Here are two other Bambara translations of the widely translated and circulated ebola poster by International SOS.
In a previous posting, I called attention to another version of the same poster in non-standard Bambara. Both of the ones discussed here use the current standard orthography, but also appear to be a better and more complete translations. However there are differences, which provide an opportunity to review them in comparison and ask questions about methods and outcomes.
The one on the left below was posted on Facebook on October 2 (original provenance not clear); the one to its right was translated by NGO Miriyawa and came from the International SOS site, dated December 1.
In a previous posting, I called attention to another version of the same poster in non-standard Bambara. Both of the ones discussed here use the current standard orthography, but also appear to be a better and more complete translations. However there are differences, which provide an opportunity to review them in comparison and ask questions about methods and outcomes.
The one on the left below was posted on Facebook on October 2 (original provenance not clear); the one to its right was translated by NGO Miriyawa and came from the International SOS site, dated December 1.
 |
 |
To facilitate parallel review of differences between the two translations, the headings (only) are presented in the table below - along the lines of what I did for the previous Bambara translation (which can be opened in a separate screen for comparison):
The differences show how different people or teams can come up with alternative ways of rendering the same text - presumably comparable in meaning, but not necessarily equal in accuracy or comprehensibility. Or, if the two were actually translated from different versions (for example, one from French and the other from English), this shows how that can result in different outcomes in the target language (Bambara in this case). It is useful in any event, I think, to first compare the two versions in terms of the language in which they are written: Leaving aside copy-editing issues (spelling; typography), how accurate and understandable are the alternative headings - and the rest of the text?
Going back a step, one question is whether there was any back-translation in either case to verify the accuracy of the translations. Also, what kind of proofing (copy-editing) was done on each version? There are some errors and inconsistencies, although probably not enough to affect meaning.
Another question is whether either of these versions were "field tested" to get an idea of how an average reader - or a listener to the text being read aloud - would understand and react to the text. And visually, how people react to the illustrations. If that was not done, it would be informative to field test the two versions together (perhaps adding the previously discussed one as well).
When doing translations for public education about a health emergency, there is obviously a concern with getting materials out there promptly. However, translation shouldn't be a "once and done" thing. I've previously outlined a case for review of materials (in the context of 2Ds & 4Rs), but review - including quality control - needn't delay initial roll-out of material. Some level of review can be built into the initial process, and then follow-up review can follow. In the case of Bambara there are several materials on ebola available now (remember also the MHOP/Dokotoro factsheet and the Bambara Wikipedia article), which could provide the basis for a more in-depth analysis of use of Bambara for communicating about this virus and other diseases.
Finally, a quick word about "banakisɛ," which appears in one of the above posters. Composed of "bana" (sickness) and "kisɛ" (seed), the literal sense seems very evocative, and in any case more tangible than the abstract loan "virisi." Definitely would wash my hands thoroughly to get rid of those banakisɛw.
| EBOLA VIRISI (BANAKISԐ) | EBOLA |
| EBOLA YE MUN YE, A BԐ YԐLԐMA COGODI? | EBOLA YE MUYE A BԐ MϽGϽ SϽRϽ COGODI? |
| MUN YE EBOLA TAAMASHԐNW YE? Tamashԑnw bԑ daminԑ tile 2 magalen kᴐ Ebolatᴐ walima a fure la |
EBOLA TAMASԐNW YE MUN YE? Tamasԑnw bese ka daminԑn tile 2-21 i magalen kᴐfԑ banabagatᴐ la walima a su la |
| Tamashԑn Kunfᴐlᴐw - Tamashԑn Labanw > | Tamasԑn Fᴐlᴐ - Tamasԑn Wԑrԑw > |
| EBOLA KUNBԐNI ANI WALI KԐTA N'I BANARA? | EBOLA KUNBԐ COGO ANI ANW KAN KA MUNKԐ |
The differences show how different people or teams can come up with alternative ways of rendering the same text - presumably comparable in meaning, but not necessarily equal in accuracy or comprehensibility. Or, if the two were actually translated from different versions (for example, one from French and the other from English), this shows how that can result in different outcomes in the target language (Bambara in this case). It is useful in any event, I think, to first compare the two versions in terms of the language in which they are written: Leaving aside copy-editing issues (spelling; typography), how accurate and understandable are the alternative headings - and the rest of the text?
Going back a step, one question is whether there was any back-translation in either case to verify the accuracy of the translations. Also, what kind of proofing (copy-editing) was done on each version? There are some errors and inconsistencies, although probably not enough to affect meaning.
Another question is whether either of these versions were "field tested" to get an idea of how an average reader - or a listener to the text being read aloud - would understand and react to the text. And visually, how people react to the illustrations. If that was not done, it would be informative to field test the two versions together (perhaps adding the previously discussed one as well).
When doing translations for public education about a health emergency, there is obviously a concern with getting materials out there promptly. However, translation shouldn't be a "once and done" thing. I've previously outlined a case for review of materials (in the context of 2Ds & 4Rs), but review - including quality control - needn't delay initial roll-out of material. Some level of review can be built into the initial process, and then follow-up review can follow. In the case of Bambara there are several materials on ebola available now (remember also the MHOP/Dokotoro factsheet and the Bambara Wikipedia article), which could provide the basis for a more in-depth analysis of use of Bambara for communicating about this virus and other diseases.
Finally, a quick word about "banakisɛ," which appears in one of the above posters. Composed of "bana" (sickness) and "kisɛ" (seed), the literal sense seems very evocative, and in any case more tangible than the abstract loan "virisi." Definitely would wash my hands thoroughly to get rid of those banakisɛw.
No comments:
Post a Comment