Using CAT Tools in Freelance Translation

Insights from a Case Study

Paulina Pietrzak, Michal Kornacki

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9780367646752
• eBook ISBN: 9781000295573
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Bibles

This book explores the impact of applying computer-assisted (CAT) tools in freelance translation toward better understanding translators' strategies, preferences, and challenges in using new technologies and identifying areas of enhancement in translator training.

The volume offers a brief overview of the latest developments in technology in translation, examining such issues as the effect on the translation process and the dynamics of the translator-technology interaction. Drawing on data from a study with active translators in Poland, Pietrzak and Kornacki examine the underlying factors underpinning translators' lack of engagement with these tools, including such issues as prevailing pre-conceptions around technology and limited knowledge hindering the most efficacious use of these resources and the subsequent impact on translator identity. Taken together, the book brings together these insights to help pinpoint freelance translators' needs more effectively and adapt training programmes accordingly.

The volume will be of interest to scholars in translation studies with an interest in process and technology as well as active translators.

1
Contemporary Freelance Translation Market

Overview of the Chapter

The translation market ecosystem is discussed here in the context of today’s translation profession and industry growth. In this chapter we explore the dynamic nature of the contemporary freelance translation market and language market. The chapter covers official approaches to the profession of the translator in various countries and categorisation of the profession (section 1.1). An overview of various forms of employment in the translation profession is provided with particular focus on freelance translation approached from a demographic and sociological perspective (section 1.2). It is observed here that the surge of globalisation in the translation industry leads translators to increase their productivity. Since the demand for translation and the speed of delivery grows steadily, the industry recognises the value of technology and importance of using CAT tools in the translation workflow.

1.1 Freelance Translation as a Profession

Translation technology is now omnipresent in the translator’s work, which simplifies and accelerates the process of translation. It is not only a great aid which helps the translator work efficiently but is also a factor which changes the face of the translation profession. New developments in translation technology (especially computer-based tools) stimulate changes in the workflow of the contemporary freelance translator. Long gone are the days when translation was associated with dictionary-based pen-and-paper work. Given the increasing reliance on technology to translate quickly and efficiently, the effects of technology result in the emergence of new types of work profiles and work systems.

As Cronin (2013: 8) states, “the potential instantaneity and accessibility of digital media imply a greater acceleration of translation flows with potentially subversive effects, but equally the widespread dissemination of translations.” Technological innovations have caused the freelance translation market to change so dynamically that it has become more diverse than it has ever been. Both economic and sociocultural aspects of globalisation have had a great impact on the condition of the translation business and the required skills for the position of a freelance translator. The translator’s job is highly specialised and requires a number of qualifications (see Bell, 1991; Robinson, 1997; Gouadec, 2007) and competences (Kiraly, 1995, 2000, 2014; González Davies, 2004; Tennent, 2005; Hurtado Albir, 2007; Piotrowska, 2007; Klimkowski, 2015). Given that job requirements depend on the economic situation and growth of innovation in the translation industry, it is hard to identify the specific universal scope of work and duties for every translator.

The discussion on various forms of employment in the translation profession has to start with an attempt to show how big the translation market is. In a report dated 17 August 2009, the Directorate-General for Translation (DGT) of the European Commission estimated the language industry within the EU at 8.4 billion euro in 2008. The figure comprised “the industry sectors of translation, interpreting, software localisation and website globalisation, language technology tool development, language teaching, consultancy in linguistic issues and organisation of international conferences with multi-lingual requirements. In addition, it included language-related activities performed in corporate environments” (Rinsche and Portera-Zanotti, 2009: iii). Limited only to translation and interpreting (including software localisation and website globalisation), the market’s worth was estimated at 5.7 billion euro in 2008 (ibid.: iv). The study predicted steady growth of its value. In fact, in 2019, the global market for outsourced language services and technology will reach 49.6 billion US dollars (DePalma et al., 2019). In fact, the global language service provision market has been growing steadily for the last decade and, considering globalisation factors in the economy, it is expected to continue to grow. The implication is that either there will be room for more professionals, or current language service providers (LSPs), especially translators, will have to optimise their workflow in order to offer faster, better, and, as a result, cheaper service.

While there are big language service providers on the market (CSA has recently published a list of 100 LSPs whose annual revenue for 2018 exceeded 7.5 million US dollars [CSA, 2019]), the core of the market is individual translators who perform most of the translating and post-editing work. The question arises here about the profile of the translator and occupations characterised as relating to the translation profession. According to the DGT (Pym et al., 2012: 17), in

the Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community (NACE) we find Translation and Interpretation listed as a separate category (74.3), alongside Specialised design activities, Photographic activities and Other professional, scientific and technical activities. This classification is picked up in some of the national listings (in Croatia, Poland, Portugal and the United Kingdom, for example) and in principle should apply throughout the European Union.

Such categorisation states that the profession of a translator, or interpreter, should be considered an independent entity, even if it is not fully regulated in some countries. In fact, little regulation regarding the profession is available. For example, the report states that in “no country that [has been] surveyed is any academic qualification – or indeed any kind of formal qualification at all – required in order to use the term ‘translator’ or its equivalent generic terms” (ibid.: 20). Some intergovernmental institutions regulate this precisely, even if there are no state regulations available. For example, the DGT hires translators with at least two foreign languages and “a university degree, not necessarily in languages” (ibid.: 21). There are guidelines developed to help specify standards of professional conduct, and some countries (e.g., France, Germany, Poland, Spain) require notarisation to authenticate legal translations. Nevertheless, in most cases, the only condition in order to be recognised as a translator is to declare translating on a commercial basis. As observed by Pym et al. (2012: 3), “the generic activity of translators appears not to qualify as a ‘regulated profession’ in terms of Professional Qualifications Directive (2005/36/EC): no one can stop an unqualified person from working as a translator.” There is no statutory professional regulation that would determine the formal criteria necessary for becoming the translator.

1.2 Forms of Employment

Professional translation activities encompass various forms of employment, and there have been numerous attempts to categorise the profession (see Robinson, 1997; Gouadec, 2007; Pym et al., 2012; or Klimkowska, 2013). For instance, Gouadec (2007: 92–102) proposes a very detailed overview of the profession.

1. Salaried translators – according to Gouadec (2007: 92–102), “the salaried translator is bound to her/his employer” by a standard work contract and receives fixed salary for his/her work. This category is further divided into:
   • a) In-house translators – translators who work in in-house translation departments of various companies or governmental/non-governmental organisations;
   • b) “Temping” – “to all intents and purposes, translators hired by ‘temping’ agencies work as freelancers, except that they are salaried employees and do not have to look for contracts themselves” (ibid.);
   • c) Translation company translators – in-house translators working full-time in translation agencies;
   • d) Agency staff – project managers who supervise translation projects (including freelance subcontractors) on a brokerage basis;
   • e) Translators under the umbrella company system – translators who conduct their business under the auspices of an umbrella company;
   • f) Special cases:
     1. The “on-site” translator – a translator employed by a company which outsources his/her services to another company. The translator provides his/her services on the client’s company premises;
     2. A translation outsourcing project manager – project managers who supervise translation projects (including freelance sub-contractors);
2. Freelance translators – translators who usually are self-employed and provide translation services directly to clients or translation agencies;
3. Translators working for publishing companies – “translators working under the ‘publishing industry’ scheme may be literary translators, media translators and even localisers. Whenever applicable, they have in common that they are paid as authors” (ibid.);
4. “Outlaws” –“‘translators” who work unofficially, thus not paying any taxes or other state-proscribed contributions;
5. “Invisible” translators – individuals who carry out the duties of a translator in the company they work in but are employed under a different job description (e.g., a secretary);
6. Special cases:
   • a) Second-job translators – individuals who do not consider translation to be their main occupation. Usually, they work in another profession (e.g., as a teacher or engineer) and consider translation as the opportunity to get extra income;
   • b) Part-time translators – “the part-time translator usually is a free-lance or salaried translator who has decided to spend more time with wife (or husband) and kids and who incidentally belongs to a household with more than one income” (ibid.);
   • c) Occasional translators – individuals who translate only occasionally and do not consider translation as their occupation;
   • d) Remote translators – salaried translators who work from a remote location.

The categorisation proposed by Gouadec (ibid.) has been widely recognised and followed (sometimes with slight deviations – see, for example, Klimkowska, 2013), but it is too detailed for research purposes, so in the present book the focus is laid on a simplified division. The authors opt for the most remarkable division between in-house (or salaried translators) and freelance (or self-employed) translators in either full-time or part-time jobs. The research presented here (chapters 6–7) focuses on workers who consider translation to be the source of financial benefits. In fact, when closely considered, the categories proposed by Gouadec (2007) can be distributed amongst those two general categories:

1. Freelance
   • a) freelancers
   • b) translators working for publishing companies
   • c) second-job translators
   • d) part-time translators
   • e) occasional translators
   • f) remote translators
2. In-house
   • a) in-house translators
   • b) “temping”
   • c) translation company translators
   • d) agency staff
   • e) “on-site” translators
   • f) translation outsourcing project manager
   • g) “invisible” translators

The division is based on the form of employment. The degree to which they are immersed in the profession is of secondary importance, especially if the translator is regarded as “an individual who translates for a living [regardless of whether it is full- or part-time] … and whose language skills have been verified by translation buyers” (Kornacki, 2018: 18).

Freelancers are translators who are either self-employed (more frequently) or take commissions based on a contract for specific work (less frequently) and work for, usually, two or more bigger LSPs or any other company that does not hire its own in-house translators. In-house translators are employed directly by companies to translate in-house content or translate in-house the content submitted for translation. In this case, the employer can be an LSP (a translation agency) or a company that is not involved in commercial language service provision but requires significant amounts of content to be translated to satisfy their own needs. Such translators are frequently bound by confidentiality and/or a non-compete clause which prevents them from working for other companies at the same time. Therefore, translators who are salaried employers with a fixed monthly salary fall into the “in-house” category (even in the case of “on-site” translators because services are provided on the client’s premises). While “invisible” translators are not recognised as such, nevertheless they carry out the duties of an in-house translators and, therefore, fall within this category.

Translators working under the umbrella company system, which can take on many different guises,

have a hybrid status. They are both freelancers since they set their own rates, find the translation contracts and remain in direct contact with the clients, and salaried employees of a company (i.e., the umbrella company), which will take care of all the administrative and legal paperwork on behalf of the translators.

(Gouadec, 2007: 96–97)

Therefore, they are not listed in this category. “Outlaws,” on the other hand, are not listed due to the fact that the category involves questionable practices of increasing one’s own profits through tax evasion. It is our belief that the division is relevant with regard to the discussion of the profession in general, especially considering the fact that in-house translators can work as freelancers after their day job (to earn extra money).

Based on studies reporting the total number of freelancers in a given population, it can be argued that freelancers constitute the larger group. As summarised by Pym et al. (2012: 89), “weighted average [based on the mentioned studies] suggests that the general proportion of freelancers is around 78.4 percent.” Taking into account the recent market growth trends, the number today is possibly even greater since it is no longer possible to house all the translators required to satisfy translation demands of bigger LSPs on the market. For example, in the case of the European Commission,

more and more translations are now outsourced, both in pursuit of cost-efficiency and due to insufficient internal capacity. All in all, the number of in-house translators in the pre-enlargement languages has been reduced by almost 50 per cent over the last twenty years, but with the arrival of the new languages, the total number of translators in the Directorate-General for Translation (DGT) of th...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Tables
• List of Figures
• Introduction
• 1 Contemporary Freelance Translation Market
• 2 Application of Technology in the Process of Translation
• 3 Freelance Translator Profile
• 4 Technological Evolution in Translation
• 5 Current Trends in the Use of CAT Tools in Freelance Translation
• 6 Analysis of the Findings
• 7 Discussion
• 8 Conclusion
• References
• Index