Since this issue focuses specifically on translation, I feel slightly cheated not to be able to include a piece by the ubiquitous Translator X, who has been so active lately. I’m incredibly intrigued by the anonymity of it all, and I would be delighted to see him/her come out of the closet. Is Translator X simply shy, or are there more sinister implications?

Whatever the case, it’s great to hear what the translators have to say, which brings me to a couple of points that I’d like to make regarding the editorial that appeared in the 22 March 2002 issue of the Globalization Insider. Pierre Cadieux and my co-editor on Language International, Bert Esselink, made a valiant stab at putting to rest the ongoing debate over the real meanings of those pesky “–ation” terms. “Globalization” and “Internationalization” never had posed much of a problem and were straightforwardly defined. The real culprits were “Localization” and “Translation,” and I quote their very erudite and clear demystification:

“In the beginning, or shortly thereafter, there were people. And when one people met another people, translation was born. Then, somewhat later, came software. And when people started translating software, some of the changes required were not, strictly speaking, translation: changes to character encodings, date and time formats, sorting rules, etc. The term localization was used to more generally describe any changes required to adapt a product to the needs of a particular group of people generally in the same physical location or locale; in short, to make local as the dictionary suggests…To complete our quartet of terms, we can show how translation fits into these key processes. Once again, we can probably rely on the vernacular understanding of the word and say that translation refers to the specifically linguistic operations, performed by human or machine, that actually replaces the expressions in one natural language into those of another. This has the effect of making translation just one task – possibly the most time-consuming, costly and vital, but as we have seen not the only one – in adapting something to the needs of the given locale.”

Possibly the most vital? I think I might have stretched to at least probably, or even definitely. Let’s face it. If your translation is excellent but your processes are flawed, you might still, albeit with a considerable amount of stress and discomfort, successfully deploy your localized product. If it’s the other way around, you’re dead in the water. As I read this, I can hear Translator X’s teeth loudly grinding. And, of course, there’s that old chestnut of commoditizing translation itself. Nothing upsets people more than making them feel like a commodity. How about a SIG on rehumanizing translation?

At Language International, Bert and I would include fairly controversial articles whenever possible, and nobody does controversy quite as well as Anthony Pym. In his put-that-in-your-pipe-and-smoke-it article, What Localization Models Can Learn From Translation Theory, Anthony invites us to pause in our dismissal of translation theory as academic clap-trap long enough to discover what it has to offer.

In a previous issue of the Globalization Insider, Saroj Vohra, Manager of IBM's Translation Services Centers, stated, “Translation-related standards (or lack of them) and slow progress in their development warrants increased attention in the industry…I would like to see some work done on a consistent definition and measurement of translation quality.” Now, there’s an idea, and that translation guru and polymath, Geoff Kingscott, shares some of his thoughts on the subject in our premium content article, Translation Quality Assessment - An Overview (premium content).

eCoLoRe is a new EU-funded project under the Leonardo da Vinci II program that promises to create a freely accessible repository of data to train translators in the use of translation tools. In our final article entitled, eCoLoRe: A Major Breakthrough for Translator Training, Alan Wheatley reports on the Translation Memory Survey recently conducted as part of the project’s mandate.

I would have liked to take up Translator X’s comments on payment differentials, but I’d better quit while I’m ahead.

Bob Clark is a Senior Lecturer in Translation Technology in the ground-breaking MAATS program at the University of Leeds, England, where he lectures and leads workshops on translator training. He also edits magazines and consults for the Logos Group in Modena, Italy. Bob can be reached at r.clark@leeds.ac.uk.