yndigo

A [^h]istoric confusion

You can read paragraph upon paragraph of British English and not even notice a difference. And then all of a sudden, someone bites into a butty or gets struck by a lorry and you feel an ocean dividing us. A British colleague years ago stopped me dead in my tracks when she said something or other was “really hotting up.” Whaaa? Did you just make that up, I asked her. That can’t be allowed where you’re from, can it?

We all know there are differences. Yet keeping them separate is not as easy as it seems. Subtle usage borrowings slip back and forth. Gray and grey are used interchangebly. Periods or commas falling within–or outside–quotation marks are ignored. Pretentious dads in my neighborhood refer to their kids’ soccer uniforms as “kits.”

Yet outside my job, I’m not a stickler for correct usage. I could care less how people write or speak (pun intended). I find languages fascinating yet I’m really more interested in descriptive than prescreptive grammar.

One thing that often bugs me though is the an before historic when spoken or written by an American. Those who have studied phonetics will recognize the diacritic for the aspirated h in the subtitle of this post. Because we in the US aspirate the h–giving it a consonant sound–the correct article is a not an.The rule is based on sound. Conversely, a Londoner pronounces the word “istoric” and needs the n to avoid the unnatural and disruptive pause in his sentence.

But who knows, maybe over time the an will force a pronunciation change that will in turn justify its usage. Language is fluid. And even more fluid since the internet. As we translators who research terms on the web know, an alternate universe of mistranslation exists, so a term that was once clearly wrong, now has tens or even hundreds of thousands of google hits to corroborate its validity. So we’re both blessed and cursed with the mountains of information available today, and must be more vigilant than ever. But as translators, I suppose that is our speciality [sic].

The changing rules of typography

Two spaces after a period. Period! OK…maybe not anymore. The first time I was told to break this rule was about 15 years ago in an office entering bibliographies into a database. The office computer guy informed us the proprietary database didn’t like double spaces, and added that one space would be the new rule in the computer age.

No more underlining! Never in a printed document, according to the typographyforlawyers.com blog. Wayne Scheiss concurs that for legal writing underlining is out, italics are in, despite the Bluebook’s delay in catching up.

Quotation marks are yet another typographical element computers have upended. From the ambidextrous “dumb” quotes we’ve used since the days of typewriters to the curled “smart” quotes that Word almost always gets right, typography has come a long way.

The translator of course has more constraints in terms of typography than does the writer. The main one being the original. Slavishly copying the bold, italics, underlines, caps, etc., of the source document — even if the original drafter was completely careless, or the file 50-years old — is often the rule.

But when should we override the conventions of the original? I mean it is in a different language. We’re obviously not going to follow the Spanish question marks, or the French quotation marks. So why italics, bold and underline? Are we creating a look-alike document or a counterpart document?

The October issue of the American Translators Association’s ATA Chronicle features an article by Diane Howard called Ethical Codes: Where Are We? The article, besides being very clear and well written, made the argument that much more precision is needed in ATA’s Code of Professional Conduct and Business Practices, which is currently under review.

One point Diane made that I’d like to focus on is this: none of the professional codes cited in the article — the British Institute of Linguists, Association of Translators and Interpreters of Alberta, Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators, and the ATA’s own — covers translation skills. That is, when these various codes speak of skills a translator needs to know, they talk about language skills and subject area skills but not specifically translation skills. As Diane puts it, “The ability to analyze a source text, to apply translation strategies, to articulate the translation process — these elements are either assumed or discounted.”

So the essential skill of the translator–the skill that sets him apart from the millions who know a second language and even those who are conversant in a specific discipline–has not been codified. Yet we know it exists. How do we know? Because it irritates us when someone tells us their brother-in-law speaks a few languages so, naturally, he’d make a good translator. “Maybe you can send him some. He has a free weekend now and again.” Hey, come to think of it, maybe I’ll let him work on my car over the weekend, too. He has a few cars, doesn’t he?

Could this be the source of the lack of respect translators often feel from people who don’t understand their profession? That the whole is no more than the sum of the parts? Pehaps. I do know that anyone who’s given translation a serious try quickly finds there’s more to it than knowing two languages.

One big discovery for beginning translators is that languages were not made to interlock like Lego pieces. Sure, there are plenty of words that have a one-to-one correspondence, more or less. But there are so many more that are slippery. The image that comes to my mind every time I translate is of two sheets of plastic with glue in between. You try to slide one around on top of the other–making tiny adjustments–while the glue is still wet. By the time the glue dries (the deadline!) we hope the two texts align as closely as possible, albeit never perfectly.

I overheard a translator friend arguing with a lawyer about who makes the best translator: a seasoned legal translator, or a law student with a language background. You can see from this post which side I was on, but it was an interesting — if infuriating — conversation to listen to just the same.

We, as translators, put our best foot when we talk about our essential skill, not just the accessory skills needed to perform our job. Now if we can just update the Code accordingly.

I happened upon a New York Times blog post listing the 100 things restaurant staffers should never do — part one and two — and thought the idea good enough to steal (somehow, “no stealing” wasn’t high on our list). Despite the title, many of the don’ts apply more to agencies and their staff. Some to individual translators. And some to any service related job.

1. Never forget to thank the client for requesting a quote (even if you don’t get the assignment).
2. Never assume a new client has used translation services before, or the converse. Some customers are new to the experience, and some are savvier than you’d imagine.
3. Never leave a request for information without a response. If you were on vacation/your computer crashed/you’re thinking of a career change, respond to all inquiries no matter how late. “I’m sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner. I hope everything worked out alright,” confirms your reputation as a professional.
4. Never try to impress a client by using industry jargon or acronyms. TRADOS often means little to those in the outside world. In emails and conversations, always use the full explanation of a term the first time it is mentioned.
5. Never tell a client, “That turnaround time is not possible.” Instead try, “Here’s what I can do in that time,” or offer to start delivering parts of the project within the deadline. Chances are good that your client’s deadline isn’t wholly within their control. Instead of relaying to their manager that you said the deadline isn’t possible, they will pick up the phone and call another provider.
6. On the other hand, never promise a deadline you know you can’t meet. You wouldn’t want a plumber promising to fix your only toilet within a few hours knowing he can’t do it until three days later.
7. If a deadline seems tight, do not forget to inquire why it is so. If your client needs to quickly review a document for content, you may be able to deliver a translation “For Informational Purposes Only” by their deadline, and follow up with an edited version shortly after.
8. Never respond to a request for services with an emphasis on how busy you already are with other assignments. You might succeed in showing how in demand you are, but you will likely make them think twice about calling again. Thank the caller for their consideration and drop them a note when your workload lightens up.
9. Never hesitate to be truthful when necessary. “You may need to use another vendor for that assignment,” shows sincere concern for your client’s project and will encourage them to contact you again. This applies to individual translators — who are more accustomed to the practice of referring colleagues — and to agencies too. Offer a lead if you are able.
10. Never let your client hear you denigrate other translators or agencies. Although it is important to get today’s assignment, it is vital to leave a positive impression if you want the client to recommend your services to others.
11. Never miss the chance to show respect for your client’s knowledge of their industry. Focusing primarily on your knowledge of translation may indirectly belittle their input.
12. Never assume you already know everything you need to know about your language pair(s) or specialty(ies). Translation is one of those professions where you can continue to learn and grow if you remain open-minded.
13. Never make excuses for your rate; you are offering a professional service. Do the homework to make sure your rates are within industry standards.
14. Never increase your rate based solely on your perception of the client’s wealth or budget. Their budget is subject to change from month to month, and you might unwittingly price yourself out of a long-term relationship.
15. Don’t be too rigid about turnaround times or pricing. After an initial quote, there are often ways to negotiate your services to save the client money. Ask the client to prioritize price, schedule, and quality, and offer to work around those priorities.
16. Never offer a firm quote without looking at the WHOLE source text.
17. Never forget to ask a client for a style preference or style sheet on especially long or ongoing assignments. It is your job to know that these exist.
18. Never wait to look at the source text. Examine it as soon as possible even if you are in the middle of another assignment. Two hours before the deadline is too late to ask for a more legible copy.
19. Never assume your client has thoroughly examined the source text. You may discover text already in the target language, which is good news; or you may discover text in a third language, which is not.
20. Never contact the client the first time you come across a discrepancy in the source file. The answer you seek may lie somewhere later on in the file.
21. Never barrage your client with petty questions, like “Which do you prefer, “AM” or “A.M.”? Have your own default in-house style guide. If you want to check the client’s preference for small stylistic issues, send a note with the finished translation leaving the client the option of not responding. For example, “I used ‘AM’ in the translation. Let me know if you’d like me to change it.” Although you may be finished with the project, it’s probable that your client is not and does not have time to discuss such matters.
22. Never let the client intimidate you into changing a translation you know is correct. Offer to consult a colleague regarding the proposed changes.
23. As a translator, never charge for reviewing your own translation. It’s a given. As an agency, be clear about what your price includes in terms of editing, proofreading and other QC procedures.
24. Never forget to ask the client to confirm receipt of the delivered translation.
25. Never forget that human translation is an organic product. Be open to reviewing completed translations, be willing to admit mistakes, and be prepared to defend yourself with solid resources beyond, “I’ve been doing this a long time.” You may have been doing it wrong for a long time.

Who is your audience?

Or should I say, Who are your audience? I’ll have to defer to M Lynne “Lynneguist” Murphy over at separated by a common language for that one. Lynne delves into the minute linguistic variations between our side of the pond and hers, which can be surpisingly practical when you’re considering whether to wear your vest under or over your shirt. Her latest post includes mashed potatoes, which I, for one, always eat in the plural.

Country-specific particularities are merely the most obvious consideration when we gear a translation to a specific audience. And most translators never even have to worry about it, because they translate only into the variety spoken in their own country. They are not qualified to do otherwise.

When we say audience, we are most often asking why we are translating something. Contract? Sure, but is this a draft yet to be executed or an exhibit in a litigation? Press release? OK, but is this for the company to ensure their message is intact, or will it go straight from our desk to publication? Medical brochure? For the doctor or the public?

Does the reader want to know what it says, or what it means?

Which is not always the same thing. Or would the client prefer we ignore the original altogether? We who work in legal translation are usually on a short leash. The author may have wanted to convey a certain message, but if he went about it in an awkward manner and ends up clouding that message, we usually feel we should retain all the awkwardness and make it just as cloudy for our reader. We don’t want to go sticking our neck out, and, how someone said something may be as important as what he said.

Of course we need to distinguish whether the writing is obtuse or if in fact the source language allows for much subtler turns of phrase to convey the same thing. In other words, if the original means something to a speaker of the original language, the translation better mean something to a speaker of the target language. Legal translators or not, we are not slaves to each word to the detriment of meaning.

Erring on the literal side of translation is not the legal translators only mode. We must also ask the purpose of the translation. This could determine how we treat everything from word choice to currency symbols, translator’s notes to formatting.

Of course each discipline has its default mode with its corresponding sense of freedom. The advertising translator wants to make the ad sell and often takes many liberties to do it. Someone who translates technical manuals wants to ensure the user understands the device even if the author of the source did not. Still, he often must check his creativity at the door.

The legal translator wants to be able to defend each word he puts on the page, sometimes despite his client’s wishes. He’s faithful to the text; not always to his customer. Each mode falls somewhere along a spectrum from word-for-word translation at one end, to adaptation at the other.

Beyond asking the general question, “Why do you want this translated?” we can narrow it down in more specific ways:

• What country or region?
• Is this for filing or for informational purposes;
• Is this for publication/presentation or for informational purposes;
• Is this for the expert or the layperson
• Shall we follow the author’s style or give it a new style?

Etcetera, etcetera. And knowing the answer to these questions will help us to provide what our audience ask for.

Because the American Translators Association celebrated its 50th anniversary conference in New York City, I was able to take time away from my office without too much trouble to attend some sessions and visit with colleagues and translators.

Overall, I found the conference excellent, and the turnout extraordinary. Over 2,300 attended and at times, it looked like translators had entirely overtaken the Marriott Hotel.

Although I was not able to attend as many sessions as I hoped, I wanted to mention a few I found to be particularly well done and engaging:

• Grant Hamilton held a pre-conference session on untangling the linguistic knot that is administrative French. His steady hand as a translator nudged us all in the direction of extracting the meaning, leaving behind the structure, and feeling the freedom to rephrase into beautifully readable English.
• François Lavallée’s session on translating slogans from English to French was not only amusing, it was unexpectedly informative. Unexpected because I was doubtful one could codify something that on the surface looks as instinctive and spontaneous as slogans. But François’ careful observation of French and English slogans over the years uncovered many underlying “rules” for slogan writing. I might also mention François’ comic timing, which made the hour fly by.
• On a more serious note, the session on legal translation presided over by Steve Kahaner, Thomas West III, and Alejandro Garro, was packed with useful information for the legal translator striving to develop the requisite experience to master this challenging translation field. And with Steve and Thomas both heading up well regarded translation agencies specializing in law (i.e., the competition), it gave me a chance to reflect on how to improve our offering here at Yndigo Translations.

While not all conference events and sessions were equally interesting or fruitful — as can only be expected at such an enormous event — the four days were, from my point of view, an overwhelming success.

The 50th annual conference of the American Translators Association kicked off in earnest yesterday in Times Square.

It was interesting to learn that the 25th Conference held in 1984–also in New York City–saw its events program dubbed “ATA Silver Tongues.” I did not attend that year. Nor did I find out yesterday if “silver” had anything to do with the silver anniversary. If it did, this year we should rightfully be called “Golden Tongues,” even if it has the ring of a bad translation.

Whatever we call ourselves, we’re growing in numbers and confidence judging by this year’s conference. What an incredible turnout and amazing schedule of events!

A lot has been written about the threat posed to the professional translator by machine translation. Some dismiss it as a distant threat. For others, like Jussara who recently commented on one of my old posts, it’s like global warming: it’s real and it’s already happening. And Jussara claims most translators are not even good enough to compete with it.

But another force is at work in the industry: fungibility. And it’s a trend that is also being driven by technology.

Of course, the internet has made it possible for businesses and individuals to specialize like never before. This means we don’t have to shop at a store that sells every car part under the sun if the selection of floormats is better at a store that sells nothing but mats. And we don’t have to use a general translator if we want someone who really knows car engines or the environment. I would say this a good trend. It leads to better translations and it rewards translators who dig deep into their subject.

Driving us in the other direction however — away from specialization — is translation as big business. Large agencies often have large databases, filled with thousands of translators from accross the globe. By plugging into such a vast network, these agencies are able to promise speed and capacity that others are not.

But when it comes to executing these fast or high-volume jobs, translators often get an anonymous email, one that has clearly been sent to tens, even hundreds of his or her peers asking how many words they can do over, for example, the next 24 hours.

A quick message, a click of a button and the project manager has made his job so much easier than his pre-email counterpart could have ever hoped. This is a disturbing trend. Not only does it drive down quality, it can mean a breach of confidentiality if, for example, the project manager attaches a file to an email spread far and wide.

And that’s just just the risk to the client relationship. This practice can can also hurt the agency’s working relationship with its translators. Some have resigned themselves to the practice as the modern way of doing business, thus they try their best to respond as quickly as they can. But this puts translators in competition to see who can be the most available and accessible, not the most qualified.

Translators have more experience than I do with this though, so let me ask them: have you seen this trend grow? Is there an upside to it?

I just signed up for this year’s ATA conference in New York City, which is convenient because I live and work here (well, I’m in Brooklyn but I go to “the city” often enough that it doesn’t feel like a major schlep).

I’m looking forward to the conference, not only to see old friends and meet translators I know only by email or phone, but also in the hopes I run into my fellow bloggers so they can give me some tips on blogging stamina. I could use it!

Oh, and also I hope to learn a few new things about translation, just haven’t figured out which seminars and sessions I want to attend.

Hope to see you there!

Confidence and Experience in Translation

Watching the French Open finals this morning between Dinara Safina and Svetlana Kuznetsova, I heard “S’il vous plaît, mesdames et messieurs” come over the loudspeaker to quiet the crowd before play (By the way, when did the wave make its transition to the tennis stadium?).

My very funny wife Jen echoed the French with her intentionally awkward and accented, “If it PLEEZES you, laideeez and zjentlemen.” I don’t know why it made me laugh so much.

Of course we don’t dissect the phrase like that when we translate. Just like we don’t literally render the close of a letter, “Please agree, Madame, to the assurance of my distinguished sentiments.” We say “Yours truly” or “Sincerely” or some other anglified formula.

Pretty obvious to translators. Yet, many still resort to the old “That’s what it says in the original” when dealing with less formulaic phrases. If it is correct and fluent in the original, it should be correct and fluent in the translation. And even when it’s not correct, we don’t always have an excuse. Because although it’s common to find grammar mistakes in the original document, they are often made by a native speaker. Thus the idiom is still native, and the translation should be native too.

Here’s an example: native English speakers often say, “Between he and I.” This is an example of an attempt at hypercorrectness and it’s wrong. Yet people born and raised speaking English do it all the time (in fact, I doubt a non-native speaker would make this same mistake unless he spends too much time around us!). We cannot translate this into French as “Entre il et je” because no native French speaker would ever say that. The only solution is to gloss over this mother-tongue mistake.

And when the source document is free of errors, there’s simply no excuse at all for a less than fluid translation. I read a translation last week that was frankly horrible. The translator just couldn’t be bothered to put words into their English order or even rout out false friends. Or spell-check for that matter! (one of my pet peeves). I think he knows better in fact, just didn’t review his work. He left far too much work for the editor. He was fast. I’ll say that for him. But not worth it.

Often a translation that sticks too closely to the original is the result of a lack of confidence. There is what I call “the steady hand” in translation, a translator — often seasoned — who is able to cut through the dense source idiom. These individuals, while never taking liberties with key terms, don’t get tripped up by the inherent “differentness” of the source language. It takes a nuanced understanding of the original to gain this sort of confidence. Along with years of experience solving how to put it into another language.