Quality - From paper to real life
How can we apply the theoretical models of analysis to real life scenarios?
If I had a penny for every time I heard or read the word “quality” related to the translation and interpretation industry, I would be a billionaire. Most likely, I would be wandering around the globe without a care in the world, rolling in it. Nonetheless, I am still here today, writing a blog post about it, mentally adding another coin to my imaginary piggy bank. Because here’s the thing: regardless of how much we talk about it, read about it, research it, get frustrated about it, quality is always going to be at the centre of a profession like ours, a profession that strives for perfection. Bad news is on the way though – very much like perfection, quality is evanescent at best, and years of theoretical and empirical studies have demonstrated just how much it is based on situational factors. This is without mentioning that before we make any consideration we have to define it, something that has been keeping scholars busy for years. One thing is for sure: for translators and interpreters there is no absolute standard for quality, which of course complicates things. Fortunately, consensus has been reached on some criteria that can help us define what quality actually is, and how we subsequently go about measuring it. For example, function (what is the goal that the original message fulfils? Does the translation fulfil it too?), or equivalence (does the translation say the same thing as the original message?). Admittedly, these still leave much space for subjectivity, the other big issue with quality. Evaluating a text is like evaluating high fashion clothes (please allow me the comparison): they will all be beautifully crafted texts (at our level we do not deal with grammatical errors, meaning distortions and such), but whether we agree with the nuances that the translator has given with their decisions or not depends on our personal tastes, and this is why we can debate about a single line for hours on end.
All considered, sometimes we are left with the feeling that we can only try our best, equipped with all the tools available, to deal with the circumstances of each situation. I confess myself guilty of this thought, walking home after a particularly stressful PSI assignment. I am, as every respectable interpreter and translator, well aware that perfection does not exist, nonetheless I impose myself a quite strict, however still human, personal quality assessment after every job. Usually, I can run it without major problems, evaluating my performance on the basis of the dos and the don’ts that I’ve been taught to look out for, also taking into consideration the circumstances that deviated from the standard scenario we are taught to expect, assessing their impact and my coping strategy. That time my QA was all over the place: there were so many disruptive circumstances that I was not even sure what I did can be called interpreting – the patient was extremely old with no teeth (you will laugh but believe me, that affects every sound you utter), did not speak my language but a mix of broken English peppered with a heavy southern Italian dialect, and of top of that, at the end of the job I found out he had dementia. I had spent four hours translating for a man that barely spoke or understood what he was being asked, and gave back barely intelligible answers in such a broken English I had to retell it to the health staff, who had no clue what he was saying. On what could I base my analysis? On the fact that the patient was alive and well when I left?
That is when I understood that there is a huge discrepancy between what we can call theoretical quality, and quality on the field – this is extremely true especially for interpreting.
So what can we do to bridge that gap, in order on one side to be better prepared to deal with the “unexpected”, and on the other to have a deeper awareness of the qualitative limits that our performances can sometimes have due to external factors?
The first thing that comes to mind is a more realistic type of training: role play is probably the most used method especially for PSI, and instead of the classic patient/victim/client – doctor/police/solicitor scenario, let’s integrate real life situations that have actually happened to colleagues of ours. Swear words, unpleasant details, a violent client, and all that jazz. Sometimes it could be sufficient to be told: “one time this happened to me…and I reacted like this…in hindsight I could have done that.” This can go beyond the training stage, with colleagues sharing information – always respecting confidentiality of course.
However, there is another factor that sometimes pushes the circumstances out of our ideal comfort zone, and it’s working with people that have no clue of who you are, why you are there, and how to work with you. Of course, it is up to us to “educate” the client – but the client also needs to educate himself. Specific training courses, and most of all a basic understanding of why we are there is crucial if we want to safeguard the quality of our work, whatever that might mean: the patient gets prescribed the right medication, the speaker successfully delivers his pitch and closes the sale, the applicant brings the right documents to the appointment. In her ITI Bulletin article Partners in crime[1], Katrina Mayfield brilliantly reports on the difficult working relationship with the police: misunderstanding of everyone’s competencies and a lack of knowledge of how to work with interpreters.
As always, it will take time to see change. However, the gap has to be bridged, to create an even more aware cohort of translators and interpreters delivering the best quality services under the given circumstances. The circumstances will hardly be eliminated, but after all, variety is the spice of life.
References
[1] K. Mayfield. 2016. Partners in Crime. ITI Bullettin (November-December). Herts: Duncan Print. pp. 10-12
