| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | Do you proofread texts in your reverse language pair? Thread poster: Sarah McDowell
|
|---|
Ty Kendall 
United Kingdom
Local time: 11:52
Hebrew to English
| Lilian, look at SLA research please..... | Jun 9, 2013 |
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
I think you must be joking, Ty. Proficient by the age of 5? Perhaps to talk to their mommies about food and cartoons, or some childhood experiences. I agree that monolingual people -- who have spoken one language for most of their lives and have all their education in one language, and in addition to that are detail-oriented by nature, when they also have the right training, might be better proofreaders than people constantly using a few languages. Proofreading is a profession -- like translation is. Why take away their bread?
Proofreading proficiency is college level proficiency, perhaps high school, in some isolated cases of very talented people. Some people never reach that linguistic level, not matter if they do it in their L1 or not.
Linguistically proficient, yes. SLA research shows that by age 5 most children have acquired the main body of their language's grammatical structures and are able to manipulate them, just like any other native speaker.
Like I said, they may lack vocabulary [and sophistication], which they will go on to acquire for the rest of their lives, but grammatically-speaking you can pretty much stick a fork in them - they're done.
The final stage is that of developing more and more complex grammatical concepts. Most children by the age of four or five (and many even earlier) can correctly pluralize the invented noun wug to wugs. This is true of many other basic grammatical rules as well (though they may occasionally be overlooked, particularly when the child is excited or speaking quickly). In general, the major infrastructure of language has been completed by ages six to eight
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/la3.shtml
[Edited at 2013-06-09 17:34 GMT]
| | | | | This will not help them to proofread, Ty. | Jun 9, 2013 |
Perhaps if they go to college, learn all the terms and styles -- that might be the right time then.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 11:52
Hebrew to English
| I never said it would | Jun 9, 2013 |
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
Perhaps if they go to college, learn all the terms and styles -- that might be the right time then.
If you care to look back and read, I was responding to something Bala said. I wasn't claiming 5 year olds could be proof-readers.
| | | | | Some people actually believe that, | Jun 9, 2013 |
that their elementary school children will be able to translate and proofread their court documents -- this statement is based on personal experience rather than on wild imagination.
| | |
|
|
|
| Tell them to use e-mail instead... | Jun 9, 2013 |
Nicole Schnell wrote: Yurizx wrote:
agree.
quite often we forget the purpose of what we're doing, and strive for the Perfection. an illusive dream. My clients also know that our small, family-owned business besides me consists of a Master in English and a Professor of English. They know that I will ensure that the German source text has been fully understood, and that the other guys will make it sound beautiful. I hope that those idiotic phone calls from European colleagues in the middle of the night will stop. Not smart enough to figure out my time zone or to give the slightest consideration to the fact that our company name ends with "Group", but so full of themselves as English native speakers that they find it perfectly OK to call me at 5 am on my emergency-call-forwarding phone line (my parents are old and fragile) to rant about my office offering translation into English. How dare I, not being a native speaker. Sigh.
... So that you can proof their messages and send them back with some juicy red ink on.
Don't give in, Nicole. 'Native speaker' is a mental shortcut for competence, not birthright.
Ty Kendall wrote:
I somewhat agree. I don't think it's bad practice to have non-native speakers of the target language translate, but it's not necessarily preferable practice either. I just think that ceteris paribus/with all else being equal it's probably better to use a native speaker of the target language, depending on circumstances. (that statement is pretty hedged, I think it leaves more than enough room for the plethora of exceptions).
I'm inclined to think that native speakers of both the target and the source language should be involved if a good translation is to come out, to be honest. I simply see miscomprehension of the source as a more serious issue than occasionally imperfect expression. I tend to associate target-native translations and monolingual proof/review with pretty much guaranteed deviations from the meaning of the original text.
This might be where we start to drift..... I think perfect grammar is part of the equation, but it's not the whole picture. Where a native speaker often has the upper hand is knowing if/when to flout a grammatical "rule" and to what extent it can/should be flouted. This is not to say a NNS cannot do this, but by and large, those who have learned a language hugging a grammar syllabus are reluctant to "throw out the rule book" so to speak.
No disagreement between us there, but individual tolerance levels vary widely from one NS editor to the next. They'd fail each other's writing if they got the chance. Part of what I hate about our job, no matter which language it is, is having to adapt to individual editors' subjective views.
For example, as a NS, I would say that your coining of "naturalcy" is a neologism too far  ... I would have gone to "naturalness" if I wanted the noun, but I think "authenticity" works better. (Sorry, I'm not taking shots at you this time )
Yeah, I know you are not! 'Naturalcy' is actually an existing, native word, it's only rare. Like, really rare. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I'll need to replace it in my marketing materials and avoid it in client translations. I could help you with a punctuation mark or two in return! ;P
[Edited at 2013-06-10 00:46 GMT]
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
that their elementary school children will be able to translate and proofread their court documents -- this statement is based on personal experience rather than on wild imagination.
For those documents, you're better off working with a near-native but still non-native lawyer-linguist than a non-lawyer native speaker of the target language. Actually, even in a really difficult language like Polish. There's a native British translator who lives in Poland and has a post-Master's in our law without actually being a lawyer. I'd probably still go to him rather than a Pole with Master's degree in English (M.A. in philology or applied linguistics is the standard qualification of our translators).
[Edited at 2013-06-10 00:56 GMT]
[Edited at 2013-06-10 00:57 GMT]
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 18:52
Chinese to English
| Not really about nativeness, more about the fuzziness of "proofreading" | Jun 10, 2013 |
The discussion's veered into the issue of nativeness again, but I think the original dilemma is more about the vexed issue of what proofreading is.
We all know what the ideal model of a translator is, and we all know the ideal proofreading system. (As I understand it: target native with perfect source language skills translates; another does bilingual proofreading/editing; then there's perhaps a third monolingual proofreader.)
But it doesn't always go like that. It soun... See more The discussion's veered into the issue of nativeness again, but I think the original dilemma is more about the vexed issue of what proofreading is.
We all know what the ideal model of a translator is, and we all know the ideal proofreading system. (As I understand it: target native with perfect source language skills translates; another does bilingual proofreading/editing; then there's perhaps a third monolingual proofreader.)
But it doesn't always go like that. It sounds like Sarah's client is probably confident in his ability to write good Russian, but what he's missing is perfect reading competence in his source language. Getting a source native in to proofread is certainly a slightly unconventional translation process, but it could work OK.
As long as Sarah and her client can be clear on what her responsibilities are, I'd be willing to take a job like that. I wouldn't take any responsibility for producing good final copy in my source language, but I could point out any divergences in meaning between source and target.
I'd just handle it like any other proofreading request: first clarify exactly what type of proofreading is wanted; then look at the text first to see whether that type of proofreading is possible; and if it is, then go for it. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 11:52
Hebrew to English
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
I tend to associate target-native translations and monolingual proof/review with pretty much guaranteed deviations from the meaning of the original text.
"Guaranteed" is a bit strong. I don't associate awkwardness of expression as "guaranteed" with a non-native translator, merely a likelihood.
'Naturalcy' is actually an existing, native word, it's only rare. Like, really rare. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I'll need to replace it in my marketing materials and avoid it in client translations.
Don't do that on my behalf! I'm all for neologisms. If "naturalcy" is/was a word, it seems to have been abandoned by the OED, Merriam Webster et al. and a quick googling shows only a few hundred hits, some of which are you ( ), a Nigerian woman using it as her handle on Twitter and other online sites and rather a lot of hits containing Chinese characters. Not that I see anything wrong with it, we do have "normalcy" so I can see how "naturalcy" would emerge.
I could help you with a punctuation mark or two in return! ;P
[Edited at 2013-06-10 00:46 GMT]
Hahah! I don't proofread[slight pun intended] my forum posts, they tend to be trains of thought in pixel form with no real consideration given to semi-colons, commas, etc. But thanks!
[Edited at 2013-06-10 06:04 GMT]
| | | | | Nothing is guaranteed -- this is true -- I agree with Ty. | Jun 10, 2013 |
I also think that proofreading is a very specific skill -- you have to be very detail-oriented, have a lot of patience and skill, of course.
Many translators and even great writers (published) may not be necessarily the best proofreaders, especially of their own texts.
You get used to your own text, and don't see mistakes right away. This has even been scientifically proven -- there was a lot of research done. This is why it is advisable to reread your translation after... See more I also think that proofreading is a very specific skill -- you have to be very detail-oriented, have a lot of patience and skill, of course.
Many translators and even great writers (published) may not be necessarily the best proofreaders, especially of their own texts.
You get used to your own text, and don't see mistakes right away. This has even been scientifically proven -- there was a lot of research done. This is why it is advisable to reread your translation after 24 hours, or even better 48-72, or more to see it with a fresh eye.
Proofreader is an absolutely necessary profession in the language industry. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
I’ve come across some rare cases when both natives of target and source languages are needed. For example, during a poetry translation project we were sitting side by side, one responsible for the correctness of perception, the other for the right expression. The target language translator made the final decision.
The same ping-pong game (double proofreading/editing) took place once in a site translation: the British edited the English translation (made by the third party), I looked thro... See more I’ve come across some rare cases when both natives of target and source languages are needed. For example, during a poetry translation project we were sitting side by side, one responsible for the correctness of perception, the other for the right expression. The target language translator made the final decision.
The same ping-pong game (double proofreading/editing) took place once in a site translation: the British edited the English translation (made by the third party), I looked through his comments and questions and offered some variants, and he made the final version. I’m still grateful for the experience: it was a pleasure to see the text transform.
Asking questions is not a fault in the Russian (CIS/emerging) market: I always sum up the offer before starting the project, mentioning all the minor details (including the style guides which differ from agency to agency). It might sound idiotic, but it saves time afterwards. Accidents would happen; it’s especially true for some agencies overloaded with urgent work. I've been asked to translate a text into Ukrainian once, which I don’t speak. One client has addressed me in Turkish instead of English. And I've been offered the same project twice. So, there’s nothing wrong in gaining information. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Ty Kendall wrote: Don't do that on my behalf! I'm all for neologisms. If "naturalcy" is/was a word, it seems to have been abandoned by the OED, Merriam Webster et al. and a quick googling shows only a few hundred hits, some of which are you ( ), a Nigerian woman using it as her handle on Twitter and other online sites and rather a lot of hits containing Chinese characters. Not that I see anything wrong with it, we do have "normalcy" so I can see how "naturalcy" would emerge.
And a bunch of English books too, they just don't rank as highly as posts on message boards do (or even my LinkedIn profile). Which is not to say I'm incapable of inventing a word every now and then, but that's usually conscious and intentional, and usually some kind of 'verbing' or Latinate terms in narrow contexts. I suspect I might have picked it up somewhere, possibly as an archaism.
Ty Kendall wrote: Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
I tend to associate target-native translations and monolingual proof/review with pretty much guaranteed deviations from the meaning of the original text. "Guaranteed" is a bit strong. I don't associate awkwardness of expression as "guaranteed" with a non-native translator, merely a likelihood.
I might be prejudiced because I'm in favour of translation closer to the source than the target, unlike most modern linguists (unless I'm translating a piece of marketing copy or something). These days, most guys care for natural expression mostly, while I do care for content more than for that. I sort of specialise in for-information rather than for-publication translations, even though I can do the latter too and even enjoy that. Or perhaps I'm prejudiced due to some traumatic events from early in my translation career. Not all native speakers of the target language, not even if they have an Arts degree, are qualified to translate faithfully from a difficult source language.
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
I also think that proofreading is a very specific skill -- you have to be very detail-oriented, have a lot of patience and skill, of course.
Yeah, and even then proofing yourself is still much harder than proofing someone else.
Many translators and even great writers (published) may not be necessarily the best proofreaders, especially of their own texts.
Yeah. I'm not, for example. It takes me so much time to proof at all, especially to proof myself. This is usually connected to how I feel the need to explain everything I do, especially when I fix something that might appear a minor issue or non-issue to others or when I improve on something that shouldn't be referred to as an error but still should still (preferably) be edited.
You get used to your own text, and don't see mistakes right away. This has even been scientifically proven -- there was a lot of research done. This is why it is advisable to reread your translation after 24 hours, or even better 48-72, or more to see it with a fresh eye.
Yup. Too bad so few people understand that. One-person 'TEP' seems to becoming the standard now, while deadlines are becoming shorter and shorter for larger and larger texts. I really appreciate working with agencies who aren't brain-dead on this issue.
Proofreader is an absolutely necessary profession in the language industry.
Yes, wholeheartedly. Actually, I'd love to have one on my retainer, except in most cases it turns out that while the proofreader isn't useless, then he or she would probably benefit more from proofing by me, which is annoying because I need to explain grammar or syntax or punctuation (sometimes to native speakers) or explain to them why their ideas don't work in the given style and register, or deal with the fact that they can't handle legalese (or even can't handle modalities and complex sentences, forget ambulance chaser lingo). When I see 'Feedback', 'proof results' or anything like that in e-mail subject, I know I'm going to spend quite a lot of free time teaching. And I dropped teaching several years ago because translation paid better. Argh. But a reliable proofreader would be my best friend.
My ideal proofreader would be an old-school native speaker of English who knew everything about the forgotten realms of Queen's English but also knew a thing or two about Prince Harry's English, figuratively speaking. I'd probably need a separate one for British and for American (my favourite teacher ever was from Africa, but let's not go there), but then I could probably develop a split personality myself. Besides, my ideal proofer would know the difference between 'good/bad' and 'better/worse', 'wrong' and 'not recommended', and so on and so forth. The first person who replaces my, 'it was he,' with, 'it was him,' (or removes punctuation from before my opening quotation marks,) is gonna get shot, but there is still an arrant sort of pedantry up with which I sure as heck am not gonna put ('responsibility of the Contractor's', putting a Saxon genitive in 'Client Requirements' etc.). Sorry, I'm rambling. I need a good shot of whisky right now, I think. To King James and all the good proofreaders who still exist!
Polish proofreading (as in Polish texts) is a mess too. Especially if it involves the proofreader trying to revise your translation. Looking at Kudoz questions and answers sometimes makes me cry. Proofreading out in the market isn't much better.
[Edited at 2013-06-10 16:26 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 11:52
Hebrew to English
| I feel for you....but don't tar us all with the same brush | Jun 10, 2013 |
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote:
('responsibility of the Contractor's', putting a Saxon genitive in 'Client Requirements' etc.). Sorry, I'm rambling. I need a good shot of whisky right now, I think. To King James and all the good proofreaders who still exist!
Seems you've been working with the wrong native speakers, those who don't even have a grasp of the basics (the genitive, for example) - presuming they are "native speakers" there are a lot of people out there (and on this site) masquerading as something they're not. Nevertheless, if someone can't even put an apostrophe in the right place (presuming one is needed at all) then these people shouldn't be translators or proofreaders or editors etc.
[Edited at 2013-06-10 17:48 GMT]
| | | | Tania McConaghy
Sweden
Local time: 12:52
Member (2009)
Swedish to English
+ ...
Maryia Vasiuchenka wrote:
I’ve come across some rare cases when both natives of target and source languages are needed.
As Maryia wrote, there may be cases where two proofreaders are used.
I work a lot with medical device IFUs which are often proofread by a source language native speaker and a target language native speaker.
| | |
|
|
|
| If you are really an expert of some fields | Oct 15, 2013 |
I used to proofread and edit telecom manuals in English, although Chinese is my native language.
If you have worked in a field for years and are familiar with its language style and common rules, you can be a proofreader/editor in both languages.
| | | | | 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 » Do you proofread texts in your reverse language pair? | 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 » |
| | 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
