The Linguist is a languages magazine for professional linguists, translators, interpreters, language professionals, language teachers, trainers, students and academics with articles on translation, interpreting, business, government, technology
Issue link: https://thelinguist.uberflip.com/i/271849
12 The Linguist FEBRUARY/MARCH www.iol.org.uk FEATURES Karen Rückert questions whether the native speaker principle is essential for a perfect translation The native speaker principle is a norm that has been adopted by the translation industry primarily in English-speaking countries. It prescribes that translators should translate only into their native language. This is underpinned by traditional translation theory, which insists that only a native speaker of the target language can produce a flawless translation in terms of fluency. This has become the golden rule and seems to be accepted unquestioningly by translators and translation associations throughout the UK. Although it is true that, with regard to traditional forms of translation, such as literary, fluency of the target text is of utmost importance (as it is concerned with the aesthetic effect of the text on the reader), this norm has been automatically extended to all types of translation, including technical and legal. In the English-speaking translation industry, it is regarded as the embodiment of professionalism. This is not the case elsewhere. Two-way translation as standard In the case of languages of limited diffusion, translation into and out of the native language is a necessity, because there are not enough native-speaking translators to meet demand. However, this is certainly not the case with German, yet in Germany two-way translation is standard practice. The Federal Association of Interpreters and Translators (BDÜ) does not impose any requirements to translate into one's native language only. Furthermore, court certified translator status is only granted to translators able to translate in both directions. There is no option of applying to be certified for one language direction only. This automatically excludes many native-speaking English A new rule of law? translation, which requires translation not only between two languages but also two legal systems, accuracy has to take priority over fluency. The vast majority of legal translations are for reference and information purposes, and, as such, communication of the source text message is the prime concern. Arguably, for very complex subject matter, the ideal translator might actually be a native- speaking expert of the source language (ie, a foreign lawyer) who is able to explain the peculiarities of the legal issue concerned. Ideally all translators would be subject matter experts but, in practice, this is not always the case, with most translators having a linguistic rather than a specialist background. In the legal field it is unusual for a translator to have extensive in-depth knowledge of both the source and the target language legal systems. A translation by a native speaker of the target language may be perfectly fluent but misleading if they do not understand the nuances of the source text sufficiently. More seriously, this may go undetected. If a native speaker of the target language is the key to a fluent translation where fluency is the primary requirement, perhaps the key to a translation that accurately communicates the details of a highly specialised source text is a native speaker of the source language. A case in point In order to examine this issue, I conducted a case study with professional legal translators, which sought to answer two questions: 1 Can a professional legal translator who is a non-native speaker of the target language produce an adequate legal translation? 2 Does a professional legal translator who is a native speaker of the target language translators who abide by the native speaker principle and have no wish to translate out of English. This, in turn, gives rise to a demand for translators working into English as a non-native language. In view of these two opposing but co-functioning practices, the question arises as to whether there are areas of translation to which the native speaker principle might not necessarily apply. In order to answer this question it is necessary to look more closely at the assumptions inherent in the native speaker principle. Assumptions in doubt As it stands, the native speaker principle makes two assumptions: 1 Non-native speakers of the target language should not be translating into that language because they are unable to do so to a satisfactory standard. 2 A native speaker of the target language will produce an adequate translation. Both assumptions are primarily concerned with the fluency aspect. In an ideal world, every translation in every field would be both perfectly fluent and accurate. However, in highly specialised fields, such as legal Errors were made by both native and non- native speakers – most due to insufficient subject knowledge