Ten common myths about translation quality

Balasubramaniam L. wrote:e quite expert at it, irrespective of whether he is a native or a non-native.

That is exactly what we have been arguing all along in this thread, that being native is no guarantee of a good translator.

Balasubramaniam L. wrote:

I would say the same for the natives too, that most so-called native translators are rubbish at translation.

The ability to write and translate is not a common ability in any language group, and only a few ever acquire language abilities sufficient enough for these purposes. Thus if a person has acquired the linguistic abilities to write and translate, it can be expected that he/she would be quite expert at it, irrespective of whether he is a native or a non-native.

That is exactly what we have been arguing all along in this thread, that being native is no guarantee of a good translator. Many other factors also need to be taken into account. Agencies that pin their fond hopes for achieving good translations exclusively on the native-only criterion are sadly under a massive self-delusion. They need to forthwith review their policies and website forms that restrict entry of non-native translators into their databases.

And their end clients should be reviewing the translator selection polices of these agencies to see what stance they take on translator selection and if they see them stipulating the natives-only clause anywhere in their promotional literature or website, they should drop the agency forthwith like hot coals, for it is more than likely that this agency is one of the cheap, penny-pinching agencies that plague the internet and deliver rubbish translations by the ton.

Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:
As I said before, I agree with this. But even in minor languages there are plenty of native translators. Clients and agencies might perpetuate the myth of natives, but they think it's a safer bet, because statistically you have more chances to get a better translation from a native. It's up to you to convince them, for example doing free, un-paid tests.

LilianBNekipelo wrote:

Do you believe that no one else can translate into Italian, except the people born and raised in Italy?

Balasubramaniam L. wrote:



(With apologies to Ty, for the title. I hope you are not as touchy as him on this matter. But I hasten to add, no disrespect is intended to anyone.)

It take a lot more to be a good translator than nativity in the target language. Any agency which does not understand this and continues to bank on the silly natives-only criterion to filter or restrict translators, would be incapable of delivering quality translation, as it would bank on this simple-minded belief that you only have to hire a native and we would get an excellent translation. Driven by this simple-mindedness, it would not further investigate the qualifications of its native favourite, and therefore would fail to recognize in time that the native is in fact a dud as far as translation is concerned.

On the other hand, if it had no crutches like native-means-A-one-quality-translation, it would look at each translator more carefully and would therefore better match the job with the translator qualifications.

You will agree that the result of this would be any day a better translation than the translation turned in by an untried native.

So in the end it would be the agency which would gain the most if the native-only fad is ended, because it would be forced to put in place more rigorous translator selection procedures which would stand it in good stead in all its work. In other words, it would turn into a more professional translation agency from a fly-by-night kind of set up depending solely on natives to pull off a quality translation.

Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:



Let's abandon the statistics thingy for a moment (statistics are a complicated science)...

as far as the above is concerned, my answer is no. In fact. I've already said a couple of times in this thread that I agree with you. You should be free to translate into Mongolian, if you wish to do so. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

My point was: how are you going to convince your prospective clients to pick you ahead of a native? Why should clients/agencies risk it?

Nobody answered my question: isn't it true that there are far more translators able to produce competent translations into their native language than non-native translators? If you pick 2,500 translators born and raised in Italy and 2,500 non-natives translating into Italian, do you think that most non-natives will do a better job? Or will it be the other way around? Or maybe 50-50? What percentage?

Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:

Nobody answered my question: isn't it true that there are far more translators able to produce competent translations into their native language than non-native translators? If you pick 2,500 translators born and raised in Italy and 2,500 non-natives translating into Italian, do you think that most non-natives will do a better job? Or will it be the other way around? Or maybe 50-50? What percentage?

LilianBNekipelo wrote:



Yes, if they are translating from German, or French, the translation done by educated translators raised in Italy might be better, but if they are translating from Chinese, or Mongolian -- I am not so sure anymore. The style may be slightly worse, but the accuracy might be greater, if the text is translated by someone raised in China or Mongolia and educated in Italy.

[Edited at 2013-07-27 14:18 GMT]

Mark Benson wrote:

Translating to a language you're not native in is like translating from a language you're not fluent in.

In any true and serious professional sense, a non-native translator can never be better than a native. This should be considered impossible.

Thus a native translator is not only a native speaker, but also possesses the same scientific knowledge about his/her language that is available to anybody who wishes to acquire it.

A native translator should also represent a very high level and even some authority when it comes to the native language.

Please, just forget everything about non-native translations. Because otherwise we're assuming that just about any "bilingual" person should be considered a translator, at his or her own discretion. It might have been proven to work in some exceptional cases, but they are the exceptions that confirm the rule.

If anybody is interested, I will confess that I tended to be optimistic in my first years as a translator and attempted to translate to English a few times. The translations I did were accepted. But I didn't take that as a signal to continue with what I was doing.

To survive as a translator, I believe that it's more important to focus on quality as opposed to quantity. Non-native translations are generally bad for business and a flawed career choice. Personally, I don't even see this choice.

But I am aware that there are many who regard translation as some sort of a hobby that's open for monetizing by anybody who is convincing enough of his or her bilingualism. This aspect may go on existing, as will the (otherwise rather unnecessary, the way I tend to see it) discussions about jobs at 0.01 - 0.05$ per word, whether to allow MT editing, discounts for volume and... whether one needs to be a native speaker of the language one translates to.

I would prefer MT translation to non-native translation. I can give many reasons, but I don't have time to sit on the forum all day long...

Oh, but just one last thing. The point here is that the agencies that accept, or even look for, non-native translators do it for financial reasons. And MT + native editing is a much better solution. The editing would probably cost just about the same as the non-native translator...

PS. Lisa did make a pretty hilarious comment earlier in the thread. And I also like what Giovanni is saying. The fact that a client doesn't require a native translator is a sure sign that something is wrong with that client's understanding of what a translation is. That's why I think that this item should have made this "top 10" list.

Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:



your argument is just for very minor pairs? Because, for example, there are almost 600 PL>IT translators just on Proz, which represent a tiny percentage. In these cases, why should a client/agency pick a non-native?

Balasubramaniam L. wrote: