A single set of standards and the multiplicity of interpretations - EGOS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

standards, which is one of the key issues in successful harmonization in a multilingual environment, has been problematized. One of the characteristics of accounting terminology is that several accounting terms refer to abstract concepts and thus do not have a referent that could exist independent from the concept (see also Macintosh, Shearer, Thornton & Welker 2000, Nissilä 2008). This difficulty manifests as difficulties of translating foreign concepts: if the target language does not have a similar concept, rendering the meaning of the original concept is particularly problematic. When accounting terms are translated into another language the high level of equivalence in the termreferent-relationship is not as such a sufficient precondition for a successful translation of the term. The register associated with a discipline serves several social purposes (Evans 2010) and deviation from the professional register can been viewed as inappropriate or inacceptable by the professional and academic accountants reading the translation. Even though word-for-word equivalence does not often exist some of the difficulties could be circumvented by seeking for equivalence on the level of sentences rather than on the level of words, that is, dynamic equivalence (see Catford 1978, Nida 1964, Evans et al 2011). Dynamic equivalence means that in some cases, translators can (or have to) render the meaning of the standards in another language in larger units than single words (Nida 1964). However, discarding the word-for-word translation presumes understanding of the meaning of the original standard and thus some degree of interpretation of the original standards. The translator needs to understand financial accounting in order to be able to find a more dynamic equivalence for the translation. Moreover, any ambiguity or fuzziness in the original standards further complicates the translation process and so does the use of terms that are not widely established. Thus the accuracy of the translation does not only depend on the skills and knowledge of those translating IFRS but also on the qualitative characteristics of the original standards. Translation of IFRS involves interpretation and the final translation is a compromise between those who translate the standards. Due to the abstract nature of many accounting terms and the differences in how to conceptualize accounting phenomena in various languages the ultimate accuracy of the translation is more a goal than reality when translating IFRS. Translation 24
involves choices and at times the translator needs to e.g. balance between the fidelity to the concept system in the English language text and the readability of the target language text and its understandability to the reader. When abstract ideas are translated from English to other languages we could perhaps talk about the “appropriateness” of the translation rather than the “accuracy” of the translation. If the target language term refers to a concept that is not welldefined and the concepts systems differ between languages, its translation cannot be perfectly accurate. In spite of that, some translations are more appropriate than others in the given context. IASB’s translation policy, on the one hand restrains the choices that the translator has in order to overcome the grammatical and terminological differences between languages but, on the other hand, the involvement of accounting professional that is mandated by IASB helps the translator to manage the ambiguities of the original text. Furthermore, the IASB’s objective of “consistency” (cf. formal equivalence) does not necessarily guarantee that the meaning of the original standards is delivered unchanged in the target language text. In the IASB’s process, the use of the term list, in which there is only one target language term for each source language term, and utilizing translation software are procedures that are aimed to increase consistency. As the meaning of a term is context-bound, consistent translation of the key terms increases the formal fidelity to the source text but does not always assure the equivalent effects. The expertise in the substance field is one of characteristics of a “good translator” identified in the prior studies in the area of translation, and also the results of this study suggest that accounting expertise on the one hand helps to handle with the ambiguities of the source text and on the other hand, to express the meaning in another language in a manner that is understandable to and acceptable by other accounting professionals. Thus expert review of the translations is highly recommendable but does not eliminate the problems inherent in any translation. 25
Page 1 and 2: A single set of standards and the m
Page 3 and 4: translations, the standard-setter I
Page 5 and 6: 2. A translation theory approach to
Page 7 and 8: The registers that are related to d
Page 9 and 10: focused on some key concepts such a
Page 11 and 12: 2005 and between 2007 and 2010, and
Page 13 and 14: family. Some of the problems may di
Page 15 and 16: Profit is frequently used as a meas
Page 17 and 18: (an existing word or a neologism) i
Page 19 and 20: Translators working for DGT view IF
Page 21 and 22: to be translated IASB sends a term
Page 23: percentages. The use of translation
Page 27 and 28: Evans, L. & Baskerville, R. 2011. T
Page 29 and 30: Vinay, J.-P. (1963). Stylistique co

A single set of standards and the multiplicity of interpretations - EGOS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?