Log in

Password not working as expected? Reset your password.

News & Announcements

BOD candidates


2009 JAT Election Results

The 2009 JAT election is over. Total turnout was 48.5%. Summary results
are below, followed by detailed breakdowns. Thanks to all who ran in the
election and to all the JAT members who voted. And congratulations to
all the successful candidates and commiserations to those who were
unsuccessful. Results are also available in PDF format.

Auditor: Emily Shibata-Sato (two-year term)

Directors (two-year terms except where noted):
Charles Aschmann
Peter Durfee (one-year term)
Helen Iwata
Phil Robertson
Fred Uleman

Total eligible votes: 443
Votes received: 221
Dupe votes: 3 (second votes discarded)
Invalid ID vote: 1
False member votes 2 (User name for these votes was edited by the voter,
invalidating the ballot. Probably a failure to follow instructions.)
Total invalid votes: 6
Valid votes (221-6) = 215
Voting rate 48.5%

Detailed results follow.


Emily Shibata-Sato (elected)
Yea 182
Nay 10
Total 172

Cliff Bender
Yea 133
Nay 23
Total 110

Andrew Welford
Yea 39
Nay 43
Total -4


Charles Aschmann (elected, 2-year term)
Yea 116
Nay 16
Total 100

Stephen Carter
Yea 100
Nay 15
Total 85

Hendrik Daiku
Yea 117
Nay 29
Total 88

Peter Durfee (elected, 1-year term)
Yea 108
Nay 18
Total 90

Brian Hyman
Yea 98
Nay 46
Total 52

Helen Iwata (elected, 2-year term)
Yea 178
Nay 4
Total 174

Phil Robertson (elected, 2-year term)
Yea 112
Nay 21
Total 91

Jed Schmidt
Yea 115
Nay 40
Total 75

Mark Stevenson
Yea 87
Nay 22
Total 65

Fred Uleman (elected, 2-year term)
Yea 129
Nay 31
Total 98


Past Board Votes

Here are the results of the votes taken by the JAT board for the past two years. Prior results will be added soon.


IJET-21 Top






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、2009年春号(本日発売)にはPhil Robertsonさんが「The Good, the Bad and the Ugly-Ensuring Quality in Japanese to English Translation 」という記事を寄稿しました。

次号(5月21日発売)はJim Hubbertさんが audio-visual translation について語ります。



PROJECT Tokyo 2008 Yukihiro Sato


2009 JAT Board Election

The 2009 JAT board election cycle is under way!

The election schedule is as follows:

Feb 1 – Mar 21 (00:00 JST): Submission of candidate statements

Members looking to stand for election should fill in the candidacy form.

Per the bylaws, candidates should supply full name, gender, nationality, address of current residence, home telephone number, and e-mail address. Candidates must have been JAT members for the entire year preceding the deadline for submitting candidacy statements.

Apr 1 (00:00 JST) – 22 (00:00 JST): Election

Votes will be cast via the JAT website. Each member shall be able to vote “Yea”, “Nay”, or “Abstain” for each candidate.

May 1 (20:00): announcement of results

Active candidacy participation in this election is vital for JAT’s continuing evolution and greater effectiveness in serving you, the members.

Jim Hubbert
Sagane Kiyoko
Frank Moorhead

2009 JAT Election Committee


5th Annual Contest (Japanese to English results)

The judges of the 5th annual JAT translation contest for new and aspiring translators have made their final decision, and the results are as follows:

The semi-finalists, in order of the numbers assigned to their entries, were:

4. Alexander Farrell
17. Miyako Dubois
25. Grayson Shepard
30. Mark Kelly
79. Darryl Wee
83. Jonathan Merz

After much deliberation, the judges awarded prizes as follows:

First place: No. 83, Jonathan Merz (Wakayama, Japan)
Second place: No. 25, Grayson Shepard (Kanagawa, Japan)

Many thanks to everyone who applied. Choosing the winners was a difficult task, given the number of entries and their level. I observed the judges' deliberations via e-mail, and they they took their responsibilities very seriously. Even if you didn't win, I hope you found the contest to be a challenging and worthwhile exercise, and I hope that some of you will try again next year.

Mike Sekine
Contest Liaison

Commentaries from the Judges

Malcolm James

The stated purpose of the contest is "to cultivate new talent in commercial non-literary translation." In judging, I was trying to find the person with the most talent to become a top commercial translator, not the person who produced the best translation at this stage. Simple misinterpretations are likely to disappear with experience, so I regard them as less of a problem than if this were an actual commercial translation. I’m much less willing, however, to be lenient on translators who submit a translation that doesn’t seem to have got a final read-through, or who produce a translation that doesn’t seem to have considered the document’s context and purpose. Each of the entries commented on below has its own merits and displays the signs of a competent translator. All the finalists have the potential to be good commercial translators and are to be congratulated on their efforts.

General points

The passage for translation is part of a website report on a survey conducted by the local branch of a government agency. The Japanese is generally easy to read, well-structured, and quite accessible. The translation should be, too. Unlike previous contests, but like many commercial translation projects, the genko had some errors and inconsistencies. It also assumed a familiarity with local conditions and subject matter, which had to be interpreted for the target audience - readers of an international organization's Internet presentation on efforts to reduce marine pollution.

Most of the entrants handled the task well, including the problems in the genko. The only real issue was with Q6 ("港内の清掃は定期的に行っておりますか"), where the follow-up question was the only one in the questionnaire that wanted details for NO answers ("ロ 行っていない") instead of YES answers ("イ 行っている"). The problem was that one of the NO answers "②定期的に行なっている" contradicted the NO. Some entrants concluded that the NO (ロ) was a typo for YES (イ), but answer ② didn't really work for that either. I don't know for certain what was actually intended, but since only two Co-ops answered with NO, I wondered if a superfluous line break had turned two answers into three. Conflating answers ② and ③ to give "定期的に行なっている組合員、又は委託業者に委託して行なっている" might work - the Co-op doesn't do regular cleaning itself, it gets either members or professionals to do it instead.

Specific points for #04

This translation gave a good overall impression, but there were places where a better grasp of who was doing what would have helped. For instance Q3 asked "Does your association encourage the proper disposal of ..." but the response had the same subject for "encourage" and "dispose." Similarly, there were contradictions between different parts of the genko. Q9 has "let them float" and "let them sink" applying to the same object ("residue"? "nets"?), and the questionnaire is titled "Questionnaire on the .. Plan," but doesn't really seem to be asking about the "Plan." This translator writes well, and has potential to be a good translator. Further improvement would come from making a habit of reading through the genko several times and actively thinking about what it all means before starting to translate.

Specific points for #17

This translation was let down by grammatical errors and misuse of English, such as the "regulate" in "regulate industrial waste disposal methods," which produces a translation meaning "impose controls on disposal methods" instead of "put in place a system for proper disposal/collection" for "受入態勢を整える." There were places where a better grasp of who was doing what would have helped. For instance, in the second paragraph "they (did a survey)" is confusing. "We (did a survey)" would have made the relationships clearer. Likewise, using "fishermen" for both "漁協組合員" and "釣人" makes it difficult to tell who's being complained about in Q11. The translator seems to have a good grasp of the genko text, so in addition to doing lots of target-language reading to improve grammar etc., improvement would come from making a point of taking a closer look at the larger context - in this case, the rest of the website and similar websites - to gain a deeper overall understanding of the topic.

Specific points for #25

This was perhaps the most accurate translation, and certainly had very few actual mistranslations. I particularly liked the phrasing of Q4 ("Does the co-op instruct fishing crews to bring their on-board garbage back with them?). However the translation trailed the winner on readability and overall impression. The translator has a good understanding of the genko, so improvement would probably come from reading lots of well-written English on the same subject and in the same sort of style as the project. That would help in spotting places where it's OK to move away from the literal text of the Japanese. For instance, think about whether "In order to improve anti-littering initiatives in the future" actually needs the "in the future" at the end.

Specific points for #30

I liked the way that this translator handled the percentages, and particularly the format distinction for Q2, which was the percentage of members, not the percentage of respondents like the other questions. Like the overall winner, this translator made a clear distinction between the current survey and the previous one in the second paragraph, but spoiled it with "the first past" instead of "the first part." A more careful read-through would eliminate that sort of typo. Otherwise, the overall impression is good. Improvement would come from practicing editing the finished translation to make it sharper. This has a word count that is 13% higher than the translations produced by the winner and runner-up, so it might be an idea to go back and try to reduce the count by 10%-15%.

Specific points for #79

There were several points where I particularly liked this translator's choice of words. Examples include the question in Q3, and in Q11, "etiquette" for "マナー," and "has become general practice" for "現状である." However, there were also discrepancies such as "in-harbor maintenance while the ship is on the berth" (either "in-harbor" or "... berth," not both) and the disconnect between the uses of "How?" between question and response in Q.5 (How do you supervise ...?/How is garbage etc. disposed of?). These would probably have been caught by a more careful read-through. Improvement would probably come from leaving the translation for a while before coming back to do the read-through with a fresh mind.

Specific points for #83

I liked this translation because the translator had obviously thought carefully about the topic and worked out how to say the same thing in natural English. The introductory paragraphs are particularly good at making a clear distinction between the current survey and the previous one, and I liked the “investigation to find out how people ... perceived the marine litter situation in their area. Compare that with the same part by some of the other finalists: "survey ... to examine the awareness of marine pollution," "survey to see what [people] think about garbage in the ocean." I liked the simplicity of "seaweed nets" (Q9) and phrasing such as "sorting garbage" (Q4) and "does your cooperative have a policy in place for..." (Q3). Improvement would probably come from making a point of re-reading the genko and then doing a read-through of the translation with a fresh mind to catch oddities such as "survey of ... gear shops was also conducted" ("also"?) and "driving into the harbor" (splash?).

Ken Wagner

Several different field-specific conceptual and terminology challenges were hidden in the seemingly innocuous survey questionnaire on marine litter used as this year's Japanese-to-English contest passage. Lodged in deceptively short sentences and often shorter responses were words and ideas from the fields of commercial fishing, aquaculture, Japanese commercial fishing organization management, and marine environmental protection. A considerable amount of leg work would have been required to research each of these areas and render a translation that was appropriate in tone and register as well as technical parlance.

This year's contest finalists deserve praise for extracting the meaning from the questionnaire and its responses and continuing to lead the reader in the right general direction in a manner that was generally pleasant to read. They maneuvered around a couple of confusing typos left in the text, and went through several levels of depth in research to find correct official names and terminology. Admirably, no one took the bait of transferring the down arrow (↓) into English to mean "see below."

In the world of commercial translation, it is still possible to get largely incorrect or incomprehensible translations, so the candidates, none with more than three years experience, are on the right track in their development as translators.

This year's winner, Entry No. 83, produced far-and-away the most accurate and succinctly expressed translation. The evaluation system that I use assigns negative points for errors (e.g., misunderstanding, syntax, technical terminology, register), positive points for displaying subject familiarity or good writing, and has an "artistic impression" score (the general visceral reaction I get from reading the translation after not having seen the Japanese text for a while). Entry No. 83 only had one-half to two-thirds the error points and had two to three times the positive points of the second and place finishers. The translation featured a clean title (Anti-Littering Measures), clear introduction, and smoothly worded questions and responses. Entry No. 83 called bilge water "bilge water" which sounds so much better to my Pacific coast ear than just "bilge," the term used by four of the other six finalists.

The second place winner, Entry No. 25, actually prompted the best visceral reaction when I read the translation after not having seen the Japanese text for a while, and there were considerable fewer error points than the other four finalists.

The third place winner, Entry No. 30, produced the second best visceral reaction when I read it independent of the text, but on closer examination had quite a few errors and clearly fewer positive points for subject familiarity or outstanding writing.

Since Entry No. 83, Entry No. 30, and Entry No. 25 will be immortalized on the translation contest web page, I would like to mention here, before it's too late, that I rated Entry No. 4 slightly above Entry No. 25 and Entry No. 4 was my choice for third place. I found significantly (in a non-statistical sense) fewer errors in Entry No. 4 than Entry No. 25, but the judges eventually agreed that Entry No. 25 edged out Entry No. 4 overall.

A few specific items I might note are:

Certain parts of the English version of the questionnaire could have been more in the register of the fields of fisheries bureaucracy and industry and marine environmental protection bureaucracy. The questionnaire was, after all, issued by a marine activities-regulating bureaucracy to organizations in the fisheries industry. An example of such jargon can be found in Chapter 18 of the Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy - Governors' Draft. Reading a few pages of that will get you in a marine bureaucratic mood in short order. It was on the first page of hits returned by searching +"marine litter" +"commercial fishing" on Google. (Other judges may feel that a general tone is fine for this piece.)

The name of the organization that issued the questionnaire (第十一管区海上保安本部) posed a terminology challenge. Although the Eijiro online dictionary glosses this without the number as "Regional Marine Safety Headquarters," the organization's own website, which can be found by simply pasting the character string into Google, identifies the organization as the 11th Regional Coast Guard Headquarters. The site provides a link to the main Japan Coast Guard page that contains enough English-language information to confirm the current English name is Japan Coast Guard. There is, however, conflicting information on the web as to the name this organization, and Japanese organizations frequently change their English names over time for various reasons, so this simple name presents a bit of a research problem. Two of the six finalists chose the wrong name for this organization. Ironically, the 11th Regional HQ website is the site where the contest passage could be downloaded.

Another terminology challenge, and somewhat of a technical challenge, was what to call the fisheries cooperative associations (漁業協同組合) in the face of some seemingly contradictory evidence on the web.

The Japanese Wikipedia entry for 漁業協同組合 provides a link to a list of all 34 local cooperatives on and around the main island of Okinawa and suggests that the standard English is fisheries cooperative. The webpage of the national federation of local fisheries cooperative associations (JF Zengyoren) mentions both "fisheries cooperatives" and "fisheries cooperative associations" at the local level. However, there is quite a bit of English-language evidence in the form of academic and bureaucratic literature to suggest that "fisheries cooperative association" is the accepted term, including the fact that the abbreviation FCA is accepted. Of the six finalists, two actually used fisheries cooperative association, one used fisheries cooperative, and the other terms used varied from fishermen cooperative societies and fishery cooperative to fishing industry association.

Another interesting challenge was the question (No. 9) on how people disposed of the residue from cleaning the mozuku nets. The translations of Response No. 2 to this question differed greatly. This response was "2) Haul in the nets, clean them in the drying area, and then flush [hose] the residue back into the water. (回収して網干場で洗浄し海に流している.) The "flush or hose into the water" proved especially troublesome for the finalists, with the top three finalists rendering it as "allowed to flow out to sea," "rinse it in the sea," and "dispose of the residue in the ocean." This conjures up very different mental pictures of the process. I would picture large concrete-paved work areas to lay out gear on, and high-pressure industrial hoses for knocking the residue off and flushing it out to sea. In fact, there is a nice video of a person hosing off a mozuku net on youtube (watch this or search モズク網洗浄 on youtube). The water is flowing off the edge of the dock, and a couple of swipes with the stream of the hose would get it all back in the ocean.

Regarding the word mozuku itself, most of the six finals either mentioned it was an edible seaweed or provided some type of note describing it and identifying it by scientific name. The contest winner chose to drop the term mozuku entirely, which may have been a judicious editing move, considering the translation instructions given with the passage.

The purpose JAT Translation Contest is to encourage new and aspiring translators with no more than three years of experience. The six finalists produced translations that were clearly superior to those of the other contestants and demonstrated potential for growth in the craft.

I congratulate them for their accomplishment and hope that they will continue to stay active in the field.

Lee Seaman

First, my compliments to the finalists. The overall quality of translation was excellent, and I predict promising careers as professional translators for all of you.
I also complement the organizers of the contest, and particularly the people who selected the test translation. This is a challenging piece, with considerable room for the translator to demonstrate his or her ability to provide a clean, clear, and accurate translation.
Each finalist made at least a few errors. My picks for first and second place were those passages that I felt most clearly communicated the meaning of the Japanese with the fewest errors and areas of potential misunderstanding.

Working premises

I have been a professional translator for over 25 years, and it is not uncommon for clients to have me evaluate a newer translator's work. So I approached these translations from that perspective.

I made two hypothetical assumptions: (1) that this is a commercial translation, performed for a paying client, and (2) that the client wants to know the content of the questionnaire from a technical/scientific perspective (rather than, for example, a scholarly linguistic analysis of the language used in Japanese questionnaires).

Given this perspective, clearly some errors are more important than others. Errors that cause a misunderstanding of content, or that cause the reader to question the validity of the document, are more serious than errors that are simply awkward.

General comments

I would like to focus on three points in the Japanese document that I thought were particularly challenging.

1) ゴミのポイ捨て
Four finalists translated this as "littering", one as "throwing trash into the ocean", and one as "garbage dumping". I found over 500 entries online for "marine littering", which I would recommend in this context.

2) 港内
This was translated as "port" in some cases and "harbor" in other cases. Confusion ensued when translators did not distinguish between "in the port" (meaning within the physical area of the port, including roads, buildings, and trash receptacles), and "in the harbor" (meaning in the water).

Thus, in Question 11-3, "港内に家庭のゴミを捨てているのが現状である" was in some cases translated to imply that families were bringing their garbage to the port facility and dumping it in trash bins there, rather than dumping their garbage directly into the water. My reading of the Japanese is that some people are dumping garbage directly into the water, but there may be is a mixture of behaviors (dumping in the water and dumping in the port facility trash receptacles). For a commercial client I would add a translator's note asking for clarification, or use a workaround that does not specify where the garbage is dumped.

3) 港内での釣人のモラルが低い、釣人のマナーが悪いので困っている
This is an excellent example of Japanese words that "look like" they should be English but are actually not. A direct translation of "poor morals" suggests that fishermen are having or promoting illicit sexual encounters at the port or onboard their boats, and "bad manners" suggests rude speech and actions. Refusing to take care of their own garbage and trash would be better described as "irresponsible", "thoughtless", and/or "inconsiderate".

Individual comments

1) No. 83
An elegant and easy-to-read translation. I particularly appreciated the phrasing of the questionnaire elements (for example, "If 'Yes', describe:" is a very readable translation of "イと答えた方はその内容"), and the use of "you". The extra care given to layout contributed to readability.

See comments above regarding "littering" and "manners". Also, "inconsiderateness" would be better rendered as "lack of consideration".

2) No. 25
A very good translation clear and accurate. I particularly appreciated the phrasing "In the second round" for "この調査の第2弾として", and your clear translation of the responses to Question 4.

See comments above for "littering" and "morals and manners". In Question 9-3, your translation of "Clean the net and then let it sink naturally" implies that the net is sinking, rather than the residue cleaned from the net; "let the residue sink naturally" would be clearer. I also wonder if you considered that "ロと答えた方はその内容" in Question 6 might be a misprint for "イと答えた方はその内容", which seems to make more sense in the context. In a commercial translation, I would probably add a translator's note here.

Other translations:

No. 04: A good translation, but less clear and somewhat more confusing than the two winners. For example, you reformatted the responses, changing them from bulleted lists to "Those who answered 'Yes' … " My personal experience is that bulleted lists are generally easier to read and process, particularly at speed. In Response 9-a you wrote "Leave them to sink … ", which at first made me think you meant the nets. "Leave it to sink … " is correct if you are referring to the residue. Also, in the second paragraph of the introduction you translated "この調査の第2弾として" as ""The survey was conducted a second time," but actually this is the second round of a single survey, which is important if the client also had the first round translated or might want to consider having it translated. Good catch on the possible typo; I agree.

No. 17: A good translation, and laid out very nicely, but with enough grammar and vocabulary errors that the questionnaire is difficult to read. For example, "dispose the garbage" should be "dispose of garbage", ""extremely worsening" should be "Growing much worse", and "remaining dirt on the fishing nets" should be "residue on the fishing nets" ("dirt" means "earth", and would only be on fishing nets if they were dragged along the ground). I liked your last sentence, "Increasing numbers of people drive to ports to throw away their garbage"; this is a nice workaround of the problem I described above, because it doesn't specify whether the garbage is thrown in the water or dumped on the ground or in garbage receptacles at the port, while still making it clear that there is a problem.

No. 30: A good translation, clear and easy to read, with attractive layout, but some awkward expressions kept me from putting it in my top two. Just for example, "incorrectly throwing away trash" might be better phrased as "improperly disposing of trash". In terms of content, "throwing it away in the port instead of taking it home" implies to me that fishermen are throwing their trash away in receptacles; if that is the case, "at the port" would be more accurate than "in the port". On the other hand, if they are throwing trash directly in the water, "dumping it in the harbor" would be more accurate. You could "write around" this by saying, for example, "leaving it at the port". I prefer your title to simply "littering", but "marine littering" is also a good alternative (see comments above).

No. 79: A good translation, and attractively laid out, but with some errors in content and usage. For example, you translated "この調査の第2弾として" as "the second survey", but "second half of a survey" or "second part of a survey" would be more accurate. Also, in Question 4 you also translated 指導 as "ensure". That implies that the port authorities make sure that owners take their garbage home, rather than simply telling them to do it. I like your title; "garbage dumping" is more accurate in this situation than "littering" in my opinion, although "marine littering" appears to be coming into wide usage.

A final word

Reading these translations, I noticed again what a difference a little extra formatting makes. In today's market, readers are in a hurry. And this is even more the case if the customer is passing the translation on to someone else, whether a news reporter, a prospective stockholder, or an employee at a regulatory agency. To be effective, a good translation needs to be clear and readable as well as accurate and grammatically correct. I recommend that all new professionals invest an hour in their word-processing software, learning to use style sheets. Your clients will thank you.

Again, my congratulations to all contestants on a job well-done.


JAT Southern California Meeting and Bonenkai

JAT's SoCal meeting and bonenkai will be held on Saturday, Dec. 27 from 4 p.m., followed by dinner at 6 p.m.


Speaker: Maynard Hogg

Title: TM's dirty little secrets: What vendors won't tell you.
Date: December 27, 2008

Time: 4 p.m., followed by dinner at 6 p.m.

Place: Crown Plaza Los Angeles Airport hotel (5985 Century Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045; 310-642-7500)

Cost: $10 (free for JAT members); dinner is $35

Maynard Hogg will be talking about:

TM's dirty little secrets: What vendors won't tell you.

Topics include:
* Eurocentric assumptions
* Japanese source files = GIGO in spades
* TMX, the industry exchange standard that Trados users never hear about
* Workflow: Overwrite originals or treat them "read only"?

The focus will be on OmegaT, free open source software (FOSS) for Linux, Mac, and Windows.

Executive summary: OmegaT's price is right, so there's no excuse for not seeing for yourself.

We'll also have general discussions moderated by Manako Ihaya, JAT President. Dr. Steve Sherman will also be there on hand to answer your questions about medical translation.

The hotel has a free shuttle ride from the airport so transportation shouldn't be a problem even if you decide to fly in for this event. Attendees of the JAT meeting get a special room rate of $89 + tax/night. Special parking rate of $6 for all.

Please contact Manako Ihaya to RSVP.

The standard dinner menu (vegetarian available upon request):

Menu: Bourbon Glazed Grilled Breast of Chicken with Pearl Onions, Roasted Garlic Whipped Potatoes and Sautéed Asparagus
Comes with:
Christmas Salad - Mixed Baby Greens served with Bleu Cheese, Honey Walnuts and Raspberry Vinaigrette Dressing
Rolls and Butter
Dessert: Christmas Yule Log
"Starbucks" Coffee, Decaffeinated Coffee, Tea and Iced Tea


5th Annual Contest (English to Japanese results)

Sorry, this page is only available in Japanese.


No.23 藤山清一(ふじやま せいいち)
No.28 蔵本亮(くらもと りょう)
No.32 森田みどり(もりた)
No.49 南佐洋子(みなみさ ひろこ)
No.81 竹内美希子(たけうち みきこ)


第1位 No.81 竹内美希子(神奈川県横浜市)
第2位 No. 49 南佐洋子(米国オハイオ州)





今回の課題文"Economic Thinking for Translators"は、翻訳者の中でもあまり経済観念のない人を対象に書かれました。著者のクリス・ブレークスリー氏は経済・金融翻訳者で、JATの理事でもあります。 JAT新人翻訳コンテストにおいて、「課題文の著者に直接、語句や文の解釈について気軽に問い合わせられる」という機会はこれまでありませんでしたので、この際に building block approach とedit/editor の意味について質問してみました。

Question: Is "building block approach" a technical (or economic) term?

Chris: Regards building block approach, it simply means creating small sets that are eventually put together for a larger set, thus I give a formula for billing rate so that is understood, and then in another formula use billable rate as just one component. This is a common idiom.


Question: The "editor" here just reads the translated text, checks the grammar and makes the text more readable, but does not compare the translation with the original text, right? If so, is it easy to find such a person?

Chris: As for editor, your description is correct, the idea is to just improve the English, not check for mistranslations, although you could hire such an editor/checker as well, I suppose. I don't use an editor myself, but think finding such a (monolingual) person wouldn't be difficult, such as a grad student.

応募者の多くは edit を編集に、editorを編集者にと、自動的に訳していました。しかし、編集の一般的な意味を 大辞林で調べてみると、「一定の方針のもとに、いろいろな材料を集めて新聞・雑誌・書物などを作ること。その仕事。また映画フィルム・録音テープなどを一つの作品にまとめることにもいう」とありますので、ここでのeditとは少しニュアンスが異なります。最終候補作品の中では32番、49番、81番が編集作業または校正作業と処理していました。このように作業を加えると仕事のなかに「原稿の加筆・修正」も入ってきて、若干近くなるという気がします。

他の応募者が使っていた訳語の意味も調べてみました( 「 」内の説明はいずれも大辞林より)。

校閲 「文書や原稿などの誤りや不備な点を調べ、検討し、訂正したり校正したりすること」
添削 「他人の詩文・答案などを、語句を添えたり削ったりして直すこと」
校正 校閲とほぼ同義で使われることもあるが(英文校正など)、「くらべ合わせて、文字の誤りを正すこと」という意味で使われる場合もある。
推敲 「詩文を作るとき、最適の字句や表現を求めて考え練り上げること」 この作業をするのは通常は本人。
校訂 「古書などの本文を他の伝本と比べ合わせて訂正すること」なので、これだと間違い。
編修 「資料を集め精選し、書物にまとめあげること。編纂」なので、これも違う。

また一般的に「編集者とは、出版社に勤務して書籍や雑誌を編集する人を指している」(13歳のハローワークより)ので、quality editorを優秀な編集者(32番)と訳すと、「え、翻訳を直してもらうのに、ベストセラーを生み出すような人に頼むの?」とも解釈できます。ちなみに81番では「良質な編集者」と訳されていましたが、「良質な」は「労働力」には使えますが、今のところヒトには使いません。



23番 "Billable rate"を「支払いレート」に、"building block approach"を「部分構造合成法」に(技術文書ではこのように訳したり、略称として"BBA"を使ったりする例もあるが、前述のとおり、ここではそういう特殊な意味で使っているわけではない)という誤訳や不適切な訳以外に、「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」というミス(外部委託するのは編集作業のはず。翻訳作業まで委託したら、翻訳者には何もすることがなくなる)が致命的だった。似たような単語が出てくる文書を訳す際には、こういう見落としもよく起こるので、要注意。

28番 「自分の単語レートで・・・」の文章における意味の取り違い、「初期ドラフト請求レート」、「翻訳完成物を作りだすスピード」、「直接顧客に帰属する時間を費やし・・・」などのこなれていない日本語表現、理解しづらい文章(最後のパラグラフの「とはいうものの・・・」)、口語表現([どんなものであれ」)、が減点対象となった。

32番 誤訳は少なく("billable rate"を「実労時間」、"spend"を「浪費すれば」に程度か)、訳漏れも見あたらず、とても丁寧に訳していたが、「翻訳作業の最初の下書き」、「クライアントから請けた仕事に直接的に帰する作業・・・」など、こなれていない表現が気になった。最初の方で、"building block approach"の訳はよかったと書いたが、その後の「翻訳者の生産性を導き出していく」はおかしい。細かいことだが、「音声認証ソフトウェア」(「認証」より「認識」の方が一般的)、「コンピューター*利用翻訳ツール」(「利用」より「支援」の方が一般的)も、よく調べてほしかった。


49番 最初に読んだときは、5作品のなかで一番読みやすいと感じたが、その後原文と比較して一文ずつ読むと、冗長さが目立った。「校正」、「校正作業」、「能力のある校正者」は他作品より工夫されていた。訳漏れ("ignoring any lifestyle impacts")や誤訳や不正確・不適切な訳*を細かく採点した結果、32番より少し高い、81番より少し低い点数となった。

* 式化」については、「式」はあるが「図」はないため。
"Productivity" を「生産」と訳す例もなくはないが、「生産性」の方が一般的である。
「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」 は意味を取り違えている。また「自分銭」は使わなくもないが、これは類語反復(tautology)である。

81番 "$"のそのままの使用(「ドル」とせずに)、カタカナ語の多用(「クライアント」は定着しているにしても 「アウトソース」や「アウトプット」は、IT業界ではOKかもしれないが、他ではどうだろうか?) 誤訳や不正確・不適切な訳*、わかりにくい表現(「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・・・」)などが減点対象となったものの、総合点で32番と49番を上回った。略語(B/R/H/O)の処理の仕方も5作品のなかでは一番よく、最後の段落に出てくる "nexus"も正しく解釈できていたと思う("center" や"core"という意味)。



付記1  翻訳作業にとりかかる前に、似たような分野の日本語の文章をいくつか読んでおくとよいです。今回でしたら例えばこちら
付記2  翻訳について様々な視点から考えるには、こちらが参考となるでしょう。




さて評価ですが、まず総評から述べます。最初にトップ3を決めたのですが、翻訳者が課題文の内容を理解できているかどうかが大きな分かれ目となりました。23、28の下位 2作品は率直に言って意味が良く分かりませんでした。おそらく翻訳者自身が原典の論旨をきちんと把握していないため、結果として翻訳文も読みづらいものになってしまったようです。


では、原典の論旨ですが、キーワードは「Edit」と「billable rate」です。翻訳業界では一般に、「Edit」は原文と付き合わせて翻訳文を見直す作業で「編集」を使い、「校正」は「Proof = 原文と比較せずに漢字ミスや文字抜けなどの体裁を見る作業」に使用することが多いようです。この課題文では母国語から非母国語に翻訳する際、その言語のネイティブ・スピーカーにチェックを頼むような場合などの意味合いが近いように思われますが、単に「編集」とせず、「チェック」、「推敲」、「添削」なども良いかもしれません。課題文の題になっている「billable rate」は、5作品とも「~able」の意味が出ていませんでした。「rate」は1 作品以外「レート」と訳されていましたが、日本語では意味が違うのではないでしょうか?文脈から「翻訳者が翻訳作業自体に対して受け取ることができる純翻訳単価」のような意味だと思いますが、かく言う私もぴったり来る訳が見つからないのでいずれも審査対象とはしませんでしたが、日本語として意味が通じる言葉に訳す努力が欲しかったです。



23は直訳や逐語訳 (例「この事実について…心理的に重要な利点がある」)、意味不明な表現(例「良い場合の好例」、「図れる場合には、特にそうである」) が多く、原典理解や文章力不足が感じられました。ビジネス文書などでは数値や数式が使われていることが多く、翻訳者自身が原典を理解していないと翻訳文が不正確、または意味不明となってしまいます。たとえ数学や経済に長けていなくても、フロー図を書いてみたり、要点に蛍光ペンを引いたり、メモしたりするなど、論理を掴む努力を心がけましょう。また、罫線が使われていたのは問題です。私は審査中、Wordの蛍光ペンを使いましたが、複数行に分かれていると蛍光ペンを一度に引けず、当初、罫線表示を切っていたので理由が分からなくて困りました。実務では翻訳後の工程に影響するため、日本語の文書として必要な場合 (手紙などで日付を右寄せに変更する、表の幅が狭いときに横書きを縦書きに変更する、など) 以外に原典で使用されていない書式を使用するのは厳禁です。たとえば、翻訳の納品後にインドのオフィスでレイアウトを整えて PDFファイルを制版するとします。原典にはないのに PDFには罫線が表示されてしまう場合、インドのDTPオペレータには理由が分からず、依頼主や翻訳者に問い合わせることになり、時差もあることから、1日、2日のロスが生じ、締め切りに影響することも容易に考えられます。翻訳者は後工程のことも考慮できた方が良いですし、報酬がもらえない作業に時間をかけるのはそれこそ非効率ですよね。

28も日本語の文章としては完成度が低く、原典の理解不足が感じられました。「を作ろうと思うが」など原典にはない意味の追加、不適切な用語(例、「総所得を押し下げるし」、「翻訳完成物」、「初期ドラフト請求レート」、「大雑把な最終請求レート」)、文法や語法の誤り(例「自分で編集作業をしない今や」)、などの問題がありました。原典でわざわざ「billable rate (BR)」とあるのに、翻訳文では「(BR)」が抜けているのは読者に対して不親切です。要旨は掴めているようなので、もう少し段落ごと、1文ごとに文章をよく読んで理解を深めるようにしましょう。

32は、論旨が良く理解されているようで、読みやすく、特に誤訳は見られませんでしたが、文章力、表現力および用語選択面で今一歩でした。「modeling」(「図式」はグラフなどのことで図がないと成り立たない)、「浪費」などの誤訳、文法や語法の誤り (例、「生産性を考察する」)、口語表現 (例、「下請けに出すべきである、「請求書を起こすので」) などがありました。「billable rate」は正しいかどうかは別にして、単に「rate = レート」とせずに文脈を考慮し、工夫して訳そうという試みは好感が持てました。企業のプレゼンテーションを訳す仕事があった場合、短い箇条書きの文が並んでいることがあります。意味や内容は口頭で説明するため、メモやコメントになっていてプレゼンテーションの参加者の目には触れないので、メモやコメント文を見て箇条書きの文を適切に表現する、ある種、コピー・ライター的な技術があると重宝がられます。今後の課題は、語句の意味は取れているのでそれを冗長的にならないように簡潔に表現できるように訓練すること、国語辞典などで正しい用法を確認し、口語表現を避けるようにすることでしょう。

49は、内容理解度、文章力共に高いのですが、用語選択および表現力の点で1位の81の方に軍配が上がってしまいました。「Edit」を 5作品の中で唯一「校正」と訳していましたが、これは文脈を考えての用語選択でしょうか?文脈により適切な用語を考える姿勢は高く評価したいです。問題箇所には、「Note that...」の省略、「積み木アプローチ」、「生産率」、「図式化」、「デスク用のイス」(「オフィス用」でもいいのでは?)、「ワード数」(業界用語。読者は翻訳者なので良いのかもしれませんが)、「片付く」、「計算式の裏にあるロジック」などがありました。このような誤訳やリサーチや工夫が不足していると思われる表現、文法や語法の誤り、口語表現、不明瞭な表現などがなくなるように推敲を重ねる努力をしてください。原典を読んでいない他の人に読んでもらうのも良いでしょう。また、特にカタカナ語など、年配の人に聞いて意味が分かるかどうか確認してみるのもアイデアです。また、「です・ます」調が使用されていましたが、たとえば取扱説明書のように読者が「客」のような場合には適切ですが、このような論文や報告書などの場合は読者に敬語表現を使用する必要がなく、かえって冗長的で読みづらい印象を与えます。減点対象にはしていませんが、こうした文脈に合わせて適切な文体を考慮するのも翻訳者に必要な技術の1つです。

81は原典の内容を一番良く理解している感じで、簡潔さを心がけてか、全体的に表現がこなれていて読みやすかった点から1位となりました。式の記述や、式内で使用している記号に英語の注釈を付け、英語が必ずしも分からない読者にとって分かりやすく表現しようという試みも見られました。残念な点は、「from taking time away...」の誤訳、「(=spend)」の省略、「納品できる状態」、「マイナス(プラス)の幅」などの不適切または不明瞭な表現があったことです。翻訳後、提出まで時間がある場合は、一度「寝かせて」見直すと「勘違い誤訳」を防ぐことができるでしょう。それから斜体の使用や「500語/時×$0.15=$75」は見づらかったです。個人的には「自分の」とするより「自身の」という表現の方がきれいな気がしました。今後は、さらに日本語を勉強し、英語に引きずられずに正しく翻訳できる努力を続け、「読者に優しい翻訳」を意識すると良いでしょう。










唯一の「ですます調」ですが、やはりその影響か細かい減点が多く、32番と同じく、見直しプロセスを強化して細かい表現にも注意してください。訳漏れが大小1つずつありました。大は「ignoring any lifestyle impacts」、小は、「just」です。この「just」はしっかり意味があるので、誤訳とも言えます。訳漏れは、翻訳を見直していないと見なされるので、誤訳以上に悪い印象を与えます。私がチェッカーをしていたとき、1ページ目で誤訳が3つあっても2ページ目に進みますが、訳漏れが3つあったら、翻訳会社に送り返していました。その他、問題表現を列挙しておきます。「積み木アプローチ」「生産率」「図式化(図はないですよね)」「変動要素」「項目」「草稿」「加えなければならない」「検討手順」「こうです」「身銭を切る」「食ってしまう」「負の影響」「デスク用の」




December 2008 TAC




タイトル: 『映像翻訳という仕事』
日時: 2009年1月17日(土)、14:00~17:00
場所: 渋谷フォーラム8(渋谷区道玄坂2-10-7)
電話: 03-3780-0008
参加費: 1,000円、ただしJAT会員は無料

■講演者 山下奈々子(株式会社ワイズ・インフィニティ 代表取締役)





JAT Kansai Bonenkai

JAT’s Kansai (KAT) Bonenkai will be held on Tuesday, December 23, from 7 pm.


Date: December 23, 2008
Time: 19:00-21:00
Place: SOLVIVA Umeda
大阪市北区茶屋町19-1 梅田芸術劇場1F >> MAP TEL: 06-6377-1333

Cost: Regular dinner plan (3,900 yen), *Christmas plan (4,800 yen)
*Comes with two entrées (fish and meat).

RSVP from here by December 20.

If you live in the Kansai area, this is a great opportunity to meet and chat with others in the translation/interpreting business, so sign up now! Bring your friends!

If you have any questions, please contact Mike Sekine.


Study, read, practice! by Helen


Page 12 of 19 pages ‹ First  < 10 11 12 13 14 >  Last ›