Profit before passion - what the ALS / MOJ fiasco teaches us!

Very often freelance translators and interpreters are accused of being a little bit naïve when it comes to business – after all our passion is all about language and so that’s what we want to concentrate on. Yet it’s easy to forget that we are also in business – taking care of the accounts, advertising, marketing and much more. But what happens when the business becomes more important than the passion? Well the ALS fiasco is what happens.

If you don’t know what that’s about (have you recently been abducted by aliens??) let me explain. Applied Language Solutions (ALS), was a successful translation agency run by Gavin Wheeldon. Gavin, who appeared on Dragon’s Den and has a penchant for expensive cars, sold his company to Capita for megabucks.  (There we have the first clue as to where his passion lies.) Anyway ALS won a contract from the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) to provide interpreting services to the police and court system in England.

ALS managed to do this by promising to cut costs while maintaining standards – something they could only hope to achieve by riding roughshod over the national framework arrangements for Public Service Interpreters and slashing rates of pay to such a low level that professional linguists would in some cases earn little more than the national minimum wage. Despite the fact that all the professional translation and interpreting bodies in the UK voiced their concern, and despite the fact that the majority of qualified interpreters refuse to work with ALS, the plan went ahead.

The result? Absolute chaos within the legal system – court cases have been adjourned, people have sat in jail cells waiting for an interpreter that never shows up and in some cases when the interpreter does manage to turn up – they either can’t actually speak English well enough to know what they are supposed to interpret or they have no knowledge of the process they are involved in!

Despite well documented evidence showing the MOJ agreement is a farce, ALS continue to claim that things are “getting better”; the Minister responsible, Crispin Blunt MP, does what a politician does best – stubbornly defend an unworkable policy while quoting incorrect figures about interpreters’ earnings; standards fall because professional interpreters will not work under such atrocious conditions and innocent people are being denied their basic legal right to a fair trial.

The lesson? ALS is a business, and Gavin Wheeldon has shown that his passion is not for language or linguistic excellence. He has made a bucket load of money by cashing in on the translation industry so that he can indulge his passion for fast cars and good luck to him if that’s what he’s worked for.  But why do it on the backs of the very individuals who have helped you become what you are?

Those of us who work as linguists have a true passion for what we do. We know that we need to be good in business, but our main motivation is that we love what we do. Call me naïve but I’d rather put passion before business any day!

Will language skills help you stand out in the job market?

That was the question posed by the Guardian newspaper in a Q & A Discussion that took place on Thursday 29 March. What resulted was a lively discussion that raised a lot of good points and highlighted some great career advice for language graduates. It's well worth a read, but here are a few points that came out:

The idea that the British are rubbish at languages is actually a bit of a myth. True, linguistic ability is not nearly as common as it should be in the population, but these discussions (and lots like them) demonstrate that there are some very capable linguists out there, and we're not just talking about holiday French, we're talking high levels of linguistic ability.

A language degree in itself is not enough for a career using languages. If you want a job where you are using your language skills as an integral part of the job you need other skills to complement your languages. That takes us to another point...

Universities that offer language degrees need to do more. Employers see language ability as an additional skill but still want graduates to be skilled in other areas. This is hugely frustrating for language grads. Maybe universities should offer more elective modules in topics such as marketing, business administration, engineering etc so that graduates can sell themselves more positively to potential employers.

And finally, one of my greatest pet hates - employers need to stop paying rubbish wages for language skills. If an employer truly values the language skills of their workforce they will pay a wage that reflects that. None of this nonsense about advertising for highly qualified staff for little more than the minimum wage. You do not just pick up a foreign language - it is learnt and it requires hard work over a long period of time.

Speak Proper English! - What a wonderful language is English!

There is no doubt that language and language usage is a highly emotive subject which gives rise to many forms of debate. This is especially true when discussing the effect of language policy on the education of our children and whether or not schools should teach Standard English.

Standard English has been defined as the “variety of English which is usually used in print, and which is normally taught in schools and to non-native speakers of the language. It is also the variety spoken by educated people and used in news broadcasts and other similar situations.” (Trudgill 2000:5) Standard English is only one of the many varieties of English found in Britain, and as the above quote suggests, it is the variety which has gained the prestige as being the “best” form of the language.

Although the concepts of “good” and “bad” English are questionable from a linguist’s point of view, for some sections of society they are seen as important markers of “good” and “bad” education and cannot be ignored. Many business leaders, employers and academics openly complain about the falling standards of written and spoken English, and the apparent inability of students, graduates and potential employees to use their own language “properly”. So while a linguist might accept that all forms of language are linguistically equal, that same linguist would not write an academic thesis in anything other than Standard English. Some sections of society are not interested in the linguistic value of such variety within the English language(s) but do want to see an adherence to Standard English.

Professor John Honey argues very passionately that Standard English should be taught by virtue of being the standard against which other varieties can be measured. He disagrees with what he calls the myth of “linguistic equality” (Honey 1997:6, 7) which would place Standard English on an equal footing with other varieties of English and states that students expect to be taught Standard English as the “correct” form of the language. (Honey 1997:199-201) If we accept that educational standards are to be maintained then there must be a means of measuring such standards and Honey’s arguments would seem logical.

Having acquired the status of being the acceptable form of the language within educational and higher social circles, schools should encourage the use of Standard English as a means of helping students achieve their future goals and aspirations by equipping them for greater academic and social mobility. To do any less would be to place an unnecessary obstacle in front of students that might endanger their chances in the future to compete either in the world of academia or employment. As Honey comments Standard English is not so much the possession of the privileged but rather the key to obtaining privilege. (Honey 1997:53) It could be argued that by focusing on the teaching of Standard English as the “best” form of English, we are in fact reinforcing negative stereotypes that promote those who use Standard English as being “educated” and of a better “class” within society. 

The linguist Peter Trudgill claims that 88 percent of students do not use Standard English and by encouraging them to do so we are causing some form of psychological and social distress because we are trying to influence their inherent identity as individuals within a social group. (Trudgill 2000:200,201) In sociolinguistic terms, it is clear that there is a link between social class and language variation; the further up the “social ladder” a person goes the more standard their language, and conversely the further down the “social ladder” the more non-standard their language becomes.(Holmes 2001:133)

If a person is born, educated, lives and works in a geographical area where one of the non-standard varieties of English are used, why (or indeed when) does he or she need to use standard English when the vast majority of his peers, social circle or workmates use the same non-standard variety as he or she does? That person can function normally without having learnt Standard English. Following Trudgill’s previously mentioned argument, that person would be happy with their form of language since it forms part of his or her social and psychological identity.

Thus rather than imposing a standard form of language on the vast majority of the population who have no need for it, would it not be more productive to encourage non-standard forms of English? This would lead to a greater variety of language use, a richer linguistic culture and may even lead to some very exciting literary developments which would add depth to our linguistic and cultural heritage.

However, in the case of schooling can we really apply the same argument? Should education elevate the individual to greater things or bring them down to the lowest common denominator? Firstly, students increasingly desire social and economic mobility rather than feeling bound by social class or geographical location. They require an education that prepares them for that and at the moment that means leaning Standard English. That is what business leaders and employers want. Secondly, the more students learn the standard form the less it becomes associated with a particular social class and the related social stigmas associated with standard and non-standard forms would also change. Thirdly, at the level of school education students need a solid academic base from which they can develop. Only by teaching them a standard form of English can we really equip them for future study, which in some cases could include non-standard forms of English.

In conclusion, whether or not Standard English should be taught in schools depends on whether we examine the issue from an educational or a linguistic viewpoint. Honey, from the viewpoint of an educationalist is correct to expect that Standard English be taught in schools since it allows students to acquire the basic skills required for future success. We cannot escape the widely held perception that Standard English is “correct English”. However, his attacks on ideas such as linguistic equality are harsh and unnecessary. Linguists like Peter Trudgill have, from a linguistic point of view, correctly highlighted many sociolinguistic features of language which have opened up valuable fields of investigation.

Every craftsman begins by learning how to use the tools of their trade before moving on to bigger and better things and language is no different. Schools should teach Standard English as a variety of English suitable for formal situations, academic and economic progress. In doing so students would be equipped to face the realities of the economic and social demands of modern life. They would also have a solid foundation from which they could further explore the linguistic diversities of non-standard varieties.

Bibliography

Honey, J. (1997) Language is Power, The Story of Language and its Enemies. First edition. London, Faber.

Trudgill, P. (2000) Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. Fourth edition. Harmondsworth, Penguin

Holmes, J. (2001) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Second edition. London, Longman.

Fortis and lenis

Some consonants are perceived as being produced with more force than others. A fortis consonant (p, t, k) is thought to be articulated more strongly than the lenis consonants (b, d, g). 

Minimal pairs

Minimal pairs are pairs of words used to contrast phonemes - they are words where a single phoneme differs and this allows a comparison to be made. This helps establish a set of phonemes for a language.

Shortage of Language Skills - Is it time for employers to pay up or shut up?

It seems that every week we either read a newspaper article or report bemoaning the poor language skills of graduates or the economic  folly of failing to teach languages in schools. Old news I’m afraid - stop telling me what I already know and start telling me what you plan to do about it! Don’t get me wrong - I’m all in favour of businesses employing language graduates but at the end of the day employers need to get real and put their money where their mouth is!

Employers - If you really do value the abilities of linguists, if you pay language graduate a decent wage that reflects their skills you will attract high calibre candidates. Let me give you an example, using a job advert I saw recently:

Senior Payroll Specialist
Assigned for a defined area of responsibility. (France/Italy/Spain/Portugal)
To ensure timely processing of the monthly Payroll to Payment for respective area of responsibility 

Education: Educated to standard grade equivalent
Languages: Good oral and written knowledge of English, Italian, French and Spanish.
Experience: 
Two (2) years related experience in a computerized accounting environment preferably within a payroll function or finance
Solid understanding of and experience with ADP Payroll System and or other Payroll Systems i.e. ADP, VISMA, Datev, SAP
Good attention to detail.
Excellent IT and communication skills.
A willingness to learn and develop.

Here we have a vacancy that expects a candidate who is “educated to standard grade equivalent”, roughly the equivalent of GCSE’s to have a “good oral and written knowledge” of THREE foreign languages! Are you having a laugh?

Firstly, unless you were brought up in a household where those languages are commonly used, no-one educated to GCSE level has that degree of competency.

Secondly, most undergraduate courses teach TWO languages to a high level of competency and perhaps a third language as a minor subject of study. So how many potential applicants will this job have?

But surely the wage must be fantastic? The salary range  is £17k - £20K, so a new start would more than likely start at the lower end of the pay scale - £17K. Shameless. How can this employer claim to offer a career to any of the job applicants? I used to earn £17k working in a call centre!

Part of the problem is that the employer needs to take a reality check. For example, payroll is not rocket science - believe me, if I can do it anyone can (and I have worked in payroll too!). After a month someone who has never done the job would be trained up. Compare that with a month of language instruction - how skilled would you be? It’s a point I’ve made before - it is far more effective to train a linguist to do a job (like payroll) than it is to take the job holder and train them to be a linguist!  So the emphasis needs to move from the job (payroll) to the skills required (the languages) and the wages need to reflect that.

Employers need to drop this fantasy idea that language skills are something that you just “pick up”. To achieve a “good oral and written knowledge” of a foreign language the candidate may well have spent five years at secondary school studying the language to A level or Higher Grade standard; four years at university honing their language skills and cultural knowledge of the societies where those languages are spoken; time spent abroad living in a country where those languages are spoken; and after graduation they will have spent hours maintaining their language skills.

The investment made by a language graduate is just as strong as the dedication of a medical or engineering graduate. Why does the wage not reflect that? When employers start paying decent salaries to language graduates, students will start to see languages as viable subjects to study. Employers: Stop moaning about the lack of language skills and start showing that you value them! Quite frankly: Pay up or shut up!

Functional translation and translation technology: A clash in paradigms?

Today I'm pleased to publish an English version of last months Guest Blog by Dr Elisa Calvo from the Pablo de Olavide University in Seville, Spain. Dr Calvo is an experienced translator, lecturer and researcher.

No-one would deny that new translation related technologies are here to stay. Translation memories, automatic translation, auxiliary software and the internet are ever present in the activity of the professional translator.

As a teacher of translation, I try to equip students with the necessary professional skills for a future career in translation. As such I try to teach "translation" in the wider sense, not just conveying words from one language to another but to use text editors, management tools, translation memories and to develop relevant translation related documentation using the internet.

For almost three decades now the academic world of translation has enthusiastically embraced functionalist translation theories (e.g., Reiss, Vermeer, Nord, Holz-Mänttäri) precisely because it was a theoretical discourse that linked translation studies with the real life activity of professional translation. Functionalism is separated from previous translation study theories for two essential reasons: 1) it contextualises translation as a communicative act; and 2) it highlights the role played by translation in the context of the target text, which may or may not be the same as in the context of the source text. Šarčević (1997) explains: “The era of modern translation began when the translator was released from his/her commitment to reproduce the source text, thus ending the predominance of thus ending the predominance of retrospective translation and sheer fidelity to the source text”. As a consequence, translation is now considered as a process carried out with a target: to keep the recipient in mind.

With the acceptance of this paradigm a new role for the translator opens up, not as a static intermediary obsessed with the source text but as an active communicator. The translator analyses the text, its context, its difficulties and professional constraints in a critical way so as to decide the best strategies to apply to the translation. The translator can work openly, developing creative strategies to resolve these problems and produce a target text that fulfils its desired purpose. It is a job that moves away from traditional methods of literal translation. At times the translator decides to adapt and expand the information, on other occasions they decide to omit information or reformulate a paragraph, create new sentences or join together existing ones.

The students in my third year translation lectures come well prepared. They can offer a critical analysis of the translation process so as to better convey the desired function of the text. If I give them a single text but set it in three different communicative frameworks (with the goal of producing three different target texts with different communicative purposes) they can apply different strategies so that each translation is different. However, there is something that doesn't quite fit. Once they have developed an ability for critical analysis we introduce them to the use of computer assisted translation tools, where as you know translation units are created according to punctuation signs. We return to a micro-textual view of the text based on individual sentences. By asking them to concentrate solely on segments in the original text they move away from a global and more functionalist view of the text. The student concentrates on overcoming the technical difficulties of the translation tool and leaves in second place the process of being a translator. A sense of obedience to the source text (literal translation) returns and the student looses the confidence they had achieved to make critical and creative decisions about the translation.

Is functionalist translation theory compatible with the technical realities of present day professional translation? From my perspective it's not only compatible but necessary. But it requires a specific training adaptation.

IT skills cannot be taught in isolation from the translation process: 1) both skills should be integrated in teaching so that the student does not separate the two processes. Translation should be done with computer assisted translation tools rather than just learning about how translation memories work. Theoretical decisions would be more realistic and the handling of the tools would be more expert if they replicated the challenges faced by the professional translator. 2) the student should learn the basics of project management. This will not only help them in their professional development but will teach them not to lose sight of the bigger picture and the overall communicative purpose of each translation project. 3) the student should learn to identify the functional variations of each element of a translation project, moving beyond the words found in the translation memory to understand what function each segment plays in the overall function of the text. Is the segment the title of a manual? Is it a software command? Is the text part of a software help file? The same segment might require several translations according to the context even when the translation memory tells us differently. 4) the student should know revision strategies, which again, help them to tackle the project from a general perspective which can be lost during the computerised translation process.

In conclusion, it is not possible to translate without computers and neither is it possible to learn to translate without them. This reality requires a training adaption. This implies a new application of consolidated functionalist theories and a focus which helps the future translator understand that their role is as necessary and as critical as ever, given that they have to adapt different strategies to different projects.

Sarcevic, S. (1997): New Approach to Legal Translation, The Hague/London/Boston, Kluwer Law

International.