there has been little debate about localization among translation theorists. because of the nature of localization discourse, which is the stuff of guru experts, new terms for new trends, hype about technological advances, quick industry surveys, and ideologies straight from globalizing capitalism 7.7.1 “Localization is a part of translation”
theorists from other paradigms sometimes see localization is just a
special kind of translation The solution could be for speakers to explain exactly what they mean by “translation,” as Locke would have recommended. 7.7.2 “There is nothing new in localization” standard translation theorists, particularly from Skopos theory see localization as a part of translation. Others tend to argue that the various text re- use technologies are what is really new, and that the technologies are not specific to the localization industry.
7.7.3 “Localization belittles translators” brings many aspects :
1- the restricted sense of translation as segment- replacement, 2- the tendency to ensure that translation memories cannot be owned by the translators who produce them 3-the distribution of costs and fi nancial rewards away from translation 4-the extreme time constraints typically placed on translation work But within the industry can defend themselves as thes are advantages : 1-translators are now able to focus on what they apparently do well (translation) without having to worry about all the technological aspects of product engineering and formatting 2- translators have the intimate cultural knowledge that might ensure the success of products in new markets. 7.7.4 “Localization leads to low- quality communication” he industry express concerns about the linguistic qualities of translations due to the use of team translating with translation memories and machine translationthe relative invisibility of images and of the communication situation will lead to decontextualized communication. none of these doubts is based on irrefutable empirical evidence till now .
7.7.5 “Standardization reduces cultural diversity”
The argument should focus not so much on the communication strategies as on the range of cultures and languages that are affected by the localization industry. For the more global products, the lists are impressive (for instance check the “language and region” settings in Microsoft Offi ce) .The very existence and relative prosperity of the localization industry could thus enhance linguistic and cultural diversity, quite independently of the standardized or diversified communication strategies that are adopted within individual localization projects the major act of cultural change is probably the introduction of electronic communication itself, the consequences of which can be far- reaching and are quite possibly common to all cultures that adopt the medium 7.8 THE FUTURE OF LOCALIZATION localization is of importance because of its association with economic globalization , As technologies reduce the costs of transport and communication, there is increased mobility of capital, merchandise, and labor, and this requires massive crossings of cultural and linguistic boundaries. And these lead to require language learning( long-term relations ) and translation ( short term relations ) long- term relations tend toward the use of lingua francas, especially in the relations of production. Short- term relations are served by translation. No one is going to learn a language just to sell one product over six months. in the short term, it is marginally cheaper to use translation than to learn whole languages. Such as the translational logic of what has been called the “ world language system ” (de Swaan 2002). The general picture is of a hierarchy where some languages are central and used for production, others are semi- central and impose strong constraints on consumption. The result is strangely like the dynamics and ideologies of the medieval hierarchy of languages Localization is marked by a strong directionality , moving from the central languages toward the more peripheral languages. This directionality is so pronounced that movements in the other direction have been called “ reverse localization ” (Schäler 2006) More problematic is what happens at the other end of the scale, with languages that are marginal with respect to both production and consumption. there are the countless languages for which enabling is not yet possible, since the languages do not have standard written forms, or their written forms as yet have no place in our character- encoding systems, and our technologies do not yet work on the basis of voice alone. The way localization configures relations between cultures is thus very different depending on which part of the hierarchy you are looking at. Between the central languages, a regime of successful yet artifi cial equivalence may reign, largely thanks to internationalization. Accessibility thus becomes an issue of democracy and social ethics , and a large part of accessibility is the availability of information in one’s own language. Whether in the commercial or the governmental sectors, the processes of localization incorporate powerful technologies that can do much to infl uence the future of diversity. Rather than spread a regime of sameness, the localization paradigm might actively participate in the saving of difference SUMMARY This chapter has presented localization as something more than a synonym for “adaptation” or a use of new translation technologies. Instead, localization introduces a new paradigm because of the key role played by “internationalization” in allowing one- to-many patterns of translation. This key one- to-many workfl ow allows the localization industry to meet the needs of globalizing economic relations. Further, the one- to-many processing is enhanced by a series of technologies that have far- reaching effects on the way we produce, use, and translate texts, imposing the paradigmatic on the syntagmatic. The way translators work is thus altered considerably. The global consequence of localization may be an increasing standardization of cultures. However, the paradigm also allows for considerable cultural adaptation, going well beyond the confi nes of traditional equivalence- based translation. In most respects, the long- term cultural effects of localization remain to be seen.