First-time posters: please review the site's moderation policy

Hello, I am constantly asked what aiic considers to be proper manning strength for bilingual active booths in particular. I always answer that if one is working in a bilingual active twosome, in, say French and English, that one should not accept assignments which require one to work for more than 2 to 2 and a half days in this configuration. The trouble is, though, that when I want to point to where this information is published on the aiic website, I don't know where to find it. The issue is fundamental, though, is it not, and it is what separates aiic members from non-members. Can someone tell me where to find the recommendations? Martyn Swain

asked 05 Sep '12, 05:53

Martyn%20Swain's gravatar image

Martyn Swain

edited 19 Mar '15, 03:57

Delete's gravatar image

Delete ♦

Dear Luigi and Manuel, thanks for your input. The trouble is that "short" and "general" are meaningless if they are not properly defined and if push came to shove and one had to challenge an application on the basis that the candidate had worked systematically in that team configuration, it would not be enforceable. So is it, or is it not a professional standard which an applicant is expected to observe?

(06 Sep '12, 03:33) Martyn Swain

.... yes, like any other professional standards applicants are expected to observe it... and no, short/general are not defined, therein lies the rub :-)... nor would it be an easy thing to do so, methinks. Because I took it for granted that you knew it and because of that non-definition I had not quoted it, also because I'm told we're not supposed to, here :-).

(06 Sep '12, 05:04) msr

I believe you may be thinking of the aiic professional standards. Under 'simultaneous interpretation' there is a team strength table. For a 2-language conference with interpreting into both languages it specifies 1 or 2 booths and 3 interpreters (followed by a double asterisk). When you scroll down to the note, you find:

"** One of whom must be able to relieve each of the other two. In certain circumstances this number may be reduced to two (particularly for short meetings or meetings of a general nature, provided that each of the two interpreters can work into both languages)."

Hope that helps.

permanent link

answered 05 Sep '12, 16:46

Luigi's gravatar image


edited 05 Sep '12, 16:49

...indeed, Luigi... and Martin's question was how short is short :-) - and how general is general, and does general trump short :-; - and is it defined anywhere...

(05 Sep '12, 16:52) msr

Yes, and Martyn's question was also where to find the information, which is what my answer is essentially about.

(05 Sep '12, 16:58) Luigi

Hi Martyn

I'm afraid there's no such limitation, which might explain why you never were able to find such a recommendation :-)... actually, how could there be? 2/2,5 days would be a rather longuish period for a generally proscribed practice, were that to be the case. to be "allowed" by way of an exception, would it not?

As always, a lot depends on context: I've always limited two-way double booths to ONE day, if the subject is medical/surgical/pharma. - anything longer and I'll quote for a triple booth - but I'll happily work in a bi-active double booth for a whole week if the topic is, say, political or financial; we are of course talking about REAL two-way set-ups, ie where both colleagues in the double booth actually do work capably both ways, as opposed to that unfortunate set-up where one works into one language and the 2nd colleague into the other, although both are able to "help out" into the opposite language... which should not be the case in a two-way booth for ANY lenght of time, ie it should in that case be a triple booth or two double ones.

I wondered, when I first read you, whether you weren't thinking of a three-language set-up interpreted from two bi-active double booths... that I DO limit to one day (we came to a regional understanding in this regard years ago) in any subject-matter...

permanent link

answered 05 Sep '12, 06:21

msr's gravatar image


edited 08 Sep '12, 12:11

Thanks,Manuel. When you say "generally proscribed practice", what do you mean? I mean I can remember in the not too distant past, the agreement sector signatories hiring bilingual active twosomes, in fact, they would only pay a restricted team rate if you were in a twosome; if you were in a threesome they would still pay a large team rate, even though the team was working both ways.

Bottom line, though, is that you seem to be saying that it is a discretionary thing, which is a terrible thing to have to argue when you are trying to convince aspirant Aiic members that they should not be doing it!

(05 Sep '12, 06:44) Martyn Swain

Hello again, Martin :-)... I'm sure someone is soon gonna be telling us that these matters are aiic-specific and should therefore be discussed elsewhere, anyway what I meant was that it ISN'T proscribed... oy wee, matters are indeed harder to explain in the absence of golden rules. In this particular case, however, I do happen to agree with the non-proscription, as I tried to explain, ie I do not think it should be capped.

(05 Sep '12, 11:12) msr
Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here



Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text]( "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:


question asked: 05 Sep '12, 05:53

question was seen: 4,146 times

last updated: 08 Sep '12, 12:11 is a community-driven website open to anyone with questions and/or answers about interpreting, i.e. spoken language translation

about | faq | terms of use | privacy policy | content policy | disclaimer | contact us

This collaborative website is sponsored and hosted by AIIC, the International Association of Conference Interpreters.