Translation Commentary

Pre-translation Analysis

The text is written by more than one person as can be seen from the way they define themselves in the first person plurally, “what do we mean by social learning?”. It can be also be inferred that the writers are academics, specialists or experts in some sense. This is made clear by the authoritative tone, “perhaps the simplest way to explain this concept…” and academic style, making references for example to other published work, “the landmark study by Richard J. Light”.  These extratextual factors are confirmed by the authors naming and institutional affiliation at the start, “Richard P. Adler (Institute for the Future). The publishing of the text in a specialist journal, ‘EDUCAUSE Review’ suggests that it is intended for a specialist academic readership who will already have knowledge of the debates and other contexts for the text.

The text is thematically coherent, focusing on the impact of the internet on learning in relation to ‘social learning’. The subject matter is made explicit immediately with the bold headline, “Social Learning” and then the first sentence, “The most profound impact of the internet…”. The connection of these two topics is made explicit in a further heading later, “Social Learning Outline”. The subject matter is not bound to a particular cultural context as it describes strategies of learning which could be employed across cultures.

As the TT context would be an equally specialist publication, there are few redundancies which may be superfluous for a TT recipient. Most of the references and information presupposed to be known to the ST recipient relate to the internet – MySpace, Facebook and Wikipedia for example. However, as I would expect the TT recipient to be equally aware of these references, there are few cases of having to verbalise presuppositions in the TT. The ST operates as an independent text, but would also be embedded within a journal of related articles. It follows a conventional academic style composition of a linear argument, which is developed and illustrated as the text progresses.  It also illustrates the argument with diagrams and images, which must be carefully translated into the TT.

The text then is academic in style, intended to provide a case for a particular strategy of learning and use of technology to a specialist readership, who may not be aware of the strategy, but would be aware of the context. It assumes an educated and engaged reader and operates on a formal register.  Extratextual factors are reflected in the use of formal language, “various pedagogical strategies” for example rather than ‘different ways of teaching’, and specialist vocabulary such as “Cartesian”. The attitude of the writers is reflected in their rhetorical style, the use of rhetorical questions for example, “What do we mean by ‘social learning’?”, and reveals how they want to persuade and convince in a logical and structured way.  This also leads to clarity of language, with everything explained carefully with little poetic language, metaphor or allusion.

Translation problems

Some problems arise at word and phrase level.  Although the text is generally very functional, it does occasionally use idiomatic expressions such as “learn the ropes”.  This language, from the context of sailing, is used metaphorically in the ST to describe how newcomers learn to use operating systems in open source communities. It could cause problems and lead to confusion if its metaphorical use was not understood by the TT recipient, as, literally, there are no ropes in computers. For my translation I have been able to use a literal translation as the same metaphor is used in my target language and the meaning would be widely understood by the readership. It is made clearer by the use of inverted commas in the ST, which immediately marks out the phrase as metaphorical in contrast with the very literal language used in the rest of the text. The ST also marks out phrases in inverted commas when the writers use language, which would be literal in a conventional classroom environment but is metaphorical in the context of internet learning. They describe for example “breaking off from the classroom” and instructors “visiting the groups”. These examples are slightly different as the language is only metaphorical because of the internet context. In face-to-face classroom learning, teachers could literally visit groups, on the internet, they would do so virtually. In the case of my translation I have been able to retain the source language phrase as the internet context is clearly provided by the rest of the text, as well as the accompanying images. “Break off” is slightly more complicated as it is metaphorical in both the senses I have described (when used in the classroom and on the internet), but again, would be widely understood by my intended readership so does not need to be changed.

Cultural context is another potential translation problem. The ST for example describes a development called Digital Study Hall (DSH) as “the educational equivalent of Netflix + YouTube + Kazaa”. As it is not explained what Netflix, YouTube or Kazaa are, it is assumed that the reader will be aware of these platforms and this will aid their understanding of the DSH. This is not a problem for the ST as a fairly high level of technological knowledge, and specifically internet-based knowledge is assumed of readers who are being informed of developments in internet technologies. The text also mentions, “IM, Facebook and Myspace” and earlier described “building software drivers” as an example of a development project. This could be a problem for a translation into a less specialist context but I am assuming that the readership of the TT, to operate in a similar specialist way, will be equally as familiar with such references as those of the ST. The references are not culturally specific but use the internationally recognized logos of international internet companies and platforms. In this sense they need no translation or explanation, either linguistically or culturally. Also in terms of retaining the style of the original text, is is important that the authors’ argument is represented in a clear and concise way. If the text started to get bogged down with explanations of all technological terms, it would distract from the clear style of the argument.

Another element of the specialist style of the text is precision in its use of language, and this must be carefully retained in the TT. As the key subject of the text is the relation of technology to social learning then it is important how that relation is described. According to the text, it is described as “using technology to leverage social learning”. The use of ‘leverage’ here is important. It is not a common word and not the most common word to be employed in this context. It is used however in a very precise way to try and articulate the main argument of the text – that technology can help social learning. ‘Leverage’ suggests something enabling, and helping, but not forcing. For my translation I have been very careful to use a word which retains these elements, therefore retaining the specialist precision of the ST. Another example is “extended connections”. This is used to describe groups and relations students form on internet sites such as MySpace or Facebook. Importantly here, in this context, ‘extended connections’ has a positive sense suggesting that academic work can be ‘extended’ over the internet. Rather than being critical of social networking, part of the main argument of the text is to suggest the positive potential of such forums, and describing them as ‘extended communities’ rather than, say, ‘internet friends’ or more derogatory terms, suggests a subtle way to do this. It is again important then that I retain the subtlety and precision of these descriptive terminologies. Throughout the text, language with positive associations is used to describe internet developments, “networked communities of practice” for example, suggesting the democratic potential of open source software, and a focus on ‘community’ rather than alienation.

Post-translation analysis

To return to my pre-translation analysis then, I identified that the text is a specialist academic text intended for a specialist readership. As I intend the TT to occupy a similar cultural position, most of the references have been possible to translate literally. Most of the cultural context for the text is provided by references to international internet content, rather than local knowledge and culture. This has also allowed for more literal translation styles. A text such as this uses little colloquial or idiomatic language, and also little metaphor and allusion. This has enabled me to avoid some of the problems inherent to this type of language use. On the other hand however, it has raised other issues. The flow of the argument in a concise and clear way is important and I have had to retain the form and structure at levels of sentence and text in order to retain the force of the argument. The most difficult element has been the focus on subtle precise uses of formal language, used and mobilized for a specific purpose.