18:33 Dec 26, 2011 

Certainly sounds like the proof reader had none!
I recently held my ground for a term which a client wanted to impose his erroneous and non existent term "parce qu'on l'a toujours fait comme ça". When he insisted, I just made sure that may name did not appear anywhere and refused the next contract from him.

18:16 Dec 26, 2011 

These are personality and behavioural characteristics. Reducing oral personality characteristics to the act of speech (what about smoking, nailbiting, thumbsucking, etc.?) is the same as reducing anal characteristics to the act of defaecation. http://www.integratedsociopsychology.net/psychoseuxal_fixati...
It is pretty pointless arguing about the term if no one has specific knowledge in this field, so I don't intend pursuing the matter.

16:27 Dec 26, 2011 

When I say "probably not" do please understand that I am saying that they suggest a change for one of two reasons :
- either they have access to information we have not seen which makes that clear
- they have misunderstood and it is a mistranslation
Either way round, they need a good reason to justify something so specific as "speech" when "orality" can run a whole gammut of possiblities!

If the proofreader has no extra info than we have had, then it looks like a shoddy reread where someone has opted for the first term they understood in a text describing what it can sometimes include.

How you handle this with your client is your business of course. In the past, when a client has questioned a term, I have found it useful to send in a brief summary of authoritative sources and explain, briefly, why I made the choice I did. That may give rise to some scuffling around in the background where the proofreader is asked to do the same thing and comes up with references which are not so convincing.

For this one, a couple of possibilities are available but orality has to be in there. Speech alone is under par.

15:22 Dec 26, 2011 

The last 2 contributions beg the question 'Is the customer always right, even when he is wrong?' I think such questions as this one can be interpreted in several ways depending not only on your own qualifications but also on your own culture. I hope this does not open another can of worms to get you all involved in. I would love to continue this discussion with you, but I'm busy translating and I have to prepare for visitors this evening. I'll be in touch tomorrow., Chris.

15:02 Dec 26, 2011 

The difference is enormous IMO.

11:38 Dec 26, 2011 

Probably not. If the proofreader has specific knowledge of the particular context/situation in your text, then this is of course quite possible. Have a look at the list I found which indicated it covered a fairly wide range of possibilities. Language, communication were part of those.

You might simply like to raise the question with your client, relaying back a suggstion along the lines of a wide range of possible solutions, including 'charcateristics of speech'. You can no doubt open a discussion about whether there are sufficient indications in the original in order for such a specific rendering to be admitted. The proofreader's suggestion may be correct, or not. The client should be able to tell you whether it is indeed OK to restrict the translation of the original term to speech alone. Nothing we have seen here enabled us to be that specific. (Keep a trace of your exchanges with the client on this one!)

If the proofreader has no more context than we were presented with here, then the proofreader is applying an extremely restrictive interpretation which I would consider risky. Keep track of stuff! ;-)

11:28 Dec 26, 2011 

Having closed this question with 'oral characteristics' client has now come back with characteristics of speech. Is there much difference? Or is client proofreader changing just for the sake of changing?

07:59 Dec 20, 2011 

Thank you for your contributions. Not my usual subject but one that does interest me. I obviously need to do more reading.

20:13 Dec 13, 2011 

http://tinyurl.com/bn8oypk

Angles on Psychology 2e - Résultats Google Recherche de Livres
books.google.lu/books?isbn=0748780327...Matt Jarvis, Julia Russell, Phil Gorman - 2004 - Juvenile Nonfiction - 300 pages
Freud produced a very complete model of human experience, ... away from the oral stage a number of 'oral characteristics', collectively known as orality.

19:02 Dec 13, 2011 

Just finished eating and hey presto more comments than cherries in my 'clafouti'!!
another example.
Plus que cela, la complaisance manifeste visàvis des symptômes, l'avidité affective, les traits d'oralité (immaturité, intolérance aux frustrations, recherche de satisfactions immédiates), .......
Hope this helps. Very much Freudienne!!

18:04 Dec 13, 2011 

That is a very interesting list! It does raise some questions:
Is that understanding of "oralité" generally adopted or exclusive to Freudian psychology, or even to a particular application/aspect of Freudian psychology?
Is it too broad for the present context? If so, and if it is, nonetheless, being used in a Freudian sense, is it in the verbal or non-verbal one?

16:54 Dec 13, 2011 

In view of the field, perhaps it might be useful to clear of which of the definitions of "oralité" may be appropriate here. Without more background, a number of possibilites abound! Language and communication are included but a couple of sensory modalities are too, along with alimentation and ventilation. That leaves room for manoeuvre.


http://oralite.fr/oralite/definition/
« Définition de l’oralité
On retrouve le terme d’oralité dans la psychanalyse Freudienne. Elle représente le comportement et l’activité orale de l’enfant qui sont élaborés par un ensemble d’événements psychologiques, biologiques et fonctionnels.
Il existe deux oralités :
- une oralité alimentaire
- une oralité verbale
Il existe deux stades d’oralité alimentaire :
- l’oralité primaire : qui correspond à la succion,
- l’oralité secondaire : qui correspond à la mastication
L’oralité primaire »
[…]
« C’est tout ce qui est attribué à la bouche :
- l’alimentation
- la ventilation
- l’olfaction
- la gustation
- la communication
- le langage »