Many people assume that all non-native speakers of a language have a lower proficiency level in that language than all native speakers. However, this is not always true. In fact, myriad factors influence language proficiency levels in both native and non-native speakers.

Native speakers’ education and knowledge of their own culture and language may affect their reading, writing, listening, and speaking abilities. Meanwhile, non-native speakers who are dedicated to learning a foreign language and culture may reach the same ability level as native speakers.

Despite these realities, in the localization industry, the myth of the native speaker always being superior persists. Some language service providers (LSPs) assume that interpreters and translators perform better when their native language is the target language. Accordingly, many professional associations and organizations advise that linguists interpret or translate into their mother tongue only.

I believe this is misguided. There are many linguists who grew up bilingual or even trilingual, and it is not fair that they must choose only one “Language A” (the language into which they interpret or translate). A non-native speaker may also reach a proficiency level equal to that of a native speaker through professional training and education.

In addition, when it comes to smooth communication, I argue that listening and reading are of equal importance to speaking and writing. Only when linguists understand the source content well can they effectively interpret or translate it into the target language.

I suggest that we no longer blindly rely on native speakers only for interpreting and translating into a target language. Instead, we should take into account linguists’ actual level of expertise and professional experience, and LSPs should amend their requirements for Language A, B, C, etc. By doing so, we end discrimination against non-native speakers, expand flexibility for linguists, and ultimately deliver even higher-quality language services.