Editors and Machine Translations into English
I posted this on LinkedIn on August 22, 2024, in three parts, and I have made some minor additions.
How best can editors work on text that has been machine translated into English? While some of my clients do use machine translations, some of my clients do not and advise against using machine translations.
When a client uses machine translations into English before hiring me as an editor for the English publication, I find that editing often goes beyond the usual scope for a copyedit (as defined by Editors Canada), and I need to understand the potential benefits and pitfalls of machine translations to do my edit well.
Here are 9 practices I recommend for editors facing the same situation:
1. Check out what machine translation involves, possible applications, and risks. Here are some sources.
· Government of Canada’s “Using new language technologies and machine translation,” subsection “To use or not to use machine translation, that is the question” <https://lnkd.in/eBjCuEtP>
· Slate article “Death by Machine Translation?” https://lnkd.in/ecbcBm6k
· “5 Risks of Machine Translation” < https://lnkd.in/eJqibMqg>
2. Ask what post-machine translation process the text has gone through before it lands on your desk. For example, after the machine translation, was there a post-machine translation edit of the text by a human translator? Or did the multilingual authors and subject experts review the text to identify errors in the translation and address those errors before the text was sent to the English editor?
3. Consider the client’s style guide, other references, and process. Does the client answer questions about many publications, refer to precedents, and refer other questions to the author team?
4. Consider multiple Englishes. Likely the machine translation defaults to US or UK English, but what does the intended audience know and prefer? What does the client require? What national, regional, and local considerations are factors?
5. Use high-value resources and use them well–e.g., a specialist glossary of terms in English for the subject, a wealth of online and hard copy dictionaries (Oxford, Merriam-Webster Collegiate 11th edition, Collins, the online Oxford English Dictionary, and the online Oxford Reference).
6. Consider the process for the edit in English. Will the edit go through at least two rounds of edits: first, an edit with tracked changes and queries or comments to authors; then the authors’ careful review of the text to check the edit and answer all questions; and then at least a second edit round to resolve all text changes and clean up the text?
7. Review for key words and phrases, concepts, and terms of art that are used and expected in the subject area. Are there areas of text that are vague or might lack nuance? Does the text use many different words or phrases for the same thing? Does the text seem to oversimplify a term of art because of a limited vocabulary in machine translation?
8. Keep a style sheet and query the subject expert/author team about specific wordings and patterns of language. Does the text use words and phrases that will be familiar to the audience and explain those that are unfamiliar but necessary in the context? Does it use those words and phrases clearly, consistently, and with precision? Does the text vary language in a way that might be unhelpful for the target audience; does it look like the writers dug into a thesaurus too many times? This might result from machine translation translating each word and phrase separately and without regard for the context and consistency. For example, I have often queried early in a manuscript that three similar phrases are used repeatedly but in a way that is not clear and distinct to me, so what distinctions are being made and are the uses clear and appropriate in each case?
9. Review for tone and style. What tone is wanted for the intended audience? Is the tone and style consistently formal and academic, consistently informal, or a combination? Is the language vague? What style is clear, correct, and precise for the intended audience?
Writers, editors, translators, publishers, and other organizations communicating in multiple languages, please share what you have learned in your work and about machine translations. Thanks!
Canadian Spelling: It’s Complicated!
May 2023
An editor colleague recently asked in an online editors’ group about how to direct a client to information about Canadian spelling. Like a good number of Canadian editors, I shake my head with frustration: It’s complicated.
Canadian English is sometimes presented as half British, half American, but inconveniently neither. However, the real issue is that Canadian English is a thing of its own, drawing on different traditions, and with its own unique words but without a core reference that is regularly updated.
Here are some sources and commentaries.
- The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 2nd edition, (sometimes referred to as CanOx2) is a gem, but dates back to 2004 and is (sadly) not being updated. Clients might have the printed dictionaries in their offices. Members of Editors Canada can access CanOx2 online as a membership service (choosing the Oxford Reference Online Premium Collection and specifically the Canadian Oxford Dictionary). Others (including clients) might be able to access the same source through their own workplace or public library.
- Caps and Spelling from the Canadian Press is the guide for Canadian journalists, and it’s regularly updated. I recommend Caps and Spelling for words that do not appear in CanOx2 (e.g., Covid-19, bitcoin) or for words that might be changing in meaning, spelling, or both. Members of Editors Canada can access Caps and Spelling online as a membership service.
While the Canadian Oxford Dictionary and CP’s Caps and Spelling might not be available to clients, clients might appreciate an easy-to-access article about Canadian spelling by a Canadian editor (Virginia St-Denis) in the Language Portal of Canada and this page.
Some editors might turn to an online source such “Dave VE7CNV’s Truly Canadian Dictionary of Canadian Spelling,” but I question if it is current. I prefer to stick to CanOx2 and Caps and Spelling as authoritative sources and then keep a careful style sheet.
And for those wondering why there is no updated dictionary of Canadian English, well, it’s a big question and one that is being worked on. This CBC article from 2022 gets into some of the details.
On Canadian English and Dictionaries: Q&A
Here’s a list of Canadian dictionaries I have on my bookshelf. Question: What stands out?
- Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 1st edition © 1998; 2nd edition © 2004—edited by Katherine Barber
- Gage Canadian Dictionary © 1997, “a major revision of Gage Canadian Dictionary © 1983; Canadian Senior Dictionary © 1979; The Senior Dictionary © 1973, 1967”
- Gage Canadian Dictionary Intermediate © 1991
- ITP Nelson Canadian Dictionary of the English Language © 1997, “adapted from the American Heritage High School Dictionary, 3rd edition, published by Houghton Mifflin Company”
- The Penguin Canadian Dictionary © 1990, a Penguin Books Canada/Copp Clark Pitman Book—edited by Thomas M. Paikeday
Answers: How old they are. How some are adapted.
In an opinion piece in Quill and Quire, Emma Skagen (a fellow Canadian editor) complains about the lack of an updated, homegrown dictionary of Canadian English. I agree with her concern. Writers and editors have complex relationships with dictionaries.
The fact that Oxford University Press published the Canadian Oxford Dictionary under the outstanding editor-in-chief Katherine Barber was a feat, but today CanOx or COD (as Canadian editors call it) needs to be updated, or some other new, homegrown dictionary of Canadian English needs to be developed.
Back before 1998, I heard things like “Use Gage but change to ‘-our’ and see our style guide for other preferences, and note all variations on the style sheet.” Or “use Gage but use ‘–or’ because this is for the Alberta and B.C. market.” Or “Use Nelson and keep a style sheet, of course.” Or “Use the most-recent Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary and check CP Style for anything you can’t find, and keep a style sheet, of course.” And can you imagine teaching spelling in Canadian schools? And what about distinctly Canadian and regional words and their meanings? Keep a style sheet, of course.
The years 1997 and 1998 changed all that. Three different dictionaries of Canadian English were released and CanOx had particular heft (“five years of work by five Canadian lexicographers examining almost twenty million words of Canadian text held in databases representing over 8,000 different Canadian publications” not to mention the regional analysis and the database of citations shared by lexicographers for the Oxford English Dictionary around the world). Canadian editors could look to one source describing Canadian English (and keep a style sheet, of course) as we edited, queried authors, and wrote. We could even compare new dictionaries—word nerd heaven!
The second and last edition of CanOx was published in 2004. So, for a descriptive (not prescriptive) dictionary, that is old. Yes, Oxford University Press (OUP) makes ongoing additions with Canadian English to Oxford Languages. And, yes, a Canadian editor could use a combination of CanOx from 2004 and the Canadian Press Caps and Spelling or specific subject, industry, or government guides. Could Editors Canada collaborate with Canadian publishers to create an up-to-date, homegrown dictionary of Canadian English? Alas, Editors Canada had long negotiations about that, as Emma Skagen recounts in Quill and Quire, but no contract was signed.
So while editors who edit Canadian English grumble about their patchwork solutions, it isn’t as bad as it once was and yet we still need to find a solution. We can dream.