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.

Fricatives

This sound is produced (or realised if we are to use the technical term) by a partial obstruction of the air stream so that air is forced through a narrow gap, causing a hissing sound. Most languages have fricatives, in English they include [f] and [z]. fricatives are known as continuant consonants because you can produce a fricative sound as long as you have air in your lungs.

Plosives...

Plosives: sounds which are produced by obstructing the flow of air from the mouth or nose, causing a build up of air pressure. When released this pressure causes an explosive or popping noise.

Examples of plosives in English are /p/ and /b/ - place your hand in front of your mouth and say “Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled pepper” - you can feel and hear the /p/ make a popping sound.

Plosives are also known as stops.

TRADUCCIÓN FUNCIONAL Y TRADUMÁTICA: ¿CHOQUE DE PARADIGMAS?

Today's guest blog is by Dr Elisa Calvo de Encinas, Lecturer at the Faculty of Translation and Interpretation at the Pablo de Olavide University in Seville. Dr Calvo has also taught at Heriot Watt University in Edinburgh and has written several papers exploring issues such as employability and translator training. An English version will be posted soon.

Nadie cuestiona ya que las nuevas tecnologías aplicadas a la traducción están aquí para quedarse. Memorias de traducción, traducción automática, aplicaciones auxiliares y la presencia absoluta de la web en todo lo que hace el traductor profesional.

Como docente de traducción, intento preparar a los alumnos para que puedan abordar una futura ocupación como traductores con unas competencias profesionales adecuadas y, en esta línea, intento que aprendan en mis clases a “traducir” en un sentido amplio: no solo trasladamos palabras de una lengua a otra, sino que manejamos editores de texto, herramientas de gestión, memorias de traducción y una documentación traductológica exhaustiva a través de Internet.

El mundo académico de la traducción integró con entusiasmo hace ya tres décadas las teorías funcionales de la traducción (Reiss, Vermeer, Nord, Holz-Mänttäri, entre otros), precisamente porque era el discurso teórico que vinculaba definitivamente el análisis del hecho traductológico con la práctica real de la traducción profesional. El funcionalismo se aleja de las teorías traductológicas anteriores por dos factores esenciales: 1) contextualiza la traducción como acto comunicativo; y 2) presta atención a la función que la traducción ha de desempeñar en su contexto de destino, que puede o no ser igual al que tuvo el texto original en su contexto. Tal y como explica Šarčević (1997): “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”. Como resultado, ahora se contempla la traducción como un proceso que se realiza en perspectiva: con el destinatario o receptor en mente.

Con la aceptación de este paradigma, se abre un nuevo papel para el traductor: no se trata de un intermediario estático obsesionado con el texto origen, sino que es agente activo de la comunicación: analiza el texto, su contexto, sus dificultades y sus condicionantes profesionales de manera crítica, para así decidir qué estrategias puede aplicar; aborda la traducción de manera abierta, desarrollando estrategias creativas para la resolución de los problemas y para que la traducción desempeñe la función deseada en su contexto meta. Es un trabajo que se aleja de los métodos literales tradicionales: a veces el traductor decide adaptar y explicar información; otras veces, opta por eliminarla; otras veces reformula un párrafo creando nuevas oraciones o uniendo oraciones que antes estaban separadas.

Los alumnos de mis clases de 3º de Traducción traen la lección bien aprendida: pueden intervenir de forma crítica en los procesos de traducción para así trasmitir mejor la función que se desee. Si les doy un mismo texto contextualizado en tres marcos comunicativos diferentes (con tres funciones diferentes esperadas en cada contexto de destino), aplican estrategias distintas y la traducción resultante es diferente de las demás. Sin embargo, hay algo que no encaja. Una vez que han asimilado esta capacidad de intervención crítica, introducimos el manejo de las herramientas de traducción asistida, en donde, como es sabido, las unidades de traducción se crean según signos de puntuación: se vuelve a una visión microtextual del texto, basada en sus oraciones; esto invita a centrarse demasiado en el segmento original y se tiende a dejar de lado la visión más global y funcional del texto; el estudiante está centrado en superar la dificultad técnica de la herramienta y deja en segundo plano el proceso traductor; se vuelve a una sensación de obediencia al texto origen (traducción literal) y el estudiante pierde la seguridad que había adquirido a la hora de tomar decisiones críticas y creativas en su traducción.

¿Es la teoría de la traducción funcional compatible con la realidad técnica de la traducción profesional actual? Desde mi punto de vista, no solo es compatible sino que es imprescindible. Pero requiere una fuerte adaptación pedagógica:

Las competencias informáticas no pueden enseñarse de forma aislada del proceso traductor: 1) ambas destrezas deben aparecer integradas en la enseñanza, para que los estudiantes no desvinculen ambos procesos. Se debe traducir con herramientas de traducción asistida, no solo aprender el funcionamiento de las memorias de traducción. Las decisiones traductológicas serán más realistas y el manejo de la herramienta será más experto por emular los retos que plantea al profesional. 2) el estudiante debe aprender procesos básicos de gestión de proyectos, que no solo le ayudarán a mejorar su desempeño profesional, sino que le enseñarán a no perder de vista la visión global y la función comunicativa completa de cada proyecto de traducción. 3) el estudiante debe aprender a identificar las variaciones funcionales de cada elemento que aparece en un proyecto de traducción, ir más allá de las palabras que presenta la memoria de traducción para comprender qué función desempeña un determinado fragmento de texto en el proyecto global. ¿es el segmento un título en un manual? ¿Una función de software? ¿Texto de una ayuda de software? Un mismo segmento puede requerir traducciones diferentes según el contexto, aún cuando la memoria de traducción nos invite a lo contrario. 4) el estudiante debe conocer las estrategias de revisión, que de nuevo, le ayudan a abordar el proyecto desde una perspectiva general que puede haberse perdido durante la traducción informatizada.

En conclusión: ya no es posible traducir sin ordenadores, ni tampoco aprender a traducir sin ellos. Esta realidad requiere una adaptación pedagógica que implica una nueva aplicación de las consolidadas teorías funcionales y un enfoque que ayude a entender al futuro traductor que su papel sigue siendo tan necesario y crítico como antes, si bien las estrategias pueden tener que adaptarse a cada proyecto y sus condicionantes.

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

International.

Simple sounds...the phoneme

Phoneme: the most basic meaningful sound unit of a language. Every word can be broken down into a series of sound units or phonemes, and different phonemes can share similar characteristics which allow them to be grouped together, as we'll see in later posts!


Phonemes are not the same as letters. In English the letters of the alphabet are our way of representing these sounds. The group of sounds that make up a language are known as the phonetic inventory of that language. 


Phonemes are often represented by the phonetic alphabet and you've probably seen examples of these in a dictionary although you might not have been aware of it! Why not have a look at the International Phonetic Alphabet symbols for English.

How should you teach translation?

How should you teach translation? There's a good question, if there ever was one. As a student, in France, I was confronted to fairly "traditional" translation classes: we were given a literary text, and we had to translate it. Full stop. The linguistic challenges of the text were tackled, and working on a short story by Roald Dahl or texts by Iris Murdoch was certainly fun. But were these classes teaching us translation? No consideration was given to the context or the target reader, no critical analysis of the text was done with professional translation issues in mind. We translated, but that didn't make us translators.

Having now moved to the "other side of the desk", and teaching at Heriot-Watt University, where the courses are very much focused on translation and interpreting, I've had a chance to approach the question of translation classes from another angle – and with a renewed consideration for the purpose: the training of future professionals. Students come to us to learn a trade, not just language skills. Sure, they need to read (really, dear students: you need to read!). Culture is essential, humour and intercultural awareness is what raises us all above the level of Google Translation. But a good translator also needs, first and foremost, to know what's happening in the world – and to be familiar with issues which are the object of international discussions. Because these are the fields in which his professional skills will be needed.

So gone are the good old Lagarde et Michard; students now translate from The Guardian, The Economist, Le Monde, L'Express, El Pais, etc … They are given conference papers, they have to translate web-pages and most viciously, we even given them texts in pdf format (and ask for the translation in the same format, yes). Following the example of the excellent translation course at Pablo de Olavide, in Seville (check this space for Elisa Calvo's post, she teaches at this well-known Spanish university), students are now also given mock professional translation projects: they are organised in a team, one person is project managers, there are translators and editors, and of course, tight deadlines. They may even get a badly written text to tackle. Why ? Because there's more to translation than just words.

Fanny Chouc is a Teaching Fellow in French at Heriot-Watt University, and also co-organises career events on campus around translation and interpreting, in partnership with the ITI and Routes into Languages. She teaches on translation and interpreting courses. Follow the departmental blog and see what's happening in the School of Management and Languages on Twitter .

Nothing should be "lost in translation"

Good communication is essential for any business but it's even more important when it crosses linguistic and cultural boundaries. When communication breaks down or fails, meaning is not the only thing that can be "lost in translation", your reputation and business credibility also suffer.

Why run the risk with a poor quality translation that fails to make your voice heard?

The Spanish-speaking world is composed of 21 different countries, each one with variations in language and culture. That makes a professional translation service all the more important so that your voice is heard in new and emerging markets.

Millions of people speak a foreign language but a good translation involves more than just knowing the language. 

Translation is a specialised skill which requires:

• an advanced linguistic knowledge of both the source and target languages,
• an insight into the subject area of the document being translated and
• an in-depth awareness and understanding of the target culture.

That's why a good translation does more than communicate words, it expresses the ideas and nuances of a language that only a native-speaker would fully understand and appreciate.

For more information and a free consultation about how your company can benefit from the skills of a translator, contact me at www.paul-kearns.com