Traitors or translators?

Over the last year or so, we have grown accustomed to outbursts of indignation in the media as Maltese translations of EU documents have been published or have become available on line.

Commentators have typically picked on words, expressions and even whole sentences wrongly translated to drive home the point that current translations are below par.

Some of these critics have suggested that we have people who know the language well and that these only need "a bit of guidance" to produce good quality work.

Other correspondents have joined the many who, over the years, have decried abysmally low standards of Maltese at all levels of our society which will require considerably more than a bit of guidance to be set right.

I am personally more inclined towards the latter position, namely, that a great deal of determination and the investment of very considerable resources will be required to safeguard and promote what is held by many to be the premier attribute of our identity, namely, the Maltese language.

There is no doubt that we, and more specifically an administration set on joining the EU, have been somewhat lackadaisical about the whole matter of preparing translators and interpreters, although this was probably not unrelated to the contested nature of EU entry itself.

Given the general neglect, the course in translation and interpretation started within the Faculty of Arts of the University of Malta, as a consequence of the initiative and resourcefulness of Joseph Eynaud, is particularly praiseworthy.

Some have suggested that there is scope for improvement in this course but I, for one, have yet to come across a new course, or any product for that matter, which was perfect at the outset, and which did not benefit from the lessons acquired in doing, as opposed to theorising. What I want to focus upon in this contribution are the problems faced by any aspiring interpreter of Maltese.

As a consequence of a set of spatial and historical circumstances, these islands have achieved a prominence and a sovereignty denied to other, much bigger, lands, but at the end of the day we are still, by far, one of the smallest states around, demographically and spatially.

This is, in many respects, a good thing but there are drawbacks. One of the most important of the latter are the very severe limits to the possibility of specialisation. I would like to demonstrate what I am talking about with reference to interpretation.

EU sources had indicated that enlargement would result in a demand for about 40 interpreters per day for every new language. Forty-nine Poles, from a nation of 40 million, applied to become interpreters in response to the call for applications issued in preparation for the EU's enlargement. Fourteen were admitted to tests.

From Malta there were 14 applications, a huge number in relative terms. Four were admitted to tests. It is evident that the pool from which qualified Maltese people may be selected for duties within EU institutions, or duties anywhere for that matter, is a very small one. Like most small communities we are normally obliged to wear many different hats.

Artists teach, teachers act as guides, writers lecture, public servants run small businesses or do odd jobs, politicians practise law, and so on. Given the size of the market, specialisation can only be taken so far. All seek to make ends meet and hedge their bets in a fragile economy. But what, you may well be asking, does all this have to do with interpreting? The fact of the matter is that up till now there had never been a demand for the type of interpretation required by EU institutions.

Until recently the only people working as interpreters locally were a handful of individuals involved in servicing one of our tiny island's lesser known success stories - conference tourism. None of these interpreters was engaged in this pursuit on a full-time basis; the flow of work had never warranted it.

In addition, their task typically involved interpreting from a number of languages, such as French, German, Italian and Spanish, and less frequently, Arabic, Russian, and so on, into English and vice-versa. Only very rarely was there a call for Maltese - English - Maltese interpretation, although the incidence of the latter had increased in the last couple of years, as a consequence of preparations for entry into the EU.

The reason for this was clearly set out in The Times' editorial of March 26 - most Maltese businessmen and public officials are conversant with English, our other official language. It made, and still makes sound economic sense to use English, because in this manner we avoid incurring the additional "transaction costs" which the translation of every document and the interpretation of every speech would involve.

This official position of English and its widespread use is also what makes Malta a centre of English language teaching and, increasingly, a venue where Chinese and other foreign students can acquire a relatively inexpensive first degree.

We Maltese inhabit a complex linguistic world of multiple and overlapping dualities. Most of us seem to draw satisfaction and a measure of pride from the uniqueness of our national language but are very eclectic in our choice of language/s for our practical day- to-day needs.

In the private sphere many, probably most, use Maltese for oral communication, although the increasing use of a hotchpotch of Maltese and English has been noted, while in the public sphere both languages are used.

Written communication and media consumption, on the other hand, lean heavily towards English, and to a lesser extent, Italian. In our verbal and written dealings with foreigners and the world beyond our shores, English is predominant.

The net result of this complex linguistic scenario, so far as translators and interpreters are concerned, is that the "need" had never arisen in Malta, until now, for the creation of the tools which interpreters and translators of languages spoken by tens and hundreds of millions of people, rather than hundreds of thousands, already have at their disposal.

Dictionaries, thesauruses, spell checks, specialised vocabularies and glossaries suitable for use in business, science and technology, and other areas of modern life, which are taken for granted abroad, are simply not available in Maltese.

George Cassola's Dizzjunarju tal-Kontabilità Ingliz-Malti, published two years ago, is a brave and laudable effort in this regard. It is, regrettably, the exception rather than the rule. The small team of ad hoc interpreters who are at present holding the fort and the young interpreters to be trained to the rigorous standards of the EU are clearly at a disadvantage compared to colleagues working in other languages.

Where do we go from here?

The Maltese Language Bill, currently being debated in parliament, is welcome, but it will take resources on a scale we can ill-afford, given the present economic climate, and a lot of time, to permit Maltese to take its rightful place in the conference halls alongside other languages. There are no quick, cheap, fixes despite the impression given by some commentators but we need not be disheartened. Others have been in far worse predicaments before.

The Basque language was already receding fast when Franco prohibited its use in public but a political will and not inconsiderable resources first standardised the different variations of Basque and put it on a proper footing and then proceeded to make it an official language in the Basque country, alongside Spanish.

Hebrew, on the other hand, had been reduced to being exclusively a language of worship before Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, a Lithuanian, migrated to Palestine in 1881. Believing that the revival of the language was an indispensable prerequisite for the political and cultural rebirth of the Jewish people, he set out on a lone campaign to make Hebrew a vibrant, living vehicle.

Maltese has not been subject to the same trying conditions that Basque and Hebrew have known. It has had its rough patches but it has made it through so far.

The commitment to the presence of Maltese at the EU could constitute the beginning of a quantitative and qualitative leap forward for the language but it is paradoxical that the centre of gravity of this renaissance will probably be located not in Malta but in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg as a hundred plus translators, and dozens of interpreters, answering only to EU institutions, engage in the slow, grinding, process of forging our language into a tool of modern public life through their day-to-day practise.

A couple of hundred Polish language professionals working in the EU are but a drop in the ocean of tens, even hundreds, of thousands of Poles who teach and research in Polish, and especially in the field of Polish language and literature. The possible consequences for the Maltese language, on the other hand, are enormous.

The question is what role, if any, will local Maltese language specialists and institutions have in all this? Will they take a proactive role to shape and influence this process or will they continue coasting along while life passes them by?

As a quick look at the majority of language programmes at the university will reveal, the focus remains firmly on literary pursuits. This is clearly a very legitimate pursuit but it is probable that entry into the EU will require changes not just in our system of governance and business structures but in the way we teach languages as well.