## The Dogmas of Technical Translation Are They Still Valid?

## Abstract

Technical  texts  are  generally  considered  to  be  informative,  objective  and  devoid  of expressive features. In this paper I shall argue in favour of the more recent assertion that technical  texts  are  not  only  concerned  with  the  transfer  of  facts,  but  -  like  texts  in general - serve various communicative purposes. The aim of my work is to increase the awareness  of  the  translation  scholar  and  the  professional  translator  of  the  fact  that literary texts do not hold a monopoly on expressivity and creativity and that also within the  framework  of  technical  translation  the  expressive  function  must  be  expected, noticed  and  translated.  I  shall  furthermore  argue  that  'technical  texts'  do  NOT constitute a genre - on the contrary a great variety of genres make use of technical language.

## 1. Introduction

The following paper is based on a chapter from my ph.d. thesis 'Expressivity in Technical Texts - from a Translation Theoretical Perspective',  1997  and  a  paper  given  at  Heriot-Watt  University,  Edinburgh, 1998. 1

In my thesis I define and describe the concept of expressivity and in my  analyses  I  provide  evidence  for  the  fact  that  expressivity  does abound in so-called technical texts and I argue that the expressive function is not per definition inferior to the informative function in technical texts.

In this paper I will try to restrict myself to dealing with the present state  of  technical  translation.  In  order  to  do  that  it  is  necessary  as  a starting point to attempt an outline of the conventional description of technical texts and their authors.

1 at  the  Postgraduate  Forum  on  Translation,  Interpreting,  and  Contrastive/CrossCultural Studies, 28-29 November, 1998.

* Karen Korning Zethsen Engelsk Institut Handelshøjskolen i Århus Fuglesangs Allé 4 DK-8210  Århus V

## 2. The Prototypical Technical Text

Traditionally 2 technical texts are defined on the basis of subject-matter, terminology and a number of typical syntactic features such as:

nominalisation

heavy pre- and postmodifications

extensive use of passives

use of third person

long and complex sentences

In addition, technical texts are described as being almost totally dominated by the informative function 3 .

So according to the traditional view, the purpose of a technical text is to transmit objective information on a technical subject . To this end a relatively standardised syntax and style are applied 4 .

According to Baakes (1994: 3) technical texts are characterised by:

'...objectivity,  absence of expressiveness and emotion, precision, economy, conciseness, and formality...'

As to technical text types the following are often cited and analysed as typical examples of technical texts:

scientific articles text books manuals encyclopedias specifications patent applications, etc.

2 See e.g. Bell 1991:203, Norlyk 1994:25, Munck 1994:139-71, Newmark 1988:151.

3 See e.g. Gottlieb 1994:47, Nord 1991:178, 182, Myers 1989:3, Newmark 1988:40 and Baakes 1994:5.

4 See Wilss 1996:22-23 and Laurén 1998:463.

## 3. The Technical Writer

The stereotyped writer of technical texts is a factual and objective engineer who is not particularly aware of or interested in the target group of his text and whose only aim is to transmit the technical information of the text in question - and again Baakes (1994):

'Scientists and engineers are trained to be objective and to accept as facts only impersonal , objective statements about things which can be seen by any observers who choose to look. This objective attitude is naturally reflected in the way they express themselves...' (Baakes 1994: 3 - my emphasis)

'In their work scientists and engineers aim at communicating primarily with other scientists and engineers. Normally, they do not need to make the subject they are dealing with seem interesting or exciting , since they are writing or speaking to those who have chosen to read or listen.' (ibid. - my emphasis) 5

Furthermore, he - the technical writer - is often described as a rather unskilled or even incompetent writer:

'Perhaps inevitably a technical translation [in this context meaning text to be translated - KKZ] is so varied in topic and often diverse in register, and so badly written , that it is not easy to make helpful generalisations about it.' (Newmark 1988: 160 - my emphasis)

## 4. The State of Technical Translation

These views on the nature of technical texts and technical writers are bound to influence the way we perceive (or used to perceive I would like to say) the translation of technical texts.

During  the  20th  century  the  number  of  technical  texts  which  are translated  has  exploded  as  a  result  of  industrialisation  and  increased international business and cooperation - most recently as a result of the requirements of the EU machinery directive of 1989. Today technical translation constitutes the vast majority of the professional translator's workload.

5 Baakes'  statements  embody  the  view  of  the  standard  prescriptive  text  book  on technical writing. In the words of Halloran & Bradford (1984: 180): 'From the side of rhetoric, a long-standing tradition holds that devices of eloquence are inappropriate for scientific  discourse,  and  the  standard  textbooks  in  scientific  and  technical  writing continue to take this position'. And furthermore: 'Modern science has been slow to acknowledge  its  use  of  figurative  expression,  probably  due  to  the  long-standing tradition which contends that the figures are not suitable for scientific and technical discourse.' (ibid.)

In 1813 Schleiermacher (according to Snell-Hornby 1988: 11) considered  the  translation  of  LSP  texts  as  'mundane  and  mechanical matters unworthy of scholarly attention.' Though today we cannot say that the translation of LSP texts is considered unworthy of scholarly attention  I  am  afraid  that  it  still  has  a  certain  reputation  for  being mundane and mechanical - this is a translation of a quotation from a Danish doctoral thesis from 1994 6 :

'...technical, informative texts. Such texts - as e.g. declarations of contents and instructions for use - refer to phenomena which exist independently of the language culture in which they exist - or are invented. We are dealing with totally predictable texts! They can be translated without linguistic intuition, completely mechanically. The necessary tools are simply word lists, word frequency lists and grammatical formulas. This is precisely why one can expect to translate these kinds of text by means of a computer. All other text types have to be translated by humans ' (Gottlieb 1994: 47)

Terminology is generally considered the main challenge of the technical translator (see e.g. Newmark 1988: 152) and much LSP research has consequently been carried out within this field 7 .

In translation-oriented text typologies (which have been very influential - and much criticised - since Katharina Reiss 8 published the first in 1971) 9 technical texts - and thus technical translation - are often cited as a kind of counter example to literary translation - the point being that literary translation is very creative - an art - whereas technical translation is almost mechanical and definitely not more than a craft:

6 My translation.

7 Hoffmann 1991: 158.

8 No  doubt  if  one  goes  further  back  the  views  of  Reiss  reflect  earlier  views  on technical  translation.  See  e.g.  Halloran  &  Bradford  (1984),  who  go  as  far  back  as Aristotle.

9 The translation-oriented text typologies have no doubt done much harm in relation to  technical  texts.  The  fact  that  technical  texts  are  automatically  classified  as  being informative has greatly influenced the way in which technical texts have generally been perceived.  Some  might  claim  that  the  texts  are  only  classified  according  to  their dominant function, but one could question whether such a classification is possible. How does one assess which function is most important in a text - is it necessarily the one that takes up most space? Bühler and Jakobson's well-known language functions are very useful concepts for the description of functions present in a text, but as the basis of a translation-oriented classification I believe they are of no value (for further discussion of this subject see Korning Zethsen 1997: 53ff)

- '... literary translation, traditionally the province of poets and scholars and once the only area thought worthy of the theorist, and...special language translation, traditionally inferior and the main concern of the translation schools.' (Snell-Hornby 1988: 33)
- '...so much more direct, so much freer from alternatives, so much less artistic than the translation of any other kind of prose.' (Savory 1968: 161)

Also  within  the  field  of  translation  didactics  the  polarisation  literature/LSP has been influential:

- '...  where the [text - KKZ] typologies were set up as part of a programme of translator-training, they were used as a means of grading texts by ranking them along a scale of 'difficulty' and 'loss' from the extreme of poetry, through other literature, other texts and scientific and technical to mathematical texts which appear to be the least 'difficult' and in which there is virtually no 'loss'.' (Bell 1991: 203)

## 5. The Dogmas of Technical Translation

To sum up technical translation seems to be subject to the following dogmas:

1. The purpose of the translation  is  to  transmit  factual  information.
2. The greatest problem is terminology.
3. No  particular  translation  strategy  is  needed  as  long  as  the translator is familiar with the relevant terminology and the typical syntax of a technical text.

and the traditional view of technical texts is based on the assignment of all  technical texts to the informative text type and this assignment is then again based on a rather limited number of technical texts which have acquired the status of prototypical technical texts. The text type conventions of the prototypes, the stereotypical view of the technical writer, the focus on terminology and the convenient polarisation literature/science-technology  have  all  contributed  to  the  rather  narrow perception  of  technical  texts  which  has  prevailed  for  many  years.  It goes without saying that the dominant view of technical translation has been equally narrow.

The technical text type which is probably cited most frequently is the scientific article (often in general works on translation theory, which are not specially interested in technical language), though it is in no way important to the professional translator as far as bulk is concerned. The stereotyped text types I mentioned in the beginning of this talk do of course  exist  and  especially  manuals  and  specifications  constitute  an important part of the translator's workload. However, in general one may suspect that many of the texts subjected to analyses by scholars have been chosen because they were easily accessible (and well-known to  the  researcher)  and  not  because  they  were  representative  of  the reality of the professional technical translator (and the same seems to apply for translation didactics - see Hoffmann 1991: 158).

## 6. The Technical Genre(s) - Singular or Plural?

Today the texts translated by translators specialised in technical translation typically include (apart from those mentioned in the beginning of this paper):

technical reports

brochures annual reports letters minutes of meetings manuscript speeches, etc., etc.

The above texts represent a much broader range of texts than are traditionally provided as examples of technical texts and though no doubt there is still a core of technical text types which correspond to the traditional definition this calls for an extension of the notion of technical texts for pragmatic reasons. One might say that the traditional technical texts  such  as  scientific  articles,  manuals  and  patent  applications  did once represent the prototypical technical texts - naturally with a pertaining number of blurred edges. Today, however, it seems that the blurred edges have by far outnumbered the former prototypes.

So, my question is do we really need - for translational purposes - to define what a technical text is? Shouldn't we rather be concerned with the fact that technical language is used in numerous genres all serving a multitude of purposes. Evidently, technical language has all sorts of characteristics,  but  that  is  not  the  same  as  claiming  that  texts  which make use of technical language do all belong to the same genre. And that is precisely what seems to be the case. The expression 'technical texts' is used for all texts which make use of technical language and which exist within a technical knowledge area and this group of texts is treated  as  being  homogeneous  to  a  large  extent  which  is  very  misleading to the translator.

## 7. The Purpose of Technical Texts

That many - but of course not all - writers of technical texts are trained in  the  natural  sciences  and  not  in  communications  or  linguistics  and consequently are not too good at expressing themselves in writing must be considered a fact. However, one cannot from this naturally draw the conclusion that these writers have no other aims than the transfer of technical information nor that they are not trying - like non-technical writers - to promote these other aims in their texts:

'...texts can be seen as the result of motivated choice : producers of texts have their own communicative aims and select lexical items and grammatical  arrangements  to  serve  those  aims'  (Hatim  &  Mason 1990: 4)

And like Laurén (1998: 465) we may ask in disbelief 'Are there really no individualists behind LSP texts?'

By way of illustration the non-informative purposes which I keep claiming that a text may have could at a general level belong to one of the following groups:

1. Strengthening the author's image
2. Strengthening the image of the company
3. Obtaining financial support
4. Selling a product or knowhow

As the financial side of the matter is crucial, we may assume that points 3 and 4 often make use of points 1 and 2. Or that what points 1 and 2 have obtained at an earlier occasion (in other texts) may later on serve to obtain points 3 and 4 etc., etc.

Fortunately it has become increasingly clear to many scholars that literary texts do not hold a monopoly on expressivity and creativity. As early as in 1969 Newmark (1969: 80) writes:

'...the common assumption that scientific and technical writing is concerned only with facts...is misplaced'

## and according to Hatim & Mason (1990: 2):

'...the boundary between 'literature' and 'non-literature' is an artificial one and if 'creative use of language' is taken to be one of the criteria for recognition of the former, it can be shown that many nonliterary texts display the same creative devices, used to the same ends, as in what is recognised as belonging to the category 'literature'.

## And finally Brown 1996: 37:

'The traditional view of objective, a-rhetorical scientific discourse...has come increasingly into question...'

## 8. The Dogmas of Technical Translation Revisited

In the beginning of this paper I established 3 dogmas of technical translation and in the title of my paper I ask 'are they still valid'. As you may have gathered by now I do not think so. On the contrary I find them outdated,  useless  and  even  misleading.  Let  me  briefly  comment  on them again.

## Re 1.

Undoubtedly, a very important purpose of most technical texts and translations is to convey factual information. However, as I have just argued, it is rarely the sole purpose of any text and whether it is always the main purpose is a moot point. In my thesis I argue that technical texts are multifunctional to an extent which is highly relevant for the translator. The  constant  focus  on  the  informative  function  within  technical translation has weakened the translator's expectations and awareness of other important functions. For the translator it is crucial to be aware of 'the view lately current in rhetoric and composition theory':

'- namely that scientific and technical discourse is subject to the same slants,  biases,  and  marketplace  influences  as  any  other  kind  of discourse -' (Brown 1996: 46)

## Re 2.

If  the  only  relevant  purpose  of  a  technical  translation  is  to  transmit information it follows naturally that terminology is the greatest problem. Terminology is evidently a difficult and time-consuming area for the technical translator. However, the more we become aware of the fact  that  technical  texts  often  serve  several  important  functions  the more time is spent unveiling the linguistic devices applied in order to further these functions, especially as expressivity in technical texts is often more subtle than in other kinds of text.

Technical  terminology  has  been  a  favorite  research  area  to  LSP researchers and much important research has been carried out within this field, but unfortunately this focus on terminology has also (according to Hoffmann 1991) lead to a state of lexicocentrism. The hunt for terminology has overshadowed the fact that there is something between the terms which is equally important for a satisfactory translation. Instead of considering a technical text as a collection of technical terms 10 it should be seen as a text - i.e. as an entity written to serve various purposes. Awareness of these purposes cannot be reached by focussing on terminology and by working from sentence to sentence, but only by applying a textual approach (Hoffmann 1991: 158) 1112 . The real challenge for the technical translator of today is the combination of often highly-specialised terminology and expressive features.

## Re 3.

It is beyond questioning that a great many technical texts are subject to certain text type conventions and that to a certain extent knowledge of these is valuable for the translator. However, knowledge of the relevant terminology and text type conventions of a technical text is not enough to produce a successful translation.

10 As pointed out by Newmark the average technical text contains no more than perhaps 5-10% technical terminology 'The rest is 'language'...' (Newmark 1988: 160).

11 See also Kewley-Draskau 1994: 106.

12 In  a  paper  titled  'Culture  in  scientific  and  technical  communication:  A  dynamic view from a translation perspective' (1998, unpublished) Hatim argues along the same lines.  According to Hatim the specific domain of scientific and technical communication has traditionally been seen almost exclusively in terms of terminology and level of formality and/or technicality. Instead he suggests that from a translation perspective focus  should  be  shifted  from  terminology  to  '...those  neglected  aspects  of  textual practices (the discourse, the genre and the actual texts that typify scientific communication, for example) which ultimately set the framework for the act of communication both within and across cultural and linguistic boundaries. In fact, the terminological aspect  can  be  made  to  work  most  effectively  only  when  seen  within  sound  textual practice.' (1998: 2)

Translation-oriented text typologies have done much harm, however, text typologies may be relevant to the extent that they are sufficiently detailed to provide any real help - but we do have a dilemma. As stated by Hatim & Mason (1990: 138) too broad text type categories have no predictive value:

'Yet when attempts are made to narrow the focus of description, we run the risk of ending up with virtually as many text types as there are texts.'

When  all  comes  to  all  we  do  not  get  a  free  translation  strategy  by assigning a given technical text to a particular text type. A translation strategy must be laid down for any individual text to be translated (be it technical, literary or legal). The fact that a text to be translated belongs to a certain linguistic area is of course interesting to the translator, but it is only one factor among many important ones.

## 7. Conclusion

It  is  beyond questioning that many technical texts do possess what I have called the traditional features to a greater or lesser degree. My point is that they contain other features as well which may be just as important  and  which  reveal  other  functions  in  the  text  than  purely iformative ones - features which the stereotypical view ignores completely.

It is of utmost importance for the translator to understand the various purposes of a text and in the optimum situation to be able to discuss strategies with the author of the text. The keyword for a successful translation is awareness of all the purposes of a text. Also, the translator should be aware of the fact that in reality there is no such thing as a 'technical text' - it is not a genre - but rather a number of texts making use of 'technical language' and belonging to a great variety of genres.

Contrary  to  the  traditional  view  technical  texts  are  often  highly expressive and also persuasive, but in a worst-case situation only the informative function is expected by the translator and only the informative function is translated!

## References

- Baakes,  K.  (1994). Key  issues  of  syntax  in  the  special  languages  of  science  and technology. Julius Groos Verlag.
- Bell, R.T. (1991). Translation and translating . Longman.
- Brown, V.J. (1996). Persuasiveness and audience focus in a nonacademic R&D Setting. In Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 26 (1). 37-55.
- Gottlieb,  H.  (1994). Tekstning.  Synkron  billedmedieoversættelse .  Center  for  Oversættelse, Københavns Universitet.
- Göpferich,  S.  (1995).  A  pragmatic  classification  of  LSP  texts  in  science  and Technology. In Target 7 (2). 305-326.
- Hatim, B. and Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the translator . Longman.
- Hatim, B. (1998). Culture in scientific and technical communication: A dynamic view from a translation perspective. Unpublished.
- Hoffmann,  L.  (1991).  Texts  and  text  types  in  LSP.  In  Schröder,  H.  (ed.). Subjectoriented Texts . Walter de Gruyter. 158-166.
- Korning  Zethsen,  K.  (1997).  Expressivity  in  technical  texts  -  from  a  Translation Theoretical Perspective. Handelshøjskolen i Å rhus.
- Laurén,  C.  (1998).  Shift  of  perspective  in  scientific  texts:  A  study  of  idiolect.  In Lundquist et al. (eds.). LSP Identity and interface. Research, knowledge and society . Proceedings of the 11th European Symposium on Language for Special Purposes 1. 463-472. Samfundslitteratur.
- Munck, L. (1994). Introduktion til dansk teknisk sprogbrug. In Hjørnager Pedersen, V., Krogh-Hansen N. (eds.). Oversættelseshåndbogen. Munksgaard. 139-71.
- Myers,  G.  (1989).  The  pragmatics  of  politeness  in  scientific  articles.  In Applied Linguistics 10 (1). 1-35.
- Newmark, P. (1969). Some notes on translation and translations. In The Incorporated Linguist 8 (4). 79-85.
- Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of translation . Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd.
- Nord, C. (1991). Text analysis in translation . Rodopi.
- Norlyk, B. (1994). Fagsproglig kommunikation eller miskommunikation: et praktisk perspektiv på anvendelse af fagsprog. In Grindsted, A. (ed.): Fagsproglig kommunikation , HHS Jubilæumsskrift, bind 3. Samfundslitteratur. 24-33
- Reiss, K. (1971). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Ü bersetzungskritik . Hueber.
- Savory, T. (1968). The art of translation . Jonathan Cape.
- Snell-Hornby, M. (1988). Translation studies. An integrated approach . John Benjamins Publishing Company.
- Wilss,  W.  (1996). Knowledge  and  skills  in  translator  behaviour .  John  Benjamins Publishing Company.