How to Ace Translation Buying If You Don’t Speak the Language

Poor commercial translations can lead to costly mistakes. But, short of awaiting market feedback, how can you judge quality without knowing the target language? How important is translation quality? In the age of automation and instant gratification, machine translation (MT) must seem right on the money to many, and indeed we see a creeping tolerance for “good enough” translations in the market. Of course, this approach can be faulted quite easily. Broaddownloadly speaking, MT is good enough for personal use, but when it comes to professional translation content, used such as in television voice-overs or text books, nothing but the best will do. And to achieve that, quality assurance and a human appreciation for elements like nuance and context is essential. Quality conundrum If quality were an objective quantity that anyone can recognize, that would be the end of the story. But it’s not. Someone who needs translation services has little hope of knowing whether the product they’re getting is of immaculate quality (since it is in a different language). And by the time market feedback indicates otherwise, the horse has already bolted. Four red flags How, then, can a client be pre-assured of an excellent translation? Here are a few tell-tale signs that your translation may not turn out as great as you’d like it to be. Red flag 1: A service that hires people based on their ability to translate into and out of multiple languages – in our experience, people who are native speakers of a single languge tend to translate into produce the best work. Red flag 2: Services that undercut the market with bargain basement pricing or lightning-fast turnaround is another red flag. The only way to finish a 10,000-word project in a day or two without throwing a large team of people at it is by running it through Google (which has been known to make pretty elementary mistakes) and doing a cursory clean-up, in which case R5,000 is probably reasonable. But as noted above, shoddy work can cost you dearly – in reputation or recalled product. Translation is not a commodity – great translations are consistent in terminology and style and subject to scrupulous quality control processes, including preparation and proofreading. Automation and computer-aided translation memory (generic and specific – the latter derived from previous jobs for the same client) can help to speed up translation and bring down costs considerably – but not miraculously. Preparing for a large project that requires several translators will necessitate the production of a glossary of translations of oft-used phrases, compiled by an individual or a very small team (for consistency reasons), working painstakingly (as each mistake will have a knock-on effect). Naturally, this has time and cost implications. Red flag 3: Quotes that take no time at all to prepare. This is a sign that little attention was expended on reviewing the client’s requirements and, where possible, source material. RFQs are generally deadline-driven affairs, and if the expectation is that price can be a translation service’s only differentiation, this is likely to continue, with predictable results. Red flag 4: Your provider’s reputation has holes. In the final analysis, being assured of quality is a matter of reputation. Be prepared to dig a little to see whether your provider is a match. Have they done work in your industry before? What exactly, and how long ago? Settling for good enough In truth, much of the undercutting and corner cutting in the industry is a result of the market’s misunderstanding of the nature and processes of professional translation. Being overly focused on price or deadline can lead to being stuck with “good enough” or worse. Putting faith in preparation and quality control on the other hand will yield a translation that you can trust, one that takes a reasonable amount of time and is priced accordingly. BizCommunity.com

Mottakelse to New York

When using any kind of translation helper – dictionary, Babel Fish or Google Translate – remember that if you don’t know the target language, you should always have a native speaker take a look at the final product. Otherwise, your results might be as flamboyantly incompetent as those in this shop window, which I passed not long ago in midtown Manhattan.   welcome

To attract foreign tourists, the store’s owners have tried to translate “Welcome” into a variety of languages. But in almost every case, they chose something inapt. Here they are, starting at the top left:

Welcome (English):  OK, this is right.

Empfang (German):  Nope. This is “welcome” in the sense of a reception, like “they received a fine welcome,” or the reception area in a hotel. It can’t be used to greet people. That would be Willkommen.

accueil (French):  Nope. This means “reception” or “greeting”. They want bienvenue.

boas-vindas (Portuguese):  Nope. Boas-vindas is a noun used the phrase dar as boas-vindas, “to give a welcome”. But they want bem-vindo.

прием, (priyom) (Russian):  Nope. This is another noun meaning “reception” or “receiving” or sometimes “welcome”, but Russians say dobro pozhalovat’ to welcome people.

yookoso (Japanese):  Yes!  Finally one correct, although store and restaurant owners would probably prefer irashaimase.

歡迎 (huan ying) (Chinese):  Two in a row correct. (And besides Johnson’s own typos, we were wrong in initially writing that the sign mixed traditional and simplified Characters.)

bienvenida (Spanish):  Partial credit. Bienvenida would be appropriate to welcome a single woman. Bienvenido or bienvenidos is more neutral, since the masculine adjectives are also traditionally gender-neutral for mixed groups.

welkom (Dutch):  On a roll, and finally unambigously correct! This is what an actual Dutch person would say.

acceptus (Latin):  Nope. Passing Romans will recognise this as a past participle meaning “accepted” or “welcome”, but this was not used a greeting in Latin.  They might want salve.

καλωσορίζω (kalosorizo) (Greek):  Nope. Johnson’s Greek is paltry, so a friend, Coulter George of the University of Virginia, pitched in: “The problem with καλωσορίζω (apart from orthography – it should be written as two words) is that it would literally mean ‘I arrive well’. The proper form καλώς ορίσατε is a past tense ‘You arrived well!’, or more idiomatically, ‘How nice that you’ve come!’”

мэндчилгээ (mendchilgee) (Mongolian):  Mongolian!  I admire the effort to attract New York’s many Mongolian tourists, but this doesn’t seem to be quite right either, according to online phrasebooks and dictionaries for Mongolian. We must confess, though, that Johnson’s Mongolian is worse than paltry. Any readers who can help, please do.

mottakelse (Norwegian): Nope. Once again, they have found the word for “reception” or “welcome area”, but not the greeting in Norwegian, which is velkommen.

Besides the odd language selection (Mongolian and Latin, but no Italian or Arabic), what’s striking is the common use of the wrong part of speech: a verb phrase here, a noun there. But on a shop sign, “welcome” is not an adjective (“you are a welcome guest”), a noun (“please accept my welcome”) or a verb (“I welcome you”.) it is an interjection. If you’re looking up something you don’t know in a bilingual dictionary, in other words, you improve your chances by at least trying to find the right part of speech.

For this advice, you’re mendchilgee in advance.

  The Economist

Fake Interpreters an Issue in the U.S., Too

south-africa-mandela-interpreterThe world recently turned its attention to the passing of the revolutionary former South African president, Nelson Mandela. Also making headlines was Thamsanqua Jantjie, who was hired to interpret sign language for Mandela’s memorial. Videos have gone viral of Jantjie, standing next to top world officials and leaders, gesturing repeatedly but not conveying any accurate portrayal of sign language. I’ve seen so much outrage from my friends, family and colleagues (with and without disabilities) about this event. This event gives me an opportunity to speak up about the issue of inaccurate and unqualified interpreters here in the United States. Most people do not know that the deaf community struggles on a constant basis to acquire qualified sign language interpreters. People who are not proficient enough in American Sign Language are out in our communities posing as “interpreters.” Entities with responsibilities are not always aware of their requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and may allow an unqualified person to interpret. This leaves businesses and government agencies vulnerable to ADA lawsuits while also leaving a person who is deaf without the ability to communicate. According to the ADA, a qualified interpreter means an interpreter who, via a video remote interpreting service or an on-site appearance, is able to interpret effectively, accurately and impartially, both receptively and expressively, using any necessary specialized vocabulary. Qualified interpreters include, for example, sign language interpreters, oral transliterators and cued-language transliterators. Sign language interpreters are more visible today than ever before. This is because the ADA requires businesses, employers and state entities to remove barriers to communication by providing services such as interpreters, and technologies such as assistive listening devices. Before the ADA, sign language interpreters were not professionals. Friends or family members (whom I call “helpers”) would have to assume the burden of interpreting for their loved ones simply because entities would not pay for the service. This meant that the person who was interpreting was never held accountable if there were inaccuracies in the interpretation of the information being exchanged. Oftentimes, providing an interpreter is the only way to ensure mutual understanding between deaf and hearing individuals. In the eyes of the law, providing an interpreter that is not qualified (either because the person erroneously poses as a professional or is a party partial to the situation) is the same as denying a person their right to equal and effective communication. Here are the official guidelines on sign language interpreters as outlined by the National ADA Network: • Public entities and private businesses cannot require an individual with a disability to bring another individual to interpret for him or her. A public entity or private business shall not rely on an adult accompanying an individual to interpret or facilitate communication, except: • In an emergency involving imminent threat to the safety or welfare of an individual or the public where there is no interpreter available; or • When the individual with a disability specifically requests that the accompanying adult interpret or facilitate communication, the accompanying adult agrees to provide such assistance, and reliance on that adult for assistance is appropriate under the circumstances. • A public accommodation shall not rely on a minor child to interpret or facilitate communication, except in an emergency involving an imminent threat to the safety or welfare of an individual or the public where there is no interpreter available. I hope this unfortunate event is an eye opener to those entities that hire sign language interpreters for the deaf. Entities need to make sure that the person providing the interpreting service has received the proper interpreter training, understands the vocabulary being used in the situation and is impartial. The easiest way to do this is to ask the interpreter or agency that supplies interpreters about their training, education, certifications and experience. Missoulian