularly those who are numerically greater than our identified languages? What other options could be explored that would still enable tri-lingual access at an affordable price without sacrificing quality to an unacceptable degree?
3. If a range of affordable options should become available, what responsibility do we have to investigate the possibility of expanding such access to other language groups? And finally should we review the policy on the current three language groups looking to see whether they remain the most appropriate international languages?
Imelda Dodds
President IFSW
Agenda item 10.9
HISTORY
The relationship between practitioners and educators stretches back many years. At the time that IFSW and the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) were formally established (1928)), one can only begin to imagine how the question of interpretation and translation was addressed, although clearly it was.The Constitutions and By-Laws of both the IFSW and the IASSW commit each organisation to operating in a tri-lingual setting: English, French and Spanish. The reason for this decision is not absolutely clear although no doubt will be linked to the fact that the United Nations operate using 6 official languages and it is self-evident that our forebears would have been keen to discharge the remit on the grounds of good communication.
For a number of years both organisations have endeavoured to fulfil this commitment through translation and interpretation. For the purposes of this paper the accepted definitions of both terms are – translation pertains to written communication and interpretation to oral communication. Both organisations have, as far as possible committed themselves to the use of the highest quality translation and interpretation services.
ASSOCIATED COSTS
The first and most obvious cost pertaining to translation and interpretation is financial. The professional rates for translation and interpretation do vary from country to country. However, it is universally recognised as a highly skilled profession and as such the cost of interpretation relative to other costs in countries is quite high. In developed countries, the cost can be extremely high. The costs associated with translation and interpretation at the Montreal 2000 conference were CAD $6,734 (6,850.00 Swiss francs or USD 4,440.00) for translation and CAD $74,872 (76,000.00 Swiss francs or USD 49,000.00) for interpretation.As the IFSW will not be holding a Conference in 2002 the costs associated with translation of the General Meeting must be borne by the IFSW budget. The costs for 3 days full interpretation would have been (6 hours actual translation per day) 11,160.00 Swiss francs or USD 7,500.00.
Financial costs, significant and important as they are, must also be considered alongside all of the cost to individuals who would otherwise be unable to participate in conferences, meetings and decision-making at an international level.
OUTLINE OF CURRENT USAGE
Each organisation has slightly different approaches to the question of translation and interpretation with regard to organisational documents and needs, eg meetings. We have a shared understanding and approach with regard to joint congresses. This approach extends to regional congresses where appropriate.The current minimum expectations for both organisations are outlined below:
World Conference
|
IFSW
|
Executive Meeting
|
Other Meetings/Documents
The IFSW will provide translation on an "as needs" basis. Over recent times, there has been an increase in the number of documents that have been translated, however, this has relied heavily upon the goodwill and voluntary work of member organisations. For example, the definition of social work has now been translated into nine languages. This work has been undertaken by members in the linguistic groupings who have sufficient internal expertise to manage the process.
While the Executive Committee of the IFSW would have the authority to alter this policy (it is contained in the By-Laws) it is clearly a very sensitive issue and one which would in effect require the General Meeting endorsement.
IASSW
At the time of writing this paper the precise details of IASSW’s needs have to be confirmed. However to the best of knowledge they are similar to IFSW for the General and Executive meetings.
Other Meetings/Documents
The IASSW provides translation of its Newsletter. No doubt there are a number of documents that have to be translated over time. At the present stage IASSW are responsible for managing the process on the development of Global Qualifying Standards for Social Work Education and Training. This is a significant undertaking and will result in a comprehensive final document.
CRITICAL ISSUES
The question of translation and interpretation has come to prominence because of the outcomes of the last two World Congresses – Israel 1998 and Montreal 2000. Both Congresses resulted in financial difficulties – a clear loss in Jerusalem and an effective loss in Montreal. Whilst the cost of translation and interpretation were not the sole factor in determining this outcome, nevertheless they played a significant part.At a March 2002 International Steering Committee meeting held in Canberra, in preparation for Adelaide 2004, the question of interpretation and translation was subject to considerable debate.
It was acknowledged that the costs incurred in meeting the tri-lingual requirement for both organisations were very high. It was also acknowledged that many other international organisations no longer operate in a tri-lingual manner at conferences, relying on English as the floor language. Equally it was acknowledged that our organisations have a long and deep commitment to principles of social justice in particular, access and equity and one of the key ways in which we discharge this is through a tri-lingual approach.
This having been said, the current situation raises many questions. Some, but not all, are presented here for our joint discussion and consideration.
1. It could be argued that we should not attempt to operate in a tri-lingual manner unless we can meet appropriate standards of interpretation and translation at all events and in all relevant written communication. The reality, however, is that our finances would not allow either organisation to reach such a standard in the foreseeable future.
2. If we remain committed to a tri-lingual process, to what level should be extend the service of translation and interpretation? Should it be for all documents? If not, which documents and why? Should we provide tri-lingual interpretation at all meetings whether or not there is an actual need for either French or Spanish? To what degree are we discriminating against other major language groups across the world, particularly those who are numerically greater than our identified languages? What other options could be explored that would still enable tri-lingual access at an affordable price without sacrificing quality to an unacceptable degree?
3. If a range of affordable options should become available, what responsibility do we have to investigate the possibility of expanding such access to other language groups? And finally should we review the policy on the current three language groups looking to see whether they remain the most appropriate international languages?
SOME OPTIONS
Amongst many matters discussed at the Adelaide 2004 organising meeting, was the possibility that both organisations establish a policy on translation and interpretation. In particular, this policy should look at the level to which translation and interpretation would/should be applied in the conference context. This policy could also be utilised as the guideline in other realms. Whether or not the use of volunteers would be acceptable, at what level and under what circumstances? This suggestion was thought to be particularly relevant for those who wished to attend concurrent sessions which are being held in English. Whisper interpretation by students might be considered acceptable. To what degree should we look or seek the support of our member organisations in donating their time and expertise in the translation of key documentation?CONCLUSION
This paper does not set out to provide a solution to the problem, but rather to articulate a range of issues and put forward some options for discussion. Because this is such a sensitive issue it is unlikely that this matter can be resolved at the organisations’ respective General Meetings in 2002. Following discussion of this paper it is recommended that the results be referred to the Joint Planning and Action Committere of the two organisations and that a report, with final recommendations be prepared for Meetings to be held in Adelaide 2004.Imelda Dodds
President IFSW
page last updated on 10.10.2005