Experts Defend ISO Standard for Legal Translation

专家为ISO法律翻译标准辩护

2020-05-28 15:00 slator

本文共611个字,阅读需7分钟

阅读模式 切换至中文

The debate over the new ISO standard for legal translation has heated up. After one side claimed that ISO 20771:2020 Legal translation — Requirements only meant more expense and work, advocates described it as a breakthrough standard that reflects the professionalization of the industry. Earlier in May, Slator covered how Germany’s national organization for standardization rejected ISO 20771, stating it would not be published in German. Among the issues raised was that the new standard recommends procedures contrary to official German regulations. However, advocates for ISO 20771 explain that adopting such standards is voluntary, rendering such an argument moot. Furthermore, “all standards state that applicable laws take precedence over the requirements of the standard,” ISO expert and professional interpreter Izabel Souza told Slator. As for the contention that the new standard distorts the level playing field promoted by the general standard for translation services (ISO 17100) to the detriment of freelance legal translators, Souza pointed out that ISO 20771 could actually mean extra pay for specialist translators who meet it. According to Monika Popiolek, Project Leader for ISO 20771 and legal translator of over 30 years, the new standard reflects the professionalization of the industry. Unlike ISO 17100, which is a product standard, “specifically developed with companies in mind — not individuals” the new standard is a breakthrough in that “it is the first specialist ISO translation standard ever developed and also the first-ever developed for individual translators.” Popiolek was also one of the editors for ISO 17100. On the standard being approved despite considerable unresolved differences among the 36 member countries involved, Popiolek said that although “the German committee did raise some issues at the last stages,” these issues “were not considerable and were duly discussed in detail.” She added, “ISO 20771 had 88% of all votes in favor at the final stage, and only 3 votes against.” The convener of the committee responsible for ISO 20771, Peter Reynolds, told Slator, “There were, in fact, no unresolved issues concerning ISO 20771, it was passed by a vast majority, and it is only a pity that some committees did not manage to get more actual legal translators involved.” Reynolds is a board member at memoQ and has previously worked at Idiom, Berlitz GlobalNet, Bowne Global Solution, and Lionbridge, and was part of the original technical committee developing XLIFF at OASIS. On the issue of whether it would make more sense to simply add an annex to ISO 17100 rather than breaking out a specialist ISO standard, Reynolds, who has also been a standards development expert for the past two decades and one of the editors for ISO 17100, explained: “ISO 17100 is an excellent generalist translation standard for Translation Service Providers (understood as translation companies). It is a product standard for TSPs and Individuals cannot certify against it. So far, individual translators will be able to certify only against one ISO standard (i.e., ISO 20771) and individual interpreters have several interpreting standards to choose from.” Moreover, Reynolds said, “The suggestion that ISO 20771 might place a burden on translation companies to certify against too many standards is absurd because ISO 20771 is neutral to translation companies, and comparing ISO 17100 to ISO 20771 is like comparing apples to oranges.” Popiolek added, “The decision to develop specialist standards for translators […] was made many years ago in response to specific market needs and the expectations of individual translators. Why should standards for freelance translators become annexes to a standard for translation companies?” Specialist standards, such as ISO 20771, can only, Reynolds concluded, empower the individual translator “to act like a professional service provider whose authorship is acknowledged and professionalism is demonstrated.” ISO 20771 is now being discussed more widely by groups such as the Association of Translation Companies (ATC), which will host a webinar on the issue.
围绕ISO法律翻译新标准的争论愈演愈烈。 一部分人认为,ISO 20771:2020法律翻译,其要求只是意味着加大费用和工作量,而支持者却将其描述为展现行业专业化的突破性标准。 5月上旬,Slator发布了德国国家标准化组织如何拒绝ISO 20771的报道,并声称该标准不会以德文出版。 但其中的一个问题是,新标准所提出的程序与德国官方法规相违背。 然而,ISO 20771的支持者对此解释说,采用这些标准完全是自愿的,这使得这种争论变得毫无意义。 而且,“所有标准都宣称,适用的法律优先于标准的要求,”ISO专家,职业译员Izabel Souza对Slator说道。 至于有人觉得新标准破坏了《翻译服务通用标准》(ISO 17100)所提倡的公平竞争的环境,损害了自由职业法律译员利益的这件事上,Souza指出,ISO 20771实际上可能意味着,满足ISO 20771标准的专业译员会获得额外报酬。 ISO20771项目负责人,从事法律翻译工作30多年的莫妮卡·波皮奥莱克认为,新标准是反映了行业的专业化。 与ISO 17100不同,ISO 17100只是一个产品标准,它是“专门针对公司而不是个人制定的”,这对新标准来说是一个突破,因为“它是有史以来第一个专门制定的ISO翻译标准,也是第一个为个人译员所制定的标准。”而Popiolek也曾是ISO 17100的编辑。 在标准获批这件事上,尽管涉及的36个成员国之间仍存在着很大的分歧还未解决。但Popiolek表示,虽然德国委员会在最后阶段提出了一些问题,但这些问题并不多,且及进行了充分讨论。她补充说,ISO20771在最后阶段时,有88%的人表示赞成,仅有3人反对。 负责ISO 20771委员会的组织者,Peter Reynolds告诉Slator,“事实上,ISO 20771并不存在悬而未决的问题,它是以绝大多数票通过的。但唯一遗憾的是,一些委员会没有让更多真正的法律翻译人员参与进来。”Reynolds是memoQ的董事会成员,之前曾在Idiom,Berlitz GlobalNet,Bowne Global Solution和Lionbridge工作过,并且他还是是Oasis最初开发XLIFF的技术委员会成员。 在过去二十年里,Reynolds一直都是标准制定的专家,也是ISO 17100的编辑人员。关于在ISO 17100中简单地增加一个附件,而不专门提出ISO标准是否更有意义的这件事上,他解释道,“ISO 17100是翻译服务提供商(被理解为翻译公司)的优秀通用翻译标准。 它是TSP的产品标准,个人不能对其进行认证。 到目前为止,个人笔译译员只能根据ISO标准(即ISO 20771)进行认证,而个别口译员则有多个口译标准可供选择。“ 此外,Reynolds还表示,“关于ISO 20771可能会给翻译公司带来负担,让他们对照过多的标准进行认证的说法是荒谬的。因为ISO 20771对翻译公司来说是中立的,而ISO 17100与ISO 20771之间的比较就像是将苹果与橙子进行比较。” Popiolek补充道,“为翻译人员制定专业标准的这个决定,是在多年前根据特定的市场需求和个别翻译人员的期望所作出的。究竟 为什么自由译员的标准要成为翻译公司标准的一部分?“ Reynolds总结道,像ISO 20771这样专业的标准,可以让个人译员“像一个专业服务提供者一样行事,不仅他们的作者身份可以得到承认,其专业精神还可以得到体现。” 翻译公司协会(ATC)等团体目前正就ISO 20771进行更广泛的讨论,该协会将会就这一问题进行一次网络研讨会。

以上中文文本为机器翻译,存在不同程度偏差和错误,请理解并参考英文原文阅读。

阅读原文