| 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
|
|---|
| | | And the winner is... | Jul 27, 2013 |
| | | | | Seriously... | Jul 27, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
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.
The problem - which you obviously keep ignoring - is that there is a practical reason: most people who translate into their second language are rubbish at it. People who are able to do it are very few. This is not debatable, is it? If agencies didn't filter out non-natives, they would have to send millions of tests to ascertain their proficiency. This not only is impractical, but also very expensive. The percentage of people who are not very good at translating into their native language is far far lower than people who are rubbish at translating into their non-native language. Unfortunately, it's a fact. All you'll have to do - as a non-native - is to convince your clients that you are as good as the natives, if not better...
| | | | | I think this L1/Non-L1 thing that is being discussed is mostly related to English, | Jul 27, 2013 |
which, whether you want to admit it or not, is an unofficial lingua franca of the 21st century. So talking about native translation in general may not really make that much sense, if you want to treat English (perhaps Spanish and French as well) as any other language.
There are very few people who can write anything more serious in such languages as Polish, Russian or Lithuanian, in my experience, and I am sure many other languages, if they did not learn these languages in their ch... See more which, whether you want to admit it or not, is an unofficial lingua franca of the 21st century. So talking about native translation in general may not really make that much sense, if you want to treat English (perhaps Spanish and French as well) as any other language.
There are very few people who can write anything more serious in such languages as Polish, Russian or Lithuanian, in my experience, and I am sure many other languages, if they did not learn these languages in their childhood and went to schools where these languages were the languages of instruction. So, there is no such a problem in the language pairs from x to less popular languages. the problem exists mostly in translating into English. Of course, if the person could write well in those languages, they should not be precluded from translating into them.
Would too many translators originally from England, let's say, even want to translate into Russian, and deal with the Cyrillic alphabet and "mygkiye znaki"? They should be allowed though,if they want to, and if they can do it well.
[Edited at 2013-07-27 12:11 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
which, whether you want to admit it or not, is an unofficial lingua franca of the 21st century. So talking about native translation in general may not really make that much sense, if you want to treat English (perhaps Spanish and French as well) as any other language.
There are very few people who can write anything more serious in such languages as Polish, Russian or Lithuanian, in my experience, and I am sure many other languages, if they did not learn these languages in their childhood and went to schools where these languages were the languages of instruction. So, there is no such a problem in the language pairs from x to less popular languages. the problem exists mostly in translating into English. Of course, if the person could write well in those languages, they should not be precluded from translating into them.
[Edited at 2013-07-27 12:03 GMT]
what's your solution? How are you going to convince your clients that you are very good - or better - than the natives in your L2?
| | |
|
|
|
| I already stated my solution. | Jul 27, 2013 |
There is no need to convince anyone about anything -- the important thing is that the translation should be good. Translation is not a contest, in most cases, but rather work. The companies should have good editors who could tell them whether a translation is good or not, rather than use any unreasonable, general criteria and expect miracles. They can ask the translator to translate the first 1,000 words of the original text, let's say, before they authorize the rest of the work -- paid of cou... See more There is no need to convince anyone about anything -- the important thing is that the translation should be good. Translation is not a contest, in most cases, but rather work. The companies should have good editors who could tell them whether a translation is good or not, rather than use any unreasonable, general criteria and expect miracles. They can ask the translator to translate the first 1,000 words of the original text, let's say, before they authorize the rest of the work -- paid of course. This way they will know if the person is capable of doing it, or not.
[Edited at 2013-07-27 12:20 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Totally impractical... | Jul 27, 2013 |
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
There is no need to convince anyone about anything -- the important thing is that the translation should be good. Translation is not a contest, in most cases, but rather work. The companies should have good editors who could tell them whether a translation is good or not, rather than use any unreasonable, general criteria and expect miracles. They can ask the translator to translate the first 1,000 words of the original text, let's say, before they authorize the rest of the work -- paid of course. This way they will know if the person is capable of doing it, or not.
[Edited at 2013-07-27 12:20 GMT]
There are millions of good native translators, why should clients risk it? It just doesn't make economical sense. I agree in theory, but it's not viable.
| | | | | No, there are not, in many language pairs -- also it depends what you call native, if you mean the | Jul 27, 2013 |
dominant language or L1. Plus, all people were created free, and they have the right to translate into the language of their choice if they are good at it. The client is not always the king, but even a king can err.
| | | | | The risk is... | Jul 27, 2013 |
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:
There are millions of good native translators, why should clients risk it? It just doesn't make economical sense. I agree in theory, but it's not viable.
... that there are many bad native translators, as well as many good non-native translators, as evidenced on this thread.
It's like assuming that any car having an engine with more than 150 HP will be safe and comfortable, while any car with a less powerful one will not be so. It doesn't make economical sense to demand >150 HP as an essential requirement for safety and comfort.
It's the Type 1 vs. Type 2 error thing.
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L. 
India
Local time: 21:12
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
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.
The problem - which you obviously keep ignoring - is that there is a practical reason: most people who translate into their second language are rubbish at it.
Are you serious?
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.
| | | | | The blame game | Jul 27, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
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.
I've seen this happen.
Agency hires a cheap, incompetent native translator into Slobovian. End-client gets the job checked, and it stinks. They complain harshly to the agency.
Agency replies they hired a verified thoroughbred Sloboviak, born and living in Lower Slobovia. Says they can't help it if those slobs can't master their own lingo. Agency feels it's of the hook!
| | | |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
That is exactly what we have been arguing all along in this thread, that being native is no guarantee of a good translator.
But statistically, it's more likely to get a better translation from a native. It's a question of numbers. Clients won't risk it. So, it's up to you to prove that your are better than natives.
| | | | | This is not the point... | Jul 27, 2013 |
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
All people were created free, and they have the right to translate into the language of their choice if they are good at it. The client is not always the king, but even a king can err.
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.
| | |
|
|
|
Mark Benson (X)
English to Swedish
+ ...
| Non-native is backwards, MT is forward | Jul 27, 2013 |
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 ... See more 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. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Statistics don't count in a genral sense. | Jul 27, 2013 |
It depends in which language pairs. There are some languages that hardly anyone speaks, except the people who have grown-up speaking them -- in such cases they also have to translate their languages into other languages, even if their translation was not 100% perfect, stylistically. It will still be better than the translation done by a person who does not understand the source text --look at Chukchi or Sami, or even not as rare languages, like Hungarian, or Finnish.
I just w... See more It depends in which language pairs. There are some languages that hardly anyone speaks, except the people who have grown-up speaking them -- in such cases they also have to translate their languages into other languages, even if their translation was not 100% perfect, stylistically. It will still be better than the translation done by a person who does not understand the source text --look at Chukchi or Sami, or even not as rare languages, like Hungarian, or Finnish.
I just wonder where you got this information about millions of native translators translating from rare languages, Govanni. This is just no the case. You might be lucky to find or or two in some language pairs -- in the world I mean.
I really think English is not like any regular native language. I know quite a few people who translate from Swedish into English (in the literary field), and their translations are perfect -- people born in Sweden. It may be true the other way around. I don't know too many people from the English-speaking countries who would translate into Swedish, or other Scandinavian languages. To: Mark.
Most Scandinavian (good, experienced translators) and Dutch translators can usually successfully translate into English. I am not sure about other language groups, but it is an individual thing, I guess, especially in the case of more popular languages, like English or French. Becket wrote his best works in French, even though he was born in an English-speaking country. I think this is all about the market -- who is taking which jobs from whom,in the case of such languages as English-French, German-English, Scandinavian languages -- English -- mostly these pairs protect their territories.
And good luck with MT-- in some language pairs especially. You might be lucky to get all the words in the same target language, because some MT target languages have mixed vocabulary from two or more unrelated languages -- just geographically close countries.
[Edited at 2013-07-27 14:10 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
It depends in which language pairs. There are some languages that hardly anyone speaks, except the people who have grown-up speaking them -- in such cases they also have to translate their languages into other languages, even if their translation was not 100% perfect, stylistically. It will still be better than the translation done by a person who does not understand the source text --look at Chukchi or Sami, or even not as rare languages, like Hungarian, or Finnish.
You can apply the same statistics to non-natives...
| | | | | 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 | Pastey | Your smart companion app
Pastey is an innovative desktop application that bridges the gap between human expertise and artificial intelligence. With intuitive keyboard shortcuts, Pastey transforms your source text into AI-powered draft translations.
Find out more » |
| | 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
