Intercultural Communication and Translation News

The latest goal of researchers at Google is to create a computer that can translate poetry. This ‘Al Complete task’ is “as difficult as anything we can attempt in artificial intelligence”, states Dmitriy Genzel, a research scientist at Google. What particular difficulties are there in the translation of poetry?

Google is not alone in the development of artificial intelligence with so-called ‘human dummy’ potential. IBM recently revealed ‘Watson’, a computer that is capable of understanding human speech and searching through a bank of pre-programmed knowledge in order to compete as a ‘contestant’ on the US game show ‘Jeopardy’.
However the contrast between the two companies’ systems is that whereas Watson possesses the factual and objective human qualities of data assimilation and regurgitation, the Google poetry translator would have to possess the subjective and emotional qualities of humanity that directly respond to our reading (and translating) of poetry. If Watson is our artificial head then the Google translator would need to be our artificial heart.

Genzel presented a paper outlining all the difficulties of artificially translating poetry at a recent conference, alongside possible solutions to some of these issues. One issue that he claimed could be solved was that of structure. The structure of a poem is often seen as academically ‘unique’ and constitutes a wealth of interrelated features that work to both individual and overall ‘effects’. These structural elements include the graphology of a poem, comparative line structure, syntax or word composition and the rhythmic and rhyming patterns of syllables and sounds within the words of each line.

In a way tackling structure could be seen as the best starting point for a system such as Genzel describes. Teach the computer the rules of a poem, its metre, stresses, rhyme, rhythm and so on, and you have a controlled -if not quite objective- framework in which to build. You could take an Alexandrine, for example, and tell the computer to use a frame of twelve syllables per line, with stresses on the sixth and twelfth syllables (as well as other accent and caesura rules). Genzel purports that the computer could easily understand this and as such translate a poem.

In terms of difficulties Genzel states that “the hardest thing to do is rhyme”. Rhyme isn’t a paralinguistic feature, what rhymes in one language may not necessarily rhyme in another, furthermore meaning is not always derived from the sound being ‘rhymed’.  However, couldn’t it be said that structure also has this ‘subjective’ problem and by extension so do all the other features of poetry. You can objectively look at a poem and say that there are four lines per stanza or extended repetition of the letter ‘w’, but you cannot study these features fully without subjectively commenting on their effects and their overarching contribution to the emotional purpose or “feel” of a poem.

Genzel admits that it would be difficult (perhaps he means impossible) to recreate this purpose or “feeling” using computer translation; but he still underplays the problem by stating that there is a “big aspect of poetry translation that machines can do pretty well”. Except a poem is not an individualistic work, features cannot be seen simply to exist or be used, there is always an effect being created even if you aren’t focusing on the poem as a holistic piece.

Translating poetry or ‘literature’ is hard enough even with a human understanding of the nuances of language, a famous example being Cinderella swapping vair (fur) boots for her rather more impractical verre (glass) counterparts as the faerytale was translated into English. With poetry often being considerably shorter than other ‘literary’ works the effect of each word a poet uses is precious and can affect the tone or meaning of an entire stanza or work.

There is no point in retaining the framework of a poem if it no longer creates the effect it was supposed to do. As John Millington Synge appropriately says “A translation is no translation…unless it will give you the music of a poem along with the words of it”.

By very good fortune a translation scam using Kwintessential’s name and brand has been exposed by an eagle-eyed translator.

The email was sent to the translator, who shall be called Mr X, requesting information for a large project.

Dear Mr. X

As translation office on the west coast of the US, we are looking for freelance translators in languages: German, French and Spanish.
Our research for translators in the German language has brought up your name again and again. You have been highly recommended by some of our valued customers and colleagues.

We need to request information on your current rates, your fields of expertise (law, merchandising and advertisement needed), words per day translated also a time schedule of your availability for the months of March, April and May 2011.

The project we will be working on, enfolds a value of 80.000 words, was commissioned by a notable US American company.

We will need your documentation not later than March 01.2011.

Best regards,

Isis Drinsdale
Kwintenssial
Cross Cultural Solutions
PO Box 1164, Monteray California, CA 93942
Telephone: 831.655.9588   from outside of US +001.831.655.9588

Emails went back and forth between Ms Drinsdale and Mr X with the former potentially placing a large amount of work. It was by good fortune that Mr X was suspicious of the email due to 1) the email being a non-company address (isndrins@aim.com) and 2) the misspelling of Kwintessential. Out of prudency Mr X decided to reply and CCd in our USA office whose address was used in the signature. Our Manager in the USA immediately drew our attention to the matter.

It appears the scam works in the following manner; a translation agency wins a contract to carry out a translation job. In order to increase their profit margins they send emails to freelance translators requesting they take on the assignment. The poor translator naturally feels they are in good hands but will eventually come to realize they will never be paid. The scamming agency therefore makes a 100% mark-up. All the translator can do is come to the real Kwintessential who will obviously have no idea of what has happened.
It is extremely unfortunate that people feel they have to carry out their business without principles and ethics. It is these scammers that give us reputable agencies a bad name. On top of this they are taking advantage of the good will of translators who work extremely hard, are true professionals and do not deserve such treatment.

Thankfully Mr X was clever enough to work out the bad intentions of Ms Drinsdale. We have written to Ms Drinsdale but surprise surprise no reply.

Message of the story for translators is always check the credentials of the agency and ensure 100% they are the real deal.

One of the Relationship Managers in our UK office came across a clever bit of global marketing from the people at AT&T.

US Consumers actually voted the campaign as “America’s Favorite Magazine Ad” in a  contest sponsored by Magazine Publishers of America back in 2009.  In the “Hands” campaign, created by BBDO, human hands are intricately painted and posed to depict iconic images representing countries around the world that fall within AT&T’s international footprint. Acclaimed artist Guido Daniele of Milan, Italy paints the hands, a process that can take up to a full day. Examples have included hands painted and arranged to become the Great Wall of China; the Rialto Bridge (Venice, Italy); elephants (India); tulips (Netherlands) and an exotic bird among trees (Costa Rica), among many other executions.

Below are some of the images or you can see all of them at this website.

John Yunker (of  Byte Level) will be speaking in a seminar on February 24th. The webinar is being hosted by Lionbridge. John will be talking about translation agencies (also known as LSPs) and what he has learned over the years as both a buyer and seller of translation services.

The webinar will be of interest if you’re new to the language industry or if you find yourself confused by the terminology and overwhelmed by the myriad choices in services.

By attending this webinar you will learn:
* What questions you should ask any prospective language partner
* What questions you should ask yourself before looking for a language provider
* Why sample translations don’t always work (and what you should ask for instead)

Register here > Webinar

A Kwintessential Relationship Manager recently apologised to a client “for any incontinence caused” [rather than inconvenience].  Luckily the client saw the funny side of things as did the rest of our office. In honour of the typo we thought we would search out some of the funniest typos, examples of bad grammar, etc to brighten your day.

God only knows what this Chinese translator was looking up when he chose this brand name!

You simply can’t beat a bag of fresh crap…

I bet this sold quickly!

Simply poetic! Go tell those pesky immigrants how to spell…

I think the author of this road marking should have gone to…yes, school.

The Egyptian Revolution has brought to the forefront the role of social media in the modern world. Debate continues over the role websites such as Facebook and Twitter played in the movement in Egypt; however to what extent these websites played a role in the revolution is not important. What is important is that they were part of it at all.
The role of Facebook and Twitter is unquestionable. It is well documented that Facebook, under the guidance of Wael Ghonim, was used to galvanise support and ‘market’ the movement to the young, affluent, web-savvy population of Egypt. Similarly, Twitter was used to update protestors as to whereabouts, movements and strategies in their battle against pro-Mubarak groups, the police and others.  Both were a part of the Revolution but not the whole.  The success of the movement was only made possible by the thousands camping and protesting on the streets.
As observers it was extremely interesting to watch how two American websites had a) become so much part of daily life for Egyptians and b) a hands-on role in a major political turning point not witnessed in the region since 1979. The prediction was made many years ago that the World Wide Web would slowly become a platform for multilingual, cross-cultural interaction. Whether it was for business, information or anything else the potential to gain an international audience has never been so easy.  With English becoming the international language of choice, websites waking up to the fact that a simple translation can bring in thousands more readers and businesses spotting opportunities it was only a matter of time that something as amazing as the ‘Revolution 2.0’ occurred.
This has shown the world that truly amazing things can happen through the internet as long as it can be utilised by everyone. Twitter seem to have been galvanised by this thought and have now announced their plans to the launch the Twitter Translation Centre. The aim to tap into the language skills of the more than 190 million users in order to add Russian, Turkish, Portuguese and Indonesian to its expanding repertoire of translation options.
The message is simple – the internet is here to stay. It’s global. Its potential is massive. Any organisation or business now has to take it seriously and invest in it to maximise their potential on the global stage.

Life in Britain is becoming more multi-cultural. We hear this view from the media, the government and experts all the time. But what does this ‘culture’ for which we are diversifying actually mean?

Collins English dictionary outlines culture as “the total of the inherited ideas, beliefs, values, and knowledge, which constitute the shared bases of social action”. Yet when we here about culture, a specific way of life or belief system, why do we nearly always focus on the ‘other’ or the ‘different’. It seems that to be a person of ‘culture’ (beyond the liberal arts definition) you have to belong to a group that has a strongly defined ‘alternative’ lifestyle.

Does this twisting of culture, to mean someone from a strongly valued minority, suggest that the ‘cultured’ among us will be far more understanding towards cultures beyond their own than the rest of us?

Lets take the example of someone having a clearly defined religion. This person of ‘Culture’ attends religious ceremonies, prays in a regular manner, has strong beliefs on morality and family, and is in the minority in our Western increasingly secular society. Will this person be more likely to travel to far-flung regions and investigate cultures such as the Massai tribesman or Tibetan Buddhist monks, than someone with no clearly defined religious, social or political beliefs?

If you are a person with very rigid beliefs and practices surrounding religion or politics or society or ethics then you are deemed ‘of culture’. Therefore is Western Society right in assuming you would be more understanding towards ‘remote cultures’ than say the average ‘Londoner’. You understand what it is like to believe in something very strongly, to have a defined lifestyle that stems from your values of the world. Strong values to strong values, yes?

Another example, this time of the ‘Londoner’. A man, thirty-five, works as an assistant manager in the city, agnostic, drinks in moderation, votes for his favourite candidate regardless of party, has an on-off partner. Our environment tells us that this person is the ‘neutral’, a person without strong religious, social or political beliefs; he cannot be ‘of culture’. Therefore does that mean that he sees our first person as an enigma, a strange mix of inherited ideas, beliefs and values, totally impregnable to him? Surely if he went to the Massai he would boggle at them, he would be confused and disconcerted?

No. It is a myth that our second man has no culture when the truth is he is as much a man of ‘culture’ as our first religious follower. The ‘Neutral’ is not neutral at all. We have just heard a series of inherited views throughout his description, a barrage of cultural information. We know he drinks moderately (believing in a healthy body), he votes politically by candidate (he invests trust in an individual rather than a more holistically-themed party), he has an on-off partner and he is thirty-five (he believes in relationships but doesn’t believe marriage/civil partnership should be rushed). In just three vaguely descriptive statements we have learnt about the intellectual, social and moral views of the Londoner. Just as the ‘cultured’ believes in the family, looks after his soul through prayer and believes in the justice of a God/Gods, the Londoner has a whole stream of cultural beliefs.

What happens then when we introduce our two men to ‘remote cultures’?
The ‘Cultured’ might admire the dedication of the Tibetan monks; or he might protest at their rejection of a God. The ‘Londoner’ might see similarities between the structural order of the Massai tribe and his own CEO-lead company (from Laibon to children); or he might be baffled by their pastoral way of life when he is so used to technological dependency.

We all have our own culture; we all have our own beliefs that develop over our lives. Culture is not exclusive and neither should be understanding.