There is some research that either might work but the normal professional guidelines in most translation associations are to only translate into your native language, for the simple reason that you are less likely to make mistakes of usage, style and genre conventions.

Well, Jonathan, then they have to define a native language better, otherwise, they are totally wrong, in my opinion, if thye stick to the narrow understanding of the term native language, as the language of the country where a person was born.

Normally, it would be taken to mean the language(s) you learned as a small child and/or habitually used from that time.

Originally written by Jonathan Downie on July 8, 2009 6:01 PM Normally, it would be taken to mean the language(s) you learned as a small child and/or habitually used from that time.

Probably true for most cases, except possibly those who grew up in a few countries or in a multilingual country.

For the case of Singapore, the main medium of instruction had been English for most students since around 20 to 30 years ago. It is quite possible that the child grew up speaking Chinese/Malay/Tamil at home but grew more proficient in English after entering school. So, do you stick to mother tongue as the definition of native language, or the language that you're most proficient in?

English has been the language that I'm most proficient in for the past 20 to 30 years but it was Chinese, followed by Malay at some time in life.

Jonathan, which translation associations in particular have the guideline that you wrote below?

There is some research that either might work but the normal professional guidelines in most translation associations are to only translate into your native language,

You see, I'm not certain that this is true, and if it is done anywhere, it seems sloppy.  You examine what the translator can do - instead of speculating what he might be able to do.

I find such guidelines very odd.  The guidelines in my organization is that your working pairs are the ones that have undergone and passed examination, and that you limit the claim of specializations to ones that can be substantiated. That is for published specializations.  For example, I have a teaching degree and have taught publicly and privately - I can claim a specializaiton in education.  Guidelines include a code of ethics: good workmanship, confidentiality, no misrepresentation, and no blatant undercutting of prices.

Since the guidelines state that you work where you are competent, there is no additional guidelines that speculates what you might be able to do due to accident of location or birth.  It works out the same, since if there is a weakness inherent to non-native languages, it will show up in testing.

Maxi

I will check but I remember it appearing on ITI's guidelines. I also remember AIIC strongly suggesting only interpreting into your A language, or at least that going in that direction was preferable. However, I will check the wording.

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on July 8, 2009 1:10 PM  It works out the same, since if there is a weakness inherent to non-native languages, it will show up in testing.

That is the case in Germany where it is impossible (so far as I have been able to find out) to be tested in the form of a staatliche Prüfung into the mother tongue. The test is made in all states into the foreign language. I thought that it would be easy for me to pass the staatliche Prüfung into English in Baden-Württemberg but I was told that translators are never tested into their native language, that would obviously be far too easy. I would have to choose some other language to be tested into, like Spanish or French or Punjabi. However, non-Germans are required to produce documentary evidence of competence in monolingual German (like the big Goethe Inst. certificate).

Derek

Originally written by Jonathan Downie on July 8, 2009 1:15 PM I also remember AIIC strongly suggesting only interpreting into your A language, or at least that going in that direction was preferable.

That does not sound reasonable to me. What happens in the case of court interpreters, then? They always have to interpret equally well in both directions - or would you expect courts to appoint two interpreters every time, one to interpret what the judge says to the accused and another to interpret what the accused says to the judge? Humbug!

Derek

Originally written by Derek Thornton on July 8, 2009 12:17 PM I was told that translators are never tested into their native language, that would obviously be far too easy.

Would it? With all due respect, I doubt it.

Originally written by Dodo Kaipdodo on July 8, 2009 5:40 PM Would it? With all due respect, I doubt it.

Well now, following your argument, translating well or proficiently into the foreign language is very difficult, if not impossible.

Ergo: translating into the mother tongue must be easier, I do not see any way around that.

Anyway, it wasn't my opinion but the statement by the Stuttgart Kultusministerium when I asked if I could take the test into English.

There is only one reason that a translator needs to get tested in Germany and that is to get appointed and sworn in by the authorities, e.g. as a court interpreter, and as I proposed earlier, court interpreters need to be able to translate and interpret proficiently in both directions.

Derek