Professionalization of conference interpreting has long been one of the most significant goals of the community of conference interpreters. Professionalization is the process and efforts of an ‘occupation’ striving to become a ‘profession’ so as to acquire higher social status, better working conditions, and control market entry (Rudvin, 2007, pp. 52-53). The Oxford Living Dictionaries defines
professionalization as the process of giving “(an occupation, activity, or group) professional qualities, typically by increasing training or raising required
qualifications.” Some key qualities of a profession might include the following: a practitioner in a “profession” receives professional training before entering the profession, possesses the expertise demanded for the profession, and is believed to be competent in both the eyes of the professional community and the general public. S/he would be financially rewarded for providing such a service; nevertheless,
compensation would never be his/her sole purpose. Contribution to society should serve as the most critical motive, as Raschke (2014) defined the profession of doctor as “not just a career,” but “a servant to others, not to ourselves” (Grbić, 2010;
Raschke, 2014; Rudvin, 2007; Setton & Dawrant, 2016).
The process of professionalization of conference interpreting started in the 1950s.
Tseng (1992) proposed an ideal model of the professionalization of conference interpreting in Taiwan, which also reflects the process of professionalization of conference interpreting around the globe.
In Tseng’s (1992) model, the process is divided into four phases. Phase I –
“Market Disorder”: the interpreting industry is in a chaotic state. Performance of interpreters and quality of training institutions vary extremely. Phase II – “Consensus
& Commitment”: the number of well-trained interpreters from high-quality institutions has accumulated to a point where clients start to realize the difference between well-trained and poorly-trained interpreters. In this phase, consensus over interpreting is gradually reached, and practitioners commit themselves to
professionalization of interpreting. Phase III – “Professional Association”: the
establishment of a professional association, whose responsibilities include overseeing parties inside and outside the interpreting community by defining professional
knowledge, regulating professional training, and standardizing working conditions, marks the start of Phase III. A professional association also defines and represents the professional image of interpreters to shape in what manner the public and clients perceive interpreter as a profession. Phase IV – “Protection and Licensure
(Professional Autonomy)”: when the professional image is deeply rooted in people’s minds, professional associations embark on political lobbying, requiring legal
authorities to establish a professional examination of interpreting. With such an examination, working without an official license would be against the law and would bring about ”occupational closure” (Setton & Dawrant, 2016, p. 358), thus completing the process. However, it should be noted that the “occupational closure” of the
industry of interpreting is yet to be accomplished all around the world (Setton &
Dawrant, 2016, p. 359).
While Tseng’s (1992) model seems comprehensive, the professionalization of conference interpreting in Taiwan has taken a slightly different path. Simultaneous interpreting was first seen in Taiwan in 1983. In 1988, the Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation Studies (GITIS) was founded in the Fu Jen Catholic University (FJU), which was the first training institution built in Taiwan. In 1994, the GITIS founded the Association of Interpretation and Translation, which was
transformed to be the Taiwan Association of Translation and Interpretation (TATI) in 1997.
The establishment of the TATI marked the start of Phase III in Taiwan’s professionalization of conference interpreting (Tseng, 1992), but it was at this point that Taiwan’s development of professionalization diverged from Tseng’s model. The TATI, the professional association in Taiwan, has mainly focused on studies on translation and interpreting, whereas the efforts to shape the professional image of
interpreters and translators have been relatively limited (Ju, 2009). Instead, training institutions, including the GITIS and the Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation (GITI) in the National Taiwan Normal University, took on the role of the professional association in Tseng’s model via holding joint professional
examinations for students, which is basically a ‘proficiency test’ without a legal base (Chang, 2008, p. 33). Students who pass the joint professional examination would be referred to professional conference organizers or institutions that have demand for professional interpreters. In 2007, lobbying by training institutions, professional conference organizers, and the TATI pressured the Ministry of Education (MOE) to hold the Translation and Interpretation Proficiency Test, which is the first certification test on translation and interpreting organized by a governmental sector in Taiwan.
From 2007 to 2009, the MOE sponsored the test, and asked training institutions to help grade participants. It should be noted that the MOE proficiency test is only a
‘certification’, not an official ‘professional examination’ (Chang, 2008, p. 31).
Therefore, the MOE proficiency test fails to regulate new entrants into the interpreting market, leaving Taiwan’s professionalization of interpreting stranded in Phase IV (Tseng, 1992).
Regarding the abovementioned discrepancies between Tseng’s model (1992) and Taiwan’s actual process of professionalization of conference interpreting, Ju (2009)
revised Tseng’s model to reflect the reality in Taiwan. In Ju’s revised model,
professional conference organizers were added to Phase III as one of the main actors, and certification supported by official sectors and training institutions was added to Phase IV as one of the steps towards the final goal of ‘protection and licensure’ (Ju, 2009).
In 2010, within one year after Ju’s (2009) model was proposed, the MOE proficiency test was commissioned to the Language Training and Testing Center (LTTC), and the proficiency test has been hosted by the LTTC and directed by the MOE since 2013 (LTTCtv, 2015). Joint professional examinations held by training institutions has since grown more robust after the Graduate Program in Translation and Interpretation (GPTI) in the National Taiwan University (NTU), established in 2012, joined the GITIS and the GITI holding the examination. As the number of examinees increases, the professional examination strengthens, and regulating entry into the interpreting market in Taiwan still remains a challenge without an official legally-binding professional examination in place.
At this stage of professionalization (Phase IV), the professional image of conference interpreters plays a significant role in moving forward because, as Tseng (1992) and Ju (2009) suggested, to successfully persuade legal authorities to regulate the profession of interpreting, a positive professional image must be created first so
that the public perceives interpreters as professionals. This social momentum is critical for lobbying. When the majority of the public perceives conference
interpreting as a profession, the time would be ripe for lobbying (Tseng, 1992). Given that Taiwan is in Phase IV now, this research would potentially contribute to the professionalization of conference interpreting in Taiwan.