Issues with back translations

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 04/07/2006 15:01:49 GMT Daylight Time,

anthony@... writes:

>As I am finding all sorts of interesting issues coming up, I was

>wondering if anyone on the list knows of any discussions on this topic

>(especially on how literally to back-translate a poorly translated

>sentence, etc.) or if they have any personal experience of these issues.

I do this sort of thing all the time. If the client tells me it's a

back-translation (or I suspect it is and they confirm this), I translate so as

to

reflect the poor syntax / terminology / whatever, also with lots of footnotes.

After all, if I translate a sentence that says 'static (electric) ejection'

when I know full well that it should be 'static discharge' and that the

client has paid for this to be translated --correctly-- (this happened to me

last

week), I cannot in all conscience ignore this issue by 'correcting' the

mistake and not drawing any attention to it.

[Guest guest]

I have just found out that what I am working on is a back translation

into English to check the quality of a medical translation regarding a

clinical trial.

I did the first document without knowing this, and it would have been

very different if I had known, as I was attempting to polish the

" original " so that it sounded like an original document, which is the

way that I usually work.

As I am finding all sorts of interesting issues coming up, I was

wondering if anyone on the list knows of any discussions on this topic

(especially on how literally to back-translate a poorly translated

sentence, etc.) or if they have any personal experience of these issues.

Many thanks for the physiotherapy help, BTW!

Green

Bari, Italy

[Guest guest]

One of my regular clients, who does nothing but medical questionnaires, has

a system in place whereby 2 separate forward translations are carried out

(often, one of them is by me). An editor combines the best of both into one

version, which another person then back-translates.

Expensive, but it seems to work for them.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 04/07/2006 17:56:44 GMT Daylight Time, mfcullen@...

writes:

I had a small argument with one agency over the issue. I said I thought the

client would want to see what the poor word choices, etc., were and I was

told that the agency didn't want to have anything go out looking like that.

In other words, correct the mistakes and don't tell the client! How do

others feel about this?

Where back-translations are concerned, you are 100% correct and the agency

is totally unprofessional: basically, it doesn't understand what the concept

of back-translation entails ... :-(

Unbelievable that there are still such people in our industry.

[Guest guest]

Ouch!

Send dead roses to the person who didn't inform you.

I translate bad original text into bad back translation but annotate

why I do so. I suggest which translated word the original translator

should have considered. And yes, back translations take more time than

regular translation. I do not really believe in back translation as

a sound tool, because there is always the risk of the blind leading

the blind defeating its very purpose.

Your duty is to point out any errors you find, and if this requires

pages of note, so be it, but bitch about the extra time a bad

translation caused you and ask for compensation for going the extra

mile(s) to help out a client in distress. It often works!

With a truly bad translation, all that really helps is to find an

expert proofreader in the target language to fix it, or to start over

with a more qualified translator.

As for the earlier job you did. Tell the client, that because they

failed to inform you, you have professional concerns that have to be

addressed and spell them out. Your reputation is your currency, and I

can't see that a conscientious client will be anything but glad to

hear you stick up for quality.

[Guest guest]

I back-translate medical and psychological questionnaires and patient

information forms for a client who needs to gauge the accuracy of her own

translation from English. The issue of a literal translation is always a

problem, and I thoroughly document my motivation for a specific word choice,

even including synonyms that may also be an option. The target audience, of

course, determines which I choose. I have an agreement with my client to discuss

all the details directly with her. It gets us both to the minute specifics of

both our languages and we both find these subtleties interesting. I’ve even

disagreed with the original at times, suggesting that an average uneducated

patient might not know a more technical medical term. Academics who create these

questionnaires are not always conscious of the limitations of the average

patient, especially geriatrics, in my opinion.

With some translations, the original author/publisher may already include an

approved synonym list for a specific questionnaire or test.

As far as syntax is concerned, sometimes a rewording is required. I also

document the motivation for this.

I don’t know of any specific forum discussions dedicated to back-translations.

The topic does come up from time to time on translation web sites.

Jim Caulfield

Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Green wrote:

I have just found out that what I am working on is a back translation

into English to check the quality of a medical translation regarding a

clinical trial.

I did the first document without knowing this, and it would have been

very different if I had known, as I was attempting to polish the

" original " so that it sounded like an original document, which is the

way that I usually work.

As I am finding all sorts of interesting issues coming up, I was

wondering if anyone on the list knows of any discussions on this topic

(especially on how literally to back-translate a poorly translated

sentence, etc.) or if they have any personal experience of these issues.

Many thanks for the physiotherapy help, BTW!

Green

Bari, Italy

[Guest guest]

I, also, am happy to see a discussion of " back translations " . Over time, I

have had several to do and sometimes I have been told that that is what they

are and sometimes I haven't. Many times I have deduced that I am working on

a back translation from the poor quality of the language. If I know it is a

back translation, I try to translate the awkward passages quite literally

and I have been told by some agencies that that is what they want. However,

I had a small argument with one agency over the issue. I said I thought the

client would want to see what the poor word choices, etc., were and I was

told that the agency didn't want to have anything go out looking like that.

In other words, correct the mistakes and don't tell the client! How do

others feel about this?

Margaret Cullen

mfcullen@...

Issues with back translations

> I have just found out that what I am working on is a back translation

> into English to check the quality of a medical translation regarding a

> clinical trial.

> I did the first document without knowing this, and it would have been

> very different if I had known, as I was attempting to polish the

> " original " so that it sounded like an original document, which is the

> way that I usually work.

>

> As I am finding all sorts of interesting issues coming up, I was

> wondering if anyone on the list knows of any discussions on this topic

> (especially on how literally to back-translate a poorly translated

> sentence, etc.) or if they have any personal experience of these issues.

>

> Many thanks for the physiotherapy help, BTW!

>

> Green

> Bari, Italy

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: Lotsofwordz@...

In a message dated 04/07/2006 15:01:49 GMT Daylight Time,

anthony@... writes:

>As I am finding all sorts of interesting issues coming up, I was

>wondering if anyone on the list knows of any discussions on this topic

>(especially on how literally to back-translate a poorly translated

>sentence, etc.) or if they have any personal experience of these issues.

I do this sort of thing all the time. If the client tells me it's a

back-translation (or I suspect it is and they confirm this), I translate so

as to

reflect the poor syntax / terminology / whatever, also with lots of

footnotes.

After all, if I translate a sentence that says 'static (electric) ejection'

when I know full well that it should be 'static discharge' and that the

client has paid for this to be translated --correctly-- (this happened to me

last

week), I cannot in all conscience ignore this issue by 'correcting' the

mistake and not drawing any attention to it.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I have also done a lot of this. And you are completely right, they do have

to be done differently, and your client would have been better advised to

tell you it was a back-translation.

As says, you do need to reflect errors or issues in the translation,

and sometimes anomalies in the Translation can be shown perfectly by

preserving it or an equivalent in the " back " , but I usually prefer to also

write a separate page of TNs which I send along with the translation. I see

two reasons for this:

1) If you say something akward or incorrect in the back-translation, the

client may not know if the oddity is your own, or from the translation.

2) Frequently, the nature of the anomaly in Spanish may not show up when

going back into English. An example of this is the use of subject/sujeto in

patient-information materials (the Spanish, " sujeto " does mean " subject " ,

but is considered a very disrespectful way to refer to a person in many

places -But it is often used in journal articles, etc. without blinking,

since Spanish-speaking doctors are usually accustomed to the usage in that

context). Obviously, if the Spanish refers to a " sujeto " in patient

information for a clinical trial, that is going to be " subject " in English,

but the English misses something that the non-physician Spanish speaker

would probably perceive. And, at the same time, I would be reluctant to

insert " guy " or " bloke " , since I would be implicitly accusing the to-Spanish

translator of substituting a completely unjustified term.

Writing good explanatory notes takes extra time, but I find it the only way

to really reflect the real situation. I always presume the final user of the

back-translation may be utterly monolingual (as they frequently are), and

not easily able to imagine why something odd is in the " back " , unless

explained. Naturally, this can sometimes lead to a bit of tense

back-and-forth with a PM and the original translator, and I hate when that

happens, but it is the only way I think you can really serve the high

purpose of the translation: to make sure the final reader of the final

product (which will eventually be a revised Spanish, in this case) really

gets from the document the full meaning of the original.

Thanks for the opportunity to say my piece on this complex subject.

Burns

[Guest guest]

FWIW, I have done scores of back translations and edited many. I always

translate the " mistakes " or " awkward phrases " or the non-professional

terms and add a comment, suggesting what it should say. Most agencies I

have worked with accept this. To " polish " it and make it correct or more

professional than it is seems fraudulent. I think I would resist the

agency's demand to " cheat " that way, even if I lost their business.

After all, don't we promise to do a " complete and accurate " translation?

R.

>>

>>

[Guest guest]

Hello ,

I should have added in my previous response that I have the luxury of direct

contact with the translator from English to Dutch and our discussions about her

potential errors are geared toward correcting her translation. She than compares

my back-translation from Dutch to English with the original and the acceptable

list of synonyms that were provided to her from the author/publisher. I also

compile a glossary of word choices and motivations that may come in handy in the

future.

It seems that other people in this forum have more experience with agencies

and do not have contact with the translator. It is a lot of work to explain your

choices, but then again, I do enjoy it myself.

Jim Caulfield

Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Green wrote: I have just found out that

what I am working on is a back translation

into English to check the quality of a medical translation regarding a

clinical trial.

I did the first document without knowing this, and it would have been

very different if I had known, as I was attempting to polish the

" original " so that it sounded like an original document, which is the

way that I usually work.

As I am finding all sorts of interesting issues coming up, I was

wondering if anyone on the list knows of any discussions on this topic

(especially on how literally to back-translate a poorly translated

sentence, etc.) or if they have any personal experience of these issues.

Many thanks for the physiotherapy help, BTW!

Green

Bari, Italy

[Guest guest]

Issues with back translations

> I have just found out that what I am working on is a back translation

> into English to check the quality of a medical translation regarding a

> clinical trial.

> I did the first document without knowing this, and it would have been

> very different if I had known, as I was attempting to polish the

> " original " so that it sounded like an original document, which is the

> way that I usually work.

>

> As I am finding all sorts of interesting issues coming up, I was

> wondering if anyone on the list knows of any discussions on this topic

> (especially on how literally to back-translate a poorly translated

> sentence, etc.) or if they have any personal experience of these issues.

>

> Many thanks for the physiotherapy help, BTW!

>

> Green

> Bari, Italy

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Well, we are speaking of 2 different jobs:

1) Pure translation (a bad text remains a bad text)

2) Translation+editing+localization (starting from a poorly written text to go

to an " acceptable " final product).

The base being to know what the customer wants. And the rate is not the same...

Philippe