9/14/00 9:20 a.m.
The Perils of Translation
Government isn't Star Trek.

By Jim Boulet, Jr., executive director,
English First------------------------------- jboulet@englishfirst.org

hose of us old enough to remember the original Star Trek recall Star Fleet's universal communicator. Captain Kirk would point his communicator at an alien anywhere in the universe and hear the alien speak in English.

Would that translation would be so simple to achieve among the languages spoken in the U.S. today. Unfortunately, Republican and Democratic politicians alike underestimate the translation problems inherent in multilingual government.

The most recent example of this failure to anticipate likely consequences took place on September 7, when Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating failed to meet a deadline for ensuring that a state English-only referendum appeared on the state's November ballot.

Governor Keating sent out a letter saying that he supported the concept of English as the official language, but felt that "it is wrong to deny the same government services [to immigrants] that are provided to us just because they can't speak English adequately, or can't read a government form provided only in the English language."

Keating, who was one of the finalists for the second spot on the Bush presidential ticket this summer, has taken the same view of language rights as President Bill Clinton and Assistant Attorney General Bill Lann Lee. President Clinton's Executive Order 13166, as interpreted by Lee, requires all recipients of federal funds to provide both written and oral translations in any person's choice of language--or be sued.

Unfortunately, the government already has enough trouble making itself understood in English to English speakers.

In Los Angeles, arguments are presently raging about how best to ensure that the city's Fire Department dispatchers properly interview 911 callers, even though the caller and the dispatcher both speak English.

California is also providing a fresh warning about how legal matters depend upon the precise meaning of English words.

The state's attempt to translate the legalese of jury instructions into "plain English" has foundered. Judges and prosecutors are rightfully concerned that proposed changes in wording will create additional opportunities for successful appeals of criminal convictions.

Los Angeles judges noted that many of California's jury instructions, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, "were modeled after the stilted language of statutes or appellate opinions" for good reason. Jury instructions "should repeat the law the way it exists . . . and [judges] fear that altering words can change their legal meaning."

The Times also notes that "an appellate court can reverse a case if it deems a single word in a jury instruction unacceptable." A 1989 study by the National Center for State Courts found that more than one out of ten cases (13.5%) were reversed because of "instructional error."

Should the newly translated jury instructions take effect, the percentage of successful appeals in California will undoubtedly increase. The Los Angeles County Public Defenders' office plans to appeal any new instruction it considers questionable. Robert Kalunian, an assistant public defender, warned that "there's obviously going to be litigation over what specific words in the instruction convey or mean."

Keep in mind that these disagreements involve English speakers arguing over the meaning and intent of English words. How then are government agencies supposed to provide accurate translations in every other language on demand, as President Clinton has mandated via Executive Order 13166, without creating far more problems and inviting far more litigation?

A quick overview of a manual for prospective professional translators, The Translator's Handbook by Morrey Sofer, suggests that the potential for trouble is far greater than most people suspect. Professional translators like Sofer readily admit that interpreting between two languages is far more art than science, and that they confront many difficulties.

Consider the problems inherent to translation from Spanish to English. Sofer notes that there are more problems translating between Spanish and English than between Japanese and English because:

[T]here is no single variety of Spanish. There are major differences between the Spanish of Mexico, Central America, northern South America and [s]outhern South America, not to mention such places as Puerto Rico and . . . Spain.

Cuban Spanish, Puerto Rican Spanish, Chicano Spanish, and additional forms of Spanish all exist within the borders of the U.S., creating vast potential for cross-cultural confusion. Sofer gives two good examples of the difficulty this creates.

First, the English word "eyeglasses" must be translated as anteojos for one Hispanic community in the U.S., for another as gafas, while a third group prefers espejuelos and still another group refers to eyeglasses as lentes.

Second, a car trunk is a maletero in Spain, a maleta in Chile, a valijera in Paraguay, a maletera in Bolivia, a joroba in CostA Rica and a cajuela in Mexico.

This problem of linguistic variation is not limited to Spanish speakers. There are also differences between French as used in Europe and the French used in Canada. Chinese is written in both traditional and simplified characters and varies between the mainland and Taiwan. Japanese is written in three different ways, depending on the origin of the word. A word taken from China is written in Kanji, a native Japanese word is written in either Kanji or Kana, while a word which originated in the West is written in Katakana.

The Translator's Handbook also notes that "there are several spoken Arabic dialects which are not always mutually intelligible, such as Syrian and Egyptian and . . . even the official written Arabic has different terms and uses in different Arab countries."

Those who expect the government to effectively cope with these issues, be warned: government translations are not highly regarded among professional translators. Recall President Carter's speech to the people of Poland in which his expressed "love" for the Polish people became "lust," thanks to his interpreter.

Translation problems continue to embarrass today's politicians. Democratic Presidential nominee Al Gore informed the May meeting of the League of United Latin American Citizens, "Yo quiero mucho" (I love a lot). This wasn't the first time Gore's passions took center stage at a Hispanic gathering. Last year, Gore tried to tell a room full of Hispanics that he personally related to the warmth of the Latino community by saying "Yo estoy muy caliente" ("I have the hots for you").

Republicans also run into translation problems. Congressman Henry Bonilla (who speaks fluent Spanish) was mortified when an article he originally penned in English was translated into dreadful Spanish for Voter.com. The article informed readers that Bush was "extending the monkey" to Hispanic voters (mono, "monkey," instead of mano, "hand"). Bonilla's press secretary told the Washington Post that the translation was done by "someone who lives on the border and speaks Tex-Mex."

Goodness knows that even lifelong English speakers, myself included, make mistakes in their native tongue and misunderstand other English speakers. But in general, personal-injury lawyers are not lining up to file costly lawsuits when you or I misuse an English word.

A government which attempts to function in the 300 tongues spoken in America is an open invitation to hours of quarrels among translators and years of costly litigation over those translations. Bill Clinton and Bill Lann Lee are gambling on congressional Republicans being afraid to challenge Executive Order 13166. If Governor Keating's remarks are any indication, it looks like they have placed a winning bet.