7.

7 FREQUENTLY HAD ARGUMENTS

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.