Getting the Original Right
by Geoffrey Kingscott, 21st October, 2004
Geoffrey Kingscott describes the relationship of technical writing and translation - and makes a case for a good source text
In the November 4th issue of the Globalization Insider, in her article on terminology management, Kara Warburton, chair of the LISA terminology SIG, wrote that the focus of terminology work is beginning to shift away from translation into other domains, such as content authoring and search technologies. But this shift is not occurring fast enough in my opinion, she added.
No one should underestimate the task involved in structuring information or rendering concepts into electronic form.
In this current issue, we take a wider look at the need for greater integration of all communication processes, and not just of the multilingual end product. This is where the GILT industry can take the lead. For our customers, there are obvious economic benefits in getting documentation and communication right from the start, but no one should underestimate the task involved in structuring information or rendering concepts into electronic form. (Editors Note: For research that addresses both the authoring and localization processes, please see the LISA/OSCAR Global Content Creation Report).
In his article, Ownership at Issue in the Localization Cycle (premium), Jeff Allen looks at the problem of overall responsibility through all authoring and translation cycles, and how this lack of informed general authority can impact the efficiency of communication.
Steve Dyson, in GILT: Observations from a Technical Communicator's Perspective (public), spotlights some weaknesses, particularly in continental Europe, due to low or zero awareness of how GILT offerings can contribute to efficient communication. Jaap van der Meer, in Electric Word: Threat or Thrill? (premium), sketches out the huge potential impact of the development work being done on the semantic web. In this new world, words in electronic form cease being no more than just dead digits, and take on lives of their own as conceptually-loaded signifiers.
Universities (particularly in Europe) have failed to grasp the implications of the convergence of a number of formerly disparate disciplines.
My own concern is with a different lag or weakness, that of training future generations of communicators, though Steve Dyson also touches on this point. With some notable exceptions, universities (particularly in Europe) have failed to grasp the implications of the convergence of a number of formerly disparate disciplines. Technical writing, controlled language, translation and localization, multimedia communication, web design and content management are these days all too often part of a seamless communicative process. This convergence will accelerate as the articles in this issue, in their different ways, make clear.
Communicators (my word to cover those operating in this area Jaap van der Meer uses wordworkers may choose to specialize in one particular area of this process, but they need to have, at the very least, an overview and understanding of where and how their specialization fits into the big picture.
Isnt that what universities are for to open the mind, to look at the intellectual potential of a broad area of study rather than to provide strictly vocational training?
Not enough attention has been paid to the very cognitive processes of communication and comprehension.
Certainly there is one area to which not enough attention has been paid, whether by the GILT industry or those that employ GILT services, and that is the very cognitive processes of communication and comprehension. After all, communication does not take place in a vacuum. Just how much does the receiver of the message take in? How does the reader or viewer handle the concepts, which are being presented? What is the optimum mix of text and image? This latter does vary from culture to culture the French, for example, tend to be more text-oriented than many other peoples. On the other hand, some cultures, such as that of the U.S., have high graphics awareness (Steve Dysons term).
Basic systems of rating the comprehensibility of texts go back to the work of Flesch and Gunning in the U.S. before and after the Second World War. Interesting work has been done since then, particularly by the Society for Technical Communication (STC). The principles of clear writing for technical texts have been elucidated by various writers, usually with engineers in mind, by authors such as Thomas Warren in the U.S. and François Richaudeau and Louis Timbal-Duclos in France. But this all seems separate from the controlled language movement, which is now a major discipline in its own right. And the controlled language movement never seems to interact with the plain language movement (spearheaded by the high-profile Plain English Campaign in the U.K.).
It seems to me that even at the basic level of initial text composition, there is a need for a pulling together of the various strings.
There is some recognition of the relationship between technical writing and translation. I do not have enough recent information about the university scene in the U.S., but from my own observations, some 15-20% of papers at the annual conferences of the STC and articles in its publication, Technical Communication, have a multilingual aspect. In Europe, Professor Peter Schmitt at the University of Leipzig has long sought to bridge the two disciplines, and Professor Susanne Göpferich, the leading German academic in technical writing in Germany at the Hochschule für Technik at Karlsruhe, always takes into account the multilingual and multicultural dimension in her writings. In the U.K., I have recently accepted to be external examiner for a pioneering technical writing and terminography module on the postgraduate diploma course at the University of Surrey.
We are the last text-oriented generations.
Those who are middle-aged and above let alone senior citizens like myself had a text-based education and still tend to think in textual terms. We are the last text-oriented generations. In the future, there will be a much greater diversification of communication. Semiotics, graphics, sound and moving images will all have their impact, and need to be studied by anyone with an ambition to become a communicator.
The one hugely important development of the last fifty years is the impact on the structure of information and communication by digital processing. The term content management is often used very loosely for a wide range of run-of-the-mill systems for processing information. But in its best and more exact sense, it suggests the comprehensive structuring of communication and information workflow within an organization.
In the past, even some of the largest industrial companies and multinationals have treated information gathering, documentation, and internal and external communication in a casual, ad hoc manner. Even the simplest areas for intervention, such as determination of a house style, or creation of a standard terminology, were ignored. I once acted as a judge in a best technical writing competition, and found and this in a piece submitted in the hope of winning an award the word analyze used four times in one page. Nothing wrong with that, except that twice it was spelled analyse and twice it was spelled analyze. And at least two automotive companies, to my knowledge, seem to use the terms shock absorber and damper interchangeably, a possible source of confusion in parts listings and multilingual glossaries.
Text is no longer just something, which is allowed to flow out of the writers brain onto paper and then out to the audience.
Now, attention has to be given not only to terminology and style, but how concepts are expressed. Clear thinking is required, so as to create appropriate taxonomies (the hierarchical structuring of items or concepts covering a single subject and showing their relationships). There has to be human-machine interface, and the writer or designer needs to be put in a position where s/he can utilize to the maximum all existing information and prior effort.
Text is no longer just something, which is allowed to flow out of the writers brain onto paper and then out to customer or maintenance engineer or the general public. This traditional way of doing things has three big disadvantages it is inefficient, it is prone to uncertainty (differences in perceptions between information provider and information receiver), and it is unable to cope with the exploding demand for information and communication.
It is a choice between controlling our communicative environment, or being controlled (or swamped) by it.
Geoffrey Kingscott headed the Praetorius translation companies in the U.K. and the U.S. until the Logos Group acquired them in 2001. From 1990-1996, he edited Language International. He has written many articles on topics related to multilingual documentation. He now runs his own freelance consultancy, specializing in translation specification and translation quality evaluation. Kingscott can be reached at geoffrey.kingscott@btopenworld.com.
© 2004, SMP Marketing Sarl. All Rights Reserved.
Back to the Language Professionals on Translation