A couple of days ago, I read a very interesting interview about good translations/bad translations, good translators/bad translators and I automatically thought of the issue of quality in the translation world. Unfortunately, in our business the concept of quality is very relative, it is very hard to establish a set of universally accepted textual strategy standards. And that’s because we’re different. No two translators will produce the exact same translation of a given source text. But, anyway, I don’t want to go into too many details about this issue now.

Instead, I would like to focus my attention on an element which may be overlooked by translators, LSPs and clients alike (but especially by the latter ). No matter how good a translator you are, no matter how much experience you have, if you don’t have enough TIME to complete a project, the translation will simply not reflect your best efforts. This might sound like stating the obvious, but we seem to have taken for granted the idea that ”we live in a fast paced world in which speed is everything…”  Thus it has become generally accepted that a 3000 word translation should be carried out within one day, that tighter and tighter deadlines have to be met. This, however, leads to a considerably high stress factor. And it is common knowledge that stress is directly linked to the quality of one’s work.

Think, for instance, of a project that requires a high level of creativity. Think of a situation where you are required to equate and/or adapt an ”untranslatable” tag line, catch-phrase or headline etc. You read it, you understand it and you know you can come up with a truly elegant solution to it. But you can only afford spending a couple of minutes (or even worse, seconds) on the task. So what is to be done? Well, you find a compromise, a ”good enough” adaptation and you move on. And then later that day, after delivering the translation, perhaps before falling asleep, it hits you! You find the perfect solution to the problem. If only it weren’t too late…

It is true that there are translators who can deliver high quality translations very fast. But it is equally true that some translators require more time to produce high quality target texts. Unfortunately, however, they will not have the chance to prove their prowess… They will simply not have the time.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not an advocate of unprofessional translators, I don’t deny the fact that there are quite a few unqualified translators on the global market. But I do think that the time (and rush) factor should also be considered in the whole quality ”equation”. So what if we slowed down for a bit? What if we pondered more on our solutions? What if we had more time to re-read our translations?…

*Image courtesy of Keerati

Reblogged from Yale Books Blog: Yale University Press London:

• 

Translated into English for the first time, Norman Manea's The Lair explores the human condition of exile, love, isolation and the disorientation of being submerged in another culture. Here we sit down with Norman Manea and Oana Sanziana Marian, the translator of the new English edition of Manea‘s novel.

Interview with Norman Manea and Oana Sanziana Marian (courtesy of…

Read more… 1,451 more words

So have you ever experienced blocks? Were they serious? Feel free to share your thoughts on this.

*Photo by: FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The VW Beetle – The Defiant ”Ugly” Little Car

Designed by Ferdinand Porsche in the 1930s with the aim of becoming a genuine Volkswagen (People’s car), the VW Beetle (Kafer) is probably the longest-lived car model in history. Strangely enough, the car acquired its true iconic status in America. And it owes everything to the hippie culture of the late 60s and early 70s which dreaded and rejected American models epitomising the power and world leadership of the US. The VW Beetle had all the qualities American cars lacked: small size, low price, convenience and reliability. And it possessed a rather awkward feature: it was ugly… This ugliness, however, represented a defiance towards traditional American values, something that hippies cherished. The original model is a very powerful symbol in the car industry. There are numerous Beetle owner fan clubs which organize various events and gatherings throughout the world and proudly drive their jewels on public roads.

In the late 90s Volkswagen decided to revive the legend and developed the new Beetle (with a retro design, based on the original model), this time setting a rather high price as compared to other cars within its category. The iconicity of the original model enabled the German company to apply a premium price to the new Beetle, a price that many pay just to own a funky little car.

MINI – The English City Car

Another undeniable legend in car history is the Mini. This nifty little car was designed by Sir Alec Issigonis as a response to the fuel shortage during the Suez crisis. The aim was to create a smaller car with better fuel consumption. What the creators of Mini hadn’t realized, however, was that they invented the modern city car concept. Mini has quickly grown popular thanks to its practicality in crowded cities and excellent space configuration (the revolutionary front-wheel drive system allowed for a remarkable passenger and luggage space). And there was one more aspect which contributed to the success of the model: it was intriguingly small! But it was intriguingly good! Not only did it become a legend on public roads, but also it won the Monte Carlo rally four times.

Following the pattern set out by Volkswagen, the MINI brand has been revamped following its acquisition by BMW and the new models sell very well. Again, due to the iconic status acquired by the original model, buyers have to pay a premium price if they want to purchase a MINI.

Trabant – the East-German Miraculous Car

You will probably say that calling the Trabant a miraculous car is an exaggeration (and judging by the objective quality of the car you are damn right!). But if you consider the original context and decade in which it was designed and the purpose it was meant to serve you might reconsider your position. The challenge in 1950s communist East-Germany was how to create a car affordable to (the rather poor) masses in an environment where manufacturing materials where scarce. The answer was a front wheel drive car with a 2-stroke engine and a body made of cardboard! For its time, the car was pretty revolutionary. And due to its very rudimentary concept, it was highly reliable. You didn’t have parts that could fail, for the simple reason that there were not many parts making up the car. Everybody with a screw-driver and a hammer could repair a Trabant.

The problem with the Trabant, however, was that innovation stopped once with the launch of the initial model. Throughout 40 years, the carmaker produced the same model unaltered… And this clearly is not the way to achieve success. Nonetheless, the Trabant proved to be very appealing to many people in the communist bloc. For some, this intriguing model was their only chance to own a car, and they were not disappointed by it. There are today many owners’ clubs and you can still see ”Trabis” running on the roads of ex-communist countries. Many of them are tuned and adapted to contemporary conditions, others are unaltered and still functional.

It is a pity no-one has revived the brand yet. I’m sure a new model could have preserved the iconic value of the original. There are plans to design an electric Trabant, but nothing is certain yet.

Dacia – The Symbol of a Love-Hate Relationship

Following Ceaușescu’s anti-Sovietic policy, Romania was granted several economic benefits from the democratic Western world during the 1960s and 1970s. Countries such as the US and France initiated trades  and economic partnerships with Romania. One of these partnerships was between Renault and the newly-established Romanian brand Dacia. The object of the partnership was the manufacturing under licence of a car. The two companies agreed on the Renault 12 model, which in Romania would be known as the Dacia 1300. The model would be produced with small improvements until the late 1990s. Although the original model was a robust reliable car, the version produced in Romania had a rather poor quality and it quickly became outdated. It was not at all unusual for a Dacia to break down for various reasons. The good news, however, was that practically all drivers of Dacias knew how to fix them. And it represented the only option for Romanians to own a new car. Those who visited Romania in the 1980s and early 1990s surely remember that more than 90% of cars on Romanian roads were Dacias. I remember that even after the fall of communism when one had the choice of buying a ”foreign” car, people would still prefer Dacias because ”they were the most suitable for our bad roads”.

In the late 1990s, Renault decided to purchase the company with the aim of turning Dacia into its low-end, economy brand targeted at Eastern European countries. This move later proved to be an excellent idea, especially in the context of the Global economic crisis. More and more people (even in Western Europe) opt for new Dacia models because they have an excellent value-for-money and because they represent interesting alternatives to traditional brands in different classes. For instance, Dacia’s compact SUV can be purchased for under €15000, which is an excellent deal.

Conclusion

What all these brands have in common is a legacy of cultural iconicity. People cherished them not because of rational features such as high perceived quality or excellent build quality, but because they appealed to them on another level. They represented values people stood for within a certain cultural context and they became an integral part of that particular culture. Each of these models had a distinctive intriguing characteristic which made them especially appealing to consumers: the VW Beetle – defiantly ”ugly”, but reliable, the Mini – defiantly small, but highly practical, the Trabant – defiantly rudimentary, but innovative and the Dacia 1300 – defiantly unreliable, but easy to maintain.

Companies should consider creating cultural iconic brands, because the relationship between iconic products and consumers is much stronger than the relationship based on rational values (in the form of feature – rational advantage). When people love a certain product or brand (regardless whether their reason is rational or purely emotional), they will be more committed to purchase it. Furthermore, once such an iconic product is created, a company will be able to capitalise on it for many years to come by reshaping it, adapting it and reinventing it for modern times.

For further reading on this topic, I highly recommend a book that I discovered some time ago: How Brands Become Icons. The Principles of Cultural Branding by Douglas B. Holt.

Nonetheless, there is a risk of over-rating the importance of corpora. Due to their statistical significance and their vastness, we may be tempted to consider them the only norm for specialized or non specialized language. In other words, if a certain expression doesn’t exist in the corpus, we may believe that it doesn’t exist at all. Which is not necessarily true. We have to keep in mind that language and discourse are more than just a collection of words, sentences, paragraphs and texts. Besides, automated translation is greatly based on corpora, and as much progress as this technology has made in the past decade, it still fails to offer human-like results. And this is due to the fact that a machine does not understand the meaning of words, it cannot understand what a text is about. And we, as translators, do not translate words, collocations and sentences, we translate meaning. Or this is what we should do.

So, what is your opinion about corpora and how do you use them?

*Photo by freedigitalphotos.net

For instance, I would definitely think twice before translating propaganda texts written by political or economic organizations (I exclude marketing texts from this category). I would never translate texts written by extremist organizations or parties and I would definitely reject translating a text promoting hate, racism or antisemitism. Some might argue that the translator is anonymous and no-one will find out who performed the translation. This is true, however, working on such a project actually means promoting the message and being involved in the process. Not only are you working on a text that is against your moral principles, but also helping conveying a ”polluting” message.

I would also refuse to work on a project if the source text was incomprehensible. Sometimes, the text is so badly written that it would be impossible to understand it, let alone translate it. Don’t forget that Murphy’s law ”Garbage in, garbage out” applies to translations as well.

These are only a couple examples of situations which would make me reject a translation. I am very curious to find out what other translators have to say about this topic, this is why I would like to have your input in the comment section .

*Photo by Naypong

But why is the target oriented approach more suitable for translation? Well, in order to find the answer to this question, we should start by acknowledging the very purpose of a translation: to make a text written in a foreign language accessible to an intended target audience. This target audience should not be aware of the fact that they’re reading a translation. The text should read as smoothly as possible and be completely adapted to their culture. And if this requires altering the original structure, merging two sentences into a single one or even changing the style of the text, then so be it! The only thing that cannot and must not be changed is the message. You might think that translating in these circumstances is very easy. On the contrary, having so many options entails a high degree of responsibility. Clearly, the translator is responsible for every choice he makes. And for this reason, not only does s/he need to have a clear insight of the target culture, but also s/he needs to know what the cultural guidelines of writing a certain text genre are. A translated contract should look exactly like a contract written directly in the target language. An instructions manual should use adequate language, the kind of language the readers are familiar with in such a context. Translators who use the source text as an excuse for their inadequate translations are not professional translators. And will never be!

*Photo by FloatingLemons

Lectură plăcută!

Hope you’ll enjoy my tips .

Up until Windows Vista, Microsoft had used the wrong diacritical signs for the Romanian characters ‘ș’ and ‘ț’. More precisely, instead of complying with the Romanian standard SR 13411:1999 and the international standard ISO/IEC 8859‑16:2001 (Latin10) which provide that a comma should be added underneath the letters ‘s’ and ‘t’ (Unicode codes: U0218 – S with comma, U0219 – s with comma, U021A – T with comma and U021B – t with comma), they complied with the international standard SO/IEC 8859‑2:1998 (Latin2) according to which a cedilla is added underneath the characters ‘s’ and ‘t’ (Unicode codes: U015E – S with cedilla, U015F – s with cedilla, U0162 – T with cedilla and U0163 – t with cedilla).

If the software or OS you are using is not compatible with the standard coding, you will see little empty boxes for each occurrence of these characters. This problem has prompted many of the PMs I am working with to assume that the characters are corrupted and asked me to revert them to the ”Legacy characters”. Even though the difference between the characters may seem insignificant, I think that standard characters should be used whenever possible (this entails updating to Windows Vista or Windows 7 or to install the Romanian Interface Pack for Windows XP Professional).

For Romanian readers I recommend the following article (which also served as a source for this post – Thank you!):

http://www.secarica.ro/html/s-uri_si_t-uri.html

*Image by vlado