Defending translation work

DEFENDING TRANSLATION WORK QUALITY CLAIMS – MAYBE I REALLY AM COMMITTED TO THIS TO THE POINT OF BORDERLINE INSANITY. WHAT DO YOU THINK (PUN INTENDED, AS YOU WILL SEE LATER)?

It won’t be long before I turn 33 years old – doesn’t time fly? But never mind how I intend to celebrate my birthday; I am currently in my eighth year of being a self-employed translator, and while I am as keen to do what I know it entails and has always entailed as ever, I would say that the need to reinforce my profile as one will probably never fully dissipate. So it will likely come as no surprise to hear that I’ve been eager to write another blog comment, as (unusually) big in size as the rest; something which I have aimed to do while becoming more and more aware of my own limitations. I like to believe that I deserve credit for recognising my own limitations without the need for external help, but these days this has started to happen with increasing frequency, and I guess that part of me is torn by wondering whether I should admit that it’s getting just a bit alarming now, or not doing so (or maybe that in itself is an admission of the former). Maybe it’s all part of growing up.

I don’t know if anyone reading this has ever experienced a point in their life where they learned or came to realise something and then, very soon afterwards, they also came to understand that others fully believed that they had learned it a while back. I think anyone would agree that the most rewarding kind of thinking is the kind where your own preconceptions do not always prevail as if on principle. It’s true when people say that travel broadens the mind. I mean, look up “ethnocentrism” if you don’t know what it means. I will freely state at this point that I personally do not call ethnocentrism simply another word for racism. You see, “racism” is a noxious, shunning, potentially slanderous term that can tarnish someone’s reputation whether it’s true or not. It has to be, when the most famous racists in history are surely the Nazis, for their appalling treatment of Jews (and other social groups). Ethnocentrism is not so bad; sure, it may be indicative of ignorance, but that doesn’t mean that ethnocentric people are not fully prepared, in general, to give those of other cultures and backgrounds a fair chance.

That said, I wonder if there’s a word for terms whose very existence is enough to start waking people up; to change a small aspect of how they think for ever if they are merely offered a definition of it. No example is necessary. “Ethnocentrism” qualifies as such a word in its own right. And might I add, as another example, that while it’s easy enough to find a definition of the verb “delude”, it’s not just not the same when you know about a method used to fool people in some way for some end and then find that said method has a term for it; a term which you know you will find easy to remember because it’s so easy to appreciate the ingenuity of the method in question. And I believe that terms like those used for labelling techniques for tricking people, belong to this category of words – I’m not saying that there does already exist such a term and I’m not saying there doesn’t, but I’m certainly keen to bring it up. Consider the chance of coming across a word whose definition has you thinking that it’s actually pretty close to home, and maybe not everyone’s heard of this word but you’re sure glad you did because you think that this could be the start of seeing something “more clearly” (i.e. literally with more sense). And I would suggest that those who start to see things more clearly tend to develop a talent for things that go beyond just learning new facts or consigning things to memory, which anyone can do. I believe that learning how to tell when someone is lying to you is a good example of this. Could the robots in “I, Robot” (the feature film starring Will Smithhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_(film) ) do something like that? Or can they tell jokes (another example)?

Not that it’s my job per se to inspire or enlighten people I’m doing a translation job for when I’m not supposed to let my personal opinions get in the way of my judgement. I’m not an entertainer, nor am I a crusader. I’m hired for my knowledge of a language besides my own and, more specifically, my ability to convey messages written in one language into another, with all the accuracy that one could hope for, however well or poorly my customers could explain exactly what that means. When I translate something for a client: as I eschew all bias, it is not my position to clarify anything ulterior I have acknowledged in the material, as if I were doing the client a favour in this manner. I can say that I owe it to the client to do this, but that’s another subject.

I would like to point out that it’s not true that I only write such long comments because they are so many words long and I find that that is the best (unverified) way to increase my visibility on Google and online in general. But when you look at what I actually discuss in them so willingly and at such length, it should be more than enough to support the claim that, whenever I pledge to do a translation job for someone, I will not merely do it “somehow”, the word “somehow” possibly being enough to frustrate my peers and lead to them losing confidence in me somewhat if they really knew what it potentially reflected. The question of how hard I am willing to try purely in stamina terms just won’t matter to them. They may need my talents to help me, but I am a professional and I know that it’s up to me for me to act like one.

For better or worse, I’m willing to mention that I regard my professional translation blogs as unique in nature – they don’t just do things like explain the meanings behind uniformly recognised terms in the broad domain of the academic study of language and linguistics to the layman. The content of my blogs is not limited to response to anything and everything I’m willing to embrace from the start purely to find material to write about in them (some might have the temerity and effrontery to suggest “somehow”). As far as I’m concerned, I aspire to have them hinge on reality such as I experience it… but not just my own reality. And guess what: the same applies in what I write as the product every time I undertake a translation project. I’m not talking merely about the simple concept of taking on translation work here while being prepared to do what I feel I personally could to just deliver, whatever that may be. This isn’t even about me being brutally honest about my own limitations when it comes to doing this. For it is the case that it’s always me who is my final hope for learning the linguistic skill / communication aptitude that makes the deciphering and interpreting the meaning of any communication possible even if it doesn’t obey the rules of reason, common sense or soundly aligned verbal representation because the provided demonstrated content cannot be open to suggestions of approaches which serve unifying reasoning – the universal kind; in other words, the rules of sanity. I’d hate to learn that it was my decisions whose otherwise unmentioned consequences had resulted in me forgetting something. Take the German verb “feststellen”: according to Google Translate it can mean “find”, “detect”, “establish”, “determine” and other words which can only be construed as synonyms if the right kind of creative imagination is invested in. But it can also mean “observe” or also “lock”. That’s just one small example of just how easy it is to get confused with regards to the genuine significance of some words. “Anstellen” is even more chaotic and random depending on the sentence in which it is found. But as a self-employed translator I simply have to know or find a way how to get it right in my situation, because no-one else will. And I really don’t always have the help of, say, a native speaker to lean on.

And a big part of that is dealing with questions and criticisms in a reasonable manner even if you personally felt that you were confident of what you suggested the first time. I suppose that, in an ideal world, I would be assured that whatever I put would be good and reliable enough that I knew that people would never ask possibly awkward questions about it. And so I am encouraged to scrutinise my work before I send it off – I certainly know that some customers like to do that (especially if they’re translation agencies).

You know, I get the impression that a lot of people get a kick out of expressing things which they know others just can’t, with the person who can express it being fully appreciative and modest of the reasons (real or hypothetical) why the person who can’t, can’t. Speaking as a professional translator, I certainly don’t need people to clarify for me just how literate I am, but I would imagine that there are probably people who are stupid and ignorant enough that, if you suggested that they should look up a word in a dictionary, they wouldn’t even know what a dictionary was, let alone find one (no offence). Meanwhile, I’ve got to be the only person I know who will look at the subject of how to articulate the underlying context of irrational or hysterical communication, which I’m very glad I’m not prone to. You see, sometimes you just need to make it clear that while something that someone else may be saying may not make sense in real (absolute) terms, it does still “make sense” in that it still reflects an otherwise justifiable point which you have identified but they seem to have trouble identifying it themselves, let alone communicating it. We can all engage in exploration of the broad spectrum of academic paraphernalia in the pursuit of arguments to justify our reasoning of this claim or that claim by someone else as concerns their account of something – but I find that very few will bring up, let alone discuss, the topic of resolving to touch on their unelaborated (apparent, unverified and possibly unknown) reasoning behind what they are saying. And attachment to the personal experiences of another sometimes proves to be the very thing that lets one understand the actual significance of the words that they use in their communication.

The world is giving you answers each day. Learn to listen – even if what is said by others is born not of facts, but of apparitions, preconceptions verified or unverified, misled delusions, and the output of cultural connection which, by logical definition, is representative of what doesn’t actually exist in the real world – the one that gives us life. To be sane is to have an awareness of reality you’re willing to elaborate without fear or shame AND to actively ensure that it does not end up compromised as a result of anything where your own emotions, desires, vested interests etc. – but especially fears – are “supposed to” speak louder than you. After all, when it’s said that one’s actions have consequences, depending on the action it can extend as far as consequences for those who had no knowledge of your actions to begin with and this may well pertain to those who don’t normally have anything to do with you; and it may also result in the development of underlying proclivities in yourself and / or others which foster the development of attitudes and behaviours which, given the right conditions, will soon prove to be the basis of something, say an incident or a theory, that shapes the very society we live in.

If I suffered from visions of things which could only have been born from theories (verified or otherwise) which are a token of any situation where favours and appeasement matter more than stability and progress, but proceeded to act like it didn’t concern me and shouldn’t – well, maybe that really is a taste of insanity which I never totally succumbed to; and it’s just waiting to be deciphered and outlined in verbal communication. Please understand that the only reason I write this is because I would say that it’s indisputable that deciphering and outlining things in verbal communication is precisely what I’m supposed to do for a living, but as a translator rather than as a psychiatrist, although psychiatry is a topic which interests me. We can expect the average person’s communication style (or idiolect) to be unique, but psychiatry is essentially the angle of looking at the history of the individual which best illuminates the mistakes of their past; and the effects of these manifest themselves in their self-expression and the confidence and conviction that they do it with, which, of course, can vary depending on the matter under discussion.

It’s all enough to make me consider re-evaluating my procedures when I translate. And re-evaluate them I have. I certainly agree that I always have to make do with what I’ve got; nearly every time, acquiring more supporting information is simply not an option. In a recent project (German to English), there were times when I was expected to translate only bits of sentences – these were quotes of bits of sentences in larger sentences, such as this:

Original: “In § 32 zweiter Halbsatz werden die Wörter „§ 23a Absatz 1 Satz 2 und 5“ durch die Wörter „§ 23a Absatz 1 Satz 2 und 12“ ersetzt.”

Translation: “In § 32 second half-sentence, the words “§ 23a Parag. 1 Clause 2 and 5” have been replaced with the words “§ 23a Parag. 1 Clause 2 and 12”.”

Now, I didn’t have access to the material that the snippets of words were taken from – in the cases where it really was a collection of words forming an incomplete sentence and not just a separate word or list of words standing as a representation of some static thing or concept, I had to rely on educated guesswork, and justify in my head the decisions that I did make, for I just knew that asking the client what they thought would have been fruitless.

Anyway, I can still remember this time when I was at one of Chris Cardell’s business marketing discussion conventions in London; one exercise he went through with us was that we would all look at this piece of marketing but it was all “greyed over” – like it had a sheet of tracing paper had been placed over it; this apart from bits of it being “highlighted” (no grey) – he claimed that these are the bits that people will be attracted to straight away, and be most likely to remember. Well, I apply the same analogy in translation work I have done: ask myself the question of which individual words or expressions the reader is likely to focus on most purely for the purpose of comprehension of what they’re reading, whether this is to be justified or not. Of course, I realise that, technically, chances are that they simply won’t consider the matter of the actual importance of such comprehension, and not because they couldn’t.

At the end of the day, I ask myself the question of how likely a client is to have a go at me personally if they are unable to acknowledge sense of what I have written possibly due to their own limitations rather than my own – but then, I understand that they will not always personally read the material that I have written. Just as they will speak for themselves, so shall I. And, at the risk of sounding patronising, I will essentially do what I can to speak for them as well.

But let’s take another example; one where I paint a picture of “thinking outside the box”, the metaphorical box being a willingness to tackle a given translation project even if it takes more than I originally thought, but in a manner which is limited to responding to concepts that I personally am hoping to acknowledge in separate words in the original material which I read purely on a level of established theory and logic, if with as much devotion to being articulate about it as necessary. You may have heard about the recent terrorist attack in Burkina Faso, and how the media have said that they have received “unconfirmed reports” of exactly what’s been going on. Now obviously, the following are (usually) not questions you can ask the reporter of the story forthwith, as if you were interviewing them about what they claim to know, but don’t you just wonder exactly who is supposed to do this confirming, and / or exactly why it is that these reports are defined as “unconfirmed”? From my own independent reasoning, I would suggest that “unconfirmed” means that these reports are not necessarily from whom they claim to be. Now, while I could be wrong to think that that is what is meant, it is curiously liberating for me to be able to even arrive at that conclusion, let alone discuss it here.

When a project is challenging, I try to make a point of “explaining to myself what I am doing” as the project progresses – as if I were schizophrenic with one me ever clarifying and justifying my choices to the other me, and showing as such wherever possible, to make sure I get things right in the writing of my translation.

In short, I make no secret of the fact that consideration of… well, the truth… may well be of greater importance if you’re serious about doing a good job of a translation. The real question is whether or not it would be best to do what you can to have the reader end up familiar with it, either directly or in a more discreet manner.

Hey, I’m paid to translate far more than simple things like menus, straightforward simple requests or the kind of personal correspondence that one is expected to learn how to muster when they’re starting out learning a new language. And I think you know this.