As interpreters, we are asked to translate the words and convey the intonation of the speaker into the language of the listener. As one can imagine, this process of interpretation yields terms or ideas for which there is no direct translation. This is often because a concept may not exist in both languages; we may all be human beings, but not all cultures are alike, right? For example, when I was recently assisting a case worker interact with a family who had recently resettled in the U.S. as refugees, the case worker told the mother that she needed to get a letter from the landlord verifying her residence in the apartment for her daughter’s school. For this woman, the fact that a school would require a document from her landlord made absolutely no sense. When asked for clarification, the case worker did not know how to clarify in any other way than to restate because she was unaware of what precisely was confusing the mother.
Another kind of challenge that arises in interpreting is expressions whose words have a close match but whose significance in context are very different. For example, the mother previously mentioned kept repeating “God willing” in response to anything the case worker said. To the case worker, this seemed to express a kind of sarcasm that expressed the mother’s lack of trust in the case worker.
As interpreters, we are not permitted (nor do we have the time!) to help each party understand one another on a deep psycho-social level. However, in home visits, medical or hospital settings and elsewhere, individual interpreters can and must clarify certain phrases or words when they feel the mere interpretation does not provide adequate meaning to a person’s message. I, for one, have done so on occasion. For the example of the case worker and the mother, I did find an appropriate time to step in and offer some clarifying words.
As speakers of both languages in interactions where we are a mere third party, it is hard at times not to step in and explain or even provide insight. This juggle of either resisting or interjecting to clarify leads me to ask: Where is the line between interpreting and cultural consultation, and furthermore, in an ideal scenario, where should the line be placed?
The answer is a classic: It depends. Sure, in some settings, the line is quite clear and there is no urge to step in as “referee.” For example, when interpreting between two parties who work in the same field or whose levels of education are fairly on par with one another, extra assistance from a cultural observer may not be needed. Or, at a UN conference, not only can you not interrupt from a speech to provide insight, but your cultural awareness may not even be as useful as, for example, that of experts in political rhetoric. Codes of conduct are central to ensuring the quality and professionalism of our services. However, might it also be that the very codes that define also, at times, inhibit?
Depending on your client or the agency through which you work, your responsibilities may slightly differ. Nevertheless, regardless of the specifics, our job is to precisely transmit the information or message of the speaker to the listener, from one language into another. The goal is not to provide additional insight into how or why a speaker might say something the way he or she does.
What if that were allowed? What if cultural consultation were a service that interpreters and translators could provide in addition to their linguistic expertise?
Imagine, you enter into an office to interpret between lawyer and client. Client is from your home country and you two share not only a language but a culture. Preparing for court, the lawyer is advising the client how to appear, only she does not feel comfortable taking his suggestion. You know why and you know why the lawyer is confused by her resistance. Imagine you had the power to alleviate both party’s frustrations with a simple contribution of cultural interpretation? Not only could you help save time, you would also help strengthen the relationship between lawyer and client, thereby providing your client with even more accurate interpreting services.
Or perhaps you are a historian with expertise in Latin American history. Would you not be doing your client a disservice by withholding valuable information pertaining to the historical relevance of a term or expression used in dialogue?
What about adaptation of educational curriculum from one country to another? Would it not benefit both parties to have a cultural liaison to advise each other on how students or “school culture” might affect implementation?
Sure, not all interpreters or translators can also double as a cultural consultant since many are hired on an assignment for which they do not have the relevant knowledge or expertise. In fact, when deemed necessary, a cultural liaison or “diplomat,” if you will, is called in to assist separately from the hired interpreter or translator. But isn’t the marriage between language and culture just too hard to ignore?
Perhaps the translators and interpreters are in the best positions to determine when or where this kind of additional service would be of use.
Valeriya Yermishova, current Board President, welcomed everyone who attended.
Leonard Morin, outgoing President, discussed his presidency during his tenure. He stated that “We are on a positive trajectory.” Before his tenure, the Circle was in danger of going out of existence, but since then the organization has really turned around. The boards he’s worked with have been able to improve things for the better. When he started, membership was dwindling, the website needed severe improvement and record keeping and finances were a mess.
For the past years, NYCT has focused on:
1. Fair remuneration
2. Working conditions
3. High quality translation and interpreting services
Current status: Website is up, thanks to the efforts of Gigi, Paolo has sorted the finances and Louise has done an excellent job as administrator, Kate has been great at organization events, Myosotis on outreach, Margarite working on The Gotham, Valeriya handling social media and observing past year to take her role as President, and membership has gone up every year since 3 years ago.
He finished with “Thank you for having me as President.”
Gigi discussed the new website and the new interactive Gotham Translator newsletter. Paolo prepared financial reports for the membership. Kate discussed past events she organized and touched on a few upcoming plans for the new year.
After the outgoing Board discussed the past year and their respective terms the new Board consisting of
Valeriya Yermishova, President Alta L. Price, Vie-President Kate Deimling, Program Director Melissa Mannis, Secretary Osei Prempeh, Treasurer
Was introduced to the membership.
Some words from Valeriya: We would love to know what you liked or didn’t like last year; Louise will be sending out a survey. This organization is for you…if you want to get more involved, you can! We will have elections for Treasurer, Secretary and Program Director.
Afterwards members got to know each other during the networking portion.
On Saturday, March 14, the NYCT held its first-ever literary translation conference. In the morning session, we heard from three experienced literary translators: Russian-to-English translator Antonina Bouis, Spanish-to-English translator Gary Racz, and French-to-English translator Lee Fahnestock.
Antonina Bouis discussed her preference for translating living authors over dead ones. The main advantage she sees is that translators can ask living authors questions about what they meant. She emphasized that translators shouldn’t feel as if they have to know everything; authors will be flattered to be asked for their help. However, she acknowledged that there are some disadvantages to working with living authors: they may have their own ideas about how passages should be translated, and they will receive some royalties, so the translator’s share of royalties (if included in the contract) will be smaller. Yet, in any case, most translations will not sell enough copies to recoup the translator’s advance and trigger the payment of royalties. Bouis concluded by asking if we truly need a fifth translation of a classic like The Brothers Karamazov, or if it’s better to hear a new voice. Miniscule changes in books that have already been translated will be of interest to critics and translators, but not to the general public.
Gary Racz spoke about translating the 17th-century Mexican author Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz’s play Los empeños de una casa. Racz, who is currently at work on The Norton Critical Edition of The Golden Age of Spanish Drama, laid out a central dilemma for translators of verse: very often, translators choose to render poetic forms in rhyme and meter as free verse. There’s a perception that contemporary readers will only accept free verse (despite Shakespeare’s unflagging popularity), and thus translators’ choices have been limited. Racz bucked this trend when translating Sor Juana’s play, and his translation has been performed on several occasions. He shared his translation of the mad, comedic ending of the play, in which he used poetic elements such as rhyme and assonance in order to mimic the author’s style. Racz also pointed out, during the question-and-answer session, that there are many works by dead authors that have yet to be translated, such as eight plays by Cervantes that aren’t available in English.
Lee Fahnestock related her experiences translating French poet Francis Ponge (1899-1988), whom she met several times. Ponge was from a Protestant family near Nîmes, and this gave him a sturdy independence. He’s been described as a “chosiste,” focusing on objects, particularly how the word matches the object it describes. For instance, he was fascinated by the sound relationship between the words “pré” (“field”), “près” (“close, near”), and prêt (“ready”). He saw this sound as the preliminary to everything. Fahnestock translated his book of prose poems, Le Parti pris des choses, as The Nature of Things, an English title that Ponge approved of (he was inspired by the Roman author Lucretius and had considered using “The Nature of Things” as his French title). She also translated work by Ponge for an exhibition devoted to him at Paris’s Pompidou Center in 1977. Fahnestock told a cautionary tale about overzealous copyeditors: a copyeditor inserted a mistake into one of her translations which she didn’t discover until after publication.
The New York Circle of Translators held its first-ever conference on the topic of literary translation this past March. The Saturday event, held at NYU SCPS’s space in the historic Woolworth Building, featured a two-hour morning session of presentations by three professional literary translators, an hour-long lunch and networking break, and a two-hour afternoon roundtable discussion with a panel of five experts discussing the field from an editing and publishing perspective. Some attendees came to earn the four continuing education points offered by the American Translators Association, and all of us were there for the wealth of inspiration everyone had to offer. It was a dreary, rain-drenched, mid-March morning, so the fact that we packed the room with people coming from as far afield as Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, Connecticut, and even Rochester and Pittsburgh says a lot about our collective dedication to this curious and challenging field.
Photo: L. Jennewine
TWO SIDES OF THE COIN: TRANSLATORS
“Trotsky’s house in Mexico smelled like a dacha.”
NYCT Program Director Kate Deimling introduced the morning speakers. First up was Russian-to-English translator Antonina Bouis, who spoke about translating contemporary writers. The straightforward subtitle of her presentation, “The Many Pros and a Few Cons,” told only half the story: she not only addressed some of the perks and pitfalls of starting out in the field, but did so with refreshing enthusiasm and delightful anecdotes—like how surprising it was to walk into Trotsky’s house in Mexico, only to find that the books and other objects gave the place the scent of a dacha so familiar from the time she’d spent in Russia. It was both amusing and depressing to hear that, invited to represent one of her authors at a major international prize ceremony for contemporary literature in English, it became clear that the award committee wasn’t even aware that all three titles up for the prize that year had originated in other languages. Another interesting point she made was that professional writers don’t interfere, because they know that the translator is their greatest resource and ally, whereas unprofessional or inexperienced writers are the ones who tend to run to the dictionary and question every decision. As a translator, you have two main options: if you have the time and energy, you can educate the writer; alternatively, you can stop taking on that type of client. Speaking for myself, as someone who still does a fair amount of client education even with relatively experienced writers and editors, Bouis’s observation really resonated. She also addressed cons like work-for-hire agreements and the common practice of splitting royalties when working with contemporary authors. While working on classics or other texts in the public domain carries the advantage that—if a reasonable contract is negotiated with the publisher—all royalties go to the translator, that kind of work doesn’t offer the potential of rich experiences that working with a living author can. Ultimately, Bouis opted for the adventure of working with living authors and bringing new voices into English over the purely economic advantage of (re)translating classics by dead authors.
“Authors—the deader, the better.”
Which brings us to the morning’s second presenter, Spanish-to-English translator G. J. Racz. The entire audience erupted in laughter when he recalled what another translator had once said to him: “Authors—the deader, the better.” Racz’s talk covered his experience retranslating Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz’s Los empeños de una casa. Decontextualization is always an issue when brining a text from one language, place, and culture to another, and Racz cited Venuti’s considerations about it as well. Decontextualization has both spatial and temporal effects: geographic, sociopolitical, and other space-related differences come into play, and with Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz’s text the time-related difference is key as well. Models in the receiving culture necessarily affect the translator’s choices. One specific example Racz mentioned was poetic form; tightly structured meter was the norm when Inés de la Cruz was writing, but most contemporary English-language readers are more accustomed to free verse. Also, the text in question was originally written to be performed, whereas his translation will likely only be read. He had thought-provoking reflections on how to navigate such factors.
The morning’s third and final presenter was French-to-English translator Lee Fahnestock, who spoke about her work bringing French author Francis Ponge into English. Her author was born in 1899 and lived until 1988, so she hand a chance to meet him after she’d already begun working on his text. Fahnestock was one of the first translators of Le parti pris des choses, first published by Gallimard in 1942, and her version was titled The Nature of Things. She also discussed their related book, The Making of the Pré, which was her English rendering of La Fabrique du pré, first published in French by Skira in 1971, and issued in English by the University of Missouri Press in 1979. Because her text involved a lot of word play and potentially playful misreadings, she emphasized the oral and aural aspects of translation and the role of the reader as hearer. She caught my attention by mentioning the role of the copyeditor, as copyediting and proofreading are key stages where, especially with linguistically unusual or challenging texts, things can go very wrong. Luckily her author was amused by the misguided “correction” to their text that made it into the final book, but not all texts are so flexible, and not all authors so understanding. My personal solution to that problem has been to step out of my translator shoes and temporarily don the editor’s hat, submitting a style sheet outlining any quirks particular to the text in question. Yes, it’s extra work that clients don’t always want to factor into the per-word rate, but it can save a lot of strife later on, and repeat clients quickly learn its value. You probably don’t want to spend countless hours on e-mail or the phone defending choices you already spent a lot of time thinking through, and nobody wants to pay for changes once the project has gone to proofs.
We began by looking at the big picture—how each of them got into the field, and how they choose texts to translate (or whoever at their company makes the final acquisition decisions does). Their backgrounds ranged from retail bookselling to working as an agent to just being avid readers, and I think a lot of translators in the audience could relate when many of the panelists said they came into their positions almost inadvertently, via fortunate coincidences and a lot of hard work. Many said that, to varying degrees, their backlist shapes their frontlist. Kogane mentioned the formative role Ezra Pound played in the early days at New Directions, and how much they continue to value writers’ recommendations. Asked whether they feel there are country/language/cultural mandates, most panelists agreed that it depends on the publisher’s track record and readership, but the main goal is to get superb writing into the hands of English speakers who would otherwise have no access to it. Market factors came up all afternoon, and sounded particularly important here: Americans have an easier time relating to the umpteenth book about the natural and cultural beauty of Italy, say, than they do to a book by an undiscovered writer from Albania with a hard-to-pronounce name: those countries are fewer than 70 miles apart, but in many respects exist in separate worlds, so both translator and editor will have to make a strong case to a publisher for why such a text needs to exist in English and how it might best be presented. I have repeatedly heard fellow translators recommend getting a story published in a literary journal (usually done on spec, of course), so as to build the author’s readership in the US and thereby make getting a full book deal easier. Although this approach certainly can’t hurt, and has perhaps worked for some, it might not be super effective for translators just starting out: when I asked the panelists whether they read lit mags scouting for content, not a single one said they do. But they do discuss what they’re reading with their networks of authors, editors, and fellow readers, so simply maintaining ties and staying interested in what your colleagues are up to is always a good idea.
The source language is an obvious factor in what books get placed with US publishers, especially when the acquiring editor or publisher can’t read the original. It was an almost even split between the panelists when it came to who relies on reader’s reports and who reads the originals. Some occasionally work with literary agents (who, by the way, are perceived very differently from country to country), but most rarely do, and Lusardi brought up an interesting point here: she recommended translators cultivate relationships not only with editors working in their target language, but also and especially in their source language. Even without delving into what digital technologies are doing to it, publishing is still a bit like the Wild West, and oftentimes there are many obstacles between originating and acquiring publishers. If translators are able to position themselves as cultural ambassadors who can bridge the divide and help not only bring a new text over into English but also detangle differences in approach, customary practices, etc., they can potentially be invaluable allies.
Next we tackled the nuts and bolts of the trade, which might sound boring but wasn’t, because everyone had so much to say. Although I can’t cover it all here, the panelists were very generous in discussing what they look for in a translation proposal, how they choose a translator, how they edit a translation, and their idea of the perfect publisher/editor/translator relationship. Notably, Post mentioned that he almost never bases a decision on a translator’s cv, but that a 15–20 page sample carries the real weight. This varies from house to house: some publishers only ask for 2-page samples, so translators should definitely ask the editor what to send. Everyone agreed that a cover letter contextualizing the book is essential, and including a list of what houses in other countries are publishing the same book/author is helpful, too. The keys to a successful collaboration were fairly uniform across the board: be punctual, communicate, give the project your best, and be nice.
Moving on to address the business side of things, the clear message was that translators, editors, and publishers are ultimately allies, not adversaries—although when you get into nitty-gritty details like pay rates, royalties, whose name goes where, production schedules, etc. that might sound a bit kumbaya. When it comes to contract negotiation, the larger houses have entire legal departments, whereas many of the smaller houses make it the managing editor’s responsibility (as if they didn’t have enough to take care of already). Although I hadn’t given territory much thought, the panelists emphasized how key it can be. How much give-and-take there is in contracts really varies, too. The PEN Model Contract came up here, as some editors have used it as a template, and others have received proposals based on it that ultimately weren’t feasible for their publisher. If ever I do another panel like this, I’d love to pick apart a publisher’s P&L, as few translators ever get to see one and it’s an eye-opening experience. But for now I can point you to a related podcast from Three Percent that looks into who really earns what. We touched upon: how are fees set (usually per word or flat rate); what percentage of any given publisher’s projects are work-for-hire (hint: from a translator’s perspective, way too many!); who holds the copyright, and whether their standard contracts include a reversion clause—most editors agreed this was an important thing to secure, so that if the publisher of your work goes under, the work can find a new life elsewhere; and who, if anyone, earns royalties (in theory and in practice). Cover art came up as well—many people do judge books by their covers—and we could have a whole other conference on that topic.
We then considered the post-partum period. After your book is out, what happens? All too often, not much—meaning yes, it might sell okay, it might get a few reviews, but it must be said that after the author, translator, editor, and publisher have invested so much time and energy into a project, their expectations must remain realistic. Most panelists agreed that the translator can play a role in helping promote a project—by writing about it or having colleagues write about it in magazines and online, tapping into their various communities (based on language, genre, location), etc. All publishers have a marketing or PR department of some sort, even if it’s only one person, so it behooves the translator to be as available as possible to provide additional info. I then naïvely asked whether any of the editors’ houses bring their authors on tour or organize other events: the short answer was no. It sounds like this practice is rapidly becoming a relic of the past even for native English-speaking writers, and the language and geographic distances can make it even harder for writers published in translation, but it isn’t unheard of—especially for authors coming from countries whose governments actually support the arts. Foreign government funding or underwriting from private grants sounded more possible than a publisher ponying up enough to cover author/translator appearances.
I had a few fun random questions I’d have loved to ask—like what panelists’ favorite translations are, or what the most egregious line from the worst hatchet job one of their projects has ever received is—but time was running short. I ended by asking what advice everyone would give to an aspiring literary translator, and was surprised when the answer was not only unanimous, but took us back to an earlier point: be nice. If you’re pitching a project remember that, if the editor is open to considering your proposal, that editor will likely in turn be in your same position as they pitch it to their publisher, so there’s more empathy and solidarity out there than many translators often think. If a publisher has already acquired a project and is coming to you, they might be considering several translators for the job: it’s an honor to be in an editor’s stable of trusted translators, and diligence and trust will get you far, but being a pleasure to work with is often what sets someone ahead of the rest.
The panel had a few more tips. Sal Robinson gave a great answer “straight out of 1998”: have a website. Peter Blackstock reminded us that the reader is king, so an awareness of what and how people are reading helps. Chad Post recommended engaging with your readers and colleagues on social media; he couldn’t prove that tweeting and re-tweeting book-related stuff actually boosts sales, but he did say it feels good.
The audience had some great questions. One participant asked about Babelcube and whether it might be a useful resource. Tellingly, none of the panelists seemed to have ever heard of it, and an award-winning literary translator in the audience recommended we all tread cautiously: a lot of crowdsourcing platforms for translation are popping up online, and we all need to do due diligence in evaluating who we work with under what terms, because there’s always someone looking to get something for nothing.
While most of the attendees work into English from other languages—Spanish, French, German, Korean, Czech, Chinese, Russian, Italian, and others were represented in the room that day—we were also fortunate to have a few translators in the audience working from English into their native language. As mentioned earlier, publishing-industry dynamics vary from country to country, but the vast majority of pointers the panelists gave us are equally applicable outside US borders.
My spirits were buoyed when some of the panelists mentioned that they’d learned a lot from one another and from audience members, and I was grateful to have had the opportunity to moderate the discussion. All in all, it was a great conference, so we’re considering organizing more events like this in the future. As always, we’re open to hearing your feedback and ideas (email@example.com).
I’d like to extend particular thanks to NYCT Administrator Louise Jennewine, Program Director Kate Deimling, President Valeriya Yermishova, Secretary Melissa Mannis, and Treasurer Osei Prempeh for making this event possible. Extra thanks to Margarite Heintz Montez for her excellent work compiling the Gotham Translator. Updates on this and other events are available on our Facebook page as well. A networking evening with CLMP is already in the works for later this spring, so we look forward to seeing many of you again soon.
Ready to take your skills to the next level, and/or get certified as a medical interpreter? The Agnese Haury Medical Interpreter Training Institute is here for you!
This 2-week program is for Spanish/English interpreters and/or translators as well as bilingual healthcare providers who want to develop their skills. The MITI is a comprehensive, practice-intensive training for interpreters in hospitals and other medical settings.
• Medical interpreter ethics and protocol
• Frequently encountered health conditions
• Anatomy and physiology
• Simulated clinical interactions
• Standards of practice
• Specialized terminology in Spanish and in English
• Major diseases and specializations
• Medical translation
Participants spend the bulk of the training time engaged in hands-on practice in the 3 primary modes of interpretation — consecutive and simultaneous interpretation, and sight translation. Scripts and documents are based upon authentic clinical scenarios and medical forms. The MITI also provides essential preparation for national certification exams and helps ensure compliance with federal requirements for qualified interpreters.
Our well attended March meeting focused on interpretation. The panel consisted of:
Loubna Bagnied, Interpreting Services Manager at Eriksen Translations
Michelle Santarpia, Interpreting Recruiter at Geneva Worldwide
Elodie Gonzalez, Senior Project Manager at Translingua Associates
Anthony Cosimano, Managing Director – Event Services Ubiqus
The panelist discussed their respective agencies and then what qualifications they look for when hiring interpreters. All the agencies stated that training on the CV was a good thing. Ms. Santarpia from Geneva stated that if there is no training, relevant work experience would help interpreters stand out. For example someone who worked as a paralegal and was now starting in interpreting would be considered by Geneva. It also helps to be recommended by interpreters who are on their roster. In fact all the panelists agreed that recommendations from colleagues were a plus. Ericksen tests potential interpreters for language proficiency and eloquence of delivery.
From Ms. Santarpia of Geneva: You need to establish a relationship with your agency – as recruiter, I like to meet my interpreters in person; there has to be a personal connection.
All agencies lamented about client education. Clients and other industries really need to understand about interpreting. It requires more than just a bilingual. They all breathe a sigh of relief when servicing clients who truly understand what interpreting entails. In fact Ubiqus has written in their contract that “if no materials are provided prior to the meeting then they cannot guarantee the quality of the interpretation.” This is quite unique in the industry.
Modes of Interpreting
In addition to the usual consecutive, simultaneous and escort interpreting the new types of technology are ushering in different modes of interpreting (video remote interpreting on a rise; telephonic)
While in-person interpretation is the ideal it is not always available in every circumstance. Geneva and Ericksen both agreed that in situations such as medical you prefer the “human touch”, an interpreter not only delivers what the patient says, but more importantly what is not said. An in-person interpreter can see if the patient scrunches up their face in pain, or looks confused or frightened. The telephone cannot relay those sentiments, video does not work that much better.
Many hospitals use VRI machines or phone interpreting (Woodhull Hospital using VRI machines) but for many situations, it depends on the condition of the patient him or herself before knowing whether or not VRI or phone interpreting works.
However, where face to face is not available these types of interpretation are the only choice. Hospitals by law must provide language services to patients.
What are the areas which have the most growth potential in the interpreting market?
Due to globalization there is a huge demand for web localization and branding a business into other markets. Interpreters are generally hired to help with visits and signing contracts between CEOs, CFOs and their international counterparts.
Ubiqus finds that business meetings and forums keep them quite busy are growing on a yearly basis. This part of the industry is quite robust and does not seem to be slowing down.
What are the trends?
– People are becoming aware that everyone has a right to language access
– People are becoming more aware that there is a difference between a skilled interpreter and a bilingual
– People need and demand more certifications
– VRI and telephonic isn’t taking away from in-person, just expanding it
Can people do both interpreting and translating?
From our panelists:
-70% of interpreters at some of the agencies also do translation
-Most interpreters are not into translation, but do it in their areas of expertise
-Suggested it’s easier to go from interpretation to translation and not vice versa
Reprinted with gracious permission from the Patent Translator, Steve Vitek
In my last silly post, I described how based on my own case and the experience of almost three decades, a translator can go about finding direct customers for a small translation business and over time become independent, or at least mostly independent, of translation agencies. This was just one example of how something like that can be done – there must be many other methods that can be used for the same purpose.
I would also like to stress that I see no reason to stop working for translation agencies when a translator works for direct clients, provided that it is a translation agency with a human face that is run by people who understand translation and appreciate translators. Unfortunately, the modern, corporate type of translation agency is based on the ruthless, ultra-crapitalistic concept of profit über alles, i.e. maximum profit at all costs, mostly at the expense of the people who do the actual work, but ultimately also at the expense of its own customers who are expected to simply get used to a much lower standard of quality of the product being provided with all of those wonderful “language technology tools”. This corporate, crapitalist model is deeply hostile and clearly detrimental to our own interests as independent translators.
The term “language technology tools” would make George Orwell proud. It includes many new glorious inventions of the modern “translation industry”, such as machine translations that are post-edited by humans. This is no science fiction anymore as “the translation industry” has already reached the stage when machines are assisted by humans instead of the other way round. Instead of translators it employs invisible, underpaid or simply unpaid crowd workers and thinks nothing of the evisceration of the beauty and the soul of translation, which is no longer be present in texts that have been processed by algorithms that may easily run amok when computer-assisted tools dictate to humans what is and what is not correct translation.
I think that it makes a lot of sense to ignore the version of reality that the “translation industry” is pushing as a legitimate model of what translation should look like and instead to try to create a different model, a model that would be more fair both to the translators and to their clients.
An alternative model is based on working only with the traditional model of translation agency and, as much as possible, with direct clients.
In this post I will try to briefly describe how a transition from clients, who are mostly just ignorant brokers who know next to nothing about translation, to clients who are the actual customers for your translations, is likely to change the character of your small translation business – because that was what happened in my particular case.
Finding direct clients is no easy task, but it is only the first step. Once you find them, you will also have to figure out how to keep them.
The problem with direct customers is that many of them have the nasty habit of insisting on taking a poor translator out of his or her comfort zone. You can always turn down a job from a translation agency, for example if you don’t know the subject well enough, or even you are feeling lazy. The chances are that the agency will come back to you next time anyway because agencies are used to working with different translators on different projects.
But if a direct client asks you to translate something that you can’t do yourself, can you tell them sorry, I don’t do that? Sure, you can, but will they come back to you next time again when they have a job for you that is more along the lines of what you prefer? Would you continue using the services of a plumber who can fix your leaking sink, but not your leaking bathroom? Probably not if you could find a plumber who can fix both of these eminently important fixtures in everybody’s house that tend to develop a leaking problem every now and then.
I don’t think that translators should try to be all things to all people, which is exactly what most translation agencies try to do. The fact that most translation agencies specialize in “all languages and all subjects” is one reason why they often do such a horrible job. Their motto might as well be: “If we don’t specialize in it, it does not exist”.
But even when a business is specializing in something, in every field there are many sub-specializations. Although initially I started out as a patent translator specializing only in Japanese patents, after about 5 years I started translating myself also German patents, and later I added also French, Russian, Czech, Slovak, and Polish patents, although it was and still is much more work for me than if I simply concentrated only on Japanese.
It took me a while before I was able to “grow” the same connections between the idle neurons in my brain for the same terms also between German and English, and then also for terms in French and other languages that I have been studying for many years. I am still faster when I translate Japanese patents, at least compared to patents in any other language, although German is now a close second.
But what should I do if I translate only one or a couple of languages and the clients start sending me work in other languages as well, you might say?
Well, my suggestion would be to allow the customer to take you even farther out of your comfort zone by learning how to shamelessly exploit other translators who can do the work that you can’t do by yourself – if that is what your client needs. In other words, I am suggesting that if you want to keep your customers, you may have to become a part-time translation agency, or a broker, in addition to being a full-time translator.
Although some translators consider all translation agencies to be inherently evil, becoming a broker does not necessarily mean joining the ranks of the highly exploitative agencies because one can also try to be an honest broker. There clearly is a reason why different kinds of brokers and agencies exist: translation agencies, employment agencies, and real estate brokerages provide services that mere individuals may not be able to provide, unless and until they too become brokers.
Things are a little bit different and more than just a little bit scary when you actually are in the broker’s shoes, but not really that different. Once you establish which translators can do a given job really well, all you have to do then is pay them what they ask for on time. If you do that, they will try very hard to fit in your translation next time even if they happen to be very busy.
Although I sometime ignore requests from potential customers if they look flaky (I don’t even bother to quote a price for instance if an individual who only seems to have a Gmail address wants me to give a price quote for a project that would cost a lot of money), I almost never say no to an existing customer.
And then there are also ways to turn down a project that takes you completely out of your comfort zone without in fact saying no to a customer. If you ask for a rate that is on the upper end of what might be an acceptable price range for something that you really don’t want to do, a prospective customer will most of the time go somewhere else.
If he does not go somewhere else, just do it. You will make good money and maybe you will learn something useful that you can then add as a new skill to your arsenal of skills.
There are all kinds of tricks that a translator needs to learn when the tables are turned and the translator is now the agency. But I believe that all of that will only make you a better translator, especially when you realize the enormous amount of work that a good agency has to do, and the considerably risk that is often unavoidable.
Have you ever watched a movie and found the performance of one actor or actress in it so moving and amazing that every time when you surf the channels on your TV and see the name or the face of this actor or actress that you fell in love with, perhaps many years ago, you find it impossible to continue surfing?
Most of us have had this kind of experience. And not just with movie stars. If a carpenter builds a bookcase for me exactly according to my specifications and it looks just the way I imagined it, he is also a star in my mind when it comes to carpentry skills, and I will almost certainly ask him to build another bookcase next time, or maybe a pergola or a new staircase. But if you work only for translation agencies, you can never be a star translator for your clients, even if in fact you are quite a star in your own right based on how well you translate. When you only work for an agency, your clients will never even learn who you are.
As far as translation agencies are concerned, to many of them, translators are the opposite of a movie star or a star carpenter. To them we are only interchangeable, unimportant pieces in an intricate and complicated machinery designed to maximize their profit. How could they possibly see us as creators of anything of real value when in the new “translation industry”, it will be apparently our job to simply “assist machines” by proofreading whatever it is that a machine throws at us to just get rid of the most blatant kinks and mistakes?
They say this is “a new skill” that we need to learn. I say it is a slow and painful way to die.
I hope that translators will not fall for this new hoax the way they fell for the hoax of computer-assisted tools, which were sold to us as a way to increase our income, and then instead used to further reduce translators’ remuneration by forcing translators to accept reduced payment for “fuzzy matches” and no payment for “full matches”, which is nothing but a greedy and extremely dishonest scam.
I believe that the new skill that translators need to learn instead is the ability to find direct clients, perhaps in addition to translation agencies with a human face, but definitely so as to become independent of those who no longer appear to be quite human.
It will be a better world, both for translators and for their clients, if more and more translators start working directly for the people who in fact use their services. You are a better translator if you know exactly what it is that your client wants from you, and if you want to know what it is, you simply have to be able to communicate directly with your clients, who need to know who you are.
University of Chicago is shuttering their translation program. Therefore, this will be the FINAL on-site CAT course that will be taught in the *entire* Midwestern US. Normally this course is closed to the public and only students of the certificate can enroll but a rare exception is being made this year allowing anyone to sign up. If you live near Chicago and have not had the opportunity to take a live, on-site CAT course in a professional computer lab, next month is your last chance for training in your area.
Come join us in Monterey for the annual Web Localization course. We had a large group last year and I hope to have an even larger group this year. I’m planning to add a few updates to the course this year that will reflect some of the most recent trends in website localization.
After nearly being shut down during the economic crisis, this course was saved by the efforts of my former students and has a loyal following. The Monterey course continues to be the *only* publicly open (no strings attached) on-site training for translation professionals anywhere in the USA.