| 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
|
|---|
| | Lincoln Hui 
Hong Kong
Local time: 05:08
Member
Chinese to English
+ ...
| English norms are not universal to languages, and UK norms are not universal even to the US | Jul 26, 2013 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Lincoln Hui wrote:
Because I am not convinced that there is such a thing as idiomatically correct language, whether English or Chinese or German or whatnot. It is a completely subjective concept and two native speakers would not necessarily agree on what the "correct" way to write something is. ... You're entitled to your opinion, Lincoln, but that US and UK English are, in many regards, idiomatically different, is pretty much an accepted fact.
My point exactly, and would you not then agree that US and UK English should then be separated and that UK English speakers be excluded from jobs targeted to "native US English speakers" ?
[quoteAnd I do believe that two native speakers of the same language will indeed agree about the idiomatically "correct" way in which something is expressed in writing or when speaking. There are usually many ways something can be expressed in a way that is idiomatically correct. But they will also agree on what is not at all idiomatic English.[/quote]
This is a ridiculous assumption that has no basis in fact whatsoever. Could you care less or couldn't you care less?
A college student may fully believe that using the word "like" every other word in speech is acceptable. A college student who actually cares about his/her language will be less inclined to think so, and their professors even less so.
I am not saying a non-native can't learn to speak or write "idiomatically correct" US-English or any other language. But their idiomatic US-English will usually be far less rich than that of a native speaker.
Which is blatantly false, because the college student who uses "like" every other word likely has an extremely poor vocabulary or power of expression. No, the argument for comparing equal level of education does not hold a single drop of water water (setting aside the fact that our hypothetical student does have a college education), because to engage the term "native" as you and some others have suggested does imply overriding a translator's level of education, experience, familiarity with field, etc.. Even if this is not your intention, agencies and clients will almost certainly do so, for reasons that have been discussed ad nauseam. No two translators can have identical experiences, and there is absolutely no reason why a "native speaker" who just graduated from high school should have a better command of his/her language than a translator with decades of experience translating in his/her second language.
You may argue that these are exceptions, but exceptions define any expert profession, and exceptions are precisely the thing that too many laymen flat-out ignore.
Now don't get me wrong, even though US-Americans will use some phrases that a person from the UK will hardly use, they will both recognize each other as English native speakers, and non-native English speakers as non-native speakers.
If you agree that US and UK English are idiomatically different in many regards, it follows by your own definition of what constitutes a native speaker that a native speaker of US English cannot possibly be a native speaker of UK English and vice versa.
That is my own experience with German. I can tell if someone's native language is German, no matter if they're from Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, South Tyrol or particular regions in Belgium or wherever German is an official language.
But if they didn't learn it there as children or if they learned it as adults, it is at least very unlikely that they are native speakers of German and any native German speaker will pick them out as non-natives. If they are all translators, it is also very unlikely that the non-native Germans will render a better translation into German than the native German speakers.
Which is why I say that, as in every other profession, language professionals have very little knowledge of what goes on outside their own specialization. I have absolutely no idea if there are a significant number of German-speakers who learn German as a speaking language only and never learn to write in it. I do know for a fact, however, that there are examples of latter-generation Chinese Americans who can speak Chinese but cannot write, and I am not just referring to knowing how to write Chinese characters, because there is a gap between the spoken and the written in most languages. The fact that massive gulfs can and do exist between spoken and written competencies, it is always fair to question whether a native speaker of a language is even functional writing in the same language.
Nor do I say that if a non-native speaker uses many phrases of that language in an idiomatic (correct) way, he/she should be considered a native-speaker.
Non-natives will either slip up, at least once in a while, or won't have the same amount of idiomatic vocabulary at their disposal, and they will not be as idiomatically consistent as natives when they construct speech/sentences.
You mean, for example, your usage of the word "will", which implies that the situation you are describing is 100% true with no exceptions whatsoever? I assure you that native speakers also make the same mistake and that if we use "will slip up" or "does not have as much vocabulary as one would like" as criteria for determining native speakers, there will be very few "native speakers" indeed.
At least for English, a good way to check if someone is a native speaker is to see where he/she was born, in which country they went to school, and to have a conversation with them in the language they claim as their native language.
Exhibit A was born in Egypt and went to school there. What is his native language?
My hypothetical Exhibit A happens to be born to American parents, went to an American International School and never hangs out with local kids.
This is just one of the more extreme ways that individual upbringing defies blanket assumptions, and as I have said again and again professionals tend to occur on the extreme end of the spectrum.
By your own argument, having a conversation with someone in their claimed native language proves absolutely nothing. Since non-natives will slip up "once in a while", if they haven't slipped up, it's only because they haven't done so yet, since it is after all rather difficult to prove that you will not do something. And this trap is difficult to avoid when you already hold significant assumptions, preconceptions and even suspicions.
I might add that there is a portion within the translation community that considers test translations to be "unprofessional" and would like to see the practice eliminated.
I'm not sure I agree. At least within national borders there are broadly accepted ways of saying things and deviation from these norms would be considered "unidiomatic". I think applying it to idiolects is perhaps taking it too far. In the translation market we are usually talking about US/UK English (I've never seen a request for anything other than these two variants to date....) and these two variants have idiomatic norms.
Your "idiomatic norms" falls apart spectacularly the moment you step into the doors of legalese. I have already given you Churchill's response to the American general who used too many passives and zeds in his report.
By the way, the word "sweeper" is used to refer to a vacuum cleaner in Central Pennsylvania, and I'm not sure I've heard inhabitants of other states refer to it as such.
there's a difference between someone writing "I could care less" and recognizing that as unidiomatic UK English but perfectly idiomatic US English and someone writing "I buy there fruit" and recognizing that as translationese/unidiomatic English of any variant.
That is not "unidiomatic", that is simple incompetence in the form of a completely wrong word to use and no 8-year old learning English as a second language should be permitted to make that mistake. Is THAT your standard for "unidiomatic"? If that is so, I must question your understanding of "idiom" as well as your "idiomatic vocabulary".
Everything you've said pertains only to a competency test, not a "nativeness" test. You have yet to say a single thing that can distinguish nativeness and competence from one another.
That even though native speakers (of a specific variant) will sometimes argue till the cows come home about the correct usage of something, there's usually far more consensus on something which is definitely perceived as "wrong" (or unidiomatic).
When we are talking about translations, we are far past the point of blatant grammatical errors. I could/couldn't care less about translators incapable of writing competently in the target language, and that includes "native speakers" as well. I am talking about those who have gained considerable proficiency through formal studies or other methods, whose writing I contend will pass for a native speaker's in any blind test, and who have been the subject of insult, discrimination, stigmatization and outright libel by that cesspool of a marathon thread.
By the way, the first and foremost requirement of translation is that you are able to completely and without any doubt understand the text that you are translating. What makes you think that you actually know what you are reading, if you are not a native speaker? Why should non-native speakers be allowed to translate from their second language?
[Edited at 2013-07-26 21:08 GMT]
[Edited at 2013-07-26 21:09 GMT]
[Edited at 2013-07-26 21:33 GMT]
| | | | | Bravo! You've said it all. | Jul 26, 2013 |
Lincoln Hui wrote:
When we are talking about translations, we are far past the point of blatant grammatical errors. I could/couldn't care less about translators incapable of writing competently in the target language, and that includes "native speakers" as well. I am talking about those who have gained considerable proficiency through formal studies or other methods, whose writing I contend will pass for a native speaker's in any blind test, and who have been the subject of insult, discrimination, stigmatization and outright libel by that cesspool of a marathon thread.
The truth here is that all that some people have to offer to the translation market is their native-speakerness, nothing else. No competence and/or no experience in translation, undeveloped writing style, and heavy reliance on often misleading spelling and grammar checkers. However they are fully compliant to the absolute "native speaker" requirement, which makes them eligible to apply for jobs where it has been set as such.
| | | | Kay Denney
France
Local time: 23:08
French to English
Lincoln Hui wrote:
My point exactly, and would you not then agree that US and UK English should then be separated and that UK English speakers be excluded from jobs targeted to "native US English speakers" ?
Personally, if someone specifies US English, I will not quote for it. I might be asked to do it by someone I already work for, in which case I will tell them that I don't do US English, I can put the US spell check on, I can look at my lists of words where I'm likely to slip up, but I can guarantee nothing but a translation that holds water and that will be comprehensible at least.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 22:08
Hebrew to English
| Keep it civil? | Jul 26, 2013 |
Lincoln Hui wrote:
My point exactly, and would you not then agree that US and UK English should then be separated and that UK English speakers be excluded from jobs targeted to "native US English speakers" ?
They already are. I cannot (on this site) apply for projects with a "US EN" requirement stipulated. I don't cry blue murder because of this. I shrug my shoulders and move on.
If you agree that US and UK English are idiomatically different in many regards, it follows by your own definition of what constitutes a native speaker that a native speaker of US English cannot possibly be a native speaker of UK English and vice versa.
Yes, correct. Unless the person in question has one parent from each country and has possibly been educated in both countries then it would be hard for someone to claim to be a native of both, wouldn't it?
there's a difference between someone writing "I could care less" and recognizing that as unidiomatic UK English but perfectly idiomatic US English and someone writing "I buy there fruit" and recognizing that as translationese/unidiomatic English of any variant.
That is not "unidiomatic", that is simple incompetence in the form of a completely wrong word to use and no 8-year old learning English as a second language should be permitted to make that mistake. Is THAT your standard for "unidiomatic"? If that is so, I must question your understanding of "idiom" as well as your "idiomatic vocabulary".
adjective
not using or containing expressions natural to a native speaker of a language.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/unidiomatic
It's unidiomatic in that it's not a natural construction to a native speaker of the language, as per the definition above by Oxford dictionaries. It was a simplistic example I agree, but my time here is limited. For some better examples, see:
http://www.yorku.ca/brmossop/TranslatingInstitutionsRevised.htm
...which would categorize my simplistic example as their "Type (d) - direct renderings of foreign syntax".
Everything you've said pertains only to a competency test, not a "nativeness" test. You have yet to say a single thing that can distinguish nativeness and competence.
Lincoln, I'm not talking about any such tests, I referred you to that "cesspool" of a thread for that.
All I was *trying* to do was disagree with your belief there's no such thing as idiomatically correct language. However, I'm finding your responses (to me) a bit disrespectful (repeated questioning of my "understanding" of things), if you can't keep it civil I'm afraid I'm going to have to bow out.
[Edited at 2013-07-26 22:06 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 14:08
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Discrimination | Jul 26, 2013 |
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
See, the problem is, that in the US I don't think anything can be called
Native Fluency Requirement-- perhaps top fluency requirement, and then they can test the fluency, if they want to, but they cannot ask you which languages your grandparents spoke, your parents, which language you speak at home, in most formal scenarios. You cannot really ask too many background questions, unless the person volunteers to tell you more about themselves.
Lilian, you're a legal translator. Why don't you do some legal research on American anti-discrimination law? Your posts show that you are really confused about it. You're embarrassing yourself, not to mention discrediting yourself as a legal translator.
Your posts could also be construed as legal advice, so it would be wise to add a typical "I am not a lawyer..." disclaimer to them making it clear that you are not offering legal advice.
[Edited at 2013-07-26 22:15 GMT]
| | | | | More on discrimination | Jul 26, 2013 |
True, Title VII, the U.S. federal anti-discrimination law, when applied in a labor environment, only applies to an employer-employee relationship, not to independent contractors (freelancers). However, federal laws are not the only applicable laws. There are state and local laws that might apply. A limited search in the Web shows the following:
IN MINNESOTA:
“When a worker in Minnesota experiences sexual harassment or is let go because of their race or other protected class statu... See more True, Title VII, the U.S. federal anti-discrimination law, when applied in a labor environment, only applies to an employer-employee relationship, not to independent contractors (freelancers). However, federal laws are not the only applicable laws. There are state and local laws that might apply. A limited search in the Web shows the following:
IN MINNESOTA:
“When a worker in Minnesota experiences sexual harassment or is let go because of their race or other protected class status, generally that person can allege a discrimination claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). But what if that worker is an independent contractor rather than an employee? Does the worker still have a claim under Minnesota law?
The MHRA prohibits an employer from engaging in unfair discriminatory practices. To bring a claim against an employer, a person must be an employee of the company. Generally independent contractors are not considered employees. The MHRA does, however, include independent contractors who are commissioned salespersons within its definition of employee.
Are other independent contractors left without a claim under Minnesota law? Perhaps not. The MHRA also prohibits “business discrimination.” The MHRA provides that it is an unfair discriminatory practice for a business “to intentionally refuse to do business with, to refuse to contract with, or to discriminate in the basic terms, conditions, or performance of the contract because of a person’s race, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, or disability, unless the alleged refusal or discrimination is because of a legitimate business purpose.” Minn. Stat. § 363A.17.“
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d024f6f7-d93c-4c2b-8566-f22b0f752666
IN NEW YORK:
“A business located in New York City must abide by anti-discrimination laws in refusing to retain or ceasing to retain an independent contractor. By contrast, a company located in New York State, but outside the five boroughs of New York City, need not, in declining to retain or ceasing to retain an independent contractor, conform to laws prohibiting employment discrimination.
The New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y. City Admin. Code §§ 8-101 – 8-131 (the “City Human Rights Law”), bars “employer[s]” with four or more persons in their “employ” from discharging from “employment” or refusing to hire or “employ” an individual, and from discriminating against an individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of “employment,” because of the individual’s actual or perceived age, race, creed, color, national origin, gender, disability, marital status, partnership status, sexual orientation, alienage, or citizenship status. N.Y. City Admin. Code § 8-107(1)(a); see N.Y. City Admin. Code § 8-102(5).
Under the City Human Rights Law, independent contractors are counted as employees of a company and may maintain employment discrimination claims against that company, if they are “natural persons employed as independent contractors to carry out work in furtherance of an employer’s business enterprise who are not themselves employers.” N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(5).”
…….
In sharp contrast to the City Human Rights Law, the State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(1), “only governs discrimination in the traditional employer-employee relationship and not in the employment of independent contractors.” Murphy v. ERA United Realty, 251 A.D.2d 469, 470, 674 N.Y.S.2d 415 (2d Dep’t 1998); see also Scott v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 86 N.Y.2d 429, 433, 657 N.E.2d 769, 633 N.Y.S.2d 754 (N.Y. 1995) (affirming the Supreme Court’s order dismissing the plaintiff insurance agent’s complaint alleging that the defendant insurance company terminated her agency contract on the basis of her gender, age and marital status; noting with approval the Supreme Court’s conclusion “that plaintiff was an independent contractor not eligible for protection under Executive Law § 296(1)(a)”).
……
A practical tip for employers in New York is warranted here. Even though a company located in New York State but outside New York City lawfully may discriminate against supposed independent contractors because of the contractors’ membership in a protected class, it is highly risky for a company actually to do so. This is the case because if the business fires or refuses to hire, for a reason prohibited by the State and City Human Rights Laws, an employee whom the business misclassifies as an independent contractor, the business may be held liable to the employee under these statutes.”
http://www.davidrichlaw.com/new-york-business-litigation-and-employment-attorneys-blog/2011/11/when-retaining-independent-contractors-must-my-business-in-new-york-abide-by-anti-discrimination-laws/
Caveats:
Yes, I am a U.S. attorney. No, I am not an employment lawyer. No, I did not conduct an exhaustive search, nor I verified whether the cited laws are in effect today, neither I searched for any jurisprudence that might apply them. I limited my search to things on the Net such as employment attorneys’ blogs. Given what I found, I do advise, however, to check with an employment attorney in the U.S. whether it is legally safe for you to request that a given language is the translator’s “native language” to hire him or her as a translator. Probably it is (reasonable business reason), but I would not dare to give an answer.
[Edited at 2013-07-26 23:13 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 05:08
Chinese to English
| Didn't understand your argument here | Jul 26, 2013 |
Lincoln Hui wrote:
I quote the last paragraph first to illustrate a crucial point: translators skew demographics to the extreme. It is overwhelmingly likely that writers on Chinese Medicine are Chinese writing in Chinese - we are talking worldwide here - yet the exceptions would likely dominate the English market, for example.
In the general population, the odds of one's second language being on the same level as a native speaker are extremely low, but where translators are concerned you are picking only from those who have either studied their second language intensively, or lived and breathed that language for a long period of time. The sample ratios are not the same.
I don't see what you're saying. Sure, translators aren't typical; that doesn't alter the fact that the number of non-native translators -edit- in our pair -edit- who can write decently in L2 is small, and the number of non-native translators in any pair that can write really well (well enough to write a good book) is tiny. I think you're underestimating the demands on our writing and how good we are. A good translator is a seriously good writer.
I am also calling bull on the idea that you can have perfect comprehension of a language if you are not natively proficient in it. Reading is easier than writing, yes, but it is no longer true at the far end of the difficulty curve. A writer controls the logic of his or her word flow, a reader does not. Long convoluted sentences used in academic...
Yeah, I think I would have to accept that perfect may be impossible, though I disagree with your example. Academic language, however convoluted and difficult, generally has a single "meaning" or argument. If the reader understands the argument, then she understands perfectly. Much more difficult are literature and very informal, speechlike writing, where you get multiple levels of meaning simultaneously. Those are much harder to understand for a non-native; conversel, they are also much more difficult to reproduce for a non-target native.
[Edited at 2013-07-26 23:53 GMT]
| | | | | myth: translators should not translate from their second, non-native language etc. | Jul 27, 2013 |
Lincoln Hui wrote:
My point exactly, and would you not then agree that US and UK English should then be separated and that UK English speakers be excluded from jobs targeted to "native US English speakers" ?
It depends on the job. But why would someone looking for a US-English translation want a British translator anyway? Or why would a Brit want to do the US-English job when its target is the US?
Lincoln Hui wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I do believe that two native speakers of the same language will indeed agree about the idiomatically "correct" way in which something is expressed in writing or when speaking. There are usually many ways something can be expressed in a way that is idiomatically correct. But they will also agree on what is not at all idiomatic English. This is a ridiculous assumption that has no basis in fact whatsoever. Could you care less or couldn't you care less? A college student may fully believe that using the word "like" every other word in speech is acceptable. A college student who actually cares about his/her language will be less inclined to think so, and their professors even less so.
How is that supposed to disprove my statement above? Idiomatic use of a language has a lot to do with context. The "like" thing is a slangy kind of thing, and lots of young people say it. It's idiomatic. Sure.
That doesn't mean every kind of idiomatic speech is acceptable in all contexts and situations. If the student uses it in his/her university paper, it's still idiomatic, But it happens to be used in the wrong place. Its use there is not appropriate. Other more formal idiomatic expressions are expected there.
Lincoln Hui wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I am not saying a non-native can't learn to speak or write "idiomatically correct" US-English or any other language. But their idiomatic US-English will usually be far less rich than that of a native speaker. Which is blatantly false, because the college student who uses "like" every other word likely has an extremely poor vocabulary or power of expression.
Blatantly false?
He/she might have an extremely poor vocabulary or power of expression, yes, but in their case, that doesn't disqualify them as native speakers. Whatever poor vocabulary or expression they use, they're going to use it the way many other similar native speakers do.
Add-on: I wouldn't say that the majority of high school graduates have extremely poor vocabulary or power of expression. I am sure they would always beat a non-native in their use and variety of idiomatic English (as an example). But what we should compare are "translators", not high school students and non-native translators. I am sure many colleagues will agree with me about the idiomatic deficiency of non-native versus native speaker translators. (add-on end)
Lincoln Hui wrote:
No, the argument for comparing equal level of education does not hold a single drop of water water (setting aside the fact that our hypothetical student does have a college education), because to engage the term "native" as you and some others have suggested does imply overriding a translator's level of education, experience, familiarity with field, etc.. Even if this is not your intention, agencies and clients will almost certainly do so, for reasons that have been discussed ad nauseam. No two translators can have identical experiences, and there is absolutely no reason why a "native speaker" who just graduated from high school should have a better command of his/her language than a translator with decades of experience translating in his/her second language.
Maybe according to your definition, which I believe you called "functional" earlier.
But we're comparing apples to oranges here.
A non-native translator with lots of experience might have a greater vocabulary (although I would say only with regard to the terms of the subject fields he studied) than a native language high school graduate, but when you compare their speech patterns, phrasing, sentence structure, use of idiomatic expressions, and accent, you will most likely always recognize a deficiency. Ironically, this will be most obvious the less complex the language is they use, say, in a conversation.
As I pointed out before, native language alone doesn't make you a good translator into that language. And an excellent command of a non-native language doesn't necessarily make you a bad translator into that non-native language and if you want to venture into it, go for it.
Someone who is a translator and has great knowledge in his subject fields and on top of that is a native speaker of the target language, will most likely do a better job than the non-native speaker who has similar subject field knowledge/experience.
Granted, not all subject fields demand the same type of writing, a technical text can probably be handled by a non-native, very advanced speaker of the target language just as well as by a native. But in fields like literature, marketing, advertising, social sciences, even law, most clients will put their trust in "expert translators" who are also native speakers of that language or, if available, a team of translators.
I defend this point so strongly because there are non-natives who believe they are on the same level with native language translators when it comes to translating into that language just because they learned that language later in life. And we discussed last year that there were many profiles where two native languages are claimed and one of them is English. Often, this claim of having English as a native language seemed quite questionable. Why should I accept that when my non-native English is clearly better than theirs?
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Now don't get me wrong, even though US-Americans will use some phrases that a person from the UK will hardly use, they will both recognize each other as English native speakers, and non-native English speakers as non-native speakers.
Lincoln Hui wrote:
If you agree that US and UK English are idiomatically different in many regards, it follows by your own definition of what constitutes a native speaker that a native speaker of US English cannot possibly be a native speaker of UK English and vice versa.
If you want to define them as separate languages, I agree.
But let a native English speaker from the US and one from the UK talk to someone from Germany or Spain or wherever, in English, and let's say the non-native speaker acquired his English between the ages of 26 and 32 in the UK. Two things are very likely to happen: first, the two natives will agree that the third person is not a native speaker of English, and secondly, both natives will agree that the English the non-native speaks was acquired in the UK but is deficient.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
That is my own experience with German. I can tell if someone's native language is German, no matter if they're from Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, South Tyrol or particular regions in Belgium or wherever German is an official language.
But if they didn't learn it there as children or if they learned it as adults, it is at least very unlikely that they are native speakers of German and any native German speaker will pick them out as non-natives. If they are all translators, it is also very unlikely that the non-native Germans will render a better translation into German than the native German speakers.
Lincoln Hui wrote:
Which is why I say that, as in every other profession, language professionals have very little knowledge of what goes on outside their own specialization. I have absolutely no idea if there are a significant number of German-speakers who learn German as a speaking language only and never learn to write in it. I do know for a fact, however, that there are examples of latter-generation Chinese Americans who can speak Chinese but cannot write, and I am not just referring to knowing how to write Chinese characters, because there is a gap between the spoken and the written in most languages. The fact that massive gulfs can and do exist between spoken and written competencies, it is always fair to question whether a native speaker of a language is even functional writing in the same language.
Not every native speaker can be a translator. No argument there.
But again, that doesn't disqualify him/her as a native speaker.
As far as German-speaking countries are concerned, most learn their local German dialect first and from age 6 on, they attend school for at least 8-9 years (it's the law) where they learn to speak and write the standard version of German which you can use to communicate with any other German native speaker in any German-speaking country. And you will be able to read any newspaper articles or books published in German.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Nor do I say that if a non-native speaker uses many phrases of that language in an idiomatic (correct) way, he/she should be considered a native-speaker.
Non-natives will either slip up, at least once in a while, or won't have the same amount of idiomatic vocabulary at their disposal, and they will not be as idiomatically consistent as natives when they construct speech/sentences.
Lincoln Hui wrote:
You mean, for example, your usage of the word "will", which implies that the situation you are describing is 100% true with no exceptions whatsoever? I assure you that native speakers also make the same mistake and that if we use "will slip up" or "does not have as much vocabulary as one would like" as criteria for determining native speakers, there will be very few "native speakers" indeed.
Okay, will "most likely" slip up ...
We covered the topic of native speaker mistakes versus non-native speaker mistakes in the big thread (Should Native Language Claims Be Verified?)
It is very likely that a non-native speaker will indeed make a few mistakes that the vast majority of native speakers will never make.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
At least for English, a good way to check if someone is a native speaker is to see where he/she was born, in which country they went to school, and to have a conversation with them in the language they claim as their native language.
Lincoln Hui wrote:
Exhibit A was born in Egypt and went to school there. What is his native language?
My hypothetical Exhibit A happens to be born to American parents, went to an American International School and never hangs out with local kids.
This is just one of the more extreme ways that individual upbringing defies blanket assumptions, and as I have said again and again professionals tend to occur on the extreme end of the spectrum.
I would say that is not your typical native speaker of US-English. He/she is not living in the States which is quite important for an overall immersion in that language. And if she/he never hangs out with the local kids, what are you saying? He doesn't speak Arabic at all, only speaks English and only spends time with other American kids? Is that what happens there? Wouldn't he/she have to learn Arabic no matter if this is an American school? What would be the purpose of keeping him/her from learning both languages? She/he won't become a translator then, for sure.
In any way, he/she is certainly a candidate for native language acquisition in English.
But typically, even most translators have lived in a country in their youth where they grew up as native speakers of that country's official language(s).
Lincoln Hui wrote:
By your own argument, having a conversation with someone in their claimed native language proves absolutely nothing. Since non-natives will slip up "once in a while", if they haven't slipped up, it's only because they haven't done so yet, since it is after all rather difficult to prove that you will not do something. And this trap is difficult to avoid when you already hold significant assumptions, preconceptions and even suspicions.
I truly believe non-natives "will" slip up within a few minutes at the most. If not, let them be called native speakers. Most of them will be recognized as non-natives as soon as they say a word, or, if that's not applicable, write something in a written conversation.
I would prefer 'to call it common sense" and "facts", not "assumptions, preconceptions, and suspicions." I am confident that someone who claims to be a native English speaker but isn't will not pass the check (test).
Lincoln Hui wrote:
I might add that there is a portion within the translation community that considers test translations to be "unprofessional" and would like to see the practice eliminated.
If you are referring with "test translations" to a "test verifying your native language", I can only tell you that that's not what I have in mind. We wouldn't be testing one's translation skills. A native language check (it wouldn't really be a "test") can take many forms, but if two or more native languages are claimed, a conversation with native speakers seems to me the best choice - for various reasons (see the monumental thread from last year).
I suggested last year to make it a voluntary check. In order to get a "verified" status for two or more native languages, you should have to prove it. That has also been Proz.com's stance from pretty much the beginning.
Lincoln Hui wrote:
By the way, the first and foremost requirement of translation is that you are able to completely and without any doubt understand the text that you are translating. What makes you think that you actually know what you are reading, if you are not a native speaker? Why should non-native speakers be allowed to translate from their second language?
1. Because as far as US- English, UK-English, German, French, and many other languages are concerned, they are usually the only native languages of their speakers.
Because it is indeed possible to acquire an excellent knowledge of a second or third language. But native it is mostly not, and that's why natives are most likely better translating into it.
2. If non-natives should not be allowed to translate from their second language (as you imply above), why should they then be allowed to translate into their second language? But hold on:
Do you really assume that trained language professionals do not understand their second language enough to translate from it? In the extreme case, a translator who is non-native in one of his two working languages, let's say in English, might be unsure about a few things, yes. But that's no reason not to get help and clarify the meaning and then successfully translate the text into his/her native language.
I would be more concerned about non-natives translating into their non-native language. I don't denounce it at all, and it happens often, but in many cases, it should either be done by collaborating with a native speaker and translator or not be done at all because the output will most likely be of poorer quality than that of a comparable native language translator.
There are always exceptions, but they are far and in between.
NB: Lots has been said here and in other threads and my time is also limited. I will continue to follow the thread but might not be able to reply again to every counter-argument.
B - edited for add-on (see above)
[Edited at 2013-07-27 06:44 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 02:38
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Bravo Again! Every word rings true! | Jul 27, 2013 |
But I will just highlight one, for the attention of those who apply the native-only rule in the "heads I win, tails you lose" fashion:
Lincoln Hui wrote:
By the way, the first and foremost requirement of translation is that you are able to completely and without any doubt understand the text that you are translating. What makes you think that you actually know what you are reading, if you are not a native speaker? Why should non-native speakers be allowed to translate from their second language?
I have always said that to be an ideal translator you need to be highly proficient in both source and target languages. But in practice, this ideal is rarely achieved and people with only L2 level knowledge of their source language often have to translate into their L1 language. This won't achieve the best translation, but an Ok-level translation.
By the same logic, the reverse is also true. When a person with L2-level knowledge translates into it, the results may not be ideal, but it would still produce an Ok-level translation if the L2 level skills of the translator are on the high side.
These two are absolutely equal propositions and should be acceptable to any sane-headed person.
But as we can see here, when prejudice rules, things can become quite topsy-turvy.
It then becomes quite an acceptable thing for a native with near nil knowledge of L2 doing translations from it. But it becomes high murder if a translator with native-level proficiency in L2 translates into it.
And the height of things is, people are unafraid to come to public forums like these to defend this blatant twisting of logic, with their specious and spurious arguments.
[Edited at 2013-07-27 05:38 GMT]
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule | Trisha F
United Kingdom
Local time: 22:08
English to Spanish
+ ...
| It depends on the person | Jul 27, 2013 |
I would say that it is quite reasonable to assume that professionals should translate only into their own language. However, it really depends on the translator. Not all native-speakers are fully proficient in their language or have good grammar/spelling.
As an example, I was once in a meeting with a former boss, at work. The secretary was a native English speaker from Liverpool and was taking notes of everything we were saying. Days later my boss showed me the memo of our meeting... See more I would say that it is quite reasonable to assume that professionals should translate only into their own language. However, it really depends on the translator. Not all native-speakers are fully proficient in their language or have good grammar/spelling.
As an example, I was once in a meeting with a former boss, at work. The secretary was a native English speaker from Liverpool and was taking notes of everything we were saying. Days later my boss showed me the memo of our meeting. "Read it and sign it if you agree", he said. I remembered that, during the meeting, he had used the verb "reignite" at some point but apparently the secretary's vocabulary was on the poor side so she wrote "reunite", which did not quite make sense.
I have translated into English a few times. I only do this when I feel fully confident though. As a matter of fact, I have often received good feedback.
I do offer translation into English because I learned this language when I was quite young, plus I have lived in an English-speaking country. Nevertheless, I will not work on projects that I am not comfortable with.
Professionally, I have more problems when it comes to localisation. People are more reluctant to let me translate into European Spanish than from Spanish into English. I have lived in Spain and am well-acquainted with this language variant but I have often been turned down for not being Spanish. Still, some project managers assume that all Latin Americans speak the same so they have sent me Chilean and Argentinian jobs.
Mexican and neutral Latin American are OK for me but I would not be competent if a client requested a translation into another particular Latin American variant. I am a lot better at translating into European Spanish in this case as I do not really have much of a clue about the way Colombian people sound like or the words they use, for example. I have met a few Colombians and understood them pretty well, of course, but I am not knowledgeable enough of the specifics of their language variant to undertake localisation work. I have never been to South America either.
On a final note, being a native speaker of a language variant is not a guarantee of good work if the translator does not understand the source language or culture. I saw the European Spanish subtitles of Blackadder III in Andalusia. I wept because it was obvious that the translators had no clue of British English/culture/humour and had systematically killed all of the jokes and puns. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 02:38
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | A very insightful post, Trisha | Jul 27, 2013 |
Trisha F wrote:
I would say that it is quite reasonable to assume that professionals should translate only into their own language. However, it really depends on the translator. Not all native-speakers are fully proficient in their language or have good grammar/spelling.
As an example, I was once in a meeting with a former boss, at work. The secretary was a native English speaker from Liverpool and was taking notes of everything we were saying. Days later my boss showed me the memo of our meeting. "Read it and sign it if you agree", he said. I remembered that, during the meeting, he had used the verb "reignite" at some point but apparently the secretary's vocabulary was on the poor side so she wrote "reunite", which did not quite make sense.
I have translated into English a few times. I only do this when I feel fully confident though. As a matter of fact, I have often received good feedback.
I do offer translation into English because I learned this language when I was quite young, plus I have lived in an English-speaking country. Nevertheless, I will not work on projects that I am not comfortable with.
Professionally, I have more problems when it comes to localisation. People are more reluctant to let me translate into European Spanish than from Spanish into English. I have lived in Spain and am well-acquainted with this language variant but I have often been turned down for not being Spanish. Still, some project managers assume that all Latin Americans speak the same so they have sent me Chilean and Argentinian jobs.
Mexican and neutral Latin American are OK for me but I would not be competent if a client requested a translation into another particular Latin American variant. I am a lot better at translating into European Spanish in this case as I do not really have much of a clue about the way Colombian people sound like or the words they use, for example. I have met a few Colombians and understood them pretty well, of course, but I am not knowledgeable enough of the specifics of their language variant to undertake localisation work. I have never been to South America either.
On a final note, being a native speaker of a language variant is not a guarantee of good work if the translator does not understand the source language or culture. I saw the European Spanish subtitles of Blackadder III in Andalusia. I wept because it was obvious that the translators had no clue of British English/culture/humour and had systematically killed all of the jokes and puns.
Thank you for bringing this post to this discussion. It highlights several points that badly need highlighting.
First, the native-only myth carried too far can bring grief to many translators and translations.
Second, being native by itself does not make you a good writer or a translator.
Third, in translation, there is no magic stick which you can wave and identify infallibly the most suited translator for a particular translation job. You need to go case by case, and carefully evaluate the requirements of the job and then fit a translator with comparable qualifications to the job.
Merely going by nativeness in the target language of the translator as many ignorant agencies do, can produce major translation disasters.
Finally, I must commend you on your English, which you handle with masterly proficiency.
[Edited at 2013-07-27 04:00 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Trisha F
United Kingdom
Local time: 22:08
English to Spanish
+ ...
| Hair-splitting industry | Jul 27, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
It then becomes quite an acceptable thing for a native with near nil knowledge of L2 doing translations from it. But it becomes high murder if a translator with native-level proficiency in L2 translates into it.
I had never seen it that way but now that you say it, it is quite remarkable and I agree with you. It seems that being a native speaker sometimes allows people to get away with being incompetent in the source language. I have even heard some translators say that you do not really need to be proficient in your source language as long as you have good comprehension skills. Now, how can they have good comprehension skills in a language or culture they do not actually understand? How can they be so permissive in that department but come up with damning remarks about non-native translators who are very skilled?
And, is it just me, or is classifying language variants as completely separate languages getting a bit too ridiculous for words? I understand and appreciate the importance of localisation but sometimes, especially in very short, general texts, it seems to be more a matter of hair-splitting, nit-picking deliberate exclusion/discrimination.
Maybe it is really me. I grew up in a non-localised environment. Instruction manuals were usually untranslated and we did not really mind. Not only could we watch the handful of national TV channels available but also a few others from Spain, Venezuela, the US (both in English and US Spanish) and the sort of channels that were designed for the Latin American continent in general, where one could hear a wide array of accents.
As a child most of the books I read came Spain because the publishing industry seemed to be stronger in that country. Later on, in school, we were taught to appreciate the literature from all Hispanic countries and frankly, I could not care less if the magazine I bought at the airport had been originally published in Buenos Aires or Miami.
In short, I grew up seeing Spanish as a single entity, not as a bunch of separate languages. I understand that for marketing purposes consumers will find it more comfortable and pleasing to read and hear content that has been specifically devised for their country but assuming that they will not understand a different version of their native language is underestimating their intelligence. According to that logic, Hollywood films should be dubbed into British English to be successful in the UK.
As a consumer, I could not care less about the variant of Spanish I am dealing with. It may be because I am a linguist and have perhaps a higher level of tolerance towards dialectal differences but there may be many other people who feel the same.
I remember a friend of mine who owned this Edgar Allan Poe book that had been translated into Spanish by Julio Cortázar. I never told her but I often felt like stealing it. I much prefer a wonderful translation by Argentinian genius Julio Cortázar than anything else carried out by someone from my own country, to be honest.
As a translator I often feel that I am being imposed artificial limits. I am judged by my national origin but my skills do not seem to matter and I grieve and despair when I see really interesting projects in the hands of people who may be native speakers of a specific language variant I can perfectly work with but whose understanding of the source language is practically nil.
[Edited at 2013-07-27 06:39 GMT]
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Replies to a hidden post | Lincoln Hui
Hong Kong
Local time: 05:08
Member
Chinese to English
+ ...
| Begging the question | Jul 27, 2013 |
Phil Hand wrote:
I don't see what you're saying. Sure, translators aren't typical; that doesn't alter the fact that the number of non-native translators -edit- in our pair -edit- who can write decently in L2 is small, and the number of non-native translators in any pair that can write really well (well enough to write a good book) is tiny. I think you're underestimating the demands on our writing and how good we are. A good translator is a seriously good writer.
Has there been any legitimate statistical analysis on this?
By my experience, the ability to express oneself in writing usually carries across languages, adjusted for proficiency. When two speakers of A are learning language B at the same time, the one who is a better writer in A tends to be the better writer in B as well, all else being equal. If someone translating from A to B is proficient enough to translate from A (at a professional standard) yet is a poor writer in it, he is likely to be a poor writer in B as well. Conversely, if someone cannot write in a language well enough to pass for a native speaker, I have no reason to believe that he or she would be a sufficiently strong reader to translate from that language, at least for truly professional settings.
And as is almost always the case, we are talking about writing proficiency, not presumed "nativeness". The percentage of non-natives who pass the threshold of proficiency may be smaller than natives, I grant you that, but it is a poor argument for limiting translation to those native in the target language as a hard and fast requirement.
Yeah, I think I would have to accept that perfect may be impossible, though I disagree with your example. Academic language, however convoluted and difficult, generally has a single "meaning" or argument. If the reader understands the argument, then she understands perfectly. Much more difficult are literature and very informal, speechlike writing, where you get multiple levels of meaning simultaneously. Those are much harder to understand for a non-native; conversel, they are also much more difficult to reproduce for a non-target native.
[Edited at 2013-07-26 23:53 GMT]
...and will take native proficiency in both languages to translate properly, so why emphasize target-native over source-native?
I may add that by reading your blog there is no way that I would have known that you were not a native speaker of Chinese by your writing alone. Now you may not be quite comfortable working from English to Chinese as a professional translator, but that is something that you alone can tell; independent readers blind to the identity of the writer could hardly be expected to come to that conclusion, especially considering the contamination from English and Japanese that has crept into modern usage of Chinese among native speakers.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
How is that supposed to disprove my statement above? Idiomatic use of a language has a lot to do with context. The "like" thing is a slangy kind of thing, and lots of young people say it. It's idiomatic. Sure.
That's doesn't mean every kind of idiomatic speech is acceptable in all contexts and situations. If the student uses it in his/her university paper, it's still idiomatic, But it happens to be used in the wrong place. Its use there is not appropriate. Other more formal idiomatic expressions are expected there.
Idiomatic use of a language has a lot to do with context
I rest my case that there is no such thing as generally "idiomatic English".
Blatantly false?
He/she might have an extremely poor vocabulary or power of expression, yes, but in their case, that doesn't disqualify them as native speakers.
That doesn't disqualify them as native speakers, it disqualifies them as competent speakers. Do you want your translation done by a competent speaker or a native speaker, sir?
Whatever poor vocabulary or expression they use, they're going to use it the way many other similar native speakers do.
And where would you like to draw that line?
Native speaker uses "it's" in place of "its": It's fine, he's a native speaker, he's going to use the language like a native speaker anyway
Non-native speaker uses "it's" in place of "its": see what I told you he's a non-native speaker he can't use the language properly snigger snigger snigger
The assertion that you can always tell a native speaker from a non-native one regardless of their respective proficiencies is not one that can stand up to blind testing.
Add-on: I wouldn't say that the majority of high school graduates have extremely poor vocabulary or power of expression. I am sure they would always beat a non-native in their use and variety of idiomatic English (as an example).
This is completely untrue, and having already beaten this horse to death, reanimated it and pummelled it again, I am not going to dignify this by giving it any more attention than it deserves. Yes I am presuming the use of the word "native" in a layman's context as in having been born into it as an infant.
A non-native translator with lots of experience might have a greater vocabulary (although I would say only with regard to the terms of the subject fields he studied) than a native language high school graduate, but when you compare their speech patterns, phrasing, sentence structure, use of idiomatic expressions, and accent, you will most likely always recognize a deficiency. Ironically, this will be most obvious the less complex the language is they use, say, in a conversation.
As I pointed out before, native language alone doesn't make you a good translator into that language. And an excellent command of a non-native language doesn't necessarily make you a bad translator into that non-native language and if you want to venture into it, go for it.
This is a distinction that you may be able to make, but the same can hardly be said about end clients and agencies and even so-called professionals, even if only on a subconscious level.
The implication of stipulating "must be native speaker of XXX" is that being a native speaker is valued over and above all other qualifications, education and experience.
But in fields like literature, marketing, advertising, social sciences, even law, most clients will put their trust in "expert translators" who are also native speakers of that language or, if available, a team of translators.
And it is entirely possible that this will be to their detriment. The question remains: why would you trust a non-native speaker to translate from a language, if you would not trust him/her to translation into it?
Excluding those who are just bad translators in general, even assuming that all you said about non-native writers is true, the worst case scenario for a translator working from native language to non-native language is a product that is dull, inflexible, but functionally correct. A translator working from non-native language to native language can easily produce a smooth, "native" and "idiomatic" translation that is flat out wrong. Why arbitrarily decide that you want target-native and not source-native?
Clients often need to be protected from themselves, as requirements for SDL TRADOS for subtitling jobs demonstrate.
I defend this point so strongly because there are non-natives who believe they are on the same level with native language translators when it comes to translating into that language just because they learned that language later in life. And we discussed last year that there were many profiles where two native languages are claimed and one of them is English. Often, this claim of having English as a native language seemed quite questionable. Why should I accept that when my non-native English is clearly better than theirs?
Then the problem is with bad translators and everything that comes with that, not with any perceived gap between native speakers and non-native speakers. And I don't know why you would accept that native speakers must necessarily have an advantage linguistically when your non-native English is clearly better than many English monolinguals, or why I should accept that I am a native Chinese speaker only, when my English is clearly better than my quite proficient Chinese.
But let a native English speaker from the US and one from the UK talk to someone from Germany or Spain or wherever, in English, and let's say the non-native speaker acquired his English between the ages of 26 and 32 in the UK. Two things are very likely to happen: first, the two natives will agree that the third person is not a native speaker of English, and secondly, both natives will agree that the English the non-native speaks was acquired in the UK but is deficient.
And how this is not comparing apples to oranges?
In many countries study of English as a second language begins in primary school or even kindergarten and continues through the entirety of the education system. Chances are that your German/Spaniard/whatever would have gone through the system and learned some English, but that does not necessarily make him/her even a functional speaker of English. It is what one does in one's free time that really matters.
Conversely, while your own definition of native speaker would include those educated from childhood, this is not necessarily shared by the layman or even by many "language professionals". It is a popular sentiment that only one's first language can be his/her "native" langauge, even if the acquisition of the second language began at a very young age and was maintained throughout one's life.
It's not about native language requirements or the definition of native language on their own. It's about the combination of native language requirements with a definition that is arbitrary, narrow, outdated, and blatantly unscientific. Why are we criticizing one aspect of unprofessionalism, while condoning and even outright promoting another, if only implicitly?
As far as German-speaking countries are concerned, most learn their local German dialect first and from age 6 on, they attend school for at least 8-9 years (it's the law) where they learn to speak and write the standard version of German which you can use to communicate with any other German native speaker in any German-speaking country. And you will be able to read any newspaper articles or books published in German.
Actually, you would not qualify as a native speaker of standard German by some standards, if the eggheads making those standards ever bothered to educate themselves in German education. If we replace your standard German with some other Germanic language of a different name and popularly recognized as a different language, let's say Dutch (and we'll assume that Dutch also replaces standard German as the official writing everywhere, of government, law and newpapers, etc.), are you sure you'll be universally recognized as a native Dutch speaker?
As I have previously mentioned, Cantonese does not have a formal written script. Cantonese speakers typically learn Cantonese as a spoken language and proper written Chinese as a written language in early childhood, then go to school and learn Mandarin, which is considered the spoken form of written Chinese and the predominant one used in Chinese today.
I am a native Cantonese speaker.
I am a native Chinese writer.
I am NOT a native Mandarin speaker.
I truly believe non-natives "will" slip up within a few minutes at the most. If not, let them be called native speakers. Most of them will be recognized as non-natives as soon as they say a word, or, if that's not applicable, write something in a written conversation.
I would prefer 'to call it common sense" and "facts", not "assumptions, preconceptions, and suspicions." I am confident that someone who claims to be a native English speaker but isn't will not pass the check (test).
Again there are many, even in the business, that do not share your view on what a native speaker is, and it is easy for someone with preexisting assumptions to think that their conversation partner has merely "yet" to slip up.
2. If non-natives should not be allowed to translate from their second language (as you imply above), why should they then be allowed to translate into their second language? But hold on:
Do you really assume that trained language professionals do not understand their second language enough to translate from it? In the extreme case, a translator who is non-native in one of his two working languages, let's say in English, might be unsure about a few things, yes. But that's no reason not to get help and clarify the meaning and then successfully translate the text into his/her native language.
I would be more concerned about non-natives translating into their non-native language. I don't denounce it at all, and it happens often, but in many cases, it should either be done by collaborating with a native speaker and translator or not be done at all because the output will most likely be of poorer quality than that of a comparable native language translator.
Why do you assume then that trained language professionals do not understand their second language enough to translate to it? You are begging the question because you are clearly assuming that reading and comprehending represents a lesser burden than writing (at a professional level - of course reading can be easier if you are not asked to translate), which is what I am disputing in the first place. Essentially you are saying that the translator working from a non-native language needs help and the translator working to a non-native language also needs help, but for some reason one is better than the other?
I have seen many examples of gross misinterpretations/mistranslations of terms, expressions and sentences in my two primary language pairs, some of which come from KudoZ answers, often by native speakers in the target language. I have also seen many mistranslations to and from Japanese that frankly should have been obvious even to a mere learner, and things like these are equally in the realm of bad translators, if not more so. The potential for damage is certainly much higher, because your average dunce can still spot badly written English, but few can spot a mistranslation.
I am not asserting that you cannot translate from your non-native langauges, I am saying that if you believe that one should not translate into a non-native language, then there is no reason to believe that one should translate from the same langauge.
[Edited at 2013-07-27 08:09 GMT]
| | | | | 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 » |
| | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
