Long briefs and AI wisdom

 

A word to the wise is sufficient, but only sometimes; a kick in the ass makes a far greater impression. As a case in point, this week I made an apparently unsuccessful proposal on a translation project. In retrospect, I could have and should have handled it differently and will do so in the future.

The project in question was the translation from French into English of a 45-page real estate purchase contract containing nearly 25,000 words. The document posed several challenges, including PDF formatting and quite precise legal vocabulary. Furthermore, the customer required a signed statement of accuracy, which would entail even more QA time to ensure that demand. Due to the extensive time required because of the document’s length and complexity, the quote involved four figures (in euros) and a long deadline. I received a polite but understandable “I will let you know when relevant”. It was clear from the start that the customer was neither expecting or willing to pay such an amount. To be fair, I was not surprised but stood by my quote as I knew how much time and effort such a translation involves.

Looking back, I see that I had another option, one that I know about and had forgotten. Specifically, I had heard Naomi Shenkar, a respected Israeli attorney and translator, say that, for long documents,  she provides two quotes: one for human translation and one for AI + editing. The first is based on standard human translation elements while the second quote is contingent on the quality of the AI output. She also noted that most customers ultimately prefer the human translation. In this matter, she provides the potential buyer with a choice, an unequal one in many respects, but at least an option.

I now recognize that I should have done the same. If I had offered to edit an AI version, the customer may have considered and understood the human translation proposal. While I am not particularly fond of AI or any machine translation, for longer documents for which the time and financial investment may be beyond the customer’s situation, it can provide a reasonable alternative. Furthermore, I would have created a win/win solution. Shorter projects create income and allow the translator to help other customers.

When I began translating some 22 years ago, I promised myself that I would limit myself to one time per mistake. I have been fairly loyal to that vow. The next time I have the opportunity to make a proposal on a long legal document, I will provide an AI option. Better late than never.

Audiblilizing translation – the art of legal (and other technical) translation

 

[Quarterback before snap*]

In American football, one of the major differences between experienced and inexperienced as well as effective and ineffective quarterbacks is the ability to audibilize, which means to adjust the play called by the coach as they survey the defense right before the snap. It takes knowledge, judgment and confidence to understand that the given play call will not work and what to do about it.

Likewise, effective technical translators, especially legal experts, know how to correctly take a sentence in one language and render it in another language and culture, making the necessary changes while neither subtracting or adding content. Literal translation of the text can lead to awkward sentences at minimum and fundamental miscommunications at worst.  When translator works properly,  the resulting text may seem noticeably different in terms of sentence structure and even vocabulary but is quite loyal in terms of content.

Simply put, each language has its unique way of expressing itself and framing sentences. Depending on the language combinations, word-for-word translation can lead to simply awful results. The causes for this asymmetry between languages are many and include:

·         Syntax – Word order varies from language to language in terms of placement of subordinate phrases, time expressions, adjectives and even grammatical subjects.

·         Passive/Active – While in certain languages, the passive form is considered more academic and therefore higher level, such as in Hebrew, in other languages it is considered confusing and poor writing. Therefore, in many cases, the translator must change the whole structure, including the form of verb.

·         Punctuation – There are no universal punctuation rules or even rules of what constitutes a sentence. Dostoevsky and lawyers in many languages can get away with whole paragraphs linked with commas and ending after in a period after a half of page (or more). Other languages, notably English, have much more rigid sentence structure and/or stylistic norms, requiring the chopping of sentences in multiple sentences

·         Vocabulary – Languages and cultures vary in terms of terminology development, meaning similar terms may carry more limited or expanded meanings. Moreover, certain terms many not exist in the target language, requiring more creative solutions. Legal, like all technical, translators must understand the exact meaning of a term in both the source and target language.

·         Legalese – Some legal cultures have instituted “plain language” rules intended to render the text intelligible to a greater number of persons. Others view use of the highly specialized phrases as a sign of an erudite writer.

·         Poor source text – The sad fact is that many legal and other technical writers produce poorly written text. While “garbage in, garbage out” may be easier, professional translators try to render the text into proper language.

A truly proficient translator grasps the meaning of the source sentence and creates a clear, well-written equivalent in the target language even if it involves significant changes to the sentence structure and syntax. By contrast, a poor translation may be loyal to the original structure but sounds like a translation. If you wish to judge the result, audibilize it, i.e., read it out loud. It should sound like a native writer wrote it. If so, the legal  translator has properly audiblized the text and is worth hiring again.

 

* Picture captions help the blind fully access the Internet.

Picture credit

Translation specialization and the wisdom of Dr. Dolittle

 

[group of geese walking*]

The mantra of translation success experts in recent years has been “specialization”, i.e., generalists have no future. As with all panaceas, there is a degree of truth to that approach. The main challenge in specializing is not identifying a profitable market niche or focusing on work in that area but actually walking the walk and talking the talk. In other words, to specialize in a field requires knowledge of that field.

Mastery of a knowledge area involves the understanding of the relevant processes, vocabulary and manner of expression. The first key to accurate translation is understand what the writer is saying, which goes way beyond the actual words. Technical translators must understand the how and why of a given process, whether it is the limitations in a commercial lease or the intricacies of a DNA process. The actual words in the text may only symbolize that process and assume professional knowledge. The translator must write the same exact idea in the target language, with literal transition often distorting the meaning. To understand and express the concept, the translator must also grasp the technical terms used in the text and clearly differentiate them from similar ones. For example, judges issue both order and judgments but under different circumstances. The use of the wrong term clearly confuses the reader and raises issues about the value of the translation. Finally, every field has its manner of expressing ideas. Referred to as legalese, medical jargon or mechanic talk, birds of the same feather squawk alike. Translators that wish to communicate with or join the flock must write the lingo. Otherwise, the translation sounds like  artificial. Without knowledge of the processes, terminology and phrasing, a technical translation sounds like a translation, at best.

One question posed by aspiring specialists is how to attain this knowledge. I would answer by changing the direction of the search and ask what specialized knowledge a person’s life experience has provided. People learn about occupational subcultures, including vocation-related worlds, through their parents, formal education, work background and life experience, to name just a few ways. We absorb how professionals speak and write, approach their tasks and solve problems by being exposed to their world either through schooling, practice, passive involvement or some combination of them. Knowledge almost functions like biological osmosis. For example, my father was involved in financial public relations. As a result, I heard stock market discussions every morning at the breakfast table. My MBA formalized that subconscious learning. Thus, exposure, preferably including some academic or professional training, provides translators with the knowledge they need to specialize.

Here, I will step on the toes of some of my peers. With some exceptions, translation experience alone does not make a proficient technical translator. Specifically, if a person’s only qualification in a specific field is the number of years in it, there is no guarantee that the translation will be appropriate. In ugly terms, some translators have been producing poor work for 10 or more years without having learned anything in that time. I am not hinting at any intention to deceive customers but instead to the fact that repetition does not make something accurate. If a person uses a phrase multiple times without any negative feedback, the phrase becomes internally labeled as correct. It sounds appropriate, at least to that person. It may be that professionals would not phrase it in that that manner. In fact, translators become increasingly certain over the years that their writing is the cat’s meow. It takes great courage to ask for objective feedback and admit to having made a mistake for some ten years.

To clarify, it is possible to attain the required knowledge through online and in-person classes and even, to a certain degree, YouTube videos. Conference presentations offer additional opportunities for assessing the accuracy of technical translation as the presenters sometimes highlight common mistakes. To update what Ibsen said so strongly in Enemy of the People, the number of Google hits does not necessarily render a translation choice correct especially with the growing volume of machine translation. Continuing education reinforces the skill of all translators, great and small.

Specialization without specific knowledge at best cheats the customers and at worst can kill people. It is far better to leverage existing knowledge and then develop it in order to build a successful translation career. To recall the words of Dr. Dolittle:

If I could walk with the animals and talk with the animals
Grunt, squeak, squawk with the animals
And they could squeak and squawk and speak and talk to me,

In the case of translators, if you can also write like them, specialize.

* Use picture captions to allow the blind to fully access the Internet.

Picture credit

Outstanding in meaning

English is a hard language to master not because of its grammar, however complex that may seem to some, but due to its free, even chaotic, process of vocabulary development.  In simple terms, the original meaning of a word is so turned and twisted by popular use that it becomes impossible for a foreigner to guess.  In verbs, many of these changes are made by adding prepositions or nouns, creating a rich but confusing word family.

The verb word stand is from an old English word standan, meaning standing in one place, with the additional meaning of tolerate added in the 1600’s. So, it is clear that people should take their place in a queue if they are to stand in line or do not like a certain spice if they cannot stand cilantro.

Life, especially for second-language speakers of English, then gets complicated.  English abounds with phrasal verbs, verbs with prepositions added to them, with specific and seemingly unrelated meanings. To stand up is to rise from the sitting position while to stand up for is to insist on something, such as rights. By contrast, to stand down is end a state of high alertness as in the army. Actors that stand in for stars are temporarily replacing them but if they stand out enough and show how good they are, they may replace them one day.  If you stand on ceremony, you are a stickler for social rules. Yet, if you are in a standoff, you are in a deadlock. For that matter, someone who is standoffish is rather aloof.  By contrast, if someone stands by you, they support you. If parents do not stand for sassiness, children watch their words.  Curiously, to stand around does not necessarily mean being on one’s feet but merely hanging around with no purpose. What a difference a preposition makes.

Adding a noun expands the whole range of meanings. To stand on your two feet is not what very small children do but instead what adults in their 20’s strive for, economic independence. Likewise, a standing army does sometimes sit but is always ready and in uniform. You can say that you stand corrected, i.e., understand your mistake, even when you are sitting. A standing argument or standing rule do not actually have legs but merely are unresolved or permanent. To stand pat means not make changes and is derived from Poker and should not be confused with to stand Pat Boone, which means tolerate listening to his songs. Standing your ground involves establishing your position, not repositioning the earth. If something stands to reason, it does not involve rising to attention due to logic, but merely being logical, which is more than I say about most of these phrases.

In terms of noun use, there are taco stands, small booths to stop by for a quick lunch, and last stands, a place of no retreat. There are league standings, the relative records of teams, and legal standings, one’s status in court. In sports arena, you can sit in the stands, generally benches. You can put newspapers or umbrella in a stand in the entranceway when you get home. For fish, a stand or group of pelicans is bad news. Two cricket players are together for a stand and score a certain number of runs. To take a stand means to express an opinion while to take the stand means to testify in court. A stand or bunch of trees creates a nice patch of shade. Nothing is obvious here.

For a simple five letter word with a clear meaning, stand has come a long way and created many linguistic channels. You could that it is an outstanding example of the challenge and richness of English vocabulary.

Legal De-Scribing

Simple and complicated are a matter of perspective. What is child’s play for one person is a challenge for another. Likewise, a straightforward sentence in one language can be tricky for a translator in another language.

Take for example this short legal clause in Hebrew:

המסמך מחייב אישור מהמנהל.                        

Word for word, it says:

(   a)  The document requires approval from the manager.

That doesn’t work in English because documents are rather self-sufficient creatures and in themselves don’t require anything. So, let’s play with the grammar:

(   b)  The document must be approved by the manager.

(   c)   The manager must approve the document.

Sentence (c) is the active version of (b), generally a preferable form.  However, both sentences suffer from the same ambiguity. They could be interpreted to mean that the manager has no choice but to approve it, which is not true. The next example suffers from the same potential problem:

(   d)  Approval of the document by the manager is required.

The option that I chose in order to be perfectly clear is as follows:

(   e)  The document is subject to approval by the manager.

It may be that even better options exist. If so, I would like to hear. The search for perfection is the passion behind good translation. Like all so ambitions, it is very from simple.

What is to be done – the burning (legal) issue of our time*

It is so hard to keep up with fashion and know what is right.  Every attorney knows this.  Once upon a time, the rules were clear. Third parties shall meet their obligations.  The legal writer used the modal “shall” in full confidence that everybody understood the word “shall” to mean to have no choice.

Alas, the world has become more complex.  Experts and governments have cast doubt on that assumption, rendering it difficult to know how diligent counselors are supposed to express themselves.  For example, Kenneth Adams, in his Manual of Style for Contact Drafting, insists on shall for expressing obligation but specifying the use for third parties. He is not fond of must, arguing that it does not create an obligation but instead describes it, adding that its tone gets obnoxious over a long document. The federal register, http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/write/legal-docs/clear-writing.html, disagrees with him and states that must does create an obligation. The ABC rule, invented by a group of Australian, British and Canadian legal writers, had previously suggested that the change to must. Shall seems to be going the way of whither, hither and thither, perfectly wonderful words that were used improperly.

Of course, there are a few will supporters. Technically, “will” refers is predictive in the second and third person but prescriptive in the first person.  This apparent ambiguity renders it inappropriate for stating an obligation.  This lack of clarity is undeniable but its simple sound is pleasant to the ear.

Back to our shall, courts have occasionally ruled that it can imply permission, thus also rendering it ambiguous.  Still, 99% of the population would understand that the sentence John shall pay Mary $500 a month for rent involves an obligation, not a choice.  Since it combines sufficient clarity and a mellow sound, I prefer the American “compromise” of shall.

Still, as I continue to translate contracts, I must admit that I will be subject to bouts of doubt regarding what modal to apply in the sentence of obligation before me.  I hope that I won’t be considered too old fashioned if I continue to use the classic simple shall or even will.

* What is to be done is the name of a romantic novel by Nikolai Chernyshevsky in 1886, which inspired many later revolutionaries in Russia for some reason, including Lenin himself, who wrote a similarly titled pamphlet in 1901, adding “the burning issues of our time”, describing his agenda for change, to put it diplomatically.