Log in

Password not working as expected? Reset your password.

News & Announcements

December JAT Meeting and Bounenkai

JAT's December meeting will be held on Saturday, December 13, from 14:00pm to 17:00, followed by the annual bounenkai. Details follow. Please note that the venue has changed from KIRARA to 東天紅.

Details for JAT-TAC’s December Meeting

Theme:    Book Translation
Panelists:  Fred Uleman, Emily Shibata-Sato, and Alison Watts
Date:     December 13, 2008
Time:     14:00 – 17:00
Place:     東天紅, Ebisu Garden Place Tower 39F (TEL: 03-5424-1015)
Cost:     JAT Members – JPY5,500*  Non-JAT – JPY6,000

RSVP ASAP from here.

(* There is the possibility of a JPY500 discount for JAT members if enough people register. The deadline for the possible discount ends on December 3, 2008.)

The nijikai begins at 17:30 at Sapporo Beer Station, cost varies.

******************
Panelist Introduction:

Fred Uleman

Fred Uleman has been translating J2E, mainly political and economic texts, for about 40 years. Although now largely retired from commercial translation, he recently translated 日本の憲法:国民主権の論点 (originally published by 講談社) and self-published it under the title Rethinking the Constitution: An Anthology of Japanese Opinion as a non-commercial venture. In addition to touching on some of the translation problems, he will also speak to some of the production and other non-translation issues involved.

Emily Shibata-Sato

サンフランシスコ生まれ、東京育ち。1985年からフリーの
翻訳・通訳者かつJAT会員。2004年、ニュージーランドの作家 Lynley Doddによる絵本 "Hairy MacLary Scattercat"を翻訳 (もしゃもしゃマクレリー ねことおっかけっこ)。

Born in San Francisco and have lived most of her life in Tokyo. A freelance translator and interpreter and a JAT member since 1985. Translated "Hairy MacLary Scattercat" by Lynley Dodd in 2004.

Alison Watts

Born and educated in Australia before taking an MA in Japanese studies from the University of Sheffield. Freelance translator since 1992. Her translation of 逃(TAO) -- 異端の画家・曹勇の中国大脱出(Bungei Shunju, 1995)  by Aya Goda, was published by Portobello Books as Tao: On the Road and On the Run in Outlaw China  (hardback August 2007, paperback July 2008). A memoir of a journey through China and Tibet in Tiananmen-era China, Tao has been reviewed by such travel-writer luminaries as Rory MacLean in the Guardian and Colin Thubron in the Times. Recently selected as one of 50 books in the UK World Book Day Spread the Word: Books to Talk About programme.

Read more...

Finalists: 5th Annual JAT Contest for New and Aspiring Translators

The finalists for the 5th Annual JAT Contest for New and Aspiring Translators have been announced, for both the Japanese to English and English to Japanese sections.

Much thanks to our hard-working contest organizers and semifinal judges (JE: Nora Stevens Heath, Mark Stevenson, Ko Iwata; EJ: Takaaki Aono, Mayumi Adachi, Kiyoshi Fujimura) for making this happen.

The final results will be announced (with love) on Christmas Day, so stay tuned!

Read more...

通訳翻訳ジャーナル2008年冬

Read more...

通訳翻訳ジャーナル2008冬号

t-hs-0901.jpg

日本翻訳者協会と通訳翻訳ジャーナルの「~英語翻訳のプロたちが綴る~後進への招待状」連載企画ですが、2008年冬号(本日発売)にはMark Stevensonさんが「The pros and cons of in-house translation (versus freelancing for translation agencies) 」という記事を寄稿しました。

次号(2月21日発売)はPhil Robertsonさんが日英翻訳の品質管理について語ります。

通訳翻訳WEB

Read more...

5th Annual Contest (Japanese to English finalists)


Finalists (Japanese to English)




The following six entries (#4, #17, #25, #30, #79, #83) have made it to the final round.

Entry 4

Litter Reduction Plan

The 11th Regional Coast Guard Headquarters conducted a survey on what people whose lives are affected by the ocean think about the trash situation there to provide reference on measures to deal with the garbage. The survey was conducted via questionnaires answered by 95 fishing tackle and equipment stores on Okinawa Island.

The survey was conducted a second time via questionnaires to the island’s fishing industry associations. The results appear below.

Questionnaire on the Ocean Litter Reduction Plan (Fishing Industry Association Version)

1. In what month does your association hold its general meeting each year?

A. May (9 associations, 43%) B. June (11 associations, 52%) C. December (1 association, 5%)

2. How many members does your association have?

Total Members: 3,771 (Regular Members: 1,848, 49%; Associate Members: 1,923, 51%)

3. Does your association encourage the proper disposal of polystyrene bait boxes?

Yes: 11 associations (52%) No: 10 associations (48%)

Those who answered “Yes” encourage recycling, have them cleaned, or dispose of them at recycling or incineration facilities.

4. Does your association encourage members to bring back trash produced on boats?

Yes: 14 associations (67%) No: 7 associations (33%)

Those who answered “Yes” encourage members to separate and bring back their trash, throw it away in designated nets after returning to port, or separate the trash and throw it away at designated dumping areas at port.

5. Does your association in some way direct its members to dispose of garbage, bilge etc. produced during maintenance while anchored?

Yes: 12 associations (57%) No: 9 associations (43%)

Those who answered “Yes” gather it at one place in the port, incinerate it at a facility, or have it collected by a waste disposal company.

6. Does your association conduct periodic cleanups at port?

Yes: 19 associations (90%) No: 2 associations (10%)

Those who answered “Yes” do so before events, clean up periodically, or leave it to members or other companies.

7. Do you think your association’s members are highly conscious of beautification or engage in a high amount of beautification activity?

Very high: 1 association (5%) High: 11 associations (52%) Low: 9 associations (43%)

8. Does your association think the trash situation on the seaside and in the ocean is getting worse?

Much worse: 7 associations (33%) Worse: 13 associations (62%) Not worse: 1 association (5%)

9. How does your association treat residue from mozuku net cleaning?

A. Leave them to sink and decompose in the fishing port, then bring them to land for treatment.
B. Collect the nets, take them to be cleaned at a place for drying nets, then let them float in the ocean.
C. Wash them and let them sink.
D. Clean them as much as possible at the port, then bury them on land.

10. Is your association aware of Okinawa Prefecture’s Island Beautification Act to prevent litter?

Yes: 9 associations (19%) No: 9 associations (43%) No answer: 8 associations

11. Please give us your opinion on any other garbage problems.

A. The unethical behavior and manners of fishermen in ports is a problem.
B. The government should take urgent action on industrial waste.
C. Household garbage is being thrown away at ports, and fishermen are throwing garbage away rather than bringing it back with them.
D. Garbage is flowing into ports from rivers, and vinyl garbage in particular is hindering fishing boats’ navigation.
E. Many people are coming to ports in their cars to throw away garbage.

* All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number and further adjusted so that they add up to a total of 100% for each question.

Entry 17

Anti-Littering Measures

The Eleventh Regional Coast Guard headquarters conducted a survey among 95 fishing tackle retailers in Okinawa Main Island in order to examine the awareness of marine pollution among those who spend time at sea. The survey is also going to be used for reference purposes for anti-littering measures in the future.

As the second part of this research series, they did a survey among fishermen cooperative societies in Okinawa Main Island. The results of the survey are as follows.

Results of the survey on anti-littering measures at sea (among fishermen cooperative societies)

1. In what month does your fishermen cooperative have a general meeting?
A. May, 9 cooperatives (43%)
B. June, 11 cooperatives (52%)
C. December, 1 cooperative (5%)

2. How many current members does your cooperative have?
Total membership 3771 - 1848 regular members (49%,) and 1923 associate members (51%).

3. Does your cooperative advise the members to appropriately dispose bait boxes made of expanded polystyrene?
A. Yes, 11 cooperatives (approx. 52%)
B. No, 10 cooperatives (approx. 48%)

If you answered yes to the question 3, what is your advice regarding appropriate disposal?
A. Encourage the members to reuse the bait boxes.
B. Advise them to have the bait boxes disposed by waste collectors.
C. Encourage recycling or disposal of bait boxes at incineration facilities.

4. Do you advise the members to take the garbage with them when leaving the ship?
A. Yes, 14 cooperatives (Approx. 67%)
B. No, 7 cooperatives (Approx. 33%)

If you answered yes to the question 4, please explain.
A. Advise the members to separate the garbage and take them off board.
B. Advise them to dispose the garbage in assigned plastic containers after arriving to a port.
C. Advise them to separate the garbage and dispose them in trash receptacles at a port.

5. Do you advise the members regarding the waste and bilge water disposal during their ship’s stay at a port?
A. Yes, 12 cooperatives (approx. 57%)
B. No, 9 cooperatives (approx. 43%)

If you answered yes to the question 5, what is your advice?
A. Leave them at an assigned location in a port.
B. Dispose them at an incineration facility.
C. Have them collected by waste disposal specialists.

6. Do you clean ports regularly?
A. Yes, 19 cooperatives (approx. 90%)
B. No, 2 cooperatives (approx. 10%)

If you answered yes to the question 6, please explain further.
A. Clean before events.
B. Clean regularly.
C. Have members clean or hire professional cleaners.

7. Do you think the cooperative members are environmentally conscious?
A. Highly conscious, 1 cooperative (approx. 5%)
B. Conscious, 11 cooperatives (approx. 52%)
C. Not conscious, 9 cooperatives (approx. 62%)

8. Do you think the problem of litter at sea and surrounding areas is worsening?
A. Extremely worsening. 7 cooperatives (approx 33%)
B. Starting to get worse. 13 cooperatives (approx. 62%)
C. Not worsening. 1 cooperative (approx. 5%)

9. What do you do with remaining dirt in the fishing nets after cleaning?
A. Leave the nets in the sea in fishing ports until the remaining dirt gets decomposed. Then dispose them on shore.
B. Collect and wash the fishing nets at a cleaning location. Throw the used water and dirt into the sea.
C. Wash the fishing nets and let the used water and dirt subside naturally.
D. Wash the fishing nets in ports. When a certain amount of dirt is accumulated, collect and dispose by landfill.

10. Do you know the anti-littering ordinance, Churashima Environmental Beautification Ordinance?
A. Yes, 4 cooperatives (approx. 19%)
B. Never heard of it, 9 cooperatives (approx. 43%)
8 cooperatives did not answer this question.

11. Please share any opinions and concerns you may have regarding littering problems.
A. Troubled because of fishermen’s low moral and lack of manner.
B. Administrative organs need to regulate industrial waste disposal methods immediately.
C. Household wastes are left in ports. Also, fishermen leave their garbage in ports.
D. Garbage from rivers flows into ports. Especially plastics are obstructing the paths of fishing boats.
E. Increasing numbers of people drive to ports to throw away their garbage.

Entry 25

Measures to Prevent Littering

In order to improve anti-littering initiatives in the future, the 11th Regional Coast Guard Headquarters conducted a survey of 95 fishing supply stores on Okinawa Island to see what those who live and work around the sea think about garbage in the ocean.

In this second round, we surveyed the member cooperatives of the Okinawa Island Fisheries Cooperative Association. The results of the questionnaire are as follows.

Questionnaire Survey on Measures to Prevent Littering in the Sea (Fisheries Cooperative Assoc. edition)

1. In what month is the cooperative’s yearly general meeting held?
In May - 9 co-ops (43%) In June – 11 co-ops (52%) In December - 1 co-op (5%)

2. How many co-op members are there currently?
3771 members (Full members: 1848 (49%), associate members: 1923 (51%))

3. Does the co-op actively encourage the proper disposal of polystyrene foam bait boxes?
Yes – 11 co-ops (approx. 52%) No – 10 co-ops (approx. 48%)

Detailed responses from those who answered Yes to Question 3:
1. Encourage their reuse
2. Contract with a cleaning agency to dispose of them
3. Recycle them or dispose of them at an incineration facility

4. Does the co-op instruct fishing crews to bring their on-board garbage back with them?
Yes – 14 co-ops (approx. 67%) No – 7 co-ops (approx. 33%)

Detailed responses from those who answered Yes to Question 4:
1. Encourage crews to separate and bring back garbage
2. Have crews dump garbage in designated containers upon returning to port
3. Instruct crews to separate and place garbage in harbor dumping sites

5. Does the co-op encourage the disposal of waste, bilge, etc. produced while undergoing maintenance at anchor?
Yes – 12 co-ops (approx. 57%) No – 9 co-ops (approx. 43%)

Detailed responses from those who answered Yes to Question 5:
1. Deposit waste/bilge at a given place within the harbor
2. Incinerate waste/bilge on-site
3. Have a waste disposal company collect it

6. Does the cooperative clean the harbor periodically?
Yes – 19 co-ops (approx. 90%) No – 2 co-ops (10%)

Detailed responses from those who answered No to Question 6:
1. Cleaning is done prior to events
2. Harbor is cleaned periodically
3. Cleaning is done by co-op members or a contracted company

7. Do you think your co-op’s members’ awareness of beautification efforts is high?
Very high – 1 co-op (approx. 5%) High – 11 co-ops (approx 52%) Low – 9 co-ops (approx 43%)

8. Do you think that trash scattered onto the shore and into the ocean has become worse?
It is much worse – 7 co-ops (approx. 33%)
It is growing worse – 13 co-ops (approx. 62%)
It is not becoming worse – 1 co-op (approx. 5%)

9. How does your co-op clean residue off of its mozuku seaweed nets?
1. Immerse the net in the harbor and leave it until the residue decays, then haul the net onshore and clean it
2. Take in the net, clean it in the drying area, then rinse it in the sea
3. Clean the net and then let it sink naturally
4. Clean the net in the harbor, then once the residue has accumulated collect it and bury it on shore

10. Have you heard of Okinawa Prefecture’s “Chura-shima Environmental Beautification Ordinance,” an anti-littering ordinance?
Yes – 4 co-ops (approx. 19%) No – 9 co-ops (43%) No response – 8 co-ops

11. Please let us know if you have any opinions concerning littering and trash issues.
1. The poor manners and morals of fishermen in the harbor are a problem
2. The government should arrange to take in industrial waste as soon as possible
3. The reality is that people throw their household waste into the harbor, and fishermen do not take their garbage with them when they leave
4. Garbage, especially plastic items, flows from rivers into the harbor and blocks fishing boats from moving
5. The number of people coming to the harbor by car and throwing garbage away is increasing

Entry 30

Measures to Prevent Trash Being Thrown into the Ocean

To help identify measures to prevent trash being thrown into the ocean, the 11th Regional Coast Guard Headquarters has conducted a survey of people involved in ocean-related work for their opinions on the current state of the seas around Okinawa. The survey was carried out at in two parts: the first past surveyed 95 fishing tackle stores on Okinawa’s main island, while the second part questioned representatives of the main island’s fishery cooperatives.
Results for the second part of the survey are as follows.

Survey to Identify Measures to Prevent Trash Being Thrown into the Ocean (Fishery Cooperatives)

1. Which month does your cooperative hold its annual general meeting?
① In May: 9 fishery cooperatives (43% of total respondents)
② In June: 11 (52%)
③ In December: 1 (5%)

2. How many members does your cooperative currently have?
3,771 members in total: full members, 1,848 (49%); associate members, 1,923 (51%)

3. Do you instruct your members on how to appropriately dispose of Styrofoam bait boxes?
a) Yes: 11 (approx. 52%)
b) No: 10 (approx. 48%)

Examples of answers provided by “Yes” respondents
① We provide instructions on reusing the boxes.
② Our members outsource the disposal of the boxes to specialist contractors.
③ Our members recycle the boxes or dispose of them at an incinerator.

4. Do you instruct your members on how to stow and bring back the trash they generate onboard when at sea?
a) Yes: 14 (approx. 67%)
b) No: 7 (approx. 33%)

Examples of answers provided by “Yes” respondents
① We provide instructions on separating trash and returning with it to port.
② Our members dispose of the separated trash in designated collection bins on returning to port.
③ We provide instructions on separating and disposing of the trash at a designated site within the port.

5. Do you provide instructions on how to correctly dispose of trash and similar substances, such as bilge, that are generated when the boat is undergoing maintenance within port, and if so, what kind of instructions?
a) Yes: 12 (approx. 57%)
b) No: 9 (approx. 43%)

Examples of answers provided by “Yes” respondents
① We have established a designated site within the port for the disposal of trash and similar substances.
② Our members incinerate trash and other waste at a facility within the port.
③ Trash and other waste are collected by specialist contractors for disposal.

6. Are the port facilities cleaned regularly?
a) Yes: 19 (approx. 90%)
b) No: 2 (approx. 10%)

Examples of answers for “Yes” respondents
① Cleaning is carried out prior to an event taking place at the port.
② Cleaning is carried out regularly.
③ Cleaning is carried out by members of the cooperative or outsourced to a cleaning contractor.

7. Do you think member awareness of the need to keep the oceans clean is high and are they actively doing so?
a) Extremely aware: 1 (approx. 5%)
b) Very aware: 11 (approx. 52%)
c) Not very aware: 9 (approx. 43%)

8. To what extent do you think the problem of people incorrectly throwing away trash at beaches and into the ocean is getting worse?
a) Getting much worse: 7 (approx. 33%)
b) Getting worse to some extent: 13 (approx. 62%)
c) Not getting worse: 1 (approx. 5%)

9. How do your members dispose of the waste residue that collects on mozuku* nets?
① Our members submerge the nets within the port until the residue decomposes and then clean the nets on land.
② Our members collect the nets, clean them at a net-drying area, and then dispose of the residue in the ocean.
③ Our members clean the nets within the port and let the residue decompose naturally.
④ Our members clean the nets within the port and, if a certain amount of residue remains, they collect it and bury it on land.

10. Are you aware of the “Ordinance for the Beautification of the Chura Islands,” an Okinawa Prefectural Government ordinance that aims to address the problem of trash being thrown into the ocean and related problems?
a) Aware of it: 4 (approx. 19%)
b) Not aware of it at all: 9 (approx. 43%)
(No responses from 8 cooperatives)

11. If you have any other thoughts about the problem of trash being thrown into the ocean or about related problems, please write them here.
① The bad manners of people fishing at the port is a problem.
② The government should make immediate preparations to accept industrial waste.
③ Some people dump their household trash in the port. Also, people fishing at the port are not taking their trash home but are rather throwing it away in the port.
④ Trash is flowing into the port from rivers. In particular, plastic trash causes problems for boats entering and leaving the port.
⑤ Many people are driving to the port to throw away their trash.

* An edible seaweed

Entry 79

Measures to deal with garbage dumping

The 11th Regional Maritime Safety Headquarters conducted a survey among people whose livelihoods are tied to the ocean to find out what they think of the current garbage situation in marine areas. A survey of 95 fishing supply stores on the main island of Okinawa was carried out for reference purposes in formulating future anti-garbage measures.

This was the second survey by questionnaire conducted among the Fisheries Cooperative Associations of the main island of Okinawa. The results of the survey are as follows.

Survey by questionnaire on measures to deal with marine garbage dumping (Fisheries Cooperative Association version)

1. In which month does your association hold its annual general meeting?
① May: 9 associations (43%)
② June: 11 associations (52%)
③ December: 1 association (5%)

2. How many members does your association currently have?
3771 members (1848 full members (49%), 1923 associate members (51%))

3. Does your association supervise the proper handling and disposal of styrofoam bait boxes?
Yes: 11 associations (about 52%), No: 10 associations (about 48%)

Responses of those who answered yes:
① We supervise the reuse of such boxes
② Disposal is outsourced to cleaners
③ Boxes are disposed of by recycling or incineration facilities

4. Do you ensure that any garbage on board a ship gets taken home?
Yes: 14 associations (about 67%), No: 7 associations (about 33%)

Responses of those who answered yes:
① We ensure that garbage is sorted and taken home
② Garbage is disposed of in designated nets after arrival at port
③ We ensure that garbage is sorted and placed at garbage dumps within the port

5. Do you supervise the disposal of garbage, bilge, etc that accompanies in-harbor maintenance while the ship is on the berth? How?
Yes: 12 associations (about 57%), No: 9 associations (about 43%)

Responses (to “How?”) of those who answered yes:
① Placed at fixed locations within the port
② Disposed of by incineration within the facility
③ Collected and disposed of by waste disposal services

6. Is cleaning of the port carried out on a regular basis?
Yes: 19 associations (about 90%), No: 2 associations (10%)

Responses of those who answered no:
① Carried out before events and functions
② Carried out on a regular basis
③ Delegated to association members, or outsourced to cleaners

7. Do you think members of your association are highly conscious of beautification (activities)?
Extremely conscious: 1 association (about 5%), Highly conscious: 11 associations (about 52%), Not conscious: 9 associations (about 43%)

8. Do you think the garbarge scatter situation in seaside and marine areas is deteriorating?
Seriously deteriorating: 7 associations (about 33%), Continuing to deteriorate: 13 associations (about 62%), Don’t think so: 1 association (about 5%)

9. How do you dispose of the residue from cleaning the mozuku[1] seaweed nets?
① After leaving them submerged in the fishing harbor until they decompose in the sea, they are taken onshore and disposed of.
② They are collected, cleaned at the net drying area, and then flushed into the sea.
③ They are washed and allowed to settle naturally.
④ They are washed in the port. After a certain number has been gathered, they are collected and buried onshore.

10. Are you aware of Okinawa’s Churashima Environmental Beautification Ordinance, which aims to prevent littering and garbage dumping?
Yes: 4 associations (about 19%), Not at all: 9 associations (43%) *8 associations gave no reply

11. If you have any other opinions about the garbage problem, please record them below.
① The lack of ethics and etiquette among fishermen at the port with regard to garbage disposal is a problem.
② The administration should arrange for the prompt removal of industrial waste products.
③ Disposing of household waste inside the port has become common practice. In addition, fishermen get rid of their garbage there without taking it home with them.
④ Garbage from rivers flows into the port. Plastic waste in particular obstructs the passage of fishing boats.
⑤ The number of people who drive into the port and dispose of their garbage there has increased.

[1] Cladosiphon okamuranus and Sphaerotrichia divaricata, types of edible seaweed.

Entry 83

Anti-Littering Measures

The 11th Regional Maritime Safety Headquarters conducted an investigation to find out how people involved with the sea perceived the marine litter situation in their area. A questionnaire survey of 95 Okinawa Island fishing gear shops was also conducted for use as reference material in developing future anti-littering measures.

For the second part of this investigation, a questionnaire survey of Okinawa Island fisheries cooperatives was conducted. The results are as follows:

Questionnaire Survey of Fisheries Cooperatives regarding Marine Litter Countermeasures

1.) When does your cooperative hold its annual general meeting?
- May - 9 (43%)
- June - 11 (52%)
- December - 1 (5%)

2.) What is the current total number of cooperative members?
Full members - 1,848 (49%)
Associate members - 1,923 (51%)
Total - 3,771

3.) Does your cooperative have a policy in place for the proper disposal of polystyrene bait boxes?
Yes - 11 (52%)
No - 10 (48%)

If "Yes," describe:
- Boxes are reused
- Co-op contracts with a professional garbage-collecting service for disposal
- Boxes are disposed of at recycling or incineration facilities

4.) Does your cooperative have a policy regarding taking home garbage produced on fishing vessels?
Yes - 14 (67%)
No - 7 (33%)

If "Yes," describe:
- We have a policy of sorting and taking home garbage
- Trash is disposed of in designated receptacles after returning to port
- We have a policy of sorting garbage and leaving it at garbage collection points in the harbor

5.) Do you have a policy regarding the disposal of garbage, bilge water and other waste while vessels are in harbor for maintenance?
Yes - 12 (57%)
No - 9 (43%)

If "Yes," describe:
- Garbage is left at a designated spot within the harbor
- Garbage is incinerated on-site
- Garbage is collected by a professional disposal service

6.) Do you engage in harbor cleanups on a regular basis?
Yes - 19 (90%)
No - 2 (10%)

If "Yes," describe:
- Carried out before major events
- Carried out on a regular basis
- Cleanups carried out by co-op members or outsourced to professionals

7.) How high a level of awareness of and participation in cleanup efforts do you feel your cooperative's members have?
Very High - 1 (5%)
High - 11 (52%)
Low - 9 (43%)

8.) Do you think the litter situation on the beach and on the sea has gotten worse?
It's gotten extremely worse - 7 (33%)
It's getting worse - 13 (62%)
Don't think it's gotten worse - 1 (5%)

9.) How do you dispose of the residue left after cleaning your seaweed nets?
- The nets are submerged in the fishing harbor until the residue decomposes; the nets are then hauled in and the residue disposed of
- Nets are hauled in, and the residue is washed off at the net drying place and allowed to flow out to sea
- Residue is washed off and naturally sinks to the bottom of the harbor
- Residue is washed off into the harbor, and recovered and buried on land after enough of it accumulates

10.) Have you heard of the Chura-shima Environmental Beautification Ordinance enacted by Okinawa Prefecture to help stop littering?
Yes - 4 (19%)
No - 9 (43%)
No answer - 8 (38%)

11.) Please add any other comments you have regarding the litter problem.
- The inconsiderateness and bad manners shown by people fishing in the harbor is a big problem.
- The government needs to take immediate action to deal with industrial waste.
- The reality is that people dump their household garbage in the harbor. Also, fishermen leave their garbage behind instead of taking it home.
- Garbage from rivers is carried into the harbor; plastics bags in particular are interfering with the sailing of fishing boats.
- More and more people are driving into the harbor to dump garbage.

Read more...

5th Annual Contest (English to Japanese finalists)


Finalists (English to Japanese)




The following five entries (#23, #28, #32, #49, #81) have made it to the final round.

Entry 23

支払レート

部分構造合成法の手法によって翻訳の生産性を解析するにあたり、まず支払レートの算出方程式から始めよう。弁護士と同様に、翻訳者も顧客に直接的に係る事項に時間を使うが、同時に直接的ではない活動にも時間を費やす。しかし、時間単位で請求するので事前に支払レートを決定できる弁護士とは異なり、翻訳者の多くは単語数に基づいた請求になるので、ある仕事ついての作業が終了するまでは支払レートを知ることができない。

支払レート方程式(BR)は(1)式で表される。

(1)BR=H0 x R

式中HOは単語数で表される時間あたりの生産量、Rは単語あたりの平均レートである。HOとRは翻訳の生産に影響を与える最も重要な2個の変数である。すなわち完成され、かつ提出可能な翻訳を単位時間あたりの単語数で表した翻訳速度と、単語あたりの単価(セント)で表された翻訳した単語数に対して支払われる金額である。翻訳の生産性を時間あたりの単語数で考えるのは間違いであり、生産性は貨幣価値で表わされることを肝に銘じよう。

この事実について良く考え抜いておくことには、心理的に重要な利点がある。それは、編集に要する時間をもめた概算の最終支払レートが既に頭にあるので、編集作業も支払いの対象になっていることを自覚していることである。逆の言い方をすると、翻訳作業中には、この草稿で支払いレートを稼いでいるのだと思えるが、編集作業はなんらの稼ぎにもならない(最終の単語数には変化がないから)と考えることもできる。しかし、編集が支払い対象の作業ではないと考えるとすると、編集は心理的には楽しい作業とはならないであろう。もしも、翻訳は早いが、編集は遅い(または編集が苦手な、または嫌いな)翻訳者なら、翻訳作業を外部委託した方が良い場合の好例となる。外部委託した編集者に単語数に基づいて支払う場合には、前記のBR方程式に当てはめる単語あたりの平均レート(R)から編集者に支払うレートを差し引いておく。さて、編集作業を外委託することに決めた場合にはどうなるか:

例えば、自分で編集する場合のBRが時間あたり500単語X0.15ドル=75ドルで、編集をしない場合の翻訳速度は時間あたり650単語に増えるとしょう。もし、優秀な編集者を0.15ドル – (75ドル ÷ 650) = 0.15ドル - 0.115ドル= 0.035ドルの対価で探せるなら、編集者を活用すべきである。自分が編集よりも翻訳が好きであったり、あるいは編集者を活用することによって翻訳物の品質(その結果、多分、単語あたりのレートも)の改善が図れる場合には、特にそうである。この計算の背景にある理論は: 自分で編集しない(従って、時間あたりの単語数は元の500ではなく650である)のであるから、同額の75ドルを稼ぐためには、単語あたりのレートは0.115ドルであればよい(すなわち、単語あたり0.115ドルで650語ならば、時間あたりの稼ぎは同額の75ドルになる)。しかし、顧客には依然として0.15ドルを請求しているので、0.035ドル(0.15ドル-0.115ドル)のとりを持つことになる。文書の洗練度や編集度を向上させる結果として、単語レートを上げることができると考えられる投資については、0.035ドルまでは損することなしにその編集担当者に支払うことができるのである。

支払いレートは、自分の収益力と関係している。支払レートを上げるために投資する時間、(翻訳するため時間を奪うことで)総所得に対してマイナスの影響を与えることによりある程度相殺され、また支払レートを上げるために投資した(消費した)お金(音声認識ソフトウェア、コンピュータ支援翻訳ツールや生産性を促進するような事務用イスなどへの投資)は、純利益にマイナスの影響を及ぼす。経済的観点(ライフスタイルに対する影響は無視するとする)からいえば、投資の結果上がった支払レートが、これらのマイナスの影響を上回る場合にのみ、このような時間やお金に対する投資が正当化されることを意味している。

Entry 28

請求レート

ビルディング・ブロック・アプローチを用いて生産性のモデルを作ろうと思うが、まずは請求レートを算出するための方程式から話を始めよう。弁護士と同様に、翻訳者は直接顧客に帰属する時間を費やし、その上、翻訳の周辺活動も行う。一方で、弁護士と異なるところもある。弁護士は時間数で請求金額を決めるため、事前に請求レートを設定できるが、翻訳者は単語数で請求するのがほとんどで、どんな特定の仕事の請求レートであれ、その請求レートを知るのは仕事が完了した後になるということだ。

請求レートを算出するための方程式は次のように表される。

(1) BR=HO×R

HOは1時間当たりの単語総数で、Rは1単語当たりの平均レートである。この2つは最も重要な変数で、生産性に影響を与える。つまり、納品できる翻訳完成物を作りだすスピード(1時間当たりの単語数で表される)と翻訳した単語の対価(1単語当たりセントで表される)である。注意してほしいのは、生産性は1時間当たりの単語数で表すことができると考えるのは間違っているということだ。生産性は金銭の観点から適切に表現できる。

金銭の観点から生産性についてじっくり検討するのは、心理的にも重要な利点があるからだ。つまり、編集に費やした時間をすでに考慮に入れた大雑把な最終請求レートを使うことで、編集に対しても報酬が支払われていると理解するのだ。逆に言えば、翻訳はするが編集には何も報酬がないとすれば(最終的な単語数は同じ)、初期ドラフト請求レートを稼いでいると考えることもできるかもしれない。しかし、編集を報酬のない作業と考えれば、心理的には楽しいものではないだろう。だからこそ、翻訳は早いが、編集は遅い(または、編集は苦手、または編集は嫌いといった)人であれば、編集作業を外注した方がいいかもしれない。編集者に単語数に基づいて支払いをするのであれば、単語レートから編集者に支払う金額を控除するだけで、BR方程式に当てはめるべきレートがわかる。編集を外注するかどうかを決めるのは次のように考えてみれば良いだろう。

自分で編集をする場合の請求レートが1時間500ワード×0.15ドル=75ドルで、編集をしない場合のスピードが1時間あたり650ワードの場合、0.15ドル-(75ドル÷650)=0.15ドル-0.115ドル=0.035ドルで質の高い編集者を見つけることが出来るのであれば、編集者に外注すべきである。特に、自分で編集するよりも翻訳をするのが好きであったり、編集者を使うことで(自分の単語レートで)翻訳の質を向上させることができたりするのであれば、なおさらである。この計算の背後には次のような論理がある。つまり、自分で編集作業をしない今や(1時間当たり以前は500語を翻訳したのに、結果として650語を翻訳することができるようになった)、1時間で同じ75ドルを稼ぐためには、1単語あたり0.115ドルのレートで純益をあげれば十分である(つまり、1単語あたり0.115ドルで650語を翻訳すれば、1時間で同じ75ドルを稼げるということだ)。顧客には0.15ドルで請求をしているので、0.035ドルは自由に使うことができる。翻訳物がより洗練され、編集された結果、単語レートを1セントでも上げることができると思うごとに、その分だけ損失なく編集者に支払う報酬をあげることができるのだ。

請求レートは翻訳者の収益力と関係している。とはいうものの、請求レートを上げることに投資する時間はどんなものであれ、(その時間だけ翻訳から離れることになるから)総所得を押し下げるし、(音声認識ソフトウェア、コンピュータ支援翻訳ツール、生産性を高める事務用の椅子といった)請求レートを上げることに投資する(費やす)金はどんなものであれ、純所得を押し下げる影響を与えることになるだろう。つまり、こうした投資を経済的な観点から(ライフスタイルへの影響は無視して)正当化できるのは、こうした所得を押し下げる影響よりも請求レートが結果として上がるほうが大きい場合だけである。

Entry 32

翻訳者の実労時間給(BR)

ここでは、ブロックをひとつずつ積み上げていくようにして、翻訳者の生産性を導き出していく。まず、実労時間給を求める方程式からはじめる。弁護士の仕事と同じように、翻訳者はクライアントから請けた仕事に直接的に帰する作業と、それ以外の雑務的な仕事の両方に時間をかける。弁護士は実労時間で請求書を起こすので、あらかじめ時間当たりの請求額を設定するのだが、一方、ほとんどの翻訳者は単語あたりいくらで請求書を計算するので、その仕事が終わるまでは実労時間給がわからないのが実情である。

実労時間給を求める方程式は、

BR = HO × R
である。

ここで、HOは1時間当たりの訳出語数(hourly output in words)、Rは単語単価の平均値(the average per-word rate)である。
翻訳者の生産性に影響する最も重要な変数が2つある。ひとつは、納品可能な完成品としての翻訳を仕上げるスピードで「時間当たり何単語」と表現される。もうひとつは、翻訳物への対価で「単語当たりいくら」と表現される。注意すべき点は、時間当たり何単語翻訳したかで生産性を考察するのは間違いで、生産性はお金の単位で表わすのが適切であるということだ。

ここまで考えておくと精神的にとても有利なことがあり、それは、あらかじめ編集作業も含めた最終的な実労時間給を、おおまかに知っていれば、編集作業にかかる時間にも報酬が支払われているとわかることだ。逆に、翻訳作業の最初の下書きには報酬が支払われるが、編集作業はただ働きであると考えることも可能だが(最終的な報酬額は同じであるが)、編集は無償の仕事と考えると、それは精神的に楽しい作業ではなくなる。そこで、もし、翻訳の仕事は早いが編集作業は遅い(あるいは編集が苦手または編集自体が嫌い)という人であれば、編集を下請けに出すという選択肢を考えてみるべきだ。単語数で編集者に支払うとすれば、その単価をもとの単語単価から差し引くだけで、BR算出の方程式に入れるべき単語単価が得られる。編集を下請けに出すかどうかを、どのように決めるのか、以下に例示する。

自分で編集も行った場合のBRが、1時間当たり500単語×0.15ドル=75ドルで、編集を除いた翻訳速度が1時間当たり650単語だった場合、もしも優秀な編集者を、単語当たり0.15ドル-(75ドル÷650)=0.15ドル-0.115ドル=0.035ドルで見つけられるなら、下請けに出すべきである。特に、自分で編集するより翻訳作業のほうが好きな人や、編集者を雇うことで翻訳の品質を高めることができる(ことによれば単語単価を値上げできる)場合は、なおさらである。ここで、上記の計算の意味するところを説明する。1時間で同じ75ドルを稼ぐためには、もう編集作業はしなくていいのだから(つまり結果的に1時間当たり、もともとの500単語に対して650単語翻訳しているから)、単語当たり0.115ドルだけ得られればよいことになる (すなわち、単語当たり0.115ドルで650語翻訳すれば、1時間当たり同じ75ドルの稼ぎとなる)。それでもクライアントには単語当たり0.15ドルを請求しているわけだから、差し引き0.035ドルの余剰が生じる。より洗練され、きれいに編集された文書を納品できることで単語単価を値上げすることが可能な場合は、その割り増し分以内は、損失なしで編集者への支払いに上乗せすることができる。

実労時間給は収益を得るための原動力であるのだが、実労時間給を上げるために時間を投資すれば、多かれ少なかれ(翻訳の時間を奪ってしまうので)総収入を引き下げてしまうので、上がった時間給による収益増と相殺になってしまうし、また、実労時間給を上げるためにお金を投資すれば(浪費すれば)(例えば音声認証ソフトウェアやコンピューター利用翻訳ツール、生産性を高めるオフィスチェアー)その分、純利益を引き下げてしまう。ということは、時間やお金の投資をするには、(ライフスタイルへの影響を無視するなら)その引き下げの影響よりも、実労時間給上昇の収益への貢献度が大きい場合にのみ、経済的に妥当なのだ。

Entry 49

請求レート

積み木アプローチを用いて生産率を図式化します。まず請求レートを求める方程式から始めましょう。弁護士と同様、翻訳者はクライアントから依頼された仕事そのものに時間を費やすかたわら、周辺作業にも時間を使います。ただし、弁護士は時間単位で顧客に請求するので請求レートを事前に設定することができますが、大半の翻訳者はワード数ごとの請求になるため、ある特定の依頼における請求レートがいくらになるのか、その仕事が片付くまでは分かりません。

請求レートを求める方程式は以下のようになります。

BR = HO × R

HOは1時間あたりの総翻訳ワード数、Rは1ワードあたりの平均レートを表します。生産率を左右する最も重要な変動要素が二つあります。一つ目はクライアントへ最終的に提出が可能な翻訳を完了させるまでのスピードで、時間あたりのワード数で求められます。二つ目は翻訳によって得られる対価で、これはワードあたり何セントかで表すことができます。時間当たりのワード数によって生産率を求めるのは誤った方法です。生産率はあくまで金銭的な項目によって的確に表されるものだからです。

以上を考慮し、校正にかかる時間をもすでに含んだ大まかな最終請求レートを設定することで、校正作業にも対価が支払われるという認識を持つことが心理的に大きな効果をもたらします。逆に言えば、翻訳作業時には草稿に対する請求レートを得ているけれども、校正作業では1セントも稼いでいないと考えることもできます(最終的な請求レート値は同じです)。しかしそれが無給の作業だとみなせば校正は心理的にそれほど楽しいものではなくなります。つまり、もしあなたが翻訳は早くできるけれども校正に時間がかかるようなら(または校正が不得手であったり、校正そのものが嫌いなら)、校正作業を外注に出すことを検討したほうがよいでしょう。外注先の校正者にワードあたりのレートで料金を支払う場合は、あなたのワードあたりのレートからその金額を差し引きます。BR 方程式に加えなければならないレートを換算するためです。校正を外注に出すかどうかの検討手順は以下のようになります。

あなたのBRが自身による校正作業も含めて1時間あたり500ワード×0.15ドル=75ドル、校正作業を除いたスピードが1時間あたり650ワードだったとします。そして、ワードあたり0.035ドル(0.15 – ($75 ÷650) = $0.15 - $0.115 = $0.035)で引き受けてくれる能力のある校正者が見つかったなら、校正作業は外注に出すべきです。自分で校正をするよりも翻訳をするほうが好きだったり、校正者を使うことによって翻訳の質を(そしておそらくワードあたりのレートも)向上させることができる場合は特にそうです。上記の計算式の裏にあるロジックはこうです。あなたはもう校正作業をしないので(そして結果的に1時間あたり500ワードだった以前に比べて650ワードの翻訳が可能になったので)、1時間で前と同様の75ドルを稼ぐためには1ワードあたり0.115ドルの実収を得ればいいことになります(すなわち、1ワード0.115ドルのレートで650ワードの翻訳をすれば、同時間内で同額の75ドルを稼ぐことになります)。一方、クライアントには引き続き0.15ドルのレートで請求しているため、残りの0.035ドルが自由に使えるお金としてあなたの手元に残ります。校正を経て翻訳をより磨かれたものにし、その結果あなたのワードあたりのレートを引き上げるためにも、校正者へ支払うレートはこの金額までは自分の身銭を切ることなく上げることが可能です。

請求レートは収益力に結びついています。しかし、請求レートを上げることに費やした時間は、(翻訳にかける時間を食ってしまうゆえに)実収にいくらか負の影響を与え、その効果を相殺してしまうかもしれません。同じ目的で投資(もしくは出費)した金額(音声認識ソフト、翻訳支援ツール、もしくは生産性向上のために購入したデスク用のイスなど)もまた、実収に負の影響を与えかねません。すなわち、このような投資は、結果として増した請求レートがこれら負の影響よりも大きかった場合にのみ、経済的に正当化されるのです。

Entry 81

請求レート

構成要素ごとに生産性を図式化していこう。まず、請求レートの方程式だ。翻訳者には弁護士と同様に、直接クライアントのために使う時間と、周辺活動に使う時間とがある。弁護士は時間単位で請求するため、請求レートも事前に設定している。一方で大半の翻訳者は単語あたりで請求するから、完了まではその仕事に対する自分の請求レートがわからないのだ。

請求レート(billable rate=BR)の方程式は次のようになる。

(1)BR=HO×R

HOは1時間あたり(hourly)にアウトプット(output)される総単語数、Rは平均の単語あたり料金レート(rate)である。この2つが、生産性を決める二大要素になる。すなわち、完成し納品できる状態の翻訳を仕上げるスピード(単語数/時)と、仕上げた翻訳に付けられる値段(金額/単語)である。時間あたりの単語数で生産性を測るのは誤りだ。生産性というのは、金銭的価値でこそ正確にとらえられる。

このように考えておくと、心理的な利点がある。編集時間も計算に入れた大枠の最終請求レートが念頭にあるため、編集作業にも対価が支払われているという意識が持てるのだ。これとは逆に、翻訳で稼いでいるのは初稿に対する請求レートであって、編集作業では1円も稼げない(編集しても仕上がる量は同じだから)、という考え方もできる。だが無給だと思ったら、編集はあまり楽しい作業にはならないだろう。であれば、訳すのは速くても編集に時間のかかる(または編集が不得意な、あるいは嫌いな)人は、編集作業をアウトソースするのが良いかもしれない。編集者に単語あたりで料金を支払うなら、その額を自分の単語あたりの料金レートから差し引いて、BRの方程式に代入する料金レートを導き出す。編集作業をアウトソースすべきかどうかは、例えば次のように決められる。

自分で編集した場合のBRが500語/時×$0.15=$75で、編集なしの場合の翻訳スピードが650語/時という人は、$0.15-($75÷650)=$0.15-$0.115=$0.035で良質な編集者を見つけられるならアウトソースするべきだ。自分で編集するより翻訳している方が好きだったり、編集者を利用することで翻訳の質を(そしてできれば単語あたりの料金レートも)上げられるなら、なおさらアウトソースするのが良い。この計算のロジックを解説しよう。1時間で同じ$75を稼ぐためには、自分で編集をしないのだから(つまり1時間に500語でなく650語訳せるから)、単語あたり$0.115稼げれば良い($0.115/語で650語訳せば、1時間で同じ$75稼ぐことができる)。クライアントに請求する単語あたりの料金レートは$0.15のままだから、$0.035の余裕があるのだ。納品する翻訳の仕上がりが良くなることで見込める単語あたり料金レートの上昇額の範囲なら、編集者への支払額を引き上げても損失は出ない。

請求レートは、稼ぎ出す力の核となるものだ。とはいえ、請求レートを上げるために時間をかければ、(翻訳に時間を取られるため)総収入はある程度減少する。音声認識ソフトウエアやCAT(コンピュータ翻訳支援)ツール、生産性向上のためのオフィスチェアなどに費用をかければ、手元に残る額が減る。つまりこのような投資は、こうしたマイナスの幅よりも請求レートのプラスの幅が大きくなる場合にのみ、(ライフスタイルへの影響は別としても)経済学上正当化されるのである。

Read more...

Source Language Versus Target Language Bias in Translation

This article by Dr. David Petersen originally appeared in the August 2008 issue of the Tsuyaku-Honyaku Journal. Reprinted with permission.

Aside from a few volunteer projects, my start in translation profession was with a private school in Hiroshima where I was employed as a teacher. The English department had taken on responsibility for a visiting author who was writing a novel about the atomic bombing. She had amassed a series of transcripts taken from interviews in Japanese with atomic bomb victims, and came to us looking for a clean English version. The project was to take 6 months. Although the department accepted the work, this was its first venture into translation, and there was no one available to deal with the task on a full-time basis. Knowing of my interest in becoming a translator, I was given a portion of the responsibility, and eventually the better part of the material ended up on my desk.


The opportunity was exciting and the material meaningful, but the pragmatics were daunting. The problem was the mismatch between my sterile textbook Japanese and text in front of me, with its fits and starts, colloquial grammar, incomplete sentences, and emotional tone. Under pressure for time and not wanting to embarrass the school, I ended up organizing a kind of team-translation situation with several of my Japanese study partners: I would read the transcripts for gist, and discuss with my mentors what I felt the speaker was trying to convey. They would correct my intuition, which tended to stray from the text particularly in the more idiomatic passages. I would then take my notes from these meetings, and through comparison with the original, arrive at an English equivalent at a later date. The structure of the product we ultimately delivered reflected the choice to focus on conveying the main ideas as clearly as possible in colloquial English, rather than preserving the structure of the transcripts. I think of this as target language-based translation because of the distance from the source text, particularly during the production of the final draft.

A full-time opportunity eventually opened up at one of the larger translation agencies in Hiroshima. Accepting this offer provided my first exposure to the work methods of professional translators, the start of a valuable and sometimes painful exposure to a completely different perspective on dealing with text. The key aspect of the approach was what I refer to as source language-based translation, because of the degree to which the terminology and rhythms of the final product were constrained by those of the original document. The conservative emphasis on preserving as much of the structure of the Japanese as possible in the final copy yielded work that, while not always aesthetically pleasing, could rarely be faulted for accuracy. It was a conservative style, reflecting years of dealing with customer expectations.

It became evident in discussion with the writers that source-based translation is closely associated with thinking in terms of mapping - the notion that there is always an equivalent in the target domain for a given word or phrase in the source language. Less convincing was the implication in office practices that such correlations should be considered invariant and largely unaffected by context. (Hofstadter takes a diametrically opposed position in discussing the need for evolutionary models if machine translation is ever to offer a realistic alternative to human expertise.)

In fact, company policy dictated that the same word in Japanese should be translated with the same choice of word in English regardless of how many times the phrase appeared in the same document. There is a good lot of repetition in Japanese, particularly in technical articles, and not surprisingly, following this rule inevitably produces materials that seemed stilted and lacking in authenticity. Yet more natural copy was dismissed as barabara (inconsistent) because of the violation of the mapping principle. In defense of the agency, assuring consistency was important given the nature of the material, which primarily consisted of patents, company standards and instruction manuals. As far as the customer was concerned, overuse of synonyms implied a nonexistent variance in the source text, something that could potentially mislead the reader. From their perspective, the artificial tone of the final product was a small price to pay for clarity.

Other aspects of the office organization also implicitly favored production of source language-biased copy. Each translated document was reviewed by at least one other person (usually Japanese) before delivery to the customer. Selection of more natural turns of phrase in English, and particularly the use of colloquialisms, increased the likelihood that the checker would be unfamiliar with the material and would thus flag the sentence for confirmation. The ensuing “hassle factor” was even worse in the case of client reviewers associated with certain companies, who could be counted on to reply with a list of detailed questions on word choice and syntax requiring an extensive explanation (in Japanese). The concomitant loss of time and stream of thought could be avoided by ensuring that the structure of the translation never strayed far from that of the original text.

Additionally, office promotion of computer-assisted translation (CAT) was wholly congruent with the focus on source language structure. As those familiar with TRADOS and other such products are aware, the software provides a database for comparison of previous translations both within and across documents. The active sentence is compared with all previous material. Anything judged sufficiently similar is recalled for the user, along with its corresponding translation. The previous work can typically be modified to suit the present case with only a substitution or two of nouns, thus speeding up the handling of documents considerably.

In gradually adapting to the way in which the software deconstructs the text, I found that my “conceptual space” was contracting from page or paragraph down to the level of the sentence, a factor which curtailed any temptation to read for gist and then paraphrase. It was difficult to build up elaborate explanations in the target language because of the constraint of providing approximately one English sentence per Japanese sentence. Working with CAT also tends to promote a kind of abstract thinking with respect to the material, focusing attention squarely on the syntax of the source language. Nouns take on a disposable quality thanks to the recycling of previous sentences, and the text becomes somehow less about content and more about form – primarily the abstract pattern of particles and verbs.

This I believe was responsible for what I see as the largest benefit of source language emphasis, i.e. the ability to adapt quickly when faced with technical materials in fields outside of one’s own areas of expertise. Learning to ignore the complexities of the placeholders in favor of the essential form - "A acting on B during C” for example, made it easier to visualize what the writer was attempting to convey, and to then fashion an equivalent in English.

The arrival of a new recruit provided an opportunity to examine the question of source/target emphasis anew from a more objective perspective. This person's background included no use of CAT: their process involved an initial reading for meaning, followed by an intuitive translation guided by the principle that the finished product must sound as if it had been produced originally by a native English speaker. The approach was hardly radical, but quickly led to friction with the other staff.

Fidelity to content for example was frequently an issue. Particularly in business Japanese, there are long stretches of prose tied to levels of politeness not normally utilized in English correspondence. If it is difficult to find an equivalent image or tone, there is a tendency to abbreviate, a habit which can betray the tone of the original if not used sparingly. In fact, the new recruit’s “authentic sounding document” rule was gradually augmented by a concomitant and less commendable rule of thumb – i.e. “if in doubt, leave it out.” Use of the latter heuristic was further reinforced by inevitable time constraints arising from stylistic concerns.

Target language emphasis was also problematic given the diversity of source materials. While a translator must of necessity be committed to continuous study, the ideal of operating only within one’s field of expertise is rarely an economically viable option. During the course of a typical day at the agency, it was not unusual to be faced with a private letter, a financial statement, specifications for semiconductor production, and an overview of the municipal water supply, all in quick succession. In this kind of triage situation, stylistic concerns become less important than providing as accurate and unambiguous a text as possible in the time available. This means keeping a close eye on the syntax of the original, and assuming that the result will make sense in the specialist context in which is it will be read. My peer’s commendable attempts to match the writing to each field in question meant being constantly under the gun as far as deadlines were concerned.

My circumstances have changed, and I have returned to working a more manageable schedule. Reflecting back the experience at the agency, I am left with a sense of the importance of balance. The policy of source-based translation was a pragmatic one, intended to maximize the throughput of material and hence profits. The results were often stilted, and there was certainly no comparison with the stylistic quality of my peer’s work. Yet there are times, particularly in unfamiliar fields, where the best assurance of correct interpretation is to internalize the grammar of the original and to give it precedence in the writing. In fact, I find myself now using computer assisted translation even with literary texts in which there is no chance of repetition. The reason is that focusing on the level of the line and its syntax helps to structure intuition. Staying close to the grammar of the original provides cohesion, thereby grounding the aesthetic choices that constitute the creative process in which we are all involved.

Read more...

Tomokazu Gushikami - 25 October 2008 TAC

Read more...

JAT Board Face-to-Face Meeting Minutes, Fall 2008


JAT Board Face-to-Face Meeting Minutes
October 24, 2008, 1:30pm to 7:00pm
27th floor of the Horizon Mare building in Ariake, Tokyo




Chair: Manako Ihaya (MI)
Directors in attendance: Chris Blakeslee (CB), Manako Ihaya, Jamie Phillips (JP), Phil Robertson (PR), Mike Sekine (MS), Nora Stevens Heath (NSH), Jed Schmidt (JS)
Auditors in attendance: Wolfgang Bechstein (WB), Kiyoshi Chimasu (KC)
Directors represented by proxy: N/A
Minutes kept by Jed Schmidt




IJET19 wrap-up




WB: IJET committee needs to release financial statement, summary of attendance stats.
MS: Committee misinterpreted JAT loan of 1,000,000 yen as a grant, but ended up 920,000 yen in debt. Will have financial report done by end of 11/2008.




IJET20 status report




PR: Led by Michael Hendry, IJET20 is now four months away, aiming for 100+ attendees. Committee will not need more seed funding from JAT. Smaller fees from PayPal mean commissions will be less than expected. Some worries about repaying JAT loan due to falling AUS$, and that hotel is less than efficient. Details here: [link]




IJET21 status report




PR: Will be held on 4/24-25 at Miyazaki Kanko Hotel in Miyazaki. Participants estimated up to 120, with the theme of “Improving the quality of the translator’s life and strengthening translation abilities”. Details here: [link]




IJET22 status report




MI: Preliminarily considering Seattle or LA as venues, currently recruiting potential hosts.




Project Tokyo update




PR: Chaired by Ben Davis, will be held at Tokyo Convention Hall in Hamamatsu-cho. Program is already filled, with many non-members and people from outside of Kanto signing up. Themes include “Translation as a business” and “Starting out as a translator”, attendance currently at 80. Significant promotion activity, both online and offline. Worries about reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses for volunteers outside of Tokyo. Details here: [link]




Membership




NSH: New members in Q3: +10, +8, and +3 in July, August, September ‘08, respectively. PayPal growing in usage over furikomi, with less friction after last year’s automation. Most non-renewing members leave because they are no longer translators. Domestic/Overseas split steady at 67% / 33%. Nora is on last term as membership secretary, looking for a smooth handover.




JP: JAT needs to know the real names of its members, to avoid situations in which JAT is responsible for unmemberly behavior, such as libel and business fraud. Manako proposed to add the following to the sign-up form. The motion was passed unanimously:




Manako Ihaya proposes the following changes in membership signup wording:
Japan Association of Translators requires members to sign up with their legal name and full address.




Full Name (English)
Full Name (Japanese)

Displayed full name (English) (optional, this can be used as a pen name)
Displayed full name (Japanese) (optional, this can be used as a pen name)




Mike Sekine suggested that the board add a disclaimer such as the following to the membership application: “By submitting this form I agree that JAT shall not be held liable for damages resulting from any actions or opinions expressed by its members.”




Website




JS: The JAT site renewal has started again, and the new site could be ready as early as the end of the year. The site will be largely the same, but on one framework, integrating the member directory and content into a single site, running on Expression Engine. Archives will also be added, with older archives added later. Jed is also considering using his possible upcoming candidacy as a referendum on moving jat-list to a web-based forum.




JAT contest




MS: We got 82 entries (36 J>E, 46 E>J) this year, and they’ve already been pre-screened. They are currently waiting to be judged.
MI: With 480,000 yen budgeted for screeners and judges for 82 entries, does the budget make sense? Screener payment is an issue: is it enough or too much?




Treasury




CB: JAT has seen more red ink in the past term than any other recent year, but only because we’ve finally managed to allocate our budget towards things that matter, and also that the past few IJETs have run a loss (possibly as a function of being held in more remote locations). JAT still has quite a cushion of funds that are collecting minimal interest, prompting some to wonder whether it should be invested elsewhere.




AGM / Board elections




Jed proposed that III (3) 2 be changed to: Each member shall be able to vote “Yea”, “Nay”, or “Abstain” for each director or auditor. Passed: 6 for, 1 abstain.




MI: Need to put together an election committee in time to get candidate statements by late March.
WB: The full election results should be published for the sake of transparency.
MI: Do the bylaws need to be changed to accommodate JAT members that want to run for the board, but let their membership lapse and do not meet the one-year requirement? Board decided on “No” for the time being.




Public relations




MS: Activities over the past year will be summarized at the AGM, as well as the TAC meeting tomorrow.
MI: Should JAT submit to present at ATA in New York next year? MS: JAT should consider hosting a party there, to drum up new possible member.




The Board decided that JAT would pay for the nijikai cost for the speaker at the October Tokyo TAC meeting.


Read more...

Toshie Yashiro - 20 September 2008 TAC

Read more...

通訳翻訳ジャーナル 2008秋

Read more...

Past Videos and Audio

PROJECT Tokyo 2010 Videos
September 11, 2010
Common Password: malplaquet

  • 1. Emily Shibata-Sato
    英日ワークショップ:コミュニケーションのための翻訳入門
    [VIDEO]

  • 2. Tak Osato
    これ、何秒でできますか?(ワイルドカード、マクロ、ツール)
    [VIDEO]

  • 3. Richard Walker
    Taming the Dragon: A Practical Guide to Voice Recognition and Translator Productivity
    [VIDEO]

  • 4. An Youhee
    特許明細書との対話
    [VIDEO]

  • 5. Joji Matsuo
    煙のないところに火を起こす
    [VIDEO]

  • 6. Charles Aschmann
    What to Look for in Translation Memory Software
    [VIDEO] Part 1
    [VIDEO] Part 2
    [VIDEO] Part 3

  • 7. ディニー・ユウノ
    翻訳者のためのオフィス環境アセスメントと健康アドバイス
    [VIDEO] Part 1
    [VIDEO] Part 2

  • 8. Ryan Ginstrom
    Felix Computer Assisted Translation (CAT) System
    [VIDEO] Part 1
    [VIDEO] Part 2


  • ****************************************

    J-E Translation of IR Materials
    Jeff Loucks
    April 12, 2008 (IJET-19)
    [VIDEO]
    Password: jeffloucks

    Interpreting Performance
    Sophie Natsusato, Katie Watanabe, Jolie Kawazoe, Manako Ihaya
    July 12, 2008
    [DOC]
    Password: interpret0712

    What Translators Should Know About Internationalization & Localization
    Chris Pearce
    July 5, 2008 (JAT Kansai Meeting)
    [AUDIO/PDF]
    Password: pearce0705

    特許翻訳経験談
    藤村聖志
    July 5, 2008 (JAT Kansai Meeting)
    [AUDIO]
    Password: fujimura0705

    Healthcare Interpreting
    Dr. Takayuki Oshimi
    June 21, 2008
    [AUDIO]
    Password: oshimi0621

    Introducing Langwidget
    Jed Schmidt
    April 12, 2008 (IJET-19)
    [AUDIO/PDF]
    Password: ijet19schmidt
    (If you want a deeper and more up-to-date look at Langwidget, check out this online product tour, courtesy of none other than Jed Schmidt himself: [AUDIO]
    Password: ijet19araki

    Translation Workshop
    Fred Uleman
    April 13, 2008 (IJET-19)
    [VIDEO]
    Password: freduleman

    Post-IJET19 Meeting
    Mayumi Toyota, Phil Robertson, Toby Rushbrook, Yukihiro Sato, and Ben Davis
    May 17, 2008
    [AUDIO]
    Password: ijet19

    復帰(1972)前後の通訳・翻訳事情
    平田正代
    April 12, 2008 (IJET-19)
    [AUDIO]
    Password: ijet19hirata

    翻訳・通訳を大学院で学ぶ意味
    武田珂代子
    April 12, 2008 (IJET-19)
    [AUDIO]
    Password: ijet19takeda

    「風が吹けば桶屋が儲かる」、因果関係の表現
    富井篤
    April 13, 2008 (IJET-19)
    [AUDIO]
    [VIDEO]
    Password: tomiiatsushi

    Raising Productivity with Speech Recognition
    Chris Blakeslee
    April 12, 2008 (IJET-19)
    [VIDEO]
    Password: chrisblakeslee

    Tezuka Osamu, Astro Boy, and the Roots of Modern Manga and Anime
    Frederick Schodt
    March 22, 2008
    [AUDIO]
    [AUDIO]
    Password: schodt080322

    Japanese/English Business Correspondence & Pre-IJET Networking
    Moderators: Lisa Hew and Kiyoko Sagane
    March 15, 2008
    [AUDIO]
    Password: saganehew0315

    Fun and Useful Productivity Tips and Tools
    Andrew Shuttleworth
    January 26, 2008
    [AUDIO]
    [VIDEO]
    Password: shuttleworth0126

    Patent Translation Workshop
    Yusaku Yai
    February 26, 2008
    [AUDIO]
    Password: yai0216

    Literary Translation
    Juliet Carpenter
    December 8, 2007
    [AUDIO]
    [VIDEO]
    Password: carpenter1208

    Taxation Seminar
    Masaru Sato (JAT accountant)
    November 10, 2007
    [AUDIO]
    Password: sato1110

    Read more...

    5th Contest JE

    Read more...

    5th Contest EJ

    Read more...

    IJET19 Recap: J-E Translation of IR Materials by Jeff Loucks

    For the next in our release of full videos of several presentations from IJET-19, we're pleased to continue the series with the following presentation from Jeff Loucks:




    Title: J-E Translation of IR Materials
    Speaker: Jeff Loucks

    Abstract:
    This presentation looks at how listed Japanese companies communicate with overseas investors in English and shows how an aspiring J-E translator can enter the investor relations field. We will look at a typical annual schedule of investor communications, focusing on what publications are provided in English and why. Finally, the presentation will describe some useful translator skills and background characteristics and look at ways of developing these skills.

    .

    (Note that these videos are available for members only. The password required to view the videos can be found on the JAT mailing list.)

    Read more...

    Page 12 of 18 pages ‹ First  < 10 11 12 13 14 >  Last ›