| 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
|
|---|
| | Kay Denney 
France
Local time: 14:41
French to English
| problem is... | Jul 28, 2013 |
Charlotte Farrell wrote:
My conclusion on the matter of translators translating into a language that is not their native is as follows: if you have an exceptional command of the target language, then this is more than acceptable and in fact can result in a more faithful rendering of the source text; if your command of the target language is lacking in any way, then you shouldn't translate into it.
Unfortunately not everyone has a clear idea of how bad their English is.
I once had to refuse to schedule an interview for a person who claimed to be a native speaker and who had even "teached (sic)" English in New York.
| | | | | you have the wrong impression... | Jul 28, 2013 |
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
They just need editors who can tell them if the translation is correct or not-- something many agencies don't have.
As to the thousands of translators -- were are they in such language pairs as Polish-X, or even Russian -X, although there might be slightly more foreign-born people who speak Russian, than Polish, or Lithuanian. This does not mean, however, that they understand such a complex language as Russian well. There might be a few exceptions, of course. I learned Russian between the age of 3-6, and, yes I understand 99.9% of Russian (almost the same as English), including the slang, compared to about 95% of Polish, without any understanding of the contemporary slang.
[Edited at 2013-07-28 15:21 GMT]
there are lots of translators who can translate competently from a Eastern European language into another language. Especially in Europe. Lots of them live in-country or have spent years there and have kept their knowledge up-to-date. This is what being a professional translator means. You seem to refute this, point blank. I could say, for example, that you, who live in the States, might have great difficulty in keeping up with your active language, being so far away. I'm sure this not the case. So, why should it be different for others?
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 18:11
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Forgive me, I will again have to say you haven't understood the issue at all | Jul 28, 2013 |
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:
I'm trying to explain that a non-native being exceptionally good is the exception, and that in general you will find a lot of very competent natives doing the job pretty well, which makes the need of non-natives redundant.
The issue is not this at all.
The issue is, job posters using the native-only criterion to exclude non-natives at the first screening round itself. The highly competent non-native translators never get the chance even to quote.
The issue of incompetent non-native translators or incompetent native translators getting the job and messing it up, though important, comes at a later stage.
To ensure fairness to all translators, the first level screening based on a mythical feature like "native is best" needs to be done away with.
The second important issue is, the native-only myth promotes a false sense of security among agencies that natives can ensure quality translation, and many don't think it necessary to go any further in their pursuit of quality. Now many of those natives may have near-nil knowledge of the source language, have little experience in translation, and no specialist knowledge. In contrast, there would be several competent non-native translators, with years of experience in translation and with specialist knowledge in the subject, and native-level proficiency in source and target languages, but all that would be to no avail to them because they would have been excluded from the bidding process at the very first stage itself. And who suffers because of this? The agency which gets a crappy translation done by an incompetent native and its end client. The overall reputation of our profession too takes a nosedive.
That is why it is being said here, no matter whether there be only a few competent non-native translators eligible for a particular job, you can't exclude them from bidding on jobs and restrict the bidding to a smaller group of translators, that is, the natives. This would be a clear case of discrimination which is frowned upon by not only the laws of many countries, but also by common perceptions of professional ethics and morality.
In other words, the issue is not that non-native translators always produce better translation than natives or vice-versa, but that the use of the native-only feature excludes many competent and eligible translators from accessing legitimate business on the grounds of their not being native.
To legitimise this exclusion, canards about non-natives always producing crappy translation are spread. That is why this myth is a highly dangerous one for our profession.
If we talk in generalisations, that many non-natives do not make good translators can sound convincing, but if we look more carefully into this generalisation, you will see among the non-native translators also some excellent translators whose output would be second to none.
And the generalisation that all natives make good translators too looks convincing at first glance, but when we delve deeper you see that many of these natives have poor writing skills and poorer understanding of translation.
So tucked away under most generalisations are important exceptional cases which in most cases invalidate these generalisations.
This is the crux of the issue of this thread and many of the similar threads in these forums.
[Edited at 2013-07-28 16:40 GMT]
| | | | | B., as I said many times before... | Jul 28, 2013 |
unless it's a very minor language pair, there is no need to use non-natives. Most translations are in very common language pairs (and I also include Eastern European languages in this) and there are plenty of natives that can do the job competently. That's why non-natives are excluded. Generally, there is no need for them. It's time-consuming, uneconomical and impractical to use them. Statistically, they do a worse job.
As I s... See more unless it's a very minor language pair, there is no need to use non-natives. Most translations are in very common language pairs (and I also include Eastern European languages in this) and there are plenty of natives that can do the job competently. That's why non-natives are excluded. Generally, there is no need for them. It's time-consuming, uneconomical and impractical to use them. Statistically, they do a worse job.
As I said, ask Proz to change their policy, if it's that important to you. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 18:11
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | That would be unfortunate though, and nothing to cheer about for both camps | Jul 28, 2013 |
Texte Style wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Now that there is a more or less consensus that non-natives producing quality translation is not such an exotic thing, we need to see what requires to be done at various levels in the translation sector to make this new understanding of translation to reflect in business processes adopted by the various stakeholders - which are translators, agencies and this site. The end clients too should ideally be included, but since in a sense they include the entire humanity, it would be too big a task for us.
Let us see what each of these three stakeholders would now need to do.
Translators have the easiest burden - they only need to outgrow the myth that only natives can produce quality translation and internalize the more nuanced understanding of what translation is and how high level proficiency is acquired by different people in their working languages. They can also contribute to quietly burying the myth by not doing anything to further animate it.
Agencies will have a slightly heavier burden, especially those that have in place systems that consciously exclude non-native translators, which all would have to be redesigned. They would also have to work out new metricies for identifying qualified translators as they can now no longer rely on the single-factor metric of "only native translators". Much of their legacy database accumulated using the native-only criterion will now become unusable and they would have to begin all over again to collect a new database of translators. They would also have to embark upon a massive retraining exercise for their PMs, especially the older ones with entrenched views about native is best.
And finally, this site would have to retire the native button and redesign the site around more inclusive principles that give equal opportunities to all proficient translators.
On the face of it, these can appear difficult, but most industries and businesses are continuously redefining themselves in the light of new knowledge and this exercise will only strengthen all the parties concerned in the long run.
[Edited at 2013-07-28 13:16 GMT] Well no, I don't know that there is any consensus, if there appears to be, it's only because some have given up and those non-members whose posts have to be approved have not had any of their contributions published. So since your initial premise is out of line, if follows that the rest can be cheerfully disregarded, as I expect it will be 
You could be right there about the expectation, but it would still be unfortunate and nothing to cheer about for both camps.
I am unable to see what is out of line in the basic premise I am operating on that no competent translator, native or otherwise, should be denied legitimate access to jobs on grounds that are mythical to say the least.
When this happens on organized scales as with this site and with many agencies, it is the profession that is hit hard, and ultimately all of us as parts of this profession.
[Edited at 2013-07-28 16:01 GMT]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 18:11
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Sorry, G., but our perspectives are different | Jul 28, 2013 |
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:
unless it's a very minor language pair, there is no need to use non-natives. Most translations are in very common language pairs (and I also include Eastern European languages in this) and there are plenty of natives that can do the job competently. That's why non-natives are excluded. Generally, there is no need for them. It's time-consuming, uneconomical and impractical to use them. Statistically, they do a worse job.
I am looking at this not from the point of view of agencies but from that of translators, and from this perspective it looks quite sensible to me.
As far as agencies are concerned, of course they will have to make adjustments and invest more in translator selection. I won't call that a waste of time or money or impractical, but moving to a better and more professional business model, in which more is done for identifying the best talent for the job than just repeating the native is best mantra unthinkingly.
Such a strategic move would eventually pay them off in terms of better translation quality achieved through the selection of better translators (who would now be both native and non-native, hence come from a larger pool of talent). This will have a domino effect in more satisfied clients bringing in more work for them.
It is a win-win situation for everyone concerned according to me.
[Edited at 2013-07-28 16:04 GMT]
| | | | | B., we agree... | Jul 28, 2013 |
but unfortunately, it's a commercial world. You should be angry with your non-natives colleagues that give you a bad name...
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 18:11
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | The solution however is not that | Jul 28, 2013 |
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:
but unfortunately, it's a commercial world. You should be angry with your non-natives colleagues that give you a bad name...
Getting angry with anyone hardly solves any problem. I know you and I at our personal levels can do precious little to change entrenched positions, especially if they are in the minds of people. But does that mean we should not try, too?
Fortunately or unfortunately, I don't take such a pessimistic view, which is why I repeatedly irritate polyglot45 by raising this issue again and again like a broken record every time I get an opportunity in these forums.
For the only way to defang a myth is to expose it at all possible occasions where it threatens to take control of things and minds.
| | |
|
|
|
| Perhaps a variety of American English. | Jul 28, 2013 |
Texte Style wrote: Charlotte Farrell wrote:
My conclusion on the matter of translators translating into a language that is not their native is as follows: if you have an exceptional command of the target language, then this is more than acceptable and in fact can result in a more faithful rendering of the source text; if your command of the target language is lacking in any way, then you shouldn't translate into it. Unfortunately not everyone has a clear idea of how bad their English is. I once had to refuse to schedule an interview for a person who claimed to be a native speaker and who had even "teached (sic)"m English in New York.
Well, maybe the person spoke New York English. It might be very different from British English,sometimes -- depending which variety you speak. Overall, people speak high quality English in New York.
| | | |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Getting angry with anyone hardly solves any problem.
but sometimes, it makes you feel better...  I'm sure you'll keep working on finding a solution.
| | | | | It is hard for me to believe it | Jul 28, 2013 |
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:
unless it's a very minor language pair, there is no need to use non-natives. Most translations are in very common language pairs (and I also include Eastern European languages in this) and there are plenty of natives that can do the job competently. That's why non-natives are excluded. Generally, there is no need for them. It's time-consuming, uneconomical and impractical to use them. Statistically, they do a worse job.
What about freedom, what about allowing people to do what they are good at and what makes them happy. There is no need to do anything in life, perhaps when you are in jail, you have to blindly comply with all the orders.
As to the translators from all Eastern-European languages --90% of them are at least born in Eastern Europe, and educated somewhere perhaps. I have too much experience with the Eastern European translation market to believe that 90% of the translators were born somewhere else. The 10% are just exceptions to the rule, whose grandfathers came from those countries, or simply have interest in those languages and cultures. Even most professors of Slavic languages at the US universities were born in Eastern Europe.
The world is not commercial, but rather something that is supposed to be a harmonious environment for human beings, and animals, to live, first of all. Perhaps the commercial aspect is important but it is not the king.
[Edited at 2013-07-28 17:25 GMT]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 18:11
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Your posts are appearing with a time lag | Jul 28, 2013 |
Texte Style wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
This site can help by deemphasizing the native-only condition in its job postings and translator databases by withdrawing the native-only button. Encouragingly, there is consensus on this matter among both parties of this debate, and proz.com should consider implementing this forthwith.
Well you could always use a support ticket to make the suggestion couldn't you? or set up a rival website without such a button (please send me the link if you do!).
PJ.
I don't know about the others here, but I have not requested the withdrawal of a button that would bring me work if I were interested in the stuff available here!
Yes I understand this very well - part of the problem with this is, natives would want to protect their turf and won't want it to be overrun by other competent translators with whom they would then have to compete.
I think if it were withdrawn, a lot of clients would demand its immediate reinstatement, since so many of them click on it.
It can't just be withdrawn one fine day. A case would have be carefully built for its removal and outsourcers would have to be painstakingly educated how the removal of this button would actually benefit them by making available to them more translation talent to choose from. Also a lot of hand-holding will have to be done for them while they shift to a superior business model in which translator selection is more rationally and comprehensively done. May be some of the more experienced and computer-savvy translators here can even help them in drawing up the blueprint of a new business model and help them refashion their translator selection web forms and databases.
It will all have to be done in a well-thought out way causing least pain to every one concerned. But I have no doubt that if the will is there it can be effectively done.
As for comparing it to junk in the supermarket that you buy even though you didn't really want it... well I might sometimes be tempted by something that's not on my list, but it would have to be great quality and great value for money, and the sort of thing I do generally like, to even consider splashing out, so you see the clients who click on it probably do vaguely want it even if they hadn't considered it before filling in the criteria for the translator they are seeking.
That has not been my experience at all. Whenever I go to the mall I always come away with mountains of goods that I don't even look at after they have been dumped into the corner of the house. In fact my wife and daughters repeatedly scold me for picking up unwanted things and surreptitiously remove them from the shopping cart when I am looking the other way.
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:41
Hebrew to English
| Here's why ProZ isn't going to do anything..... | Jul 28, 2013 |
In the words of the great Henry Dotterer:
Henry Dotterer wrote:
native-ness not equated with quality; starts with client
Some companies require "native" translation of material that will be read by "natives". (Sometimes based on experiences... the overseas office has been critical in the past, etc.)
Some agencies, understanding this, offer "native" services. This requires that they hire "native" translators.
In these cases, "native-ness" is not necessarily equated with quality; no relationship is drawn. Consider "nativeness" a requirement made *in additional to* quality (rather than in order to achieve it).
Therefore, no one should claim to be "native" if (s)he is not. Simply lying will get you nowhere. You'll have angry customers, projects for which you don't get paid--not to mention that if it is clear that you misrepresent yourself, in violation of the user's agreement of this site--you'll lose your ProZ.com membership.
On the other hand, if native speakers regard you as a native speaker, personally, I think you are one. If you are one of these (rare) people, you know who you are.
http://www.proz.com/forum/linguistics/15967-requirement_for_native_speakers_only_isnt_that_discrimination.html#102945
*Emphasis is mine.
Nuff said.
[Edited at 2013-07-28 16:59 GMT]
| | | | | I would really love to meet | Jul 28, 2013 |
a person born in the US, or in the UK, with no major connections to Eastern Europe whose Polish, Russian or Ukrainian would be better than my Spanish, which I learned in college, understand quite well, but I would only venture to translate a Birth Certificate from it. If I don't understand at least 90% of the text without a dictionary, I would not feel qualified to translate from that language.
Native is a very vague term, and you are a native speaker if you satisfy at least one o... See more a person born in the US, or in the UK, with no major connections to Eastern Europe whose Polish, Russian or Ukrainian would be better than my Spanish, which I learned in college, understand quite well, but I would only venture to translate a Birth Certificate from it. If I don't understand at least 90% of the text without a dictionary, I would not feel qualified to translate from that language.
Native is a very vague term, and you are a native speaker if you satisfy at least one of the requirements stated by many sources, including Wikipedia. A native might a politically incorrect word, in the US at least. (without speaker)
There are no such requirements at any universities, if you take literary translation courses, translate for literary contests. this is something exclusively commercial.
[Edited at 2013-07-28 17:22 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 18:11
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Thanks for this link | Jul 28, 2013 |
Ty Kendall wrote: In the words of the great Henry Dotterer: Henry Dotterer wrote:
native-ness not equated with quality; starts with client
Some companies require "native" translation of material that will be read by "natives". (Sometimes based on experiences... the overseas office has been critical in the past, etc.)
Some agencies, understanding this, offer "native" services. This requires that they hire "native" translators.
In these cases, "native-ness" is not necessarily equated with quality; no relationship is drawn. Consider "nativeness" a requirement made *in additional to* quality (rather than in order to achieve it).
Therefore, no one should claim to be "native" if (s)he is not. Simply lying will get you nowhere. You'll have angry customers, projects for which you don't get paid--not to mention that if it is clear that you misrepresent yourself, in violation of the user's agreement of this site--you'll lose your ProZ.com membership.
On the other hand, if native speakers regard you as a native speaker, personally, I think you are one. If you are one of these (rare) people, you know who you are. http://www.proz.com/forum/linguistics/15967-requirement_for_native_speakers_only_isnt_that_discrimination.html#102945 *Emphasis is mine. Nuff said. [Edited at 2013-07-28 16:59 GMT]
Thanks for this link. It is from before I became a member of this site, so I had missed it. There are further links at the end of this discussion that lead on to more threads of a similar nature, and there are reference too to even more bigger discussions on this topic in the Russian forum, and perhaps even in other language forums. All this shows this is a very sore issue for many members, and it is rather frustrating that the site has done nothing about it.
From Henry's quote above, the native only button was introduced in all innocence but now it has grown into a real monster throttling competition on this site and promoting blatant discrimination. All the more reason why it should be revisited and removed or drastically deemphasised.
In fact, Henry's quote only strengthens the case of this thread, for clearly the native button is now being used by outsourcers to exclude competent translators on the clear understanding that native is superior (as is clear also from many of the arguments that have been put forward in this thread by the native supporters) and this goes contrary to Henry's clear injunction that native should not be taken as a sign of quality. All the more reason to do away with this button, for it is now working contrary to its original intention.
| | | | | 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 | 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 » |
| | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
