Lost in Translation or Flagged by AI? The Problem of Multilingual Sources in Academic Writing
So I’m currently starring in a very academic thriller called “The Case of the Suspicious Translator.”
I’m in a history seminar, and we were told to work with primary sources in any language we can read. I chose a handwritten diary entry from my great-uncle in the late 1980s—very poetic, very emotional, and absolutely allergic to clean English equivalents.
I read it in my native language, made notes, then used Google Translate as a rough “what is this even saying?” starting point. After that, I spent hours doing the real work: rewriting it in proper English, fixing idioms, and trying to preserve the original tone. One phrase literally translates as “the bread forgot its taste,” meaning life became dull and hopeless, so I kept it but explained it in a footnote because English sadly does not come with built-in poetic despair settings.
I submitted the paper with translated excerpts, cited everything properly, even included the original text in an appendix like the writing center suggested. I also clearly noted where I translated and where I was analyzing.
Now I’ve been told my paper is flagged for “AI-generated content/unauthorized translation tools” because my writing apparently has “translation artifacts” and my voice “shifts too much.” The Turnitin score is low, so it’s not even plagiarism, it’s basically: “This sounds a bit like someone moved it between languages, suspicious behavior detected.”
At this point I feel like I’m being accused of outsourcing my bilingual brain to a robot when I was just… translating.
I’m planning to bring the original diary, my notes, and probably my emotional support documentation of “yes, languages do this sometimes.” I just want to explain that awkward phrasing isn’t AI—it’s what happens when you try to carry meaning across languages without dropping it.
Any advice on how to handle this meeting without accidentally sounding like I’m on trial for linguistic crimes?