 |
| [guns at Gettysburg*] |
An essential part of any successful translation is another pair of eyes.
It is a standard part of the document QA process to have someone else, an
editor, review the document as prepared by the translator. In some cases,
notably in the medical and pharmaceutical industries, government regulations
delineate the responsibility of each editor, ranging from fundamental check of
the translation to identification of critical errors and formatting issues. In
most other fields, the responsibility of editors is far more ambiguous. Editors
can understand that it is their task to correct any translation and language
errors but also can assume, as the agent of the paying party, that their
mandate is to create the best possible translation, which generally involves
also improving the style of the original translation. Depending on the
approach, the physical and emotional result is quite different.
Many translation editors, often translators themselves, emphasize the
checking aspect of their task. In other words, they compare the source and
target document and amend the original translation if they find terminology or
syntax issues that affect the reader understanding of the document. In most
cases, such editors often think “I would have written this sentence differently
but, as is, the content is clear and correct.” The resulting amended document
is thus essentially similar to the original with minor changes (assuming that
the translators did a reasonably professional job). For translators, viewing
the tracked changes can be a bit annoying when they don’t agree but not an
emotionally catastrophic event as the amended text shows that the translator
expressed the essential elements of the original document in a reasonable way.
On the other extreme are those editors whose vision is solely to produce
the best possible text as they see it. These are often in-house or monolingual
(just considering the target text). The editing process approaches that of
rewriting, with each sentence subject to total revision if the editor find that
path appropriate. The translator’s writing style and terminology choices are
not relevant factors. The resulting text resembles Picket’s troops after the
Battle of Gettysburg, with the red (or other color) of tracked changes
dominating the basic black of the original. For the translator receiving the
marked up revised version, it is painful even to start to analyze the changes,
especially when so many are “preferential”. It is generally but not always
correct to say that the new version is better in most ways but that does not
necessarily mean that the original translation was poor. For the most part, as
a rule, any revision, especially by another person, will improve even the best
written document.
Translators have almost no control on which editor their work will fall
or the actual instructions to that editor. In the case of a gatekeeper editor
that makes only essential changes, all the translators needs to do is to take a
deep breath and patiently and objectively (as much as humanly possible) either
accept or reject the changes, providing explanations in the latter case. This
approach shows professionalism and adds to the translator’s prestige. If we
wish to be honest, it is always possible to improve any text. Translators face
a much more difficult task when receiving a total rewrite. It is important to avoid
the two extremes, i.e., complete loss of self-confidence and indisciminate dismissal
of the corrections of the editors. The truth is somewhere in between. Beyond the
actual corrections, it is important but admittedly difficult to admit that the
purpose of the whole translation process is to produce the best possible
translation, with both the translation and editor having important role. In the
final analysis, the bottom line is that the customer is happy.
When I work as an editor, I attempt to avoid imposing my writing style
on the translation as I believe that a translated document is a piece of
writing in itself, unique and characteristic of its writer, who happens to be a
translator. In some cases, when the translator has confused or convoluted the
content, it is necessary to make wholesale changes but that path is a last
resort. There are many roads to Rome and almost as many ways to translate a
given text. Yet, I have occasionally almost rewritten translations, producing not
only a much better text but probably also harsh emotions in the actual
translator.
In technical translation, the golden path in most cases involves some
combination of respect of the manner of expression of the translator and
loyalty to the text and the customer. For the editor, it is often difficult to
find that ideal compromise. For the translator, it is necessary to learn from
one’s errors while recognizing that the editor due to personal reasons or
professional guidelines chose to rewrite a reasonable translation, which does
not take away from the skill of the original translator. Translators need to
live, learn and believe in themselves and in their ability to live and learn.
* Picture captions help the blind fully access the Internet.
No comments:
Post a Comment