The metalanguage of localization: Theory and practice

Iwona Mazur
Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland

Abstract

In recent years localization has become a popular concept in both translation practice and theory. It has developed a language of its own, which, however, still seems to be little known among translation scholars. What is more, being primarily an industry-based discourse, the terms related to localization are very fluid, which makes theorizing about it difficult. Therefore, the aim of this article is, first of all, to explain the basic terms of the metalanguage of localization, as they are used by both localization practitioners and scholars, and, secondly, to make this metalanguage more consistent by proposing some general definitions that cover the basic concepts in localization. This, in turn, should, on the one hand, facilitate scholar-to-practitioner communication and vice versa and, on the other, should result in concept standardization for training purposes. In the conclusions I link the present discussion of the metalanguage of localization to a more general debate on metalanguage(s) in Translation Studies and propose that in the future we might witness the emergence of a new discipline called Localization Studies.

Keywords
Table of contents

The localization industry has been growing very rapidly in the past fifteen years or so. At the beginning it mainly attracted the attention of IT specialists and translation practitioners who perceived this sector of the economy as a lucrative business. But as the phenomenon grew in popularity, it also became a new research area for a number of translation scholars who began to theorize on the very concept of localization. Like any new phenomenon, the development of the localization industry gave rise to a range of new terms devised to name the new concepts associated with the industry. However, the metalanguage of localization still seems [ p. 338 ]to be some secret code understood only by those who have dealt with localization either as practitioners or theoreticians. Terms such as delta, simship, MLVs, SLVs, or fuzzy matches sound very obscure to many translation scholars. Therefore, the primary purpose of this article is to make this metalanguage more familiar to all those interested in Translation Studies and, by the same token, perhaps inspire further research in the area. However, as it turns out, the terms are not always clear-cut and their definitions are far from uniform. There are a number of inconsistencies and discrepancies in the use of some of the key terms related to localization. Therefore, the second aim of this article is to review some of the definitions of the major concepts (as regards both the theory and practice of localization) and pinpoint the main differences. However, what needs to be borne in mind is the fact that localization is first and foremost an industry-based discourse in which terms move and quickly change. What is more, individual companies often have their own localization terminology and discourses, different from the ones used by their competitors, which makes the matter very complicated for all those who wish to theorize about localization. Therefore, in the present article I will attempt to come up with some general definitions, based on the existing ones, in order to create—as far as possible—a more uniform metalanguage of localization, since—as noted by Chesterman—“[I]f we had an agreed term, or set of terms, which professional translators could use as well as scholars, life would be easier” (2005: 18). Chesterman’s comment referred to the names for translation strategies, but I think it can be applied to any area of translation practice or research. In conclusion, I will try to link the present discussion on the metalangauge of localization to the discussion on the metalanguage of Translation Studies in general.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Appadurai, Arjun
1990 “Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy”. Mike Featherstone, ed. Global culture: Nationalism, globalization and modernity. London: Sage 1990 295–310.Google Scholar
Cadieux, Pierre and Bert Esselink
2004 “GILT: Globalization, internationalization, localization, translation”. Globalization insider XI:1:5. 1–5. (www​.lisa​.org)[ p. 356 ]Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
2005 “Problems with strategies”. Kristina Károly and Ágota Fóris, eds. New trends in Translation Studies: In honour of Kinga Klaudy. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó 2005 17–28.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew, Helle V. Dam, Jan Engberg and Anne Schjoldager
2003 “Bananas—on names and definitions in Translation Studies”. Hermes 31. 197–209.Google Scholar
Cronin, Michael
2003Translation and globalization. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques
1972La Dissémination. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Esselink, Bert
1998A practical guide to software localization. Amsterdam and Philadalphia: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2003 “The evolution of localization”. Localization: The guide from MultiLingual Computing & Technology no. 57 Supplement, July/August, 4–7. (http://​www​.multilingual​.com)Google Scholar
Freivalds, John
2001 “Dollars and sense”. Language international 13:3. 9–11.Google Scholar
Fry, Deborah
2003The localization primer (Second Edition), revised by Arle Lommel, revised by Arle Lommel (http://​www​.lisa​.org​/interact​/LISAprimer​.pdf)Google Scholar
Gottlieb, Henrik
1994Subtitles, translation & idioms. Center for Translation Studies and Lexicography: Department of English, University of Copenhagen. [Ph.D. dissertation.]Google Scholar
Hannerz, Ulf
1990 “Cosmopolitans and locals in world cultures”. Mike Featherstone, ed. Global culture: Nationalism, globalization and modernity. London: Sage 1990 237–251.Google Scholar
Holmes, James S.
1972 [2000] “The name and nature of Translation Studies”. Lawrence Venuti, ed. The Translation Studies reader. London: Routledge 2000 173–185.Google Scholar
Hutchins, John and Harold Somers
1992An introduction to machine translation. London: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Lockwood, Rose
2000 “Machine translation and controlled authoring at Caterpillar”. Sprung 2000. 187–202.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
O’Hagan, Minako and David Ashworth
2002Translation-mediated communication in a digital world: Facing the challenges of globalization and localization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Paskal, Iwona
2005Globalization and translation: Localized English-language magazines in Poland. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University. [Ph.D. dissertation.]Google Scholar
in press. “Translation and the globalization-localization dichotomy: Proposal of a new classification of translation procedures”. Proceedings of the 4th International Maastricht-Łódź Duo Colloquium on “Translation and Meaning”.
Pym, Anthony
2004The moving text: Localization, translation, and distribution. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Ritzer, George
1993The McDonaldization of society. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
Robertson, Roland
1994 [2003] “Globalisation or glocalisation?”. The journal of international communication 1:1. 33–52. Reprinted in Robertson and White 2003. 3. 31–51.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Robertson, Roland and Kathleen E. White
eds. 2003Globalization: Critical concepts in sociology, Vol. 1. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Roy, Cynthia B.
1993 [2002] “The problem with definitions, descriptions, and the role metaphors of interpreters”. Franz Pöchhacker and Miriam Shlesinger, eds. The Interpreting Studies reader. London: Routledge 2002 345–353.Google Scholar
Sprung, Robert C.
ed. 2000Translating into success: Cutting-edge strategies for going multilingual in a global age. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Thibodeau, Ricky P.
2000 “Making a global product at MapInfo Corporation”. Sprung 2000. 127–146.[ p. 357 ]. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Wallerstein, Immanuel
1974The modern world system: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Watson, James L.
ed. 1997Golden arches East: McDonald’s in East Asia. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Yunker, John
2005 “The other shoe just dropped: Lionbridge acquires Bowne Global”. (http://​goingglobal​.corante​.com)Google Scholar