Are you really “specialized”?
To what extent can you claim a specialization?
Nearly every time I come across a new translator or interpreter profile, low and behold it showcases their area(s) of “specialization”. Having truly dedicated their focus to a certain subject matter, showcasing their specialties can not only add credibility to the merit in their work, but also help reach potential clients in need of their services. If a translator or interpreter has extensively interacted with a topic or setting, surely they can be considered "specialized” in that field. Conversely, however, working with a subject matter once or twice does not make them a specialist. This is a theme that has concerned me throughout my own experience in the language industry, having connected with so many others that pride themselves on being specialized in a multitude of fields across a number of language pairs. So, where do we draw the line when claiming areas of specialization?
It seems that the coining of professional translator profiles as “specialized” in X, Y, and Z is both overused and abused. Before going any further, I must clarify - I do not wish to discredit by any means the extensive research and training conducted by professional translators and interpreters that has placed them in very niche areas within the industry. I do question, however, that if you are specialized in “legal translation” does this mean that you are readily able to render documents between languages about corporate, civil, criminal, constitutional, administrative, business, IP, bankruptcy, immigration, personal injury, municipal, and real estate law? Likewise, does specializing in medical interpreting reflect your abilities to speak in great detail on internal medicine, neurology, urology, dermatology, psychiatry, pathology, nephrology, otorhinolaryngology, and plastic surgery in different languages? For some, this is likely the case. For many others, however, we must take a step back to clearly define who can and can not be considered a “specialist” in the translation of a particular subject matter.
What, then, constitutes a specialized knowledge? Certainly career experience within a particular sector, formal training on the matter, and networking with colleagues in that field all support a greater understanding of something beyond one certification or qualification. I have personally met physicians, lawyers, and other well respected individuals that have pivoted toward a career in the language industry who are likely more familiar with their previous career experience than even the stylistic choices in their translation work. I am not underplaying the fact that specializing is a good thing for both employment purposes and for that sheer fact that, although others may say differently, I believe that there is a limit to the amount of specialized knowledge that we can work with in multiple languages. Moreover, I would like to emphasize that you can’t create false expectations, especially when facilitating communication regarding someone’s health, legal status, or any other matter that requires a highly specialized knowledge.
Ultimately, it seems that if we continue to generalize which translators and interpreters can be considered “specialized”, our clients will be left short to the linguists that have truly spent their time and efforts perfecting their understanding of these fields.
