Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Repetition and other problematic issues facing J-to-E translators
48 views
Skip to first unread message
Tad Perry
May 2, 2013, 9:27:32 PM5/2/13
to
There's not much of a readership here, but I wrote this article up at work and thought to post it here.
Repetition and other problematic issues facing J-to-E translators
Japanese writers don't mind mind-numbing repetition of the same word over and over in a short span of time. You can do it in English, too, but you need to be creative about it. Consider the following example that recently came to my attention.
教育•研修費用の範囲は、教育•研修のために支出した教育•研修料，教科書•関連資料の費用，
交通費，宿泊費及びその他費用を含む。
This doesn’t come off very well in English if you apply a literal word-for-word translation.
The range of education and training costs include the cost of
education and training materials and the cost of textbooks and
related fees incurred for the purpose of education and training,
and transportation costs and housing costs, and other costs.
Would you seriously submit this translation with a straight face and expect to be paid for it?
Another problem is the order of sequences of nouns. In Japanese, putting the longer modified ones first can sound better, but in English putting those longer modified nouns phrases last can sound better. In this case, we don’t even have to go that far to fix things, because sometimes you can just throw the long modifier away when it’s not needed. In this case, logic dictates that education and training costs are incurred for the purpose of education and training.
And what about the phrase: “the range of education and training costs includes?” Do you really see English sentences constructed like this very often? I don’t.
Often you can effectively work concepts implied by nouns in the Japanese into your translation by turning them into verbs in the English. In this case, “range” could be a verb or a noun in English, but it sounds better as a verb.
Finally, when dealing with lists that end with など and その他, you can often supply the generic term implied by the list for a more natural sound. For instance, if you encounter the following: 虎やライオンなど, one possible translation might be “lions, tigers, and other big cats,” or “lions, tigers, and other such predators.” You can also reverse the order and supply: “wild predators such as lions and tigers.” (This is actually often my preferred approach.) “Lions, tigers, etc.” and “lions, tigers, and so on” are much weaker translations, but they can be serviceable. Also, note that I changed the order of “tigers and lions” to “lions and tigers.” We may not know why lions always come before tigers in English, but they do.
Clearing up all of these problems at once, we arrive at a much more palatable translation:
Education and training expenses can range from the cost of textbooks, materials, and directly related educational fees, to transportation, housing, and other incidental costs.
Think outside the box. Don’t just blindly follow the source Japanese that you’re translating. Follow it in spirit, but not necessarily to the letter. Be adventurous and translate the same Japanese word into different English variants. Translate nouns as verbs, change the order of things, throw things away that aren’t needed, and supply things that are clearly implied, but unstated. Judge your translation by how it sounds and whether it means what it’s supposed to mean, not by how closely it follows the Japanese source material.
tvp
Repetition and other problematic issues facing J-to-E translators
Japanese writers don't mind mind-numbing repetition of the same word over and over in a short span of time. You can do it in English, too, but you need to be creative about it. Consider the following example that recently came to my attention.
教育•研修費用の範囲は、教育•研修のために支出した教育•研修料，教科書•関連資料の費用，
交通費，宿泊費及びその他費用を含む。
This doesn’t come off very well in English if you apply a literal word-for-word translation.
The range of education and training costs include the cost of
education and training materials and the cost of textbooks and
related fees incurred for the purpose of education and training,
and transportation costs and housing costs, and other costs.
Would you seriously submit this translation with a straight face and expect to be paid for it?
Another problem is the order of sequences of nouns. In Japanese, putting the longer modified ones first can sound better, but in English putting those longer modified nouns phrases last can sound better. In this case, we don’t even have to go that far to fix things, because sometimes you can just throw the long modifier away when it’s not needed. In this case, logic dictates that education and training costs are incurred for the purpose of education and training.
And what about the phrase: “the range of education and training costs includes?” Do you really see English sentences constructed like this very often? I don’t.
Often you can effectively work concepts implied by nouns in the Japanese into your translation by turning them into verbs in the English. In this case, “range” could be a verb or a noun in English, but it sounds better as a verb.
Finally, when dealing with lists that end with など and その他, you can often supply the generic term implied by the list for a more natural sound. For instance, if you encounter the following: 虎やライオンなど, one possible translation might be “lions, tigers, and other big cats,” or “lions, tigers, and other such predators.” You can also reverse the order and supply: “wild predators such as lions and tigers.” (This is actually often my preferred approach.) “Lions, tigers, etc.” and “lions, tigers, and so on” are much weaker translations, but they can be serviceable. Also, note that I changed the order of “tigers and lions” to “lions and tigers.” We may not know why lions always come before tigers in English, but they do.
Clearing up all of these problems at once, we arrive at a much more palatable translation:
Education and training expenses can range from the cost of textbooks, materials, and directly related educational fees, to transportation, housing, and other incidental costs.
Think outside the box. Don’t just blindly follow the source Japanese that you’re translating. Follow it in spirit, but not necessarily to the letter. Be adventurous and translate the same Japanese word into different English variants. Translate nouns as verbs, change the order of things, throw things away that aren’t needed, and supply things that are clearly implied, but unstated. Judge your translation by how it sounds and whether it means what it’s supposed to mean, not by how closely it follows the Japanese source material.
tvp
Scottintokyo
May 3, 2013, 3:39:38 AM5/3/13
to
On 2013-05-03 01:27:32 +0000, Tad Perry said:
> There's not much of a readership here, but I wrote this article up at
> work and thought to post it here.
Thanks for posting this, Tad.
> There's not much of a readership here, but I wrote this article up at
> work and thought to post it here.
A very nice, succinct summary of some of the issues that J to E
translators deal with every day. A lot of it sounds like comon sense,
but there seem to be plenty of coordinators and checkers at well-known
translation agencies that haven't gotten the memo.
--
Scottintokyo
Jim Breen
May 3, 2013, 4:33:38 AM5/3/13
to
On Friday, 3 May 2013 11:27:32 UTC+10, Tad Perry wrote:
> Think outside the box. Don’t just blindly follow the
> source Japanese that you’re translating. Follow it
> in spirit, but not necessarily to the letter.
And be prepared to have your well-considered translation
> Think outside the box. Don’t just blindly follow the
> source Japanese that you’re translating. Follow it
> in spirit, but not necessarily to the letter.
reversed by an in-house checker, whose English skills
are limited and who claims you didn't understand the
nuances of the original.
Jim
Tad Perry
May 3, 2013, 10:31:44 PM5/3/13
to
Jim Breen wrote:
> On Friday, 3 May 2013 11:27:32 UTC+10, Tad Perry wrote:
>
>> Think outside the box. Don�t just blindly follow the
> On Friday, 3 May 2013 11:27:32 UTC+10, Tad Perry wrote:
>
>> source Japanese that you�re translating. Follow it
>> in spirit, but not necessarily to the letter.
>
> And be prepared to have your well-considered translation
> reversed by an in-house checker, whose English skills
> are limited and who claims you didn't understand the
> nuances of the original.
Historically, this has been a big problem.
>
> And be prepared to have your well-considered translation
> reversed by an in-house checker, whose English skills
> are limited and who claims you didn't understand the
> nuances of the original.
But where I work, Japanese native speakers are not allowed to "create
English" (for lack of a better term).
They do not choose the phrasing or words used to express things. They are
not allowed to edit for meaning.
They are only allowed to point out what they perceive as errors and then
check with a native English speaker before anything is changed.
However, admittedly, my situation is rather unique.
tvp
Tad Perry
May 3, 2013, 10:33:20 PM5/3/13
to
are you a different Scott that I have never known?
tvp
Scottintokyo
May 3, 2013, 11:44:30 PM5/3/13
to
Tad, etc.). I returned to Tokyo six years after leaving and have been
here ever since.
--
Scottintokyo
Scottintokyo
May 3, 2013, 11:53:13 PM5/3/13
to
On 2013-05-04 02:31:44 +0000, Tad Perry said:
> Jim Breen wrote:
>> On Friday, 3 May 2013 11:27:32 UTC+10, Tad Perry wrote:
>>
>>> Think outside the box. Don’t just blindly follow the
> Jim Breen wrote:
>> On Friday, 3 May 2013 11:27:32 UTC+10, Tad Perry wrote:
>>
>>> source Japanese that you’re translating. Follow it
>>> in spirit, but not necessarily to the letter.
>>
>> And be prepared to have your well-considered translation
>> reversed by an in-house checker, whose English skills
>> are limited and who claims you didn't understand the
>> nuances of the original.
>
> Historically, this has been a big problem.
> But where I work, Japanese native speakers are not allowed to "create
> English" (for lack of a better term).
> They do not choose the phrasing or words used to express things. They
> are not allowed to edit for meaning.
> They are only allowed to point out what they perceive as errors and
> then check with a native English speaker before anything is changed.
> However, admittedly, my situation is rather unique.
In fairness, many places operate this way. I think enough agencies got
>>
>> And be prepared to have your well-considered translation
>> reversed by an in-house checker, whose English skills
>> are limited and who claims you didn't understand the
>> nuances of the original.
>
> Historically, this has been a big problem.
> But where I work, Japanese native speakers are not allowed to "create
> English" (for lack of a better term).
> They do not choose the phrasing or words used to express things. They
> are not allowed to edit for meaning.
> They are only allowed to point out what they perceive as errors and
> then check with a native English speaker before anything is changed.
> However, admittedly, my situation is rather unique.
themselves into trouble by creating English, as you put it, they some
at least have learned their lesson.
It is rather humbling to have errors and other deficiences pointed out
to you, but it is a learning process as well and can be quite valuable.
And I find that the cases where there is no error and you explain why,
the coordinator will usually be quite grateful for your explanation.
--
Scottintokyo
Message has been deleted
Scottintokyo
May 4, 2013, 7:39:39 AM5/4/13
to
On 2013-05-04 04:14:24 +0000, Wasabi said:
> Scottintokyo <sc...@tokyo.jp> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-05-04 02:31:44 +0000, Tad Perry said:
>>
>>> Jim Breen wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 3 May 2013 11:27:32 UTC+10, Tad Perry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Think outside the box. Don鐃緒申t just blindly follow the
>>>>> source Japanese that you鐃緒申re translating. Follow it in spirit, but
> be wrong, which could easily happen if a non-NSOE tried to eliminate
> unnecessary words as in Tad's example.
No one is suggesting that wrong is good. But an overly literal
translation can be as wrong as one is too free. And Tad's example is
about what translators who are NSOEs or near equivalents should do.
People with a shaky command of English should not be editing English
texts.
--
Scottintokyo
> Scottintokyo <sc...@tokyo.jp> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-05-04 02:31:44 +0000, Tad Perry said:
>>
>>> Jim Breen wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 3 May 2013 11:27:32 UTC+10, Tad Perry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> source Japanese that you鐃緒申re translating. Follow it in spirit, but
>>>>> not necessarily to the letter.
>>>>
>>>> And be prepared to have your well-considered translation
>>>> reversed by an in-house checker, whose English skills
>>>> are limited and who claims you didn't understand the nuances of the
>>>> original.
>>>
>>> Historically, this has been a big problem.
>>> But where I work, Japanese native speakers are not allowed to "create
>>> English" (for lack of a better term).
>>> They do not choose the phrasing or words used to express things. They
>>> are not allowed to edit for meaning.
>>> They are only allowed to point out what they perceive as errors and
>>> then check with a native English speaker before anything is changed.
>>> However, admittedly, my situation is rather unique.
>>
>> In fairness, many places operate this way. I think enough agencies got
>> themselves into trouble by creating English, as you put it, they some
>> at least have learned their lesson.
>
> It's better that a translation be boring and correct than read nicely and
>>>>
>>>> And be prepared to have your well-considered translation
>>>> reversed by an in-house checker, whose English skills
>>>> are limited and who claims you didn't understand the nuances of the
>>>> original.
>>>
>>> Historically, this has been a big problem.
>>> But where I work, Japanese native speakers are not allowed to "create
>>> English" (for lack of a better term).
>>> They do not choose the phrasing or words used to express things. They
>>> are not allowed to edit for meaning.
>>> They are only allowed to point out what they perceive as errors and
>>> then check with a native English speaker before anything is changed.
>>> However, admittedly, my situation is rather unique.
>>
>> In fairness, many places operate this way. I think enough agencies got
>> themselves into trouble by creating English, as you put it, they some
>> at least have learned their lesson.
>
> be wrong, which could easily happen if a non-NSOE tried to eliminate
> unnecessary words as in Tad's example.
No one is suggesting that wrong is good. But an overly literal
translation can be as wrong as one is too free. And Tad's example is
about what translators who are NSOEs or near equivalents should do.
People with a shaky command of English should not be editing English
texts.
--
Scottintokyo
Ben Bullock
May 4, 2013, 9:22:03 PM5/4/13
to
destroyed by the artist's wife, who went through the article
"correcting" my grammar.
Scottintokyo
May 5, 2013, 3:22:54 AM5/5/13
to
good job in the first place.
--
Scottintokyo
Chance
May 8, 2013, 4:13:59 AM5/8/13
to
notwithstanding. Could there be the nobel prize in literature
for Kawabata Yasunari but for Edward Seidensticker?
CK
Tad Perry
May 12, 2013, 5:50:50 PM5/12/13
to
correction by Japanese proof-readers and translation agencies.
Some of you know Ryan Ginstrom (developer of the computer-assisted
translation tool, Felix).
He and I have very similar ideas on this matter. Over the years, as a sort
of compromise, I've been willing to include some unnecessary words, and
stick pretty closely to the Japanese source, on the condition that it reads
smoothly in English. So, I refuse to produce English that will cause the
reader to trip over it as he or she reads.
His approach goes a bit farther and I've come to adopt it now that I'm in a
position to win these battles: Provide absolutely 100% natural English, even
in tests that will determine whether I am utilized as a translator, and if
the agency doesn't recognize it as good English, then you don't want to work
for that agency anyway. Translations tests are your test of the agency as
much as they are the agency's test of you.
There are actually enough agencies out there now that can recognize good
English that a translator doesn't have to go hungry. Not only is it possible
to get plenty of work, but as your quality is recognized, the transation
rate you command can actually increase and some clients won't want to use
anyone else. You're happier, they're happier, and the translators and
agencies that turn in crappy translations can keep doing so at their own
peril. You never know when someone is going to notice and your cover is
blown.
And who do such translators and agencies lose out to in the end?
Those who don't give in.
tvp
0 new messages