In translation there is no substitute

IN TRANSLATION, THERE’S NO SUBSTITUTE FOR ACCOUNTING FOR WAYS OF THINKING

As I wrote the title of my latest blog in support of my career as a professional translator (the thing you’re reading now), I did wonder if I have ever touched on this subject in the past in some kind of relatively oblique manner before in a past blog, even if I have never accounted for it this way before. But I’m pretty sure I have. That said, however, as far as I’m concerned, if there’s any subject I should have touched on in these blogs a long time ago, it’s the one indicated in the title. Indeed, it’s not just accounting for how you (the translator) think, but also how the audience (readership) will think.

Now, when you consider the overall length of this blog: maybe I shouldn’t be surprised if you think I’m chuffed and maybe a bit overconfident with regard to how much I’ve been prepared to write on this topic… but I exhort you to do it anyway. Maybe, just maybe, it really is something every parent or teacher worth their salt could identify with. But then, just how often is enlightenment “typical”, anyway?

Say what you will, but I find that proper translation is but a facet of the concept of successful and worthwhile communication in essence, which has me thinking that the best way to become better at the skill that has been insinuated here (i.e. in the title of this blog), is through commitment to actually listening when in conversation with someone else (especially if it’s unplanned / unexpected). There really doesn’t seem any better way to avert misunderstandings and / or mistakes in translation – and if they do happen, then you are confident about explaining the nature of it and can provide a replacement word / phrase swiftly. I mean, here’s an example: no-one could seriously suggest that there is a singular (typecast) kind of person who is like “well, you don’t hate them, but you wouldn’t really want people to think they’re your friend either.”

Now, this is indeed about expression and language and, as such, expressions. But circumstantial context always has a bearing. Just as people in certain different cultures may be inclined to view RAC (Relief Addiction Cure) as a term of reverence rather than as a term of affection that it is obscene to use casually – my own thought, and I’m only pointing out that it’s a logical possibility when you think about it – people might end up with different ideas about what is meant by the phrase “his ship came in” – also my thought. When we’re talking about this unnamed man’s ship coming in, has it strictly come (“in”) to pick him up (metaphorically speaking), or is he already on this ship and it has now reached his destination (metaphorically speaking, of course), meaning that it’s time for the man to rejoice for whatever reason?

I also impart this idea: is it crazy to suggest that someone’s “manners” (with an s on the end – and I am talking about manners in the sense of good / bad manners just in case you’re in any doubt) and their “manner” (with no s on the end) are interrelated? Perhaps I think too much but I can’t help pondering that a given person’s given interpretation of a given thing is by no means unlikely to essentially reveal an aspect of who they really are and, by extension, their credibility. I would certainly find it easy to believe that anyone, however intelligent or stupid they are, will strictly judge you as either polite or rude… never neither. But forms of behaviour accepted as good or bad manners are not shaped entirely by culture, as important as it can be to be prepared to accommodate consideration of culture (or social values, depending on your point of view) in one’s translation work; to say nothing of the fact that a person’s ignorance can encourage the impression that they are rude.

Hopefully you can see how this is a part of the subject of accounting for ways of thinking. But this really should be put in a translation-appropriate context. Just recently I bought a pint of beer and when they asked me to pay for it, I just said “let me see” offhandedly as I looked through my loose change, as I wanted to give the bartender exact change. But what if it were a scene in a film which was subtitled? Would it really be better to obstinately translate “let me see” into French as “que je voie” (or, for the sake of a less literal translation, “que je réfléchisse” or something similar) or rather to write “un moment, s’il vous plaît”, which translates into English as “one moment, please?” Think about it.

As long as we never lose sight of this fact, of course: to account for ways of thinking can oh so easily be appreciated as accounting for oneself or other people in light of what is incontrovertibly reality; and there’s definitely no substitute for that. In my case, I have found that playing online negotiation games, in which you keep being given a list of things you can say and you choose one by clicking on it, has helped me gain a deeper understanding and confidence in this kind of thing. Like this one: http://www.addictinggames.com/puzzle-games/thenegotiator.jsp Example: in the scenario where you’re trying to stop the guy from committing suicide by jumping off the building, if you ever actually ask him “So, what’s the story?”, he will invariably reply “My brother bought out the company I work for and got me fired” and you’re left with the choice of saying either “Ouch” or “So I guess he’s the smarter one.” I can still remember the first time I came across this when I first played this game; I was afraid to say the latter in case he took it as implied teasing. So I decided to say “Ouch”. But no, the thing you should avoid saying is “Ouch”, as he will then jump as a result of losing confidence in you. My point is this: while no-one can dispute that emotions play a big role in our lives and are “important” in a certain way (have you seen Inside Out?), I cannot emphasise strongly enough how important it is to recognise where emotions alone won’t help make a given situation any “better”. You should say “So I guess he’s the smarter one” – I guess the idea is that, even if you know he won’t “like it”, he will at least appreciate your honesty and integrity; it’s a reflection of you being determined to be perceptive with regard to the truth – and it’s all for someone else’s sake and in no way your own! Ring any bells, translators?

In the French language, as far as the study of linguistics is concerned, an “énoncé” and an “énonciation” are not the same thing. Look them up. That said, I would hate to think that my choice of a well-reasoned yet still somewhat clumsy word or phrase in my work was responsible for an intelligent and open-minded person failing to “get” something properly about the content, or not feeling like, “Ah, that explains a lot” where they otherwise might have done so.

It’s probably obvious that I have, some might say, unusually high hopes in my career as a professional translator. But it’s not enough to say that it’s due to my natural talent for and love of languages, which I always showed even at a young age. You see, I’m sure there are plenty of industries in which it’s common for people to reckon with situations that they genuinely think no-one could make up. But you can’t just say that this expression or that expression in translation work is one that “you couldn’t make up”, because, unless it’s something self-explanatory like a question of one or more spelling mistakes or something like that, or the content is just plain factually inaccurate, it’s just obvious that someone has done exactly that! But developing knowledge of psychology as a field of study is not the same as developing empathy – in the case of the work of the professional translator, this tends to be empathy with people you never actually expect to meet personally.

That said, I invite you to look up “professional” in a dictionary and then ask yourself if you really are satisfied.