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

57

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

58

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

59

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 works and would not know how hot or cold something is if the information is only provided in Fahrenheit. This implies that he has his target audience in mind while translating and pays attention to characteristics of different cultures.