There is a "rule" and the client is “wrong”, but... | Jul 17, 2007 |
This subject is one I’ve been mulling over for the last few months, and I think I might be able to offer a synthesis that could help translators/editors and their clients reach decisions based on the specific merits of each case. Although I would agree with the consensus that the client can omit the article in this case, I would have made sure he was aware of what messages this choice sends about his organisation.
As Giles Watson pointed out, ECV is an initialism, not an acronym.... See more This subject is one I’ve been mulling over for the last few months, and I think I might be able to offer a synthesis that could help translators/editors and their clients reach decisions based on the specific merits of each case. Although I would agree with the consensus that the client can omit the article in this case, I would have made sure he was aware of what messages this choice sends about his organisation.
As Giles Watson pointed out, ECV is an initialism, not an acronym. Since this distinction often causes problems, it’s worth clarifying again. Acronyms, such as Nato/NATO or Unicef/UNICEF, can be easily pronounced as a word, and this word becomes the organisation’s proper name (the choice between an initial capital and all capitals seems to be a UK/US divergence). You would not normally write "the Nato" any more than you would write "the Sandra" or "the Thomas". In contrast, an initialism is an abbreviation that is not pronounced as a word; instead the initial letters are spelled out: USA = yoo-ess-ay, UK = yoo-kay, CIA = see-eye-ay, and so on). Notice that many abbreviations that could be acronyms, such as these examples, are used as initialisms; “yoosa” and “uck” somehow just don’t seem appropriate abbreviations for countries. In other cases, initials are spelled out because they do not form an easily pronounceable unit (like ECV and BBC).
The rule/guideline for the use of the definite article with title initialisms is that if the full title requires the definite article then the initialism does too. The key word here is requires. For entities that never have a definite article when pronounced or written in full (British Petroleum, United Airlines, Independent Television) it’s obvious that there should never be an article with the initialism (“BP”, not “the BP”). Conversely, entities like the Central Intelligence Agency and the British Broadcasting Corporation should always appear in texts with the definite article (when they are the head of a noun phrase). So, just as you would never write "Central Intelligence Agency has issued a warning", you should never write "CIA has issued a warning": the article is required in both cases.
But there are cases where you have a choice, and Charlie Bavington is spot on to cite place names as being among these (in fact, I can’t think of another case; I’d be interested to hear if anyone else can). One could quite legitimately write "Birmingham Children’s Hospital is a key centre for paediatric medicine in the UK", so you could likewise legitimately write "BCH is a key centre for paediatric medicine in the UK". But if you wanted, you could say "The Birmingham Children’s Hospital is a key centre …" and "The BCH is a key centre...". This is an area in which the translator/editor has to balance the client’s preference with her own knowledge and with current practice at the institution in question. Very often institutions don’t have a fixed policy, so for example you find "The LSE" and "LSE". In other cases one option is clearly favoured: "The MIT" is rarely used; the preferred option is "MIT" (pronounced em-eye-tee). This choice explains why the intitialism NYU sounds natural without the definite article, but FBI does not (compare "I teach at NYU" with "I spy for the FBI"). An important point to remember is that this optional use of the definite article only applies when the place name in the title is used as an attributive modifier (for example, New York University); it does not apply when the location is indicated with an adjective ("the American Heart Association"). Since national affiliation is usually indicated with an adjective (American, British, Spanish), national institutions will require the definite article ("the AHA").
In cases such as Mara’s, where the initialism stands for words in another language, I would apply the rule as usual by asking myself what I would do if I had to write the title out in full. Since I would write "The Ecole Communication Visuelle", I would, in principle, prefer "The ECV".
So it looks as if I’m saying that the client is wrong. But as previous posts pointed out, there is another issue at play. The initialism ECV is an essential part of the client’s institutional brand, and this can override the “rule” in some circumstances. It’s not that a strong brand identity is incompatible with the use of the definite article. The BBC is a universally recognised brand, and although BBC appears alone in the logo, it takes the definite article in texts. However, “visual grammar” increasingly dominates our culture, and there is a tendency to try and reinforce brand identification through the way the brand name is presented textually. This has been accelerated by the internet revolution over the last 15 years, for example with words joined together to form the company URL being carried over into other discourse situations. Dropping the article is one trend in this fashion. The fact that the client’s institution is a centre for visual communication, as well as his stated preference for all lower case in the abbreviation (a related trend), suggests that dropping the article might be appropriate for his target audience. More important, it suggests that he understands his audience’s expectations. Dropping the article is part of a message that says “design savvy, contemporary”. I don’t think this is a US/UK issue; it’s the fashion in certain discourse communities (commerce, design, fashion). It might last and it might spread; a possible headline of the future might be "USA today announced drastic measures to reduce carbon emissions" (but I doubt it). Or it might fade away. In a case like this you should respect the fact that your client knows his audience and recognise that “rule floating” is an important element of innovation, which is often central to establishing brand identity. I agree with Spring City that this trend is regrettable when the institution involved is publicly owned, and that a more complete rebranding, with a new name, would often be a better solution for private-sector organisations, but the most a translator/editor can do is make sure that the client is aware of the issues.
What about other potential clients? If you come across a similar situation in the future with, for example, an association of web-designers, dropping the article might be justified if that’s what the client wants, even if the “rule” requires it. But what if the client is the National Center for Geophysical Research? Here I would be conservative; an innovative, fashion-conscious brand image wouldn’t be appropriate. I would explain the issues discussed here to the client and stand firm for "The NCGR". ▲ Collapse | |