Translators and interpreters’ voice on the spread of English as a lingua franca in Italy

3.1.1 Working languages

Survey respondents had to specify their working languages according to AIIC’s classification system.^[2] In total, 13 different languages are classed as language A (i.e., one’s native language): Albanian, Bulgarian, Danish, English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Lithuanian, Portuguese, Russian, Slovenian, and Spanish. As expected, since the survey was disseminated especially among professionals based in Italy, the most represented language A is Italian with 218 answers (nearly 90 %), including 34 bilingual respondents whose other A languages paired with Italian are English (15), German (6), French (4), Spanish (4), Portuguese (2), Albanian (1), Japanese (1) and Slovenian (1). The second most represented language A in the population under consideration is English with 26 answers, including 15 bilingual subjects with Italian, three with French, one with Portuguese and one with Danish. The third language A indicated by survey respondents is French (13 answers). Moving to respondents’ active working languages (i.e., their B languages), 15 languages are included in this category: Arabic, Chinese, Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, Italian, Italian Sign Language, Japanese, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. The most represented active working language is English (144 answers). Next, there are German (33), Spanish (29), and French (25). Finally, in terms of passive working languages, i.e., C languages, 15 languages are mentioned by survey respondents (Arabic, Chinese, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Farsi, French, German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Latvian, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Slovak, and Spanish). In this category of working languages, French has the lion’s share with 84 responses, followed by English (63), German (49), and Spanish (32). Figure 2 illustrates the results concerning only the English language broken down by respondents’ main occupation.

Figure 2:

Distribution of English as a working language among survey respondents.

In the population under examination, English is equally distributed as a working language among interpreters and non-interpreters. Only a minority has English as their language A, while most subjects have English as an active working language. There is just one exception, as few interpreters have English as a passive language only, whereas this is not the case for translators (6% vs. 20%, respectively), which mirrors typical working standards (in private markets interpreters are normally expected to work bidirectionally, i.e., from and into their working languages, whereas translators are generally expected to work into their native language). Only 14 respondents (6%) do not have English as a working language, but they were nonetheless encouraged to complete the survey as the spread of ELF is likely to have a global effect on T&I.

Overall, Italian–English is the most represented language combination among respondents, though many more languages are present (up to 20), thus the target population reached through the online questionnaire is consistent with the aim of the survey.

3.1.2 Experience

The next two questions concern the length of T&I experience in terms of years and in terms of working days (for interpreters only). The population under consideration shows different degrees of work experience in the T&I industry, ranging from subjects at the early stages of their career to well-established professionals with 30+ years of experience. Looking at the distribution of the answers, it was possible to group the respondents into five different levels: less than five years, between 5 and 10 years, between 11 and 20 years, between 21 and 30 years, and more than 30 years of experience. Figure 3 illustrates the distribution of the respondents’ years of experience according to such levels.

Figure 3:

Survey respondents’ professional experience (in years).

The sample average is 18 years. Although no statistical measurements have been made, Figure 3 shows a typical Gaussian distribution around the average value, thus confirming that the sample is well represented in terms of professional experience, too.

The respondents with experience in interpreting were also asked to specify the overall number of working days as interpreters, so as to obtain more detailed information on the composition of this sub-sample of the population. To this end, they could select one of the following options: less than 50 days, between 51 and 150 days, between 151 and 500 days, more than 500 days.^[3] More than 40% of the interpreters involved in the survey are still in the initial stage of their career. However, this is counterbalanced by the number of respondents with longer experience: one-fourth of this sub-sample worked more than 500 days and 14 subjects selected the third option (151–500 days), thus the subjects with considerable work experience as interpreters account for 37.5 % of the population taken into account. The overall picture resulting from this specific question about interpreting experience is illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4:

Survey respondents’ interpreting experience in terms of working days.

3.1.3 Professional associations and reference markets

The last two questions in this section are about respondents’ membership to relevant professional associations and reference market. Both questions provided some ready-made answers along with “other” and room to specify. It was possible to select more than one answer.

A minority of survey participants are not members of any association (13%). The most represented association is AITI with 163 answers (66%), followed by ANITI with 29 answers (12%), Assointerpreti with 14 answers (6%), and AIIC with six answers (2%).^[4] These are the options that were prompted in the survey. However, many more associations are mentioned by 60 respondents in the “other” category. The most common are ATA, BDÜ, ITI, and TradInFo.^[5]

The last question in this section of the survey looks at the reference market. It includes two ready-made answers, i.e., local market (Italy), EU institutions, along with an open option to be specified. The majority of survey respondents are active in the Italian market (75.5%) and only 22 (9%) work for EU institutions. The open option collected a wide range of reference markets, particularly there are references to specific European countries and more general references to international clients in and beyond Europe.

3.1.4 Involvement in ELF-related initiatives

The last two questions in the third and final section of the survey are presented here, as they contribute to completing the general profile of the professionals who took part in the study. One question is about respondents’ possible involvement in other initiatives concerning ELF and T&I so as to verify whether they had any previous chances to increase their awareness of the role of ELF and its features. Respondents could select different options, such as specific training courses, conferences or seminars, research projects, surveys, none, and other. The vast majority of survey respondents (80%) did not take part in any other initiative concerning ELF and T&I before the present study. Only 29 respondents attended conferences or seminars about this topic, 11 subjects took part in other surveys, eight had already addressed this topic in self-study activities (specified in the “other” category), and six were involved in research projects. Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of the answers provided by survey participants in relation to their previous participation in ELF-related activities.

Figure 5:

Survey respondents’ participation in previous ELF-related initiatives.

The last question is a closed question about survey participants’ interest in receiving a final report illustrating the survey results. The vast majority of survey participants (83%) replied that they would like to receive a final report to know more about the results.

All the features presented above confirm that the target population sample represented in the present survey is consistent with the aim of the study. Therefore, it can be assumed that the answers obtained in the subsequent section about ELF and T&I were provided genuinely by competent respondents. The fact that 80% of survey participants had never been involved in any ELF-related initiatives before might also be indicative of their low level of meta-awareness with respect to ELF. Hopefully, the present survey has pushed them to internalize and reflect more on the new requirements for T&I professionals who have to cope with ELF-related challenges.

3.2.1 Perceived effects of ELF on T&I

The first question in the ELF-related section of the survey is a closed question about the possible occurrence of positive or negative consequences, if any, on one’s T&I business due to the spread of ELF. The respondents could select more than one option and the final result is a pretty even distribution of the answers. For 87 respondents (35%) the spread of ELF had no consequences at all on their professional practice. On the other hand, 60 respondents (24%) indicate positive consequences, whereas 70 respondents (28%) point to negative consequences. A smaller number of survey participants (29, i.e., 12%) ticked both positive and negative consequences. Only one participant did not provide any answer.

Among those who do not perceive any particular consequence, only one-third do not have English as a working language and there is an even distribution among the different working language types (i.e., English as language A, B or C). This group of respondents includes more translators (60%) than interpreters. However, 36 translators and 15 interpreters in this group (i.e., 52 out of 87) did answer the following question about the perceived features of ELF making it easier or more challenging to translate or interpret from ELF, thus further reducing the number of professionals for whom there are no particular consequences relating to the spread of ELF.

Whether positive or negative, the respondents were also asked to provide more details about the ELF-induced effects on their job. Though some of these are more specific to either translation or interpreting, they have been grouped together as most interpreters among the respondents also work as translators and their comments often overlap or refer to both interpreting and translation jobs.

Considering the comments provided to explain what kind of positive or negative consequences ELF may have had, it is interesting to notice that there are several opposing remarks, such as an increase versus a decrease of job opportunities. Obviously, this depends on the settings and the genres involved. More opportunities are mentioned within the context of international sports events and conference series (for interpreting); technical manuals, legal documents and agreements, scientific papers, web pages, and e-books (for translation). Revision and text editing jobs are also on the rise. In general, the use of ELF has dramatically increased the amount of texts written in English across genres, which may need to be translated. Conversely, other language combinations tend to be reduced in interpreting, especially German, French and Chinese, and liaison interpreting assignments are less frequent due to the fact that participants apparently manage with their knowledge of English. While revision jobs may be on the rise, these tend to be more demanding (because of lower language quality) and are not paid more despite the greater effort required. Another interesting contrast concerns communication with clients. On the one hand, the use of ELF has expanded the client base and improved exchanges in managing business relations with agencies operating in markets outside Italy. On the other hand, lower language quality in source texts makes it necessary for translators to invest more time in obtaining clarifications. Lower language quality also has a two-fold effect: for some professionals it is easier to understand the source text (especially on account of simpler structure, less lexical variety, and slower speech rate), whereas for others figuring out the correct meaning can be more time consuming (especially when the L1 of the source text producer is not known by the T&I professional). Time is mentioned among both the positive effects, as the use of ELF has speeded up workflow with no need to translate many terms from English into Italian, and the negative effects, as agreeing on terminological choices is not always straightforward due to non-standard use. Finally, the professional status is also subject to a bipolar perception as a result of the spread of ELF. Some respondents highlight that there is greater awareness of the importance of effective communication (which cannot always be achieved with a basic level of English) and that there are more educational opportunities. On the opposite side, some respondents feel now undervalued and less necessary, and face more competition than ever (especially with improvised T&I service providers and non-native speakers).

3.2.2 Perceived features of ELF in T&I

The next questions aim to verify whether T&I professionals find particular features in English source texts making it easier or more difficult to translate/interpret. Survey respondents could select more than one option (no particular feature; features making T&I jobs easier; features making T&I jobs more challenging) and were also asked to provide more details of possible features along with the solutions or techniques adopted to deal with them.

For translation jobs, 85 respondents think that there are no particular features in ELF source texts, 24 find that there are features making it easier to translate from English, whereas 89 find that there are features making it more difficult to translate from English. For 29 participants there are both negative and positive features. As regards interpreting, 44 subjects selected the “no particular feature” option, 12 find it easier and 29 find it more challenging. Mixed answers, i.e., including both negative and positive features in English source texts, are provided by 33 respondents. Figure 6 displays how survey participants responded to the closed question.

Figure 6:

Survey respondents’ view of ELF source text features.

Survey respondents’ opinions about potential features of ELF source texts making their job easier or more challenging are mixed, with a slight prevalence of negative views. In some cases, the features perceived in translation match with those perceived in interpreting, and the solutions and techniques adopted can be similar to some extent. The comments provided in this respect can be grouped into broader areas, i.e., source text language quality, target text production, and professional practices. All in all, there are more comments about features that make it more challenging to translate and interpret from ELF source texts (twice as much). However, the same features give rise again to opposite effects, as is the case with non-standard use of lexicon, syntax and pronunciation. In fact, this can be an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on whether the T&I professional shares the same L1 of the source text producer, which was identified as “shared languages benefit” (Albl-Mikasa 2013: 105, 2014), and owing to possible simpler syntax and lexicon, limited use of idiomatic expressions, figurative language, proverbs, jokes, culture-specific items, long lists of pre-modifiers (e.g., adjectives), and slower speech rate (in interpreting).

In addition to non-standard use of English, respondents refer to greater difficulties to manage the increasing number of Anglicisms in Italian: for some, a greater effort must be made to avoid using Anglicisms, as they may not be accessible to all the end users; for others, this is an advantage, as no translation effort is needed (or even required by clients). Yet, inconsistencies are also reported in how English terms are sometimes used by clients, who may even question the standard use, in that it does not match their own lingo (e.g., “legal seat” instead of “registered office” for “sede legale”). For some respondents, it is not always clear to what extent fidelity to the source text must be maintained since the source text producer is likely to be a non-native speaker.

It seems that the notion of native-like proficiency does not apply to an increasingly larger part of the source texts and speeches T&I professionals are now confronted with and that a sort of new awareness is essential to better manage the hybrid and creative nature of ELF (Mauranen 2012; Taviano 2010) as used by diverse, multilingual and possibly transient communities (Mortensen 2017). There are nonetheless shared terminology and standards in continental Europe (e.g., in legal texts), as well as greater availability of support materials and more networking opportunities that can reduce the time needed for preparation or research. Conversely, more time is required for more demanding revision/editing work due to inaccurate translations and to the large variation in how English terms are used in other languages and by different age groups. Finally, the abundant use of Anglicisms in source texts written in languages other than English (e.g., Spanish) requires translators to be familiar with English even when this is not one of their working languages.

3.2.3 Solutions and techniques to deal with ELF in source texts

The last question concerning the perceived advantages and disadvantages of translating and interpreting from ELF is about the resulting solutions and techniques adopted by survey respondents. In total, 85 items were entered for written translation and 57 items for interpreting.^[6] The solutions and techniques highlighted in translating from ELF can be sorted into two main areas, i.e., solutions and techniques adopted for understanding the source text and producing the target text, and recommendations for one’s professional practice. Below are the entries provided for source text comprehension (C) and target text production (P):

• – Reading the source text with the Italian language in mind to unveil the original syntax and meaning (C)

• – Careful reading and study of the source text to clarify obscure parts (C)

• – Patience and psychology (C)

• – Best judgment, common sense (C)

• – Looking for the original text initially used to produce the text in English (when the source text is already a translation) (C)

• – Omission (in extreme cases) (C+P)

• – Use of parallel texts, background information, terminological databanks and corpora (C+P)

• – Correcting source text inaccuracies for a flawless target text (C+P)

• – Reformulation (almost closer to interpreting approach) (P)

• – Simplification (especially text structure and style to the benefit of non-native speakers) (P)

• – Explaining terms by adding extra information (in brackets or footnotes) (P)

• – Contacting clients, experts or other colleagues to verify appropriateness of target solutions (P)

• – Free translation (if the client agrees) (P)

• – Searching for native English solutions in online sources (P)

• – Chunking of target structure and syntax (P)

• – Use of Anglicisms (with explanation in brackets if necessary) (P)

The solutions and techniques relating to professional practice in ELF translation are listed below:

• – Refusing an assignment

• – Informing the client about the situation at hand

• – Obtaining as much information as possible about the source text and the intended end users

The solutions and techniques presented with reference to interpreting from ELF can also be related to source text comprehension, target text production, and professional practices prior to an assignment. These are the solutions and techniques adopted for source text comprehension (C) and target text production (P):

• – Longer décalage (C)^[7]

• – Omission (of incomprehensible parts with subsequent integration where possible) (C+P)

• – Greater reliance on contextual and visual information (e.g., slides), when available (C)

• – Asking a speaker to repeat (in liaison interpreting) (C)

• – In extreme cases, informing the service users about possible ambiguities or challenges to comprehension (e.g., prompting explicit comments such as “if the interpreter could understand well the English language spoken by this speaker…”) (C)

• – Increased concentration and attention (C+P)

• – Common sense and patience (C+P)

• – Simplification (P)

• – Generalization (P)

• – Summarizing (P)

• – Reformulating (P)

• – Ensuring a higher level of accuracy in (Italian) target texts (P)

• – Increased effort to ensure coherence (P)

• – Speaking slowly, articulating well, using simple terms (P)

• – Using Anglicisms and English terms belonging to the client’s industry jargon (P)

Finally, these are the solutions and techniques relating to professional practice and usually adopted prior to an interpreting assignment:

• – Maximum preparation on the topic, lifelong learning

• – Contacting clients for support and clarifications

• – Extra practice

• – Fine-tuning, increasing one’s exposure to non-native speakers (e.g., organizing a briefing session or listening to speakers online)

Considering the strategies mentioned for translation, most strategies can in fact be applied to any kind of translation job. There is possibly more emphasis on how carefully the source text must be processed, above all keeping in mind the L1 of the author. Moreover, the use of meta-comments (e.g., footnotes) and frequent exchanges with the client are also listed among the techniques. Moving to interpreting, again the solutions and techniques mentioned do not differ from what one would expect of professional interpreters dealing with challenging source speeches in general. Special emphasis is nonetheless put on reliance on extra textual information, longer décalage in simultaneous interpreting and, as a last resort solution, explicitly informing the audience that the non-standard English of a presenter is hardly understandable. Some interesting professional practices are indicated in preparation to an assignment, e.g., fine-tuning with online videos and increasing familiarity with the mistakes or non-standard use of the language by non-native speakers, in line with the results obtained by Chang and Wu (2014).

3.2.4 The future of T&I

The last question strictly relevant to ELF in T&I is an open question about the future of the T&I industry and its professionals. In total, 133 responses were collected from the 247 respondents. These include observations that range from negative to positive prospects for T&I, along with expected or necessary developments of both T&I and the English language itself used as a lingua franca. Although a reduction of job opportunities is mentioned directly or indirectly in 30% of the reactions, these are manifold and are reported below in detail.

Negative prospects:

• – The need for T&I professionals will decrease

• – Fewer interpreting jobs

• – Fewer liaison interpreting jobs

• – Fewer T&I jobs from other languages

• – Translators will be replaced by machines, MT makes one feel superfluous

• – There will be a general flattening

• – Lower quality in source texts

• – Translation jobs into English will be increasingly assigned to would-be translators and not to professional translators

• – Lower fees

• – T&I will be more complex and less recognized as a profession

• – English will be taken for granted and T&I professionals will need to specialize in other languages

• – More competition and lower quality

• – Interpreters, and not translators, will be made redundant

• – Interpreting from/into English will disappear

• – It will be a disaster

• – Apocalypse

Positive prospects:

• – The need for T&I professionals will increase

• – More T&I jobs opportunities in the legal and financial sector

• – Interpreters will always be needed in that precision and competence make a difference

• Source texts and speeches will become more ambiguous due to the increasing presence of non-standard forms. It will not be possible to process these correctly just relying on Machine Translation. The role of T&I professionals will be crucial

• – New languages will emerge and T&I professionals will be needed

• – T&I professionals working only with English will become increasingly specialized and have fewer (enlightened) clients, who will demand new services requiring skills they will be willing to value and pay for

Expected or necessary developments in the T&I industry:

• – Passive working languages should be turned active

• – T&I professionals will have to be increasingly specialized

• – Interpreting services will be provided more for political than practical reasons

• – Substantial changes for specialized and technical translators, minor consequences for literary translators and translators for publishing houses

• – More opportunities for young professionals with limited skills

• – At the moment in Italy there is still good demand for T&I services from English into Italian given the general low English language proficiency of Italian people. However, in the future the language proficiency is likely to increase

• – All translators will need to have English among their working languages

• – No big changes

• – Well written texts will always be needed

• – In Italian technical translation it is increasingly unnecessary to provide explanations in brackets as English terms are widely used and known

• – T&I will always be necessary in specialized settings, though the impact of new technologies will be considerable

• – More efforts will be necessary to prepare an interpreting session, and more time will be spent on a translation (e.g., to understand the source text and to ask for clarifications)

• – T&I jobs will become more complex

• – More revision and post-editing jobs

• – There will be more demand for service translations

• – Fewer translation jobs from English and more translation jobs from German

• – More T&I jobs in English to the detriment of other languages such as German

• – It will be fundamental to know speakers’ L1 to correctly understand their English

• – The role of T&I professionals will have to be emphasized vis-à-vis the extensive use of English terms (in other languages) in a confusing and ambiguous way

Expected or necessary developments in the English language and its use as a lingua franca:

• – ELF could generate a new Babel if it adjusts to the myriad of settings and situations in which it is used. In such a case, T&I professionals will have to specialize in one of the resulting micro-languages

• – Hybrid languages will be spoken with great difficulties to understand calques and lexical ambiguities (this is already the case in EU institutions)

• – A new variety of English will be spoken and will have to be learned just like other existing varieties of English

• – A weakening of the English language itself as a simpler, less correct form becomes the standard

• – The English language will become simpler in terms of grammar and syntax

• – Communication processes will become more standardized

• – More tolerance for language mistakes

• – More use of Anglicisms in other languages, though the meaning may not always match

• – As long as foreign languages are badly taught in Italy, T&I professionals will always be needed

• – ELF will be useful to open people’s mind and get exposed to new cultures

• – More limited linguistic regimes in institutional settings may deprive some participants of their right to participate actively and fully in the debates

• – There will be more opportunities to communicate with other people

Overall, the future prospects of T&I vis-à-vis the constant spread of ELF are again a mixture of positive and negative developments. Opposing prospects (e.g., fewer jobs vs. more jobs) are mentioned by different respondents, obviously influenced by each individual’s experience. There are more negative than positive considerations, but what seems to emerge is that T&I professionals should also be ready to provide new services (e.g., in post-editing and language enhancement) and develop further competencies “as a communication facilitator” to maintain “an ‘edge’ over the general audience” (Chang and Wu 2014: 185). Indeed, high professional standards will always make a difference, even in a world where everybody can manage, somehow, to get their message across through the medium of English. In the respondents’ opinion, specialized sectors and high-level settings will always demand well-drafted texts and accurate communication. The potential development of ELF and its implications, along with the growing presence of Anglicisms in other languages may result in new, multiple varieties with greater variation in meaning, depending on the context of use of a certain term in increasingly fragmented communities of practice.

3.2.5 Additional comments on ELF in T&I and this survey

The final question in the survey is an open question where respondents are invited to add any additional comments about the topic under discussion and the questionnaire itself. This last question obtained 28 responses. These revolve around three main threads, namely the topic under discussion, further reflections on the role of English as a global language, and the survey itself.

The topic under discussion raised considerable interest among survey participants, who would welcome more seminars and opportunities to swap experience, and more research on the features of ELF used in interpreter-mediated settings. Perceptions are likely to differ depending on whether an interpreter works as a freelance or staff interpreter (with a permanent position). Freelancers would be more worried owing to evidence of a declining market, whereas staff interpreters would perceive the spread of ELF as an unstoppable trend with various consequences on interpreting practice. For a respondent ELF would be even exploited by T&I agencies to make more profit to the detriment of other languages. On the other hand, there is consensus on the fact that T&I still make sense in situations where precision, accuracy, and quality are needed.

As regards English as a global language, the crucial role of ELF is acknowledged in critical situations involving migrant people and in speeding up communication. However, some fear the constant Anglicization of the other languages with consequent domain loss, while English will be increasingly influenced by other languages. Relying too much on one’s L1 when speaking English is seen as a critical limitation of today’s clients, and better L2 education is called for.

Finally, the few comments about the questionnaire itself highlight that it was clear and interesting. Only one participant found the questions pretty obvious and one had reservations on the general aim of the whole study. The respondents’ feedback to the issue under examination and the questionnaire itself is encouraging and mirrors the growing interest in this research area.