There is nothing more frustrating and less rewarding than trying to give an exact rendering of a bad source text. According to some translation theories, equivalence is the main purpose of and best criterion for good translation. When it comes to scientific and technical translations, however, the importance of equivalence should be minimized in favor of logic and correctness, i.e. in the honorable (if not holy) name of reality and scientific truth. Text parts lending themselves to misunderstanding and misinterpretation should be rewritten for academic clarity and correctness. All authors will appreciate a knowledgeable and skillful co-author who endows their papers with improved contents and envelope. In this Internet era, any good academic translator can be an expert in any fields of research mid-translation. He/she should be then in a position to correct or complement inadequate or insufficient contents. This is even a core element in my translation practice, and I have never received any complaints regarding such surgical intervention.
To make it clear that many clients do not expect equivalence, but excellence that goes far beyond their expectations, let me give an example from my repertoire of unusual interactions with clients. In an IT-related manuscript of a standard journal article length, I complemented the main author names with 'et al.' (if need be) and publication years. After a dozen of such incidences, I gave up this overfriendliness to meet the deadline and added instead (...). The client evaluated the flawless translation as a translation failure (equivalent to a full exemption from payment if proven justified), arguing that two different translators had worked on it, exactly pinpointing the page where I started to translate in faithful compliance with the 'equivalence' criterion -- alas not enough, for he rightly pointed out that (...) was not in his manuscript --, and asking for revision. Of course, I would have completed my good Samaritan deed if he (I am far from being a feminist or sexist, but I still suppose that only men are capable of such extreme martial arts) had asked the 'first' translator to correct the 'errors' committed by the 'second' translator. Not being a master of the art of the-other-cheek kind of meekness, however, I refused it and added a comment that I would not guarantee the correctness of this and all other interventions of mine (there were many improved parts) in order to secure my safety in case he would sue me for misappropriation and malpractice.
The lesson from this unfortunate experience is either performing the plastic surgery to the end or keeping the scalpel in the tool box. In this sense, I understand such a preposterous reaction. Though very extreme as an example, yet it is singularly representative of the clients' general expectations going far beyond the masterfully performed equivalence. In this special case, by the way, there is another aspect worthy of consideration. I should not have become an 'accomplice' towards this unhealthy academic practice of citing unread articles, as evidenced by the inexact descriptions of the cited articles. It's a matter of balancing between keeping my academic conscience clean and rendering unmerited assistance for science's sake.
To make it clear that many clients do not expect equivalence, but excellence that goes far beyond their expectations, let me give an example from my repertoire of unusual interactions with clients. In an IT-related manuscript of a standard journal article length, I complemented the main author names with 'et al.' (if need be) and publication years. After a dozen of such incidences, I gave up this overfriendliness to meet the deadline and added instead (...). The client evaluated the flawless translation as a translation failure (equivalent to a full exemption from payment if proven justified), arguing that two different translators had worked on it, exactly pinpointing the page where I started to translate in faithful compliance with the 'equivalence' criterion -- alas not enough, for he rightly pointed out that (...) was not in his manuscript --, and asking for revision. Of course, I would have completed my good Samaritan deed if he (I am far from being a feminist or sexist, but I still suppose that only men are capable of such extreme martial arts) had asked the 'first' translator to correct the 'errors' committed by the 'second' translator. Not being a master of the art of the-other-cheek kind of meekness, however, I refused it and added a comment that I would not guarantee the correctness of this and all other interventions of mine (there were many improved parts) in order to secure my safety in case he would sue me for misappropriation and malpractice.
The lesson from this unfortunate experience is either performing the plastic surgery to the end or keeping the scalpel in the tool box. In this sense, I understand such a preposterous reaction. Though very extreme as an example, yet it is singularly representative of the clients' general expectations going far beyond the masterfully performed equivalence. In this special case, by the way, there is another aspect worthy of consideration. I should not have become an 'accomplice' towards this unhealthy academic practice of citing unread articles, as evidenced by the inexact descriptions of the cited articles. It's a matter of balancing between keeping my academic conscience clean and rendering unmerited assistance for science's sake.
