Providing interpreters and translators with warrants would introduce a proper system, bringing the profession in line with EU member states.
Postgraduate students and Faculty members of the Department of Translation, Terminology & Interpreting Studies at the University of Malta expressed their concern regarding the widely reported lack of a professional interpreter during the Paqpaqli case hearing of 28 October 2016.
This, they said, struck a sensitive chord in the light of twelve years of qualified translators and interpreters trained to high levels at the University, many of whom now work in EU institutions. More.
See: MaltaToday
Subscribe to the translation news daily digest here. See more translation news.
Comments about this article
Estados Unidos
Local time: 00:59
ruso al inglés
+ ...
You don't need 12 years of training by someone. In fact, translators may be better off training themselves, just under some, limited, supervision. Half a year may do if someone speaks both of the languages almost to the same level. "Native' if you like that word, or some top educated level, otherwise.
[Edited at 2016-11-25 10:16 GMT]
Local time: 00:59
ruso al inglés
+ ...
for the arrest and prosecution of all these individuals trying to bring the government into yet another area it doesn't belong in.
Alemania
Local time: 06:59
alemán al inglés
I like the profession just the way it is. If folks can't find a translator or interpreter who can produce an acceptable result at a decent price, then that's their problem. Fobbing off that responsibility on your dear elected representatives is the path of least resistance and has demonstrably led to disaster in myriad other contexts. Don*t even think about it.
[Edited at 2016-11-25 17:27 GMT]
Canadá
Local time: 00:59
Miembro 2008
francés al inglés
+ ...
How on earth are you going to regulate this profession? Interpreters perhaps, because they have to be physically present in a particular location. But the translation profession is borderless, and therefore jurisdiction-less.
Estados Unidos
Local time: 00:59
ruso al inglés
+ ...
most court interpreters are certified or approved, at least in New York State and the Consortium, except some rare language, but even those interpreters have to take an English language test, submit references, experience and have a background check done on them. That may be the reason that interpreters here still make $50-200/hr, rather than $8.25 or whatever it is, the minimum wage.
Brasil
Local time: 01:59
inglés al portugués
+ ...
most court interpreters are certified or approved, at least in New York State and the Consortium, except some rare language, but even those interpreters have to take an English language test, submit references, experience and have a background check done on them.
In Brazil, sworn translation & interpreting for official purposes is regulated by a law that was passed in 1943, and that has not been amended ever since, hence it precedes electronic copiers, fax, computers, scanners, printers, the Internet, and countless other contemporary resources. Though we can use computers and printers to replace the typewriter or fountain pen, and PayPal instead of a bag of cash personally brought, anachronisms abound: everything is on paper. The entire system is explained in English here.
The law establishes statewide supervision within Brazil, hence mandatory rates vary to one state to another, though such translations into PT are valid nationwide. Mail no longer travels on horseback, so it's normal to have source docs and translation crossing state borders, if they are long enough to justify (often slightly) lower rates.
Exams for such translators/interpreters usually occur in a specific state 20-30 years apart. Now (2016) there is a proposed bill to make them federal. The result is that we have less than 3,500 such translators covering almost 25 foreign languages in a country having 0ver 200 million inhabitants. Almost half of these sworn translators/interpreters are in the Sao Paulo state, which represents one-third of the Brazilian GNP. A couple states have just one such T/I, several have none, and nobody is allowed to operate as such outside the national territory.
Most countries not having a specific national law on this accept Brazilian sworn translations into their national language, as they imply some kind of governmental endorsement by the document's issuing nation.
IMHO the major reason for such a lackadaisical administration of this matter is that a sworn translation in Brazil causes no additional taxes to be levied than a plain translation.
Spain's equivalent legislation apparently dates back from the 1500s, and the entire process seems to have been updated from time to time to the present days. I wouldn't be a reliable authority to give details on their system.
However... all this applies only to documents intended to serve some OFFICIAL purpose, and hence does not represent an overwhelming portion of the translation market. While I'd be favorable to some system having a similar scope to the Hague Convention on the Apostille (05 Oct. 1961), i.e. to make government-examined and licensed translators' sworn work being accepted by signatory countries for official purposes, it would be useless to regulate the profession for anything else.
Malasia
Local time: 12:59
Miembro 2008
español al inglés
+ ...
Without an entity that accredits, sanctions and suspends unethical translators, a lot of people enter the market just keen on making money but without the necessary skills to deliver. The result is a low perception of our industry among consumers. I strongly support government regulatory bodies to streamline the accreditation process fo... See more
Without an entity that accredits, sanctions and suspends unethical translators, a lot of people enter the market just keen on making money but without the necessary skills to deliver. The result is a low perception of our industry among consumers. I strongly support government regulatory bodies to streamline the accreditation process for translators & interpreters. Is so hard to separate the good from the bad and the ugly... ▲ Collapse
Países Bajos
Local time: 06:59
Miembro 2006
inglés al afrikaans
+ ...
* Introduce a warrant in order to certify and regulate the profession.
* A warrant for translators and interpreters does not yet exist in Malta.
* A warrant* Providing interpreters and translators with warrants would introduce a proper system...
* Introduce a warrant in order to certify and regulate the profession.
* A warrant for translators and interpreters does not yet exist in Malta.
* A warrant would bring the profession in line with other EU countries.
* The lack of a warrant allowed unqualified individuals to produce low-level translations of ... official documents.
* The EU regulation ... states that a certified translation carried out by a qualified professional who is recognized by a warrant in one Member State must be accepted in all Member States.
* Qualified Maltese translators ... are currently not in possession of a warrant.
* Official, certified, accredited, sworn translations by foreign translators are accepted in Malta by law, but those carried out by Maltese translators, since not backed by a warrant, can be refused in other Member States.
* The regulating of the professions of Translators and Interpreters by means of a warrant or similar accreditation is the way to establish these new professions locally...
Apparently, "...the EU regulation [2016/1191] of 6 July 2016 states that a certified translation carried out by a qualified professional who is recognized by a warrant in one Member State must be accepted in all Member States." Except that the regulation in question doesn't mention the word "warrant".
Googling for "translator + warrant" got me only this press release, so I suspect that other EU countries don't call this thing a "warrant". Perhaps Maltese colleagues can explain to us what the Maltese press means by "warrant" here.
[Edited at 2016-12-14 09:38 GMT] ▲ Collapse
Estados Unidos
Local time: 21:59
español al inglés
+ ...
for the arrest and prosecution of all these individuals trying to bring the government into yet another area it doesn't belong in.
LOL! Well said. If only one could "like" or "thumbs up" your comment.
Estados Unidos
Local time: 21:59
español al inglés
+ ...
"I strongly support government regulatory bodies to streamline the accreditation process for translators & interpreters."
Why should streamlining and accreditation be in the hands of government? What exactly qualifies them? Who streamlines the government?
Speak for yourself. So because you are not discerning, you're going to rely on the government to do it for you? Are government bureaucrats smarter than you?
[Edited at 2016-12-29 17:33 GMT]
[Edited at 2016-12-29 17:34 GMT]
Estados Unidos
Local time: 21:59
español al inglés
+ ...
Fobbing off that responsibility on your dear elected representatives is the path of least resistance and has demonstrably led to disaster in myriad other contexts. Don*t even think about it.
[Edited at 2016-11-25 17:27 GMT]
Well said Richard. I cringe every time I hear translators and interpreters wanting government bureaucrats to "regulate" our profession. Some people never learn. They see the mess bureaucrats makes of just about anything they touch but expect that by some magical power they will "fix" whatever problems they imagine exist in our profession.
Estados Unidos
Local time: 00:59
Miembro 2005
inglés al chino
+ ...
I think the title of the article should be "Interpreters AND translators callING for warrants to regulate profession".
Don't you, our peers native in English, think so?
I'm curious about whether the structure of the sentence is correct or not. (Whether "warrant" is the right word to use here is irrelevant to my question.)
Francia
Local time: 06:59
inglés al francés
+ ...
Apart from Malta I believe that there is no need for a warrant. People judge by results and quality, as is the case in many professions or with many service providers. ▲ Collapse
Francia
Local time: 06:59
inglés al francés
+ ...
Jordania
árabe al inglés
+ ...
I think the title of the article should be "Interpreters AND translators callING for warrants to regulate profession".
Don't you, our peers native in English, think so?
I'm curious about whether the structure of the sentence is correct or not. (Whether "warrant" is the right word to use here is irrelevant to my question.)
Headlines use a different (abbreviated) style of English.
You will find this style in all English-language newspapers.
In the Washington Post, for example:
Democrats call for special counsel to probe Trump team’s focus on climate scientists
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/16/senate-democrats-call-for-special-counsel-investigation-into-trump-climate-inquiry/?utm_term=.e6a8de2cafb5
You should not say "Democrats are calling."
There is a lot of information about this online if you are interested, but this link provides some basic points about headline tenses and other relevant issues:
http://www.englishlessonsbrighton.co.uk/8-grammar-rules-writing-newspaper-headlines/
To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:
You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »
This discussion can also be accessed via the ProZ.com forum pages.