On substance, form and proper translation

 

[Two diamond structures*]

The most important issue for purchasers of translation should be product quality. While price impacts budget allocation, the effectiveness of the translation affects the practical use of the text. The challenge, especially when dealing with an unfamiliar language, is assessing that quality. I suggest posting two questions on any translation product, specifically on content and form. The correct answer on both questions provides a strong indication of high quality.

To clarify the meaning of content and form, all documents contain a message consisting of larger ideas and specific details. The translation must accurately reflect those elements both in terms of the concept and the relative importance of the details. If the word choice misleads or confuses the reader, the translation is not effective. However, the form of the document and sentence syntax needs to reflect that message as it is understood by the reader of the target language. For example, the rate of usage of passive or short sentences varies from language to language and creates different impressions. While short, direct sentences is generally considered acceptable communitive language in English, especially in marketing and technical texts, such sentences are considered choppy and lower register in Arabic or French. Thus, in most cases, the syntax of the translation may and even should differ from that of the original text. This difference is acceptable as long as the content and style are in line with each other.

Adding to the challenge of accurate translation is the natural difference in vocabulary among languages. Concepts do not have a 1:1 ratio in terms of translation. In some cases, while one language may have on word, another language has two or more or even none. A prime example is the concept to wear for which English has the single verb while Hebrew has more than seven different words, depending on the item to be worn. In some cases, words may be more or less inclusive. An example in the Hebrew-English combination is the Hebrew word יעיל [ya’il] can be translated into effective or efficient in English. Thus, the translator may have to add words to transmit the same idea or may be able to eliminate them without harming the content.

Of course, depending on the type of translation, the freedom of expression granted to the translator varies. For court transcripts and some medical documents, precision is of the highest priority with even the smallest differences in meaning and form having significance in some cases. By contrast, in many literary translations, the linguist has the privilege and duty of finding a natural way to transmit the writer’s intention. Two examples are changing poetry to prose if it is impossible to recreate both the meaning and rhythm of the original and localizing content, such as the change in the order of the diseases  in 3 Men in a boat to keep the list in alphabetical order. In most cases, the translator not only has the option but often the obligation to adjust the form to the content.

Thus, when receiving the final translation in an unknown and foreign language, it is vital to receive an assessment of its effectiveness. To do so, the first step is to ask one or more native speakers of the target language what the document is trying to say, with emphasis on the main points. If the message is essentially identical to that of the source document, the next step is to ask if the form, i.e., language and structure, interferes with that message because it is somehow incongruous, including due to overly literal translation or faithfulness to the original sentence structure. If the answer is negative, it means that translator professionally transmitted the message. Any dissonance indicates that the translation can be improved and may be ineffective. In this manner, the concept of a “good” translation is specified and qualified.

It is clear that paying for an ineffective translation is a poor choice, regardless of the budget. The customer can and should assess the quality of translated document by asking two questions, one about the message and the other about the form, from potential members of the target audience or native speaker of that language. A clearly positive result should inspire confidence in the document and the translator.

* Captions help the blind gain full access to the Internet.

Picture credit: Image by <a href="https://pixabay.com/users/jarkkomanty-661512/?utm_source=link-attribution&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=image&amp;utm_content=3196968">Jarkko Mänty</a> from <a href="https://pixabay.com/?utm_source=link-attribution&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=image&amp;utm_content=3196968">Pixabay</a>

Don’t tense up on tenses

Foreign students of English often feel that that the most frightening aspect of it is the sheer number of tenses.  Especially for people whose native language is structurally simple, i.e. three forms – past, present, future,  dealing with such a complex grammar structure is rather daunting.  In fact, despite English’s basic structure of 9 tenses (+ a few odds and ends), the construction of tenses tends to be rather simple and straightforward.

First, the raison d’etre of having many tenses is that writers and speakers can say exactly what they mean without adding words to clarify.  For example, I was winning the game does not mean the same as I won the game or I have won the game. So, while adding formal complexity, the learning process enriches the language and is a finite process. Compare that with Russian whose formal structure is simple, but the process of understanding the difference between perfective and imperfect active in any given situation never ends for a foreign learner.

As for building the verb, it is vital to remember that all languages add markers to the verb, generally the root, to signal its time and, often, person.  For example, the present tense is parle, parles, parle, parlons, parlez, parlent; говорю, говоришь, говорит, говорим, говорите, говорят; and אומר, אורמת, אומרים, אומרות in French, Russian, and Hebrew respectively.

English works in a similarly manner, using helping verbs instead of endings for the most part.  The progressive tenses mark time and person using the verb to be and the ing form of the word.  Therefore, present progressive uses am, are, and is; past progressive uses was or were; and future progressive uses will be.  Similarly, the perfect tenses uses the verb to have with the past participle, ie. have and has in the present, had in the past, and will have in the future.  As they say in Hebrew, dafka [dafka]or to be contrary, the simple is the least simple: in the negative and interrogative forms of the present and past, the helping verb is do, i.e. do and does in the present and did in the past, before the root.  The future marker is will.  In the positive form in the present tense, there are neither helping verbs or endings except for after s/he it, in which case an s is added while in the past, aside from the many and common exceptions, an ed added to the work marks the past.

The point is that students can concentrate on the actual meaning of the verb if they relax and learn how to recognize the form, which is not a stressful activity.