In-house translation – outside the box

Tag: translation profession

7 thoughts on the challenges facing in-house translators
At the start of this week, I attended an event organised for in-house translators by Universitas. I was part of a small and eclectic group, meeting at the end of the working day. From a very interesting and relaxed couple of hours talking with the others in the group a number of things sprung to mine, which I addressed the following day on LinkedIn.
1. There is no “one-size-fits-all” in-house role. Expectations on in-house translators vary dramatically: from subject matter specialists through to multi-language pair generalists. There is no hard and fast rule about work in a single language pair or multiple pairs. Even classical “Translator” positions may involve a mixture of translation and other activities. For applicants for such positions, it is advisable at interview to ask about the likely expected hours dedicated to translation.
2. Job descriptions for open vacancies are seldom as straightforward as “Translator (m/f/d)”. Translation is frequently only a part of the job description, and the job title is seldom for only a translator. In language career portals in the German-speaking world (e.g. Stepstone, Kununu or Karriere.at) most hits for the skill “Übersetzung” talk about it figuratively.
  For example a recent job advert for Österreichische Post AG for an Expert in Controlling Insights mentioned “Du fungierst als “Dolmetscher” zwischen Fachbereich und Programmierer und bist zuständig für die Übersetzung der Anforderungen des Fachbereichs in detaillierte Vorgaben und Zielsetzungen für technische Umsetzung.” In other words – nothing to do with translation or interpreting! In other cases it might be disguised in a job description for a “zweisprachige Schreibkraft” or “Kommunikationstalent”. This latter role is closer to transcreation than translation. Here are some common language-based job titles.
3. The burgeoning TechStack: among the group around the table, the tools used, and expectations regarding such tool use was varied. There were also varying views about the expectations regarding the use of GenAI/LLMs. Some are very open to the possibilities, while others actively decline to use such tools, or are not permitted to do so.
  Often required training regarding GenAI/LLMs is not specifically tailored to translators. Similarly, the effective use of such tools for translators is not as clear cut as the hype makes out. Deployment of new tools is often IT-led. This approach sometimes overlooks those with genuine expertise to really use them and assess the quality of their output.
Resource issues
1. Double-hatting is common: some translators also work as interpreters, rather than having separate translation and interpreting personnel. Others in-housers are only part-time in-house, so have to juggle self-employment alongside their fixed employment.
  This naturally places additional demands on them in terms of time management and also how to organise their time effectively. Teleworking may have cut out some unnecessary miles/kilometers, but there is still a lot of juggling required with multiple positions.
2. Working for a demanding customer base with dwindling human translation capacity: this can become even more difficult if language services are overseen by non-linguists. This can make it more difficult to discuss the need for quality that goes beyond “good enough”, and where “fit for purpose” is a minimum requirement.
  It can be difficult to get past only being viewed as a cost centre. Translation can be quantified easily in terms of cost, but its impact on sales etc. is more difficult to quantify. Tighter budgets mean fewer retiring colleagues are replaced, or FTEs are replaced by fractional headcount. Alternatively FTEs might only have a certain percentage of their time devoted to translation.
3. Decreased job security: even in public administration there are perceptions that the job security of translators is lower than it used to be. The erosion of the classical triple constraint, the rise of “good enough”, and the improved “linguistic fitness” of many white collar colleagues has affected demand for translators.
  Job mobility and exchange programmes while studying mean that many colleagues are more confident in their language abilities that only a few years ago. However, there is still a subjective basis to their assessment of their own language abilities. Just as having two hands and a piano does not make me a concert pianist, working knowledge of two languages, does not automatically transfer into being able to write well in your target language.
4. Rising expectations in terms of output: while tools like CAT and (N)MT have helped to increase translator productivity, there is still the unrealistic expectation in light of the promises of “instant translation” offered by browser-based tools.
  Translators’ potential output can really depend on so many factors – NMT/GenAI/LLMs are “confidently wrong” – they will always offer a translation, whereas the “cautiously correct” human translator reverts to the author if unsure – to clear up potential source or target text ambiguities.
  Similarly, expectations vary wildly based on the percentage of time spent on translation compared to non-translation activities. Often there is no dedicated capacity for terminology work. Only larger language units have dedicated terminologists: without them, it is often widely neglected. With the advent of MT/GenAI and the Terminology Augmented Generation approach, which is used to import your terminology into the LLM, it is likely to gain in importance.
Are you interested in events like this? Universitas holds regular events throughout the year. Check out the Universitas website for more information – if you are not yet a member, some events are open to guests. If you are interested in knowing more about what I do, then why not join the Universitas Berufsbilder webinar on 23 October 2025, which will focus on the role of project management and process management.
30 May 2025
7 thoughts on how the Human in the Loop approach trivialises the translation profession
The Human in the Loop approach trivialises the translation profession in many ways. Here are just seven of them, based on some recent discussions on LinkedIn in various threads of comments on posts.
1. It fails to set out the qualification/expertise required to be the human in the loop responsible for ensuring the quality of the output. The human may not necessarily possess the genuine level of language skills in the target language to assess the quality of MT output. In particular, non-translators should not be allocated the task of doing the heavy lifting for e.g. appraising the quality of an MT solution.
2. Advocating a “good enough” approach that is not “fit for purpose” nurtures the narrative that anyone with a better than rudimentary grounding in two languages is a translator. Translators frequently given the inner eye-roll upon hearing qualification of source/target language ability via statements like, “My brother’s son grew up in the States” or “I spent 18 months in Brussels”. In both cases there is an exposure to the language, but there is no guarantee that they have any formal training or education as a translator.
3. By relegating the human in the loop to a role that is often no better than lightly edited MTPE for derisory rates, it means practitioners may only scrape a minimum hourly wage. Translators on minimum wage will as a rule not be as committed or engaged as if they were being remunerated commensurate to their skill. Similarly, this approach is also a classic example of how translation has been uberised to the extent of reducing translation to a commoditised service.
4. The real cost of GenAI translation is questionable: the amount of energy consumed on LLM training and to use the LLM to “translate” is not apparent – skewing the real cost-saving. If the output is of such poor quality that it has to be (re)translated from scratch, the cost is high than using human translation in the first place. Where models use multiple alternatives for single sentences e.g. where there are QA steps also performed with an LLM, the number of prompts used may be vastly more than one per sentence. The metric of comparing the among used for a search machine request cf. a prompt is no as reliable as it was, as many search providers now offer AI summaries automatically, driving up the energy consumption of a search request.
5. Linguistic colonialism and extensive use of pivot languages unrealistically trivialises LOTE (Languages Other Than English) (h/t Sarah Swift). Frequently models are trained between the source language and English, but less frequently directly between to LOTEs. Translation using English as a pivot language may overlook similarities/proximities, or even the abundant supply of translators in a language pair between geographically neighbouring languages (e.g. consider translation directly from Slovak to Hungarian, as opposed to an MT route using a pivot language, where a Slavic language to a Finno-Ugric language is performed via a Romance language pivot). Pivoting via English introduces unnecessary lexical gaps.
6. MT’s “confidently wrong” approach is at distinct odds with a professional translator’s “cautiously right” approach. The latter will use context and question wordings – and refer the source text back to the author, whereas the former will always offer a translation. If you want to test this, take a provision from a law with nested clauses and remove parts of the verb phrases. The MT tool will nevertheless always offer a translation (based on probability) without context, whereas a human can at best guess from the surrounding context, or state that there is a problem with the source text.
7. There is even a risk that MT might create a false veneer that translation is a job that “anyone can do” – thereby reinforcing the false impression that translation is little more than a mechanical task of replacing words, rather than a expertise-based service delivered by highly specialised trained professionals.
2 May 2025
Who’s in/on the lead in early 2025?

In December 2023, I wrote about the state of human-machine translation as we headed towards 2024. The technological march of machine translation had dominated 2023. From personal musings over the last twenty years, comparing my professional situation with 12 months before, for the first time in 2022 and 2023 my outlook was a more pessimistic one in consecutive years.

My view was one of human translators being pushed towards fighting for scraps at dumping MTPE rates. More were considering moving away from translation or increasing their other activities than moving towards focussing solely on translation. In house, I had started to receive editing and revision requests that “didn’t seem quite right”. They seemed more fluent than their authors’ previous drafted texts, but also weren’t quite factually correct. In other cases, the inconsistency of terminology shone through. The sinking feeling was that my own descent towards MTPE drudgery had begun. The profession shared my pessimistic outlook. The fragility of (self-)employment relationships, needs for efficiency and cost-cutting amid difficult financial times were also apparent.

2025: a turbulent start

When I started sketching out this article in mid-December 2024, I didn’t know how 2025 would begin in terms of technological announcements. DeepSeek was not on the radar – by the end of January it was everywhere. Possibly from a translation professional’s perspective the most interesting aspect was OpenAI’s complaint in late January that new upstart DeepSeek was using “its” data. That’s right, the same data that OpenAI itself had unashamedly scraped to train itself. Excuse me Mr. Altman while I locate the sub-atomic-sized Stradivarius.

In recent weeks, I’ve read a number of people saying that this could be positive for easing OpenAI’s (perceived?) monopoly. For many, ChatGPT has become a metonym for AI. Others think it could herald a torrent of new solutions – some fear one that might finally be able to translate (impacting their endangered volume of translation work and pushing them further towards MTPE’s clutches). And that was before the latest development of Elon Musk expressing his wish to buy OpenAI.

The schism between the translation industry and the translation profession

The trend of recent years of a divergence in approaches between the translation industry and the translation profession continues. It had been a pandemic edition of the Translating Europe Forum (TEF) that first pushed the Human in the Loop (HITL) agenda. At first sight, its deceptive allure took me in. Over time, I became aware of the weasliness of the term “Human in the Loop” for translation. HITL is misused: it fails to define the expertise level of the human, and does not advocate the human retaining control/leadership. The industry seems to be revising its estimation somewhat with new term “Human at the Core” which is closer to my “Expert in the Lead” approach than “Machine in the Loop”, but is still coined by the industry. My “Expert in the Lead” concept is also about coming down on the side of the profession over the industry.

Fresh hope from the industry?

A piece from late in 2024 by Arle Lommel for CSA did give me some hope that the industry is also coming round to the fact that HITL will not sustain human translators in the human-machine translation era. One remark in that piece captures why HITL gets it wrong, and how that “janitorial role” of HITL will not be fulfilling.

“[…] “human in the loop” models – a sort of window dressing for post-editing – … often relegate expert linguists to an essentially janitorial role, sweeping up “bad MT” (quality checking and correction) and cleaning up AI messes. Instead, CSA Research has shifted to describing augmented translation as “human at the core” because, at the end of the day, empowered linguists will be making the decisions, aided by technology.”

The Language Sector Slowdown: A Multifaceted Outlook, Arle Lommel for CSA Research

Looking back to my assessment in December 2023, I opened with the following paragraph:

The debate about the future of (human) translation and changing role of translators is the biggest topic in translator circles. 2023 has been the year of the (unstoppable?) march of machine translation. Within a year of bursting onto the scene as an unknown, OpenAI’s chatbot, ChatGPT, can apparently also translate. Human translators increasingly face tighter, more competitive markets. Many are not even consulted about their replacement by MT solutions, but maybe grudgingly offered MTPE work. And there are talks of tightened budgets and gloomy outlooks of recession. So are the days of out-and-out translators numbered?

Michael Bailey, transl8r.eu blogpost – December 2023 – Who’s in/on the lead as we head into 2024?

As I prepared to write this post, I asked fellow professionals over LinkedIn how they viewed the situation. A modest little poll on LinkedIn among my network of fellow translators returned a slightly blurry snapshot. I asked pretty much the same question as I have been asking myself over two decades. From over 80 responses, less than one quarter of responses viewed their situation more optimistically. In contrast, 45% view their situation more pessimistically, and the remaining third see it as unchanged from the previous year. From those responses, a number of in-house translators and specialists in less common language pairs seemed more optimistic. Of the positively inclined, many were offering premium services with a narrow specialist focus. A few reported that new areas of specialism had emerged that compensated for the slowdown in business in other areas.

Busy-ness and Business

Some responses mentioned improved levels of “busy-ness”, but qualified the improvement being due to time-consuming customer acquisition drives. For others, new services and specialist areas had arrested the slump, but hadn’t banished doubts about the long-term future. In a few cases, new revenue streams opened up from (re)activating new language pairs, although a number I connected with did not realistically view adding further language combinations as a potential solution. Others viewed that the situation was no worse than a year ago, but had also not improved. For some of these this kind of struggle was a “new normal” – the glass was neither half-full nor half-empty.

Of those viewing the situation more pessimistically, several commented about an acceleration in the shift towards MTPE from “pure” translation work. Many freelancers lamented that their “valuable and valid” contribution was unable to outweigh their customers seeking “value for money”. By value for money – they mentioned diminishing rates (whether by line, character or page) or more MTPE work. A couple also said that work from major agency clients drying up had impacted them. In other cases the agencies had shifted towards an MTPE-based model instead of “classical translation”. Some others mentioned that reorganisations and mergers had meant that major customers had already reviewed the situation. A couple of respondents mentioned that smaller companies had been absorbed into larger groups with in-house language services.

Payment Practices

One contact also said that their pessimism was fuelled by longer payment times, although still within the agreed timeframe – a potential sign of agencies also suffering from cashflow issues. Amid ongoing cost of living issues (price inflation outstripping wage/salary increases, or downward pressure on rates), the financial squeeze becomes more apparent.

By delaying this post, I wanted to also allow myself the opportunity to catch-up with the first swathe of “Monthly Recap” posts on LinkedIn in 2025, in addition to “year-end round-up” posts. I’ve come to appreciate that it has been a busy month if I don’t have time to even consider writing one. However, this is where internal time and performance tracking negates a need for such a round-up. In 2024, H2 showed a remarkable up-tick: in May, based on figures until the end of April, translation time was around 73% of productive hours. By year-end it was up above 80%. In addition, my worked hours were higher for translation in 2024 than total hours for 2023.

How do you feel about the security/future of your role as a human translator, compared with 12 months ago?

These figures are why I see the security/future of my role more optimistically going into 2025. But this might be due to the short-termism of recent successes masking and negating struggles earlier in the year. Looking back at the reasons behind my pessimism in the last two years, uncertainty weighed strongly on my mind. Transformation and reorganisation bring uncertainty and insecurity. As a digital transformation programme started, I had felt marginalised and sidelined. And I felt that remit creep was also disruptive for my “course” as a translator. So while doubts existed, along with the simmering AI hype, I remained pessimistic. Learning about a suggested roll-out of MT without harnessing our language data probably fed the pessimism. So what changed so much in twelve months for me to enter 2025 with renewed optimism?

Getting back to business

In previous years, the non-translation-based tasks I was logging increased. I advocate that 100% efficiency/productivity is an illusion, as is 100% productivity as a translator. However, translators are susceptible to worrying about a dilution of their time spent translating. At year-end 2023, my productivity tracking showed I was translating for less than 80% of my hours. When I started the job, the level was closer to 90%. I felt a need to arrest the drift towards my knowledge-based job becoming a non-translation-based one. So I enlisted the services of a coach, and focused on using my mid-year appraisal to shed some non-core commitments. It was a timely reboot, and boosted my translator’s esteem. Esteem is so important.

Translating for a predominantly “non-public” domain means that a lot of my work’s impact never reaches the outside world. Internal visibility is therefore very important. Fortunately, the second half of 2024 served up a plethora of demanding, substantial and internally visible jobs. As a translator I still feel happiest translating, although I can use non-translation tasks to draw breath. I’ve learned to fuel my internal visibility. I am most visible where my translation results in the desired supervisory outcome at short notice. Internal visibility also builds momentum, as has been the case going into 2025.

A public or private persona

As wonderful as a very private persona sounds for less gregarious translators, I nevertheless need to maintain a public presence. Presentations and publications (e.g. in the ITI Bulletin and Universitas Mitteilungsblatt) also bolster the public impact of my work as a translator. The workshop I gave in Spiez and the contacts gained there were crucial in a lot of self-esteem issues. Three days’ reflection proved a turning point for “getting back to being me” and to steer out of the doldrums of silo-thinking. As I put the final touches to this piece, in 2025 I already have three further presentations confirmed, a conference participation and other irons in the fire.

In silo-like environments, especially for the “lone rangers”, i.e. SPLSU in-housers like me or freelancers who do not work together with other translators in virtual teams, social media can become an ersatz barometer of success and a way to shout from the rooftops. The problem is that the algorithms can suck you in, but don’t pay the bills. Add the peacocking influencers to the equation and they will tell you to post hourly/daily/weekly to feed the algorithm. However, my work’s confidential nature means that I can’t get sucked in by the siren-like call of the algorithms. I don’t have the fear of missing out that a freelancer has, if they don’t take on a piece of work. And much of the messages are about the successes – after all you project success far more than failure.

How are others feeling?

From some of the end-of-year posts I read, some professionals certainly put in the hard yards and enjoyed exceptional years (in terms of acclaim and remuneration) in 2024. To them: congratulations – your messages show that there plenty of life in professional translation. From viewing their profiles and websites, they all specialise in certain language combinations and with some very interesting niches. The common key to their success also seems to have been their efforts in fresh customer acquisition and keeping customers.

Some found that new areas of specialisation were opening up: either related to their existing areas or fresh new areas. Others pleasingly reported old customers feared lost returning to them after a dalliance with the AI/MT “good enough” world. For every success story, however, there were also stories of people having lost customers and work drying up. In some cases there were cases of agencies folding owing translators money. One such case was the bankruptcy of WCS Group and the agencies it ran (subsequently bought by Powerling). Many freelancers were left out of pocket. As I added to this post in mid-January 2025, there was a new twist to the Powerling story: The Dutch Society of Translators has just expelled Powerling from being a member. (h/t to Loek van Koeten for this information).

Upskilling and job crafting for survival?

Before I was able to actually narrow my remit, I had had to consider upskilling (i.e. obtaining alternative skills to complement my skills as a translator) and even put my foot in the water in actively pursuing courses to be fit for the new world of human-machine translation. However, obtaining new and possibly diametrically opposed skills to those I already possess as a translator proved counterproductive. Instead, with new areas of supervision coming online, my focus has now reverted to deepening my breadth of knowledge in the subject areas I cover. Some translation professionals have echoed this: those who will survive already possess all the skills and specialisations to survive.

Teaching old dogs new tricks?

Regarding the prospects of who will survive the AI deluge, I’ve read numerous estimates about the proportion of translators who will “survive” the AI revolution, with many stating between 10 and 25% percent, although the range is far wider. Part of the issue also relates to the stage of their career that translators are at. As William Lise identified in a blog post of his, some are close enough to retirement, and others young enough to change position. However, there is a substantial group of translators, particularly mid-career ones, trapped by the roots they have put down.

Whether people who have retrained from other professions are any safer is hard to tell. They may bring expertise from a past career, but may lack the translation experience. Possibly being newer in the “trade” might work both ways: be more firmly tied to making it work as the cost of retraining hasn’t been recouped yet, or in contrast, not so firmly embedded in the profession that they can’t “get out”. From a number of contacts who always viewed translation as a “safe Plan B”, they’ve changed their minds about wanting to commit to it.

Expertise counters AI hype

Nonetheless, the reality after the tidal wave of AI hype has proven that expertise remains essential – accountability and credibility of translations are areas where human translators still have an advantage. AI and NMT flushes out generalists working for agencies and pseudo-specialists. In this case, broad fields of specialisation (e.g. financial/legal) for agencies maybe stops people from standing out from the crowd. Others say they experience agency work decided upon purely by means of “fastest finger first” – an issue I mentioned when I blogged about the profession/industry schism in autumn 2023. In that case, expertise is unlikely to be given a chance to shine through.

In contrast, genuine specialists in narrow fields remain an elusively rare commodity. Regarding AI, there is a healthy scepticism about how it can really be a substitute for expertise and experience. Simply throwing more scraped data at the problem isn’t the solution, particularly as synthetic language data now swamps the originally lush large language pastures trained on human generated language. In this regard there is a counter revolution of some boutique LSPs looking for high-end translators whose personal service commands premium rates. In a couple of cases, some freelancers have even reported that they have profited from customers turning to them due to unsatisfactory agency experiences, viewing them as a “perfect fit” after lacklustre past experience.

And when the boot is on the other foot?

Occasionally, I outsource work to freelancers. The objective remains to ensure the desired supervisory outcome. This also sheds a lot of light on the “black box of translation”, market practices and how solid briefs helps so much. I have come to get a good feeling whether translators 1) want the job and 2) feel they can do justice to the job in hand. Genuine experts seem less fazed in not being able to take a job on. I also admire their honesty. Such a situation might be vastly different than dealing with an agency, where selling and margins are everything. The requirement of a satisfactory outcome, allows me to use a best bidder approach, rather than a cheapest bidder one.

Capitalising on AI’s vulnerabilities

Amidst the OpenAI/DeepSeek saga, I used the opportunity to highlight the accountability, control and expertise that expert human translation offers that AI and MT cannot. When “data scraping” allegations surfaced, I chose to capitalise on highlighting data confidentiality. My approach for the aficionados who brazenly claim how much time their ChatGPT Pro subscription saves, is to ask how they feel prompting techniques have changed, robustness of sources, and their views about the size of the context window.

The disarming tactic is to speak the fanboy’s language rather than coming across as too protectionist. Only then do you highlight the issues that impact your translation work, and therefore confirm why your expertise is required (e.g. in a zero/low-resource language combination, with high demands on confidentiality, and the necessary to avoid hallucinations).

Changing job remits

In terms of job creation, I’ve observed a tendency towards not replacing departing staff, or at best retaining existing headcount. New translator jobs are seldom. Looking at job descriptions, may advertised positions have been for maternity cover positions, often initially limited to a year. It can easily take a year to get to grips with new procedures, practices and subject areas. Other vacancies have more of a project manager/coordinator role emerging rather than a “translator” remit.

Monitoring open opportunities (I receive them through mailing lists from professional associations) is useful for gauging remit shift/creep. Job descriptions have clearly changed. Jobs creation rather than replenishment occurs in the area of LangTech. New LangTech units in larger language services are in-housing expertise. From conversations with people fitting the new profile, many highlight prominent “sponsors” within the organisation and strong links to IT being behind the creation of the new position.

Managing language data has definitely become more than a “rainy day” activity – as has terminology work. In a small language services unit, terminologists were traditionally considered a luxury. With the advent of Machine Translation, robust terminology has gained in importance. Machine translation-generated texts into German have demonstrated why I need terminology for all locales of German. My recent work has really brought home the differences between Swiss/German/Liechtenstein/Austrian banking terminology.

Driven loopy – the expert/machine/human in the loop/lead.

As previously mentioned, the very strong industry-led approach to human-machine translation is of “machine in the loop” and “human in the loop”. The industry’s financial and PR clout dictates the way translation (both as an industry and a profession) moves forward. However, industry-led perspectives focus on leveraging technology to an extent where human involvement is negligible or a poorly-paid afterthought.

This is quite apparent from the shift in the industry from humans predominantly “translating” to “post-editing”. In some cases the actual level of human expertise in the post-editing stage is questionable. Pitiful rates fail to motivate a professional: low per word rates for MTPE require unrealistic output levels to earn enough. It would take raw output pretty close to publishable in the first place that you can simply sign off. However, this realistically only works where translation is only required to be “good enough”. And the long-term job satisfaction of this approach is also negligible.

The HITL narrative is pushed so far that the MITL approach barely gets a look in. Rebranding translators as “language experts” is a mere sop. In much the way that the electorate in the UK may/may not have “had enough of experts”. “Language experts” is just another weaselly term: genuine expertise may often be found in far narrower areas or a single source-target language combination. Imagine the (justified) outrage if we were to rebrand microbiologists or astrophysicists as “science experts”.

Throw more language data at it?

The fact is that amid Messrs. Altman et al. scraping the Internet for content to build their LLMs, human generated language data has been exhausted. Tech bros continue to recite their “more data = better results” mantra. The synthetic data has already flooded the Internet, creating new “reheated” synthetic language data. All that changes here is the consistency of the turgid porridge.

The “more data = better results” approach is like a juggernaut or steamroller, or raging waters trying to pass through a pipe of a certain diameter. Upgrading pipes might permit a greater volume of waters to flow, but unless done end-to-end the flood risk still exists.

Many AI companies are still a long way from break-even let alone posting profits. This raises ethical questions. Why should we allow tech companies to break human knowledge-based industries, accelerate climate change, only to line the pockets of the super rich, if they ever turn a profit? Industry dictates the terms: amid skewed arguments of increased efficiency, knowledge-based work is still fraught with “hallucinations”. Why should translators tolerate such hallucinations?

Resistance is (not) futile?

My view about the Expert in the Lead results from my conviction that the role of the human in human-machine translation remains essential. I do concede that the days of “human translation” from the formative days of my career are gone. Instead, rather than resist the use of technology, the emphasis has shifted to ensuring human expertise remains in control. For me, this involves making the smart choice about the use of technology, rather than rejecting it. Experts in human-machine translation can resist by refusing to have their workflows dictated to them. Refusing to be a cog in the process keeps them in the lead rather than in the loop.

My bespoke service revolves around my correctly blending multiple translation memories (setting those penalties in relation to age of TUs, subject matter, incorrect locale/language variation) and really knowing what the translation is about. At the same time I also can make a sound decision about the sources of reference material to access. This has far better chances for meaningful and fruitful success, than the drudge of cleaning out the stochastic parrot’s sodden cage from an LLM prone to hallucination.

12 February 2025
What are the values of an Expert in the Lead?
In my recent article in the latest edition of the Universitas Mitteilungsblatt, one section covers the “Expert in the Lead” (XITL). XITL is a concept that has attracted a lot of my thoughts in recent months. It is my approach for considering the future role of human translators in the era of human-machine translation.

I am currently also running a poll on LinkedIn (still open at time of publication of this post!). It asks people to assess their personal security/future as a human translator compared with 12 months ago. Why the comparison with 12 months ago? This relates to my December 2023 blogpost “Who’s in/on the lead as we head into 2024“. I want to follow-up on this later this month based on poll responses. I am also asking some respondents what might lie behind their response to the poll.

In the Universitas article, I highlighted some values of an expert in the lead, which I have expanded upon here. The list is not exhaustive – I really welcome your comments!

Being in command of technology and rejecting over-commoditisation
1. Being technologically agnostic/neutral: The expert in the lead knows when and how to make use of technology. And similarly when not to. Consider the useful tools, but prioritise the human expertise aspect. Stay open to new ideas and innovative approaches: e.g. penalties for TU age, or using QA checks to reduce cognitive load burden. However, you call the shots when, where and how technology is used, rather than being in thrall to it. They decide which tools are used, not just the one that is the flavour of the month among LSPs. By all means use technology, but also know when not to.
2. Rejecting the concept of translation as a commodity: in the race to the bottom, translation has become (excessively) commoditised. Boiled down to a number of words, characters, lines or pages. Then discounts squeezed for use of CAT tools, repetitions, or event the reduction of the (not-necessarily expert) translator to an MT post-editor. In contrast, the expert in the lead nurtures the customer relationship to understand what the customer needs. Pricing reflects the need for feedback rounds, terminology work, fine-tuning the brief and delivering what the customer wants and needs. (For example check out my thoughts on Chris Durban’s talk in Spiez this year – and the need to visit Clientland).
Know your customers and audiences
1. Convincing decision-makers about the value of human translation: the expert in the lead is on an equal-footing. Their professionalism commands respect. When I outsource a translation, I actively look for the best fit for the job. I take the blend of specialisation, experience and their passion for the subject matter into account. I do not try to beat them into a corner over pricing.
2. Understanding your target audience: the expert in the lead takes the time to clarify with the customer in advance who the audience (e.g. the readership) is. Taking the time to settle on a strict brief in advance leads to a more satisfactory outcome for both sides and helps you to engage with your customer.
3. Knowing when/how/when you should be used: Sometimes customers might have multiple translation needs. On occasions, a gist translation might suffice, or editing and revision. Get them on board for where they really need your full premium service – e.g. for handling their public-facing translations. Sometimes, you need to learn when to say “no!”
Expertise and specialism instead of narcissism
1. Convincing by expertise rather than social media presence: No-one “has to post on LinkedIn”. And a decent translator will not need to dedicate considerable office hours cultivating a social media presence. I am active on social media, but prefer to engage on other posts rather than post myself. Social media doesn’t pay my salary. And besides I struggle with its narcissism: where it is all about the “upside”, and never the downside. I’ve now settled on an approach of applied concerted laziness on LinkedIn. Know how and when to reach the people you have to reach, and how to use indirect visibility. Sometime you just need to “know how not to use LinkedIn incorrectly”.
2. Being passionate about your expertise: sometimes your customer may not be sure that you really know what their request is about. I convey my expertise – and passion by engaging with a legal reference (e.g. the law or a provision in it) as an ice-breaker. Invariably, it shows we’re speaking the same language (even if I am translating it into another target language). Demonstrate your specific expertise within a broader field of expertise.
3. Placing value on expertise-related training and education: conference programmes frequently strike me as too broad or general. To attend a conference, I need to convince my employer why I need to participate. Otherwise, I attend privately (at my own expense, conditional on being allowed to include participation on my CPD log). I struggle with the esoteric sessions – and prefer 1:1 online coaching for that purpose. Instead, I champion relevant expertise-based training. I focus on specialist training to increase my expertise – and realise the gaps in my knowledge from others’ questions. And I ensure that takeaways from conferences apply to my actual daily work.
I’ve not touched on the area of the role of translator accountability, but this is an area I intend to look into further in the future. I see it as an increasingly important area for the professional translator.
7 December 2024
No Man is an Island – John Donne or Jon Bon Jovi? From Rock star to SPLSU
Today’s tale starts back in late 2015, when I addressed an OeNB/JVI seminar in Vienna for translators from Central and South Eastern Europe. My presentation was about my first year of life translating at the FMA. I also spoke about the role of translation in the SSM, and being directly embedded in a supervisory division. I recounted my experiences as a “party of one” in establishing language services at the FMA. In my slide deck that day, I alluded to John Donne’s “No man is an Island”. Hugh Grant’s character in the 2002 film adaptation of Nick Hornby’s “About a Boy”, Will Freeman, however attributed “No Man is an Island” to Jon Bon Jovi.

Fast forward to 2024, and John Donne’s poem celebrates its quatercentenary. Recently I talked to my development coach, about how well my job title reflects what I do and my professional aspirations. I explained how, if asked, I often answered that I was a “rock star” rather than a “translator”. Or occasionally a “rock star translator”. I had cultivated the image of being unconventional (e.g. by being directly embedded in banking supervision) and working directly at the “Wordface”. In translation circles, in the last three years “SPLSU” (pronounced: Spool-soo”) has become my go to term. It gets people interested and generates greater interest than replying “translator”.

Rockstar Stadium Tour: Cancelled? Postponed?

After a while of the “rock star translator” moniker, I decided that it didn’t fit. Why? It didn’t seem appropriate any more. I didn’t want to be in danger of becoming the “washed-up” rock star. Translators are resourceful types and grow and reinvent themselves: this approach is key to longevity as a translator. Offering premium services involves constantly learning and adapting. Rock star thrash out old favourites ad nauseam – sometimes until they are far too long in the tooth. Mind you, that doesn’t stop adoring fans from attending every farewell tour due to the fear of missing out.

Turn that noise down…

Similarly, daily tinnitus management efforts render me the antithesis of the rock star. Gone are the crashing electric guitar solos and amps turned up to eleven that go with the territory. Translation and its intellectual challenge continues to drive me. This is why I have sessions with a development coach, talk with premium translators, and why I attended an inspiring conference in Spiez. Self-improvement steps are necessary for skirting the doldrums about the state of the profession at the hands of the industry.

Or getting sucked into the whirlpool of gloom and doom. I’ve charted my course – I’m the “Expert in the Lead”, rather than a mere cog in a “Machine in the Loop” or “Human in the Loop”. This approach keeps me upbeat about the profession vs industry situation. If anything, being that “one-man show” plays to my advantage, in that I am incumbent and difficult to dislodge – like a barnacle, whereas amid larger teams headcount is a more frequent issue – particular when a retirement wave rolls into view. Now is the time to seize upon and consolidate my position of linguistic leadership – rather that resting on my laurels.

The elephant in the room

I am realistic that Machine Translation will impact my workflows at some stage, but made my peace with this eventuality by settling on an expert in the lead strategy. The situation would be vastly different, if I were to resign myself to being a mere Human in the Loop. When recently appraising a proposed MT solution, I actively choose to be realistic and objective, rather than protectionist and defensive. That being said, I was cautious in my appraisal of the solution, voicing concerns about it should be used properly, and with due care. My appraisal of the situation was far less binary than a simple yes/no view that a non-linguist might take.

Not the only inhabitant on the island

My work is a complex blend of new and repeat translations. Different areas of supervision result in different translation tasks. As a supervisory authority’s remit constantly expands, borders blur and fray, while new areas emerge. By working for different “customers” you are not nearly as “cut off” and remote as you think. In terms of knowledge and skillset, I might live on in a secluded part of the main island, away from the main settlement (those of a legal background), but the Wordface is not a multi-day trek from civilisation, food and water. Similarly, my customers can find me too, and most importantly, I don’t need a helicopter in a storm or rowing boat amidst choppy seas to get off the island.

It is easy to take stable island life for granted – it provides me with everything I need: shelter, food and water (and hopefully interesting wildlife!) However, it is important not to stop exploring or to allow the grass to grow under your feet. But it is reassuring to have a spot marked as your home. However, the moment you stop exploring you become complacent, and maybe even miss out on exciting new projects.

It is good to consider my island as not being miles from anywhere or out of sight over the horizon. It is probably more sensible to think of it as an archipelago, where I enjoy distinctly warm relations with the neighbouring islands. My lighthouse might not be the tallest, or have the brightest light, in an archipelago of language technology expertise. The neighbouring islands are frequently larger and more densely populated – the working groups, professional associations, freelance translators, fellow governmental translators and terminologists, the growing gaggle of language technologists.

Photo by Levent Simsek on Pexels.com

Look over the horizon(s)

And then there are the contacts through blogs and social media whose “despatches” I tune into and regularly interact with. They might be a long way over the horizon, but whose message comes through loud and clear. And sometimes it is very useful to be use similar outlets to broadcast – even just to raise your flag to find out which way the wind is blowing.

Despite having a sheltered island life, it is essential to be actively involved in different communities – based on other (less) neighbouring islands. The communities on other islands help in my continuing professional development. A brief sortie can provide me with intensive training. They also provide much-needed “time off the island” in terms of working groups and speaking engagements. And of course you also have a view back to your island, rather than just the view from your island. These communities provide me with insights for understanding the sentiment of the profession and the industry. Professional alliances are essential for discussing issues of professional importance with kindred souls. They also bring together those who choose to excel, rather than subsist and stew in their own juices.

It’s good to explore…

In Spiez, Chris Durban gave an inspiring presentation. It was the first time I had heard her speak “live” after many Translating Europe Forum events online. She addressed the need for translators to visit “Clientland”. For me, Clientland involves trips away from my part of the island – and talking to the other islanders. Some work may materialise like a “message in a bottle” on the shore, but many projects need a spark. In Clientland, I push that translation should not be an “afterthought”, as it might be if outsourced. When I started out at the FMA, I highlighted a need to be agile, and move quickly between projects. Helping customers realise how, when, and why to use you is time well spent. It also prevents misunderstandings.

A man, a plan…

I returned from Spiez with a full reading list. On the flight back from Zurich, I also sketched a five point plan about getting into Clientland, based on Chris’ presentation. Here were some “quick fixes” I came up with.
- Translation to a brief. I looked through my Language Services Handbook after I returned to the office. I saw that there was very little about translation briefs. I put together a non-exhaustive questions based on jobs from the last year from infrequent customers. This allowed me to compile a decent brief – especially about who you are really translating for. (It’s not Herr Schmidt or Frau Braun who e-mailed you that attachment!)
- Spell out how you can best be used. In-house translation isn’t just about massive projects, but also “quick and dirty” projects – a page here or two paragraphs there. Your customers might not be fully aware of all the possibilities.
- Highlight the premium nature of your service. Customers may use your services for low impact or low importance work – try to nudge them gently towards more substantial or higher impact work.
- Look forward not back. There is a temptation to try to look at an Annual Report to establish emerging territories. An Annual Report is frequently quite retrospective publication. It might highlight existing areas that are thematic blind spots. However, you should also explore reliable sources regarding forthcoming developments (e.g. legal policy blogs).
- Cut out the doom-scrolling. Rather than doom-scrolling through the “woe is me” content from LinkedIn or elsewhere, fill your commutes with content that enlightens, educates and informs.
31 July 2024
Ten takeaways from the ASTTI Financial Translation Summer Conference in Spiez
I’ve just returned from a wonderful conference in Spiez, on the shores of Lake Thun, organised by ASTTI. The event – in reflection of Switzerland’s multilingual composition – had streams of the programme for German, French, Italian and English. I followed the English and German streams, as well as briefly attending the French into English Translation Slam (or traduell). I’m still digesting the rich programme, but have been posting on LinkedIn about the event. Over my morning coffee on the terrace yesterday, I came up with ten takeaways to communicate to my employer about what I have gained from my participation.

Being the consummate professional
1. The need to fight the translation profession’s corner. The conference focused on the translation profession, rather than the translation industry. There was also a presentation of a customised AI translation solution by Supertext x Textshuttle. I personally side strongly with the profession rather than the industry. I advocate an Expert in the Lead approach, championing professional expertise over Machine in the Loop or Human in the Loop approaches. In December 2023, I expressed my feelings on the matter here. While the conference might have been a “safe space” for the profession, it did remind me about who and what I am fighting for.
2. All translators – regardless of whether you are in-house or self-employed – need to visit Clientland. Chris Durban’s presentation at Spiez was inspirational in terms of seeing the big picture. This includes also what she calls “Visiting Clientland” – i.e. getting into the world of your clients/customers. This approach is useful for in-housers to make people aware of what a professional translator can do. I need to revise my own “Clientland” roadmap to ensure my newer colleagues know about the value I add. Currently it is the exception rather than the rule that I translate to a brief. I’ll add materials about translating to a brief into my in-house Language Services Handbook (LaSH). I will certainly revise further aspects about the business of translation itself. For freelancers the key takeaway was about running a professional business – and charging premium rather than low rates.
How can professionals steer clients about their added value
1. Professional translators need to heighten awareness about Barnes’ Iron Triangle regarding translation. One speaker talked about translation as “just translation“, so I engaged with her about its incompatibility with expert professional translation. Another presenter failed to land a point where they had intended to by recounting a personal translation experience. They considered browser-based machine translation coupled with a “language check” through a dumping rate to be a valid approach. Proof of how from another angle, delivering “good enough” translation is apparent all clients need. How does this takeaway apply to in-house translation? I need to ensure that people know about how best to use my services and the value I add. Unlike the stochastic parrot, I understand the figures, and scrutinise their fit – and catch mistakes/typos before a publication goes out. The approaches mentioned by the speakers above illustrate the continuing need for work on educating clients about Barnes’ Iron Triangle.
2. Specialise – and don’t be afraid to have very precise specialisations – or to say “No!”: From talking to other participants, it was clear that everyone has their own specialised area within financial translation. This is what makes people stand out from the crowd, and also command a premium rate. In this regard, there is also scope to say “I’m not who you need for job XYZ, but when it comes to job ABC – I’m exactly the translator you need“. Positioning yourself and selling yourself properly is far more likely to bring you success rather than “hoovering up” any job that comes your way. Part of the issue of dumping rates has also come about by poor translation – and so this makes it essential for premium translators to set themselves apart from the field by really offering a top notch service.
Build and revise your skills and habits
1. Reinvent your presentation technique: one presentation that worked particularly well used a Miro tableau rather than PowerPoint. The speaker “flew” around his presentation impressively – he always knew exactly where he needed to be. I’ll certainly look at Miro as a tool for future presentations. I have used it a bit as part of a Data Storytelling in the Public Sector course. I think it offers further possibilities to lift my presentations to the next level. CAMELS have a great seminar in Frankfurt in October that Christof will be speaking at.
2. Always be reading: receiving confirmation about a belief that you hold dear is always good. Reading about the subject matter is part of my “Always Be Curious” approach. Many presentations at the conference came with reading suggestions. They ranged from reliable websites of authorities and ministries, through to subject-specific book recommendations, and reference works. I also finally met Bettina Stoke-Borchert, the author of the Fachwörterbuch der Rechnungslegung nach IAS/IFRS und HGB, which I use regularly for accounting-related translations.
3. Mind your own business: while many of us connected over LinkedIn and networking is essential, one thing struck me from many of the participants, was that we “mind our own business” – in the sense that we do not try to be social media influencers. We understand LinkedIn as a tool to connect, share content, but not to the extent of it taking over our actual business: i.e. that of translating. It really shone through that I was among translators who live to translate, and turn out high quality translations – never “just translation”.
Go for the experience
1. Meet your heroes and heroines: I finally met Bettina Stoke-Borchert and Chris Durban in person. I have heard Chris speak multiple times online at the Translating Europe Forum. She had commented on a couple of my blogposts before now, but hadn’t expected her to remember my blog. During the conference I also got to talk to my counterpart as a German>English translator from the Swiss supervisor (FINMA). It was also pleasing that there were some younger and less experienced translators in attendance too. I also really enjoyed talking to them too – from talking about their posters, through to their starting out in-house. The boat trip and dinner on the Thunersee yielded two particularly interesting conversations.
2. Listen to bankers, insurers, finance professors: presenters included members of the upper echelons of banks and insurance companies – it is a privilege to be able to listen to speakers from this level of an organisation, and an opportunity that is a rare one. And being able to ask questions to speakers was a definite bonus. In addition, there were some prominent academic experts, who provided digestible overviews of various facets of finance. This was really refreshing – and I felt privileged to have this kind of access to such lectures.
3. Make your CPD special: The ASTTI Conference in Spiez is an institution and a tradition. The town is a place of beauty. Having been to Spiez privately as a child and an adult, it was still a very special feeling alighting from the training in the evening petrichor and walking down to my hotel. The combination of the lake view, the castle and the alpine backdrop add to it. The conference is a small and intimate one. It has a remarkably broad thematic focus spanning multiple languages for a professional audience. I enjoyed the friendly and welcoming atmosphere, and left feeling happy, tired, and with plenty of food for thought. “Klein, aber oho!” or “Small is beautiful!” could be two ways to describe it.
The wrap-up

Finally a word of thanks – to ASTTI, and its team of conference organisers, for laying on such an intensive, constructive and enjoyable three days, the participants for making this such a special event and Spiez for being a wonderful location for the event. The next edition is due to take place from 1-3 July 2026 in Spiez. I very much hope to be there!
8 July 2024
Why attend a professional association AGM in person, when it is offered in hybrid form?

On Friday evening, I attended the AGM of UNIVERSITAS Austria – Berufsverband für Dolmetschen und Übersetzen – an association that I joined in 2020, just as the pandemic was taking hold. Consequently, this was the first event that I had attended in person. The AGM was held in hybrid form, and previously I had attended events in virtual form – as had been the norm during the pandemic.

I chose to attend in person to take advantage of a new members’ networking session beforehand and further chances to network afterwards. I know some people might struggle with in presence AGMs – but they are really worth attending in person if you can. If you find physical attendance daunting, arrange to meet someone you know there.

An AGM is a good networking event

It was great to talk to other members – catching up with some after a long time and also speaking to others for the first time. It provided me with a good opportunity to catch up with other translators and interpreters. Some I hadn’t seen for several years, and I was able to meet others in person for the first time, although some of whom I knew from posts on LinkedIn – as fellow #litranslators. It was a good opportunity to also have a chance to finally meet various board members in person.

For me, membership of an association is not a one way street: it is not just about “taking”, but considering and acting upon what I can also “give back” to a profession I have been part of for 24 years. So many professionals work on their own in an industry dominated by BigLang, so solidarity with my fellow professionals is essential. After all, I remain a SPLSU, albeit as part of an organisation with a far higher headcount.

Events, certification and mentoring

Universitas certification and mentoring are areas that I hope to be contribute to. Associations are also vital for relevant CPD measures, and Universitas is very receptive in this area. There are some exciting events planned for this year – the association’s platinum (70th) jubilee year.

As a full-time in-house translator, in a predominantly freelance/self-employed industry, or one with many people for whom translation/interpreting is only a component of their working life (job splitting), it is important to appreciate the issues affecting the profession (and not just the industry).

Turning a corner

Attending an AGM in person is also a way to gauge the health of an association – to see at first hand how the work falls on the (few or many) sets of shoulders of the board and its committees. The previous winter had been a tumultuous one – with a series of meetings that at one stage had even had the dissolution of the association on the table.

The outcome had been to have a paid administrator – an option I supported from personally having been an executive secretary of a non-profit organisation at an earlier stage of my career. It was pleasing to see that the association is turning a corner and making progress to a more stable and professional footing.

Thanks should again go to Universitas’ board and volunteers dedicating their time to furthering our profession. I’ll definitely be looking forward to attending more in-presence events.

Why not join?

If you are a translator in Austria, or even outside of Austria, and have not joined, why not reconsider? Universitas is a nationwide association, with logical ties to the ZTW in Vienna, INTRAWI in Innsbruck and ITAT in Graz. While the lion’s share of members translate into or from the “Big 5 EU languages”, there are many members covering far more languages.

27 February 2024