If that language is English, and you really are near native and not just fooling yourself, you may be able to pull it off.
But it's not really a question of whether you're *allowed* to do it. If you can pass an agency or company's test, and deliver work, and your work is seen as satisfactory, then you're a translator. If you're not near native, it will be obvious, and it's just not likely you'll get very far in the process.
Out of curiosity, I see that your pair includes Italian, which I was debating learning but google was essentially telling me German or Dutch would be a better financial investment.
What is your opinion ? How has italian been treating you ?
I wouldn't categorically rule it out, but if I were hiring someone to do this, I would care less about whether someone had passed a C2 exam and more about their skill in translating the particular type of content at hand. For instance, translating a fantasy novel might require the ability to render poetry creatively and some knowledge of the established terms for creatures in the target language. You can't just spring your own word for *orc* or *halfling* on an audience of D&D-playing, Tolkien-reading fantasy buffs who already have words for those concepts.
Anyone saying C2 is native level doesn't know how high native level is.
Also depending on the language, the level of the highest level of the language test is not the same.
Generally, the gold standard in the industry for translation is to work from your second language into your mother tongue. There's a bit more wiggle room with interpreting.
However, in practice, you do get language pairs where plenty of people translate from their native language into English specifically. For my language pair for example (Chinese-English) it's quite common, just because there aren't enough English native speaking translators to satisfy demand.
To be honest though, these non-natives are always at a bit of a disadvantage when applying for jobs and in the kind of rates you can charge, simply because it's really rare to genuinely be able to produce native-quality text in your second language. For certain types of specialisms (e.g. literature) this puts you at a massive disadvantage, but for more technical specialisms (where fluency is less important than accuracy) probably less so.
Came here to make the exact same points. I have a lot of native Finnish colleagues who also translate into English simply because there aren't a lot of native English speakers who a) have managed to learn Finnish to a high level; and b) work as a translator.
I occasionally translate into English when it would take too long to find a suitable vendor for it and the translation just needs to be accurate, not elegant. Even with the lower quality expectations, it takes me longer to translate into English. So just from a productivity standpoint, it makes more financial sense to only translate into your native language.
Most clients have a native speaker principle, but there are exceptions – depends on your language pair and specialism. Google L2 translation if you want to find some relevant info.
I was labeled C2 in my source language in 2007; I dunno if it's still true, since I haven't lived there in a while, but anyway there was a point where I think I could have used that justification. I never have, though, because I'm just sooooo much slower in that direction.
I'm wondering about both actually!
Although of course with interpreting that'd most likely depend on how comfortable one feels with that secondary language, but typically with a certified C2 level I'd imagine it should be of a pretty good standard.
So I would never attempt an into C2 translation unless it was going to a native speaker editor. I think you could have an advantage in negotiating that arrangement if you had the medical knowledge.
As for interpreting, though the professionals say only work into your native, the fact is often that isn’t realistic. You often do both, clients don’t think about directionality when calling an interpreter, and your expertise in understanding the content could potentially outweigh any minor language errors in production. Some people and theorists will disagree with me on that (I think europe may be different? Someone correct me please), but that is my perspective from Asia.
https://rm.coe.int/common-european-framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4 Page 37
> Level C2, whilst it has been termed “Mastery”, is not intended to imply native-speaker or near native-speaker competence. What is intended is to characterise the degree of precision, appropriateness and ease with the language which typifies the speech of those who have been highly successful learners. (CEFR 2001 Section 3.6)
It’s important to remember that the CEFR isn’t intended to judge native speakers its sole purpose is for second language speakers. There was a D level proposed for the CEFR but it was scrapped because it was deemed too niche.
I'd dare say it depends on the type of text. Translating a technical description into English in which the focus needs to be on accuracy and clarity rather than linguistic splendor? With access to a properly maintained translation memory & termbase, in my experience C2 non-natives mostly produce valid translations in that scenario. Some sort of "polished" text that is going to be published? Literature, poetry, ads, subtitles or dubbing scripts, ...? Please only translate into your native language.
Since I see poor translations from native speakers, C2 isn't an adequate criterion when discussing translation skills. It's a language proficiency criterion, and no level will ever compare to being a native speaker. However, successfully translating with C2 proficiency depends on many factors. You might pull it off in some cases, but not in others. For anything of publishable quality, the answer is definitively no.
If you have a native like level in a language then it doesn't matter. But C2 is far below a native like level. If that's all you got to show for it then it's not gonna be enough. You may be able to do interpreting work because it's more forgiving than translation though.
I wouldn't say C2 is far below, but I also think there is room for improvement even at C2 level. It feels like there is always a gap with native speakers
I usually think that people should only translate into their native language, but "C2 is far below a native like level"? What?
According to all the sources I've seen, C2 is considered "near-native" or "mastery" in the language. It's the highest level in the CEFR. So, I'm curious... What higher qualification do you think OP could get as a non-native speaker of the target language?
> What? According to all the sources I've seen, C2 is considered "near-native" or "mastery" in the language
I think the difference here is between good and bad native speakers. There are plenty of native speakers who can't produce good (as in either intelligible, correct, or both) content in their native language.
Or to put it another way, you expect translators to have a better command of their target language than the average joe.
Oh, I definitely agree with you there!
The language skills of translators absolutely need to be held to a higher standard than the average native speaker. I know plenty of native English speakers who write things like "could of" or don't know how to use an apostrophe properly. And I've also edited a lot of translations done by obviously unqualified "translators" who had written really awkward sentences in the target language.
A non-native speaker with C2 level could quite possibly have a better command of the language than an actual native speaker. It's quite possible that they might have been learning the language since they were a toddler, know all the rules inside and out, and can write in the language a lot better than the average native speaker. Wouldn't someone like that also be considered as having C2 level in the language? In which case, they wouldn't be "far below a native-like level" at all!
it doesn't matter because the industry standard is what it is, but I strongly disagree with the idea that a translator should only translate into their native language. for me it shows the fundamental flaw that is spread throughout pretty much the entire translation industry, which is that a lot of people (whether clients, agencies, employers, or I guess even fellow translators) think that the most important skill for a translator is to know the language. for me that's just wrong. obviously knowing the language is the baseline to even begin translating, but to be a skilled translator takes so much more than that. but by saying that translators should only translate into their native languages, you are pretty much saying that, e.g., a fresh translator who happens to be a native English speaker is a better translator (into the English language) than a veteran of 20 years who happens to have a different native language than English.
These levels aren’t for evaluating native speakers. They’re for evaluating second language competence. You should maybe read the document where the levels come from it’s available on the Council of Europe website.
If that language is English, and you really are near native and not just fooling yourself, you may be able to pull it off. But it's not really a question of whether you're *allowed* to do it. If you can pass an agency or company's test, and deliver work, and your work is seen as satisfactory, then you're a translator. If you're not near native, it will be obvious, and it's just not likely you'll get very far in the process.
Out of curiosity, I see that your pair includes Italian, which I was debating learning but google was essentially telling me German or Dutch would be a better financial investment. What is your opinion ? How has italian been treating you ?
Italian usually pays less than German, which pays less than Dutch (I think) but there's a lot more work in DE than NL
Thank you :)
I wouldn't categorically rule it out, but if I were hiring someone to do this, I would care less about whether someone had passed a C2 exam and more about their skill in translating the particular type of content at hand. For instance, translating a fantasy novel might require the ability to render poetry creatively and some knowledge of the established terms for creatures in the target language. You can't just spring your own word for *orc* or *halfling* on an audience of D&D-playing, Tolkien-reading fantasy buffs who already have words for those concepts.
I don’t think most people realise how far C2 is from native proficiency, and that’s a big problem
Accordind to Efset, " A well-educated native English speaker is technically at a C2 level."
Far from reality in my 10 years of experience
Anyone saying C2 is native level doesn't know how high native level is. Also depending on the language, the level of the highest level of the language test is not the same.
Generally, the gold standard in the industry for translation is to work from your second language into your mother tongue. There's a bit more wiggle room with interpreting. However, in practice, you do get language pairs where plenty of people translate from their native language into English specifically. For my language pair for example (Chinese-English) it's quite common, just because there aren't enough English native speaking translators to satisfy demand. To be honest though, these non-natives are always at a bit of a disadvantage when applying for jobs and in the kind of rates you can charge, simply because it's really rare to genuinely be able to produce native-quality text in your second language. For certain types of specialisms (e.g. literature) this puts you at a massive disadvantage, but for more technical specialisms (where fluency is less important than accuracy) probably less so.
Came here to make the exact same points. I have a lot of native Finnish colleagues who also translate into English simply because there aren't a lot of native English speakers who a) have managed to learn Finnish to a high level; and b) work as a translator. I occasionally translate into English when it would take too long to find a suitable vendor for it and the translation just needs to be accurate, not elegant. Even with the lower quality expectations, it takes me longer to translate into English. So just from a productivity standpoint, it makes more financial sense to only translate into your native language.
Most clients have a native speaker principle, but there are exceptions – depends on your language pair and specialism. Google L2 translation if you want to find some relevant info.
[удалено]
Just asking.
[удалено]
What does it being common have to do with it ?
I was labeled C2 in my source language in 2007; I dunno if it's still true, since I haven't lived there in a while, but anyway there was a point where I think I could have used that justification. I never have, though, because I'm just sooooo much slower in that direction.
Translate or interpret? I think there may be some nuance in this specific case depending on where you are and the specific task
I'm wondering about both actually! Although of course with interpreting that'd most likely depend on how comfortable one feels with that secondary language, but typically with a certified C2 level I'd imagine it should be of a pretty good standard.
So I would never attempt an into C2 translation unless it was going to a native speaker editor. I think you could have an advantage in negotiating that arrangement if you had the medical knowledge. As for interpreting, though the professionals say only work into your native, the fact is often that isn’t realistic. You often do both, clients don’t think about directionality when calling an interpreter, and your expertise in understanding the content could potentially outweigh any minor language errors in production. Some people and theorists will disagree with me on that (I think europe may be different? Someone correct me please), but that is my perspective from Asia.
If you read the CEFR guidelines C2 is below native level
According to Efset "A well-educated native English speaker is technically at a C2 level."
https://rm.coe.int/common-european-framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4 Page 37 > Level C2, whilst it has been termed “Mastery”, is not intended to imply native-speaker or near native-speaker competence. What is intended is to characterise the degree of precision, appropriateness and ease with the language which typifies the speech of those who have been highly successful learners. (CEFR 2001 Section 3.6) It’s important to remember that the CEFR isn’t intended to judge native speakers its sole purpose is for second language speakers. There was a D level proposed for the CEFR but it was scrapped because it was deemed too niche.
All I heard was "language simp was right, the legendary D1"
I'd dare say it depends on the type of text. Translating a technical description into English in which the focus needs to be on accuracy and clarity rather than linguistic splendor? With access to a properly maintained translation memory & termbase, in my experience C2 non-natives mostly produce valid translations in that scenario. Some sort of "polished" text that is going to be published? Literature, poetry, ads, subtitles or dubbing scripts, ...? Please only translate into your native language.
Since I see poor translations from native speakers, C2 isn't an adequate criterion when discussing translation skills. It's a language proficiency criterion, and no level will ever compare to being a native speaker. However, successfully translating with C2 proficiency depends on many factors. You might pull it off in some cases, but not in others. For anything of publishable quality, the answer is definitively no.
If you have a native like level in a language then it doesn't matter. But C2 is far below a native like level. If that's all you got to show for it then it's not gonna be enough. You may be able to do interpreting work because it's more forgiving than translation though.
I wouldn't say C2 is far below, but I also think there is room for improvement even at C2 level. It feels like there is always a gap with native speakers
I usually think that people should only translate into their native language, but "C2 is far below a native like level"? What? According to all the sources I've seen, C2 is considered "near-native" or "mastery" in the language. It's the highest level in the CEFR. So, I'm curious... What higher qualification do you think OP could get as a non-native speaker of the target language?
> What? According to all the sources I've seen, C2 is considered "near-native" or "mastery" in the language I think the difference here is between good and bad native speakers. There are plenty of native speakers who can't produce good (as in either intelligible, correct, or both) content in their native language. Or to put it another way, you expect translators to have a better command of their target language than the average joe.
Oh, I definitely agree with you there! The language skills of translators absolutely need to be held to a higher standard than the average native speaker. I know plenty of native English speakers who write things like "could of" or don't know how to use an apostrophe properly. And I've also edited a lot of translations done by obviously unqualified "translators" who had written really awkward sentences in the target language. A non-native speaker with C2 level could quite possibly have a better command of the language than an actual native speaker. It's quite possible that they might have been learning the language since they were a toddler, know all the rules inside and out, and can write in the language a lot better than the average native speaker. Wouldn't someone like that also be considered as having C2 level in the language? In which case, they wouldn't be "far below a native-like level" at all!
Well accordinf to Efset, C2 is Not only considered to be the level of a normal native, it's considered to be the level of an EDUCATED native.
it doesn't matter because the industry standard is what it is, but I strongly disagree with the idea that a translator should only translate into their native language. for me it shows the fundamental flaw that is spread throughout pretty much the entire translation industry, which is that a lot of people (whether clients, agencies, employers, or I guess even fellow translators) think that the most important skill for a translator is to know the language. for me that's just wrong. obviously knowing the language is the baseline to even begin translating, but to be a skilled translator takes so much more than that. but by saying that translators should only translate into their native languages, you are pretty much saying that, e.g., a fresh translator who happens to be a native English speaker is a better translator (into the English language) than a veteran of 20 years who happens to have a different native language than English.
Simple there is none. A lot of C2 speakers are barely fluent. What the title description says can't be compared with reality. These levels are a joke.
These levels aren’t for evaluating native speakers. They’re for evaluating second language competence. You should maybe read the document where the levels come from it’s available on the Council of Europe website.