Is Localization the New Translation?

In today’s globally connected world, businesses and content creators are increasingly targeting international audiences. This push has brought two key processes to the forefront: translation and localization. Though these terms are often used as if they mean the same thing, they actually represent different methods of adapting content for diverse cultural and linguistic markets. As technology evolves and sensitivity to cultural differences becomes more important, a central question emerges: Has localization become the modern form of translation?

Beginning in the mid-1980s, Translation Studies underwent a significant shift. According to Pym (2004), instead of focusing on direct equivalence between source and target texts, scholars began to emphasize the function and purpose of translations within specific cultural settings. Two influential schools led this change. The first one was the Skopostheorie (e.g., Vermeer and Holz-Mäntärri), which argued that translations are tailored for new audiences and contexts, meaning that exact equivalence is rarely the goal. The second one was the use of descriptive Translation Studies (e.g., Toury and Even-Zohar), which highlighted that translation practices vary depending on cultural norms and should be studied accordingly.

Pym (2004) stated that these perspectives moved translation away from being a rigid, text-for-text process and toward a dynamic, culture-sensitive activity, closely aligned with what we now recognize as localization. Yet, in professional localization settings today, “translation” is often narrowly defined as basic language replacement, mainly ensuring that content fits specific technical formats such as screen size or code structure. This narrow view overlooks the rich, theoretical understanding of translation as a culturally transformative practice. Because of this disconnect, many academics now question whether localization is genuinely something new or simply a new label for the long-standing cultural and technical dimensions of translation that have always existed.

Figure 1: Globalization Representation “One World”.

Translation Before Localization

At its core, translation is the process of converting spoken or written content from one language to another. Its roots go back to ancient times, when it played a crucial role in connecting different cultures. Some of the earliest recorded translations include the Septuagint, which is a Greek version of Hebrew religious texts, and the writings of influential figures like Cicero and St. Jerome. Over the centuries, translation has been instrumental in dissemenating knowledge across civilizations. During the Islamic Golden Age, scholars translated key Greek philosophical texts into Arabic, preserving and building upon classical thought. Later, during the Renaissance, the translation of classical texts into local languages helped make learning more widely available. In more recent times, developments like the printing press and the expansion of international trade highlighted the growing importance of reliable translation. The 21st century saw the rise of computer-assisted translation tools, which transformed the industry by improving both efficiency and accuracy.

The Emergence of Localization

Localization emerged as a solution to the limitations of traditional translation. While translation emphasizes linguistic accuracy, localization goes beyond that, adapting content to fit the cultural, social, and legal context of the target audience. The term "localization" gained prominence in the 1980s, particularly within the software industry. As companies sought to expand their products internationally, they realized that simply translating text wasn't enough. Software interfaces, manuals, and marketing materials needed to be customized to align with local customs, date formats, currencies, and even cultural perceptions of color. This shift was further accelerated by the globalization of the internet in the 1990s, where websites and digital platforms aimed to serve diverse audiences. Localization became essential in ensuring content was not only linguistically accurate but also culturally appropriate and engaging.

According to Pym’s research (2004), localization has introduced fresh perspectives into translation theories, particularly with concepts like "locale", which more effectively captures both linguistic and cultural elements. However, there is a lack of clear terminology to describe the starting point of the localization process. The term "internationalization" is often used, though terms like "interlocalization" or "interlocale" might be more fitting. One of the key shifts in localization is the replacement of source texts with internationalization, meaning that instead of translating directly from original content, the material is prepared upstream in order to be adaptable across various languages, a practice that is used, for example,  in Bible translation or film dubbing. Additionally, equivalence in translation is no longer naturally occurring between languages but is centrally imposed and managed, creating a more visible and controlled process.

Figure 2: Translation and AI.

According to Pym’s (2004) studies, in localization, the concept of translation itself is redefined. It becomes a task focused solely on replacing language strings, while other aspects like design and layout are treated separately as adaptations, which creates a clear distinction between translation and adaptation roles. Localization also requires the collaboration of large, interdisciplinary teams rather than individual translators, forming a “mediating space” that is not yet fully recognized in either localization or translation theory. This collaborative space could be seen as a "professional interculture", where cross-disciplinary norms and practices guide the localization process. Understanding these dynamics could help Translation Studies evolve by providing a better understanding of modern localization practices.

Differences Between Translation and Localization

Sdobnikov (2018) argued that while both translation and localization aim to overcome language barriers, they differ significantly in their scope and objectives. Translation focuses on converting text from one language to another, with an emphasis on linguistic accuracy. In contrast, localization involves adapting the entire content, including text, visuals, layout, and functionality, to align with the cultural and contextual nuances of the target audience. For instance, a website for Japanese customers might be very different from a website for an English public, or the posters and trailers for a series or a movie might differ from one country to another. Translation may sometimes overlook cultural nuances, idioms, and local customs, whereas localization pays careful attention to these aspects, ensuring that the content resonates with local traditions, values, and expectations. Whereas translation is concerned primarily with the linguistic elements of the content, localization also involves technical adjustments, such as modifying the spelling of certain names, currencies, and even graphics to suit local preferences. The purpose of translation is to convey the original message accurately, while localization aims to make the content feel native to the target audience, fostering a deeper emotional connection.

There is a growing trend in the translation industry that treats localization as a separate, distinct activity from translation. Many companies promote localization as more advanced than traditional translation, arguing that it involves adapting content to cultural and social norms, while translation is viewed as a simple, word-for-word process. However, considering Sdobnikov’s research (2018), this distinction is misleading and harmful. Cultural and pragmatic adaptations, such as modifying dates, currencies, and local references, have always been an integral part of professional translation, not an extra step added during localization. The idea that cultural knowledge is only needed for localization undermines the role of translators, implying that they can be effective without understanding the target culture, which the author strongly disputes.

Figure 3: A translator at work.

Additionally, sometimes there is a misconception in the industry that states that translation has always been a cross-cultural activity, especially in the case of general and literary texts. The distinction between translation and localization often stems from a lack of theoretical understanding among some translation professionals, rather than reflecting any meaningful difference in practice. Ultimately, treating localization as fundamentally different from translation threatens to diminish the culturally embedded nature of translation itself and risks distorting how future professionals view their work.

Technology in Localization

In addition, technological advancements have had a significant impact on the localization industry. Machine Translation (MT) tools such as Google Translate and DeepL have made it easier to quickly translate large volumes of text, though they still struggle with nuances like context, idiomatic expressions, and cultural subtleties. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) are increasingly being incorporated into localization processes, enabling a more effective  prediction and adaptation of content. AI can analyze user behavior and preferences, allowing for more personalized localization strategies. Translation Management Systems (TMS) like SDL Trados and MemoQ have streamlined the localization workflow, helping teams collaborate more efficiently and maintain consistency across projects. Despite these technological advancements, human expertise remains essential. While AI and MT can handle basic translations, they still lack the cultural understanding and contextual awareness that human translators and localizers bring to the process.

Is Translation Going to Disappear?

The growth of localization and technological advancements has sparked concerns about the future of traditional translation. Although the field is changing, translation is unlikely to vanish. Instead, it is becoming increasingly integrated into the broader localization process, with translators now expected to have a deeper understanding of cultural contexts and technical aspects, leading to a blending of translation and localization roles. As businesses expand into diverse global markets, the demand for both translation and localization services is expected to rise. Companies will need to ensure their content is not only linguistically accurate but also culturally relevant and engaging.

Figure 4: Globalization in Translation

While Translation Studies as a discipline may face a decline or even disappear, this is not due to obsolescence but rather a loss of public confidence in its future. As Pym stated (2004), despite consistent employment numbers and ongoing demand for language skills, declining student enrollments may result in fewer academic jobs, reduced research, and ultimately, the collapse of the field. This concern is not solely driven by economic or technological factors. 

Translation Studies has grown in tandem with globalization, adapting to various technological advancements, including neural machine translation. Although generative AI is impressive, it has not yet outperformed previous systems in translation accuracy. As a result, the industry still depends on human post-editing, suggesting continuity.

The real threat lies in the public's perception of AI as a revolutionary force, fueled by hype and misinformation. This narrative could discourage younger generations from pursuing translation careers, fearing they will become obsolete, regardless of the actual demand for or capabilities of AI tools. To address this, the field should challenge these narratives by engaging with generative AI tools in creative ways, demonstrating their limitations, and focusing on underrepresented languages where these technologies still struggle. This approach can help reaffirm the relevance of the field and allow it to adapt to the evolving landscape.

Figure 5: Translation Studies Heritage.

Conclusion

Translation Studies, with its extensive historical context, offers valuable insights often absent in the fast-paced world of localization. This historical perspective reveals that localization, like translation, will inevitably shape cultures, not just markets. Some experts advocate for localization (Fry, 2003) and claim it democratizes access and reduces global inequalities. However, this idealistic viewpoint overlooks deeper economic and cultural imbalances. Access to products does not equate to power in production, and smaller cultures can become passive by continually consuming content rather than creating it.

The history of translation shows that it can both enrich and restrict a culture, depending on how it is used. Cultures shift between active and passive roles based on decisions regarding translation and non-translation. Therefore, localization should not simply aim for naturalness or accessibility; its ethical and cultural impact must be carefully considered. A deeper understanding of translation’s history and influence can guide localization to foster not only adaptation but also meaningful cultural participation. Some scholars and practitioners see translation as a mere transfer of information from the source text, while viewing activities like localization, transcreation, or transculturation as distinct or specialized strategies. Pym argues that this perspective is incorrect (2024) . In reality, all these activities are forms of translation, differing only in the degree of cultural and pragmatic adaptation, depending on the communicative situation. Therefore, there is no need for new terms, as these are essentially variations of translation with different focuses.

By using a communicative-functional approach, translation can be defined as a verbal and cognitive process aimed at producing a target text that serves the needs of its audience while retaining content and form as necessary. The key point is that all translation inherently involves cultural adaptation, and separating these terms only causes confusion about the true nature of translation. Localization is not a replacement for translation but an evolution of it. While translation focuses on linguistic accuracy, localization takes a broader approach, adapting content to resonate with the cultural and contextual nuances of the target audience. As technology continues to progress, the collaboration between human expertise and technological tools will shape the future of localization. Rather than making translation obsolete, these advances will enhance its role, ensuring that content meaningfully connects with global audiences. In today’s interconnected world, businesses and content creators must recognize the importance of both translation and localization. By doing so, they can bridge cultural divides, build stronger connections, and thrive in a globalized landscape. Perhaps localization might become the new translation, considering the needs and values of the current world, but translation is not disappearing and hopefully will never be lost.

Bibliographical References

Brooks, D. (2000). “What Price Globalization? Managing Costs at Microsoft”. Robert C. Sprung, ed. Translating into Success. Cutting-edge strategies for going multilingual in a global age. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. 43-57. 

Fry, D. (2003). The Localization Primer. Second Edition, revised by Arle Lommel. www.lisa.org/interact/LISAprimer.pdf. Other language versions are available at www.lisa.org. 

Hall, P. A. V. and R. Hudson. (1997). Software without Frontiers. A Multi-Platform, Multi-Cultural, Multi-Nation Approach. Wiley and Sons. 

Hao, Y., & Pym, A. (2023). Where Do Translation Students Go? A Study of the Employment and Mobility of Master Graduates. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 17(2), 211-229. 

Hendy, A. et al. (2023). How Good Are GPT Models at Machine Translation? A Comprehensive Evaluation. arXiv:2302.09210 

Jiao, W. et al. (2023). Is ChatGPT A Good Translator? Yes With GPT-4 as the Engine. https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.08745 

Pym, A. (2000). Negotiating the Frontier. Translators and Intercultures in Hispanic History. Manchester: St Jerome. 

Pym, A. (2003). “What Localization Models Can Learn from Translation Theory”, The LISA Newsletter. Globalization Insider 12 2/4. http://www.lisa.org/archive_domain/newsletters/2003/2.4/pym.html. 

Pym, A. (2004). The Moving Text. Localization, Translation, and Distribution. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. 

Sdobnikov, V. (2018). Translation vs Localization: What’s the Difference?. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences. 11. 1487-1498. 10.17516/1997-1370-0317. 

Visual Sources

Figure 1. Pexels. Globalization Representation “One World” (2024). https://www.pexels.com/es

Figure 2. Pexels. Translation and AI (2024). https://www.pexels.com/es

Figure 3. Pexels. Translation and Localization Tasks (2024). https://www.pexels.com/es

Figure 4. Pexels. Globalization in Translation (2024). https://www.pexels.com/es

Figure 5. Pexels. Translation Studies Heritage (2024). https://www.pexels.com/es