Integrity Languages

Blog

Author Archives: Jonathan Downie

Everything you need to know about untranslatable words

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: June 19, 2018

They don’t exist.

That’s it.

 

 

Yeah, I know, that’s kind of disappointing but it’s true.

Throw “manscaping” at any of the interpreters I work with and ask them how to say it in another language and they will not shrivel up and tell you it’s impossible.

I don’t work with interpreters who look at words and run away shrieking “that’s impossible.”

They will probably say those immortal, almost stereotypical translator/interpreter words: “it depends on context.”

Come across “manscaping” at an academic philology conference and the interpreters will handle it one way. Throw them it during an international convention on the male beauty industry and they will deal with it differently.

Same with “sobremesa“, “esprit d’escalier” or literally any other “untranslatable word” you care to mention.

None of them are worthy of the name because interpreting isn’t about finding the word for “irn-bru” in German or the English for “laïque”. Interpreters produce language based on meaning, intention, purpose and, yes, context.

That’s why we take as much interest in what you are trying to do at your next meeting as we do in the terminology you use. That’s why knowing the agenda and the goals of the meeting are just as important (if not more so) than knowing your preferred German word for “dumper truck”.

What you need to know about every single article on untranslatable words, apart from this satirical one, is that they are all poor simplifications of what translation or interpreting actually are. You can safely use them for entertainment and nothing else.

And when you really want to understand what is going on, when your business success depends precisely on your presentation being as persuasive in French as it is in English, drop me an email.

When You Only See Giants

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: June 16, 2018

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
– Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

The world is dominated by the power and the discourse and the strategies of the giants. In every field, a relatively small number of multinationals strut to the front of the stage and render every other struggling, striving business mere bit part players. We might think that, but we would be wrong.

Take the events industry. As in every industry, there are huge corporates, constantly vying for attention. Faced with this power, what do the smaller entities do? They specialise, they innovate, the offer unparalleled customer service. They break the rules and the create experiences that leave clients desperate for more.

Here in the UK, there are a handful of giant High Street banks. But their hegemony is under threat, not because of regulation or legislation but by a new generation of nimble, responsive small banks. Faced with the power of the banking giants, these smaller entities are specialising, innovating, offering unparalleled customer service.

The story repeats in so many industries.

And yet, in translation and interpreting, an industry that is, by any measure, actually dominated by the individual supplier, the sole trader and the micro boutique agency, there is still the temptation to focus on the will and might of the giants, who are far fewer and who, despite all their strutting on the stage, are still at the whim of the individual translator and interpreter.

Take the research of Common Sense Advisory into the “Language Services Market”. To even qualify to take part in their survey, an entity must have “two or more full-time employees, a minimum level of revenue that varies by country, and visible market activity” (The Language Services Market:
Research Methodology 2018).

It may be a neat methodological trick to make the research more manageable but it is deeply problematic. Excluding the individual freelancer means explicitly leaving out the people who are adding the most value across the industry and deliberately sidelining any data and ideas produced by the most flexible, creative and innovative part of the industry.

(Only a real cynic would point out that the segment of the language services market surveyed corresponds almost perfectly with the target market likely to pay for any reports sold.)

The problem with only seeing the giants is that the giants don’t see everything. Go to any conference for professional translators and interpreters and within five minutes, you will notice a trend for the more experienced and more highly skilled translators and interpreters to push for their own direct clients, ignoring precisely the entities who would qualify for the CSA survey. Go to events aimed at interpreting buyers and you will discover that there actually seems to be a shortage of specialists able to deliver when it really matters.

There may well be large multinational corporations hungry to get millions of words translated quickly with minimum cost, but equally there are companies now publicly saying that they only want to work with freelancers directly. There are big companies looking to leverage the power of neural machine translation but there are others still looking for pure human creativity. There are companies hungry for remote, on-demand interpreting and there are others for whom carefully organised in-person meetings still matter. To only see one side and not the other is to risk being blind-sided.

It may be hard to capture the trends and innovation of individual freelancers but the long-standing work of professional associations such as ITI, CIoL and by researchers across the world shows that it is by no means impossible. The biggest barrier is will, not skill.

No-one who wants to know a sector can or should ignore the work of its giants. No-one who carries out market surveys can or should ignore the trends among those creating the work that powers the market. You don’t get to know a market by ignoring any side of it.

This is why I am deeply cynical of any forecasts that this or that technology will render prior art obsolete. Markets are too complex for that and clients to heterogeneous. This is why I am deeply suspicious of any market report that excludes individual suppliers. This is why I would love to speak at a forum aimed at the giants of translation and interpreting and explain the world to them from the perspective of an individual consultant.

This is why I am deeply cynical now of any research that only takes note of the views of companies above a certain revenue level. Because right here, in the land of the small fry and the one-person band, that’s where the energy is.

In-person, remote and machine interpreting: A challenge

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: June 6, 2018

Everyone had heard of the Turing test. The idea there is to see if a chat bot can pass as human. What if there were a similar test or competition for machine interpreting?

To make life interesting and fair, I would like to suggest that we have a single, authentic event but supply interpreting in the same language pairs provided by professional human interpreters in person, professional human interpreters via a remote interpreting platform that allows the interpreters to have a video feed, and one or more machine interpreting solutions.

It would then be a simple matter of providing one audio channel for each of the human teams (one in-person, one remote) and any machine interpreting software being tested. The audience could then choose to listen to their feed of their choice and record their impressions.

Vitally, they would be asked to suggest which channel was which (human in-person, human remote, machine(s)). Their impressions could then be cross-checked by looking at which channels were listened to the most.

As too many machine interpreting developers have discovered, laboratory results are simply not a reliable guide to real-world performance. The only way to truly test the state of machine interpreting and make useful improvement is to run a field test. And, my view is that the field test should be as realistic and comprehensive as possible.

This is why I would suggest the following setup for the event:

2 hours of simultaneous interpreting, alternative between languages every 20-30 minutes (so interpreting English to German then German to English then back again) followed by,

a 1-2 hour factory tour (Wi-Fi signal not guaranteed) with the audience hearing on a system similar to the commercially available tour guide systems followed by returning to the conference hall for,

a 1-2 hour discussion with the questions unknown beforehand to any of the teams or the speakers but still on the themes covered by the event.

The two sessions in the conference hall would, ideally be live-streamed, to get the reactions of those outside the event. Following the success of the Heriot-Watt University Multilingual Debate, it should be possible to put on a conference that would be interesting in its own right and otherwise identical to one the interpreters would normally work at. This breadth of work represents work that will be familiar to most freelance conference interpreters.

In fact, there is no real reason why a company could not use such an event to give an insight into their products. A whisky company could talk about their environmental policies, fishing industry representatives could talk about regulations and give a tour of a working boat, a manufacturing company could showcase their innovation.

Since few clients have large pre-aligned bilingual databases, I would also suggest that every one of the teams receive identical briefing documents from the client. And, of course, if a speech doesn’t arrive on time and some creativity is needed, that just adds to the realism.

Given what we know about interpreter motivation, the interpreters and AV team should be paid at their normal rates and should be chosen by a consultant in the same way as they would be chosen for a normal job.  There should perhaps also be some sort of monetary award for the winners too, to encourage further developments.

I believe that this would not only give us an accurate view of where machine interpreting is but would encourage developments in the field, showcase excellent intepreting and provide a platform for a company with interesting products to show what they do. There would likely be significant press interest, just as there has been when machine translation companies claim to match humans or when literary translators are pitched against their digital counterparts.

It should not be difficult to find a venue to host it and I am sure that any of the good interpreting AV companies would relish the challenge of finding a way to keep the test fair and hide the identity of who was on each channel, even during the factory tour.

It would just need a corporate sponsor and a company or organisation willing to be guinea pigs. If you know anyone who would be interested in playing any role, please drop me an email. I would welcome any feedback on the idea.

 

 

 

The problem with receiving interpreting via mobile apps

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: June 4, 2018

We are all getting used to doing everything online. As a father of three (with one on the way), it is hard to explain just how important online shopping, online flight check-in and online travel booking have become. Yet, for all the leaps we have seen in technology, there are some things that should really stay offline.

Take high-level meetings. For all the deserved concern about the environmental costs of transport, it is still pretty normal to see a businessman from New Zealand fly to mainland Europe to discuss a deal with a company whose representatives might come from different ends of the same country.

Despite Skype and Telegram and Whatsapp, the big, important meetings still take place in person. There’s just something about being in a room together that makes a difference. And there is something about the security of knowing that no-one outside that room can hear what is going on.

For important meetings, privacy and security are a huge concerns. That’s why interpreters sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. That’s why, as a consultant interpreter, I have a public key so I can receive encrypted files. That’s why, for the moment at least, I would recommend that clients keep with the tried-and-tested system of receiving simultaneous interpreting via an infrared (IR) setup and eschew receiving interpreting via mobile phone apps.

This recommendation holds even if every other part of the interpreting process is carried out following best practice.

It’s not that the technology isn’t impressive. It is still amazing that we can and do beam high-quality sound (like podcasts) across continents and can use Wi-Fi networks for sending interpreting and receiving output. But, for meetings where security is a concern, you just can’t beat the advantages of the traditional IR setup. How so?

Unlike Wi-Fi, the traditional setup requires proprietary equipment. It sounds old-school but if the only way to hear the interpreting is with a headset that you get from the sound guy, only people who talk to the sound guy can get a headset. That instantly makes things more secure and, as anyone who has used traditional interpreting equipment will tell you, the signal simply does not leave the room. If you go out of the line of sight of the transmitter, you lose signal. What sounds like a restriction ensures that your meeting is secure.

Since the headsets are dedicated to a single use, they tend to do well at keeping their charge all day. Compare that to any mobile phone, which your delegates will use to listen to the interpreting, check their email, update Facebook and so on, and the difference is clear. For mobile apps to be feasible, the event will need LOTS of mobile phone charging points. Very modern but pretty pricey.

Having delegates receive interpreting through an app also means that you lose control of the security of the feed. Not only is it hard work for the tech to receive, encrypt, broadcast, decrypt and play the signal in real-time (so it is tempting to skip the encryption and decryption parts) but you can’t guarantee what else might be on the mobiles used by your delegates. You simply can’t tell what security risks they are carrying.

The solution might be to  hand out dedicated mobile phones that you have configured. That comes with its own costs means that you will suddenly have lots of internet-enabled devices to maintain, update, fix, and teach delegates to use. That’s before you take account of delegates having special needs that they have setup their own devices to cope with.

As with remote interpreting, the problems with receiving interpreting using the internet are mostly not technical but psychological and behavioural. Even if the tech for receiving interpreting over app was 100% secure, there are too many other variables for it to be an ideal solution for any meeting where security is a concern, at least for the time being.

 

Skills to Learn before you Learn to Code

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: May 7, 2018

With Event Technology, Neural Machine Translation and Remote Simultaneous Interpreting are all vying for publicity, we would be forgiven or thinking that the only choice is between jumping on the high-tech bandwagon and living in a shack on the plains. Many authorities have pleaded for all children to learn to code. The logic is simple, you are either learning how to handle data or you are just part of the data. But might there be a flaw in that logic?

Why Tech Fails

As much as the innovators would never admit it to their angel investors, history is littered with tech that went nowhere. To the well-known flops of laserdiscs and personal jetpacks can be added the expensive failures of nuclear-powered trains and boats and the hundreds of “instant translation” websites that promised to leverage the “power of bilinguals”. Just because a tech exists, that doesn’t mean it will actually make a meaningful difference, just ask the inventor of the gyrocopter.

While the stories of some technologies are unpredictable, there are others where it was clear that there as too wide a gap between what the engineers could do and what the market actually would accept. Take nuclear powered ships. While nuclear submarines are an important part of many navies, the reticence of many ports to let a ship carrying several kilos of activated uranium dock (never mind refuel or take on supplies) spelled the end of that particular dream.

Other times, technology has flopped due to a simple failure to understand the dimensions of the problem. Take those “instant translation” or “interpreting on the go” websites. Almost always the brainchildren of monolinguals who have a severe case of phrasebook-aversion, they all crash and burn when the founders realise that “bilingual” is a very loose concept and those with actual interpreting expertise are highly unlikely to want to spend their time saying the Hungarian for “where is the toilet?” or the Spanish for “I have a headache and can’t take ibuprofen” forty times a day.

The Problem with Machine Translation

To this motley crew, it seems that we have to add more than a few denizens of modern machine translation. With some leading experts busy telling us that translation is just another “sequence to sequence problem” and large software houses claiming that managing to outdo untrained bilinguals is the same as reaching “human parity” (read that article for the truth behind Microsoft’s claim), it is becoming plain that the actual nature of translation is eluding them.

The most common measure of machine translation performance, the BLEU score, simply measures the extent to which a given translation looks like a reference text. The fact that these evaluations and those performance by humans on machine translation texts are always done without any reference to any real-life context should make professional translators breathe more easily.

Only someone who slept through translation theory class and has never actually had a paid translation project would be happy with seeing translation as just a sequence to sequence problem. On the most basic, oversimplified level, we could say that translators take a a text in one language and turn it into a text in another. But that misses the point that every translation is produced for an audience, to serve a purpose, under a set of constraints.

The ultimate measure of translation quality is not its resemblance to any other text but the extent to which it achieved its purpose. If we really want to know how good machines are at translation, let’s see how they do at producing texts that sell goods, allow correct medical treatment, persuade readers, inform users, and rouse emotion without any human going over their texts afterwards to sort out their mistakes.

Skills to Learn before you Learn to Code

All this shows is that there are key skills that you need to learn before you are set loose on coding apps and building social media websites. Before kids code, let them learn to listen so they can hear what the actual problem is. Before they form algorithms, let them learn how to analyse arguments. Before they can call standard libraries, let them learn to think critically. Let them learn and understand why people skills have to underpin their C skills and why asking questions is more important that creating a system that spoon-feeds you the answer.

I hope that, for our current generation of tech innovators, it isn’t too late. We absolutely need technology to improve but we also need there to be more ways for tech innovators to listen to what everyone else is saying. We could do with some disruption in how events are organised and run but the people doing it need to understand the reasons behind what we do now. Interpreting could do with a tech revolution but the tech people have to let interpreters, interpreting users and interpreting buyers sit in the driving seat.

If our time isn’t to be wasted with more equivalents of nuclear-powered trains, if we are to avoid Cambridge Analytica redux, we need monster coders and incredible listeners, innovators who are also thinkers, writers and macro ninjas. It may well be that one person cannot be both a tech genius and a social scientist but we need a world in which both are valued and both value each other.

It’s a world we can only build together.

Thou Shalt Not Gloat: What the Tencent Fiasco Means for Interpreters

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: May 1, 2018

Another day, another company trying to replace human interpreters and failing miserably. As I discussed last week, the Tencent interpreting fiasco means that, for now at least, the jobs of human interpreters are safe … but is that it?

It’s a familiar story. A company tries to develop a machine interpreting system with pretty much zero knowledge of what interpreters actually do, apart from the fact that it has something to do with words. The company tells everyone what wonderful technology they have and launches it in a blaze of glory. And then, on its first true public test, it flops.

The story has been seen repeatedly from at least 2012 and recently, Chinese tech giant, Tencent, followed suit. Another demo, another set of giggling journalists. Will tech companies never learn?

While professional interpreters might be tempted to gloat or laugh, neither response is helpful. The fact is that tech companies will never give up on machine interpreting, the prize is just too great. And for professional interpreters, the implications of that have never been clearer. Read on to examine them.

Continue reading

The Tencent Interpreting Fiasco: a buyer perspective

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: April 27, 2018

It was hard to miss. Tencent, one of the biggest technology companies in China, aimed to show off their technological prowess by turning over the interpreting at their major tech showcase to a machine. And the results were … not great. The machine spouted gibberish, journalists were amused and suddenly the job of human interpreters seemed safe.

The problem is that most of the discussions of the whole affair were very short-sighted. For businesses and interpreters alike, such short-term “will humans have a job next year?” thinking is strategically useless. In fact, the whole “humans or AI” debate is misleading.

In this post, I will look at what business leaders, events professionals and other buyers need to learn from the Tencent fiasco. Next week, I will look at the perspective of interpreters.

So what do buyers need to learn from the Tencent machine interpreting fiasco?

Let’s start with the obvious: machine interpreting is not ready to be used at important events.

Despite the claims of companies selling the latest gadget and the claims of machine translation suppliers, the best that current technology can do is help you get directions to the train station or help you order pasta. In fact, the latter is even one of the use cases suggested by Google themselves!

There are many reasons why machine interpreting is not even nearly ready to take over your next event but the most important to remember at the moment is that machine interpreting can only deal with words. While words are important, they will always get their meaning from context, intonation and allusion.

Saying “we have no reservations” takes on entirely different meanings depending on who says it. If a hotel receptionist says it, it probably means that your travel agent has messed up. If a potential client says it five minutes before they are due to sign a large contract, it means something completely different. Currently, machine interpreting has no way of determining the wider context of how language is used, apart from sometimes being able to take into account what was said before.

Human interpreters are trained to understand language in context. This is why they ask for detailed briefs before they accept assignments. This is why sometimes they will refer assignments to their colleagues, who might know a specific context better than they do.

Until machine interpreting can understand the social and cultural context of what is being said, it will be as likely to get you in trouble and help you seal the deal. 

The Tencent fiasco not only shows this principle in action but demonstrates the need to be highly critical of the claims of machine interpreting providers. Tencent’s claim of “97% accuracy” most likely came from laboratory results and limited in-house testing. The only results that matter from machine interpreting providers are the experience of clients using it in similar environments to you. For now, it will pay to ignore any research that comes out of testing laboratories. They simply don’t reflect real-life conditions.

This doesn’t mean that we should ignore or ridicule machine interpreting. It will have its uses. It may be worth equipping your sales team with it, to make it easier for them to find their way around foreign cities. One day soon, it may even make human interpreting more effective by helping interpreters to prepare better.

But its uses are still limited and there are still privacy concerns attached. Anything said into a machine interpreting app can and will be used as training data. As soon as you turn on machine interpreting, you basically sign away your rights to keep what you said private.

As much as the Tencent fiasco serves as a warning of the dangers in being overconfident in your newest product, it can and should launch some serious debates about the relevance and usefulness of such technologies for businesses and the extent to which we are happy to sign away privacy in return for technological improvements.

 

Want expertise in setting up interpreting for your business? Drop me a message to set up a free Skype call.

Signs of a GDPR Fakespert

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: April 26, 2018

Hello and welcome to the 2018 edition of The Millenium Bug. Today, we will be looking at GDPR fakesperts. What’s a fakespert? If an expert is someone who makes their money off the back of having real knowledge of a subject and helping people make effective decisions, a fakespert is someone whose only skills involve repacking generic advice into mega-courses, only available if you sign up for their mailing list (and pay £99.95).

With GDPR coming into force across the EU in May, there has been plenty of scope for real experts to make their mark (thank you Information Commissioner’s Office here in the UK) and for fakesperts to don their shiniest suits and sell their stuff.

How do you tell the difference? Here is a rather cheeky guide to what to look for in a GDPR fakespert.

  • Fakesperts conspicuously don’t mention availability of ICO guidance 

The first sign of a fakespert is that the sell themselves as the be-all-and-end-all, fountain of knowledge and never, ever mention their sources. Here in the UK, anyone who doesn’t mention that the best and fullest information is found on the ICO website is likely a fakespert. The real experts will mention the ICO and sell their services as distilling the screeds of ICO advice into simple, easy-to-apply practices for your business.

  • The closest they have ever been to SARs is feeling out of breath once

This is a bit of a data protection in-joke. An SAR (Subject Access Request to give it its Sunday name) is a request filed by someone who wishes to know what personal information an organisation holds on them. At the moment, they cost £10 in the UK and, depending on the organisation can cost much, much more to actually do.

If someone has never seen, much less had to manage SARs, it is likely that their expertise in data protection law and GDPR is more theoretical than practical. Even though SARs are thankfully rare, you probably want someone who has had the “joy” of helping a company through the existing legislation to help you through the new rules.

  • Until last week, they thought the ICO were the people who ran the Olympics 

A proper GDPR expert will know the name of the organisation responsible for data protection in your country and will definitely be familiar with their materials and guidance. If, for example, they get them mixed up with the governing body of an event where people win medals for the marathon, they will not be helpful to you in the long run [pun intended].

  • Their only training is a £29.99 course, which they are now repackaging into a £99.99 expert briefing 

GDPR is complex. It’s principles are relatively straightforward but their application is varied and depends on so many factors that it makes your head spin. Real GDPR experts, even if they haven’t yet led a company through existing requirements, will have spent days trying to get their head round the relevant laws and their application to your country.

The best of the best will already have a background in a role that would have involved expertise in existing legislation. They might be accountants, info security managers, data protection officers, lawyers or something similar. Sometimes, there might be someone in your specific field who has done their homework but it will pay to make sure that they are getting their training from the right places.

  • They are happy to sell you generic advice but won’t even consider coming to your office to help out in person 

A few bullet points with platitudes about “keeping records up-to-date”, “having clear opt-ins” and “getting a good privacy policy” aren’t enough for you to make the right decisions. What might those general principles mean to you? How do they apply in your situation?

It’s likely that you need a helping hand, rather than a teacher’s blackboard. If the most you can get from someone is a smart-looking video and a 5 point plan, keep your credit card in your pocket. At very least, you will need someone who can give you specific answers to you specific questions, even if those answers are “we don’t know yet.”

Just as the Millenium Bug turned semi-decent programmers into megabucks consultants, there is a real danger that GDPR will turn fly-by-night operators into Data Protection Gurus. I am anything but a GDPR expert. I am a consultant interpreter. But together we can make sure that we bypass the fakesperts and spend cash wisely on getting the advice and help that will not only ensure we pass the legal checks but run a much more streamlined, efficient business.

Eventbrite and the Power of User Revolt

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: April 23, 2018

While I was away enjoying the delights of Vienna and the BP18 conference (blog post coming soon), a  storm broke out among events professionals on social media. Here was my first glimpse of it.

Screencapture of Facebook update from Alan Stevens

The upshot was simple: Eventbrite claimed the right to come to any event where their software was used and to film and/or record everything that went on for their own promotional use. In short, the content created at the event belonged to them, not the organisers or the speakers.

Needless to say, when this went public, the events management world went crazy. Within a few days, the #eventbrite hashtag on Twitter was full of complaints, demands for information and competitors showing how their services were better. Yesterday, this response came from their head office account. (Name of tweeter redacted)

Screencapture of tweet from Eventbrite

The offending clauses would noticeably disappear from the terms used in the UK and US.

The users won.

Now that we are beginning to ask tough questions about the power and responsibility of technology companies, this one decision stands out. When users make enough noise, companies do change their practices. A few tweets or posts in the right place and behaviour changes.

Not only does this  story remind us of the power of users, it should serve as a warning to all businesses to respond to client problems before their reputation is threatened. Just because your lawyers told you that your Terms of Service are legally good, that doesn’t mean that they are the right ones for you and your users. So how helpful are your terms?

 

 

Do Monolingual Tech Conferences Make Sense?

By: Jonathan Downie    Date: April 9, 2018

Almost every consultant interpreter will have been told at some point that conferences in tech or medicine tend to be English-only. “Everyone speaks English and interpreting is expensive so we just have the entire conference in English” say some organisers. While it seems to make financial sense, is it a good long-term decision?

Let’s start with a story.

I was interpreting at a negotiation. A French company were trying to get investment in their newest sure-fire, profit-making product. At least one of the two senior managers could have managed in English and the investor had decent enough French, so why did they hire me?

The problem wasn’t so much in terminology, although there were terminological differences, but in culture. The investor came from a culture where the point of a meeting was to quickly dive into the financial detail, especially the profit margins and earnings forecasts. He expected that everyone would want to get straight down to the figures and returns.

The French company were into building relationship, talking history, vision, and extolling the virtues of their community engagement. They needed an interpreter not just because of linguistic differences but to help them navigate the cultural difference.

English-only events exist because there is an assumption that people all know the same terms and so they can communicate perfectly. If the majority of the terms are the same in every language, there is no room for miscommunication, right?

Wrong! Just ask the Italian construction industry experts who fouled up a presentation of their company’s best ever project in front of hundreds of other industry bods because they presented in (broken) English, instead of Italian. Ask the British manufacturing company who almost lost a deal because they defined a word differently to a visiting buyer.

Terminology is just one part of language and often, it is the least relevant part. While it is possible to take the idea too far, it is well-known that different languages have different views of the world. A US company might look at a widget and see three parts to it, a company in Germany might see six. In some cultures, it is absolutely vital to show due respect to your hosts with a flowing, artful thank you at the top of your presentation; in others, that marks you out as a time-waster.

English-only events create an illusion of understanding and implicitly exclude ideas and thinking that don’t fit easily into English-language norms. For that reason English-only tech events block more innovations than they promote. How can machine translation experts learn to create more flexible and useful systems if they work, present and test in largely monolingual environments? Why else would so many companies chase after the low-value market for “instant interpreting on the go“, if not because their founders rarely speak anything but English?

The business case for English-only events is becoming weaker as time goes on. We know that people buy more, are more easily persuaded and learn more if they read and hear in their native language. Could it be that they think better and innovate more in that language too? And if that is the case, could it be that interpreting, rather than being a big expense could be the smartest investment that a company can make?

 

If you are looking at making that investment, this free course is designed to help you get the most out of it. Want advice right away? Drop me an email.