Saturday, 9 June
17:15–18:30, PRESENTATION SESSIONS 3
18:00–18:30
Carol Norris, Developing a modern, journal-acceptable manuscript style
Editing/Writing
After seven years’ teaching tertiary-level writing in the United States, I established the University of Helsinki’s first English-writing course for research scientists and began author-editing for Finns, in 1986.
Being a Finno-ugric language like Hungarian, Finnish interferes with Indo-European languages in startling ways. It has scores of cases, but lacks articles, prepositions, and gender. Finns, however, receive English training early and also learn by ear from non-dubbed TV and films that heavily feature English; they stay constantly net-connected.
Before Finnish academics send their manuscripts to journal and book editors, I help them satisfy the current requirements for a clear, reader-friendly style. As every word costs money, almost all editors now favour the concise active voice, which, in fact, rarely requires first-person pronouns. Instead, the inanimate agent (‘Results were encouraging’, ‘They received a diet of …‘) serves even to describe methodologies. Passive voice, once ubiquitous, fulfils exceptional needs: ‘The late [unpopular] Professor Smith is greatly missed.’
As teacher, I have my students fling their first-draft sentences onto paper/screen at maximum pace, as if speaking. Similarly, as an authors’ editor, I ask writers never to translate lines from Finnish and always to read all drafts aloud: ears out-perform eyes. In manuscript editing, before any thought of grammar, we seek in each sentence the message-word best expressing its key point and foreshadowing oncoming information. After this word goes the full-stop. The next sentence’s early words (‘this/such/moreover/conversely’) produce flow. Next, every unnecessary, wasted word goes out. End-focus plus linkage in active voice ensures clarity and rhetorical power, even demands logical thought. Only after this brutal language manipulation do I consider grammar – in Finland, having errors has largely vanished. Writing itself becomes faster, enjoyable and, to editors, manuscripts far more publishable.
About the presenter
After completing a Bachelor's degree in pre-medicine at Duke University but lacking funding for medical school, Carol Norris conducted research at Duke and Oak Ridge National Laboratory before undertaking an MA in rhetoric and then teaching university writing courses for seven years. Her PhD thesis at the University of Maryland concerned the physician in literature. Carol also holds an Applied Linguistics MA from Birmingham University, UK.
In 1985 she began the University of Helsinki’s first English-language writing course for scientists and became a university medical author-editor. In addition, she writes for the European Science Editors’ European Science Editing and presents at conferences. She is a member of Nordic Editors and Translators (NEaT).
Saturday, 9 June
17:15–18:30, PRESENTATION SESSIONS 3
17:15–18:30
Anne Murray, Marije de Jager, Emma Goldsmith (moderator: Valerie Matarese), Moderated panel discussion – Invasive species: Language versus subject specialists in biomedical editing and translation
Translation/Editing
Invasive species are generally perceived as harmful, but can they also be beneficial and are they sometimes necessary? In this session, three language professionals who offer writing support services in medicine and pharmaceutics will talk about their being figurative ‘invasive species’. A former nurse, a generalist translator now specialising in medicine, and a translator now also editing in her non-native language will be interviewed by a biologist-cum-editor and academic writing trainer. All the speakers are members of the Mediterranean Editors & Translators (MET) association.
Translators and editors in biomedicine may have had formal training in language or translation, or may have started out as a practising physician, nurse, or scientific researcher. Whether one educational background is to be preferred over the other is a long-standing dilemma. The panellists will compare notes and share experiences, highlighting the advantages, drawbacks, pitfalls, and joys of working in a field they had to invade before turning it into their stamping ground.
Examples of questions the session will address are:
- What are the advantages and disadvantages of the different backgrounds?
- What challenges are faced by language specialists and subject specialists?
- How steep is the learning curve in each case?
- Can you learn on the job? What is the value of a mentorship?
- What do you do when you don’t know? How do you know you don’t know?
- How does your service portfolio evolve as your knowledge and confidence grow?
Taking into account that translators and editors in many fields other than biomedicine face the same language-versus-subject-specialist dilemma, the focus of this panel will be on education and learning issues rather than on medical specificities.
About the panel
Anne Murray is a freelance translator, editor and authors’ editor who works mainly in the field of medical research articles. She has a degree in translation from Dublin City University, Ireland, and a foundation certificate in medical writing from the European Medical Writers’ Association. Anne is also currently chair of MET.
Marije de Jager was born in the Netherlands and received her NL-EN-IT translator’s training at the University of Amsterdam. She studied contemporary dance in London and then moved to Italy, embarking on a freelance career as translator and editor. Her current work is mostly in medical copy-editing and author editing.
Emma Goldsmith originally trained as a registered general nurse at St Thomas’ Hospital in London. She moved to Spain in 1987 and for the following 10 years she worked as a staff nurse through the BNA (British Nursing Agency) during visits to England. This gave her broad experience in a wide range of hospital settings.
Meanwhile, in Madrid, Emma set up as a freelance Spanish-to-English translator, first working for local translation agencies and later — in the internet age — specialising in medicine for global companies and individuals. She now has more than 20 years’ experience in translating clinical-trial documentation, articles for publication in medical journals and product information for EMA submissions. Emma is a member of Mediterranean Editors and Translators (MET) and currently serves as Webmaster on MET’s Council.
Valerie Matarese is an authors’ editor based in Italy. Born in New York, she trained in biochemistry and molecular biology at US universities and worked in research in the United States and Italy prior to launching a sole proprietorship offering editing in the biomedical sciences, writing, and training in research-article writing. She has recently published a book on the profession of author editing, entitled Editing Research: The author editing approach to providing effective support to writers of research papers. (Information Today, 2016).
Saturday, 9 June
17:15–18:30, PRESENTATION SESSIONS 3
17:15–17:50
Nigel Harwood, What do proofreaders do to a poorly written Master’s essay? Differing interventions, disturbing findings
Editing
Much interest has been shown recently in researching the changes language brokers make in English for research publication contexts (eg Burrough-Boenisch 2006; Cargill & O’Connor 2011; Flowerdew & Wang 2016; Li 2012; Lillis & Curry 2010; Luo & Hyland 2016, 2017; Willey & Tanimoto 2012). These studies report on the types of changes supervisors and editors make to the texts of novice researchers who are attempting to publish in English. However, with the exception of Harwood et al’s research (2009, 2010, 2012), studies focused on the proofreading of students’ university essays are largely conspicuous by their absence. Harwood et al uncovered apparently significant variations in their 16 proofreaders’ practices, but because they relied solely on proofreaders’ interview accounts rather than also soliciting examples of the proofreaders’ work, the validity of their research is questionable.
For the purposes of the current project, I therefore adopted a different approach: 14 UK university proofreaders all proofread the same authentic, low-quality Master’s essay written by an L2 speaker of English in order to compare and contrast the proofreaders’ interventions. A modified version of Willey & Tanimoto’s (2012) taxonomy of revisions was used to analyse the changes the proofreaders made. I use ‘proofreader’ in this presentation as it is the most commonly used term in my UK university context and I adopt Harwood et al’s (2009) intentionally broad definition, ‘third-party interventions (entailing written alteration) on assessed work in progress’, to explore the roles proofreaders adopt and eschew.
Similarly to the findings in Harwood et al’s research, I uncovered ample evidence of widely differing proofreading interventions, with some proofreaders intervening at the level of content, making lengthy suggestions for improving the writer’s essay structure and argumentation, while at the other extreme others were reluctant to focus on anything more than the language. Disturbingly, some proofreaders frequently introduced errors into the text, while leaving some of the writer’s errors and unclear claims uncorrected. Examples of the proofreaders’ interventions will be shared via PowerPoint and handouts.
The study provides much food for thought for SENSE delegates: for copyeditors and proofreaders working with student writers, university lecturers whose students may be approaching proofreaders, and for university policy-makers responsible for formulating proofreading guidelines and regulations. How can the inconsistencies in what is being offered in the name of ‘proofreading’ uncovered by this research be tackled? The implications of the findings will be discussed and debated with the audience, and I will argue for the need for tighter regulation and dissemination of research-informed proofreading guidelines and policies across UK universities.
About the presenter
Nigel Harwood is a reader in Applied Linguistics at the University of Sheffield. He has previously published three co-authored journal articles reporting findings of an interview-based study of the profiles, practices and beliefs of proofreaders who work on student writing in the United Kingdom. He has also published research on English for academic purposes and teachers’ use of EFL and EAP textbooks; his most recent monograph focuses on students' experiences of dissertation supervision. He is co-editor of the journal English for Specific Purposes (Elsevier).
Saturday, 9 June
17:15–18:30, PRESENTATION SESSIONS 3
17:15–17:50
Nigel Saych, ‘… divided by a common language’: Cultural, topical and geographical Englishes
English
This quote (in several variations) has been attributed to GB Shaw, Oscar Wilde and even to Winston Churchill. However, this presentation is not really about the differences between UK and US English: there are hundreds of websites which explain that. Following the theme of ‘Englishes now!’, the session will highlight some of the ways in which different forms of the language can be used for effect – sometimes positive and sometimes negative. It will illustrate some of the pitfalls for the unwary linguist. Many of these are based on experience I gained, first as a teacher in international education and in the past 15 years as a translator. Obviously the differences between the English language in various countries around the world will form part of this session, but in addition to ‘Global English’ there will also be examples of ‘Gender English’, ‘Classroom English’ and even ‘Aunty Mabel’s English’ …
‘Gender English’ will include changing trends in ‘Mr and Mrs’, ‘Ladies and Gentlemen’, the changing use of the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ and how these affect us as translators, interpreters and editors. ‘Classroom English’ will deal with how teachers’ reports are interpreted by parents (in my case translated into other languages) and how ‘reading between the lines’ is sometimes required to really understand the content. ‘Aunty Mable’s English’ will examine past and present conventions in polite English, including the way criticism and disapproval can sometimes be covered by seemingly appreciative language.
My intention is to draw from the audience their own experiences with and examples of the types of English mentioned above. I hope the message participants will take with them is that we are all dealing with these issues daily, but the more creative the consideration we give to them, the more likely we are to be able to deal with them.
This is not intended for any particular discipline within the language profession. It should be an inspiring session for anyone dealing with language every day.
About the presenter
Nigel Saych is the owner and director of Interlex Language Services, a ‘Fair Trade’ translation company based in Nuenen (near Eindhoven) in the Netherlands (www.interlex.eu/). He is also a full-time translator and has given entertaining presentations at 20 translation conferences over the past ten years. Creative translation is Nigel’s speciality and his presentation at SENSE conference 2018 will offer a creative approach to ‘Englishes now’.
Saturday, 9 June
16:00–16:30, PRESENTATION SESSIONS 2
16:00–16:30
Susannah Goss & Ailish Maher Editing documents produced in LaTeX (laptops required; session continues after tea break)
Editing
There is an increasing trend for authors of technical and scientific documents, especially those containing mathematical equations, to use LaTeX rather than MS Word. LaTeX is free, open-source software that separates form and content. It is essentially a markup language rather like HTML. Here’s an example of some LaTeX source text and output:
Major disadvantages for editors, apart from having to deal with source code, are that LaTeX softwares often lack the comfortable – and oh so familiar! – comment/annotation and edit-tracking features offered by Word. You can, of course, edit LaTeX documents in Word, or even annotate the PDF if the English is good and the text is reasonably short. However, for longer and more complex texts, other approaches are required.
In this presentation, we will give you a beginners’ introduction to editing texts in LaTeX. We will present the online editing environments Overleaf and ShareLaTeX (which are now in the process of joining forces) and also briefly describe an offline option (in case of confidentiality requirements). We will summarize the advantages and drawbacks of each approach, including complexity and cost, explain how we have used them with clients, and demonstrate some workarounds to overcome certain challenges of LaTeX that editors used to working in Word find especially tricky.
Our aim is to remove the fear factor from editing in LaTeX by equipping attendees with the confidence to work in this kind of environment – likely to be a source of new work opportunities. We will provide attendees interested in exploring LaTeX further with access to a set of learning resources.
About the presenters
Susannah Goss is a Scientific Editor at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin. She has the Chartered Institute of Linguists’ Diploma in Translation and a European Master’s Degree in Linguistics. Having been thrown into the LaTeX deep end a few years ago (and almost sinking), she is motivated to offer other language professionals a gentler introduction to LaTeX.
Ailish Maher is a freelance translator and editor who has the Chartered Institute of Linguists’ Diploma in Translation and a Master’s Degree in Translation from Dublin City University. Like Susannah Goss, she had to figure out editing in LaTeX for herself and is pleased to report that things have become much easier since the advent of online applications.
Saturday, 9 June
16:00–16:30, PRESENTATION SESSIONS 2
16:00–16:30
Lloyd Bingham, Dealing with Dunglish – and other source-language interference
English
Dunglish, Denglish, Franglais, Spanglish … they can all be deceptive. Especially when you find out that your friend’s new ‘beamer’ is not quite the BMW you imagined, but a projector!
While it might be cool to drop English words into other languages, the meaning is often corrupted, leaving us translators scratching our heads.
Taking source-language terms borrowed from English at face value is a rookie mistake. The consequences might well be hilarious, but they can often be catastrophic too – a sign that the translator doesn’t fully understand the source text.
This presentation will first look specifically at the accelerating trend of other languages – with an emphasis on Dutch – giving English words new meanings that you won’t find in the dictionary, and at how translators can translate them accurately and idiomatically. The audience will be invited to venture examples they have come across, and how they translated them. Then we will look more generally at ways to avoid source-language interference from a stylistic point of view and how to opt for more idiomatic formulations.
Real-life examples that I have come across in my own practice will be taken from Dutch and German, so English translation professionals will not only come away with greater awareness of the issue, but will also be able to take away ideas on how to avoid ‘steenkolenengels’ in their translations and how to make both the terminology and the style of their texts sound more natural.
About the presenter
Lloyd Bingham runs Capital Translations in Cardiff, the United Kingdom. A former in-house translator, he works from Dutch, German, French and Spanish into English, specialising in business, marketing and education. Lloyd is a qualified member of the UK’s Institute of Translation and Interpreting (ITI) and the Chartered Institute of Linguists (CIOL). He is also a tutor on ITI’s Starting Up as a Freelance Translator course. In addition to a linguistic curiosity about English interference in other languages, Lloyd takes a keen interest in online presence-building and professional conduct for translation professionals.
Saturday, 9 June
14:50–15:50, PRESENTATION SESSIONS 1
14:50–15:20
Charles Frink, Disrupting the inheritance of poor writing habits: An alternative approach to editing and teaching writing (in the health-related sciences)
Editing/Writing
In the health-related-sciences, about 500,000 manuscripts are published each year. Unfortunately, the authors of many of these manuscripts, and many more that were rejected for publication, tend to use language to impress their peers rather than to communicate to an increasingly multidisciplinary readership. This problem has been acknowledged for decades, but journal editors continue to complain that many submissions are so poorly written that the point of the manuscript is unclear. According to Amin Bredan, scientist and journal editor, this tendency to write ‘complex, exaggerated and often pompous prose’ is transmitted by senior scientists to junior ones, leading to the inheritance of poor writing habits.
Disrupting this inheritance obviously requires attention to the linguistic aspects of clear writing, which has indeed been the emphasis of most editors and teachers of scientific writing. Despite the standard plea of journal editors for editing by a native speaker, however, the overall quality of writing in the health-related sciences remains below par.
Here I present an alternative approach that focuses first on the underlying structure of a manuscript. These are the core components of research manuscripts in the health-related sciences, such as the problem definition, hypothesis, study design, results and discussion. By presenting these components clearly – and explicitly – and linking them logically, peer reviewers can focus on the actual scientific content of a manuscript instead of struggling to find the point. This approach not only ensures that manuscripts have the ‘flow’ that journal editors want; it often makes the linguistic editing more efficient.
About the presenter
Charles Frink is the owner of Frink Communications and has worked as an editor and translator for more than 30 years. He has been associated in this capacity with Wageningen UR (and its precursors) since 1992. He currently focuses on editing and teaching scientific writing in the life sciences.
Saturday, 9 June
14:50–15:50, PRESENTATION SESSIONS 1
14:50–15:50
Iris Schrijver, Translation quality (assessment): Insights from Translation Studies in the quest for the holy grail?
Translation
Translation quality is an important issue for practitioners, clients, trainers and scholars alike. It is a source of both fascination and despair, since it raises a number of thorny questions. These include: What is translation quality? Can we even define it? Is there a ‘gold standard’ or something like ‘acceptable quality’ and, if so, what are they? Can we measure translation quality and, if so, how do we assess it?
In this talk, I will report on how translation quality and translation quality assessment are approached in Translation Studies. I will start by providing a brief overview of how translation scholars have defined translation quality in the past and how it is defined currently. I will then report on the latest research on translation quality assessment by discussing various methods (e.g. error-based or analytic assessment, holistic assessment and assessment that focuses on ‘rich points’). I will reflect on the benefits and drawbacks of these methods as well as on how valid and reliable they are considered to be. Last but not least, I will present a number of tools that are currently used in academia to carry out translation quality assessments.
The aim of this talk is to update delegates on the academic debate about translation quality and its assessment. I also invite you to join me in a discussion of the most pressing questions that practitioners have regarding translation quality and translation quality assessment which merit further scientific exploration.
About the presenter
Dr Iris Schrijver is a tenure track assistant professor at the Department of Translators and Interpreters at the Faculty of Letters and Philosophy of the University of Antwerp, where she teaches an introductory course in Translation Studies as well as several courses on translation from Spanish into Dutch. She holds an MA in Translation and a PhD in Translation Studies. In 2016 she was awarded the Young Scholar Prize 2016 from the European Society for Translation Studies for her doctoral dissertation entitled ‘The translator as a text producer: The effects of writing training on transediting and translation performance.’ Her main research interests are the acquisition of translation competence, cognitive translation processes and translation quality assessment.
Saturday, 9 June
14:20–14:35, SOCIETY NEWS
Kenneth Quek, Introducing NEaT
General
This presentation will introduce NEaT, Nordic Editors and Translators. NEaT is a professional association for language professionals working in English for the Nordic region. It is currently active mainly in Finland but is seeking to increase its regional reach. NEaT is a sister organization of MET, Mediterranean Editors and Translators.
This will be a 15-minute talk about who we are and what we do, what we offer our members and how we are seeking to develop the professional standards and standing of our field. It will not only be of interest to language professionals from the Nordic region but also further afield, as we offer instructional materials and webinars that are accessible to those outside the region as well.
Apart from these offerings, we also seek to form partnerships with like-minded individuals and organizations. We believe that our professional field is truly transnational and that we can learn and benefit from colleagues all over the world.
This is particularly important in view of the many challenges facing language professionals today, including a general lack of understanding of and appreciation for the field and the threats and opportunities posed by machine translation and editing. As a body, we need to develop ways to maintain our relevance and viability, and NEaT seeks to be in the forefront of this development.
With this in mind, we hope to reach out to a broader community at the SENSE conference and help to build a strong international network that will be an advocate for its members and the field as a whole.
About the presenter
Kenneth Quek is a Singaporean who resides in Helsinki. He is fully bilingual in English and Mandarin Chinese and works both as a freelance academic revisor for the University of Helsinki Language Centre and as a freelance editor and copywriter in the corporate sector. He has previous experience in private teaching, translation and journalism.
Kenneth will also be giving a conference presentation entitled Chinglish as she is writ: On the uses and abuses of English by native Chinese speakers.