Introduction

Bowker, Lynne; Buitrago, Jairo

doi:10.1108/978-1-78756-721-420191002

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2006, well before the advent of the translation capacity based on billion- and trillion-word corpora or large language models we see being used today, the Guidelines maintained that whereas MT can be used to translate key words or search for raw material for summaries, human translators who use reflexive processes will remain unrivaled for ‘linguistically sophisticated’ social science texts (p. 24). While the latest developments in MT and ‘artificial intelligence’ may offer EAL scholars an affordable alternative to paying translators or editors (Bowker and Buitrago Ciro, 2019), they are still far from being a complete solution for all EAL writers, who will often seek the services of authors’ translators or editors. But more than this, the new forms of MT fail in the one area humans excel at and that academic writing requires: critical, creative thought.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practices in the translation and editing of humanities and social science texts for publication in English: A qualitative survey of language professionals

Kelso,

Lounds,

Sotejeff-Wilson

et al. 2023

Social Science Information

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2006, the American Council of Learned Societies published the Guidelines for the Translation of Social Science Texts. Following a panel discussion at the annual conference of Mediterranean Editors and Translators on their continued relevance in an international publishing landscape increasingly populated by writers who use English as an additional language (EAL) a qualitative survey consisting of 10 open-ended questions was conducted in 2020 through several European language professional associations. At that time, the extent to which the practices of translators into English and editors working directly with EAL authors in the humanities and social sciences conformed to the self-reflexive methods of the Guidelines was not known. The 52 responses from language professionals based in European countries (44), North America (7), and Israel (1) were coded to obtain qualitative data on professionals’ opinions and practices. Respondents’ self-identifications were roughly divided between translators and editors, but further examination revealed 25 in fact working as translator–editors, 14 as editors, and 13 as translators. Most respondents engaged in some form of communication with the authors of the source texts regarding their translating/editing choices, although the strategies varied. Most attempted to retain the authors’ ‘voice’ but also felt the competing need to comply with prevailing expectations of international academic discourse in English. This article presents themes that emerged from the survey, which revealed both compliance with and divergence from the Guidelines across diverse academic and linguistic contexts, suggesting the need for updated guidelines and additional research on these mostly occluded author–language professional practices.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%