Inconsistency of terms is the subject that attracts the most feedback in corporate translations, and almost all of it can be prevented. When terms are decided not during but before translation, the same concept is referred to by the same word throughout the text. This section describes how that list is built.
The source of the list
The list starts with the terms extracted from the source text and is merged with the client's own list. If the two sources clash, the client's takes priority. The order is set at the outset.
Priority of the client's list
If the organisation has its own term preferences, they take precedence over the translator's preference. The organisation defines its own language. The preference is applied without being questioned.
The document's own definitions
If a contract has a definitions section, it is binding for that document and comes before the general list. A conflict is reported. The decision is the client's.
Setting disputed terms apart
Terms with more than one equivalent are listed separately and asked about together with proposals. These terms are the ones that attract the most feedback. They are resolved early.
How proposals are presented
For each disputed term a proposal with a brief reason is presented. A proposal without a reason makes the decision harder. The client answers quickly.
Obtaining approval
The decisions are approved in writing and recorded. A verbal understanding is remembered differently later on. The record serves as a basis.
Terms that will not be translated
Names, codes and titles to be carried over as they are are marked separately in the list. This distinction is binding for the whole team. Inconsistency is prevented.
Handling abbreviations
Which abbreviation will be expanded and which will be kept is determined in the list. The decision is applied the same way throughout the text. Mixed use spoils the reading.
Closing off synonyms
More than one equivalent is not used for the same concept, and the list fixes a single equivalent. Synonymy produces ambiguity in corporate texts. The preference is reduced to one.
Consulting a subject-matter expert
For technical terms a subject-matter expert can be consulted, and this is planned in advance. The consultation complies with the confidentiality rules. The time is added to the plan.
Verifying against sources
Term equivalents are verified against reliable sources and the source is noted. A choice without a source cannot be defended later. A record is kept.
Distributing the list to the team
The list is given to everyone working at the same time and updates are announced. A person working with an old list produces inconsistency. Distribution is done in an orderly way.
Updating during the job
As new terms come up they are added to the list and the team is told. The list is not a static but a living document. Updates are kept on record.
Retrospective application
If a term changes in the middle of the job, the earlier sections are gone over again. If the change is applied only going forward, the text splits in two. A scan is carried out.
Automated compliance scan
The completed text is scanned against the list with a tool and the deviations are listed. The scan is assessed by hand. The tool does not decide.
Weeding out false positives
Correct deviations made because of context are flagged too, and are eliminated. Every finding is examined. Blind application spoils the text.
Delivering the list
The list used is given to the client together with the delivery and is archived. The list becomes the foundation of later jobs. Continuity is ensured.
The next step
Once the terms are decided, the style decisions are written down. Terms and style together build the framework of the text. The order is kept.