Translating Technical Terms
Youjin Jeon
Table of Contents
There is a critical step preceding translating technical terms. It is selecting a translation method of the foreign-originated terms among different choices. You can imagine all translators cannot avoid this difficult decision-making step. It is possible to simplify this step and prioritize consistency across translations here by presenting one of these paths as a standard. However, without hastily establishing a standard, we will discuss different situations that phonetic translation and semantic translation are required, respectively.
Phonetic translation-a way to refer to accurate information
The first case where the phonetic translation is necessary is when the foreign word has already been used frequently and carries sufficient effect as a signifier. This method would be especially effective when there is no Korean word existing yet in place for the foreign word. The English term ‘system’ from the Friendly Error System can be a good example to examine this. An English-Korean dictionary would interpret the term as ‘제도 (制度, institution),’ ‘장치 (裝置, installation),’ ‘체계 (體系, structure),’ etc. Even though these choices are not misinterpreting the word ‘system,’ they somehow invoke more monumental and formal feelings than what we want to convey. Perhaps this tone or feel comes from how these selected words are made: assemblages of sinographs (again, foreign symbols not native to Korean)? Also, the phonetic translation of ‘system’ is already often used in the Korean language, making it a powerful signifier. However, we are not simply recommending using phonetic translation for the words like ‘system.’ In contrast, the translation process should involve examining how two languages (the origin language and the destination language) have been interacting at the crossroads—trying to read the current trend from the messy, ever-shifting linguistic culture.
Plus, we may need to consider additional aspects for translating technical terms. Namely, we need to consider whether the term is repeated often in the document or application, whether the term refers to a unique object, and whether the term can create a path for the user to more advanced topics. It is also necessary to be wary of unconditionally supporting “purification of language,”an effort to translate all foreign-originated words into “pure” Korean words, although the issue demands further discussions. We all know an extreme but familiar example, a tragicomic case of the translated STEM textbook. Even though the book is fully translated, because its translation is impossible to comprehend, you must get the original English book and reread it. In fact, if you look at technical textbooks used in Korean STEM education, many technical terms are borrowed from Chinese or Japanese expressions. For example, ‘매개변수 (媒介変数, parameter),’ ‘전역변수 (広域変数, global variable),’ ‘재귀함수 (再帰関数, recursive function)’ are written in Korean, but they are Japan-oriented sinographic terms for the missing Korean words. Let's consider the following example from the STEM field: 집적회로(集積回路, integrated circuit). A native Korean speaker cannot understand the expression ‘집적 (集積, “acculumation” in Japanese)’ intuitively from the term ‘집적회로.’ Even though the term is now officially a part of the Korean language, this is a case where the Korean term feels even more unfamiliar than the original English term because it contains an expression that is rarely used in the Korean language. A translation should be about removing the distance from the original language, but an ‘unkind’ translation will broaden the gap between the reader and the original message.
There are also cases where a translated technical term doesn’t necessarily distort the original meaning but fails to capture the original word’s core concept or gist. A good example of this will be the translation of “potential energy,” one of the important concepts in physics and electrical engineering, in Korean: 위치에너지 (position energy). In addition, there are many instances where many translations exist for one term and confuse readers. The problem is due to how many academic disciplines and technologies are imported to Korea through different channels. When translating a technical term, we need to take into account accessibility: how effectively the translated term can connect the reader to the origin, the original resource/discourse. Even if the reader doesn’t immediately experience inconvenience in the context where the translated expression is presented, having access to the original term will be definitely helpful when doing an internet search or self-learning. Or, we can argue that the translation quality depends on whether the translated expression is used widely in other resources or only in the particular document.
Moreover, even if the phonetic translation is used, we may not stop at simply substituting English pronunciation for Korean alphabets one-on-one. We will need to consider how much of the term’s technical context and background we want to include while lowering the technical barrier. How should we translate the word “debugger” in this sentence that simply introduces FES?: “Welcome! This is your friendly debugger.” We can even contemplate the word “debugger.” The word links the tool to its main process (debugging) and adds friendliness by anthropomorphizing (agent noun). We can try to do the one-to-one phonetic translation, but ‘디버거(sounds: di-buh-guh)’ feels a bit awkward in Korean. However, ‘디버거’ communicates the essential function of FES (= 디버깅, debugger). Taking the best of both worlds, we can revert ‘디버거 (debugger)’ into ‘디버깅 (debugging)’ and add the Korean word ‘안내문 guide note’ or ‘알림말 notification message’ to clarify. So the final translation would be: “디버깅을 돕는 친절한 안내문입니다. (This is a friendly notification message to help your debugging process.).” If possible, we may also add a short explanation about the debugging process. Of course, trying to include all the technical details will make the message too long, so we will have to find the balance. An easy-to-understand, friendly explanation doesn’t equal a lengthy description. We risk sacrificing the message’s readability and obscuring the key point using a long sentence.
Semantic translation-a way to lower the language barrier
Without a doubt, there are cases where translating the meaning of a technical term is more effective than phonetic translation. Would it be best to translate word for word respecting the origin of the term and technology? In tech, the idea of “open”-source is widespread. However, technology’s “closed” inaccessibility due to the language barrier is rarely discussed. In other words, it is easy to make a code “open-source,” but it is also easy to forget that one needs a particular set of background knowledge acquired in a specific language. In this sense, translating technical terms is labor lowering the barrier and building up a foundation and path toward the “open” world. Without this labor, “open-source” cannot be truly open for people without the specific prior knowledge.
Building the foundation connects directly to the openness and accessibility of the technology. The recent development of computer science and its related technology, so-called cutting-edge technology, was dominated by a myopic, unidirectional version of progress. In such a mentality, slowing down or waiting for people behind would be rare. When new technology reaches a region, the delicate language problem, which the people in the destination will experience, would be a low priority for the exporters. However, the gap between the origin and destination widens each moment since the speed of technological development accelerates. At the same time, technical translation is a low-priority task that “always sits back-burner.” We must acknowledge that creating “open” or accessible technology shares the same importance as developing new technology. It is a matter requiring coordination between a vast range of efforts, including multi-language translation, accessibility policy, internationalization strategy, information sharing methods, and platform design.
In the open-source software, most internationalization tasks relied on individual contributions, often initiated by the respective contributor. The motivations for these individual contributions are diverse, for example, self-learning, education, or public service. Undoubtedly, each of these individual contributions has brought much value to the contributor and the open-source community. Even so, we need to be critical of the given position of a “follower” of technology development. Recall the contrast between the accelerated pace of industrialized technological development and the careful process of manual translation, where a translator examines multiple sociocultural aspects for every part and level of text. Each day we wake up from the dream that the development of technology alone can drive a way to progress. Like a double-edged sword, as technology advances, it creates new problems. Humanity has ignored responsibility for quite some time, and now we have to respond to self-destructive consequences such as the immediate environmental crisis. Likewise, any technology now has to think not only about finding value in its effectiveness but also about the obligations and responsibilities that come with it. This is especially true in the case of the tech industry and its ecosystem, where a tool or a company’s competitiveness and value increase as more people consume and utilize its service. Although the problem of language requires more effort and attention than ever, it may become more challenging to solve in the future due to the aforementioned growing gap. Not to stop at raising concerns, [5. machine translation/ swarming in between] chapter introduces practcal directions for contempory translation process.
Let’s revisit our argument on phonetic translation. If we translate, for example, FES solely based on phonetic translation, readers unfamiliar with coding will have difficulty finding clues or entry points reading the translated message. The core of “friendly” design is considering the experience of people who will benefit most from translation. As an extreme example to avoid, you could make a sentence consists of only phonetic notation except for the propositions: “로컬 리소스를 로드하는 데 클라이언트의 액세스가 블락당했습니다. (for lo-ding lo-kul re-so-sou, the ack-sess of the cly-uhnt has been blah-ked.)” If we simply replaced technical terms with phonetic notation while keeping the sentence structure as seen in the example, the sentence would sound awkward and unnatural. In addition, if we only provide Korean phonetic translation, it will add an extra step (looking up an English spelling of the original term) to the reader’s experience. Unless there is a particular reason to use the phonetic translation, it is necessary to reserve a block of time to search for a good word in the native language. Such efforts will lower the barriers in tech and create a ‘kind’ open channel for more people to participate and communicate.
Be aware of nominalization issues and ensure consistency
As we discussed in the last two sections, effective communication is the most important goal of translation, even for deciding between phonetic translation and semantic translation. The worst translation would make the message even more challenging to understand than the original one, which we want to avoid. A common pitfall in Korean translation is inventing a long compound noun comprised of subject or complement words in an attempt to translate an unfamiliar concept. This phenomenon is called ‘명사화(nominalization),’ to which many Korean translators and linguists have paid special attention. For example, changing ‘변수를 선언하는 것이 요구된다 (Declaring a variable is required)’ to ‘변수를 선언해야 한다(must declare a variable)’ and, ‘값의 지정을 필요로 한다 (assigning a value is needed)’ to ‘값을 지정하다(assign a value)’ would increase readability by cutting out words and simplifying sentence. Translation is not only about substituting the original text into another language but also a process of unpacking unnecessary words and rewriting sentence structure to emphasize the key message.
Finally, stick to one translation method for a technical term to ensure consistency after deciding between phonetic and semantic translation methods. If we have two different translations for a term, it would add confusion and require extra effort to draw the relationship between these versions. [Pledge among translators: Glossary] introduces the Glossary for p5js translation to help collaboration among translators. Let’s try not to forget programming language and library, including p5js FES, is a kind of agreement among the community. Since technical terms are used repeatedly, the issue of maintaining consistency seems perhaps more important than arguing for a “correct” translation method.