I think any agency that does not serve its professionals and does not understand the art of translation will collapse, anyhow: I hope President Obama does not sue me for a certain form of plagiarism.

Originally written by Charlotte Huo on July 10, 2009 1:42 AM The same can be asked of the target language.

That is correct, and I already did say that about the target language somewhere in this thread, basing my claim on some of the contributions to TC forums made in the writer's advertised "mother tongue", but I did not want to rub it in.

Originally written by Charlotte Huo on July 10, 2009 1:42 AM Shouldn't translation agencies or organizations focus more on this rather than stubbonly sticking to the "guideline" that "translators should only translate into their native language"?

My guess is that if a translation agency made it a policy to accept translations into a language that their translators had learnt at some stage in their lives then they would need to do a great deal more checking of translator's capabilities and of the submitted translations before passing them on to customers, even having to reject some submissions entirely with the consequent effect that would have on delivery deadlines. My guess is that the so-called "rule" is for the benefit of translation agencies only. Freelance translators working for direct customers can safely ignore it in favor of the more general rule "Translators are well-advised to translate only within their competences (all of them) if they want to have the best chance of staying out of trouble."

Translation agencies generally appear to concern themselves only with the "native language". I have never been asked by an agency if I knew anything about the subject of the translation. Even though I tell agencies that I am hopeless with anything financial and cannot even balance my own check book, they still send me company quarterly reports to translate.

Originally written by Charlotte Huo on July 10, 2009 1:42 AM I always hold the opinion that they should re-phrase the guideline (if there's any) to be something like "proficiency in the target language should be of native level".

Oh, no, that is impossible to define! It seems that we are unable to clearly define a "native language" adequately, how are we going to define a "native level"? What proportion of any general population can write in their "native language" to a "level" fit for publication in a professional journal, for example? It cannot just be any native, it must be a native who can write proficiently and without errors. Even if you make that "... should be of the same level as that of a competent translator having that native language", then how are you going to test that? Are you going to have marking rules that require 100% freedom from errors of all kinds for a pass, all else is a fail? If not, how many errors would you allow?

I see the entire process as a complex network of trade-offs. Even competent translators can encounter terminology problems in their target language that have to be fudged if the deadline is to be met. All will fail to detect an error of orthography on a bad day, none will be grammatically correct in all conceivable constructions. All will misjudge a stylistic mismatch on occasions. How are you going to define the particular "native level" that is required? Are there going to be different "native levels" for "high-end" ("up-market"), "mid-range" and "low-end" ("down-market") translators?

In my opinion, it is going to have to be as suggested by several in this thread, that translators, like many others, must learn to manage their risks and know that they exceed their competences (all of them) at their peril.

Derek

Originally written by Derek Thornton on July 10, 2009 9:45 AM Oh, no, that is impossible to define! It seems that we are unable to clearly define a "native language" adequately, how are we going to define a "native level"? What proportion of any general population can write in their "native language" to a "level" fit for publication in a professional journal, for example? It cannot just be any native, it must be a native who can write proficiently and without errors. Even if you make that "... should be of the same level as that of a competent translator having that native language", then how are you going to test that? Are you going to have marking rules that require 100% freedom from errors of all kinds for a pass, all else is a fail? If not, how many errors would you allow? Derek

What I meant is, compared to "translators should only translate into their native lauguage", the re-phrased rule sounds fairer to translators, if there has to be any rule in the first place. The point is, if they have to emphasize "native", let it be native level, native here understandably referring to those who write proficiently and with minimal errors.

Originally written by Charlotte Huo on July 10, 2009 4:07 PM ... native here understandably referring to those who write proficiently and with minimal errors.

Charlotte, you need only read the postings on this learned forum for a few years to see many from native speakers that have not been written proficiently and not with minimal errors and just as many from non-native speakers that have.

A lot seems to depend on whether or not the writer has taken the trouble to read what has just been written and correct any errors detected before or immediately after posting. It appears to me that non-native speakers are more likely to take the necessary time and trouble to do that than some native speakers are apparently willing to do.

In any event, I feel that the reference ought not to be to "native speakers" in general  but to "competent translators translating into their native language" although that still leaves open the question of what a "native" language is.

I am afraid that I am not at all clear about what a "native level" is. You still did not say whether there is to be only one "native level" or different "native levels" for the different market positioning of the translators concerned.

Derek

Originally written by Derek Thornton on July 5, 2009 4:24 PM Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on July 5, 2009 8:12 PM I translate into English mostly, ... I never wrote any literature in Polish. I translate into Polish, I think I could translate prose into Polish well, I am not sure about poetry, maybe.  Have you read anything by Joseph Conrad, Liliana? I once tried to imitate his style, in particular the triple parallelism, but it is not easy (and these days might appear to be affected) and I have often wondered if there is a faint Polish flavor to it since he was already an adult when he learnt English, his third language after Polish and French. I suppose the test would be if his work is easy to translate into Polish. I guess that his publisher must have had an editor who checked his spelling and grammar and possibly also erased any remnants of Polish usage. I cannot find out anything about his working conditions and methods. Presumably, I would need to find a full biography somewhere for that. Derek

I thought about it, Derek, about his style, if it was greatly influencd by the Polish language: I don't think so. The use of adjectives, probably yes, but not the rest, in my opinion. His style simply reflects his own vision of reality, it reflects more the complexity, but yet, preciseness of his character, than the Polish language. I do not even know how good his Polish was, after all he grew up mostly in the Russian Empire, and then for a short period of time, in Krakow which  was under the Hungarian-Austrian rule. His father was a literary person, so I guess Joseph's Polish could have been good, but I do not really know. It would be hard to translate his works into Polish. They were translated into Polish, but I never read them in Polish. It is not any easier to translate them into Polish, than it is to translate any other, quite complex book in English. The triple parallelism is not something Polish: double parallelism is something present in the Bible. I really like Joseph Conrad, really like him: I kind of forgot about him for a while.

Would just like to repeat that when I talked about native level, I confined "native" to refer to those natives who write proficiently and with minimal errors. As for "many from native speakers have not been written proficiently and not with minimal errors and just as many from non-native speakers that have", I don't have to be on this forum for years to know this and I totally agree on this.

Anyway, I'm not going to and not in the capacity to amend any "rule". I'm simply against that "translators should only translate into their native language". Opinion of any sort is personal and subjective as it's mainly based on personal experiences and the way you interpret things, so don't go talk as if we were in the midst of setting new rules or amending existing rules.  

Originally written by Charlotte Huo on July 12, 2009 8:41 PM Anyway, I'm not going to and not in the capacity to amend any "rule". I'm simply against that "translators should only translate into their native language". Opinion of any sort is personal and subjective as it's mainly based on personal experiences and the way you interpret things, so don't go talk as if we were in the midst of setting new rules or amending existing rules.

I do agree with you, but there are certain condtions: I think that if a person wants to create a publishable quality in a language which is not their native, they should preferably live in the country where the language is spoken;  have lived in such a country for an extensive period of time; read most of the literature and newspapers in that language; watch movies and news in that language; speak that language a few hours a day. This is my opinion.

However, I feel most people in Portugal, and I believe elsewhere too, think translating is to render one's own into a foreign language just as well. When I sent an email advertising my services as translator to my ex-husband, who is an educated, senior IT consultant, with lots of connections in major companies, he asked me in a slightly surprised tone "I didn't see the Portuguese-English pair of languages...!"

 

Hi Marina,

I agree with what you're saying about Portugal. I also noticed that among the Portuguese Community (either in Portugal or even here in Australia), when they hear that you are a translator they assume you should do it both ways.

Like you I don't translate to English professionally. I may do the occasional translation but ONLY for friends of relatives who don't speak the language.

I agree that people should change their views about translators. They should understand that although we do have knowledge of both languages our job is to translate into our native language.

Regards

Cátia Cassiano

The answer sometimes will depend on how talented and experienced is the translator.  There is no bright line answer,  because some translators (even educated ones) do not write properly even in their own native language.  Thus,  the translator's first task is to translate well.  The most recommended is that the professional translator translates only into his or her native language, because of the level of cultural assimilation, understanding the language paradigms, etc.  Accordingly,  that should be the main measure criteria,  as well as the language of habitual use, or whatever it's defined.

I concede that the job of the translator is to translate into his or her world something that is culturally and semantically encripted, not the other way around.   However,  he or she must be talented enough to do it well,  otherwise being from that native language would neither make much variance on the matter nor guarantee anything.

I agree with you: I believe that all serious translations should be done only into your native language or the language of habitual use, menaing the language you speak everyday, know at a native level and are immersed in its culture, or at least were for more than 20 years, perhaps less for some very talented people.