| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53] > | Ten common myths about translation quality
|
|---|
| | | Although you were speaking to someone else, Tatty, I got interested in the subject. What kind of | Aug 7, 2013 |
documents and in what language pairs? Birth certificates -- no problem, even a high school graduate can do it into the language they have learned in school, studying it for four years, if they are smart. Contracts, and any more serious documents --sometimes only a top specialist or a lawyer could do those, no matter whether "native" or not.
[Edited at 2013-08-07 16:06 GMT]
| | | | | Tend to disagree | Aug 7, 2013 |
Tatty wrote:
You can only have one native language for the purposes of professional translation. And why would a probably naive outsourcer want his document to be translated by someone who, in his own skewed opinion, has "native proficiency" rather than by a native translator. It doesn't stand to reason.
Is it because of some professed "specialisation"? I would beat any non-native in their area of specialisation hands down. This is largely because specialisation doesn't just mean using correct terminology but more importantly, involves correct phraseology and sentence formation.
I don't translate technical medicine into my native PT, ever. Simply because I can't understand what's going on, nor why, not to mention that I lack proper terminology in BOTH languages.
I have two colleagues who specialize in my LP and in medical translation, so I immediately refer prospects with such requests to them. However neither of them works with video translation, and most of these requests I get are script-less videos on surgical techniques for dubbing. I don't know how this specific client (I serve them often in other subject areas) gets it done, but I won't touch such a job with a barge pole, even when they insist that my script will be checked by MDs.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L. 
India
Local time: 19:17
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER
Tatty wrote:
You can only have one native language for the purposes of professional translation. And why would a probably naive outsourcer want his document to be translated by someone who, in his own skewed opinion, has "native proficiency" rather than by a native translator.
Every proficient translator has equal command over source and target language in the ideal situation, so he would have two native languages. Most have one, but then that is not the ideal situation.
The answer to your second query is, because there is no guarantee that the native translator has native level proficiency in his native language.
Sarah has explained this much better in her post - good writing abilities in any language are not acquired by birth, but by constant practice, something that can be replicated by talented non-natives with an aptitude for language learning and who have had sufficient exposure to the target language from early childhood, a condition that is fulfilled by burgeoning numbers of people in this globalized world with first rate internet connectivity,world-wide spread of mass media, and increasing migration.
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 14:47
Portuguese to English
+ ...
| What makes you think that? | Aug 7, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Sarah has explained this much better in her post - good writing abilities in any language are not acquired by birth, but by constant practice, something that can be replicated by talented non-natives with an aptitude for language learning and who have had sufficient exposure to the target language from early childhood, a condition that is fulfilled by burgeoning numbers of people in this globalized world with first rate internet connectivity,world-wide spread of mass media, and increasing migration.
When there are highly-educated foreign translators in this country (for example) who have lived here for decades, speak and write superb English, but would never pass for a native speaker? I cannot think of a single one. What makes you think that someone living abroad with first-rate internet connectivity is going to fare any better?
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 19:17
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | But is it important to pass that test, then? | Aug 7, 2013 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
When there are highly-educated foreign translators in this country (for example) who have lived here for decades, speak and write superb English, but would never pass for a native speaker?
If that is so, then I see no reason why it is important that they should pass that test (of a native speaker), at least for translation purposes.
| | | | | Yes, of course, form a totally diifferent family -- this is why | Aug 7, 2013 |
Ty Kendall wrote: LilianBNekipelo wrote:
What about Geordie -- do people from the South understand Geordie well, right away? What about Glasgow English, not even Scots Gaelic? Yes they do [understand Geordie], it's no coincidence that many call centres are located in Newcastle!!! I've addressed Scottish accents in my post above, Scottish Gaelic however actually IS another language. (As is Scots)
I did not take it into consideration.
[Edited at 2013-08-07 17:05 GMT]
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 14:47
Portuguese to English
+ ...
| Sorry Bala, it's been a long day | Aug 7, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
When there are highly-educated foreign translators in this country (for example) who have lived here for decades, speak and write superb English, but would never pass for a native speaker? If that is so, then I see no reason why it is important that they should pass that test (of a native speaker), at least for translation purposes.
What "test" are you referring to?
| | | | Tatty
Local time: 15:47
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Totally disagree | Aug 7, 2013 |
"You will certainly agree that not all native translators have the same levels of proficiency in translation or on their target languages (for example, a translator just out of college, and one with say 50 years of translation experience), and some non-native translators will have proficiency levels in their target languages exceeding that of many native translators translating into that language."
No, Bala. I would totally disagree with your assertions, and I don't know what makes ... See more "You will certainly agree that not all native translators have the same levels of proficiency in translation or on their target languages (for example, a translator just out of college, and one with say 50 years of translation experience), and some non-native translators will have proficiency levels in their target languages exceeding that of many native translators translating into that language."
No, Bala. I would totally disagree with your assertions, and I don't know what makes you think that I would agree with them.
All qualified native translators should be proficient in their own language. What's more, nowadays translators are trained whereas in the past people just turned their hand to translation. Abroad, people tend to drift into translation after teaching English for a few years. In general, translating standards must have shot up over the last 10 years thanks to online resources. And finally, I am categorically stating that I cannot believe that any non-native translating's skills would be better than a native's translating's skills. It simply doesn't stand to reason.
Lilian, you are clearly refusing to see the point. A translation must necessarily be performed by a native of the target language to avoid disappointment. A doctor just has to write the prescription correctly, which does not require native-level knowledge of the target language. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| I think it is actually quite the opposite | Aug 7, 2013 |
In the past, especially in such countries as Poland, or the Soviet Union, only highly qualified linguists, many with PhDs engaged in translation, whereas nowadays almost everybody translates. I am not suggesting that this is wrong, but this is what it is.
Now translators are mostly trained, whereas in the past they were receiving education.
Technical and medical translation definitely does not have to be performed by a native speaker. It has to be performed by a tr... See more In the past, especially in such countries as Poland, or the Soviet Union, only highly qualified linguists, many with PhDs engaged in translation, whereas nowadays almost everybody translates. I am not suggesting that this is wrong, but this is what it is.
Now translators are mostly trained, whereas in the past they were receiving education.
Technical and medical translation definitely does not have to be performed by a native speaker. It has to be performed by a translator who specializes in those fields, with years of experience. As to the other types of translation, it should be judged on a cases by cases basis. There is no golden formula. It also depends what you mean by a native speaker -- if only someone born in X country and the so called "native language" is the person's L1, regardless what happened to the person after the age of 12. With this type of, let's say, seriously limited understanding of the term, I would be forced to say "No -- this should never be the criteria for choosing a translator". But I really feel like we are chasing pour own tail, and I think I am almost done with this thread.
[Edited at 2013-08-07 17:55 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Sorry -- a double.
[Edited at 2013-08-07 17:43 GMT]
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 06:47
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| S E (X)
Italy
Local time: 15:47
Italian to English
| yes, but this same question is on the US Dept of State contractor application form | Aug 7, 2013 |
The question "What is your native language?" is on the contractor application form for the US State Department's Office of Language Services:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/138408.pdf
Page 2 of 3, under the section dedicated to freelance translator applicants.
Note that there is a difference between the legal status of freelancers and that of employees, as has been noted elsewhere in this thread.
It took all of under 30 seconds to find this document. It seems to be dated March 2010.
Sarah
| | |
|
|
|
| Yes, of course, the employer has the right to check the fluency level of the applicant in the | Aug 7, 2013 |
languages to be used at work, if the job requires fluency in certain languages. This obvious, and this is legal -- exactly what I was saying. I think am getting bored with this thread, though, at least temporarily.
[Edited at 2013-08-07 18:24 GMT]
| | | | | native always means native to me | Aug 7, 2013 |
S. Elizabeth wrote:
With this in mind, looking through the options for selecting translators, I would like to see, in the native language dropdown, options for "native speaker" and "native proficiency", with the option of filtering for both,
Would you care to elaborate on your take on the difference between native speaker and native language proficiency?
It seems to me that a non-native speaker cannot attain that particular kind of native language proficiency . He/she can become excellent, but the word "native" speaker as I understand it will always imply just that - grew up with it and therefore thinks and forms sentences and uses structures a certain way, intuitively. Of course, a native speaker and translator does much more, he/she adds an exceptional advanced form of use of that native language (grammar structure, advanced vocabulary that comes naturally and is idiomatically correct etc.).
I am not saying a non-native can't approach the kind of language use that is typical for a native speaker translator but it doesn't make him/her a native speaker of that language. If there are a few non-natives who become indistinguishable from native speaker translators, they are exceptionally talented. I challenge anybody who claims that if they only were exposed to that language as an adult.
Of course, I am not a scientist. I am just telling you how I think about these things as a native speaker of a particular language.
So it would be wrong for any non-native translator of X to claim "native" proficiency in X and give the impression that she/he is just as good as any native speaker translator who works in the same fields of expertise. As a "translator" that is, for our purposes.
Often in this discussion, some participants point to "language proficiency" and want to compare the language proficiency of an uneducated native speaker to that of a very advanced non-native speaker ( = who studied the language and works as a translator). But we shouldn't compare it that way here. And even if the native speaker is uneducated, he/she uses the language in a native way if you will, and that's exactly what we want from a very advanced native speaker and translator.
S. Elizabeth wrote:
and, in the language pair emphasis dropdown: the addition of "only pair" as opposed to the current single option for "top pair (only pair)". (Which is not to say that having more than one source language is necessarily a bad thing, but I would want the option of additional filtering.)
Of course this would not resolve the issue of false claims, but maybe that's where the red P could or should come into play.
Not sure if that does it for me. Language pair as in "I am perfect in German and English"?
A couple of pages ago, I suggested listing those native speakers in the search results first who claim that language as their only native language and those who claim it as one of two behind them.
[Edited at 2013-08-07 19:15 GMT]
| | | | S E (X)
Italy
Local time: 15:47
Italian to English
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: S. Elizabeth wrote:
With this in mind, looking through the options for selecting translators, I would like to see, in the native language dropdown, options for "native speaker" and "native proficiency", with the option of filtering for both,
Would you care to elaborate on your take on the difference between native speaker and native language proficiency? ... So it would be wrong for any non-native translator of X to claim "native" proficiency in X and give the impression that she/he is just as good as any native speaker translator who works in the same fields of expertise. As a "translator" that is, for our purposes. Often in this discussion, some participants point to "language proficiency" and want to compare the language proficiency of an uneducated native speaker to that of a very advanced non-native speaker ( = who studied the language and works as a translator). But we shouldn't compare it that way here. And even if the native speaker is uneducated, he/she uses the language in a native way if you will, and that's exactly what we want from a very advanced native speaker and translator.
I have often seen "native proficiency" listed as a requirement for translators by what appear to me to be reputable, serious organizations and agencies, and can start collecting a list to share at a later time (don't have time right now), but in all honesty what I am thinking of specifically here is my experience of non-native English speakers in doctoral programs in the US, as well as non-native English speakers with professorships in the US.
Based on my experience as a doctoral candidate at Yale (2003-2010) and in my continued experience with academics in the years since completing my PhD, native proficiency is quite a clear category. My non-native English speaking peers, colleagues and professors, whether from Sweden, Germany, Taiwan, China, India, Iran and etc., and whether art historians, mathematicians, social scientists, linguists and etc., work in, write in, publish in, function in English. It was and is humbling, experiencing the level of proficiency that they achieve on a staggeringly regular basis.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: S. Elizabeth wrote:
and, in the language pair emphasis dropdown: the addition of "only pair" as opposed to the current single option for "top pair (only pair)". (Which is not to say that having more than one source language is necessarily a bad thing, but I would want the option of additional filtering.)
Of course this would not resolve the issue of false claims, but maybe that's where the red P could or should come into play. Not sure if that does it for me. Language pair as in "I am perfect in German and English"? A couple of pages ago, I suggested listing those native speakers in the search results first who claim that language as their only native language and those who claim it as one of two behind them. [Edited at 2013-08-07 19:15 GMT]
On the dropdown menu, the first option under language pair emphasis is "top pair (only pair)". What I would like to see is this divided into two options: "top pair" and "only pair", since they are really not the same thing.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Ten common myths about translation quality | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
| | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
