Translation-mediated Communication in a Digital World

Facing the Challenges of Globalization and Localization

Minako O'Hagan, David Ashworth

• Publisher: Multilingual Matters
• Year: 2002
• ISBN:
  9781847695581
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Translating & Interpreting
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

The Internet is accelerating globalization by exposing organizations and individuals to global audiences. This in turn is driving teletranslation and teleinterpretation, new types of multilingual support, which are functional in digital communications environments. The book describes teletranslation and teleinterpretation by exploring a number of key emerging contexts for language professionals.

Chapter 1

Translation and Interpretation in Transition: Serving the Digital World

This chapter establishes the basic function of language facilitation traditionally known as translation and interpretation (Translation) and overviews how the Internet is driving the need to communicate globally, in turn making a significant impact on Translation. The Internet is fast becoming a prevalent communications channel across a wide range of economic sectors as well as among individuals. For Internet users, the implication is how to communicate and process information in multilingual and multicultural contexts. For the providers of Translation, the new communications environments are creating a new demand while also enabling new ways of meeting that demand. This chapter introduces the approach based on Translation-mediated Communication (TMC) and highlights the issues for Translation arising from the shift from primarily print-based and physical transportation-based communications environments to the digital world.

Translation-mediated Communication (TMC)

Globalization has been an ongoing process for some time, blurring the national boundary of each country with the increasing volume of international movements of people and goods via physical transportation or electronic means, and often by both. One implication of globalization has been increased interactions among people who do not understand one another’s language. Cross-border business negotiations or the sale of products in overseas markets have so far required professional language assistance for face-to-face meetings or marketing materials in different languages. Translation (with a capital T), which in this book we use to refer to both translation and interpretation, is primarily called for when language becomes a barrier rather than a means to communication. However, globalization driven by the Internet-based infrastructure is now producing a new set of requirements for Translation. This is because the Internet is changing both the nature of communication that becomes subject to Translation, and the mechanism by which the given communication is transmitted, processed and stored.

In particular, a range of new modes of communication called Computer-mediated Communication (CMC) is affecting Translation. In CMC, the computer is a mechanism for exchange of messages. The capacity of the computer, the available software and the bandwidth of transmission, all have an influence on exactly how messages will be exchanged. In other words, the computer may serve as a channel for exchanging messages, and will also shape the communications behavior of the people who use it. Now we add to CMC the possibility of providing both synchronous and asynchronous Translation to the exchange of messages via CMC. We consider the World Wide Web (Web) as accommodating various forms of CMC, including the display of conventional text. See, for example, the results of a search on Google. They may include Acrobat™ PDF files, most of which are conventional text plus graphics, but can also accommodate multimedia files. A special interest, however, is a possibility and the need for Translation to handle any kind of digital content, including real-time audio, video, and computer conferencing (i.e. chat), multimedia, and asynchronous email. Providing multilingual support for CMC thus opens a new kind of language support based on a new literacy that involves digital media.

This is the background behind our use of the term ‘Translation-mediated Communication’ (TMC) in association with CMC. Any communication facilitated by Translation can be called TMC, but our principal interest is to examine the impact of the Internet as it results in new dimensions of language support traditionally based on print media and physical transportation. We use TMC as the framework for our exploration and this in turn means that we take the approach of treating Translation as communication. There are a number of scholars who developed translation models based on Shannon’s (Shannon & Weaver, 1949) Mathematical Model of Communication, including Nida&Taber (1969), Bell (1991) and Gile (1995). The simplicity of the Shannon model allows us to illustrate the role of Translation as an embedded function between the sender and the receiver with the Translator acting both as the receiver of the message in the source language and the sender of the message in the target language as described by Nida and Taber (Figure 1.1).

This model highlights the purpose of Translation as ‘an act of communication which attempts to relay, across cultural and linguistic boundaries, another act of communication…’ (Hatim & Mason, 1997:1). Given that Shannon’s model was originally intended for synchronous telephone communication, this model is equally applicable to interpretation, in which the sender and the receiver may be engaged in constant turn taking. The main difference in modus operandi between translation and interpretation resides in the fact that interpretation caters to synchronous communication where all communicating parties (including the interpreter) are normally present in one physical location and communicate in real-time. By comparison, translation facilitates asynchronous communication via writing with a certain time lag. The translation service therefore tends to be location-independent in relation to the sender and the receiver, whereas interpretation normally requires the interpreter’s presence in the given communicative situation. As this model demonstrates, the Translation function is pivotal to the given inter-lingual communication and is inter-dependent on the sender and the receiver as well as the message. However, in reality, the most common notion among Translation clients is that Translation is a stand-alone element that can be added on, and is fundamentally separate from the overall inter-lingual communication process. Given that Shannon’s Communication model tends to focus on the transmission function of telecommunications, we will combine our analysis of TMC with Gile (1995), who also uses a communication-based approach but is more focused on the Sender, the Receiver and the Message. Following his convention, we will also capitalize these key terms wherever we are referring specifically to these parties in the context of TMC.

Figure 1.1 Nida and Taber’s model (adapted from Nida & Taber, 1969:23)

Let us first define our use of terminology. In TMC we define the Sender as the originator of the message (the author of the written message or the speaker of the verbal message in the source language) and the Receiver as the party who receives the message in the target language. In our model, the terms Sender or Receiver do not refer to a translation company or agency who may distribute work to individual translators and interpreters.

The Sender and the Receiver

The Sender initiates a message, which may be in written or spoken form, such as an advertising copy of a product, a latest novel, a film or business negotiation talks. In the context of Translation, the Sender would normally create the Message with the source language Receiver in mind. For example, a novel, technical documentation or product brochure would be written, at least initially, for the source language readers. By comparison, a Sender whose Message requires interpreting would normally assume that at least some Receivers do not share the same language as the Sender. It is most unlikely for TMC with an interpreter to take place without the Sender having foreign language Receivers in mind. The only exceptions are some cases of media interpreting. For example, CNN news, which is produced for an English-speaking audience, may also be transmitted to foreign language Receivers via interpretation (voice over or subtitles). In this case, the Sender of the message is not directly aware of the Receiver in a foreign language.

This also relates to the fact that the most common interpretation modus operandi involves all communicating parties being present at the same physical location so that the Sender naturally knows the presence of the interpreter as well as Receivers who lack source language capability. By comparison, in translation the Sender does not often come face to face with the translator or the Receiver. In fact, some translation problems are caused by the very fact that the Sender of the message does not take the subsequent translation process into consideration. This issue is currently addressed by a process known as internationalization, which takes into account the localization process from the very start of the product development cycle. The next chapter and Chapter 5 deal with this subject in more detail. We hope that the new TMC framework will serve to redefine these terms.

Unlike the Sender, the Receiver in TMC is mostly made aware of the involvement of Translation in the communication process. For example, the audience of a dubbed foreign film knows that the original was in a different language, while readers of foreign novels normally know that they are reading a translated version. Another difference between translation and interpretation lies in the role of the Receiver feedback. While the translator receives no feedback during the translation process, and the subsequent feedback, if any, tends to be delayed, Receiver feedback plays a significant role in interpreting, as it can indicate in real-time how the interpreter’s performance is being received. Figure 1.2 shows the interactions among the Sender, the Receiver and the interpreter in a typical small group face-to-face consecutive interpreting situation.

Figure 1.2 illustrates how the Receiver (R2) observes the Message (M1) being delivered by the Sender (S), albeit without understanding the verbal content but taking in some nonverbal communication cues such as facial expressions and body movements (kinesics), although the Receiver (R2) may not ‘read’ them correctly. This contrasts with the situation for the translator, who normally works in isolation from either the Sender or the Receiver.

Figure 1.2 TMC for face-to-face interpreting

The Message

The Message is a given communication or information that becomes subject to Translation. In conventional Translation, the Message consists of written texts for translation and speech for interpretation. Gile (1995: 26) sees it consisting of ‘content’ and ‘package’. The term ‘package’ refers to ‘the linguistic and peri-linguistic choices made by the Sender and to the physical medium through which they are instantiated.’ According to Gile’s definition, in written texts, the package will include words, grammatical structures, fonts, page layout, graphics, etc. For speech, it is made up of the words, grammatical structures, the voice and delivery, as well as nonverbal cues. Content and package interact to affect the message as a whole. As pointed out by Gile, a good content can be weakened by poor style of writing or delivery of speech, and vice versa. In thinking of the change in the nature of the Message with the advent of the Internet, this dual view to analyze the Message becomes relevant to our purposes to highlight the changing nature of the Message.

The Translator

While the Translator is expected to retain the content of the Message intact, in many cases modifications are inevitable. Ingenious transformations are made, not only with literary translations, but also with industrial translations of a technical nature. The Translation process also affects the packaging of the Message, since the Translator practically re-sends the Message in the target language. This is why the translator is expected to be able to write like a scientist when translating a scientific document with appropriate use of technical terminology, and the interpreter is expected to be able to speak like a diplomat when interpreting for diplomatic talks.

Another unique aspect involved in TMC is that the very process of Translation sometimes highlights certain aspects of the Message as detrimental to smooth inter-lingual communication, while those same aspects may not deter the source language receiver (R1) in intra-lingual communication. This is because Translation must take the Message from the source language domain to that of the target language. For example, some ambiguity that does not cause a problem in one language may require clarification before it is expressed in another language. In this sense, the Translator as the intermediary receiver of the message in the source language tends to be much more sensitized to those elements of the Message that are not friendly to the target language or target-culture. Similarly, the interpreter will be much more aware of the speech in terms of coherence than the casual home audience may realize. In other words, the Translator re-shapes the content and the package to fit into the target language and cultural context as expected by the Receiver. However, the Translator is normally limited in terms of the degree of modifications that can be made and the choice of physical medium in which the Message is contained – to two-dimensional text for the translator, and to oral speech for the interpreter. Such tasks as subtitling for films impose further restrictions in terms of the number of characters allowed in translation to fit into the specified space. Translation primarily is work conditioned by the content and the package imposed by the Sender.

From the perspective of the Sender or the Receiver of the Message, the Translator’s role is expected to be transparent. However, in reality, this rarely is the case. As pointed out by Gile (1995:32), ‘the Translator is instrumental in helping to achieve the Sender’s aims, but cannot guarantee their fulfillment.’ This may be evident if one considers communication breakdowns that commonly take place between sender and receiver speaking the same language and sharing the same cultural background. In other words, the successful facilitation of inter-lingual communication is not entirely determined by the performance of the Translator alone, but also is affected by the Sender, the Message and the Receiver. The following section compares monolingual and inter-lingual communication in order to further highlight the function of Translation.

Monolingual versus inter-lingual communication as TMC

Monolingual communication

A necessary condition for successful communication is a sharing of the knowledge upon which to build comprehension. The sender makes assumptions about what the receiver can understand, creates messages based on this assumption, and adjusts further messages on the basis of feedback from the receiver. Alternatively, especially when immediate feedback is not feasible (as in the case of a public lecture), the sender tries to anticipate possible gaps in receiver knowledge by including in his message supplementary information.

Communication will break down if the sender makes incorrect assumptions, and does not receive feedback to enable corrections. It m...

Table of contents

• Coverpage
• Series Editors
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Introduction
• Glossary
• Part 1: Setting the Scene
• Part 2: Technologies Enabling Teletranslation
• Part 3: Emerging Domains of Translation Practice
• Part 4: Future Tense
• Postscript
• References
• Index