French to English Translation Services

November 26, 2016 at 12:03 pm

What Is Translation?

Translation consists of transposing a written text from one language to another, transmitting the message as faithfully as possible. What we are concerned with however is French to English Translation Services. The translator generally translates from a second or third language into his / her mother tongue. In this scenario it would be from French to English. The translator must be curious, have a broad culture, a high degree of flexibility, a very good knowledge of his or her working languages and writing skills. Discipline is distinguished from interpretation, which consists of orally rephrasing from one language to another a message in speeches, meetings, conferences and debates, or in courts of justice or administrative tribunals.


French to English translation services


Today’s translation presents many challenges that are resolutely current, shaped by globalisation and the evolution of new technologies.

In a labour market in full boom, studying in translation opens wide the doors of employment!

Studying translation at the University of Montreal comprises the following:

  • Training focused on current labour market needs and recognized by the College of Certified Translators, Terminologists and Interpreters of Quebec (OTTIAQ).
  • A solid preparation for the practice of the profession of generalist translator from French to English
  • An introduction to other types of specialised translation through a wide choice of optional courses: legal, scientific, commercial, medical, pharmacological, computer science, literary translation, etc.
  • Special emphasis on practical exercises.
  • The opportunity to pursue a co-op program of study, which is characterised by alternating semesters of studies and periods of work experience (mostly paid) in the workplace. Thus, the training continues 12 months a year.
  • The opportunity to study abroad as part of the International Pathway.


How To Become A Translator

Translation gives us the best lessons of humility: to be precise and faithful, it is never perfect. For between meaning and intention, between what the text expresses and what the author means, one must choose, and this choice involves nothing less than a conception of meaning as an event. Of two things one: either the multiplicity of languages are only the various manifestations of an original and universal meaning, which, to be the cement of humanity, belongs to no one, or else they are the sign That meaning always escapes part of language, in which case writing would be a never-ending attempt to recapture that remnant, that outside of language without which art would no longer have to exist.

Because it puts language to the test of meaning, translation is a matter of mourning: that of perfection, to which one must prefer success. And so much the better, says Ricoeur, who situates in this mourning of absolute translation the very happiness of translating.

Thus conceived, translation would be the best standard of man’s measure, neither an angel nor a beast, torn between the quest for ultimate meaning and the acceptance which it escapes from it, revealing what finitude can have as a creator. If the translator is a traitor, then it is the common lot, since language is always itself a matter of translation, from the collective to the singular, from the objective to the subjective, from the original to the interpretation.

But then, what to do with untranslatables? Because only interpretation can give the key and whose dreams are the most tangible and least shareable manifestation? Must we sacrifice the author in the name of what we have before us? Unless we are all authors of a meaning that we spend our lives trying to translate?

The following reflections arise from the encounter between various teaching and learning practices on the one hand and the attendance of colleagues teaching professional translation on the other: the teaching of the Latin version in the preparatory class , The summary of texts in IUT and the stylistics at the ISIT; The confrontation, in pupil position, with the methods of several teachers of two living languages, Italian and Japanese; Exchanges on translation with ISIT professors but also reading in the ISIT library of research work in this field

The encounter with professional translators and their reflection on the version makes us take a new look at the habits of Latin professors, while the reading of research on translation makes the abstract, an intralingual reformulation exercise, other. Each time it is necessary to write in French, but is the nature of the difficulties comparable? Is translation useful for learning the language? Is it for the source language or the target language? Is the literal translation, little appreciated by professional translators, entirely worthy of the criticism addressed to it, and is its elimination the best solution?

What Is Literal Translation?

The French language has several formulations: “literal translation,” “letter,” “word for word,” in Latin Cicero writes: verbum e verbo, verbum pro verbo.

Like all French words in -tion, the word “translation” refers to the act of translating, the translating activity, or the result of that activity, the text produced.

A priori, the translating activity derives its value from the rigor and seriousness of its execution while the text produces, if it is “literal” lack of elegance, even clarity and denounces the incompetence of the translator. In other words, depending on whether one interprets translation as a doing or as a result of doing, the connotation attached to “literal” passes from laudative to depreciative.

Two questions immediately come to mind. The first concerns the pejorative burden: is the literality of a translation recognized in the text of arrival, without it being necessary to compare it with the original text? In this case, is it always a matter of unpleasant interferences allowing the source language to alter the target language? But then, how can we explain the almost identical clumsiness of expression found in intralingual summaries?

The second question concerns the laudatory charge: is the literality of a translation the guarantee of its accuracy? Would it be necessary, against all experience of languages, to think that the signifier, the letter, is transferred? Or the word alone? It would be to make the languages of the nomenclatures in contradiction with the double articulation of the language proper to each language according to Martinet or the hypothesis of Sapir-Whorf according to which the division of the real into named units is specific to each culture.