As learned in the “Inside Google Translate” video, Google Translate and other machine translators work very similarly to search engines, the more popular the result the more likely you are to receiving the result. When someone forgets how to say a simple phrase or wants to check the spelling of a word, that person can simply use a search engine to confirm or deny if their suspicion was correct or not. With Google Translate and other translating websites, one should treat it the same way. If in a moment of distress you forget how to say “What is your name?” in another language, go for it. But in moments where it is critical for something to make complete sense, it is best to do it by hand.
When I initially passed the articles through Google translate, the results seemed to be pretty accurate. As I looked closer to the translations, I noticed small mistakes that could easily confuse the reader. With the article Portland won’t remove graffiti depicting LePage in Ku Klux Klan robe – the translation seemed pretty solid. In the second paragraph the original article cites that the words “Dump LePage” are located on the piece while Google Translate, rather than translating the words in quotes, it separates them into ‘“descarga’ en LePage” which makes no sense. Perhaps, the machine believed LePage to be a place but the addition of the “en” is confusing. To prevent confusion, the translation should have been along the lines of “desgarga LePage” or “Boten LePage.” If a person were behind this translation, they would recognize that the “en” as a translation of “in” talked about the size of the piece not LePage, but would still be the wrong word to choose. The last phrase, “in 6-foot-high red and white block letters,” was translated into “6 pies de altura letras mayúsculas rojas y blancas” which, is missing a word to connect it and the original do not mention the words to be uppercase but rather “block letters.”
In La Jornada’s article, while the machine translation was not off, if it were translated for an English audience, rather than simply referring to Juan Gabriel as the “Divo” I would have gone the extra step to add his name. While in Mexico everyone knows who the Divo is without naming it, American audiences might know, the majority will likely not. The second sentence of the first paragraph’s machine translation had “…and the Alameda crossed the line waiting to enter the lobby become funeral oratory,” it was not the Alameda that crossed the line, but rather it was the people that crossed the Alameda. In another instance of confusion, the second paragraph began with “How wonderful!” He was heard from the speakers the voice of Juan Gabriel, unmistakable.,” while the structure of that sentence worked in Spanish, it was confusing in English. For example, in Spanish the “se oyó” meant that the voice was heard, but in English with “he was heard” would perplex any reader, who was the “he” they were talking about? The final phrase in the machine translation was also missing a verb. Google Translate used “Even inside mariachi music heard in a song of goodbye,” which isn’t even a sentence. Using context clues, one can figure out that what was being heard was mariachi music, but as a professor of mine said, “Either the writer or the reader struggles, it should be the writer.” You want to make sure that the reader knows exactly what is meant and that you don’t cause moments of stress.
With languages that get constantly translated, Google Translate can be useful to translate between English and Spanish, but with other languages like Serbian and Croatian as Kelly and Zetzshe state, it can be less useful. Just as Wikipedia should be used as a starting off point when researching, Google Translate should be just the beginning. When translating a work and someone is unsure of what it means, Google Translate is useful to see the common translations along with searching for the word’s definition but it shouldn’t be the only source used. Translations aren’t only about finding a word or phrase that matches up perfectly because that can be hard to find, but it is about considering the content and culture along with the words and norms of the receiving audience. It is also important to note that it is not the machine that is translating the works, but rather it is using what people have translated before and that is what is used as a result.
La Jornada (Mexico City), September 6, 2016
Roses, tears, and songs during the “Divo” Juan Gabriel’s final farewell
By Alondra Flores
Mexico City. Night fell and the funeral continued into the next day. The line of mourners went from the cultural center all the way around the Alameda, a nearby park, as they waited to enter the lobby that was converted into a funeral chapel.
“How wonderful!” Juan Gabriel’s unmistakable voice boomed from the speakers. A biographical video of the musician was projected on the big screen as funeral-goers said their final goodbyes that night in the national theater, Palacio de Bellas Artes. Even inside of the theater the mariachi’s farewell songs could be heard playing from outside.