Translation acceleration: a reflection

When I was a child, I was, for a time and at times, a finicky eater. My parents would cajole, nag, and scold me to get me to finish everything they had put on my plate. At some point even the starving children in Africa would come up. Finally, when nothing else worked, my father would take off his wristwatch. He would then set it down next to my plate, tap on the watch face, and say to me: "You're now on the clock. You have five minutes. Clean up your plate." I quickly found out there would be corporal punishment waiting for me if I did not manage to gag down my food in the next five minutes. To this day there are certain dishes (e.g. macaroni and cheese) I cannot (or will not) eat, most probably due to memories of being "on the clock."

Yet if you were to ask my parents why they would put me on the clock, causing me first to gag on my food and then administering physical punishment if I did not manage to swallow it all in time, they would probably say that they wanted me to grow up strong and healthy. While I suspect it had more to do with a belief that children should unquestioningly and enthusiastically obey their parents, I have no doubt that they thought they were doing the right thing for me as well.

But of course my parents were wrong. Missing the occasional meal would certainly not have been more unhealthy than force-feeding and then at times taking a stick to me. Eating is something that needs to be done slowly in order for our digestion systems to work well. And it is something that has a natural rhythm to it (hunger>satiation) which should not (really cannot, and us remain healthy) be short-circuited.

Translation is something like this. It has its own rhythm (reflection>production) which cannot be short-circuited without sacrificing quality. Acceleration applied to the translation process (other than removing possible roadblocks to progress) will result in something less in terms of quality than what can be achieved by taking the time needed to calmly and carefully think through the issues and take considered decisions. Of course some translators are faster than others. And some are better than others. Some are even both faster and better. But assuming we have contracted the best translators we have available to us in any given situation, and assuming we have the best available (including affordable) technological infrastructure in place, and assuming we have the best possible technical advisors available, it is difficult to see how adding any extra pressure is going to achieve anything other than to put translators "on the clock."

Donors and/or their handlers, like my parents, no doubt are well intentioned and want to see the Bible translated well and as quickly as possible into as many languages as possible. But putting translators on the clock is almost certainly the wrong approach to the common end we all seek - high quality and efficiently produced scripture products. It is surely better to find ways to remove technical roadblocks, try to get the right people involved, and provide the right setting where translators can work undisturbed.

A biological model may help here. Translation projects are not just harvested (as exemplified in the UBS "100 Bibles in 1000 days" initiative). They are planted, watered, weeded, pruned, and then, yes, finally harvested. In 30 years I have worked on 15 full Bibles (some with DC books). That should mean one Bible every two years. This year alone (2014) two full Bibles were completed. And there have been a number of years during my career in which none have been completed. But there were always a certain number in progress, being planted, watered, weeded, and pruned. And every now and then (every two years on average) a whole Bible was produced.

A related problem is what Stephen Pattemore has identified as the attitude that it is "good enough for them." We could hardly imagine telling a religious group that came with its own funding that they had to settle for a certain kind of Bible (say without illustrations) or had to complete the translation in a certain time frame, or that they were already served with enough translations. This of course becomes awkward the minute one says it, since we must make difficult choices with the limited funds available. But is is also awkward (or should be) that we judge the projects with funding so differently than those without. It really does seem to amount to an attitude that it is "good enough for them."

Finally, the acceleration model often seems to assume a baseline of "lazy" translators who just need to be given a swift kick in the pants to get going. This is highly offensive to say the least. I have known a handful of translators over the years who have arguably been (slow) perfectionists, or who have had trouble letting their "baby" translation go to be published, and some were simply not very good at their jobs. But I can say I have rarely met one who I would call lazy. Instead, I have mostly known a steady stream of dedicated, hard-working, sacrificial translators who have been totally committed to their task. And too often in return they have been underpaid (or not paid at all), disrespected, ignored, given cast-off equipment, and then scolded for not getting reports in on time when they had no access to a communication infrastructure which would facilitate this reporting.

Some of these things have gotten better recently (e.g. equipment). Other issues remain and will likely remain for a long time. But to come to a translator after 10 years or more of sacrificial labor and say essentially "Just one thing: can't you work faster?" is nothing other than an insult. This is the time we should be coming to say "How can we help you do this job better, both in terms of quality and speed?" We are getting better at communicating this recently, but we have a long way to go.

Finally, we can easily measure speed but not so easily measure quality. The only ones likely to know the quality of a translation top to bottom are the translators themselves. Talk to any translator and ask the following questions: 1. "Do you feel supported and helped out in your work?" 2. "Do you feel pressure to work faster (even at the expense of quality)?" 3. "What effects do you think that both support and pressure have had on your work?" The answer to these questions will tell us a lot about whether "acceleration," and the way we are going about it, is working or not.