| 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
|
|---|
| | Robert Burger 
United States
Local time: 21:05
Chinese to English
+ ...
| Depends on language pair | Jul 31, 2013 |
K_Muller wrote:
There are language pairs where it is really no point to require a native translator...
It very much depends on the language pair. I translate Chinese to English, but I sometimes get proofreading projects that were originally translated by Chinese translators. Most of the time I cannot understand what the Chinese translator wrote in English, and I end up re-translating the entire document for a lower price than it would have been if I were the original translator. I have recently decided to refuse proofreading jobs for translation done by Chinese native speakers.
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 10:05
Chinese to English
Robert Burger wrote:
It very much depends on the language pair. I translate Chinese to English, but I sometimes get proofreading projects that were originally translated by Chinese translators. Most of the time I cannot understand what the Chinese translator wrote in English, and I end up re-translating the entire document for a lower price than it would have been if I were the original translator. I have recently decided to refuse proofreading jobs for translation done by Chinese native speakers.
Yes to this. If it's a tight schedule where they can't let me see the text first, I say no to proofreading Chinese-native translators. If I can look at the text and assess it, then I just look at the quality of the text.
K_Muller wrote:
It is way more efficient to get a native proofreader, which should be a standard procedure.
No, no, no and no. The source-native translator/target-native proofreader model is a horror to work in. If you can't get a decent translator, and you have to use one of each, then either they should work together, or the target-native translate and the source-native proofread.
I have proofread good texts by Chinese-native translators. Even with good texts by good translators, you cannot tell what they mean. You always have to go back to the source. And that means that you spend twice as much time proofreading as translating, because you have to (a) read the target, (b) read the source, (c) correct the target.
K_M and others who have supported this model in the past seem to think that source-native translators produce text that is basically OK, has all the meaning, but has some grammar or tone errors. That's not the case. That's what a bad *native* writer produces. When a non-native makes a language error, the meaning is not preserved. All you get is incomprehensible strings of words. And they're a nightmare to proofread.
| | | |
Phil Hand wrote:
I have proofread good texts by Chinese-native translators. Even with good texts by good translators, you cannot tell what they mean. You always have to go back to the source. And that means that you spend twice as much time proofreading as translating, because you have to (a) read the target, (b) read the source, (c) correct the target.
K_M and others who have supported this model in the past seem to think that source-native translators produce text that is basically OK, has all the meaning, but has some grammar or tone errors. That's not the case. That's what a bad *native* writer produces. When a non-native makes a language error, the meaning is not preserved. All you get is incomprehensible strings of words. And they're a nightmare to proofread.
next time you'll get a translation done by Lincoln... 
| | | | Kay Denney
France
Local time: 03:05
French to English
K_Muller wrote:
I visited this topic because I have recently seen a job posting for Polish to Spanish technical translation, where the poster required a native speaker of Spanish for the job. I understand that many people with no understanding of the translation business may think only natives in the target language should translate, but how can a professional agency come up with such an absurd idea?
There are language pairs where it is really no point to require a native translator, like this one. It is way more efficient to get a native proofreader, which should be a standard procedure. Somehow the agencies think that having a native makes the translation error-proof. Huge mistake. I do lots of proofreading of translations by English natives and there is a lot of room for improvement there, and they accept my changes in 99% of the cases. Of course, I also know several great English translators whose texts are a pleasure to read, but unfortunately the majority does not even care enough to do a spell check.
Gulp!
Not sure whether I prefer proofreading machines or non-natives...
What I am sure of: My ideal work setup is me translating, and having an intelligent native-speaker of the source language proofreading me, then letting me have the final word.
| | |
|
|
|
Kay Denney
France
Local time: 03:05
French to English
| Liliana, I asked this question on about page 32 and am still waiting for the answer. | Aug 1, 2013 |
Just wondering... 30 Jul
Liliana, if it's illegal to require sensitive information such as what your native language is in the US,
...how does Proz get away with it?
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 02:05
Portuguese to English
+ ...
| Coming at this from different angles | Aug 1, 2013 |
A number of countries have a system of state-authorised/sworn translators who are often, and in some cases exclusively, nationals of the country and translate both ways (into and out of their native languages). This system does not exist in the U.K. for example and would be viewed as protectionism. At a professional level in the U.K., English native speakers translate into English and native speakers of other languages translate from English into theirs. Everyone does what they feel they do best... See more A number of countries have a system of state-authorised/sworn translators who are often, and in some cases exclusively, nationals of the country and translate both ways (into and out of their native languages). This system does not exist in the U.K. for example and would be viewed as protectionism. At a professional level in the U.K., English native speakers translate into English and native speakers of other languages translate from English into theirs. Everyone does what they feel they do best. These different ways of operating I believe may account for the great disparity in views on this issue. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Tatty
Local time: 03:05
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Few commments | Aug 1, 2013 |
Not sure whether I prefer proofreading non-natives or machine translation - that made me laugh. Actually, I don't offer a proofreading/editing service of any description.
I find it very difficult to believe that it is illegal in the US to ask a translator what their native language is, given that it is an essential characteristic of translation activity. And that's in an employment context, surely it doesn't apply in a freelancing set-up. And even if it does, it would be impossible ... See more Not sure whether I prefer proofreading non-natives or machine translation - that made me laugh. Actually, I don't offer a proofreading/editing service of any description.
I find it very difficult to believe that it is illegal in the US to ask a translator what their native language is, given that it is an essential characteristic of translation activity. And that's in an employment context, surely it doesn't apply in a freelancing set-up. And even if it does, it would be impossible to enforce, therefore for all intents and purposes doesn't exist.
"Protectionism" - this isn't the reason why we don't have official translators in the UK. We have official legal translators - scrivener notaries, but translation is just a small part of their work and they do not take on commercial translations. English law takes a different approach to liability, in general, compared to civil systems and this approach is pervasive throughout our legal system. An "official" translation in the UK is one that have been produced by a "company in existence for at least 5 years which is in good standing with the law". The idea is that the company carries the can not an individual. If the client wished to sue it would be better for them to sue another company which is on an equal footing, rather than a freelancer, even though insurance is readily available to the latter. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Well, perhaps everyone assumes that the information they ask about is on the voluntary basis | Aug 1, 2013 |
Texte Style wrote:
Just wondering... 30 Jul
Liliana, if it's illegal to require sensitive information such as what your native language is in the US,
...how does Proz get away with it?
Perhaps no one has noticed that it is an American site -- there might be different laws in other countries -- this is how certain sites and companies get away with it, at least for some time.
As long as you can state whatever you feel is right -- it is Ok, I think. There should also be an option --private. However, no one should be barred from quoting on any jobs based on the so called native language.
[Edited at 2013-08-01 11:22 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Certification might be worth a thread on its own | Aug 1, 2013 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
A number of countries have a system of state-authorised/sworn translators who are often, and in some cases exclusively, nationals of the country and translate both ways (into and out of their native languages). This system does not exist in the U.K. for example and would be viewed as protectionism. At a professional level in the U.K., English native speakers translate into English and native speakers of other languages translate from English into theirs. Everyone does what they feel they do best. These different ways of operating I believe may account for the great disparity in views on this issue.
The issue here is who would take liability for a costly "sworn" mistranslation.
All of us have read cases where unduly empowered official translators' blunders led to most undesirable outcomes. No point in detailing them here.
My question would be whether any public or private translator certifying organization would ever take liability, or part thereof, for a damaging mistranslation, beyond potentially suspending or revoking that individual's license.
Translator certifications exist in all shades and colors. They may be governmental, however any government may vary its screening criteria from thorough examinations to outright nepotism. They may also be private, spanning from ATA & alikes, including Proz PRO-tags, and possibly encompassing CPT and alikes too. University degrees in translation are mostly parallel to this entire range, now and then converging as a requirement, or in a cause-and-effect relationship.
Brazilian law on sworn translations is strict and pervasive, however its enforcement is possibly too far away from perfection. Nevertheless, Brazilian sworn translators must be always individuals, who are personally liable for their deeds. Hence no translation company may take liability for sworn translations here. Even if such a sworn translator, possibly for tax reasons, owned and operated a translation firm, they'd have to sign their sworn translations as an individual person.
AFAIK (and I may be wrong!) in the USA any John Doe may claim they know both source and target languages, issue a translation, sign it before a Notary Public, and that will be 100% valid before any authority, for any purpose whatsoever.
In order to provide readers with the big picture, I'll quote a former neighbor - a lawyer - upon his return from a course on "Compared Law - Brazil vs. USA". He said his general takeaway was that "Brazil has 10x more laws, while the USA has 10x more enforcement".
However nowadays our translations cross borders more frequently than ever. Some countries accept what some others consider officially valid translations; other countries may have restrictions in place. It all depends on whether the receiving country's laws allow them to be accepted.
As I see it, it has some resemblance with operating vehicles. While my Brazilian driver's license authorizes me to do it in the UK, I had to really focus to drive from the passenger's seat and stay on the 'wrong' lane all the time. I wonder if the average Canadian driver, though licensed to do so, would be psychologically prepared to face the actual traffic in Brazil or Italy. While car insurance, CDWs, LDWs, etc. cover traffic accidents, asserting liability on certified mistranslations would tend to let insurance companies off the hook, at least for a long time.
There is a common myth in Brazil that sworn translators are "better". Every time I'm introduced to someone as a professional translator here, the person's automatic response is to ask, "Sworn???". Maybe sworn translators here are valued by our number, about 3,000 among 200 million inhabitants.
Are sworn translators "better"? A Brazilian writer found the answer. Her two very successful books had sold out two editions each. I'd classify them as "esoteric romances" for genre. So she decided to go international, get them translated. She sent one page of each, always the same, to a number of translators, for a test. She was dismayed at the results. So I asked her where she had found these translators. She had taken them all from the Sao Paulo State sworn translators directory! Her reasoning was that they had been tested, hence they must be good! I had to explain her that yes, we have been and we are, but for other purposes.
So unless a translation involves some official purpose, translator certification is a questionable attribute. It's like testing bulbs at a store. If they light up on the test, okay, they're definitely able to kill the darkness. Yet this does not mean that any lamp passing the test will deliver the desired lighting effect in a particular setting, providing all the shadows and nuances desired.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 02:05
Hebrew to English
| But if it is illegal to ask as you have claimed.... | Aug 1, 2013 |
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
Texte Style wrote:
Just wondering... 30 Jul
Liliana, if it's illegal to require sensitive information such as what your native language is in the US,
...how does Proz get away with it?
Perhaps no one has noticed that it is an American site -- there might be different laws in other countries -- this is how certain sites and companies get away with it, at least for some time.
As long as you can state whatever you feel is right -- it is Ok, I think. There should also be an option --private. However, no one should be barred from quoting on any jobs based on the so called native language.
[Edited at 2013-08-01 11:22 GMT]
....it wouldn't matter whether people were voluntarily revealing the information or not.
And yes it is an American site, hence why those US laws you keep telling us about should apply to it!
You still haven't answered the question.
| | | | Tatty
Local time: 03:05
Spanish to English
+ ...
She can't answer that question. You would have to be a qualified lawyer working in that area of law to know the precise answer. It should be remembered that we are but translators...
Interestingly, the EU now requires its legal translators to hold a law degree and to have good legal knowledge. It actually means a decent law degree from a decent institution. Holding a law degree is assessed objectively but having good legal knowledge is a subjective claim that you make on entering yo... See more She can't answer that question. You would have to be a qualified lawyer working in that area of law to know the precise answer. It should be remembered that we are but translators...
Interestingly, the EU now requires its legal translators to hold a law degree and to have good legal knowledge. It actually means a decent law degree from a decent institution. Holding a law degree is assessed objectively but having good legal knowledge is a subjective claim that you make on entering yourself for the exam.
[Editado a las 2013-08-01 14:11 GMT]
[Editado a las 2013-08-01 14:11 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Kay Denney
France
Local time: 03:05
French to English
Tatty wrote:
She can't answer that question. You would have to be a qualified lawyer working in that area of law to know the precise answer. It should be remembered that we are but translators...
Interestingly, the EU now requires its legal translators to hold a law degree and to have good legal knowledge. It actually means a decent law degree from a decent institution. Holding a law degree is assessed objectively but having good legal knowledge is a subject claim that you make on entering yourself for the exam.
If she can't answer my question she shouldn't make sweeping statements that contradict the implications of my question
If Proz - headquartered in the US - asks us for our native language and filters jobs accordingly, I think we can safely assume that it is operating legally
And I find that quite stiff for the EU, but then I expect the salary will reflect the requirement!
| | |
|
|
|
| It is against the law to require such information | Aug 1, 2013 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
Texte Style wrote:
Just wondering... 30 Jul
Liliana, if it's illegal to require sensitive information such as what your native language is in the US,
...how does Proz get away with it?
Perhaps no one has noticed that it is an American site -- there might be different laws in other countries -- this is how certain sites and companies get away with it, at least for some time.
As long as you can state whatever you feel is right -- it is Ok, I think. There should also be an option --private. However, no one should be barred from quoting on any jobs based on the so called native language.
[Edited at 2013-08-01 11:22 GMT]
....it wouldn't matter whether people were voluntarily revealing the information or not.
And yes it is an American site, hence why those US laws you keep telling us about should apply to it!
You still haven't answered the question.
As some kind of an association, not an employer, you can perhaps phrase the requests in such a way: You may declare one or more native languages or choose the "Private"option. That it could be Ok, I think. Without the private option, it might be not totally legit. If you are an outsourcer, though, I don't think you can demand anything like that -- any kind of nativeness.
The answer to that question might be simpler than that -- the government does not really go checking on various sites -- they have a lot of other work to do.
[Edited at 2013-08-01 12:59 GMT]
[Edited at 2013-08-01 14:37 GMT]
| | | |
... a translator in a job interview at a translation agency (= a prospective "employer") in the US about what his/her native language is, is inappropriate.
But this applies to prospective"employment" and has nothing to do with freelance work.
It is up to the job applicant to reveal as little or as much information as he/she wants.
But since employment (I am not talking about providing translations for them as a freelancer) with a translation agency is language-re... See more ... a translator in a job interview at a translation agency (= a prospective "employer") in the US about what his/her native language is, is inappropriate.
But this applies to prospective"employment" and has nothing to do with freelance work.
It is up to the job applicant to reveal as little or as much information as he/she wants.
But since employment (I am not talking about providing translations for them as a freelancer) with a translation agency is language-related and the prospective employer needs to know what additional languages (besides English in the US) the applicant speaks, he/she can ask certain things:
http://usfweb2.usf.edu/EOA/interview_faq.asp (appropriate and inappropriate questions at a job interview)
3. "What is your native language?
When an English language skill is not a requirement of the work to be performed, and an employer uses an English language proficiency test or requires English language proficiency, an adverse effect upon a particular minority group may result.
It is also inappropriate to inquire how an applicant acquired the ability to read, write or speak a foreign language. However, if the job requires additional languages, an employer may legitimately inquire into languages the applicant speaks and writes fluently." (end of quote)
This all doesn't mean that concepts such as native language or mother tongue are to be considered invalid or cannot be voluntarily revealed. They are certainly not invalid, and they certainly can be revealed, voluntarily, as far as I am concerned.
I edited this to abide by forum rules
Bernhard
[Edited at 2013-08-01 15:34 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Kay Denney
France
Local time: 03:05
French to English
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
The answer to that question might be simpler than that -- the government does not really go checking on various sites -- they have a lot of other work to do.
[Edited at 2013-08-01 12:59 GMT]
Are you inferring that Proz asking us to state native language is actually illegal but they get away with it because the government has other things to do?
| | | | | 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 » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
