The world of translation can be a confusing place, especially if you’re the one doing the buying on behalf of your company. Many purchasers of translation services feel like you might when you take your car to the mechanic. How do you really know what’s going on underneath the hood? After all, if you don’t speak the language into which you’re having something translated, how can you measure quality and hold your vendors accountable?
As a result of this phenomenon, many translation consumers resort to tactics that might seem logical to them, but can actually get in the way of ensuring the best quality. Here are ten widespread misconceptions related to translation that can actually do more harm than good:
• Myth #1: Bigger is always better.
• Myth #2: All I need is a translator.
• Myth #3: More translators will result in better quality.
• Myth #4: Pitting one provider against another keeps quality in check.
• Myth #5: Getting a “back translation” will ensure quality.
• Myth #6: Bilingual employees will provide me with helpful quality feedback.
• Myth #7: Translation quality control works well.
• Myth #8: My source content has no impact on quality.
• Myth #9: Technology should be avoided.
• Myth #10: When you ask for a “translation” you’ll get the same thing from everyone.
The takeaway? Like measuring the quality of someone’s writing, translation quality isn’t a simple topic. Often, it’s a highly subjective one. Who is the “best writer”? The answer varies, depending on the genre of writing and even who the reader is. And who is the “best mechanic?” It’s hard for a layperson to judge that, but what they can judge are other performance metrics – how the car runs, how many trips to the mechanic it requires, how often it breaks down, how fast they can get the car in for service, and how they are treated as a customer. It’s much more challenging for the average driver to understand complicated technical and mechanical diagnostics. The same is true of translation – understanding quality at a deep level takes far more than just proficiency in two languages.
In fact, for non-linguists, sometimes the best indicator of translation quality has nothing to do with things like typos and misspellings. From the buyer’s perspective, translation quality often has more to do with the real proof of a good translation — the results that it enables — in the form of greater brand awareness, more customers, more page views, more downloads, and more sales.
See: Huffington Post
Subscribe to the translation news daily digest here. See more translation news.
Also see Some misconceptions and some facts about (freelance) translators
Share an article »
ProZ.com blog »
Польша
Local time: 20:32
английский => польский
+ ...
Another myth is the now-hallowed rule that only native speakers of the target language should translate. This myth connects with similarly irrational emphasis on expression over comprehension, which probably connects with deemphasis on correctness in favour of 'communication' in language teaching.
США
Local time: 12:32
испанский => английский
+ ...
Obviously this isn't g... See more
Obviously this isn't going the be correct in every case, but it happens enough that, in my opinion, directly dismissing a translator based solely on his or her native language isn't wise. ▲ Collapse
США
Local time: 13:32
Член ProZ.com c 2012
тамильский => английский
+ ...
One common fallacy is that back translation will match the source totally.
I am reminded of the saying " The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" after back translation from Russian ( as the anecdote goes- it can be any other language too)
reads "The wine is good but the meat is stale"!!!
США
Local time: 14:32
русский => английский
+ ...
I think anyone should be allowed to translate into any language and from any language they know very well-- at least quasi native level in the case of translating into it. I think you have to speak the language in everyday life and even live in the country where it is spoken to successfully translate into it.
Sometimes you may not even be able to translate into your L1, if you have just some education in it, and haven't spoken it much for many years, even if your accent is still perfect. The language will feel stilted, and you may not even understand certain things too well. Language requires constant work and exposure.
I agree with most of the points in the article that clients usually have no idea what translation entails.
[Edited at 2013-07-20 15:40 GMT]
[Edited at 2013-07-20 16:06 GMT] ▲ Collapse
Франция
Local time: 20:32
французский => английский
However good my native French colleagues though, my English prose flows better than theirs. And for the English reader, that's more important than an obscure reference that is meani... See more
However good my native French colleagues though, my English prose flows better than theirs. And for the English reader, that's more important than an obscure reference that is meaningless for the English even if it raises a chuckle among French readers of the source text. ▲ Collapse
Испания
Local time: 20:32
испанский => английский
+ ...
... its a matter of a pinion. Obviously, if you are translating into a language that isn't your mother tongue, but which you are confidently fluent in, then you will defend the position that it's OK to do so, because it's what you do to earn a living.
However, going by experience, capable non-native speaker translators in my pair (Castilian Spanish -> English) are few and far between. Give me a native any day, and damn the torpedoes.
США
Local time: 14:32
русский => английский
+ ...
The mother tongue thing is a cliche in many contexts -- what does it actually mean in reference to translation. It is definitely not your L1 which you spoke un... See more
The mother tongue thing is a cliche in many contexts -- what does it actually mean in reference to translation. It is definitely not your L1 which you spoke until the age of ten.
[Edited at 2013-07-20 17:12 GMT] ▲ Collapse
Великобритания
Local time: 19:32
иврит => английский
Obviously, if you are translating into a language that isn't your mother tongue, but which you are confidently fluent in, then you will defend the position that it's OK to do so, because it's what you do to earn a living.
Quite!
I would say the same for my language pair too. I've been sent Heblish to revise enough times to not be convinced of the merits of non-native translation.
Torpedos to hit in 3...2...1....
США
Local time: 14:32
русский => английский
+ ...
There actually might be a d... See more
There actually might be a difference between translating French into English, and Albanian into English.
[Edited at 2013-07-20 18:20 GMT] ▲ Collapse
Польша
Local time: 20:32
английский => польский
+ ...
... its a matter of a pinion. Obviously, if you are translating into a language that isn't your mother tongue, but which you are confidently fluent in, then you will defend the position that it's OK to do so, because it's what you do to earn a living.
Of course, but then, if you're not native in your source language, you will defend the position that it's OK for you to translate from it, because that's what you do for a living.
I often lament the grammar, syntax and lexical choices of source-native PL-EN, and visiting the Kudoz board sometimes makes me want to cry, but find me a real native speaker of English who can fully comprehend the meaning of a Polish source, forget the nuances of the mood and register and the finest aspects of emphasis. If you did, I just might prefer to have him translate into Polish also, over the core contigent I have to proofread.
While overall quality is of top importance, I'd always see a couple of non-native giveaways (few Polish writers have a perfect mastery of inflection, while there exist some errors, even small ones, that no native speaker would ever make) than a bunch of typical issues found in translations or any other writing.
How many people in England, or in the United States speak certain rare, or less popular languages fluently -- like Czech, or Bulgarian?
Modernly, it's already difficult enough to find acceptable English in writers who are native to it. Their errors are usually distinguishable from those typically made by non-native speakers, but who cares if the sum total of suck is overall the same or higher than in the writing of a competent L2 user. For the record, I'm not saying that L1 users of Polish are better at their language than L1 users of Polish — they are definitely not, it's just competent L2 users of Polish are extremely rare (even among native speakers of closely related languages), so you almost never see one in real life.
[Edited at 2013-07-20 18:35 GMT]
Local time: 20:32
испанский => английский
+ ...
Don't forget that we are talking about 2 major European languages. In the case of minor languages, non-native translators would ... See more
Don't forget that we are talking about 2 major European languages. In the case of minor languages, non-native translators would not be able to claim that they provide professional-standard translations, the best they could aim for would be useable ones. Don't forget, companies stake their reputation on translations.
@ Triston, what a strange opinion. If you don't understand the source language properly you should pursue further training in translation. ▲ Collapse
Local time: 20:32
испанский => английский
+ ...
London is bursting at the seams with Poles and Madrid, where I live, certainly is home to a fair number. Just from where I live I can tell you that the children have a bilingual upbringing. So at some point in the future, there will potentially be numerous Polish to English or Spanish translators/interpreters. The same probably applies for Czech and some other languages too.
Польша
Local time: 20:32
английский => польский
+ ...
I would definitely agree with Neilmac on this one. If I had seen even part of a sentence correctly translated I wouldn't be so inflexible, but I've never seen it yet.
... But I'm afraid that my French wouldn't be up to the task these days, and I have little Latin-English to show. Perhaps one day. Incidentally, I feel much the same way about the idea of a real native speaker of English trying to translate from Polish, although I've seen two or three who can do it, based on the sample translations in their profiles. Incidentally, real near-native Poles (also few and far between) aren't noticeably worse at the same task. If I had to choose among them, I'd do so guided by their samples rather than nationality, especially as they would at any rate need to be far above the level of a typical university-educated L1 user in both source and target (or capable of delivering the same quality of translation as if they were, which is rare but some people can do it).
There may be a world of difference between simply passing a C2 examination or earning a Master's degree in translation or linguistics (which is where most translators are, not even counting the less competent ones) and actually understanding the source on a native or near-native level. There are many situations in which I feel more comfortable as a native speaker of the source than one of the target. For texts that need fidelity, it's better to have a native speaker with C2 competence in the target language than the other way round.
London is bursting at the seams with Poles and Madrid, where I live, certainly is home to a fair number. Just from where I live I can tell you that the children have a bilingual upbringing. So at some point in the future, there will potentially be numerous Polish to English or Spanish translators/interpreters. The same probably applies for Czech and some other languages too.
There might be some competition from there in 30 years from now, but I doubt that, considering the quality of L1 and L2 (and Ln) teaching these days, when even proofreaders usually fall short of the standards that should be expected of a writer.
[Edited at 2013-07-20 18:54 GMT]
США
Local time: 14:32
русский => английский
+ ...
I can say one thing, that Polish has significantly changed over the last thirty years, much more than any other language that I am in contact with. It has become more casual, or "casualized", or even slangish, in some cases. Also, the legalese is quite peculiar -- I must admit I understand Russian legalese muc... See more
I can say one thing, that Polish has significantly changed over the last thirty years, much more than any other language that I am in contact with. It has become more casual, or "casualized", or even slangish, in some cases. Also, the legalese is quite peculiar -- I must admit I understand Russian legalese much better, which logically thinking, should not really be the case. It might be more similar to English (conceptually), or more logical, or something -- I am not exactly sure what it is.
As to children of the Polish speaking parents -- I don't know about London of 2013, but it must be very different than the US then. Very few children of Polish-speaking parents who came here even at the age of 10, speak good Polish, not to say can write anything more complex in Polish. It is similar with Russian. Many Russian children cannot read the Cyrillic.
[Edited at 2013-07-20 19:13 GMT]
[Edited at 2013-07-21 07:49 GMT]
[Edited at 2013-07-21 07:52 GMT] ▲ Collapse
To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:
You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »
This discussion can also be accessed via the ProZ.com forum pages.