Only a fool would deny that the translation profession is in a profound state of change as is the world in general. Values and attitudes are changing and, by and large, people seem willing to believe that they have no control over their destinies. Translators accept the notion that "consistency" is good and that they will only be paid full price, which is substantially less than what it was a few short years ago, for "new" words. They are willing to accept a fraction of that for "fuzzy" or "near" matches and nothing or almost nothing for repetitions. The idea is that they can produce more in the same amount of time and thus come out ahead, while assuring greater consistency.
At the outset, I think that it is important to emphasize that consistency can be very important; in fact, it is essential when you are translating shop manuals, users' manuals, etc. It is in the translation of documents such as these that translation memory software can be a very effective tool. But, beyond that, we can wonder if "consistency" does not lead to boredom. We all know that many concepts can be expressed in a variety of ways and that good writers throughout time have avoided repetitions by using different words, sometimes to reinforce the idea by expressing it in a different way and at others simply to make the text more interesting. You can imagine how boring it would be to read over and over again the words "he said" when the writer could have used "he affirmed", "he stated", "he announced", "he remarked", and on and on. As translators, we are first and foremost writers, and it is our job to communicate a message in an interesting and informative way.
So, yes, consistency does have its place but, in reality, it is a small one and by making it something desirable in translation, we are denying the nuances and subtleties of language. What is even worse for translation is that if a certain sentence is translated in a certain way and becomes part of a translation memory, that sentence is perpetuated and its accuracy may never, ever be questioned. Indeed, the sentence may have been a wonderful translation in its original context, but may be woefully inadequate in other contexts.
More and more, I am seeing the concept of "new words" being used to exploit translators whether they use translation memory software or not. Translators are told that they will be paid only for the "new words" in a text, and it's a matter of take it or leave it. I recently received a job offer from an agency that involved translating an employee survey. It was supposed to be a "literal" translation where grammatical errors were not cleaned up. As we all know, this is something that only human beings can even hope to do. There was a translation memory of sorts with only two repetitions and the job was to be delivered as a bilingual .rtf file. I replied that I would be happy to do the translation but that I do not use Trados.
The PM accepted my offer to submit a single English .rtf file and we agreed that I would only be paid for the "new words" in the file. There were two repetitions which, as it turned out, were "Merci". As I translated the .rtf file, it was difficult to tell where one response ended and another began. I followed the formatting of the French .rtf file as far as spacing, etc.
I delivered the file with the usual covering note and heard nothing for a day. Then I received an email asking me if I could paste my translation into an Excel file and match the French with my translation. This took several hours because of the way the French .rtf file had been set up. It was only possible to tell where one response ended and another began by looking at the Excel file. To make matters worse, the PM had no budget to cover this extra work and asked me to do it "as a favor".
First of all, this job was not a job that should have been done with Trados. The idea that you can get repetitions and "fuzzy matches" from an employee survey is nothing short of ludicrous, especially if you are attempting to duplicate grammatical errors. The translator should have been given the Excel file and been asked to work with that.
This is just one example of what seems to me to be a misuse of translation memory software. I received another job offer which would have involved working with a "Trados-enabled" file from which I would only translate the "new words". It would jump from new segment to new segment. I turned it down. I am a firm believer that meaning only exists within a context, so the very idea of translating only "new words" seems to be missing the point of what we are supposed to be doing. Meaning is dependent upon a context which the translator must analyze and interpret. It is not a matter of producing words.
When I hear people cry out against the "commoditization" of translation in one breath and then propose translation memory as a boon to translators, I can only wonder what they are thinking. When we accept a text as being made up of a certain number of "new words" and a certain number of sort of new words, and a certain number of old, used, repeated words, we are certainly reducing translation to a commodity that consists of words and is not all that different from quantities of corn, wheat, or pork bellies.
So, that is the current state of affairs. What tomorrow will bring depends upon what we do today and, unfortunately, I see no signs of life in our community. There may be a little "gentle" outrage from older translators, but it stops there. It is typical of what I see happening in the nation and in the world as we are increasingly willing to admit defeat and slip into decline.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Reply to February 17, 2010 Blog
By George Witherington
16 June 2010
In her blog post "PROFESSIONALISM" REVISITED" of February 17, 2010, Rosene links the "present sad state" of our profession with ill-advised efforts to "formalize" translation. "Would-be protectors of our noble profession" (me included) are taken to task for trying to force the "art" of translation into a scientific straightjacket.
From the client's standpoint, Rosene's objections against rationalization may seem out of place in an industry being transformed by computer-assisted translation (CAT). Its two main elements, machine translation (MT) and translation memory (TM), have been a veritable boon to translation service users. Capacity, efficiency and rapidity gains have at last become possible. Large-scale projects, which were previously considered impractical or too costly, have become feasible today thanks to CAT tools.
Yet continuing translator unease over this "invasion of the machines" is also understandable. MT violates fundamental rules of the art. In particular, it delivers approximation in place of strict accuracy. Worse still, MT creates the illusion that there is no further need for human translators. To believe that automation can replace humans is to ignore that CAT depends on recycled human translations. It needs further up-to-date human translations if matches are to be current. To advocate wholesale automation is, furthermore, to imply that language and translation training, whether academic or professional, is pointless.
Translators' coolness towards MT and TM is also financially driven. MT shrinks the pool of work available to translators. TM is blamed for rate modulation according to TM match; e.g., 75%-95%, 100%. Both have contributed to stagnating or lowering remuneration rates. On the other hand, the increased productivity enabled by MT and TM means that translators who do use these software tools can earn more than they otherwise would.
It was inevitable that translators would be caught unawares by the arrival of CAT tools. The profession's narrow "craft" focus meant that it paid little attention to downstream processes (typesetting, post-editing, proofreading, paper and electronic publishing). Translation seemed oblivious to the fact that its outdated practices were preventing users from efficiently exploiting translated material.
The new technology was introduced by software specialists from outside the industry with an eye to rationalizing the entire translated document production chain and not just translation. A profession with a stronger voice and clearer idea of its role within the chain might have engaged in a more constructive dialogue with the innovators. That could have led to fewer unintended consequences for all the parties concerned...and Rosene would have been happier.
George Witherington
16 June 2010
16 June 2010
In her blog post "PROFESSIONALISM" REVISITED" of February 17, 2010, Rosene links the "present sad state" of our profession with ill-advised efforts to "formalize" translation. "Would-be protectors of our noble profession" (me included) are taken to task for trying to force the "art" of translation into a scientific straightjacket.
From the client's standpoint, Rosene's objections against rationalization may seem out of place in an industry being transformed by computer-assisted translation (CAT). Its two main elements, machine translation (MT) and translation memory (TM), have been a veritable boon to translation service users. Capacity, efficiency and rapidity gains have at last become possible. Large-scale projects, which were previously considered impractical or too costly, have become feasible today thanks to CAT tools.
Yet continuing translator unease over this "invasion of the machines" is also understandable. MT violates fundamental rules of the art. In particular, it delivers approximation in place of strict accuracy. Worse still, MT creates the illusion that there is no further need for human translators. To believe that automation can replace humans is to ignore that CAT depends on recycled human translations. It needs further up-to-date human translations if matches are to be current. To advocate wholesale automation is, furthermore, to imply that language and translation training, whether academic or professional, is pointless.
Translators' coolness towards MT and TM is also financially driven. MT shrinks the pool of work available to translators. TM is blamed for rate modulation according to TM match; e.g., 75%-95%, 100%. Both have contributed to stagnating or lowering remuneration rates. On the other hand, the increased productivity enabled by MT and TM means that translators who do use these software tools can earn more than they otherwise would.
It was inevitable that translators would be caught unawares by the arrival of CAT tools. The profession's narrow "craft" focus meant that it paid little attention to downstream processes (typesetting, post-editing, proofreading, paper and electronic publishing). Translation seemed oblivious to the fact that its outdated practices were preventing users from efficiently exploiting translated material.
The new technology was introduced by software specialists from outside the industry with an eye to rationalizing the entire translated document production chain and not just translation. A profession with a stronger voice and clearer idea of its role within the chain might have engaged in a more constructive dialogue with the innovators. That could have led to fewer unintended consequences for all the parties concerned...and Rosene would have been happier.
George Witherington
16 June 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
GOOGLE TRANSLATE: IS IT REALLY "STATE OF THE ART"?
After reading Miguel Helft's article called "Google's Computing Power Refines Translation Tool" which appeared on the front age of the New York Times (March 9, 2010), I decided that an article on his article and on the tool itself seemed to be in order. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the author, Miguel Helft covers Internet companies including Google and Yahoo for the Business Desk of the New York Times. More than 150 readers, including some translators, posted comments on the website and at least one translation agency sent a letter to the editor criticizing the journalist for not having consulted a single human translator.
As you might guess from the title, the article is about Google's use of human translations which are aligned to source-language texts in much the same way as translation memory software aligns two texts, "creating," what Dr. Te Taka Keegan, in The Official Google Blog, calls, "a virtuous cycle that benefits both human translators and machine translation". Now, I have absolutely no idea what he means by a "virtuous cycle". Perhaps he meant to say "virtual" in the sense that it was "simulated, or carried on by means of a computer network". Or, perhaps Dr. Keegan originally wrote in a language other than English and the blog was translated by Google Translate!
It goes without saying that there is definitely a place for this tool, just as there is a place for translation memory software, but I was appalled at the widespread use of Google Translate on jobs that really require a human translator who can use analysis, synthesis, association, memory, logic and, yes, imagination to recreate the text in the target language. This is especially true when dealing with documents that are not particularly well written and which contain a great deal of technical language, indeed, the bulk of the industrial translator's work. It is the human translator's knowledge of the subject area that enables him/her to understand the meaning of the source-language text and to accurately interpret it into the target language.
Interestingly, there is a sidebar to the article which features a passage from Le petit prince [The Little Prince] by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry and a passage from Cien años de soledad [One Hundred Years of Solitude] by Gabriel García Marquez. Both appear first in the original language followed by a human translation, then a Google Translate translation and one by each of two competitors. I thought it odd that only the names of the publishers of the human translations were given rather than the names of the human translators. This is an egregious omission on the part of the journalist.
In spite of the fact that many consider literary translation to be outside the domain of both machine translation and translation memory software, works of fiction were chosen to "put the tools to the test". When I first looked at the two passages, my initial thought was that both the original passages are well written in straightforward language, which makes a difference in any machine translation. Then, like a bolt out of the blue, it occurred to me that there are already human translations of those texts online and that that is exactly how Google works--by matching human-translated text with similar segments in the source language. Taking that into consideration, the fact that Google Translate's translation resembles the human translation so closely is no surprise at all.
Anyway, I decided that I would see what Google Translate could do with a couple of passages from real-life jobs. I chose one that has some of the characteristics of a literary work. The source-language text is first, followed by Google Translate's version:
Además del manejo de los lápices consta que hizo sus pinitos con los pinceles y se veía capacitado para emplear términos como "claroscuro", "efecto", "menudo", juzgar el mérito de una artista o llamar "bestia" nada menos que a Francisco Bayeu por su cuadro para el altar mayor de la iglesia de San Francisco el Grande, del cual conserva un boceto el X Museum, y a su arquitecto Juan de Villanueva por parecerle "bien".
Besides handling the pencils know that tried his hand with the brush and looked able to use terms such as "chiaroscuro", "effect", "often", judging the merit of an artist or call "beast"nothing less than Francisco Bayeu for his painting for the high altar of the church of San Francisco el Grande, which keeps a sketch of the X Museum, and his architect Juan de Villanueva because it seemed "fine."
So, I leave it to you to decide for yourself whether or not you agree with Alon Lavie, an associate research profesor in the Language Technologies Institute at Carnegie Mellon University when he says: "What you see on Google Translate is state of the art in computer translations that are not limited to a particular subject area".
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/technology/09translate.html?scp=1&sq=google%20can%20now%20say&st=cse
As you might guess from the title, the article is about Google's use of human translations which are aligned to source-language texts in much the same way as translation memory software aligns two texts, "creating," what Dr. Te Taka Keegan, in The Official Google Blog, calls, "a virtuous cycle that benefits both human translators and machine translation". Now, I have absolutely no idea what he means by a "virtuous cycle". Perhaps he meant to say "virtual" in the sense that it was "simulated, or carried on by means of a computer network". Or, perhaps Dr. Keegan originally wrote in a language other than English and the blog was translated by Google Translate!
It goes without saying that there is definitely a place for this tool, just as there is a place for translation memory software, but I was appalled at the widespread use of Google Translate on jobs that really require a human translator who can use analysis, synthesis, association, memory, logic and, yes, imagination to recreate the text in the target language. This is especially true when dealing with documents that are not particularly well written and which contain a great deal of technical language, indeed, the bulk of the industrial translator's work. It is the human translator's knowledge of the subject area that enables him/her to understand the meaning of the source-language text and to accurately interpret it into the target language.
Interestingly, there is a sidebar to the article which features a passage from Le petit prince [The Little Prince] by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry and a passage from Cien años de soledad [One Hundred Years of Solitude] by Gabriel García Marquez. Both appear first in the original language followed by a human translation, then a Google Translate translation and one by each of two competitors. I thought it odd that only the names of the publishers of the human translations were given rather than the names of the human translators. This is an egregious omission on the part of the journalist.
In spite of the fact that many consider literary translation to be outside the domain of both machine translation and translation memory software, works of fiction were chosen to "put the tools to the test". When I first looked at the two passages, my initial thought was that both the original passages are well written in straightforward language, which makes a difference in any machine translation. Then, like a bolt out of the blue, it occurred to me that there are already human translations of those texts online and that that is exactly how Google works--by matching human-translated text with similar segments in the source language. Taking that into consideration, the fact that Google Translate's translation resembles the human translation so closely is no surprise at all.
Anyway, I decided that I would see what Google Translate could do with a couple of passages from real-life jobs. I chose one that has some of the characteristics of a literary work. The source-language text is first, followed by Google Translate's version:
Además del manejo de los lápices consta que hizo sus pinitos con los pinceles y se veía capacitado para emplear términos como "claroscuro", "efecto", "menudo", juzgar el mérito de una artista o llamar "bestia" nada menos que a Francisco Bayeu por su cuadro para el altar mayor de la iglesia de San Francisco el Grande, del cual conserva un boceto el X Museum, y a su arquitecto Juan de Villanueva por parecerle "bien".
Besides handling the pencils know that tried his hand with the brush and looked able to use terms such as "chiaroscuro", "effect", "often", judging the merit of an artist or call "beast"nothing less than Francisco Bayeu for his painting for the high altar of the church of San Francisco el Grande, which keeps a sketch of the X Museum, and his architect Juan de Villanueva because it seemed "fine."
So, I leave it to you to decide for yourself whether or not you agree with Alon Lavie, an associate research profesor in the Language Technologies Institute at Carnegie Mellon University when he says: "What you see on Google Translate is state of the art in computer translations that are not limited to a particular subject area".
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/technology/09translate.html?scp=1&sq=google%20can%20now%20say&st=cse
Monday, March 1, 2010
THE COMMODITIZATION OF TRANSLATION
I recently received an email from my friend and colleague Bernie Bierman about an internet posting made by a translation agency asking "experienced Portuguese Translators and Proofreaders" to submit their rates for "no match, repetitions, and 75-99% match". He also reminded me of then-ATA president Jiri Stejskal's article "On Statistics and Competition" in the February 2008 ATA Chronicle and suggested that I take another look at it.
Basically, Mr. Stejskal's article is what we call a "feel-good" piece, as are most Chronicle articles, telling translators that they need not fear competition from abroad, or for that matter, any competition at all. The Stejskal article states that "inexpensive translation from developing countries can be viewed as a threat...only insofar as translation is perceived as a commodity that can be produced regardless of location and supplied without qualitative differentiation across a given market." (my emphasis) He goes on to tell us that to "make sure translation is not traded or perceived as a commodity...we need to specialize in order to differentiate our translation or interpreting work qualitatively."
At the time, I wrote a commentary in the Gotham Translator about the absurdity of thinking of specialization as being a way to prevent the commoditization of translation, but I was thinking about outsourcing then. I was not thinking about the role that translation memory software would play, indeed, has played in the commoditization of translation. So, what exactly does it mean to "commoditize" something? Investopedia defines it as follows:
"The act of making a process, good or service easy to obtain by making it as uniform, plentiful and affordable as possible. Something becomes commoditized when one offering is nearly indistinguishable from another. As a result of technological innovation, broad-based education and frequent iteration, goods and services become commoditized and, therefore, widely accessible." (my emphasis)
That definition seems to be a fairly accurate description of what translation software does, and I think that we could go so far as to say that, more than outsourcing, the imposition of translation memory software on translators (with Trados appearing to be the most required software product for more and more jobs) is leading inexorably to the commoditization of translation. This trend is accelerated by the fact that translators have been seduced by sales pitches such as you will never have to translate the same sentence again". What is more troubling and worrisome is that this translation memory software has been used not just as a tool of efficiency, but as a kind of combined rotary saw and sledgehammer on translation rates and, therefore, translation earnings. The brutal fact of the matter is that today's independent or freelance translator who must adhere to the non-negotiable requirement that he or she use a CAT tool, quickly finds out that there is absolutely no payment or a pittance of a payment for the words in that sentence that are viewed by the program as "repeats" or "quasi-repeats" or "semi-quasi-repeats", say nothing of the fact that perhaps the "same" sentence actually should be translated differently in a different context. Although translation memories can, under specific circumstances, provide greater consistency, the consistency just may be all wrong. Inaccurate translations become part of translation memories and, as such, are perpetuated ad infinitum. It indeed seems to me that if we use Investopedia's definition, industrial (as opposed to literary) translation is well on its way to being commoditized.
To support his proposition that "specialization" will somehow prevent translators from becoming victims of the commoditization process, Stejskal gives former ATA president Marian S. Greenfield as an example of a successful translator who specializes in financial translation. In reality, she may be an excellent example of a translator who has successfully capitalized on the commoditization of the translation industry. Earlier this year many translators received an email from SDL-Trados which contained the following testimonial:
"I just completed [sic] a 34,501 word project in 10 hours thanks to AutoSuggest, Context Match and the other nifty time-saving features within SDL Trados Studio 2009 SP1. That's without having much of anything in the pre-existing TM!" --Marian S. Greenfield, Translator and Trainer.
When other translators expressed some doubt as to whether what she had done could actually be called "translation", it was revealed that she was working with an Excel file with many repetitions--in essence, the sort of document that translation memory software handles quite well. Nevertheless, thinking about this "feat" from a financial point of view, 34,501 words in ten hours at $0.10 per word (which, believe it or not, was on the low side a scant ten years ago) would indeed make her a financially successful translator! However, one might ask how much she actually was paid for all those repetitions, if she was paid at all for them. Also, one might wonder about the "qualitative differentiation across a given market" that Stejskal says is so important. It looks a little like Ms. Greenfield's "specialization" may have been the promoting of Trados software.
In closing, I do not want to leave readers with the impression that I am against translation memory software, for this is definitely not the case. It certainly has its place in today's technological scheme of things, for in the case where a translator is asked to translate a second document (a shop manual, for instance) from the same end client, the TM software might be quite useful. I do have doubts about its being used for all types of documents as some companies are now doing. Under those circumstances, no amount of "specialization" can prevent the commoditization of translation which, in turn, is bound to change the face of the translation industry itself, if it hasn't changed it already. But setting aside the discussion as to when or where translation memory software is or is not useful, the bigger question remains whether TM has become the instrument by which to drive down translator income to the point where translation practitioners become nothing more than extension of the clerical furniture, translating a "new" word or phrase here and there, and receiving a token payment for what is, in effect (at least in the eyes of the translation buyer), a token effort. These are things that all translators should be thinking about and discussing if we are to be prepared for the challenges of the 21st century.
Basically, Mr. Stejskal's article is what we call a "feel-good" piece, as are most Chronicle articles, telling translators that they need not fear competition from abroad, or for that matter, any competition at all. The Stejskal article states that "inexpensive translation from developing countries can be viewed as a threat...only insofar as translation is perceived as a commodity that can be produced regardless of location and supplied without qualitative differentiation across a given market." (my emphasis) He goes on to tell us that to "make sure translation is not traded or perceived as a commodity...we need to specialize in order to differentiate our translation or interpreting work qualitatively."
At the time, I wrote a commentary in the Gotham Translator about the absurdity of thinking of specialization as being a way to prevent the commoditization of translation, but I was thinking about outsourcing then. I was not thinking about the role that translation memory software would play, indeed, has played in the commoditization of translation. So, what exactly does it mean to "commoditize" something? Investopedia defines it as follows:
"The act of making a process, good or service easy to obtain by making it as uniform, plentiful and affordable as possible. Something becomes commoditized when one offering is nearly indistinguishable from another. As a result of technological innovation, broad-based education and frequent iteration, goods and services become commoditized and, therefore, widely accessible." (my emphasis)
That definition seems to be a fairly accurate description of what translation software does, and I think that we could go so far as to say that, more than outsourcing, the imposition of translation memory software on translators (with Trados appearing to be the most required software product for more and more jobs) is leading inexorably to the commoditization of translation. This trend is accelerated by the fact that translators have been seduced by sales pitches such as you will never have to translate the same sentence again". What is more troubling and worrisome is that this translation memory software has been used not just as a tool of efficiency, but as a kind of combined rotary saw and sledgehammer on translation rates and, therefore, translation earnings. The brutal fact of the matter is that today's independent or freelance translator who must adhere to the non-negotiable requirement that he or she use a CAT tool, quickly finds out that there is absolutely no payment or a pittance of a payment for the words in that sentence that are viewed by the program as "repeats" or "quasi-repeats" or "semi-quasi-repeats", say nothing of the fact that perhaps the "same" sentence actually should be translated differently in a different context. Although translation memories can, under specific circumstances, provide greater consistency, the consistency just may be all wrong. Inaccurate translations become part of translation memories and, as such, are perpetuated ad infinitum. It indeed seems to me that if we use Investopedia's definition, industrial (as opposed to literary) translation is well on its way to being commoditized.
To support his proposition that "specialization" will somehow prevent translators from becoming victims of the commoditization process, Stejskal gives former ATA president Marian S. Greenfield as an example of a successful translator who specializes in financial translation. In reality, she may be an excellent example of a translator who has successfully capitalized on the commoditization of the translation industry. Earlier this year many translators received an email from SDL-Trados which contained the following testimonial:
"I just completed [sic] a 34,501 word project in 10 hours thanks to AutoSuggest, Context Match and the other nifty time-saving features within SDL Trados Studio 2009 SP1. That's without having much of anything in the pre-existing TM!" --Marian S. Greenfield, Translator and Trainer.
When other translators expressed some doubt as to whether what she had done could actually be called "translation", it was revealed that she was working with an Excel file with many repetitions--in essence, the sort of document that translation memory software handles quite well. Nevertheless, thinking about this "feat" from a financial point of view, 34,501 words in ten hours at $0.10 per word (which, believe it or not, was on the low side a scant ten years ago) would indeed make her a financially successful translator! However, one might ask how much she actually was paid for all those repetitions, if she was paid at all for them. Also, one might wonder about the "qualitative differentiation across a given market" that Stejskal says is so important. It looks a little like Ms. Greenfield's "specialization" may have been the promoting of Trados software.
In closing, I do not want to leave readers with the impression that I am against translation memory software, for this is definitely not the case. It certainly has its place in today's technological scheme of things, for in the case where a translator is asked to translate a second document (a shop manual, for instance) from the same end client, the TM software might be quite useful. I do have doubts about its being used for all types of documents as some companies are now doing. Under those circumstances, no amount of "specialization" can prevent the commoditization of translation which, in turn, is bound to change the face of the translation industry itself, if it hasn't changed it already. But setting aside the discussion as to when or where translation memory software is or is not useful, the bigger question remains whether TM has become the instrument by which to drive down translator income to the point where translation practitioners become nothing more than extension of the clerical furniture, translating a "new" word or phrase here and there, and receiving a token payment for what is, in effect (at least in the eyes of the translation buyer), a token effort. These are things that all translators should be thinking about and discussing if we are to be prepared for the challenges of the 21st century.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
About those help-wanted ads...
In the days when translators were still writers and linguists, the following piece would have been the object of derision, cat-calls, mocking laughs and other expressions of like purport and tenor. Of course, today when many translators are or have become so-called "language engineers" with the scantest knowledge of idiom, punctuation, grammar, syntax, etc., etc., not an eyebrow will be raised.
[Underscoring added to assist "language engineers".]
Dear ATA Translators:
I am seeking to hire a full-time French-English Quality Manager. Quality Managers proofread/edit translation projects for clients. If you're interested, please feel free to reach out to me, and attach a copy of your resume. This position would be based in New York, however, we are open to having people work from one of our other offices where we are set up to do business in the United States. Feel free to review our website at http://www.transperfect.com/
[Underscoring added to assist "language engineers".]
FRESH AIR AT LAST
By Bernie Bierman
When Rosene Zaros told me that she had started a translation blog and journal, the words that came immediately to mind were a paraphrase of those of Martin Luther King, Jr.:
Some who read the present commentary may ask, "What makes Ms. Zaros' publication 'fresh air' and why do you think that this 'fresh air' won't go stale?"
The answer to the first part of that question is given in Ms. Zaros' opening piece and I am sure will be reinforced as more issues of this publication come before the eyes of its readership. The answer to the second part of the question is that Ms. Zaros has a record, or to use the American vernacular or slang expression, a "rap sheet".
You see, in today's world of translation, particularly in the segment sometimes known as "industrial translation", Rosene Zaros is a kind of outlaw. Not even an "outlaw" or "so-called outlaw" or a "let's pretend outlaw". She's the real thing. Now, if you don't fancy "outlaw", you might want to accept "heretic". And we all know, or should know from our history what happened to "heretics".
As just mentioned, this latest blogista and journalist to enter the blogosphere has a record or rap sheet that includes "arrests" and "indictments" and "guilty verdicts" for such "crimes" as questioning so-called "conventional wisdom", permitting others to question so-called "conventional wisdom", criticizing translation industry leaders over matters of policy, permitting others to do likewise, asking, inviting and virtually begging the recipients of such criticism to air their views and defend their viewpoints,, and engaging in all sorts of other "journalistic heresies".
Her latest "arrest", "indictment" and "guilty verdict" came in the form of being dismissed (or if you prefer, fired, or if you don't like "fired", you might prefer "canned") as editor of the "Gotham Translator", the bi-monthly newsletter of the New York Circle of Translators (NYCT), one of the oldest chapters in the family of chapters of the American Translators Association (ATA).
And why was she dismissed, fired, canned? Because she believed and believes passionately in a free and open exchange of ideas and viewpoints; because she believed and believes passionately that no idea is sacred and therefore beyond questioning; because she believed and believes that the spatial-like diversity of translation and language results in a spatial-like diversity of ideas and opinions and viewpoints.
But her "superiors" at the NYCT, and by practical and quasi-legal extension those at the ATA, did not like and do not like diversity of opinion and free and open exchange of ideas and viewpoints. And if Ms. Zaros has a "rap sheet" for so-called "violations" of so-called "conventional wisdom", the record of forced and enforced acceptance of conventional wisdom not just by the American Translators Association but other translator organizations throughout the U.S. and I daresay the world, is at least twice as long. Try to air some views embodying "unconventional wisdom" on Henry Dotterer's ProZ.com and one of King Henry's thought policemen will "zap" you so fast that not even Google will have time to get your thoughts into its cache. Or try to talk about issues of translator and translation economics on Anatoly's TranslatorsCafe.com while citing a few names and locations here and there, and Anatoly's thought policemen will be down on you like a June bug.
And that is essentially why Translation Commentator is not merely a breath of fresh air, but a blast of fresh air.
Many will not like this blog and journal. Many will consider it "unprofessional" or "unworthy of the translation profession". Others will privately fume and fulminate against it. However, I would be willing to wager a good amount of dollars or euros or yen or zlotys or shekels or drachmas that those who do not like this publication or fume and fulminate against it will flatly turn down or, worse, not even respond to an invitation by its publisher to express and otherwise defend their viewpoints.
When Rosene Zaros told me that she had started a translation blog and journal, the words that came immediately to mind were a paraphrase of those of Martin Luther King, Jr.:
"Fresh air, thank God, fresh air at last"
Some who read the present commentary may ask, "What makes Ms. Zaros' publication 'fresh air' and why do you think that this 'fresh air' won't go stale?"
The answer to the first part of that question is given in Ms. Zaros' opening piece and I am sure will be reinforced as more issues of this publication come before the eyes of its readership. The answer to the second part of the question is that Ms. Zaros has a record, or to use the American vernacular or slang expression, a "rap sheet".
You see, in today's world of translation, particularly in the segment sometimes known as "industrial translation", Rosene Zaros is a kind of outlaw. Not even an "outlaw" or "so-called outlaw" or a "let's pretend outlaw". She's the real thing. Now, if you don't fancy "outlaw", you might want to accept "heretic". And we all know, or should know from our history what happened to "heretics".
As just mentioned, this latest blogista and journalist to enter the blogosphere has a record or rap sheet that includes "arrests" and "indictments" and "guilty verdicts" for such "crimes" as questioning so-called "conventional wisdom", permitting others to question so-called "conventional wisdom", criticizing translation industry leaders over matters of policy, permitting others to do likewise, asking, inviting and virtually begging the recipients of such criticism to air their views and defend their viewpoints,, and engaging in all sorts of other "journalistic heresies".
Her latest "arrest", "indictment" and "guilty verdict" came in the form of being dismissed (or if you prefer, fired, or if you don't like "fired", you might prefer "canned") as editor of the "Gotham Translator", the bi-monthly newsletter of the New York Circle of Translators (NYCT), one of the oldest chapters in the family of chapters of the American Translators Association (ATA).
And why was she dismissed, fired, canned? Because she believed and believes passionately in a free and open exchange of ideas and viewpoints; because she believed and believes passionately that no idea is sacred and therefore beyond questioning; because she believed and believes that the spatial-like diversity of translation and language results in a spatial-like diversity of ideas and opinions and viewpoints.
But her "superiors" at the NYCT, and by practical and quasi-legal extension those at the ATA, did not like and do not like diversity of opinion and free and open exchange of ideas and viewpoints. And if Ms. Zaros has a "rap sheet" for so-called "violations" of so-called "conventional wisdom", the record of forced and enforced acceptance of conventional wisdom not just by the American Translators Association but other translator organizations throughout the U.S. and I daresay the world, is at least twice as long. Try to air some views embodying "unconventional wisdom" on Henry Dotterer's ProZ.com and one of King Henry's thought policemen will "zap" you so fast that not even Google will have time to get your thoughts into its cache. Or try to talk about issues of translator and translation economics on Anatoly's TranslatorsCafe.com while citing a few names and locations here and there, and Anatoly's thought policemen will be down on you like a June bug.
And that is essentially why Translation Commentator is not merely a breath of fresh air, but a blast of fresh air.
Many will not like this blog and journal. Many will consider it "unprofessional" or "unworthy of the translation profession". Others will privately fume and fulminate against it. However, I would be willing to wager a good amount of dollars or euros or yen or zlotys or shekels or drachmas that those who do not like this publication or fume and fulminate against it will flatly turn down or, worse, not even respond to an invitation by its publisher to express and otherwise defend their viewpoints.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
"PROFESSIONALISM" REVISITED
***
When U.S. translators get together at conferences and other gatherings, two things stand out. First of all, one need only listen to their conversations to know that they genuinely enjoy what they are doing. I have never met a translator who dreaded the thought of "going to work" and it goes way beyond mere pecuniary motivation. There is a genuine passion for language. The second thing that stands out, and it's hard to reconcile with the first, is what could be described as a rancorous prate about "bad translations", "disastrous translations" and "hilarious literal translations". Although no names are ever mentioned, it is implicit in these conversations that these translations were not done by "professional" translators. In fact, if we were to count the number of times the word "professional" occurs in translator discourse and use it as an indicator of translators' priorities in the same way that pundits use the words of politicians, it might give us pause.
So, what exactly is a "professional" translator? For me, the answer is very simple. A professional translator is a translator who earns his/her living (or part of it) by translating just as a professional writer earns a living by writing, a painter by painting and a baseball player by playing baseball. Otherwise, the person is an "amateur". That, however, is not what all the babble and blabber is about because, obviously, the translators who produced the "bad" translations were paid for them and the person or persons who paid were taken in because they hired "uncertified" translators to do the job, or so goes the story. In the eyes of these self-appointed guardians of translatordom, the only way that translation will ever be recognized as a "profession" is when all translators are tested and "certified". This will be the subject of a future article or articles.
Another factor in the inordinate use of the word "professional" has its roots in another definition of the word which is "of, relating to, engaged in, or suitable for a profession: Lawyers, doctors, and other professional people." (my emphasis). As I pondered this definition it occurred to me that perhaps these would-be protectors of our noble profession are suffering not from "professional envy" but from "envy of [a] profession". George Witherington, a longtime translator, expresses it as follows:
"It arguably takes almost as much training and development to become a fully competent translator and interpreter as it does to become a doctor. Medical knowledge, teaching and best practice are dictated by the profession and not by the companies which do business in the health sector. Translator know-how, teaching and best practice have never been formalized in universities and translation companies in the same way as in medicine. The lack of a truly scientific basis has left these functions in the translation sphere exposed to commercial pressures."
In my opinion, this desire to "formalize" translation, to reduce it to a formula that can be taught and tested is one thing that has brought our profession and, yes, it truly is a profession, to its present sad state. Medicine is a science. Translation is an art. Both can be taught, but the processes and goals are vastly different. To attempt to make human language conform to a "scientific basis" is nothing short of ludicrous. It is as ludicrous as the idea that "you will never have to translate the same sentence again". That would be true only if that sentence appeared in exactly the same context as the previously translated sentence because the same original text frequently requires different translations in different contexts. In other words, retrieving an "exact match" from a database (or translation memory) may not be good enough. Recognizing this simple fact is an art; it is not a science. It requires that the human translator be sensitive to culture, beliefs and, above all, to have interpretive skills and common sense.
The foregoing fits in well with another definition of "professional" which is "having or showing great skill; expert: a professional repair job". And who is to decide whether the end product, albeit a translation, a painting or a theatrical performance has these qualities? I would say that it is the end user. If my client likes my translation, which exists among many other possibilities for conveying meaning, I am happy. I will not be overcome with remorse if, perchance, ten years down the road, I come upon that translation and decide that I would have done it differently.
When it comes to how we are paid for our work, I have one last thought on "professionalism". Several of my colleagues have been accused of being "unprofessional" in the way they have responded to those offers we all get to provide translation services for $.005 per word or less. Such offers seem far more "unprofessional" than any retort from a translator ever could be. In fact, they deserve the same response I would undoubtedly get if I asked my dentist to provide a sample filling so that I might see if I liked his work.
"It arguably takes almost as much training and deveopment to become a fully competent translator and interpreter as it does to become a doctor. Medical knowledge, teaching and best practice are dictated by the profession and not by the companies which do business in the health sector. Translator know-how, teaching and best practice have never been formalized in universities and translation companies in the same way as in medicine. The lack of a truly scientific basis has left these functions in the translation sphere exposed to commercial pressures."
When U.S. translators get together at conferences and other gatherings, two things stand out. First of all, one need only listen to their conversations to know that they genuinely enjoy what they are doing. I have never met a translator who dreaded the thought of "going to work" and it goes way beyond mere pecuniary motivation. There is a genuine passion for language. The second thing that stands out, and it's hard to reconcile with the first, is what could be described as a rancorous prate about "bad translations", "disastrous translations" and "hilarious literal translations". Although no names are ever mentioned, it is implicit in these conversations that these translations were not done by "professional" translators. In fact, if we were to count the number of times the word "professional" occurs in translator discourse and use it as an indicator of translators' priorities in the same way that pundits use the words of politicians, it might give us pause.
So, what exactly is a "professional" translator? For me, the answer is very simple. A professional translator is a translator who earns his/her living (or part of it) by translating just as a professional writer earns a living by writing, a painter by painting and a baseball player by playing baseball. Otherwise, the person is an "amateur". That, however, is not what all the babble and blabber is about because, obviously, the translators who produced the "bad" translations were paid for them and the person or persons who paid were taken in because they hired "uncertified" translators to do the job, or so goes the story. In the eyes of these self-appointed guardians of translatordom, the only way that translation will ever be recognized as a "profession" is when all translators are tested and "certified". This will be the subject of a future article or articles.
Another factor in the inordinate use of the word "professional" has its roots in another definition of the word which is "of, relating to, engaged in, or suitable for a profession: Lawyers, doctors, and other professional people." (my emphasis). As I pondered this definition it occurred to me that perhaps these would-be protectors of our noble profession are suffering not from "professional envy" but from "envy of [a] profession". George Witherington, a longtime translator, expresses it as follows:
"It arguably takes almost as much training and development to become a fully competent translator and interpreter as it does to become a doctor. Medical knowledge, teaching and best practice are dictated by the profession and not by the companies which do business in the health sector. Translator know-how, teaching and best practice have never been formalized in universities and translation companies in the same way as in medicine. The lack of a truly scientific basis has left these functions in the translation sphere exposed to commercial pressures."
In my opinion, this desire to "formalize" translation, to reduce it to a formula that can be taught and tested is one thing that has brought our profession and, yes, it truly is a profession, to its present sad state. Medicine is a science. Translation is an art. Both can be taught, but the processes and goals are vastly different. To attempt to make human language conform to a "scientific basis" is nothing short of ludicrous. It is as ludicrous as the idea that "you will never have to translate the same sentence again". That would be true only if that sentence appeared in exactly the same context as the previously translated sentence because the same original text frequently requires different translations in different contexts. In other words, retrieving an "exact match" from a database (or translation memory) may not be good enough. Recognizing this simple fact is an art; it is not a science. It requires that the human translator be sensitive to culture, beliefs and, above all, to have interpretive skills and common sense.
The foregoing fits in well with another definition of "professional" which is "having or showing great skill; expert: a professional repair job". And who is to decide whether the end product, albeit a translation, a painting or a theatrical performance has these qualities? I would say that it is the end user. If my client likes my translation, which exists among many other possibilities for conveying meaning, I am happy. I will not be overcome with remorse if, perchance, ten years down the road, I come upon that translation and decide that I would have done it differently.
When it comes to how we are paid for our work, I have one last thought on "professionalism". Several of my colleagues have been accused of being "unprofessional" in the way they have responded to those offers we all get to provide translation services for $.005 per word or less. Such offers seem far more "unprofessional" than any retort from a translator ever could be. In fact, they deserve the same response I would undoubtedly get if I asked my dentist to provide a sample filling so that I might see if I liked his work.
"It arguably takes almost as much training and deveopment to become a fully competent translator and interpreter as it does to become a doctor. Medical knowledge, teaching and best practice are dictated by the profession and not by the companies which do business in the health sector. Translator know-how, teaching and best practice have never been formalized in universities and translation companies in the same way as in medicine. The lack of a truly scientific basis has left these functions in the translation sphere exposed to commercial pressures."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)