• The issue of native language (NL) of experienced, accredited translators (EAT) has been waiting too long for a decent discussion. Too obvious that it is of great advantage if an EAT translates into/from their NL. But should its absence automatically exclude a senior practitioner, as it is many times prescribed by outsourcers? (Especially on ****.com, where the relevant point forms evidently part of the questionnaire put to outsourcers when they apply for translators.)
I am a native Hungarian, learned English at an early age, have been translating literature, articles, documents since my teenage years. I live and translate in Australia since the 1980s. I can proudly say that I acquired 'native' fluency. Similar case with my other accredited language, Spanish, acquired in Mexico, where I lived for 26 years. At home we speak Spanish.
On the other hand, my daughter's NL is Spanish, but she came to Australia at the age of 6 months. In theory (would she be a translator) she should be in a preferred position, which is a bit absurd (although she speaks good Spanish).
I agree with Helena: NL as a criterion is only valid if the individual case is analysed. Happy New Year and thanks for the opportunity, I wanted to say this a long time ago.