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.            

COMMODIFICATION: ARE TRANSLATORS TO BLAME?

WORDS FOR SALE
Part 3

By Bernie Bierman

“CAT tools themselves are not to be regarded as our enemies.  They didn’t do anything.  But the supposed translation specialists did it to themselves and the “real” translators let them.”

The above comment made in response to Part 2 of this series certainly has merit, and I would be hard-put to dispute it.  Indeed, I would say that in respect of the economic impact of computer-assisted translation, the CAT operators or workers (né[e] translators) are not the sole source of the problem, although their complicit behavior has certainly been a contributing factor.  From where I sit or stand and from my keen observations, it has been the language service providers (more commonly known as translation agencies) who have used CAT in an exploitative manner and at the same time have converted translation from a communications service into a commodities business, i.e., the selling of words.

The ability of the various CAT programs currently on the market to undertake “precise” computations consonant with their own (computational) parameters and formulas as to how many “new” words, “repeated” words, matches of phrases or passages or segments, percentages of matches, and so on and so forth down a whole line of esoteric calculations, has resulted in among other things the formulation of a rigid pricing structure that one would commonly find in the sale of goods or commodities.  But given the particular structure of the translation industry, the biggest impact of this pricing rigidity has fallen upon the so-called “low man or woman on the totem pole”, i.e., the independent CAT worker (who has manifested over and over again his or her willingness to accept such rigidity and consequent commodification of the service).

About two years ago, a CAT operator née translator named Ronnie McKee decided to take a much closer look at the computational methods used for determining what a translation agency would pay her for her labors.  She wrote, “I was asked (by a translation agency in Spain) to translate a large document, namely, a 20,000- word corporate governance report, with a TM (translation memory) provided.  I had heard about rate scales having to do with number of repetitions, etc. etc., but I never really understood what it meant.  Well, now I do.  And for those who are interested, I'm going to share:”

And Ms. McKee did share, as others have subsequently done, and her findings evidence beyond a shadow of doubt that this intellectual service known as translation has become nothing more than the sale of commodity-like units, which see:

* * * * *

The following table represents the analysis undertaken by the Trados software of the document which Ms. McKee was asked to translate.  The data shown in this table has a direct relationship to the data shown in the immediately-following table, for that table shows what the translation agency will pay the CAT operator when it provides the latter with translation memory (TM) .

Match Types	Segments	Words	Percent	Placeables
Context TM	0	0	0	0
Repetitions	149	415	2	142
100%	909	10,616	54	0
95% - 99%	67	1,638	8	1
85% - 94%	25	610	3	0
75% - 84%	12	372	2	0
50% - 74%	6	112	1	0
No Match	284	6,055	30	28
Total	1,452	19,818	100	171

In the case of the translation agency involved in this transaction, a segment is defined as a sentence; it is what the system joins together into one translation unit.  In line with that, the subject document for which a translation was ordered from Ms. McKee contained (according to the computation undertaken by the agency’s Trados software) 149 repeated segments, and those segments included altogether 415 words.  The 100% line means that there were 909 segments in the source-language (SL) document  that have an identical match in the translation memory   The next group indicates that 67 segments have 95% to 99% matches. Accordingly, this agency determined that it would pay the CAT worker a different rate or amount based upon the degree of the match.

The subject SL document contained 284 segments of “brand new translation” (i.e., “No Match”), and those segments constituted 6055 words.  Therefore, the agency paid the CAT worker  the highest rate for those and paid the lowest rate for the 100% matches.

The table below was used by the translation agency for determining how much it would pay Ms. McKee for her work based upon the data embodied in the above-indicated table:

Match Types	Euro/word
Repetitions	0,015
100%	0,015
75-99%	0,040
0-74%	0,070

* * * * *

A cursory glance at these figures indicates that for the entire project of 19,818 source language words, Ms. McKee was paid a total amount of € 701.96, which we’ll round off to €702.00, or approximately US$990.00.  That breaks down to €0.036 per SL word or US$0.05 per SL word. 

It would be tempting at this point to undertake a full, in-depth analysis of all of these figures to determine such things as how much Ms. McKee made on an hourly basis, how much efficiency did she achieve by using robotic translation tools, along with numerous other compensation-related aspects.  However, that is not the purpose behind the writing of this article, although it would certainly make good fodder for a future article.

Rather, the purpose behind the writing of this article is to point up not just the commodification of translation, but its total and complete commodification.  But not only does this total and complete commodification elicit comments (especially in the compensation-related area), but also raises numerous questions, questions that both translators and CAT workers have raised and continue to raise, such as how the particular CAT program (Trados, WordFast, DejaVu, et al) determines what is a 72% match or a 48% or a 12% match or a 91% match, and whether there isn’t some kind of interpretive element at work in such determination.  Many CAT operators have expressed and continue to express puzzlement over such determinations (made not by them, but by the translation agency), and even more puzzlement over the methods employed for arriving at such determinations. 

And another equally striking question is how a computer or computer program can determine that two segments in a source language document are identical without having a clue as to whether the target language will demand a somewhat different or very different translation because of that very naughty word context.  Admittedly, however, this is drifting slightly from the main thrust of this article, which to repeat is the commodification of translation.

The pinpoint breakdowns and classifications indicated in the tables shown above demonstrate beyond any discussion and beyond any doubt that the communications service once known as translation has become nothing more than a robotic selling of words…with certain words being the most expensive, other words being a little less expensive, and some words being bargain-basement cheap or in some cases given away for nothing (or if one prefers, given away in the most charitable manner).

And to support and otherwise propagandize this commodification, CAT workers and CAT operators are told that they will attain heights of efficiency and productivity never dreamt of just ten short years ago, and that this efficiency and productivity will double, triple or even quadruple their earnings.  How this will come about in the context of ever-falling translation prices and rates, of more and more competition and of more and more “memorization” of vocabulary, terminology, phraseology, etc., is never explained. 

Not surprisingly, the world community of CAT workers and operators has cheerfully accepted this commodification of their work (perhaps because many never knew better and/or never knew what preceded this commodification) and, in many cases, they have joined their translation agency clients to become the champions, the salespersons and propagandists of Words for Sale.

Yes, indeed, today one can easily tell when CAT workers and operators are gathered in one of their very numerous periodic meetings or conventions or conferences: there is a long line of chauffer-driven limousines, a small but obvious congregation of pilots and flight attendants for the numerous private jets waiting at the nearby airports, and of course a parade of the latest fashions in dress that warms the hearts and pocketbooks of the most elite designers of Paris and Milan

* * * * *

Postscript:  Some time in late January or early February of every year, I prepare financial data for my personal accountant, Smiley.  The data is neatly laid out so that Smiley does not unnecessarily have to call me for any explanations.  Now, I know and Smiley knows that I know that he does not sit down at his desk and spend literally hours upon hours with an adding machine and calculator filling out all sorts and manner of tax forms and declarations (as my late brother-in-law, also an accountant, had to do for many years). 

Nay, I know and Smiley knows that I know that he takes all of the data I provide him with, inputs it into a computer and in a matter of minutes, yes minutes, out come all of the completed tax returns and declarations.  However, when Smiley sends his bill, it does not reflect 12 minutes or 22.4 minutes, or even 1 hour and 7 minutes of work.  So you, the CAT worker out there who might be reading this article, may want to ask “Then what precisely does Smiley’s bill reflect?”

OK, I’ll tell you what it reflects: It reflects his knowledge, his skills, his expertise, his unique and singular talents, and I am more than happy to pay him for that knowledge, skill, expertise and talent, It provides me with a sound sleep at night.   I trust, or at least hope that the readers of this piece (whether they are CAT workers or translators or even translation agency executives) will get my drift, if not the message.

SPECIAL COMMENT

“I don’t use CAT tools, but nevertheless I feel that it isn’t fair for a translator to charge for passages that are repeated in a document.  If I can cut and paste a passage, then I’ll charge only once for the words in that passage”

   - Statement by Eve Hecht, a translator and instructor in German legal translation at New York University, made at

       the 2010 convention of the American Translators Association.

If there is any one statement among literally hundreds of thousands of statements by translators (and their 21^st century successors, CAT workers or CAT operators) that so perfectly reflects their economic attitudes, it is the one by Eve Hecht quoted above.  Unfortunately and indeed most regrettably (at least unfortunately and regrettably as I see the world of translation), Ms. Hecht’s beliefs and attitudes are not just widely accepted, they have become unquestioned conventional wisdom.  In this past decade more translators and their CAT worker successors have come to believe and accept the attitude expressed by Ms. Hecht.

I have said “unfortunately” and “most regrettably” only out of politeness and what I with some hesitation would call “good taste”.  But I hope that the reader will allow me the indulgence of setting aside the politeness and “good taste”, and allow me to express myself in the terms that would be more deserving of Ms. Hecht’s economic or commercial viewpoints.

Ms. Hecht’s statement makes me want to vomit!  It makes me want to scream. It makes me want to yell out, “Is that all that you think of yourself, of your unique skills (as a translator), of your talents?  Is that what you think of yourself and the work that you do…nothing more that some clerk-like endeavor, nothing more than an extension of the clerical furniture?  Is that all you think of the value of your time?  Is that all the self-worth you have?  Is this what you teach your students, namely that translation is nothing more than typing words, “NEW” words? 

You say, Ms. Hecht, that “it isn’t fair for a translator to charge for passages that are repeated in a document”.  It is not fair to whom?  Surprise me, Ms. Hecht, and tell me precisely why it is not “fair” for a translator to charge for a “repeated passage”.  Surprise me, Madame, and defend your position.  You claim that you are a translator of legal texts.  OK.  Suppose you have a passage like this:

“Pursuant to the provisions of §12, section b.2 of Article 719 and §23, section d.1 of Article 793 of the Civil Procedure Code, as amended, the plaintiff can claim…” and two paragraphs later, the text reads, “But in the case before us, the provisions of §12, section b.2 of Article 719 and §23, section d.1 of Article 793 of the Civil Procedure Code, as amended, do not apply to a plaintiff who is unable…”

As I understand it, Madame, the second time that the passage “the provisions of §12, section b.2 of Article 719 and §23, section d.1 of Article 793 of the Civil Procedure Code, as amended” appears, you do not charge for the translating of that passage.  According to what you say, even if this passage appears ten times within the text, it is a “freebe” to the client, because as I understand your thinking, all you did was “cut and paste” or make a macro, and that in and of itself has zero value…to you (and to all other translation practitioners whom you believe should follow your “benevolent” and “self-sacrificing” attitude).

Tell me, Ms. Hecht, if the words “pursuant to” cropped up 75 times in a text, would you also eliminate those words 74 times from your word-count and attendant invoice? After all, according to you, the only thing you did was to make a little macro and push a button 74 times, and that certainly is not worth anything. Not a single Euro cent.  No a single penny.  Not a single centavo.  Not one single Turkish Lira.   Right?  After all, Ms. Hecht,  according to what you state and believe, it would not be fair for a translator to charge for pushing a macro key 74 times, or 174 times or 374 times.  Indeed,  Madame, why charge for words like “and”, “but”, “in”, “out”, “from”, “to”, “you”, “they”, “he”, “she”, etc., etc., etc., that repeat over and over and over again within any text?

If indeed, Madame, this is in fact what you believe and what you implement in your work, then I have absolutely no hesitation in expressing my opinion that you are precisely one of the many who have wittingly or unwittingly urinated upon the profession of translation, loudly proclaiming that it has little value and what little value it has is about on a par with the most menial clerical endeavor. 

You, Madame, in my most considered opinion are precisely why the translation-buying and translation-using public views and continues to view translators as nothing more than little language clerks and extensions of the clerical furniture.  Yes, Ms. Hecht, you truly want to make me vomit.  Now, really and truly surprise me and defend your position.

* * * * *

Globalization and Its Role in Commodification

News Commentary

OBAMA’S REMARKS IN INDIA BRING OUT INTO

RELIEF PRESIDENT’S DISCONNECTION FROM REALITY

By Bernie Bierman

Speaking last week in India’s commercial capital of Mumbai (née Bombay), U.S, President Barrack Obama said that “India is a creator of U.S. jobs not a usurper of U.S. jobs”.   The reaction in the U.S. among Obama opponents was predictable, namely that the man is totally divorced from reality and is viewing the world from some academic tower where theories are alive and well…and where theories are not everything, but the only thing.  Among Obama supporters, or rather the ever-dwindling number of supporters, his remarks were received was gasping horror.  His political party, the Democrats, had just taken their worst beating in contemporary times, a beating ascribable for the most part to continued unemployment and outsourcing of jobs to cheap-labor nations.  And one of the nations that is high on – if not at the very top of - the American employment enmity list is India.

Two reasons are given as being behind  Mr. Obama’s comments that “India is a creator of U.S. jobs not a usurper of U.S. jobs” : (1) That the man is totally disconnected from reality and/or (2) he will kiss any derrière that is placed in front of him; indeed, he may be the most compleat kisser of les derrières in the annals of American politics, and an “equal opportunity” one at that.

This commentator would never expect a man like Barrack Obama with his fancy Harvard University education to be acquainted with the experience of a city like North Tonawanda in the northern reaches of New York State, and even less to be acquainted with the North American translation industry or even the western European (and perhaps even central and eastern European) translation industry.  Translation is not something that weighs on the mind of President Obama, even though he does get periodic reports from his military advisors about the chronic shortage of oral and written translators and other assorted linguist-types, a chronic shortage that appears to have some connection to the sexual tastes and proclivities of many military and government linguists.

In the United States, the bête noire of the translation industry is unquestionably India.  China may be a beast, but it doesn’t appear to be a black one.  Ah, but India is something else, a something else that is in a category of its own.  Is the condition called India perception or fact or a little bit of both? Or is it 20 parts perception and 80 parts fact?  Or vice-versa? 

Do we know anything about the Indian translation industry?  It seems to me that we most certainly do, and we know it because one of the key aspects of the Indian translation agency industry has been on open display to us for at least the past decade through translator “watering holes”, i.e., places like ProZ, TranslatorsCafe, TranslationDirectory and a score or perhaps two score more translator blogs, journals and “saloons”. 

I would say that based upon the data I have collected and/or noted from the aforementioned translator “watering holes” and “saloons” that very few, if any, can compete with the Indian translation industry in terms of price.  Not even the Chinese.  India is not the bottom.  India is below the bottom.  Can one even measure one (1) Indian Rupee against one (1) U.S. cent or one (1) Euro cent? Or try two (2) Indian Rupees.  In other words, what is the bottom line for “We have 10,000 words of (language) for translation into (language), and we will pay 2 Rupees per word”(?) 

I cannot speak with any authority – not even simulated authority – on European translation industry economics in an historical context.  But I can speak with some authority about the history of American translation industry economics, and I can say to the readers of this column with all of the authority and certainty I can muster, that the Indian translation industry has pushed North American translation prices not back to the 1960’s.  Not even to the 1950’s.  Indian translation prices of 2010 are perfectly in line with North American translation prices of the 1940’s and 1930’s.

But as Mr. Obama opines,  “India is a creator of U.S. jobs not a usurper of U.S. jobs”.  Perhaps next Mr. Obama will suggest that India has helped to raise income in the North American translation industry to all-time highs.  See what a Harvard University education can do?

* * * * *

 Stay tuned for reportage on the recent ATA "gathering" in Denver.