Community Translation by Mustapha Taibi, Uldis Ozolins

Community
Translation
BLOOMSBURY ADVANCES IN TRANSLATION SERIES
Series Editor: Jeremy Munday, Centre for Translation Studies,

University of Leeds, UK
Bloomsbury Advances in Translation Studies publishes cutting-edge research
in the fields of translation studies. This field has grown in importance in the
modern, globalized world, with international translation between languages
a daily occurrence. Research into the practices, processes and theory
of translation is essential and this series aims to showcase the best in
international academic and professional output.
OTHER TITLES IN THE SERIES:
Corpus-Based Translation Studies, Edited by Alet Kruger,

Kim Wallmach and Jeremy Munday
Global Trends in Translator and Interpreter Training, Edited by Séverine
Hubscher-Davidson and Michał Borodo
Music, Text and Translation, Edited by Helen Julia Minors
Quality in Professional Translation, Joanna Drugan
Retranslation, Sharon Deane-Cox
The Pragmatic Translator, Massimiliano Morini
Translation, Adaptation and Transformation, Edited by Laurence Raw
Translation and Translation Studies in the Japanese Context, Edited by Nana
Sato-Rossberg and Judy Wakabayashi
Translation as Cognitive Activity, Fabio Alves and Amparo Hurtado Albir
Translating for Singing, Mark Herman and Ronnie Apter
Translation, Humour and Literature, Edited by Delia Chiaro
Translation, Humour and the Media, Edited by Delia Chiaro
Translating the Poetry of the Holocaust, Jean Boase-Beier
Community
Translation
MUSTAPHA TAIBI
AND ULDIS OZOLINS
Bloomsbury Advances in Translation
Bloomsbury Academic
An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
Bloomsbury Academic
An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway

London New York
WC1B 3DP NY 10018
UK USA
www.bloomsbury.com
BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
First published 2016
© Mustapha Taibi and Uldis Ozolins, 2016
Mustapha Taibi and Uldis Ozolins have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the Authors of this work.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or
any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the
publishers.
No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining

from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or
the author.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN: HB: 978-1-4742-2165-8

PB: 978-1-4742-2164-1
ePDF: 978-1-4742-2167-2
ePub: 978-1-4742-2166-5
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
Series: Bloomsbury Advances in Translation
Typeset by Fakenham Prepress Solutions, Fakenham, Norfolk NR21 8NN

To Jabir
To Kallena Kucers
Contents
List of Figures viii

Acknowledgements ix
Introduction 1
1 Community translation: Definitions, characteristics and
status quo 7
2 Sociocultural issues in community translation 29
3 Approaches to (community) translation 53
4 Translating official documents 77
5 Translating for temporary communities 95
6 Quality assurance and translation assessment 107
7 Translation revision 127
8 Community translation resources 149
Concluding remarks 165
Bibliography 169
Index of Authors 181
Index of Subjects 185
List of Figures
Figure 0.1 Typical community translation context 3
Figure 2.1 Cultural transfer in translation vs double cultural transfer in

community translation 40
Figure 3.1 Overarching mission and other factors influencing

community translation 76
Figure 4.1 European Commission (2014) Memo: Public Documents:

European Parliament backs Commission proposal to slash red tape in
the Member States. 88
Acknowledgements
W e would like to thank our colleagues Eva Melhem, Chris Quan,

Leong Ko and Richard Yu for their assistance with resources for the
last chapter of this book. Our thanks also go to Sedat Mulayim for textual
examples from the field. We similarly appreciate Maroua Bounfaat’s help with
the figures. A final word of appreciation goes to Gurdeep Mattu and Andrew
Wardell (Bloomsbury) and to Prof. Jeremy Munday, the series editor, for their
encouragement, understanding and suggestions.
Introduction
C ommunity translation both as a practice and as a field of investigation is

a relatively new addition to the spectrum of translation studies, and as
the first substantial published book on this topic, this publication is as much
an exploration as a definitive study of the genre. The field of community
translation, as fixed in this book, covers translation not for readers in different
countries and cultures to that of the original text, but translations made
largely for readers within a country or region. These translations are neces-
sitated above all by the post-World War II phenomenon of massive population
shifts as a result of immigration, either peaceful or forced, as well as other
movements of people with different languages – such as temporary visitors
– or changes in the status of indigenous languages in some countries.
Information needs for these various target readerships are paramount –
whether for the stream of multilingual visitors visiting a place of pilgrimage, or
information on health or other aspects of the institutional system of a country
for immigrants or the indigenous population. Yet while primarily a means
of conveying host society information to minorities, the translation of such
material is often far from straightforward.
‘Community translation’ as a genre is still finding its niche in translation
studies, but it is related to the somewhat better known and better estab-
lished practice of community interpreting. Significantly however, while the
kind of interpreting known as community interpreting – or its various descrip-
tions as liaison, dialogue or public service interpreting – is by far the most
prevalent form of interpreting in the world, and is an increasingly profession-
alized area of activity, community translation is dwarfed by the market for
technical, business, governmental and literary translation. Community trans-
lation is a niche activity, but one that is growing in importance, particularly in
the context of increasing immigration and the exponentially increasing need
for translation often in languages not of wide diffusion.
However, while the radical linguistic diversity is apparent in community
translation as it is in community interpreting, a great deal of community
2 COMMUNITY TRANSLATION
translation is also needed in widely diffused languages – in English, in

Chinese in its varieties, in Arabic or Spanish or French. Very often for these
languages there will be trained practitioners, who may also work seamlessly
from community translation to international translation needs. When dealing
with languages of limited diffusion and little translation training for practi-
tioners, such as is the case for minor African or smaller Asian languages, then
significant issues of professionalism and translation project management
arise, which we address in detail.
Some of the issues raised in relation to less widely diffused languages
may make it tempting to put translation into these languages into the
too-hard basket. Yet a useful counter to such a view is provided by Wallmach
and Kruger, who, commenting on translation needs in African indigenous
languages, question the oft-perceived gap between translation – in this
case – of African indigenous languages and translation between European
languages:
If one views translation as a mirror image of the original, then it is true that
this exactness cannot be achieved in the African languages – but the same
goes for European languages. Linguistic and cultural differences between
languages make it necessary to broaden the notion of translation to a
more functional approach which includes adaptation and reformulation.
(Wallmach and Kruger 1999: 276)
Outside the strictly technical or literary sphere of translation between major

world languages, we would argue that indeed all pragmatic translation must
strive to present information, persuasion or warnings about many aspects
of life that are not immediately familiar to readers. This is particularly the
case where the texts to be translated relate to the social, administrative,
institutional and cultural areas of life. Social security systems may not exist
in some countries; healthcare is organized differently across the globe; legal
regimes and legal roles differ widely; education is (more or less) universal
but differs radically in organization and processes, and moreover, many who
may be required to translate educational material from a host society have
never themselves gone through that society’s educational system, which
challenges their understanding. Adaptation and reformulation, and the quality
assurance processes that must attend this endeavour, will emerge as major
themes in this book.
One other unique feature of the community translation environment is
the already mentioned perspective that community translation, rather than
translation for an international audience, is translation largely for the residents
of the country from which the source text originates: those residents without
command of the dominant language. This demands a particular alertness on
Introduction 3
the part of community translators to the characteristics of this readership:

depending on how long the particular readership has resided in the host
society, they too are inevitably shaped by the culture, institutions and languages
of that host society. Often imperceptibly to the residents themselves, their
cultural orientations and even their languages diverge over time from those
in their former homeland, in the cases of immigrants. Indigenous populations
have often also been heavily influenced by the larger majority society. The
relation of the community translator to this readership is then a complex one,
for they are not translating between two distinct languages and cultures, but
between a host language/culture and a language/culture of immigrants or the
indigenous that over time has been strongly influenced by the host society
itself. This can be diagrammatically represented as follows:
Sociocultural Context of Text L1 – Host Society
Text L1 Text L2
Sociocultural
Context of Text L2
FIGURE 0.1 Typical community translation context (Adapted from Di Biase

1987: 57)
Here, the text (L1) to be translated is a product of the host society, and it
needs to be translated into the language of text L2. Yet text L2’s culture
with its customs, language and stocks of knowledge is not separate from
the culture of L1, but depending on length of residence and other factors is
already influenced by it; a translation into L2 for this readership may differ,
perhaps, from a translation of a similar text that is intended for residents of
L2’s former homeland. Boundaries between cultures L1 and L2 are porous
(marked by a dotted line).
This particular characteristic of community translation marks the beginning
of a theoretical and practical journey in determining the parameters of
community translation, and this focus on the eventual readership of transla-
tions signals another major theme in this publication.
*
The chapters of the book seek to systematically set out not only our analysis
of the current state of community translation, but also provide some recom-
mendations for translation pedagogy in community translation (increasingly,
if patchily, addressed even now in mainstream translation education courses)
and for the organization of language services, which are still too often
haphazard or poorly resourced.
Chapter 1 deals with issues of definition, which are likely to bedevil
the field into the future. The field has been characterized in different
ways – as community translation, or public service translation – but also
includes a much older area of translation that precedes post-war mass
people movements: the translation of official documents (identity, education,
employment, status of different kinds) covered in more detail in Chapter 4.
However, the term ‘community translation’ is not without its ambiguities,
and recently has also been used in quite different ways, to characterize the
very contemporary phenomenon of voluntary or crowdsourced translation.
The notion of ‘community’ (incidentally a notion often difficult to translate
simply into many languages) is of course very plastic, and the chapter treads
carefully between the definitional tangles, settling on community translation
as perhaps, in Churchill’s words, the worst definition of the genre apart from
all the others.
Chapter 2 tackles the issues of culture and the question of how sociocul-
tural factors of immigration, foreignness or indigeneity, and their place in the
host society, influence and challenge the translation process. At the heart is
the issue of how a particular minority culture in a host society requires trans-
lation needs to be satisfied while that minority culture itself is often slowly
acculturating to the host society, linguistically, socially and behaviourally.
Chapter 3 on approaches to (community) translation examines some of the
major debates in translation theory to find a basis for theorizing community
translation: it looks at how issues of truth, understanding and trust have
contributed to theories of translation, arguing that reader-oriented function-
alist approaches offer the best guidance for proceeding in this area.
The chapter goes on to look at the nuts and bolts of going about
community translation, but while many features of community translation
are indeed universalizable to any translation undertaking, the particularities
of the community translation context, the nature of its texts and the position
and status of its translators provide distinct challenges and the necessity to
closely monitor practice. Many texts for community translation were never
written with the intended audience of such translations in mind, and often
contain extensive assumptions of institutional, legal or social practices which,
if left unexplained, may lead to incomprehension on the part of the target
readership. Principles of adaptation and reformulation – and their limits – are
outlined, with examples from actual translation practice.
Introduction 5
Successful community translation depends crucially on the translator

identifying skopos, text type and the characteristics of their readership,
but translators will always be faced with the ethical/ideological dilemma of
whose perspective to take to determine the text function – is it source text
authors, commissioners or target text users whose needs are paramount
and to whom loyalty must be given? While the issue of loyalty has long been
debated in regard to literary translation, this chapter breaks relatively new
ground in raising questions of loyalty of the translator embedded in local
communication issues, and by addressing the active relation between trans-
lators and authoring institutions (and intermediary agencies), as a critical but
little-researched factor.
Chapter 4 examines the translation of official documents, which, as
indicated already, often has a longer history than that of translating infor-
mation for the community. The high stakes translation of personal documents
related to status, identity and achievements is usually carefully controlled by
requirements of having authorized translations for legitimation and official
purposes. Significantly, while much of community translation is translation
from the host languages into minority languages, in the translation of official
documents a large part may be translation of documents in other languages
into the host country’s official language. In languages of limited diffusion,
where few of the host society command a particular minority language,
this often means that the only available translators are those whose mother
tongue/stronger language is the minority language, and the oft-cited propo-
sition that one should translate only into one’s mother tongue cannot hold.
The chapter looks at the increasing awareness of host institutions of the
requirement to have a reliable translation process for these needs, and
describes attempts such as templating or extract translation to bring order
and/or efficiency to a still often complex practice.
Chapter 5 on translation for temporary communities looks at translation
requirements for often fluctuating multilingual populations such as temporary
refugees, temporary foreign workers, or participants at international sporting
events or pilgrimages. This area has often been characterized by the use of
truly volunteer translators (and interpreters), or various stopgap practices by
sporting or religious bodies. Needs in this area have driven the increasing
international use of symbols, particularly at major hubs such as airports or
religious/cultural sites and stadiums, but translation needs of information
remain beyond the basic orientation where symbols can be of assistance.
Chapter 6 on quality issues poses the issue of how to guarantee quality in a
field where there may not be the educational and infrastructure prerequisites
that are enjoyed in the (relatively few) mainstream languages of international
communication. Closely allied to this is the concern that while academic
approaches to translation quality somewhat unhelpfully refer to how to
assess quality after a translation is done, those who pay for translations and
those providing language services (not only in community translation but in
any translation context) need assurance of quality before the translation is
undertaken. While community translation as an area sees increased profes-
sionalization, very often translations in many languages of limited diffusion
will need to be undertaken by practitioners without training in translation,
placing greater demands on translation project management and requiring
careful attention to resources and the translation process.
Chapter 7 on revision deals with this vital element in the quality chain, in
a community translation context in which the reviser needs to be absolutely
reader-focused and alert to a range of issues, from skopos to readability
and understandability of the translated text. The peculiarities of revision in
community translation often revolve around the potential input of anyone
in the target community, with whatever level of language or translational
expertise, to comment on the translated text, at times beyond the control of
the translation project management regime. And while training of translators
for community translation is itself often limited, attention to revision is even
more limited. The chapter follows on from the previous chapter in recom-
mending possible strategies to ensure quality at each stage of the translation
process.
We finally provide a short section on Resources, identifying some useful
links and literature in a community translation field still under-published and
under-discussed.
1
Community translation:
Definitions, characteristics
and status quo
1.1 Definitions
N iska (2002: 135) defines community translation as ‘written translation

of mainly informative texts, addressed by authorities or institutions to
people who do not understand texts in the language of the text producer’.
Taibi (2011) clarifies that the materials handled by community translators are
not only informative, nor always produced by public institutions. Rather, they
may be produced by a number of different social agents such as non-govern-
mental organizations, local or ethnic community leaders, private organizations
with an interest in community welfare and development, and so on. For the
author, community translation is the translation of:
texts generated by the larger community (society) or by smaller commu-

nities (linguistic or ethnic communities within the larger society, local
communities, religious groups, etc.) in order to ensure communication
with all citizens [and residents] and permit their participation and, therefore,
empowerment. (Taibi 2011: 214–15)
In the call for papers of the International Conference on Community

Translation, held at the University of Western Sydney from 11 to 13 September
2014, this type of translation was defined as:
translation of different types of texts intended to facilitate communication

between public services and people who do not have a good command of
mainstream language(s). These texts may be produced by national or local
authorities, non-governmental organisations, ethnic community organisa-

tions or leaders, neighbourhood associations, or any other social agent.
Like community interpreting, community translation is a service offered at

a national or local level to ensure that the members of multilingual societies
have access to information and active participation.
Like community interpreting too, community translation is still emerging
as a subfield of translation studies. An indicator of this early stage of devel-
opment is the different names used to refer to it and the quite distant
concepts associated with the same term. Community interpreting has been
known as liaison interpreting, public service interpreting, dialogue inter-
preting, cultural interpreting or interlingual mediation. Community translation
is also known as public service translation, and each of the two terms is given
different meanings by different authors and groups. Community translation,
as in the definitions above, is understood as translation for the community,
preferably done by qualified translators. However, there are others who use
the term to refer to translation by the community for the community, that is to
say members of a community of interest translating content for each other’s
use; in O’Hagan’s (2011: 14) words, ‘translation performed voluntarily by
Internet users and […] usually produced in some form of collaboration often
on specific platforms by a group of people forming an online community’.
Public service translation is also used in at least two different senses:
1) as equivalent to community translation in the sense of translation for the
community, which is the sense given to it in this book; and 2) in the sense of
translation relating to foreign affairs and administrative, economic and cultural
relations between different countries (between ex-colonies and colonial
powers; in Bandia 1998).
For the sake of conceptual clarity, we now propose to enumerate and
comment upon various definitions and references regarding community
translation to be found in the scholarly literature.
Gouadec (2007: 35) provides a general definition which is close to the
definition and scope adopted in this book, except that Gouadec includes
interpreting as well:
Community translation encompasses all translating (and interpreting)

carried out to facilitate inter-community relations within a given country
where diverse linguistic (and cultural) communities cohabit.
With this definition the author acknowledges the common ground between
community translation and community interpreting, namely the fact that
they are offered locally or nationally to facilitate communication and relations
between linguistically and culturally diverse components of the same society.
Community translation 9
Gouadec (2007: 38) also defines ‘institutional translation’, which, although

involving public services, is quite distinct from community translation. Institutional
translation, according to Gouadec, is ‘any translation carried out in the name,
on behalf of and for the benefit of institutions’, as is the case in bilingual or
multilingual states and organizations such as the United Nations, European insti-
tutions, NATO or national ministries (Gouadec 2007: 38). Although translations
produced by or for national institutions may overlap with community translation
(e.g. general information published in different languages by ministries and
government agencies), institutional translation, as defined above, clearly differs
from community translation and therefore falls outside the scope of this book.
Reference to interpreting apart, Gouadec’s (2007) first definition (community
translation) offers a succinct description of what this subfield of translation
consists of. However, the use of the term ‘community’ is not unproblematic.
As Pym (2011: 77) points out:
The problem with the reference to ‘community’ is that all translating and
interpreting involves communities of one kind or another […] so there is
no substantial specificity indicated. Further, the interactions are hardly
from within any pristine language community as such: they involve the
provision or intrusion of government services, and thus encounters
between communities.
For more specificity and clarity, Pym recommends the use of setting labels or
institutional terms such as ‘medical’ or ‘court’.
It is true that all types of translation and interpreting involve working within,
for and between communities, in different senses of the term. However, the
challenge in naming what is referred to as ‘community translation’ or ‘public
service translation’ is that work in this area does not include only one or two
institutional settings. Community translation involves translation in fields
as distinct as healthcare, education, welfare, municipal governance, the
environment, and so on. It would therefore be impossible to use specific
setting labels or institutional terms without limiting the scope or distorting the
essence of community translation, namely that it is translation intended to
ensure communication with all citizens and residents and empower minority
language speakers by giving them access to information and enabling them
to participate in society. Community translation is not exactly the same as
medical, scientific, legal or administrative translation. It may intersect with all
these, but still not be identical to them.
Pym (2011: 78) also refers to the quite different senses in which the term
‘community translation’ is used by different groups of researchers and practi-
tioners, in particular the sense in which it is used by authors such as O’Hagan
(2011) above and the definition provided and adopted in this book:
Community translation: Term used for the practice whereby non-profes-

sionals translate software or websites that they actually use (cf. collaborative
translation, crowd-sourcing, fan translation, user-based translation, lay
translation, citizen translation, etc.). The problem here is that the term
can also (in the United Kingdom and Australia, at least) refer to the use of
written translation in the areas of ‘community interpreting’, which has so
far been quite a different sphere.
As a solution to distinguish the two activities, Pym recommends using

‘volunteer translation’ to refer to O’Hagan’s (2011) sense of ‘community trans-
lation’. We believe that this suggestion is appropriate and useful. Alternative
names may (and do) include ‘translation crowdsourcing’, ‘user-generated
translation’ or ‘collaborative translation’.
Garcia (2014) distinguishes between ‘conventional community translation’,
as presented in this book, and what he refers to as ‘community translation
2.0’, which denotes crowdsourced or volunteer translation on the Internet:
Conventional community translation is there to help linguistically disadvan-

taged minorities gain access to services, and enable them to participate
in society on equal footing with prestige-language speakers. Community
translation 2.0 is about bypassing the traditional gatekeepers so that
everyone can have a public voice. Thus, while their external circumstances
are different, both share a core ethos of individual empowerment and
social inclusion.
With the above different definitions and views in mind, we would like to
conclude this section with a general definition and description of community
translation as understood and presented in this book. Within translation
studies, community translation is a subfield that covers written language
services needed in a variety of situations to facilitate communication between
public services and readers of non-mainstream languages. It is a type of
translation that is generally associated with a local or national multilingual
community, although authors like Lesch (1999: 92) contend that ‘the term
community does not refer to a specific geographical community but rather to
a type of translational approach whereby the needs of the language-impov-
erished community, irrespective of its geographical setting, are addressed’
(italics in source).
Situations which require community translation may include historically
multilingual societies as well as emerging or temporary diversities arising
from migration, natural disasters or armed conflicts. What is common in all
these situations is that there is a mainstream community (and language),
one or several linguistic and cultural minorities, and a resultant need for
mainstream public services to communicate in writing with those minorities

and vice versa. Community translation is a language service that ensures the
rights of all individuals and communities to public information and services.
By so doing, it facilitates and encourages social, economic and political
participation. It is a professional activity which is closely related to community
engagement, social action and social change.
1.2 Features of community translation

From the definitions provided by Niska (2002), Gouadec (2007) and Taibi
(2011), it becomes clear that community translation is a branch of translation
which is characterized, arguably more than any other type of translation, by
its social mission. Like community interpreting, it bridges the communicative
gap between public services and those citizens or residents who do not
speak the mainstream language, and thereby improves relations and cohabi-
tation between different social groups; facilitates information flow between
mainstream/established community members and less powerful, minority
or newcomer members; and provides opportunities for the latter to improve
their socio-economic position and participate more effectively in their (new)
community. In this section, we will address three main features of community
translation: power imbalance, language (im)parity and audience diversity.
1.2.1 Translation and power imbalance

In community interpreting it has become established that communicative
situations are usually characterized by a power imbalance between service
providers and users (e.g. Gentile et al. 1996; Hale 2007). Community inter-
preters usually work in triadic (dialogue) situations where there is, on one hand,
a service provider invested with institutional power and access to information
and, on the other, a member of a linguistic, social and/or ethnic minority who
is both relatively powerless in the institutional setting and disadvantaged as a
result of the language barrier. The interpreter (and the user) needs to deal with
‘an information gap’ and a ‘status differential between the clients’ (Gentile
et al. 1996: 18), together with the resulting asymmetries in participation rights
and discourse privileges/disadvantages. In community translation, there is no
direct (dialogical) interaction between service provider and user and no strictly
interpersonal relation which could be labelled as asymmetrical. Yet, the entire
translation process is imbued with power imbalance at a number of levels.
At the first level, community translation services are usually offered to
disempowered social groups (local ethnic and/or linguistic minorities, local
majorities with less socio-economic and political power, migrants, refugees,

and so on). This means that public service text production is mainly carried
out in a language other than the languages of those groups, and the extent to
which public service texts are made available in the other languages is itself
a political decision in the hands of the most powerful group(s), except when
individuals, organizations and groups representing less powerful communities
take the initiative and decide to produce materials or have them translated.
In a number of African countries, for instance, public service texts are made
available in English or French – languages of former colonizers and current
elites who have had a French or English education – while local languages are
either not sufficiently recognized in the administrative system or treated as
target languages when a decision is made to translate into them. (See Djité
2008 for an interesting discussion of language policies in Africa, especially in
relation to health and education.)
At the second level, as a result of different historical developments and
sociopolitical relations, disempowered social groups would usually score
lower in terms of human development indicators such as education, literacy
and, therefore, access to written information. For example, decades of
apartheid and disempowerment of non-whites in South Africa led to a wide
gap between them and the dominant group in terms of education, healthcare
and social services. Lesch (2004) provides statistics showing that the majority
of South Africans with qualifications were white, while most uneducated
citizens were black. Servaas van der Berg (2007: 851) refers to census data
which shows that ‘[t]he black cohort born in 1920 had on average attained
7.2 fewer years of education than whites, the 1950 cohort 6.0 years less, the
1960 cohort 4.9 years less, the 1970 cohort 3.6 and the 1980 cohort only 2.3
years less’. The author points out that racial inequalities in terms of educa-
tional access and attainment have ‘been substantially reduced’, but that in
terms of quality a gap still persists, hence the title of his paper, ‘Apartheid’s
Enduring Legacy: Inequalities in Education’. The point here is that both the
current political and socio-economic situation of a community as well as
the underlying historical developments may produce inequalities in education
and literacy, which manifest in turn as less access to information for some
groups than for others. This would apply regardless of whether members
of disadvantaged groups continue to live in their home country or migrate
to another and, in many cases, independently of whether the information is
translated into their mother tongues or provided in its original language.
At the third level, community texts are often public service in nature, with
official discourse, specialized terminology and a relatively high register. At a
discourse level, users of community translations are normally less powerful
than the text producer (public institutions) because of the gap in specialized
knowledge and access to specialized terminology. At the same time, they are on
an unequal footing with other social groups, not only because they do not speak
(the) mainstream language(s) but also because of educational gaps (as pointed
out in the paragraph above) or language imparity (see the section below).
As will be discussed in Chapter 3, this multidimensional imbalance poses
a number of questions relating to the community translator’s role and trans-
lation approach. For some authors, community translators working in contexts
characterized by power asymmetries need to go beyond accurate and stylisti-
cally equivalent reproduction of texts. Lesch (1999: 93), for instance, clearly
states the following:
Community translation is a means to an end, namely to equip the

community with the necessary information and other means to develop
skills for themselves. It is an attempt to balance the power relationship
between the sender and the receiver by prioritizing the needs of the
community. Effective, empowering communication between the author
and the reader via the translated text implies that the translator needs to
be on the side of the powerless, that is the reader.
The mere act of translating in the community translation context contributes

to redressing asymmetries between those who have access to written
information and those who do not. However, this is only the most basic level
of balancing power relationships: further levels would require translators to
focus on the needs of powerless communities, position themselves on the
side of these communities (in the translation process) and aim to empower
them through information and skill development.
1.2.2 Translation and language (im)parity

As has been pointed out above, community translation is a service that is
normally required in multilingual and multicultural societies where disem-
powered groups such as migrants, refugees or local ethnic minorities do not
have access to texts written in the mainstream language(s). In such contexts
it is often the case that the difference between the mainstream audience
and the users of community translations is not only linguistic, but also socio-
economic, cultural and educational.
Because not all societies have developed in the same pattern and at the
same pace, not all community languages have evolved in the same fashion
or to the same extent. As Campbell (2005: 32) points out, there may be a
gap between one community and another and, therefore, between their
respective languages, in terms of terminology and availability of certain text
types, which makes it difficult to speak of language parity between the
two communities and languages. Campbell refers to the case of Laos, a

country which lags behind not only in relation to English-speaking countries
like Australia but also in comparison with neighbouring Asian states such as
Thailand and Singapore. The country’s underdeveloped economy, infrastruc-
tures and institutions have an impact on the Lao language and on the linguistic
resources available to translators. ‘The Lao language professional knows that
the chance of Lao catching up with the institutions of English-language
publishing, language teaching, lexicography and information technology is
as slim as Laos winning an Olympic medal in skiing’ (Campbell 2005: 34).
Campbell’s verdict might be too harsh, as the rise and fall of empires has
sometimes taken unpredictable courses, but the point is that in the current
state of affairs there is a major gap between developed and underdeveloped
countries and languages, and what is lived and expressed on one side might
not be expressible on the other: ‘Lao translators have to imagine what those
foreigners are doing and then find Lao words that pretend to describe things
that are not yet done in Laos’ (Campbell 2005: 35).
Snell-Hornby (1995) makes a similar observation, using Tamil and Swahili
as examples of underdeveloped languages: ‘while a report on atomic reactors
is fully translatable among languages of societies that participate in modern
technology, it is far less so if the envisaged target language is Tamil or Swahili’
(Snell-Hornby 1995 [1988]: 42). Gawn (1988) goes further to recognize that
the same translation problem exists between well-developed languages, in
his case English and French. Writing with regard to Canada, where French
is an official but minority language, the author discusses the factors that
negatively impact the quality and authenticity of translations from English into
French. He points out that translations are produced with limited access to
resources and subject experts, in a context where the topics covered may not
have established terminology in the target language, the institutions referred
to may not have a parallel in the target culture or the technological and
conceptual advances discussed may not be as developed in French as they
are in English (Gawn 1988: 457). Gawn concludes with a ‘law’ stating that
‘the possibility of a successful translation is proportional to the parallelism of
the two cultures involved’.
The three authors above refer to scientific and/or technical language when
discussing language imparity. However, language asymmetry is by no means
limited to these fields of discourse. As any community translator working
with a minority language would know, lexical gaps and translation challenges
are often faced in a number of administrative, political, social, educational,
environmental and other areas. Concepts taken for granted in developed
countries (e.g. recycling, civic rights, social security, municipal councils, further
education, etc.) can pose comprehension difficulties for some community
groups and attendant translation challenges for their community translators
(see Chapter 3 for a discussion of translation challenges and strategies). This

is related to general cultural differences between one community and another
(see Chapter 2), but more particularly is a result of asymmetrical socio-
economic development in different local communities (as is the case when a
country has marginalized ethnic or social groups) or different countries (as is
often the case when migrants and refugees from underdeveloped countries
resettle in developed host countries).
1.2.3 Diversity of readership

Language variation is one of the challenges that face those who perform
or commission community translations. For a number of reasons, including
migration from different parts of the world, what is intuitively identified as the
Page 15: presents sociolinguistic variations that complicate
same language community

the process of making information available to all members. Community
translators working‘‫ﻋﺎﺋﻠﻲ‬ ‫’ﺗﺠﻤﻊ‬
with Arabic in the UK, the USA or Australia, for instance,
would use Modern Standard Arabic to make sure all Arabic readers under-
stand their translations. However, even within the standard variety of Arabic
[tajammuʻ ʻāilī]
there are regionalPage
variations.
15: For instance, translating a key concept such as
‘family reunion’ in an immigration leaflet or webpage, a North African trans-
lator would use ‘‫ﻋﺎﺋﻠﻲ‬‘ ‫[ ’’ﺗﺠﻤﻊ‬tajammuʻ ʻāilī ], while another from the Middle
East would use ‘‫ﺍاﻟﺸﻤﻞ‬
‘ ‫[ ’’ﻟﻢ‬lamm aš-šaml ]. The same applies to Spanish: the
use of Peninsular or South American varieties of the language may result in
[tajammuʻ ʻāilī]
comprehension issues and sociolinguistic sensitivities. For this reason, many
[lamm would
community translators aš-šaml]usually opt for the language variety associated
with the majority component(s) of the linguistic community (e.g. Moroccan
in Spain or Lebanese ‘‫ﺍاﻟﺸﻤﻞ‬in‫’ﻟﻢ‬Australia). Others may choose to use a more neutral
variety of the community
Page 49:(written) language, as free as possible from regional
variation and sociopolitical sensitivities.
Swahili is perhaps [lamm lessaš-šaml]
known in this context, so the following paragraphs
focus in more detail on when this language is used as a community language
‘‫ ’ﻋﻘﺐ‬used to translate public resources for speakers of
(i.e. a minority language
that language). Writing
Page 49: from the Australian context, Burke (2014) asserts that
language variation within the Swahili-speaking community is a challenge for
translation. Members
[ʻaqiba: of after]
the Swahili-speaking community in Australia come
from different multi-ethnic and multilingual communities in Central and East
Africa (e.g. Democratic ‘‫ ’ﻋﻘﺐ‬Republic of Congo, Burundi, Tanzania and Kenya). Not
only the communities of origin are multilingual, but individuals as well. ‘The
‘‫ ’ﺇإﻳﯾﻼﺝج‬of many individuals’, Burke (2014) explains, ‘can lead
resultant multilingualism
to the use of different languages in specific domains as well as variability in
[ʻaqiba: after]
fluency and proficiency.’
[īlāj: insertion]
‘‫’ﺇإﻳﯾﻼﺝج‬
Swahili is used as a lingua franca across tribal communities and national

borders and, therefore, presents variations at different levels ‘according to the
geography and the language policy of relevant African countries’ (Burke 2014).
As a lingua franca, Swahili has developed in a way that reflects the imprint of
the people and languages that came into contact in the region where Swahili
is spoken. The lexicon of the language has assimilated a large number of
items from Arabic (Petzell 2005) as well as from Persian, Portuguese, German
and English (Burke 2014). In addition to using established loan words, Swahili
speakers (and, in our case, writers) may switch codes and use resources
from different languages in the same communicative event. As Burke (2014)
asserts, code-switching is common in documents written by the community
members themselves (e.g. personal letters, refugee statements, and so on).
These documents may be written in Standard Swahili but at the same time
contain Congolese Swahili, together with words and expressions in French,
English, Kirundi, Kinyrwanda or other languages and dialects. This presents
challenges for translators when such documents are needed as part of an
official process (e.g. application for refugee status).
For resources translated from English into Swahili, Burke suggests that
Standard Swahili is probably the most appropriate language variety for
community translation given its neutral status and the fact that it serves ‘as a
lingua franca for inter-ethnic communication as used in mass media, education
and government in relevant African countries’ (Burke 2014). However, as the
same author indicates, not every Swahili reader will be able to understand
translations into Standard Swahili, as this will depend on their schooling
background, literacy level and language varieties available to them. Burke
(2014) recommends that:
Translators should be prepared to adapt their translations in order to

communicate optimally with the diverse Swahili readership. In line with
government and agency clients’ aims to achieve receptive understanding
of their communications by a broadly targeted audience, translators can
carefully select vocabulary to avoid common misunderstandings amongst
the variety of Swahili readers.
Among the strategies that the author suggests are: 1) simplification of

vocabulary and grammatical structures; 2) retention of some English words
and expressions in the Swahili translation ‘to facilitate understanding, which is
particularly crucial in the case of times and weekdays for Congolese readers
who may be more familiar with these in English or French than Standard
Swahili’; and 3) lexical choices drawing from Bantu-based words more than
Arabic-based lexicon, in order to facilitate comprehension, especially for
Swahili readers from the inland regions and Central Africa.
1.3 The state of the art

1.3.1 Research
As indicated at the beginning of this chapter, community translation is still
in its infancy as a subfield of translation studies and as an area of translation
practice. A couple of decades earlier, Fraser (1993: 326) rightly asserted
that community translation ‘as a specific form of the translation process is
almost wholly neglected in the literature’ and that ‘the available community
translation literature is extremely thin’ (1993: 327). More recently, Kelly (2014)
described community translation as ‘the poor sister of a poor sister’, the latter
being community interpreting. In comparison with community interpreting,
itself neglected in research until recently (Hale 2007: 197) and struggling to
become an established profession (Roberts 2002: 157), community translation
is far more neglected, not only in research and publications, but also in training
and service provision (as will be shown in Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.3 below).
A number of reasons lie behind this state of affairs. In terms of research,
translation studies has long been occupied with linguistic analysis, source
and target texts, fidelity, structural and other types of equivalence, cognitive
processes, textual features and similar aspects of translation and interpreting.
Too much focus has been placed on sentences, metaphors, style, units of
translation, pragmatic equivalence, cultural transfer, text types, and so on, at
the expense of the human beings and communities that use translation and
interpreting services.
Referring to interpreting, Pöchhacker (2006) points out that the interpreting
studies community for a long time failed to recognize interpreting activities and
settings other than conference interpreting. Thus community interpreting, the
saliently social type of interpreting, remained out of focus until just a couple of
decades ago. ‘Using the word “theory” in its original Greek sense, i.e. as an act
of looking at or viewing’, Pöchhacker (2006: 216–17) suggests, ‘we can say that
interpreting scholars had “theorized”, or seen, interpreting in such a way as to
eclipse part of their object of study.’ The same may be affirmed of translation
scholars; they have studied and theorized translation in a way that has eclipsed an
essential part of their object of study: the user as a social being and a community
member, the translator as a social agent and translation as a social action.
The classification system followed by many translation studies scholars
has eclipsed the social dimension of translation. Based mainly on discourse
fields, it has produced categories such as legal translation, scientific trans-
lation, technical translation, literary translation, and so on. As suggested
in Taibi (2011), this classification system has led to two outcomes where
community translation is concerned. First, disempowered users of translation
such as migrants, refugees and members of ethnic and linguistic minorities

have been left out of focus. Second, social issues have been scattered and
overshadowed in research and publications covering translation types such as
legal translation, medical translation or audiovisual translation. For instance,
although Mayoral Asensio’s (2003) Translating Official Documents is classified
as a book on (a type of) legal translation (‘translations that meet the require-
ments to serve as legally valid instruments in a target country’ (Mayoral
Asensio 2003: 1; italics in source)), it covers many social aspects of trans-
lation which overlap with community translation, including the social context
of migrants who need their personal documents translated, cultural distance
between the societies of the source and target texts, the translator’s loyalties
and ethical dilemmas, accessibility of translations, and so on.
Publications with a clear focus on community translation (or public service
translation), in the sense in which the term is used in this book, are quite scarce
and mostly fall within the category of descriptive or argumentative essays rather
than empirical research. Works such as Di Biase (1987), Lesch (1999, 2004),
Taibi (2011) or Valero-Garcés (2014) offer definitions of community translation,
outline the distinctive features of the field, describe its situation in different
countries or argue a case regarding issues such as the need for community
translation services, the need for appropriate training or the role community
translators are expected to undertake. Fewer exceptions (e.g. Fraser 1993,
1999; Burns and Kim 2011; Qadi 2011) offer research findings. Fraser (1993)
uses the verbal accounts of twelve community translators to verify the strat-
egies they adopted in translating a British local council leaflet (see Chapter 3).
In another paper, Fraser (1999) reports the findings of a think-aloud-protocol
study with one community translator and one community text. With insights
from her research participant, Fraser analyses the complexities of public service
texts and the challenges they pose for community translators. Burns and Kim
(2011) study the accessibility of public service texts and community translations
by eliciting readers’ feedback on two healthcare texts, their respective revised
versions, and the Chinese and Korean translations of all these documents.
Finally, Qadi (2011) offers the findings of a quantitative and qualitative study on
translation services provided during the Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca, when a
temporary multilingual and multicultural community is formed (see Chapter 5).
Among the aspects covered in this research are service availability, user satis-
faction, translator recruitment criteria, quality standards and quality assurance.
1.3.2 Provision of service

Another reason why community translation has not received much attention
is that it is associated with a low social status (Fraser 1993: 326). Like
community interpreting, community translation is closely concerned with

migrants, refugees and local language minorities. As these groups usually fall
into low socio-economic strata and lack social, economic and political power,
community translation itself has been perceived as a non-priority service and
a non-prestigious area of study. Governments and decision makers often
cite cost and budgetary constraints to explain lack of community translation
services, the limited resources made available to multilingual communities
or the insufficient number of languages into which these resources are
translated.
Some politicians and community leaders may even argue against using
taxpayers’ money to provide translations for members of the community
without a good command of the mainstream language(s). In addition to cost,
the argument often put forward is that translation services do not encourage
minority language speakers to integrate in the mainstream society. For
example, in the UK, Eric Pickles, the Communities and Local Government
Secretary, openly described the translation of leaflets and documents into
other languages as a ‘very expensive and poor use of taxpayers’ money’
(The Telegraph 2013). For Mr Pickles, ‘[w]hilst there may be rare occasions
on which this is entirely necessary – for instance in emergency situations
[…] such services are in many cases being provided unnecessarily because
of a misinterpretation of equality or human rights legislation’. Making use
of an oft-cited argument, he added that translations had an ‘unintentional,
adverse impact on integration by reducing the incentive for some migrant
communities to learn English and are wasteful where many members of
these communities already speak or understand English’ (The Telegraph
2013). These arguments may be internalized by members of minority groups
as well, as can be seen from the following statements by Zia Haider Rahman,
a British novelist of Bangladeshi origin:
It’s a shocking figure: more than £100m was spent in the past year on
translating and interpreting for British residents who don’t speak English.
In the name of multiculturalism, one Home Office-funded community
centre alone provides these services in 76 languages […] The financial cost
is bad enough, but there is a wider problem about the confused signals
we are sending to immigrant communities. We are telling them they don’t
have to learn English, let alone integrate. (Rahman 2006; see Cronin 2013
for a discussion of this quotation and the argument of cost)
Availability of community translation (and interpreting) services is to a large

extent determined by the sociopolitical regime and the national and local
governments’ approach to social equity, human rights, multiculturalism and
language planning. Probably the best example to illustrate this is South
Africa. English and Afrikaans were the only official languages in the country
during the apartheid era, while the other local languages were hardly recog-
nized and were treated as minority languages, although they are majority
languages in terms of the number of speakers. When apartheid came to an
end and the country embraced democracy, eleven languages gained official
status and a transformation process was triggered in South African public
services (Erasmus 2000: 191–2). As a result of this change, translated and
adapted public service materials started to be made available in the African
languages that had formerly been given minority treatment. The availability of
community translation (and interpreting) services in this case reflects how a
sociopolitical regime change results in the restitution of linguistic rights to a
long-dominated population and the empowerment of historically marginalized
communities.
One very specific way of providing community translation is to establish
it as a right, as in the legal provisions in the USA, where the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 as amended in 1975 stipulated the need to have translations for
speakers with limited proficiency in English. As lawyer Benjamin D. Winig
comments:
The 1975 amendments to the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA)
marked the first time that Congress addressed the issue of translation.
In declaring that ‘citizens of language minorities have been effectively
excluded from participation in the electoral process’, Congress required
that any covered jurisdiction providing materials or information related to
an election must make such materials available ‘in the language of the
applicable minority group’ so that all citizens have an effective opportunity
to engage in the political process. (Winig 2008)
The Act laid down conditions under which such translations must be provided
(percentage of populations of various groups, indigenous or other minorities),
although translations were usually provided only in the most salient minority
languages. Winig (2008) points out that many agencies charged with organ-
izing elections were often unclear as to the extent to which they should
provide translations, leading to occasional complaints from potential voters.
Some states (e.g. California) have passed their own Voting Rights Acts,
strengthening various provisions of the federal one.
This legalistic approach to community translation was continued by
Clinton’s Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons
with Limited English Proficiency, which cast a wider net, mandating language
services including translation for all federal agencies or federally funded
programmes. Again, individual states have supplemented this: for example,
the California Dymally-Allatore Bilingual Services Act stipulated that agencies
must employ bilingual staff, or use interpreters and provide translations for
any language ‘spoken by a substantial number of the public serviced by
the agency’ (Winig 2008), although admittedly on the proviso of local funds
being available. With both Federal and State Acts reaching down into local
government bodies, various strategies have been devised to meet these
requirements, including human translation services and machine translation
to provide information.
These examples of community translation provision point to the highly
legal and constitutional basis of US social policy, an approach that has rarely
encompassed community translation and interpreting in other countries.
However, legal and constitutional provisions are not the only origin for policy
in this area, as our examples from other countries show.
In Canada, an officially bilingual country, public services have to cater for
three categories of people facing language barriers: Francophone minorities
in Anglophone provinces (and vice versa), Aboriginal peoples and immigrants
(Industry Canada 2007). Francophone and Anglophone citizens are served
through the statutory recognition of their respective languages as official
nationwide and, consequently, through translation of a wide range of public
service documents from one language to the other (McRae 1998). Within
this bilingual framework, language and cultural diversity (beyond English and
French) is acknowledged and encouraged. In terms of Aboriginal languages,
some are recognized as official in the Canadian territories and Labrador
(Chan 2015: 490). In one such territory, Nunavut, for example, all signage
and written public communication must be made available in an Inuit
language, be it through translation or otherwise (Chan 2015: 500). In relation
to migrants and refugees, Canada has generally adopted receptive policies
and practices, including with respect to language services. The country has
a long history of settlement programmes intended to facilitate the relocation
and integration of newcomers with services such as orientation, language
teaching, occupational training, housing and welfare assistance (Vineberg
2012). These programmes are understood to be a contribution not only to the
well-being and successful settlement of immigrants but also to the economic
and intellectual wealth of the nation (Vineberg 2012).
Bearing this background in mind, it is not surprising to find that Canadian
public services have produced a large body of community translations in a
number of languages. All official and public communication is available in
English and French, but beyond that, Canada’s government ministries, the
Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, local councils, health services and other
public services provide information in a relatively large number of non-official
or heritage languages. With the advent of the Internet, much of this multi-
lingual information has been made more accessible, not only across the
country (to current community members) but also worldwide (to potential
migrants, given that Canada continues to target skilled professionals). Current

and potential members of the Canadian community are able to access infor-
mation on immigration, education, employment, housing, healthcare, legal
advice and even food and climate, in languages as diverse as Arabic, Chinese,
Gujarati, Punjabi, Russian, Spanish, Tagalog, Tamil or Urdu, to name just a few.
(See Chapter 8 for some examples of available multilingual resources.)
Another case is Australia. Despite the ups and downs of politics, the
country has generally adopted a favourable approach to cultural and linguistic
diversity. As a result of this approach, many public services provide their
information in English and a number of community languages. Especially
in urban communities with a high level of multilingualism, it is common to
find public notices in languages other than English. Administrations such as
Centrelink (Department of Human Services) publish their leaflets and online
resources in a number of languages too. As part of its settlement services
for migrants and refugees, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship
offers free translating (and interpreting) services. ‘Free translation of personal
settlement-related documents is provided to permanent residents, some
temporary or provisional visa holders and returning Australian citizens within
their first two years of arrival in Australia, or grant of permanent residence’
(Department of Immigration and Citizenship 2014). In New South Wales,
the Community Relations Commission provides accredited translation (and
interpreting) services to individuals and organizations in more than a hundred
languages. In some cases, including personal documents such as birth
certificates, driving licences or family booklets, translation is provided free of
charge (Community Relations Commission 2011). For CRC, ‘[t]he provision
of linguistic services […] is part of the New South Wales Government’s
commitment to ensuring the full, fair and equal participation of all people
in programs, services and processes, and enables the New South Wales’
Public Service to achieve community participation by breaking down barriers’
(Community Relations Commission 2014).
However, in most other parts of the world, community translation services
are either inexistent or fall short of community needs. For the reasons
mentioned earlier, the public services of many countries ignore the commu-
nication needs of (usually disempowered) speakers of minority languages,
provide translations in a limited number of languages and for a limited
number of resources, and/or adopt ad hoc measures in addressing the need
for language services. As Fraser (1993: 326) observes, ‘[w]here provision is
made, moreover, the quality can be uneven and the qualifications and profes-
sional status of those providing language services are far from uniform’.
Professionalism is still an issue in translation services in a number of
countries, but in the area of community translation this is much more so.
As Taibi (2011) points out, volunteers, bilingual staff or untrained freelance
translators are often commissioned to undertake community translations.

When recruitment of language service providers finds an entry in the budgets
of public services, job descriptions do not necessarily seek qualified trans-
lators, but may prefer bilingual persons who can undertake multiple roles,
including information desk officer, administration staff, intercultural mediator
and translator. In some cases, public services rely on non-government organi-
zations that work with ethnic communities and language minorities using the
services of volunteer or untrained freelance translators. The result of all this
is often poor, inappropriate or less effective translations, which constitute
eloquent evidence of inappropriate commissioning processes and inexistent
or inadequate quality control measures (Qadi 2011; Taibi 2011; see also
Scottish Consumer Council 2005).
Public services in some countries have found in machine-assisted trans-
lation a quick and easy solution to the cost issue of community translation.
However, handy as this option may appear in certain circumstances, it raises
serious concerns over the quality of the translations (and communication
services) provided to speakers of minority languages. In Japan, for instance,
Carroll (2011: 58) notes that, although the official national policy does not
favour immigration or multiculturalism, municipalities are taking the lead in
providing for the actual language diversity on the ground by making written
information available in languages other than Japanese. Some prefectures
do so by using machine translation for their websites, which is neither suffi-
cient in quantity nor consistently good in quality (Carroll 2011: 65). As the
disclaimers of some of these prefectures themselves suggest (e.g. Fukuoka
Prefecture website disclaimer, cited in Carroll 2011: 65), translation software
is unable to guarantee accurate and appropriate translation and, accordingly,
may do more to cause harm than facilitate information and communication.
1.3.3 Training
Finally, and in relation to the quality issues mentioned above, training is
another area where community translation has a long road to run. This type
of translation has had little presence in the curriculum; in the UK, for instance,
Graham (2012) reports that out of eighty-five postgraduate programmes in
translation, interpreting and related disciplines, only five courses focus on
community interpreting and only one specifically covers community trans-
lation. As Kelly (2014) has confirmed, the situation is not very different in other
parts of the world. This is arguably a result of the status issue, but also due to
other factors: on one hand, the traditional classification system in translation
studies (literary, legal, technical, audiovisual, and so on) and, on the other,
an underlying assumption that generalist translation training caters for the
professional translation needs in different contexts, have also contributed

to community translation not being recognized and included in translation
curricula.
As Graham’s (2012: 28) report points out:
Applied translation courses develop a range of skills that are relevant to

any context, including PST [public service translation]. However, PST still
requires knowledge of public service institutions and practices (e.g. police,
councils, hospitals) and academics report that these are rarely taught as
part of a translation programme.
Taibi (2011) also argues that generalist translation programmes are a good
starting point for community translators, but training specifically addressing
community contexts would be more efficient and relevant. General translator
training programmes aim to enable trainees to develop and apply a number of
competencies. To use the terminology of the PACTE Group, these are:
a Bilingual sub-competence: knowledge of the working languages,

including lexico-grammatical, pragmatic, sociolinguistic and textual
aspects and features;
b Extra-linguistic sub-competence: general encyclopaedic or thematic

knowledge;
c Translation knowledge sub-competence: knowledge of the principles

underlying the translation process and translation professional
practice;
d Instrumental sub-competence: documentation and information
technology skills necessary for translators;
e Strategic sub-competence: procedures used to plan the translation

task, identify translation problems and solve them as efficiently as
possible;
f Psycho-physiological components: cognitive, behavioural and

psychomotor abilities and attributes such as memory, concentration,
perseverance and critical thinking. (PACTE 2005: 610)
Whether they use the above terminology or not, translation curriculum

designers and teachers generally aim to equip students with at least three
core sub-competences, which PACTE (2005) considers the most specific
to translation: knowledge about translation, strategic sub-competence and
instrumental sub-competence. Generalist programmes are expected to
provide students with the theoretical and practical education necessary for
them to work as professional translators. In principle and by so doing, they

graduate future professionals with transferable competences that can be put
into practice in different translation settings and thematic fields. Nevertheless,
programmes with a clear focus on community translation would expose
trainees to the community texts they will ultimately be translating, raise
their awareness and understanding of the relevant local communities and
public service settings, and develop the specific translation and intercultural
communication skills they will need when translating for public services or
for local communities.
Among the very few institutions that offer specific courses in this
area is the University of Western Sydney (UWS), under an interpreting
and translation programme which is approved by the (Australian) National
Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters. Both undergraduate
and postgraduate students at this university undertake community trans-
lation, a semester-long unit (course) that focuses on the skills necessary to
translate texts commonly used in local community contexts. The texts covered
include general information and advice about healthcare, legal services, social
security, taxation, elections, municipal councils, the environment, and so on,
as well as personal and official documents (e.g. family entry, birth certificate,
academic qualifications, refugee statement). As both Australian and interna-
tional students enrol in UWS programmes, the materials used for community
translation aim to cater for both local and international perspectives and
communities. Texts for translation from English are usually selected from
Australian public services and Internet resources, while those to be translated
from other languages (currently Arabic, Chinese, Japanese or Spanish) are
normally taken from a variety of communities where these are spoken by
mainstream society.
Another community-oriented degree is the Master of Intercultural
Communication and Public Service Interpreting and Translation, offered by the
University of Alcalá, Spain. As its name suggests, the programme includes
both interpreting and translation. The translation component consists of
mainly healthcare, legal and administrative translation (University of Alcalá
2014), with practice focusing on texts frequently used by Spanish public
services in their awareness-raising campaigns and daily dealings with migrant
populations. Examples include informed consent forms, healthcare guides,
migrant services guides, immigration law and refugee statements.
In addition to the considerations above (status, cost and the classification
system), training in community translation faces many other challenges.
Situations requiring this translation service are characterized by multilin-
gualism, yet paradoxically this language diversity itself may impede institutions
from offering community translation courses or from catering for all the
relevant languages. Effectively, training institutions need to make sure their
programmes are financially viable, but minority language communities are

often too small to ensure sufficient demand for community translation (and
interpreting). This is why when a community translation course is available,
the number of language combinations offered is limited and can by no
means satisfy the needs of different minority groups. Also, as Graham (2012)
explains, local communities change constantly, and so do community trans-
lation and interpreting needs, which may impact on the viability of training
programmes. Moreover, it is not always possible to find qualified trainers
working in minority community languages. This greatly complicates both
translation service provision and quality assurance for countries that support
language services for all components of society. The job opportunities and
remuneration available in the sector do not help incentivize potential candi-
dates for training either. This leads to a well-known vicious circle: community
members are unable or reluctant to undertake training due to less-than-
encouraging employability and remuneration; the consequent shortfall of
professionals is countered by using non-qualified personnel; the ensuing
quality of translations suffers generally; community translators are conse-
quently perceived as largely amateurish; job opportunities and remuneration
are negatively impacted, and the cycle goes on.
Concluding remarks
The above account depicts a less-than-desirable situation for community
translation in terms of service provision, training and research. As a result
of political agendas, budget constraints and the disempowered status of
community translation users, community translation services are the exception
rather than the norm in multilingual societies. When these services are
made available, quality standards vary from one country or community to
another and, generally, are less than optimal. The lack of relevant training
programmes, quality assurance measures and appropriate working condi-
tions only contributes to perpetuating this situation. The translation research
community in its turn has not done enough to promote interest in community
translation and professionalization of these services.
However, judging from developments in other relevant disciplines,
sub-disciplines, professions and services, we can clearly identify heartening
stories and indicators. A comparison of the present situation of community
interpreting (2014–15) with that of a couple of decades ago leaves us with
a sense of relative satisfaction. Since the first Conference on Interpreting in
Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, held in 1995 in Geneva Park, Canada,
community interpreting has gained much more visibility in research, training
and public service agendas. Something similar, we hope, is starting to happen

with community translation. The International Conference on Community
Translation, mentioned above, was a significant milestone. With participants
representing different stakeholders – including universities, further education
colleges, professional bodies, translation agencies, government departments,
practising translators and interpreters – the conference gave visibility to this
area of translation studies, and provided an opportunity to discuss major
issues relating to (written) language services in multilingual communities,
empowerment of minority language groups, quality assurance, training and
certification. The active participation of key stakeholders such as Senator
Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, the Australian Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister for Social Services; Mr John Beever, the Chief Executive Officer
of the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters; and
Mr Hakan Harman, the Chief Executive Officer of the Community Relations
Commission, ensured a link between researchers, practitioners and policy-
makers, which is indispensable for change and improvements to take place.
It also demonstrated that the research and training community has a lot to
contribute on different fronts to promote community translation (and inter-
preting), and that decision makers are often responsive when researchers
take initiatives.
Gawn’s (1988: 458) third law reads: ‘the quality of a translation is propor-
tional to the degree of the client’s commitment to bilingualism’. Echoing and
expanding this statement, it can be affirmed that the situation of community
translation in the world as a whole and in any country in particular depends
on the stakeholders’ commitment to language services as professions and
as human rights, and to communities as collectives of human beings with
equal rights and obligations. When there is a favourable political will and
genuine interest among researchers, practitioners and trainers, it is possible
to find innovative and practical solutions to overcome some of the constraints
outlined above.
2
Sociocultural issues in
community translation
2.1 Culture, culture, culture …
C ulture is one of those concepts we encounter every day and everywhere,

whether we use the term ‘culture’ or not. Even in a community that is
supposedly culturally uniform – if such a thing is ever possible – we can often
find people discussing or pointing at behaviours, hairstyles or dress which
are not ‘part of our culture’, are ‘imported culture’ or ‘the influence of foreign
cultures’. In diplomatic encounters, culture, cultural differences and cultural
sensitivity are important. Many diplomatic gaffes arise as a result of differ-
ences in aspects as apparently simple as handshaking, kissing or crossing
legs. In professions such as medicine, education or social work, service
providers are made aware of the risks associated with cultural differences,
and are advised on how to handle them for a more effective consultation
or service. At the workplace, organizations and managers often provide
guidelines advising employees how to deal with cultural differences in order
to reduce friction and conflict, which may have an impact on the cohesion,
productivity and/or reputation of the organization. In neighbourhoods, behav-
iours are often interpreted in terms of cultural differences: our neighbours sit
in their ‘front yard’ (a culture-specific concept) because they originally come
from a rural area; they talk loudly because they are originally from Country X;
their food smells ‘awful’, ‘funny’, ‘strange’ or ‘unusual’ because they are from
Culture Y, and so on and so forth.
At the same time, culture is one of those concepts that everybody – and
probably every discipline – uses but that is difficult to define in a precise yet
comprehensive way. As Katan (2004: 24) points out, ‘[p]eople instinctively
know what “culture” means to them and to which culture they belong’.
However, if asked about the term, they will most probably provide different,
if not contradictory, definitions, including references to and overlaps with

religion, language, history, geographical origin, race, food, local dress code,
level of education, and so on. Scholars from different disciplines differ too in
their definitions of ‘culture’, of which – without going into detail – it suffices
here to include two representative examples (for a more thoroughgoing
account of definitions of and approaches to culture, see Katan 2004). The
first is the old and widely cited encapsulation offered by Tylor (1958 [1871]:
1): ‘that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals,
custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member
of society'. The other is provided by Goodenough (1957: 167–8):
A society’s culture consists of whatever it is one has to know or believe

in order to operate in a manner acceptable to its members, and to do
so in any role that they accept for any one of themselves. That knowledge
is socially acquired; the necessary behaviors are learned and do not
come from any kind of genetic endowment. […] Culture is not a material
phenomenon; it does not consist of things, people, behavior, or emotions.
It is rather an organization of these things. It is the forms of things that
people have in mind, their models for perceiving, relating, and otherwise
interpreting them.
What both definitions agree upon is that an individual acquires culture as

a member of their society. With expressions such as ‘forms of things’ and
‘models of perceiving’, Goodenough’s definition also highlights the nature of
culture as a way of seeing and interpreting the world – that is, as a number
of built-in frames and scripts that help people categorize and make sense of
the world around them, and enable them to determine (or retrieve) the most
appropriate reaction or behaviour in each situation.
In relation to these definitional considerations and as a result of the
omnipresence of culture, arguably one of the most problematic issues is
when to interpret phenomena and behaviours in cultural terms. That is to say,
how to activate cultural sensors to identify cultural differences and then deal
with them appropriately, without falling into the pitfall of overgeneralization
and stereotyping: in other words, without forming ‘a fixed, often simplistic
generalization about a particular group or class of people’ (Cardwell 2013
[1996]: 227). It is easy to mistake isolated individual behaviour for a cultural
norm. If such misinterpretation is maintained and acted upon in future inter-
cultural encounters and situations, it is highly likely that what is wrongly
presumed to be (inter)cultural knowledge will be used inappropriately to
judge a group of people or an entire community.
This risk is present not only in interpersonal encounters – as can be seen
in the tendency of many laypeople to overgeneralize about a social, religious
Sociocultural issues in community translation 31
or cultural group based on one or a few encounters with presumed repre-

sentatives of that group – but also in scholarly discourse on culture, cultural
differences and intercultural communication. To give just one example, under
the subheading ‘The Influence of Culture’, Katan (2004: 11–12) provides an
example of a commercial product (‘Super Disc Shot’) that is presented differ-
ently in different countries as a result of a combination of ‘legal restraints,
norms and socio-cultural differences’ (Katan 2004: 11). The author points out
that the product is made in Italy, where it is not recommended for children
under three years old, while for British and French children the minimum age
is eight years, and the North European versions (Swedish, Finnish, Danish,
Norwegian and Dutch) of the product label include an additional warning
that inappropriate use may cause permanent hearing damage. For the Arabic
version, however, Katan observes that technical information and the risks
associated with the product are not translated at all. Instead, the consumer
is informed that the product is made in Italy, is warned against imitations and
reminded or advised that a given importer is the exclusive company agent in
the importing country. The author then concludes that ‘[t]he Arabic version
shows just how far culture, in particular, impinges on what information is
to be highlighted’ and that ‘[d]ifferences in technical consumer information
provide just one example of the way each culture has its own appropriate
ways of behaving’ (Katan 2004: 11).
On a hasty subjective assessment, the preceding example might suggest
that the Arab culture is concerned first and foremost with entrepreneurial
rights, and only secondarily with consumer rights, if at all. The real question
is how much of this apparent behaviour is related to or informed by culture,
and how much is an isolated outcome of the common commercial drive to
appeal to customers using different strategies to sell products and make a
profit. It depends on one’s own disposition whether to consider the Arabic
product presentation in Katan’s example as an instance of non-compliant
labelling or an indicator of culture-specific behaviour. Advertisements around
the world teem with expressions such us ‘don’t accept imitations’, ‘beware of
imitations’ or ‘exclusive distributor’. Interpreting this in cultural terms is likely
to result in a certain cultural group being unfoundedly perceived as greedy,
misleading or unconcerned about safety and consumer rights. To be able to
assert – or insinuate, for that matter – that product labelling in the Arab World
does not include safety warnings or restrictions of use, one would need
to survey a significantly wide range of products and settings. As Arabic is
spoken in over twenty countries, various representative samples would be
required before making a generalizing statement about the Arabic language
or Arab culture.
As Scollon et al. (2012) explain, the concept of ‘culture’ is both difficult
to define and full of perils. Some people see it as a place that people
belong to or live in, others as a set of beliefs or a system of thinking; some

understand it as a set of rules or norms by which people’s behaviour is
bound, others as subconscious habits that determine or drive our actions,
and so on (Scollon et al. 2012: 3). The limitations associated with different
understandings of ‘culture’ and different applications of the concept entail
corresponding risks, such as lumping the wrong people or too many groups
under the same category, drawing the line in the wrong ‘place’ or at the
wrong level, failing to identify subcultures within what is presumed to be one
culture and, as we have seen above, overusing cultural interpretations in an
attempt to understand people’s behaviour and language production. Scollon
et al.’s (2012: 5) provocative statement ‘culture is a verb’ probably offers a
way to use the concept while guarding against the perils. What the authors
mean is that culture should not be taken as something people possess, think
or belong to, but as something people do. Different people do different things
with the same tools; different people do the same thing with different tools;
and the same people may do different things (or behave differently) with
different people. To understand intercultural communication, then, as Scollon
et al. (2012: 5) suggest, ‘we should not focus so much on the people and
try to figure out something about them based on the “culture” they belong
to. Rather we should focus on what they are doing and try to understand
what kinds of tools they have at their disposal to do it.’ One would add that
no conclusions can be reached without observing a significant number of
subjects and recurrences, while being mindful that people may belong to
different groups and cultures at different times or in different situations,
and that external observation is not sufficient to classify people and form
an opinion about their communication patterns or cultural values. What also
counts is people’s self-identification as members of social or cultural groups,
as well as their narratives about their own behaviour and affiliations.
2.2 Translation studies and culture

The connection between translation and interpreting on the one hand
and culture on the other is now well established. Culture and intercultural
communication are often present in interpreting and translation conferences,
publications, training programmes and professional forums. Pöchhacker
(2008: 11), for instance, points out that the juxtaposition of ‘translation’ and
‘intercultural studies’ or ‘intercultural communication’ has become quite
common in the titles of conferences and the names of translation studies
organizations and research groups. Pöchhacker parenthetically mentions
that a Google search for the phrase ‘translation and intercultural’ resulted,
presumably in 2008 or earlier, in more than 20,000 hits. Taking Google as

indicative of what people talk or write about, more updated results (4 May
2014) show that the phrase ‘translation and intercultural’ produced nearly four
million hits, the phrase ‘translation and intercultural communication’ triggered
over 460,000 hits, ‘culture and translation’ resulted in 17,400,000 and ‘trans-
lation and culture’ produced 20,800 hits.
Pöchhacker (2008: 11) comments that ‘[t]he implication of this juxtaposition
may be that whenever there is “translation”, there is also “culture”’. Indeed, this
has become axiomatic. Translators and interpreters work with and between
(speakers of) different languages and, as Brody (2003: 40) asserts, ‘[l]anguage
and culture are inextricably intertwined. Culture is negotiated in large part
through language and language codifies many cultural assumptions and values.’
The strong link between culture, language and translation was recognized by
early modern translation theorists such as Nida (1964 [1945]: 90), who warns
that ‘[t]he person who is engaged in translating from one language into another
ought to be constantly aware of the contrast in the entire range of culture
represented by the two languages’. In a more recent publication, Nida (2001:
13) writes that ‘competent translators are always aware that ultimately words
only have meaning in terms of the corresponding culture’.
Bassnett (1980: 14) uses an analogy that likens language to the heart and
culture to the body. She goes on to compare a translator to a surgeon who
cannot operate on the heart (language) without attention to the surrounding
body (culture). Vermeer (1986) rejects the idea that translation is merely a
question of language transfer; instead, he views it as primarily a cultural
transfer operation whereby information provided in a given language of
a given culture is imitated in another language of another culture. This,
according to Vermeer, implies that translators need to be bicultural, if not pluri-
cultural. Similarly, in her book Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach,
Snell-Hornby (1995 [1988]) dedicates an entire chapter to ‘translation as a
cross-cultural event’, implicitly criticizing the centuries-long tradition that
sees translation as something that occurs from one language to another.
For Snell-Hornby, translation entails transfer that is not only linguistic but
also cross-cultural. She therefore agrees with Vermeer (1986) that translation
requires language and cultural proficiency for both the source text and the
target text: ‘If language is an integral part of culture, the translator needs not
only proficiency in two languages, he must also be at home in two cultures.
In other words, he must be bilingual and bicultural (cf. Vermeer 1986)’ (Snell-
Hornby 1995 [1988]: 42). Hatim and Mason (1990: 223) agree as well: ‘the
translator has not only a bilingual ability but also a bi-cultural vision. Translators
mediate between cultures (including ideologies, moral systems and socio-
political structures), seeking to overcome those incompatibilities which stand
in the way of transfer of meaning.’
Nida’s (2001: 13) statement above, ‘words only have meaning in terms
of the corresponding culture’, should not be interpreted as suggesting that
cultural differences and culture-related translation challenges are only a
matter of words. It is true that many authors who have discussed translation
and culture have focused on or provided examples of cultural differences at
the levels of individual words/concepts, proverbs or idiomatic expressions. To
give just a few examples, Bassnett (1988: 15–36) discusses the sociocultural
associations and translation challenges associated with concepts and expres-
sions outwardly as simple as ‘pastry’, ‘butter’ or ‘bon appetit!’; Baker (2011
[1992]), in her discussion of equivalence at word level, comments on lexical
items such as ‘home’, ‘exotic’, ‘mystery’ or ‘cool’, among others; Katan (2004)
discusses occurrences of cultural references such as ‘tandoori’, ‘Blackpool’,
‘money’ and ‘Maxwell House’. However, the presence of culture in trans-
lation goes beyond such basic and relatively visible levels. Perhaps more
importantly, cultural differences manifest themselves in the way texts are
categorized, structured and realized, and in the conventionalized forms and
strategies used to achieve discourse functions.
In this regard, Hatim (1997: xiii) argues that ‘a careful consideration of
what actually happens to a given text when someone attempts to mediate in
communicating its “import” across both linguistic and cultural boundaries is
one way of making sure that we do not settle for a partial view of what goes
on inside that text’. What Hatim presumably means by ‘a partial view’ is a level
of textual analysis that stops at ‘the mechanical, lower-level vagaries of the
linguistic system’ (Hatim 1997: xiii). Instead, he sets out to address ‘higher-
order considerations of language in use and text in context’ (Hatim 1997:
xiii). Drawing upon translation theory, contrastive linguistics and discourse
analysis, he discusses deeper levels of cultural differences such as ‘argumen-
tation across cultures’, ‘degree of texture explicitness’, ‘emotiveness in texts’
and ‘the pragmatics of politeness [in written discourse]’.
In relation to the argumentative text type, for instance, Hatim (1997:
35–46) distinguishes between two types:
1 Through-argumentation: the speaker or writer has a thesis

(evaluation, viewpoint, etc.) to support and does so by stating
the thesis, substantiating it and concluding, without any explicit
acknowledgement of or reference to opposing viewpoints;
2 Counter-argumentation: the speaker or writer may start with a

statement acknowledging or summarizing an adversary’s opinion
or position, but only to rebut it subsequently and substantiate his/
her own counter-claim. Citation of opposing views is therefore
only a built-in strategy intended to serve the speaker’s or writer’s
argumentative plan, as required by the (genre and text-type) cultural
conventions of those societies which have counter-argumentation as

a norm.
What is of relevance to translation and culture here is that Hatim (1997: 35)
compares argumentation in English and in Arabic, and concludes that ‘the
mode of arguing by citing an opponent’s thesis, then countering it [counter-
argumentation] – a format which is common in languages such as English
– is fairly uncommon in Arabic, for example’. Effectively, Arabic writers
and speakers show a preference for through-argumentation in a number
of sociopolitical circumstances where Western convention would indicate
counter-argumentation, and translating argumentative texts without due
attention to such a deeper level of cultural difference may have undesirable
consequences. ‘It may be true that this form of argumentation [through-
argumentation]’, Hatim (1997: 35) points out, ‘generally lacks credibility when
translated into a context which calls for a variant form of argumentation in
languages such as English.’
Whether the relevant cultural differences lie at a conceptual level, within
social and cultural norms or in the use and organization of texts and
discourse, translation studies has long been occupied with the central issue
of how to approach otherness (cultural difference). The different positions in
this regard can generally be subsumed under the continuum of domestication
and foreignization. Venuti (1995) uses these terms to denote the extent to
which translators reflect the cultural norms of the original text or conform
to the norms and expectations of the target culture. Foreignizing translations
take the reader to the writer and their cultural context and norms, retaining
structural, lexical and other elements which might be judged ‘foreign’ or unidi-
omatic. This usually involves a deliberate move away from the conventions
of the target language and culture. The domestication strategy, on the other
hand, takes the writer to the reader by ironing out cultural differences and
conforming to the conventions and norms of the target language and culture.
The ultimate goal of this approach is to produce a fluent and ‘natural’ text
where the unusual and foreign is minimized (Venuti 1995).
Although culture is taken for granted as a central element in translation,
the concept and its associated constituents have not been sufficiently and
systematically operationalized in translation studies. Tymoczko (2009, 2014
[2007]) criticizes the manner in which culture has been approached in trans-
lation studies, and judges it to be simplistic and shallow. She believes that
the notion of culture has not been ‘sufficiently problematized’, that too much
focus continues to be placed on material culture, observable behaviour and
the lexical and linguistic reflections of these aspects, and that the limitation
of perspective is aggravated by a tendency to draw from Eurocentric situa-
tions and practices (Tymoczko 2014 [2007]: 225). With respect to the manner
in which translators approach cultural issues in texts, Tymoczko argues

that there are shortcomings in the common linear or serial method, which
consists of identifying segments that present cultural translation challenges
and resolving them one by one:
Translators are taught to direct their attention to specific locations in

texts where cultural problems are embodied in surface elements of the
language of the text: unfamiliar words referring to elements of the material
culture, behaviours and practices that are unknown to the target audience,
culture-bound symbols, sociolinguistic conventions such as politeness
conventions that vary across languages and cultures, alternative institu-
tions and social structures, and so forth. (Tymoczko 2009: 182)
This approach, according to Tymoczko (2009, 2014 [2007]), falls short of

dealing with cultural difference in a systematic way, fails to address the
question of how source cultures and their people are represented through
entire texts, and does not demonstrate that the translator sufficiently
engages in ‘self-reflexivity’ (i.e. actively and critically reflecting upon the trans-
lator’s own cultural background and ideology, their position vis-à-vis the text
and the impact of their translation actions on the text and, consequently, on
cultural representations).
Tymoczko (2009, 2014 [2007]) argues that translation studies needs
systematic, practicable and flexible methods to address cultural aspects of
translation, i.e. holistic approaches that seek to understand the systemic,
deeper-level cultural underpinnings of texts, take into consideration the trans-
lation action as a set of practices and cater for different ideological positions
and interests, not only for the powerful, their values and cultures. However,
this is not an easy mission, as the concept of ‘culture’ itself is slippery and
problematic (Katan 2004; Koskinen 2004; Scollon et al. 2012). Koskinen
(2004), for instance, shows how her use of the concept to refer to institu-
tions of the European Union as forming an entity with its own culture has
revealed that different disciplines, theoretical positions and scholars have
different understandings of ‘culture’, and that the polysemous or vague nature
of the word is apt to cause misunderstandings and controversy. Indeed, she
concludes that avoiding the term or substituting it with Scollon et al.’s (2012)
‘discourse system’ could constitute a safer and more revitalizing option for
translation studies, were it not for the fact that similar problems would arise
in relation to the concepts of ‘language’ and ‘translation’ themselves.
Tymoczko’s (2014 [2007]: 232–49) holistic approach is not put forward as
a translation strategy, but as a framework for contextualization and under-
standing that precedes translation strategies and the translation process.
It acknowledges that culture is dynamic and heterogeneous: every culture
undergoes changes and developments, which translators must be aware

of; cultural groups are not homogeneous, and texts may reflect variations or
non-mainstream voices and behaviours within what is generally considered
the same cultural context. Tymoczko suggests that a holistic approach needs
to consider a series of elements:
a ‘The signature concepts of a culture’: ‘cultural elements that are key

to social organization, cultural practices, and dispositions constituting
the habitus of a culture’ (Tymoczko 2014 [2007]: 238). These are
central concepts or values that influence a culture’s discourses and
practices, and may be either abstract (e.g. progress, shame, honour)
or material (e.g. cattle, ships, pyramids).
b Discourses: a cultural element that is reflected in language and which
relates to an author’s or subject’s ideological (and other) dispositions.
c Cultural practices: these include not only observable actions and
social practices but also symbolic or linguistic practices (e.g. naming,
coding related to identity and social relations, etc.).
d Cultural paradigms: culturally shared models and principles of
what is acceptable or expected (e.g. humour, logical sequencing or
argumentation as in Hatim’s example above).
e Overcodings: ‘linguistic patterns that are superimposed on
the ordinary ranks of language to indicate a higher-order set of
distinctions in language practices’ (Tymoczko 2014 [2007]: 243).
These are structural, linguistic and stylistic features that signal
mode of communication (e.g. spoken vs written), genre, register,
intertextuality, literary conventions, politeness conventions, technical
or official language (e.g. as in public service discourse), and so forth.
Tymoczko’s approach offers useful ideas to translators, alerting them to

locations or levels where cultural underpinnings may lie, and urging them
to engage in broader reflection upon and deeper analysis of the cultural
contexts of texts before translating them. However, this is not sufficiently
close to the systematic, practicable and flexible approach which, Tymoczko
asserts, translators need to deal with culture in translation. Notions such
as ‘signature concepts of a culture’, ‘cultural paradigms’ or ‘overcodings’ are
considerably broad and in need of detailed guidelines for their operationali-
zation. They also overlap with a number of other analytical tools proposed by
other scholars and schools of thought: ‘overcodings’, for instance, covers a
number of areas and leads in different directions, including into systemic
functional linguistics (mode of discourse, genre, register, etc.), pragmatics
and intercultural pragmatics (e.g. politeness strategies) or text-linguistics (e.g.
intertextuality). ‘Discourses’ also raises serious questions – probably as many

as ‘culture’ in Koskinen’s case – being understood not only as a belief system
or (ideological) disposition, but also as language use in a given communicative
situation, among other definitions (Johnstone 2009: 2–3). When used in the
sense of language usage characteristic of a given social group or institution,
it overlaps with Tymoczko’s ‘overcodings’, as the latter covers aspects such
as the technical language characteristic of institutional contexts. Discourse
is also so pervasive in human interaction, linguistic production and identity
manifestations that it is impracticable to distinguish between discourse as
a cultural element and discourse with more relevance to other dimensions
of human identity, such as social class, political affiliation, education or
profession.
Translation studies literature abounds with references to culture and
cultural mediation, and translation teachers and competence models under-
score the importance of the cultural context, cultural appropriateness,
cultural conventions and expectations (e.g. Hatim 1997; Simon 1997; Katan
2004; Amigo-Extremera 2015). However, as Simon (1997: 464) suggests, the
manner in which culture is portrayed in translation studies is still beset with
weaknesses. A solid, systematic and practical framework of culture is yet to
be produced, but contributions like Tymoczko’s above provide a general and
helpful framework wherein translators can situate their translation practice.
Building on this approach, translators can reflect not only on what are usually
considered cultural aspects with a possible impact on translation (cultural
background knowledge comprising values, social organization, interpersonal
and social relationships, genre conventions, text types, etc.), but also
on cultural representations through texts and translations, the translator’s
own cultural background and degree of biculturalism, their position vis-à-vis
the original text, as well as their perspective of the source and target cultures,
and the impact of their translational actions and choices on each.
2.3 Community translation and culture

As a subfield in translation studies, community translation shares most of the
challenges of cross-cultural transfer encountered in other types of translation.
Like other translators, community translators will often face culture-specific
concepts, idioms and metaphors, and deal with discrepancies in cultural
backgrounds, expectations and norms. What is different and special about
culture in community translation, though, is that the different cultures coexist
in the same community, sometimes relatively insulated from each other,
but very often with direct and continuous contact. Translating community
texts cannot be likened to rendering (say) Indian literary works for a Russian
audience, be it with a view to affording access to ‘exotic’ literature (foreigni-
zation) or offering a glimpse into a far-away world through a locally tinted
lens (domestication). Nor is it exactly like the translation of an international
company’s product user manual into a number of languages. Community
translations are usually those produced by, and for, institutions, organizations
and people who share the same nation, territory, public space, and attendant
services.
This means two things: first, (the lack of) translation and translation quality
will often have an immediate and direct impact on social relations and public
service transactions; and second, coexistence in the same space will result
in varying degrees of acculturation (‘those phenomena which result when
groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-
hand contact, with subsequent changes in the original cultural patterns of
either or both groups’ (Redfield et al. 1936: 149). These are sensitivities and
potential conflicts that intercultural mediators, including translators, need to
be aware of.
Another distinctive feature of community translation is the dual cross-
cultural transfer involved in performing it: community translators, especially
when translating between public institutions and laypeople, find that they have
to build bridges between the subculture of public services and that of lay users
on the one hand, and between the mainstream cultural frameworks of both
on the other (see Figure 2.1 below). Mishler (1984) explains that in medical
encounters (involving institutional experts and lay patients) there is tension
and competition between ‘the voice of medicine’, i.e. the doctor’s objective
and uninvolved observation, and ‘the voice of the lifeworld’, i.e. the patient’s
narrative based on their own experiences and feelings. In a sense, such
encounters are cross-cultural, as they involve two distinct subcultures (sets
of beliefs, expectations and values). When the medical encounter involves
a doctor and patient who belong to different cultures, there is an additional
dimension of cultural difference and intercultural communication. Similarly,
written communication between institutions and community members
(general public) involves contact between different subcultures – one usually
formal, organized and documented (both in terms of expertise and legal refer-
ences), the other relatively more informal and subjective, and less organized
and documented (compare, for instance, a complaint letter from a citizen to
a public service and a typical response from the latter). When the user of the
public service is someone from a group identified as culturally different, this
adds another layer of cultural distance to what has been mentioned above.
Finally, community translation involves bidirectionality and, in some cases,
grappling with individual writing styles, all of which increases the cultural
challenges for the translator. As pointed out in Chapter 1 and in Taibi (2011),
FIGURE 2.1 Cultural transfer in translation vs double cultural transfer in

community translation
community texts are not the preserve of public services alone, but may be
produced by non-governmental organizations, local or ethnic community
leaders, private organizations or individuals. Public services, NGOs and private
organizations tend to have their established ‘corporate’ discourse, with clear
guidelines on public relations, publications and public discourse. There are
multicultural aspects involved in many countries, but one would presume
that discourse remains subject to the (dominant) mode of the respective
institution. Community leaders may also conform to a given ‘corporate
culture’, depending on the nature and level of organization of the social group
with which they associate themselves. But individual citizens or residents
present a myriad of cultural and educational backgrounds, writing styles and
language variations, and here lies one of the most important challenges that
community translators face.
Hatim’s (1997) above point about cultural differences at the level of text
type and text organization is of particular relevance to community translation.
Most translators would be aware of the challenges associated with culture-
specific concepts and idiomatic expressions, as well as with differences
between countries in terms of territorial divisions, institutional nomenclature
and administrative organization. Cultural differences at a deeper level may
very easily go unnoticed, however, in many cases to the detriment of the user.
Like Hatim, a number of authors interested in intercultural communication

have drawn attention to cultural differences at a textual level. Kaplan (1972)
and Clyne (1987), for instance, show that the structure of expository texts
may differ from one culture to another. Whereas in English an expository
text is generally linear (a sequential chain of pieces of information), other
languages/cultures show a different organization (Kaplan, 1972):
a Parallel constructions: in Arabic, for example, parallel structures

are used so that the first idea is completed in the second part of a
sentence or paragraph. Clyne (1994) points out that this may be a
reflection of the ancient Semitic (oral) rhetorical tradition present in
the Quran and in the New Testament.
b Circling organization and multiple perspectives: in Japanese, Korean,

Chinese and Indian cultures the topic is viewed from a variety of
perspectives, but not directly. Hinds (1980: 148–50) points out that
one of the features of Japanese expository text is that the theme is
reinforced continually, but without necessarily being explicitly stated.
c Freedom to digress: in German, Spanish, Latin American or Italian

cultures, digression and the introduction of what may be considered
‘irrelevant content’ (by other cultures) is common and tolerated.
In German academic texts, argues Clyne (1987: 163), ‘digressions
enable writers to add a theoretical component in an empirical text,
a historical overview, ideological dimension, or simply more content,
or engage in continuing polemic with members of a competing
school’. Interestingly, this last observed characteristic brings German
expository text closer to argumentation.
Although some of the studies above are more related to academic texts than
to community translation, they clearly illustrate how different cultures have
different writing norms and different discourse practices.
Perhaps an area of cultural difference, at a textual level, that is more
closely related to community contexts is letters. In many Anglo-Saxon
cultures, for example, letters tend to follow a deductive pattern – that is
to say, a to-the-point approach where the purpose of the letter is stated
first and then explanation, substantiation or additional information can be
included. Kirkpatrick (1991), in a study on letters sent by Chinese native
speakers to the China Section of Radio Australia, found that these letters
tended to leave requests to the end. Probably due to face considerations
(politeness), these Chinese letters opened with a salutation, followed by a
preamble (attention to the receiver’s face through good wishes or compli-
ments, for instance), then reasons and finally the request. Similarly, Clyne
(1991) found that Arabic students tended to mention their requests last,
although their letters showed more creativity and variation from one writer
to another. This inductive (as opposed to deductive) approach in Chinese and
Arabic letters is likely to disorient, frustrate or even upset (threaten the face
of) an English reader who is not aware of cultural differences at the level of
text conventions.
Another tendency Clyne (1991) found in letters written in English by
persons coming from different cultural backgrounds is the use of address
terms and honorific features. While in English a succinct ‘Dear Sir/Dear
Ms Jones’ would properly satisfy courtesy before proceeding to the main
business (purpose) of the letter, writers from India, Pakistan and the Arab
World tended to introduce their requests (and even statements) with
honorific features and expressions of deference toward the addressee and
their organization, such as the following:
– I beg to say … (Pakistani)

– I have the honour to intimate … (Indian)
– I have the honour to inform you … (Egyptian)
– I begged you to accept my application … (Egyptian)
– It is a great honour that I ask you to help me subscribe in your university
(Moroccan)
Apparently, this is a reflection of the pragmatics of letter writing (and

communication in general) in these writers’ respective cultures. But what
is of interest here is that the English reader who is not aware of cultural
differences will have different expectations. Such ‘excessive’ use of honorific
features can be viewed with bemusement (‘how quaint!’) or frustration (‘can’t
they just get to the point and save my time?’). It may also be interpreted as
subservient, and potentially encouraging the reader to assume a superior
position toward the writer. Similarly – and notwithstanding that in the context
of public service correspondence a power differential is normally present – a
concise, to-the-point letter from an English speaker might be perceived as
curt, tactless or a sign of ‘arrogance’ by an Indian or an Arab addressee.
Awareness of and compliance with culture-specific or cross-cultural norms
of text production is essential to effective communication through written
texts. Failure to abide by text-type and genre conventions may result in
inappropriate, insensitive or counterproductive texts. What is worse, it may
lead to a negative evaluation of the writer, with all the ensuing consequences
this may have in real-life situations (business, education, immigration, and
so on). A case in point is international students at Australian (or other)
educational institutions. Clyne (1994:162) reports some comments made by
secondary school examiners in the state of Victoria (Australia), which show
how failure to adjust to the writing norms and expectations of the mainstream
culture (or institution) may lead to failure at other levels:
– ‘… those who write controlled relevant essays will always be appropri-
ately advantaged.’
– ‘Lack of relevance remains the major cause of failure.’
– ‘Rather than answer in structural terms, many resorted to circular
arguments.’
Whether the characteristics and patterns discussed above are relatively

isolated or apply systematically throughout the cultures in question, the point
is that there are demonstrable situations where cultural differences must be
a consideration. Intercultural communicators and mediators – community
translators included – need to be aware of and negotiate this additional hurdle
if they wish to achieve successful communication or effective and appropriate
translation.
When translating from and into (minority) community languages,
community translators need to continuously assess the cultural differences
between the original writer and the ultimate target reader. Texts must be
analysed not only with regard to the broad cultural context wherein they are
produced, but also in light of the institutional subculture and conventions of
the organization or public service that originates the material or commissions
its translation. Based on such analysis and assessment, translators would
select the most appropriate translation strategy for each case, taking into
consideration the features and context of community translation discussed
in Chapter 1 (language imparity, literacy, power imbalance, diversity among
target readers, etc.). Needless to say, no single strategy will suit all texts,
settings and target communities.
2.4 Examples of sociocultural issues

2.4.1 Translation of consent forms
The translation of medical informed consent forms into ‘minority’ languages
is a prototypical case of the sociocultural challenges and the professional
and ethical dilemmas facing community translators. As previously noted,
community translation involves a dual operation of cross-cultural transfer:
at one level, from the general cultural framework of the source text to the
general cultural framework of the targeted demographic; at the other, from
the subculture of the source text producer to that of the target text reader. To
this we need to add the other usual sources of complexity, such as variation of
literacy levels and access to information from one community to another. But
first, let us outline the nature and characteristics of an informed consent form.
Faden and Beauchamp (1986: 278–80) define two senses of ‘informed
consent’: the first one as ‘an autonomous action by a subject or patient that
authorizes a professional either to involve the subject in research or to initiate
a medical plan for the patient (or both)’; the other as ‘legally or institutionally
effective […] authorization from a patient or subject […] obtained through
procedures that satisfy the rules and requirements defining a specific institu-
tional practice in health care or in research’. In other words, the first sense of
the concept is the autonomy-based principle that an individual has the right
not to undergo any procedure without their consent, while the other sense
focuses on the extent to which that consent is valid in the context of legal
requirements and institutional procedures and standards. Berg et al. (2001: 3)
open their book Informed Consent: Legal Theory and Clinical Practice with
three senses to the term ‘informed consent’, none of which, according to the
authors, can alone encompass the complexity of the entire concept: a) legal
rules that govern interactions between healthcare staff and patients; b) an
ethical doctrine based on the principle of autonomy and the individual’s right
of self-determination in situations requiring medical treatment; and c) the
interpersonal interaction between the two sides (healthcare professionals and
patients) to choose an appropriate medical treatment option.
The informed consent process varies from one country to another. As
Berg et al. (2001: 4) point out, ‘[t]here are not only vast differences in clinical
realities, but also differences among cultural, ethical and legal systems’. The
essence of the process, however, is that patients must be informed as to
their health condition, the treatment options available, the proposed course
of action and the associated risks. In many parts of the world the process
would normally start with information provided by healthcare professionals
orally and, subsequently, the patient would be asked to express consent by
signing a form which notionally contains the same information, followed by a
declaration that the patient understands the nature of the procedure. Given
the focus of this book, we are more interested in the communication process
that takes place through a written informed consent form.
As defined above, the medical informed consent process occupies a
position between medicine and the law. A medical informed consent form,
therefore, is a hybrid between a legal and a medical document: it contains
medical information intended as a step in a medical process, but at the same
time it constitutes legal evidence that the patient has been duly informed and
has authorized the corresponding surgical or other procedure. From a legal
and ethical perspective, an essential condition for the process to be valid is
that the patient must comprehend the diagnosis, the treatment proposed
and the risks involved. The extent to which this is possible, especially when
communication between healthcare professionals and patients is mediated
(by interpreters or translators), raises major ethical questions, not only for
medical institutions and staff, but also for translators and interpreters. Before
we deal with translated consent forms, it is worth presenting an interesting
example of monolingual communication for informed consent purposes.
To introduce a number of ethical issues, Berg et al. (2001: 4) refer to the
case of a patient who had hardly completed high school and who had been
suffering from pancreatitis. The Chief Resident and the Senior Resident
advise him as follows:
Chief Resident: […] What I think is that you will do better if we take out
part of your pancreas, as long as you understand that this is a serious
operation in that, while you probably won’t die from it, there is a small
chance that you might, although not much. But there are serious side
effects from it, like you will probably have some diabetes and have trouble
digesting your food. Then I think that we should go ahead and have you talk
with your wife about coming in and make plans for you to come in.
Senior Resident: I think that you ought to understand that this is not going
to be a cure-all. This is not going to do away with all of your problems. You
are still going to have a lot of problems from that pancreas of yours.
Patient: I know that. (Berg et al. 2001: 5)
Later on the same morning, the authors report, a researcher who had
observed the interaction above asked the patient whether he knew why he
had a pancreas problem and he replied that he did not. When asked about
the operation he was supposed to undergo, he responded: ‘They are going to
take my pancreas out’ (Berg et al. 2001: 5).
The authors follow what goes on in the communication with this patient at
different stages, with different healthcare staff, but what is of interest to us
is that there was a clear misunderstanding or lack of comprehension in this
case, although the interaction was monolingual, between two native speakers
of English, and the information was provided in non-specialized language. This
implies that the risk of misunderstanding or incomplete comprehension is
even greater when patients have to obtain information about their health and
the ramifications of medical treatment through a written (and consequently
more formal) document whose comprehensibility will likely be even more
problematic once translated into another language. Consider the informed
consent form below. The first text is the Spanish original, followed by an
English translation done by the interpreting and translation students of a
Spanish university as part of a project to provide translated materials to
hospitals and healthcare centres.
DOCUMENTO DE CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO

PARA CERCLAJE CERVICAL
DOÑA…………………………………………………………
(NOMBRE Y DOS APELLIDOS DE LA PACIENTE) DE……………….AÑOS DE EDAD.
CON DOMICILIO EN………………………………………………….Y D.N.I. Nº………………
DON………………………………………………………………………………………………..
(NOMBRE Y DOS APELLIDOS)DE……………………….AÑOS DE EDAD
CON DOMICILIO EN……………………………………………….Y D.N.I. Nº………………..
EN CALIDAD DE ……………………………………………..(REPRESENTANTE LEGAL,
FAMILIAR, ALLEGADO) DE…………………………………………………………..
(NOMBRE Y DOS APELLIDOS DE LA PACIENTE)
DECLARO:
QUE EL DOCTOR/A……………………………………………………………………………….
(NOMBREY DOS APELLIDOS DEL FACULTATIVO QUE PROPORCIONA LA INFORMACION)
me ha informado de la necesidad/ conveniencia de practicar procedimiento quirúrgico de
CERCLAJE CERVICAL cuya finalidad es reducir el orificio cervical uterino por riesgo de
aborto/ parto prematuro, y que se me ha explicado y he comprendido y aceptado que:
1. Que la intervención consiste en colocar una cinta o hilo alrededor del orificio cervical
y mediante su anudación se produce una reducción de la amplitud del mismo.
2. La intervención debe realizarse bajo anestesia (general o locorregional), que será
valorada por el Servicio de Anestesia.
3. Que la intervención no garantiza absolutamente la corrección de la insuficiencia
cervical, y existe un pequeño porcentaje de fracasos sin poder garantizar, por tanto, la
posibilidad de un parto pretérmino.
4. Que la vía habitual de abordaje para realizar esta intervención es la vaginal.
5. Que los riesgos potenciales de esta intervención son la rotura prematura de las
membranas, amnionitis, sangrados cervicales, imposibilidad de realizar la intervención
infección urinaria, desencadenamiento del parto/ aborto, y los secundarios a la
anestesia.
Por mi situación actual, el médico me ha explicado que pueden aumentar o aparecer riesgos
o complicaciones como …………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
6. Que existen otras opciones terapéuticas conservadoras, que me han sido explicadas,
que no implican la intervención quirúrgica, por lo que no producen el cierre del orificio
cervical, como el reposo absoluto, la administración de fármacos uteroinhibidores,
etc., con un porcentaje de éxito muy inferior.
7. Que me han sido explicados y he comprendido los cuidados, y tratamiento en su
caso, que he de seguir tras la intervención y me comprometo a observar.
8. Que si en el curso de intervención surgiese algún imprevisto, el equipo médico podrá
variar la técnica programada.
DOCUMENTO DE CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO

PARA CERCLAJE CERVICAL (INGLÉS)
INFORMED CONSENT
FOR CERVICAL CERCLAGE
MRS/MS ……………………………………..……………………………………………………
(PATIENT’S NAME AND SURNAME/S), AGED ..….…….
RESIDENT OF ………………………………………….. ID NO. ………………………………..
MR ………………………………………………….…………………………….………………
(NAME AND SURNAME/S), AGED …..……….
RESIDENT OF ………………………………………….. ID NO. ………………………………..
ACTING AS …………………………… (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OR RELATIVE) OF
………………….……………………………. (PATIENT’S NAME AND SURNAME/S)
I STATE:
That I have been informed by the HEALTH PROFESSIONAL ………………………..
………………………………………………. (NAME AND SURNAMES OF THE HEALTH
PROFESSIONAL PROVIDING THIS INFORMATION) of the necessity/convenience of
performing a CERVICAL CERCLAGE. This surgical procedure aims to reduce the cervical
uterine orifice due to the risk of abortion/premature labour. I have been informed and I
have accepted that:
The surgical operation consists in encircling the cervical orifice with a loop. When this is
tightened, the size of the orifice is reduced.
This surgical operation must be performed under general or local/regional anaesthetic,
which will be assessed by the Anaesthesia Department.
This operation does not absolutely guarantee the correction of the cervical deficiency.
There is a small possibility of failure, therefore it is not possible to guarantee a natural
birth.
This surgical operation is usually performed through the vagina.
The potential risks of this operation are the premature breakage of membranes,
amnionitis, cervical bleeding, the inability to continue the operation, urinary infection, the
induction of labour/miscarriage, and those adverse events deriving from anaesthetics.
Due to my current situation, the practitioner has explained to me that the following risks
and complications may appear or worsen:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
I have been informed about other possible conservative therapeutic options such as
complete rest, administering uterus inhibitors, etc., which do not involve a surgical
operation and, therefore, will not reduce the cervical orifice.
The success rate of these alternatives is much lower than with cervical cerclage.
I have been informed of and I have understood the care and treatment, if necessary, that I
must follow after surgery and which I am committed to following if something unexpected
occurs during the intervention, the medical team will change the programmed technique.
In the event of something unpredictable happening during the intervention, I hereby give
my consent for the medical staff to change the technique to be used.
The underlined terms and phrases in the Spanish and English texts above are
but a few examples of the specialized terminology and complex structures
that characterize medical texts. As a quick comparison shows, the level of
formality and complexity is notably higher in the written texts than in the
spoken explanations given by the healthcare professionals taken from Berg
et al. (2001: 4). Although the forms are aimed at patients, they are written as
though they were instances of communication within the same subculture:
that is, communication between experts in the same area. As Burns and Kim
(2011: 59) assert, ‘it may be difficult for health professionals who are usually
highly educated to place themselves in the position of readers with very
varied levels of literacy in their first and second languages’. If complexity and
specialized language may constitute a comprehension challenge for native
Spanish and English readers whose level of education and access to infor-
mation are relatively more developed, the challenge may be even greater
for community members for whom the language of the text is a second or
foreign language; those who have a lower educational level; users whose
language skills are not sufficiently developed to accommodate science and
technology; or those who speak one language for ‘lifeworld’ interactions
while the official or written language of their country is another (e.g. diglossic
situations as in the Arab World, or colonial vs local languages as in some
African countries).
Taibi (2006a) conducted a survey in Madrid with Spanish, Arabic and
(African) English speakers to verify the extent to which they were able to
understand medical informed consent forms and to compare compre-
hension difficulties between the three groups. The research method, which
employed a consent form for a toracotomy-thoracoscopy, consisted of
supplying the original (Spanish) text and its Arabic and English translations
to the three language groups, and asking the participants to underline any
lexical items they could not understand. The demographic data of the
people approached for the study showed significant differences between
the Spanish group and the two migrant groups (Arabic speakers and
speakers of English as a second or foreign language): none of the Spanish
participants were illiterate, while 30 per cent of the Arabic-speaking partici-
pants and 21.42 per cent of the African English-speaking group were. This
meant that they were unable to use written texts without the assistance
(mediation) of another person. For those who were able to read, the survey
showed that out of the approximately 330 words comprising the text, the
readers of the Arabic, English and Spanish versions underlined an average
of twenty-four, nineteen and six words respectively. This indicated that, at
least in terms of lexical items, the migrants from Arab and African origins
faced greater comprehension challenges. The underlined words in the
Spanish version were all specialized terms (‘toracotomía’, ‘toracoscopia’,
[lamm aš-šaml] ‘‫’ﻋﻘﺐ‬ ‘‫’ﺇإﻳﯾﻼﺝج‬
Page 49: [ʻaqiba: after] [īlāj: insertion]

‘plexo braquial’, ‘neumotórax’, ‘empiema’, ‘dehiscencia’), while the English-
speaking African immigrants and, especially, the Arabic-speaking users
underlined even non-specialized lexical items (e.g. ‘undergo’ and ‘discharge’
in English, or ‘‫’ﻋﻘﺐ‬
‘ ’ [ʻaqiba: after], ‘‫ﺇإﻳﯾﻼﺝج‬
‘ ’ [īlāj: insertion] and ‘‫ﺃأﻧﺒﻮﺏب‬
‘ ’’ [unbūb:
tube] in Arabic).
These findings are understandable given the educational and sociolin-
guistic backgrounds of the participants: a) literacy rates are relatively lower
[ʻaqiba: after] [īlāj: insertion] [unbūb: tube]
in African and Arab countries than in Spain or Europe in general, as recent
data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics indicate (UNESCO 2013);
b) the African participants were migrants or refugees who spoke English as
a second or foreign
‘‫ ’ﺇإﻳﯾﻼﺝج‬language; and c) ‘‫ﺃأﻧﺒﻮﺏب‬
Modern’ Standard Arabic, the language
of the translated Arabic version, is only used in writing and very formal
communicative situations, and is therefore only accessible to educated
people.
[īlāj:a insertion]
All this raises
[unbūb: tube]
number of questions and dilemmas for the community
translator. One such is how to translate a formal medico-legal document,
which is often full of specialized terminology and complex structures, to
a patient from‘‫ﺃأﻧﺒﻮﺏب‬
a different
’ culture and with a lower socio-educational level.
Ultimately, this goes to the community translator’s role – namely, whether
one should assume the mantle of communication facilitator, intercultural
mediator, inter-literacy mediator or ‘faithful’ transcoder (see Chapter 3).
Taibi (2006b: [unbūb:
63) argues tube]that community translators have ‘the right and
obligation to find a balance between formal equivalence and communicative
efficiency’, based on an analysis of the characteristics of each institutional
context and the sociocultural background of the target readers. Burns and
Kim (2011: 69) suggest ‘that health information and its translation for the
community [should be] made as accessible as possible’. Even for original
texts, the authors argue, there is room for improvement for better clarity and
readability.
The question of accessibility and cultural appropriateness may be taken
even further by considering those communities where orality is more
common or preferable than written communication in the transmission of
knowledge or advice. In such a case, other formats of translation or trans
creation (e.g. audiovisual content) may be more effective alternatives. And
here emerges the necessity for the community translator to be proactive in
advising text producers on the suitability of texts and of medium of commu-
nication. In other words, the community translator will at times need to act
as a cultural or community advisor, especially in those situations where no
other professionals or organizations are able to perform this role. Rather than
waste time and resources on a translation that would be inaccessible or
inappropriate, it would be more useful to advise the relevant authorities or
parties of alternative ways to communicate.
2.4.2 Translation of asylum seeker statements

While official documents such as informed consent forms are generated
by authorities for public service users, we also find this directionality
reversed in certain instances – such as the statements produced by asylum
seekers for consideration by the authorities of the country where they are
seeking protection. Refugee status is governed by the 1951 United Nations
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol relating
to the Status of Refugees. According to the Convention, a refugee is a
person who, ‘owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of
race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political
opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to
such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country’ (United
Nations High Commission for Refugees 2011: 10). To be able to present a
credible case of persecution for religious, racial, political or other reasons, the
applicant needs to ‘supply all pertinent information concerning himself and
his past experience in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner
to establish the relevant facts. He should be asked to give a coherent expla-
nation of all the reasons invoked in support of his application’ (United Nations
High Commission for Refugees 2011: 40). This is usually done through both a
written statement and an interview, in addition, of course, to any evidentiary
materials the applicant may possess.
The thrust of this last quotation hinges on keywords such as ‘relevant
facts’ and ‘coherent’. Relevance is understood as pertinence to the criteria
specified in the Convention; coherence is assessed from the (cultural)
perspective of the examiner, who also assesses relevance. Due to language
barriers, applicants often require intermediation to supply their ‘pertinent
information’ – transmitting verbal accounts through interpreters and written
statements through translators. This again takes us to the issue of how the
‘voice of the lifeworld’ is received and perceived by the ear, eye or cognitive
system of the examiner or expert.
To illustrate, the following is an extract from a student’s translation of an
asylum statement made originally in Arabic by an Iraqi applicant:
What my mother narrated of what had happened to us was little and we

were hoping that our story would be taken into consideration because of
the hardship we suffered. We would like to inform you that we cannot and
will never return to Iraq because of our fear of those rabble hardliners and
extremists. We were threatened by more than one group and, as my mother
said, we were under constant and heavy surveillance and we couldn’t go

out, while we heard those evil groups calling us infidels, “filthy” and that
there is no place for polytheists in Iraq. Finally we had no option but to
escape.
Those rabbles spat in my beloved mother’s face, they also slapped her so
hard she fell to the ground, not mentioning the obscene language they have
used which I cannot reproduce.
All of that was not enough, they were harassing me and I feared for my
wife’s and children’s safety.
The passage above occurs at the beginning of the applicant’s statement,

immediately after a first paragraph identifying the applicant and their family
members. Although it is relatively clear that the writer is describing some
relevant grounds, namely religious persecution, the account is not written in
a clear, well-structured and effective manner. It does not clearly and concisely
start with the applicant’s claim(s), but with an unclear ‘what my mother
narrated of what had happened to us was little’. In addition, rather than specify
who the alleged persecutors are, the writer keeps referring to ‘evil groups’ and
‘rabbles’. In a clear culture-specific discourse strategy, the applicant’s mother
is referred to three times. The sentence ‘Those rabbles spat in my beloved
mother’s face’, in particular, suggests that extremely offensive behaviour took
place. Only with a cultural understanding of the position of the mother and the
symbolism associated with this figure in Arab cultures can a reader fully under-
stand the narrative above and the persecution grounds the writer puts forward.
The text from which the excerpt above was taken reflects some of the
common textual features in statements and accounts written by individuals
from certain sociocultural backgrounds and presented for translation in a
community context:
1 A narrative that focuses on life experiences rather than the relevant

criteria.
2 A text organization that does not match the expectations of the target
culture and institution (e.g. inductive vs deductive).
3 Poor coherence and cohesion, at least as assessed from the

perspective of the target culture and readership (i.e. public service
staff).
4 Discourse strategies that might be common in the source culture but

inappropriate in the target culture or the culture of the public service
addressed. For instance, emotive language such as ‘you have a

compassionate heart’ or ‘I have three orphans to feed’ are commonly
used as persuasion strategies by public service users in undemocratic
countries, but in countries where people are treated as citizens with
institutionalized rights, such strategies would be perceived as odd,
self-demeaning and out of place.
5 Cultural references that might not be understood outside the writer’s

community without appropriate intervention by a translator.
This type of texts presents the translator with the recurrent challenge not
only to address cultural differences but also to mediate between the voice of
an individual applicant’s lifeworld (Mishler 1984) and the voice of the public
service. In this case the role or mission of the translator is also raised: is it to
render texts as they are presented (form, argumentative/narrative structure,
and so on) or to reformulate and restructure them in an effective and insti-
tutionally more appropriate manner (to empower and serve the purposes of
the asylum seeker)? Such seemingly radical departures from neutrality have
been raised in community interpreting literature (e.g. Barsky 1996) and need
to be considered for community translation. In the following chapter, we
discuss this as part of a general discussion of the translation approaches in
community translation and the ethical considerations applicable to community
translators.
3
Approaches to (community)
translation
3.1 Translation norms and values
W e have seen in the previous chapters that community translation is an

activity that facilitates written communication between components
of the same society, where some member groups do not have a good
command of the dominant language. The ultimate aim of this activity is to
ensure that all citizens and residents have access to information, full access
to public services and an opportunity to participate in the social, economic,
cultural and political life of their society. The materials to be translated may
be produced by a number of different social agents – principally mainstream
public services and community organizations, but also, in some cases,
individuals seeking a service or applying for a certain status or benefit. We
have also seen that community translation usually takes place in a multicul-
tural context characterized by power asymmetry – between minority and
majority groups, and between the providers and the users of public services
– as well as by language imparity, linguistic variation inside the same target
community and varying levels of literacy. As has been indicated earlier, this
complexity raises a number of questions about the role of community trans-
lators and the approach they should take when dealing with community texts.
The synthesis of translation norms and values by Chesterman (2000)
affords a useful starting point for our discussion of both the community trans-
lator’s role and community translation approaches. According to Chesterman,
translation is a type of action that takes the form of strategies determined by
certain translation norms, which in turn have their origin in four fundamental
ethical values: clarity, truth, trust and understanding.
a Clarity: clarity is an overriding value in language use in general

and in translation in particular. One of Grice’s (1975) oft-quoted
conversational maxims suggests that audiences generally expect

communicators to avoid ambiguity and obscurity and to be brief and
orderly. Clarity ensures rational communication in human societies
(Chesterman 2000: 175). Translators in particular attend to the value
of clarity both preventively and productively. Preventively, they
process texts from one language to another in a way that avoids
obscurity and confusion. Productively, they generally make translation
choices that contribute better to clarity by, for instance, favouring
iconicity, i.e. unmarked linguistic forms whose meaning can easily
be identified (Chesterman 2000: 177). However, evaluating clarity
is not unproblematic, as it is relative to the situational context and
to the background of the audience: what is clear for some might
not be sufficiently so for others, while in some circumstances
clarity is something the communicators themselves may wish to
avoid (Chesterman 2000: 176). This is very relevant to community
translation, as will be discussed below.
b Truth: truth means correspondence to reality or a state of affairs;

in translation it refers to correspondence to the source text. It is
related to what has been traditionally referred to as translation
fidelity, faithfulness or equivalence. In terms of translation norms,
it is closely associated with the relation norm: ‘a translator should
act in such a way that an appropriate relation of relevant similarity is
established and maintained between the source text and the target
text’ (Chesterman 2000: 69). This value is even more problematic
and controversial than clarity. Noting that the concept of truth
is debatable and that the adjective ‘true’ is used in a number of
different senses (e.g. true photograph, true copy, true report, etc.),
Chesterman (2000: 180) adopts a flexible position regarding the
extent to which translations (should) reflect their corresponding
original texts: ‘Source–target relations are elastic, but the elastic must
not be cut completely.’ This means that varying levels of ‘truth’ – or
cross-mapping between source and target texts – may be acceptable,
depending on contextual and textual considerations. In the context
of community translation in particular, this warrants a number of
possible ways of producing and translating texts in consultation and
collaboration with the relevant stakeholders (see Section 3.3 below).
c Trust: as an overriding value, trust has to do with the translator’s

assumption that the different stakeholders and participants in
the communication act (original writer, translation commissioner,
audience, other translators) are acting in good faith and, at the same
time, expect the translator to act in a loyal and trustworthy manner.
Approaches to (community) translation 55
‘Translators, in order to survive as translators, must be trusted by

all parties involved, both as a profession and individually. They must
therefore work in such a way as to create and maintain this trust’
(Chesterman 2000: 181). The fact that this is a key value is reflected
in common references in translator codes of ethics to expectations
such as upholding the reputation and trustworthiness of the
profession, observing impartiality, taking responsibility for one’s work
and declaring any conflict of interest (e.g. AUSIT 2012). However,
like the other values, trust often poses dilemmas for the translator,
especially in those situations where loyalty to one stakeholder may
impinge on loyalty to another. This too will be discussed below in
relation to community translation.
d Understanding: people communicate to achieve understanding,

and translators undertake their work to produce and expand
understanding by making texts accessible to a larger and more
diverse audience. As communicators, translators value understanding
and work towards it by ‘(a) minimizing misunderstanding of the
text among included readers, and (b) minimizing the number of
potential readers who are excluded from understanding’ (Chesterman
2000: 186). Like clarity, however, understanding is relative: what
is easily understandable for some might be less so for others;
what some listeners or readers understand might be slightly or
significantly different from what is understood by others; and perfect
understanding does not exist (there is always a degree of mismatch
between the speaker’s or writer’s intended meaning and the hearer’s
or reader’s interpretation). However, what is of importance to us,
especially in the community translation context, is that understanding
is an ultimate value for translators and that this value is related
to both minimizing misunderstanding and minimizing the circle of
excluded readerships.
The values above can be reduced to three: truth, trust and understanding. The
values of clarity and understanding are related, to the extent that one (clarity)
can be subsumed under the other (understanding). Chesterman (2000: 186)
differentiates between them and explains that clarity regulates translation
expectancy norms (expectations of the target readership) while understanding
relates to the communication norm (achieving optimal communication
between parties in a given context). He adds that clarity and truth concern
relations between source and target texts, while trust and understanding
concern relations between people (stakeholders). However, it can be argued
that logically the ultimate goal behind clarity is understanding, and that the
communication norm relates to both: writers tend to make their texts as clear
as possible to facilitate understanding and therefore achieve communication;
translators generally seek to produce clear translations in order to achieve
understanding and, as a result, communication among a larger audience.
Indeed this plausibly explains why explicitation is a translation universal (see
e.g. Baker 1993; Toury 1995; Øverås 1998; Klaudy and Károly 2005).
3.2 Approaches to translation

Much of the translation studies literature has in a sense occupied itself
with the value of truth, i.e. with linguistic and textual analysis of source
texts to determine the state of affairs that needs to be reflected in another
language, and comparison with target texts to assess the extent to which
these products are a true reflection of the source texts. At the same time the
value of understanding has been central, especially with the advent of reader-
oriented translation theories. Rather than present an exhaustive historical
account or an evaluative overview of translation theories, the following
paragraphs briefly overview some influential approaches to translation, with
a special focus on reader-oriented and functional models. This is done with
the intention of providing some background to the subsequent discussion
of approaches to community translation, and identifying the views in the
literature that best suit the context of this activity.
As Munday (2012: 9) has noted, ‘[i]t is interlingual translation, between
two different verbal sign systems, that has been the traditional focus of trans-
lation studies’. Some of the most influential theoretical models (e.g. Vinay
and Darbelnet 1995 [1958]; Catford 1980 [1965]) date back to the 1950s and
1960s – decades when linguistics was a dominant discipline, language was
conceived of as a code and structuralism and language universals dominated
language studies (Nord 1997: 6). As a result, these early approaches offer
a limited understanding of translation which centres round the contrastive
study of the source and target languages. Vinay and Darbelnet (1995 [1958])
address a number of linguistic aspects of translation, including differences
between syntactic structures, the lexicon, word classes, stylistic variations,
number, time, tense, and so on. Based on a contrastive linguistic comparison
of English and French, they put forward seven principal translation procedures
which are presumed to apply to other languages: borrowing, calque, literal
translation, transposition, modulation, equivalence and adaptation. Influenced
by the same structuralist linguistic models of the time, Catford (1980 [1965])
proposes his concept of ‘translation shift’: when there is a mismatch
between a formal correspondent and a textual equivalent, a translation shift
occurs or needs to occur. Catford identifies two broad types of translation

shift: level shifts, where an equivalent to a source text item is found at a
different linguistic level (e.g. a shift from the level of grammar to that of lexis),
and category shifts, which include structural shifts, class shifts, unit shifts
and intra-system shifts.
Early theoretical contributions such as Vinay and Darbelnet’s and Catford’s
have been criticized by many scholars (see e.g. Roberts 1984; Snell-Hornby
1988; Fawcett 1997) on the grounds that they reduce translation to a linguistic
exercise, focus on units of translation below the text level, use idealized
and out-of-context sentences as examples and do not offer practical or
useful solutions to translators. However, these pioneering efforts still have
a presence in translation studies and translation training, and can still offer
valid insights. Collombat (2003), for instance, concludes that the essence of
Vinay and Darbelnet’s contribution, as an instrumental theory, remains useful.
Chesterman (2012: 32) recognizes that Catford’s contribution carries useful
seeds for translation studies, and values the fact that ‘[d]espite his 1960s
linguistic framework, he does see the importance of relevance, situation and
context; the distinction between formal correspondence and textual equiva-
lence is fundamental (although not exclusive to him), as is the contextualizing
of the notion of equivalence itself’.
Hatim and Mason (1990) offer another linguistics-centred approach to
translation, but in their case with a strong orientation towards discourse
analysis and the insights it may offer to translators. Inspired by the Hallidayan
linguistic framework, they go beyond structural aspects of language to
consider texts as discursive practices and as reflections of different functions
encompassing the ideational (representation of reality), the interpersonal
(relationship between speaker/writer and listener/reader) and the textual.
Central to their work are register analysis (field, tenor and mode of discourse),
intertextuality, intentionality, text types (expository, argumentative and
instructive), text structure and discourse structure. Another important aspect
of translation that the authors address is ideology and power relationships.
For them, translators are mediators between the producer (and culture) of the
original text and the reader (and culture) of the target text . It is therefore
the translator’s duty to use structural, semantic, pragmatic, discursive,
semiotic and other levels of analysis to reproduce the intended meaning, the
rhetorical purpose and the ideological tone of the source text. ‘Whatever is
said about the degree of freedom the translator has’, Hatim and Mason (1990:
161) suggest, ‘the fact remains that reflecting the ideological force of the
words is an inescapable duty.’
Baker (2011 [1992]) also espouses a linguistics-based approach to trans-
lation. Unlike the work of Hatim and Mason (1990), Baker’s book adopts a
bottom-up hierarchical organization, dedicating chapters to different types
(levels) of equivalence (word level, above word level, grammatical, textual,

pragmatic, beyond equivalence). The author identifies translation problems
and suggests translation solutions at different linguistic levels. At the lexical
level, for instance, she suggests generalization, neutralization, cultural substi-
tution, using loanwords, paraphrasing, and so on. For translation challenges
posed by idioms, she suggests a number of options (e.g. idiom with similar
form, idiom with different form, borrowing, paraphrase, omission). In relation
to equivalence at the textual level, Baker addresses translation challenges and
possible solutions relating to information structure and cohesion. Recalling
Halliday’s (e.g. 1970, 1985) ‘given/new’ and ‘theme/rheme’, and echoing
Hatim and Mason’s (1990: 220) assertion that different languages use
different patterns of thematic progression and that these ‘patterns are always
employed in the service of an overriding rhetorical purpose’, Baker offers an
insightful analysis of text organization in different languages and alerts trans-
lators to the importance of information structure and text cohesion.
In the 2011 edition of her book, Baker adds a new chapter on ethics ‘to
respond to increased pressures on translators and interpreters to demonstrate
accountability and awareness of the tremendous social and political impact of
their decisions’ (Baker 2011 [1992]: xiii). Although a considerable part of the
chapter deals with interpreting, it discusses some important ethical issues
facing translators. Basically, Baker argues that for translators to do their job
accountably and ethically, their decisions need to be informed by general
principles such as not causing harm or not acquiescing to injustice (Baker
2011 [1992]: 278). However, approaches to ethics vary, and so do the expla-
nations ventured for any decision a professional might take. Deontological
approaches (e.g. Kantian ethics) determine what is ethical behaviour based
on the value judgement associated with the action or behaviour itself (morally
right or wrong), regardless of the impact it might have in a certain situation.
Teleological approaches (e.g. utilitarian ethics), on the other hand, judge
ethicality based on the likely consequences of an action and, therefore, prefer
one course of action to another depending on which option is likely to yield
the best results for the largest number of stakeholders (Baker 2011 [1992]:
276). Whether professionals follow one model or another, ethical dilemmas
will always be present:
In translation, act-utilitarian logic would support a decision that results in

the largest number of participants, including the translator, achieving their
objectives on occasion, even if the rights of one participant, perhaps an
immigrant or the author, are undermined. (Baker 2011 [1992]: 279)
Similarly, someone following universalist ethics might find themselves in a

dilemma, for instance, when two or more supposedly universal values or
rules are in conflict in a given situation (Baker 2011 [1992]: 280). An example is
when the norm of accuracy (see value of truth in Chesterman 2000 above) is
in conflict with the rule of ‘do not cause harm’. Baker alerts translators to their
responsibility not only as transmitters of messages but also as producers of
language and discourse, especially discursive and language choices which
might represent people, characters and communities in a negative manner
(Baker 2011 [1992]: 282–9).
Reiss (2000 [1971]) offers a functional approach to translation that is
centred on a relation of functional equivalence between the source text and
the target text. For Reiss, an ideal translation is one ‘in which the aim in the TL
[target language] is equivalence as regards the conceptual content, linguistic
form and communicative function of a SL [source language] text’ (Reiss 1977,
as cited by Nord 1997: 9). In this approach to translation, the typology of texts
plays a main role in determining the criteria for both translation and trans-
lation criticism (assessment). According to Reiss, both the translator and the
translation critic (assessor) need to recognize the typology represented in
the source text before carrying out their work. She draws upon Bühler (1990
[1965]), who believes that ‘language serves simultaneously to represent
(objectively), express (subjectively) and appeal (persuasively)’ (Reiss 2000
[1971]: 25). Based on this classification, Reiss identifies three basic language
functions and text types, but at the same time notes that texts often present
combinations of different functions, as summarized below:
a Depictive or informative, evident in ‘content-focused’ writing

(pragmatic texts): texts serving this function are informative in the
sense that they represent facts and states of affairs. Translation of
this type of text is expected to convey the referential content of the
original text in ‘plain prose’, with explicitation strategies if necessary.
b Expressive, evident in ‘form-focused’ writing (e.g. literary texts): texts

serving this function use language with a predominantly aesthetic value,
so translators need to reflect the aesthetic form of the original text,
positioning themselves in the perspective of the author of that text.
c Persuasive, as in ‘appeal-focused’ writing (e.g. advertising): texts

serving this function are operative and appellative in the sense that
they appeal to readers and purport to elicit a certain response or
action. Translation of this type of text is expected to produce an
equivalent effect (comparable response) by adapting the message to
the target audience.
Reiss also adds a fourth category, which she initially calls ‘audio-medial’
and later changes to ‘multi-medial’ (Reiss 1980). This refers to those texts
which have been written to be spoken, or which require audiovisual media

for them to be fully realized (e.g. songs, film scripts, comics, audiovisual
advertising, etc.). Reiss (1990) admits that this category does not constitute
a separate type per se, as texts of this kind may fall under any of the three
types described above. This qualification is correct insofar as the descriptors
‘multi-medial’ or ‘audiovisual’ concern the medium of communication
rather than the function of language. However, differentiation between
texts according to how they are conveyed is of paramount relevance to the
work of translators, as each such medium has its particular constraints and
conventions.
In addition to offering a model that transcends word-level and sentence-level
equivalence to attain a comprehensive textual understanding of equivalence,
Reiss stresses the role of the intended audience – an important factor for
the focus of this book, community translation. Reiss (2000 [1971]: 79) argues
that the translator needs to ensure that target language readers see and
understand the text according to their own cultural context. The audience
factor must especially be considered in those textual features that require
adaptation, such as idiomatic expressions, quotations, proverbial allusions
and metaphors. Again, text typology is essential to determine the extent to
which translations need to adapt to the audience, as this may vary from one
text type to another.
Reiss can scarcely be invoked without citing her student Vermeer, whose
Skopos Theory – considered an influential contribution to translation thought
– can be encapsulated in the following quotation:
Each text is produced for a given purpose and should serve this purpose.
The Skopos rule thus reads as follows: translate/interpret/speak/write in a
way that enables your text/translation to function in the situation in which
it is used and with the people who want to use it and precisely in the way
they want it to function. (Vermeer 1989: 20, cited and translated by Nord
1997: 29)
In short, the paramount factor is the purpose for which a translation is

produced, with the source text being merely an offer of information in a
given source culture and source language. In consistence with this, the target
text is also an ‘offer of information’, but in a distinct language and cultural
context (Reiss and Vermeer 1984: 119). A translation is not an imitation of the
source text, but a reproduction of this text in a manner that best serves its
new purpose. Accordingly, information about the sociocultural background,
knowledge, expectations and needs of the audience is extremely important
for the translator to decide how to go about the translation task (Reiss and
Vermeer 1984: 101).
One important question that arises concerns who determines the skopos
or the principle governing it. As Nord (1997: 30) explains, every translation
normally has an initiator, who will ideally specify the purpose, time, place,
audience and medium for which it is needed. It is through their translation brief
that the initiator decides the translation skopos. However, as Nord clarifies,
the translation skopos is often negotiated between initiator and translator,
because the former does not always possess the necessary knowledge and
expertise to determine the most appropriate type of translation for a given
communicative situation. The fact that translators can be instructed as to the
skopos does not mean, however, that initiators decide upon the required
translation type and strategies, since ‘[t]hese decisions depend entirely on
the translator’s responsibility and competence’ (Nord 1997: 30).
Skopos Theory is one of purposeful action which does not seek a relation
of equivalence between a source text and a target text, but of adequacy
between a translation and its skopos – namely, the intended function in
the new context. Unlike in linguistic and equivalence-focused approaches,
in Skopos Theory the source text is ‘dethroned’. Considered as an ‘offer of
information’, it is not the most important factor or criterion on which the
translator needs to base their translation. Moreover, the internal coherence
of the translatum (target text) is given priority over its external or intertextual
coherence (in relation to the source text). The ‘coherence rule’ in this theory
stipulates that the target text needs to be interpretable as coherent with its
receiver’s situation (Reiss and Vermeer 1984: 113): that is to say, it needs to
be sufficiently coherent and comprehensible from the point of view, context
and background knowledge of the intended readers. Only once this condition
has been satisfied does the translator need to comply with the ‘fidelity
rule’, which moreover is formulated so loosely that fidelity is understood as
being some relationship or match between source and target text. Indeed,
like Holz-Manttäri’s (1984) theory of translatorial action, Reiss and Vermeer’s
(1984) approach allows for a number of possible renderings of a source text,
including summary translation, free translation, adaptation or even non-trans-
lation (advising the client not to have the source text translated). As Nord
(1997: 29) notes, the skopos rule aims to put an end to the long-debated
dichotomy of faithful vs free translation, as it gives the translator leeway to
choose a formally faithful or a free translation approach, or any appropriate
position between the two, depending on the situational and communicative
purpose that the translation is intended to serve.
Pym’s (2010 [1992]) essay raises a number of thorny issues, some of
which are closely relevant to community translation. Pym understands and
presents translation as a process of text transfer, and translators as active
subjects who work on transferred texts. Text transfer is ‘understood as the
simple moving of inscribed material from one place and time to another place
and time’ (Pym 2010 [1992]: 13). Movement in space and time also means
movement between cultures, or in an intercultural space. This, in turn, leads
to the conclusion that a significant difference between the context of text
production and that of text reception necessarily leads to different meanings
(Pym 2010 [1992]: 20). The author claims that linguistic models of translations,
as well as the later semiotic and pragmatic additions, fall short of under-
standing ‘transfer as a bridging of material time and space’ (Pym 2010 [1992]:
29). These models, he argues, place the source text and the target text side
by side, as static entities, and analyse and compare their linguistic features,
which may produce interesting linguistic findings, but these will have little
relevance to the essence of translation, as they fail to discern the movement
or transfer it involves (Pym 2010 [1992]: 29).
Like Baker, Pym discusses the translator’s role and professional ethics, and
offers views which are worth discussing in the context of community trans-
lation. In line with his belief that translators are active subjects, Pym asserts
that ‘translators cannot help but take position – since even neutral positions
have to be created –, their ethics should break with passive non-identity, forcing
them actively to evaluate the texts they work on, making them take on a major
degree of responsibility for the texts they produce’ (Pym 2010 [1992]: 170).
Translators, he adds, are expected to be intellectuals who have ideas about
their collective identity and aims (Pym 2010 [1992]: 179). Ultimately, their loyalty
should lie with their own profession, with themselves as a collective of profes-
sionals who are able to justify their translation decisions in light of their ultimate
aim, namely to improve intercultural relations (Pym 2010 [1992]: 176–7).
In relation to this last point, Pym argues that translators are entitled
to improve the texts they transfer in the course of their work. However,
improvement is relative, as translation involves a number of stakeholders
(original author, initiator, receivers, translator, etc.). The question then is
whose perspective and criteria should translators base their improvements
on, and whose authority should they seek to realize them? (Pym 2010 [1992]:
171). Pym’s answer is that translators must position themselves in an intercul-
tural space first (intercultural communication as a priority) and then consider
the positions and interests of stakeholders (writers, readers, communities,
cultures, etc.) (Pym 2010 [1992]: 174). Of special interest in this regard is
Pym’s discussion of Kingscott’s (1990: 48) analogy in which translators are
compared to advocates. Kingscott argues that the translator or interpreter ‘is
in the same position as an advocate’ in the sense that they represent innocent
victims as well as heinous villains in a professionally detached manner: both
the clients of a barrister and those of a translator/interpreter trust that the
professional will put their case ‘as they [the clients] would like to see it put’.
Pym notes some differences between the two cases (e.g. presence of both
accusation and defence, as well as the authority of a judge in the case of
court proceedings) and determines that ‘the fact that the advocate’s aim is to
serve a client does not necessarily mean that the same purpose is valid for
translators’ (Pym 2010 [1992]: 176).
The points raised by Pym (2010) and Baker (2011) in her chapter on
ethics seem to signal a steadily growing interest among translation studies
scholars in aspects of translation that go beyond the source text/target text
relationship. In another publication, Pym (2006) notes that where much of the
focus used to be placed on source texts and target texts, it is now placed on
translators as mediators: who undertakes this mediation, who it is done for
and what its social impact is. Snell-Hornby (2012: 372) asserts that the future
of translation studies lies in ‘fostering and exploring languages and cultures
hitherto ignored and in rediscovering the role of translators and translation
scholars as intercultural communicators and mediators between them’. This
shift towards holistic approaches to translation as a social action with a social
impact, translators as social agents and cultural mediators, and, therefore, the
translation profession as a practice with ethical ramifications is not a product
of the twenty-first century. Rather, it had its beginnings with the functionalist
approaches, some of which are mentioned above, and the ‘cultural turn’. By
advocating for translator agency, addressing social relations and the roles of
different stakeholders, and focusing on the skopos of translations, function-
alist theories were early precursors of sociologically oriented approaches
(Pym 2006; Wolf 2007). As Prunč (2007: 40) observes, however, the social
framework of translation practice was not clearly defined nor sufficiently
elaborated in these earlier contributions.
With the ‘sociological turn’ (Prunč 2007; Wolf 2007) of the late 1990s and
early twenty-first century, the social dimensions, constraints and impacts of
translation have gained more prominence. Wolf and Fukari’s (2007) edited
volume, for instance, stresses the social context in which translation is
embedded – as a process, a product and a profession – and the social impact
attached to different conceptions of the translator role. In her introduction,
Wolf (2007: 1) notes that translation is ‘undeniably carried out by individuals
who belong to a social system’ and ‘inevitably implicated in social institutions’
which influence translation at different levels, including selection of materials
to be translated, distribution of translations, and even translation strategies.
In the same volume, Chesterman (2007: 173–4) notes that sociological
translation research focuses on people and their actions, and addresses
aspects such as the professional market, translation commissioners and the
publishing industry, the translator’s status and role, and the activity of trans-
lating as a social practice. Sociological approaches to translation generally do
not provide practical assistance with translation strategies, but by situating
translation and translators beyond the classic relationship between source
text and target text, they provide holistic frameworks whereby translation
practice can be viewed in relation to the people and institutions involved in it

or affected by it.
As such, they offer useful reference points for translators in general and
community translators in particular. Like Tymoczko’s (2014 [2007]) holistic
approach to culture, discussed in Chapter 2, sociological insights complement
other translation approaches by providing a general framework for contextu-
alization and understanding that precurses actual translation strategies and
implementation. They also provide translators with a broader theoretical frame
for them to reflect upon their actions, professional role and social impact. This
is especially needed in the context of community translation, where trans-
lation (or lack thereof) and translation strategies have an immediate and direct
impact on the lives and interests of people and communities – arguably much
more than in other translation fields. Shin-Hee Kim (2009) calls for ‘a people-
centered theory of translation’. Although this is made as a general statement,
it clearly applies perfectly and more particularly to the community translation
domain. It may be added that the profession is in need of people-centred and
community-centred approaches to translation (and interpreting).
3.3 Approaches to community translation

The above contributions to translation theory, and many others that space
prevents us from covering here, offer community translators a rich source
of conceptual understanding, explanatory frameworks, analytical tools and
textual and communicative criteria that will ideally enable them to under-
stand the nature of translation and to make informed translation decisions.
No translation theory is sufficiently comprehensive and elaborate as to cater
for all possible translation settings, text types and intercultural situations;
consequently, almost every theoretical framework has been criticized for
one reason or another, depending on individual perspective. For instance,
while some theorists consider that linguistic-centred approaches focus too
much on the lower levels of linguistic form, others object to certain functional
approaches for exactly the opposite reason. Writing about Skopos Theory,
for example, Munday (2012: 125) claims that it ‘does not pay sufficient
attention to the linguistic nature of the ST nor to the reproduction of micro-
level features in the TT. Even if the skopos is adequately fulfilled, it may be
inadequate at the stylistic or semantic levels of individual segments.’ While
some theoretical positions are more developed and more relevant to profes-
sional practice than others, it is true that useful insights can be found in all of
them. Just as Chesterman (2012: 32) considers the often-criticized work of
Catford ‘an important source of ideas and insights and well worth re-reading,
albeit with a critical eye’, translators, including community translators, can find
helpful ideas, suggestions, strategies and resources in practically every work
on translation and related disciplines.
Having said that, and before discussing approaches to community trans-
lation in particular, it is worth summarizing some of the insights that can be
gathered from the relatively long trajectory of translation studies:
a Translators work with texts, but texts also consist of words and
grammatical structures, which vary from one language to another.
b Texts convey meaning at different levels: semantic, pragmatic,

discursive, and so on.
c Texts, including translations, are produced and used for certain

purposes; the purpose or function of an original text is not necessarily
the same as that of its translation(s).
d Texts fall into different genres and text types; and each culture or
community of users has its own expectations and conventions for
different text types and genres.
e Translators work with and for several stakeholders, not only with/for
the direct clients or commissioners.
f Texts are cultural artefacts: translating or transferring texts involves

transfer from one culture to another; cultural differences require
intercultural communication strategies.
In the context of community translation, these generally accepted principles

need to be applied in the framework of an overarching mission or role: empow-
ering the social groups for whom translations are provided, and enabling
them to have full access to public service information and to participate
actively in the different realms of the society in which they live. This is a point
that is often underscored in the tiny body of literature addressing this subfield
of translation. As remarked in Chapter 1, Lesch (1999: 93) understands
community translation as ‘a means to an end’, which consists of equipping
the target community with information and redressing the balance of power
between the producer of public service texts and the language-impoverished
communities. Taibi (2011: 214–16) describes community translation as an
empowering exercise. Similarly, Cluver (1992: 36) acknowledges the hetero-
geneity of societies and the existence of marginalized groups, and therefore
suggests that community translators are expected not only to transfer infor-
mation from one language to another but also to ensure it is assimilable by the
intended recipients. In view of the characteristics of community translation
outlined earlier (local yet multicultural context, power asymmetry, language
imparity, linguistic variation, varying literacy levels, etc.), this position appears
to be well founded.
At the same time, it needs to be borne in mind that the source texts of
community translation are often produced by or for public institutions, which
expect their communication with community members to be conveyed as
precisely as possible in its original terms, be they official, authoritative or
even – in some cases – vague. As Chesterman (2000: 176) has observed,
text producers may intentionally be unclear in their messages – and this is
not unusual in public service discourse. This may create a certain tension
between the expectations and needs of the text producer and those of
the target community, and confront the community translator with some
challenging decisions. As Fraser (1999) shows, this tension may present
itself in different parts of the same text, as public services may disseminate
texts which are informative at a surface level or overall, but which may have
a different function at a deeper or localized level. Fraser (1999) analyses a poll
tax leaflet from the UK and reports the views of an experienced community
translator who had to translate it from English into Spanish for Spanish-
speaking minority groups in the UK. Fraser finds ‘a mismatch between the
explicit register (the giving of neutral public information by a local authority to
all residents in a form written to be easily accessible and to serve as a trigger
for applications for exemptions), and the implicit register (the regulation – and
hence control – of exemptions)’ (Fraser 1999: 204). However, unaware of
this double function, the translator in this case study processes the text as a
piece of information which is provided with a helpful and egalitarian attitude,
‘whereas it is in fact marked for authority or for the relationship between
regulator and regulated’ (Fraser 1999: 204).
In an earlier paper, Fraser (1993) reports the views of twelve community
translators working from English into one of seven languages (Arabic, Bengali,
Gujarati, Hindi, Panjabi, Urdu and Spanish). Fraser elicits their comments on
the translation issues they faced and the strategies they used to translate the
same poll tax leaflet mentioned above, especially when dealing with terms
relating to British society and institutions. The study shows that the trans-
lators generally adopted a functional, reader-oriented approach and used
translation strategies selectively according to the needs and expectations of
their respective communities: for example, they retained English terminology
when they deemed it empowering for the community, and provided contex-
tualization and clarification when necessary. The participants’ comments,
examples of which are given below, offer a glimpse into how at least some
community translators may view their work:
1 ‘If people are to participate, they need to know the system’ (p. 336).
This comment alludes to the mission of community translators as
professionals who facilitate the participation of their readership in

the society where they live and, therefore, seek to enlighten their
community readers on the different institutional and social systems in
which they operate.
2 ‘I used [the term] community charge first in English, then I put the
Spanish translation and an explanation – three things. But after that
I the [sic] used English all the time’ (p. 333). This illustrates a similar
approach to the one above, namely one that gives priority to the value
of understanding (e.g. by providing explanations and paraphrases)
and empowers the target recipients: first, by making translations
accessible to them; and second, by keeping keywords in the
mainstream language so that they can use them functionally in their
dealings with the local institutions.
3 ‘I believe that each language is capable of conveying the “same

meaning”’ (p. 334). This comment seems to indicate an opposing
position to that expressed in quotations 1 and 2 above, as it
apparently prioritizes the value of truth – however it might be
conceptualized – over the value of understanding, and seems to
suggest that regardless of sociocultural differences between source
text readers and translation readers, a semantic rendering of original
texts is sufficiently communicative.
4 ‘There is no need to go too much further unnecessarily, just to give

more information with the intention to educate your community,
because the purpose of the pamphlet is to inform any community,
you see, and if you can achieve that, I think you have done great
things’ (p. 336). The translator here seems to adopt a similar position
to that in quotation 3.
5 ‘[Explanation] might not be enough for some of the people but on

the other hand, people who live here know a lot already, so there’s
always a danger of over-explanation’ (p. 336). This appears to defend
a similar position to that expressed in the previous quotation,
but goes further to warn against patronizing practices such as
over-simplification or over-explicitation. This reminds us of a common
challenge facing community translators: their readers’ diversity of
backgrounds, and varying levels of expertise and immersion in the
mainstream culture and public services.
6 ‘People are more likely to have come across the English terms
than anything else; the equivalents, certainly in Mexico, would be
meaningless to them’ (p. 334).
7 ‘If a person is living in this country, the key words and key
expressions in the British system need to be not known necessarily,
but familiar because any leaflet or any bill they will get will have the
name in English. You need to have the visual aid of the word, that it
looks like that’ (p. 337).
8 ‘We’re writing for people living here. Even newcomers eventually

need to know these words and phrases’ (p. 337). The last three
quotations (6, 7 and 8) show that community translators are usually
aware that their translations are produced for people who live in the
same sociocultural context in which the original texts were produced.
If these readers are culturally different from the mainstream society
(e.g. migrants or refugees), they begin to occupy a cultural space
that is somewhere between their home and host cultures. In this
regard Di Biase (1987: 64) argues that ‘the forms to be used in
community service translations are those which more closely reflect
the semantic system of the socio-cultural context in which the users
operate and with which they are likely to be more familiar. The limit
to this proposition is the degree of acceptability of the text by the
community.’ For example, it would be inappropriate to translate a
leaflet about welfare benefits in Australia for the Italian community
residing in the country as though this readership were still located in
their country of origin (Di Biase 1987: 55).
9 ‘I’ve translated nursing home as a “centre providing medical care”

because in Spain you go to either a hospital or an asilo [old people’s
home]’ (p. 333). Here we have the opposite, i.e. community
translators who need to use their audience’s culture of origin as a
point of reference when translating for them in their new country of
residence.
The above insights from practitioners suggest that the conception of

community translation as an empowering service is quite common and
that, as a result, many community translators consider that the values
of clarity and understanding (see Chesterman 2000 in Section 3.1 above)
override other considerations. This is a logical position to reach if one
believes that community members can only operate effectively and autono-
mously in their society if they have access to information and they are able
to understand it. However, there are also community translators who gear
their work towards the value of truth more than anything else, albeit with
a misconceived sense of truth in some cases. Yu (2014), a translator and
proofreader who checks Chinese translations for Australian government
agencies, notes:
most translators tend to take a very cautious approach towards translating

community brochures. They believe that the safest way is to do a literal
translation, which, however, often results in an awkward and sometimes
incomprehensible target text. In the meantime, I have also seen bold
translators who take a very free approach, which sometimes results in
distortion of meaning.
Similarly, a report published by the Scottish Consumer Council showed that

the end users of community translations thought that these were often not
reader-oriented. Focus groups from minority ethnic communities (Chinese,
Pakistani, Indian, Turkish, Iraqi and Brazilian) reported ‘that the quality of
translated material was variable and frequently used inaccessible and out-of-
date terminology’ (Scottish Consumer Council 2005: 37). The translation
shortcomings reported by the study participants included, among others,
excessive literality, outdated or overly formal language, and a profusion of
unnecessary lexical items or expressions (Scottish Consumer Council 2005:
35–6).
These opposing tendencies reflect divergent understandings of translation
as much as the existence of a variety of competing interests and needs
that translators must attend to. Given the special context of community
translation, Ko (2014), for instance, believes consideration should be given
to a number of factors, including the functions and meanings expressed in
the source text, appropriateness in the target language, the needs of target
readers and the intentions of the commissioning clients. In other words,
community translators need to strike a balance between the requirements of
truth (the forms, meanings and functions of the original text), understanding
(the background, needs and expectations of the target readership) and trust
(loyalty to the different stakeholders, including writer, reader and commis-
sioner, among others). Depending on these constraints, Ko (2014) suggests,
the community translator may opt for a number of different translation strat-
egies and procedures, or combinations thereof:
a mixture of semantic and communicative translation, domestication

and foreignisation may be employed to achieve different purposes in
community translation. In order to achieve these purposes, a range of
specific translation strategies may need to be used, including adaptation,
modulation, borrowing, paraphrasing, keeping [segments of] source texts
untranslated or providing them in brackets, and using explanatory notes.
(Ko 2014)
Community translators may well be aware of the range of options available

to them, but what they need is a systematic framework within which they
can determine confidently when one option is more appropriate than others.
Discourse-based and functional approaches (e.g. Holz-Manttäri 1984; Reiss
and Vermeer 1984; Hatim and Mason 1990) have much to offer in this regard.
First, functionalist approaches to translation would be the most attractively
suitable for community translators in their capacity as active social agents. As
Gentzler (2001: 71) asserts, ‘the functionalist theorists have done the most
to empower translators, elevating them to equal status with authors, editors,
and clients, entrusting them to make appropriate, rational decisions that best
realize the intended cross-cultural communication’. Second, the intended
function of a translated text is given pre-eminence as the weightiest and most
relevant criterion to inform the translator’s decisions, thereby establishing a
useful decision hierarchy in the face of potentially competing considerations.
Third, functionalism identifies and acknowledges differences between text
types (a translation approach that is appropriate for one text type might not
be so for another). Finally, there is allowance for a wide range of renderings
and translatorial actions – including, among others, summary translations,
adaptations and transcreations, as well as ‘translations’ without an original
text – which are often required in community contexts. These points are
discussed further in the following paragraphs. Functionalist approaches,
however, are not to be implemented only as translation models that seek
functional equivalents for source texts: they also need to be framed within
a sociological understanding of community translation practice. Essential
to this understanding is the overarching mission mentioned above, namely
empowering the communities served by community translators. This in turn
cannot be achieved without a general awareness of the social status of text
producers, translators and users; the relations between social classes within
the local community; and the role of community translators and translations
in introducing socio-economic and political change whether top-down or
bottom-up.
The foregoing strongly indicates that an approach that draws upon
functionalist theories of translation while remaining mindful of the distinctive
features and objectives of community translation would prove effective
and empowering – both for the translators themselves and for the commu-
nities they serve. For community translators, it could provide support and
enablement to engage in translation as a purposeful activity: to undertake
interventions that go beyond linear and parallel transfer from one language to
another, to complete translations that have an impact in their social context
and, ultimately, to gain visibility thereby as social agents. As Chesterman
(2000: 169) rightly affirms, ‘[t]he visibility issue also concerns the transla-
tor’s role in society, the translator’s status and power, the translator’s rights.
Invisible translators, who seek to efface themselves textually, also tend to get
effaced socially.’ For the community, a functionalist approach will at the same
time yield translations which are relevant, adequate, accessible and effective
essentially by definition.
With their inherently practical emphasis, functionalist approaches would
help ensure that communities obtain the translations they need in a way
eminently useful to them in terms of that need considered in its context.
For instance, let us imagine that a government publishes a sixty-page
immigration law rich in legal discourse and specialized terminology; now
suppose that some non-governmental organization (perhaps an advocacy
body) subsequently commissions a translation into a number of relevant
community languages, but with a brief clearly specifying that the intention
is to inform the relevant social groups of updates to migrant rights, obliga-
tions, restrictions and procedures. In this case, the hired community
translators could produce, say, ten-page summarized versions that reflect
the communicative needs and expectations of their respective communities
(i.e. values of clarity and understanding) more than the exact definitions,
complex structures, or specialized terms and phrases of the original text
(i.e. a narrow sense of the value of truth). If, on the other hand, the same
legal instrument needs to be translated fully for institutional purposes, in a
country where ‘equally authentic’ bilingual or multilingual versions need to
be available (e.g. from English into French in Canada, or from Spanish into
Catalan, Basque and other regional languages in Spain), then the approach
will be different.
Likewise, community translators subscribing to this approach will be able
to advise when, instead of a written summary translation, it would be more
effective to produce audiovisual versions or adaptations of the source text(s),
or to organize community gatherings where advice can be provided orally
(with speakers who are able to speak the relevant language(s), or with the
mediation of community interpreters). As noted earlier, communities vary in
terms of literacy levels and the extent to which they show preference for
one medium of communication or another (e.g. oral vs written). In such a
case a functionalist approach will, again, be empowering for both community
translators and the community. It may also be cost-effective for trans-
lation commissioners, as it would ensure that the target audience receives
the required information or instructions in the most appropriate, effective
and culture-sensitive manner. Though important in some applications, strict
parallel renderings (e.g. geared towards linguistic or formal equivalence
only) can be inappropriate and counterproductive in others. Before allocating
funds to projects that may well ultimately fail in their desired communicative
goals – and perversely, discourage further funding – public services (and
commissioners in general) would ideally use the expert advice of community
translators or other professionals to reach their audiences through the most
effective channel.
3.4 Role and ethics

Two related issues arise from the above discussion. Given that community
translators work with and for a number of stakeholders (public services,
community leaders, community members, etc.): 1) Whose perspective should
be taken into consideration when determining the translation approach to
adopt?; and 2) What are the limits of the community translator’s role?
Different actors and roles are involved in text production and translation
(initiator, commissioner, source text producer, target text producer, TT user
and TT receiver). This means that even when the translator adopts a functional
approach to translation, they will always be faced with the ethical or ideological
dilemma of whose perspective to take to determine the text function. This is
especially the case when, as Fraser (1999) suggested above, the text to be
translated presents both explicit and implicit registers and functions. If the
discourse functions embedded in the original text are there intentionally,
the text producer (e.g. public services) would expect the translator to convey
them faithfully. This may go against the interests of the translation receivers if
the translation product is not comprehensible, not informative or not culturally
sensitive. As communication mediators, community translators will often
find themselves in a loyalty paradox whereby serving one party faithfully
may have an impact on the other parties’ trust. Working in a local context,
the community translator’s dilemma is even more acute than, say, that of a
literary translator: their intervention is embedded in pragmatic texts used in
the context of local communication and intra-community relations, and the
consequences of one position or another would be easily and immediately
noticeable.
The commissioner’s translation brief can certainly serve as the basis for
community translators to determine a hierarchy of interests. However, this
implies that they will usually adopt the position and serve the interests of
officialdom when translating institutional material (informative brochures
and leaflets, community advice and instructions, government advertising,
etc.) and those of individual community members when translating personal
documents for submission to public services (e.g. identity documents,
refugee statements, statutory declarations, etc.). The dilemma pits profes-
sionalism and principle against ongoing employment, and can understandably
be resolved in a questionable (un)ethical position driven by remuneration:
the community translator serves the interests of the party who assures
their continued salary or fees. Indeed, some may identify themselves with
the target ethnic community or social group, and consistently adopt a trans-
lation approach that favours the needs, expectations and aspirations of the
readership in question. This in turn would be disloyal to the mainstream
society and/or its institutions, which pay for translation services in many
cases.
Hale (2008) enumerates up to five different roles that may be assumed
by court interpreters and community interpreters in general. Although the
modality of mediation and the contextual constraints of community interpreting
are not exactly the same as those of community translation, these roles show
some similarity to those that may be found among community translators:
a Advocate for the powerless participant: an interpreter who is partial

to the minority language speaker and who, therefore, serves the
interests of the latter (e.g. by presenting their case in the best
possible manner).
b Advocate for the powerful participant: an interpreter who is partial to

the mainstream language participant and the institution they work for.
c Gatekeeper: an interpreter who is not partial to any party, but who

assumes a powerful position and decides what should or should not
be communicated.
d Filter (embellisher, clarifier): an interpreter whose main concern is

to ensure effective communication between participants and who,
therefore, may clarify, improve or embellish the messages of both or
all parties involved.
e Faithful renderer: an impartial interpreter who conveys both form

and content in a faithful and appropriate manner and leaves the
responsibility for communication to the parties involved.
Hale (2004, 2007, 2008), as well as many other authors adopting the impartial
model of interpreting, argues that only the role of ‘faithful renderer’ is profes-
sionally appropriate and ethically sound. This is rightly based on the fact that
interactions in institutional settings, especially in adversarial judicial systems,
involve other parties whose interests might be affected if the interpreter
adopts roles such as that of advocate of the powerful/powerless party or that
of gatekeeper. Even discourse simplification and explicitation are thought to
place the speaker of a minority language in an advantageous position vis-à-vis
speakers of the mainstream language. Positions such as Barsky’s (1996)
have therefore been heavily criticized, as they advocate for an interpreter
role that goes beyond faithful rendering of the speaker’s utterances, to assist
powerless and vulnerable clients (e.g. migrants and refugees) by acting as
intercultural agents, improving their client’s narratives, fixing inconsistencies
and presenting their discourse in an effective and convincing manner. Such
positions are ethically motivated by social justice, but for reasons related to
professional accountability (i.e. the value of trust) and dominant professional

discourse they are considered minority voices.
In community translation, however, such positions are worth considering,
especially in those contexts where the interests of parties other than the
relevant community members are not at risk. In this book we have defined
community translation as an empowering exercise for minority groups who
lack a good command of the mainstream language(s), and it might thus be
understood that the recommended role is that of advocate for the powerless.
This is to some extent true: the essence of community translation is service
to disadvantaged social groups. This service consists of making information
available and accessible. As has been indicated several times, a number of
authors (e.g. Scottish Consumer Council 2005; Lesch 1999, 2004; Burns and
Kim 2011; Taibi 2011; Yu 2014) argue that community translators should make
their products as accessible as possible and gear them towards the needs
and sociocultural realities of the relevant communities. Yu (2014), for instance,
suggests that in order to ensure understanding, public service brochures
written in institutional English need to be processed into plain English and
stripped of specialized jargon first, and then expressed clearly in the target
language. Likewise, the report of the Scottish Consumer Council (2005: 22)
includes recommendations of good practice which are oriented towards
similar aims:
MM ‘Texts in English to be translated [need to be] especially prepared

for this purpose, for example by using short sentences that focus on
positive actions in plain English.’
MM ‘Jargon should be avoided in texts for translation and circumstances
that can challenge the skills of a translator such as abbreviations,
colloquialisms, puns, word play and sayings or proverbs should be
avoided.’
MM ‘Bilingual professionals need to work in partnership to develop
information in the language of the target communities and/or work
with communities themselves to develop resources in their language.’
MM ‘Summary and bilingual versions of written materials are preferred.
Bilingual presentation enables people to check nuances of meanings
in both languages and can also help when the information is
discussed with others.’
MM ‘Leaflets with a strong visual and pictorial element are preferred.’
However, this is by no means to say that the default role of community

translators is that of advocate for the community for which they translate.
Indeed, as Fraser’s (1993) research revealed, the professional self-perception

of community translators is not uniform (perceptions ranged from impartial
translator to community advocate). As stated already, community translators
work with diverse stakeholders, with different text types and in a variety
of communicative situations. They may also work for public services as
permanent staff members or occasional employees, so realistically they
would be expected to satisfy the needs of their employers and acquit their
contractual obligations. As linguistic and cultural mediators working in a
community context, community translators will frequently be members of
a minority group themselves, which may drive some either to one extreme or
another (advocate for the minority group or for the mainstream society and
institutions). As Campbell (2005: 21) observes:
The point at which an immigrant gains accreditation [as a professional

translator] represents a door opening, where the world of otherness is left
behind, and a kind of double agency lies ahead – a role where he or she
has a foot in the domain of the institutions of the centre and one in the
world of the periphery.
Nonetheless, a professional translator would understand that their loyalty lies

with the different participants in the communicative act (translatorial action)
and would base their understanding of their role, translation strategies and
ethical position on a critical and objective assessment of the different factors
involved (translation commissioner, translation brief, text type, intended
readership, intended function, risks involved, and so on). For example, a
simplified version of a general informative public service text may be appro-
priate, but an official speech delivered by a minister or a community leader
might be explicitly required to remain in its original formality and tone (interper-
sonal meaning). Similarly, a statement written by an individual applicant may
be rewritten or improved in the target language before submission to a public
service, but the same does not apply to an official document (see Chapter 4).
To conclude, it is worth recalling Pym’s (2010 [1992]: 170) assertion that
translators inevitably have to take a position, assess the material they work
on and assume their professional responsibility. Inghilleri (2010: 153) offers
similar advice:
Whatever the limitations on their social or interactional status in a given

context, in situations where conflicting agendas arise or where the proper
exercise of human or legal rights may be in doubt, translators’ ethical and
political judgments become as central to their task as cultural or linguistic
competence. Translators cannot escape the burden of their moral proximity
to others.
For community translators, it is hoped that these ethical and political judge-
ments as well as translatorial actions are undertaken within the framework
of translation as community empowerment, but with due attention to the
contextual constraints and possibilities of each local community and each
communicative situation (see Figure 3.1 below).
FIGURE 3.1 Overarching mission and other factors influencing community

translation
4
Translating official documents
T ranslation of official documents has an older history than that of community

translation, as it has been important in international affairs, the interna-
tional movement of people and the necessity to secure identity and status in
that context. Nevertheless, with accelerating immigration and the spread of
language services for local needs, there is now increasing need for translation
of personal documents of all kinds for settlement purposes for immigrants,
and for documentation of temporary visitors and workers. In this area there
is an intermeshing of international and local needs in very specific ways, and
the influence of international practice is considerable.
Official documents include the spectrum of documents that relate to
immigrants’ or temporary residents’ identity, status, qualifications and
histories in various ways. They range from basic identity documents such as
birth, marriage and death certificates, through educational and employment
certificates, to driving and other licences, security and legal documents.
Importantly, this area of translation, in a way, turns on its head the
paradigm of community translation advanced in this book – that is,
the translation of official or semi-official information or other public
documents so that immigrants, visitors or others not familiar with the
majority language can obtain access to vital information. In the translation
of official documents, it will often be translations of documents that the
immigrants or visitors themselves have brought, often from another country
of origin, that need translation for recognition by institutions in their host
country. But also included in this category is the translation of documents
of residents in a country that are intended for their use when they travel
to, migrate to or do business with another country. Here, considera-
tions of translating official documents may merge with the translation of
commercial documents, both brought by newcomers to testify to monies or
business interests in or from another country, or required by those wishing
to do business elsewhere. As always, the boundaries of community trans-
lation are porous.
The translation of official documents has been far less researched or

professionally commented upon than several other areas of community trans-
lation covered in this book. Indeed, despite the ubiquity of need and huge
numbers of such translations undertaken, perhaps because of their limited
size, predictability and repetitiveness, the translation of such documents
has often been seen as very journeyman work for translators, lacking the
complexity of technical or more social translation, and of a lower order of
difficulty. Indeed, some professional translators have tended to scorn such
work. Blogger Corinne Mackay has noted over the years that:
many translators are somewhere between lukewarm and downright scornful

of translating individual clients’ official documents: birth certificates, educa-
tional transcripts, diplomas, drivers’ licenses, you get the picture. I think that
a lot of experienced translators view this as ‘beginner’s work’ or not worth
their time, so they take it off their range of services. (McKay 2010)
Yet as McKay points out, such work is a very useful supplement for freelancers
as it is lucrative (especially if charged by the page), gratifying to the clients,
easy to schedule because of its generally restricted length, and the client
pays in advance. Advice on finding friendly notary services and how to make
the translation look good (screenshots of the official stamps, signatures, etc.
on the original) are part of McKay’s advice.
Such a positive view of translation of official documents can raise
awareness that this is indeed an area of considerable volume and importance
both to clients requesting the translations and to the institutions that will
receive them. At the same time, despite MacKay’s view of it as relatively
easy money, it is an area of translation that has its own complexities and
difficulties. Moreover, unlike most other areas of community translation
which are dependent upon local policy settings and local needs, translation of
official documents is often caught up in a maze of rules, legal requirements,
international precedents and international variation that can make the process
a logistic as well as linguistic jungle.
We look first at the range of documents covered in this field, then at the
translation infrastructure that meets this need in the community sector and
finish with some pointers to good practice and pedagogy.
4.1 The range of official translations

The sub-area of translation of official documents can be identified in a very
clear way. Mayoral Asensio argues that:
Translating official documents 79
any text is liable to be the object of official translation if it falls within a

judicial process or a request of acknowledgement of rights before any kind
of administrative body. (Mayoral Asensio 2003: 4)
This legal or administrative point is crucial, and affects both the style of
translation to be adopted and the logistics of official translation, as already
indicated. Whereas other areas of community translation largely provide infor-
mation, and often persuasion, warning or instruction, official documents are
a gateway to having rights or status recognized. As this can be a high-stakes
issue, these translations come under scrutiny in a way no other community
translation document will: Is the ‘original’ a valid document? Has it been
translated by the correct translator? Has it been verified according to legal or
administrative requirements?
A cursory glance at the translation market reveals a significant degree of
attention to translation of official documents, with each translation company’s
website claiming particular expertise in this area, but then each also immedi-
ately pointing to the complexities of how official translations should be
certified and validated in a variety of ways around the world. Given that many
such documents are fundamental to establish identity and status, govern-
ments differ in their degree of requirements, but:
MM All governments require something more than just a translation from

a translator.
MM All governments desire that such a translation be certified or validated
according to certain criteria.
MM Many governments specify which translators are qualified to do
such translations; this ranges from having to be a ‘sworn translator’,
to being an official translator as stipulated by a Ministry of Foreign
Affairs or a Justice Ministry, to having a particular accreditation or
certification, or belonging to a particular professional body.
MM Where there are no clearly established credentials or certification/
accreditation system, translators must supply a particular wording in a
declaration and sign their translations in particular ways.
MM In numerous countries translations may need to be notarized or
otherwise validated.
MM In some countries the translation itself must be approved by a judicial
process.
MM If any document is to be sent to another country, an apostille process
is required, where an institution such as the Foreign Ministry asserts
that the notary or other validator of the translation is a recognized

notary or other relevant officer in that country.
(See the company Translated (n.d.) for a representative overview, as

well as Mayoral Asensio 2003.)
The Translated list shows that in the most difficult case, for example in Italy, a
translation must not only be performed by a sworn translator but each trans-
lation must be sworn before a notary public in court. In perhaps the simplest
case, in Canada being a certified member of a recognized professional body
entitles you to be a certified translator and sign your translation as such,
while in the UK or the USA translators themselves certify the translation; as
an example, in the USA any translator may make a certified translation by
including a particular statement, for example for a marriage certificate:
I [translator name] of [residence], hereby declare that I have a sufficient

knowledge of English and [x] languages, and certify the above translation
[of the Marriage Certificate] from [x language] as true and correct in all
respects. (Comech n.d.)
Some institutions in the UK and USA may, however, require such translation to
be notarized. A useful overview of the necessary steps in official documents
in relation to immigration issues is given for the USA in the Oakland system
of gathering documentation and ensuring translation (DiSalvio 1999).
Mayoral Asensio’s (2003) engaging and delightfully idiosyncratic work
well describes formal requirements in a range of countries, with a heavy
emphasis on Europe and South America. Control over official translations is
always evident, but mechanisms differ. Argentina stands out as a country
demanding both governmental approval of certified translators to engage in
official document translation and the need for those translators to belong to
a professional organization.
Mayoral also points to the extensive variety of content in similarly named
documents (e.g. a birth certificate) even within the same language, for
example English documents from a range of countries where English is an
official language (Mayoral Asensio 2003: 17ff.). We briefly examine here some
of the more common documents and their particularities.
4.1.1 Names and identity

Virtually all documents will have as their basis the establishment of identity
to substantiate the claim or representation being made. Yet names are highly
culturally variable. At the simplest level, identifying family name (or surname)
from given name (or first name, or now more rarely Christian name) where these
may be reversed, multiple or unclear demands knowledge by the translator of
the naming systems of particular countries or even minorities within countries;
some forms of names are not universal, e.g. an expectation of a patronymic
in documents from countries that have no such system. In a small number of
cases persons have only one name (seen in some parts of Asia in particular).
Beyond this simple level, persons may for any number of reasons have an
assumed name. Where this relates to only one document to be translated,
the translator may still be faced with a situation where a client known to the
translator by one name may come with a document in a different name, but
insists that the name on the document is theirs, or asks the translator to
change the assumed name to a name they may have on another document
(e.g. a passport or identity card). The status of an assumed name is not and
cannot be an issue for a translator but must be a representation that the
individual makes to the relevant administrative body; a translator is in no
position to certify that the assumed name of an individual on a document is
a different name and must render the name as given. This is quite apart from
any issue of possible fraud, covered below.
Moreover, while the name on a single document can raise these issues, there
can be additional complexities if the translator is faced with several documents
to be translated relating to the same individual, and which may contain variations
or discrepancies in the name or parts of the name. One issue is the different
ways different bodies may have written a person’s name on different documents,
which may be for orthographical or even social or political reasons. These can
normally be explained with a translator’s note. Beyond that, apart from assumed
names, a common issue widely recognized is the change of name upon marriage
(itself by no means universal). Also within the family, different naming practices
may result in, for example, a child having a different surname or family name
to either of their parents (in some countries this is a matter of choice, in others
custom). If links are to be knowingly made between documents by an adminis-
trative body, the translator may be in a position to annotate such a situation in
a translator’s note if, for example, there are other indicators in the document to
identity, but not beyond what the documents themselves say: in some cases,
if a link is not explicit in the documents, the translator can do no more than give
a literal rendition of names and it is up to the administrative body to make its
decision on identity, as with assumed names.
This also raises the first theoretical and logistical point to be addressed:
translations of official documents have a clear purpose, a skopos defined, to
enable the bearer to make representations to an administrative or legal body.
That body in turn must be able to understand the document within its frame
of reference, i.e. within the categories in which it views such matters as
identity, names, status, and so on. The translation hinges, then, on enabling
what on the surface may not easily fit into prescribed target institutional
categories to be understandable to those bodies. While in most cases this
will be a simple equivalence, in other cases this may require particular action
on the part of the translator, such as adding a translator’s note. In yet other
cases a translator should recognize the limits of what they can translate: for
example, when a judgement of identity must come from the administrative
body itself, the translator needs to be mindful their translation does not hinder
this process (e.g. by producing versions not understandable to the adminis-
trative body) even if they cannot fully assist in it through their translation.
4.1.2 Birth certificates

The growing provision of birth certificates even in most developing countries
has been a significant step in public administration and improving life chances
in recent decades, and this has made expectations of translation of these
documents ubiquitous. The basics of date of birth, birth name and place of
birth are now virtually universal on birth certificates around the world, but
beyond that details can vary greatly. Parent details, for example, vary from one
country or culture to another. Mayoral Asensio (2003) shows this in Pakistani
documents, where English is one of the languages used on such documents:
According to Islamic law the father is the one to decide filiation, religious
confession and kinship. The mother’s last name is irrelevant from this point
of view. So in Pakistani birth certificates, you find the name of the grand-
father, of the midwife, of the informant, but you cannot usually find any
heading for the mother’s particulars (Mayoral Asensio 2003: 20–1)
Fortunately, Mayoral reports, Pakistan is relenting on this as more countries

of settlement demand information on the mother, but as birth certificates
have currency for the lifetime of a person and even in some cases well
beyond, discrepancies in birth certificate information are likely to continue to
be encountered.
It is not surprising that documents as fundamental as a birth certificate
have exercised the minds of those wishing to increase uniformity and ensure
ease of administration, and the EU example of providing an exemplar extract
translation pro forma of a birth certificate is described more fully below.
4.1.3 Educational certificates

While compulsory schooling is universal, and virtually all education systems
have a primary/secondary/tertiary division, the content of education systems
and their particular organizational patterns vary enormously, making educa-

tional certificates among the most culturally distinctive documents to
translate. While certain critical points such as finishing secondary education
or gaining a university qualification may be relatively clear-cut, the actual detail
of subjects, organization, progression and particularly grading systems can
be labyrinthine and difficult to match up to settlement country institutional
patterns.
Educational certificates are also high-stakes documents, and given the
growing international student market many universities, colleges or school
ministries are instituting their own rigorous standards, such as insisting on
original documents from overseas institutions coming in sealed envelopes,
or translations from translation agencies delivered in the same manner
(Claremont Graduate University n.d.). More ambiguous is the claimant who is
not an international student but a permanent resident seeking to get recog-
nition of a previous educational achievement; the translator is then faced with
the issue of equating educational levels and particularly grade levels. Much
information on educational certificates is highly cryptic or highly implied. Thus,
for example, a school document may record student grades variously and
literally in all kinds of descriptive words, but may or may not reveal that these
grades pertain to, say, parts of a ten-point grading system; a translator must
choose whether or not to make implicit information explicit.
A major reason for the Bologna process in European higher education is
to make educational standing and qualifications more transparent (by making
them uniform) across the continent; outside strictly inter-EU translations,
however, the issues of adequate rendering of grade and qualification levels
will continue to be a sensitive issue for translators, with clients often highly
dependent on the outcomes.
4.1.4 Employment
Employment documents for employment in skilled, technical or professional
work will in most cases be translated in a person’s country of origin if they
are planning to migrate for that purpose and have secured sponsorship or
employment guarantees, but refugees, immigrants or temporary residents
may also present such documents for translation when or after they arrive.
For formal qualifications, much the same considerations apply as for education
documents, but some countries will have qualifications which are not given
by an educational institution per se but by a wider range of bodies, including
guilds or trades associations, or the military. One-to-one correspondence with
local qualifications may not be apparent; the key is to concentrate on issues
such as length of training, type of training and status of the body issuing the
qualification. Equivalences to host qualifications must be determined by host

institutions with the assistance of the translation.
4.1.5 Security and criminal status documents

This category varies widely and ranges, at one end, from formal prison
discharge papers or police statements of lack of criminal records, to a number
of idiosyncratic documents such as police assertions of good conduct,
regional or city district affirmations of residence and good standing, or similar
assertions from religious bodies. In the straightforward police or prison type
documents, these will usually be of a kind known to local host institutions. In
relation to the documents of good standing, migrant clients may be keen to
have these translated even if they have not been requested by host institu-
tions, and translators may well know that in many countries, host authorities
generally do not issue such documents and would not request them, which
poses not the only ethical dilemma for translators faced with such work.
Of most fundamental concern, perhaps, is where translators work not at
the request of a migrant client to translate documents, but are requested by
host institutions to work forensically on documents of individuals who may be
suspected of posing criminal or security risks. Here issues of fraud, of veracity
of documentation or of issuing authorities may be foremost, with translators
needing to inspect and translate documents symptomatically, under the
guidance of police or security authorities interested in specific aspects of
such documents. This can be regarded as the translation equivalent of work
on telephone intercepts for interpreters; as such, it requires specific training
and falls largely outside the purview of this book. Unfortunately, it is not likely
to become a less sought-after use of translation in the foreseeable future.
Paradoxically, if documents such as translations of telephone intercepts
are to be presented in open court, it is imperative that the materials have
been translated by independent translators not under the detailed direction of
police or security services, to ensure the impartiality of the translation. Once
again, we are at the borderline of community and highly specialized legal
translation.
4.2 Official documents and translation

infrastructure
The legal and administrative nature of official translations forces a number
of constraints and requirements on translations that may be irrelevant in
other community translation contexts. Much of this legal and administrative

nature was rooted in past legal or international practices (such as the
apostille or notarial facilities) which were instituted for other administrative
reasons long before the volume of translations increased exponentially, as
it has in recent decades. With the increase in translations and, in a way,
the normalization of translated documents becoming part of administrative
record, the accepted ways of translating are undergoing change, and the
need for translators to keep up with new administrative methods becomes
more apparent.
Several issues can be identified in this changing environment. First, the
issue of fraud and security becomes even more important, affecting trans-
lators in several ways. Also, as the volume of translations increases, some
authorities have already moved from requiring full translations of documents
to requiring extract translations, formalizing what they need to see in
documents presented, sometimes even on a continental level. This comes
together with a move in some cases to reduce the legal steps needed to
approve documents, where they have become unnecessary or outdated.
And finally, this new translation situation has placed renewed emphasis on
the qualifications of translators, and the quality of translation in particular.
While general quality issues will be dealt with in a subsequent chapter (see
Chapter 6), the move to greater emphasis on qualifications of translators
in the community sector is now well underway. We discuss each of these
issues in turn.
4.2.1 Issues of fraud

The issue of fraud and guarantee of identity is a foremost consideration in
the regulations that govern official translations, wherever they exist, and not
only in the police or security domains referred to above. As Mayoral Asensio
cryptically puts it, ‘[t]he authorities consequently behave as a party exposed
to deception and fraud’ (Mayoral Asensio 2003: 10). For a translator, this
becomes an issue wherever they have a direct relationship with a client and
have to accept the client’s document at face value, but it may also exist when
the translator acts for a translation agency or an institution commissioning the
translation.
Codes of ethics for translators are equivocal on this issue, or ignore it
altogether. Likewise, almost all companies advertising the translation of
official documents say nothing about fraud, though they devote considerable
attention to their certification credentials. A consideration that a translator
translates whatever is given to them without regard to its truthfulness or
the purposes to which it is put is widely held, with an emphasis on accurate
and appropriate translation but not concern with the ultimate use of the
document. Such a view, however, is challenged for example by Mayoral
Asensio (2003: 37–9), who argues this can raise uncomfortable feelings in
the translator that they may be participating in deception and may well wish
to withdraw from such an assignment if a client directly presents such a
document, or warn their client institution, agency or commissioner if they are
seeking the translation of a particular party; the example Mayoral gives is of
a letter of credit.
While codes of ethics generally do not address this issue of fraud, some
organizations do set guidelines, for example the New Zealand Society of
Translators and Interpreters, whose very useful guidelines (NZSTI 2005) make
specific reference to educational qualifications. Here the concern is not only
with possible fraud but with the issue of asserting equivalence of overseas
qualifications to those of the host country, in this case New Zealand; the
guidelines recommend that translations of educational qualification should
contain the following footnote:
By law the New Zealand Qualifications Authority determines the value of

overseas qualifications in New Zealand. This translation should not be seen
as an assessment or validation of any qualifications. (NZSTI 2005: 17.3)
Somewhat more complicated in terms of fraud is a situation whereby trans-

lators are asked to certify an already existing translation, but one which the
certifying translator may feel has not been translated correctly – again, for
example, in the case of an educational certificate. Two separate issues arise
here: first, whether translators can or should ever certify another already
completed translation (again, codes of ethics are mostly silent on this), but
second, even if a translator is willing to certify another translation, they may
become concerned if that completed translation misrepresents or mistrans-
lates the original text.
4.2.2 Full or extract translations

The issue of full or extract translations (variously termed also ‘summary’
or ‘selective’ translations’) is a recent one, as institutions – particularly
in immigration societies – move to have more precise definitions of the
information required in documents. Again from New Zealand, Pacific
International Translations (n.d.) lays out the various cases in which such
extract translations are appropriate. It should be noted that this is different
from ‘gist’ translation, which identifies briefly the nature of the document
and contents: an extract translation produces precise information from the

document, information that will be required by the organization to which it
is presented.
Translators of official documents are usually in one of two institutional
situations vis-à-vis their clients:
MM Where the translation is commissioned by an official institution, there

may be guidelines in place for such issues as full or extract translation
required, style and format, etc.
MM Where a translation is requested by the holder of the documents and
its institutional purpose is not clear, this will in most cases require
a full translation, but other issues such as format are up to the
translator to determine.
Situations where institutions specify the nature and characteristics of the

translation needed are still probably the exception rather than the rule around
the world, but as translations increase in volume, such specifications are
likely to become more common. Usually in this instance immigration and
related institutions lead the way, setting up patterns that may be followed
by other institutions. Mature immigration language service structures, such
as in Australia, set up quite formal requirements in terms of extract transla-
tions, usually using a template whereby essential aspects for the purposes
of the institution are identified, and the translator is required to extract that
information from a document of any length.
For example, a birth certificate may contain any number of possible
items according to different cultural and institutional patterns in various
countries, as discussed above, but only certain information items are
desired by the host institution. Two issues then become apparent: the first
is that there may be information in the original that is superfluous to the
requirements of the template, which tends not to be a problem – indeed,
the very point of having a template is precisely to dispose of superfluous
information, no matter how interesting or valuable to the issuing authority
or nation. The second issue is that, as noted above in the example of
the mother’s name in some Pakistani birth certificates, a piece of infor-
mation desired by the host institution may not always be present in the
document, requiring a blank in the template, or perhaps a translator’s
note.
The desire to cut down on paperwork and full translations can be seen in
a recent European Union (EU) initiative to have a standard extract translation
acceptable for birth certificates, reproduced here:
FIGURE 4.1 European Commission (2014) Memo: Public Documents: European

Parliament backs Commission proposal to slash red tape in the Member States
(The Commission, 4 February 2014 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-
14-76_en.htm)
Significantly, the EU initiative came as part of a programme of reducing

paperwork in bureaucracies, and is particularly apposite in the European
context where identification and other documents had previously been
subject to varying administrative processes that often made translation
laborious and tied up in red tape. The coming of extract translations, as in this
EU example, indicates a greater rationalization of translation needs, which in
many cases will make translation work more standard and predictable, even
if perhaps not quite as lucrative as former full translations.
4.3 Towards good practice in official

document translation
We conclude this chapter by drawing on the available guidelines and past
translator experience to recommend approaches to translation of official
documents useful for both trainee translators and professional practitioners.
We make seven such recommendations below.
4.3.1 Understand the linguistic features of

official documents
There has been limited research into official documents and how they are
similar to or different from other areas of translation. A useful approach, also
of great relevance to pedagogical purposes, is that of Źrałka (2007), who
explicitly uses official translations as an instance of specialized translation
in her translation classroom. Here, the orbits of community and specialized
translation clearly meet. To familiarize students with the specific features of
official translations, Źrałka points to such features as the rigid organization
of grammatical structures, passive constructions, incomplete sentences,
omitted verb forms, unusual imperative structures, highly formal expres-
sions of simple facts (e.g. ‘This 21st day of December’) and historical forms
(‘Witness my hand this …’).
The challenge for the translator clearly is to understand the extent to
which such forms need to be recreated (hence the examples of parallel
texts which Źrałka provides). Alterations such as change from incomplete
to complete sentences and formatting of items in target culture norms
are suggested, but with attention to maintaining the register and degree
of formality. It is also suggested that the visual form of the original be
maintained as much as possible, largely to facilitate the direct comparison of
the documents and particularly if the translation is to be presented in court or
will be subject to an assessment process. Źrałka takes the reader through the
process of teaching these features in translation class and the importance of
methodological as well as content feedback on the part of the teacher to give
students the tools for an adequate analysis of source text and their rendering
in the target language.
Backing up work such as Źrałka’s, a useful theoretical overview of
the purpose and language of official translations is Nord’s description of
documentary translation, which she sees as the category of translation
that is absolutely source text focused and attempts to retain the exotic
nature of the source text. Opposed to that is her category of instrumental
translation, where the objective is to construct meaning to fit into target
text norms. In speaking of translations of official documents, she sees
these as documentary translations par excellence, for ‘the target text, in
this case, is a text about a text, or about one of more particular aspects
of a text’ (Nord 1997: 47). Such items as including a note [‘stamp’] or
heading [‘Extract translation of …’] are clearly referring to the other text,
explicitly drawing attention to features of the source text as text. The
importance of this for clearly marking the translation as a translation is
covered below.
4.3.2 Know the requirements of the administrative

bodies to whom these translations will be presented
Particularly for translators working directly with clients, this may entail
knowledge that goes beyond simply being able to make a good translation
of what is presented. Many clients (immigrants or even business people)
are trying to understand often unfamiliar administrative procedures in the
host society, and will be grateful for advice on how documents need to be
handled and what degree of certification is necessary or who else apart from
the translator needs to be involved. When translating documents for other
countries, in some cases the very stringent apostille requirements will cost
the client dearly, and the translator needs to relay this.
Ethical issues can come up repeatedly here. In some jurisdictions,
government bodies such as immigration authorities may themselves offer
a translation service to recent arrivals, yet not all recent arrivals will be
aware of this; guiding clients to such services is something translators will
sometimes need to do. In other cases, clients may feel it necessary to have
translated a number of documents which have been important in source
countries but may not have been requested by host administrative bodies;
while a translator may not know all possible administrative requirements, not
translating unneeded documents would seem to be an ethical requirement.
The requirement to know how host administrative bodies operate also entails
knowing how they will read the translation and what they will expect of trans-
lated documents, an aspect which is treated further below.
4.3.3 What you produce must clearly be a translation

If this sounds strange, it needs to be remembered that in much of the trans-
lation routinely undertaken in other contexts, it is not at all a requirement that
translations read like translations – indeed, very often it is intended that trans-
lations read like original texts or are not marked as translations, as in Nord’s
instrumental translation, or Venuti’s (1991) domesticated translations. Leaving
aside the considerable academic dispute over the visibility of translation and
translators, in relation to translations of official documents the skopos is clear:
the document produced by the translator is marked as a translation and,
whether it is or is not accompanied by the original, always has this status.
Although McKay (2010), cited at the beginning of this chapter, urges trans-
lators to make their translations of documents look similar to the original, for
example by embedding screen shots of original stamps and artwork of the
original certificate, it is crucial that the translation be seen as a translation, and
cannot be mistaken as an original. Often this is accomplished by a heading
asserting it as a translation, or by a translator’s certifying signature, statement

or stamp, but whichever method is chosen its status must be clear. This
is also important in the current practice of some institutions, particularly
educational institutions in non-English-speaking countries, to also produce an
English version of educational results: it is necessary to quite clearly distin-
guish where a translation is a translation and not a bilingual original document
from another country.
4.3.4 Seek equivalence but know the limits of equivalence

If recent translation theory has sometimes taken us far from a reverence
for the source text and towards a reader-centred or deconstructionist orien-
tation, with the translation of official documents we are back in an almost
medieval situation of seeing a source text as a nearly sacred document, and
the most literal approach to translation will be sought by the institutions that
may understand little of translation and its complexities. Representing the
original fairly and accurately and always striving for equivalence is the leitmotif
of translation of official documents. The facts as presented in the original
must be rendered accurately; in some cases, equivalence can be shown in
both form and content, as where for example dates are written out in full
in words, which should be copied into a date of words in a translation: this is
for unambiguous stipulation of essential information.
However, a limit must be put on trying to find equivalence when none
might exist. Equivalence of educational or occupational qualifications, for
example, is a socio-economic and institutional issue, not a linguistic one,
and while it is possible to translate levels of study, hours of study and job
sequence, drawing an equivalence in terms of ultimate qualification must be
done by the respective host institution.
4.3.5 Understand how the institutional reader will read

the translation
Once equivalence is sought and adequately found, however, it is not the case
that the reader is discounted. On the contrary, knowing how the reader – in
almost all cases a specific institutional reader – will read the translation and
what they are looking for is a key element of its skopos and how the translation
must be rendered. The institutional reader too is looking for equivalence, and
hindrances to understanding this must be removed as much as possible, even
though the institutional reader may have some ultimate judgements to make
for themselves – for example, the equivalence of qualifications. The reader
needs all the help they can get to make that judgement accurately and fairly:
thus, if grades are given in an institutional setting, and they deviate from, say,
readily understandable percentage marks, they need to be rendered as data
(‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘Very Good’, ‘Adequate’, ‘Satisfactory’, ‘Included’, ‘Conditional’, and
so on), even though these may not be the grades used in host institutions.
What can be useful is any means of understanding a hierarchy (e.g. that
marks are on a particular scale), which can come from a translator’s note.
Such notes need to be used whenever clarity to assist understanding can
be given, rather than a straight equivalent to host institutional norms – that
particular equivalence is for the host institution to work out.
The translator thus needs to be in a position to enable the institu-
tional reader to best analyse the data given and come to their respective
judgements on the data, rather than the translator imposing judgements
themselves. This position is not always easy to maintain when documents
and contained data can be obtuse or ambiguous, and the translator serves
both reader and applicant best by working to make ambiguities explicit, by
translator’s notes or other means. This gives the institutional reader a context
to understand and come to grips with the translated text.
Linguistically, the understanding of different institutions’ approach to official
documents is best given in parallel texts, already mentioned in the work of Źrałka
(2007), to see the different content and sometimes radically different discourse
styles adopted for the same official purpose. The practice of studying parallel
texts in official documents is the same as for any other area of translation, but
the purpose here is specifically to help understand how the source document
needs to be organized in terms of formatting and categories that will be clear to
the institutional reader in the host society. A variation of parallel texts is where
an institution itself organizes translation of significant documents for foreigners
or foreign residents to understand particular processes usually related to
significant legal or regulatory areas. The Madrid Land Registry (n.d.) in Spain,
for example, in its published information provides an English translation of the
Spanish version of information relating to buying a house. While areas of high
legal or commercial importance may have such translations prepared and give
translators useful information in terms of received terminology and discourse
style, in many significant areas of community translation it will be difficult to
secure parallel texts, for example in areas of social policy where particular
systems and institutions may not exist in source countries even though they
are prominent in host countries: much of the social welfare and social security
systems, for example, but in some cases even basic healthcare.
Knowing how the institutional reader will read the translation can be a
particular challenge for translators who themselves have limited familiarity
with host society institutions, a situation most likely, say, with recently arrived
groups where the few translators that can be found are themselves struggling
with settlement issues and orienting themselves in the new society. More
generally as a linguistic issue is the fact that many translators of official
documents into the majority language of the host society will always be trans-
lating into their B language; the rubric that translations should always be into
one’s A language or mother tongue goes out the window in many cases,
for there will be few translators whose A language is, for example, German
in Germany, but who are translating from Somali or Burmese or Dari into
German; the translators are much more likely to be those for whom Somali
or Burmese or Dari is their A language. The bulk of official translations may
well be done by translators translating into their B language.
4.3.6 Use consistent and clear data norms

The tendency for a translator to be ‘captured’ by source text syntax and
formatting is a danger in translation of official documents as in any other area of
translation. Given that translators almost always have options of how to format
data, again the needs of the institutional reader need to be kept in mind. For
example, the New Zealand guidelines (NZSTI 2005: 14.2) suggest that dates
should systematically be given as ‘1 January 2004’, with the month written
out in full and the numerals ‘1’ and ‘2004’ separated. In some cases host insti-
tutions may stipulate a format, but where this is not the case the translator
needs to use a format consistent with practice in that host society, to provide
an unambiguous translation of clear facts in the document. Where such data
is itself unclear or ambiguous, however, the translator’s note must be used.
There is another reason for establishing a particular format for data which
is used consistently by a translator: although much of the translation of
official documents may appear to be easy, non-technical and even seemingly
trivial, it is remarkable how many mistakes can be made even in apparently
quite straightforward translations (a driving licence, divorce papers or school
report). Sometimes the ease is deceptive, and a ritual use of a standard
format of dates, names, institutions, and so on will help the translator autom-
atize these items so they are never omitted and never wrongly rendered. This
also sharpens perception of when a piece of data is not standard and other
means of conveying it are needed.
4.3.7 Be professionally useful – spread knowledge

and expertise
Many translator codes of ethics deal with issues of solidarity with one’s
colleagues or helpfulness to the profession. Translator chat rooms are full
of queries from translators called upon to handle various kinds of texts –

including official documents – as an ever-increasing variety of texts become
essential for settlement or other reasons, creating challenges for translators.
Beyond the individual translator helping their colleagues, there is a clear
role for professional associations to collate best practice and guidelines
where there is a demand for this kind of translation and where institutional
requirements can be to a reasonable extent identified and norms established.
This should not remain an item at the level of marketing by companies who
promote their expertise in official translations but who may themselves have
set no guidelines for their translators and who may accept any variety of work
as long as the work is done, and quickly.
5
Translating for temporary
communities
5.1 Temporary communities
T he term ‘temporary community’ is used here to refer to various types of

conglomerations that may occupy a local space and form a multilingual
microcosm during a limited time, which may vary from a couple of weeks
to a couple of years. The creation of small communities within a larger one
(society) may come as a result of different circumstances and reasons. These
include emergencies such as wars and natural disasters causing populations
to seek refuge in another part of the same country or another country; inter-
national or inter-ethnic religious events that take place periodically; foreign
guest or seasonal workers forming a local community for a certain time; or
sporting events such as the World Cup or the Olympics, to cite just a few
examples.
The movement of refugees and displaced people, for instance, can generate
a number of situations, one being the creation of temporary communities in
enclosed refugee camps. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees
(2015: 3) reports that ‘[b]y the end of 2013, 51.2 million individuals were
forcibly displaced worldwide as a result of persecution, conflict, generalized
violence, or human rights violations’. Of these, approximately 16.7 million
were classed as refugees (11.7 million under UNHCR’s mandate and 5.0
million Palestinian refugees registered by UNRWA) and 33.3 million as inter-
nally displaced persons (refugees within their respective countries). When
the issue is discussed in political, media or popular discourse in developed
countries, the main destinations of the refugee influx are often assumed
to be Europe, North America and Australia. However, statistics show that
developing countries such as Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon, Ethiopia and Kenya
host the largest numbers (United Nations High Commission for Refugees,
2015: 6). For these countries – most battling troubled economies and scarce
resources, and some with questionable human rights records – it is to be
expected that refugee services, especially interpreting and translation, will
receive lowest priority.
It is worthwhile to distinguish the dynamicity of the situations that produce
temporary refugee communities. A controlled refugee intake fosters a gradual
resettlement, individually or in small groups, as witnessed, say, with Asian,
African or South American asylum seekers in Europe and North America.
New arrivals live freely in the host society, avail themselves of the services
available, send their children to school, look for employment and start a new
life in a new country. They therefore do not constitute a temporary community
in the sense in which the term is used here. However, when there is a mass
influx of refuge seekers, the host country’s authorities can only offer a
temporary solution to a humanitarian emergency, and the question becomes
one of containment and organization within restricted areas (refugee camps).
Language services are an important, but often underestimated aspect
of welfare in such temporary communities. The housing of Syrian refugees
between Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey is one example. In the first half of
2014, Syrian refugees numbered approximately three million: over one million
were temporarily established in Lebanon, and approximately the same
number in Turkey (United Nations High Commission for Refugees 2015). They
lived in transitional reception centres, refugee camps or outside camps. While
the Turkish refugee camps compared better than those in other host countries
on conditions including basic services, security, schooling and occupational
training, the language barrier was reported to be a disadvantage (Orhan
2014). Effectively, the temporary Syrian communities in Jordan, Lebanon and
other Arab countries can communicate directly with the host institutions
and communities because they are already equipped with the same language
(Arabic); to be on equal footing, their compatriots in Turkey must acquire profi-
ciency in Turkish, or else have access to quality language services.
Another type of massive movement generating temporary communities
is large religious events. For example, the Hindu Sabarimala Pilgrimage in
Kerala, southern India, attracts three to four million people drawn locally,
nationwide and from around the world (www.sabarimala.org). The pilgrimage
lasts from November to January, in which period a multilingual temporary
community is formed. Although in India multilingualism is the norm rather
than an exception, this of itself does not guarantee the kind of communi-
cation that is essential to ensure the smooth running and safety of such an
event. Echoing the Syrian experience in Turkey, even the best infrastructure
and protocols are hampered without an effective interface. As a local police
commissioner acknowledges, ‘[l]anguage is a major problem officials face
every year while managing crowd [sic]’ (Balakrishnan 2014).
Translating for temporary communities 97
Similarly, millions of Muslims gather every year in Mecca, Saudi Arabia to

perform the Hajj, one of the five fundamental pillars of Islam. The community
of pilgrims coexists in a relatively small location for a few days or weeks (see
Section 5.3 below). The preparation and management of these large-scale
gatherings require clear communication at various levels: first, organizers or
service providers need to communicate with pilgrim organizations or with the
relevant authorities of their respective countries; second, service providers
on the ground need to communicate with individual pilgrims and attend to
their circumstances; third, written and audiovisual information needs to be
prepared proactively and disseminated in a number of languages to ensure
that the visitors are well informed and appropriately educated about rituals,
sightseeing, security and safety, healthcare and hygiene, police proce-
dures, accommodation, and so on. In such a multilingual and multicultural
environment, translation and interpreting services are an integral component
for effective engagement at all three communication levels.
5.2 Special situations, special challenges

Temporary communities present special challenges in terms of public services
in general, and communication services in particular. First, they give rise to
a variety of special cases of diversity and communication needs. The easier
ones (from a language service perspective) would be those involving relatively
homogeneous and monolingual communities settling in a different country
for some time (e.g. Syrian refugees in Turkey). In others, however (e.g. inter-
national or inter-ethnic religious events), although there is some degree of
homogeneity (religious affiliation), there are numerous differential aspects
such as language, language variety, geographical origin, cultural background,
age group, and so on. Second, temporary communities often require urgent
or time-constrained intervention. In emergency humanitarian situations, there
is practically no time for planning and preparation. In regular mass events,
there is a possibility to plan and prepare beforehand, but the required services
are provided in a brief period and the end users may vary from one year to
another. Third, these situations often involve dealing with relatively unknown
sociocultural backgrounds, and possibly internal tensions and conflicts. These
last two challenges are deserving of more detailed comment.
In normal community translation contexts, the target community is either
an autochthonous component of society (e.g. indigenous people in Canada)
or a permanently resettled community of migrants and refugees (e.g. Somalis
in Sweden). Living or resettling permanently in a community means that the
smaller (minority) group is located within the larger (mainstream) society
and, as Di Biase (1987: 57) puts it, ‘the socio-cultural context of L2 [target
community language] is located, even physically, within the socio-cultural
context of L1 [mainstream language]’. For community translators this implies
that the target readership has developed some knowledge about the social
and cultural context of the country in question, as well as some famili-
arity with the local administrative, healthcare, legal, educational and other
systems. It also means that the translators themselves have developed their
knowledge of the communities they serve through direct interaction with
clients, their own translation work or the experiences of other professionals
dealing with the community in question. This, however, is not necessarily the
case for temporary communities. To quote Di Biase (1987: 58) again:
members of the minority must, and usually do to a considerable extent,

come to terms with and internalize at least some parts of the semantic
system of the dominant socio-cultural context. The longer the time span of
the interactions the greater the degree of internalization of the dominant
semantic system is likely to be.
In the case of temporary communities, especially those lasting for a few

weeks or months only, the duration is not sufficient for members to inter-
nalize the sociocultural and administrative systems of the country in which
they are staying. Likewise, it would not allow community translators to
develop much knowledge about their target community, apart from what they
can assemble in the course of their normal research processes. It should be
pointed out, however, that the temporariness of communities may be blurry:
some are so recurrent (e.g. periodic religious events such as the Hajj) as to
be notionally perpetual, while other transitory ones eventually acquire perma-
nency (e.g. Palestinian refugee settlements in Jordan, Syria or Lebanon). This
can make the ‘temporary–permanent’ distinction moot in some cases.
The other major challenge is that temporary communities typically impose
significant urgency and time constraints, which calls upon a skill set extending
beyond language transfer competence alone. Certainly, many authors writing
on translation and translator training have stressed the importance of trans-
lator personal and interpersonal skills, such as ability to work in a team (with
other translators or professionals from other fields), ability to work under
pressure, flexibility, and negotiation and leadership skills (e.g. Kelly 2005;
Gambier 2013). In emergency situations and large-scale events, however,
these qualities go from being desirable to necessary. While most profes-
sional translators would affirm that deadlines are the norm, situations such
as emergency humanitarian resettlement or short-term mass events involve
above-average stakes and, logically, corresponding stresses – not only for
translators but also for the public services and authorities involved. Anyone
working in these contexts must be capable of cooperating with others and

remaining clear-headed. Providing translations during humanitarian crises or
refugee displacement will involve not only time pressure, but also liaising
with other service providers and dealing with emotionally taxing situations.
Similarly, translating for large events requires coordinated effort to produce a
large amount of translations into many languages within a short time. Some
instances will not only involve print format, but also various other media
(e.g. audiovisual announcements, radio content, instructions and advice on
illuminated panels), each with its own complexities and constraints. The
required translator profile would thus include high transferability together
with teamwork capability, resourcefulness and technology skills. Lastly,
translators (and interpreters) may have their resilience tested by the intense
dynamics and, at times, emotionally taxing situations that can be involved;
worker attrition does no service to the project or team members, so a degree
of social or ethical commitment is a useful attribute.
5.3 The case of the Hajj

5.3.1 The general context
The Hajj (Islamic pilgrimage) is a yearly religious event which takes place in
Mecca, Saudi Arabia in the last month in the Islamic calendar, D - ū Al-H.ijjah.
Millions of Muslims come from all corners of the globe to the holy city of Mecca
to perform the rituals of the Hajj, which is compulsory for any adult Muslim
who can afford it. Either before or after the Hajj, pilgrims also optionally visit
Prophet Muhammad’s Mosque and other religiously significant sites in Medina.
As both the compulsory rituals and the optional visits take place in designated
areas (mainly around the Holy Mosque in Mecca and Prophet Muhammad’s
Mosque in Medina), three to four million pilgrims end up gathering and moving
in a relatively small space and for a limited time (a few days for the compulsory
rituals, a couple of weeks for optional visits and activities). In addition to the
Hajj, Muslims may perform Umrah, an optional visit to the Kaaba, Mecca,
accompanied by rituals which are partly similar to those of the Hajj. There is
no fixed schedule for Umrah, but many people choose dates of special signifi-
cance such as the month of Ramadan, which means that thousands of religious
visitors gather in Mecca and Medina at any given time throughout the year.
Muslim pilgrims come to Saudi Arabia from tens of linguistically and
culturally diverse countries. The major contributors (with over 20,000 pilgrims
each) include both Arab (Morocco, Algeria, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen and Oman)
and non-Arab states (Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Turkey,
Iran, Malaysia, Afghanistan, Britain and Russia); notably, non-Arabic-speaking

pilgrims far outnumber Arabic-speaking ones (Saudi Ministry of Hajj 2013).
During both the Hajj and Umrah, the temporary community created by
religious visitors gives rise to communication and public service needs in
different areas (transport, accommodation, healthcare, safety awareness,
legal and administrative advice, tourist information and guided tours, etc.).
As part of continued efforts to offer the best possible service and
organization, Saudi authorities have undertaken a number of improvement
projects. These address not only infrastructure, but human services too:
for instance, a number of management measures have been implemented
to prevent or minimize the attendant health risks when large numbers of
people from different parts of the world congregate in a limited space.
These measures include monitoring the map of international health hazards,
making immunization a requirement for Hajj and Umrah visas, and organ-
izing healthcare awareness campaigns before and during pilgrimage, in
collaboration with the authorities of the pilgrims’ home countries. In terms
of infrastructure to accommodate the growing numbers of pilgrims and
minimize the risks associated with overcrowding, Saudi Arabia has under-
taken major construction, expansion and renovation projects to modernize the
Hajj sites. The multi-level Jamarat Bridge, the multi-level circumambulation
space around the Kaaba, the Makkah Mass Rail Transit and the Haramain High
Speed Rail have all significantly improved the pilgrim experience, optimized
crowd management and reduced the hazards relating to overcrowding.
These and other improvements have been complemented by multilingual
awareness campaigns, which are the main focus of the following section.
5.3.2 Translation and interpreting needs

As affirmed earlier, the arrangements for and management of a large-scale
multilingual and multicultural event such as the Hajj require effective trans-
lation and interpreting services. Understandably, a gathering comparable to
the population of a small country requires communication services to ensure
smooth and safe coexistence, movement and religious practices. Hariri (1422
IC [Islamic Calendar]), for instance, points to one often‑remarked feature of the
Hajj – namely the diversity of linguistic, cultural and educational backgrounds
among pilgrims – and concludes that pilgrim needs are also correspondingly
diverse, ranging from food and shopping to healthcare and safety. Hariri
(1422 IC) also reviews earlier studies which call for a multilingual approach to
Hajj-related awareness-raising campaigns. A multilingual approach naturally
implies recruitment of professional translators and interpreters as well as
other communication experts. Al-Sharif (1425 IC) asserts that pilgrims face
communication challenges to inform themselves about needs as diverse as

daily movement between accommodation and religious sites, local public
services, religious rituals and shopping facilities. His research shows that
81.4 per cent of the people who performed Umrah during the months of
Shaaban and Ramadan of 1424 (IC) reported having experienced difficulties.
Al-Shafie and Al-Sharif (1424 IC) also found that there were shortages in the
amount of information available to pilgrims and in the number of interpreters
attending to their needs. As many as 85.3 per cent of the participants in
their survey reported being unaware of the sites where religious advice was
provided. Attendees would have appreciated multilingual signage indicating
the locations of muftis (religious advisers), an essential public service
given the nature of the Hajj. Those who were able to locate religious advice
faced a further language barrier, as 44 per cent of them reported that there
were no interpreters to facilitate face-to-face communication.
Al-Sharif and Khidr (1425 IC) address the accessibility issue of the infor-
mation available to the pilgrims. They report that Hajj-related material is mainly
provided in written form (brochures, leaflets and booklets), while audiovisual
media are used less often (39.2 per cent and 32.2 per cent respectively). The
authors argue that print is not the most accessible and effective medium
of awareness‑raising in this particular context, as literacy rates in Arab and
Muslim countries are relatively low. They point out the existence of alternative
initiatives such as the Radio of Hajj Awareness, which was launched in 1403
IC as a complementary medium of communication and broadcasts in several
pilgrim languages, including Arabic, English, French, Urdu, Persian, Turkish
and Swahili. However, Al-Sharif and Khidr (1425 IC) lament that the efforts
thus far fall short. According to the authors, the Saudi national language
(Arabic) is still dominant in Hajj education and awareness programmes, while
others (e.g. Swahili and other African languages) are not sufficiently accom-
modated. Further highlighting this imbalance, the study reveals that although
Arabic speakers account for just under one-third (32.35 per cent) of the target
demographic, only 13.31 per cent of the awareness campaign effort is aimed
at Asian pilgrims, who constitute a large numerical majority.
Initiatives such as the Radio of Hajj Awareness remind us of some
ubiquitous issues in community translation which have been discussed in
previous chapters. One such is accessibility; another related issue is the
format or medium of information. As has been explained earlier, varying
levels of literacy and relatively lower socio-educational levels are among
the common challenges facing language services and community trans-
lators. As suggested in Chapter 3, a pragmatic or functional approach to
community translation would judiciously lead to selecting the most appro-
priate and effective medium of communication. In some contexts, especially
in temporary communities, written information might not be the most suitable
choice for the target community. Alternatives may include multilingual radio
and television content, mediated community meetings, group briefings,
on-site awareness‑raising campaigns, and so on. It would be inefficient – not
to say counterproductive, especially with ‘budgetary constraints’ and ‘cost-
effectiveness’ being common themes in the discourse of public services and
organizations – to allocate funds to written texts if alternative media would
achieve greater reach. Regardless, while the format or medium may vary
from one context to another, community translators (and interpreters) will still
have an essential role to play.
5.3.3 Quality
Like many other temporary communities, the pilgrims who gather in Saudi
Arabia do not constitute a social or ethnic group in need of empowerment
in the sense discussed earlier in this book (i.e. participation in the different
realms of society). They are religious visitors who stay in the country for a
relatively short time, go mainly to Mecca and Medina to perform certain
religious rituals and return to their respective home countries. Still, they
require empowerment in the sense of being able to access information,
communicate with and use the local public services and take informed
decisions to make the most of their stay. For this to be possible, effective and
adequate translation and interpreting services are fundamental.
Hajj authorities and organizations have produced a large number of
Hajj-related multilingual leaflets, booklets, road signs and illuminated panels,
as well as Hajj-specific television and radio content. Organizations and
research centres such as the Hajj Research Institute (Umm Al-Qura University)
have also made laudable efforts to identify pilgrim needs and improve the
different aspects of Hajj services, including police and administrative proce-
dures, healthcare, accommodation, transport and communication. As noted
above (Section 5.3.1), major infrastructure improvements have also made a
difference in the last few years. Initiatives such as the Radio of Hajj Awareness
and a number of Hajj-related websites have contributed to educating pilgrims
about good practices conducive to their safety and well-being. However, while
advances in several areas (infrastructure, transport, healthcare and communi-
cable disease control, etc.) have been impressive, the informational aspect
(that is, communication between Hajj public services and pilgrims, and particu-
larly the provision of translation and interpreting) is still noticeably lagging.
The little research that has been conducted on language services during
the Hajj suggests that these fall short of both pilgrim needs and basic
quality standards. In addition to the shortage and shortcomings identified by
the authors mentioned above (Hariri 1422 IC; Al-Shafie and Al-Sharif 1424;
‫ ‬ ‫ ‪Translating for temporary communities‬‬ ‫‪103‬‬
‫‪Al-Sharif 1425 IC; Al-Sharif and Khidr 1425 IC), Qadi (2011) found evidence‬‬
‫‪of poor translation quality and inadequate quality assurance processes. His‬‬
‫‪qualitative analysis of a sample of translations aimed at pilgrims revealed‬‬
‫‪failings such as ideational distortions, ungrammatical constructions, unidi-‬‬
‫‪omatic choices, literal renderings that miss the pragmatic or functional point,‬‬
‫‪as well as readability and comprehensibility issues. Qadi concludes that poor‬‬
‫‪translation renders the materials provided by Hajj services ineffective and‬‬
‫‪futile. The low-quality standard found in Hajj-related translations is consistent‬‬
‫‪with Qadi’s findings on translator and interpreter recruitment practices for‬‬
‫‪the Hajj season. The majority of the language service providers surveyed for‬‬
‫‪his study (63.6 per cent) reported not having a system in place for assessing‬‬
‫‪translator performance. Those who claimed they did were not overly specific‬‬
‫‪about the quality assurance processes used – typically invoking subjective‬‬
‫)’‪attributes (e.g. ‘diligence’, ‘field experience’, ‘good conduct’, ‘potential‬‬
‫‪suggestive of rather vague and unsystematic recruitment criteria.‬‬
‫‪ Our own research has also revealed serious quality control gaps in the infor-‬‬
‫‪mation and instructions translated for pilgrims. The English-language versions‬‬
‫‪of a number of key documents (e.g. leaflets on preventive healthcare, crowd‬‬
‫‪management, fire prevention, etc.) have been found to reflect poor target‬‬
‫‪Pages‬‬
‫‪Pages‬‬
‫‪language‬‬ ‫‪103-104:‬‬
‫‪103-104:‬‬
‫‪proficiency, inappropriate translation strategies or unintelligible‬‬
‫‪Pages‬‬ ‫‪103-104:‬‬
‫‪Pages‬‬
‫‪Pagesrenderings.‬‬‫‪103-104:‬‬ ‫‪103-104:‬‬ ‫‪The following example is from the website of the Saudi General‬‬
‫‪Pages‬‬
‫‪Directorate‬‬
‫‪Pages‬‬ ‫‪103-104:‬‬
‫‪103-104:‬‬ ‫‪of Civil Defence, which offers information about the Directorate‬‬
‫‪Pages103-104:‬‬
‫‪Pages‬‬ ‫‪103-104:‬‬
‫‪Pages‬‬
‫‪Pages‬‬
‫‪and‬‬ ‫‪103-104:‬‬
‫‪103-104:‬‬
‫‪its‬‬ ‫‪services,‬‬ ‫‪as well as advice and educational contents for the public in‬‬
‫‪Arabic‬‬
‫‪Arabic‬‬ ‫‪source text:‬‬
‫‪Arabic‬‬ ‫‪general‬‬ ‫‪sourcesource‬‬ ‫‪text:pilgrims‬‬
‫‪and‬‬
‫‪text:‬‬
‫‪in particular. The excerpt below advises on the risks of‬‬
‫‪ArabicArabic‬‬ ‫‪sourcesource‬‬ ‫‪text: text:‬‬ ‫ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍاﻹﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬
‫‪overcrowding‬‬
‫‪Arabic‬‬ ‫‪during the Hajj.‬‬
‫ﺍاﻹﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡمﺍاﻹﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺤﺠﺎﺝج ﻋﻨﺪ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺤﺠﺎﺝج‬ ‫ﺇإﺭرﺷﺎﺩدﺍاﺕت‬
‫ﺇإﺭرﺷﺎﺩدﺍاﺕتﺇإﺭرﺷﺎﺩدﺍاﺕت‬
‫‪Arabic‬‬‫‪Arabicsource‬‬ ‫‪sourcetext:‬‬
‫‪source‬‬ ‫‪text:‬‬
‫‪text:‬‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺤﺠﺎﺝج ﻋﻨﺪ‬
‫‪Arabic source‬‬
‫‪Arabic‬‬ ‫‪text:‬‬ ‫ﺍاﻹﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡمﺍاﻹﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺤﺠﺎﺝج ﻋﻨﺪ‬ ‫ﺇإﺭرﺷﺎﺩدﺍاﺕت‬
‫‪Arabic source‬‬ ‫‪source text:‬‬ ‫‪text:‬‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺤﺠﺎﺝج ﻋﻨﺪ‬ ‫ﺇإﺭرﺷﺎﺩدﺍاﺕت‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺤﺎﺝج‪:‬‬ ‫ﺃأﺧﻲ‬
‫ﺍاﻹﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬ ‫ﻋﻨﺪ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺤﺠﺎﺝج‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺤﺎﺝج‪:‬‬ ‫ﺃأﺧﻲ‬
‫‪Arabic source text:‬‬ ‫ﻋﻨﺪﺍاﻹﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬
‫ﺍاﻹﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺤﺎﺝج‪:‬‬
‫ﻟﻠﺤﺠﺎﺝجﻋﻨﺪ‬‫ﺇإﺭرﺷﺎﺩدﺍاﺕتﻟﻠﺤﺠﺎﺝج‬
‫ﺃأﺧﻲ‬ ‫ﺇإﺭرﺷﺎﺩدﺍاﺕت‬
‫ﺇإﺭرﺷﺎﺩدﺍاﺕت‬
‫ﺍاﻹﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬
‫ﺍاﻹﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬ ‫ﻋﻨﺪ‬ ‫ﻋﻨﺪ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺤﺠﺎﺝج‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺤﺠﺎﺝج‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺤﺎﺝج‪:‬‬ ‫ﺇإﺭرﺷﺎﺩدﺍاﺕت‬
‫ﺃأﺧﻲ ﺍاﻟﺤﺎﺝج‪:‬‬
‫ﺇإﺭرﺷﺎﺩدﺍاﺕت‬
‫ﺃأﺧﻲ‬
‫ﻋﻘﺒﺎﻩه ‪..‬‬ ‫ﻣﺎ ﻻﻻ ﺗﺤﻤﺪ‬ ‫ﺣﺪﻭوﺙث‬ ‫ﺫذﻟﻚ ﻗﺪﻗﺪ ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي ﺇإﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﻷﻥن‬ ‫ﺍاﻹﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺤﺠﺎﺝج ﻋﻨﺪ‬
‫ﺇإﺭرﺷﺎﺩدﺍاﺕتﺍاﻷﻣﺎﻛﻦ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻤﺪ ﻋﻘﺒﺎﻩه ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻋﻘﺒﺎﻩه‬‫ﺗﺤﻤﺪ ﻻ‬‫ﺇإﻟﻰﻣﺎﺣﺪﻭوﺙث ﻣﺎ‬ ‫ﺣﺪﻭوﺙث‬
‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي ﻗﺪﺇإﻟﻰﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬
‫ﺫذﻟﻚ ﻷﻥن ﺫذﻟﻚ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝج‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝج ﻷﻥن‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝج‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺰﺩدﺣﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺰﺩدﺣﻤﺔﺍاﻟﻤﺰﺩدﺣﻤﺔ‬ ‫ﺍاﻷﻣﺎﻛﻦ ﺍاﻷﻣﺎﻛﻦ‬ ‫ﺗﺠﻨﺐ ﺗﺠﻨﺐ‬
‫‪ ..11‬ﺗﺠﻨﺐ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺤﺎﺝج‪:‬‬
‫ﺃأﺧﻲ ‪.1‬‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺤﺎﺝج‪:‬‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺤﺎﺝج‪:‬‬ ‫ﺃأﺧﻲ‬
‫ﺃأﺧﻲ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻤﺪ ﻋﻘﺒﺎﻩه ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻤﺪ ﻻﻋﻘﺒﺎﻩه ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺇإﻟﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻻ‬
‫ﺣﺪﻭوﺙث ﻣﺎ‬ ‫ﺣﺪﻭوﺙث‬
‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱيﻗﺪﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺫذﻟﻚ‬ ‫ﺫذﻟﻚ ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻷﻥن‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝج‬‫ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝج ﻷﻥن‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺰﺩدﺣﻤﺔ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺰﺩدﺣﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺍاﻷﻣﺎﻛﻦ‬ ‫ﺍاﻷﻣﺎﻛﻦ‬
‫ﺗﺠﻨﺐ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺤﺎﺝج‪:‬‬
‫ﺗﺠﻨﺐ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺤﺎﺝج‪:‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬‫ﺃأﺧﻲ‪1‬‬ ‫ﺃأﺧﻲ‬ ‫‪.1‬‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﺣﺪ ‪..‬‬ ‫ﻭوﻗﺖ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝج‬ ‫ﻋﺪﺩد‬ ‫ﻟﺰﻳﯾﺎﺩدﺓة‬ ‫ﻧﺘﻴﯿﺠﺔ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺤﺎﺝج‪:‬‬ ‫‪ .2‬ﺃأﺧﻲ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺪﻫﮬﮪھﺲ‬
‫ﻋﻘﺒﺎﻩه‪..‬‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻤﺪ‬ ‫ﻻ‬ ‫ﻣﺎ‬ ‫ﺣﺪﻭوﺙث‬ ‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﺣﺪ ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬‫ﻭوﺍاﺣﺪ‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﻭوﻗﺖ‬ ‫ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﻭوﻗﺖ‬
‫ﺫذﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝج‬‫ﻷﻥن‬‫ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝج‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝج‬
‫ﻋﺪﺩد‬ ‫ﻋﺪﺩد‬
‫ﻟﺰﻳﯾﺎﺩدﺓة‬ ‫ﻟﺰﻳﯾﺎﺩدﺓة‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺰﺩدﺣﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺪﻫﮬﮪھﺲ ﻧﺘﻴﯿﺠﺔ‬ ‫ﻧﺘﻴﯿﺠﺔ‬
‫ﺍاﻷﻣﺎﻛﻦ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺪﻫﮬﮪھﺲ‬
‫ﺗﺠﻨﺐ‬‫‪.2‬‬ ‫‪..1.21‬‬
‫ﺗﺤﻤﺪﻋﻘﺒﺎﻩه‬ ‫ﺣﺪﻭوﺙثﻣﺎﻣﺎﻻﻻﺗﺤﻤﺪ‬‫ﺣﺪﻭوﺙث‬ ‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱيﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬ ‫ﺫذﻟﻚﻗﺪ‬‫ﺫذﻟﻚ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝجﻷﻥن‬‫ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝج‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺰﺩدﺣﻤﺔ‬ ‫ﺗﺠﻨﺐﺍاﻷﻣﺎﻛﻦ‬ ‫ﺗﺠﻨﺐ‬
‫ﻋﻘﺒﺎﻩه‪. .‬‬
‫ﻋﻘﺒﺎﻩه ‪..‬‬
‫ﻋﻘﺒﺎﻩه‬
‫ﺗﺤﻤﺪ‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻤﺪ‬‫ﻻ‬ ‫ﻣﺎ‬‫ﺣﺪﻭوﺙثﻻ‬
‫ﺣﺪﻭوﺙث ﻣﺎ‬‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬ ‫‪.‬‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﺣﺪ‬ ‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﺣﺪﻗﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭوﻗﺖ‬ ‫ﺫذﻟﻚﻓﻲﻗﺪ‬
‫ﺫذﻟﻚ‬ ‫ﻭوﻗﺖ‬
‫ﻷﻥن‬
‫ﻷﻥن‬
‫ﻷﻥن‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝج ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝج‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝج‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝج‬
‫ﻋﺪﺩد‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺰﺩدﺣﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻟﺰﻳﯾﺎﺩدﺓة‬
‫ﻋﺪﺩد‬ ‫ﻟﺰﻳﯾﺎﺩدﺓة‬
‫ﻧﺘﻴﯿﺠﺔ‬ ‫ﺍاﻷﻣﺎﻛﻦ‬
‫ﺍاﻷﻣﺎﻛﻦ‬
‫ﺍاﻷﻣﺎﻛﻦ‬
‫ﻧﺘﻴﯿﺠﺔ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺪﻫﮬﮪھﺲ‬ ‫ﺗﺠﻨﺐ‬ ‫ﺗﺠﻨﺐ‬
‫‪.‬‬‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪ 1‬‬
‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪.1.21‬‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺸﻤﺲ ‪.‬‬‫ﺍاﻹﺻﺎﺑﺔﻣﺎ ﻻ ﺗﺤﻤﺪ ﻋﻘﺒﺎﻩه‬ ‫ﺇإﻟﻰ ﺣﺪﻭوﺙث‬‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺬﻱي ﻗﺪﻗﺪ ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬
‫ﻷﻥن ﺫذﻟﻚ‬ ‫ﻧﺘﻴﯿﺠﺔﺑﺎﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝج‬ ‫ﺍاﻷﻣﺎﻛﻦ ﺍاﻟﻤﺰﺩدﺣﻤﺔ‬ ‫ﺗﺠﻨﺐ‬ ‫‪.1 .3‬‬
‫ﺑﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕت ‪.‬ﺍاﻟﺸﻤﺲ ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕت ﺍاﻟﺸﻤﺲ‬ ‫ﺑﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕت‬
‫ﺍاﻹﺻﺎﺑﺔ ﺍاﻹﺻﺎﺑﺔ‬‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي ﻗﺪﺇإﻟﻰﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻟﻼﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‪..‬ﻗﺪﻭوﺍاﻟﺬﻱي‬
‫ﻭوﻗﺖﻭوﺍاﻟﺬﻱي‬ ‫ﻟﻼﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬
‫ﻟﻼﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺸﻤﺲ ﻧﺘﻴﯿﺠﺔ‬‫ﺍاﻟﺸﻤﺲ‬ ‫ﻷﺷﻌﺔ‬
‫ﻷﺷﻌﺔ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺘﻌﺮﺽض‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺘﻌﺮﺽض‬ ‫‪.3 2 ...22.32‬‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﺣﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭوﻗﺖﻭوﺍاﺣﺪ‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﺣﺪ‬ ‫ﻭوﻗﺖ‬‫ﻧﺘﻴﯿﺠﺔ‬‫ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝجﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺸﻤﺲ‬
‫ﻷﺷﻌﺔﺍاﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝج‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝج‬
‫ﻋﺪﺩد‬
‫ﻟﺰﻳﯾﺎﺩدﺓةﻋﺪﺩد‬
‫ﻋﺪﺩد‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺘﻌﺮﺽض‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺪﻫﮬﮪھﺲﻧﺘﻴﯿﺠﺔ‬
‫ﻧﺘﻴﯿﺠﺔ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺪﻫﮬﮪھﺲ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺸﻤﺲ ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﻮﺍاﺩدﻡمﺍاﻟﺸﻤﺲ ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕت‬ ‫ﺑﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕت‬ ‫ﺍاﻹﺻﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻐﺎﺯزﺍاﺕتﺍاﻹﺻﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي ﺇإﻟﻰ‬‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱيﻗﺪﺇإﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﻟﻼﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم ‪.‬ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﺣﺪ ‪..‬‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺬﻱي‬ ‫ﻭوﺍاﺣﺪ‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺬﻱي‬
‫ﻭوﻗﺖ‬ ‫ﻭوﻗﺖ‬
‫ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝج ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻼﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝج‬ ‫ﻧﺘﻴﯿﺠﺔ‬
‫ﻋﺪﺩد‬ ‫ﻋﺪﺩد‬
‫ﻟﺰﻳﯾﺎﺩدﺓة‬‫ﻟﺰﻳﯾﺎﺩدﺓة‬‫ﻷﺷﻌﺔ‬
‫ﻧﺘﻴﯿﺠﺔ‬ ‫ﻧﺘﻴﯿﺠﺔ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺪﻫﮬﮪھﺲ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺘﻌﺮﺽض‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺪﻫﮬﮪھﺲ‬ ‫‪.3 ..22 ..423‬‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺴﻴﯿﺎﺭرﺍاﺕت‬ ‫ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﻨﺒﻌﺜﺔ‬ ‫ﻧﺴﺒﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﻭوﺍاﺣﺪ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺰﻳﯾﺪ‬ ‫ﻣﻤﺎ‬ ‫ﻧﺘﻴﯿﺠﺔﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺮﻭوﺭرﻭوﻗﺖ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺤﺠﺎﺝج‬‫ﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬‫ﺍاﻟﺸﻤﺲ‬ ‫ﻋﺪﺩد‬
‫ﺇإﻋﺎﻗﺔ‬ ‫ﻷﺷﻌﺔ‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺘﻌﺮﺽض‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﻧﺘﻴﯿﺠﺔ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺪﻫﮬﮪھﺲ‬
‫ﺍاﻻﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺴﻴﯿﺎﺭرﺍاﺕت‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺸﻤﺲ‪..‬ﻣﻦ ﻋﻮﺍاﺩدﻡم ﺍاﻟﺴﻴﯿﺎﺭرﺍاﺕت‬ ‫ﻋﻮﺍاﺩدﻡم‬
‫‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺸﻤﺲ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻤﻨﺒﻌﺜﺔ‬‫ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﻨﺒﻌﺜﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕت‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻐﺎﺯزﺍاﺕت‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻐﺎﺯزﺍاﺕت‬
‫ﺍاﻹﺻﺎﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻧﺴﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬‫ﻳﯾﺰﻳﯾﺪ‬
‫ﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﻣﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺬﻱي‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺮﻭوﺭر‬
‫ﻟﻼﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬ ‫ﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬ ‫ﻧﺘﻴﯿﺠﺔ‬‫ﺇإﻋﺎﻗﺔ‬ ‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺸﻤﺲ‬ ‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬
‫ﻷﺷﻌﺔ‬ ‫ﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﺍاﻻﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺘﻌﺮﺽض‬ ‫‪.4 3 ...433.3‬‬
‫ﺑﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕتﺍاﻟﺸﻤﺲ‬ ‫ﻧﺴﺒﺔﺑﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕت‬ ‫ﺍاﻹﺻﺎﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻳﯾﺰﻳﯾﺪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍاﻹﺻﺎﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺮﻭوﺭر ﻣﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱيﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬ ‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺬﻱيﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺬﻱي‬ ‫ﻧﺘﻴﯿﺠﺔ ﺇإﻋﺎﻗﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻼﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬ ‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻧﺘﻴﯿﺠﺔ‬ ‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬‫ﺍاﻟﺸﻤﺲ‬ ‫ﺍاﻻﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺘﻌﺮﺽضﻷﺷﻌﺔ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺘﻌﺮﺽض‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺴﻴﯿﺎﺭرﺍاﺕتﺍاﻟﺴﻴﯿﺎﺭرﺍاﺕت‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺸﻤﺲ ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﻮﺍاﺩدﻡم‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺸﻤﺲ ‪..‬‬
‫ﻋﻮﺍاﺩدﻡم‬ ‫ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺑﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕت ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺑﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕت‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻤﻨﺒﻌﺜﺔ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﻨﺒﻌﺜﺔ‬ ‫ﺍاﻹﺻﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻐﺎﺯزﺍاﺕت‬
‫ﺍاﻹﺻﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻐﺎﺯزﺍاﺕت‬ ‫ﻧﺴﺒﺔ‬ ‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻧﺴﺒﺔ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺰﻳﯾﺪ‬ ‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬
‫ﻣﻦ‬‫ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻤﺎ‬ ‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺬﻱيﻗﺪﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺰﻳﯾﺪ‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺬﻱي‬‫ﻟﻼﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡمﻣﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺮﻭوﺭر‬ ‫ﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺮﻭوﺭر‬ ‫ﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﺇإﻋﺎﻗﺔ‬ ‫ﻧﺘﻴﯿﺠﺔ‬
‫ﺇإﻋﺎﻗﺔ‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬ ‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻷﺷﻌﺔ‬
‫ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻷﺷﻌﺔ‬
‫ﻷﺷﻌﺔ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺘﻌﺮﺽضﻗﺪ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺘﻌﺮﺽض‬
‫ﺍاﻻﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬ ‫ﺍاﻻﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬
‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪..43‬‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲ‪..33‬ﻗﺪ ‪4‬‬
‫ﻷﺷﻌﺔ ﺍاﻟﺸﻤﺲ ﻧﺘﻴﯿﺠﺔ ﻟﻼﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم ﻭوﺍاﻟﺬﻱي ﻗﺪ ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي ﺇإﻟﻰ ﺍاﻹﺻﺎﺑﺔ ﺑﻀﺮﺑﺎﺕت ﺍاﻟﺸﻤﺲ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﺘﻚ‪..‬‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺘﻌﺮﺽض‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﺗﺆﺛﺮ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺴﻴﯿﺎﺭرﺍاﺕت‬ ‫ﺻﺤﺘﻚ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﺗﺆﺛﺮ‬ ‫ﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﻋﻮﺍاﺩدﻡمﺍاﻟﺴﻴﯿﺎﺭرﺍاﺕت‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺴﻴﯿﺎﺭرﺍاﺕت‬ ‫ﻣﻦﻋﻮﺍاﺩدﻡم‬
‫ﻋﻮﺍاﺩدﻡم‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﻨﺒﻌﺜﺔﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻐﺎﺯزﺍاﺕتﺍاﻟﻤﻨﺒﻌﺜﺔ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻤﻨﺒﻌﺜﺔ‬ ‫ﻧﺴﺒﺔﺍاﻟﻐﺎﺯزﺍاﺕت‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻐﺎﺯزﺍاﺕت‬ ‫ﻣﻦﻧﺴﺒﺔ‬
‫ﻧﺴﺒﺔ‬ ‫ﻳﯾﺰﻳﯾﺪﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﻣﻤﺎﻳﯾﺰﻳﯾﺪ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺰﻳﯾﺪ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺮﻭوﺭرﻣﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻤﺎ‬ ‫ﺣﺮﻛﺔﺍاﻟﻤﺮﻭوﺭر‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺮﻭوﺭر‬ ‫ﺇإﻋﺎﻗﺔﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬ ‫ﺇإﻋﺎﻗﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺻﺤﺘﻚ‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬ ‫ﺗﺆﺛﺮ‬‫ﺍاﻻﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡمﻗﺪﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻗﺪ‬ ‫‪ 4 ..44.4‬ﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺴﻴﯿﺎﺭرﺍاﺕت‬ ‫ﻋﻮﺍاﺩدﻡم‬
‫ﻋﻮﺍاﺩدﻡم‬ ‫ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﻨﺒﻌﺜﺔ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻤﻨﺒﻌﺜﺔ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻐﺎﺯزﺍاﺕت‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻐﺎﺯزﺍاﺕت‬ ‫ﻧﺴﺒﺔ‬ ‫ﻧﺴﺒﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺰﻳﯾﺪ‬ ‫ﻳﯾﺰﻳﯾﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻤﺎ‬ ‫ﻣﻤﺎ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺮﻭوﺭر‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺮﻭوﺭر‬ ‫ﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬ ‫ﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬ ‫ﺇإﻋﺎﻗﺔ‬ ‫ﺇإﻋﺎﻗﺔ‬
‫‪.‬‬ ‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺻﺤﺘﻚ‬ ‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﺘﻚ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬ ‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﻗﺪﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺗﺆﺛﺮ‬
‫ﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﺗﺆﺛﺮ‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲ‬ ‫‪.4‬‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲ‪.4‬ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺤﺘﺎﺟﻮﻥن‬ ‫ﻋﻮﺍاﺩدﻡم‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺬﻳﯾﻦ‬‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺼﺎﺑﻴﯿﻦﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻐﺎﺯزﺍاﺕت ﺍاﻟﻤﻨﺒﻌﺜﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺾ‬ ‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲﻣﻦﻗﺪﻧﺴﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻤﻞ‬ ‫ﺍاﻹﺳﻌﺎﻑف ﻳﯾﺰﻳﯾﺪ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺮﻭوﺭر ﻣﻤﺎ‬ ‫ﻣﺮﻛﺒﺎﺕت‬‫ﺣﺮﻛﺔﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬ ‫ﺇإﻋﺎﻗﺔ ﺇإﻋﺎﻗﺔ‬ ‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي ﺇإﻟﻰ‬‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﺍاﻻﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬ ‫ﺍاﻻﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم ﻗﺪﻗﺪ‬ ‫‪.4 .5‬‬
‫ﻳﯾﺤﺘﺎﺟﻮﻥن‬ ‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺬﻳﯾﻦ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺼﺎﺑﻴﯿﻦ‬ ‫ﺑﻌﺾ‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻤﻞ‬ ‫ﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﻗﺪ‪..‬ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي ﺇإﻟﻰ ﺇإﻋﺎﻗﺔ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﻣﺮﻛﺒﺎﺕت ﺍاﻹﺳﻌﺎﻑف ﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺤﻤﻞ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍاﻟﻤﺼﺎﺑﻴﯿﻦ ﻭوﺍاﻟﺬﻳﯾﻦ ﻳﯾﺤﺘﺎﺟﻮﻥن‬ ‫ﺍاﻹﺳﻌﺎﻑف‬ ‫ﻣﺮﻛﺒﺎﺕت‬ ‫ﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬ ‫ﺇإﻋﺎﻗﺔ‬ ‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﺘﻚ‬ ‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﺍاﻻﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬ ‫‪.5‬‬
‫ﺻﺤﺘﻚ‪.‬‬
‫ﺻﺤﺘﻚ‬ ‫ﺍاﻻﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬ ‫ﺗﺆﺛﺮﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﻗﺪ ‪.5‬‬
‫ﺗﺆﺛﺮ‬ ‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺤﺘﺎﺟﻮﻥنﻳﯾﺤﺘﺎﺟﻮﻥن‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺼﺎﺑﻴﯿﻦ ﻭوﺍاﻟﺬﻳﯾﻦ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺼﺎﺑﻴﯿﻦ ﻭوﺍاﻟﺬﻳﯾﻦ‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻤﻞ ﺑﻌﺾ‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻤﻞﻗﺪﺑﻌﺾ‬ ‫ﺍاﻹﺳﻌﺎﻑفﻗﺪﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﺍاﻹﺳﻌﺎﻑف ﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﻣﺮﻛﺒﺎﺕتﻣﺮﻛﺒﺎﺕت‬ ‫ﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬ ‫ﺇإﻋﺎﻗﺔﺇإﻟﻰﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﺇإﻋﺎﻗﺔ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﺘﻚ‪..‬‬
‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬ ‫ﺻﺤﺘﻚ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍاﻻﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬‫ﺗﺆﺛﺮ‬
‫ﺗﺆﺛﺮ‬
‫ﺗﺆﺛﺮ‬
‫ﻗﺪ‬‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪ 5‬ﻗﺪﻗﺪ‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪.5‬‬
‫ﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺼﺤﻴﯿ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺮﺍاﻛﺰ‬ ‫ﺻﺤﺘﻚ‬ ‫ﺃأﻭو‬ ‫ﻗﺪ ﺗﺆﺛﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺤﺘﺎﺟﻮﻥن‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺮﺍاﻛﺰﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺼﺤﻴﯿ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺮﺍاﻛﺰ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺴﺘﺸﻔﻴﯿﺎﺕت ﺃأﻭو‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺴﺘﺸﻔﻴﯿﺎﺕت‬ ‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﺇإﻟﻰ ﻧﻘﻠﻬﮭﻢ‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‪ ..‬ﻧﻘﻠﻬﮭﻢﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺬﻳﯾﻦﻳﯾﺤﺘﺎﺟﻮﻥن‬
‫ﻳﯾﺤﺘﺎﺟﻮﻥن‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺼﺎﺑﻴﯿﻦﻭوﺍاﻟﺬﻳﯾﻦ‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺬﻳﯾﻦ‬ ‫ﺑﻌﺾﺍاﻟﻤﺼﺎﺑﻴﯿﻦ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺼﺎﺑﻴﯿﻦ‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻤﻞﺑﻌﺾ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺾ‬ ‫ﻗﺪﺗﺤﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻤﻞ‬ ‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﺍاﻹﺳﻌﺎﻑفﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲ‬ ‫ﺍاﻹﺳﻌﺎﻑف‬
‫ﺍاﻹﺳﻌﺎﻑف‬
‫ﻣﺮﻛﺒﺎﺕت‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺼﺤﻴﯿﺔ‪.‬‬‫ﻣﺮﻛﺒﺎﺕت‬
‫ﻣﺮﻛﺒﺎﺕت‬
‫ﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﺇإﻋﺎﻗﺔﺃأﻭوﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬ ‫ﺇإﻋﺎﻗﺔ‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱيﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺴﺘﺸﻔﻴﯿﺎﺕت‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﻗﺪﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬ ‫ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻧﻘﻠﻬﮭﻢﻗﺪ‬
‫‪5.5‬‬
‫ﻳﯾﺤﺘﺎﺟﻮﻥن‬ ‫ﻳﯾﺤﺘﺎﺟﻮﻥن‬ ‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺬﻳﯾﻦ‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺬﻳﯾﻦ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺼﺎﺑﻴﯿﻦ‬‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺼﺎﺑﻴﯿﻦ‬‫ﺑﻌﺾ‬ ‫ﺑﻌﺾ‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻤﻞ‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻤﻞ‬
‫ﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲ ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲ‬ ‫ﺍاﻹﺳﻌﺎﻑف‬
‫ﺍاﻹﺳﻌﺎﻑف‬ ‫ﻣﺮﻛﺒﺎﺕت‬
‫ﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻣﺮﻛﺒﺎﺕت‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺼﺤﻴﯿ‬ ‫ﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬ ‫ﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺼﺤﻴﯿ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺮﺍاﻛﺰ‬ ‫ﺇإﻋﺎﻗﺔ‬ ‫ﺇإﻋﺎﻗﺔ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺮﺍاﻛﺰ‬
‫ﺃأﻭو‬ ‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺃأﻭو‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺴﺘﺸﻔﻴﯿﺎﺕت‬ ‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬
‫ﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺴﺘﺸﻔﻴﯿﺎﺕت‬ ‫ﺍاﻻﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﻧﻘﻠﻬﮭﻢ‬ ‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬‫ﻧﻘﻠﻬﮭﻢ‬
‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪55‬‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍاﻟﻤﺼﺎﺑﻴﯿﻦ ﻭوﺍاﻟﺬﻳﯾﻦ ﻳﯾﺤﺘﺎﺟﻮﻥن‬ ‫ﺳﻤﺢ ﷲ ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻛﺎﺭرﺛﺔﻗﺪ ﺗﺤﻤﻞ‬‫ﻭوﺟﻮﺩدﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﺍاﻹﺳﻌﺎﻑف‬‫ﻣﺮﻛﺒﺎﺕت ﺣﺎﻟﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺪﺩد ﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬ ‫ﺯزﻳﯾﺎﺩدﺓةﺇإﻋﺎﻗﺔ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي ﺇإﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﺍاﻻﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم ﻗﺪ‬ ‫‪. 6‬‬
‫‪5 .6‬‬
‫ﷲ ‪.‬ﺳﻤﺢ ﷲ ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻭوﺟﻮﺩدﻻﻻ ﺳﻤﺢ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔﻛﺎﺭرﺛﺔ‬‫ﻭوﺟﻮﺩد‬‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍاﻹﺻﺎﺑﺎﺕت ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍاﻹﺻﺎﺑﺎﺕت‬
‫ﺔ‪.‬ﻋﺪﺩد‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺮﺍاﻛﺰﻋﺪﺩد‬
‫ﺯزﻳﯾﺎﺩدﺓة‬ ‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬ ‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬ ‫ﺍاﻻﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم ﻗﺪﻗﺪ‬
‫ﺍاﻻﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬ ‫‪.6‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﺭرﺛﺔ ﻻ‬ ‫ﺍاﻹﺻﺎﺑﺎﺕت‬ ‫ﺔ‪.‬‬‫ﺍاﻟﺼﺤﻴﯿﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺯزﻳﯾﺎﺩدﺓة‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰﺍاﻟﺼﺤﻴﯿ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺼﺤﻴﯿ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺮﺍاﻛﺰ‬
‫ﻗﺪﺃأﻭو‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺴﺘﺸﻔﻴﯿﺎﺕتﺃأﻭو‬
‫ﺃأﻭو‬ ‫ﺇإﻟﻰﺍاﻟﻤﺴﺘﺸﻔﻴﯿﺎﺕت‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺴﺘﺸﻔﻴﯿﺎﺕت‬ ‫ﻧﻘﻠﻬﮭﻢ‪.6‬‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﺇإﻟﻰﻧﻘﻠﻬﮭﻢ‬
‫ﻧﻘﻠﻬﮭﻢ‬ ‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺳﻤﺢ ﷲ ‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫ﷲ‬ ‫ﺳﻤﺢ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻀﺎﺭرﺓةﻻ‬ ‫ﻻ‬ ‫ﻛﺎﺭرﺛﺔ‬
‫ﻭوﺟﻮﺩد ﻛﺎﺭرﺛﺔ‬ ‫ﻭوﺟﻮﺩد‬
‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔ‬ ‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍاﻹﺻﺎﺑﺎﺕت ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺍاﻹﺻﺎﺑﺎﺕت‬
‫ﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺼﺤﻴﯿ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺼﺤﻴﯿ‬
‫ﻟﺤﻤﺎﻳﯾﺔﻋﺪﺩد‬ ‫ﻋﺪﺩد‬
‫ﺯزﻳﯾﺎﺩدﺓة‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺮﺍاﻛﺰ‬
‫ﺃأﻭو‬
‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي ﺇإﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﺃأﻭو‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺴﺘﺸﻔﻴﯿﺎﺕت‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺴﺘﺸﻔﻴﯿﺎﺕت‬
‫ﺍاﻻﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم ﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﻧﻘﻠﻬﮭﻢ‬ ‫ﻧﻘﻠﻬﮭﻢ‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ ‪.6‬‬ ‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻬﮭﻮﺍاء‪..‬‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻐﺎﺯزﺍاﺕت‬ ‫ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺼﺤﻴﯿﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺮﺍاﻛﺰ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻤﺴﺘﺸﻔﻴﯿﺎﺕت ﺃأﻭو‬ ‫ﻧﻘﻠﻬﮭﻢ ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻬﮭﻮﺍاء‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲﻓﻲﺗﻨﺘﺸﺮ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻀﺎﺭرﺓةﺗﻨﺘﺸﺮ‬
‫ﷲ‪..‬‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻀﺎﺭرﺓة‬
‫ﺳﻤﺢ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻐﺎﺯزﺍاﺕت‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺘﻨﻔﺴﻲ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺘﻨﻔﺴﻲ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺠﻬﮭﺎﺯز‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻄﺒﻴﯿﺔﺍاﻟﺠﻬﮭﺎﺯز‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻜﻤﺎﻣﺔﻟﺤﻤﺎﻳﯾﺔ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻄﺒﻴﯿﺔ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻜﻤﺎﻣﺔ ﺍاﻟﻄﺒﻴﯿﺔ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻜﻤﺎﻣﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﺒﺲ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﯿﻚﻗﺪﻟﺒﺲ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺠﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﯿﻚ‬ ‫ﻳﯾﺠﺐ‬ ‫‪ 7 ..77‬‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺍاﻟﻬﮭﻮﺍاء‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫ﷲ‬ ‫ﻻﺳﻤﺢ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻐﺎﺯزﺍاﺕتﷲ‬
‫ﺳﻤﺢ‬ ‫ﻻ‬
‫ﻛﺎﺭرﺛﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻦﻻ‬‫ﻛﺎﺭرﺛﺔ‬
‫ﻭوﺟﻮﺩد‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺘﻨﻔﺴﻲ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻲﺣﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺠﻬﮭﺎﺯز‬
‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ‬‫ﺍاﻹﺻﺎﺑﺎﺕتﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻟﺤﻤﺎﻳﯾﺔ‬‫ﻋﺪﺩدﺍاﻹﺻﺎﺑﺎﺕت‬
‫ﺍاﻹﺻﺎﺑﺎﺕت‬ ‫ﺯزﻳﯾﺎﺩدﺓةﻋﺪﺩد‬
‫ﻋﺪﺩد‬ ‫ﻟﺒﺲ‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﯿﻚﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺠﺐﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬
‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬ ‫ﻗﺪ‬‫ﺍاﻻﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡمﻗﺪ‬
‫ﺍاﻻﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬‫‪.7‬‬
‫ﺍاﻻﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم‬ ‫‪.6.6‬‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺍاﻟﻬﮭﻮﺍاء‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻬﮭﻮﺍاء‪.‬‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲﻓﻲﺗﻨﺘﺸﺮ‬‫ﺍاﻟﻀﺎﺭرﺓة‪.‬ﺗﻨﺘﺸﺮ‬
‫ﷲ‬ ‫ﺳﻤﺢ ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻀﺎﺭرﺓةﷲ‬
‫ﺳﻤﺢ‬‫ﻻ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻐﺎﺯزﺍاﺕتﻻ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻐﺎﺯزﺍاﺕت‬ ‫ﻛﺎﺭرﺛﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﻭوﺟﻮﺩد‬‫ﻭوﺟﻮﺩد‬
‫ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺘﻨﻔﺴﻲ‬ ‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔ‬ ‫ﺣﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺘﻨﻔﺴﻲ‬
‫ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺠﻬﮭﺎﺯز‬ ‫ﻟﺤﻤﺎﻳﯾﺔﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍاﻹﺻﺎﺑﺎﺕت‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺠﻬﮭﺎﺯز‬
‫ﺍاﻹﺻﺎﺑﺎﺕت‬ ‫ﻟﺤﻤﺎﻳﯾﺔ‬
‫ﻋﺪﺩد‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻄﺒﻴﯿﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﺪﺩد‬
‫ﺯزﻳﯾﺎﺩدﺓة‬‫ﺯزﻳﯾﺎﺩدﺓة‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻄﺒﻴﯿﺔ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻜﻤﺎﻣﺔ‬ ‫ﺇإﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﻟﺒﺲ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻴﯿﻚ ﺇإﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻜﻤﺎﻣﺔ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬ ‫ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻴﯿﻚﻗﺪ‬
‫ﺍاﻻﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡمﻟﺒﺲ‬
‫ﻗﺪ‬ ‫ﻳﯾﺠﺐ‬ ‫ﻳﯾﺠﺐ‬‫‪.‬‬‫‪7‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪.6.76‬‬
‫ﺍاﻻﺯزﺩدﺣﺎﻡم ﻗﺪ ﻳﯾﺆﺩدﻱي ﺇإﻟﻰ ﺯزﻳﯾﺎﺩدﺓة ﻋﺪﺩد ﺍاﻹﺻﺎﺑﺎﺕت ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻭوﺟﻮﺩد ﻛﺎﺭرﺛﺔ ﻻ ﺳﻤﺢ ﷲ ‪.‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻬﮭﻮﺍاء‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻲﺍاﻟﻬﮭﻮﺍاء‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻬﮭﻮﺍاء‪.‬‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺘﺸﺮﻓﻲ‬‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲﺗﻨﺘﺸﺮ‬‫ﺍاﻟﻀﺎﺭرﺓةﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻐﺎﺯزﺍاﺕتﺍاﻟﻀﺎﺭرﺓة‬
‫ﻣﻦﺍاﻟﻐﺎﺯزﺍاﺕت‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺘﻨﻔﺴﻲﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺠﻬﮭﺎﺯزﺍاﻟﺘﻨﻔﺴﻲ‬
‫ﻟﺤﻤﺎﻳﯾﺔﺍاﻟﺠﻬﮭﺎﺯز‬‫ﺍاﻟﻄﺒﻴﯿﺔﻟﺤﻤﺎﻳﯾﺔ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻜﻤﺎﻣﺔﺍاﻟﻄﺒﻴﯿﺔ‬‫ﻟﺒﺲﺍاﻟﻜﻤﺎﻣﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻴﯿﻚﻟﺒﺲ‬ ‫ﻳﯾﺠﺐﻋﻠﻴﯿﻚ‬ ‫‪ ..77.7‬ﻳﯾﺠﺐ‬
‫‪.‬‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻬﮭﻮﺍاء‪.‬‬ ‫ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺘﺸﺮ‬ ‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻀﺎﺭرﺓة‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻐﺎﺯزﺍاﺕت‬ ‫ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺘﻨﻔﺴﻲ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺠﻬﮭﺎﺯز‬ ‫ﻟﺤﻤﺎﻳﯾﺔ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻄﺒﻴﯿﺔ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻜﻤﺎﻣﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﺒﺲ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻴﯿﻚ‬ ‫ﻳﯾﺠﺐ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻬﮭﻮﺍاء‪.‬‬ ‫ﺗﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻀﺎﺭرﺓة‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻀﺎﺭرﺓة‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻐﺎﺯزﺍاﺕت‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻐﺎﺯزﺍاﺕت‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺘﻨﻔﺴﻲ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺘﻨﻔﺴﻲ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﺠﻬﮭﺎﺯز‬
‫ﺍاﻟﺠﻬﮭﺎﺯز‬ ‫ﻟﺤﻤﺎﻳﯾﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﺤﻤﺎﻳﯾﺔ‬‫ﺍاﻟﻄﺒﻴﯿﺔ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻄﺒﻴﯿﺔ‬
‫ﺍاﻟﻜﻤﺎﻣﺔ‬ ‫ﺍاﻟﻜﻤﺎﻣﺔ‬‫ﻟﺒﺲﻟﺒﺲ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻴﯿﻚﻋﻠﻴﯿﻚ‬ ‫‪ ..77 .7‬ﻳﯾﺠﺐﻳﯾﺠﺐ‬
‫ﻳﯾﺠﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﯿﻚ ﻟﺒﺲ ﺍاﻟﻜﻤﺎﻣﺔ ﺍاﻟﻄﺒﻴﯿﺔ ﻟﺤﻤﺎﻳﯾﺔ ﺍاﻟﺠﻬﮭﺎﺯز ﺍاﻟﺘﻨﻔﺴﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍاﻟﻐﺎﺯزﺍاﺕت ﺍاﻟﻀﺎﺭرﺓة ﻭوﺍاﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺍاﻟﻬﮭﻮﺍاء‪ .‬‬
‫‪ ‬‬
English translation:
Guidance to the pilgrims during crush:
1 Avoid the crowded places because this may lead to an unsatisfied

end.
2 Over runs due to the increase of the pilgrimages at one time.
3 Exposure to the sunlight due to the overcrowding may lead to sun

strike.
4 Crowding may hamper the passing process which will increase the
percent of the gases emitted by the cars which may affect your
health.
5 Crowding may hamper the passage of the emergency cars that have
injured people on board that have to be transferred to the hospital.
6 Crowding may increase the number of the infected people if there

was a disaster God forbid.
7 You must wear the medical respiratory muzzle to protect your

respiratory system against harmful gases that are spreading in the
air […].
(General Directorate of Civil Defence 2014)
A cursory examination of the English version, even without referring to

the source text, shows a number of serious weaknesses. The title itself
(‘Guidance to the pilgrims during crush’) scarcely carries the meaning or
forcefulness to be expected of such a key element. Instead of an impactful
rendering to alert the reader – ‘overcrowding’ – the translation offers
‘crush’. The subsequent useful advice and instructions found in this short
excerpt are further lost in translation, as a result of awkward constructions
or inappropriate lexical choices. For instance, we find ‘unsatisfied end’
where logic and convention would indicate ‘undesirable consequences/
unfortunate accidents’; similarly, ‘respiratory muzzle’ appears in place of
‘respiratory mask’. The translator has also followed the syntactic structure
of the Arabic source text quite literally, resulting in constructions that, while
comprehensible with some effort, are neither natural nor appropriate in the
target language. Thus for example we find the following sentence with its
enchained relative clauses: ‘Crowding may hamper the passing process
which will increase the percent of the gases emitted by the cars which
may affect your health’; this may be acceptable syntax in Arabic, but not in
English. Some deductive effort is also required from the reader at the phrase
level: ‘passing process’ literally glosses the Arabic expression for ‘traffic’, and
the unnecessarily awkward ‘the percent of the gases emitted by the cars’
resolves itself as ‘vehicle emissions’.
One might suppose that poor translation quality in the Hajj context corre-
lates to the intense and transitory demand. Certainly, responding to temporary
needs or emergency situations may require the use of ad hoc measures,
which do not normally ensure a satisfactory level of quality and effectiveness.
However, as mentioned above, the Hajj and similar large-scale events are
organized periodically, and this should, in principle, provide opportunities to
learn from previous seasons and plan subsequent services with care. The
Hajj’s temporariness may have some bearing, but the issue of translation
quality needs to be examined in the broader context of community translation
worldwide, and of interpreting and translation in Saudi Arabia particularly.
As has been noted in Chapter 1, community translation services are not
widely available or sufficiently professionalized in many parts of the world.
This is due to a number of factors, including the sociopolitical status of the
target communities, underfunding and lack of trained professionals in a
number of language combinations. In Saudi Arabia this is not only the case
with community interpreting and translating, but seems to apply to the
profession in general. As Al-Mahdia’s (2007) doctoral thesis shows, most
translators working in the Saudi market have not been adequately prepared,
and those trained locally attain lower levels of competence than trainees
at international universities. Dr Ahmed Al-Banyan, the former President of
the Saudi Association of Languages and Translation, agrees that there is a
shortage of competent translators in the country and attributes this to a
lack of appropriate training programmes, few employment incentives and no
administrative body to develop and implement a national strategy for trans-
lation (Al-Sharq Al-Awsat 2008).
Al-Banyan indirectly alludes to what we consider three essential elements
– training, policymaking and certification – for securing adequate quality in
translation and interpreting services, both community-based and general.
For these elements to exist, a minimum of three conditions need to be met
in turn: a) training providers that are able to offer appropriate and effective
translator and interpreter education; b) policymakers who are aware of the
needs for interpreting and translation and of the impact of quality (or lack
thereof), and are ready to develop and implement policies to ensure service
provision and professional standards; and c) quality assurance processes and
measures at a national level (e.g. accreditation or certification body) and at the
level of individual organizations and services.
Saudi Arabia is still developing in these respects. On the positive side,
Saudi authorities attach great importance to pilgrimage as a cultural diplomacy
asset, and are aware of the attendant communication needs and the impact
that better communication has on pilgrim experience; this certainly animates
political will and policymaking. However, the progress in language services is

by no means comparable to that already achieved in other areas (transport,
security, accommodation, preventive healthcare, etc.). In terms of training,
the major pilgrim languages have not found their way into the available inter-
preting and translation programmes. The majority do not offer wide choices of
working languages (centring mainly on Arabic–English), nor are they particu-
larly focused on community-based or pilgrim-related contexts (Taibi 2011).
Finally, where quality assurance oversight and processes are concerned, to
date (January 2015) there is no translator and interpreter certification body,
and no professionally oriented evaluation system for interpreting and trans-
lation training programmes. As Qadi’s (2011) research has shown, recruitment
– at least in the Hajj context – still relies on unsystematic processes. As can
be inferred from the sample translation above and numerous others analysed
in Qadi (2011), quality assurance measures mostly require improvement
in the Saudi organizations and language service providers that have them,
and implementation in the rest. The translations in question – ranging from
blatantly poor to unintelligible – were commissioned and disseminated by a
number of different organizations and public services, and their publication,
whether print or electronic, is evidence of quality assurance failures on at
least two key levels: recruitment and checking. (See also the following two
chapters.)
We have given here a relatively extended case study of community‑oriented
translation during the Hajj, as thus far there are few case studies of its appli-
cation to the specifics of a temporary community. In the interest of improving
service delivery generally, research is urgently needed on translation issues
in a greater variety of settings where such communities may have unmet
or poorly met needs. No doubt there are also valuable success stories to
be learned from, where language services and translators sensitive to such
needs have performed admirably, even in difficult circumstances.
6
Quality assurance and
translation assessment
T he process of ensuring quality in community translation is multifaceted

and indeed involves all stages of the community translation endeavour,
from initial selection of translators and assessment of the source text,
through the stages of project management, to the ultimate finalization of the
text by the translation team. While many of the established means of quality
assurance in international translation – and debates about what constitutes
quality – are just as relevant to community translation, nevertheless a number
of specific considerations, encompassing both treatment of content and
treatment of the translation process itself, remain specific to community
translation and need to be carefully identified. We focus here specifically on
the relation between translators and their commissioning bodies – authors
or translation agencies/companies – to identify quality issues that need to be
addressed. Areas such as quality in machine translation, computer-assisted
translation or automated translation project management processes are not
in themselves considered here, though some comments will be made about
the role of such technology in community translation.
Two broad areas of literature can be identified as pertaining to quality
in translation. The first is academically, linguistically and textually based,
concerned with establishing criteria whereby translations can be compared
with original source texts to establish their quality, and the limits of variation
that can be allowed. Purposes here are both theoretical for translation critique
(led by authors such as House 1977, 1997, 2001, 2013; Brunette 2000; de
Praetere 2011) and pedagogic, the latter being concerned with issues of
assessment and feedback on translation learning, to help translation students
identify and appreciate quality features of translation (Petersen 1996; Hague
et al. 2011).
The second, but much smaller and more patchy, stream of quality literature
is related to professional production processes, encompassing the process
of translation in the context of translation project management (Orsted 2001;

Samuelsson-Brown 2006; Dunne 2011; Drugan 2013). Some authors have
pointed to the gap that exists between the academic concern for quality and
the quality processes that are carried out in the field (e.g. Lauscher 2000),
and this is the starting point for this chapter.
6.1 Academic and professional

definitions of quality
Some individual authors and key collections of texts have looked in depth
at issues of quality, largely related to what is defined as Translation Quality
Assessment [TQA], i.e. comparing a translation with its source text to identify
aspects of quality. Primary has been the work of House and the collection in
the 2000 special issue of The Translator on quality (Maier 2000).
The steadily elaborated work of House in particular (1977, 1997, 2001,
2013) has given a well-argued functional basis for assessing translation
quality. House argues that quality in translation has been described by several
different schools of thought in translation: mentalists have concentrated on
intuitions about exactness of lexical and stylistic choice (particularly in literary
translation); another school largely emerging from the work of Nida has been
concerned with translation effects, but this line of analysis has rarely been able
to objectively evaluate the effects of translation upon readers. House is
concerned to propose a functionalist view of quality: she argues that a trans-
lation needs to be considered along a variety of parameters, constructing a
profile of a source text which can then be compared with a translation. The
parameters she identifies draw on Hallidayan linguistics: first, a translation
must be recognizable as equivalent in terms of both ideational (content) and
interpersonal (how the reader is addressed) aspects. More precisely, House
sees the notions of register as being crucial to quality, in its three compo-
nents of field (the subject area), tenor (the relation between the author and
reader) and mode (not only spoken/written, but also considering the extent
to which the reader can participate in constructing meaning and be brought
into understanding – as we have seen, a critical concern for community trans-
lation). A key to understanding equivalence along these lines, House argues,
is the notion of genre, and the degree to which the genre of the original is
recreated in the translation. Having established a profile of the source text
along these lines, the target text can then be compared along these various
dimensions, building a multifaceted view of quality.
For community translation, several issues are already apparent, particu-
larly the focus on genre. In some cases, as community translation is largely
Quality assurance and translation assessment 109
informative of institutional processes, the issue of genre is foremost: texts

are largely pragmatic/informative but mix in other functions as well, largely
educational/persuasive aspects, such as in preventive health, or encouraging
participation in school governance or environmental awareness. Yet in many
other cultures, some of these genres may be unknown or poorly developed,
challenging the translator to then produce an understandable translation.
Another issue that arises from House’s work is her distinction of the two
basic ways translators engage in their task to produce either overt or covert
translations. Her explanation of these terms, while technical, provides us with
some significant theoretical insight into community translation. For House, a
covert translation is one that is not prima facie recognized as a translation, but
has adapted any culturally difficult concepts into more familiar concepts in the
target text, and the translation can be read in the target culture as a stand-
alone text, without any necessary understanding of the source culture, even if
that may be considered exotic. An example may be a children’s story adapted
to target audience culture, where Aladdin from medieval Arabia sounds and
acts like the boy from the Bronx. The translator achieves this by applying
what House calls a cultural filter, removing unfamiliar cultural references and
substituting or adapting cultural forms. Such translations have classically been
described as domesticating translations, reading naturally but not allowing
access to cultural otherness (Toury 1995). Now, such a theory may generate
an Aha! moment for considerations of community translation, for adaptation
is at the very core of community translation, making the unfamiliar (particu-
larly in institutional terms) familiar to a culturally diverse audience.
However, in many cases community translation stands closer to the other
kind of translation identified by House: overt translation – that is, translations
that are clearly translations, and that often engage in explanation, definitions,
augmented information and clarification, all quite clearly pointing out that
this is a foreign (host) culture that needs to be explained, and the underlying
assumptions and consequences of the information presented need to be
spelled out. For overt translations, there is a process not so much of cultural
filtering as cultural explication. House (2001) argues strongly that in evaluating
translations there must be an ability to compare source and target texts, and
attend to the linguistic aspects of a translation, rather than see translated
versions playing a different social or political function; we are dealing with
the specificity of translations, not social activism or rewriting. In community
translation, while there may indeed be occasions for rewriting, this needs
to be done by the original authors when an agency or translator declares an
original text to be inappropriate or too erroneous or misleading to translate in
its current form. This is commented on further below.
The second stream of literature – looking at how quality is understood
and responded to in the field of professional translation and specifically in
community translation – turns the academic approach towards quality on its

head: rather than looking at quality as being a relationship between source
and target text (in the TQA model), the concern of this stream of literature
is to look at how commissioners and agencies define quality in a context
where they have to give guarantees of quality before any translation is done:
agencies and companies that routinely advertise their quality aspects must
convince clients their approach to translation will produce quality transla-
tions; and commissioners of community translation must be convinced that
whoever they give the work to will also produce a quality product – how can
this be guaranteed? In her admirably comprehensive study of quality in the
professional translation field, Drugan (2013) recounts that in an exhaustive
survey done of many varied translation providers (including community
translation providers), not one provider cited the academic criteria of quality
when discussing how to ensure quality for their clients. We appear to be on
different terrain here, looking at what aspects of quality can be identified in
the translation process itself, with an emphasis on Quality Control [QC] and
ensuring all steps in the translation process have a concern for quality.
Yet there are links between the two approaches, and perhaps this can
be most usefully identified by linking the academic notion of the purpose of
the translation – skopos – to the widely held perspective in the professional
translation field that translations must satisfy client specifications: client satis-
faction and a fit-for-purpose translation must be the ultimate criteria of quality.
Lesch (2004) gives a significant account of translation in South Africa;
mindful of the huge social and educational differences between groups in the
country, he argues for an adaptive approach to translation and one that takes
readers’ levels of understanding and background knowledge into account. He
concentrates on translations between English and Afrikaans. Yet there is a
catch: Afrikaans is an official language of South Africa, and so in areas such
as legislation an official translation must have the same legal standing as the
original (in this case English). Lesch takes the example of the legislation on
school governance, and shows that the Afrikaans translation of the legislation
has the same formality and register of full legalese as the original. Yet in
explaining the legislation to actual school communities, Lesch argues that a
simplified version of the legislation needs to be presented, without the formal
register and legalistic exclusions characteristic of the actual legislative acts.
Thus, a clause in the legislation reads (in English):
23(1) Subject to this Act, the membership of the governing body of an

ordinary public school comprises
a) elected members;
b) the principal, in his official capacity;
c) co-opted members
(2) elected members of the governing body shall comprise a member or

members of each of the following categories:
a) parents of learners at the school
b) educators at the school
c) members of staff at the school who are not educators; and
d) learners in the eighth grade or higher at the school
(Lesch 2004: 263)
There follow three authentic Afrikaans target texts: the first text is one trans-
lated by parliamentary translators for the official parliamentary record, and
consists of a very close and exact following of each clause in the English
text. But there are also two other translations. One is intended for school
personnel such as principals, teachers and administrators, and in back-
translation reads:
Who are the members of a governing body?

The governing body of an ordinary public school is made up of three groups
of people:
MM Members who are elected
MM The school principal
MM Members who are co-opted but not elected. They are people from
the community who are invited by a governing body to assist it in
fulfilling its functions
Elected members
The members who are elected must consist of:
MM Parents of learners at the school, excluding parents employed at that
school
MM Educators (teachers) at the school
MM Members of staff at the school who are not educators (such as the
secretarial staff and those who work in the school garden)
MM Learners at the school who are in grade eight or a higher grade
(Lesch 2004: 263)
Compared to the wording of the official Act, in this translation aimed at school
personnel we see a drop in formality, alternative terminology being adopted
and some explications of who is intended to be members of a governing
body.
The third text is a translation ‘aimed at the community level, that is at

pupils and their parents’ (Lesch 2004: 266), which in back-translation reads:
Membership of a governing body

Three groups are represented on a governing body: elected members, the
school principal, and co-opted members.
MM Elected members
MM Parents of learners at the school
MM Educators at the school
MM Staff members who are not educators, such as secretaries and
gardeners
MM Learners at the school who are in grade eight or above
(Lesch 2004: 265)
Lesch uses this example to argue that plain language needs to be a feature
of community translation; and to create understanding and (most importantly)
involvement, translations must be understandable and focused on the main
communicative intent of the original.
Now, Lesch’s example is instructive on several fronts. First, it shows the
importance of clarifying skopos in determining how a translation should be
undertaken, as discussed in Chapter 3. Informing a school community of its
access to school governance is vital, but Lesch is in the position of being
able to have different translations of the legislation to suit different purposes
– an official version for legislative purposes, and two further translations of
communicative and adapted style for those most affected by the legislature:
school staff, and the pool of parents and pupils needing to understand school
governance. Secondly, relating back to arguments over quality assessment,
it can be argued these latter translations cited by Lesch read very much
like what House would describe as covert translations, applying not so
much a cultural filter as a legal-bureaucratic filter to the source text. Yet
thirdly, Lesch’s examples can be problematic, as in virtually all cases with a
community translation there is not an opportunity for different versions: there
will be one version only and a readership needs to be identified, and even
if it is a mixed readership the focus must be on producing a translation that
retains information yet presents a text understandable to putative readers. So,
does simplification, or a more detailed explication, represent a more adequate
approach?
The issue of understandability is critical in community translation. To take
an English example, the Sussex Interpreting Services, which run a substantial
translation programme as well, define community translation as ‘the accurate

written transmission of meaning from one language to another, which is
easily understood by the reader’ (Sussex Interpreting Services n.d.). This
reflects Lesch’s argument, but we show below how this organization in fact
provides for quality measures that belie any conclusion of simplification.
There is a danger if simplification of language leads to simplification
of content, for this leaves the reader of community translations in a situation of
information denied, confounding the very purpose of community translation.
As an example, here is an extract from a document on disability from Victoria,
Australia, referring to the standards that should be met by disability services
in that state, in particular Outcome Standards for those with a disability:
Outcome Standards
The Outcome Standards for Disability Services describe what is important
for people with a disability as citizens of Victoria. They form the basis for
measurement of outcomes. They prompt us to consider the influence
and impact our service has upon political, cultural, health and wellbeing,
economic and social outcomes for people with a disability. These Standards
guide approaches to recognise, understand and respond to the things that
are important to each person who uses disability services.
The Outcome Standards are:
MM Individuality: Each individual has goals, wants, aspirations and
support needs and makes decisions and choices about their life.
MM Capacity: Each individual has the ability and potential to achieve a
valued role in the community.
MM Participation: Each individual is able to access and participate in their
community.
MM Citizenship: Each individual has rights and responsibilities as a
member of the community.
MM Leadership: Each individual informs the way that supports are
provided.
Organisations are required to comply with the Industry Standards and

provide evidence of their planning for meeting Outcome Standards.
(National Disability Services 2007)
This is certainly a high-register text, yet caution needs to be exercised in

approaching this with a view to simplification. Notions such as citizenship
or leadership may sound odd when associated with the notion of disability,
and it may be considered that, for example, disability would not be talked
about in this way in, say, many source countries of Australia’s immigrants.
But the point is that talk of citizenship or leadership would not have been
common in previous discourse on disability in Australia either! It is not a case
of something well understood in the host country needing to be translated
for new arrivals. Those responsible for this policy precisely want to introduce
new perspectives into discourse about disability, and a moment’s reflection
tells us why: the long struggle by the disabled, individually and collectively,
not to be discriminated against and to be regarded as valuable members of
society has been characterized by the disabled asserting themselves, gaining
leadership roles, demanding social recognition as well as simply better care
and, indeed, claiming a citizenship that was often perceived as being denied
by previous disability policies. Here the community translation issue is to be
able to present what are novel concepts even in the host society, and simpli-
fication risks distorting this.
Yet often some aspects of simplification are not only unavoidable but
necessary if community translation is to be delivered in an efficient manner.
Surveying the quality literature and trying to relate it to the work of translation
companies and translators, Almeida e Pinho (2002) argues that:
there is the need for new, more practical, principles for translation within
companies that work at a more technical and professional level. It is thus
crucial to have a quick and simple method of conceptual and/or termino-
logical confirmation that will allow a final product of quality, recognized
as such by all participants, that will provide credibility to this sector and
that will increasingly allow clients/readers of translated texts to trust the
products they receive. (Almeida e Pinho 2002: 420)
Several significant issues are raised by Almeida e Pinho here, particularly

the contrasting notions of trust and efficiency. Trust is a palpable issue, as all
concerned in community translation (reader, translator, translation agency,
authoring authorities) are aware of the variability in quality and reliability of
translation that have dogged community translation (and community inter-
preting). And yet the focus on ‘a quick and simple method of conceptual
and/or terminological confirmation’ is precisely what cannot be secured in
many community translation contexts and in many languages dependent on
community translation. We would argue, however, that quality is possible
by focusing on quality processes that need to be employed by trans-
lation agencies/companies in a situation of teamwork with translators;
such processes attend equally to issues of text and issues of professional
interaction between all parties in the community translation endeavour. This
method will not be ‘quick and simple’ but its consistent prosecution, we
would argue, is the only way that the identified trust can be established.
For the rest of this chapter we take up the second identified stream in
the literature of concern for quality processes, and set out some criteria for
what an adequate quality framework may be for the pursuit of professional
community translation.
6.2 A quality framework for community

translation
The process of providing quality in community translation is here considered
as consisting of six stages:
i Work on the text
ii Selection of translators
iii Briefing of translators
iv Ensuring project management focus
v Enabling communication with authors or commissioners
vi Ensuring quality checking or other post-draft quality assurance

features (this will be dealt with in the next chapter)
We assume here that the majority of community translation work is secured

by translation agencies/companies or non-government organizations choosing
among a pool of potential translators. While there certainly are some direct
relations between translators and clients in the community sector, and
in some cases government bodies will have dedicated translation sections in
some languages, these are dwarfed by the volume of translations handled by
agencies of various kinds and translation companies.
6.2.1 Work on the text

In referring to technical texts and the need for greater specialization, Heath
makes the generalization that ‘few translators or translation agencies now
question the need for editing both before and after translation’ (Heath
2001: 5). Yet this is precisely the area that is so often lacking in agencies that
deal with community translation.
To look first at the treatment of texts before translation: this one measure
can tell us very quickly if an agency understands some of the central issues
of community translation – that translations must present often complex insti-
tutional information and advice to audiences that potentially differ significantly
in institutional understanding and cultural and educational background. Very

often texts that government or non-government institutions need to be trans-
lated for their diverse constituency were not written with cultural diversity in
mind (though this can be seen to be slowly changing with more awareness
of heighted cultural diversity in many countries in recent decades). But even
where authors may consciously address a diverse community, often implicit
understandings of institutions and their processes remain, which will need
particular handling, first by an agency that can read the text to evaluate if it is
indeed likely to be understood by potential readers.
Yet most translation agencies that deal with community translation are
relatively small, may not have a significant institutional focus and have
sometimes few staff who are expert in or even aware of these factors
influencing translation. Many agencies see themselves as essentially letter-
boxes, passing on texts received from clients to translators, so that texts are
never read by the agency. Also, in many cases the client’s requirement is for
multiple languages, and given the often significant diversity of translators
(in terms of training, certification or professional socialization), issues in the
source text may be handled by these translators in varying ways – a point
considered further in project management issues dealt with below.
The letterbox model also leads to agencies or translation companies taking
from their client whatever specification (or lack of specification) that is offered
and simply passing this on to the translators. While many specifications are
brief and perfunctory (‘translate into n languages in PDFs by next Friday,
please …’), an agency always has the option of asking for more adequate
specifications, at the same time as it may make comments on the text (on any
issue from readability to logic, to style, to typos and typography). Moreover,
it is essential to do this at the stage of quoting or bidding for a job, when
good clients will appreciate feedback and attention to the text and specifica-
tions (and even poor clients will need to consider such feedback). The need
for adequate specification of the translation, both in professional practice
and in the training of translators, has been forcibly argued by Hague et al.
(2011: 243), who urge agencies ‘in commercial, government and non-profit
translation projects’ to adopt ‘a standard set of translation parameters, whose
values depend mostly on factors external to the source text, such as audience
and purpose’. They argue that this must go beyond the perfunctory kind of
brief mentioned above. This is a specification to be received (or requested)
from the client and conveyed to the translators for maximum understanding
of project requirements.
Such a process of providing more rich information to translators about
their tasks implies that translators are receptive to such added information
and capable of operationalizing it, an issue intimately linked to the selection
of available translators.
6.2.2 Selection of translators

While a small proportion of community translations will be undertaken by
in-house translators who are certified and effectively quality controlled by their
company (or appear to be so), the greater proportion of community translations
are and will be undertaken by freelancers with, as we have argued previously,
often highly variable backgrounds in terms of certification, experience and
professional socialization. But even in countries where certification and/or
training is in principle available to a significant number of language combina-
tions (say over fifty languages), many practitioners will never have received
training or any test of proficiency.
Agencies then must: a) first of all find practitioners in a usually ever-expanding
range of languages; b) communicate some basic formal requirements at the
level of agency practice: payment, deadlines and procedures (this may or may
not take the form of a contract); and c) in some cases, indicate some macro
quality parameters, such as adherence to a code of ethics or code of conduct.
Beyond that, agencies vary widely in how they see quality.
Selection of translators can be seen as a local issue of who is available,
but also demonstrates some surprisingly universal issues that apply to all
agencies:
MM Least problematic are the languages where local community needs

are also in major world languages which, either by language study
or by immigration, a significant number of people will speak and be
literate in. English, Chinese, Spanish, French, Russian, Arabic – the
United Nations languages – are obvious examples, together with the
major northern European languages where there is more likely to be
a pool of potential translators, including some from the majority host
group as well. For these languages there is also the possibility of
reaching beyond the local community to recruit translators, but this is
commented on further below.
MM Other potentially high-quality candidates are likely to come from
a range of countries which may not speak major languages but,
because of highly developed education systems or bookishness of
the cultures, often produce highly literate translators – for Eastern
European and Balkan languages, for example, or Japanese, Korean,
Vietnamese or Farsi (Persian).
MM In some languages, including those mentioned above, with a long
history of immigration, a second or subsequent generations have
emerged whose A language will often be the language of the host
society: Turks in Germany, Japanese in California, Spanish in Northern
America generally and Italians or Greeks in many parts of the world.

At times, and depending on texts or situations, translating into the
host language becomes important, for example in the translation
of official documents. If translation is formally taught, classes may
contain a mix of first and later generation candidates.
MM Languages of most recent immigration – an expanding number
worldwide, for various political and socio-economic reasons – present
the most serious challenge, since needs in both translating and
interpreting will be immediate but potential translators may be harder
to find, may have limited understanding of professional translation
protocols and will often have their own settlement issues to deal
with. In some cases also, particularly with minor African or Asian
languages, the language itself may have evolved a written form
only recently, and literacy in that language may be limited, though
there will be highly educated individuals in any refugee or migrant
group. The Chin from Burma, Dinka from the Sudan or the smallest
Indian languages are examples where, in some cases, material to be
presented orally (through radio or audiovisuals) may be the preferred
form of translation. Interpreting needs will often be more apparently
urgent than translation needs for these groups.
MM Indigenous languages may or may not have written forms, creating
issues of translation similar to the newly arrived immigrant groups
mentioned above. A special case is that of South Africa, already
discussed in connection with Lesch’s work, where nine indigenous
languages alongside English and Afrikaans are now official languages
and need extensive translation work with insufficiency of translators.
And finally, an indigenous group rarely considered in terms of
translation is the Deaf in any country using Sign Language; while this
is predominantly an interpreting issue, more material is now being
translated in audiovisual form, such as material on health or social
security, as part of government information efforts.
This categorization must be immediately calibrated against the question of

whether any formal certification systems or training of translators exist in
particular countries. Increasingly such systems are becoming more common,
especially in advanced countries of high immigration, but the reach of the
certification system into the very wide range of languages is often limited.
The 2012 European survey of the Status of the Translation Profession in the
European Union pointed to a ‘general lack of efficient signalling (training, quali-
fications or certification) with regard to translation services in “immigrant”
languages’ (European Commission 2012: 4). As in community interpreting, a
system of certification is often sought and supported by the various players in

the field: government bodies in particular, consumer groups, as well as some
agencies. It has also been argued that certification may in some cases serve
more of a legitimation than quality function; the Translation and Interpreting
Summit Advisory Council (TISAC) of the EU warned that in healthcare inter-
preting, for example, the current focus on certification might be misplaced,
and they argue that standards for training should be given priority (European
Commission 2012: 68).
In relation to recruitment issues, many agencies are for very good
reasons reluctant to go too far afield for practitioners, even though electronic
communication allows recruitment from seemingly anywhere on the planet.
The degrees of local knowledge required (which can be as specific as city
or province knowledge or knowledge of national systems and institutions)
means that only texts of a high degree of universality could be entrusted to
translators outside the particular country or even more narrow geographical
location. Texts dealing with local school issues, social security specifics, local
planning, local law or welfare issues demand a level of familiarity with
local sites and practices; translation of texts dealing with more generalized
medical or health issues, or parenting or legal issues may theoretically be
able to draw on a wider pool of translators, but not all agencies will make
such distinctions between texts and capacities. These considerations also
apply to getting translators from the country of origin of particular languages;
knowledge of the local (as it is broadly defined) is often a requirement for
community translation. This does not deny the usefulness of out-of-country
language expertise for particular functions such as revising of texts (treated
in the next chapter) or advising on training or certification.
How agencies view and treat their pool of translators also reflects a
remarkably universal range of possibilities. Many agencies will have a clear
if not always articulated hierarchy, preferring trained or at least certified
translators if available, but then needing to seek other quality measures.
The previously mentioned Sussex Interpreting Services (SIS) gives a detailed
categorization of the practitioners they contract in their hiring policies. First of
all they will seek:
Community translators who are members of:

MM The Institute of Translation and Interpreting (ITI)
MM The Chartered Institute of Linguists (IoL)
AND/OR
MM Community translators who have completed the OCN [Open College
Network] accredited Community Translation course
AND/OR
MM Community translators who have a Diploma or Degree in Translation
However such practitioners are not available in all languages and they then
describe their procedure as follows:
There are occasions when SIS in unable to allocate a translation request to

a qualified translator. In this instance SIS will approach a translator who has
considerable experience working in the field of translation and, wherever
possible, who has completed a CIESK (Community Interpreting Essential
Skills and Knowledge) program.
But they do not stop there and they report on their further ‘Quality Assurance’:
SIS carries out internal spot checks of translated work on a monthly basis.
SIS routinely proofreads1 documents translated into English. Additional
relevant aspects for consideration when allocating translation work:
MM Feedback and comments from proofreaders
MM Availability of CTs and urgency of the translations
MM Language, dialect, country of origin, gender (for personal letters,
assessments, etc.)
MM Ethnic/cultural background of the target audience (leaflets, flyers,
official announcements)
(Sussex Interpreting Services, n.d.)
For some agencies, the concern for quality stops at this point of recruitment,
however it is done. For better agencies and organizations, however, this is
only one step of the quality process.
6.2.3 Briefing of translators

Briefing of translators has already been touched on in terms of the degree of
specifications that are obtained from clients and communicated to translators,
plus the degree of trust that agencies may have with particular translators
based on previous experience. To go further on the issue of specifications,
1
By ‘proofreading’ here, and in subsequent references to ‘proofreaders’ in this text, this would
presumably be the process of revising (checking) rather than simply proofreading per se (see
Chapter 7).
Hague et al. (2011: 243) argue that a specification approach ‘goes beyond the
customer brief to include documentation of requirements of all stakeholders’,
which makes an essential point particularly about the necessity to consider
the target readership – the most important ‘stakeholder’ in the whole exercise.
It is pertinent for agencies to reinforce the issue of communicability as not
all clients will do so, perhaps seeing a translation as just an unproblematic
technical task and not identifying hidden assumptions, institution-specific and
difficult language or potential communicative difficulties.
Briefing also relates to the central challenge faced by community trans-
lators when dealing with a variety of texts: the demand for accuracy and
the demand to make the translation communicative. It is important that the
injunction to be ‘easily understood’ must not be seen as giving licence to a
dumbing-down of the text, and accuracy of the message must temper any
desire to omit or tone down complex passages; it is precisely this issue that
can be raised in briefing: how these twin objectives of accuracy and commu-
nicability can be achieved. Equally, briefing is an opportunity to reinforce that
the translator’s task is not to produce a literal translation, heedless of the
readership. An analysis of the text thus becomes critical in enabling a project
manager to deliver such a briefing, as the agency must lead in raising issues;
all too many translators have too often been left in the lurch by simply being
given a text to translate with no briefing or help at all, developing a strong
expectation of having to do it on one’s own and sometimes even a resistance
to briefing or having other issues identified.
This again shows that the ‘letterbox’ approach by agencies or companies
reinforces translators’ isolation and often leads to a gap between what the
translator understands their task to be and what is required of a communicative
translation – one of the ‘quality gaps’ identified by Samuelsson-Brown (2006).
6.2.4 Ensuring project management focus

An adequate briefing, if accepted by a translator, paves the way for a
continuing translation project management relationship, particularly in trans-
lation projects of considerable size, that involves the translator in ongoing
communication across a range of issues: commenting on the original text,
seeing if issues specific to them are also common to other translators, or
technical or process issues. Links with other translators on a multilingual
project are rarely explicitly catered for, but may be of great benefit in revealing
common problems that are often not language-specific.
The activism of the agency needs to be directly proportional to the lack
of training, certification or previous professional socialization of the particular
translator; in the most significant case, which may not be at all rare, such
project management will be the professional socialization that a translator may

receive. In turn, however, this signals a significant burden on the translation
agency, which is most likely to be small and running on tight margins; time
and human resources devoted to establishing a communicative relationship
are very precious, and also rely on the translation project management staff
having the necessary translation knowledge, raising the question in turn of
how these staff, not only the translators, are selected.
It is also the case that some community translators will make little
response to any overtures for a stronger relationship with the agency, or not
see it as worthwhile to get or expect a long briefing; after all, they may work
for several agencies which may have quite different and not always positive
relations with translators, and the translators themselves are also running on
small margins and, if untrained, may have a limited professional perspective.
Yet, as we have reiterated, many community translators are highly profes-
sional, committed to doing quality work, and would welcome better briefing
from agencies and original authors who often never meet or have contact
with translators – a point we turn to next.
6.2.5 Enabling communication with authors

or commissioners
As part of project management, it may often be essential, even as a precau-
tionary measure on the part of the agency, to ensure that translators have
direct communication with clients and commissioners of translations.
For example, where we are talking of translating educational documents
for a school system, it is likely to be the case that most translators working
in community languages will not themselves have ever attended the local
school system; yet, despite some elements of universality, school systems
are highly culturally specific in terms of overarching education policies, struc-
turing of the educational experience, assessment and grading, organization
of school, classroom practices and out-of-school activities. For example, the
Austin Independent School District in Texas in the USA lists the following kinds
of documents and information as needing to be translated for their service:
Central Office Departments – Communication materials essential for

parent engagement and/or to promote a district-wide program or initiative.
MM Community Meeting Handouts
MM Brochures/Flyers
MM Web Content
MM Parent Letters
MM District Policies
MM Registration Materials
MM Surveys
MM News Releases
MM School Messenger Scripts
Individual Schools –Translation services to individual schools are provided

on a first-come, first-served basis depending on current workload.
School-wide documents have priority.
MM Parent Letter
MM Newsletter
MM Student Handbook
MM Generic Parent Release Forms
MM Generic Field Trip Forms
(Austin Independent School District n.d.)
Items such as student handbooks, district policies, surveys and web content,
among others, are likely to be particularly challenging. Indeed, almost every item
on the list may carry assumptions about education not shared by a particular
target group for a translation. In many cases these will also be dynamic and
constantly upgraded texts, which raises other issues of the extent to which
translations will keep up with changes to original texts. These kinds of texts
will often need explicatory and adapted translation, giving definitions or more
details of practices taken as (presumably) understood in the host community.
If translators are also interpreters in these schools, they are likely as well
to face the need to sight-translate documents such as school certificates and
assessments, features that vary significantly between countries and which
again may challenge interpreters and translators who have never experienced
the particular school system themselves. To balance this, being an interpreter
can lead to greater familiarization with the nuances of the school system, and
provide the opportunity to ask questions and obtain feedback in interaction
with school staff, parents and students.
6.2.6 Ensuring quality checking or other post-draft

quality assurance features
This will be covered in the next chapter.
The six steps identified above both build on and in some respects depart
from quality process models that are at the heart of project management
(Bass 2006; Samuelsson-Brown 2006). This is also an area where consid-
erable technological advance has taken place in terms of now extensive
translation project management systems created and sold for high-volume
translations, particularly in the technical and politico-legal translation fields,
with an emphasis on effective scheduling of complex translation tasks and
teams (Dunne 2011). But importantly, the quality processes appropriate for
community translation and outlined above are not only, or even primarily,
issues of scheduling; rather, the primary issue is the use of often limited
human resources in the most telling way to produce relevant community
translations. Before concluding this chapter, however – and also related to
technological advances – we need to consider the latest arrival that addresses
some issues in community translation: the phenomenon of crowdsourced
translation.
6.3 Crowdsourcing and the cloud definition

of ‘community translation’
Finally, reference must be made to an increasing, though patchy, trend to
look to automatic or Internet solutions to solve growing translation needs.
On the one hand, the increasing availability and quality of Internet automatic
translation facilities makes it tempting for many public and non-government
organizations to resort to automatic translation and then post these transla-
tions, with or without warnings, on their websites, though few seem to be
doing this for any print distributed materials. Further afield, some efforts have
been made in the community area to translate by crowdsourcing, such as
in one quite widely publicized instance of a translation of information for a
diabetes campaign (Kelly, Ray and de Palma 2011). For these authors, such
a process is what they mean by ‘community translation’, with the wisdom of
crowds, through a constant editing process, determining the final acceptable
version of a translation. We may conjecture that just as the printing press
was viewed with deep mistrust by learned medieval scribes, the response
by translators to these phenomena has often been one of scepticism tinged
with fear (Bavington 2013). Yet a number of factors should be considered
here. First, an increasing number of community translators are and will be
using automatic translation and post-editing, at least for the more tedious
and predictable texts in community translation (as in technical translation) and
where the size of projects or predictability of long-term translation needs (as
in the social security or health systems) can also justify use of Translation
Memory or terminology banks. The quality aspect here, of course, is in the

post-editing, and as more translators become used to this they will find
increased efficiency but also professional satisfaction in quality in using post-
editing of automatically translated material.
Second, however, the hierarchy of languages which influences translator
supply also influences the quality of online materials that are available: while
there may be endless terminology banks, automatic translation facilities
and translation memory sources for, say, English–Spanish translation, some
minority languages are still yet to develop a first dictionary, and online materials
will be patchy to say the least. Whether in these languages there will be a
great leap from lack of any print resources at all to adequate online resources
relatively rapidly thanks to Internet development remains to be seen, but does
not promise immediate solutions. In these cases, there is often also a lack of
one of the translator’s most useful resources – parallel texts, particularly in the
vast field of social services, healthcare, education and social administration.
These points do not gainsay the possibility of some crowdsourced
community translation of a useful kind being undertaken from time to time.
However, crowdsourcing essentially depends upon private commitment to
produce a popular outcome; the crowdsourced translations of new Microsoft
programmes are an obvious example of this, though with massive back-office
work to finalize them (Kelly, Ray and de Palma 2010). The diabetes example
cited above is one very relevant to community translation, but to expect that
myriad documents of a variety of government bodies or NGOs will all find
enthusiastic crowdsourced translations is highly unlikely. And in terms of cost
and efficiency, it is arguable that this methodology may be very uncertain in
terms of deadlines, or costs if post-editing is required or the crowd simply
does not materialize.
6.4 Quality and its mechanisms

We have argued here that the requirements for quality are related both
to treatments of texts and the treatment of processes of translation, with
the latter’s central focus on the human resource of the translator and what
support is needed to ensure understanding of and success in the translation
endeavour. This highlights the processes in community translation that
may differ from high-volume technical translation tasks, which are increas-
ingly subject to Quality Assurance mechanisms of various kinds, most
prominently in the European Union context with the EN15038 translation
process quality requirements. Yet it needs to be pointed out that many
such processes rely on what is precisely not guaranteed in community
translation – a consistently professional cadre of translators across a range

of languages, working on texts of a highly predictable and technical nature.
Given these prerequisites, quality assurance in the EN15038 context then
can attend to a rigorous documentation of process. Yet in the community
translation sphere it is difficult to impose this by a process of documentation
alone, which points to the perhaps limited efficacy of what has been a rush
to ISO accreditation by many agencies and companies which predominantly
service community translation. However well documents are kept or steps
followed, the personal interaction with prospective and practising translators,
and with clients and authors, remains a crucial element in ensuring quality in
this area. In the next chapter we consider the process of revision, which is
the last crucial element to ensure quality in community translation.
7
Translation revision
7.1. Translation revision and its complexities
R evision is a translatory skill and a professionally indispensable part of

the translation process that often does not receive emphasis in profes-
sional translation courses or translation tests; for translators who have not
received training at all, as with many translators in the community sector,
the very principles of revision and collaboration on quality control may be
unknown or obscure. This places an unavoidable extra obligation on the part
of agencies that manage translation assignments, or clients who directly
contract translators and revisers: to have confidence in a revision process,
sometimes close management of revisers will be inevitable. We look here
specifically at revising the work of another translator, not self-revision, which
is part of the work process of any individual translator.
As we have stressed throughout this book, much of community translation
is undertaken by professional translators, yet the area of revision has been
rather confused even in the context of professional and international trans-
lation. Revision of translations goes under various nomenclatures: review,
checking, revising, second opinion … but also sometimes ‘proofreading’
and ‘editing’ or even ‘QA’ [quality assurance]. This confusion of terminology
underlines the often poor understanding of the translation process, and this
is compounded not only in the community sector by both client assumptions
and translation agency practices, but in some cases the unwitting contri-
bution of translators and revisers themselves. We comment on some of
these confusions throughout this chapter.
In this chapter we follow the categories broadly established by Mossop
(2007a: 110) and Drugan (2013: 197–8) where:
MM Revision is comparing a source document with a draft translation of

that document, in order to detect errors and judge appropriateness
of the translation. It is necessarily a bilingual process. Revision ideally
results in the comments of the reviser going back to the translator to

make any necessary corrections or amendments, though this step is
not always taken. This can also be referred to as checking, reviewing,
second opinion or rereading, provided these have the necessary
bilingual comparative feature.
MM Editing is a term used more often in monolingual publishing, where
it encompasses the many activities in preparing a manuscript for
publication. In translation it has several meanings: it is used more
often in technical translation to mean adjusting a final translated
version to suit a particular target readership – for example, adjusting
a technical explanation of how a dialysis machine works to make it a
set of instructions for a patient user. It is usually done monolingually
in the target language. In some cases, more common in the
community sector, an adjustment of this kind may be asked of a
translator; there would then be negotiation of a new version of the
source text to be translated. Editing can also cover activities such
as formatting for a particular publication shape (e.g. cutting length,
adjusting layout to diagrams, etc.). And more recently post-editing
covers the practice of a human translator working on text produced
by machine translation, which would involve both revision (in the
sense above) and editing.
MM Proofreading involves checking for errors such as typesetting, format
or logic, and will usually be done monolingually. Translators may be
asked to do a proofread of their own or another’s finished translation;
if asked to check against a source document in the other language,
this is no longer proofreading, though some agencies (and even
translators) do mix this up.
MM QA or Quality Assurance is a catch-all term that can cover any
of the above; any work done on a translation draft is a quality
assurance activity. Organizationally, however, ‘QA’ is undertaken by
the translation agency or client that has commissioned the work.
Minimally it means looking at the final format of a translation and its
conformity to any in-house design rules; maximally it can encompass
the whole process here described.
Mossop’s substantial studies have outlined the principles of revision for

professional translation (Mossop 2007a, 2007b) and others have also
contributed to trying to sort out definitional issues (Brunette 2000; Lee 2006;
Yousif 2009; Drugan 2013), while there have been several significant research
articles that have in various ways looked at the operation of revisers working
in real professional translation situations (Seguinot 2000; Chakhachiro 2005;
Translation revision 129
Künzli 2007; Martin 2007; Ko 2011). Some have looked specifically at client
expectations in the context of back-translation used as a revision method
(Lines 2006), while others look at revision more briefly in the context of
running a translation business (Samuelsson-Brown 2010). The GREVIS group
in Canada has been established to comprehensively look at revision issues
(Brunette et al. 2005).
Many of the problems identified and strategies outlined in this literature
are universal and would apply to any translation process with quality control
mechanisms; however, in the community context there are a number of
additional factors that may influence the process and which must lead to
often more complex relations between clients, agencies, translators and
revisers. We look here specifically at:
MM Handling inexperienced revisers

MM Community feedback and the revision process
MM Local and international language issues
MM Responsibilities of agencies, commissioners, translators and revisers
MM Specific issues in revision (back-translation, majority language
monolinguals looking at translations)
MM The changing status of revision and revisers
7.2 Handling inexperienced revisers

Some of the factors that characterize the community translation sector
generally and which have been alluded to throughout this book will affect
revision, specifically the range of languages that need to be covered and
the necessity to employ translators without certification or training in a
large number of languages. Lack of professionalism of translators, however
measured, will also affect any revision process in those languages, and
requirements of revision may be unfamiliar to non-professional translators.
It is readily acknowledged that many agencies and clients – not only in
the community sector – fail to provide any instructions on how to go about
revising (Ko 2011: 127). Mossop’s work arises from and is most relevant
to large translation bureaucracies of the Canadian or EU kind and focuses
more on in-house revisers; but even the smallest agency working in the
public service or community sector will need to provide a revision process
at some time for some texts from independent or contract revisers, as
mostly they will work with translation tasks in many different languages
and not have in-house capacity for revision. For revisers in emerging
languages or without professional training, briefing on the revising task is
critical and will take time and resources on the part of the agency/client/
commissioner:
MM A reviser must get at least as much briefing as the original translator:

What is the purpose of the translation? Who will be its readers? (As
noted elsewhere, such information is sometimes not given or left
implicit in community sector translation requests.)
MM Briefing must cover any aspects of the translation highlighted by the
client to which particular attention must be paid.
MM Agencies/commissioners may have particular instructions for
formatting, style or in-house design, if relevant.
MM It may be very useful for the agency to explain all the processes of
undertaking and finalizing the translation – often an eight- or ten-step
process from initial reception of the text – and where the revision
fits into this (Samuelsson-Brown 2010). The reviser must know if
their work will go back to the translator, who else will be reading the
translation, and so on.
Then, it would be most helpful if the agency also had some checklist of its
own of standard things that a reviser must look for. It may be useful to divide
this into two categories: obligatory items in the translation, and the balancing
act required in revising the overall text. While this may seem to some extent
an artificial distinction, it is important for understanding acceptable variability
in translation and what cannot be variable. For Lederer (2007) this distinction
between obligatory and non-obligatory items was the basis of her interpre-
tative theory of translation, but there is a very practical and professionally
relevant side to maintaining this distinction for inexperienced revisers.
7.2.1 The obligatory items

Translations will usually have obligatory items that need exact equivalence
in the target text: dates, numbers, addresses and contact details, names
(including institutional names), exact names of processes; these must
be looked for and clearly accounted for by the reviser. This also includes
items that are left in the original language (quite often institutional names
and contact details) but which, like other obligatory details, through word-
processing errors or cut-and-paste gremlins may not be maintained as they
should by the translator. Quite often translators and revisers will slip into
error here as they will concentrate on the more difficult parts of the text and
believe these details will look after themselves; checking these items is tiring
and isolating, and can lead to lack of concentration. In some cases formatting
of a particular kind is also obligatory and needs to be revised. If a reviser has
little experience, these requirements must be spelt out in detail, so they
can be used more or less as a checklist. In some cases, depending on the
language and script, some of these obligatory items may also be picked up
by monolingual quality control personnel at the agency or commissioner; this
is discussed further below.
7.2.2 The balancing act

Yet beyond clearly obligatory items, translations can have quite wide varia-
tions in expression and style which are acceptable, and rather than ignoring
this or leaving it up to individual subjectivity, a method for the reviser needs
to be suggested on how to deal with the balancing act of revising what
needs to be revised and leaving alone that which does not need change
– a method that must go beyond any easily available checklist. Briefing
inexperienced revisers here cannot avoid laying down the basic principles of
revising, well recounted in the available literature, as in Mossop’s injunction:
‘Do not ask whether a sentence can be improved but whether it needs to
be improved’ (2007a: 182). But briefing must go beyond simple injunctions:
Mossop’s ‘Revision Parameters’ discussed below give further guidance,
but Kunzli’s (2007) categories of revision and shortcomings in revision are
perhaps the clearest guide to the balancing act, where he identifies the
following categories of revision outcomes:
MM Justified change
MM Hyper-revision (unnecessary change)
MM Over-revision (introduce new errors)
MM Under-revision (don’t detect errors)
Explicit reference to this or similar categories is essential as part of the briefing

for inexperienced revisers, so they have some language, some distinctions
that can help them navigate through the translation draft. One of the most
effective ways to bring this home is to use a pro-forma which identifies each
individual piece in the text that the reviser can identify, comment on and
provide an alternative to.
Many such pro-formas are used by individual revisers or agencies, with
common elements such as the following:
Reviser Translator
No., Translator’s Why Suggested Accept Reject Variation

place version problematic alternative
(Most usefully, this pro-forma is returned by the reviser with a marked-up

copy of the translation draft indicating the items marked by number or other
means on the draft. See also Ko 2011: 131.)
The pro-forma acts as a discipline upon both the reviser and the trans-
lator. For the reviser, given that for any sizeable translation the pro-forma will
extend to many pages if the reviser is too picky in hyper-revision, it takes time
to fill in for every item, raising the question: does this particular item need to
be changed or not? It avoids vagueness or generalities that often arise where
a reviser presents only a list of their own comments. And for the translator, it
necessitates a response to each item. The final column ‘Variation’ is important
as it encourages the very useful outcome where a reviser believes a change
needs to be made and proposes an alternative, but the translator is also
not satisfied with the reviser’s alternative; however, the attention drawn to
this item may result in a new solution from the translator – one of the most
creative outcomes of the revision process. (While individual ways of operation
may vary, many find such a pro-forma is more useful than the ‘Track changes’
facility in Word and other programmes, which can become highly visually
confusing if there are numerous suggested changes and comments. By
contrast, ‘Compare documents’ functions are highly useful.)
Furthermore, at the risk of teaching something that is already known,
it may be useful for an agency or a commissioner in briefing a translator
to stress that the revision should begin by reading the translation through
without reference to the source text. This puts the reviser in the shoes of
the reader, and concentrates attention to how well the message/information
is getting through, where there may be obscurities, where there may be
problems of logic. This stage reflects exactly the obligation of any translator
to read the entire source text through before beginning a translation.
After that, the reviser works by constantly alternating between the source
language text and the translation draft. One issue that can arise in addition
to any concerns over the translation is a concern over aspects of the source
text: as discussed earlier in this book, one of the problems of many
source texts, particularly in the public sector, is that they have been written
with the host community in mind and usually contain implicit assumptions
about institutions, processes, obligations, and so on. Or a text may simply be
very badly or ambiguously written. While we have stressed that translators
must have the confidence and initiative to point out problems in the source
text to the commissioners, the reviser is in a good position to judge if any
apparent problem in a translation is an issue of the translation itself or of the
adequacy of the source text; reference back to the client is then appropriate,
and can be made directly in addition to any entries in the pro-forma. Any
ethical agency or commissioner would then refer this back to the original
author; the necessity for the translator to have the confidence to do this has
been stressed earlier.
7.3 Community feedback and the

revision process
The important steps to brief and prepare revisers who may not be experi-
enced professional translators are, however, only one part of the revision
process in community translation. While we have stressed the universal
nature of many issues in revision, there are a number of additional factors
that affect the revision process in community settings: the most important of
these are the many other ways in which community feedback may contribute
to, or intervene in, the revision process.
7.3.1 Community feedback – unorganized

One method of attempted quality control by clients who may be unfamiliar
with the translation process or not have trust in it is to have any translation
read by a bilingual who is trusted by the client – such a client reader here
may vary greatly, from someone who ‘works in the office’ or a family friend,
to a bilingual specifically employed in the client’s institution, for example a
bilingual health worker, or an interpreter or a resource person of some kind.
They are not (overwhelmingly) translators themselves, but constitute one
of the greatest potential sources of feedback on a translation, with highly
variable competence in the language and in translation, highly varied under-
standing of the source text and/or target text and highly varying accounts of
what intended readers will or will not understand.
While it is common for professional translators to be wary of, or even

annoyed by, persons without apparent translation qualifications making any
comments on their translations, a watchful rather than dismissive approach
needs to be taken, as in some cases such readers may indeed have
something to contribute, and relations with the client or agency commis-
sioning the translation may be at stake. A three-part strategy is called for:
i It is useful for the translator to know if the translation will be

commented on by anyone else related to the client – this is an
issue that can ideally be sorted out at contract stage, and ideally
by the agency (if the translation is coming through an agency) or at
initial contact with the client. However, this is certainly not always
done by agencies, but it should be anticipated if a translator has
a direct commission from a client, when all other issues relating
to the contract are being negotiated. In good cases clients or
commissioners will indicate that the submitted translation will be
read by such client readers.
ii When the feedback from such client readers comes, the translator
is well advised to have it in a format which is useful. This is why
anticipation is so crucial; if there is to be such a client reader, it is
useful if they can give feedback in a similar format to that which any
professional reviser can give – on a pro-forma if possible, as described
above. The most useless feedback consists of vague generalizations:
‘the translation is bad/wrong/full of mistakes’, ‘the translation will not
be understood’; or nitpickingly detailed but without explanation: ‘the
translation of “entitlement” is wrong’; or personally idiosyncratic: ‘I
have never heard of “x”’.
iii If, however, in the worst-case scenario such feedback cannot be

anticipated and arrives without notice, the translator needs to assess
it carefully. It should be reiterated that such client readers may well
have a good understanding of the issues. For example, they may
be very close to a particular target group who will be the eventual
readers of the text and be sensitive to the languages this target group
may understand. Or they may be expressing and demonstrating
complete ignorance of a language – either language! The translator
needs to ask:
– Is this an idiolect or other language problem? (For example, in the

case of polycentric languages in particular, where a term or style
used may differ by country or region using that language, or in
dialects, as described elsewhere in this book.)
– Is this client reader well placed to give feedback?
– What relation does this person have to the target readership?
The negotiations from this point are best undertaken if the translator has
direct contact with the client reader, but there may be a personal or institu-
tional reluctance to allow this. Then the translator negotiates with the client
or agency to clarify their reasons for their translation choices, and politely but
firmly discusses appropriate changes.
One particular issue that can arise from a client reader, particularly
if they are from the organization requesting the translation with a good
understanding of the organization’s working, is that in the process of giving
feedback on the translation they add new information and want this to be part
of the translation. Ko provides a striking example of this when undertaking a
translation in the education sector:
Original English: Students can enrol in Extended, Standard or Express

courses
Original translation: As above
Client reader’s version: The following three programs have different
requirements for English language competence
and thresholds. Please visit the website for
information.
Client’s decision: ‘Use the checker’s version. This is what I mean.’
(Ko 2011: 131)
As Ko ruefully reflects: ‘As translators we would be inclined to ask here: if this

is what the client meant, why didn’t he/she say it in the first place?’ (Ko 2011:
131). In this kind of situation, the client reader’s version will always prevail.
7.3.2 Community feedback – organized

The case of feedback from community readers may in certain cases be
formalized, with great benefit to translators, revisers and commissioners
through the use of organized community feedback, trying to gain some
representative voice of a target readership, best exemplified through the
use of focus groups recruited from the relevant community. In some cases
commissioning authorities may be required to conduct such focus groups to
ensure community feedback as part of access and equity provisions; in other
cases focus groups can be suggested by translators or revisers if there is
palpable concern in the commissioning authority over the appropriateness of
the translation.
The purpose of a focus group is to give a sounding board to a translator and

reviser as to how well the translation is likely to be received and understood,
with an emphasis on giving feedback on appropriateness of expression and
comprehensibility. In principle, the focus group should reflect in some ways
the likely readership of the intended translations.
7.3.3 Recruitment
Organization of a focus group may be relatively easy where there are large
communities speaking a particular language and with a wide variety of
occupations and considerable linguistic vitality, meaning that members can
be drawn from across a range of backgrounds.
It is important in the recruiting process to take into account any significant
variations in the language that can affect understanding of texts by the target
community. For example, in the case of a translation into Chinese, it would be
important to draw focus group members from a variety of Chinese-speaking
backgrounds; they should not all be from mainland China, nor all from Taiwan
or Hong Kong or the South-East Asian diaspora, but from a range of these
backgrounds. Likewise, for Arabic there need to be focus group members
from a variety of Middle Eastern and North African countries, and likewise
from respective countries for English, Spanish, Portuguese and Swahili,
among other polycentric languages.
A crucial point in recruitment is that persons recruited to a focus group
may in some instances have higher literacy and bilingual skills than the
intended audience of the translation and this is virtually unavoidable in this
process. It is therefore useful to have, if possible, members of the language
community that have a lot to do with a diversity of community members, for
example an ethnic worker or aide or community worker of some kind who
will be more familiar with the educational, comprehension and literacy levels
in the respective community. For large projects, it may be possible to recruit
directly from the target group, including, where relevant, people with a low
socio-educational level, in a pilot translation reception exercise.
The commissioning authority or relevant translation agencies may or may
not have extensive community contacts themselves; often translators and
revisers will need to make suggestions as to suitable focus group members
and methods of recruitment.
A final point on recruitment relates to remuneration. There will be great
variation here. Often community leaders or community organizers will be
used to doing this work pro bono, either as part of their paid roles or voluntary
activities. As the translation is meant to be of relevance to the particular
community, it may be tempting to ask all participants to do this ‘for the good
of the community’. We suggest, however, that participation in such a focus

group needs to be seen as work, and remunerated as such. Local circum-
stance will prescribe what suitable remuneration should be. For translation
project managers, an important point is that running focus groups involves a
cost; participants should be paid and so should the translator and reviser for
their time. Translations that entail a focus group will cost more.
7.3.4 Conduct of the focus group

There are several ways in which focus groups can be run. At one end, some
authorities have used an arm’s length methodology, with a community
facilitator conducting the focus group, with translator and reviser absent,
and then submitting a report which will eventually go back to the trans-
lator and/or reviser. While the purpose here may be to ensure objectivity
and independence in making comments, this does lead to a very complex
process: the discussions of the group need to be recorded, and then either
sent back to the translator/reviser or, in even more complex cases, trans-
mitted back to the relevant authority, institution or author if they want to see
what comments have been made, before going to the translator/reviser. This
is a time-consuming and costly process.
The better alternative in most cases is to have the translator and reviser
present at the focus group meeting, to receive direct feedback and be able to
explain and justify the text and consider and debate suggestions for change
in a dynamic and interactive context. This does mean there will generally be
no reporting back to the relevant authority/client.
In either case, the focus group needs to have clear instructions as to their
role, focusing on readability and comprehensibility of the draft translation
rather than a detailed checking of the translation against source text sentence
by sentence, which is the work of the reviser. Focus group members are
often not given the source text, but only the draft translation, though they
may from time to time ask about an original term in the source text.
Such organized community input need not wait for the revision process
or focus groups. A translator will at times need to be quite proactive in
gaining community expertise of a different kind: a nice example is translating
the names of cuts of meat from a host country butcher to a readership in
another language (either for export or for local consumption); cuts of meat
have considerable cultural specificity, and finding this information from a local
butcher of the relevant target background, a cooking group or a restaurant
owner may well be a necessary course of action. Again, such equivalences
may be difficult to find from standard sources, and a reviser would need to
have similar certainty of target terminology in checking this work.
Beyond this discussion of organized focus groups, of course, is the prospect

of crowdsourced revision. As with crowdsourced translation, previously
referred to, it will only be an exceptional text that would garner enough interest
for community members to contribute to a serious revision process, and
although a commissioner or agency may consider adding this process to their
repertoire, there is as yet little visible movement in this direction. Moreover,
for the revision process, it is arguable that unfettered use of crowdsourcing
and the possibility of capture by one part of a crowd may result in threatening
guarantees of quality that commissioners make by using trusted revisers who
are aware of, among other things, community and linguistic diversity.
7.4 Local and international language issues

In community settings, who the target reader will be and what understanding
they will have of the translated text can sometimes be a very local issue,
where other resources a translator or reviser may find (e.g. finding parallel
texts through the Internet or in publications) may or may not be relevant in
particular cases. There may be significant divergences from parallel texts in the
language of a homeland and local languages, which over time become increas-
ingly influenced by the language of the host society (e.g. Di Biase 1987), and
these local variations will often not feature on international sites; local sites
may well be more useful as a guide (print or Internet) but may have little
material relevant to the texts being translated. To this extent, unless the trans-
lator or reviser themself is very much plugged into the target reader group,
the client reader may be able to insist on the correctness of their versions.
This issue of local language use is a ubiquitous one in community trans-
lation and has been commented on repeatedly in this book. Below, some
specific examples may show how local language needs need to be catered
for in the revision stage as well.
In health: While technical medical terminology is fairly uniform across all
languages, there is enormous variation in individuals’ understanding of their
health, body and medical proceedings, and considerable variation in the
organization of health services and their overall ambit in various countries.
Both translator and reviser need to be aware of likely understandings of
medical terminology by the readership, and how best to approach subjects
that may be difficult or even taboo (not only sexuality but also how certain
illnesses or states of health are described). Even more so, when aspects of
the local health delivery system are described, texts often make assump-
tions about how much a reader may know about the health system, ranging
from issues of payment/insurance to organizational and professional medical
structures or what a patient is implicitly expected to do in certain circum-

stances during treatment; both translator and reviser need to judge the extent
to which more explanatory translations, unpacking assumptions, are appro-
priate. How far such different understandings of the health system extend is
nicely illustrated by a local story of a woman presenting with a late pregnancy
issue at a large urban hospital. When confronted by health staff totally puzzled
as to why she had not seen a doctor or had any health checks at all during
her pregnancy, the woman explained: ‘But I didn’t know being pregnant was
a medical condition!’
In welfare and social services: Welfare systems will be far more localized
and country-specific than even health systems. Issues of social security, super-
annuation and social insurance, compensation and welfare/legal distinctions
will often be unfamiliar. A simple example may be the increasing euphemization,
abstraction and nominalization of welfare institutional names: departments of
‘human services’ are now more common in English-speaking countries, rather
than the older ‘welfare department’ or even ‘health department’ (and what
would not count as ‘human services’?). In other cases euphemization has
been introduced to ensure neutrality of treatment and often neutrality of social
respect: the notion of ‘sex workers’, for example, may not be easily replicated
in other languages whose speakers and readers have seen such occupations
described – if at all – in far from neutral terms. In many such cases, translation
revision is not only a matter of language and textual appropriateness, but also
a matter of institutional ethos: moral and legal obligations.
Similar principles of local need apply in many other areas, which cannot
here be spelt out in detail: the legal system, the education system (which can
present particular problems if neither translator nor reviser have themselves
had an education in the host society, but need to translate documents relating
to it) but also in different business practices and commercial activities.
These very institutional or population-specific cases may also hint at a
danger of contracting revisers outside the relevant host country; the local
institutional setting, as much as the local level of language understood, may
be quite unknown to revisers from some homelands, whatever linguistic
excellence they may bring to the task. If a reviser is from another country, the
translator needs to communicate effectively with them about local language,
names and institutions.
7.4.1 Issues in parallel texts and the creation of new

terminology and discourse
As already briefly alluded to, minority languages have much more restricted
linguistic resources in terminology and also in parallel texts. The greater
availability of parallel texts through the Internet has been a boon to translators
and revisers, but this has been in the largest languages, and for minority
languages this has particular ramifications for the checking process: both
translators and revisers will often turn to parallel texts to some extent for
terminology, but often also to render or revise the appropriate discourse
style in the target language. But very often the relevant discourse and
text types in the host language are not available in minority languages, as
mentioned above in context-specific areas such as welfare/social services,
health systems, education, local government or legal resources, or even in
such specific areas as traffic safety or banking. The translator is very much
in a situation where they may well be inventing new discourse styles and
terminology in minority languages for such contexts, and the reviser’s task
can be not so much to simply compare source to target text for errors or
infelicities, but to follow along in a course of invention and be able to judge
appropriateness or even suggest new and better directions of inventiveness.
The load for revisers in this regard differs substantially from the work of
revisers working on technical texts with substantial linguistic resources in
well-resourced international languages.
7.5 Responsibilities of agencies, commissioners,

translators and revisers
Quality is an issue for all participants in the translation process, yet, as the
instances above indicate, one that can be marked by confusion and uncer-
tainty on the part of any of the parties. To begin to overcome this confusion,
Mossop’s categorization of revision issues provides us with not just a
checklist, but also a dynamic template identifying where the various parties
have a responsibility for the final quality of the translation. He poses a set of
‘Revision Parameters’ (Mossop 2007a: 124) that list the following issues for
revisers:
MM Problems of meaning transfer (Accuracy, Completeness)

MM Problems of content (Logic, Facts)
MM Problems of language and style (Smoothness, Tailoring, Sub-language,
Idiom, Mechanics)
MM Problems of physical presentation (Layout, Typography, Organization)
Significantly, Mossop argues that in the case of revision, there is no place for
the classic issue in translation of how to balance the interests of the source
text, client and future reader; he argues that ‘revisers do not act like a second
translator. Instead, the reviser favours future readers of the text’ (Mossop
2007a: 113). And looking at the various parties in the translation process –
translator, reviser, agency, focus group – we can see the outlines of a division
of labour for revision:
MM Accuracy and completeness, as well as issues of logic and facts,

are clearly the responsibility of the reviser and their feedback to the
translator.
MM Community feedback, whether unorganized or organized, will
generally help the reviser take the revision process towards
favouring the (imputed) reader, but will usually involve the agency/
commissioner in organizing this.
MM Layout, typography and organization of the final text rest with the
agency or translator and any helpful commentary will come from the
reviser.
The necessary interaction of the reviser, the translator and the commissioner
is illustrated by the issue Mossop identifies as ‘logic’, combined with the
injunction to favour the future reader. This also goes to the heart of many
of the text types that typify the public service sector, NGO or community
area. It can happen that what seems like a perfectly acceptable translation
in other regards is, however, noted by the reviser as needing correction
on account of a logical flaw or its likely effect on the target readership: for
example, a source text may talk about a government or NGO programme of
some kind but there are unusual jumps in a text, or different parts of it are
written in a very different voice, or parts seem dated. This can especially
happen in compilations of documents that have been gathered from various
sources – for example, a directory of services for pensioners, or a compilation
of resources for housing or healthcare. While generally government depart-
ments will be scrupulous in giving up-to-the-minute correct information (or,
rather less usefully, endlessly inserting cautions that this information was
only accurate at the time of publishing and needs to be checked against
the current situation …), such information may often be reproduced far
into the future by other institutions or organizations or by a different arm of
government service, for example NGOs delivering aspects of government
programmes.
So, for example, there may be details of a particular programme (e.g. for
housing or healthcare), but the reviser notes that the programme is said to
terminate at some past date – it may no longer be operative; what may have
happened is that the text is an old one, submitted or sourced properly at
the time, but with the passage of time the information giving a specific date
has been superseded or updated elsewhere but not in this text. Of course,
this should have been picked up by the translator, but it is remarkable, in the
authors’ experience, how often a translator will not pick up an issue of logic
such as this, in many cases due to an understanding of the translator’s role
as limited to translating the original text as it stands.
Or again, a public sector or NGO text, especially if it is a compilation or
directory, may have distinctly different voices in the text, and some may be
very bureaucratic or obscure and challenge any reader (even in the original
language). In such cases the text may still be perfectly translatable, but the
question is whether it is likely to be understood by the intended readership.
This problem may arise because when a text had been requested, the
particular institution may have sent along, say, the minutes of a meeting or an
internal working document which covers the issues but was intended only for
institutional workers, not clients or the general public and certainly not those
with little knowledge of the majority language. The reviser is the last chance
to alert the agency/client that this text will not be understood. Presuming that
a communicative translation is desired, the reviser is faced with the issue not
of correct translation but of optimal receptiveness.
The rather curmudgeonly Samuelsson-Brown only gives one example of
his pointing out to a client severely problematic aspects of a source text,
and he comments that the client did not give a word of thanks when this
was noted and the source text was saved (Samuelsson-Brown 2010: 121). It
is important to state that such a response from clients is not the rule: many
are extremely grateful for having inconsistencies pointed out, as the text may
have been authored in a variety of ways, not all of them controlled or properly
edited. It should also be mentioned that in these cases the translator who
comments on a source text when asked for a quotation can often distinguish
themself thus; in the experience of the authors, there have been occasions
when a translator or agency is given the contract for a competitive bid as ‘you
guys were the only ones to comment on the text’. A reviser can also bring
themself to greater notice of an agency or client by commenting on a source
text if the translator has not done so.
The effectiveness of the reviser’s role, however, is not only dependent
upon revisers themselves but, as we have already mentioned, the total
network of relationships in which the reviser works.
7.5.1 Relations between an agency and revisers

What is important here is not just the division of labour between various
parties but the communication between them. The agency must
MM be willing to provide adequate briefings to both translator and reviser;

MM recognize any lack of experience or uncertainly on the part of the reviser;
MM be receptive to the translator’s and/or reviser’s concerns about
aspects of the source text, and not simply try to deflect the problem,
or enjoin the translator and reviser to ‘do the best you can’, or
reiterate deadlines (all responses that many translators and revisers
in the public/community sector can attest to, but not only in those
sectors); the quality of the translation is at stake; and
MM recognize the worth of revision and pay the reviser accordingly
(revision rates vary as much as translation rates; a common rate for
revision is around a third of a translation rate; better agencies/clients
pay around half).
This does bring us back again, of course, to the question of the quality of the
agencies and intermediaries that translators and revisers must work through
in this sector, as discussed elsewhere in this book.
7.5.2 Relations between a translator and reviser

Just as revisers can benefit from proper briefing and guidelines on how
to revise texts, so too translators need to have the ability to respond to
revisers’ comments appropriately. If translators seem reluctant to take on the
comments from a reviser, which can be seen, for example, in responses to the
reviser’s pro-formas, the agency needs to ask why and attempt to see how
both translator and reviser understand their role and their relationship to each
other. This is a particular challenge for a project manager who may have to
perform a more educative function than is usual for them. Equally problematic
is a situation where a reviser under-revises, being reluctant to make critical
comments of a translation: this can initially baffle translation project managers,
as it may be a playing out of a social hierarchy and deference between a trans-
lator and reviser – a very culture-specific factor that is most apparent in small,
relatively newly arrived language groups where the most prominent translator
available in a locale has high social standing (either for knowing the host
language well, or any other social reason) and a reviser may be of somewhat
less social status, or be a comparatively less experienced translator. It may
be the case that in this situation the reviser defers to the greater status of
the translator and under-revises; the agency or client may pick this up when
it is later found that even quite obvious errors have been let through. It must
be stressed to the reviser that they are to provide an independent revision.
There may be various points of view about whether the translator and reviser
should be anonymous to each other (to supposedly ensure independence),

but in small communities a translator may be known instantly by their work,
even if never explicitly identified (and the pros and cons of using distant and
independent revisers have been discussed above). In this case, if there seem
to be seriously incompatible views of items in the translation, discussion
between reviser and translator is called for and can usually resolve such
issues, whereby the issue of independence becomes irrelevant.
This phenomenon of deference is also known in a similar garb even in
technical translation, and is by no means confined to emerging languages
alone. In cases where the reviser knows and trusts the translator to the
extent that the translator’s version will be largely accepted at face value,
this trust may mean that some doubts a reviser may have are not followed
up, especially if it would involve extra research or time on the part of the
reviser (Künzli 2007: 50–2), or if they feel the translator has greater subject-
knowledge than they possess themselves. Chakhachiro comments that such
a relationship can affect the reviser’s willingness to revise particular macro
elements in the translation: ‘A translator’s seniority may tempt revisers to
overlook pertinent – especially stylistic – mismatches in the translation’
(Chakhachiro 2005: 236).
7.6 Other issues in revision: Back-translation;

majority language monolinguals looking
at translations
Two final issues can be briefly covered here, each of which brings particular
issues for revision in the community context.
7.6.1 Issues in back-translation

Back-translations traditionally have had a poor reputation among translation
theorists and practitioners, and are often the source of translation humour.
As Collins (2005: 19) quipped, ‘[m]entioning the term “back translation”
among translators can have the same effect as raking your fingernails across
a blackboard’. However, recent developments have brought a new life, new
methodologies and a new dependence upon back-translation, which is now
sometimes used in such contexts as international medical research, where
patient behaviour and feedback is important for diagnostic or therapeutic
reasons, and where commissioners believe a back-translation process will
result in a more exact equivalence in the final text – usually a questionnaire
or testing tool instrument of some kind (Lines 2006). Here, a back-translation

methodology is seen as the most reliable revision process. As research is also
increasingly pursued within countries on their increasingly diverse popula-
tions, translation and bilingual data collection are becoming a larger field in
immigrant and indigenous language situations (Grunwald and Goldfarb 2006).
For some of the emerging languages, but even sometimes for better-
resourced languages, particular issues may arise where there may be adequate
translators to go from the major host language into the other language (i.e.
the language of the minority group), but there may be fewer translators of
that language that can idiomatically provide back-translations into the host
language. Generally, few speakers of the majority language will have learnt the
smaller minority languages, so that the back-translation task will sometimes
need to be undertaken by translators for whom back-translation is into their
weaker language. Small et al. (1999) eloquently attest to the problems that can
arise where mistakes can be made in the back-translation as much as in the
forward translation, and point out that the brief methodological descriptions
of the supposed ‘gold standard’ of back-translation in international medical
research does not serve well for languages of small immigrant communities.
These translators again require support, and in the context of back-
translation this support, argues Ozolins (2009), must come from the authors
or commissioners of the instrument to be translated. Some back-translation
methodologies assume that translation and back-translation must be done
at arm’s length from the researchers, on the model of double-blind testing,
to supposedly bring about the situation where, after any number of turns of
translation and back-translation, an equivalence is found on all items. Rather,
it is argued, involvement of the research team should be encouraged all along
(including usefully providing a briefing to the forward translators about what
they are looking for), and particularly in the final stage of the process, where
the instrument authors or commissioners can engage with both forward and
back-translators to ensure their intentions have been adequately captured
in the translations, back-translations and final texts. It should be noted that
currently back-translation methodology tends to be used in particularly
sensitive cases only, such as health or psychology questionnaires, but as
social research increasingly involves minority language speakers, this area of
translation and the need for back-translation may see a steady growth.
7.6.2 Monolinguals in the host language looking

at translations
In translations from the majority language into minority languages, particu-
larly in longer texts, a monolingual in the host language with no knowledge
of the minority language can still often be extremely perceptive in checking

aspects of a translation. This is different from proofreading in the language
of the translation, but rather a form of ‘monolingual checking’ to find macro
features of the translation that do or do not conform to the source text; it can
be carried out by a translation project manager or a client.
Format, length of segments and embedded necessary items from the
source text are the three areas that are most commonly identified in this
procedure. Such indicators as length of a text are one issue many monolingual
revisers pick up, but this in itself is usually not a fault: many translations will
be slightly longer than the original, particularly if some concepts or proce-
dures need to be given an explanatory translation, or institutional or social
assumptions need to be made explicit. More useful is where they can pick
up aspects such as dot points, embedded terms or hyperlinks.
Given the prevalence of dot points and numerous short paragraphs in
many public sector texts and particularly instructional or informative texts
– for an administrative procedure of any kind, or advice on one’s rights or
entitlements – the sheer number of dot points and short segments is often
a challenge and may not be picked up by a reviser. Equally important, the
number of hyperlinks on texts prepared for the Internet, and their working and
interrelationships, are becoming increasingly salient as more translation is
done directly for Internet texts. Embedded terms from the majority language
(such as names of institutions or programmes, or contact details) can also
usefully be monitored via this method.
It need hardly be stressed that the agency will have to wear any negative
feedback obtained from clients if such checks are not carried out.
Conclusion: The changing status of

revision and revisers
We have argued in this chapter that revision is a crucial, demanding and
often professionally revealing aspect of the translation process, despite some
apparent confusion over terminology and processes. And we would argue
that revision will become even more significant and visible in the translation
process as greater need for quality in translation, as well as technological
changes, will affect the whole translation industry. How revealing revision
can be is shown in the practice of many agencies, when considering whether
to engage a new translator, to give them in the first instance a revision job
rather than a translation, to see how they perform. While this may show
the agency’s hierarchy of thinking (revision is less important than translation
itself and poor performance there may not be as damaging), it also shows
that asking a new practitioner to do a revision task is a very good test of

their translator skills – indeed, this may be a better test of anyone’s profes-
sional translation credentials than a trial translation, especially if they come
with some certification or training in translation which already attests to their
translation competence. The revision exercise can show the extent to which
this practitioner is aware of the purposes of the translation, shows consid-
eration for the target readership, has a sense of the importance of detail and
knows when enough revision is enough – all aspects that are vitally important
in professional translation, but only some of which are normally assessed in
standard translation tests or examinations. For the practitioner who comes
with no translation qualifications at all, a revision task can be revealing as to
their overall translation readiness.
A final point that must be made is that the whole field of revision is
itself changing, in ways that may affect agencies and revisers who work
in the public service/community sector and bring new work methods. Two
changes in particular are worth noting. First, to some extent revision has
been ‘brought in from the cold’ and is now formally recognized in translation
quality processes through the adoption of quality parameters such as the EN
15038 European Standards for Translation Quality, now widely subscribed
to by many agencies working in EU-related areas. In the USA the ASTM15
Standard covers much the same ground and there is now work towards an
ISO standard. Here, revision is an obligatory part of the translation quality
process. Some of these same agencies will work in the public service/
community sector and may apply the same standards to work there. Even in
countries outside the EU or USA where community translation is still under-
taken by relatively small independent agencies well outside any formal quality
frameworks or by individual practitioners, the necessity to specify processes
and give some more formal recognition of quality parameters may become
more apparent as public sector clients and others want to ensure more
consistency in translation outcomes, much as they have led to certification
demands in community/public service interpreting.
The second change facing revisers is technological, on many fronts.
Increasing use of machine translation, computer-assisted translation and
translation memory systems is now heavily influencing areas of high-volume
technical, intergovernmental and commercial translation, and will steadily if
sporadically influence translators who work in the community sectors (and
increasing numbers of translators will, of course, work across the various
sectors). In the past, many programmes did not cater for a wide variety
of languages and were confined to the larger international languages, but
recent changes here mean that even in smaller African or Asian or indigenous
languages, technological translation aids of many kinds can increasingly be
used. In what is usually much smaller-volume community sector work, not all
translation memory or machine translation programmes yet justify their cost,

but some individual practitioners already utilize such aids and their use will
only spread. This poses new issues for revision whereby increasing techno-
logical competence and familiarity with various programmes will become a
prerequisite to work in this field.
For revision, a very specific technological change that brings new challenges
is that of post-editing machine translation output, now again widely used for
technical and bureaucratic intergovernmental translation, but also employed
in website translation across a whole gamut of texts. In some cases this will
present a fantastic jump for languages that only devised writing systems
in the twentieth century, to now having access to an automatic translation
facility, but the supply of competent post-editors will be a critical factor
(Drugan 2013; Robert 2013). Closely linked to this is the issue of localization,
a form of revision that makes particular demands of both conformity to
technological imperatives and awareness of reader and user capacities and
understanding (Garcia 2009).
As the boundaries between community translation and other translation
sectors blur, and practitioners from a huge spread of languages work in
processes that used to be exclusive to a few elite international languages, the
importance of revision and revisers will only continue to increase.
8
Community translation
resources
8.1 Further reading
Lesch, H. M. (2012), Gemeenskapsvertaling in Suid-Afrika: Die konteks

van die ontvanger as normeringsbeginsel [Community translation in
South Africa: The context of the receiver as a norm governing principle]
(Stellenbosch: SunMedia)
P ublished in Afrikaans, this book is based on Lesch’s doctoral thesis,

which offers a valuable resource on community translation, as seen in
and from the South African context. The study advocates a reader-oriented,
functional approach to community translation and a visible role for community
translators. Lesch argues that in multilingual and multicultural societies there
are heterogeneous target audiences and varying levels of literacy, and that
community translation should therefore aim to achieve understanding and
effective communication. A translated text which fails to achieve this would
be no more than a symbolic gesture towards the target community. As the
author himself describes it, the study is an attempt to address the power
imbalances in the community communication situations by recognizing the
important role of the community of readers, especially those he describes
as ‘language impoverished’. This should be understood in the historical,
demographic and political context of South Africa, especially the systematic
disempowerment of black people during apartheid and the democratization
process following the release of Nelson Mandela. Lesch argues that, given
the demographic and sociolinguistic reality of South Africa, community
translators and interpreters should adopt a visible role and have an impact
in their society. Community members, in their turn, should be made aware
of their language rights as part of the democratization process. Rather than
elitist and symbolic translation, the author defends translation which has a
practical value for language users.
Written from the perspective of the local South African context, the book
addresses the following issues, among others:
MM The need for community translation (Chapter 2)

MM The practice of community translation (Chapter 3)
MM A theoretical framework for community translation (Chapter 4)
MM A methodological model for community translation (Chapter 5)
Taibi, M. (2011), ‘Public Service Translation’, in K. Malmkjaer and K. Windle

(eds), The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies (Oxford: Oxford
University Press), 214–27
Using ‘public service translation’ as an alternative name for ‘community trans-

lation’, this book chapter provides an overview of this field of translation, its
characteristics, relevant research and the situation of service provision and
training, with examples from Australia, Spain, South Africa and Saudi Arabia.
Taibi presents community translation as an activity that ‘serves the purpose
of ensuring the rights of all individuals and communities to public infor-
mation and services and thus to social, economic and political participation’
(p. 226). Like Lesch (1999, 2004, 2012), he argues that the social, educa-
tional and cultural differences between mainstream users of public service
texts and minority users of community translations require community
translators to engage in cultural adaptation and linguistic and textual accom-
modation to ensure communication effectiveness. The author laments that,
due to budget constraints and the low social status of minority groups,
community translation services are not widely provided and, when they are
available, quality and effectiveness are not always ensured. In relation to this,
the book chapter also points out the shortfall in training programmes and
quality assurance bodies. As far as training is concerned, Taibi suggests that
existing generalist translation programmes are a starting point but it would
be more desirable to offer specific training programmes which are relevant to
community translation and which cater for locally needed languages.
Fraser, J. (1993), ‘Public Accounts: Using Verbal Protocols to Investigate

Community Translation’, Applied Linguistics 14 (4): 325–43
This paper reports one of the few empirical studies conducted on community
translation. In this study Fraser elicited verbal accounts from twelve
community translators to identify the distinctive features of translating for
Community translation resources 151
ethnic minority groups and the translation strategies these translators used.
The participants were invited in particular to comment on the strategies they
used to translate culture-specific and institutional terms. Fraser found that
the community translators adopted a sociocultural, functional, reader-oriented
approach, gearing their translations towards the needs of the communities
for which they worked. This approach to community translation allowed
them to use translation strategies selectively, to ensure not only transfer of
information from the mainstream culture to minority ethnic groups, but also
empowerment of the latter.
Fraser, J. (1999), ‘The Discourse of Official Texts and How it Can Impede
Public Service Translators’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development 20 (3): 194–208
In this paper Fraser reports the findings of a case study with an experienced
community translator as the sole participant. The translator produced a think-
aloud protocol while dealing with a functionally and stylistically complex public
service text. Fraser’s analysis of the textual features of the source text and of
the insights provided by her participant reveals that public service texts may
have an implicit function that is inconsistent with its explicit nature. It also
shows tensions between faithful translation, functional equivalence and clear
and effective communication, with community translators sometimes giving
priority to clarity and understanding over faithful reflection of the pragmatic
point of the official body producing the original text and commissioning the
translation. The author concludes with a brief discussion of the implications of
poor or less transparent drafting of public service texts and of the clarification
process often involved in community translation.
Burns, A. and Kim, M. (2011), ‘Community Accessibility of Health

Information and the Consequent Impact for Translation into Community
Languages’, Translation and Interpreting 3 (1): 58–75
This paper relates to Fraser’s (1999) in the sense that it deals with the manner
in which public service information (in this case in healthcare settings) is
written (and translated). The paper reports the findings of a research project
on accessibility (comprehensibility) of healthcare information and the implica-
tions text drafting has for community translators and community members.
The study uses two healthcare texts, their respective revised (and more
accessible) versions, and the Chinese and Korean translations of both the
original and the improved versions to verify the reactions of the audience.
Through analysis of the original English texts, the authors identify areas for
improvement in terms of effectiveness and accessibility. The responses of
their participants show that the revised versions were considered more
accessible and comprehensible than the originals, not only in English but also
in the languages they were translated into (Chinese and Korean).
Di Biase, B. (1987), ‘Translating for the Community’, Australian Review of

Applied Linguistics Series S 4: 52–65
This is one of the earliest contributions to the literature on community

translation. In this paper Di Biase writes from the perspective of the Italian
community in Australia to argue that for community translators to do an appro-
priate and effective job, they need to take into consideration the sociocultural
characteristics and constraints of the target community, the interactions that
take place between this community and the mainstream society, as well as
any impact these interactions may have on the language and background
knowledge of the minority community. As quoted earlier, Di Biase notes
that the sociocultural context of the target language (community language)
is located – physically and culturally – within that of the mainstream society.
Campbell, S. (2005), ‘English Translation and Linguistic Hegemony in the

Global Era’, in G. M. Anderman, and M. Rogers (eds), In and Out of English:
For Better, for Worse (Clevedon/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters),
27–38
The relevance of this book chapter to community translation stems from the
fact that it addresses the imbalance between English and other (community)
languages in terms of status and level of development in terminology and
text types. Campbell questions the notion that in translation between English
and another language, English is but a source or target language which
has parity with other languages. Rather, the author argues, English enjoys
an advantageous position and translation between it and other languages
usually involves dealing with a power imbalance and language imparity. As
examples, Campbell discusses language imbalance in terms of terminology
and/or text-type development between Lao and English in the context of
international cooperation, and between English and minority languages in the
context of community translation in Australia. This imbalance has implications
for community translation practice and training, which are influenced by ‘the
power imbalance between the mainstream and immigrant communities, and
by the imbalance between English and the minority languages’ (pp. 32–3).
In his discussion of the position and role of English as a global language,
the author also questions the assumptions that translation into English
should only be undertaken by a native speaker, and that Standard English is
invariably straightforward. As pointed out earlier in this book, in the context of
community translation in particular, diversity of language backgrounds is quite

common, not only among community members but also among the trans-
lators who work with them; community translators are often native speakers
of languages other than the mainstream language.
Shaw, A. and Ahmed, M. (2004), ‘Translating Genetics Leaflets into

Languages Other than English: Lessons from an Assessment of Urdu
Materials’, Journal of Genetic Counseling 13 (4): 321–42
The authors of this paper acknowledge that written resources (including

translations) are useful in genetic counselling (and healthcare in general),
especially if the language used in them is clear and simple. In the case of
translations, they suggest, the effectiveness of the materials made available
depends partly on the clarity of the source text, on the literacy of the target
audience and on the translation approach used. Shaw and Ahmed assessed
the accuracy, cultural sensitivity and accessibility of some Urdu translations
of genetics leaflets available in the British context. They identified a number of
inaccuracies resulting from, among other reasons, literal translation or inade-
quate explanation of technical terms. They found that the translations were
less accessible because of the use of unfamiliar or difficult words or because
the translators thought it was outside their role to rephrase the original text
in more natural and accessible Urdu. They also found that some transla-
tions were not felicitous in terms of cultural sensitivity (e.g. in relation to
consanguineous marriages in the Pakistani community). They conclude with
a number of recommendations, including the following:
MM That there should be collaboration between bilingual healthcare

experts and translators.
MM That drafters of original texts should use jargon-free language and
explain technical terms clearly in plain language.
MM That translators should have the prerogative to improve the source
text when necessary (see Chapter 3 on this point).
MM That translated materials need to be piloted with the target audience
(see Chapter 7 on this point).
Cornelius, E. (2010), ‘Plain Language as Alternative Textualisation’, Southern

African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 28 (2): 171–83
In this paper Cornelius addresses the use of plain language as a form of

intra-language translation intended to ensure access of the wider public to
legal information. She writes from the South African context, where English,
a minority language in demographic terms, is the dominant language in

society and in public service communication. She welcomes post-apartheid
initiatives aiming to provide information to ordinary citizens about their rights
and obligations in plain language, but laments that, with a few exceptions,
plain language resources are made available in the dominant language only.
As this paper demonstrates, even information that is supposed to be in
plain English and therefore facilitate understanding is not sufficiently acces-
sible, especially for marginalized and relatively less literate layers of society.
Cornelius undertook a lexico-grammatical analysis of a booklet meaningfully
entitled Equality for All to verify the extent to which the supposedly simplified
text is understandable for non-native speakers of English whose legal
knowledge is limited. She found a number of linguistic and textual features
that impede understanding (e.g. excessively long sentences, nominaliza-
tions, specialized terminology, archaic deictics, etc.). She concludes that
‘[t]he use of inaccessible language leads to exclusion and marginalisation
on different levels. In doing so, the “consolidation of democracy” […] is not
served’ (p. 180).
Burke, J. (2012), ‘Language as a Resource for Improving Health: Using

Swahili-Based Concepts in Responding to Infant HIV’, The Australasian
Review of African Studies 33 (2): 141–57
This paper is not on community translation but it provides insights that may
be useful for policymakers, public services, mediators and community trans-
lators working in a multicultural context or with minority groups. Burke’s
study, which was conducted in Tanzania, uses Swahili words and concepts to
build a framework for understanding how the social and cultural context may
influence infant-feeding decisions and the reception of preventive healthcare
information, in particular about infant HIV. Burke shows that language
and cultural understandings are essential for successful interventions and
communication about healthcare. She argues that adopting the perspectives
of the target communities and explaining key concepts in their own language
(variety) are essential for culturally relevant healthcare interventions. She
suggests that in the Tanzanian context ‘[c]ore concepts such as shame (aibu),
capacity (uwezo), safety (salama) and openness (uwazi) could be used to
frame counselling and community conversations because they have more
resonance with Swahili-speakers than concepts such as stigma, income,
risk and disclosure’ (p. 154). This is related to some of the points made in
this book, especially about language imparity in Chapter 1, sociocultural
challenges in Chapter 2 and translation strategies in the community context in
Chapter 3. In a statement that applies, among others, to both the writers and
translators of public service information and guidelines, Burke alerts ‘people
designing public health guidelines to the need to pay careful attention to the
language used in communities so as to formulate messages grounded in
people’s concerns and experiences’ (p. 152).
The rest of the publications are included below in aggregate form under
several headings.
8.1.1 Translating official documents – guidelines

and recommendations
Mayoral Asensio (2003) offers a 150-page book entitled Translating Official
Documents, in which he covers the features of official translation and the
professional practice in different parts of the world. As Mayoral Asensio
notes, official translation ‘overlaps with fields such as oral translation, legal
translation, court translating and interpreting, and community interpreting’
(p. 1). As we have shown in this book, translation of official documents
also overlaps with community translation. Mayoral Asensio himself alludes
to the social dimension of official translation when he asserts: ‘Work as an
official translator makes you feel socially useful’ (p. 2). The author discusses
a number of issues that are relevant to community translation, including the
social context, the translator’s loyalties, cultural differences, legibility and
understandability: see Mayoral Asencio, R. (2003), Translating Official
Documents (Manchester: St Jerome).
While a huge proportion of translation agencies and companies declare
their expertise in translation of official documents, explanations of how
these translations should be systematically undertaken are far fewer. For
an example of a useful explanation, though very much part of a marketing
strategy, see the company Translated: http://www.translated.net/en/
sworn-certified-official-translation.
The best single guide to translation of official documents is from the New
Zealand Society of Translators and Interpreters [NZSTI], the NZSTI Guidelines for
the Translation of Official and Legal Documents (2005), which sets out the steps
to follow through all stages of translation and presentation. This is available
online at http://www.nzsti.org/assets/uploads/files/translationguidelines.pdf.
The NZ effort has inspired their neighbours, the Australian Institute of
Translators and Interpreters [AUSIT], to develop their own version, explicitly
based on the NZ model: Translation of Official and Legal Documents (2014),
available at www.ausit.org/Publications.
A growing phenomenon in community translation is the use of extract
or template translations: see Lambert-Tierrafria, S. (2007), ‘Templating as
a Strategy for Translating Official Documents from Spanish to English’,
Meta 52 (2): 215–26.
The growth of translation of official documents often encounters the issue

of translating the names of institutions: see Humbley, J. (2006), ‘La traduction
des noms d’institutions’ [Translation of Names of Institutions], Meta 51
(4): 671–89.
The task of the ‘sworn translator’ often involves dilemmas of taking a
literal approach to the source text but endeavouring to produce a commu-
nicative and informative target text: see Aubert, F. H. (2005), ‘Dilemas da
literalidade na tradução juramentada’ [Dilemmas of Literalness in Sworn
Translation], Trabalhos em Lingüística Aplicada 44 (2): 247–63.
8.1.2 Community translation and radical language

diversity – technological approaches
The huge variety of language now represented among immigrant and indig-
enous populations and the impracticalities of having enough resources to
meet translation demand has taken several in the direction of technology,
and particularly machine translation, to try to meet information demands.
A perceptive commentary on this is Lynne Bowker’s article in the excellent
Linguistica Anverpiensis collection, which has explored crowdsourcing and
technological advances in translation, including community translation. Bowker
carefully delineates where recipients are happy to have raw or minimally post-
edited translations in some information areas, while ‘maximally post-edited
machine translation output is a minimum requirement when translation is
intended as a means of cultural preservation and promotion’: Bowker, L.
(2009), ‘Can Machine Translation Meet the Need of Official Language
Minority Communities in Canada? A Recipient Evaluation’, Linguistica
Antverpiensia 8: 123–55.
The same collection has a number of other articles on technology in
translation and the link between technology and crowdsourcing. An earlier
approach also in Canada has addressed the Inuit language Inuktitut: Collis,
D. R. F. (1992), ‘The Use of Distributed Language Translation in Language
Management’, Language Problems and Language Planning 16 (1): 53–71.
For localization projects, see Garcia, I. (2009), ‘Translating and Revising
for Localisation. What do we know? What do we need to know?’,
Perspectives. Studies in Translatology 16 (1–2): 49–60.
8.1.3 Community translation and language planning

One of the broader issues that community translation has raised where
indigenous languages are concerned is the importance of providing explicit
language planning in the form of corpus planning, to enable development

of previously largely oral languages. This issue has arisen from attempts to
provide translation of significant public documents in a number of national
contexts. Interestingly, though this arises from contemporary concerns
with translation, it reflects one of the oldest functions of translation histori-
cally, going back to the era of classical languages: that translations and
the search for new vocabulary could enhance and develop vernacular
languages.
In the case of Scottish Gaelic, see McLeod, M. (2000), ‘Official Gaelic:
Problems in the Translation of Public Documents’, Scottish Language 19:
100–16.
In South Africa, numerous authors have looked at this issue, including
Madiba, M. (2004), ‘Parallel Corpora as Tools for Developing the
Indigenous Languages of South Africa, with Special Reference to Venda’,
Language Matters 35 (1): 133–47.
Significantly, Kim Wallmach and Alet Kruger in South Africa have
contested the notion that translation into African languages is impossible
because indigenous languages lack terminology; they argue that:
If one views translation as a mirror image of the original, then it is true that
this exactness cannot be achieved in the African languages – but the same
goes for European languages. Linguistic and cultural differences between
languages make it necessary to broaden the notion of translation to a more
functional approach which includes adaptation and reformulation.
Wallmach, K. and Kruger, A. (1999), ‘Putting a Sock On It’: A Contrastive

Analysis of Problem-solving Translation Strategies Between African and
European Languages’, South African Journal of African Languages 19 (4):
276–89.
In newly independent East Timor, the Tetun (Tetum) language was adopted
as an official language, requiring corpus development in many sectors:
see, for instance, Williams-Van Klinken, C. (2004), ‘Developing Electoral
Terminology for a New Official Language: Tetun in East Timor’, Current
Issues in Language Planning 5 (2): 142–50.
8.1.4 Revision of translations

There is a steadily growing body of literature and online resources for under-
standing the revision process. While our chapter on Revision mentions the
main literature, it is worth keeping track of the following resources:
The GREVIS Project at the University of Montreal, particularly the work of

Louise Brunette and Chantal Gagnon (in English and French) (e.g. https://
www.webdepot.umontreal.ca/Usagers/gagnonch/MonDepotPublic)
Several articles have addressed conceptual and empirical issues in revision.

See the following for example:
Robert, I. (2008), ‘Translation Revision Procedures: An Explorative Study’,

in P. Boulogne (ed.), Translation and Its Others. Selected Papers of the
CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2007 (Leuven, Belgium:
University of Leuven).
Robert, I. S. and Van Waes, L. (2014), ‘Selecting a Translation Revision

Procedure: Do Common Sense and Statistics Agree?’, Perspectives:
Studies in Translatology 22 (3): 304–20.
Yi-yi Shih, C. (2006), ‘Revision from Translators’ Point of View: An Interview

Study’, Target 18 (2): 295–312.
And for the pedagogy of revision:
Hine, Jr., J. T. (2003), ‘Teaching Text Revision in a Multilingual Environment’,

in B. J. Baer and G. S. Koby (eds), Beyond the Ivory Tower. Rethinking
Translation Pedagogy (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins), 135–56.
8.2 Websites and translated resources

The following are examples of websites from different countries which
provide community resources, both in the national language and local
community languages. Information provided in the official language of the
country in question can be very useful in terms of cultural and institutional
knowledge, which is essential to translation in general and community
translation in particular. Translated information may be used in a number of
ways:
a It can be used as supporting references for students and practitioners

who need to translate related texts. This is by no means to suggest
that published translations are to be considered as model translations.
As we have indicated earlier (e.g. Chapter 7), quality standards vary
from one country, institution or translator to another.
b It may be used as a teaching and learning resource to engage

students in evaluation of translation context, translation strategies and

translation practices.
c It can be used as actual community translation but in a different

country, subject to copyright restrictions, if any. Availability on
the Internet can lead to greater cost-effectiveness, as resources
generated in one country or community may be shared with others.
Community translations are generally quite local, but there are a
number of leaflets (e.g. general information about tuberculosis,
Ebola, etc.) that may be reusable in different national and local
contexts.
d It may constitute rich and useful data for researchers interested in

surveying international trends in language policy and community
translation, studying common text types and genres in the
community translation sector, comparing translation approaches
among community translators or evaluating translation effectiveness
through surveys with the target communities or other methods, to
name just a few research directions.
Department of Human Services, Australia (http://www.humanservices.

gov.au/customer/information-in-your-language/#a3)
In addition to general and institutional information for individuals, businesses,

community organizations, public service professionals, and so on, the website
offers multilingual information about areas falling within the portfolio of Human
Services (social security benefits, training, employment, families, pensions,
disability, youth and students, emergency services, income management,
social work services, etc.). The information is available in an impressive
number of languages and language varieties, including Amharic, Arabic,
Assyrian, Bengali, Bosnian, Burmese, Chin (Haka), Chinese, Croatian, Czech,
Danish, Dari, Dinka, Dutch, Faili, Fijian, Finnish, French, German, Greek,
Hazaragi, Hindi, Hmong, Hungarian, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Karen,
Khmer, Kirundi, Korean, Kurdish, Kurmanji, Lao, Latvian, Macedonian, Malay,
Maltese, Nepali, Norwegian, Pashto, Persian (Farsi), Polish, Portuguese,
Punjabi, Rohingya, Russian, Samoan, Serbian, Sinhalese, Slovak, Slovene,
Somali, Spanish, Swahili, Swedish, Tagalog, Tamil, Thai, Tigrinya, Tongan,
Turkish, Ukrainian, Urdu and Vietnamese. The multilingual resources include
not only written texts, but also audio and audiovisual materials.
New South Wales Multicultural Health Communication Service, Australia

(http://www.mhcs.health.nsw.gov.au)
The NSW Multicultural Health Communication Service provides a number of
services relating to communication with culturally and linguistically diverse

(CALD) communities. Among these services, MHCS manages healthcare
translations and provides advice to healthcare professionals, researchers
and organizations working with or interested in reaching CALD communities.
Its website features, among other things, multilingual print and audiovisual
resources, community profiles, policies and guidelines. The following is an
example of the guidelines available:
NSW Multicultural Health Communication Service (2014), ‘Guidelines for

the production of multilingual resources’. Available online: http://www.
mhcs.health.nsw.gov.au/services/translation/pdf/updateguidelines.pdf
[accessed 10 December 2014]
The guidelines provided by the New South Wales Multicultural Health
Communication Service (Australia) include useful tips and checklists that are
intended to assist commissioners and producers of multilingual resources
at different stages of the production process. For instance, planning steps
include a recommendation that healthcare authorities and services need to
consider ‘the most appropriate way to convey the information, especially if
there are possibly culturally sensitive or controversial issues involved in that
health resource’. This leads to another recommendation relating to collabo-
ration and consultation with multicultural health offices, the Community
Relations Commission or community organizations working with the target
audience. The guidelines also address aspects such as funding, design,
content, selection of target languages and language appropriateness:
The languages selected for translation need to reflect the community

requirements of the intended audience. This does not always mean
that all resources should be translated into all of the major languages.
Consideration needs to be given to the particular relevance of the infor-
mation to various language communities, as well as the English language
proficiency of the specific target groups.
Ontario Ministry of Labour, Canada (http://www.labour.gov.on.ca)

This website allows you to search for resources by language. Languages
available include Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, Croatian, Dari, Farsi (Persian),
Greek, Gujarati, Hindi, Italian, Portuguese, Tagalog, Tamil, Turkish and others.
Resources are related to labour and, among other topics, cover employee
protection, worker rights, health and safety at work, workplace pains and
strains, and so on.
In My Language, Ontario, Canada (http://english.inmylanguage.org)

Under the motto ‘Information you need, in the language you want’, this
website offers information on immigration, education, housing, work, health

and legal advice in languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Gujarati, Punjabi,
Russian, Spanish, Tagalog, Tamil and Urdu.
Multilingual Health Education, Canada (http://www.multilingual-health-

education.net)
According to the background information available on the website, the
Multicultural Change in Health Services Delivery Project concluded that there
was a need for coordination of efforts to respond to translation needs in a more
effective manner. Translated healthcare resources were collected from the
twenty-two healthcare organizations participating in the project. The review of
the materials revealed ‘critical translation errors’ as well as duplicated translation
work undertaken or commissioned by different organizations. Subsequently,
the project ‘Translated Materials in Health Care – a Demonstration Project’ was
launched to improve standards and procedures for the translation of healthcare
resources. As part of this endeavour, the Multilingual Health Education website
disseminates information and advice on healthcare and domestic violence in
a number of languages, including French, Farsi (Persian), Hindi, Japanese,
Korean, Punjabi and Tagalog. The website also includes external links to other
Canadian and international healthcare resources.
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Canada (http://www.camh.ca)

The centre is the largest mental health and addiction teaching hospital in
Canada. Its services and activities include clinical care, research, policy devel-
opment and awareness and education relating to mental health and addiction.
Its website offers information in different languages about issues such as
mental health, stress, alcohol or gambling. In addition to English, resources
are available in French, Amharic, Chinese, Farsi (Persian), Greek, Hindi, Italian,
Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Serbian, Somali, Spanish and Urdu, among
other languages (see direct link http://www.camh.ca/en/hospital/health_infor-
mation/Pages/information_in_other_languages.aspx#aloneincanada).
Elections Canada, Canada (http://www.elections.ca)

Elections Canada (the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer) ‘is an independent,
non-partisan agency that reports directly to Parliament’. Its mission consists
of ‘[e]nsuring that Canadians can exercise their democratic rights to vote
and be a candidate’. In January 2015, the website above was announcing
that Elections Canada was planning to make available a voter information
guide in twenty-nine heritage languages: Albanian, Arabic, Armenian, Bengali,
Cambodian, Cantonese, Croatian, Farsi (Persian), German, Greek, Gujarati,
Hebrew, Hindi, Hungarian, Italian, Korean, Mandarin, Polish, Portuguese,
Punjabi, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Somali, Spanish, Tagalog (Filipino), Tamil,

Turkish and Ukrainian.
GovHK, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, Hong

Kong (www.gov.hk/en/theme/multilanguage/mlp/index.htm)
GovHK is an initiative launched in 2007 to make information more accessible
to the community. It is a quite comprehensive portal providing information
mainly in Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese and English, but it also
features the Multi-language Platform, which offers links to information about
different areas of government and different aspects of community life in
seven languages other than Chinese and English (Hindi, Indonesian, Nepali,
Tagalog, Thai, Urdu and Vietnamese). The information and links are organized
by user groups (e.g. residents, businesses, non-residents, etc.). The areas
covered include general information about Hong Kong, immigration, public
housing, taxes, employment, education, healthcare, etc.
Nagano Prefectural Government, Japan (http://www.pref.nagano.lg.jp/

government/index.html)
As Carroll (2011) notes, the website of Nagano Prefecture (Japan) offers infor-
mation and advice on daily life as well as a guide for newcomers to the local
community in a number of languages (Chinese, English, Indonesian, Korean,
Portuguese, Spanish, Tagalog and Thai). Some other prefectures also provide
multilingual information.
Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, South Africa

(http://www.justice.gov.za/brochure/brochure_list.html)
The website of the South African Department of Justice and Constitutional
Development includes a number of brochures on different legal and social
issues, including, for example, children’s rights, cyber bullying and sexting,
harmful religious practices and domestic violence. Only a few of these are
available in languages other than English (Afrikaans, isiNdebele, isiXhosa,
Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga and Zulu).
Madrid Autonomous Region, Spain (http://www.madrid.org)

The website of the local government of the capital of Spain offers a number of
resources, including a First Steps Guide for newly arrived immigrants, which
aims to inform this group, in their own language, about institutional systems,
administrative processes, as well as the resources available. The website
also includes healthcare leaflets which have been translated into several
languages (e.g. Arabic, Bulgarian, Chinese, English, French and Romanian),
as well as basic bilingual dictionaries and pictionaries intended to encourage
inter-community interaction and mutual knowledge.
Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human

Services, Unites States of America (http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/
ByAudience/default.htm)
Resources available include healthcare-related consumer information for
different audiences and ‘minority health resources’ for both consumers and
health professionals. The website also features translated FDA publications in
languages such as Arabic, Bengali, Cambodian, Chamorro, Chinese, French
Creole, Hmong, Japanese, Korean, Laotian, Marshalese, Polish, Tagalog,
Taglish, Tongan, Urdu and Vietnamese.
National Asian Pacific Centre on Aging, United States of America (www.

napca.org)
The National Asian Pacific Centre advocates on behalf of aging Asian
Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPI). Its website provides general infor-
mation and healthcare resources for aged persons in English and other
languages relevant to these communities (e.g. Chinese, Khmer, Korean,
Samoan, Tagalog, Tongan and Vietnamese).
US Government, United States of America (www.usa.gov)

This website offers information in English and Spanish on various topics,
including local and national institutions and representatives, social benefits,
consumer protection, public safety, food safety, education, employment,
environment, travel, official documents, immigration and asylum.
Department of Homeland Security, United States of America (www.

uscis.gov)
Information provided on this website includes immigration, citizenship,
work, family and adoption, among other topics. Like the previous website,
this resource is available both in English and Spanish, given the significant
presence of Hispanic heritage Americans and migrants. In addition, it offers
a ‘Welcome to the United States’ guide in other languages such as Arabic,
Chinese, French, Haitian Creole, Korean, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Somali,
Tagalog, Urdu and Vietnamese. The guide covers information and advice areas
such as the history and institutions of the United States, rights and respon-
sibilities of citizens and residents, settlement, social security, childcare,
education and language learning, safety and national public holidays.
Concluding remarks
T his book has looked at the development of community translation and the
ideas and practices that have underpinned it. By definition, this category of
translation is a language service intended to empower communities of minority
language speakers – be they citizens, temporary residents or newly arrived
migrants – by making information available and communication possible in a
multilingual written form. Given the raison d’être of community translation
(empowerment) and the communicative situations where it is needed (e.g.
public service discourse, power asymmetries, language imparity, sociocultural
differences, diversity of readerships within the same community), we have
argued that community translators need to undertake their assignments with
a functionalist approach, coupled with critical awareness of the sociological
context and dimensions of the community translation practice, especially the
social impact of their translations and translation decisions. Looking forward,
we also see that community translation is at a significant new stage of devel-
opment, both in relation to the communities that are served and technological
developments affecting the translation field as a whole.
The guiding principle of community translation has been that of translation
for local communities, or more precisely communities that for one reason
or another (historical and geographical considerations, national language
policies, migration, temporary residence) find themselves as a linguistic
minority in their homeland or host country. A key understanding of community
translation is that it has always focused on the ‘local’ – that is, providing trans-
lation largely for local language communities that are part of a larger society
that speaks a different majority language. However, technological change in
particular is now redefining many aspects of the ‘local’, and community trans-
lation is likely to reflect the substantial changes in what constitutes the local
community, as well as developments in translation technology.
First, the sense of a community such as an immigrant community being
relatively isolated in its host society, with possibly limited relations with its
homeland, is now undergoing a sea change. Both easier communication and
easier travel now mean that an immigrant community may not ‘leave’ its
home country in the same way as previously, rarely to return and with usually
fading links to homeland social contacts. One universally observable feature
in that older isolated setting was that the local community, if not constantly
replenished, continued to use language as it was at the time of leaving their
homeland, and we have commented on the necessity for community trans-
lators to take this into account. Determining the linguistic (and educational)
level of the target reader has always been a crucial consideration, at the level
of lexical choice, as well as the level of assumed understanding of local
names, institutions and processes, and even eventually in relation to syntactic
norms.
An intriguing question is whether the arrival of rapid and potentially
continuous communication with homeland sources via the Internet, and
communication with other ‘local’ communities throughout the world, will
have an effect on languages and tend to maintain homeland language norms,
with the result that there will be less differentiation of ‘local’ language use
by the immigrant groups. If this tendency does become apparent, we may
get a phenomenon in translation of ‘de-localization’, where there will need to
be less emphasis on adjusting language norms to suit target readers in any
locale.
A second factor that may increase this trend is the phenomenon of much
greater travel by immigrant groups backwards and forwards from homeland
to host society. During the Cold War local language communities affected by
this were essentially ‘frozen’, having relatively little contact with homeland
and homeland language norms, and thus facilitating retention of older
language norms. This has certainly changed since the end of the Cold War
for those communities; however new conflicts in other parts of the world
also mean that new situations are being created where return to homeland
is problematic, for political and security reasons. Seemingly never-ending
conflicts in parts of Africa or Asia in particular make it possible that there will
continue to be communities with little contact with homelands, or even that
homeland language norms will be unstable under conditions of such conflict.
At the most extreme, some of the savagery directed towards particular ethnic
and ethno-linguistic groups could result in groups being forced to leave en
masse, resulting in a situation where, for a certain language group, there is
no longer a ‘homeland’. Will these groups then, via communication means,
maintain language norms through groups in exile scattered throughout the
world? Uncertain language norms may present translators in these languages
with new challenges.
On the technological side, the arrival of substantial translation technology
will affect community translators as with translation in general, but again
in specific ways. Use of machine translation has now become widespread
Concluding remarks 167
in many areas for public authorities wanting to give information about

services but not having the means or management to commission transla-
tions of all essential information for minority speakers. A concern here is that,
in some cases, readers are not told they are receiving machine translation.
Yet the constant changes that are made to official websites makes updating
translator-made translations a continually difficult task.
We will see greater integration of different forms of technology in
areas of community translation, making greater demands on translation
project management as well as translation. One question here is whether
computer-assisted translation (CAT) tools in terms of terminology banks or
TRADOS-type matching systems will be more widely applied in community
translation, or whether such texts will tend to remain stubbornly idiosyncratic
and not yield to CAT as technical translation has done. It is not difficult to
identify areas where the useful application of translation technology can
make routine communication easier – for example, having a multilingual
machine-translation-based appointment notification system, say, in a hospital
or social security setting, where times, dates, nature of appointment, and so
on, can be made available safely in many languages because of the direct
one-to-one machine translation of such basic information. This may alleviate
the need for on-site or telephone interpreting in such brief instances where it
may be difficult to secure the services of an interpreter.
As in other areas of translation, it is important to see technological innova-
tions as an adjunct and, in many cases, useful supplement to the work of
human community translators. This brief overview of the challenges and
opportunities for community translation attests to this being a fascinating
and rewarding area of practice into the future.
Another fascinating and rewarding area of practice is the development
required in community translation itself – as a language service, professional
practice, teaching area and research domain. We have seen that this area
of translation is still in its infancy and that, for a number of reasons, it has
not received the attention it deserves. Policymaking, training, professional
certification and research are all areas that need further commitment and
development. To all these aspects, the academic and research community is
able to make a significant contribution. Quoting Kim (2009) again, who, in a
different context, calls for ‘a people-centered theory of translation’, we can
conclude by calling for more focus on people and (minority) communities in
translation (and interpreting) theory, practice, research, training and policies.
Bibliography
Al-Mahdia, H. (2007), ‘La Traduction Professionnelle en Arabie Saoudite: Besoins

du Marché et Formation des Traducteurs Professionnels à la Lumière des
Approches Linguistique, Communicative de la Traduction et d’une Enquête
sur le Marché de la Traduction’, Unpublished PhD thesis, Université de la
Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris.
Almeida e Pinho, J. (2002), ‘Avaliações da Qualidade na Tradução’ [Quality
assessment in translation], in B. Maia, J. Haller and M. Ulrych (eds), Training
the Language Services Provider for the New Millennium (Universidade do
Porto), 420–7.
Al-Shafie H. A. and Al-Sharif, H. A. (1424 IC), Wasāil tat-qīf al-h.āj bi ah.kāmi h.ajjih:
al-wāqiʻ wa al-maʼmūl [Pilgrim education media: Status quo and target],
Saudi Arabia, Umm Al-Qura University, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques
Institute for Hajj Research.
Al-Sharif, M. A. (1425 IC), Dirāsatu ih.tiyājāti al-muʻtamirīna at-tawʻawiyyah [A
study of the information needs of Umrah pilgrims], Saudi Arabia, Umm
Al-Qura University, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques Institute for Hajj
Research.
Al-Sharif, M.A. and Khidr, I. (1425 IC), Wāqiʻu juhūdi at-tawʻiyyati fī al-h.ajj
[Awareness-raising efforts during the Hajj], Saudi Arabia, Umm Al-Qura
University, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques Institute for Hajj Research.
Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (2008), ‘Mutarjimūn saʻūdiyyūn yutālibūna bitah.arrukin ʻājil
li-inqād
- i mihnatihim wa ījādi hay’atin wat.aniyyatin littarjamati wa-ttaʻrīb’ [Saudi
translators call for immediate action to save their profession and create a
national organization for translation and Arabization], 3 March 2008. Available
online: http://www.aawsat.com/details.asp?section=43&article=461009&is
sueno=10688 [accessed 14 January 2011].
Amigo-Extremera (2015), ‘Fitting CULTURE into Translation Process Research’,
Translation and Interpreting 7 (1): 26–46.
Aubert, F. H. (2005), ‘Dilemas da Literalidade na Tradução Juramentada’
[Dilemmas of literalness in sworn translation], Trabalhos em Lingüística
Aplicada 44 (2): 247–63.
AUSIT (2012), ‘AUSIT Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct’. Available online:
http://ausit.org/ausit/documents/code_of_ethics_full.pdf [accessed 7
December 2014].
Austin Independent School District (n.d.), Request for Translation. Available
online: www.austinisd.org/community/translation [accessed 22 November
2014].
Baker, M. (2011 [1992]), In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation (London:
Routledge).
Baker, M. (1993), ‘Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies’, in M. Baker,
170 Bibliography
G. Francis and E. Tognani-Borelli (eds), Text and Technology: In Honour of

John Sinclair (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins), 239–50.
Balakrishnan, R. (2014), ‘Police in Search of Multilingual Announcers’. Available
online: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/thiruvananthapuram/Police-in-
search-of-multilingual-announcers/articleshow/45096955.cms [accessed 17
January 2015].
Bandia, P. (1998), ‘African Tradition’, in M. Baker and K. Malmkjær (eds), The
Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (London: Routledge), 295–302.
Barsky, R. F. (1996), ‘The Interpreter as Intercultural Agent in Convention
Refugee Hearings’, The Translator 1: 45–64.
Bass, S. (2006), ‘Quality in the Real World’, in K. J. Dunne (ed.), Perspectives on
Localization (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins), 69–94.
Bassnett, S. (1980), Translation Studies (London and New York: Methuen).
Bavington, C. (2013), ‘Review: Linguist Article of Community Translation’.
Available online: http://cbavington.com/blog/2013/11/14/review-linguist-article-
on-community-translation/ [accessed 22 November 2014].
Berg, J. W., Appelbaum, P. S., Lidz, C. W. and Parker, L. S. (2001), Informed
Consent: Legal Theory and Clinical Practice (New York: Oxford University
Press).
Bowker, L. (2009), ‘Can Machine Translation Meet the Need of Official Language
Minority Communities in Canada? A Recipient Evaluation’, Linguistica
Antverpiensia 8: 123–55.
Brody, J. (2003), ‘A Linguistic Anthropological Perspective on Language and
Culture in the Second Language Curriculum’, in D. R. Lange, and M. Paige
(eds), Culture as the Core: Perspectives on Culture in Second Language
Learning (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing), 37–49.
Brunette, L. (2000), ‘Towards a Terminology for Translation Quality Assessment:
A Comparison of TQA practices’, The Translator 6 (2): 169–82.
Brunette, L., Gagnon, C. and Hine, Jr., J. T. (2005), ‘The GREVIS Project: Revise
or Court Calamity’, Across Languages and Cultures 6 (1): 29–45.
Bühler, K. (1990 [1965]), Theory of Language (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins).
Burke, J. (2012), ‘Language as a Resource for Improving Health: Using Swahili-
Based Concepts in Responding to Infant HIV’, The Australasian Review of
African Studies 33 (2): 141–57.
Burke, J. (2014), ‘Linguistic Diversity Amongst Swahili-Speakers: A Challenge for
Translation in Australia’, Paper presented at the International Conference on
Community Translation, University of Western Sydney, 11–13 September 2014.
Burns, A. and Kim, M. (2011), ‘Community Accessibility of Health Information
and the Consequent Impact for Translation into Community Languages’,
Campbell, S. (2005), ‘English Translation and Linguistic Hegemony in the Global
Era’, in G. M. Anderman and M. Rogers (eds), In and Out of English: For
Better, for Worse (Clevedon, Buffalo and Toronto: Multilingual Matters),
27–38.
Cardwell, M. (2013 [1996]), Dictionary of Psychology (New York: Routledge).
Carroll, T. (2011), ‘Local Government Websites in Japan: International,
Multicultural, Multilingual?’, in N. Gottlieb (ed.), Language in Public Spaces in
Japan (London and New York: Routledge), 51–70.
Bibliography 171
Catford, J. C. (1980 [1965]), A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in

Applied Linguistics (London: Oxford University Press).
Chakhachiro, R. (2005), ‘Revision for Quality’, Perspectives: Studies in
Translatology 13 (3): 225–38.
Chan, N. (2015), ‘Language Policies and Terminology Policies in Canada’, in H. J.
Kockaert and F. Steurs (eds), Handbook of Terminology, Volume 1 (Amsterdam
and Philadelphia: John Benjamins), 489–504.
Chesterman, A. (2000), Memes of Translation (Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
John Benjamins).
Chesterman, A. (2007), ‘Bridge Concepts in Translation Sociology’, in M. Wolf
and A. Fukari (eds), Constructing a Sociology of Translation (Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins), 171–83.
Chesterman, A. (2012), ‘Catford Revisited’, in D. Santos, K. Lindén and
W. Ng’ang’a (eds), Shall we Play the Festchrift Game? Essays on the
Occasion of Lauri Carlson’s 60th birthday (Heidelberg: Springer), 25–33.
Claremont Graduate University (n.d.), ‘Submitting Official Documents’. Available
online: http://www.cgu.edu/pages/5439.asp [accessed 14 November 2014].
Cluver, A. (1992), ‘Trends in the Changes of Translating Domains: An Overview’,
in A. Kruger (ed.), Changes in Translating Domains (Pretoria: University of
South Africa), 195–216.
Clyne, M. (1987), ‘Cultural Differences in the Organization of Academic Texts:
English and German’, Journal of Pragmatics 11: 211–47.
Clyne, M. (1991), ‘Trying to do Things with Letters: Letters of Request and
Complaint in the University Domain’, in Linguistics in the Service of Society:
Essays in Honour of Susan Kaldor (Institute of Applied Language Studies,
Perth: Edith Cowan University), 207–19.
Clyne, M. (1994), Inter-Cultural Communication at Work: Cultural Values in
Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Collins, M. (2005), ‘Medical Back Translation: Strategies for Making it Work’, ATA
Chronicle, 34: 19.
Collis, D. R. F. (1992), ‘The Use of Distributed Language Translation in Language
Management’, Language Problems and Language Planning 16 (1): 53–71.
Collombat, I. (2003), ‘La Stylistique Comparée du Français et de l’Anglais: La
Théorie au Service de la Pratique’, Meta: Journal des Traducteurs / Meta:
Translators’ Journal 48 (3): 421–8.
Comech, A. (n.d.), ‘How to Make Certified Translations of Official Documents’.
Available online: http://www.math.tamu.edu/~comech/tools/certified-
translation-howto [accessed 14 November 2014].
Community Relations Commission (2011), ‘Guidelines – Exemption from
Payment for Language Services’. Available online: http://www.crc.nsw.gov.
au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/6628/Guidelines_Exemption_From_Payment_
For_Language_Services_September_2011.pdf [accessed 7 December 2014].
Community Relations Commission (2014), ‘Interpreting and Translation’. Available
online: http://www.crc.nsw.gov.au/services/language_services [accessed 7
December 2014].
Cornelius, E. (2010), ‘Plain Language as Alternative Textualisation’, Southern
African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 28 (2): 171–83.
Cronin, M. (2013), Translation in the Digital Age (London and New York:
Routledge).
172 Bibliography
Department of Immigration and Citizenship (2014), ‘Free Translating and

Interpreting Services’. Available online: http://www.immi.gov.au/about/
reports/annual/2011-12/html/performance/outcome_5/free_translating_and_
interpreting_services.htm [accessed 7 December 2014].
Depraetere, I. (ed.) (2011), Perspectives on Translation Quality (Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter).
Di Biase, B. (1987), ‘Translating for the Community’, Australian Review of
Applied Linguistics, Series S 4: 52–65.
Di Salvio, D. (1999), ‘Document Gathering for Citizenship: the Oakland Model’.
Available online: www.ilrc.org/files/document_gathering_oakland_model.pdf
[accessed 14 November 2014].
Djité, P. (2008), The Sociolinguistics of Development in Africa (Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters).
Drugan, J. (2013), Quality in Professional Translation (London: Bloomsbury).
Dunne, K. (2011), ‘From Vicious to Virtuous Cycle: Customer-Focused Translation
Quality Management Using ISO 9001 Principles and Agile Methodologies’, in K.
Dunne and E. Dunne (eds), Translation and Localization Project Management.
The Art of the Possible (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins), 153–88.
Erasmus, M. (2000), ‘Community Interpreting in South Africa: Current Trends
and Future Prospects’, in R. Roberts, S. E. Carr, D. Abraham and A. Dufour
(eds), The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community (Amsterdam and
European Commission (2012), ‘The Status of the Translation Profession in
the European Union’. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/
publications/studies/translation_profession_en.pdf [accessed 22 November
2014].
European Commission (2014), ‘Memo: Public Documents: European Parliament
backs Commission proposal to slash red tape in the Member States’, The
Commission, 4 February 2014. Available online: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_MEMO-14-76_en.htm [accessed 14 November 2014].
Faden, R. R. and Beauchamp, T. L. (1986), A History and Theory of Informed
Consent (New York: Oxford University Press).
Fawcett, P. (1997), Translation and Language (Manchester: St. Jerome).
Fraser, J. (1993), ‘Public Accounts: Using Verbal Protocols to Investigate
Community Translation’, Applied Linguistics 14 (4): 325–43.
Fraser, J. (1999), ‘The Discourse of Official Texts and How it Can Impede Public
Service Translators’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 20
(3): 194–208.
Gambier, Y. (2013), ‘The Position of Audiovisual Translation Studies’, in C. Millán
and F. Bartrina (eds), Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies (London:
Routledge), 45–59.
Garcia, I. (2009), ‘Translating and Revising for Localisation. What Do We Know?
What Do We Need to Know?’, Perspectives. Studies in Translatology 16 (1–2):
49–60.
Garcia, I. (2014), ‘Volunteers and Public Service Translation’, Paper presented at
the International Conference on Community Translation, University of Western
Sydney, 11–13 September 2014.
Gawn, P. (1988), ‘Authenticity and Quality of Translation’, Meta: Journal des
Traducteurs/Meta: Translators’ Journal 33 (3): 456–60.
Bibliography 173
General Directorate of Civil Defence (2014), ‘Hajj Awareness’. Available online:

http://www.998.gov.sa/English/preventiveawareness/Pages/Introduction.aspx
[accessed 16 June 2014].
Gentile, A., Ozolins, U. and Vasilakakos, M. (1996), Liaison Interpreting, A
Handbook (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press).
Gentzler, E. (2001), Contemporary Translation Theories (Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters).
Goodenough, W. (1957), ‘Cultural Anthropology and Linguistics’, in P. L. Garvin,
Report of the Seventh Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and
Language Study, Monograph Series on Language and Linguistics No. 9
(Washington, DC: Georgetown University), 167–73.
Gouadec, D. (2007), Translation as a Profession (Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
John Benjamins).
Graham, A. M. (2012), ‘Training Provision for Public Service Interpreting and
Translation in England’. Available online: https://www.llas.ac.uk/news/6673
[accessed 10 December 2014].
Grice, H. P. (1975), ‘Logic and Conversation’, in P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds),
Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts (New York: Academic Press), 41–58.
Grunwald, D. and Goldfarb, N. M. (2006), ‘Back Translation for Quality Control of
Informed Consent Forms’, Journal of Clinical Research Best Practices 2 (2).
Available online: www.translationdirectory.com/article1043.htm/ [accessed 14
November 2014].
Hague, D., Melby, A. and Zheng, W. (2011), ‘Surveying Translation Quality
Assessment: A Specification Approach’, The Interpreter and Translator Trainer
5 (2): 243–67.
Hale, S. B. (2004), The Discourse of Court Interpreting (Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins).
Hale, S. B. (2007), Community Interpreting (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave
Macmillan).
Hale, S. B. (2008), ‘Controversies Over the Role of the Court Interpreter’,
in C. Valero Garcés and A. Martin (eds), Crossing Borders in Community
Interpreting: Definitions and Dilemmas (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins), 99–121.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1970), ‘Language Structure and Language Function’, in
J. Lyons (ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics (Harmondsworth: Penguin),
140–65.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985), An Introduction to Functional Grammar (London:
Edward Arnold).
Hariri, O. S. (1422 IC), Al-Ih.tiyāj al-maʻlūmātī li jamāhīr al-h.ajīj [Pilgrim information
needs]. Saudi Arabia, Umm Al-Qura University, Custodian of the Two Holy
Mosques Institute for Hajj Research.
Hatim, B. (1997), Communication Across Cultures (Exeter: University of Exeter
Press).
Hatim, B. and Mason, I. (1990), Discourse and the Translator (Harlow:
Longman).
Hinds, J. (1980) ‘Japanese Expository Prose’, Papers in Linguistics 13 (1):
117–58.
Hine, Jr., J. T. (2003), ‘Teaching Text Revision in a Multilingual Environment’,
in B. J. Baer and G. S. Koby (eds), Beyond the Ivory Tower. Rethinking
174 Bibliography
Translation Pedagogy (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins),

135–56.
Holz-Mänttäri, J. (1984), Translatorisches Handeln. Theorie und Methode
(Helsinki: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia).
House, J. (1977), A Model for Translation Quality Assessment (Tübingen: Gunter
Narr).
House, J. (1997), Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited (Tübingen:
Gunter Narr).
House (2001), ‘Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus
Social Evaluation’, Meta 46 (2): 243–57.
House, J. (2013), ‘Quality in Translation Studies’, in C. Millán and F. Bartrina (eds),
Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies (London: Routledge), 534–47.
Humbley, J. (2006), ‘La Traduction des Noms d’Institutions’ [Translation of
Names of Institutions], Meta 51 (4): 671–89.
Industry Canada (2007), ‘Community Interpreting in Canada’. Available online:
http://www.meta-ops.cz/sites/default/files/471_ok.pdf [accessed 6 June
2015].
Inghilleri, M. (2010), ‘Afterword: Exploring the Task of the Activist Translator’, in
J. Boéri and C. Maier (eds), Compromiso Social y Traducción/Interpretación /
Translation/Interpreting and Social Activism (Granada: ECOS), 152–5.
Johnstone, B. (2009), Discourse Analysis (Oxford: Blackwell).
Kaplan, R. B. (1972), ‘Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter-Cultural Education’, in
K. Croft (ed.), Readings on English as a Second Language (Cambridge, MA:
Winthrop), 246–62.
Katan, D. (2004), Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators,
Interpreters and Mediators (Manchester: St. Jerome).
Kelly, D. (2005), A Handbook for Translator Trainers (Manchester: St. Jerome).
Kelly, D. (2014), ‘Training in Community Translation / Community Translation in
Translator Training’, Keynote speech given at the International Conference
on Community Translation, University of Western Sydney, 11–13 September
2014.
Kelly, N., Ray, R. and de Palma, D. (2011), ‘From Crawling to Sprinting:
Community Translation Goes Mainstream’, Linguistica Antverpiensis, 10:
75–94. Available online: https://lans-tts.ua.ac.be/index.php/LANS-TTS/article/
view/278 [accessed 22 November 2014].
Kim, S-H. (2009), ‘Towards a People-Centered Theory of Translation’,
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 17 (4): 257–72.
Kingscott, G. (1990), ‘Endpiece’ [on the moral responsibility of translators],
Language International, 2 (6).
Kirkpatrick, A. (1991), ‘Information Sequencing in Mandarin in Letters of
Request’, Anthropological Linguistics 33 (2): 1–20.
Klaudy, K. and Károly, K. (2005), ‘Implicitation in Translation: Empirical Evidence
for Operational Asymmetry in Translation’, Across Languages and Cultures
6 (1): 13–29.
Ko, L. (2011), ‘Translation Checking: A View from the Translation Market’,
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 19 (2): 123–34.
Ko, L. (2014), ‘Examining Community Translation in the Australian Context’,
Paper presented at the International Conference on Community Translation,
University of Western Sydney, 11–13 September 2014.
Bibliography 175
Koskinen, K. (2004), ‘Shared Culture? Reflections on Recent Trends in Translation

Studies’, Target 16 (1): 143–56.
Künzli, A. (2007), ‘Translation Revision: A Study of the Performance of Ten
Professional Translators Revising a Legal Text’, in Y. Gambier, M. Shlesinger
and R. Stolze (eds), Translation Studies: Doubts and Directions (Amsterdam
Lambert-Tierrafria, S. (2007), ‘Templating as a Strategy for Translating Official
Documents from Spanish to English’, Meta 52 (2): 215–26.
Lauscher, S. (2000), ‘Translation Quality Assessment: Where Can Theory and
Practice Meet?’, The Translator 6 (2): 149–68.
Lederer, M. (2007), ‘Can Theory Help Translator and Interpreter Trainers and
Trainees?’, The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 1 (1): 15–35.
Lee, H. (2006), ‘Revision: Definitions and Parameters’, Meta 51 (2): 410–19.
Lesch, H. M. (1999), ‘Community Translation: Right or Privilege?’, in M.
Erasmus (ed.), Liaison Interpreting in the Community (Pretoria: Van Schaik),
90–8.
Lesch, H. M. (2004), ‘Societal Factors and Translation Practice’, Perspectives:
Studies in Translatology 12 (4): 256–69.
Lesch, H. M. (2012), Gemeenskapsvertaling in Suid-Afrika: Die konteks van die
ontvanger as normeringsbeginsel [Community translation in South Africa:
The context of the receiver as a norm governing principle] (Stellenbosch:
SunMedia).
Lines, C. (2006), ‘Back and Parallel Translations: Managing Client Expectations’,
ATA Chronicle 35: 28–31.
Madiba, M. (2004), ‘Parallel Corpora as Tools for Developing the Indigenous
Languages of South Africa, with Special Reference to Venda’, Language
Matters 35 (1): 133–47.
Madrid Land Registry (n.d.), ‘Buying a House’. Available online: http://
buyingahouse.registradores.org/ [accessed 14 November 2014].
Maier, C. (ed.) (2000), The Translator 6 (2) Special Issue: Evaluation and
Translation (Manchester: St. Jerome).
Martin, T. (2007), ‘Managing Risks and Resources: A Down-to-Earth View of
Revision’, The Journal of Specialised Translation 8: 57–63.
Mayoral Asensio, R. (2003), Translating Official Documents (Manchester: St.
Jerome).
McKay, C. (2010), ‘Translating Official Documents’. Available online: http://
thoughtsontranslation.com/2010/02/11/translating-official-documents/
McLeod, M. (2000), ‘Official Gaelic: Problems in the Translation of Public
Documents’, Scottish Language 19: 100–16.
McRae, K. (1998), ‘Official Bilingualism: From the 1960s to the 1990s’, in
J. Edwards (ed.), Language in Canada (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press), 61–83.
Mishler, E. G. (1984), The Discourse of Medicine: Dialectics of Medical
Interviews (Norwood, NJ: Ablex).
Mossop, B. (2007a), Revising and Editing for Translators, 2nd edn (Manchester:
St. Jerome).
Mossop, B. (2007b), ‘Empirical Studies of Revision: What We Know and Need To
Know’, The Journal of Specialised Translation 8: 5–20.
176 Bibliography
Munday, J. (2012), Introducing Translation Studies (London and New York:

Routledge).
National Disability Services (2007), Quality Framework for Disability Services.
Available online: www.nds.org.au/asset/view_document/979316197
Nida, E. (1964 [1945]), ‘Linguistics and Ethnology in Translation Problems’, in
D. Hymes (ed.), Language in Culture and Society: A Reader in Linguistics and
Anthropology (New York and London: Harper & Row), 90–100.
Nida, E. (1964), Toward a Science of Translating (Leiden: Brill).
Nida, E. (2001), Contexts in Translating (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins).
Niska, H. (2002), ‘Community Interpreter Training: Past, Present, Future’, in
G. Garzone and M. Viezzi (eds), Interpreting in the 21st Century: Challenges
and Opportunities (Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins), 133–44.
Nord, C. (1997), Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches
Explained (Manchester: St. Jerome).
NSW Multicultural Health Communication Service (2014), ‘Guidelines for the
production of multilingual resources’. Available online: http://www.mhcs.
health.nsw.gov.au/services/translation/pdf/updateguidelines.pdf [accessed 10
December 2014].
NZSTI [New Zealand Society for Translators and Interpreters] (2005), ‘NZSTI
Guidelines for the translation of Official and Legal Documents’. Available
online: http://www.nzsti.org/assets/uploads/files/translationguidelines.pdf
O’Hagan, M. (2011), ‘Introduction: Community Translation: Translation as a
Social Activity and its Possible Consequences in the Advent of Web 2.0 and
beyond’, in M. O’Hagan (ed.), Linguistica Antverpiensia: Special Issue on
Translation as a Social Activity, 10: 11–23.
Orhan, O. (coord.) (2014), The Situation of Syrian Refugees in Neighbouring
Countries: Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations (Ankara: Turkey
ORSAM). Available online: http://www.orsam.org.tr/en/enUploads/Article/
Files/201452_189ing.pdf [accessed 17 January 2015].
Orsted, J. (2001), ‘Quality and Efficiency: Incompatible Elements in Translation
Practice’, Meta, 46(2): 438–47. Available online: http://www.erudit.org/revue/
meta/2001/v46/n2/003766ar.pdf [accessed 22 November 2014].
Øverås, L. (1998), ‘In Search of the Third Code: An Investigation of Norms in
Literary Translation’, Meta 43 (4): 571–88.
Ozolins, U. (2009), ‘Back Translation as a Means of Giving Translators a Voice’,
Pacific International Translations (n.d.), ‘Certified Translation of Personal
Documents’. Available online: http://www.pactranz.com/nz/translation-
services/personal-document-translation/ [accessed 14 November 2014].
PACTE (2005), ‘Investigating Translation Competence: Conceptual and
Methodological Issues’, Meta 50 (2): 609–19.
Petersen, M. (1996), ‘Translation and Quality Management: Some Implications
for the Theory, Practice and Teaching of Translation’, Hermes, 16: 201–20.
Available online: http://www.asb.dk/article.aspx?pid=17497 [accessed 22
November 2014].
Petzell, M. (2005), ‘Expanding the Swahili Vocabulary’, Africa and Asia, 5: 85–107.
Bibliography 177
Pöchhacker, F. (2006), ‘“Going Social?” On Pathways and Paradigms in

Interpreting Studies’, in A. Pym, M. Shlesinger and Z. Jettmarová (eds),
Sociocultural Aspects of Translating and Interpreting (Amsterdam and
Pöchhacker, F. (2008), ‘Interpreting as Mediation’, in C. Valero Garcés and A.
Martin (eds), Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting: Definitions and
Dilemmas (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins), 9–26.
Prunč, E. (2007) ‘The Debate on the Translator’s Position in an Emerging
Sociology of Translation: Priests, Princes and Pariahs’, in M. Wolf and A. Fukari
(eds), Constructing a Sociology of Translation (Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
John Benjamins), 39–56.
Pym, A. (2006), ‘Introduction: On the Social and Cultural in Translation Studies’,
in A. Pym, M. Shlesinger and Z. Jettmarová (eds), Sociocultural Aspects of
Translating and Interpreting (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins),
1–25.
Pym, A. (2010 [1992]), Translation and Text Transfer: An Essay on the Principles of
Intercultural Communication (Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group).
Pym, A. (2011), ‘Translation Research Terms: A Tentative Glossary for Moments
of Perplexity and Dispute’, in A. Pym (ed.), Translation Research Projects 3
(Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group), 75–110. Available online: http://isg.
urv.es/publicity/isg/publications/trp_3_2011/index.htm [accessed 7 December
2014].
Pym, A. (2012), On Translator Ethics: Principles for Mediation Between Cultures
(Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins).
Qadi, A. (2011), ‘Language Services for Pilgrims to the Holy City of Makkah,
Saudi Arabia’, Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Western Sydney.
Rahman, Z. H. (2006), ‘Hope of Escape Lost in Translation’, The Sunday Times,
17 December 2006. Available online: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/
news/article208927.ece [accessed 10 January 2015].
Redfield, R., Linton, R. and Herskovits, M. J. (1936), ‘Memorandum for the
Study of Acculturation’, American Anthropologist 38: 149–52.
Reiss, K. (1976), Texttyp und Übersetzungsmethode. Der operative Text
(Kronberg: Scriptor).
Reiss, K. (1989 [1977]), ‘Text Types, Translation Types and Translation
Assessment’, trans. A. Chesterman, in A. Chesterman (ed.), Readings in
Translation Theory (Helsinki: Oy Finn Lectura Ab), 105–15.
Reiss, K. (1990), ‘Brief an den Herausgeber’, Lebende Sprachen 4: 185.
Reiss, K. (2000 [1971]), Translation Criticism: The Potentials and Limitations
(Manchester: St. Jerome).
Reiss, K. and Vermeer H. J. (1984), Grundlegung einer allgemeinen
Translationstheorie (Tübingen: Niemeyer).
Robert, A-M. (2013), ‘Vous Avez Dit Post-Éditrice? Quelques Éléments d’un
Parcours Personnel’ [Did you say post-editor? Some issues in a personal
experience], Journal of Specialised Translation 19: 29–40.
Robert, I. (2008), ‘Translation Revision Procedures: An Explorative Study’, in
P. Boulogne (ed.), Translation and Its Others. Selected Papers of the CETRA
Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2007 (Leuven: University of Leuven).
Available at http://www.arts.kuleuven.be/cetra/papers/files/robert.pdf
Robert, I. S. and Van Waes, L. (2014), ‘Selecting a Translation Revision Procedure:
178 Bibliography
Do Common Sense and Statistics Agree?’, Perspectives: Studies in

Translatology 22 (3): 304–20.
Roberts, R. P. (1984), ‘La Stylistique Comparée du Français et de l’Anglais en
1980’, in A. Thomas and J. Flamand (dir.), La Traduction: l’Universitaire et le
Praticien (Ottawa: Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa), 48–57.
Roberts, R. (2002), ‘Community Interpreting: A Profession in Search of its
Identity’, in E. Hung (ed.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting 4 (Amsterdam
Samuelsson-Brown, G. (2006), Managing Translation Services (Clevedon:
Samuelsson-Brown, G. (2010), A Practical Guide for Translators, 5th edn (Bristol:
Saudi Ministry of Hajj (2013), ‘Hajj Statistics for the Years 1433 IC [2012] and
1434 IC [2013]’, Unpublished statistics obtained from the Ministry.
Scollon, R., Scollon, S. W. and Jones, R. H. (2012), Intercultural Communication:
A Discourse Approach (Malden and London: Wiley-Blackwell).
Scottish Consumer Council (2005), ‘Is Anybody Listening? The User Perspective
on Interpretation and Translation Services for Minority Ethnic Communities’.
Available online: http://www.consumerfutures.org.uk/wpfb-file/is-anybody-
listening-translation-services-2005-pdf [accessed 7 December 2014].
Seguinot, C. (2000), ‘Management Issues in the Translation Process’, in S.
Tirkkonen-Condit and R. Jaaskelainen (eds), Tapping and Mapping the
Processes of Translation and Interpreting: Outlooks on Empirical Research
(Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins), 143–8.
Shaw, A. and Ahmed, M. (2004), ‘Translating Genetics Leaflets into Languages
Other than English: Lessons from an Assessment of Urdu Materials’, Journal
of Genetic Counseling 13 (4): 321–42.
Simon, S. (1997), ‘Translation, Postcolonialism and Cultural Studies’, Meta 42 (2):
462–77.
Small, R., Yelland, J., Lumley, J. and Rice, P. L. (1999), ‘Cross-Cultural Research:
Trying To Do It Better 2. Enhancing Data Quality’, Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Public Health 23 (4): 385–9.
Snell-Hornby, M. (1995 [1988]), Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach
(Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins).
Snell-Hornby, M. (2012), ‘From the Fall of the Wall to Facebook: Translation
Studies in Europe Twenty Years Later’, Perspectives: Studies in Translatology
20 (3): 365–73.
Sussex Interpreting Services (2012), Quality Assured Community Translation
Service. Available online: http://www.sussexinterpreting.org.uk [accessed 22
November 2014].
Taibi, M. (2006a), ‘Estudio de la Utilidad de Traducciones para los Servicios
Públicos’, in P. Blanco García and P. Martino Alba (eds), Traducción y
Multiculturalidad (Madrid: Instituto Universitario de Lenguas Modernas y
Traductores (Universidad Complutense)), 187–95.
Taibi, M. (2006b). ‘Translating/Interpreting Register in Healthcare and Court
Settings’, Turjuman 15 (1): 57–66 (Tangiers: King Fahd School of Translation).
Taibi, M. (2011), ‘Public Service Translation’, in K. Malmkjaer and K. Windle (eds),
The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies (Oxford: Oxford University
Press), 214–27.
Bibliography 179
Telegraph, The (2013), ‘Stop Wasting Millions Translating Leaflets into Foreign
Languages, Eric Pickles Tells Councils’. Available online: http://www.telegraph.
co.uk/news/politics/9924577/Stop-wasting-millions-translating-leaflets-into-
foreign-languages-Eric-Pickles-tells-councils.html [accessed 7 December
2014].
Toury, G. (1995), Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond (Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins).
Translated (n.d.), ‘Sworn Translations (Certified, Sworn, Official)’. Available online:
http://www.translated.net/en/sworn-certified-official-translation [accessed 8
January 2015].
Tylor, E. B. (1958 [1871]), Primitive Culture (New York: Harper).
Tymoczko, M. (2014 [2007]), Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators
(Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge).
Tymoczko, M. (2009), ‘Translation, Ethics and Ideology in a Violent Globalizing
World’, in E. Bielsa and C. W. Hughes, Globalization, Political Violence and
Translation (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan), 171–94.
UNESCO (2013), ‘Adult and Youth Literacy’. Available online: http://www.uis.
unesco.org/Education/Documents/fs26-2013-literacy-en.pdf [accessed 7
December 2014].
United Nations High Commission for Refugees (2011), Handbook on Procedures
and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status: Under the 1951 Convention and
the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Available online: http://
www.unhcr.org/3d58e13b4.html [accessed 7 December 2014].
United Nations High Commission for Refugees (2015), ‘UNHCR Mid-Year Trends
2014’. Available online: http://www.unhcr.org/54aa91d89.html [accessed 20
January 2015].
University of Alcalá (2014), ‘Master’s Degree in Intercultural Communication,
Public Service Interpreting and Translation’. Available online: http://www2.uah.
es/traduccion/formacion/master_oficial_POP_EN.html [accessed 7 December
2014].
Valero-Garcés, C. (2014), Communicating Across Cultures: A Coursebook on
Interpreting and Translating in Public Services and Institutions (Lanham:
University Press of America).
Van der Berg, S. (2007), ‘Apartheid’s Enduring Legacy: Inequalities in Education’,
Journal of African Economies 16 (5): 849–80.
Venuti, L. (1995), The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation (London and
New York: Routledge).
Vermeer, H. (1986), ‘Übersetzen als kultureller Transfer’, in M. Snell-Hornby
(ed.), Übersetzungswissenschaft – Eine Neuorientierung (Tübingen: Francke),
30–53.
Vermeer, H. (1989), Skopos und Translationsauftrag – Aufsätze (Heidelberg:
Universität).
Vinay, J. P. and Darbelnet, J. (1995 [1958]), Comparative Stylistics of French and
English. A Methodology for Translation, trans. and eds J. C. Sager and M.-J.
Hamel (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins).
Vineberg, R. (2012), Responding to Immigrants’ Settlement Needs: The Canadian
Experience (London and New York: Springer).
Wallmach, K. and Kruger, A. (1999), ‘“Putting a Sock On It”: A Contrastive
Analysis of Problem-Solving Translation Strategies Between African and
180 Bibliography
European Languages’, South African Journal of African Languages 19 (4):

276–89.
Williams-Van Klinken, C. (2004), ‘Developing Electoral Terminology for a New
Official Language: Tetun in East Timor’, Current Issues in Language Planning
5 (2): 142–50.
Winig, B. D. (2008), ‘Lost In Translation: Local Public Agencies and Translating
Official Documents’, Western City, November 2008. Available online: http://
www.westerncity.com/Western-City/November-2008/Lost-In-Translation-Local-
Public-Agencies-and-Translating-Official-Documents [accessed 5 June 2015].
Wolf, M. (2007), ‘Introduction: The Emergence of a Sociology of Translation’,
in M. Wolf and A. Fukari (eds), Constructing a Sociology of Translation
(Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins), 1–36.
www.sabarimala.org
Yi-yi Shih, C. (2006), ‘Revision from Translators’ Point of View: An Interview
Study’, Target, 18 (2): 295–312.
Yousif, E. (2009), ‘Revision of Institutional Documents: In Search of a Road Map’,
Turjuman 18 (2): 11–32.
Yu, R. (2014), ‘A Communicative Approach in Community Brochure Translation’,
Paper presented at the International Conference on Community Translation,
University of Western Sydney, 11–13 September 2014.
Źrałka, E. (2007), ‘Teaching Specialised Translation through Official Documents’,
Journal of Specialised Translation 7: 74–91.
Index of Authors
Ahmed, M. 153 Collins, M. 144

Al-Mahdia, H. 105 Collis, D. R. F. 156
Al-Shafie, H. A. 101–2 Collombat, I. 57
Al-Sharif, H. A. 101–2 Comech, A. 80
Al-Sharif, M. A. 100–3 Community Relations Commission
Almeida e Pinho, J. 114 22, 27, 160
Amigo Extremera 38 Cornelius, E. 153–4
Appelbaum, P.S. 44–8 Cronin, M. 19
Aubert, F. H. 168
AUSIT 55, 155 Darbelnet, J. 56–7
Austin Independent School District De Palma, D. 124–5
122–3 Department of Immigration and
Citizenship (Australia) 22
Baker, M. 34, 56–9, 62–3 De Praetere, I. 107
Balakrishanan, R. 96 Di Biase, B. 3, 18, 68, 98, 138, 152
Bandia, P. 8 Di Salvio, D. 80
Barsky, R. F. 52, 73 Djité, P. 12
Bass, S. 124 Drugan, J. 108, 110, 127–8, 148
Bassnett, S. 33–4 Dunne, K. 108, 124
Bavington, C. 124
Beauchamp, T. L. 44 Erasmus, M. 20
Berg, J. W. 44–8 European Commission 88, 118–19
Bowker, L. 156
Brody, J. 33 Faden, R. R. 44
Brunette, L. 107, 128–9, 158 Fawcett, P. 57
Bühler, K. 59 Fraser, J. 17–18, 22, 66, 72, 75, 150–1
Burke, J. 15–16, 154 Fukari, A. 63
Burns, A. 18, 48–9, 74, 151
Gagnon, C. 158
Campbell, S. 13–14, 75, 152 Gambier, Y. 98
Cardwell, M. 30 Garcia, I. 10, 148, 156
Carroll, T. 23, 162 Gawn, P. 14, 27
Catford, J. C. 56–7, 64 General Directorate of Civil Defence
Chakhachiro, R. 128, 144 (Saudi Arabia) 103–4
Chan, N. 21 Gentile, A. 11
Chesterman, A. 53–5, 57, 59, 63–4, Gentzler, E. 70
66, 68, 70 Goldfarb, N. M. 145
Claremont Graduate University 83 Goodenough, W. 30
Cluver, A. 65 Gouadec, D. 8–9, 11
Clyne, M. 41–2 Grice, H. P. 53
182 Index of Authors
Grunwald, D. 145 Malmkjaer, K. 150

Martin, T. 129
Hague, D. 107, 116, 121 Mason, I. 33, 57–8, 70
Hale, S. 11, 17, 73 Mayoral Asensio, R. 18, 78–80, 82,
Halliday, M. A. K. 57–8, 108 85–6, 155
Hariri, O. S. 100, 102 Mishler, E.G. 39, 52
Hatim, B. 33–5, 37–8, 40–1, 57–8, 70 Mossop, B. 127–9, 131, 140–1
Hinds, J. 41 Munday, J. 56, 64
Hine Jr., J. T. 158
Holz-Mänttäri, J. 61, 70 National Disability Services 113
House, J. 107–9, 112 Nida, E. 33–4, 108
Humbley, J. 156 Niska, H. 7, 11
Nord, C. 56, 59–61, 89–90
Industry Canada 21 NSW Multicultural Health
Inghilleri, M. 75 Communication Service 159–60
NZSTI [New Zealand Society for
Johnstone, B. 38 Translators and Interpreters] 86,
Jones, R. H. 31–2, 36 93, 155
Kaplan, R. B. 41 O’Hagan, M. 8–10

Károly, K. 56 Orhan, O. 96
Katan, D. 29–31, 34, 36, 38 Orsted, J. 108
Kelly, D. 17, 23, 98 Øverås, L. 56
Kelly, N. 124–5 Ozolins, U. 11, 145
Khidr, I. 101, 103
Kim, M. 18, 48–9, 74, 151 Pacific International Translations 86
Kim, S. H. 64, 167 PACTE 24
Kingscott, G. 62 Petersen, M. 107
Kirkpatrick, A. 41 Petzell, M. 16
Klaudy, K. 56 Pöchhacker, F. 17, 32–3
Ko, L. 69, 129, 132, 135 Prunč, E. 63
Koskinen, K. 36, 38 Pym, A. 9–10, 61–3, 75
Kruger, A. 2, 157
Künzli, A. 129, 144 Qadi, A. 18, 23, 103, 106
Lambert-Tierrafria, S. 155 Rahman, Z. H. 19

Lauscher, S. 108 Ray, R. 124–5
Lederer, M. 130 Redfield, R. 39
Lee, H. 128 Reiss, C. 59–61, 70
Lesch, H. M. 10, 12–13, 18, 65, 74, Rice, P. L. 178
110–13, 118, 149–50 Robert, A. M. 148
Lines, C. 129, 145 Robert, I. 158
Roberts, R. 17, 57
McKay, C. 78, 90
McLeod, M. 157 Samuelsson-Brown, G. 108, 121, 124,
McRae, K. 21 129–30, 142
Madiba, M. 157 Saudi Ministry of Hajj 100
Madrid Land Registry 92 Scollon, R. 31–2, 36
Maier, C. 108 Scollon, S. W. 31–2, 36
Index of Authors 183
Scottish Consumer Council 23, 69, 74 Valero-Garcés, C. 18

Seguinot, C. 128 Van der Berg, S. 12
Shaw, A. 153 Venuti, L. 35, 90
Simon, S. 38 Vermeer, H. J. 33, 60–1, 70
Small, R. 145 Vinay, J. P. 56–7
Snell-Hornby, M. 14, 33, 57, 63 Vineberg, R. 21
Sussex Interpreting Services 112–13,
119–20 Wallmach, K. 2, 157
Williams-Van Klinken, C. 157
Taibi, M. 7, 11, 17–18, 22–4, 39, 48–9, Windle, K. 150
65, 74, 106, 150 Winig, B. D. 20–1
Telegraph, The 19 Wolf, M. 63
Toury, G. 56, 109 www.sabarimala.org 96
Translated 80, 155
Tylor, E. B. 30 Yi-yi Shih, C. 158
Tymoczko, M. 35–8, 64 Yousif, E. 128
Yu, R. 68, 74
UNESCO 49
United Nations High Commission for Źrałka, E. 89, 92
Refugees 50, 95–6
University of Alcalá 25
Index of Subjects
accessibility 8, 9, 10, 18, 49, 101, 151, 62–5, 67–70, 72–6, 80, 83, 87,
153 97–100, 105, 109, 112–13, 116,
adaptation 2, 4, 56, 60–1, 69–71, 109, 120, 122, 137, 149–61, 165
150, 157
Afghanistan 100 Diglossia 48
Afrikaans 20, 110–11, 118
Algeria 99 education system, examples of
Arabic, Arab World 2, 15, 16, 22, translation for 2, 4, 9, 12, 14,
25, 31, 35, 41–2, 48–51, 96, 16, 22, 42, 77–8, 82–3, 86,
99–104, 109, 117, 136 91, 98, 103, 122–3, 125, 135,
Argentina 80 139–40, 160–3
argumentation 34–5, 37, 41 education, of translators see training
asylum seekers see refugees of translators
audiovisual 18, 23, 60, 71, 97, 99, 101, educational background of readers of
118 translation 12–14, 30, 38, 40,
Australia 10, 14–15, 22, 25, 27, 41–2, 48–9, 100–1, 109–10, 116, 136,
68, 87, 95, 113–14, 150, 152, 150, 166
155, 159–60 ethical issues in translation 5, 18,
43–5, 52, 53, 55, 58, 62–3,
Bangladesh 19, 100 72–6, 84–6, 90, 93, 99, 117,
briefing 61, 71–2, 75–6, 115, 120–2, 133
130–3, 143 Ethiopia 95
Burundi 15 European Commission 88
extract translation 5, 82, 85–9,157
Canada 14, 21–2, 26, 71, 80, 97, 129,
156, 160–1 Hajj 97–106
checking of translations see revision health, translation needs in 1–2, 9, 12,
China 41, 136 18, 21–2, 25–6, 44–9, 92, 97–8,
Chinese 2, 18, 22, 25, 41–2, 68, 117, 100, 102–4, 106, 109, 113, 119,
136, 151 124–5, 133, 138–41, 145, 151,
Clinton’s Executive Order (13166) 20 153–5, 159–63 see also consent
Congo, Democratic Republic of 15 forms, translation of
consent forms, translation of 25, Hong Kong 136, 161–2
43–50, 170, 172–3
crowd sourcing of translation and immigrants/migrants 1, 3, 12–13, 15,
translation quality 10, 124–5, 18–19, 21–2, 25, 48–9, 58, 68,
138, 156 71, 73, 75, 77 83–4, 90, 97,
cultural factors in translation 2–5, 8, 114, 118, 145, 152, 156, 162–3,
10, 13, 15, 17–19, 21–3, 25, Ch. 165–6
2 passim 29–52, 53, 58, 60, India 41–2, 96, 99
186 Index of Subjects
indigenous languages 1–3, 20, 97, quality in translation 2, 5–6, 12, 14,
118, 145, 147, 156–7 18–19, 22–3, 26–7, 39, 69,
Indonesia 99 85, 96, 102–6, Ch. 6 passim
International Conference on 107–26, Ch. 7 passim 127–48,
Community Translation 7, 27 150, 154, 158
Iran 95, 100
Iraq 50–1, 99 Radio Australia 41
Italy 31, 80 recruitment 18, 23, 100, 103, 106,
117–20, 136–7
Jordan 96, 98 refugees/asylum seekers 5, 12–13,
15, 18–19, 21–2, 49–52, 68, 73,
Kenya 15, 95 83, 95–7, 163
research 17–18, 26–7, 63, 89, 102,
Laos 14 106
Lebanon/Lebanese 15, 95–6, 98 revision 6, 120, Ch.7 passim 127–48,
Literacy 12, 16, 48–9, 101, 118, 136, 157–8
149, 153 role 63–5, 70, 72–6, 142, 149, 153
Russia 100
Malaysia 100
Mexico 67 Saudi Arabia 97, 99–100, 102, 105,
minority 1, 4–5, 9–11, 13–15, 18–23, 159
26–7, 43, 53, 66, 69, 73–5, Singapore 14
97–8, 125, 139–40, 145, 150–2, Skopos 5–6, 60–4, 81, 90–1, 110, 112
154, 156, 165, 167 Social Security, translation needs in
Morocco 99 2, 14, 25, 92, 118–19, 124, 139,
159, 163, 167 see also welfare
Nigeria 100 sociological turn 63–4
norms 42, 53–6, 166 South Africa 12, 15, 20, 96, 110, 118,
119, 13 6, 149–50, 153, 157,
Pakistan 42, 82, 87, 95, 100, 153 162, 171–2
pedagogy see training of translators Spain 15, 25, 49, 68, 71, 92, 150, 162
Spanish 2, 15, 22, 25, 41, 45, 48,
official documents, translation of 66–7, 71, 92, 117, 125, 136
4–5, 18, 25, 50, Ch. 4 passim Sudan 99, 118
77– 94, 118, 155–6, 163, 171, Swahili 14–16, 101, 154
175, 180 Sweden/Swedish 31, 97
Oman 99
orality 49 Taiwan 136
Tanzania 15, 154
policymaking 21, 23, 27, 105–6, 167 temporary communities, 1, 5, 10,
power/empowerment 7, 9–13, 17, 18, 22, 77, 83, Ch. 5 passim
19–20, 26–7, 36, 42–3, 52–3, 57, 95–106, 165
65–8, 70–1, 73–4, 76, 102, 149, Thailand 14
151–2, 165 training of translators 2, 4–6, 17–18,
pro-forma 131–4, 143 23–7, 29, 32, 67, 84, 78, 98,
project management of translations 105–6, 116–19, 121, 127,
2, 6, 107–8, 115–16, 121–2, 124, 129–30, 147, 160, 162, 167–8
167 transcreation 49, 70
proofreading see revision Turkey 96–7, 100
Index of Subjects 187
Umm Al–Qura University 102 University of Western Sydney 7, 25

Umrah 99–101
United Kingdom/Britain 15, 19, 23, 66, welfare, translation needs in 1, 9, 21,
80, 100 68, 92, 96, 119, 139–40 see
United States of America 15, 20, 80, also Social Security, translation
122, 147, 163 needs in
University of Alcalá 25
University of Montreal 158 Yemen 99

Community Translation by Mustapha Taibi, Uldis Ozolins

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Community Translation by Mustapha Taibi, Uldis Ozolins

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Community Translation by Mustapha Taibi, Uldis Ozolins

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of the Bloomsbury Advances in Translation series?

What is the purpose of the Bloomsbury Advances in Translation series?

What topics are covered in the index of subjects?

What topics are covered in the index of subjects?

Community

Series Editor: Jeremy Munday, Centre for Translation Studies,

OTHER TITLES IN THE SERIES:

Corpus-Based Translation Studies, Edited by Alet Kruger,

Bloomsbury Advances in Translation

50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway

First published 2016

© Mustapha Taibi and Uldis Ozolins, 2016

No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

ISBN: HB: 978-1-4742-2165-8

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Series: Bloomsbury Advances in Translation

Typeset by Fakenham Prepress Solutions, Fakenham, Norfolk NR21 8NN

List of Figures viii

Figure 0.1 Typical community translation context 3

Figure 2.1 Cultural transfer in translation vs double cultural transfer in

Figure 3.1 Overarching mission and other factors influencing

Figure 4.1 European Commission (2014) Memo: Public Documents:

W e would like to thank our colleagues Eva Melhem, Chris Quan,

C ommunity translation both as a practice and as a field of investigation is

translation is also needed in widely diffused languages – in English, in

Outside the strictly technical or literary sphere of translation between major

the part of community translators to the characteristics of this readership:

Sociocultural Context of Text L1 – Host Society

FIGURE 0.1 Typical community translation context (Adapted from Di Biase

Successful community translation depends crucially on the translator

N iska (2002: 135) defines community translation as ‘written translation

texts generated by the larger community (society) or by smaller commu-

In the call for papers of the International Conference on Community

translation of different types of texts intended to facilitate communication

authorities, non-governmental organisations, ethnic community organisa-

Like community interpreting, community translation is a service offered at

Community translation encompasses all translating (and interpreting)

Gouadec (2007: 38) also defines ‘institutional translation’, which, although

Community translation: Term used for the practice whereby non-profes-

As a solution to distinguish the two activities, Pym recommends using

Conventional community translation is there to help linguistically disadvan-

mainstream public services to communicate in writing with those minorities

1.2 Features of community translation

1.2.1 Translation and power imbalance

majorities with less socio-economic and political power, migrants, refugees,

Community translation is a means to an end, namely to equip the

The mere act of translating in the community translation context contributes

1.2.2 Translation and language (im)parity

two communities and languages. Campbell refers to the case of Laos, a

(see Chapter 3 for a discussion of translation challenges and strategies). This

1.2.3 Diversity of readership

Swahili is used as a lingua franca across tribal communities and national

Translators should be prepared to adapt their translations in order to

Among the strategies that the author suggests are: 1) simplification of

1.3 The state of the art

such as migrants, refugees and members of ethnic and linguistic minorities

1.3.2 Provision of service

community interpreting, community translation is closely concerned with

Figure 0.1 Typical community translation context 3