Sic: use and abuse
Not limited to academia and journalism, sic makes an appearance pretty often in translation. The latin means “so” or “thus,” or, according to Meriam Webster, “intentionally so written.”
The translator — a fortiori, the legal translator — is a reporter of sorts, trying his best to move communication from a writer to a reader, all the while getting out of the way. What’s more the translator has no right to seek out the source to ask him or her what the intent of a sentence was. He’s left with a page of immovable words.
Thus the sic is a tool that serves as a “don’t blame me, that’s what they wrote.” But as my friend, Anne, the doyenne of good legal writing, points out, sic can also be abused. An apparent mental lapse or typo by the author of the original document requires a [sic] if a word or statement appears to break the logic of the context, thereby placing the intended meaning in doubt, AND if the slip potentially introduces a material error.
Neither of the above conditions is always easy to detect. A jump in the sequence of a numbered list is clear enough and should be pointed out to show the reader nothing is ommitted. Similarly, a seemingly incorrect date or figure. The name of one of the parties, if spelled differently in one instance among ten, should also be pointed out, but placing the correct name in brackets is sufficient. Peppering a translation with [sic] at each typo, however, is poor style and risks to needlessly disrupt the flow of the text.
Sic abuse occurs when, for example, a native of Italy writes “420 Madisin Avenue, New York, NY” and the translator sics “Madisin” rather than just correcting it. The writer’s intention was Madison, but whether ignorance or hasty typing caused the mistake, the translator should make the correction without alerting the reader. It cannot have been anything else and it is not a material error. Foreign documents can be so rife with tiny errors that drawing attention to each can distract unnecessarily from the purpose of the translation.
Of course, the purpose of the translation is important here, as well as the client’s style preferences. Some want every ink spot represented, others prefer to omit anything but the essential. Others will not tolerate translator’s notes or even the use of explanatory brackets.
10 responses so far ↓
1 Corinne McKay // Apr 16, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Glenn, this blog is fantastic, thanks so much for your interesting insights (and incites!). On [sic], I agree with you overall, however I think that it’s important to give the reader of the translation the same impression of the document that the source document reader has, and sometimes that involves pointing out errors. For example, if someone applies for a job and spells the company’s name wrong, it’s technically just a typographical error, but it conveys a certain lack of attention to detail, and I would call that type of error [sic]-worthy.
Keep up the great writing!
2 Glenn // Apr 16, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Corrine,
Thanks for the kind words! And for the comment. It’s true that a typo may be [sic]-worthy; this is a judgement call. And it depends a lot on the purpose of the translation, in my opinion.
I hope to write about another similar tool that comes into play even more often in my work: brackets. In the meantime, thanks again for reading.
3 Kerilyn Sappington // Apr 16, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Thanks for the topic, Glenn. I used [sic] myself just the other day when a subject clause was repeated twice in the source text. Because mine was a back translation, it was especially important to point out the error.
While I agree with Corrine that it’s important to submit a translation that reflects the source text as closely as possible, it would be jarring to read a page littered with [sic] [sic] [sic]. I work from Chinese into English and the English words sprinkled throughout the Chinese are rife with typos, like POKCET for POCKET and SYKPE for SKYPE. I generally correct simple English spelling errors and move on.
4 Martin Cross // Apr 16, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Nicely said.
Another problem with getting too fond of siccing is that the translated version of the mistake may seem more egregious in the target than it did in the source. For example, we don’t want to translate “I like cats, but I like dogs two,” as “J’aime les chats, mais j’aime les chiens deux [sic].”
Often, I will add a footnote saying, simply, that there is a typographical error in the source. If that particular sentence happens to be the one the whole case turns on, the attorney can give me a call.
(By the way, thanks for dropping by my blog. You’ve got a nice outfit going on here.)
5 Glenn // Apr 16, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Martin,
Thanks for the comments. And good point about exagerating a typo to the point of utter confusion.
I enjoyed your blog very much for your patent specialty and your fearlessness in the face of machine translation. Worth a read by all.
6 Simac // Apr 16, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Instead of using “sic,” translators should appropriately use brackets to indicate corrections. If a source document has “Madisin” when “Madison” is meant, a reasonable way to correct this is:
Madis[o]n
Obviously the error is a typo and “Madison” what is meant, but if the translator, especially the legal translator, leaves out the error–this could have undesirable consequences. For instance, if the misspelling of the address caused a late writ service, or contributed to some other legally significant problem, the legal translator has the very obligation to be sure that the translation allows the reader to be aware of such issues.
The other option of course is simply to submit a list of such issues on delivery, but the bracketing is more user-friendly.
Obviously for translations of more general material bracketing would be unnecessary and distracting, but in legal translation I would argue that “sic” or bracketed corrections are entirely appropriate when there is cause.
7 Glenn // Apr 16, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Simac, thanks for pointing to that solution. As I mentioned to Corrine, I hope to cover brackets in a post soon. They are a more user-friendly tool than sic as you point out, and more common in our work.
Yes, there are consequences to glossing over and fixing errors and the translator needs specific guidelines before choosing to improve on an original with no notice. Reporting the entire content back to the client, warts and all, is the safest policy but sics, brackets, and translator’s notes all have their place and their limitations it would seem.
If one wanted to alert the client, I’m having difficulty thinking of any smooth way to do so in the example Martin gives above where “too” and “two are confused. But at least the mistake is an obvious mistake.
In a case where the translator sees an ambiguity and has no way of knowing, a lengthy translator note may be unavoidable. For example, “Michelle wants a hotdog. Johnny, two.” If the translator takes it as a typo, or even potential typo, I think we’d need a [sic] and a translators note. But I know clients who abhor translator’s notes. What to do.
This raises the issue, too, of the relationship a translator has with clients in various industries, AND with the writer of the document. For literature, I would imagine a close collaboration would be important. Also with advertising. But the translator/client relationship for a legal translator is a bit more adversarial, especially when it comes to translating evidentiary documents. The client may hope it says something, but the translator can only go on the words on the page. I feel more posts brewing.
Thanks again for your comments!
8 Martin Cross // Apr 17, 2008 at 11:38 am
One solution I have used is to submit two copies: one with notes and brackets and sics, and the other warts and all. Some USPTO examiners will not accept translations for proof of priority, etc. including translators notes of any kind. Also PCT national phase filings must be free of any of this stuff. The attorney, however, will want to file an amendment to correct the mistakes, so they will want to know where the mistakes are.
9 Glenn // Apr 18, 2008 at 11:27 am
Martin,
This makes a lot of sense; sounds like a safe bet for your area. I really appreciate your contributions.
10 What a Bracket! // Apr 18, 2008 at 1:04 pm
[...] RSS ← That’s just [sic] [...]
Leave a Comment