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「実労時間給」、"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。

* 「図式化」については、「式」はあるが「図」はないため。
"Productivity" を「生産率」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「自分の身銭」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


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

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.


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!






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。



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.


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




(1)BR=H0 x R



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。


Entry 28




(1) BR=HO×R





Entry 32




BR = HO × R

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。


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。


Entry 49




BR = HO × R


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。


Entry 81



請求レート(billable rate=BR)の方程式は次のようになる。







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.