Monday, January 31, 2011

ANOTHER LOOK AT COMMODIFICATION


“I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”

--Attributed to Robert McCloskey, U.S. State Department spokesman, by Marvin Kalb, CBS reporter, in TV Guide, 31 March 1984, citing an unspecified press briefing during the Vietnam War.

“Counting words is merely a device and while quick, easy to grasp and convenient, a poor one…Turning texts into segments, calculating repetitions, quantifying the value of those segments based on so-called repetition, has directly contributed to what I believe has been referred to here as ‘commoditization’.”

            --Liz Lyons

MEANING IS NOT A COMMODITY

Previous articles on this blog have addressed the issue of “selling words” to refer to the way most freelance translators price their work.  While this concept has always been flawed, it represented a way of negotiating prices with purchasers of translation services which, with the advent of CAT tools, became even more problematic because translators found themselves faced with demands for discounts on previously translated words or “repetitions” and words that were “close to” words that had been previously translated or what came to be known as “fuzzy matches”.

All to no avail, I have tried to determine the targeted user of these “CAT tools”, a term which is used for software programs consisting, in their simplest form, of a translation memory and a terminology database.  My gut feeling, based on what I have gleaned from those who are pushing their use, is that these programs were designed to help the individual translator, who would develop an ongoing “translation memory” consisting of matched source- and target-language segments.  This translation memory would work in conjunction with a terminology database which the translator would constantly update.  The translator was led to believe that he/she would “never have to translate the same sentence again”. 

For many translators, it was a rude awakening to discover that translation agencies were developing translation memories for all their clients and that they, the translators, were expected to give discounts for previously translated words, whether or not they agreed that those previously translated words conveyed the meaning of the source document.  Sadly, most translators simply complied.  After all, there was no financial incentive to make changes and the only way to survive financially was to produce more words albeit at a reduced rate.

Texts were turned into segments that were matched with previously translated segments, previously translated source-language words were matched with target-language words to arrive at a “translation”, which supposedly conveyed the meaning of the source-language text.  The translator became a “language engineer” who manipulated segments and marveled at the way the software could reproduce formatting and put all those segments back together in a way that seemed to produce a target-language document that was identical to the source-language document. 

Machine translation, which incorporates some of the same technology, also works with words.  This technology may be based on rules of grammar and dictionaries or it may be statistically based on natural language usage, but ultimately it is based on words which have denotative and connotative values determined by context. 

All well and good were it not for the fact that writers in the real world use language that is not only idiomatic and/or idiosyncratic, but rather is language that I have come to call Humpty Dumpty language, a language characterized by the concept “a word means exactly what I choose it to mean”.  So, what does the human translator do when he/she encounters a word in the source language for which any of the possible alternatives in the target language would be somewhat bizarre?  I tend to think that the human translator would opt for the intended meaning.  No automated language program is capable of making that determination, and it is not something that can become part of a translation memory or a terminology database. 

In reality, what seems to have gotten lost is that the role of the translator is to communicate meaning.  While that meaning is of necessity couched in words, there is no direct correlation between the words in one language and the words in another language, nor can we be sure that the words used by a writer in one language convey the meaning that he/she intended to convey.  We are all aware that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find a document that is well written in any language.      

So, in the end, meaning is not a commodity.  It cannot be reduced to words to be sold to the highest (or lowest) bidder.  Although meaning is expressed in words, those words are constantly changing.  Any attempt to automate the expression of meaning is bound to fall short.

The automated language industry is actively trying to involve human translators in the machine translation process.  In reality, they need the work of human translators to provide the matched segments that is the basis of statistical machine translation.  However, they seem to ignore much of the advice that comes from translators.  In discussing the role of translators, Fred Hollowood of Symantec Corporation said:  “I relied heavily on the quality assessments of translators. They were not always favorable.  It was some time before I learned to temper these evaluations with automatic metrics and user evaluation of MT output.”

Automatic metrics will be the subject of a future article, but user evaluation of MT output is something that can be compared with user evaluation of human translation.  Oftentimes it is not the end-user of the translation who evaluates it but the entity contracting the translation.  This entity is not always capable of determining how it will be understood by the end user.

There is no doubt that the translation industry is in a profound state of change.  We cannot cling to the past, neither can we ignore it.  The merchant translator that Bernie Bierman mentioned in previous articles is gone forever.  The freelance translator has no “knight in shining armor” to protect his/her interests.  But we do know that our profession is not and should not be based on the sale of words.  The role of the translator is, has always been, and hopefully will always be the communication of meaning and that is something that defies commodification. 

I personally believe that CAT tools (Trados, etc.) as we know them, like the 8-track, will soon be part of the past.  This is not true of machine translation, and it is a force that all human translators must reckon with.  Dealing with the automated language sector (their term) is not easy in that they have their own “language”.  Navigating their websites and discussion groups involves constant googling to determine the meaning of acronyms and arcane language.  Nevertheless, I feel that only by attempting to come to grips with their goals, whether or not they are achievable given the idiosyncratic nature of human language, can we achieve a balance in human communication.

Right now, though, what we need is a real dialogue about post-editing, what it is, how it fits in with traditional translation, and how it should be remunerated. Ultimately, that is the bottom line because if translators are expected to contribute to the machine translation process, they should be compensated for their efforts.            


11 comments:

  1. > Right now, ... what we need is a real dialogue
    > about post-editing, what it is, how it fits in
    > with traditional translation, and how it should
    > be remunerated.

    Whatever for? The sellers of the MT hallucination are making the hard sell for translators to realign themselves as linguistic stall-muckers, but unless you're really fond of manure, why pay any attention to that?

    The real bottom line, my dear, is that we define our business and accept responsibility for that definition. There is no need to be passive about these things and listen to the gossip and wild claims of today's electronic snake oil vendors.

    I think your comments on the history of CAT tools are probably accurate, but once again, I choose how to use my tools and when. Why should I listen to some cracked-out silly marketing phrase like "never have to translate the same sentence again" from someone trying to get my cash? I look at the tool, consider applications in my own contexts and ignore the hype. And if I'm stupid enough to believe that once I drive a #2 nail with my hammer, the others will pound themselves into the board, then I have no one to blame but myself.

    The "future" of any tool does not interest me. Does it have value now, and can I get a clear return on my investment? Good. Does it get in the way of my ease of work and ability to achieve the results I want? When the answers to those questions are no longer in my favor, then it goes in the dumpster, real or virtual. And I look at the new alternatives.

    ReplyDelete
  2. “I personally believe that CAT tools (Trados, etc.) as we know them, like the 8-track, will soon be part of the past. This is not true of machine translation,”
    I am not so sure whether this is something we will see very soon, rather I think that the combination of Translation Memory and Machine Translation will become more prevalent in the future. In combination, these tools can be a powerful assistant to the translator who has to deal with large volumes of repetitive text in short time frames.
    And I dare venture a guess that this type of translator is much more common than the one who can freely choose whether to apply translation tools or go without. Most likely, as it is in my case, the bulk of work consists of “industrial” translations, i. e. user manuals, repair manuals, product descriptions etc.. This is enhanced with a few pearls of translation work in-between where I can apply my translation skills and my creativity without having to adhere to someone else’s translation memory but also without being bored to tears from having to translate, for the thousandth time “remove (X) screws from the manifold" or "from the cover" or "from the board", etc. Unfortunately, the income from the “nice” translations does not pay all my bills, so I welcome any kind of productivity tool that allows me to earn a living without too much tedium.
    And again, I firmly believe that I am not alone amongst my translator colleagues. I am willing to bet that there are more translators dependent on the application of tools than there are translators who can completely eschew translation tools and still make a decent living. Those who can and those who are truly outstanding talents in the field of translation have my admiration (and a bit of envy). But the overwhelming share of the translation market does NOT consist of texts that require high translations skills and creativity. Thus, why shouldn't I apply tools to deal with the rote tasks rather than spending my time on that? It is true that many crafts and skills have been completely replaced by automation. Translation, however, cannot be completely replaced by machines. Rather, machine translation has shown itself as a very helpful tool. And like any other tool, it cannot be applied in all circumstances. Those who try to apply it in the wrong cases will eventually find out that MT is not a universal tool.
    This is why I thought Rosene’s call for a real dialogue was timely and useful. Today's translators should know and be familiar with the tools that are available. Only this knowledge will empower them to make a decision, which tools, if any, to apply. However, what never ceases to amaze me is the amount of passion that the subject of translation tools seems to evoke. Unfortunately, this passion usually descends into negative rambling full of invective against those who dare not to toe the line of the purist translator. Nobody is forced to use the tools if they don’t want to. It’s as simple as that. If the feeling is that there is no need for a dialogue, then why not just refrain from commenting rather than shouting down the call for a real dialogue. I would much prefer a civilized discussion about translation tools and how they can help those who want to use them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In reality, what seems to have gotten lost is that the role of the translator is to communicate meaning. Wow this is a great article about documents translation services. Keep it up!

    ReplyDelete
  4. A translation is no translation, he said, unless it will give you the music of a poem along with the words of it. We are a leading translation company and a reputed advertising agency providing many services.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for such a beautiful and valuable post. keep it up.
    English to Spanish Translation

    ReplyDelete
  6. You're information about cat's it's very usefull for me, thanks!
    lets learn about Cats And Vets

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you for your post, I look for such article along time, today i find it finally. this post give me lots of advise it is very useful.

    12:18pm Naati translator

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks for providing such nice information to us. It provides such amazing information on care/ as well Health/. The post is really helpful and very much thanks to you. The information can be really helpful on health, care as well as on examhelp/ tips. The post is really helpful.




    Arunachal Pradesh board 10th class result 2017/
    Maharashtra SSC result 2017/
    Tamil Nadu HSC result 2017/
    JEE Advanced Answer Key 2017/
    MP HSSC Result 2017/
    Home Remedies cure acid reflux/
    Hacks to make heels more comfortable/

    ReplyDelete