There's of policy no absolute retort as to what makes a "good" or "bad" translation. In some sense, a good translation is one that can be done to the available budget whilst fulfilling its purpose.
However, there are occasions when text capability is the prevailing factor: a well written, facilely understandable text will save your colleagues time and leave your clients and business partners with a safe bet impression. Here are some things that I advise seeing out for when evaluating the capability of a text that has been translated into English. They are the types of criteria that a good translator should be inspecting when translating your text, and highlight some of the problems frequently encountered in mediocre translations. Some of these points will of policy apply more generally to translations in the middle of varied languages:
- Does the translation overuse formal or scientific-sounding vocabulary? The words that in English sound overly scientific may often be direct translations of words in other languages that are plainer sounding. For example, is the word "anomaly" used when "fault" would sound more natural? Does the translation mention a "pulmonary disease" when "lung disease" would sound more natural to a normal audience? These are classic symptoms of a translation from a language such as French or Spanish, where the 'Latinate' word is a naturally derived, normal-sounding word in these languages, but in English becomes a scientific term convenient only for extremely expert audiences.
- Does the translation use words that are understandable, but not quite 'le mot juste'? Does the text talk about "social insertion" when "social integration" would sound more natural? Does it talk about "eventual problems" instead of "potential issues"? Or a person's "administrative situation" when "administrative status" would more usual?
- Are adjectives or graphic phrases used where English would more naturally use a compound? For example, English allows a phrase such as "remotely-accessible device", whereas other languages may have to use a phrase that honestly means "device that is accessible remotely" or "device that allows remote access".
- Similarly, are phrases with "of" or "for" over-used where English would use a compound. Over-use of phrases such as "strategy of/for sales" rather than "sales strategy" are classic signs of a translation from varied languages.
- Are determiners ("the", "a", "your"...) used as they would be in idiomatic English? Phrases such as "saw an increased productivity" rather than naturally "saw increased productivity" advise an overly literal translation. More subtly, a phrase such as "the terms and the conditions", "the towns and the cities" rather than "the terms and conditions", "the towns and cities" suggests a translation from a which doesn't regularly allow two nouns to share the same word for "the" (such as French), whereas repeating the word "the" is unnatural in English.
- Does the translation use a record style and rhetoric that sounds natural in English? We've all seen French museum signs telling us, for example, that "the king will die in 1483". More subtle signs of a translation include the over-use rhetorical questions (which, for example, appear more base in Spanish than English, where they can make your text sound overly childish). In a translation into English, decisions must also be made about, say, the use of contractions ("don't", "can't" vs "do not", "cannot") or preposition stranding ("Who... To?" vs "To who(m)...?") which may not have been issues in the source language. Does the style adopted carry the impression that you want to give to your audience?
Ultimately, the translated text should ideally sound as though it was the original, written to carry your message with the style and readability you intended.
Pulmonary Lung Disease:What Makes a Good Translation?
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น