Introduction and Purpose
The last edition of Disability Studies Quarterly (vol. 34, n. 1, 2014) shaded light on the I International Symposium on Disability Studies hosted by the Sao Paulo State Secretariat for the Rights of the Person with Disability. This is a spearhead initiative led by a State-level government department in Sao Paulo, Brazil, in partnership with the University of Sao Paulo, which is dedicated to foster disability studies at the local, national and international level.
That "Report from the Field", excitingly written by David, Pamela, Gideon, Michael, and Nicholas, was an accurate picture of the discussions and debates that were held in Sao Paulo last June 2013. It also had the effect of raising the insightful readers' attention to an interesting topic, that of the translation and national appropriation of disability-related terms, including the disability concept itself.
This is not an attempt to discuss the correctness of the adoption of terms such as disability, persons with disabilities, impairments, or any other. Nor is it an effort to corroborate these terms in detriment of other historically used expressions. Our main goal here is to highlight the evolution of disability-related terms and its translations into other languages, which we argue that reflects a sound effort not only to correctly translate the concepts, but also to adapt and suit them to local realities. Moreover, inattentive or negligent translation can lead to misinterpretation and even to uselessness of any of the concepts highlighted above, irrespectively of their acceptance at any level.
On a general comment, it is brightly clear that the translation of any such internationally constructed and agreed concepts directly impacts national legislations, hence affecting decision making, planning, implementing, monitoring and review of public policies, research efforts (from intervention specific monitoring mechanisms to national data collection), and even judicial opinions and decisions. Thus, peoples' access to education, work and employment, health care, and social assistance and security, among others, can be fostered or hindered by how those broadly defined concepts reflects in national and local realities. At the community and collective level, it defines accessibility criteria and the overall demand for products and services. Tackling environmental barriers depend on the correct understanding of several of these topics.
Besides granting or guaranteeing rights and benefits, and enforcing obligations, the interpretation of such concepts, and this is especially relevant in the disability field, drives peoples' comprehension. Adequate or inadequate understanding of the disability concept by individuals can lead to lower or higher attitudinal barriers.
Acknowledging that the local appropriation of such concepts rests on a familiar relation with local realities, our specific target is to analyze, by comparison with other languages, how the translation of disability-related terms in Portuguese have evolved throughout time.
Method
In order to analyze disability-related concepts evolution, and how translation efforts have managed to reflect it in many other languages, specifically Portuguese, we have decided to compare the versions of a list of historical documents in English, Spanish, French and Portuguese. The list of documents, their dates of publication, organizations responsible for their translation, and direct web links, when available, are provided in Annex 1.
The documents we have selected are all part of the Disability Architecture, which was defined by UN Secretary General on its Fifth quinquennial review and appraisal of the World Program of Action concerning Disabled Persons in July 2008.
English is, for most of the times, the original language of documents produced by the UN General Assembly and the UN System at large. Spanish and French were selected due to their importance as official UN languages and closeness to Portuguese itself (sometimes being the actual original documents on which the Portuguese versions are drawn). When available, both Portuguese and Brazilian versions were used.
It is worth saying that all documents used to build this analysis, besides being readily available online, in most part, were published by legitimate either international or national-level organizations whose work is undisputedly serious.
Analyzes of the raw material are possible through different approaches. The horizontal approach is to compare versions in different languages of the same publication. This enables us to check the decisions made and options taken to translate the different terms at which the analysis is aimed. The vertical approach is used to check the coherence of the translation of a specific publication in a single language, compared to the original text.
On the other hand, if you choose to compare different publications in different languages, caution is needed in order to avoid the "noise" in evaluating major trends over time. Our option was to first horizontally analyze each publication, and then vertically check for their inner coherence. Moving to the long-term analysis was an attempt to capture the major trends in the three tracks described below.
Results and Discussion
There are three broad "tracks" in which we argue that translation has evolved throughout time, and these are (i) the concepts itself (e.g., impairment, disability, handicap, etc.); (ii) the designation of persons with disabilities; and, (iii) the expressions used to describe the relation between persons and disabilities.
The translation of the concepts was first checked through the horizontal analysis of all documents. For this analysis, we have selected excerpts in which the authors define the main disability-related concepts, as they portray the options taken by translation. The principal goal of those excerpts are to strictly define their conceptual choices, which drives the interpretation of the rest of the text. Thus, any mistake committed at this part of the document can have a major effect on the full text.
In order to check for the coherence of the publications, the vertical analysis has highlighted any deviations from the original text.
World Program of Action concerning Disabled Persons (1982)
The analysis of the versions of the World Program of Action concerning Disabled Persons (WPA) reveals that though minor deviances exist in some definitions, the translation of the main concepts are considered consistent in all languages.
English |
Spanish |
French |
Portuguese |
Impairment |
Deficiencia |
Déficience |
Deficiência |
Disability |
Incapacidad |
Invalidité |
Incapacidade |
Handicap |
Minusvalidez |
Handicap |
Invalidez |
The Spanish version of WPA is very coherent when compared to the original in English. The French version, however, has a series of deviations in the main terms defined in the text. "Invalidité" and "incapacité" are used interchangeably, and there are registers of the use of "infirme" and "infirmité" when referring to severe or permanent disability or even handicap.
In Portuguese, the word "deficiência" is used indiscriminately to translate disability and impairment. "Incapacidade", the translation of disability for this document, is only used when references to disability and impairment are too close to each other.
Handicap, in its turn, is arbitrarily translated as "incapacidade" or "deficiência" and hardly ever as "invalidez", arguably the best alternative to translate the concept of handicap, though we acknowledge its use. Nonetheless, the linkage between handicap and disadvantage is preserved
An overview of all three translations highlights that, surprisingly, the expressions used to translate "disabled persons" are not related to the words presented as translations for "disability". In Spanish, disabled persons were referred to as "impedidos" (through what we consider an attempt to diminish the distance between the expressions, "impedimento del funcionamiento" — a possible justification to use "impedido" — is used to translate "lack… of ability to perform" in the definition of "disability").
In French, the widely used expression "handicapés" or "personnes handicapées" is much closer to "handicap" then to "invalidité" or "incapacité". In Portuguese, disabled persons are referred to as "deficientes", an adjective related to "deficiência", which happens to be the word used to translate impairment, not disability.
The relation between persons and impairments or disabilities, in general, is pictured from a very pessimistic point of view. In English, persons "suffer" from disability; in Spanish, persons "sufren", "adolecen" or "son afectadas"; in French, persons "soufrent", "aient des troubles" or "atteint"; in Portuguese, a common euphemism arises, and that is "pessoas portadoras de deficiência", something close to "disability/impairment bearers". Even when the original English expression is neutral, such as "those with restricted mobility", many of the translations assume a pessimistic approach.
Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (1994)
Our analysis shows that the translations into Spanish, French and Portuguese all present some difficulty to make explicit the "causality" relationship between impairment and disability expressed in "disabled by", for instance. There is also an apparent struggle to adequately translate medical "conditions", especially if compared to illness.
English |
Spanish |
French |
Portuguese |
Impairment |
Deficiencia |
Déficience |
Limitação / Incapacidade |
Disability |
Discapacidad |
Incapacité |
Deficiência |
Handicap |
Minusvalía |
Handicap |
Handicap |
[Medical] condition |
Dolencia |
État Pathologique |
Doença |
Illness |
Enfermedad |
Maladie |
Enfermidade |
Differently from the translation of the WPA, the Standard Rules in Spanish presents a serious incoherence, adopting very different expressions such as "deterioro" or even "efectos prejudiciales" to translate impairment and "disabling effects", respectively. In the Standard Rules, the international disability community was already moving away from the handicap concept, but still, it is sometimes translated as "discapacidad" instead of "minusvalía", an iconic Spanish expression in this field.
In 1994 the French left "invalidité" behind and embraced "incapacité" as their only definition of disability. Nevertheless, the French version shows some inconsistencies in translating disability, adopting both "incapacité" and "handicap". Another interesting aspect of the French translation is that broad concepts such as "national disability programmes" and "disability policy" are brought to a much closer connection to persons with disabilities themself, being translated as "programmes nationaux en faveur des handicapés" and "politique en faveur des handicapés", respectively.
In the case of the Standard Rules, the Portuguese version was clearly drawn on the Spanish version of it, adding to the discrepancies shown in Spanish the usual Portuguese misuse of "deficiência" and "incapacidade".
An important characteristic of the Spanish version, on the other hand, is that it clearly adopts the structure "personas con discapacidad" even before "persons with disabilities" becomes consistently and systematically used in English.
The original text in English uses "shortcommings" and "deficiencies" to express the barriers in the environment and inaccessibility issues present in society. The only version to adequately translate it, differentiating it from the terms used for persons, however, is the French one, which uses "carences" and "inadéquations".
The majoritarian use of negative expressions (e.g., sufrir, soufrir, aquejarse, etc.) to denote the relation between persons and impairments and disabilities is kept in the early 1990's. In Portuguese, the euphemism "pessoa portadora de deficiência" is still in use.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006)
The text of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is much simpler, which results in a greater coherence in all its translations.
English |
Spanish |
French |
Portuguese (Portugal) |
Portuguese (Brazil) |
Impairment |
Deficiencia |
Incapacité |
Incapacidades |
Impedimentos |
Disability |
Discapacidad |
Handicap |
Deficiência |
Deficiência |
The CRPD is by far the most coherent text among those that are part of the Disability Architecture, only comparable to that of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).
Nevertheless, the Brazilian Portuguese version of it still presents an important inconsistency. In the letter e) of its Preamble, in which the English versions states
"Recognizing that disability is an evolving concept and that disability results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others"
The Brazilian version, which is included in the Brazilian legislation with the status of an Amendment to the Constitution, reads
"Reconhecendo que a deficiência é um conceito em evolução e que a deficiência resulta da interação entre pessoas com deficiência e as barreiras devidas à s atitudes e ao ambiente que impedem a plena e efetiva participação dessas pessoas na sociedade em igualdade de oportunidades com as demais pessoas"
The lack of differentiation between impairments and disabilities, in this case more than in any other, due to the significance of the CRPD as a human rights and development instrument, results in an almost incomprehensible statement.
This impressive excerpt is counterbalanced by the second paragraph of Article 1, which reads
"Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others."
In Brazilian Portuguese, impairment, though it might not be the better option, is translated as "impedimento". The Brazilian translation for Article 1 states
"Pessoas com deficiência são aquelas que têm impedimentos de longo prazo de natureza física, mental, intelectual ou sensorial, os quais, em interação com diversas barreiras, podem obstruir sua participação plena e efetiva na sociedade em igualdades de condições com as demais pessoas."
Moreover, the CRPD is the cornerstone of a consistent option taken by — almost — all translations of disability-related terms.
While in the WPA the terms denoting the concept of disability were all different from that used in reference to persons with disabilities, in the CRPD they have shifted towards a full adherence. Throughout time, the translation of the concept "disability", when held in isolation, has consistently evolved to comply with that used for designating persons with disabilities.
In Spanish, it has changed from "incapacidad" to "discapacidad". In French, it has changed from "invalidité" to "incapacité" and then to "handicap" (when the English "handicap" was abolished, but reinforcing the historical expression "personne handicapée"). In Portuguese (for Portugal) it has changed from "incapacidade" to "deficiência".
It is worth saying that both "incapacité" and "incapacidade", once used as translations for "disability", now signify "impairment" in French and Portuguese (for Portugal), respectively.
Expressions used to demonstrate the relation between persons and disabilities have become neutral after the adoption of the structure (common, in this case, to English, Spanish, and Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese) persons with disabilities, "personas con discapacidad", and "pessoas com deficiência".
Although the English, Spanish and French versions of the CRPD and the ICF use the same expressions to represent disability and impairment, the Portuguese versions of the ICF use "incapacidade" to translate disability and "deficiência" to translate impairment, in complete opposition to the CRPD. Actually, the CRPD opposes to the ICF, once the CRPD is posterior to the ICF.
In fact, in Portugal the ICF was produced by the Direcção Geral de Saúde (General Health Direction), and in Brazil by the WHO Collaborating Centre for the WHO Family of International Classifications at the University of Sao Paulo. According to the preface to the Brazilian edition of the ICF, they have consulted the Portuguese team responsible for translating the WHO publication.
Conclusion
If we consider the three tracks highlighted in the beginning, we can devise the different ways that all three languages included in this analysis have gone through.
The Spanish versions illustrate an early adoption of the structure persons with disabilities ("personas con discapacidad"), the convergence between the expressions used in relation to the concept of disability and to persons with disabilities, abandoning those related to "handicap" or "impairment" ("deficiencia"), and a consistent movement away from the handicap concept ("minusvalidez/minusvalía").
The French versions are a bit different. The common structure of "persons with disabilities" was never adopted. Instead, they have opted for maintaining "personnes handicapées". The current term used to translate "disability", "handicap", was formerly used to translate the English expression "handicap". Hence, the convergence between the concept of disability and that denoting persons with disabilities has gone through a completely different way. Results, however, are quite close to that of the English or Spanish versions, once disability is treated from a neutral point of view, and "impairments" and "disabilities" are consistently separate concepts.
Moreover, we should remember that the ICF and the CRPD have a consistent terminology in English, Spanish, and French, which is very different from the Portuguese versions of those noteworthy documents.
The evolution of the Portuguese translations does not demonstrate a clear approach that we can easily devise. Many aspects can be appointed as having contributed to this situation, translations were occasionally drawn on different languages, and there was not a common approach to translation in different Portuguese-speaking countries. Additionally, those institutions working within the framework of the Disability Architecture, notably those related to the Disability Rights movement, and those working in the field of health and rehabilitation, such as universities and health-related government bodies, were not able to join efforts in order to build a common understanding of disability-related concepts.
This situation should bring to our attention the lack of coordination among Portuguese-speaking countries in the field of disability rights and health-related disability aspects. Portuguese-speaking countries in the world comprises more than 250 million inhabitants (according to World Bank data for 2012), spread through eight countries in four continents of the world. A common or at least consistent approach to sensitive subjects such as disability issues at the global level is needed in order to build upon our experiences and to enable a shared development and improvements in the quality of life of persons with disabilities, which are quite often hindered by uncoordinated efforts for the national appropriation of internationally established concepts.
