Accountability and loyalty

Sztompka’s notion of accountability, i.e. there being an agency or structural ar-rangements to make sure that there are sanctions for breaching trust, is only implied in Chesterman’s (2000: 68, 181) accountability norm, which stresses the importance of maintaining trust in translators. This norm requires the

transla-74

tor to be loyal to the original writer, the client, himself/herself, to the readers and other relevant parties (Chesterman 2000: 68–69). They could then be re-garded as more or less powerful agencies of accountability who at least have a right to question or praise the translator’s decisions if not to actually impose sanctions. On the one hand, since the accountability norm is determined by ex-pectancy norms, the target language readership is in key position here. On the other hand, because expectancy norms are governed by the prevalent translation tradition and parallel translated texts of a similar text-type, they are strongly in-fluenced by the professional translators who “are largely responsible for the original establishment of the expectancy norms” (Chesterman 2000: 67).

Also Nord’s loyalty principle (1991; 2001: 194–196; 2005: 32) stresses the TT readers’ interests. She argues that the translator is responsible to both the ST sender for not falsifying the sender’s intention and the TT recipient for produc-ing a functional target text and for considerproduc-ing his/her expectations about the translation. If the translator disagrees with other parties’ expectations and therefore cannot meet them s/he must explain his/her translation purposes and methods to them (just like people must observe the norm of honesty, see Bartsch [1987:61] and section 4.2 above). For that s/he needs to be able to rec-ognise and make explicit his/her own subjective theory regarding translation (Nord 2001: 191). Adhering to the principle of loyalty means that the translator must be capable of considering alternative courses of action, choosing one that is in the best interests of the parties involved and taking responsibility for that choice. According to Nord, the translator may, for example, choose to adapt translation units when their literal translation would not be received by target readers in the way the original author would wish. The loyalty principle thus seems to emphasise the value of creating understanding between the communi-cating parties.

In emphasising a certain neutrality, the idea of standing for one’s principles despite external pressure, Nord’s position is not that far from Pym’s (2004a:

179) view that translators should be loyal to the translator’s profession (with the higher aim of promoting long-term cooperation between cultures), even though Pym sees that there is no primary neutrality. Pym’s and Chesterman’s notions are not far apart either: since the accountability norm is one of the basic profes-sional norms of translating, having to do with “an awareness of the ethical re-sponsibility of a translator” (Chesterman 2000: 154) and strongly influenced by the professional translators through the expectancy norm, then acting in accor-dance with it is being loyal to the profession.

On the whole, Sztompka’s view on accountability is that of an outsider, the trustor, while translation scholars referred to above take the translator’s view-point and are more interested in translators’ loyalty, professional integrity and their ability to make justifiable translation decisions independently.

The different parties involved in translation may think of a translator’s ac-countability differently. To see whom the translator might be accountable to in the client’s opinion we can look at nursing ethics for an analogy. Tadd (1994:

75

91–93) notes there are different ideologies about nursing. On the one hand, nurses can be seen as subordinates in the hierarchical doctor-nurse relationship and accountable for fulfilling their duties in compliance with institutional poli-cies. This ideology reflects task responsibility, which requires from the agent basically only avoidance of negligence and very little critical reflection and judgement (Tadd 1994: 89–90, citing Agich 1982: 65–67). On the other hand, nurses can be seen as independent agents whose duty is to provide a specialist service to patients, drawing their authority from their knowledge and compe-tence and being accountable to patients, to society as a group, and to the profes-sion of nursing for supporting its standards. This ideology reflects role respon-sibility, which is attached to social roles.

The client can see the translator either way: as a performer of a task which is not demanding and for which s/he is accountable only to the client, or as a pro-fessional, a provider of a complex service who is accountable not only to the cli-ent but to the society for performing a role and to the translator’s profession for complying with its ethical standards.

It is easy to see a possible source of conflict in the client regarding the trans-lator being responsible only to him/her for the simple task of translating a document, and the translator seeing himself/herself as acting in a professional role. (Role responsibility is not to be confused with role-based expectations or trust: role-based expectations may be based on the translator having either task responsibility or role responsibility.) If the parties involved have different ideas about what it is that translators do it means that they may have different expec-tations as to what translators are supposed to do and how they should act. It is actually a question of different definitions of the profession and, ultimately, a question of who can make those definitions. Again, good visibility of the profes-sion would be beneficial in making discusprofes-sions about translation accessible to interested parties and also in ensuring that the users of translations can have a realistic picture of translators’ work.

Role responsibility seems to be more clearly connected to accountability, as understood by Agich (1982: 55, quoted by Tadd 1994: 89), than task responsibil-ity. According to Agich, for an agent to be considered accountable, s/he must understand the required actions in particular situations, have the ability and autonomy to decide on alternative actions, and to be able to explain why s/he chose to act in a particular way. Similarly, Ilmonen (Ilmonen and Jokinen 2002:

32) notes that “the fewer alternatives the agent has to choose from the lesser his/her responsibility is. And vice versa: the freer from external pressures the agent is to act according to his/her will, the more responsible s/he is for his/her own choices” (my translation from Finnish). To return to translation, what if a translator who is not fully competent does not completely understand the re-quired actions, does not see alternatives which a competent professional would see and is unable to explain the reasons for his/her choices? S/he may also be under pressure from the client to produce the translation in a very short time or to translate, say, a part of the text in a way which would suit the client’s specific

76

needs but which would be against the translator’s ethical standards. Still, it does not seem fair to say that s/he would not be accountable for his/her actions. Any-one can claim to be a translator and accept translation commissions, but to say

‘I am a translator’ to a potential client is practically a promise, a commissive act just as saying ‘This is a translation’ is (see Chesterman 2002: 28). It gives the client the right to expect what is usually expected from translators and transla-tions in a given culture at a given time, even if the client is not aware of the translator’s particular level of competence, and it creates a duty for the transla-tor to act according to legitimate, reasonable expectations. A translatransla-tor can therefore be held accountable for claiming to be a translator and everything that follows from it.

On the other hand, clients are also accountable for their actions. It is not un-reasonable to expect clients, who are also businessmen and -women and make decisions to hire service providers all the time, not to trust naively just anyone who claims to be a translator, especially when there is no shortage of competent translators. Also, since it is no secret that very tight schedules, having more than one translator translate large documents and hiring outside translators who, in contrast to in-house translators, may lack subject-matter and contextual knowl-edge, can have negative effects on the quality of translation (Marcelli 2003: 71–

74), clients can be seen to be partly morally responsible for how the translation turns out to be. They are often regarded as responsible for it in the eyes of the receiver of the text. Readers of the translation are the informal agency of ac-countability for clients when it comes to the quality of translations. Legally the quality of the translation is the translator’s responsibility and shortage of time is no excuse for carelessness (Susiluoto 1997: 137).