by David Blank
The globalization of the world economy is pushing us towards greater developments in translation research. I argue it is this newly created need to bring cultures together which creates a need to re-examine the study of translation. Therefore, this essay will primarily serve to examine the impact of evolving technology on the study of translation. I will discuss how Artificial Intelligence (AI), in the area of Machine Translation (MT), is changing the way translations are done. Finally, I will argue that it is necessary to remain critical within the discipline of translation studies in order that the implications of the globalization of translation .
The art of translation has long been the domain of diligent scholars who slaved over handwritten manuscripts. Today, however, new advances in AI research have made it possible for computers to translate texts from one language to another. This is accomplished through MT research, with positive and negative results.
As it stands today however, no one can envision a future where machines can translate accurately. Rather, the efforts are focused on providing human translators with valuable resources which can enhance the quality of their work.
For professional translators, the attraction of the workstation is the integration of tools from simple word processing aids (spelling and grammar checkers) to full automatic translation. The translator can choose to make use of whichever tool seems most appropriate for the task in hand. The vendors of these systems always stress that translators do not have to change their work patterns; the systems aim to increase productivity with translator-oriented tools which are easy to use and fully compatible with existing word processing systems. ELRA Newsletter vol. 1 no. 4, December 1996, European Association of Machine Translation, John Hutchins
Ultimately then, the translator benefits from improvements in machine translation software. Many of the more mundane tasks associated with translation, such as spell-checking, can be done by the machine. However, machines cannot answer the most vital questions that translators deal with. To gain a further understanding of the questions that MT researchers ask themselves, I interviewed professor Susan Fox at Macalester College (click the link to read a transcript of the interview). Her comments are quite elucidating with respect to the challenges AI professionals face in developing MT programs that work. In fact, as the interview demonstrates, work in this area reveals more about the human mind than about machines.
All the above developments in the field of MT point to the inevitable fact that a new discourse, or at least a revision of the current one, is necessary. This new discourse should emphasize the importance of remaining critical of the process of globalization while studying or doing translations. Since globalization is an economic force which generates new technologies, it is to the advantage of large corporations to produce efficient and accurate translations.
This "globalization of translation" raises particularly critical questions regarding the legitimacy of translations. We must be aware of the arguments of Jaquemond and Murray. In Jaquemond's theory of post-colonial translation, a critique emerges of how the act of translation is an act of power. In an era when translation is motivated by globalization and technology this political interpretation make it necessary to have the translation process as transparent as possible. Murray also makes important critiques which apply to globalization. For example, his discussion of textualizing the Indians out of existence implies that the act of translation plays a vital role in mediating inter-cultural understanding and establishing tropes.
Considering these arguments, the effect of translations on international politics is substantial. A good case in point where translation, or lack thereof, affects inter-cultural understanding occurs on the Internet. Note the frequency with which other cultural groups, delineated by language, access the Internet (click the link to see a profile of percentages of language groups on the Internet in 1997). Clearly the trends in the profile indicate English is the dominant "Internet language". This fact should immediately cause concern if one takes Murray and Jaquemond seriously.
A final observation from that profile is the number of other language groups who access the Internet. The numbers indicate that never before have so many cultures interacted simultaneously, and a result of that interaction is an increased demand for translation services. This demand should not adversely affect the quality and accuracy of translations or resist reflexive analysis of itself.
If the effort is not made, we will see an increase in the marginalization of certain cultural groups by way of language.