The Native Speaker Principle and its Place in Legal Translation

Written by: Charline B.

Source: indepthguide.com

Translation is hardly ever a mere word for word substitution and being able to speak or understand a foreign language does not make you a translator. Translators cannot make do with just mastering the target language. Instead, they must have a detailed understanding of the target culture too. Hence the widespread idea that translators should only translate into their native language, also known as the “native speaker principle”.

What exactly is the native speaker principle?

Source: mvdtranslations.nl

Mastering both the target language and culture thus appears possible only when a person has been born and raised with both the target language and culture, that is to say for a native speaker. Why should this be? If you have been continuously exposed to a language and a culture from birth, then you are supposed to master the linguistic elements of your mother tongue, as well as the related cultural elements in order to properly translate or find equivalents for proverbs, idioms or collocations for example. According to the native speaker principle, all of that tends to make your translation more authentic and idiomatic.

A principle that divides into two camps

Source: UGA website (Traduel)

The main argument in favor of the principle is that native speakers produce translations that read fluently in the target language, once again because they master – or at least are supposed to – all the linguistic elements of their mother tongue.

However, some findings in translation studies show that non-native speakers of the target language are actually able to produce adequate translations. It is true, though, that they can be quickly limited in terms of power of expression in the target language, for they do not master all the nuances of expression in the foreign language.

People against the principle argue that some fields of specialized translation call for translators with a thorough knowledge of the field involved and as such, being a native speaker of the target language might not be the priority. What would be the point of producing a perfectly fluent translation if the message of the source language is not accurately communicated? A non-native speaker of the target language, thus native speaker of the source language, will have a better understanding of a specialized text – especially if it is complex – and should be quite able to produce a translation grammatically and linguistically accurate.

Besides, the style and register which are required for some specialized translation fields, such as technical or legal translation, must actually be learned, which means that all translators can equally get good command of them, whether they are native speakers or non-native speakers.

Legal translation: no room for mistakes

Source: translateplus.com

Legal translation is highly specialized and is one of the more complex fields of translation, for it requires a good grounding in the target language and culture, as well as an in-depth knowledge of the legal systems of the countries and their associated terminology. In other words, legal translation should be left to expert practitioners of the law, in order to avoid translations that incorrectly construe the meaning of the source text and thus provide the clients with accurate translations.

Source: dailymail.co.uk

It is always funny to look at restaurant menus and see how some of them are poorly translated: “tortilla with smallpox”, “fried rolled-up trousers”, “tasteless coffee”. Although not professional, such mistranslations are no big deal, for they cause no harm. Things are quite different when it comes to legal translation. Legal translators deal with complex texts and sensitive issues: treaties, major business deals, evidence for a court, laws, etc. Their translation plays a major role and can seriously impact on people’s lives or cost businesses huge amounts of money. Therefore, there is no room for mistakes.

In 2012, a trial at a London court collapsed because of the mistake made by an interpreter when translating a Romanian defendant’s evidence: the defendant claimed they were “beaten” by the claimant, but the interpreter translated it as “bitten”. The judge had to order a retrial, thus adding another £25,000 to the bill.

* * *

In conclusion, the native speaker principle, although justified in some cases, seems to have no place in legal translation where non-native speakers can be as good as native speakers, if not better. The ideal situation would be for translators to have both linguistic and cultural knowledge, as well as a specialist background in the translation field they are working in.

However, we are not there yet. Perhaps the translator should be the one to make the decision of translating only into their native language (for example because they do not feel comfortable enough translating into the foreign language) and that we should not express any ethical judgement on translators who have made the decision to translate out of and into their mother tongue, because some of them are actually providing more than adequate translations. Besides, native speakers could always have a role to play in such cases, for example revising the translations produced by non-native speakers when necessary.

What do you think?