| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | Are the concepts behind 'Plain English' accepted in your source language? Thread poster: John Rawlins
|
|---|
Sheila Wilson 
Spain
Local time: 23:38
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| Shouldn't we improve on poor writing style? | Apr 4, 2009 |
John Rawlins wrote:
* Lucia rightly points out that the responsibility for confused writing lies with the writer, rather than the language.
If someone writes in a confused, muddled style in convoluted 6-line sentences, should we reproduce this mess in the target language? Surely not! We don't have to write pompously in the hope of impressing our readership with our long words and long sentences. We are linguists and we are all able to produce target-language text that is clear and concise.
On the other hand, CLARITY MUST NOT BE CONFUSED WITH OVER-SIMPLICITY. Plain English (as defined by the Campaign) is not about restricting all texts to the simple words that can be found in an English learners' dictionary. Of course a technical text for a technical readership will use jargon and multi-syllable words. But each sentence can still be written for clarity of communication and, to paraphrase George Orwell, every word that does not serve a useful communication purpose should be removed.
Surely our aim must be to produce a communicative text, whatever the hidden agenda of the writer.
| | | |
I tend to the point of view that a translation should have the same impact as the original, in the widest possible sense - conveying the same information (no more, no less) in the same style and leaving the target-language reader feeing the same as a source-language reader would... OK, so emotions may be hard to replicate across cultures, but confusion isn't.
Sheila Wilson wrote:
If someone writes in a confused, muddled style in convoluted 6-line sentences, should we reproduce this mess in the target language? Surely not! (...)
Surely our aim must be to produce a communicative text, whatever the hidden agenda of the writer.
I disagree, to the extent that I don't think that applies in all cases. If, for example, it's a user guide and the author has made it clear elsewhere that s/he does in fact understand the equipment/application, then I will clear up the odd muddle, if I can.
Conversely, if the user guide is a complete mess in the source, then a complete mess is what they will get back. For all I know, one of the purposes of the transation could be for a hierarchical superior in another country to find out whether the source-language author understands the equipment/application or is a competent technical writer. The same underlying principle applies to any number of corporate/commercial situations.
And if the text is in any way an "opinion piece", then the old "6-line sentences in, 6-line sentences out" rule applies
| | | | Taija Hyvönen
Finland
Local time: 01:38
Member (2008)
English to Finnish
+ ...
| Orwellian rules | Apr 4, 2009 |
Those are a bit steep, I think. But it would make our life easier if the writers of source texts followed those! We wouldn't be figuring out just exactly what the writer has had in mind. I assume we all agree that often source texts are just not very good, they may be unclear, ambiguous, not thought through. What we face is pondering every single word to make it clear to ourselves, so that we can make it clear to whoever will be reading our translation.
This is where we disagree. Ot... See more Those are a bit steep, I think. But it would make our life easier if the writers of source texts followed those! We wouldn't be figuring out just exactly what the writer has had in mind. I assume we all agree that often source texts are just not very good, they may be unclear, ambiguous, not thought through. What we face is pondering every single word to make it clear to ourselves, so that we can make it clear to whoever will be reading our translation.
This is where we disagree. Others in this thread seem to think that we have to write an unclear translation, not very good as a text and difficult to read, but as similar as possible to the source text. Others think, that the text we produce can be better than the source text, because we can refine it to be easier to reach by the reader, still keeping to the right terminology.
Isn't this basically the age-old belles infidèles argument? ▲ Collapse
| | | | John Rawlins
Spain
Local time: 00:38
Spanish to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | ...the oft-castigated reader... | Apr 4, 2009 |
Thank-you Sheila and Taija.
If we embark on the task of deciphering a source text that rambles endlessly on, leaving the hapless reader to gather neglected nuggets of information from a myriad of spliced sentences, should we unflinchingly and faithfully reproduce the 'tone, register and choice of vocabulary' of the autochthonous matter, or should we not bravely set forth: giving reign to the gentle interests of the oft-castigated reader to ride over those of the writer, albeit the s... See more Thank-you Sheila and Taija.
If we embark on the task of deciphering a source text that rambles endlessly on, leaving the hapless reader to gather neglected nuggets of information from a myriad of spliced sentences, should we unflinchingly and faithfully reproduce the 'tone, register and choice of vocabulary' of the autochthonous matter, or should we not bravely set forth: giving reign to the gentle interests of the oft-castigated reader to ride over those of the writer, albeit the same littérateur who pays piper.
Or not? ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Plain English, not Basic English | Apr 4, 2009 |
Sheila Wilson wrote:
CLARITY MUST NOT BE CONFUSED WITH OVER-SIMPLICITY. Plain English (as defined by the Campaign) is not about restricting all texts to the simple words that can be found in an English learners' dictionary. Of course a technical text for a technical readership will use jargon and multi-syllable words. But each sentence can still be written for clarity of communication and, to paraphrase George Orwell, every word that does not serve a useful communication purpose should be removed.
Very well said. I think that several people confuse "Plain" English (as advocated by the Plain English campaign, by George Orwell, and by Sir. Ernest Gowers) with "Basic English" (in essence a simplified subset of English).
The two things are not the same, by a long stretch.
Some links for those interested:
The Complete Plain Words, by Sir. Ernest Gowers (on-line text of the book - I'm not sure which edition, but probably the first of 1954, since no co-authors or editors are cited.)
The Complete Plain Words, by Sir. Ernest Gowers, Sidney Greenbaum (ed.) and Janet Whitcut- 3rd revised edition (2004) (on Amazon.uk)
Basic English, A General Introduction with Rules and Grammar, by C. K. Ogden
Politics and the English Language, by George Orwell (Complete text of the essay online)
[Edited at 2009-04-04 17:10 GMT]
[Edited at 2009-04-04 20:48 GMT]
| | | |
finally, an interesting discussion on the proZ forums.
Although I normally agree with most of Charlie's posts, I'm frankly shocked by "if a user guide is a complete mess then a complete mess is what they will get back" !!!!!
On the assumption that you shouldn't be translating anything you don't understand properly, why, if you see mistakes or confused sentences or whatever, would you want to leave these things in your translation?? The way I see it is that you step in... See more finally, an interesting discussion on the proZ forums.
Although I normally agree with most of Charlie's posts, I'm frankly shocked by "if a user guide is a complete mess then a complete mess is what they will get back" !!!!!
On the assumption that you shouldn't be translating anything you don't understand properly, why, if you see mistakes or confused sentences or whatever, would you want to leave these things in your translation?? The way I see it is that you step into the shoes of an average technical writer, architect, solicitor or whoever and write as if you were that person. You should be able to understand the text enough to cut through any mistakes or long-winded sentences and convey what the original author in his pompous, confused or long-winded style meant to say.
Otherwise you are not helping anyone to communicate effectively, and why on earth would you want to spend your days perpetuating other people's mistakes? ▲ Collapse
| | | | neilmac
Spain
Local time: 00:38
Spanish to English
+ ...
Lingua 5B wrote:
... " plain English", or any other plain language is commonly used with kids and teens or people with the lowest educational level. Other population groups have no excuse for demanding the plain language, never mind it's not their mother tongue
Although I too do my best to ensure that the language in my translation is in accordance with the subject-matter, source-text style and structure and the standards for the content, I disagree with your definition and assessment of "plain English", and refer you to this site.
http://www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html
| | | | Lingua 5B
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Local time: 00:38
Member (2009)
English to Croatian
+ ...
| BS's and such | Apr 13, 2009 |
neilmac wrote: Although I too do my best to ensure that the language in my translation is in accordance with the subject-matter, source-text style and structure and the standards for the content, I disagree with your definition and assessment of "plain English", and refer you to this site. http://www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html
Nice one. We called them " paraphrases" at school, and used them in order to avoid giving a rash to the lecturer, from a parroting, robotic and boring text. I consider myself lucky I didn't attend the school where they were called BS's.
I'll post an appropriate quotation by a US professor who was a reviewer specializing in the literary work by James Joyce. Joyce used a complicated sentence structure to serve certain ideas and mental& spiritual concepts he wanted to illustrate / represent.
By William York Tindall ( Columbia University)
" Joyce's method serves his vision. Like any good artist, he found the exact way to say what he saw. If the way he found shuts bad readers out, they must try and become better. Joyce's intricate celebration of communion is not incommunicable to good readers. That there seem few around is less his trouble than our own."
( William York Tindall, A Reader's Guide to James Joyce, p. 126. )
[Edited at 2009-04-13 15:11 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
juvera
Local time: 23:38
English to Hungarian
+ ...
| Let's not generalise! | Apr 13, 2009 |
Madame Cholet wrote:
The way I see it is that you step into the shoes of an average technical writer, architect, solicitor or whoever and write as if you were that person. You should be able to understand the text enough to cut through any mistakes or long-winded sentences and convey what the original author in his pompous, confused or long-winded style meant to say.
Sometimes it is more difficult to wade through the writings of the average translator than the average technical writer, architect, solicitor or whoever, not to mention their mistakes, long-winded sentences and their pompous, confused and long-winded style. (not my repetition)
On the other hand, damage limitation has to be circumspect. Within reason, a bad source text is likely to get what it deserves, because you are not supposed to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear
| | | | | I'm not generalising | Apr 13, 2009 |
To juvera: I absolutely agree with what you say about wading through the work of an average translator. But that is not the point. Putting yourself in the position of the person who wrote the source text is precisely what the average translator doesn't do. Stepping into the shoes of an average technical writer or other professional person doesn't make you an average translator, it makes you a good one.
| | | | | 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 » Are the concepts behind 'Plain English' accepted in your source language? | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
| | 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! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
