Awareness is the antidote to a bad translation.

In the same way that bias (https://translationaljustice.com/false-fluency/bias) affects the quality of translations, having a lack of awareness amplifies the shape of translations. But before I discuss this in further detail, I feel as though it is important to understand a concept which I believe is the most important in translation, which I call false fluency.

False fluency is the principle that knowing a language is the same as understanding it and having the competence to interpret and translate. Someone can know Arabic, but not have the ability to interpret or translate for a variety of reasons, such as: not being used to the pressure placed on interpreters, especially in timed circumstances, not understanding the nuance behind the spoken word, or even simply, not speaking the same dialect as the person on the other side of the table. The ICIBI inspection report (1) found that oftentimes, interpreters provided to asylum seekers did not speak the same dialect as the asylum seeker, creating discontinuity, errors in translation, and a lack of understanding from both sides.

An interpreter’s job is to be aware of issues like these. Then act on them. This, I call ‘reflective fluency’.

Reflecting on one’s work both internally, then acting on it should be an interpreter’s priority. There are two layers to this awareness, firstly, there is the metacognitive, internal, reflective aspect. Then, there is the external aspect which creates change. As you may have identified, I have, on purpose, repeated the pattern of thought then action. The two are inseparable. And to say otherwise would be a crime against the idea of reflective fluency.

The first side of awareness is one’s understanding of their own limitations and abilities. One needs to reflect on their skills and identity, what it is they know, and what it is they don’t know. Through identifying one’s knowledge, they can then act on closing that epistemic gap between knowledge and understanding by either: increasing their knowledge, or increasing their understanding. This may vary on their answers to their self-reflection.

The idea of having a framework for self-reflection for translators is looked at in The impact of a metacognitive self-regulation inventory in translator self-training: a pre-post study with English-Chinese translation students (2). The abstract mentions, “strengthening of metacognitive self-regulation encourages students to pay more attention to the communicative function of the translation, and ultimately enhances their translation quality,” presenting the idea of self-reflection and awareness for translators as having a real, proven-by-data ROI. Through a metacognitive self-regulation framework which involved “think-aloud protocols”, among other tools for self-reflection, translators found their weaknesses. This form of analysis to strengthen one’s knowledge closes that epistemic gap.

Having considered this data, I would like to look at a protocol that I have developed, namely TRACE (https://translationaljustice.com/cf-04/translation-literacy#trace) for the analysis of translation, and see how it can be used for self-examination.

To give a brief summary, TRACE is a framework for analysing alternatives to a translation, the consequences of translation, and providing an evaluation. TRACE traces the methodology for translation, so it is the perfect tool for one to self-examine their own translation. You must consider an alternative point of view, you must give reasons why your translation is stronger and you must evaluate your own translation. These exercises help support a translator in learning and finding their weaknesses, the same as the MSRI (2), closing that gap between knowledge and understanding once again.

I think there is also something to mitigate bias here using TRACE. Considering that biases cannot be prevented because they are innate to our human nature, we can make biases more visible, and we can attempt to slow down its influence by considering why we chose a translation the way we did, and what alternatives exist.

Considering the cognitive, “acting” aspect of awareness, these reflections then boil down to specific actions. For example, an interpreter being able to ask a clarifying question, identify and speak out when they are unable to interpret properly, or stopping the whole process of interpretation as a whole if there is an issue. Circling back to the dialect mismatch in (1), an interpreter should speak out when there are these dialect mismatches. That is the morally right thing to do. The cognitive choices can only occur once someone has reflected deeply on their translation choices.

It is sensible to conclude on a note that links to the translational justice policy reforms I want to implement within government. These changes are namely, reform 1, mandatory qualification, and reform 2, mandatory transcription in the original language. You can find more detail at https://translationaljustice.com/policy. Qualified interpreters, inline with reform 1 should be able to self-examine. Qualification proves the gap between knowledge and understanding has been reduced. And it can only be reduced by self reflection. Mandatory transcription in the original language allows for further training, analysis and critique of translation choices.