Macro/Micro: Green Translations

July 10, 2012 By 1 Comment

(This article is second in a MultiLingual Magazine series where Terena Bell looks at macro-forces affecting our world and predicts how these forces will micro-impact the translation industry.)

My cousin Suzy says her family recycles because her 9 year-old son shamed her into it. He watched the movie Wall-E at a friend’s house and now he’s paranoid that we’re destroying the planet. He’s not the only one. While I personally think we’re quite a-ways from the trash-covered earth portrayed in the film, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that events like the British Petroleum (BP) Deepwater Horizon oil spill are destructive. While many blame BP itself for the destruction, I’m of the opinion that BP, albeit recklessly, was only working to meet market needs. If Americans weren’t driving gas guzzlers, Americans wouldn’t need so much gas. I won’t go for a second round of this blame game, but I’m probably not the only person who believes that spill was a hell of our culture’s own making.

In fact, I know I’m not the only person who feels that way. Many of my clients do as well. Most likely, so do many of your clients, if you work for a language service provider (LSP). And if you’re on the buyer-side, you still may have noticed changes at your own employer geared toward creating a more environmentally-sound workplace. It’s about more than turning off the lights when you leave for the day or drinking coffee out of a real mug instead of from a Styrofoam cup. Big business is becoming more and more cognizant of its role in preserving our environment. Some say it’s from an honest awareness of the corporate carbon footprint. But my cousin Suzy isn’t the only one changing her enviro-think due to someone else. According to a 2010 study from Cohn & Wolfe, a global communications agency specializing in the environmental sector, the largest US segment of shoppers willing to pay more for products labeled as environmentally-safe are single men in their 20’s and 30’s looking to impress the ladies.

But in the United States, peer pressure is the principle reason why people buy environmentally-safe products. By and large, consumers of what most people call “green” products tend to have surplus cash, and they’re not afraid to spend it if it makes them look trendy or “up-on-it” to other people. For Americans without surplus cash, though, “green” is just a tie-breaker. All other things — such as product availability and price – have to be equal before the average American will purchase the “green” product over the less sustainable one.

 

On a global front, though, this is a different scenario. Americans still care more about “getting a good value” than we do the environment. In Cohn & Wolfe’s 2010, pre-oil-spill survey, 100% of US respondents noted that “good value” was a driving force in how they made purchasing decisions. But in countries where environmental changes have already begun to have an impact outside the movies, environmental factors are number one. Take India, for example, where water pollution has become a national reality. 96% of Indians base purchasing decisions off of the seller’s environmental impact. In fact, in his book The Coke Machine, journalist Michael Blanding blames environmentally unconscious acts for Coca-Cola’s lack of success in the country. Shortly after Coke reentered India in 1991, villagers in Mehdiganj, Nandlal accused the company of dumping in the Ganges, a river where the water, according to the World Health Organization, accounts for the death of 1.5 million children every year (Blanding, 228). The accusation that Coke’s chemical dumping is at all responsible for these deaths is extreme, but the taint of the accusation is enough to most likely keep Coca-Cola from ever dethroning local competitor Thumbs-Up. In fact, in an effort to change the market, Coca-Cola India has since used rainwater harvesting to replace seventeen times the amount of healthy water it takes from the areas where its plants are (252)

Water isn’t the only issue in India. According to Cohn & Wolfe, Indians are also concerned about deforestation, which is also a predominant issue in Brazil. 98% of Brazilians say it’s important for them to know that the company they’re buying from cares about its customers, which includes caring about the environment. 67% of Brazilians also said the environment would be a greater stand-alone factor if environmentally-safe products were more available. This 67% cited limited selection as the reason why they don’t buy as many “green” products as they would like. This isn’t too different from India, where 72% of respondents also pleaded limited selection.

The first macro-force at work here globally is therefore one of market creation. The need for greater availability in “green” products leaves room for many new clients to begin exporting or to increase their number of exports, particularly clients working in the agribusiness and chemical sectors. As new and expanding exporters reach into new markets, this means new languages become involved and more translation will be done. By learning where our environment is at its worst, we can predict the consumer behavior that will drive the translation market for this sector in the future.

The even greater macro-force affecting our industry is sustainable procurement. Corporate America is waking up and the wake-up call is resonating on two different levels. First, companies are beginning to realize the carbon footprint they create and the responsibility that comes with it. Some are coming to realize it in sudden, undeniable ways like BP, whose gas stations, as reported by North Carolina paper The News & Observer, continued to see sales down as much as 40% three months after Deepwater Horizon. Some are realizing it due to internal changes in the organization, such as Brown-Forman, where a combination of new hires and resource shifting between brands helped Jack Daniel’s become the world’s first zero-impact whiskey. A few US-owned businesses are increasing their environmental responsibility due to changes required by their Scandinavian business partners, whose Danish and Norwegian governments regulate a business’ environmental impact, including how that impact stretches out into its dealings with its partners.

The majority of corporations, though, are like my cousin Suzy. Someone they care about deeply – in her case, her son; in the corporate case, the customer – is forcing the business to change. In order to keep up, to save face like the men who go green for women, these businesses must be or must pretend to be sustainable. Take Clorox, for example, which in 2007, “was willing to pay almost $1 billion for Burt’s Bees because,” according to the New York Times, “big companies see big opportunities in the market for green products. From 2000 to 2007, Burt’s Bees’ annual revenue soared to $164 million from $23 million. Analysts say there is far more growth to be had by it and its competitors as consumers keep gravitating toward products that promise organic and environmental benefits” (Story). It’s pretty much a given that bleach is an environmentally-destructive chemical. But through the purchase of Burt’s Bees, Clorox was able to guarantee its future in a pro-environment future.

As the Times article goes on to explain, for a couple of years, this was big business’ standard micro-reaction to the macro-force of environmental awareness. L’Oreal bought Body Shop. Colgate-Palmolive bought controlling stock in Tom’s of Maine. At this same time, Clorox looked to diversify its original offerings by introducing the Green Works line, just as L’Oreal did by introducing its line of sulfate-free hair care products. The list goes on of how big business either bought small business or broadened its own offerings to win green dollars.

Just as increasing environmental awareness was the macro-force that caused these micro-changes, macro-changes on the corporate level will affect our micro-reactions in the land of localization. You see, things have shifted again. Big business is no longer trying to etch its way into a market through acquisitions and diversification; they’ve moved to supplier responsibility and certification. For while the majority of Americans who go green do it for social reasons, those who do it for environmental ones are militant. And as the Wall-E generation grows up, the number of militants grows exponentially with them.

In 1997, BP became the first oil company to publically acknowledge its responsibility in causing and preventing climate change. From that moment on, the company was praised for its corporate social responsibility (CSR) – right up until April 20, 2010, when 205.8 million gallons of crude oil began to leak into the Gulf of Mexico (Hoch). In a post-BP world, no one is going to accept your environmental policies at face value. The age of effective greenwashing is dead. Those who buy because they care really do care, and they will hold you to it.

This is what brings me to certification, and this is where this macro-trend starts to affect our industry. The trend now is not just responsibility on the corporate level, but responsibility throughout the entire supply chain. And whether we think of it that way or not, translation is part of our clients’ supply chains.

Consumers want to see responsibility not just from the companies they buy from, but from the businesses those companies buy from as well. This is especially important for international businesses working in India, Brazil and the other countries we’ve discussed. While the American market is getting there, the foreign market already is there. Like Coca-Cola, if American brands want to compete abroad, they have to put their money where their mouth is.

As a result, Walmart forced its top 20 Brazilian suppliers to sign the company’s “Pact for Sustainability” in a June 23, 2009 summit. In this pact, the suppliers, which included Coca-Cola, Johnson & Johnson and Unilever, promised to reduce their use of plastic and to refrain from deforestation while creating their products. Their choice was to sign the pact or to stop selling their products in Walmart, the largest retailer in the world. Right or wrong, Walmart forced its suppliers to cooperate.

How much longer will it be before the translation industry is forced to cooperate?  The environmental certifications already exist. LSP’s can have environmental or unenvironmental practices, just like any other company. Our product may be words, but it takes power to generate those words and get them to our clients. Do we keep our laptops turned to “balanced” or to “power saver”?  Do we turn off the computer when we leave? And when your LSP buys new computers, what happens to the old ones?

As business to consumer (B2C) clients become more and more regulated regarding their own carbon footprints, the mark LSP’s leave on the world may one day impact whether B2C companies are able to do business with us. Walmart has already started requiring environmental certification of its suppliers whenever certification is available. While not yet a requirement, environmental certification is also preferred for vendors at Starbucks, SAP and H&M. Many US municipal and state requests for proposals (RFP’s) now have sections where they ask bidders to detail their environmental practices, use of Energy Star utilities, and environmental certifications held. Which one of your clients will be next?

Environmental management certification for LSP’s is already is available. It’s just that abashedly few of us have it. My company, In Every Language, is the only LSP certified as a B Corporation, which is a certification not just for environmental practices, but for CSR as a whole. Only three LSP’s are certified by Green America: Lazar & Associates, Oregon Translations and Green Translations. On an international level, ISO 14001:2004 is available for environmental management, but I only know of four LSP’s that have it: Yamagata Europe, Eco Trans, Intrasoft International and Wolfestone Translation. So basically, with three certifications available, only eight companies worldwide are meeting this growing client need. And while I’m sure I can speak for the other seven when I say we’re happy to keep the business for ourselves, just as our clients face a responsibility to their customers in ensuring environmentally-responsible sourcing through the supply chain, we face the responsibility of making it easier for them. Obtaining certification is part of standard operating procedure for a US-based woman or minority-owned LSP; certification should become a standard for “green” LSP’s. This is the micro-action we must take in light of the macro-trend. The customer-centric LSP owner puts the needs of his customer first and, for more and more of our customers, this is the up-and-coming need.

(This blog entry was originally published as an article in the April/May issue of MultiLingual Magazine.)

Filed Under: awareness, B Corp, B Corporation, big business, certification, corporations, CSR, environment, environmental responsibility, ethics, green, innovation, language service provider, localisation, localization, multilingual, project management, science, socent, social capitalism, social change, social entrepreneur, social entrepreneurship, social responsibility, standards of practice, sustainability, translation, translation industry, triple bottom line

The Games We Play: Competition in the Translation Industry

October 14, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Ali G’s ovaries were rotting and she wanted the world to know. On episode 1 of ABC’s 8th season of “The Bachelor,” she walked right up to Travis, told him “[her] eggs [were] rotting” and that she was ready for “the reproduction phase of [her] life.”  Needless to say, she didn’t get a rose.

For those of you who don’t watch the show — or who won’t admit to watching it — “The Bachelor” pits high-strung single females against one another for national media attention — ahem, I mean a man. It’s misogyny at its finest. ABC’s producers load them up with alcohol, shove them into romantic settings, and expect a love match to be made in 10 episodes or less. Each week, some of them “get a rose,” meaning they can stay, while some must “leave the mansion,” meaning they go home.

I love it. I will proudly admit in print that “The Bachelor” is one of my favorite shows. I don’t watch it because I’m a romantic, though, or because I truly want to see these poor, blinded people fall in love. I watch it because it’s the most entertaining sociological experiment out there. It’s a study in human behavior — how people react to each other, what draws them closer, what pushes them away. These are the games we play and once or twice a year, ABC plays them out on Monday nights for all of America to see.

Usually it’s more entertaining than not. Take poor Ali G for example. After getting booted off — as if rejection on national television wasn’t mortifying enough — she accosted the bachelor.  “Am I too short,” she asked, “Are my breasts too small? Why didn’t you choose me?”

Personally, I think “Because you discussed your ovaries on national television” would be the obvious answer. The less-than-obvious answer is that Ali G’s sales pitch was too strong. I say less-than-obvious because it’s a mistake we all make. An expression for “showing your cards too soon” only exists because more than one person has done it. Granted, I would personally argue that it’s always too early for a girl to pull the rotting eggs card with a man she’s seeing, but how often have language service providers (LSP’s) killed their chances of a sale because they reveled too much too soon?  Let’s admit it. Just as in dating, sometimes you don’t know when it’s safe to take that next move.

Now let’s move from “The Bachelor” to something a bit more industry-specific: conferences that attract both localization buyers and sellers. As our industry’s bachelor mansion, these hybrid events are interesting to begin with. You have a few bachelors — er, translation buyers — who do the choosing and a whole lot of ladies — translation sellers — hoping to get a rose. Don’t get me wrong: I love the idea of everyone involved in localization coming together to truly advance the industry. If real changes are going to occur with what we do, if innovation is truly to take place, it will require us all — buyer and seller — working together. That is the goal of these events, and it’s wonderful when people honestly and truly get that. The sad part is, not everyone gets it. Just like love, our industry has a few Ali G’s. What’s even sadder is that we have a few of the other contestants as well.

Again, if you’ve seen the show, you know what I’m talking about. These “other contestants” are the women who at some point stop caring about the bachelor and start caring more about the element of competition itself. Competition is like blood and they’re vampires, constantly at each other’s throats with grumblings and arguments. At first these fights are kept to the competitors only; they start in and stay in the mansion. But halfway through every season, they inevitably move out of the mansion and into the dates. Tune in around episode 4 or so and you’ll see it: the first insecure contestant to gripe to the bachelor that the other contestants aren’t being nice to her, that the contestant she fears he likes more than her is not who she seems. This happens in reverse, as well, on “The Bachelorette,” where season 6 contestant Jonathan — AKA “The Weatherman” — once spent an entire date trashing his competition to Bachelorette Ali F.

This too is a game we play. When I was a child, my mother told me there were two ways to have the tallest tower in town: you could knock down towers that belonged to other people or you could build yours higher. She told me to be the kind of girl who built hers higher.

Tower-knockers are the most common type of “Bachelor” contestant and they’re also the type most common in the language industry. Now, again, don’t get me wrong. I think by-and-large, we’re a friendly industry, one where companies tend to collaborate more than they compete. But there are some real competitors out there, people.

This is not reality television. We are real people running real companies. Our clients have real problems and — if we present them right — LSP’s have real solutions. Working with a full-service provider can help our clients improve content management, streamline billing, and grow their international and domestic revenues. But, as Ali G’s erstwhile efforts have proven, we cannot shove ourselves upon them. When a client is new to translation, there’s a lot he needs to learn in order to get the most for his money. But there’s also a balance between how much a person should know and how much a person can take. And when the project’s ready to be assigned, the client may most likely give only one LSP a rose.

We all want that rose. Let’s admit it. Whether our hearts are competitive or not, we each want to be the LSP that doesn’t have to leave the mansion, the one that gets the job. But maybe it’s time to admit it and move on, thinking beyond ourselves. On season 14, contestant Ali F — no clue why “The Bachelor” has so many Ali’s — dropped out voluntarily, because her work and other factors indicated she and the bachelor weren’t a good match. She wound up winning in the end, though, as ABC asked her to come back later to host her own season, where she met a man who was a better match — not “The Weatherman.” Sometimes losing a project means both you and the client win.

That’s because the games we play as people aren’t limited to romance. Our approach to romance, or to any kind of relationship, really, is just a microcosm of who we are. Do we respect other people? Are we too vulnerable to put ourselves out there, holding back our business’ finer qualities because we don’t want to be braggarts?  Or do we come on too strong, pushing each and every accomplishment on mailing list recipients like it’s hot, hot news?  The language services industry is replete with different sales and relational styles. Underneath all those company names and job titles, we’re still people. The question is, though, is your company self-actualized enough to stop playing games?  Are you the contestant who cares more about winning or the one who cares more about love?  When it comes to your business, is your highest concern the client’s best interest, or are you simply trying to win a game?

(This blog entry was originally published as an article in the September issue of MultiLingual Magazine.)

Filed Under: articles, best practices, competitions, conferences, customer service, ethics, language service provider, lsp, magazines, manners, marketing, multilingual, professionalism, translation industry, Uncategorized

Should We Translate or Shouldn’t We?

January 24, 2011 By 4 Comments
If Blackwater asked you to translate assembly instructions for an automatic rifle, would you do it? What if they told you the document’s target audience was teenagers in the Sudan?  This is not a hypothetical, but a real dilemma my staff had to grabble with a few years ago.  At the height of Blackwater’s unpopularity, not that long after the shooting crisis in Iraq, my staff sat in an office in Louisville, Kentucky and asked ourselves, “Should we or shouldn’t we?”  In Every Language was still a young company, starting to grow an early, national-level client list, and to be quite frank, we probably could have used the money.  But we decided not to touch the project with the proverbial ten-foot pole.
Personally, I don’t know as much about the Sudan as I should, but I do know I don’t want to be responsible for anybody killing anybody there or anywhere else, for that matter.  For all I know, though, these guns could have been used for defensive purposes.  For all I know, without this translation, someone might not have known how to properly assemble his gun and gotten his defenseless head blown off as a result.  The point is, once we’ve translated, the power leaves our hands and the document returns to the hands of the client.  We rarely know exactly what happens to it.  I didn’t know then and I don’t know today.  So given the chance, would I turn down translating that project again? That’s something else I don’t know.
Military contracts and contractors aside, the language services profession is rote with controversial issues as subject matter.  If you’re pro-life, do you interpret for an abortion?  If you’re pro-choice, do you interpret for a crisis pregnancy center?  And it doesn’t stop there.  Legal interpreters who are against the death penalty having to interpret judgments they don’t agree with, feminist translators asked to localize for adult entertainment.  Read enough bumper stickers and you’ll quickly learn everyone has their issues.
In truth, though, these issues are important to us on many levels.  Regardless of your set of ethics, no one likes to think of herself as an unethical person.  We each have our constructs, whether we have religion or not, the sheer having or not-having of religion being yet another.  Be we ruled religiously, morally, or ethically, we all have certain things we will or will not do: murder, theft, translation for two competing clients?
Located in Arlington, Virginia, Alboum and Associates bills itself as “translators for the good guys.”  There, the meaning of good guys includes clients in the stop-smoking market, or as CEO Sandra Alboum calls it, “tobacco control.”  Because of the large number of clients Alboum has in this industry, her contract translators pledge not to translate for big tobacco while they’re translating for her.  Alboum claims, “We are translating for you but we are also supporting your cause and as part of your cause, we commit to not work for big tobacco or any pro-tobacco organization or pro-tobacco lobbying. We’re not going to work for competition, if you will.”  In fact, Alboum goes one step further by promoting her company and her contractors to clients as being tobacco-free.
Now, I’m from Kentucky, where tobacco wasn’t just the number one cash crop, but where farming it was a way of life.  But in today’s climate, you don’t have to tell me or our dwindling state economy that smoking is no longer cool.  Anti-tobacco sentiment is, in fact, the well-shared, majority opinion.  But many issues don’t boil down into majority and minority categories with such ease.  Take abortion for example.  According to Derek Selznick with the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, 20% of Americans are adamantly pro-life, 20% are adamantly pro-choice and the rest are either in between or without opinion.  No majority or minority here, unless you claim the majority as undecided.  Tobacco use may be a clearer cut issue, but when your opinion is without clear majority, whose ethics does a company follow then?
In Alboum’s case, her company would drop a translator who translated for both sides. If her company had pro-choice clients, “then [a translator started] translating for the conservative, right-to-lifers…we would have to re-evaluate.  You’re supposed to be on the same page as your client and you’re providing a service for people that understand and are sensitive toward their cause.”
Victor Hertz, CEO of Accredited Language Services in New York, New York, disagrees.  He claims he would never drop a freelance translator based on who else hse translated for or on any set of ethics that translator might hold.  “Unless you can prove that there’s a social good that’s being infringed upon, it’s none of your business,” he says, asking “At what point do you impose your personal values upon others?”
And that is the question.  Whose is it to judge?  As company owners, I suppose you could say it’s ours.  In the end, I, Terena Bell, am responsible for In Every Language as a business.  Sandra Alboum is responsible for Alboum and Associates; Victor Hertz is responsible for Accredited Language Services.  As CEO’s, the buck stops with us and whether and how our companies judge will be based off the executive judgments we make.  In fact, this responsibility is exactly why LinguaLinx in Cohoes, New York, owned by CEO David Smith, doesn’t judge as a business.  “We don’t judge,” Smith says matter-of-factly.  “I would limit the company if I injected my personal viewpoints or morals or values into it.”  Not limiting his company is a personal driver for Smith, whose company regularly takes on projects and clients he doesn’t agree with.  “My company does a lot of things I don’t agree with but in the interest of growing the company as its own independent entity, that I just need to [do].”
One of these things may or may not be pornography translation.  At this year’s annual conference of the American Translators Association –Translation Company Division, Smith sat a panel where he admitted to accepting adult entertainment projects after another panelist expressed opinions against it.  To Smith, though, the ethic at hand is not whether pornography itself is good or bad.  The more important ethic — the larger priority — is that responsibility I mentioned earlier.  “Because of my decisions and what I’ve done,” Smith states, “forty-three people go home to their families and can pay their bills.  That’s a good feeling.  I’m creating jobs. That’s the way I look at it.  I’m creating jobs, I’m creating profitability, I’m creating opportunity. People have 401K’s, their retirements, and they rely on me, they rely on my decisions. So whether I personally agree with porn or not, the decision is made that it’s profitable and it needs to be done.”  To Smith, each assignment LinguaLinx accepts gets him one step closer to a goal and creates greater provision for his employees.
 For some of us, though, the two concepts of growing our businesses and pushing our own beliefs aside are not mutually exclusive.  At the end of the day, both translators and business owners are still people.  In fact, 46% of translators and interpreters recently polled by Foreign Exchange Translations occasionally turn assignments down for ethical reasons, and even Smith admits, “I don’t think [accepting assignments you’re against is] necessary to grow, but I think you’re limiting your growth.”

Assignment acceptation and rejection are more clearly addressed in the interpreting world, where one might argue that individual interpreters have an obligation to reject assignments that run contrary to their personal beliefs.  In fact, the National Council on Interpreting in Health Care (NCIHC) Code of Ethics includes provisions on both impartiality and neutrality:Impartiality: The interpreter strives to maintain impartiality and refrains from counseling, advising or projecting personal biases or beliefs.

Neutrality: The interpreter maintains the boundaries of the professional role, refraining from personal involvement.
Both of these core ethics speak of separation between yourself and your assignment, but the way in which interpreters, well, interpret these rules can be very different.
Marjory Bancroft, Director of Cross-Cultural Communications in Columbia, Maryland, claims “interpreters divide roughly into three categories on this issue: 1) Interpreters who are certain they could remain neutral no matter what the assignment (or just about certain), 2) Interpreters who know there are certain assignments they could not be impartial about and who would therefore decline or withdraw from such assignments, [and] 3) Interpreters who are not sure what they would do and may have to face such a situation in real life to know.”
I think we would all admit that categories one or two would be preferred: interpreters who are certain in their abilities and limitations.  Actually, for Victor Hertz, ethical boundaries are just one more area that make a linguist qualified or unqualified for a particular assignment.  “If [freelancers are] good, they’ll say I can’t do this. If the reason they can’t do this is ethical — whatever the issue is — that seems to me to be no different than a translator saying I do technical but not legal.”

Personally, I wish all freelancers would bow out when they knew they wouldn’t do a good job. It would keep a lot of the world’s bad translations from being out there. Whether you think a certain client is evil or whether you simply don’t know the words involved with a particular topic, the fact of the matter remains that you should be professional enough to know what assignments you can do well and which ones you can’t–for whatever reason.  Translation is not the place for martyrs and regardless of which jobs we accept, it’s our job to do those jobs well.  Only we, as individuals, can tell what will and what won’t get in the way.  When Blackwater came to my company, there were a lot of things I didn’t know about the project.  But there was one thing I did know: my individual ethics would have gotten in the way.  So what gets in your way? When should you and when shouldn’t you translate?

(This article initially ran in MultiLingual Magazine.)

 

Resources:

Clark, Ken.  “That which must not be translated.”  Translation Guy Blog.  March 29, 2010. www.1-800-translate.com/TranslationBlog/index.php/2010/03/27/that-which-must-not-be-translated/

Foreign Exchange Translations Ethics Poll. www.quibblo.com/quiz/dv7pxJR/Do-you-refuse-translations-on-ethical-moral-political-or-religious-grounds-By-Medical-Translation-Insight
National Council on Interpreting in Health Care. Code of Ethics. data.memberclicks.com/site/ncihc/NCIHC%20National%20Code%20of%20Ethics.pdf
Filed Under: best practices, business, code of ethics, ethics, independent contractors, interpreters, interpreting, lsp, NCIHC, religion, translation, translators

Certification for Domestic Violence Interpreters

January 17, 2011 By Leave a Comment

How’s certification coming along for domestic violence interpreters?  Here’s an update on what we’re doing in Kentucky:

Filed Under: certification, code of ethics, domestic violence, ethics, interpreters, interpreting, KDVA, Kentucky, Ky, standards of practice, training

In Every Language Position on Ky SB6

January 12, 2011 By 2 Comments

As a business, In Every Language tries not to engage in political debate. But as interpreters, we must be aware when political issues threaten or affect the people we work with.

Kentucky Senate Bill 6 is an Arizona-style immigration bill for the Commonwealth that, if made law, would allow state and local police to fine or detain anyone they suspect of being undocumented.

Regardless of your position on immigration or your personal political beliefs, the passing of this bill–and even its being considered–has a clear impact on Kentucky’s limited-English proficient (LEP) population.

What You Can Do
First, we would like interpreters to consider how this bill impacts LEPs you interpret for.  Are they going to feel welcomed in the facilities where we interpret?  Are they going to be forthcoming with medical, legal, and other information?  How does this change the tone or vocabulary you use as an interpreter?  If the bill passes, will you as an interpreter need to bring your residency documents with you to appointments?

Secondly, we understand that some of you may be adamantly for or against this bill, which has already successfully gone through the Ky Senate.  We encourage you to contact your Kentucky House Representative to express your opinion and to tell your representative how you would like for him or her to vote.  You may find your representative’s contact information by clicking here.

Third, be present so you can learn more! Community information sessions regarding this bill will be held in Louisville on

Saturday, January 22nd (2 pm) at the Americana Community Center
(The Americana is independently seeking volunteer interpreters for this event. To volunteer, call 502-366-7813.)

Saturday, January 29th (3 pm) at Beechmont Presbyterian Church
(In Spanish)

Yours to Decide
Again, I would like to stress that you have a right to your own opinion.  Whether you are for or against Ky SB6 is yours to decide and our interpreters’ individual positions will not affect whether or not In Every Language gives them interpreting assignments.  But, again, as interpreters, we must be aware of what impacts our clients and our LEP audience, which is why I am posting this in my blog.

Thank you.

Filed Under: English-language learners, ethics, immigrants, interpreters, interpreting, Kentucky, Ky, LEP patients, Louisville, politics

Interpreting for Domestic Violence Victims

January 10, 2011 By Leave a Comment

A few weeks ago, I discussed an upcoming training for domestic violence interpreting that In Every Language was putting together with the Ky Domestic Violence Association.  Well, the training was a success!  For those of you who were unable to make it, please find a clip from the training below, where we discuss the (lack of?) appropriateness of physical contact with the LEP.

Filed Under: contractors, domestic violence, DV, ethics, interpreters, interpreting, KDVA, Kentucky, Ky, rape crisis, standards of practice, training

Tips for Working with Interpreters in Political Settings

March 3, 2010 By 1 Comment

1) Interpreters work in two different ways: simultaneously and consecutively. Simultaneous interpreters will interpret while you speak; consecutive interpreters interpret in pieces as you go. Each interpreter has his own preference. If you are working with a simultaneous interpreter, please speak slowly so he’s not too far behind you. If you are working with a consecutive interpreter, please do not say more than 2-3 sentences at a time so the interpreter can relay all of your information.

2) Be aware that EVERYTHING you say will be interpreted, even if it’s just your asking the debate organizer for more water.

3) It is not uncommon for an interpreter to interrupt. It is his job to convey everything you say accurately and completely. This may include stopping you if he needs to interpret what you have already said, asking you to slow down if you are going too fast, or stopping you to seek clarification when needed.

4) Don’t be surprised if your interpreter has questions about seemingly simple vocabulary words. What’s only one word in your language could be one of many words in the other language, depending on the context. In French, for example, the English word meeting could be a “tête-à-tête,” a “rendez-vous,” a “conference,” or even a “meeting,” depending on how many people attend and how formal the meeting is or isn’t.

5) If you’ve studied the other language and the interpreter uses a different word than you would, don’t be alarmed. Many languages have multiple dialects. Spanish, for example, has 19 major dialectal forms. The interpreter may simply be using a different Spanish.

6) Allow for extra time and ask the debate organizer ahead of time if the interpreter’s time will be deducted from your own. Everything you say will have to be said twice (once by you and once by the interpreter). In addition, some languages simply take more words to express a point than others do. Spanish, for example, uses 33% more words to say something than English.

7) Look at the limited-English proficient person instead of looking at the interpreter.

8) Keep it in the first and second persons. Instead of telling the interpreter “Ask him which issue is most important to him,” say “Which issue is most important to you?”

9) Be as precise as you can with your comments. Anything in your syntax that is unclear (i.e., dangling modifiers, unidentified pronouns like “it,” double negatives), may be interpreted incorrectly. Along these lines, shorter sentences are best.

10) Please understand that the interpreter does not take sides. The interpreter is ethically prohibited from having an opinion on your candidacy, the race at large, or the issues involved. This means he is neither for or against you, or for or against your opponent. He is ethically bound to be impartial and to acknowledge his role boundary as an interpreter and nothing more.

Filed Under: ethics, government, interpreters, interpreting, legal interpreting, political interpreting, politicians, politics, role boundaries, tips

Tips for Working with Legal Interpreters

June 21, 2009 By 2 Comments

A few tips I came up with to help our legal clients better work with interpreters. If you have any to add, please feel free.

1) Work with professional interpreters, as opposed to bilingual grocers/wait staff/etc. You are a professional and your client expects professional service from you and everyone you contract on his/her behalf.

2) Ask for the right type of interpreter. For legal proceedings, a legal interpreter is the easy default; however, if you’re deposing an doctor about a malpractice suit, then you might need an interpreter who’s worked in medical situations as well. Make sure your interpreter specializes in the case’s subject matter.

3) Request the right language. Many languages have multiple dialects. Spanish, for example, has 19 major dialectal forms.

4) For appointments slated to last longer than three hours, schedule two interpreters who will work in half-hour blocks. When working with only one interpreter, schedule regular breaks.

5) Allow for extra time. Everything everyone says will have to be said twice and, in addition, some languages simply take more words to say something than others. Spanish, for example, uses 33% more words to say something than English.

6) Prepare the interpreter. Provide him/her any police report, transcripts from preliminary hearings, and other materials. In cases where multiple translations are available, knowing the context will help your interpreter choose the correct one.

7) Practice working with the interpreter when you prepare your client for questioning. You’ll get the kinks worked out ahead of time, everyone will look more polished, and your client will be more at ease.

8) Keep it in the first and second persons. Instead of telling the interpreter “Ask him where he was on the night of the 15th,” say “Where were you on the night of the 15th?”

9) Be as precise as you can with your questions. Anything in your syntax that is unclear (i.e., dangling modifiers, unidentified pronouns like “it,” double negatives), may be interpreted incorrectly.

10) Be aware that EVERYTHING you say will be interpreted, even if it’s just to ask the secretary for more coffee.

11) Don’t be surprised if your interpreter has questions about seemingly simple vocabulary words. What’s only one word in our language could be one of many words in the other language, depending on the context. In French, for example, the English word meeting could be a “tête-à-tête,” a “rendez-vous,” a “conference,” or even a “meeting.”

(Blogger’s note: Only after Tweeting this post did I realize I put this same article on the blog Tuesday, June 17, 2008. Must be something about June that makes me think legal! My apologies to those of you who are long-time readers.)

Filed Under: best practices, depositions, ethics, interpreting, law, legal interpreter, medical interpreting

Death Threats, Interfering Daughters, & Other Worst Case Scenarios

April 29, 2009 By 1 Comment

I found out today that my presentation proposal to the Southeast Regional Medical Interpreter Conference was accepted. Entitled “Death Threats, Interfering Daughters, & Other Worst Case Scenarios,” the presentation goes over some of the absolute worst things that can happen to you while interpreting, then highlights the portions of the National Council on Interpreting in Health Care Code of Ethics designed to help interpreters deal with these and other situations.

Of course, to do this, I’m going to need loads of worst case scenarios. And while I’ve heard some doozies already, I’m willing to bet some of you reading this have had some really interesting things happen to you. So, feel free to email your worst-case scenarios to me (terenabell [at] ineverylanguage [dot] com) or post them here as comments and I’ll do my best to include them. I’ll leave whether you want credit on those up to you!

The Conference itself will be in Lexington at the University of Kentucky June 18-19. It’s co-sponsored by the South Eastern Medical Interpreter’s Association (SEMIA), the Medical Interpreter Network of Georgia (MING), the Tennessee Association of Professional Interpreters and Translators (TAPIT), and the Tennessee Association of Medical Interpreters (TAMIT). If you’d like to attend, registration information is available by clicking here.

Filed Under: best practices, conferences, ethics, interpreters, interpreting, medical interpreting, MING, SEMIA, TAMIT, TAPIT, training