Translating in/for institutions

1. Translating in/for institutions Political translation in institutional contexts 1. Institutions and their effects 2. Thinking about the readings 3. Discussion

2. Institutions and their effects With a partner, please discuss the following: What kinds of institutions influence political translations? What effects might these institutions have on the translated product?

3. Institutions and their effects • Based on Koskinen (2000) and Mossop (1988/90): • Corporation • Publishing house • Association • Government institution • International organization • Religious institution • Newspaper

4. Institutions and their effects • Compare the recommendations from the European Commission, the Canadian Style and the Standards Guide from Quebec’s Ministère des Relations internationales. • Focus on the following aspects: • 1. Recommendations for geographic names • 2. Recommendations for titles and other official names • 3. Recommendations for incorporating foreign words • What do you notice about the recommendations? • What institutional policies can we infer from the recommendations? • What effects will the recommendations have on the translations produced within/for this institution?

5. Thinking critically about the readings • Alone, take a look at Brian Mossop’s article: • Which 3 points do you consider the most important? Now, in groups of 3-4 compare these points.

6. Discussion related to the readings • In groups of 3-4, discuss which 3 points from Kaisa Koskinen’s article are the most important. • How do these compare with the points raised by Mossop?

7. Discussion related to the readings Questions from your classmates: Is it realistic for an institutional translator to take into account the interests of all social & cultural groups in a given community, along with other extenuating factors? Mossop argues that “The federal government’s approach to translation both promotes and hinders communication” (p.349). Is this possible, or must the government’s policies EITHER promote communication OR hinder it?

8. Discussions related to the readings Questions from your classmates: To what extent is the relationship between two languages proportionate to each language’s economic and political clout within an institution?

9. Follow-up discussion questions: Koskinen (2000) argues that EU translators “are located not so much within the target culture as inside the EU bureaucracy,” which means “the ‘domestic’ discourses are not those prevalent in any target culture” but are instead “discourses typical of the EU context” (p. 57) To what extent do you think this is typical of all translators working in institutional contexts?

10. Follow-up discussion questions Do you agree with Mossop (1990: 349) when he argues that unidiomatic translation might lead to TL readers fearing that their language is being “infected” and therefore becoming antagonistic to SL communities?

11. References • Koskinen, Kaisa. (2000). Institutional illusions: Translating in the EU Commission. The Translator 6(1): 49-65. Mossop, Brian. (1988). Translating Institutions: A Missing Factor in Translation Theory. TTR 1(2): 65-71. Mossop, Brian. (1990). Translating institutions and “idiomatic” translation. Meta 35(2): 342-54. Mossop, Brian. (2006). From Culture to Business: Federal Government Translation in Canada. The Translator 12(1): 1-28.