Paine-ful wisdom – on translators, editors, between them and beyond them

 

[The Odd Couple]

This week, I sent the following email to a trusted project manager (PM) after reviewing the changes her editor had made to my translation: “I reviewed the edits and noticed that the editor found a few minor errors [ones that do not affect understanding], introduced a few minor errors, improved the phrasing in a few places and mainly made preferential changes. The most important thing is that the customer receives the best possible translation.” The translation involved was a two-page bank declaration in convoluted Hebrew (aren’t all bank documents in convoluted language?) on a poor PDF delivered in 24 hours.

This unpleasant interaction between translator and editor, with the PM in between, led me to reconsider the Odd Couple-like nature of the relationship between technical translators and editors. Limited by time constraints, translators must convert a text in the source language, often not very easy to read due to the quality of the PDF, into a Word document in the target document acceptable for use by the customer. This task involves reading the document many times in several forms, including bilingual and monolingual as well as on screen and on paper, all within a short period of time. Not only is it difficult to read the document “freshly” every time without sufficient time gaps, another pair of eyes will always find ways to improve the translation. Thus, the even the most professional translations are not perfect. 

By contrast, the editor’s task is read the monolingual document, comparing it when necessary to the source document, identify any errors and refine the existing text until it shines. They, of course, apply their judgment and opinion of correct language, which may not be identical to the translators’ view. The task is far more focused and involves many less read-throughs. Details matter, as Felix Ungar would say, without consideration of the emotional reaction of the translator that had put so much effort in producing the text. The result is that many translators feel that editors abuse them, as reflected in a typical emotional response: ”This editor had to prove his/her existence.” Clearly, there is generally little love between technical translators and editors.

However, if the goal of the translation process is to produce the most faithful and well-written document for the customer, i.e., to provide value, both the translator and editor are essential to the process. No one pair of eyes can attain that goal regardless of the amount of knowledge and experience. In the best possible world, the PM understands this.  In my case, she will continue to work with me as she has done for many years as I provide a solid translation on or before the deadline, exactly what is required of me. Likewise, she will continue to depend on that editor to improve translations in order to retain her customers. Unfortunately, this global understanding of the goal is far from universal. Still, it is important for translators to keep it in mind when receiving "massacred" versions of their translation. In fact, the words of Thomas Paine ring true: “The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection.”

Stupefying language – to aid or abet?

 

[graffiti*]

“After careful thought, I am too academic and old-(fashioned) to do this properly. I will have to pass.”

I sent this response to one of my regular customers, who asked me to further simplify the simplified text of a contract based on similar language on another site. In other words, I was asked to take simplified English of a legal agreement and turn into street dialect, including the grammar or lack thereof and vocabulary. This request was the first I have ever received of this nature. As such, I delayed response until I had carefully considered the matter. The dilemma for me went beyond my ability to the properly perform this task and involved whether I should do it.

To clarify the task, although I cannot present the actual text due to copyright and confidentiality issues, I will provide a similar example:

Legal	Simplified	Uber-simplified
Only hair salons with city business licenses can sign this agreement.	If you are working from home and not paying the city to allow you to run your business, forget about it cause we cannot help you.	You think that any idiot with a pair of scissors can join our site? Forget it! Pay the stupid city. Don’t waste our time.

 

I wish I could say that I am exaggerating but some of the examples provided were far more “conversational”. The nature of the task was clear.

I understand that there is a justification for this task. In every country, a certain percentage of the population, some more and some less, lack basic language skills. The reasons for this deficiency include being immigrants, not finishing school and not even having gone to school. These people are already disadvantaged and discriminating against without unintentionally taking their legal rights away from them. As they cannot understand even simplified legal language, the idea of bringing the language down to their level can be justified in terms of social justice.

However, I was not qualified to do this project due to my background, lack of exposure and language habits. To explain, my father was a journalist and financial writer who chose words like some choose tomatoes at the green grocer: picking each one with care and searching for the gems. He would say: “why use three words when one word will do.” Clearly, that rule would not apply in this assignment. Beyond that, I have lived in Israel for some 30 years now and have no idea how the uneducated currently speak on the street, not that I ever was exposed to that language when I lived project there. Finally, as an English lecturer as well as a translator, I teach and reinforce proper English and believe in its value. Writing such dialogue would border on cheating on myself in a certain sense. Thus, I was clearly not the correct candidate for this job.

Beyond the issue of ability was the problem of the ethics of accepting substandard English as a dialect. The issue of when substandard language becomes respectable is complicated but has a long history. After all, French, Spanish and Italian, among others, began as awful Latin. However, intentionally writing text as if I were Cheech and Chong went beyond funny and entered the range of inappropriate. Although it may overly simplistic to think so, I believe that people of all ages can improve their language at least up to a certain level. It may elitist to say but I feel that they can and should. It simply felt wrong to cater to and legitimatize extremely substandard English.

For that reason, I exercised my right to take my personal stand on this issue and wrote the answer cited above. The issue is not black and white and does involve a dilemma. Specifically, does explaining legal language using street syntax aid people in understanding or abet them by formally legitimatizing their language? I reached my own conclusion. What would your decision be?

* Caption pictures to create full access to the blind.

Picture credit: Image by <a href="https://pixabay.com/users/mmt-649797/?utm_source=link-attribution&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=image&amp;utm_content=569265">MMT</a> from <a href="https://pixabay.com/?utm_source=link-attribution&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=image&amp;utm_content=569265">Pixabay</a>

Like pearls to swine?

Wordsmiths value words. It is part of the job description of writers, playwrights, copy editors, transcreaters, translators and editors, to name a few, to care deeply about the quality of writing and content.  Otherwise, there is no point in investing so much time and effort.  Unfortunately, two of these professionals often face a certain dilemma since they have no control of the actual initial writing process and thus often receive material that is poorly written in terms of language, problematic in content and/or poorly structured. Since their mandate is not to rewrite the material but instead to respect the desire of the writer, the question arises whether it is appropriate to improve the material.

Since many writers, especially scientists and foreign students, lack thorough knowledge of language, editors and translators often receive texts whose grammar and syntax are atrocious. It is clear that the language errors are not intentional.  Therefore, it is common practice to polish the language, eliminating errors and rendering the sentences correct in terms of grammar and syntax. Occasionally, for reasons of style or ignorance, a writer uses highfalutin terms or the wrong register.  Since the goal is a proper text, it is acceptable to rain on the parade and rein in the language to a certain degree, while of course trying to maintain the voice of the writer as much as possible. In these two cases, the editor or translator actively intervenes to improve the text as required.

In regards to content, regardless of pain suffered, the rule tends to be “garbage in, garbage out.” Since editors and translators are language, not content, experts and are ultimately paid by the hour, they have no choice but to faithfully transmit the poor content. For example, when a writer applies exaggerated academic style to attain the required number of pages and restates each and every idea a copious number of times, it may be painful to read but that is what the writer wants. Likewise, when the text essentially has no content but is filled with beautiful sentences, as in much modern French writing, laissez les bon temps roulez, as they say in New Orleans. In these cases, it is necessary to hold your nose and work only on the language.

There are cases where it is impossible to accept the material blindly.  If the writer insists on inserting incorrect or misleading information into the text, the editor or translator should not be an accomplice to this act. The best policy is to refer the issues to the writer.  On a language level, if the structure of the work in terms of paragraphing and sectioning is inappropriate or non-existent, the correction process is too time consuming to be part of the assigned task. Once again, the writer should be made aware of the problems.

These guidelines are, of course, my opinion.  I personally know many translators and editors that would disagree with me regarding any of the above statements. Passion and opinion are part and parcel of wordsmiths. You could say that some porcine look good with fancy necklaces and are intelligent enough to appreciate them.