Brave New World of Translation

No one disputes the fact that the translation industry is undergoing fundamental changes, which are affecting what we translate, the way do it, and the compensation we receive for our work.

The basic (interrelated) factors in these changes are

1. Technology,


2. Globalization, and


3. Concentration of the Industry.

Technology—computers, CAT tools, and the Internet—has dramatically increased our productivity in the past decades, and this trend is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. In a recent conference I attended in Porto Alegre, Brazil, Renato Beninatto, CEO of the consulting firm milengo, predicted that, while the income of translators will remain unchanged or will slightly increase in the coming years, the compensation per translated word will drop substantially. He foresees translators' productivity to rise to 30,000 - 40,000 words a day thanks to CAT tools, which will be free of charge.

Beninatto also foresees that the traditional model of translator-reviser will be replaced by machine translations edited by often monolingual experts.

Since the technologies needed for advanced machine translation can only be afforded by large multinational companies, individual translators and mom-and-pop translation companies will be increasingly marginalized and left with the crumbs of the market and with highly specialized translations such as literature and advertising, which are not susceptible to machine translation. While no one expects Shakespeare to be machine-translated into Quechua in our lifetime, most technical documents (which includes almost all non-literary texts) can already be successfully "gisted" by corpus-based machine translation. In many cases such "gisting" is adequate for the purpose; this is why quality will continue to be trumped by price for all but the most specialized translations where both accuracy and style are critical or where cultural adaptation, rather than straightforward translation, is required.

Do you agree with these predictions? How do you see our industry's future in the next few years and decades? How do you see your own role in this "brave new world of translation"?

Translators and the Recession

For us translators recession means not only that fewer translations are being done, but also that clients are making an extra effort to cut costs, usually at our expense.

You can almost measure the severity of the recession by the delays with which invoices are getting paid. This means our clients are using us as a source of interest-free loans.

Clients are also becoming quite imaginative in requesting (or outright demanding) discounts for a variety of reasons or for no reason at all. Quantity discounts have been discussed in several translators' mailing lists. Although a quantity discount may sometimes be justified if a large technical translation job with repetitive terminology saves the translator research time, most translators refuse to give quantity discounts requested just because of the size of the job. The situation is similar in the case of discounts expected for total or partial matches when the translator uses a translation memory tool. We buy and learn to use TM tools to save ourselves time and money. If the client provides us with a reliable TM, which will save us research time, it's only fair that the savings be shared. But no one should ask us to give away the product of our investment in time and money.

Then there are clients who don't want to pay for numbers (they don't have to be translated, do they?). A colleague of mine replied to such a request by offering to deliver the job without the numbers, to be inserted by the client himself. I've even heard of a case where the client wanted to deduct all the occurrences, except the first one, of the word "the."

There are clients who want to save money by requesting just a "quick and dirty" translation. Of course, they don't specify whether "uncompromising quality" translated as "calidad sin compromiso" (quality without commitment) would be acceptable for the discounted price.

Another way of clients attempting to get more for their translation dollar is asking the translator to provide, for free, services that should be paid for: extra formatting, even DTP, glossary (compiled by the translator), or rush job without a rush surcharge.

What can the translator do when faced with unreasonable demands for discount or for extra unpaid work? There are basically three ways to handle such demands: 1) accept them without discussion; 2) state your own terms and refuse to make any concession; and 3) negotiate. Of course, the success of any negotiation depends on the strength of the translator's position vis-à-vis the client. If you're the only legal translator into Inuit, your chances of gettihg the job on your terms are better than if you have to compete with dozens of colleagues, some of whom are willing to work for peanuts. But even in the common language combinations, your relationship with the client will largely determine your negotiating power.

Have you found any creative and successful strategies to deal with unreasonable clients or to discourage your client from delaying payment due to you? How can translators best face the challenges posed by economic recession?

Contracts

First, a disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and this blog should not be construed as legal advice, which can be given only by attorneys authorized to practice in the relevant jurisdiction. Contract law is an extensive and complex subset of the law of obligations, and it would be pretentious on my part to offer advice applicable to specific situations in a specific jurisdiction.

This said, there are certain concepts that are almost universally accepted and with which businesspeople, including translators, should be familiar. According to Wikipedia, "[a] contract is an exchange of promises between two or more parties to do, or refrain from doing, an act which is enforceable in a court of law." A contract is sometimes also referred to as the verbal expression of a "meeting of minds," but this definition suffers from the disadvantage that courts cannot expect to guess what the contracting parties were thinking at the time they entered the contract.

Contrary to what many people think, oral agreements may be valid contracts; however, they have the disadvantage of lack of evidence if it comes to enforcement in a court of law. This is why ATA's Code of Professional Conduct and Business Practices recommends that translation buyers "put [their] contractual relationship with translators and interpreters in writing." Complying with this recommendation is actually in the interest of both parties, as it helps avoid misunderstandings or relying on the parties' recollection of what was agreed on.

A contract offered by one of the parties may be accepted by the other party either explicitly by signing it or, sometimes, by simply performing the service offered by the contract. This is why, if a translator is offered a job accompanied by a contract, it is important that the translator should not simply do the translation, but also read the contract, sign it, reject it, or offer amendments to specific clauses. A suggestion of amendment does not constitute acceptance of the contract until the other party has agreed to it.

What translators should remember is that contracts are often written by lawyers who know little or nothing about translation, use templates written for use in other industries, and often include terms and conditions that are simply not applicable to the translation vendor/buyer relationship or are unfair to one of the parties (usually the translator). The translator shouldn't be afraid of rejecting clauses he or she finds unacceptable by simple crossing them out or offering an alternative and returning the contract unsigned with an explanation and a request for an amended contract.

One important aspect of contract law is that the contract is effective only between (or among) the parties that have signed it. So if a client claims that he cannot pay you because his client hasn't paid him, he's attempting to involve a third party who is not a party to the contract between the translator and his client.

A contract may also be "implied" and still enforceable if there are good reasons for assuming its terms. Thus, if you have done English to Quechua translations, and nothing else, for a client for the past ten years and you receive an English text from the same client, it's reasonable to assume that the client will want that text translated into Quechua.

An e-mail from an existing client requesting translation may be considered a contract (if accepted), provided the terms are known from previous practice. Striking the proper balance between excessive formality and sufficient protection is the challenge we all face in our business relationships.

Quality

Quality seems to be the mantra of every translator. I have never met a translator who wouldn't swear that he or she produces above-average, if not perfect, quality.

So where do all those poor translations we've all seen come from?

The fact is that quality is an elusive concept and, while it's easy to label an incorrect or unidiomatic translation of poor quality, excellence is almost invisible.

And it comes at a cost.

One can argue that not every client needs a high level of quality. If there is a market for Chevies and Pintos, in addition to that for Cadillacs and Lincolns, why not a second-tier quality for translations? Because translations are not cars. While either a Chevy or a Cadillac will take you from point A to point B (with more or less comfort), a translation where "Do not look directly into the laser beam" is rendered as "Look directly into the laser beam" may have tragic consequences. An awkward style, a poor (but not incorrect) word choice, or a misspelled word here or there will not affect the usefulness of most translations for the intended purpose, but in advertising or literature (to mention only two examples), style is as important as content.

Which brings us to the main point: Quality does not exist in a vacuum; it depends on the purpose of the translation. While "quick and dirty" translations may be acceptable for some purposes as long as the correct meaning is conveyed, there are cases where only the highest quality will do. And knowledgeable translation buyers know that for that level of quality they must be prepared to pay Cadillac and Rolls-Royce prices.

To Edit or not to Edit

All knowledgeable translation buyers and most translators agree that editing by someone other than the translator is essential to ensure the quality of a translation. However, most translators are reluctant, and some outright refuse, to accept editing jobs.

Should a translator agree to edit a colleague's work and, if so, under what conditions?

Some translation buyers will have a translation done by the cheapest available translator, or even by free machine translation, and then expect a competent human translator to clean up the resulting mess. If the client can find a human translator for such an editing job, it usually turns out to need a complete re-write, taking more time and effort than doing the translation from scratch. Needless to say that I, for one, refuse to accept such "editing" jobs or quote a price to reflect the aggravation and the time I expect to need, including for providing a report about the original translation if requested.

On the other extreme is a competent translation, which is given out for editing to fix a few typos, minor omissions, and, if possible, to improve the overall style of the text. I like such jobs because they give me insight into a colleague's thought process and often teach me creative solutions to difficult translation problems I wouldn't have thought of myself. Editing a competent translator's work is a pleasure and can be an educational experience.

Because of such extremes, I never accept to edit an unknown translator's work before seeing the original source-language text and its translation in order to locate it on the continuum between those extremes. When editing the work of one of the regular translators of our company, I already know what type of mistakes that particular translator tends to make (and we all make mistakes) and revise his or her work accordingly.

It's a good practice for the editor to discuss specific problems with the translator. For this reason, when our company has both translation and editing done by outside contractors, we encourage them to discuss specific problems between themselves, just as we discuss them with our translator when we do the editing in-house. Communication between translator and editor results in a better translation and in a higher level of satisfaction of translator and editor, who both feel that they have contributed to the excellence of the final product.

Prof. Camayd-Freixas and the Postville, Iowa Raid

Translators and interpreters are not supposed to take sides in a conflict where they act as facilitators of communication between the parties. But what happens if the translator or interpreter witnesses an act that is patently unfair to one of the parties or if he sees a powerless group of people accused of crimes he firmly believes they did not commit?

Dr. Erik Camayd-Freixas, who teaches Spanish at Florida International University and is a federally certified court interpreter, found an answer to this question not in the law books of his university, but in his conscience. When he saw a powerful agency of the most powerful government on Earth come down like a ton of bricks on a group of 300 undocumented, mostly semi-literate Guatemalan peasant immigrants accused of serious crimes he was convinced they did not commit, he spoke up to denounce the injustice as he saw it.

He reported the irregularities he witnessed in the now infamous "Postville raid" in an essay originally intended for a small group of colleagues, but which immediately found its way to the Blogosphere, becoming the subject of intense discussions both within and outside the translator/interpreter community.

On July 24, 2008, Prof. Camayd-Freixas was called to testify before the House Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law Committee. His statement to the Committee, together with his original essay, can be found at http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Camayd-Freixas080724.pdf.

As a translator, I'm proud to belong to the same community as Dr. Camayd-Freixas, and I salute him for his courage.

Specialist or Generalist?

Unless they come from a field other than translation, translators usually start out as generalists, i.e., they're forced to accept assignments offered to them in any field of human endeavor, from nuclear physics to Sumo wrestling. Is that an ideal situation? No one, least of all a beginner, can be an expert in all possible subject matters, but lack of expertise will sooner or later come back to haunt the non-specialist translator in the form of misunderstood concepts and incorrect technical terms used.

On the other hand, many areas of science and technology overlap today, to the point that one cannot be an effective medical translator without being familiar with electronic instruments, and an article about the environment may require familiarity with chemistry, meteorology, geology, and physics.

Therefore, while specialization is a must in certain areas, the translator must also have a broad general culture in related, and even unrelated fields, to provide excellent work with real-life texts.

According to an old saying, the specialist knows a lot about very few things and keeps learning more and more about fewer and fewer things, until ultimately he will know everything about nothing. On the other hand, the generalist knows a little about a lot of things and keeps learning less and less about more and more until ultimately he will know nothing about everything.

Which of these extremes describes you best? Do you think narrow specialization is an adequate substitute for broad general culture? If so, under what circumstances?