Friday 27 January 2012

Functional translation and translation technology: A clash in paradigms?

Today I'm pleased to publish an English version of last months Guest Blog by Dr Elisa Calvo from the Pablo de Olavide University in Seville, Spain. Dr Calvo is an experienced translator, lecturer and researcher.


No-one would deny that new translation related technologies are here to stay. Translation memories, automatic translation, auxiliary software and the internet are ever present in the activity of the professional translator.

As a teacher of translation, I try to equip students with the necessary professional skills for a future career in translation. As such I try to teach "translation" in the wider sense, not just conveying words from one language to another but to use text editors, management tools, translation memories and to develop relevant translation related documentation using the internet.

For almost three decades now the academic world of translation has enthusiastically embraced functionalist translation theories (e.g., Reiss, Vermeer, Nord, Holz-Mänttäri) precisely because it was a theoretical discourse that linked translation studies with the real life activity of professional translation. Functionalism is separated from previous translation study theories for two essential reasons: 1) it contextualises translation as a communicative act; and 2) it highlights the role played by translation in the context of the target text, which may or may not be the same as in the context of the source text. Šarčević (1997) explains: “The era of modern translation began when the translator was released from his/her commitment to reproduce the source text, thus ending the predominance of thus ending the predominance of retrospective translation and sheer fidelity to the source text”. As a consequence, translation is now considered as a process carried out with a target: to keep the recipient in mind.

With the acceptance of this paradigm a new role for the translator opens up, not as a static intermediary obsessed with the source text but as an active communicator. The translator analyses the text, its context, its difficulties and professional constraints in a critical way so as to decide the best strategies to apply to the translation. The translator can work openly, developing creative strategies to resolve these problems and produce a target text that fulfils its desired purpose. It is a job that moves away from traditional methods of literal translation. At times the translator decides to adapt and expand the information, on other occasions they decide to omit information or reformulate a paragraph, create new sentences or join together existing ones.

The students in my third year translation lectures come well prepared. They can offer a critical analysis of the translation process so as to better convey the desired function of the text. If I give them a single text but set it in three different communicative frameworks (with the goal of producing three different target texts with different communicative purposes) they can apply different strategies so that each translation is different. However, there is something that doesn't quite fit. Once they have developed an ability for critical analysis we introduce them to the use of computer assisted translation tools, where as you know translation units are created according to punctuation signs. We return to a micro-textual view of the text based on individual sentences. By asking them to concentrate solely on segments in the original text they move away from a global and more functionalist view of the text. The student concentrates on overcoming the technical difficulties of the translation tool and leaves in second place the process of being a translator. A sense of obedience to the source text (literal translation) returns and the student looses the confidence they had achieved to make critical and creative decisions about the translation.

Is functionalist translation theory compatible with the technical realities of present day professional translation? From my perspective it's not only compatible but necessary. But it requires a specific training adaptation.

IT skills cannot be taught in isolation from the translation process: 1) both skills should be integrated in teaching so that the student does not separate the two processes. Translation should be done with computer assisted translation tools rather than just learning about how translation memories work. Theoretical decisions would be more realistic and the handling of the tools would be more expert if they replicated the challenges faced by the professional translator. 2) the student should learn the basics of project management. This will not only help them in their professional development but will teach them not to lose sight of the bigger picture and the overall communicative purpose of each translation project. 3) the student should learn to identify the functional variations of each element of a translation project, moving beyond the words found in the translation memory to understand what function each segment plays in the overall function of the text. Is the segment the title of a manual? Is it a software command? Is the text part of a software help file? The same segment might require several translations according to the context even when the translation memory tells us differently. 4) the student should know revision strategies, which again, help them to tackle the project from a general perspective which can be lost during the computerised translation process.

In conclusion, it is not possible to translate without computers and neither is it possible to learn to translate without them. This reality requires a training adaption. This implies a new application of consolidated functionalist theories and a focus which helps the future translator understand that their role is as necessary and as critical as ever, given that they have to adapt different strategies to different projects.

Sarcevic, S. (1997): New Approach to Legal Translation, The Hague/London/Boston, Kluwer Law
International.