Miranda Moore |
This blog has several times recommended and quoted from The Linguist, the bi-monthly magazine of the UK Chartered Institute of Linguists. Under its vivacious and highly competent editor, Miranda Moore, who often does her own fieldwork and has a keen eye for graphics, it contains many articles that are of interest for us here. The latest issue, October-November 2013, is no exception. And now that there’s an electronic edition (see References), it’s easily accessible.
A recent article I
particularly enjoyed was ‘Let’s get physical’ by Rekha Narula, in which she
looks at the challenging physical environment for interpreters working like her
in the UK health service. It’s true to life. But Rekha is a Professional
Expert, and so further discussion of her modus operandi would be beyond the
scope of this blog.
Nataly
Kelly too is a Professional Expert, but her article (see References) does fall
within our scope because it’s about a hot topic in non-professional
translation, crowdsourcing, and most crowdsourcing contributors are Advanced
Native Translators but not qualified Experts. (For more about it on this blog,
enter crowdsourcing in the Search box on the right.) Part of the article is
given over to persuading the Professional Experts that community translation
(as she calls it) isn’t a threat to them: “Community translation: friend, foe
or no big deal.” But what interests me most are the measures she describes for
checking and revising the contributions. Translation crowdsourcing has already
developed beyond ‘anything goes’.
"This enabled the company to ensure that a single translator was not deciding how millions of people would say ‘write on your wall’ in their native language. Instead, the community of users had a say in how they wanted to see phrases translated… the majority decides which translation it likes best... The sheer number of volunteers is a safeguard to quality but smaller communities can struggle to find sufficient numbers, and that can mean that the translation is never launched… Many community managers will not trust a translation if it hasn’t been reviewed by several volunteers.”
A
noteworthy implication of this procedure is that, for better or worse, not only
the translating but also the assessment of the translations is done by
non-Experts. It becomes communal, distributed and democratised. But even if the translators are not Expert
Translators, they may well be subject-matter savvy and they have a passion for
language. The same can be said of the
Wikipedia translators whom Julie McDonough has been studying (enter mcdonough
in the Search box), though they make their revisions without special software.
“Some of
the younger generation… gain recognition
as competent interpreters within the frame of church events. I found they meet
end-user expectations by a highly communicative and lively manner… It occurred to me that their skills deserved
wider recognition.”
Most
important, though, are her comments on the development that they have been
through.
“In this
multilingual milieu, all the interpreters in my study had grown up interpreting
since childhood, serving the function of ‘community interpreters’. I observed
children as young as three [my emphasis] acting as interpreters for visiting
cousins.”
In the centennial
year of the publication of Ronjat’s Le développpement du langage chez un enfant
bilingue (enter ronjat in the Search box), it’s good to have this empirical confirmation
of the young age at which bilingual children can start to translate
communicatively.
Finally,
along this line of thinking, she raises a question that deserves discussion and
action:
“…whether
there might be some way of helping young ‘natural’ interpreters benefit from
appropriate training at an early age, at a time when they are most receptive to
developing their cognitive skills.”
The Linguist.
Edited by Miranda Moore. London: Chartered Institute of Linguists, bi-monthly.
The paper edition is available from the CIoL (www.iol.org.uk)
at GBP 41 a year plus postage. The electronic edition is free here, but the
references below are to the print edition.
Rekha
Narula. Let’s get physical. The Linguist, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 12-13, 2013.
Nataly Kelly. Power of the crowd. The Linguist,
vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 14-15, 2013
Jill Karlik. A Christian Interpretation. The
Linguist, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 18-19, 2013.
For your information, Jill Karlik and I are co-hosting a panel at the conference on Non-Professional Interpreting and Translating", at the University of Mainz in Germersheim, Germany, May 29-31 2014. We have twin panels, one on "Interpreting in Churches - people, practice, performance", to be chaired by Jonathan Downie, is well subscribed. The other (ours) is on "Oral and signed presentation of Scripture - contexts, practices, product", dealing primarily with the rendering of Scripture by interpreters and mother-tongue preachers. Please let us know as soon as you can if you would be interested in submitting on any aspect of this controversial topic.
ReplyDeleteIf you are interested in presenting and are able to respond quickly, email: andrewcwowen@gmail.com and/or jillk44@yahoo.co.uk
Formal submission of papers is 10th November.
The software development company helps the business in getting their required programming matching with business requirements
ReplyDelete