The Limits of "Natural" English

I recently completed a project for a client who did not have a native Japanese on their staff. They sent the completed translation out to a reviewer, who sought to provide more natural English. I had the opportunity to look over the final document and notified the client that more than 30% of the translation units had significant changes from the source text. Since they didn't have a Japanese native staff member, they had no idea that their naturalization process resulted in such major losses in meaning from the source text.

 

When I translate a document, I seek to ensure that no more and no less than the meaning of the source text is conveyed. Because Japanese is the language of a high-context culture, it can be seen as vague by American clients when translated with precision. I use brackets [   ] to insert pronouns and other content that are obvious from context, but which are not explicitly included in the source text. This allows a more natural and clear flow of the English text, while indicating that the text was not in the source text.

 

I do object to any naturalization of English that goes beyond what is obvious due to the context, because the meaning of the source text is not being respected. The following are some of the more glaring examples of lost meaning in the quest to provide more natural English. All of the following examples were included in a presentation by a speaker at a medical conference. As such, they do not necessarily read as sentences in a carefully written scientific paper would.

 

 

The Relationships Between Cost, Timing & Quality

As a user of translated documents, you are interested in minimizing your cost, decreasing lead time and maximizing quality. It is important for your language service provider (either agency or translator) to set your expectations in order for you to get the most possible out of that provider. There are trade-offs between the three factors.

 

Time - If you can plan ahead to provide adequate time for translation (assumes a maximum of 3000 words per day as a general rule), as well as to allow for time for good translators to become available (since good translators often have other work - I recommend at least 4-7 days cushion), you will end up with significantly better quality than than if you ask your provider to start immediately and to complete more than 3000 words per day.

 

Cost - You should check online to learn the price range for a given language pair. In general, higher pricing means that a translator has a decent amount of work due to good quality. The lowest pricing will result in a "hungry" translator who may commit to unreasonable timing and low pricing in order to get any work. 

 

Quality - You can expect higher quality if you have some leeway on the other two factors. If you can allow adequate time and if you can pay somewhere in the middle of the price range for a language pair, you can generally expect to receive high quality.

 

2-step process - I offer a 2-step process to clients who require it. In that process, I hand-select a translator and then edit/review their work. However, you will receive the same quality or better (see my blog below) from a single experienced translator by providing them with the same amount of time as you would give for a 2-step process. I have seen agencies hire reviewers in a number of cases who have reduced the accuracy of the final document, either due to the reviewer available at the time of the project or due to a misunderstanding of "natural" English that leads to loss of some of the meaning of the source text.

The importance of the final review

Many translation providers sell a multi-step process involving a translator and at least one editor. As a customer, you should know that the level or philosophy of the editor who is available at the time the translation is completed or who is a full-time employee of the service provider can actually reduce the final quality of your document. Following are actual examples where the quality of the final document was reduced by the editor. This is either because the editor misunderstood the meaning of the source text or had the philosophy of “natural” English, leading to a loss of part of the meaning of the source text.

Sloppy editing

In the above example, the editor changed the meaning of the red-highlighted term from the more accurate wording the translator had used. There are other Japanese characters that are available to express the wording of “in”.

Ignoring phrases in the source text

Another error in editing by editors attempting to “naturalize” text is simply to delete a section of a sentence that is included in the Japanese source text. An example is provided below.

The red-highlighted characters were originally translated as “physical and mental health”. This phrase was ignored in the edit.  


Another example is shown below:

A final editor who is a NON-NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER can leave you with odd wording, or worse...