CATS: Tensions Emerging Between Globalization and Localization?

Background

The 16th Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Translation Studies (CATS) took place in Halifax, Canada at Dalhousie University as part of a huge Annual Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences with several thousand international participants. The campus provided a fair number of eateries, ready access to the Internet and was well-located for downtown activities. Added interest was the concurrent Book Fair 2003 (the largest annual scholarly book fair in Canada) that gathered over 150 different publishers, mainly consisting of the academic press both in and outside of Canada.

According to the 2002/03 CATS directory, there are about 120 members, with more than forty based outside of Canada. The theme of this year’s conference was Translation and Globalization. This was my first time attending CATS, and my impression was that it is strongly academic-oriented, with almost all speakers affiliated with universities. There were about fifty participants, including a few non-Francophones. Of the total presentations made, 23 papers were given in French and 21 in English. Both keynote speeches were in English, but the final wrap-up session was largely in French. Judging from the papers and talking to the participants, only a very few were involved in Asian language translation.

The majority of the presentations I attended were given in the traditional style of reading directly from the paper. This was an interesting contrast with the EAMT/CLAW (European Association for Machine Translation / Controlled Language Applications Workshop) Conference, where every single presentation was accompanied by PowerPoint. Being used to lectures with at least some kind of visual aid, I have to admit that my concentration in some cases tended to lapse. This presentation style plus French language sessions, combined with the non-availability of papers or abstracts, meant that I really had my reporting task cut out for me. This report will therefore concentrate on a few relevant English language sessions and what I could glean to be the general mood of the conference.

Content

The papers presented during this conference explored the nexus of globalization and translation; in particular, the impact of globalization and its consequences in terms of cultural hegemony (“McDonaldization”), hybridity (positive cross-fertilization) and localization.

Anthony Pym’s keynote speech, Modelling the Role of Translation in Globalization, opened the conference. He began with a reference to the countries of origin of his clothing (Italy, Spain, New Zealand!?, etc.). This was used to point out that today we represent an internationalized façade, probably without really changing much inside ourselves. One more tangible model of globalization is that technology makes it cheaper and easier to deliver products to places farther away. As a result, more things move farther, prompting people to communicate beyond national, cultural and linguistic borders. This simple globalization reduces the diversity and authenticity of primary cultures. One long-term result is a reduction of languages and a concentrated use of English, giving rise to lingua francas such as international English. However, the challenge to primary cultures was recognized as early as the 19th century, well before the rise of English.

A second part of the model views the increased use of lingua francas as prompting an increased use of translation. Many multinationals use English as a storehouse, as a production and/or pivot language, similar to the manner in which international Latin was once used. This is not necessarily a negative development; it does have a certain democratizing impact, since the lingua franca is potentially open to all. For example, product documents are translated into different locales, accounting for some of the rise in translation and localization. This, however, does not protect any substantial cultural diversity, i.e., Microsoft translates into many locales, but the modes of thought are always Microsoft.

As a counter to the argument that globalization leads to just one global culture, Pym proposed that we are creating new cultural identities. Translators, for example, are operating professionally in the overlaps of primary cultures and languages. They need one another precisely because of their differences. Along with many other communication professionals, they are creating new “intercultures.”

Pym also pointed to the increasing fragmentation of the translation market. Only the localization end is profoundly affected by globalization, whereas much semi-professional work is still framed by national and regional cultures. Academic Translation Studies, however, have become highly intercultural. According to Pym, the creation of regional associations for Translation Studies could hamper this positive use of our own globalization. While some translation problems are different in each country, the formation of professional intercultures means that this is changing. He suggested that the existing regional associations for Translation Studies should be federated in some way, to keep a balance between international and national interests and to provide a common platform for dialogue.

A presentation by Brian Mossop entitled Translation Studies and Globo-Loco-Mania: Dangers of the Cult of the New was an interesting paper partly because Mossop bridges the gap between industry and academia by serving both the Government of Canada Translation Bureau and York University School of Translation in Canada. One of Mossop’s interesting observations was the emergence of what he calls “collage translation.” This refers to translation made up of previously translated sentences and sentences found in a database whereby “find and paste” becomes an integral part of the translation process.

While this patchwork translation can be considered new, he argued that some of the developments labeled as “new” are actually not so. For example, he pointed out that “non-linear reading of documents” on the Web is not at all new, as that is the way people have been reading manuals and dictionaries for years. Also, localization of Web page content is “old wine with a new label” in terms of its involvement of “free translation and adaptation” dimensions.

Mossop stressed how important it is for researchers to try to present empirical evidence to support their claims about “the cult of the new.” For starters, he is currently experimenting with a research tool called “translog,” a software program that records every key stroke registered by a translator, thus providing a huge amount of data to reveal the translation process – this could augment the popular TAP (think aloud protocol) methodology to gain insight into the human translation process.

While the audience was friendly and warm, a certain negative sentiment about technologizing translation was expressed by some after Bert Esselink’s keynote presentation, The Changing Face of Content Changes the Face of Translation, in which he highlighted key aspects of the localization process that are different from conventional translation. Esselink referred to “chunks” of text where translators see only parts of the whole text as relevant portions to be freshly translated (with the rest being recycled using Translation Memory).

Reactions to this concept were quite considerable, as almost everybody was talking about the term afterwards. The very way some delegates cottoned onto the concept of “chunking” and immediately saw it as decontexualization of text seemed to me to be taking Esselink’s comments out of context slightly and jumping to conclusions. As he was at pains to explain, with a text type such as technical communications, context may not be nearly as influential a factor as for other types of text. His presentation depicted localization as it is – no less, no more – and was a fair account, in my opinion.

Esselink also discussed the importance of integrating the translation workflow process into Content Management Systems to allow a continuous flow of translation as content is constantly updated. In this context, a “translation project” becomes a “translation program.” In reference to a future trend, he touched on XLIFF (XML Localization Interchange File Format), which is allegedly designed to allow translators to concentrate on translating, rather than being bothered by other aspects such as formatting, engineering, etc. He also stressed the increasing importance of subject-specialist translators.

Esselink ended by countering Pym’s earlier claim in another conference in reference to the former’s book (Practical Guide to Localization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2000) that fragmentation of translation work, where translators concentrate on minor updates only or never see the entirety of any project, is dehumanizing. Esselink’s response was that having to deal with extremely repetitive text time and time again is much more dehumanizing. Upon this, he departed for Weight Watchers in New York – not so much to lose weight, but to advise the organization on how to go about setting up multilingual Web sites. This alone was a great illustration of the impact of one type of globalization on translation – as Esselink pointed out, Weight Watchers had had little requirement for his services in the past.

The topic of localization and globalization was discussed during a final wrap-up session, but most of the ensuing discussion was conducted in French and appeared to me to be rendered, in part, into a moral question of whether one should succumb to the sweeping tide of globalization. I was slightly surprised to hear pessimism expressed by at least one Canadian panel member about globalization, particularly the impact of rapid technological change interpreted as diminishing the importance of the translator’s role. Canada is, after all, one of the earliest and most successful adopters of machine translation (MT).

Unfortunately (for me), most localization and terminology related papers were presented in French as follows:

1. Internationalisation des norms, localisation des produits
2. Mondialisation, localisation et internationalisation: culture et productions hypermédias
3. Pratique et réflexion: analyse de l’effet de la localisation sur la culture dans le contexte de la mondialisation
4. Fausse question sérieuse: la localisation existe-t-elle vraiment?
5. La localisation, palimpseste de l’aménagement terminologique?
6. Stratégies d’implantation terminologique et marketing

NOTE: Selected papers are to be published in Meta in a special issue devoted to localization.

Reflections

The CATS conference made an excellent attempt to pull in industry experts such as Bert Esselink amid the academic-oriented presenters, many of whom appeared to be from literary translation circles. It also included other academics, such as Pym, who are at the forefront in trying to bridge the knowledge gap that exists in the academic camp about the reality of the GILT (Globalization, Internationalization, Localization and Translation) industry by incorporating new elements such as localization into translation studies.

The message delivered by Pym about regionalism of local translation associations was brought home strongly by the CATS conference, partly due to the fact that French appeared to be the preferred language of the conference - at least from the perception of a non-Francophone attendee (yours truly). To me, this conference displayed much more “regional” flavor than the IJET (International Japanese/English Translation) Conference.

I was, in a way, surprised by the lack of papers focused specifically on technology (e.g. MT, translation memory, etc), but possibly these subjects did not render themselves readily into the conference theme. While I was disappointed at being unable to access the knowledge locked in French, I came away from the CATS conference satisfied overall. For example, getting a feel for the local context of Canadian translators was an eye-opening experience for me (this included the realization that every single item in the local supermarket had bilingual labeling).

Throughout the conference I sensed, rightly or wrongly, tension between globalization and localization, on the one hand, and new technologized and conventional translation, on the other. This tension appeared to come from the fact that the characteristics of the “in-between” worlds (to borrow a similar term used several times by Yves Gambier during the conference and also by Pym), where translators reside, are changing due to widespread globalization and the impact of technology. I also had the impression that the new context of localization is still not well understood and is certainly far from being integrated into the academic community of translation studies. However, I sensed that what we are currently experiencing is “teething pain,” which will ease as localization becomes part of translators’ lives and one of the core modules of translation studies.

Conclusions

Returning to my sub-theme on the value of attending conferences, I consider that the ROI (return on investment) factors for conferences include the quality of papers and keynote speeches, making new and maintaining existing contacts, being inspired, and experiencing new geographical locations. Some of these factors are possibly of long- rather than short-term benefit. Personally, the synergies gained by participating in the three conferences (EAMT/CLAW, IJET and CATS) in close succession were particularly valuable.

I hope that this summary has provided readers with food for thought when they next need to decide whether “to be or not to be” at a conference!