Technical Translation: Usability Strategies for Translating Technical Documentation

Reduction of Interference 
By making texts more predictable and consistent, Iconic Linkage reduces 
interference between tasks. When we perform two tasks simultaneously, 
e.g. learning new information and using a piece of software, our perform-
ance in both will suffer, regardless of how automated one task (such as 
reading) has become. The more predictable, automatic and unconscious a 
task becomes, the less likely it will degrade or compete with other tasks for 
resources. And so, rather than having the process of reading the user guide 
competing with the task of using the software for cognitive resources, we 
can automate the reading process even more. As a result we can reduce the 
cognitive demands reading makes on the user and free up more resources 
for the process of using the software. 
Potential Criticisms of Iconic Linkage 
While the benefits mentioned above are clearly quite promising, it is con-
ceivable that some would question the merits of such an approach. Perhaps 
one of the most significant criticisms that could be levelled at the notion of 
Iconic Linkage is that because it renders different sentences, which may 
have slightly different nuances, using identical translations, it will “water 
down” the message in the source text by removing various nuances of 
meaning. Under different circumstances, this could be a valid criticism. 
However, in technical communication, as we established in Chapter 2, our 
sole objective is to convey information which will allow readers to either 
perform some task or to learn something. Technical texts are not intended 
to entertain or impress, nor are they supposed to demonstrate any literary 
tendencies. Consequently, provided our translation conveys the essential in-
formation and permits the reader to perform the task at hand, any omission 
of cosmetic or stylistic features is perfectly acceptable.
Similarly, it could be argued that Iconic Linkage exacerbates what Levý 
(1969:110-111) describes as the “lexical impoverishment” brought about by 
translation. This, he says, comes about because translators tend to use more 
general vocabulary than original language writers. By implementing Iconic 
174

---

Conclusions
Linkage, we could be accused of making this situation more acute. But we 
should ask ourselves whether this is really a bad thing. After all, the aim of 
technical communication is to communicate information with a maximum 
of clarity and a minimum of ambiguity. In any case, technical documents 
tend to restrict the language used in them to minimise misunderstanding. 
So if the use of Iconic Linkage does lead to lexical impoverishment, perhaps 
this is another benefit rather than a criticism. 
A final criticism which will be raised here is that Iconic Linkage intro-
duces a level of monotony into a text which may make the text boring at 
best. It could be argued that the repetitive nature of a text as a result of 
Iconic Linkage may even distract or alienate readers. In response to this, I 
would refer again to the fact that technical documents are not intended to 
be amusing or entertaining. Their sole purpose is to communicate technical 
information clearly and efficiently. However, he idea that monotony may 
in some way impair readers’ use of a text is worthy of further investigation. 
This will be examined in the following chapter as part of an empirical study 
of usability.