Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3 4] >
Is C1 level enough for a source language?
Thread poster: Robin Joensuu
Mario Chavez (X)
Mario Chavez (X)  Identity Verified
Local time: 06:51
English to Spanish
+ ...
St. Jerome would be rolling in his grave May 22, 2017



Some humor is needed here.

Paraphrasing Lawrence Venuti, even those translators who disdain translation theories are operating (i.e. translating) based on some theory. Call it an approach, a method, a set of strategies.

Reading comprehension as the minimum requirement to translate from a source language is a misconception. Put it another way, it is an insufficient yardstick to tran
... See more


Some humor is needed here.

Paraphrasing Lawrence Venuti, even those translators who disdain translation theories are operating (i.e. translating) based on some theory. Call it an approach, a method, a set of strategies.

Reading comprehension as the minimum requirement to translate from a source language is a misconception. Put it another way, it is an insufficient yardstick to translate professionally. Language learning is one thing; translation is another. Mixing the two is a stumbling block to becoming a competent translator. We write translations for a living. We are not copyists nor do we work in a type pool (that used to be a kind of call center for typists in the 40s and beyond).

Maybe the original poster (I don't like acronyms when I can spell them out) is assuming he only needs reading comprehension or a C1 level in a given language, but he'll have to face some realities later.
Collapse


 
Maria S. Loose, LL.M.
Maria S. Loose, LL.M.  Identity Verified
Belgium
Local time: 11:51
German to English
+ ...
C1 is minimum level required by EU selection procedures May 22, 2017

All EU selection procedures for translators require C1 and not C2 for the source language. And the vast majority of translators working in-house for the EU only know their source languages at this C1 level, because they usually translate from at least two languages (some of them from up to seven). So I would say that the reality of the profession is C1 for the source language and C2 for the target language.

 
Mirko Mainardi
Mirko Mainardi  Identity Verified
Italy
Local time: 11:51
Member
English to Italian
Try with St. Lucy... May 22, 2017

Mario Chavez wrote:



Some humor is needed here.

Paraphrasing Lawrence Venuti, even those translators who disdain translation theories are operating (i.e. translating) based on some theory. Call it an approach, a method, a set of strategies.

Reading comprehension as the minimum requirement to translate from a source language is a misconception. Put it another way, it is an insufficient yardstick to translate professionally. Language learning is one thing; translation is another. Mixing the two is a stumbling block to becoming a competent translator. We write translations for a living. We are not copyists nor do we work in a type pool (that used to be a kind of call center for typists in the 40s and beyond).

Maybe the original poster (I don't like acronyms when I can spell them out) is assuming he only needs reading comprehension or a C1 level in a given language, but he'll have to face some realities later.


... or, humor aside: you're still missing the point...

I advised you to read the OP, because he wrote he already was a translator (so we must assume he already IS able to "write translations" in his L1), added he was perfectly aware he would need to "learn a lot of specific terminology related to my areas of specialization" and just asked if "C1 according to the European Framework for Languages" would be a sufficient general knowledge level for an added L2 to translate from. Considering all of the above, I think it would, even if that C1 specifically referred to reading comprehension for that L2. You don't. OK, then let's agree to disagree and let the saints enjoy their well deserved rest.


 
Mario Chavez (X)
Mario Chavez (X)  Identity Verified
Local time: 06:51
English to Spanish
+ ...
Oh, why so serious? May 22, 2017

Mirko Mainardi wrote:

Mario Chavez wrote:



Some humor is needed here.

Paraphrasing Lawrence Venuti, even those translators who disdain translation theories are operating (i.e. translating) based on some theory. Call it an approach, a method, a set of strategies.

Reading comprehension as the minimum requirement to translate from a source language is a misconception. Put it another way, it is an insufficient yardstick to translate professionally. Language learning is one thing; translation is another. Mixing the two is a stumbling block to becoming a competent translator. We write translations for a living. We are not copyists nor do we work in a type pool (that used to be a kind of call center for typists in the 40s and beyond).

Maybe the original poster (I don't like acronyms when I can spell them out) is assuming he only needs reading comprehension or a C1 level in a given language, but he'll have to face some realities later.


... or, humor aside: you're still missing the point...

I advised you to read the OP, because he wrote he already was a translator (so we must assume he already IS able to "write translations" in his L1), added he was perfectly aware he would need to "learn a lot of specific terminology related to my areas of specialization" and just asked if "C1 according to the European Framework for Languages" would be a sufficient general knowledge level for an added L2 to translate from. Considering all of the above, I think it would, even if that C1 specifically referred to reading comprehension for that L2. You don't. OK, then let's agree to disagree and let the saints enjoy their well deserved rest.


Ms. Loose clarified it for me (you didn't). At least you got the last word, sort of. Enjoy your spoils.


 
Michael Wetzel
Michael Wetzel  Identity Verified
Germany
Local time: 11:51
German to English
I still don't understand ... May 23, 2017

Why is it essential to be able to communicate extremely effectively in your source language(s)? What is your argument to support that position, Mario?

From a business perspective, it is a gigantic advantage in terms of dealing with source-language clients, and this group of clients is often the best in terms of repeatedly and frequently requiring our services. The former West German chancellor Willy Brandt famously said something along the lines of "If I want to sell something to yo
... See more
Why is it essential to be able to communicate extremely effectively in your source language(s)? What is your argument to support that position, Mario?

From a business perspective, it is a gigantic advantage in terms of dealing with source-language clients, and this group of clients is often the best in terms of repeatedly and frequently requiring our services. The former West German chancellor Willy Brandt famously said something along the lines of "If I want to sell something to you, I'll speak your language; if you want to sell something to me, speak German." These clients also tend to (not entirely inappropriately) have serious concerns about translators' knowledge of their source languages in addition to the relevant subject matter and its linguistic conventions and terms. Being able to effectively converse with them in their language is obviously a great way to deal with the first doubt.

I also think an extensive active knowledge and use of our source languages is a significant help in terms of grasping why authors have chosen to say something in a particular way. Without that, I think a lot of translators end up thinking their authors are being unnecessarily obtuse or unclear or otherwise writing poorly when they aren't. This may be more of an issue in terms of extensive familiarity with texts in the relevant field, but it also involves an aspect related to their language in general.
So, I certainly think that an active knowledge of a source language is a great thing to have. On the other hand, at least in my case, it is clearly part of a trade-off: My English clearly suffers on account of my German.
It seems like a giant leap to go from presenting active source-language competence as useful to asserting that it is an absolute requirement for being a good translator. I could very clearly picture myself investing several years in reading French or Dutch and reaching a passive level of mastery in my field of specialization that would enable me to translate reasonably well from those languages without being able to string together three fluent sentences of my own in them.

On the other hand, I would say that a passive C2 knowledge of a source language is normally nowhere near enough to be able to translate effectively out of that language. I passed a C2 test for German and it's simply not that hard. And if someone actually takes a class to prepare for the test, then it would be easy to pass without anything even vaguely resembling the kind of source-language knowledge needed to quickly and reliably and precisely understand most of the things that most of us translate.
And these tests obviously don't test or require any kind of in-depth knowledge within specific fields. If C1 or C2 refers to the abstract description offered by Mirko, I suppose that might be a place to start in terms of defining a minimum standard, but if we are talking about passing the actual tests, then they are essentially worthless, because passing a C2 test certainly fails to demonstrate an adequate (passive) knowledge of the given language.
Collapse


 
Dulz (X)
Dulz (X)  Identity Verified
Germany
French to German
+ ...
C2 /= native speaker level May 25, 2017

Maria S. Loose, LL.M. wrote:

So I would say that the reality of the profession is C1 for the source language and C2 for the target language.


C2 doesn't equate to native speaker level. I, for instance, have passed a C2 level test for French (DALF C2), but I'm by no means a "native speaker" or even close to that. It's not THAT difficult ... I would say that C2 is a good start to really go into the depths of a language, but it doesn't mean that it's the ultimate linguistic goal or something like that. It would be ridiculous to think that.

As for translators, I think C1 for reading comprehension is a bit low... C2 should be normal for a translator (reading comprehension!!! NOT speaking/listening... but that's also not that difficult to achieve, at least listening). But that's only my opinion. I know that there are many great translators with B2/C1 in their source language(s), especially those with many source languages or exotic source languages.


 
Mario Chavez (X)
Mario Chavez (X)  Identity Verified
Local time: 06:51
English to Spanish
+ ...
Working into source languages May 26, 2017

Michael Wetzel wrote:

Why is it essential to be able to communicate extremely effectively in your source language(s)? What is your argument to support that position, Mario?


You'll forgive me, Michael, for not addressing every point in your posting but just the one question you addressed to me. Since reverse translation (working from a mother tongue into a source language) has been practiced by brilliant translators over the centuries, and since this practice (not to be confused with back translation) has been taught at my university during my translation course years, it's been my standard to excel in speaking, reading and writing on both languages I consider native 1 (Spanish) and native 2 (English).

Because I started studying English at around 5 years of age, I always wanted to excel at it as much as I do in Spanish. So there's my argument.


 
Alfredo Lo Bello
Alfredo Lo Bello  Identity Verified
Italy
Local time: 11:51
English to Italian
+ ...
C1 is extremely low. Jul 2, 2017

C1 is extremely low for a professional translator, you won't get anywhere with that.

A C1 speaker of any language can in no way grasp the connotative meaning of expressions, get allusions, and so on and so forth, or at least do in a very minimal part. C2 speakers can do that.

And besides, I would say that C2 is also "average" for a translator. Skilled translators are "almost" on par with native speakers of the source language, which the C2 exams in no way make warranty
... See more
C1 is extremely low for a professional translator, you won't get anywhere with that.

A C1 speaker of any language can in no way grasp the connotative meaning of expressions, get allusions, and so on and so forth, or at least do in a very minimal part. C2 speakers can do that.

And besides, I would say that C2 is also "average" for a translator. Skilled translators are "almost" on par with native speakers of the source language, which the C2 exams in no way make warranty of.
Collapse


 
LEXpert
LEXpert  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 05:51
Member (2008)
Croatian to English
+ ...
@ Lo Bello A. - that's C1 in the CEFR, not C language for interpeting Jul 2, 2017

Lo Bello A. wrote:

C1 is extremely low for a professional translator, you won't get anywhere with that.

A C1 speaker of any language can in no way grasp the connotative meaning of expressions, get allusions, and so on and so forth, or at least do in a very minimal part. C2 speakers can do that.

And besides, I would say that C2 is also "average" for a translator. Skilled translators are "almost" on par with native speakers of the source language, which the C2 exams in no way make warranty of.


C2 is the top level in the CEFR. Are you perhaps confusing the CEFR levels with A, B and C languages for interpreting?


 
Alfredo Lo Bello
Alfredo Lo Bello  Identity Verified
Italy
Local time: 11:51
English to Italian
+ ...
No. Jul 2, 2017

LEXpert wrote:

Lo Bello A. wrote:

C1 is extremely low for a professional translator, you won't get anywhere with that.

A C1 speaker of any language can in no way grasp the connotative meaning of expressions, get allusions, and so on and so forth, or at least do in a very minimal part. C2 speakers can do that.

And besides, I would say that C2 is also "average" for a translator. Skilled translators are "almost" on par with native speakers of the source language, which the C2 exams in no way make warranty of.


C2 is the top level in the CEFR. Are you perhaps confusing the CEFR levels with A, B and C languages for interpreting?


No I am not, LEXPert.

[Edited at 2017-07-02 21:21 GMT]


 
CATHERINE MARCHAND
CATHERINE MARCHAND  Identity Verified
Greece
Local time: 12:51
Member (2018)
Greek to French
SOURCE LANGUAGE WITH C1 Jul 3, 2017

As a French teacher, I can just confirm you that the level to be considered as a native speaker is C2 and in some languages there is also C2 ++.
If you do some translations with level C1 you will have some difficulties especially if they are technical translations and you will spend more time to fix your translations...


Morteza Motezakcer
 
DZiW (X)
DZiW (X)
Ukraine
English to Russian
+ ...
Say? What? All the better Jul 3, 2017

Lo Bello A., aren't I reading it correctly?
C1. Effective operational proficiency or advanced
*Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer clauses, and recognize implicit meaning.
*Can express ideas fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions.
*Can use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes.
*Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organizational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices.
Although I agree some 200 hrs between levels is but a fix, and many students are just prepared to pass a specific test format, not to master real language skills, yet I think your remark is out of line with the standard test requirements and common definitions (e.g. 'proficiency', 'advanced', 'implicit', 'complex', 'cohesive' and so on).

Indeed, the test is rather synthetic for there're advanced learners, who can't both speak and write well, not to mention drilling. As you might see, I prefer interpreting, so I don't need to choose smoother wording, better collocations, and more explicit emotive equivalents; however, since upper-intermediate I don't have bad mistakes and issues translating from EN into RU/UKR.


katkostas, to speak the same language, could you also first define "some difficulties" (what allegedly C1 lacks) and "technical translation" (as an opposition to literary translation or what)? Besides theoretics, the only difference in modern very narrow and specific texts is a glossary (terminology) and sometimes–language patterns (style), so some two-four weeks (200 hrs) for practicing should do, let alone not every real native speaker can cope with a similar task in a wink.

Shortly, I would be really glad to see what and how a near-native (C1) can’t translate

[Edited at 2017-07-04 13:22 GMT]


 
Mirko Mainardi
Mirko Mainardi  Identity Verified
Italy
Local time: 11:51
Member
English to Italian
Theory vs. Practice Jul 4, 2017

Lo Bello A. wrote:

C1 is extremely low for a professional translator, you won't get anywhere with that.


If forums posts and the like are any indication of language proficiency, then I believe there are swarms of "professional translators who aren't getting anywhere with that" while still doing it for a living. And I am specifically referring to English, which probably is the most common, widespread and used source language around... (therefore proficiency in English should generally be higher than it is in more 'exotic' or uncommon pairs)

katkostas wrote:

As a French teacher, I can just confirm you that the level to be considered as a native speaker is C2 and in some languages there is also C2 ++.
If you do some translations with level C1 you will have some difficulties especially if they are technical translations and you will spend more time to fix your translations...


On the contrary, I believe "technical translations" are actually easier to handle even with a comparatively lower proficiency in the source language compared to more idiomatic and creative texts, as in the end they rely much more heavily on fixed and standardized glossary, wording, syntax, registers, turn of phrases, etc. than the latter.

I believe that what the OP originally wrote, that is to say "I realize that I have to learn a lot of specific terminology related to my areas of specialization, but for the language in general – what level of knowledge should be sufficient?", perfectly applies to this scenario.

E.g. An engineer who knows terminology very well in their target language and is used to reading documentation in English will probably fare much better in handling translations in that field than they would with, say, advertising copy or literature, even if their proficiency in English is far from stellar and they could even struggle when dealing with general source texts.


 
Tom in London
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 10:51
Member (2008)
Italian to English
Why ask? Jul 4, 2017

Robin Joensuu wrote:

....what level of knowledge should be sufficient?


"So" (as you said) you may find this useful:

http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/resources/european-language-levels-cefr

The classifications given there ("Understanding" "Speaking" and "Writing") are the official classifications recognised by the EU. You can work out from there if you're good enough - although as is widely recognised, these things are always highly subjective.

[Edited at 2017-07-04 13:23 GMT]


 
Sheila Wilson
Sheila Wilson  Identity Verified
Spain
Local time: 10:51
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
Technical translations are less dependent on the general level of proficiency Jul 4, 2017

Mirko Mainardi wrote:
katkostas wrote:
As a French teacher, I can just confirm you that the level to be considered as a native speaker is C2 and in some languages there is also C2 ++.
If you do some translations with level C1 you will have some difficulties especially if they are technical translations and you will spend more time to fix your translations...

On the contrary, I believe "technical translations" are actually easier to handle even with a comparatively lower proficiency in the source language compared to more idiomatic and creative texts, as in the end they rely much more heavily on fixed and standardized glossary, wording, syntax, registers, turn of phrases, etc. than the latter.

I believe that what the OP originally wrote, that is to say "I realize that I have to learn a lot of specific terminology related to my areas of specialization, but for the language in general – what level of knowledge should be sufficient?", perfectly applies to this scenario.

E.g. An engineer who knows terminology very well in their target language and is used to reading documentation in English will probably fare much better in handling translations in that field than they would with, say, advertising copy or literature, even if their proficiency in English is far from stellar and they could even struggle when dealing with general source texts.

I totally agree with you, Mirko. In fact I have current experience that matches your example perfectly. I proofread for an engineer whenever she translates into her source language, English. Her highly technical translations are excellent, just needing a tweak here and there. I'm assuming the technical jargon is perfect (she's the engineer, not me!); anyway, whenever I've been sufficient doubtful to look something up it has always proven correct. But when she did a more general report, a sort of "state of the industry" report, the quality was way inferior.


 
Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3 4] >


To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:


You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »

Is C1 level enough for a source language?






Wordfast Pro
Translation Memory Software for Any Platform

Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users! Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value

Buy now! »
CafeTran Espresso
You've never met a CAT tool this clever!

Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer. Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools. Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free

Buy now! »