TJ Blog
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Translator Licensing
It has been proposed that translators be subject to licensing, like lawyers, physicians, and accountants are, to be allowed to exercise their profession or at least to sign certain types of documents. Those who argue for licensing expect translators' incomes to rise substantially if we are subject to licensing restrictions, which would be equivalent to significantly reducing the supply side of the supply/demand balance. Those against question the practical implementation of licensing, like "Who will do the licensing?". We don't want government bureaucrats to decide whether or not we are allowed to exercise our profession. Universities are not equipped for this since, unlike medicine, law, and accounting, translation does not depend on a well-defined body of knowledge which is relatively easy to test for. Neither do we want to outsource this function to translation companies, who may have their own agendas and will be suspect as objective testers.
The American Translators Association (ATA) offers certification in 27 language combinations, but only about 1/4 of its individual members are certified.
The debate on licensing is nothing new. It was discussed within the ATA decades ago, and the current state of affairs in the U.S. reflects the outcome of that debate.
It may be time to resume the debate on this issue in this era of globalization. What do you think? Should translators be subject to licensing? Who is to administer the test and grant the licenses? According to what objective criteria? What activities would be subject to licensing? What may and what may not an unlicensed translator do?
If you don't live in the U.S., tell us if translation is subject to licensing in your country, and what is your experience with the current state of affairs there.
Gabe Bokor
The American Translators Association (ATA) offers certification in 27 language combinations, but only about 1/4 of its individual members are certified.
The debate on licensing is nothing new. It was discussed within the ATA decades ago, and the current state of affairs in the U.S. reflects the outcome of that debate.
It may be time to resume the debate on this issue in this era of globalization. What do you think? Should translators be subject to licensing? Who is to administer the test and grant the licenses? According to what objective criteria? What activities would be subject to licensing? What may and what may not an unlicensed translator do?
If you don't live in the U.S., tell us if translation is subject to licensing in your country, and what is your experience with the current state of affairs there.
Gabe Bokor
posted by Gabe Bokor at 11:06 AM
Table of Contents
Entering the Translation Market
Translation Industry Survey
Communication is Power
Translators and the Recession
Quality
Contracts
Edit or Not to Edit
Specialist or Generalist
Certification
Machine Translation
The Goalie
Liability Insurance for Translators
Translator Licensing
Brave New World of Translation
Globalization
Professor Camayd-Freixas and the Postville, Iowa Raid
Who Pays for Technology?
Test Translations
Globalization
Good Translations from Poor Originals?
Simple comme bonjour
How to Predict Translator Performance
Holidays and Missed Calls
Late Payments and Non-Payments
On-Line Job Mediation Services: Are They Worth It?
The Role of Translation "Agencies"
Native Language
The Internet and the Translation Profession
4 Comments:
Interesting that this is seems to be supported by the N.Americans, which would DEFINATELY cause them problems but would be very good for me as somone who runs a translation company in London, it would increase the amount of American clients who would have to use my interpeters in meetings (picking them up in London along the way).
The UK system works well, you need a DPSI, "Diploma in Public Service Interpreting", to do any sort of legal work in or out of court, and the rest is up to the company to use regular people they know, thus ensuring quality but at the risk of the company.
If it ended up that the US tried to force this then I would definately be writing to the UK and EU governments to try and get the same enoforces that they could not practice overCh here.
Hi Gabe - there are some conceptual differences between certification and licensure. I have outlined these in greater detail in a forthcoming article in the ATA Chronicle, albeit with relation to interpreting. For example, one conceptual difference is that licensure usually grants an individual *permission* to participate in a given activity that would otherwise be prohibited, whereas certification tends to be voluntary, because the activity is not prohibited and others may practice it, thereby allowing the consumer to decide whether or not to choose a certified individual or not. In general, the greater the risk involved with practicing a profession, the more important licensure becomes. There are many exceptions and caveats, but this is one basic conceptual difference. If you would like a copy of the article (it will be coming out next month), feel free to email me.
Nataly Kelly
natalyekelly@yahoo.com
http://fromourlips.blogspot.com
In Russia translation services are not subject to licensing, and this is really bad :-( The only thing coming close to licensing in this country is registration with a notary public; but the notary usually demands a certificate of higher education from you to register (which you may not have and be a good translator all the same). And you don't get a certificate or something of the kind...
1. I believe licensing is a must in the industry. I also think there should be an all-country licensing board, which would have the main "commitee" consisting of recognised-by-the-majority translators and interpreters (of different background - both linguistic and specialist, e.g. engineering) who would test and appoint the regional commitees that would in their turn test and license TSPs.
2. In the process of licensing TSPs formal criteria such as proven education record or Y years of practice must be reduced to minimum, with emphasis put on demonstrating excellent translating/interpreting skills in a series of tests.
3. Translator must be licensed to do a job where mistranslation may cause serious damage to health (e.g . medical translations), unjustified decisions (court interpreting), unintentional breach of contract and legal actions (contracts), etc.
In other areas (e.g. translation of ad brochures, slogans, most manuals and many more) licensing must be voluntary.
No one needs a permit or license to translate in any country of the world; it's only if you are doing it for a living or if you are certifying translations per se that the issue even applies. Particularly in literature, this seems absurd.
The idea of licensing appeals to people because they like the idea of professionalism and bragging rights, etc. However, licensing in reality isn't economically feasible, nor is it practical.
A license is an authorization by a government to practice a profession; no state in the U.S. has the money, resources, or time to set up a comprehensive licensing program--except for court interpreters and translators, which comes up enough in the U.S. that that makes economic sense and is meaningful in terms of ensuring Spanish speakers rights within the court system.
However, it's unrealistic to license all translators in the United States. There are hundreds if not thousands of language combinations that often come up in the U.S. (Chinese to Tagalog, etc.). The ATA doesn't certify even some major languages.
The CE requirements that the ATA imposes also sound like a good idea, but in reality it's a bunch of busy work that any established translator will tell you, privately if not publicly, costs money and time and brings little actual benefit. The ATA also purposefully excludes forms of CE that would be more meaningful.
Licensing and certifications, incidentally, are no guarantee that a given translation will be high quality, just as lawyers and doctors have different levels of experience and expertise--and sometimes make mistakes and have failures.
Licensing would also encourage "black-market" or "casual" translating services. Americans in particular have a cultural attitude that there are people qualified to do certain jobs who may not have the "right" education or background, so the mere existence of licensing wouldn't prevent people from seeking unlicensed help with translations.
In the end, there are a couple of measures that make more sense than certification and licensing do:
1. Does the translator support him- or herself financially from work as a translator? If they get repeat clients, then that is as strong a gauge of their skill as anything.
2. The free market. Good translators get work; bad translators do not. Good translators can charge more, bad ones can charge less--and people who buy translations can adjust their expectations and budgets accordingly.
Post a Comment
<< Home