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/786024
26 The Linguist Vol/56 No/1 2017 www.ciol.org.uk OPINION & COMMENT The gold standard of 'native language' translation needs to come to an end, argues one bilingual translator There are many names attached to the practice this article discusses: L2, non-native, bilingual or inverted translation. They all describe translation out of one's 'native' language into a 'non-native' one. The terminology is still in flux, and as my inverted commas suggest, even the most basic terms defining the practice are disputable. I will use 'bilingual translation', although this term is not without its problems. Bilingual translation has not been extensively researched and, maybe partly for this reason, it provokes a frisson of disapproval, at least in the literary translation community, which is my background. Nonetheless, it is widely practised, perhaps especially from 'smaller' languages, as the limited number of 'native' English speakers able to translate from them encourages others to act as ambassadors of the literature. I became interested in bilingual translation when I moved to London after working for a few years as a literary translator into Polish, my 'native' language. Four years ago, I attended the London Book Fair's Literary Translation Centre for the first time. During a discussion following one of the events, a German audience member mentioned that she wanted to translate into English. Someone sitting next to me whispered, "But why would you want to do that?". This was the first of many instances I witnessed of bilingual translation being treated as whimsical at best, and gross incompetence at worst. This bias has demonstrable consequences: bilingual translators I have spoken to report being denied work on the basis of their nativity status or nationality (although one said a publisher changed their mind after reading a sample of her work), and seeing translation grants advertised that only invite applications from 'native-speaker translators'. Disapproval of bilingual translation seems to stem from a belief that, if a translator comes to a language later in life, she cannot inhabit it fully, cannot use it with the flexibility and nuance required of a competent translator. It is the same assumption that prompts many English language schools to advertise teaching posts only aimed at 'native speakers' – sometimes regardless of whether they have relevant experience or a teaching qualification. Silvana Richardson delivered an eye- opening plenary on the issue of native speakerism in EFL (English as a foreign language) teaching during the 2016 IATEFL conference. 1 She cites research analysing whether students prefer 'native-speaking' teachers. What emerges is that both 'native' and 'non-native' teachers are perceived to be competent, each with unique strengths. Parallel research to verify whether editors and readers can differentiate between translations provided by 'native' and 'non- native' translators would be very interesting. Can we attribute any sharp points to a 'non- native' mis-rendering? Or can these be due, just as often, to the texture of the original text or the work of a 'native' translator? Maybe it is impossible to tell the difference. Language ownership Literary translation is less professionalised than EFL teaching. A diploma is still not a requirement for a successful career – many eminent translators say they "fell into" the profession. If we, as an industry, are content to accept this democratic approach, the issue of language ownership, frequently conflated with national identity, seems to become critical. I propose that distinctions such as 'native' and 'non-native' are becoming irrelevant. Richardson notes that the very idea of 'second language acquisition' can be more usefully reframed as 'plurilingual development'. The PETRA-E Framework for Literary Translation, developed by eight scientific institutions to map out five levels of competence for literary translators, from 'beginner' to 'expert', does not mention the translator's linguistic status once. 2 Instead, even for the most advanced levels, it mentions pragmatic manifestations of language skill: "can justify choices made in translations", "can write publishing reports", "optimal creative ability". Both an informal survey of bilingual translators I conducted, and a panel about non-native translation I organised and chaired at this year's London Book Fair (LBF), 3 were expressive of an open-minded, descriptive, pragmatic approach to language use. My respondents emphasised the In my opinion… I propose that distinctions such as 'native' and 'non-native' are becoming irrelevant MARTA DZIUROSZ