| Pages sur ce sujet: [1 2] > | An excellent new blog. Auteur du fil: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
XXXphxxx (X) 
Royaume-Uni
Local time: 15:29
portugais vers anglais
+ ...
| Cilian O'Tuama
Allemagne
Local time: 16:29
allemand vers anglais
+ ...
| Why excellent? | Dec 9, 2012 |
Hi Lisa,
I might need your help: I see one short article - an interesting enough read, I suppose. Can you tell me/us why you consider it excellent?
It has your name at the bottom. Does that mean you (co-)wrote it? I must be missing something. Or is it simply self-advertising? Nothing wrong with that either, I suppose.
Curious,
Cilian
| | | | Phil Hand
Chine
Local time: 23:29
chinois vers anglais
| Interesting point about ambiguity | Dec 9, 2012 |
...many translation complaints and queries have resulted from the ambiguity of English. Using non-native English only serves to compound this problem.
I was recently at a gathering of translators, where we were involved in a fun project that included some chain translation - translation first into a pivot language and then from the pivot on into a third language.
(results are here, if anyone's interested: http://www.denhaag.crossingborder.nl/media.php?ID=21&lang=uk)
English was the pivot language in two cases. I asked whether the Dutch translators preferred us to translate into idiomatic, English English, or whether into a flatter, global English. I didn't really get an answer in the meeting.
I have no problem with international English. I understand that it's a useful tool. It would be very useful if we could have a reasonable discussion about when it's appropriate to use a local, "natural" English, and when it's appropriate to use a more synthetic, simplified English - and we need to avoid getting caught up in value judgments over which is "better"!
I'd also be interested to hear the views of others on this question of ambiguity. There are certain kinds of international English (e.g. STE) that are designed to reduce ambiguity. And natural English texts certainly have plenty. So I'm not sure there's a certain connection, whereby international English is necessarily more vague.
[Edited at 2012-12-09 05:09 GMT]
| | | | Meta Arkadia
Local time: 22:29
anglais vers indonésien
+ ...
| "Excellent" redefined? | Dec 9, 2012 |
As far as I can see, there's only one entry in this blog. That one entry seems to sum up what everybody already knows. It's not particularly well-structured nor well-written. The classification "excellent" doesn't seem to apply here at all. Clicking the link you gave us, Lisa, seems to me a waste of time. A waste of my time it certainly was. Maybe I'll check again in a month or two.
Cheers,
Hans
[Edited at 2012-12-09 05:17 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
XXXphxxx (X)
Royaume-Uni
Local time: 15:29
portugais vers anglais
+ ...
AUTEUR DU FIL | Dear Curious, | Dec 9, 2012 |
Cilian O'Tuama wrote:
Hi Lisa,
I might need your help: I see one short article - an interesting enough read, I suppose. Can you tell me/us why you consider it excellent?
It has your name at the bottom. Does that mean you (co-)wrote it? I must be missing something. Or is it simply self-advertising? Nothing wrong with that either, I suppose.
Curious,
Cilian
This was written by an IoL colleague who until a few weeks ago was an outsourcer. I think she has an interesting perspective. For one, as Phil has pointed out, I like the point about the ambiguity of the English language. I found it refreshing to read a translation blog that said something different and that might spark off a discussion of some consequence. Rather that than the usual chit-chat about CAT tools and pitiful rates that tends to populate the forums these days.
| | | | Meta Arkadia
Local time: 22:29
anglais vers indonésien
+ ...
| Those Ambiguities... | Dec 9, 2012 |
All those ambiguities. Yet another unique aspect of the English language. And a clear indication that you shoud always translate from your mother tongue into the foreign language. How could a non-native speaker of English ever understand all them ambiguities? Fortunately, that's what the author of the blog claims first. Always translate from your native language English into the inferior, non-English, non-ambigious language.
Cheers,
Hans
[Edited at ... See more All those ambiguities. Yet another unique aspect of the English language. And a clear indication that you shoud always translate from your mother tongue into the foreign language. How could a non-native speaker of English ever understand all them ambiguities? Fortunately, that's what the author of the blog claims first. Always translate from your native language English into the inferior, non-English, non-ambigious language.
Cheers,
Hans
[Edited at 2012-12-09 08:25 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
Royaume-Uni
Local time: 15:29
hébreu vers anglais
Meta Arkadia wrote:
All those ambiguities. Yet another unique aspect of the English language. And a clear indication that you shoud always translate from your mother tongue into the foreign language. How could a non-native speaker of English ever understand all them ambiguities? Fortunately, that's what the author of the blog claims first. Always translate from your native language English into the inferior, non-English, non-ambigious language.
Cheers,
Hans
[Edited at 2012-12-09 08:25 GMT]
I'm not quite sure how you come to that conclusion. The author makes no comment on the "superiority" of English to any other language. The "English as the Source Text" is somewhat an homage to the quirkiness of English, but that's all. I've seen speakers of other languages doing something similar with their native languages, it's nothing out of the ordinary really.
And the author most definitely is not saying that you should translate from your mother tongue into the foreign language, quite the opposite. She couldn't be any clearer about this if she tried.
Just because she thinks that English is a wonderfully complex, quirky language, it is a long shot from saying that only native speakers are qualified to interpret it (which is what you seem to think she is saying).
Paragraph 1: a commentary on the widespread practice of substandard non-native translation into English (I agree with her here 100%).
Paragraph 2: a commentary on "Globish" or "International English" and the disrespect shown to English that would be rare, if not unthinkable to other languages. (Another point I also agree with and something which Wendell Ricketts expands upon in his wonderful article: "Please mind the Gap: Defending English against Passive Translation").
Paragraph 3: a commentary (albeit emotionally-based) on the quirkiness of English. Now, this is where I part ways with the author, I do kind of agree with her, English is quite quirky and this can cause headaches with translation, but other languages have their own quirks too and I think it can be problematic to say "English makes for a more perilous source text". I happen to think bad writing is what makes a source text (in any language) problematic, rather than any inherent qualities of the language itself. Although these can also play a role, for sure.
Paragraph 4: a suggestion about pre-editing for texts to be translated. I don't really have an opinion on this, I would imagine that in an ideal world it shouldn't be necessary. A translator unable to fathom the cultural aspects of their L2 (such as idioms etc) shouldn't be translating it (imo)...but this isn't an ideal world, so maybe there's merit in its discussion.
A native speaker puts their native language on a pedestal, what's so shocking about that?
| | | | Lingua 5B
Bosnie-Herzegovine
Local time: 16:29
Membre (2009)
anglais vers croate
+ ...
| U.S. vs. European Clients | Dec 9, 2012 |
As I work from English, I have never got a non-native English copy from U.S. clients (it saves a lot of time and prevents hassle).
On the other hand, continental Europe clients are often sending (sometimes very large copies, say 100 pages) written by different non-native European nationalities, and those are mostly experts in a field highly confident about their poor English. Now imagine 100 pages of non-native English text in a specialty field. Why don't they have it proofread? Be... See more As I work from English, I have never got a non-native English copy from U.S. clients (it saves a lot of time and prevents hassle).
On the other hand, continental Europe clients are often sending (sometimes very large copies, say 100 pages) written by different non-native European nationalities, and those are mostly experts in a field highly confident about their poor English. Now imagine 100 pages of non-native English text in a specialty field. Why don't they have it proofread? Because their English is perfect and that's their deepest belief. And yes, after page 50, I get familiar with their little English "idiolect" so translation becomes a little easier.
Recently I saw a local artist's performance in English, and for this project they hired any possible expert: music mentor, singing mentor, stage designer, acting mentor etc, except an English mentor (so budget was planned for everything but not for improving their articulation of the English Language). Needless to say, the English pronunciation during the performance was pretty bad (they were convinced it was excellent though).
Yes it's sad this is happening to a language, but bottom line: global non-native market is bigger than the native English market (in size and population), which is why they are taking the dominant role in this. Just a fact of life. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| I have a gripe too | Dec 9, 2012 |
I have a gripe: it seems that these days all nationalities think they can write and translate into my mother tongue.
No they don't.
Many of them are perfectly aware that what they write is Globish, and the sooner we get it clear that there is a difference between Globish - or many varieties of it - and British English (and there have in fact always been many varieties of that too...) the better.
Then the British can have their language in peace and the rest of the world can get on with their business without the eternal moans of Brits who don't like their language.
Like it or not, a great many people spend a lot of time and effort learning Globish from necessity, because otherwise they would have to learn hundreds of languages in order to communicate with the rest of the world.
The British are credited with inventing or developing the language and spreading it round the globe. The Americans have certainly done their share in recent decades too. But they lost control long ago of how the language has developed in various corners and pockets since.
It has always been a good principle when translating (or writing any text for that matter) that one should consider the needs of the target group, and write accordingly. Professors and experts write differently for their colleagues from the way they write for the general public. Etc.
There are simply not enough native speakers of English to produce all the texts the world needs in Globish, so we have to live with the fact that others do it.
We may need to educate clients and be aware of the issues, but we need to see it from that point of view. As Phil Hand says, it is not a question of which is 'better'. It is a question of ensuring in each case that the target audience will understand.
And we have to accept that we will have to study the ways second-language speakers understand Globish, because we are simply not going to succeed in teaching everyone the same brand of English.
But this could indeed be a very interesting discussion if it does not get too abstract.
[Edited at 2012-12-10 12:54 GMT]
| | | | | And who needs another translation blog anyway? | Dec 9, 2012 |
If you ask me, this is very much like contemplating your belly button. And never mind that the belly button is not even yours.
| | | | Phil Hand
Chine
Local time: 23:29
chinois vers anglais
| Yes, I think some of her points aren't expressed exactly right | Dec 10, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
Paragraph 3: a commentary (albeit emotionally-based) on the quirkiness of English. Now, this is where I part ways with the author, I do kind of agree with her, English is quite quirky and this can cause headaches with translation, but other languages have their own quirks too and I think it can be problematic to say "English makes for a more perilous source text". I happen to think bad writing is what makes a source text (in any language) problematic, rather than any inherent qualities of the language itself. Although these can also play a role, for sure.
...
A native speaker puts their native language on a pedestal, what's so shocking about that?
As Ty says. For example, Karen Netto says:
Meaning is so often understood merely by context and allusion in English...French, by contrast, requires fair greater precision from the outset. A recent project from English to French required the vague word “size” to be rendered as “miniaturisation” in French...
For me, this is just bread-and-butter translation technique, not a general truth about English. Yes, it's a fact that English likes to use what I call "neutral scale words" when we actually mean one end of the scale:
the problem is the size (we really mean it's too big)
this temperature is killing me! (it's too hot)
we have to do something about the clarity (it's very unclear)
(just incidentally, it's interesting that all the examples that jumped to my mind were negative... I wonder if that's a general tendency, or if I'm just a negative person!)
When going into Chinese, it would be much better to indicate which end of the size/temperature/clarity scale is meant, rather than using the neutral word. I assume that's true in some other languages too. This doesn't mean that English is *in general* more vague than Chinese, it just means that in this specific construction, the most common unmarked convention in English is to leave more to the listener to get from context. In other constructions, it's the other way round, and English is more specific.
Christine's idea is interesting:
there is a difference between Globish - or many varieties of it - and British English...The British...lost control long ago of how it has developed in various corners and pockets since.
But I don't believe that Globish has (or can) really divorced from English. There'll always be a powerful give and take between them, and that will always upset speakers of both...
There are simply not enough native speakers of English to produce all the texts the world needs in Globish, so we have to live with the fact that others do it.
That is definitely true.
| | | | Giles Watson
Italie
Local time: 16:29
italien vers anglais
In memoriam | Always look on the bright side | Dec 10, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
this temperature is killing me! (it's too hot)
we have to do something about the clarity (it's very unclear)
(just incidentally, it's interesting that all the examples that jumped to my mind were negative... I wonder if that's a general tendency, or if I'm just a negative person!)
There is a distinct cultural preference, particularly in UK English, for the avoidance of openly negative statements in polite discourse. The most frequently used rhetorical device for this purpose is probably litotes (e.g. "not very good-looking" instead of "ugly"), which allows you to use a positive notion and avoid the negative one.
| | |
|
|
|
XXXphxxx (X)
Royaume-Uni
Local time: 15:29
portugais vers anglais
+ ...
AUTEUR DU FIL | Say it like it is | Dec 10, 2012 |
Giles Watson wrote:
Phil Hand wrote:
this temperature is killing me! (it's too hot)
we have to do something about the clarity (it's very unclear)
(just incidentally, it's interesting that all the examples that jumped to my mind were negative... I wonder if that's a general tendency, or if I'm just a negative person!)
There is a distinct cultural preference, particularly in UK English, for the avoidance of openly negative statements in polite discourse. The most frequently used rhetorical device for this purpose is probably litotes (e.g. "not very good-looking" instead of "ugly"), which allows you to use a positive notion and avoid the negative one.
Understatement, irony, (false?) modesty... We appear to have an abhorrence of spelling things out.
| | | | Tom in London
Royaume-Uni
Local time: 15:29
Membre (2008)
italien vers anglais
Christine Andersen wrote:
The British are credited with inventing or developing the language and spreading it round the globe. But they lost control long ago of how it has developed in various corners and pockets since.
The British did not either "invent" or "develop" their language. Nobody decided anything. It just evolved. So nobody gets any credit. Nor do the British have any control over their language. They can simply observe what happens to it.
The same applies to all languages.
| | | | formeracctus (X)
Royaume-Uni
Local time: 15:29
français vers anglais
+ ...
| Non-natives translating into English | Dec 10, 2012 |
I think the author makes a good point. While I agree that most people are aware that what they're using is 'Globish', I've often come up against people who seem to think that their English is as good as or better than any native speaker when it clearly isn't. This attitude can't be described as anything but condescending and disrespectful.
I used to work in a company where the boss, a native Dutch speaker, would hand me something to translate into English, making a comment along the... See more I think the author makes a good point. While I agree that most people are aware that what they're using is 'Globish', I've often come up against people who seem to think that their English is as good as or better than any native speaker when it clearly isn't. This attitude can't be described as anything but condescending and disrespectful.
I used to work in a company where the boss, a native Dutch speaker, would hand me something to translate into English, making a comment along the lines of 'I'd do it myself, but I don't have time'. It bothered me that he really believed that he could produce an acceptable translation into English just because he spoke English fairly well (far from perfectly, B2 level at best). Way to make you feel valued as a language professional! Another colleague had produced a textbook for learners of English which was full of mistakes such as 'I have gone to the cinema last Friday'. When I pointed it out, she told me it was fine and that such a sentence was correct in American English (?!)
It bothers me that there's this 'anything goes' attitude towards English, with little to no respect being shown to native speakers. I'm fairly sure that this wouldn't be acceptable in other languages such as French or Dutch. I imagine my colleagues would have been extremely (and quite rightly) offended if I'd implied I knew more about Dutch than they did, told them I could translate into it and brushed off their corrections, but when it comes to English, it often seems to be a free-for-all. A lot of people don't seem to understand that learning a language for X years does not make you a native speaker. If I had a penny for every time someone told me a grammatically incorrect sentence 'sounded fine' or even tried to correct MY English because I'd used a structure they'd never seen before, I'd be a millionaire. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages sur ce sujet: [1 2] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » An excellent new blog. | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
| | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
