10.6. Buzzwords, weasel words and textspeak items as translation challenges

Further on it seems worthwhile to discuss briefly the problem of rendering the so-called “buzzwords” in translation. Ways of rendering buzzwords can be in the most general terms viewed as specific kinds of lexical and semantic transformations. A buzzword (also a vogue word, catch phrase or «словo сьогодення») is a vague idiom, usually a neologism (often an abbreviation or acronym), that is common to the mass media, managerial, technical and administrative discourse. Although meant to impress the listener with the speaker’s pretence to knowledge, buzzwords often make speech messages difficult to understand, translate or interpret [Палажченко 2006: 255; Buzzword].

Traditional linguistics uses the term neologism (from Greek neo “new” + logos “word”) with reference to a “newly coined word that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into the mainstream language. Neologisms are often directly attributable to a specific person, publication, period, or event. According to the Oxford English Dictionary the term neologism was first used in print in 1772” [Neologism]. Quite a lot of academic literature deals with neologisms, however the focus is being made mainly on the structural and semantic models of coining (building up) new words [see, e.g., Английские неологизмы 1983], though lately some new English-Ukrainian dictionaries of neologisms and buzzwords started to come to the agenda [Зацний, Янков 2008].

It is obvious that the fast-changing world of today due to globalisation processes turns into a single (or rather “common” for most developed and emerging economies) social and economic environment. However, it is also obvious that the so-called mainstream (standard or generally understood language) language makes up only the core section of any language system, while a great variety of subject field (professional) sublanguages appear in various fields of the mass media, politics, science, technology, advertising, etc. due to social, scientific and technological progress [Максимов 2001; 2002]. These factors require looking at the newly coined words from somewhat different perspective.

Translation practice gives grounds to introduce a new notion of the buzzwords, which seems to be broader than the traditional notion of neologisms. Thus, buzzwords include neologisms, coined according to traditional models (affixation, conversion, blending, abbreviation, borrowing from other languages, etc.), and new words (phrases) coined according to the most productive patterns of today, such as, for instance, “semantic pattern” and “idiomatic pattern”. Needless to say, that buzzwords include “usual” lexical units (those that have already become customary due to their frequent usage in speech and are registered by most dictionaries, e.g., collateral damage, cyberspace, defamation, deforestation, globalization, marginalization, etc.) and “occasional” lexical items, which may be absorbed by the language and thus become “usual” or denied by the language speakers and fade away. In this case such units may be regarded as “fly-by-night” ones or nonce words, i.e. words coined and used only for particular occasion, e.g., glocialization, sexretary (compare with Ukr. секретутка), xenocide, etc.

Another challenge of the contemporary translation studies concerns weasel words – lexical items which are described as informal term for equivocating words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim, or even a refutation has been communicated. Take, for instance a letter of recommendation where the letter writer states “I cannot recommend this person highly enough”, which would ordinarily be taken to mean that no amount of recommendation is sufficient to communicate the high stature of recommendation, while at the same time it could literally mean that there is no recommendation at all. In other cases, words with a particular subjective effect are chosen. For example, one person may speak of “resistance fighters” or “freedom fighters”, while another may call the same subjects “terrorists”. The underlying facts are the same, but a quite different impression is given [Weasel word].

Lynn Visson [2010] gives quite a subtle analysis of weasel words in her book and their usage in the mass media, political, business and colloquial discourse giving examples like fuzzy (meaning unclear), huge (meaning cool or very nice), terrific and awesome (meaning excellent), slam dunk (meaning easily achieved success), nonjudgmental (meaning correct, good), etc. [Visson 2010:10-21].

Quick emergence of the buzzwords and weasel words is a common process practically in all languages. In the most general terms the word stock of any language may be graphically presented as follows:

where 1 is the generally used (mainstream) lexicon, 2 represents subject field lexical units or terms (understandable for all members of a particular subject field community, such as specialists in policy making, computer science, linguistics, medicine, etc.), 3 represents jargon or slang (understandable only by a narrow professional community or social and age groups).

Translation practice shows that buzzwords and weasel words first appear in section 3 and then they may be “absorbed” by section 2 and further on – by section 1, or, alternatively, they may be “denied” by section 2 and 1 and fade away or rather become elements of the “passive” or “historical” vocabulary of the language.

Here one may observe a kind of a two-way traffic: the words may move from the centre of the circle until they become obsolete (perhaps, due their inappropriateness or redundancy) and enter the passive historical vocabulary. On the other hand, old “forgotten” words and phrases may move from the historical linguistic past and become a part of the mainstream lexicon. Examples of the first case may be English words pupil, scientist and sportsman, which are gradually replaced by student, academic and athlete. The second group may be represented by the words coach (м’який автобус) and challenge (проблема, актуальне завдання),

This two-way movement of words can be explained by the following main reasons:

1. A new notion (object, phenomenon) should be given a name (e.g., web-site, to browse, computer mouse).

2. There is a need to differentiate names between two objects (e.g., coach technically differs from the bus).

3. The denotatum acquires some new shade of meaning (e.g. challenge differs from problem in terms that a challenge must be met as soon as possible and in the most constructive way, while problem does not require such urgent response).

4. Influence of sociolinguistic aspects and, in particular, gender factors (thus, masculine-biased sportsman, chairman and fireman are replaced by gender neutral athlete, chair (chairperson) and fire-fighter.

5. Disappearance of the denotata with the relevant lexical items entering the group of obsolete words (e.g., wireless, typewriter, punched card, or калоші, примус, лікнеп, колгосп, радгосп, госпрозрахунок).

A.I. Cherdnychenko [Чередниченко 2007: 66-69] gives such examples of Ukrainian buzzword neologisms that have appeared in the Ukrainian media space within the latest decades and were registered by most dictionaries as appropriate: б’ютівець, піарити, регіонал, бізнес-план, бізнесовець, VIP-жінка, глобальне павутиння, імпічмент, хіт, комп’ютеризація, маржа, транш, to which we may add such lexical items of today as: потяг, вогнеборець, перемовини, верхогони, гвинтокрил, etc. However, some of the foreign borrowings and Ukrainian buzzwords really do not enrich the Ukrainian language and easily can be avoided because there are genuine Ukrainian equivalents for the notions and objects they denote, e.g., перформанс, ньюзмейкер, месидж, лайв (прямий ефір, наживо) [ibid.: 70-71], to which we may add such obscure words as кава-брейк, іншуренс, бізнес-лаундж, педалювати питання, хостес (господиня), міжповерховий дротохід (ліфт), жінкознавець (лікар-гінеколог), розчепірка (парасолька), штрикавка (шприц), etc.

Translation practice also shows that alongside with the traditional ways of coining up buzzword neologisms (such as for example affixation: defamation, globalilization, deglobalization, marginalization, to reinvent, subsidiarity, answerable, etc.), the most productive way in the 21^st century is a wide spread of semantic buzzword neologisms [Зацний, Янков 2008:58] – that is lexical items, which are created by way of acquiring new senses by the existing words of the mainstream vocabulary. That means that the translator often has to render the contextual sense of the new lexeme but not always its traditional meaning recorded in the dictionary. Thus, to be in the pipeline is understood by the business circles community as бути «в роботі», бути на «підході» with reference to a project; coherent response means відповідна, адекватна реакція; emerging economies – країни, що економічно розвиваються; to fashion the strategy – формулювати, розробляти стратегію; grassroots movement – народна ініціатива; reality check – перевірка експертом даних в реальних умовах; to sit easily with somebody – легко налагоджувати гарні стосунки, не втручатися, etc.

Another tendency in English is an extensive usage of the word-building models of N+N type (instead of preposition + N model): black spots, board member, crisis management, the Interior Ministry, the Justice Department, prison escaper, stimulus package, trouble spots, etc., which require certain syntactic transformations while translating them into Ukrainian.

There is also one more reason for the domination of semantic pattern in coining up buzzword neologisms linked up to the tendency of creating euphemisms to avoid unwanted social, political, ethnic, ethical, gender, cultural and religious connotations [Селіванова 2011: 144] or, in other words, to ensure political correctness¹. Examples are: collateral damage (супровідні ушкодження; супутня шкода – тобто «ненавмисно заподіяна шкода населенню або випадкове знищення майна під час бойових дій, боротьби з тероризмом або ліквідації техногенних катастроф»); СSW (commercial sex worker – instead of a prostitute); IDU – intravenous (injecting) drug user – instead of a drug addict; MSM – men who have sex with men – instead of a male homosexual, etc.).

The latest (quite specific, though) tendency is to use buzzword neologisms without translation (that is in the letters of the source language). This method started to be widely used in the latest decade with the expansion of various brand names (especially computer software, the Internet and other high-tech products, names of songs and other peaces of art, fashion, automobile and pharmaceutical industries products, etc.) and is usually labelled as “incrustation” («інкрустація» or «пряме включення» ). One can find practically at every page of computer, high-tech literature or in adverts examples like the following: Перевірте правильність установки системи електронної пошти на Microsoft Word; Ця операційна система не підтримує встановлення драйвера через Setup; Цей браузер не підтримує пошук API CSO.

To summarize ways of rendering (transforming) buzzword neologisms and weasel words from English into Ukrainian and back we may conclude that in the end of the first decade of the 21^-st century the following ways of rendering are commonly used:

1. Wide use of practical transcription and transliteration (transcoding): actuary – актуарій; diversification – диверсифікація; upgrade – апгрейд; web-site – веб-сайт; browser – браузер.

2. Rendering based upon finding analogies: bottlenecks – «вузькі місця»; households – домогосподарства; good governance – належне у(в)рядування; roundabout – транспортна розв’язка («клумба»).

3. Rendering based upon translation loans: delivery versus payment – доставка проти платежу; task manager – диспетчер завдань; underwriter – надписувач цінних паперів; безготівковий розрахунок – non-cash payment.

4. Finding Ukrainian correspondences built by adding a transcoded or loan element to the Ukrainian element: web-page – веб-сторінка; frame analysis – фреймовий аналіз.

5. Combined method of rendering with the use of Latin, Cyrillic letters and digits: USB-port – USB-порт; X-modem – X-модем.

6. Incrustation (leaving the lexeme in the SL, usually Latin, letters): Microsoft Word; Internet Explorer; ASUS; LEXUS; BMW; Toyota.

7. Descriptive translation (explication): absentee voter – виборець, який голосує за відкріпним талоном; stakeholder – зацікавлена сторона, учасник соціальної або ділової програми (проекту); резонансна справа – a high profile case; кишенькова опозиція – easy-to-manipulate opposition.

8. Coining of Ukrainian equivalents on the foreign language basis: emoticon – смайлi(и)к; генделик (from a German word Handel – торгівля).

It is also worthwhile mentioning quite a new way of coining buzzwords in the so-

called textspeak (txtng, textese, chatspeak, SMS language, txt talk), which is a term for abbreviations and slang most commonly used due to the necessary brevity of mobile text messaging, though its use is common on the Internet, including e-mail and instant messaging. It can be linked to a rebus, which uses pictures and single letters, or numbers to represent whole words. For words which have no common abbreviation, users most commonly remove the vowels from a word, and the reader (translator) is forced to interpret a string of consonants and sometimes numerals by re-adding the vowels (e.g., dictionary becomes dctnry, or keyboard becomes kybrd). The reader must interpret the abbreviated words depending on the context in which it is used, as there are many examples of words or phrases which use the same abbreviations (e.g. lol could mean “laugh out loud” or “lots of love”. So if someone writes ttyl, lol they probably mean “talk to you later, lots of love” but not “talk to you later, laugh out loud”; and if someone writes omg, lol they probably mean “oh my god, laugh out loud” but not “oh my god, lots of love”. Context is key when interpreting textspeak, and precisely this is a shortfall which critics cite as a reason not to use it. The words of textspeak usually are not recorded by standard dictionaries and language academies are reluctant to recognize them.

The objective of textspeak is to use the fewest number of characters needed to convey a comprehensible message, also as many telecommunication companies have an SMS character limit, another benefit of textspeak is to reduce the character count of a message, hence, punctuation, grammar, and capitalization are largely ignored [Сrystal 2008; Textspeak]. Here are some typical examples of textspeak lexical units: atm (at the moment); brb (be right back); btw (by the way); g2g (got to go); gr8 (great); idk (I don’t know); t2yl (talk to you later); 4u (for you); cul8r (see you later), 2b or not 2b (to be or not to be).

Such textspeak lexical items are usually translated into Ukrainian in a descriptive way (by way of explication), however, nowadays there are instances when textspeak lexical items may be encountered in the Ukrainian Internet chats and mobile telecommunication messages, for example: язов71 (я зовсім один).

All that has been mentioned above give reasons to consider the way of giving a name to these lexical, semantic and cultural transformations of the buzzword neologisms that are observed nowadays. Some writers on the subject traditionally attribute these transformations to “different ways of translating”, some write of “implantation” [Денисова 2006], however, one of the most acceptable terms seems to be “language localisation”.

Language localisation can be defined as the second phase of a larger process (internationalisation and localisation) of product translation and linguistic and cultural adaptation (for specific countries, regions, social groups) to account for differences in distinct communities. Thus, it is important not to reduce it to a mere translation activity because it involves a comprehensive study of the target culture in order to correctly adapt the product [Language localisation].

The language localisation process was first most generally related to cultural adaptation and translation of computer software, websites and video games [Онищенко 2008]. Several examples (some quite appropriate but some ridiculous) to localise the English software terms to the Ukrainian target users are: application – прикладна програма; to click – клацнути, виконати щиглик; bold – грубий, погрублений (шрифт); default – усталений; Internet explorer – проводир павутиння; wizard – майстеp, etc².

Nowadays the language localisation process is widely applied to rendering various brand names (especially in the computer, car-making, pharmaceutical and food industry, fashion and other sectors). There is no doubt that the principle of appropriateness (доречність вживання) [Максімов 2004] should be strictly observed in doing this.

Below there are some examples of inappropriate language localisation instances, which create unwanted reactions among the target customers/users: Glister (toothpaste for children) – зубна паста Глістер; Zhiguli (VAZ 2101 car that was soon renamed as Lada for the foreign market); KIA – the South Korean car brand, which would be inappropriate in the English speaking countries, as one of the meanings of this acronym is killed in action (загиблий під час бойових дій), Ukrainian abbreviation ЗАТ (закрите акціонерне товариство) is today most commonly replaced by АТЗТ (акціонерне товариство закритого типу) due to certain inappropriateness of the sounding of the first variant.

In principle, it is highly recommended that translators and interpreters compile their own (preferably electronic) subject field glossaries of buzzwords, weasel words neologisms, acronyms and abbreviations, textspeak items, where the principles of their translation or localisation (whatever term may be chosen) with due respect to the principles of communicative correctness and appropriateness are considered.

Having completed translation of a text, it is quite appropriate to leave it for some time and to look at it later on “with a fresh look” so that all mistakes and defects of translation can be clearly seen. Then the process of editing (correcting and amending) translated text begins until translator considers the results of the job to be satisfactory.

Technological advances and globalisation processes that rapidly progress in the 21^st century provide unlimited opportunities for translators to facilitate and improve results of their professional work. Numerous web sites on translation are available on the Internet, general and special dictionaries, which are rapidly improved and updated, special computer software is being constantly designed to assist translators. On the one hand cultures and languages become closer to each other, but on the other – greater separation of professional subcultures and sublanguages becomes obvious. All these factors make the mission of translators and interpreters, who serve as mediators and facilitators of human progress, even more important in the fast-changing world of today.