| 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
|
|---|
| | Ty Kendall 
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:47
Hebrew to English
| Once more unto the breach.... | Jul 22, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
... few native speakers are flawless users of their own respective languages. I only have to mention the word debutant and the rest would be clear to those who follow these forums.
Of course, technically speaking NOBODY is a FLAWLESS user of their respective language, the "debutant" debate doesn't really prove anything here, since that was merely a discussion about whether the use of "debutant" was acceptable in a very specific context. The consensus was that in anything other than Indian English, in the context given it would be considered non-standard. There were various other sub-discussions as to whether it was acceptable in various dialects, that's all. A fascinating discussion, but not really applicable here as any kind of evidence.
In sum, being native in the target language is no great advantage to flaunt about in the real world of professional translation.
Of course it is, just like being native in the source language is an advantage and if you're a true bilingual BINGO! that's also an advantage - each of the three groups (1. Natives 2. Non-Natives 3. True Bilinguals) will all highlight their selling points in any marketing endeavour.
| | | |
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
you keep repeating this phrase. Then you mention L1 -- L1 is not equivalent to a native language -- native language is a much broader term. In fact L1 may not have that much to do with the quality of translation, in particular cases. Some people may not even speak their L1 when they grow up.
Here are my definitions:
L1 is essentially one's first language, rather than dominant language.
Native is trickier to define, and usually is but need not be a first language. The notion is connected with nationality, or at least residence, and culture, preferably since birth.
The notions are not coterminous, but for practical purposes they are close to it. I am skipping the nuance here, such as the fact that some theorists insist that there is also a proficiency threshold, which puts some native speakers in the L2 category and some second language learners in the L3 category.
When I mention people who are technically native speakers, those are children of mixed marriages, people who were born and lived in the relevant country or culture as children and so on, but who are hardly on par with a C2 learner (in Council of Europe Terms). It's hard to deny them the status of a native speaker, even though their proficiency (whether active or passive) leaves much to be desired.
Another type of troubling claims to native speaker status are laid by people who have effectively become bilingual as adults, who have studied or worked for a time in a country or culture that speaks the language, but who were hardly born into it or brought up there. That, or even people who think they're so high above plain C2 that they need a different badge (in which case 'near-native' may apply, but plain native is a step too far IMHO).
Mark Benson wrote: Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote: Mark Benson wrote:
just like non-natives argue in favor of being able to translate just as well as natives only because of financial reasons. Nope. I translate to earn a living, but I translate in both directions because while I can't outdo the best of native speakers, I can still deliver more correct English than about 98% of its native users and write better than the vast majority of its writers. Actually, PL-EN is often more fun and easier to me than EN-PL to boot. I refuse to bend my knee to an abstract rule the letter of which has become more important than its spirit. The lack of ability of think critically of the L1 rule – as opposed to worshipping it – is a testimony to the not so great state of critical thinking ability among linguists, which sometimes shows in how they translate. I definitely have to disagree. And I find it goes way beyond my personal opinion. If what you said was anywhere close to containing even the slightest grain of truth, you would be too busy to sit and type meters of text on various forums every day. So much for critical thought...
Manner up, sir.
[Edited at 2013-07-22 17:18 GMT]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 20:17
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | That is fine, but... | Jul 22, 2013 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
... each of the three groups (1. Natives 2. Non-Natives 3. True Bilinguals) will all highlight their selling points in any marketing endeavour.
That is fine, but what is not fine is to exclude groups 2 and 3 above from job quoting on the specious claim that only natives can do a proper translation. That would fall under unfair trade practices.
[Edited at 2013-07-22 17:48 GMT]
| | | | Mark Benson (X)
English to Swedish
+ ...
| I think you missed the point... | Jul 22, 2013 |
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
Manner up, sir.
[Edited at 2013-07-22 17:18 GMT]
I didn't intend to offend you. But if you make baroque and evidently flawed statements on a forum and someone points it out, in my opinion you should at least be prepared to clarify and defend your points of view.
It's up to you. Either way, I'll say it once again - no offence!
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:47
Hebrew to English
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
That is fine, but what is not fine is to exclude groups 2 and 3 above from job quoting on the specious claim that only natives can do a proper translation. That would fall under unfair trade practices.
[Edited at 2013-07-22 17:48 GMT]
1. But the outsourcer has the right to exclude whoever they want. I don't scream blue murder when jobs are posted with x requirement which I don't have (whether I feel it is a justified/useful requirement or not). There's nothing unfair about this.
2. I don't believe that the majority of people/outsourcers believe that only a native speaker can do a "proper" translation. If an outsourcer decides they want a native speaker of the target language it's usually for a reason. Moreover in doing so they are even following the advice of the ATA. You are entitled to disagree with them (even in not knowing the facts if you wish) but I'd say second guessing outsourcers' choices and presuming that they need "educating" is a fast-track to being dropped like a hot potato.
| | | | | An additional point | Jul 22, 2013 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
1. But the outsourcer has the right to exclude whoever they want. I don't scream blue murder when jobs are posted with x requirement which I don't have (whether I feel it is a justified/useful requirement or not). There's nothing unfair about this.
Definitely right! If they want a translator with blue eyes, and mine are brown, no point in wearing colored contacts.
Ty Kendall wrote:
2. I don't believe that the majority of people/outsourcers believe that only a native speaker can do a "proper" translation. If an outsourcer decides they want a native speaker of the target language it's usually for a reason. Moreover in doing so they are even following the advice of the ATA. You are entitled to disagree with them (even in not knowing the facts if you wish) but I'd say second guessing outsourcers' choices and presuming that they need "educating" is a fast-track to being dropped like a hot potato.
This fast-tracking of educators to the dumpster is most often true. Very few translation outsourcers like to be educated.
When I point out that they should specify the PT or BR variant of Portuguese, most prefer to engage the third gear and slam the throttle against the floorboard, while making their way on the road to disaster. Info about this available here.
When they want a video translated, and I ask them whether it's for dubbing or subtitling, they often shun me as a troublemaker. Info here.
Yet that's not the worst of it. When they set their job requirements to post a job on Proz, unless I am mistaken, they'll get some warning that there are, say, 8,687 translators matching their criteria. Whoa! Even if only 5% of them apply, that will be too much to sift through. So they consider imposing additional requirements, e.g. having Trados, having FrameMaker (even if it's not at all involved), being a native speaker... anything that will shortlist the potential applicants to a manageable number.
So I'd replace your "usually for a reason" with "sometimes for a reason". However shortlisting the candidates in this manner tends to make this entire discussion pointless. If Proz suddenly accepted all claims of being a native speaker of as many languages as anyone dared to state, "must have Trados" demands frequency would suddenly skyrocket on job posts, merely as a shortlisting contrivance.
[Edited at 2013-07-22 18:58 GMT]
| | | | | In fact I don't think they can exclude anyone in the US, but many | Jul 22, 2013 |
outsourcers come from other countries. The only criterium to exclude someone in any work-related situations are qualifications -- not ethnicity, race, personal preferences and other things, including age, and basically anything you can imagine. I don't think they can even say: The Ivy League graduates only. Native language is not a qualifications but rather a matter of individual cultural identification and ethnicity.
They can administer a very hard language test, that most less... See more outsourcers come from other countries. The only criterium to exclude someone in any work-related situations are qualifications -- not ethnicity, race, personal preferences and other things, including age, and basically anything you can imagine. I don't think they can even say: The Ivy League graduates only. Native language is not a qualifications but rather a matter of individual cultural identification and ethnicity.
They can administer a very hard language test, that most less proficient people will not pass, but they cannot exclude anyone based on a native language --in the US. Basically they can be sued.
[Edited at 2013-07-22 19:18 GMT]
[Edited at 2013-07-22 19:19 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 07:47
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Discrimination | Jul 22, 2013 |
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
In fact I don't think they can exclude anyone in the US, but many outsourcers come from other countries. The only criterium to exclude someone in any work-related situations are qualifications -- not ethnicity, race, personal preferences and other things, including age, and basically anything you can imagine.
In the US employers can discriminate on any basis that is not prohibited by law (federal, state or local.)
"Only discrimination based on certain characteristics (protected categories) is illegal.
Under Federal law, employers generally cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of:
Race
Sex
Pregnancy
Religion
National origin
Disability (physical or mental, including HIV status)]
Age (for workers over 40)
Military service or affiliation
Bankruptcy or bad debts
Genetic information
Citizenship status (for citizens, permanent residents, temporary residents, refugees, and asylees)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States.
[Edited at 2013-07-22 20:26 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Race and ethnicity are the main basis for discrimination law suits | Jul 22, 2013 |
You can check any employment application. Of course many discriminate based on anything that cannot be easily proven and hire whoever they like, but they cannot advertise anything like a certain ethnicity only required or, a certain eye-color, unless they were looking for an actor, perhaps.
[Edited at 2013-07-22 19:40 GMT]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 20:17
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Further proof why outsourcers need not be worshipped | Jul 23, 2013 |
In all my career as a translator spanning 20+ years, not once has any outsourcer ever asked me to take a test in the source language to verify my proficiency in it, though I have been made to give umpteen tests in the target language. I am sure that has been the experience of most translators here too.
This clearly shows that outsourcers simply don't understand the need to have a sound basis on the source language to produce an accurate translation. Even the ATA, Ty's paragon, when ... See more In all my career as a translator spanning 20+ years, not once has any outsourcer ever asked me to take a test in the source language to verify my proficiency in it, though I have been made to give umpteen tests in the target language. I am sure that has been the experience of most translators here too.
This clearly shows that outsourcers simply don't understand the need to have a sound basis on the source language to produce an accurate translation. Even the ATA, Ty's paragon, when certifying translators, only tests the target language, not the source, which proves that it too doesn't sufficiently understand the intricate working of the thing called translation.
To its credit, ATA does, however, define native language as the dominant language of the person, and allows members to register in their profile as many languages as the members please as their native languages. In this respect it is better than this site at least.
To most outsourcers, the outward trappings of the translated text - perfect grammar and syntax and linguistic elegance - are all that matters, and fidelity to the source only elicits exclamations of fiddlesticks!
So much for their understanding of what translation is. And this attitude and lack of understanding of translation is reflected in their inane demand for native translators for translations.
It seems they are into a massive cover up job in the name of translation, and find native translators to be good cover up agents, who can mask inaccurate translations in the gloss of perfect grammar and syntax of the translated text.
[Edited at 2013-07-23 08:58 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 20:17
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | That is curious argument | Jul 23, 2013 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
1. But the outsourcer has the right to exclude whoever they want.
That is like critically ill patients arguing with their doctors and deciding what treatment theyshould receive for their critical health problems on the basis that they being the paymasters have a say in this.
No doctor worth his salt, and no patient who values his life, will follow this logic.
The logic equally applies to translation. We are the experts in this, not the outsourcers. We know what produces the best translation. We should decide on the contours of the job, not the outsourcers. The outsourcers should limit their involvement to non-translation logistics like setting deadlines and such things and most importantly, paying us a decent rate on time.
| | | | | Of course this is what ATA does, because anything else | Jul 23, 2013 |
would be against the American law, and also they know a lot about the language situation in the US -- that various varieties of languages are spoken (even English) and that it is mostly the dominant language that counts as something important. Many people may not be fluent in their L1, especially in places like New York, and most of all, that declaring a native language or languages (if someone still wants to use those terms in the US reality) is something very personal.
It is the... See more would be against the American law, and also they know a lot about the language situation in the US -- that various varieties of languages are spoken (even English) and that it is mostly the dominant language that counts as something important. Many people may not be fluent in their L1, especially in places like New York, and most of all, that declaring a native language or languages (if someone still wants to use those terms in the US reality) is something very personal.
It is the same at Proz -- you can declare the languages you feel are your native as native, of course if you have some basis for it. It is only that just two languages can be declared, whereas some people, especially like the people from India, may want to declare more. I just don't think outsources should be allowed to set up such criteria -- any native language requirements, especially that they have often the wrong idea what a native language is. Some may think that it will be only Mr. Jones, who has grown up in Massachusetts, let's say, and studied Russian, Polish or Hungarian for four years, two hours three times a week, who will be translating for them. This might be the native language idea of some people. Others have totally no idea what it is,but they just know that it is good and required. How many Mr. Jones do we have in certain language pairs -- one, two five, the most perhaps, in the world.
[Edited at 2013-07-23 10:29 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Another myth | Jul 24, 2013 |
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
Another myth is the now-hallowed rule that only native speakers of the target language should translate. This myth connects with similarly irrational emphasis on expression over comprehension, which probably connects with deemphasis on correctness in favour of 'communication' in language teaching.
I think you are the first person I have seen in 59 years who uses the word deemphasis. Which kind of emphasises the point about using native speakers...
Steve K.
| | | | Lincoln Hui
Hong Kong
Local time: 22:47
Member
Chinese to English
+ ...
| Native languages | Jul 24, 2013 |
My native language is Chinese and my English is CLEARLY better than my Chinese. I'm not particularly proud of it but it is true, and my Chinese isn't even bad.
| | | | | translation services into one's native language | Jul 24, 2013 |
Lincoln Hui wrote:
My native language is Chinese and my English is CLEARLY better than my Chinese. I'm not particularly proud of it but it is true, and my Chinese isn't even bad.
According to your language combinations, you do provide translations INTO Chinese. Are you collaborating with other Chinese native speakers and translators to edit and proofread your translations into Chinese? And do you do the same for translations into English because it is not your native language? Or do you consider your language skills "good enough" for translation work?
Do your clients not expect translations that will reflect a native speaker AND translator's excellent command of the languages in which your translations are rendered?
If your Chinese is not as good as your English, how good is your English? Do you consider yourself an excellent translator into English? Do you work with other translators who are native speakers of English or Chinese to ensure the excellent quality clients expect?
As far as clients (and I believe most translators) are concerned, the idea of a "native speaker" translator does not only imply that you spoke your native language for a while when you were a child and then lost a lot of your language skills by not using it (or that you never had full command of that language) but that you are excellent in your native language to a degree that can indeed be expected from any native language translator.
As a translator, I wouldn't want to tell anyone that my command of my native language "isn't even bad" - to paraphrase you. It's not what I believe any clients would be looking for in a native language translator. They expect a lot more from such a person.
Maybe you can elaborate.
Bernhard
[Edited at 2013-07-24 20:20 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 | 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 » |
| | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
