In translation, a recurring question is “What is your area of specialisation?”. The translation agencies you work with want to know, your Proz or Translator’s Cafe profile has a dedicated section for it, and your colleagues will probably be curious about it as well. As such, many translators define themselves as “technical translator”, “legal translator”, or “medical translator”, and the like. As a result, the idea that there is a difference between 'specialised' and 'general' translation has developed, with offering the former seen as more desirable a career move than the latter.
However, this has never seemed 100% correct to me. How do you unambiguously and completely define what ‘general’ versus ‘specialised’ means? And is being a “specialised translator” always better than a “general” one? In Specialization in Translation - myths and realities (Translation Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, 2011), Charles Martin asks whether it would be better to see 'generalist' translators as those 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?”.
Martin also questions the idea that calling yourself a specialist in legal translation necessarily has any real meaning, because of the vagueness of the term. 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”. Can many ‘legal’ translators really claim they successfully specialise in all of these separate sub-fields? Can translation agencies claim to offer true specialisation in “financial translation”, “business translation”, AND “legal translation”, as many do?
Finally, Martin dispels the idea that in order to be a ‘specialist’ translator in a particular field, one must be an ‘expert’ in that field. Rather, “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.” I couldn't agree more. I’m neither fully trained as a patent attorney nor as a physicist, but I have studied the fundamentals of physics and patent law sufficiently to be able to translate documents in these fields, and translate them well. In addition (and perhaps more importantly), I know exactly when my research skills will enable me to deal with a topic I’m not as familiar with, and when something goes completely above my head. Here, honesty is key...
Despite agreeing that the terms ‘specialism’ and ‘expert’ are misleading, it's nevertheless undeniable that the industry still wants to know what you ‘specialise’ in. I understand that translation buyers need to be able to make a judgement on whether or not a particular text is beyond the scope of their supplier's knowledge or not. In certain fields, including patent translation, not being certain of when to choose one term over another can have serious consequences. I would personally never trust someone who had a background in contract law to translate a patent, but I might give someone with a background in physics a chance as patent law is easier to research than physics! I therefore do think that, when talking about 'specialised' translation, it makes a lot more sense to say "I'm looking for a translator with experience in electronic engineering" than "I need a technical translator", for example.
However, this has never seemed 100% correct to me. How do you unambiguously and completely define what ‘general’ versus ‘specialised’ means? And is being a “specialised translator” always better than a “general” one? In Specialization in Translation - myths and realities (Translation Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, 2011), Charles Martin asks whether it would be better to see 'generalist' translators as those 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?”.
Martin also questions the idea that calling yourself a specialist in legal translation necessarily has any real meaning, because of the vagueness of the term. 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”. Can many ‘legal’ translators really claim they successfully specialise in all of these separate sub-fields? Can translation agencies claim to offer true specialisation in “financial translation”, “business translation”, AND “legal translation”, as many do?
Finally, Martin dispels the idea that in order to be a ‘specialist’ translator in a particular field, one must be an ‘expert’ in that field. Rather, “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.” I couldn't agree more. I’m neither fully trained as a patent attorney nor as a physicist, but I have studied the fundamentals of physics and patent law sufficiently to be able to translate documents in these fields, and translate them well. In addition (and perhaps more importantly), I know exactly when my research skills will enable me to deal with a topic I’m not as familiar with, and when something goes completely above my head. Here, honesty is key...
Despite agreeing that the terms ‘specialism’ and ‘expert’ are misleading, it's nevertheless undeniable that the industry still wants to know what you ‘specialise’ in. I understand that translation buyers need to be able to make a judgement on whether or not a particular text is beyond the scope of their supplier's knowledge or not. In certain fields, including patent translation, not being certain of when to choose one term over another can have serious consequences. I would personally never trust someone who had a background in contract law to translate a patent, but I might give someone with a background in physics a chance as patent law is easier to research than physics! I therefore do think that, when talking about 'specialised' translation, it makes a lot more sense to say "I'm looking for a translator with experience in electronic engineering" than "I need a technical translator", for example.
From a practical point of view, then, this question of specialisation matters and translators need to be able to define what that means for them and respond accordingly. In doing so they should avoid both appearing unrealistically knowledgeable and unmarketably under-specialised. When you are first starting out in the business, however, it can be hard to fathom exactly what is meant by ‘specialisation’ and how you go about finding yours. This is especially true if you come from a linguistics background and you feel like the only thing you’re good at is getting to the bottom of literary texts (there was certainly a heavy bias towards literary translation when I did my language degree, though luckily less so at MA level).
There are nevertheless a few ways of identifying your specialisations and therefore meeting this market requirement. The best overall approach is to not to sell yourself short, and to look at ALL your areas of experience and interest. At the end of the day, a good translator is like a sponge - s/he looks everywhere for reliable target language vocabulary, and discounts nothing as a potential source of knowledge! By building on that, combined with developing excellent research skills, you’ll find that you are more of a ‘specialist’ than you thought you were. To give an example, my own thought process on this has gone more or less like this:
Subjects I have studied:
Subjects I have professional experience in:
Subjects I feel personally passionate about:
As you can see, not all my subjects of "expertise" are based on academic study, and even in a field as seemingly narrow as "physics" there are clear are areas that I don't venture into. Nevertheless, I feel confident about calling myself knowledgeable in all of the above, and hence I also work in all of them. How my colleagues have gained their experience and defined their specialist areas is something that has always interested me - care to share in the comments?
There are nevertheless a few ways of identifying your specialisations and therefore meeting this market requirement. The best overall approach is to not to sell yourself short, and to look at ALL your areas of experience and interest. At the end of the day, a good translator is like a sponge - s/he looks everywhere for reliable target language vocabulary, and discounts nothing as a potential source of knowledge! By building on that, combined with developing excellent research skills, you’ll find that you are more of a ‘specialist’ than you thought you were. To give an example, my own thought process on this has gone more or less like this:
Subjects I have studied:
- Physics at 1st & 2nd year undergrad level. This is my “basic training”!
- Patent Law
- How to draw up Confidentiality Agreements
- European and Japanese History
- European and Japanese Art History
- Japanese Economic History
Subjects I have professional experience in:
- What is involved in researching the physics and electronics of making flat-screen TVs, LED lighting, solar panels, mobile phones, etc. Nuclear physics, on the other hand? Not a clue.
- Managing a corporate patent portfolio
- Editing a 100,000 word textbook on European business history. Doorstops like that can teach you a thing or two about a particular subject!
- Translating texts on fashion, jewellery and retail, particularly the marketing side of things (in the form of presentations, press releases, etc.)
- Editing CVs and cover letters written by native and non-native speakers alike.
Subjects I feel personally passionate about:
- Travel and tourism. My article on a yoga holiday to Thailand was published in the magazine Kansaiscene in 2006.
- Food and drink. I might be a little obsessed with food, so one of my favourite projects to date was a series of translations on the legendary elBulli (or more specifically, on the closure thereof...).
- Green technology, especially solar panels. Being married to a solar cell technology research scientist is a bit of a bonus here.
As you can see, not all my subjects of "expertise" are based on academic study, and even in a field as seemingly narrow as "physics" there are clear are areas that I don't venture into. Nevertheless, I feel confident about calling myself knowledgeable in all of the above, and hence I also work in all of them. How my colleagues have gained their experience and defined their specialist areas is something that has always interested me - care to share in the comments?
RSS Feed
