# Translating into a non-native language



## alitza

Hello everybody.
I'm interested in knowing how you feel about translating into a language that is not your native one. By native language (or languages, for the lucky ones) I mean the language that was spoken in your family growing up. I've heard different opinions from different people. Some may say that if you're a professional translator, you should be able to translate both from and into foreign languages just as easily. Others, on the other hand (and I tend to agree with them) claim that the target language should always be your native language and that no matter how correctly you may speak or write a foreign language, the quality of your translation will never equal that of a native speaker. 
I'm looking forward to hearing your points of view .
Thank you.


----------



## Tatzingo

alitza said:


> Hello everybody.
> I'm interested in knowing how you feel about translating into a language that is not your native one. By native language (or languages, for the lucky ones) I mean the language that was spoken in your family growing up. I've heard different opinions from different people. Some may say that if you're a professional translator, you should be able to translate both from and into foreign languages just as easily. Others, on the other hand (and I tend to agree with them) claim that the target language should always be your native language and that no matter how correctly you may speak or write a foreign language, the quality of your translation will never equal that of a native speaker.
> I'm looking forward to hearing your points of view .
> Thank you.



In my opinion, there's no reason why you shouldn't translate into a language that isn't your native one(s). Whilst it is true that a native speaker may find the task easier and may have a better command of the language than a non-native... there are also those whose vast experience and knowledge of the foreign language almost eliminate the difference between native/non-native...

Tatz.


----------



## natasha2000

I agree with Tatz.
It is not easy to reach that level, but it is possible.
I also think that it all depends on the text you are about to translate.
If it is a some kind of a professional text which is related to some kind of special vocabulary (medicine, law, technology etc), then being native is not so important, but experience in the subject is, since usually those texts do not have complicated syntax, no stylistic figures and word plays, and 90% of work depends on your knowledge of special vocabulary. I, myself, translate texts from the field of orthodontics from Spanish to English (both of them foreign languages for me) and vice versa, and I spent some time learning vocabulary, both in Spanish and in English. As the time was passing by, it was becoming easier and easier to do it. Honestly, I think I would have a hard time if I had to do the translation of orthodontic text into Serbian, since I am really not familiar with this terminology in my mother tongue. But I would never dare to try to translate some literary works, such as novels or poetry. These kind of translations IMHO are best done by natives, but not all natives, of course.


----------



## fenixpollo

Hi, alitza.  You might want to look at these recent threads:

Can a non-native speaker ever be considered a native for practical purposes?


Can a monolingual be a good translator?

Enjoy.


----------



## Etcetera

I'm not a professional translator, but I sometimes have to make translations from Russian into English. Of course, it takes me much more time than translating from English into Russian, but still I can do the work. I would never dare to translate literary works from Russian into English, but if it's some text on linguistics, why not? I think that Natasha is absolutely right here:


> If it is a some kind of a professional text which is related to some kind of special vocabulary (medicine, law, tecnology etc), then being native is not so important, but the experience in the subject is, since usually those texts do note have complicated sintaxis, no stylistic figures and word plays, and 90% of work depends on your knowledge of special vocabulary.


----------



## Hockey13

alitza said:


> Hello everybody.
> I'm interested in knowing how you feel about translating into a language that is not your native one. By native language (or languages, for the lucky ones) I mean the language that was spoken in your family growing up. I've heard different opinions from different people. Some may say that if you're a professional translator, you should be able to translate both from and into foreign languages just as easily. Others, on the other hand (and I tend to agree with them) claim that the target language should always be your native language and that no matter how correctly you may speak or write a foreign language, the quality of your translation will never equal that of a native speaker.
> I'm looking forward to hearing your points of view .
> Thank you.


 
I think we should consider the examples of Joseph Conrad and Vladimir Nabokov. Both non-native speakers who went on to write some of the most critically-acclaimed English-language novels of all time.


----------



## CrazyIvan

I did one try recently, translating Chinese in English,  and I find the difficulty. 

The difficulty is not related to languagae structures but the expressions. There are some structures or "terms" which will make all text looks "native." Talk Mandarine for example, we have some "four words phrases" to express certain ideas, which are related to some history or legend. If you use these works in your tranlation from English to Chinese, then it will make the text more vivid, or say, more understandable without changing any meaning.

Still, as Natasha and Tatzingo points out, it is possible, but the culture barriers may still lie there.


----------



## Hakro

I agree 100% with Natasha2000 (#3). I can translate easily from English, French, Swedish and usually from German technical texts into Finnish, and I have earned a very good living. Sometimes I also have translated texts from Finnish into those laguages, but I could never earn my daily bread doing the translations that way.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Hockey13 said:


> I think we should consider the examples of Joseph Conrad and Vladimir Nabokov. Both non-native speakers who went on to write some of the most critically-acclaimed English-language novels of all time.


 

 I think here we have a bit of difference. Writing in a language or speaking it is not the same thing as translating into it. The art of translation or interpreting is a special art in itself, the art of finding the correct equivalent for what you see. I have problems translating into languages which are my mothertongues, not because I know them badly but because I have trouble switching from one structure to another.


----------



## Etcetera

Setwale_Charm said:


> I think here we have a bit of difference. Writing in a language or speaking it is not the same thing as translating into it. The art of translation or interpreting is a special art in itself, the art of finding the correct equivalent for what you see. I have problems translating into languages which are my mothertongues, not because I know them badly but because I have trouble switching from one structure to another.


It's a common problem indeed. 
I speak Russian and English almost equally freely, but translating from one language into another is sometimes very difficult. I guess it's also a matter of practice, but still it's far easier to learn to speak and write in a foreign language than to translate from this language into your mothertongue.


----------



## natasha2000

Swithching from one language and its structure to another, is a matter of practice. When I came to Spain, I had a problem with switshing from Spanish to English. If I spoke for some time English, only stupid things were coming out from my mouth in Spanish if I tried immediately after to say something in Spanish. It was happening to me even with my mother tongue, Serbian. But after working in a place where I had to switch from English to Spanish and vice versa all the time during the working hours, I got used and now it is not a big problem for me. 

I agree completely with Setwale_Charm. The translating is ART and not all people who speak languages can be good translators. The gift is needed, just as in any other art. Of course, gift without hard work just stays this: a gift, and a wasted one.


----------



## PinkBonBon

Etcetera said:


> I guess it's also a matter of practice, but still it's far *easier to learn to speak and write in a foreign language* than to translate from this language *into* your mothertongue.



I have done all my best to try and become a translator. I love English! And I love to translate!

How can you say it is easier to learn a language than to translate into your mothertongue? I mean, your mothertongue should be natural to you and you shouldn't have difficulties to translate *into* it. As I read a text in English, I could immediately translate it in Italian, without even thinking much.

A friend of mine (also a translator) used to say that if you find difficulties in translating into your mothertongue it is maybe because you haven't understood the original.
I do not mean that it is always straightforward, but sitll, if you have understood the concept, you just have to change the frame.

As for translating into a foreign language, it is something really different. I think one must feel really selfconfident to do it, it is sooo easy to make mistakes in a language you have only studied and not lived with!

But... I was wandering... maybe you ment that it's no worth translating if you could much easier learn the language and read in the original... in that case, I think it is always worth the effort and the pain to learn a language! The original text is always something special. Even when there are really good translators around.

PBB

Sorry, reply too long!


----------



## duckie

PinkBonBon, speaking from my own experience, understanding and accurately conveying what you understand are two different things. I can read a text in English and know exactly what is meant, but to find an accurate way to describe the same thing in a different language is the very problem with translation, because languages convey the same ideas in different ways. To truly put down the soul and essence of something can be difficult - just like it is for a writer who is not translating anything, but merely attempting to transform thoughts into words.


----------



## french4beth

I agree with you, alitza, and I am a professional translator.

I have met very, very few people who are capable of translating into a non-native language. Most professional translators will agree that you should only translate from an acquired language (Language B) into your native language (Language A-the language that you are most fluent in).  There are some exceptions, of course, particularly for people who were raised speaking a particular language as children, but no longer use the language or are no longer fluent.

I think that translating into a non-native language is a great disservice to the translating industry, unless the translator is exceptionally gifted.

And just because you can express yourself and write in a non-native language does _not_ mean that you can do excellent quality translations; I, for one, would not feel comfortable translating into French (although I speak French quite well & have been told that I have an excellent accent).  When I do any English to French work, I always have a native speaker review it; occasionally, I have not made any errors, but I usually miss a few minor things that only a native speaker would notice.

In addition, I know many native English speakers who speak and write English very poorly, so fluency alone does not make an excellent translator.


----------



## Thomas F. O'Gara

Capability is sometimes, but not always, the issue. Some people are quite capable of translating successfully into languages other than their native language, although the material involved can have a lot to do with the level of success. Native ability is not all it's cracked up to be. Bear in mind that translating is a _written_ exercise. 

Several years ago when I was managing a government consumer advocate office in Miami, I endeavored to get the staff to send out responses in Spanish to the Hispanics that we assisted. After a while I gave up; as it turned out, even though Spanish was the native language of most of my staff, they were functionally illiterate in Spanish, and could only communicate effectively in writing when they wrote in English. My point is that native ability isn't everything when it comes to polished translating.

On the whole, though, after personally trying my hand at translating several times over the years, both to and from various languages and English, I find translating to be a thankless task, and I wouldn't advise anybody to try to make a career of it unless they're masochists. People who don't speak a second language think that it must be simple - you speak the language, so why shouldn't you be able to just sit down and start translating? If you've ever tried the work you'll know what I mean.

While I might be persuaded to do a favor for a friend, there are certain things I won't translate. I will not do advertising copy - not even publicity releases for a company; I've been burned on that too often.

Frankly, I get more satisfaction from interpreting.


----------



## Abu Bishr

Also, I have observed that a practice among some translators is to have  native speakers for both the source and target languages work on a major translation project. The native speaker of the target language normally translates the text which is then revised by the native speaker of the source language so as to see that he interpreted the source language correctly.


----------



## Etcetera

Hi PinkBonBon, 
Duckie's reply is perfect, I hardly have to add anything. 
Languages differ from each other, you'll never find to languages absolutely similar in their vocabulary, grammatical structures and so on. That's where the problem lies! 
And what sometimes just drives me crazy is that there's so many beautiful expressions in English which cannot be transformed into equally beautiful Russian expressions! But that's another story.


----------



## duckie

tenlittlecharacterswentonawalk


----------



## natasha2000

Etcetera said:


> And what sometimes just drives me crazy is that there's so many beautiful expressions in English which cannot be transformed into equally beautiful Russian expressions! But that's another story.


 
I agree a 100%...
And not only in English... There are such expressions in almost ANY language, that cannot be easily translated into another language, even though it is a mother tongue of a translator... Word play, for example... Sometimes it is impossible to do it.


----------



## PinkBonBon

Etcetera said:


> Hi PinkBonBon,
> Duckie's reply is perfect, I hardly have to add anything.
> Languages differ from each other, you'll never find to languages absolutely similar in their vocabulary, grammatical structures and so on. That's where the problem lies!
> And what sometimes just drives me crazy is that there's so many beautiful expressions in English which cannot be transformed into equally beautiful Russian expressions! But that's another story.



Maybe I haven't made myself understood.

I do also agree with you both: two languages are never perfectly compatible in their structure. But there is where a translator makes the difference.
If you have understood a text in the foreign language, then you have the possibility to recreate the same text in your mothertongue. If your literacy in your mothertongue is adequate, you are perfectly able to "build" a text conveying the same message of the original, *but* using the structure, grammar, collocations, way of saying, sayings, proverbs and puns, of your mothertongue. At the same time you could also keep the style of the original, conveying the writing idiosyncrasis of the original writer.
For this reason I think that one should translate only into his/her mothertongue, because it is very very difficult to be able to render the message in a language only learnt.
Always keeping in mind that translating is not interpreting!!!

PBB


----------



## ireney

I had to translate to English from Greek in the past and I hope I'll never have to go through that again!

It took me too long since I kept second-guessing myself. Translating a document written in formal language is not _as_ bad (provided you know the right expressions) as translating anything  more "colloquial". 
Legal documents for example were a headache since I had an easier time finding the right term in French and even in German (which I don't really speak) than in English but it's the same the other way around any way (common law terms are a bother since we don't have common law). However once you find the terms and read through a few of them to get the "legalese" style of language (which you have to do when translating in your native language anyway) you can produce an accurate translation.

Anyway, if you have to do it for whatever reason, you can, provided you are ready for a lot more work than doing it the other way around. It's best that you don't though (and I won't touch poetry [from my native to English] unless I am going to be paid lots and lots of euros and my name is *not* going appear in print )


----------



## duckie

PinkBonBon said:


> Always keeping in mind that translating is not interpreting!!!



Maybe we have different views on what constitutes interpreting. This is my view:

It's impossible to separate translation and interpretation. In order to understand a given text one has to interpret the different layers of meaning. How will you translate poetry without understanding the poem? Understanding is interpreting. And once you understand something you need to write it down, whether for the first time (as a writer) or for the second time (as a translator). If you make yourself into a computer and simply translate the words and pick similar idioms many subtleties are bound to be lost. Sometimes even the main message of the text if it rides below the surface.

Only by interpreting can one be faithful to the original text.


----------



## french4beth

Duckie, I believe that PinkBonBon was referring to professional interpreters and professional translators. These are two completely different professions; there are many excellent interpreters that are not good translators, and many excellent translators that are not good interpreters (and very few that are excellent at both!). You are correct in saying that when doing a translation, the translator must:





> *2. *To conceive the significance of; construe:
> *3. *To present or conceptualize the meaning of by means of art or criticism.


[Edit: definition on interpret found on thefreedictionary.com]

Here's a great article on interpreting vs. translating:


> The key skill of a very good translator is the ability to write well, to express him/herself clearly in the target language. ..professional translators almost always work in only one direction, translating only into their native language... many excellent translators are far from being bilingual - they may not be, and need not be, fluent speakers of the source language (the language of the original text being translated)... key skills of the translator are the ability to understand the source language and the culture of the country where the text originated, and, using a good library of dictionaries and reference materials, render that material into the target language.


----------



## ireney

I have to agree with duckie here

First of all without interpretation you get translation-tools translations of idiomatic expressions or made-up ones.

Secondly, there are times when a word/phrase has two (or more) possible translations. How do you choose without interpreting? Or if you have to change the syntax dramatically to translate?

I had to ask here twice for an interpretation since I wasn't certain mine was accurate. The first time it was a badly written long sentence which, translated verbatim would make even less sense. The second time I had to translate a "vision... burned like a brand into the contours of his memory" and we just don't have that many cows and horses around . 

A wrong interpetation (the translator I was proofreading interpeted "brand" as "torch" i.e.) changes the meaning.

Edit: I would think that it is more difficult for an interpreter to go from native to foreign than it is for a translator. And if an interpreter fouls up his translation it's surely rather serious isn't it?


----------



## natasha2000

I think that here we are talking about two meanings of the word interpretation. One is as a profession which means oral translating, and this is an interpretation that French4beth andPinkbonbon are talking about. The other is an interpetatation as understanding the correct meaning of something, and that is an interpretation Ireney and duckie are talking about.

I believe that a profession is called interpreting, and not interpretation....

I would like to add that I admire very much interpreters, especially the simultaneous ones. Apart of an excellent knowledge of BOTH languages, those people also have to have an ability of very quick mind - simultaneous listening in one language and speaking in the other... Amazing, really!


----------



## ireney

Natasha the problem is that PinkBonBon used "interpeting" which can apply to both 

I read it as meaning that we should try to understand what the text means but not intrepret it.

French4beth says that it means that we are not doing an interpreters job but a translators.

PinkBonBon may actually mean something else altogether which is why I said that sometimes we have to interpret the meaning


----------



## natasha2000

ireney said:


> Natasha the problem is that PinkBonBon used "interpeting" which can apply to both
> 
> I read it as meaning that we should try to understand what the text means but not intrepret it.
> 
> French4beth says that it means that we are not doing an interpreters job but a translators.
> 
> PinkBonBon may actually mean something else altogether which is why I said that sometimes we have to interpret the meaning


 
Aighhh! Ireney... Now we are starting to philosophize... 

I was just expressing the impression I got from your posts (all of you, not only yours )
Of course that if we want to translate ANYTHING, even if it is a cooking recipe, we must interpret the text in a correct way....

But simultaneous interpreters also interpret (the way you understand it), (and they do it with such an incredible speed, that it must be admired...) in order to be able to do good interpeting (the way franch4beth understands it)...

The oposite of a well interpreted text and thus, well translated is literal translating, which as we all know is the worst thing that may happen both to a translator/interpreter and their customers....


----------



## duckie

Well, if no one else is confused regarding terms by now at least I am! 

As for simultaneous oral translation/interpretation, I have done that as well (as well as written texts). To me they are the same, only when doing it simultaneously time restraints are so extreme that the interpretation is often somewhat intuitive. One still need contexts though, otherwise the language is going to be horribly butchered.

I'm not personally a fan of the system of simultaneous translation/interpretation, it's unneccessarily difficult for all parties, both the speaker who has to speak in very clear and simple terms, the translator who has an impossible job, and the listener who, no matter how good the translator, is typically listening to something rather confusing.


----------



## konungursvia

Basically, translating into your native tongue makes for speed, idiomatic and natural speech, efficiency and accuracy. Rarely is there a non-native translator who can do the job even nearly as well.


----------



## fenixpollo

as professions: 
interpreting = verbal 
translation = written

as concepts: 
i leave you all to debate the finer points and distinctions.


----------



## PinkBonBon

Ok, sorry. I shouldn't have mention interpreting.

As Beth correctly understood, I ment the profession, anyway. And I also ment that the *act of translation* in the two situations is really different.

As for what Dukie said about interpreting a text, in the sense of understanding its meaning, *I do fully agree with him*.

I knew that in Italy there was a lot of confusion between the words translating and interpreting, but didn't imagine the same confusion could be found also elsewhere. I happen to have studied in University to become a translator, and in the same faculty there is also the possibility to study to become interpreter. Just to claryfy. Interpreters go into the booth, wear the earphones and talk into a mike. That is simultaneous interpreting. When they whisper into the ear of a person, it's called chouchotage. Then they can be a mediator between two persons talking. They are always interpreters. They almost never use dictionaries or othere reference, except when they are studying to learrn new words or collocations etc.
Most of the time they only do passive interpreting when doing simultaneous interpreting, i.e. into their mothertongue. In fact they often know 3-4 languages.

Transalators, exactly as the extract quoted by french4beth says, not always talk the language they know and translate, but they know about the language and the cultures in which it is spoken. For this reason they translate into their mothertongue: they know perfectly the language and the culture and are therefore able to adapt the message to the culture, even changing completely the text if necessary and impossible to do otherwise.
The ability of the translator is not speed. It is in her mind,  in the openness of her mind.  It's in the  ability to say "I have to think about that... I must find a better  equivalent... I go and drink a cup of tea while I think..." It is in the patience with which you read the text twice or thrice in order to understand it properly. Even searching the words in a dictionary, doing an Internet search, and using her ability to change the words keeping the message of the original.

PBB

Again I have posted a far too long reply. I'm sorry, but I'm very sensitive on this issue...


----------



## Thomas F. O'Gara

I would add that not all intepreting is "simultaneous." The type of interpreting I've done was in business meetings where the parties didn't know each other's languages. I never had to sit in a booth with earphones.

In the long run, translating is probably more difficult and certainly more time-consuming than interpreting. As an aside (and maybe a topic for another thread), I've noticed how some languages are harder to translate effectively into other languages than others. French into English is a good example - I've seldom read a really good translation of a French novel, play or poem into English. In English Moliere sounds like doggerel, Balzac reads like bad Dickens, Stendahl is mean minded and Flaubert is just incomprehensible.

Also, sometimes translators unconsciously clean up the author's work in translation. For a long time I was bemused why Theodore Dreiser was so popular in Russia, until I read him in Russian - he's a better read in Russian! No run-on sentences taking up most of a page, no grammar mistakes.


----------



## Hakro

Thomas F. O'Gara said:


> Also, sometimes translators unconsciously clean up the author's work in translation. For a long time I was bemused why Theodore Dreiser was so popular in Russia, until I read him in Russian - he's a better read in Russian! No run-on sentences taking up most of a page, no grammar mistakes.


I have found that translated novels *usually* have better language, less grammar mistakes etc. than the original ones.


----------



## Etcetera

Thomas F. O'Gara said:


> Also, sometimes translators unconsciously clean up the author's work in translation. For a long time I was bemused why Theodore Dreiser was so popular in Russia, until I read him in Russian - he's a better read in Russian! No run-on sentences taking up most of a page, no grammar mistakes.


We used to have excellent translators in the first half of the 20th century. I've always admired their skill - and yes, when you read novels translated by them you would hardly feel that it's a translation, not original work. 
I haven't read Dreiser in English, but I've read his _American Tragedy_ in Russian. I think I'll try to read it in English too - what you have said about the translation is really interesting, Thomas.


----------



## duckie

It's my impression that the wages for translators have significantly decreased relative to mean wages, while the demand for very quick translations has increased. Is this actually true?


----------



## Hakro

duckie said:


> It's my impression that the wages for translators have significantly decreased relative to mean wages, while the demand for very quick translations has increased. Is this actually true?


Yes, it's true: quick translation, low prices, quality doesn't matter.


----------



## Lugubert

The very few times that I have translated into English have been where specialist knowledge was required (and in one case, the translator also had to be a Swedish citizen). In those cases, there were at least one native speaker on the team.

I work only through agencies, so I don't know if there's a demand for fast jobs. They know I don't do them (or advertising or legal or financial).


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Etcetera said:


> We used to have excellent translators in the first half of the 20th century. I've always admired their skill - and yes, when you read novels translated by them you would hardly feel that it's a translation, not original work.
> I haven't read Dreiser in English, but I've read his _American Tragedy_ in Russian. I think I'll try to read it in English too - what you have said about the translation is really interesting, Thomas.


 
 I tend to agree here. The translation of a book can be a piece of art in itself. For instance, I like reading my favourite author Montague James both in the original and in Russian, because the Russian translation could be considered a separate work of art, its style, spirit and flavour not only reproduce the style of the author but also somehow develop it in the same line. And the amazing thing is that various stories were translated by different translators and in the 90ies but they sound so remarkably late XIXth century.


----------



## natasha2000

It is said that Serbian translation of  François Rabelais' Gargantua & Pantagruel by Stanislav Vinaver is better than the very same original... I wouldn't know, since i don't speak French, but I read it in Serbian and I was fascinated by a language used in this book...


----------

