Fundamental Aspects of Interpreter Education

As the world grows smaller and its inhabitants communicate increasingly with one another, it becomes ever more vital that the barriers of language and culture be overcome to promote and safeguard the interests of individuals, public institutions, and private organizations on all levels– from the local community to international organizations. To ensure that these barriers are eliminated, the services of professionals who are trained to mediate between languages and cultures are required. It is therefore no surprise that interpreter education, which was institutionalized in Europe after the Second World War (Bowen 1995:252), grew in volume and economic importance significantly during the latter half of the twentieth century (Snell-Hornby 1998a:32). By one account, the number of university-level institutions offering degrees or diplomas in translation or interpretation rose from 49 to 80 between 1960 and 1980, and had reached a total of more than 250 by 1994 (Caminade & Pym1998:283). A morerecent estimate cites 300 as a figure, depending on the criteria used to define a program (Pym 1998:34). Despite the globalization of this day and age, professional language me diators– interpreters and translators– are educated in institutional settings that are shaped by highly specific political, cultural, legislative, and market specific constellations in their country and region of the world (Snell-Hornby 1998a:32). In addition, the environment in which the official curriculum is implemented is shaped by many entities, including public institutions, poli cymakers, ministries, donors, the media, the private sector, and direct partici pants, i.e., instructors, students, and alumni (Freihoff 1995:150). As a result, a wide variety of curriculum models have emerged, and they differ substantially from one another, even within Western Europe (Caminade & Pym 1998:282). Adiscussion of curricular diversity has been neglected to date in the scientific literature and in the communityoftranslation and interpretation schools (Pym 1998:35). A major hurdle in the area of curriculum research is the lack of reliable sources (Pym1998:34),i.e., both internal and external curriculum documents. Collecting such documents from a range of schools of translation and inter pretation is a daunting task, as these documents, particularly those on course sequencing, may not be available from a central administrative office on the school level. Rather, they are often developed and circulated within individual programs or departments.Learning objectives may also differ among language combinations, making in-depth comparisons among schools more problem atic. When internal documents are readily available to the public, as in the CIUTI1 handbook, they are often limited to an objectified, terse description that provides little information as to how the curriculum is implemented and how it is subjectively experienced. In this respect, Freihoff ventures to state that the hidden curriculum, i.e., the curriculum that exists in the minds of the participants, is the only curriculum with practical impact (1995:152). Hence, there is not only a lack of data on curriculum models; there is lack of clarity on what constitutes reliable data and how these data can be obtained. Moreover, although the momentum driving interpreter education has gathered force, interpretation pedagogy has led an existence in the shadows of academe since its inception (see Snell-Hornby 1998a:32). From the van tage point of the language professional, this lack of academic status and its persistence is surprising. Change is underway, however, as the language in dustry undergoes increasing consolidation and professionalization, marked by surging revenues and attractive employment opportunities for multilin gual communication specialists (Wood 1998). Most notable in this context is the emergence of finer distinctions according to expertise in subdomains, re lated professional qualifications, e.g., advanced degrees and certification, the growing movement toward standardization,2 and calls from industry to define quality and to conduct valid and reliable assessment. After the Second World War, much time and effort was spent on height ening the profile of the professional conference interpreter to improve and maintain adequate working conditions and levels of remuneration. These ef forts have been successful, thanks to the work of professionalassociations, such as the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) and The American Association of Language Specialists (TAALS). These organizations continue to work persistently for the profession, as is reflected in the move ment towards formal recognition of conference interpretation as a profession through an international convention, and formal recognition of translation and interpretation as professions by the United States Immigration and Nat uralization Service.