Do you really need accreditation to be a translator ?

invguy wrote:

... as Narasimhan noted.

I supported Armorel's opinion, having in mind the old adage that 'translation is the art of communicating the untranslatable'. No doubt, this is not what *all* translations on earth are about.

If we take a look at any narrow specialization area - in any language - and make a dissection of the writing and speech used for communication, we would hardly come across any exquisite language constructs. Quite the contrary, we would reveal a pretty limited general vocabulary, elementary grammar, and heaps of specialized terms (whose usage is so determining, it sometimes tends to bypass - or even distort - general language rules).

Indeed, you don't need to know all the ins and outs of a language in order to translate the manual of an inkjet printer. In fact, the majority of native speakers would be less able to do it properly than someone non-native but possessing the necessary background.

Then, there are *levels* of translation. I have the feeling that this might be an uncomfortable topic; if so, I beg to be excused - I'm rather new to this forum. Anyway, it ought to be mentioned that there are simple translations that you can do (I mean - properly) basing only on working language knowledge. Other ones require academic language training plus fairly rich experience. There are also those that need you to know up-to-date slang and/or cultural context, without necessarily having read all the classics in original. OTOH, translations in specialized areas often depend mostly on the translator's expertise in the specific area, and overall quality has less to do with the acaedmic standards of language knowledge.

The extreme of this classification can be observed in this same community: many people give answers to KudoZ questions in a number of languages, yet being a native speaker of only one. Still, their answers are valid and precise. Just as probably most of you, in my practice I have happened to ask for consultation professionals whose foreign language knowledge was pretty basic compared to mine; nevertheless, they have been able to give me the exact terms I needed, plus explanations on usage more in-depth than I had ever hoped to find. (Admittedly, in the pre-Google times that was the way to go...

Being perfectly aware of all this, I still supported (and support) what Armorel wrote - and not out of some ill-meant elitism, but for one simple reason: because Rafa's intentions (at least as I took them) were to pursue a professional translator's career, not related to the subject of his previous stdies. Therefore I presumed that he would be dealing more with general texts (at least until he gained enough experience to - eventually - specialize in a particular area). Well, IMHO general translation *does* require native speakers for professional output. And not only that: ideally, a professional translator doing general translations (or covering a multitude of knowledge areas) ought to live in (or at least maintain close links with) his/her native country.

Living language is not a thing that can be taught. Exactly for this reason a good knowledge of it is a priceless asset - and indispensable for a qualified 'all-purpose' translator. This is even more valid for the cultural context that comes with being a native speaker.

MHO, of course.


P.S. Just to clarify: I rarely do translations not explicitly related to my scope of expertise, and even more rarely translate into languages other than Bulgarian (even though >BG translations are not in high demand). Yet I do take pleasure in answering KudoZ questions that have nothing to do with my native language, and am convinced that my answers have been helpful.

P.P.S. Actually, as I re-read Rafa's question, I believe it was about something else Sorry, Rafa, not much help from me - I have no idea of the Australian translation market.

Good discussion, anyway - thanks, everyone!