Mezcla adaptativa de fondo para seguimiento en tiempo real

In Northern Ireland, translation is produced in part as a result of the constitutional structure of the region as well as non-discrimination legislation specific to this region of the UK. Neither foresee an explicit role for translation, but as is the case in other parts of the UK, translation becomes a tool for achieving broader aims.

One of the key documents that contributes to the constitutional structure of Northern Ireland is the Good Friday Agreement, which was an important milestone

in the region’s peace process. As explained in chapter 5, the Agreement is a power-sharing agreement that makes provision for respecting linguistic diversity. This is not surprising given that in Northern Ireland, Irish and Ulster Scots have become

powerful political symbols (Nic Craith 2001, 4–9). The Agreement and the agencies that were created as a result were meant “to incorporate culture, identity and

minority language concerns within the wider framework of conflict resolution, facets of life in the region which had previously been absent from official policy”

(McDermott 2012, 188). In terms of language, the Agreement ushered in a new era (Kirk & Ó Baoill 2001, 16). It did so by setting out linguistic promotion as a policy objective for the devolved government (Rooney 2001, 55). As regards obligations toward linguistic minorities, however, the agreement is quite vague (ibid., 58–59).

The Good Friday Agreement was an important development in the creation of a new devolved government in Northern Ireland. The Agreement is given the force of law mainly through the Northern Ireland Act 1998, as amended by the Northern Ireland Act (St Andrews Agreement) 2006. Parts of the Act required further legislation for implementation, such as the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. This Order created the North/South Language Body (Schedule 1, Article 1(e)), which is charged with the “promotion of the Irish

language” and with the “promotion of greater awareness and use of Ullans”

(Schedule 1, Annex 1, Part 5). This is to take place in a region where English is the main language of administration and society (see chapter 5).

Such promotion is mainly carried out by two agencies: Foras na Gaeilge and Tha Boord o Ulstèr-Scotch (or Ulster-Scots Agency), respectively (Dunbar 2003b, 38).

While neither of these agencies is explicitly charged with translating, they both have engaged translation to some extent as a way to fulfill their policy aims of promoting Irish or Ulster Scots. For example, Foras na Gaeilge has an accreditation system for translators working with Irish (Northern Ireland Assembly 2008). This and other efforts in the translation sector, such as providing translation tools that include memory-assisted software and a terminology database, are considered by Foras na Gaeilge to be “key achievements” in promoting the Irish language (Houses of the Oireachtas 2010). Tha Boord o Ulstèr-Scotch, in turn, has handled translation work

for Ulster Scots (Rooney 2001, 57). It should be noted, however, that translation of public documents into Ulster-Scots is not a priority for Tha Boord o Ulstèr-Scotch and similar organizations, who feel that the efforts in promoting the language should focus on families and social settings (Crozier 2013). Also involved in the promotion of Irish and Ulster Scots is the Department of Culture, Arts, and Leisure (DCAL).

Translation is not a main focus of DCAL’s cultural strategy to promote these old minority languages, but there is room for it. In a consultation on a draft Strategy for Protecting and Enhancing the Development of the Irish Language, DCAL proposed that

“Irish speakers should have the right to conduct their business through Irish with all local government, Executive and other state departments, and the legal system and public sector bodies should facilitate the use of Irish by citizens” (Department of Culture, Arts, and Leisure 2012a, 25). If this is implemented, it will require a number of tools, including translation. This was picked up by the respondents to the

consultation. Most agreed that public services should be a means to promote the Irish language, but some felt “that resources spent on Irish language public services (for example in relation to translation services) would be better devoted to other priority Irish language areas such as education or family transmission of the language” (ibid.

2013a, 10).

Similarly, in a consultation on a draft Strategy for Ulster Scots Language, Heritage and Culture, DCAL proposed that “[w]here demand has been demonstrated,” some public services should be provided in Ulster Scots (ibid. 2012b, 24). This measure would also imply translation, as evidenced by the proposal to “[d]evelop translation standards for Ulster Scots language” in this context of delivering public services (ibid.). Reaction to this proposal came down strongly against the delivery of public services in Ulster Scots, because it was deemed as unjustifiable due to the limited resources available to the public sector (ibid., 24-25). There were other reasons for opposing the proposal, including the view that the development of translation

services for Ulster Scots is “a task for the community not the civil service” (ibid., 25).

As of this writing, neither draft strategy has been adopted by DCAL.

Regarding new minority languages, while the Good Friday Agreement does call for tolerance and understanding of “the languages of the various ethnic communities,”

there is no agency such as Foras na Gaeilge or Tha Boord o Ulstèr-Scotch charged with responsibilities vis-à-vis such languages (Kymlicka 2007, 506–507).

As stated above, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 was an important vehicle for the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. The Act helped bring about

devolution in Northern Ireland. It created the Northern Ireland Assembly and, among other things, specifies obligations in terms of human rights¹¹ and equal opportunity. In this regard, the Act places a duty on public authorities to “have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity” between specific groups, including people of different racial groups¹² (Section 75(1)(a)). The link between race and language is not explicit, but legally speaking, ethnicity is linked to race, and language is an element of ethnicity (Dunbar 2001b, 238). Even so, at first glance this Act seems to say nothing regarding languages or, by extension, translation.

However, in trying to fulfill this statutory duty to promote equality of opportunities, public bodies find themselves engaging in translation. If someone who lacks the needed English proficiency approaches a public body, it is that public body’s responsibility to bridge the language gap so as to make sure the non- or limited-English speaker has the same opportunities as those who do speak limited-English. In this context, bridging the language gap implies translation. This translation approach can arguably help build good relations by helping bridge language barriers. Under the Act, public authorities in Northern Ireland are to carry out their functions having

11 The Northern Ireland Act 1998 resulted in the creation of a Northern Ireland Human Rights

Commission (NIHRC) which provided advice regarding the introduction of a Bill of Rights that would be specific to Northern Ireland and its complex society (McDermott 2011, 72-75). The NIHRC’s advise included the introduction of language rights in the Bill. For example, the Bill should provide for the following: “2. Everyone has the right to access services essential to life, health or security through communication with a public authority, assisted by interpretation or other help where necessary, in a language (including sign language) and a medium that they understand” and “3. Public authorities must, as a minimum, act compatibly with the obligations undertaken by the UK Government under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in respect of the support and development of Irish and Ulster-Scots” (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission 2008, 42). If such provisions were included in a Bill of Rights, they would have translation implications, both for old minority languages and new minority languages. As of this writing, no bill of rights has been approved.

12 For the link between race and language in the UK, see the comments on Mandla v. Dowell Lee above.

“regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group” (Section 75(2)).

This brings us to anti-discrimination legislation, which is the other way in which policymakers have put translation on the agenda in Northern Ireland. Anti-discrimination legislation in Northern Ireland is somewhat different than in Great Britain, as there is no single equality legislation (i.e., Equality Act 2010) that applies to Northern Ireland. Nonetheless, there are anti-discrimination laws, which to a great extent were introduced as part of the peace process (McDermott 2012, 193). As regards translation, we should consider the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997.¹³ The Order bans direct and indirect discrimination (understood in the same way as in the Equality Act 2010), in specific areas, including the provision of services

“to the public or a section of the public” (section 21). Because under the Order there can be no racial discrimination in accessing services among racial groups, including those of different ethnic or national origin, the Order can be understood to have created a duty to not discriminate between users of different languages (Dickson 2003, 21). The same logic that leads to translation to satisfy the Equality Act 2010 applies, mutatis mutandis, in this situation: if users of a specific language cannot access a service because of their limited English proficiency, this would be

discriminatory. In order to avoid this, providers of public services at times turn to translation as a practical solution to achieve a broader statutory aim. Translation in this context is provided mainly through models that rely on different types of

community organizations and largely avoid “commercial, profit-making companies,”

especially when it comes to interpreters (Phelan 2010, 99).

Thus, the statutory framework in Northern Ireland indicates that languages should be respected and valued in a climate that fosters equality of opportunity and good relations and does not discriminate based on racial grounds. It is in this context that certain policy documents that impact translation have been produced. For

13 This piece of legislation follows the provisions found in the Race Relations Act 1976, which applied to Great Britain only. The Act enshrined the principle of non-discrimination in Great Britain (Dunbar 2001b, 238).

example, A Shared Future¹⁴ is a policy document that recognizes language diversity to include English, old minority languages, sign languages, and new minority

languages as “an intrinsic part of our cultural capital” (Community Relations Unit 2005, 35). The policy supports specific steps in favor of each of the language clusters, including the work of a “thematic group on language” working under the Northern Ireland Racial Equality Forum (ibid., 36). The Racial Equality Forum has issued guidelines on the use of translation and interpreting in the public and private sectors.

While these guidelines are not binding, they are designed to help service providers make decisions about how to bridge the language barrier in a way that is true to the statutory duties described above. These guidelines refer to written translation and interpreting for those who do not have a sufficient command of English.

The Best Practice Guidelines on the Use of Translation document emphasizes “the need to adopt a selective approach” when it comes to written translation (Racial Equality Forum 2009, 3). The Guidelines stress that an explicit obligation to translate is found only in criminal proceedings (this will be addressed in chapter 9). It is therefore recommended that translation be “reduced,” except in two types of situations (ibid., 4). One is situations where translation “builds integration and cohesion” (ibid.). The Guidelines do not explain how translation can build

integration and cohesion. The second is situations where translation enables “specific individuals to access essential services” (ibid.). Thus, public service providers should not translate as a matter of course, adopting instead a selective approach, which includes considerations such as the following: 1) is there evidence of a need for translation?, 2) is there data to support that particular languages should be targeted for translation?, 3) is there a previous translation of the needed text, or a similar one, that can be reproduced?, 4) will translation of a text result in resources being drained from other vulnerable groups?, and 5) has a cost-benefit analysis been carried out?

14 A Shared Future was an initiative of the Northern Ireland Office during the 2002-2007 direct rule. The devolved government is currently in the process of adopting another policy document that will be called Cohesion, Sharing and Integration. As of this writing, the new policy has not been adopted, mostly due to contention among the political parties (McDermott 2012, 193-194). Because no final shape has yet been given to the policy, it remains to be seen how much translation will be a part of it.

Even if the decision is made to translate, consideration should be given to whether a summary or “alternative media” could be used (ibid., 6). If possible, translation should encourage readers “to learn English as soon as possible”, through methods such as bilingual documents (ibid.). It is unclear how the production of bilingual documents encourages people to learn English without delay, or for that matter whether it has any effect whatsoever on the acquisition of English, but the

recommendation is nonetheless included. The Guidelines also indicate that certain texts should not be translated, such as reference materials not in widespread

circulation or complex materials that contain information that can be conveyed by an interpreter. The Guidelines encourage the use of qualified translators to ensure quality assurance, which “should be applied to both translation and proof-reading”

(ibid., 7). This document seems to echo the approach found in a similar document issued for local governments in England: Guidance for Local Authorities on Translation of Publications (see chapter 7).

In Northern Ireland another document deals with interpreting. The Best Practice Guidelines on the Use of Interpreters document points out that “[c]ompetent interpreting makes a major contribution to effective and efficient

conversations/discussions and good service provision” (ibid. 2008, 3). Thus, instead of telling service providers to really consider whether they need to interpret, the document aims at helping them “in the development of good practice when using interpreters” (ibid.). In that spirit, the Guidelines discourage simultaneous

interpreting because it requires specialized equipment and interpreters qualified to do this “command significant fees” (ibid., 5). The Guidelines also discourage

chuchotage interpreting whenever “it is paramount that the detail conveyed is understood” (ibid.). The Guidelines describe consecutive interpreting as “the one [mode of interpreting] most frequently used in current service provision” (ibid., 6).

Besides the mode of interpreting, the Guidelines address cultural sensitivities and stresses that interpreters must be qualified. Bilingual children should be avoided in favor of contracted interpretation providers.

In analyzing the legislative framework in Northern Ireland for its effect on how translation is used to deal with linguistic minorities, note should be made of the