by Laura Leotta*

Today, Spanish is the mother tongue of over 400 million people, making it the second world language in terms of the number of native speakers. It is also the official language of 21 countries and logically the evolution of the Spanish language in each of those countries has led to a certain linguistic differentiation which involves a necessary adaptation of our texts depending on the country where the translation will be used.

It is, however, rare that a translation order specify the country where the text will be used, despite the fact that many misunderstandings and pitfalls could be avoided if this information was systematically provided.

It is true that major international organisations or leading industrial or pharmaceutical groups increasingly ask for “international” Spanish which is as “neutral” as possible, so that it can be used both in Spain and in Latin American countries.
On the one hand, this type of text calls for significant experience in translation, preferably within a team of colleagues from different Spanish-speaking countries. On the other hand, it should be said that it is not always possible to write perfectly neutral texts, which can compel us to lean one way or the other taking into account various factors such as the target market of a text, the most widespread meaning of a word, etc.

In practice and even if this does not correspond to linguistic reality, the European translation market tends to distinguish the Spanish of Spain from that of Latin America, even if in some fields there is as much difference between Mexico and Argentina as between Mexico and Spain.
In fact, to be slightly more in touch with reality, one should at least be able to identify the difference between Spanish from Spain, Southern Cone Spanish (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Bolivia…), Caribbean Spanish (Colombia, Venezuela…), Spanish from Central America and Mexico and, finally, the Spanish spoken by the Hispanic community in the United States, which has over the years created its own codes and practices and which will be the largest Spanish-speaking community in the world by 2050!
Beyond the theoretical or ideological debates on actual or supposed correctness of language, we consider that it is always a good idea to “locate” a text to the greatest possible extent, i.e. to adapt it as much as possible to the country where it will be used, so that it can serve its intended purpose, namely that of being understood by its readers.

* Laura started her career as a freelance translator for five years. She then worked as a project manager in a large American agency where she was confronted with a wide variety of needs in terms of adapting texts to different Spanish-speaking countries. In our team, above and beyond continuing to deal with this type of request, she takes care of managing special requests (source languages we do not handle in-house, unusual formats…).

By Roser Pararols*

Imagine you have a 100,000-word translation to deliver within a time frame of 15 business days (i.e. three 5-day weeks).

For some project managers, the calculation is quite simple: You need only share the work among 3 translators who will each translate 2,220 words a day. And even if they do not explicitly impose our internal organization on us, we are asked for partial deliveries of 13,000 words every two days, which means that we have to involve 3 colleagues from the very start.

This type of project management, which is often not even justified by delivery or project-use constraints, is typical of “nervous” project managers who want to be sure that we will not be late. Alas, from a quality viewpoint, it is genuinely counter-productive…

On the one hand, it is very difficult to harmonise vocabulary and style when three colleagues are working concomitantly from the very first sentences of a project, even if they regularly consult each other. Moreover, it very often happens that the imposed order of deliveries does not take into account the logic of the translation and that the meaning of certain concepts in the first files delivered only becomes clear at the end.

Even when such partial deliveries are justified by the fact that there is a final harmonization in-house, this way of working only complicates the task of the final reviewer, who has to react as he goes along and who is always a few files behind on the new instructions he would like to give in terms of vocabulary or style…

Many problems could be avoided if we managed things differently. For this type of project, it is better to have a colleague and a proofreader involved in the first phase, when the glossary is consolidated and the memory created, even if this means that nothing is delivered the first week.

The first 10% of the data base (10,000 words in this case) are decisive for the rest of the project, provided that the first files to be translated are well chosen.

With a good memory and a good validated glossary (if possible, validated by the subsidiary in the country concerned), the translation process can be accelerated as from the second week, during which 4 colleagues can work on the translation if necessary.

The total deadline will not be modified, but the final proofreading will be easier and the overall quality of the project will be improved.

* Roser worked as a freelance translator for the first two years of her career, during which she had the opportunity of working with Nintendo as a JP/EN/FR-ES translator before joining a video-game localization company in Ireland, where she worked for two years. She then specialized in project management and was awarded the Professional Diploma in Project Management by Oxford College ODL. In our team, she is in charge of project management and proofreading.

By Diego Leotta*

In recent years, we translators have had to adapt ourselves to the market and learn to work with increasingly complex formats that require a deal of work in layout or DTP.

The number of programs we have had to learn to use has not stopped growing. Until a few years ago, we received almost all our texts in formats such as Word, PowerPoint and Excel. Today, however, we receive them in a great variety of formats: Microsoft Visio, Microsoft Publisher, Adobe InDesign, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe FrameMaker, Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Flash, Quark, etc.

It is therefore no surprise that, over time, translation and DTP have become two sides of the same coin to such a point that a team of translators, such as ours, needs to possess internal DPT skills.

With regard to the different tasks involved in translations with these programs, five general categories can be distinguished:

-        The preparation of documents for translation.

-        The correction of formats (indices, styles, automatic fields, hyperlinks, tables, bullet points, repairing animations, etc.).

-        General editing and preparation of images: text extraction and insertion.

-        Optical and design adjustments, final format checks.

-        Integrating translations into online interfaces.

For most translators, DTP work can be rather dull and tedious.  It does, however, play a part in the overall quality of a translation, be it good or bad; as such it must be done precisely and rigorously.

*Diego takes care of Intexto’s technological back office. As well as carrying out the DTP work mentioned above, he is also in charge of managing the different CAT tools: reference text alignments, memory configuration, memory maintenance, etc.

By Fernando Feldman*

In our profession, we all know those “demanding” customers, the ones who systematically want to “correct” texts or question the quality of the work done. Irrespective of whether they are right or not, the real issue is to understand the nature of their objections so as to earn their trust.

Taking into account the fact that we all have our better days and that we provide an intellectual service where quality cannot be measured as objectively as in industrial manufacturing, it is not surprising that our work is sometimes commented on or criticized by certain customers. But it is precisely because of the subjective nature of our work that it is indispensable to implement a procedure based on systematic proofreading so as to reduce quality-related uncertainties. Our objective is to ensure that the translations delivered always benefit from a second critical examination and are able to usefully serve their purpose, even if they are not always as “perfect” as we might hope.

For a multilingual digital production agency, there is nothing as maddening as losing a customer because of a language that is not translated in-house. Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing that can happen when you don’t have the skills to manage objections internally.

The reasons for difficult relations with certain customers can be explained by very diverse factors. To mention but a few:

1) “Subjective” reasons (more related to human relations than to linguistic issues):

- where the customer has had a previous “negative experience” with another agency;

- a comment from someone in the company (a sales representative, an executive secretary who claims to be “trilingual”, etc.) questioning the quality of the work in an attempt to impress a manager.

2) “Objective” reasons (related to linguistic issues):

- differences between the vocabulary used by the subsidiaries and the vocabulary used in the translations (regional expressions, specific wording);

- very specific company jargon;

- the price offered to the translators does not match the difficulty of the text (some texts require double proofeading!)

Whatever the reason, experience has taught us that the most important thing in this type of situation is the relationship you have established with the customer. The customer must be convinced that the team in charge of his translations has all the necessary skills and that it would be difficult for him to find better quality on the market for the same price. It is sometimes worthwhile to put the customer in contact with a person in your agency who has the necessary linguistic authority to clear up any doubts and abate mistrust.

This is particularly true of unjustified or “bad faith” criticism. But it is also true where there are linguistic issues linked to the objective reasons mentioned above. In fact, any objection can be an opportunity to win the trust of the end customer and reassure him about our methods. If the problem comes from lack of command of their corporate vocabulary, for example, this provides an opportunity to propose a method for validation by subsidiaries. Among competent people working together in good faith, there is no reason why we should not come to an understanding.

Ideally, of course, your agency could have someone in-house capable of serving as an interface for Spanish with respect to the client. But even if you do not have someone in-house, there are other solutions…

By the way, have you heard of our My Spanish division partnership?

* Fernando has been a translator and conference interpreter since 1994. He is the coordinator and distributor of tasks within the team. As a proofreader, he has one major flaw, according to his colleagues: He is never entirely satisfied with the quality of the work. The same colleagues, however, acknowledge that he has at least two qualities: His aptitude to choose a competent team to support him and his eagle eye to spot whatever is wrong with a text!