| 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
|
|---|
| | | the tone must be right | Jul 27, 2013 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
I respect other people's opinions and their refusal to not budge if they so wish, but I feel that by questioning someone's understanding of things (repeatedly) just because they don't agree with you is disrespectful. I'm perfectly willing to engage in endless robust debate with people (as I have done with you) as long as the tone doesn't start to turn dark (when words like "cesspool" are being thrown around, I feel the tone is on a downward spiral), I even don't mind if it gets a bit adversarial as it clearly has between you and me - it just shows we're both passionate about our respective beliefs - but I have no desire to participate in a flame war or slanging match.
I hope this explains where I'm coming from.
Ty.
This goes for me as well.
B
| | | | | Respect of arguments and tone are important in any discussion | Jul 27, 2013 |
Lincoln Hui wrote:
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".
Sure there is. I believe I made my points pretty clear. I am not going to repeat them.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
]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.
Lincoln Hui wrote:
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?
Who would want their translations to be done by an incompetent native speaker - or is that what you think the majority of native language translators are or what I am suggesting? Because I am not.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Whatever poor vocabulary or expression they use, they're going to use it the way many other similar native speakers do.
Lincoln Hui wrote:
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.
There are a lot of ways to detect unidiomatic use of a language. As I said it's very likely a non-native speaker will appear as such. Especially, if he/she learned the language as an adult. I have said this before. I don't have to draw a line.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
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).
Lincoln Hui wrote:
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.
........................
And I will no longer debate these issues with you here. Respect of valid arguments and the right tone are important in any discussion.
B
[Edited at 2013-07-27 17:50 GMT]
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule | Balasubramaniam L. 
India
Local time: 15:25
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Another inspired post, this is getting interesting now | Jul 27, 2013 |
Lincoln Hui wrote:
I am not asserting that you cannot translate from your non-native languages, 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 language.
Now that B. has backed out, will some one from the native-only camp answer to this point?
Lincoln has certainly raised the level of this debate through the roof.
I don't think there could be any answer to the above query other than simple prejudice.
To achieve ideal translation, high level proficiency in source and target languages is a must. But this ideal is rarely achieved, so we settle for compromises. These can be of two types:
- A person with L2 level knowledge in source translating from that language. This is considered acceptable if the translator is a native of the target language (Mind you, I am saying nothing of his competency in the target language which could be abysmal);
- A non-native translator with high level of proficiency in the target language tanslating it into this language. This is considered the worst crime that could ever be committed in translationland.
Why these double standards? Any answers?
| | |
|
|
|
| Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule | | I think the bottom line is that everything should be judged on a case by case basis. | Jul 27, 2013 |
Any generalization is really bad. Of course, as I said before, people usually translate into their best language, often the language of the place where they live, unless they have been staying in a different country just for a year, or two -- not ten, fifteen years, or more, or the language is an official language of that country as well. Of course there are even exceptions to that rule. Some people may only watch English TV, speak English 90% of the time, even living in a Spanish-speaking coun... See more Any generalization is really bad. Of course, as I said before, people usually translate into their best language, often the language of the place where they live, unless they have been staying in a different country just for a year, or two -- not ten, fifteen years, or more, or the language is an official language of that country as well. Of course there are even exceptions to that rule. Some people may only watch English TV, speak English 90% of the time, even living in a Spanish-speaking country, or another, so then their L1 does not deteriorate that easily, I guess. It is hard to do with other languages because the exposure to high quality, educated language becomes a problem. After all a translator is not supposed to use slang, or colloquial language, in any other types of translation than literary -- where this type of language might be required from time to time.
I don't know if you can usually pass as a real native speaker (if you like this term for L1, which is really not the right equivalent) after they have spent twenty or more years in another country. Some people do not even have the original accent in their L1. It is hard to pass for a native speaker if you go to visit the country where you lived as a child and not to be spotted as an outsider right away. So, I really think the only sound solution to our problem, in my opinion, is to judge everything on a case by case basis, person by person, language combination by language combination, or even job by job -- that might be the best.
[Edited at 2013-07-27 09:10 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:55
Hebrew to English
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
A non-native translator with high level of proficiency in the target language tanslating [sic] it into this language. This is considered the worst crime that could ever be committed in translationland.
Not by me. I have always said that the problem lay in those without the sufficient proficiency...Indeed on Lisa's initial post on that "cesspool" of a thread she said "[translators] whose command of English (for example) is tenuous at best". The problem is that the non-native translators with those high levels of proficiency such as yourself and others on this site automatically jump to the defence of the non-natives lacking proficiency in a knee-jerk reaction, or you simply presume you are being lumped into the same category as them, which is often not the case.
...And I'm not going off in a huff Bala I haven't gone anywhere, I believe I made it clear that I am open to debate as long as it can be kept civil.
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Replies to a hidden post |
|
|
Kay Denney
France
Local time: 10:55
French to English
| condensed quotes | Jul 27, 2013 |
Lincoln Hui wrote:
1) By my experience, the ability to express oneself in writing usually carries across languages, adjusted for proficiency.
Yeah sure, I agree with you there. I would go as far as to say that you have achieved proficiency in a language once you have acquired the ability to let your personality shine through when speaking it, and fluency when your ability to speak has become part of your personality.
Lincoln Hui wrote:
2) I rest my case that there is no such thing as generally "idiomatic English".
Just like that, after quoting, without arguing your case further?
Now you seea native speaker would have said something more like "well you haven't convinced me I'm afraid, we'll just have to agree to disagree"
"agree to disagree" being this wonderful idiomatic expression in English that perfectly conveys one aspect of our culture...
(culture being an integral part of language and language being an integral part of culture and all that, you know)
(you might want to analyse the language as used by native and non-natives in this thread, the natives have this ability to throw in references, send themselves up, employ smidgens of sarcasm (I love that one Ty!), almost unthinkingly, meaning that what they write is a pleasure to read, it's entertainment. On the other hand, most non-natives, while using correct grammar, still have a certain clunkiness to their writing, making it more difficult to read. And it's not because I disagree with them either, because I do agree with Bernard. The exception that proves the rule in this thread is Trisha, your writing is not at all clunky.
(And I'm sure Bernard will forgive me for saying his English is a wee bit clunky, when I speak German, people crease up with laughter. I think mostly they are surprised to hear someone who can rap in French at practically native level then faltering in German with a laughably strong English accent. I'm happy to entertain )
Lincoln Hui wrote:
3) 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
No that's not the kind of mistake non-natives make. If anything, they make the mistake less because they are linguists and they take care to apply rules.
A more typical non-native mistake would be to confuse "living" and "alive". A native non-linguist would have no idea why one or the other would be correct but they would never use the wrong one.
Lincoln Hui wrote:
4) 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.
I dunno, what's that little mantra again. "the customer is always right"?
People choose to buy hamburgers rather than salads. Bad for their health, but it's not up to the waiter to foist their healthy stuff onto those who need their grease hit.
Lincoln Hui wrote:
5) Clients often need to be protected from themselves, as requirements for SDL TRADOS for subtitling jobs demonstrate.
I used to work as PM in an agency. We always preferred to hire translators with knowledge of this CAT tool because we had invested in the agency version of it. Even if the project was a heap of handwritten documents, we would still go for the translator who had the CAT tool, because we wanted long-term business relationships, not just a one-off. So, you see there was method to our apparent madness.
Lincoln Hui wrote:
6) The potential for damage is certainly much higher, because your average dunce can still spot badly written English, but few can spot a mistranslation.
Well of course. The whole point of commissioning a translation is because you can't read the original.
I do think that if a translator can express themselves well in the target language they are more likely to take the time to understand the source too.
When testing translators in my days as a PM, the first thing I looked for was whether they had used the spell-check. If they hadn't, I would close the file and move on. If they had, I would analyse the file further. Experience had shown that the best, most trustworthy translators always put the file through the spell-checker one last time before sending it off. Those who did that invariably had fewer mistranslations and their text invariably read more smoothly than those who did not.
[Edited at 2013-07-27 11:36 GMT]
| | | | Lincoln Hui
Hong Kong
Local time: 17:55
Member
Chinese to English
+ ...
| Beaten once more is the horse | Jul 27, 2013 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
A non-native translator with high level of proficiency in the target language tanslating [sic] it into this language. This is considered the worst crime that could ever be committed in translationland.
Not by me. I have always said that the problem lay in those without the sufficient proficiency...Indeed on Lisa's initial post on that "cesspool" of a thread she said "[translators] whose command of English (for example) is tenuous at best". The problem is that the non-native translators with those high levels of proficiency such as yourself and others on this site automatically jump to the defence of the non-natives lacking proficiency in a knee-jerk reaction, or you simply presume you are being lumped into the same category as them, which is often not the case.
...And I'm not going off in a huff Bala I haven't gone anywhere, I believe I made it clear that I am open to debate as long as it can be kept civil.
And I have reiterated over and over again, that:
1. This is no different from any other deficiencies that bad translators demonstrate, and in fact they are often indistinguishable.
2. The issue is clearly not with nativeness or lack thereof, but proficiency or lack thereof.
3. You might be able to make the distinction, but this is not necessarily the case among agencies and clients. While agencies that hold themselves to high standards are often quite open to "near-native level" translators for target languages, many others simply stipulate "native" as their first roadblock, resulting in devaluation of actual translation ability and knowledge, among others. There are many poor translators and the same is true for agencies as well, while end clients are rarely experts in language, nor are they expected to be.
4. It is sheer folly to believe that the stigma arising from poor non-native speakers of a language do not extend to proficient non-native speakers as well. Those familiar with American sports need look only as far as the recent PED discussions for a prime example.
5. The definition of "native speaker" in popular usage, especially in predominantly English societies, is so narrow and outdated that it excludes many who do have a legitimate claim to being native speakers by professional or educational standards. It also fails to take into account the ever increasing population of those whose household language is not amoung the official languages of their country of residence, or those who learn more than one language during their childhood. It is this definition that clients frequently imply when they seek "native" translators for a language, or when a translator is only allowed to report a single native language.
6. Unlike everyday language use, translation places equal demand on reading and writing. For the requirements of many translation jobs, someone who is not qualified to translate into a language should not be qualified to translate from that language either. Yet the stance towards non-source native and non-target native is clearly different, often to the detriment of actual translation quality.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 15:25
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
I don't know if you can usually pass as a real native speaker (if you like this term for L1, which is really not the right equivalent) after they have spent twenty or more years in another country. Some people do not even have the original accent in their L1. It is hard to pass for a native speaker if you go to visit the country where you lived as a child and not to be spotted as an outsider right away. So, I really think the only sound solution to our problem, in my opinion, is to judge everything on a case by case basis, person by person, language combination by language combination, or even job by job -- that might be the best.
True. And agencies and clients will have to be more discerning while selecting a translator for a job. Many of the agencies who currently filter out non-native translators in their job postings or in their website forms for recruiting translators into their databases, might have to go back to the drawing boards and rewrite their job postings and website forms and texts.
It would be interesting to know how many agencies have after reading this thread become enlightened enough to have initiated these changes.
That leaves this site, I wonder if it will take note of this discussion, and other frequent similar discussions on this topic, and remove the native-only button and open up jobs and translator databases to all proficient translators working in the required language direction. From what you write, and others seem to corroborate, this might also be a legal requirement for the site as otherwise it could get into trouble for discrimination in jobs. But I am no expert on the laws of the US.
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Replies to a hidden post |
|
|
Kay Denney
France
Local time: 10:55
French to English
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
It would be interesting to know how many agencies have after reading this thread become enlightened enough to have initiated these changes.
Do you seriously believe that there are gazillions of agencies reading this thread with bated breath?
| | | | | Some agencies really assume that a person who learned X language as child | Jul 27, 2013 |
or even has some elementary or secondary school education in it, will be able to successfully translate legal texts into that language, as if they were born with the legalese, without having to go to law school, or study law books, at least. They just think that L1 is like riding a bike. Some may even think that if you can ride a bike you may be able to ride a Harley with the same rate of success.
If you speak without a strong accent, you will be able to translate legal texts into ... See more or even has some elementary or secondary school education in it, will be able to successfully translate legal texts into that language, as if they were born with the legalese, without having to go to law school, or study law books, at least. They just think that L1 is like riding a bike. Some may even think that if you can ride a bike you may be able to ride a Harley with the same rate of success.
If you speak without a strong accent, you will be able to translate legal texts into your L1. I could never in my life translate any legal texts into Polish -- I could render the meaning, but I would not be able to use the right vocabulary, even after having studied Polish legalese in the US from law books.
[Edited at 2013-07-27 10:10 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | At last converging, for some positive outcome | Jul 27, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
It would be interesting to know how many agencies have after reading this thread become enlightened enough to have initiated these changes.
That leaves this site, I wonder if it will take note of this discussion, and other frequent similar discussions on this topic, and remove the native-only button and open up jobs and translator databases to all proficient translators working in the required language direction.
It seems to me that most of the loudest contenders (not specifically Bala alone, I'm using his post for the conclusion) here are getting close to the notion that "native speaker" as the essential criterion for selecting translators is not sufficiently reliable, therefore not deserving the prominence it has received so far.
Some agencies proudly boast on their web sites that they only let translators work into their native language (a frequently vague attribute, as demonstrated here). On the other hand, these agencies hire the cheapest native speakers, and don't care enough about their qualifications, experience, or specialization.
If this thread - as it eventually developed - embodied the intent of many to advocate against such procedures, it has served this purpose.
Now it's time for those "native speakers only" agencies to review their policies, perhaps focusing on translator proficiency. Proz could also check whether it is worthwhile to display so prominently on every profile the translator's "native" language, as it is no longer an accurately measurable* attribute.
*I mean, some people are truly native speakers of one or more languages (not too many, though). Yet many people have a personal background that may defeat such a simple yes/no classification system.
A note on my personal status:
Those checking my Proz profile will see me as a native speaker of both PT and EN.
While I am a truly native speaker of PT under any criteria whatsoever, and most native speakers of EN take me for one of them until some clarification is provided, this is not the reason.
When I was licensed as a BR-gov't sworn translator in 2000, the exams and the appointment covered translation and interpretation in both directions between EN-PT. The applicable Brazilian law expressly forbids me to refuse any such sworn translation assignment, as long as some other conditions are met (e.g. statutory rates, turnaround time, etc.). That same law requires sworn translators to be Brazilian citizens, hence not so many are naturalized native speakers from other countries.
So if my government has determined that I am capable of doing it, and says that I must translate into a language that purists would not consider my 'native' one (I began learning it at age 9), the only way around the prevailing system on Proz and some agencies is by stating it as being native, in order to comply with the law having jurisdiction over me. Otherwise, I'd be claiming non-native speaker status to dodge the law, and indirectly rejecting assignments from clients who demand it.
This also helps emphasizing the fallacy of demanding native speakers.
| | | | | 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 | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
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
