achieving professional quality in translation

Achieving professional quality in translation

Dr Joanna DruganCentre for Translation Studies

University of Leeds, UKwww.leeds.ac.uk/cts

Talk map1. Overview/background2. Translation studies/theoretical approaches to

translation quality3. Translation quality management in the industry

– Why it matters– Recent developments

4. Two sample models– Benefits and drawbacks

5. Questions, discussion, feedback

8 March 2010 2Achieving professional quality in translation

1. Background • Recently completed research project

– How the industry measures and improves translation quality

– Quality metrics– Use of electronic tools to check quality– Workflow and translation processes

• Range of locales, types of LSP, language pairs, domains

8 March 2010 Achieving professional quality in translation

3

“Quality in professional translation”• Work in progress• Continuum, 2012• Feedback, please

– Title?– What aspects would you like to read more

about?


4

Unprofessional translation• Think of your ‘favourite’ poor translation• Consider why it’s bad

– e.g. poor ST comprehension? Proofreading failure?

• Examples:– www.engrish.com – Mister Bleach’s CV– DVX: email/scone


5

Unprofessional translation

• Keep your example in mind as we run through TQ approaches and two ‘extreme’ models

• Would your unprofessional translation have been identified for quality control (QC) or prevented by either approach?


6

2. TS/theoretical approaches to TQ• Focus on text:

– ST/TT comparison– TT revision and editing

• Human-centred and labour-intensive• Product rather than processes


7

2. TS/theoretical approaches to TQ

• Where processes are examined, it’s to establish or hypothesise about how specific translation choices were made, rather than describing or suggesting stages in a business/production model


8

TS/theoretical approaches vs. the ‘real world’• Familiar (‘sterile’?) theory/practice debate

(Chesterman and Wagner 2002, Lefevere 1996, Newmark 1981)

• Different approaches to TQ in particular • Quah (2006: 26-28): Particularly on the issue

of quality, linguists, translation theorists and translators are asking different questions


9

Different approaches to TQ• Linguist

– Why is this translation as it is? (descriptive, explanatory)

• Theorist– What constitutes a good translation?

• Translator– Can theory help me make this translation

better? How can I justify my translation to the client?


10

Different approaches to TQ

• Different questions• Different (meta-)language to discuss the same

issues• Contrast two leading sources


11

Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus Social Evaluation

“As an evaluator [of TQ] one will always be forced to flexibly move from a macro-analytical focus to a micro-analytical one, from considerations of ideology, function, genre, register, to the communicative value of individual linguistic items. In taking such a multi-perspectival viewpoint, a responsible translation critic will arrive at a position where he or she can give a probabilistic reconstruction of the translator’s choices, and with the support of the translator’s own ‘voice’, be able to throw some light on his or her decision processes in as objective a manner as possible…


12

(Cont.)… That this is an extremely complex undertaking which,

in the end, yields but approximative outcomes, should not detract us from its usefulness. It is the task of the translation critic to work out, as far as possible, for each individual case, exactly where and with what types of consequences and (possibly) for which reasons (parts of) translated texts are what they are in relation to their ‘primary texts’. Such a modest goal might guard the translation evaluator against making both prescriptive, apodictic and global judgments (of the ‘good’ vs ‘bad’ type) that are not intersubjectively verifiable.” House (2001: 255)


13

A Model for Assessing Translation Quality

• More pithily:– “An adequate translation text (TT) is a

semantically and pragmatically equivalent one” House (1977: 103)

• Compare House’s aims and acknowledgement of limitations/objections with Mossop (2001: 150) then Kingscott and Samuelsson-Brown:


14

Contrast with industry approach

Clients may require “a formal, ‘objective’ assessment system in order to justify, for example, removing a given person from a roster of qualified freelances. ‘Objective’ usually means quantified, that is, the assessment will take the form of a number obtained by counting errors.Ratings should also be objective in the sense that if two assessors examine the same text, they should both arrive at the same general assessment.”


15

Contrast with industry approach“A poor-quality translation, provided it does not

positively mislead, which is ready for a businessman on Tuesday before he catches his plane to Tokyo, is far preferable than the accurate + natural idiom translation which is not ready till Friday of the same week; in fact, in such circumstances, the latter translation is worthless. […] Here, then, is the first point to be established, and one difficult for established translators to grasp: Quality is relative.” Kingscott (1996: 138)


16

Contrast with industry approach“Trying to qualify what is meant by quality in

translations is, and will continue to be, a divisive issue because of the intangible nature of the service. The only true benchmark if you are translating for a living is whether you provide what your client wants.” Samuelsson-Brown (1996: 134)


17

Contrast with industry approach• Is it good enough? • Can certain quality levels be

guaranteed/relied upon?• Can we maintain quality and do it faster?• Can we maintain quality and do it for less?


18

Industry focus

• Not just translation product/text (revision, editing)

• Not principally text?• Because of different context and needs


19

3. TQ in the industry – why it matters• Translators (and clients) want to understand

how translation can be improved or certain quality levels guaranteed.

• Not in pursuit of some Holy Grail of perfect or best quality – but fit for purpose, appropriate expenditure for this specific use of the text

• Why now? Haven’t they always wanted this?


20

Recent developments• Greater need for quality checks in today’s

translation context– Globalisation, multivendor translation teams– Increase in translation activity/international

awareness of translation activity (Google Translate, Facebook)

– Increasingly technical domains for translation

– Increasing production of STs in EN by non- MT speakers


21

Recent developments

• Tools – it’s increasingly possible– BlackJack, QA Distiller, OS tools– SDL TRADOS QA Checker: “Ensure your

work is virtually error free”.• Industry drive towards shared quality

standards• Obligation to measure and document quality

processes


22

Industry drive towards recognized quality standards• ISO 9002 (2003)• ASTM WK2953 (New Consumer-Oriented Guide to

Quality Assurance in Translation and Localization)• LISA (various)• National Standard of the People’s Republic of China

GB/T 19363. 1-2003 Specification for Translation Service

• EN 15038 (European Committee for Standards, released 06-2006)

• BS EN 15038:2006 Translation Services: Service Requirements


23

What does this mean for practising translators?• ISO:

– Demonstrate translation is ‘fit for purpose’• ASTM:

– Regulate ‘consumer product’


24

What does this mean for practising translators?• LISA:

– Agree industry-wide standards and encourage TSPs to adopt these

– Development and adoption of standard exchange formats (e.g. TMX)

• International variation in scope, e.g. Chinese standard:– “4.2.2 Receptionists […should] be properly

dressed and have good manners when dealing with the client”


25

CEN translation standards• ‘Define the requirements for the provision of

quality translation services’• ‘Documented quality management’ procedures• Translators must have a formal recognized

degree or 5 years’ experience• [draft] All jobs must be revised by another

translator…• Revisers: competencies as for translators +

‘domain expertise’


26

Why focus on TQ now?

• Influence of other disciplines―Approaches increasingly imported from

management, software engineering and testing, marketing

• Translation as a business or service, managers and business theorists applying their theories and approaches to translation as they have in the past to the automotive industry or financial services

• Particularly Kaizen /TQM /Six Sigma


27

Kaizen/ TQM/Six Sigma• If you can(’t) measure it, you can(’t) manage it• “Count what is countable, measure what is

measurable, and what is not measurable, make measurable.”– Attributed to Galileo (e.g. in Timothy L. J.

Ferris (2004) , ‘A new definition of measurement’ Measurement, Vol. 36 (1), 101–9.), Lord Kelvin and countless others


28

Kaizen• “Continuous improvement”• Toyota• Quality as basis• Management, manufacturing, engineering but

extended to all aspects of life• Eternal cycle of improvement –

standardisation, measurement, innovation/refinement, assessment then start again


29

TQM• Total Quality Management• Statistician and management theorist, W.

Edwards Deming• Quality is “fully satisfying agreed customer

requirements”• “Techniques for achieving efficiency, solving

problems, imposing standardization and statistical control, and regulating design, housekeeping, and other aspects of business or production processes” (Encyclopedia Britannica)


30

Six Sigma• Motorola, 1981• Statistics and management methods applied to

improving quality• Improve quality by identifying and addressing

defects and standardisation• Quality experts throughout organisations

(“Black Belts” etc)• Defined steps and agreed targets


31

Applicable to translation?• Attempting to measure the unmeasurable? • Compare with measurement in other fields

that we might think unmeasurable:– Google: call centre staff performance, the

relative effectiveness of non-profit organisations, telecommunications planning, corruption, systems engineering, innovation, entrepreneurship

– Academic research in the humanities?...


32

So how does the industry approach TQ?• What can be measured and standardised?

– Much broader than revision and editing, though these are typically included

– Processes rather than/as well as product– ISO “is not concerned with the contents of

the translation” (Ørsted, 2001: 444)


33

So how does the industry approach TQ?• QA/QC distinction:

– “When referring to quality, a distinction should be made between quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC). Quality assurance is defined as the steps and processes used to ensure a final quality product, while quality control focuses on the quality of the products produced by the process.” Esselink (2000: 146)

• Industry focuses as much or more on QA than QC


34

QA – what’s included?

• Recruitment/selection/ HR

• Testing • Monitoring• CPD• Workflow

• Remuneration/rates• KPIs• Document/file control• Hardware/software• Style


35

QA – what’s included?• Checklists:

– Features typically found in high-quality translations

– Standard quality checks• Feedback cycle:

– Solicit client feedback and act on it– Provide translators with feedback on their

work to encourage improvement


36

QA – what’s included?• More automation of quality checks:

– Translation memory, L10N and terminology tools

– Checks for consistency– Checks for compliance (with client TM,

terminology)– Formatting quality checks (tags)– Cheaper and faster/instantaneous


37

Theory in all this?• House (1998/2005: 197) “Translation quality

assessment presupposes a theory of translation”.

• See in models suggested next - bringing theory (management as well as TS) and practice together. Theorise what’s actually happening in real-world translation

• Skopos, fit-for-purpose translation evident in most business approaches


38

Fit-for-purpose translation• Tim Martin, European Commission:

– ‘Fit-for-purpose translation sounds like a business slogan or a DIY sales pitch (‘just-in-time’, ‘cheap-and-cheerful’). [But it is] a conscious attempt to use translation and revision resources intelligently. It is not a second-class alternative’.


39

Industrial TQ models• Range across industry from pharmaceutical to

advertising texts to translation for information• Not just text type

– Same ST, multiple approaches– Dependent on purpose/client

needs/deadline/cost• Grouped into range of models • Two extremes outlined here• Other models (experience-dependent, sector-

dependent, client-dependent…)8 March 2010 Achieving professional quality in

translation40

4. Two sample models

• ‘Maximalist’ and ‘minimalist’• Outline of key components, benefits and

drawbacks


41

Maximalist TQA• ‘Maximalist’ approach: ESA (France), Kik As

(Norway), Canon (UK)– Recruitment – engineer/linguists, banker/linguists– Probation/CPD– Testing/monitoring – Hardware/software– Confidentiality– Contractual obligations– Industrial prototypes/’embedded’ translators– Feedback cycle, ICR


42

Maximalist TQA• ‘Maximalist’ approach: translation product

– Everything is revised at least once– Read-through (aloud) with colleague in

same language pair (ESA)– Read on paper by in-house colleagues (Kik

As)– Read on paper and localised versions of

products tested by in-country specialists (Canon)


43

Maximalist TQA• ‘Maximalist’ approach: ESA, Kik As, Canon

– Advantages:• Thorough• Sharing highly-technical domain expertise• Peer support, staff development• Variety in translators’ workload• Development of house style• [Canon] In-house technical and linguistic expertise used to

make sure new translations meet local standards• Complies with most exacting standards

– Disadvantages:• Overkill• Costly (time, motivation)• Anticipating client’s preferences/reviser’s style (‘pollution’)• Repetitive• Who decides in cases of disagreement?


44

Minimalist TQA• ‘Minimalist’ approach: freelance translators,

thebigword(England), IBA (Wales), ProZ.com?– Self-selection, linguistic skills or lowest

bidder– Learn on-the-job– No/minimal requirements for

testing/monitoring; hardware/software– Confidentiality/contract?– Feedback typically absent or vague


45

Minimalist TQA• ‘Minimalist’ approach: translation product

– Revision by self-selected colleague or by translator, if at all

– Typically read through once on paper or screen

– Some automated QC checks – spell check? (Peugeot/Philadelphia…)


46

Minimalist TQA• ‘Minimalist’ approach: freelance translators, thebigword(England),

IBA (Wales), ProZ.com?– Advantages:

• Cost, speed• Translator autonomy, respect for professionals• Variety in translator workload/workflow

– Disadvantages:• Temptation not to review ‘rush jobs’• Relies on translators’ awareness of their own weak points• Serious errors missed and perpetuated (IBA illustration)• Isolation• Who decides in cases of disagreement?• Undercutting/competition among translators• Unlikely to meet most agreed Standards


47

Feedback/questions• Your ‘favourite’ poor translation – which if

either of the models would have picked it up?• Why might ‘average’ translation students

thrive in the industry? • How might this affect how you market your

services/which employers you target? • Title for book and which aspects you’d like to

know more about?


48

References • Esselink, B. (2000) A Practical Guide to Localization ,

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins• House, J. (2001) ‘Translation Quality Assessment:

Linguistic Description versus Social Evaluation’, Meta, XLVI, 2, 243-257

• House, J. (1998/2000) ‘Quality of Translation’ in M. Baker (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 197-200, London/NY: Routledge

• House, J. (1997) Translation Quality Assessment. A Model Revisited, Tübingen: Narr

• House, J. (1977) ‘A Model for Assessing Translation Quality’, Meta, XXII, 2, 103-109


49

References • Kingscott, G. (1996) ‘Providing quality and value’ in R.

Owens (ed.) The Translator’s Handbook, London: Aslib (137-146)

• Mossop, B. (2001) Revising and Editing for Translators, Manchester: St. Jerome

• Quah, C. K. (2006) Translation and Technology, Basingstoke/NY: Palgrave Macmillan

• Ørsted, J. (2001) ‘Quality and Efficiency: Incompatible Elements in Translation Practice?’, Meta, XLVI, 2, 438-447


50

References • Sager, J.C. (1989) ‘Quality and Standards—the

Evaluation of Translations’, in C. Picken (ed.) The Translator’s Handbook, London: Aslib (91–102)

• Samuelsson-Brown, G. (1996) ‘Working Procedures, Quality and Quality Assurance’ in R. Owens (ed.) The Translator’s Handbook, London: Aslib (103-136)


51

achieving professional quality in translation

Documents

issue of quality

professional translationwork

translation theorists

good translation

quality control qc

specific translation

tq approaches

different questions8