Abstract:
Despite widespread agreement within the
translation industry that specialization is increasingly necessary,
there is apparently much confusion about the meaning of this term and
its derivatives 'specialized' and 'specialist.' Although the forces of
technology and commerce are clearly making it necessary for language
service providers to focus on specific subject areas, the extent to
which they can become 'specialists,' as this term is normally
understood, is questionable, given the inherent nature of translation
and of the translation market. Such factors as the rapid expansion of
information and knowledge in all areas, the growing importance of
translation technology and the increasing availability of reliable
terminology resources are also shaping the nature and meaning of
specialization.
Translators must specialize!
Everyone
in the translation industry seems to agree that translators these days
must specialize. There are mainly two reasons why this need has become
increasingly apparent in recent years. The first is the exponential
expansion of knowledge: there is simply much more to know about any
given subject and many new subjects to know. No translator can be
expected to have the knowledge required to translate all types of
documents well and within a reasonable amount of time.
Despite what many people seem to think, translators almost never need to be experts in the fields in which they translate.
|
The
Internet is the second and main reason why specialization is
increasingly necessary. Firstly, by enabling translators to deliver
translations rapidly to customers anywhere in the world and promote
their special skills and services far beyond their local markets, the
worldwide web has made it much easier for translators to specialize.
Secondly, by putting a wealth of information at their disposal and thus
allowing them to venture into new and more specialized areas. But the
Internet has also intensified competition, by enabling people with
documents to translate to search the world over for someone capable of
meeting their specific needs, or price.
More and more translators and translation agencies are therefore feeling compelled to specialize in one or more specific areas.
But what exactly do we mean by specialization?
That translators need to specialize is hard to dispute, if what we
mean by this is that they should focus on one or more particular fields
and not try to translate every document that comes along. Even a
half-century ago, few professional translators would have probably
disagreed with this. But if what we mean is that translators should
become 'specialists,' then things get very fuzzy. How can translators
and translation companies truly claim to be specialists if the
translation industry has no clearly defined areas of specialization?
After all, doesn't a specialist have to be specialized in some specific
field that is recognized as such by his or her peers? Furthermore, to
what extent does the nature of translation and the translation market
even allow a translator to specialize in a specific area?
Even an apparently simple concept like 'to specialize' can be
confusing. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, it can mean
"to train or employ oneself in a special study or activity; to
concentrate on a particular activity or product". According to the
Concise Oxford Dictionary it can mean "to become a specialist". The
distinction between these two definitions is not trivial, as the term
specialist connotes a certain level of knowledge and skill. By some
definitions, 'to specialize' can also mean devoting oneself exclusively
to one thing, whereas others allow for more than one area of
specialization.
As a result, such terms as 'specialization,' 'specialism,'
'specialized' and above all 'specialist' are used so broadly and
indiscriminately in the translation industry as to have virtually no
meaning. People assume that being a specialist translator is similar to
being a specialist in other professions, such as medicine or law, yet
the concepts of 'specialization' and 'specialist' cannot be applied
analogously to such a vast and unorganized activity as translation.
A specialist doctor, for example, has gone through the same common
core of education and training as a general practitioner, has gained
additional knowledge and skills, has therefore reached what is
considered to be a higher level of achievement and has a clearly
delimited area of expertise, such as radiology, cardiology, etc. There
are thus clear distinctions between general and specialist medical
practitioners. In translation, however, there is no common core of
education or common standard of knowledge or achievement and the
so-called specialist translator might not even have the basic language
skills and knowledge of the 'generalist.' Furthermore, in the absence of
an agreed taxonomy of translation specialisms there are no clearly
delimited areas in which translators can be specialists. The concept of
specialization therefore cannot have an absolute meaning in translation,
only a relative one. For example, translator A, who is 'specialized' in
accounting may consider translator B, who claims to be specialized in
business translation, to be a 'generalist' or at best a
'semi-specialist' as far as accounting is concerned. Yet Translator C,
who is specialized in international financial reporting standards, may
very well think the same of Translator A. Where does it end? What
constitutes a legitimate and relevant area of subject-matter
specialization in translation?
Use and abuse of 'specialist'
Being a specialist will no doubt never have the same meaning and
status for a translator as it does for a doctor or lawyer. But since
there are obvious commercial advantages to being perceived as a
specialist, given the greater knowledge and skill this implies, this
term will no doubt continue to be used by translators and translation
companies. They should be aware however that haphazard use of
'specialized' and 'specialist' can appear suspicious and even
ridiculous.
The Internet offers many examples of how the term 'specialist' is
used abusively. Many translation companies claim to be specialized,
simultaneously, in business translation, financial translation, legal
translation, technical translation, etc., not to mention general
translation! In other words, they are specialized in everything.
Disregarding the fact that such categories are extremely broad in
themselves, such a translation company would have to be very large and
rigorously organized into separate departments, each managed by
specialized staff for this claim to be at all plausible. When you
further consider that such companies also often propose a broad range of
languages, the number of 'specialist' staff that would be required to
oversee the various specialisms for each language combination starts to
boggle the mind. Yet innocent customers may be misled by the translation
company's claim to have a 10,000-strong battalion of lawyer, doctor and
engineer translators at its beck and call.
Although such broad claims of specialization are far-fetched for even
a large translation company, some freelance translators are almost as
bold. On her website, one translator claims to be specialized in
business translation, financial translation, legal translation,
marketing translation, the arts and literature, and in several language
combinations! How can this be possible? Isn't a field such as business
translation or legal translation vast enough in itself, with just one
pair of languages to deal with? How can someone be specialized in just
even business translation, considering that business consists of various
disciplines, such as accounting, marketing, human resources and IT,
each of which is a separate field in itself with a large and
ever-increasing body of concepts and terms? Companies also do business
in a wide variety of industries, of which the 'business translator'
should have at least some knowledge. Although financial translation is a
narrower category, a translator might know quite a bit about financial
accounting but next to nothing about financial markets and products or
asset management and may not have the writing skills to translate
financial communication appropriately. The term 'legal translation' is
also extremely vague. It would naturally include documents that are used
by lawyers and judges in criminal and civil proceedings and which
require a good knowledge of legal principles, systems and institutions,
documents that require familiarity with a given field of law, such as
commercial or intellectual property law, and also contracts and other
legal instruments that may require very little or even no real knowledge
of the law.
Although such claims might impress laymen and prospective customers they have little or no real meaning.
Pity the poor generalist
Just as translation websites the world over sing the praises of
specialists, 'generalist' translators tend to be the object of much
contempt. Unfortunately, in the translation industry the term generalist
has come to mean someone who will accept any type of work in any
subject area, even if highly specialized. Although I think there are
relatively few translators bold and silly enough to do this, there are
apparently quite a few companies that will take on anything. They are
the main reason why 'generalist' has acquired this special meaning in
translation and become almost an insult for some. This doesn't seem
fair. In medicine, general practitioners don't attempt to practice all
types of medicine, but refer their patients to the proper specialist if
necessary. Furthermore, their broader, more general type of knowledge is
recognized as useful and their practice of general medicine enables
them to acquire and maintain knowledge and skills that the specialist
does not have or has forgotten.
Wouldn't the same thing also be true of many 'generalist' translators
who know their limits, don't take on work in areas they know little
about and often offer a more varied background than the specialist, and
above all a broader and deeper understanding of the source language, not
to mention fine writing skills? Can't some types of documents that
require no specialized knowledge in a given field be legitimately
classified as 'general'? Moreover, does this necessarily make such
documents any easier to translate or any less important than those that
require more specialized knowledge? Conscientious 'generalist'
translators are definitely not getting a fair deal these days, as the
emphasis on acquiring specialized knowledge and being a 'specialist' has
tended to overshadow and diminish the importance of fundamental
language and translation skills.
It is interesting to note that since the concept of 'generalist
translator' is the complement of 'specialist translator' it can be every
bit as vague. For example, one translator on the Internet claims to
translate "all types of legal documents and general documents
(administrative, financial, advertising, etc.)". Apparently she
considers everything that doesn't fall within her own extremely vast and
poorly defined area of specialization (legal documents) to be
'general,' including administrative, financial and advertising
translation, each of which could just as logically be considered a
specialism.
Myths and realities
Although it is no doubt impossible to prevent terms like 'specialist'
and 'generalist' from being abused for commercial purposes,
specialization and its derivatives can be useful concepts for
translators if properly understood and used in a disciplined manner
within the context of translation and the translation industry's
requirements. But until this happens there are two myths about
specialization that will have to be cleared up.
Myth #1: Translators must be subject-matter experts
Despite what many people seem to think, translators almost never need
to be experts in the fields in which they translate. They do not need
to have degrees in medicine, law or engineering to translate medical,
legal or technical documents. There are very, very few documents that
require a practitioner's knowledge and experience. Translators do not
need to know, for example, whether a recommended medical procedure is
appropriate or whether a clause in a contract is valid. This is for the
author of the text to know. Translators need a more basic level of
knowledge that enables them to understand underlying principles, do the
research necessary to figure out what they don't understand, and find
the right term in the target language. For example, someone who
translates accounting documents does not need to be an accountant but
does need to have an accounting 'culture,' which can be gained from a
university course or two in accountancy or from self-study. Similarly, a
good background in advanced high-school math and physics can be
sufficient to translate even very technical documents.
This has various implications. Since translators do not need to be
experts in any given field (except in their languages and in translation
of course!), they can 'specialize' in a variety of areas in which they
have the necessary knowledge and experience. Furthermore, these
'specialisms' can have little in common. There is no reason why a
translator cannot be 'specialized' in the oil industry, cooking and the
stock market, if he or she has a good understanding of these subjects
and appropriate terminology resources.
This last sentence brings us to another important point: not only is
expert knowledge in a given subject not as important as generally
imagined; it is becoming increasingly less relevant as knowledge expands
in all areas and translation technology and terminology resources come
to play an increasingly important role. Translators can simply no longer
be expected to master the large body of concepts found in most subjects
and the associated terminology in two or more languages. However they
can, and no doubt must, increasingly rely on computer-aided translation
tools and the growing body of reliable and highly specialized knowledge
and terminology resources at their disposal. As is the case in all
knowledge-based professions, but no doubt to a greater extent,
translators are increasingly dependent on other people's knowledge.
Having access to appropriate resources will increasingly determine
whether or not translators can do highly specialized work.
Myth #2: Most documents require specialization in a specific area
The proportion of documents that require a high degree of
subject-matter specialization is also greatly exaggerated. The vast
majority do not require specialist knowledge in any one specific area,
but rather a relatively broad background in several. Many business
documents, for example, require a good understanding of the basic
principles of various business-related disciplines, such as economics,
accountancy, company or contract law, finance and marketing, as well as a
good understanding of a particular industry. The translator needs
'only' a good general business culture, in addition, of course, to
high-level language expertise and appropriate tools, none of which a
self-proclaimed specialist may have. Having a broad background in
several related areas is often more useful in translation than being
specialized in any single one.
Conclusion—Putting specialization in perspective
Although specialization and its derivative terms will no doubt
continue to be abused for commercial purposes, conscientious
professionals should give more thought to what specialization can and
should mean within the translation industry. Not only does
specialization need to be understood within this specific context; what
it means to be specialized or to be a specialist also needs to be
reconsidered in light of the widespread expansion of knowledge and
advances in information technology. Being able to translate highly
specialized documents is becoming less a question of knowledge and more
one of having the right tools.
For the concept of specialization to be of any real use within the
translation industry subject areas of specialization will have to be
more specific than such broad categories as 'legal,' 'business' or
'technical,' which do not describe the types of documents a given
translator is capable of translating in sufficient detail. Such
categories will have to be broken down into relevant sub-categories that
reflect specific types of knowledge and skills, while also constituting
relevant and viable areas of specialization. Until there is a
recognized taxonomy of translation categories, there will be no
meaningful disciplines or areas for translators to be 'specialists' in. Source: http://translationjournal.net