Why I No Longer Believe Translators Should Only Translate Into Their Native Language

Revisiting and revising one’s professional principles is not a sign of inconsistency—it’s a sign of growth.

Time doesn't stand still, and neither do we. The only time we stop moving, changing, and evolving is when we have shuffled off this mortal coil. Since I don't plan to do that for at least another 300 years 😉, I will keep on revisiting my personal, and professional, views and principles periodically, and modify them as I see fit.

For decades, one of the golden rules of professional translation has been this: only translate into your native language. This principle, often taught in academic programs and upheld by industry standards, is grounded in a legitimate concern for quality. The logic is simple: a native speaker has an instinctive grasp of tone, nuance, and cultural context that a non-native speaker, no matter how skilled, may never fully master.

And for much of my career, I lived by this rule. As a professional translator with 38 years of experience at this point, I’ve translated from German, French, and Spanish into English, as well as into German (being fully bilingual in English and German, that’s still in accordance with the “golden rule”), and more recently also into (Québec) French—though only when absolutely necessary and under careful self-scrutiny, and aided by a Québec native who gets to edit and review if and when necessary.

This article is my attempt to explain why I now believe that rigid adherence to the “native language only” rule can be more of a hindrance than a help, both to translators and to clients.

1. The Line Between “Native” and “Near-Native” Is Often Blurred

The concept of a “native language” is not always black and white. Many of us are bilingual or multilingual from an early age. Some acquire a new dominant language after years of immersion in another country or professional context. I’ve encountered translators whose command of their “second” language clearly exceeds the writing skills of many native speakers.

In such cases, the native-language principle becomes too rigid. It overlooks a growing global reality: language proficiency is not static or solely defined by childhood exposure. Translators who work daily in their non-native language—editing, reading, writing, and speaking—can develop near-native fluency and stylistic competence that make them more than qualified to produce high-quality work.

At my alma mater, the translation and conference interpretation program required working with three languages, including one’s native language. At the first level (equivalent to a bachelor’s), students had to translate from their third language. For the second level—the master’s in translation—they were also required to pass rigorous exams translating into their third language. This academic model acknowledged that translation competence could be cultivated through disciplined training, even in non-native directions.

2. Subject Expertise Can Matter More Than Mother Tongue

One of the greatest risks in translation is not linguistic awkwardness—it’s misunderstanding the source text. In highly specialized fields such as law, medicine, or technology, a deep understanding of the subject matter is often more crucial than flawless stylistic polish. If a translator is a domain expert and near-native in the target language, they may produce a more accurate and contextually appropriate translation than a monolingual native speaker who lacks subject knowledge.

In my own practice, I’ve seen that clients value accuracy, clarity, and informed tone just as much as idiomatic finesse.

3. Quality Assurance Is a Team Sport

Translation is rarely a solitary act anymore. Most professional workflows involve editing, proofreading, and sometimes back-translation or quality assurance by other language professionals. This collaborative approach reduces the risk of subpar output, even when the translator is working into a non-native language. If you’re serious about quality, you’ll always factor in review, regardless of who translates.

4. The Market Is Changing... And So Are the Needs

In today’s fast-paced, multilingual content environment, rigid rules can limit flexibility. Clients increasingly need multi-directional translation, especially in less common language pairs or niche subject areas. Insisting on native-only translation can create bottlenecks or exclude capable professionals whose language background simply doesn’t fit the traditional mold.

5. The Role of AI and Translation Technology

Another important development that supports this more flexible approach is the emergence of advanced AI and DeepL. When used intelligently and responsibly, DeepL can be a powerful asset for translators working into a non-native language, especially when their own skills are already at or near C2 level. Combined with a collaborative workflow that includes a native-speaking partner to review and refine the output, AI tools can enhance productivity and consistency without sacrificing quality. This doesn’t replace professional judgment; it augments it. Used correctly, AI becomes not a shortcut, but a second set of eyes.

6. Personal Growth as a Language Professional

Finally, there’s a personal dimension to this decision. I’ve spent decades refining my language skills, learning to write and think in more than one language. I’ve lived and worked across cultures. I’ve read, written, and revised countless texts in this or that language. Limiting myself based solely on a principle that no longer aligns with my actual skills feels unnecessarily restrictive, and that is why I have begun accepting certain translation assignments into Québec French, the language I’m immersed in day in and day out.

I choose to evaluate each assignment honestly: Am I confident I can render the message naturally, clearly, and appropriately in Québec French? Will the translation meet or exceed the client’s expectations? If the answer is yes—and if there is a review process in place—then I consider the job a fair and ethical undertaking.

Many professionals can write at C2 level or higher in a second language, producing elegant, natural prose that reads indistinguishably from native writing. On paper or screen, we see only the mastery of vocabulary, syntax, and tone—not a foreign accent. And in translation, which is a written art, accent is irrelevant so long as the result reads like an authentic native text.

Revisiting and revising one’s professional principles is not a sign of inconsistency—it’s a sign of growth. As translators, we are lifelong learners. Our evolving tools, skills, and contexts demand that we remain open to reflection and change.

In Conclusion

The principle of translating only into your native language had its time and purpose. But like many professional norms, it must evolve with changing realities. Competence, not nativeness, should be the primary benchmark for quality. After all, only too many native speakers today (of English, German, French, etc.) can barely read and write at a native level. Blame politics and the education system.

I haven’t abandoned my commitment to excellence, far from it. I’ve simply come to believe that excellence isn’t confined by the passport we carry or the language we spoke first, but by the skills we’ve cultivated, the judgment we apply, and the standards we uphold.

Werner Patels is a translator, editor and copywriter in Quebec City.