What kind of texts are translated - Non-professional translation in an academic setting

4.1 Interviews

4.1.1 What kind of texts are translated

RP2 tells that the most common type of text to be translated is usually a test regarding some concept relevant to the field. RP1 tells that in many cases there is a need for a certain type of text (such as a test), but often the circumstances are such that the needed text does not yet exist

in Finnish. However, even if such a text had already been translated in some cases and was available in Finnish, the quality is usually inadequate, for the translations are usually rough drafts and therefore unusable for most occasions.

According to RP1, in addition to tests, they translate quite a substantial number of questions for practice for students, which include questions regarding the relevant subject. They resemble school homework in the sense that the questions are similarly structured and discussed during the lectures. The questions are usually translated when the course has already begun, and the texts to be translated are chosen based on the subjects that are being covered at the moment. In addition to singular questions, they also translate more extensive assignments, which cover one subject area of the field and are usually four to five pages long. The students work on them in small groups with guidance, but they are not told straight away if the answer is wrong or right but they need to try to figure it out themselves. However, RP2 says that while they occasionally translate educational material in cooperation with the original creators, most of the translated texts consist of different types of tests.

RP2 tells that when he was first starting his career, his supervisor would often decide, which material they would use, and tell RP2 to translate the said material. However, nowadays, it is more common that the texts are translated as the need arises. When people in their unit read research literature, they may encounter texts that are relevant to their teaching, research or other projects. When they encounter such a text, they verify that the target group and the goals of the text are appropriate for their purposes and then proceed to prepare for the translation project, if the text suits their needs.

RP1 tells that decision process for choosing which texts end up translated depends on the situation. Usually, when the translation project is estimated to be demanding and time-consuming, it is expected that the translation will pay for itself eventually. This means that the translation can, for example, aid in the creation of a scientific publication. In cases like these, the person who gets the initial idea for a translation invites other people to join the project, and the group then discusses and plans the project in more detail. In the case of the test in this study, RP1 started teaching a new course and he wanted to test the students before and after the course to see whether the lectures had had any impact on their skills. He proceeded to propose the idea to the leader of the research group and afterwards to a few of his colleagues, who agreed to the idea and the work on the project was started.

54 4.1.2 Teamwork

RP1 tells that the number of people working on individual translations varies depending on the project. If the translation consists only of a single homework question, it is usually translated by a single person, who may then ask a colleague, whether the translated question is understandable. However, if the project is more extensive and related to someone’s research, there are usually more people involved. These types of projects usually engage at least two people, but even groups of five are possible.

Neither of the research participants could tell exactly how common translation is in their department and how many people engage in translating texts. However, RP2 suspects that not a lot of people would have reasons to translate and that it is very likely that most of the translations are done by their group, which concentrates on education in their field. According to him, the number of people taking part in translations in this group ranges from five to eight, but about five of them participate more actively.

In the case of this particular test, RP1 and RP2 each translated half of the text and then sent the first draft to the other for evaluation. RP1 tells that RP2 sent him his text first, and he judged that the translation was fine, since he did not need to make any corrections apart from making some expressions consistent, so they would look similar throughout the whole test. Next, he proceeded to send his own translation to RP2, who corrected some parts of the text, after which they adjusted some of the pictures that were included on the test. Afterwards, the text was sent to yet another colleague, who went through the text as well and commented on issues which in her opinion needed more attention.

RP1 feels that this kind of arrangement is natural and that it is somewhat impossible to achieve a good translation on one’s own, especially on a tight schedule. He says that the input of other people is vital in such cases, improving the quality of the translation significantly. However, he tells that in the beginning, when he was just starting his research career, he had this false idea that one is supposed to be good at everything and know everything from the beginning, which resulted in some insecurity to send his translations to other people to be reviewed. Back then, he was worried that his translations would contain some terrible mistakes and how embarrassing it would be if it turned out that he could not translate the text at all, or the other person could

not understand the translation. However, nowadays, he does not really pay attention to such things and working in a team comes naturally to him.

RP2 tells that it does not really matter to him whether the translation is done in cooperation with other people or if it is a solo project as long as someone checks the final result. He explains that depending on the project, one approach may be better than the other. He says that if the translation is something that does not need to be completely polished, it is usually easier to work on it alone rather than try to explain to someone that they do not need to put so much effort towards the project and that it is enough that the text is understandable. However, he adds that they rarely have such projects, and that it is more common for the translation to require higher accuracy.

RP2 tells that working in a group proved to be no trouble during the translation of the test. He explains that he knows RP1 and the third person so well that they have no difficulties when it comes to group projects, since they have worked together for so long. He tells that they all know Finnish to a similar extent, but if someone’s skill level is slightly lower, they are already aware of it themselves. This allows them to evaluate who is most likely right in a situation when they do not completely agree on something. Easy group dynamic is also suggested by the fact that the third person, who commented on the translation last, made a very casual comment right in the beginning of the translation, thus implicating that the revising process is not profoundly formal.

4.1.3 Translation practices within the academic unit

Neither of the participants have knowledge of how long this type of translation practice has existed, but RP1 suspects that it must have been there for at least as long as the type of research he engages in. According to him, the first doctoral theses regarding the subject were published in the 1990s, and therefore RP1 believes that translation must have been involved, since at least one of them used a test similar to the one that has been discussed here. He cannot tell about how the process worked back then, since he started his research much later, but ever since he has been involved the process has remained somewhat similar: Someone translates the text, someone else reviews it, and then if the need arises, they will work on the text together to figure out how to express something better. RP2 says that even if translation has been a part of the work for a long while, it has increased with the passage of time, since more people are now

working in their research group, which enables collaborative translation. Although the research participants do not have accurate information about how long others have translated before them, RP2 remembers that the first time he and RP1 translated together was as early as 2009.

RP2 tells that he has never really considered the option of hiring an outsider to do their translation work for them. Even when he was still a trainee, he thought that this type of translation arrangement worked quite well. He tells that in the beginning, his first drafts were absolutely terrible, but in time, he learned how to translate better.

RP1 explains as well that there are multiple reasons why they have chosen to translate for themselves. The first reason, which he calls ‘the bad reason’, is that there are no resources to hire someone else to do the job, which RP2 mentions as well. Another reason, which RP1 calls

‘the good reason’ is that, according to him, it is a known fact that if they gave the translation assignment to someone who is not aware of the concepts of their field, that person would not be able to use the terms correctly. He gives an example of his colleagues in Spain working in the same field, who hired a group of professional translators to translate some exercises. He tells that the translations were relatively decent otherwise, but there were mistakes in the content resulting from the use of incorrect terms. Therefore, to ensure that the content – the most important part – is correct, they have decided that the translating must be done by people who are aware of the concepts and special terminology of the field. RP2 has similar opinions, and he adds that it is possible that they would have to act as consultants for the translator anyway, if they hired one, since the terminology is so complex. He emphasises the importance of content as well, and that they have the required knowledge for ensuring that this crucial part of the translation is correct and accurate.

4.1.4 Problematic situations

The research participants were presented with hypothetical problems and asked how they would try to solve them.

The first question was what the research participant would do if they encountered a word they do not understand. Both participants had very similar approaches on how to solve this problem.

Both RP1 and RP2 say that the first thing they do, when faced with such a word, is to search it from the online MOT dictionaries. They are relatively high-quality dictionaries that can be

accessed if one is associated with a Finnish university. If they cannot find what they are looking for from MOT, they google the word and try to find a definition for it that way. RP1 tells that if he finds a text related to the word, he may read some of it with the goal of inferring the meaning from the context, which implies that he knows how to utilise parallel texts. RP2 says that usually the googling guides him to monolingual dictionaries, which he uses to find a definition for the word. Assuming that the word still remains incomprehensible after the googling attempt, the next step RP1 would take is to ask a colleague how they understand the word and how they would translate it. RP2 has a similar approach, especially if the word is somehow related to his field, in which case he would ask the professors of the subject if there even is an established translation for such a word.

The second question was what they would do in a situation where the word has no exact equivalent. RP1 explains that, at first, he would try to discern what the original writer has wanted to say, thus engaging in text analysis. He would try to perceive what the purpose of the text is and how it is used. He tells that when he was translating the test, he also read texts associated with the original, since they made it clearer what the points of emphasis were on this particular test. Therefore, as was the case with the previous question, he takes advantage of parallel texts here as well to aid him in the text analysis. He explains that when one understands the function of the text, it is easier to come up with Finnish words that suit the purpose, although he admits that situations like these are very difficult. When asked whether he would rather try to find a word that matched the original as closely as possible or rather explain the difficult word or do something else entirely, he tells that most of the time he would try to find a similar word. He explains that he tries to keep the format as similar as possible, because when they eventually publish something, they have to mention that the test is translated, which may result in questions in the peer review stage. A question may arise how the test is validated and does it in truth measure the same things as the original. He speculates that there is always the possibility that the reviewers may ask to see the translation that they used, even if such a turn of events is highly unlikely, since the reviewers are not usually Finnish. He states that their objective is to only translate and not create new text. He adds that he would rather avoid a situation where one word in the original text becomes a whole paragraph in the translation.

However, RP2 seems to have a slightly different approach. He says that occasionally there are concepts which have several terms in one language, while the other language only has one, and the use is determined by the context. He gives an example of two English terms with slightly

different meanings, but which only have one Finnish equivalent. He explains that they need to elaborate the terms in Finnish ‘with half a sentence’ to clarify to the Finnish reader, which meaning is used in this particular context. Another method he uses in situations where there is no exact equivalent, is to have the original English term in parentheses to support the translation.

The third problematic situation presented to the research participants was what they would do if there was a content related error in the source text. RP1 answers that the approach depends on the type of text he is translating. If the error is in a question that is meant to be covered during the lecture, then the error is simply corrected because it will not have any repercussions nor affect anything on a larger scale. Correcting the mistake will only make the question understandable to the students since their thought process will not be hindered by an unclear question. However, if the error is, for example, in a test that will have an impact on the research, the situation becomes slightly more complicated. If the error stems from a situation where the term choice somehow distorts the concept that is being addressed, the term is then usually replaced with the correct one. The goal is to have the vital subject information as accurately as possible in the translation. However, if there are inconsistencies that cannot be easily fixed, then they are usually just omitted.

RP2 tells as well that if there is a mistake in the original test it is usually corrected. However, he adds that in the reporting stage, they explain that they have made such a change. He tells that there was a case, where he noticed a mistake in a test he was translating, and he contacted one of his acquaintances in the United States, who knew the original author. RP2 knew that his acquaintance and the author met frequently, so he asked whether the person could ask about the errors in the text. It was revealed, that the test did in fact have multiple errors regarding the content, which resulted from the compilation process, since the test was assembled from several different tests. RP2 found it amusing that somehow the errors had appeared, although there had been no translation involved and all the work had been conducted in English. He tells that the mistakes have not been corrected in the original article published on the web, but the version that is in use is most likely accurate.

The final translation problem was how the research participants deal with culturally bound concepts. With both participants, the conversation naturally strayed towards foreignizing and domesticating by their own accord, even if they did not use those exact terms. RP1 tells that if he encounters a difficult English term in a text, he usually keeps it as it is, only changing the

form of the word to adhere to the Finnish spelling system. This is apparently quite common in the field even if domesticated versions exist for some terms. The students are more likely to recognise the foreign word than the domesticated version even if the Finnish term is in many cases more descriptive than the borrowed English word.

It took RP2 a while to come up with situations where he had encountered a problem regarding culture-bound elements, but in the end, he thought of several examples. He tells that usually names of locations and people get changed to something Finnish, so that the people who are reading the translation will not be distracted by weird sounding English names that are hard to pronounce for Finns. There are exceptions, however, since occasionally there are questions that rely heavily on the location and changing the name would change the question as well as the answer completely. Another example, that came to RP2’s mind was the difference in how temperature is measured. He tells that since the texts that they translate are usually of American origin, the scale of temperature used is Fahrenheit, which they need to convert into Celsius. He tells that they do this because Finns do not have a clear understanding how the Fahrenheit scale

In document Non-professional translation in an academic setting (sivua 56-0)