Translation practices in political institutions: a comparison of national, supranational, and non-governmental organisations

Abstract

This paper explores the settings and practices of translation at three types of political institutions, i.e. national, supranational, and non-governmental organisations. The three institutions are the translation service of the German Foreign Office, the translation department of the European Central Bank, and translation provision by the non-governmental organisation Amnesty International. The three case studies describe the specific translation practices in place at these institutions and illustrate some characteristic translation strategies. In this way, we reflect on how different translation practices can impact on translation agency and how these practices in turn are influenced by the type of institution and its organisational structure. The article also aims to explore to which extent the characteristics of collectivity, anonymity and standardisation, and of institutional translation as self-translation are applicable to the institutions under discussion.

Linguistic Capital and Inequality in Aid Relations

“…Her account focuses primarily on the translation of reports. Similarly, Schäffner et al (2014) and Tesseur (2017) examine the translation of written documents of NGOs such as Amnesty International. Listening projects (Abu-Sada, 2012) seek to understand how beneficiaries perceive international aid organisations, but hardly address what role language plays in the encounters between international and national staff.…”

Translation at International Organizations

“…As also concluded by Schäffner et al (2014), even within the same institution, translation priorities may shift depending on genres and purposes. It is institutions' "functions in society" rather than ideological aspects that "play the most important role for translation practices and translation strategies" and "the way translation is organised, conceptualised and executed" (Schäffner et al, 2014, p. 508).…”

“…As noted by Koskinen (2008, p. 19), "all institutions constrain and regulate behavior", and this applies to all institutional drafters and roles, including translators. It is no surprise that features associated with institutional translation such as anonymity, standardization, normativity and authoritativeness (see, e.g., Koskinen, 2000;Prieto Ramos, 2018;Schäffner, Tcaciuc, & Tesseur, 2014) are common to the broader lawmaking, monitoring and adjudicative functions to which institutional translation is instrumental. Such features ultimately derive from the very nature and requirements of each international legal order and its mandatory procedures.…”

Contact zones of the aid chain

“…The small yet growing body of literature about the professional and nonprofessional language mediation practices of NGOs has so far concentrated mainly on written translation (Tesseur 2017(Tesseur , 2014Schäffner et al 2014), which tends to be prevalent in contact zone I and, to a lesser extent, II. Indeed, some larger INGOs, such as Amnesty International for instance, have developed official language policies (Tesseur 2014, 565) to interact with donors and the general public, and organize communication between different country offices of the INGO.…”