Thread by @translationtalk

One of the biggest internal conflicts I have faced when training came about bc of a close collaboration with an employer. The name does not matter.
Point is, we were asked to train "their" dialogue interpreters - i.e. people who worked for them on a regular basis.

During the training, it became apparent that some of these interpreters had such an insufficient command of the language of training that they could not understand basic instructions.
This was their main working language as interpreters.

What do you do in that situation?

"Notifying" the employer - who clearly must have been aware of this to some extent already?

Potentially contributing to these interpreters losing their job?

Say nothing and legitimize a practice that cannot ensure access for beneficiaries?

The challenge was difficult:
1) The employer was paying for the training - so were we in a good position to criticize their internal practices?
2) The training was so short that it was at best a drop in the ocean so the whole exercise could be seen as us legitimizing these #TERPS

My advice, if anyone asks you to train their interpreters - first find out more about their internal selection process.
Ask yourself whether there is a good faith attempt to improve communication or if they just provide interpreting out of legal obligation.

We often tend to - naively! - assume that bad interpreting practices exist bc of lack of training. In my experience they often exist bc it is in someone's interest to provide practices that seem to give access but don't.

Why is this the case?

In some very rare cases, it is indeed difficult to find a good interpreter for a specific language combination, e.g. in cases where speakers of that language have been systematically marginalized and excluded from formal or higher education.

But in many cases, there are important power asymmetries and larger systemic constraints involved. Naively assuming training will solve these is a recipe for disaster.

Another issue is that interpreters / interpreter trainers often see it as their role to defend the interests of interpreters. But bad quality interpretation can prevent some of the most vulnerable people in a country from accessing vital services.

We need to defend the interests of interpreters only insofar as doing this helps us defend the rights and interests of the people who depend on these interpreters.
A merely self-serving and self-protecting professional ethics is not, in fact, ethical.

Interpreters are accountable to their beneficiaries and so are interpreter training institutions / trainers.

This is why I have reservations about initiatives like #ProtectLinguists.

In some cases we need to protect people FROM linguists. And in war zones, interpreters are not by any measure the most vulnerable people - civilians who do not speak the language of the occupying forces are far more vulnerable.

So while solidarity with interpreters in conflict zones is laudable, we must be cautious: is this solidarity empowering actors who might use their position in ways that are unethical or take advantage of the vulnerability of unarmed civilians who can't speak the army's language?

So the same that has been said about relationships between trainers and employers is true abt relationships between training institutions and professional associations.

Professional associations exist to the defend the interests of members of a profession. That is very necessary and relevant for interpreters.

But training institutions need to uphold / teach ethical principles that go beyond defending the interests of the profession.

Especially when our profession is only relevant and can only exist in relation to the people we serve...

Interpreting is mostly a service and not a performance art (although, granted, there are exceptions...)

This reasoning is, however, NOT something that should be used by the countries sending these armies as a justification to not grant asylum to interpreters. Let that be very clear. And this is a very important issue that @TheRedT & others are working on and advocating for.

Advocacy for asylum for interpreters is, however, different from a protected status for war-time linguists under international law - the latter is the part I am skeptical about bc I can see how this could be instrumentalized.