National Medical Interpreter Certification was a hot topic at the 2009 ATA Conference. BY LINDA JOYCE
The National Board of Certification for Medical Interpreters was very pleased to participate in the ATA 50th Annual Conference, held in New York City on October 28-31, 2009 and to introduce conference attendees to the nation’s first National Medical Interpreter Certification. → continue reading
May GM speaker, San Francisco Board of Supervisors President David Chiu, stressed the importance of making city government business and services accessible to all residents. BY MICHAEL SCHUBERT
On a gorgeous spring day in San Francisco, a few dozen dedicated local translators and interpreters eschewed the outdoor pleasures to come together for NCTA’s May general meeting. Former membership director Paula Dieli and new membership director J. Mónica Pérez welcomed new members. Events director Raffaella Buschiazzo announced our upcoming activities, continuing education director Norma Kaminsky outlined our spring and summer workshop calendar, and president Tuomas Kostiainen talked about ATA-related news and other local events of interest. → continue reading
California Senate Bill 853, passed in 2003, mandates language assistance for health plan enrollees. How does this impact the translators and interpreters in California? BY GEORGE RIMAFLOWER
California Senate Bill (SB) 853, passed in 2003, mandates that health plans provide Limited English-Proficient (LEP) enrollees with language assistance services at hospitals, clinics and other healthcare locations that accept plan insurance.
About 100 insurers, including UHC, Health Net, Cigna, Aetna, Kaiser and Blue Shield, offer healthcare coverage in California. In many cases, it is difficult for English speakers to understand medical and legal jargon but it is even more difficult for those with a limited understanding of English. SB 853 was designed to help alleviate language and cultural barriers when LEP enrollees need medical care.
At the NCTA February meeting, Iraqi interpreter Haitham Jasim was interviewed by Steven Goldstein and shared some of his experiences working for U.S. Forces in Iraq. BY SARAH LLEWLLYN
Haitham Jasim answers Steven Goldstein's questions.
The NAJIT conference in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania was a huge professional and social success. BY CURTIS DRAVES
The NAJIT (National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators) conference was held this year on the weekend of May 16-18 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and since I grew up in that area, I decided it was the perfect time to attend my first NAJIT annual gathering. I’ve been interpreting in state court for only a couple of years, and am continually amazed at how the more I learn, the limits of knowledge in this field just seem to keep receding into the distance. So I booked my flights, arranged to see my family still in the area, and soon found myself at the William Penn Hotel in the “Burgh”. → continue reading
The first NCTA meeting of 2008 took place on February 9 and featured—in addition to our election results and news of ongoing projects—longtime NCTA member Hany Farag’s presentation on new developments in machine translation.
BY SARAH LLEWELLYN
NCTA Secretary Stafford Hemmer, standing in for the absent Vice President Yves Avérous, began the meeting with a series of announcements, including details of upcoming NCTA workshops, a call for volunteers to present future NCTA workshops and also to contribute to Translorial, and a reminder about the monthly happy hours that take place the last Monday of every month in San Francisco and Oakland. → continue reading
By Christopher Paul Queen
Last April 23rd, in a one-evening back-to-back outreach effort, Jacki Noh offered her insights and advice on translation and interpretation to students at both San Jose State University (SJSU) and The National Hispanic University (NHU). Certificate, upper-division, and graduate students in attendance at both locations learned about the pitfalls of complacency and the need to constantly update their skills while actively pursuing networking contacts in order to become truly in-demand translators and interpreters. Many already had translation or interpretation experience on some level, while others were looking to find a way to break into the field.
The first session of the presentation packed the SJSU Clark Hall classroom with students eager to learn about translation and interpretation, and how they can use their foreign language skills to supplement their income while in school or as a career after graduation. The audience at the second session, at NHU, comprised members of the 2007 Translation Studies Certificate Program class.
Volunteering her experience in the form of personal anecdote, Jacki pointed out the need to be affiliated with as many translation organizations as possible, specifically ATA and NCTA. “I would attend all events I could go to in any combination of languages that included English, just to learn the principles of translation,” she stated. As Korean is Jacki’s source language—considered a “Least Commonly Taught Language“ that has few associated exams with which to demonstrate competency, no academic training program to learn the craft in the U.S., and scant translation and interpretation events in the Korean- English combination—Jacki inferred that translation skills aren’t always learned in a classroom. A lesson that translates to life, as well.
By Stafford Hemmer
In the May issue of Translorial, we learned of the history and mission of the Civilian Language Reserve Corp., the U.S. government’s 2004 initiative to widen the scope of qualified volunteer language professionals in the wake of the September 11th attacks. In this concluding segment, we hear from representatives of the program and the president of ATA about this unusual effort to invigorate American foreign language abilities.
On May 8, 2007, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) for the Department of Defense issued an official News Release: “DoD Announces Pilot Language Corps.” Initially proposed to Congress shortly after the devastation of September 11, 2001, the U.S. Department of Defense was one of several agencies working jointly to originate “a vital new approach to address the nation’s needs for professionals with language skills … an integral component of the Department of Defense’s language roadmap, and the President’s National Security Language Initiative.”
According to Gail McGinn, Deputy Undersecretary for Defense for Plans, “the department is confident that a successful Language Corps will not only address gaps in federal preparedness, but also serve to reinforce the importance of language skills in the American population and the U.S. education system.” Yet true to the Leviathan nature of the U.S. bureaucracy, organizing, funding, approving, revising, debating, and moving forward with the Corps has turned into a multi-year process. Even the name of the group—originally the “Civilian Linguists Reserve Corps”— has been changed several times and is now the “National Language Service Corps.,” according to Robert Slater, Director of the National Security Education Program.
Further, while the original charter stated that “the pilot Corps will include no fewer than 1,000 members drawn from all sectors of the U.S. population,” to date no volunteers have been recruited; enrollment is not likely to start until 2008.
According to DoD information, the newly christened NLSC, which “will be an entirely civilian organization managed by the DoD for the federal sector, composed of members who will voluntarily join and renew their membership,” begins with a pilot effort involving approximately 10 languages (see Part I). Although not able to indicate which languages have been identified for the pilot project, Mr. Slater confirmed that “the final list of languages is still in development, and will be announced in the fall.”
Organization and structure
The NLSC is basically divided into two groups of participants: the “national pool” and the “dedicated pool.” All volunteers will have their skills certified by the NLSC, and it is likely that renewal procedures will involve coursework or projects that hone or elevate current skill sets. But while the national pool of volunteers is intended for deployment in the event of “war, national emergency, or other national needs,” the dedicated pool will consist of a smaller number of participants, who will serve specific federal agencies on a contractual basis, and “agree to perform specific responsibilities and duties.”
According to Mr. Slater, “the major difference between the two pools is the nature of the contractual relationship involving the individual member. In the case of the national pool, members are not obligated to serve. They will be activated only depending upon their availability. In the case of dedicated members, they will actually enter into contractual relationships with specific federal agencies. They will be expected to be available up to the days specified in their contract.” Volunteers in both pools will be expected to travel, both within the U.S. and abroad.
When asked if volunteers in either pool will be involved in the interrogation of enemy combatants, or other individuals detained by what the U.S. government deems to be terrorist-related activities, Mr. Slater replied “we are not nearly at a point where this question can be answered.”
The ATA viewpoint
Back in July 2006, ATA President Marian Greenfield announced to the organization’s membership that the government would soon be enrolling volunteers in the CLRC. Since that message, Ms. Greenfield reports that “there was no measurable response from membership, other than members who were grateful to know about such translation/interpreting volunteer opportunities, particularly those that could potentially lead could lead to paying jobs.” Compensation for the “volunteer” work, in fact, is still intended under the NLSC. “Compensation plans are still under development, explained Mr. Slater. “The assumption at this point is that national pool members will be compensated only if they are activated. However, all members will derive other benefits from membership in the Corps.”
Ms. Greenfield remains optimistic about the prospects for the NLSC and interested linguists, although there is no official ATA position on the project. As Ms. Greenfield explains, “If the [NLSC] works as planned, it will be of tremendous value to those who need help during times of local and/or national emergencies. It has the potential to possibly create jobs for ATA members. And, once again, the important role that professional translators and interpreters play in bridging the languages, customs, and cultures of different communities will be highlighted.”
By Stafford Hemmer
In an attempt to widen the scope of qualified volunteer language professionals in the wake of the September 11th attacks, the U.S. government in 2004 instituted the Civilian Language Reserve Corps. In this first of a two-part series, we examine the CLRC’s history and mission. In the concluding segment, in the September Translorial, we’ll hear from many parties involved in this unusual effort to invigorate America’s foreign language abilities.
In July 2006, NCTA members who also belong ATA received an email appeal from ATA President Marian Greenfield. As a follow-up the ATA’s successful response to the Red Cross request for volunteers, Ms. Greenfield extended an invitation to interested translators and interpreters to consider joining the national Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps. “CLRC volunteers may be called upon during a national crisis of one sort or another, such as supporting preparations for evacuations before and after natural disasters,” she explained. According to the CLRC’s own mission statement, the Corps aims “to provide and maintain a readily available civilian corps of certified expertise in languages determined to be important to the security of the nation.”
History
The Corps is operated today under the auspices of the National Security Language Initiative, launched by the Bush Administration in 2004 as an endeavor to “dramatically increase the number of Americans learning critical-need foreign languages.” In this context, “critical need” refers to nine specific languages, including Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Hindu, Korean, Urdu, and Farsi. The NSLI is a department of the U.S. Departments of State, Defense, and Education, as well as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The initiative is comprised of: 1) programs to encourage the learning and teaching of foreign languages; 2) scholarships, exchanges, and projects to promote international learning and exposure; 3) the creation of “feeder programs” to educational institutions, from kindergarten through university level; and finally 4) “strategic partnerships” between the national government and U.S. universities to promote instruction in “critical languages.” The CLRC itself falls under this latter prong of NSLI agenda. In fiscal year 2007, the Bush administration requested $114 million from Congress to fund this program.
The National Guard model
On the face of it, and as reflected by Ms. Greenfield’s email, this battalion of linguists should operate like the National Guard, except that it will take command of language-related issues instead of public disorder during national crisis situations. Its genesis actually precedes the NSLI itself, in a proposal to Congress in 2001 by the National Security Education Program of the Department of Defense’s National Defense University. Following the government-funded initial feasibility study, NSEP’s Dr. Robert Slater, in his testimony of April 1, 2004, asked the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to “consider how effective and beneficial it would have been for the nation if, on September 12, 2001, the Director of the FBI had been able to request an immediate call-up of a select number of Arabic specialists who were commissioned as part of a Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps.”
Dr. Slater’s words had their effect on Capitol Hill. When the feasibility study, operational plan, and implementation plan were completed, the time had come in mid-2006 to launch the CLRC’s pilot program. Over the next three years, the Corps’ goal is to assemble a list of no fewer than 1,000 linguists by the year 2010 in the nine critical-need languages. Enrolled language professionals would be matched to the requirements stipulated by the more than 80 federal government departments, bureaus, and agencies that need their service. Reservists have to be certified not only in terms of language acumen, but also in terms of their national loyalty, in order to garner the necessary U.S. Government security clearance. With that imprimatur, members of the Corps would be available to take on sensitive defense-related work. Skills will have to be maintained and certified on a consistent basis. In exchange for the demanding level of paperwork, background clearance, and ongoing skills maintenance, the candidates in the program would be treated as federal civilian employees, receiving pay, benefits, and other incentives when finally called into service.
Mobilizing the Corps
According to a press release during the feasibility stage, the Corps was touted as an opportunity for U.S. civilians to help out during national emergencies—hurricanes Katrina and Rita being recent examples of such situations. To be clear, the CLRC would not be a military reserve; its members would have the right to refuse deployment, but should they do so, they would be required to reimburse the government for their training and education. Despite the non-military nature of the Corps’ charter, however, there appears some evidence that the Department of Defense’s intentions for this program may include grooming these language specialists to work on more delicate security matters—such as, for example, interrogations of so-called “enemy combatants” in the war on terror. Whether this falls within the purview of a “volunteer” corps is a matter for further investigation. 3
By Jonathan Goldberg
Given the choice of offering a literal, by-the-book interpretation that you are certain the recipient won’t understand and offering a less-than-exact equivalent of the original that you are confident he will understand, what would you do? It’s tempting to speculate that most of us would opt for the latter. But are there consequences to doing this? Especially when the setting is a legal one? Jonathan Goldberg dives in.
The verb “to interpret” has two common meanings, which in a sense are somewhat contradictory. The first relates to the act of interpreting written documents or oral statements, in the sense of giving one’s “take” on them. The use of the word in this sense suggests circumstances in which a fair degree of subjectivity is permitted.
The second sense, with which NCTA members are likely to make an association, relates to the art of oral translation, whose practitioners are expected to eschew subjectivity and to render the target language with an almost scientific precision.
Translations are often chiseled out of rough source language and fashioned in their final form with the aid of dictionaries, by consulting colleagues and, as a last resort, by asking the client for a clarification of the intended meaning. Interpretion assignments, such as the cross-examination of witnesses, allow no such luxury. Rather, the thrust and parry of these verbal brawls sometimes makes one yearn for the days when one knew only a single language and life seemed simpler on that account.
While driving back from one such assignment, a Hebrew-language deposition, I was mulling over one or two of the trickier terms that the deposing attorney had been pitching across the table at his victim. The deponent for whom I had been interpreting was a flower seller. The deposing lawyer, confident that he was about to establish a case of forgery, dramatically flourished the document he held and asked the deponent: “So does this purport to be your signature?” As the word “purport” comes up fairly often in legal settings (and being myself a retired lawyer), I knew the Hebrew equivalent. But I anticipated a familiar trap.
While I had no doubt that the flower vendor could, if called upon to do so, expound at length on the subtle differences between various types of chrysanthemums, I was equally confident that he had never heard the Hebrew equivalent of “purport.” If, therefore, I rendered a translation of that word so precise as to qualify me for a top grade in any Hebrew-language test, I knew that the deponent was highly likely to reply “I didn’t understand the question.”
This kind of situation is pregnant with danger for the interpreter. At best, furtive glances are likely to be thrown in the interpreter’s direction, with all present assuming that the correct rendition of the lawyer’s question had proven beyond the interpreter’s language skills. At worst, the deponent’s counsel, looking up from his newspaper, is likely to see in the deponent’s state of bamboozlement a golden opportunity to come to his client’s defense (which he may well not have done in any juridical sense), by stating for the record “We seem to be having a problem with the interpreter,” or some such gratuitous comment.
Determined not to become a victim of the blame game, I decided, on the spur of that fateful moment, to break all the rules of professional interpreting, and to take a little professional license, by lowering the register of the question. I therefore rendered, in Hebrew, the equivalent of “So are you claiming that this is your signature?” I held my breath as I waited to see whether my self-protective, unprofessional sleight-of-tongue would have the desired effect. Would it, I wondered, elicit an answer that would demonstrate that the deponent had understood the question and if he had not, would it be he or I who would take the rap? His reply, in Hebrew, was: “Not only do I claim that this is my signature, but it is in fact my signature.” I took one more small step, if not for humanity, then at least for the interpreting profession, and rendered the answer back into English as “Not only does it purport to be my signature, but it is in fact my signature.”
My gamble had paid off. The pair of distortions had cancelled each other out. I had demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that the deponent’s powers of comprehension extended far beyond the realm of chrysanthemums. I had allowed the deponent’s counsel to continue reading his newspaper without the need to sort out any bothersome misunderstandings. I had in fact performed a valuable service to all parties.
I am hoping that the parties who paid me to interpret for the flower vendor are not regular readers of Translorial, because they may not fully appreciate the interpreting resourcefulness that I displayed while on contract to them. But if this frank discovery of mine (in the legal sense of that word) should elicit a complaint, or a demand to stick to the straight and narrow
path of interpreting when carrying out future assignments, I intend to plead argumentum ab inconvenienti.