The concept of a formula

THE CONCEPT OF A FORMULA FOR GUARANTEED “GETTING IT” IN TRANSLATION

“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” (Albert Einstein)

Sometimes it’s difficult even for someone like me to provide a coherent explanation for any given individual mistake or imperfection in a translation document (even if the material is actually to hand as I attempt to do this). I can do my best to speculate, investigate what the thing behind it really is, but I know that it’s not always about purely linguistic factors (whether these are things that it’s easy for the layperson to bring up and discuss e.g. incorrect spelling or word order or more specialist concepts e.g. elusive syntax or semantic issues). I say this because of the culture factor.

Is it just me or do most people define “culture” only by (usually more well-known) examples of it, such as “French culture includes fine food and wine, the Eiffel Tower, the Tour de France” or “Modern youth culture is largely comprised of rap music and online gaming”? (Like I used to, to be perfectly honest.) I Googled a definition of “culture” and it says, “the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively” and “the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society.” I agree that it’s well put. In other words, representations of ideas and exploration that are grounded in independent thought and convictions rather than discovery i.e. science. But (in translation work and outside of it), people do say things in good faith genuinely believing that it’s true and that it is the best way to put it, and that there is no way that it could be taken the wrong way… only it actually is. It may be due to just plain ignorance on the part of the speaker, or it may be due to differing cultural inclinations: ones which are ingrained in the mindset of the listener but not the speaker. A true understanding of a culture is simply not limited to being familiar with examples of it and the kinds of people who are most preoccupied with them; I’m talking about the values that are represented when someone represents the culture (whether or not they realise it, and whether or not they are knowledgeable about the truth that is being established, or at least suggested, as they do so).

It’s easy enough for me to provide some examples:
1. I remember once seeing a story on the news about how someone referred to Pakistani people as “Pakis” – not to their faces – and yes, it caused offence, but it was reported that it was meant as a less formal way of describing them rather than as the racist term that “Paki” is acknowledged as in the public domain. The Americans call us Brits “limeys” – why isn’t “limey” regarded as a racist term (not that I’m suggesting that it “should” be)?
2. I used to think that when people talk about “wannabe” singers, dancers, whatever, “wannabe” was always derogatory as it referred to someone who was completely without talent, pretentious and shallow and they were only “in it” for the fame. I mean, Simon Cowell makes no secret of being fed up with people who essentially approach him and say “make me famous”. But those who have actually succeeded in the industry may be no less inclined to think of it as someone who is by no means completely without talent, and they may be known for being quite likeable and even honest but they just don’t have what it takes to deal with the true level of challenge that exists (both on and off the stage).
3. This one is not really culture-related as such, but is there a hard and fast official rule in the English language for when to use “may” and when to use “might”? I’m just speculating here but I’m wondering, strictly speaking, if it’s supposed to be like this: “That may be true, but” is supposed to imply that the speaker is claiming that the thing in question is definitely – all things considered – true, whereas “That might be true, but” is supposed to imply merely that the speaker is saying that they agree that the thing in question COULD be true – and maybe they personally believe that it actually is – but the only point really being conveyed is that they are in no way ruling it out as not true.

You just can’t ask language study students to find out things like this on their own initiative, like you can ask them to learn new vocabulary and revise grammar on their own initiative. It either just does come to them or it doesn’t. In other words, they either just do get it or they don’t. Good teachers are skilled at helping their students to help themselves. Anyway, that’s the thing I most dread in translation: writing one thing “correctly”, being confident that I have genuinely been diligent enough, but it’s taken the wrong way by the recipient and it essentially constitutes an honest mistake (or something like that) which maybe, just maybe, will never be revealed throughout all time. What’s the worst that could happen as a result of it? You tell me. Of course, it would be hysterical to always be alarmed by the potential consequences of this, but it reminds me of this: in the Karate documentary of Josette Normandeau’s Deadly Arts Series, the narrator once makes the point that the top sensei considers that “the link between the past and the present is reflected in the accurate teaching of kata”. Indeed, there’s a bit where Normandeau says, “[Whatever his name is] may be small in height but he’s a giant. Nothing gets by him, not even the wrong position of my thumb” as he is seen correcting the wrong position of her thumb in one of the clips of the documentary.

I think that’s enough to get my point across. All my talent in translation is not enough for me to provide any formula or formulae that will guarantee that “getting it the wrong way” during the consumption of a translation will NEVER happen.

The basics of a language (not translation) will never change as long as the language in question never changes. But there are times when someone who is easily an authority on a subject, makes a point about it which just encompasses all possibilities about something related to it. Like in Hot Fuzz when Simon Pegg, the actor who plays Nicholas Angel, says to the schoolchildren, “Police work is as much about preventing crime as it is about fighting crime. More importantly, it is about procedural correctness in the execution of unquestionable moral authority.” Well, who could argue with that? But my point here is that, had this been real life, the children – assuming that they could make sense of that – just might feel the need to try to formulate an example of it in their own heads to feel confident that they understood the point being made (and it’s not always easy to do that while listening to what the speaker says immediately afterward). Like, differing resultant ideas. Whether someone does actually manage this or not in a given case is capable of leaving them with ideas and attitudes about reality that will not be shared by other people, which only makes it clear that no truer words were ever spoken than “Nothing endures but change” (Heroclitus).

And consider the French word “administrés” meaning “people” (not “administered” or anything like that) in the context of politics. The “governed ones” – in English, you will never see “administered” used this way. And “administrés” should not be considered a translation of “people” for general use when speaking in French. I say that to bring up the subject of true listening, outlined below:

True listening illustrated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZnl56hLacg (Disclaimer: I accept no responsibility for any offence caused by any of the language used or the opinions stated in this video. If you don’t like this guy’s style of comedy, don’t watch it. It really is that simple.) A video of a comedy piece where it seems as though the character starts by talking about Sean Spicer but it is actually a scripted bit in his talking about Donald Trump and exactly what he thinks of him as President of the USA. You have to remember the title of the video, really. This is quite different from attempting to formulate an understanding of some particular subject, or aspect thereof, based on nothing but your own experiences in life for the simple reason that “there is nothing else to base it on.” And that should resonate with people familiar with just how challenging correct and high quality translation work really can be.

In one French to English translation I did recently I originally translated “Le détail des aides publiques” as “public aid details” but when asked to look at it later I was able to write “information on public services”. I’m proud of that.

I wonder if one symptom of OCD is an addiction to validation about what you believe to be right. I have suffered from that in this line of work.

I can’t always guarantee “getting it”, but I can guarantee this: you never forget learning how to cease making up facts (and living by them, of course).