| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | Defining "passive" Thread poster: transparx
|
|---|
Malik Beytek (X)
Local time: 22:27
| Of course I wouldn't pay top rates to *bad translators*... | Jan 31, 2007 |
Chinese Concept wrote:
So you'd be prepared to pay top rates to translators who couldn't turn out a translated text that read like it had been written by a native speaker?
Bad translators would love to have you as their client:)
If I were buying translation, say as a business man seeking contact in a country where I don't speak the local langauge, I imagine I would seek best combination of a number of factors, including (a) a degree of accuracy, (b) a bit of style, so that it doesn't get on peoples'nerves to the point of lowering my productivity, (c) logistical convenience, and (d) price, of course. I might even go for a relative -- keep the money in the family, see. Millions of factors like that...
Some other buyer of translation -- say a publisher -- might look for style more than any thing else.
A particular buyer might well establish for some or all of its projects that the translated text must read as if it had been written by a native speaker of that language. I haven't got an iota of a problem with that. It is HIS project. It is HIS hand under the rock, as they say it in Turkish sometimes.
But I don't understand categorical requirement for native-speaker for all translation assignments -- at that, the requirement coming from translators themselves.
Millions of non-native speakers of English think, speak, teach, work, and also write in English -- they write scientific articles, they write business reports, etc. By some of the assumptions as advanced in this forum, what they write can never read like written by a native speaker. But it is OK for them to produce those texts, is it not?
So why MUST a translated text read like as if it were written by a native-speaker, at all times and all places and under any and all circumstances?
And, for God's sake, there is something called editing and there are people called editors, are there not?
All I can see is that this obsession with native speaker requirement is not doing any good to translation community. They don't seem to get support for it either - not from science, not from law, not from ethics, or even tradition.
Let me finish with the following point:
At least conceivably, if I were a buyer of translation, I might prefer to have a text in my native language translated to a foreign language by a translator native to my language and then hire an editor, or maybe a translator / editor, who is a native speaker to the target language, even if this meant higher cost than it would be with hiring directly a translator who is native speaker to target language. Why would I do that? Obviously because I would be thinking that procedure to be potentially most effective procedure for getting a point across, why else?
Translation is sort of a problem solving process. In problem solving they have this saying that it is better to implement a so-and-so solution to the right problem than implementing the perfect solution to the wrong problem.
Don't underestimate the role of competence in source language.
And, oh, yeah -- cheers.
Well look I'm in a sulking mood, what can I do ?
[Edited at 2007-01-31 17:28]
| | | | Giles Watson 
Italy
Local time: 21:27
Italian to English
In memoriam | OK, OK, you're right | Jan 31, 2007 |
Malik Yenigelen wrote:
But I don't understand categorical requirement for native-speaker for all translation assignments -- at that, the requirement coming from translators themselves.
Come on, Bulent, there is no such requirement.
Often, for example when understanding the source text is the main requirement, a freeware resource like BabelFish is more than sufficient. Of course, this leaves us translators out in the cold but if the punters only need to understand the gist of the original, I don't want to waste my time giving them a top-quality translation.
Millions of non-native speakers of English think, speak, teach, work, and also write in English -- they write scientific articles, they write business reports, etc. By some of the assumptions as advanced in this forum, what they write can never read like written by a native speaker. But it is OK for them to produce those texts, is it not?
Again, in most cases what those non-native speakers write will probably not be convincing English (at least, it won't convince pedants like me). It will, however, generally be more than sufficient for those who want a reasonably digestible, technically correct version. Non-native experts are generally preferable to native non-experts in highly technical fields, believe me. I speak from experience.
So why MUST a translated text read like as if it were written by a native-speaker, at all times and all places and under any and all circumstances?
Verbs like "must" and adverbials like "at all times" are inherently unreliable when you are discussing a constantly changing phenomenon like language. If you stopped using them, it would probably do wonders for your blood pressure
And, for God's sake, there is something called editing and there are people called editors, are there not?
Yes, and it costs. Some clients are prepared to pay for it and others aren't. It's up to you to decide which clients you want to cater for.
At least conceivably, if I were a buyer of translation, I might prefer to have a text in my native language translated to a foreign language by a translator native to my language and then hire an editor, or maybe a translator / editor, who is a native speaker to the target language, even if this meant higher cost than it would be with hiring directly a translator who is native speaker to target language. Why would I do that? Obviously because I would be thinking that procedure to be potentially most effective procedure for getting a point across, why else?
Now you're talking. Translation purchasers have a wide range of options, some of which may not be available at any given time for contingent reasons. You, I and all of our colleagues/competitors have a vested interest in advertising the service we can reasonably deliver in order to create a viable market for everyone.
In my case, I can earn more by translating a limited range of text types into English from one of the languages I speak than I ever could from translating English into one of my foreign languages. Your situation may be different, and I respect that.
Well look I'm in a sulking mood, what can I do
Cheer up, for a start
Best,
Giles
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 12:27
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Native speakers need "translators" too. | Jan 31, 2007 |
Malik Yenigelen wrote:
Millions of non-native speakers of English think, speak, teach, work, and also write in English -- they write scientific articles, they write business reports, etc. By some of the assumptions as advanced in this forum, what they write can never read like written by a native speaker. But it is OK for them to produce those texts, is it not?
I'll let you in on a little secret. Many, possibly most, articles, reports, etc., are not actually written by the people whose names appear with them. They are written by people whose job it is to write. I have a friend who is a medical writer, specifically dentistry, and he does the writing for both native English speaking dentists and dental researchers, and for dentists and dental researchers who are not native English speakers. The last I heard, he was collaborating with a Dane to produce an article.
[Edited at 2007-01-31 22:54]
| | |
|
|
|
Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 12:27
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Assumptions may be contested | Jan 31, 2007 |
transparx wrote:
My understanding was that Michele was simply highlighting the assumptions underlying a common misconception --not endorsing them. Perhaps I misunderstood.
You understood correctly. These assumptions may be contested, but to the extent that they are correct, the conclusion follows logically.
| | | | Malik Beytek (X)
Local time: 22:27
| I'm not dentist but... | Feb 1, 2007 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
"... I'll let you in on a little secret. Many, possibly most, articles, reports, etc., are not actually written by the people whose names appear with them. They are written by people whose job it is to write. ..."
In the circles where I was there 25-30 years ago, people wrote their own articles. Dentists could be different story, of course. And maybe times have changed.
On my part here, I have been refusing to translate even paper abstracts of Turkish academicians on the grounds that they are supposed to know enough English to write their own paper abstracts in English and I am not about to be accessory to their conduct in misreprepresenting themselves.
At any rate, those who have their articles written by others certainly won't be offering translation services. Against that, those who can or do write their own articles or reports can of course translate as well, especially in their field of specialization or related fields.
But the translation community should really drop this emphasis on native speaker thing. It is really not a good thing. For a test, extend the idea. Where does it end? What is the next step? You can't work or even talk in any any language except your native language? I mean if you can't translate, why allow teaching? Why allow any other work -- even waiter's?
I think all translators should freely translate both ways. All stand to gain from such liberalization of views. Oh, my God! I said liberalization! I'd better stop before I get a message from moderators saying "ho! ho! no politics there!".
| | | | transparx
United States
Local time: 15:27
English to Italian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Giles Watson wrote:
...mimic the reasoning of a competent translator.
Not very likely, I don't think.
At least judging from my own experience with MT, it doesn't seem to me that even a mimicking of "reasoning" is in the works. But you are right, however good these MT programs turn out to be, people will be using them, and, to some extent, they already are.
Giles Watson wrote:
...basic technical documents (user manuals and the like) are likely to be the first to be generated by machines, just as soon as the programmers cobble together terminology databases and translation memories with an algorithm to mimic the reasoning of a competent translator.
The translators who will survive MT, many of whom are earning relatively high fees already, are creative writers with a well-defined market profile, as well as linguists.
Wouldn't it be better, then, to train humans? After all, translating is a skill that can be acquired with practice. Especially in this day and age, it is much easier than it has ever been for would-be-translators to be exposed two more than one language and thus grow up bilingual or multilingual.
| | | | Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 21:27
Italian to English
In memoriam | MT, the market and making a living | Feb 1, 2007 |
transparx wrote: Giles Watson wrote:
The translators who will survive MT, many of whom are earning relatively high fees already, are creative writers with a well-defined market profile, as well as linguists.
Wouldn't it be better, then, to train humans? After all, translating is a skill that can be acquired with practice. Especially in this day and age, it is much easier than it has ever been for would-be-translators to be exposed two more than one language and thus grow up bilingual or multilingual.
Aren't you putting the cart before the horse here? I would have thought that most people's decision to translate professionally matured long after any opportunity to grow up multilingual had passed. I know mine did!
Whether or not MT becomes an important factor, I can't control the translation market but I can adapt to it. If one of my areas of specialisation should become less lucrative, or new market-transforming technology should emerge, I hope I will be able to live with the development, and perhaps improve my market position in the process.
As for earning a living by translating, which is what most of us are trying to do, it makes more sense to think in terms of matching personal skills with market opportunities and adding value to transactions. A passive or active knowledge of any specific language is just one translation-related skill. The trick is to acquire a skills set that will satisfy needs the market sees as valuable.
Best,
Giles
[Edited at 2007-02-01 09:37]
[Edited at 2007-02-01 09:47]
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Defining "passive" | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
| | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
