Translation and Localization

(This is a part of the literature review in Hariyanto’s Dissertation Research report. For citation, quote: Hariyanto, Sugeng. 2009. The Translation of Company Websites from English into Indonesian. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Graduate Program, State University of Malang, Indonesia.)

Translation as a profession and a field of study is familiar to us. Many literatures have dealt with it. Localization, in contrast, is a new term in Translation Studies, and it even has only existed as a profession and industry since two decades ago (Dunne, 2006: 1). It is not in the mainstream of translation theory. Although localization has become a vast growing business, not many translation authorities have dealt with these translation-related activities. According to Pym (2000), the topic of localization has not developed from translation theory, nor is it an invention of academic linguistics. It comes from practice.

The term ‘localization’ originally referred to the production of software for many languages and cultures. The word ‘locale’ is assumed as a convenient term for a particular configuration of language and culture. Localization would mean rewriting software so that it can work in a different locale. This would involve both translation (in the restricted sense of replacing user-visible natural language strings) and adaptation (adjusting to the local conventions of numeric representation, currency, dates and so on). Thus, in translation studies, localization would be understood as this. For Information Technology persons, however, localization mostly relates to the non-translational aspects, including the necessary re-engineering of the program, the changing of dialogue boxes, the re-allocation of hot-keys, the coordination of all the changes, and the testing of the localized version (Pym, 2000).

Folaron (2006), in her effort to understand the essence of localization, cites four definitions. The first and the basis for later understanding of localization is that of Esselink (2003: 4): “localization revolves around combining language and technology to produce a product that can cross cultural and language barriers.” In this sense, localization is a part of a new field called Globalization, Internationalization, Localization, and Translation (GILT).

Globalization, often shortened as G11N, refers to the process of designing, developing, and adapting a product for distribution in multiple countries.  This process includes, among other, internationalization and localization. Furthermore, within the localization, translation is done. Internationalization (i18n) is the process of designing a product so that it can be adapted to various languages and locales without engineering changes. In relation to website, this can be done by preparing or adapting the original website into the one which is quite general in nature. For example, the heavily-culturally-bound example or idioms are replaced with the general ones. With an internalization phase well completed, the localization stage can be done quite easily.

Localization—as defined by LISA[1] (2005)—is “the process of taking and making products linguistically and culturally appropriate to the target locale (country/region and language)”. As for websites, this is the process of making the design (layout, color), a picture (animation, still picture), and verbal component of the website culturally and linguistically suitable to the target locale. Translation is, then, the conversion of the verbal component of the website, usually with necessary modification, from the source language to the target language. Both localization and translation needs understanding of culture and may require adaptation.

Finally, Folaron (2006: 201) states that localization needs to be defined in terms of its own historical dynamics and its growth as industry that is constantly absorbing new technology. Further she says that GILT processes address diverse language and cultural issues. While this statement does not pinpoint the definition of localization, it shows three important considerations in localization: diverse language, culture, and technology. Language and culture are certainly within the scope of translation discussion, but, technology is not typically discussed within conventional translation theory.

Referring to the importance of understanding GILT processes in order to understand localization, Dunne (2006, 2) defines localization completely as follows:

The processes by which digital content and products developed in one locale (defined in terms of geographical area, language and culture) are adapted for sale and use in another locale. Localization involves: (a) translation of textual content into the language and textual conventions of the target locale; and (b) adaptation of nontextual content (from colors, icons and bitmaps, to packaging, form factors, etc.) as well as input, output and delivery mechanisms to take into account the cultural, technical and regulatory requirements of that locale. In sum, localization is not so much about specific tasks as much as it is about the processes by which products are adapted.

In the definition above, Dunne (2006) sees translation as a part of localization process. Such “delimitation” of translation is used in this current research.

The fact that localization is not in the mainstream of translation theory does not prevent its success in the field. There are four reasons, as Pym (2000) sees it, why the localization concept is a success in practice. First, the concept of localization is easy to explain to and be understood by managers as well as general people. This term is related to the current economic practice—globalization. Second, the model is tested and revised in practices without much help from universities and involvement of academic prestige. Next, this practice saves money in the real sense. Finally, as a consequence of the above, this localization job is highly appreciated by the company, and there it is a high-pay profession.

The popularity of localization backed up with IT development makes some people say that localization is more than translation in all respects and judge translation as a sentence-to-sentence linguistic replacement of natural text, ignoring cultural considerations. For some that praise highly the success of localization, localization theory is achieving things that traditional translation theory could not achieve. Translation, if seen from localization, is the simple replacement of natural language strings. For those defending the prestige of traditional translation, this claim is incorrect. They say that currently translation theory has been moving in tune with developments towards text linguistics, discourse analysis and greater attention to cultural determinants. Translation problems are now frequently approached with Skopos theorie. In other words, “traditional translation” also considers the role of target readers and their cultures. According to Pym (2000), now some theorists are at the point of acknowledging that all cross-cultural relations are translational. Thus, the translation studies development is actually moving congruently with localization.

Dunne (2006) tries to account for localization translation in the frame of translation theory. He borrows Nida’s model for the purpose. See the model once again as presented again by Seleskovitch (quoted in Dunne, 2006) in Figure 2.8.

Figure 2.8 Translation Process (Nida and Seleskovitch)

As has been presented before, translation involves three sets of processes: comprehension of source text, code-switching or transfer of meaning and target-text production. In Figure 2.8, deverbalization refers to the analysis of the source text and the rendering of the source text into its simplest and structurally cleanest forms (known as kernel sentences in TG grammar) to facilitate comprehension of the message. After that, transfer into the target language follows and reformulation process finishes the general process of translation. Reformulation is re-encoding of this message by considering the points imposed by target audience expectations and by the target-language grammar (reformulation). Dunne (2006, 108) states that this simplified model is a useful window to explore the translation process in localization. In other words, Dunne is on the side of function-oriented approach in seeing translation in localization process.

Further, Dunne (2006, 108) states that in localization translation the translators lack the (cultural) context. This is especially true when the translator works with Computer Assisted Translation Tools (CAT Tools). Therefore, he devises a model for such a situation. See the Figure 2.9.

Figure 2.9 Meaning-Based Translation Process Applied to Non-Transparent Source Texts, or “Garbage In, Excellent Out” (Dunne, 2006: 109)

In Figure 2.9, the sequence of boxes number 1-2-3-4 shows the typical localization translation process. Steps 1-2a-3a-4a illustrate the mistranslation process. Finally, steps 1-2a-1b-2-3-4 represents risk management strategy in a localization translation process. In classic document translation, the translator proceeds from 1 to 2. In localization, however, translators may need to reformulate the source text for a variety of reason, for example, defective source text or too many technical jargons in the source text that may not be understood by the TT audience.

In line with Dunne, Pym (2000) also admits that translation is one process of the several processes in localization. The process might be minor or major one. For software localization, translation occupies only one third of the process and possibly the cost (Pym, 2000). For website localization, the portion is higher. The process of localization is facilitated by the use of Computer-Assisted Translation (CAT) Tools (Hatim and Mundy, 2004: 113). These tools are application software that help translators in translating electronic files of various format types, e.g. xml and html. Such situation necessitates translators to have new competencies if they want to take a part in this type of translating activity.

Further, Pym (2000) reminds that the concept of localization brings nothing essentially new. Translation theorists have been talking about ‘language and culture’ or ‘the cultural component’ as well as intermediary generic text for a couple of decades. This does not mean it is wise to ignore localization.

The review on translation and localization may confuse readers if localization is seen as a product. When seen as a process, localization offers us the position of translation within the process. The definition of translation (as a process) within a localization framework is specific in the sense that it is based on the communication principles. Translation is seen as a communicative act where the translator helps building the connection between the creator of the message in the ST and the audience in the TT. Hopkins’ definition seems to contain this typical coverage. For him, translating is the process of reading, understanding, interpreting, rephrasing and delivering an original message, while capturing all of its subtlety and impact, to a new audience in its mother tongue, in the context of its indigenous culture. He continues, “the best translators love words, of course, but more importantly they love the life that words depict”.

---

[1] Localization Industry Standards Association

References:

Dunne, Kieran. 2006. Perspectives on Localization. American Translators Association, John Benjamins.

Folaron, Debbie. 2006. “A discipline coming of age in the digital age”. In Perspectives on Localization, Dunne, Keiran J. (ed.), 195–219.

Hatim, Basil and Munday, Jeremy. 2004. Translation: An Advanced resource-book. London: Routledge.

LISA. 2005. Frequently Asked Questions about LISA and the Localization Industry. (on-line), (http://www.lisa.org/info/faqs.html, retrieved on 20 May, 2006)

Pym, Anthony. 2000. Localization and the Changing Role of Linguistics. A Paper presented to the conference “Traduction humaine, traduction automatique, interpretation”, Université Tunis I, 28-30 September 2000, (on-line), (http://www.fut.es/~apym/on-line/locling/locling.html, retrieved 12 January, 2006)