| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | As a student translator starting out, am I taking a “proof readers” comments too much to heart? Thread poster: Will Masters
|
|---|
Phil Hand 
China
Local time: 08:03
Chinese to English
| Proofreader will always be inferior(?) | Dec 1, 2011 |
I got burned by a silly proofreader the other day - it happens to everyone, so you certainly shouldn't take it to heart - so I was thinking about this.
Firstly, I thought about how I don't do proofreading, in part because of bad translation, but also because it's really hard. As others have commented, finding that balance between accepting another translator's style and imposing your own understanding is always a tightrope. And in order to be a good proofreader you have to be a rea... See more I got burned by a silly proofreader the other day - it happens to everyone, so you certainly shouldn't take it to heart - so I was thinking about this.
Firstly, I thought about how I don't do proofreading, in part because of bad translation, but also because it's really hard. As others have commented, finding that balance between accepting another translator's style and imposing your own understanding is always a tightrope. And in order to be a good proofreader you have to be a really really good translator.
Secondly, I was thinking about the way we slot into processes. The ideal situation is that a highly skilled translator translates, and a highly skilled translator/proofreader reviews and catches the odd typing error.
But in the real world, it's not like that. There is a definite need for the proofreader to be *at least* as skilled as the translator, otherwise you will inevitably get incorrection (corrections that actually make a good translation worse). However, if you put yourself in the shoes of an agency, faced with one better and one worse translator, how do you arrange them? Almost certainly you ask the better translator to do the translation, and the worse translator to proofread (assuming price considerations don't interfere). So we often end up with a situation that reverses the natural flow of insight and quality.
I'm not sure how this tension can be resolved. But I think it does go some way to explaining why proofreader horror stories are so common.
Finally, Will: just be glad you were the translator, not the proofreader. Otherwise you'd be getting this drivel as a translation, be receiving a quarter or a third of your translation fee, and effectively retranslating. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | worth remembering... | Dec 1, 2011 |
Criticisms of stylistic issues require a real expert to do the criticizing. When amateurs complain about such matters, what they often mean is that they personally would not have chosen to phrase a particular sentence in the particular way it is presented to them. While this is no doubt true, that alone does not make the sentence somehow "wrong". Style is only wrong if it clearly does not match the context or takes too many liberties with target grammar. I good proofreader is capable of recogniz... See more Criticisms of stylistic issues require a real expert to do the criticizing. When amateurs complain about such matters, what they often mean is that they personally would not have chosen to phrase a particular sentence in the particular way it is presented to them. While this is no doubt true, that alone does not make the sentence somehow "wrong". Style is only wrong if it clearly does not match the context or takes too many liberties with target grammar. I good proofreader is capable of recognizing that, while he or she may not like the style of the translation, that is no reason at all for labelling it "wrong" or "inaccurate". ▲ Collapse
| | | | Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 02:03
Italian to English
In memoriam | Know your translator | Dec 1, 2011 |
It helps if you know how the translator you are editing approaches texts.
As usual at this time of year, I'm editing a wine guide at the moment. The translations were done by various Italy, UK and US-based colleagues with whom I have worked before, for many years in some cases. My job isn't to impose stylistic uniformity on the texts - that would be boring for the reader, in any case - but to ensure that the house style guide is observed. This is more to do with uniformity of usage ... See more It helps if you know how the translator you are editing approaches texts.
As usual at this time of year, I'm editing a wine guide at the moment. The translations were done by various Italy, UK and US-based colleagues with whom I have worked before, for many years in some cases. My job isn't to impose stylistic uniformity on the texts - that would be boring for the reader, in any case - but to ensure that the house style guide is observed. This is more to do with uniformity of usage where there are multiple options in English than with mistakes as such.
Every translator has his or her own quirks - which I look out for  - but if the flow of the English is smooth, the text is generally accurate and deadlines are adhered to, I'm happy. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | editor/translator team work | Dec 1, 2011 |
Phil Hand wrote:
...Almost certainly you ask the better translator to do the translation, and the worse translator to proofread (assuming price considerations don't interfere). So we often end up with a situation that reverses the natural flow of insight and quality.
I'm not sure how this tension can be resolved. But I think it does go some way to explaining why proofreader horror stories are so common...
Some of the agencies I work with have my translations reviewed and then sent back to me to validate changes. It may be the same when I review for them.
Even though I usually don't know the reviewer, it promotes a kind of team work and continuous improvement dynamics that are beneficial to everybody and to the final result.
Those agencies trust their translators' AND reviewers' good faith, and they get the best from both, with a common goal understood by all parties.
Philippe
| | |
|
|
|
Robert Forstag
United States
Local time: 20:03
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Agree with Susanna | Dec 1, 2011 |
I find it striking that most of the other contributors to this thread seem to have assumed that the criticism and actions in question have no merit, in the face of evidence to the contrary....
| | | | | A quick question | Dec 1, 2011 |
I have had this happen to me on a few occasions but not with translation studios. Most of these were rather the proof readers of professional journals - professionals in their field but not native English speakers (in my case) - For the most part their comments were grammatically wrong, made corrections with lots of spelling mistakes. Basically the same horror situation you described. But when I dug, it was that the journal needed an excuse to NOT accept the work by that author and used language... See more I have had this happen to me on a few occasions but not with translation studios. Most of these were rather the proof readers of professional journals - professionals in their field but not native English speakers (in my case) - For the most part their comments were grammatically wrong, made corrections with lots of spelling mistakes. Basically the same horror situation you described. But when I dug, it was that the journal needed an excuse to NOT accept the work by that author and used language as an excuse. End result: Correct it the way the referrees want or not be published.
This is a real dilemma. What is a researcher to do?
Eileen ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Agreed, but ... | Dec 1, 2011 |
Robert Forstag wrote:
I find it striking that most of the other contributors to this thread seem to have assumed that the criticism and actions in question have no merit, in the face of evidence to the contrary....
I agree, Robert. But in this case it seems that Will has not seen evidence of what was allegedly wrong with his translation. The complainer must surely be required to produce evidence of the supposed mistakes?
Jenny
| | | | Will Masters
Spain
Local time: 02:03
Spanish to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | I agree to an extent but.. | Dec 1, 2011 |
Robert Forstag wrote:
I find it striking that most of the other contributors to this thread seem to have assumed that the criticism and actions in question have no merit, in the face of evidence to the contrary....
Thank your for your comment. As was posted yesterday, however, this thread is not an example of “a polished translation”. Were it required to be so, then of course more care would be taken in the spelling and the punctuation of my replies. Equally, as was pointed out “there is no spell checker in these forums” therefore it is more likely that mistakes slip through. With respect though it does warrant being reiterated that the main job of the proofreader is to correct any mistakes that do make their way into the final product, and to do this well, as I'm sure you'd agree, it's necessary to have a level competence in both languages that this proofreader does in fact lack. As far as I am concerned, lack of punctuation here or there or the occasional spelling mistake does not make a translation necessarily bad, so long as the correct meaning is there. Spelling and punctuation can be rectified easily, a genuinely bad translation is harder.
As Jenny also rightly points out, the complainer (the proofreader who in this case seems to decide for the company if a translation is good or bad) has merely stated that the translation was in no way similar to the original and yet is not willing to show proof of this. If there were any solid basis for the complaint, then surely they would have no problem in providing evidence, right?
[Edited at 2011-12-01 12:57 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Two professionals had seen the translation before it was submitted | Dec 1, 2011 |
... and even with the odd typo or two, if I had been the proofreader, I would have sent the file with track changes, which I ALWAYS produce when proofreading, if at all possible, or the PDF with yellow stickers.
Even if there are two 'red' files because the translation is so awful it takes extra passes to proofread, I can document my proofing.
And I don't think Will's English is that bad
I can... See more ... and even with the odd typo or two, if I had been the proofreader, I would have sent the file with track changes, which I ALWAYS produce when proofreading, if at all possible, or the PDF with yellow stickers.
Even if there are two 'red' files because the translation is so awful it takes extra passes to proofread, I can document my proofing.
And I don't think Will's English is that bad
I can't say anything about how it related to the source text, but an idiomatic translation will never be a word-for-word rendering.
Whether justified or not, a slating like that hurts, and if there is no documentation to help the translator to improve, then it is an insult too.
Unless the proofreader explains what is wrong, most of us will assume innocence on Will's part!
But the length of this thread shows how serious the problem can be - we've all been there. And there are definitely times when I side with the proofreader, especially this week... ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 01:03
Hebrew to English
| Also not willing to judge..... | Dec 1, 2011 |
.....someone based on their forum posts. Some (most?) people aren't exactly diligent in writing these things, so I wouldn't be so quick to assume someone is a rubbish translator just because of the odd spelling mistake.
And saying to Will: "Judging by your spelling, I think the blame lies with you" or something to this effect isn't exactly constructive, and doesn't actually answer his question. (Though anyone is perfectly entitled to think this if they wish).
On those ... See more .....someone based on their forum posts. Some (most?) people aren't exactly diligent in writing these things, so I wouldn't be so quick to assume someone is a rubbish translator just because of the odd spelling mistake.
And saying to Will: "Judging by your spelling, I think the blame lies with you" or something to this effect isn't exactly constructive, and doesn't actually answer his question. (Though anyone is perfectly entitled to think this if they wish).
On those forum posts which are written in such bad English that it is practically indecipherable (and you can see that the writer translates into English), then perhaps it would be more reasonable to think along the same lines as Robert and Susanna. Otherwise, I'd say it's presumptuous.
Edited for formatting and a typo (Lest I be judged)
[Edited at 2011-12-01 14:44 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Equivocal as ever.
Generally, I'm inclined to agree we can and should cut people some slack on forum posts (typos at least, poor grammar less so); however, I do think that when a poster is having a wee moan on a translators' forum about criticism of the quality of his output specifically, he would be well advised to do his utmost to make the original post, at least (subsequent responses being perhaps a bit more spontaneous), as close to impeccable as possible, if only to pre-empt co... See more Equivocal as ever.
Generally, I'm inclined to agree we can and should cut people some slack on forum posts (typos at least, poor grammar less so); however, I do think that when a poster is having a wee moan on a translators' forum about criticism of the quality of his output specifically, he would be well advised to do his utmost to make the original post, at least (subsequent responses being perhaps a bit more spontaneous), as close to impeccable as possible, if only to pre-empt comments along the lines of "judging from your post, the proofreader may have a point". If this site were about knitting or hamster breeding, fair enough, but we are all supposed to be write and that, y'know?
Meanwhile, it seems to me, reading between the lines, that it is possible that the OP's translation was a bit freer than the proofreader might have liked. Some clients like "faithful" texts, some positively don't, and you can't tell until you start delivering stuff and get some feedback. But the original post did say that the OP's two experienced translator chums (lucky OP, I knew none when I was starting out!) pointed out there could be style issues. I, too, could see how there might be style issues judging from the, er, style we see here. It might be worth going back to these two chums and asking for a bit more detail (not a TRK version, just a few pointers) about the style problems they anticipated and see if and how it matches the proofreader's detailed comments, if and when they are forthcoming.
But when push comes to shove, you can't please all the people all of the time, and sometimes you just have to walk away. This may be the case with this "ONG company", whatever one of those is, and their non-native proofreader (who, in fairness to the OP, can be much more intransigent than natives, although I work with a couple of Fr agency owners who proofread and ask all the right questions AFAIC). As the OP has hinted, perhaps this is not a relationship destined to last in 2012... ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 01:03
Hebrew to English
Charlie Bavington wrote:
This may be the case with this "ONG company", whatever one of those is, ...
"ONG, abbreviation for Organisation Non-Gouvernementale, Organizzazione non-governativa, Organización No Gubernamental or Organização não Governamental, respectively French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese for Non-governmental organization"
I was under the impression this is what was meant. I could be wrong though.
If it is an NGO, then he really should have translated (since the rest is in English). But I think Will's source languages are French & Italian, so maybe he's just too used to writing ONG and forgot...
On the whole I agree with Charlie.
[Edited at 2011-12-02 12:33 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Slightly OT (off topic) but regarding correctness | Dec 2, 2011 |
It is possible to draft a post in Word and then cut and paste it into the forums.
As one who simly cannnot typew corectly no matter how hard I try... (sic), I do that occasionally, and then I have all the advantages of Autocorrect and the spell checker to tidy up the habitual errors as I go along.
It takes a few minutes longer, but considering that your contributions remain on the net indefinitely for everyone to google, it is worth making the effort to give the best im... See more
| | | | Nicole Schnell
United States
Local time: 17:03
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam | Whenever an overzealous proofreader | Dec 2, 2011 |
couldn't resist the urge to rewrite your translation, it is critical to inform the client that they are back to the drawing-board - and that they have nothing but a different RAW VERSION that has not been proofread yet.
Such a little reminder works like a charm. Customers are insecure, especially when they don't speak the target language.
| | | | Emma Goldsmith
Spain
Local time: 02:03
Member (2004)
Spanish to English
| | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » As a student translator starting out, am I taking a “proof readers” comments too much to heart? | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
| | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
