America

The United States is an interesting country for a variety of reasons, not least because of its names (America, U.S., USA, etc.). It's a plural country in most languages, but in U.S. English it takes a singular verb. The demonym "American" is a bit controversial since North and South America are also full of "Americans," too, though in a different sense, yet English lacks a term such as Spanish "estadiounidiense." As we previously blogged, there is no such language as "American," either.

Speaking with some friends and colleagues in other countries, I've been mulling over how these different names are used and have come up with a couple of theories.

The reason I even thought about this is because I was noticing that people in other countries, English-speaking and otherwise, use the names of the United States in different ways than we do. In particular, it was the way I noticed Brits using the names that I realized that this issue even existed. So here are my theories about how the names of the United States are used:

1. United States of America
This is the solemn, legal, full name that is used only in the most formal circumstances, and in the name of at least one alternative rock band. Its origin is in the Constitution, actually, where the capitalization originally was "united States of America," back when the colonies->states were regarded less as political subdivisions and more as coequal pseudonations.

2. United States
Today this is the default name of the country. It has a neutral register, and is appropriate in almost every circumstance. When in doubt, always use this form.

3. U.S.
In British English, it is more likely to be styled "US" without periods, and, although this is not uncommon in the U.S., the periods are a bit more common, especially in print. This is the short form of the default name; it's slightly less formal in running common than is "United States" but it's preferred in front of otherwise unwieldy institutional names, e.g. "U.S. Department of Education" (when drawing a distinction between, say, the New York Department of Education."

4. USA
Less commonly "U.S.A.," I think it might surprise non-Americans that most Americans use this name for the country only in two situations: (1) in a return address on an envelope, and (2) in chants at international sporting events. You also see it stamped on large boxes for international aid. But otherwise, most Americans rarely if ever use the term "USA."

5. The States
This cloying term is mainly used in an affectionate way by expats and exchange students when living abroad, normally in the expression "back in the States." (Americans sometimes also erroneously say "back in the States" when in Hawai'i or Alaska, meaning "back in the contiguous 48 states. But that is a different issue...)

6. America
This word is used by Brits all the time with the meaning of No. 2 above, yet Yanks use this word only in special circumstances. In U.S. English, whereas "United States" or "U.S." are the default, neutral-register names for the country, "America" is the name of the country reserved for emotional, patriotic, or even semispiritual contexts. This word is a bit "special." The word "America" refers more to the idea of America, not so much to the country as a political entity. We sing "America, America, God shed His grace on thee," not "USA, USA, God shed His grace on thee." In American English, we would general not use the word "America" in banal contexts, e.g. "crime rates in America declined by 5% last year" sounds jarring to the ear. It should be "crime rates in the United States declined by 5% last year." By contrast, the Brits would sooner use the first former formulation than the second.

In other countries, different rules apply. In Japanese, for for instance, the United States is referred to almost exclusively as アメリカ (Amerika), but it would be a mistake in translation to use "America" all the time for アメリカ. In German, "USA" is used all the time as a neutral-register name for the country, but it would almost always be a mistake to translate "USA" as "USA" in English (No. 4 above).

Unfortunately, switching your spell check won't change British usage of these names to American usage of these names, so if writing for an American audience you have to be aware of issues like this.

Anti-"American" Rant

Today I received a PO in which the target language was “American.” In this case, it was a Swedish agency, but I’ve seen the same phenomenon from other Europeans in the past. But the Scandinavians are particularly and notoriously bad about this. Far too frequently they call British English “English” and American English “American,” which is ridiculous. “American” is not a language!

Eons ago I attended a translation conference in Scandinavia for Scandinavian to English translators, during which the Americans were consistently referred to as “American translators” and everyone else was referred to as “English translators.” Which (infuriatingly) implies that American English is somehow not English. Rubbish.

British English and American English are very similar in many ways and very different in many ways. They are certainly more different than many Scandinavians realize (far more different than which spellchecker you run).

However, the Englishes of the world have one big thing in common: they are all called English. If you want to market things to Americans, the first step (before even the rudimentary step of hiring an American translator) is figuring out what we call this language we speak in America. Yup, that’s right, it’s English.

And why should the Scandinavians care about figuring out the whole American English thing? Well, hmmm. The United States is pretty big, isn't it... Look at the breakdown of where the world's native speakers of English are:



Come on people. The first step toward a credible international effort in English is to admit that there is no such language as American. But that American English is an important part of the global market.

The NYT Book Review's Condescending Adverbs

In the May 3, 2008, New York Times Book Review, several translated novels were reviewed. As is standard for the New York Times Book Review, most of the reviewers have given the translators of these novels an adverb, or adjective.

For example, Howard Goldblatt's translation of Mo Yan's Life and Death Are Wearing Me Out was deemed "fluent and elegant" translation. Julia Lovell’s translation of Yan Lianke’s novel Serve the People! was deemed “smoothly” translated. Howard Goldblatt’s translation of Jiang Rong’s Wolf Totem was deemed a “generally fluent” translation.

And Michael Berry and Susan Chang Egan’s translation of Wang Anyi’s novel The Song of Everlasting Sorrow received the following comment:

Michael Berry and Susan Chang Egan’s graceful translation, only rarely marred by jarring Americanisms (“grunt work,” “deal breaker”), helps us understand why Wang Anyi is one of the most critically acclaimed writers in the Chinese-speaking world.

First of all, as I have said before in my reviews of translation reviews here, is it not odd that several hundred pages of a translator’s hard work, if reviewed at all, can be summed up in a single, cloying adverb, e.g. "fluently," "smoothly," "gracefully," etc.

The reviewer of Howard Goldblatt’s translation of Life and Death Are Wearing Me Out, Jonathan Spence (“fluent and elegant renderings”), teaches modern Chinese history at Yale. So, one presumes that he is in a position to judge the merits of the translation as he can presumably read Chinese.

By contrast, the reviewer of Berry and Chang Egan’s translation The Song of Everlasting Sorrow, Francine Prose, is a novelist and is currently the head of PEN American Center. Unlike Berry, who is also a professor of Chinese cultural studies at UCSB, it seems dubious that Prose speaks enough Chinese to accurate assess the quality of the translation. It’s high praise that she describes the 440-page-long translation as “graceful,” and unfortunate that she devotes five times as many words to emphasizing the aspects of the translation that “marred” it in her mind.

It seems inappropriate to pick on an American translation (published by Columbia University Press) for including Americanisms such as “grunt work” or “deal breaker.” The use of the term “Americanism” to most readers will draw a division between American English and British English, and I don't really see how that debate has anything to do with assessing the translation of a Chinese novel into American English. What should Berry and Chang Egan have said instead of "grunt work"? Perhaps "work done by a dogsbody?” Talk about "jarring.”

Split Infinitives

There is no such thing as a style guide or grammar book that says that the split infinitive should be avoided. Yet, there is a widespread belief that prohibitions against the split infinitive are copious, as this Language Log post explores

When was the last time you actually read a style guide or grammar book? How much do you really know about grammar, usage, punctuation, and style? Do you use the same reference guides that professional copy editors do? Do you even know what professional copy editors use?

On Being Your Own IT Person/Review of Vista and Office 2007

So I was reading this article on CNET, which is actually a great Web site for tech news and reviews with splotches of geek humor mixed in, all about how it sucks to be your own IT person. And I realized reading this article that most translators, self-employed ones, end up being their own tech people, too. One of the most important skills in being a self-employed translator probably lies in the ability--and patience--to deal with technological issues.

This struck a chord with me because I just had to buy a new computer to replace the one I got in 2005. The old one is an HP Pavilion laptop, which I actually really liked. It ran smoothly (Windows XP), and I had Word XP with all my customized commands set up on it, and it rarely crashed. But, after eight hours a day of mad typing in the office and outside, the keyboard had started to conk out, and a short on the motherboard deprived the machine of its ability to take power from the battery, so the laptop had become a desktop machine--and the fact is I just need a laptop. So, I bought a new laptop to replace it, also an HP. (The old laptop will find a home in the family’s new media cabinet as a DVR drive/Internet video device to the TV.)

From the specs one might be impressed by the new laptop:

17 inch high-def screen
Intel Core 2 Duo chips at 2.10 GHz
3 gibabytes of RAM
350 gigabyte hard drive (speed 7200)
Bluetooth
WiFi 802.11n (that's the latest protocol, a bit faster if your router supports it)
BlueRay DVD drive, for $120 extra, I couldn't say no

I started up the machine and just then fully fathomed for the first time that I was now using Windows Vista Home Premium. It was a plunge I wasn’t sure I should have made when I ordered the machine, and now I was faced with my decision. What would Vista be like?

First, I clicked open Word, it was Word 2007--the new-fangled version with the "ribbon" that completely replaces the old Word XP menu system.

I sighed.

Normally when people get new computers, it is kind of exciting. And in the past I've always been quite excited about my new machines. But this time, for the first time, I was daunted and maybe even a little depressed.

So here are my reviews of Vista and of the new Office 2007.

REVIEW: Windows Vista
Superficial Improvements Only

Vista looks snazzy, at least if you're running "Home Premium" or "Ultimate." The graphics are snazzier, and at first glance the interface seems very visually rich and well-engineered, quite a bit like Mac OS X, actually. But the improvements are mainly on the surface.

I quickly noticed that the people who built Vista were not really good at simplifying and standardizing menus and click-through pipelines. For instance, they totally and radically changed the Start menu, but I find that it isn’t a particular improvement--it’s merely different. But when you go into the Control Panels, you get this long list of options--some in the main window, some in the sidebar of the window. Nothing has a short and simple name like the System Settings do in Mac OS X; in fact, you have to spend a lot of time reading the explanatory text the Control Panel window in Vista to even begin to guess where you need to go to do what you need to do.

Once you click through, however, the Vista snazziness stop and the conventional old windows XP interfaces reappear. This kind of inconsistency and the literal superficiality of the GUI “improvements” in Vista are stunning. I find it hard to believe people worked more than five years to come out with this.

The security features in Vista are enhanced, but the built-in firewall is lamed by not being fine-tunable by the user--and it doesn’t block outgoing traffic, only incoming. So I disabled it and installed the excellent and free ZoneAlarm firewall instead. I also had to turn off the User Account popup security feature, because as I was reinstalling all my software it needed incessant attention. I might turn it back on some day, but I also decided that it wasn’t really helpful to someone like me who has basic if not occasionally advanced understanding of computers and file safety/security.

Vista is a bit buggy. It found drivers for my network printer and external backup hard drive just fine, but it uses the USB driver for the printer, having refused to install the network driver. (The network printer actually works, so I decided just to leave it.) I have had one inexplicable crash of the operating system after only five days, as well.

The other thing I don’t like about Vista is how hard it is to control the size of display fonts and icons and buttons on screen. You can do it, but it’s needlessly complex. I don’t have superhuman vision, Microsoft. I need things to be “biggable.”

My ultimate impression of Vista is that it’s fine; it is a much-maligned operating system that probably isn't quite as bad as the tech gurus say (especially now that SP1 is out). With SP2, I bet Vista will be pretty stable and reliable, and I look forward to SP2 intensely. At the same time, it’s hard to imagine Apple making such rookie-like interface mistakes. I think Vista was implemented in a sloppy, inconsistent way in terms of interface--with a lot of attention to gee-whiz eye candy and not nearly enough attention to consistency and simplicity/ease of use. I don’t see an overall improvement in the user experience over Windows XP; in fact, I see an overall, if slight, worsening.

Final recommendation: If you are a translator looking for a new computer, you probably want to opt for Windows XP if possible. Soon it won't be available any more and Vista will be your only choice, but stay with Windows XP to the extent possible.

REVIEW: Office 2007
Microsoft gives power-users of Office XP the bird

I’ll cut to the chase: avoid Office 2007 like the plague. The user interface has been so radically redesigned that the software is not readily usable by people familiar with Office XP or earlier versions of Office. (For newbies, I think it’s probably fine, really. But translators as a group are not usually Office newbies.) As word processing professionals, we need to be able to get new software up and running quickly and deftly. Office 2007 offers all of the same functionality as Office XP, and more--but the learning curve is so steep (and “classic menus” are inexplicably not a built-in option to help you transition) that it’ll take you an hour to translate a file that might have taken you thirty minutes before.

Here is the worst thing: Visual Basic in Office 2007 is sloooooooooow. Slooooooooooooooooow. What is Visual Basic? Why does that matter? Well, if you use macros, Trados Workbench, WordFast, or other VB-based add-ins to Word, it means that it takes aaaaaaaaaaaaages, and I mean aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaages, to do what was zippy before in Office XP. Seriously: closing a segment and opening a segment in Trados takes 16 seconds in Office 2007. I'm not exaggerating. 16 seconds! The delay this causes in translating is huge; the SDL people who own Trados now even have a recommendation in small print on their Web site that you should continue using Trados with Office XP until Microsoft fixes Visual Basic in Office 2007. On this basis alone, Office 2007 is a no-go.

Now, you can buy third-party software to let you customize the new “ribbon” interface, or display “classic menus,” but after spending $300 on Office 2007, it pisses me off, frankly, to unload another $50 on tools that should have been built in.

Final Recommendation: Do not, repeat, do not purchase Office 2007 if can humanly avoid it. Office XP is no longer for sale, you may have to use your old install DVDs on new computers, or you may have to try to find (legal) copies on eBay. Do what you need to do. But do whatever you can to avoid Office 2007. It is not user-friendly, not for power users as most translators are, and with the sloth of Visual Basic, it is not remotely usable with Trados or user-made macros.

Translators Celebrate Earth Day Everyday!

Here is a topic appropriate for today that few translation blogs ever mention: translation is one of the greenest jobs out there.

I’m talking specifically about self-employed translators. Translators who work in office buildings for agencies or other companies obviously can do their part to reduce their carbon footprint, consumption of resources, and waste output, but self-employed translators who work out of their homes have some built-in and particularly green job characteristics. If you’re a translator you know this already, but it might be useful to forward this post to students you know looking for green jobs, or to extol the profession to those who don’t know much about the field of translation.

One positive side effect of being a translator is that many Japanese and European translators bring awareness of green technology and the green policies of other countries to the United States. We are often more readily able to contribute to conversations with other Americans about everything from Japanese recycling to Sweden’s innovative use of scrap-wood for zero-carbon-emissions fuel.

In terms of fuel, however, my commute is all of 35 feet from the breakfast table to my office desk, with one intervening set of stairs. (Well, sometimes the commute takes from the breakfast table to the picnic table in the back yard, but being able to work outdoors in nice weather isn’t technically green; it’s just a general perk.) This instantly makes my annual carbon footprint hundreds of times lower than most working people who commute by car--and even than people who commute by bus or train. Obviously millions of Americans work out of home offices and don’t have commutes, but most of those people still have out-of-the office appointments numerous times over a week. Like most translators, my clients contact me by phone or by e-mail, and it is rare that I ever meet a client face to face. (Most of my clients live thousands of miles away, in any case.) I use my car once, maybe twice a week at most--maybe a bit more often in winter when walking and biking are less appealing--and put only 4,000 miles on my car each year.

One acquaintance of mine is a game developer and has to fly to Korea, China, or Singapore every month. Although he and his family lead an exemplarily green life when at home, his carbon footprint from business travel is off the chart compared to any translator.

Most translators also need relatively few professional clothes since we have minimal to no contact with the public or other professionals. We use dry cleaners less, and we purchase fewer clothes transported by petroleum from far away lands as a result.

The online nature of translation brings up the second major green feature of most translators’ working lives: the paperless office. Years ago, translation was a highly paper-dependent profession, with documents and photocopies going through the mail and overnight services on a daily basis. Nowadays, 100% of my work arrives by e-mail, and I deliver 99% of it by e-mail as well. No paper means no trees, and no conventional mail or overnighting means no carbon emissions from hard-copy delivery. The 1% of my jobs I deliver by hard copy are those that need to be certified for use in court or immigration forums. If only there were a way to certify translations electronically for use in such contexts.

The paperless office doesn’t stop with the jobs per se, however. I also do all of my billing by e-mail as well. I submit records to my accountant and CPA by e-mail, and they return statements to me by e-mail. I make payments online through my bank. Many of my clients make paperless payment via PayPal or wire transfers. (Thankfully, more and more American banks are seeing the light and have stopped charging for incoming wire transfers.) And my CPA files my local and federal taxes electronically.

It also used to be that translators needed to have hundreds of dictionaries and paper files with reference material to get translations done. Since the Internet, like most translators I do the majority of research for my translations online. This not only makes more information more accessible (and faster), but it reduces paper consumption dramatically.

One energy-related perk to self-employment, whether as a translator or otherwise, is that energy spent on indoor spaces is more efficient. People who work away from home spend up to ten hours a day running the water heater, heating the house, and chilling food in the refrigerator while they aren’t even home; their employers have a similar expense for the time employees aren’t at work. A well-used home office is inherently more efficient.

Now, there are some areas where translators have to make an effort to be green, too. If you are a translator think about doing these things:

1. Replace your incandescent light bulbs with fluorescents. Modern fluorescents are much easier on the eyes, and they save 75% of the total energy spent on incandescents. (Just don’t break them, since they contain mercury.)

2. Unplug unused equipment. It can be a hassle, but if you unplug your printer when it’s not in use, or your fax, you save energy (and money) because most electronics draw power when plugged in--whether they are on or not. You can now also buy special power strips that automate this for you. You can also make use of power management features built into modern computers and some office equipment.

3. Don't buy boxed software; download instead. Modern translators are always buying software, and upgrading software, to stay current with their clients’ needs and with CAT tools. Downloading software and burning your own backup on a CD ROM saves all the excess packaging and plastic that boxed products otherwise involve.

4. Donate old computer equipment to charities that refurbish them for use in the Third World, or in schools in this country. When buying new equipment, check to see if the manufacturer has its own recycling program--and avoid products where the electronics still use mercury, lead, or cadmium.

5. Leverage working at home. With more scheduling flexibility, you can shop at farmers’ markets for locally grown food, and you have time to walk or bike with your kids to school instead of driving them. You should also have a bit more time to make proper meals instead of relying on fast food, packaged food, and prepared meals--avoiding not only the negative health impacts of such food but also reducing recyclables and waste.

6. Take green brain-breaks. Translation is heavy lifting for the brain. When taking a break, it can be nice to do some heavy lifting with your arms instead. When you need to take a break, why not start or tend a vegetable garden and work down a list of green household and yard improvements (setting up compost bins, setting up rain barrels, caulking drafty windows, etc.).

Mass Inquiries: a waste of the translator's time

I got an inquiry the other day from one of the big agencies I work for. It is the perfect example of another big waste of translators’ time. The agency starts out by saying, "Hi! How are you? I have a new job opportunity for you! We are trying to impress this new client of ours, and so we’re trying to place this job with our best linguists possible! Obviously, we think that’s you! If you could please help out on this job, there is a very high chance that you will be getting a lot more opportunities from this client in the future!! If we impress them on this particular job, we will almost definitely win all of their future translation work!!”

Where to even begin with the problems with this e-mail. Sigh. First of all, you do not start a professional interaction with “Hi! How are you?” The fact that they didn’t use my name is a tip-off that they sent the same e-mail to everyone who works in this language pair. Which means that even if I did want the job, it may well already have been accepted by another translator and not be available. That actually happens often. I frequently get inquiries from Europeans who e-mail in the middle of the night. They send an e-mail to me and 50 other translators at 2am and you just know that someone else will have taken the job by the time I get into the office at 8am. It’s a waste of my time to e-mail them back. But I do. Because it’s the professional thing to do.

The next problem is that it is unprofessional to use multiple exclamation points in a business e-mail.

The next problem is the kiss-up. How sweet that they think I’m one of their best linguists. (This is another gripe—they should refer to “translators,” not linguists. A linguist has a background in linguistics. I am a translator.) But this kind of praise is just a shallow veil of flattery which means nothing. It’s like when someone in L.A. says, “let’s do lunch.” The only flattery that matters to translators is feedback after a job telling you it was well done. Flattery before placing a job (from an employee at the agency I’ve never worked with) is just insipid.

The next problem is that they want me (and the 50 other trusted best translators in this language pair they e-mailed) to do an extra good job now for less money than usual with the promise of future work for their agency if they land this client. This NEVER pays off for the translator. Who knows if the agencies ever land these clients. What I do know after all my years in the industry is that if they do land the client, they will use cheaper translators than me to do many if not all the client’s translation projects. Which is no skin off my back. They still use me plenty, pay me well, and keep me busy working on other projects. But it’s disingenuous to imply that I’m going to get future work from their landing this client.

There’s certainly no reason for me to do this project for them for anything lower than my minimum per word rate. A job is a job. A minimum rate is a minimum rate. I have to pay for my health insurance and electricity and many fine dictionaries, etc. A translator should never offer a discounted rate for the first job you do for someone. It’s a personal business decision whether ever to offer a discount, but I would certainly never do so on the first job done for a client who may never use the agency or me again. Plus you know the agency is marking up my per word price by probably 100%. So they could really afford to offer the discount out of their cut.

The last and final problem with this e-mail, which has wasted my time and now your time spent reading my rant, is that I don’t translate in this direction! I translate FROM this language INTO English (my native language). I do not translate from English into this language. And after working with this specific agency for over 10 years, I rather think they should know that! What a big waste of my time. ARG!!!