Translation Issues 1-98 (March 1998) by Anne-Marie Payne-Charby by Marilyn A. Dunning France

A summary

 

Preliminary remark from the editor

At Comtec'97 (10 - 11 October 1997) idea markets and several idea workshops were held. Marilyn A. Dunning was the activator of this workshop and Anne-Marie Payne-Charby was one of the nineteen participants. The editor asked Marilyn to submit a short summary of the most relevant points made during the discussion for our colleagues of TC-Forum.

 

Preface from the authors

Our summary is hot off the presses, but we hope you will be able to grasp the issues and their context. Please feel free to submit your comments and suggestions either to the editor or to us via E-mail.

 

Different countries, similar experiences...

Though ours was quite an international group, we soon found that we shared similar experiences. The table below represents two of the examples given by the participants. Comparing our experiences led us to affirm that when non-native writers produce English documents, mother tongue reviewers are required.

 

Writers from...	Produced...	For...	Using...
Sweden	English documents	Swedish readers	UK proofreader + Swedish editor
Slovenia	English documents	Slovenian readers	Canadian editor

  A brief roundtable discussion produced the following points:

• A "trained technical writer" does not necessarily mean competency in writing.
• A "native speaker" does not necessarily imply language mastery.
• Quality is a must.

 

And what about quality?

The last statement about quality generated more questions, such as:

• How can we define quality in this context?
• Is quality grammatical? Is it technical?
• Is providing easy access a characteristic of quality?
• Is providing useful information an indicator of quality?

Here Marilyn played the devil's advocate by asking: "So, quality begins with the quality of the language?" To which the audience unanimously replied "YES, but only in terms of grammar and usage."

 

Many countries, one language...

When the discussion turned to competency issues, a constructive debate ensued regarding:

• how competent the writer should be in the target language, and
• which was more important, language competency or technical writing skills.

The debate led to one global question: "Can one separate language from writing skills?"

In one voice, the audience stated: "DEFINITELY".

We then came to the conclusion that a good communicator teamed with an excellent editor results in the production of quality documents. This formula can also be applied to native speakers writing in their mother tongue.

 

Good formula, expensive solution...

We immediately recognized that our formula means a longer production cycle and will cost more money than our clients are likely to want to invest.

Once again, Marilyn played the devil's advocate: "So, either invest or do nothing?"

The audience reaction was quick: "Using trained native speakers does not automatically assure quality. It is impossible to leave out the editing phase."

 

So...

 

Speakers	Time investment	Money investment	Conclusion
Non-native	high	high	It still costs more in either case!
Native	increased	increased

 

How do you define an "English native-speaker"?

Here are some of the ideas that popped up in response to this question.

The English native-speaker can be defined:

• as someone who has had the majority of their education and schooling in English, or
• by the passport he (she) holds (this was a joke!), or
• by results of general writing tests, or
• by looking for potential in candidates (this was rejected as having no bearing on this issue).

 

So, English has been imposed on us? Or, has it been?

The participants found that English is rich in technical terminology, and responded negatively to the above question. The consensus seemed to be: "We simply write in a common understandable language, then localize."

We considered the following example: "We have German writers producing English documentation then translating it into Japanese. In the end, there is neither quality nor accuracy."

Final analysis: Write in English first, then localize.

 

An appreciated cycle

A writer from the Netherlands gave us an example where the technical communicator combined writer and editor roles. The same person wrote the English and Dutch documents. The process was as follows:

• first, the Dutch communicator wrote the English document,
• then, the English proofreader read the text and performed the linguistical review, and
• finally, the Dutch communicator translated the reviewed English document into Dutch.

Considering the above process, the audience queried: "Can the Dutch technical communicator, write in both languages at the same speed?" The answer was "YES".

 

Language controversies can be advantageous...

We came to the conclusion that language controversies

• can challenge technical writers to ask questions in order to find the proper information,
• eliminate dangers, as in lazy technical writers who blindly copy information into their documents,
• enable a writer to implement methods for structuring documents. (In an example we were given, developers and technical writers used such a structure to produce documentation jointly; that is, they actually wrote the documentation together),
• can enable us not to forget our users (for example, we might incorporate usability tests).

Please feel free to submit your comments and suggestions to the editor or tu us via email.  

"transline Deutschland - Übersetzungsdienst für technische Übersetzung"