| Páginas sobre el tema: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53] > | Ten common myths about translation quality
|
|---|
| | | Absolutely fine by me... | Jul 31, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
a native language is one in which you have proficiency equal to that of educated native speakers of that language.
but what's your point? After 398 pages, I still don't know what you want...
| | | | Lincoln Hui 
Hong Kong
Local time: 02:33
Miembro
chino al inglés
+ ...
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote: Phil Hand wrote:
How many years have you lived in South Asia, for example? I don't even claim to know what the norm is in Chinese, so what do you know about this so-called "norm" that you speak of anywhere outside the very very small circle of European languages? It's all very well asking for evidence and research, but sometimes common sense is enough. Firstly, a misconception: European languages are not a "very small circle". By number of speakers, they are easily the largest group in the world, but that's actually incidental, because we're really talking about the translation market here. And in terms of translation value, they dwarf any other group. Plus, like it or not, Europe and the US are the more advanced economies, and they are where standards get dreamed up. Standards arise out of many years of high quality practice. That experience isn't there in the non-European world. Now, there are places where there is a disconnect between native and dominant. I do some work with a company from the Gulf, and they say that in some countries there, a lot of business and education is done in English. South Asia is another relevant example; so is South Africa. But most people are still educated in one of their native languages. Think of all the world's English, Spanish and Chinese speakers - the languages of instruction in English speaking, Spanish-speaking countries and the PRC and Taiwan are the same as the native language of the people who live there. And that's easily more than half the world's population. Add in Japan, Francophone countries, Germany... In terms of numbers, it's simple. You're right that some people grow up in rather different linguistic environments, but as someone said above, translation is not a human right. If a person does not have a native language which they use excellently in professional contexts, they are probably not qualified to be a translator. That's not the end of the world. Nor does it mean that they can never translate. But we're language professionals. If a person doesn't have a massively strong language in which she "feels" both meaning and tone, then she isn't really going to be able to join our ranks. I'd like to add that, as far as I know, nobody is denying people that feel they don't have a dominant language the right to translate in any direction. As Phil says, there are some restrictions imposed, but that it's necessary to manage the industry. There must be "rules", because commercial enterprises need a structure to maximise the workflow and their returns. This is the real world. Yes, it can be seen as unfair, but, as I said before, there are ways in which one's proficiency can be proved. I haven't seen anybody in this thread agreeing with me or take the necessary steps to actually prove what they are saying. And if you argue that the same can be applied to "native" speakers, then I agree and I recommend that any native speaker takes the necessary steps to prove that they are indeed professionals, and I'm not talking about a Proz certification...  Edited because my English sucks in the morning... [Edited at 2013-07-31 08:26 GMT]
And I have no particular problem with this. What certain native English speakers from the other thread were suggesting, however, was that it was illegal to declare one's non-native language to be so, and a very common perception is that native language is the first language you ever learned, while your perception is that native language is one's best language.
Therefore, a lot of people would consider it illegal for me to declare English to be my native language, even though it is my best language; and you would consider it unethical for me to declare Chinese to be my native language, even though I was born into it and continually maintained my skills in it. I eat, breath, sleep and dream in both, and therefore I declare both of them to be my native languages, because in Sherlock Holmes' words, I had rather play tricks with the law than with my own conscience.
"native-ness" is not necessarily equated with quality; no relationship is drawn. Consider "nativeness" a requirement made *in additional to* quality (rather than in order to achieve it).
If a non-native speaker produced a translation that could clearly be distinguished from that of a native speaker's, the translation is not a quality one.
but there are people on this thread who want to re-design the world to suit the exceptions
I can live with the status quo on ProZ. I shouldn't have to remind you who the ones complaining about it are.
| | | | Ty Kendall
Reino Unido
Local time: 19:33
hebreo al inglés
| I can live with the status quo too.... | Jul 31, 2013 |
Lincoln Hui wrote:
I can live with the status quo on ProZ. I shouldn't have to remind you who the ones complaining about it are.
Well, in fairness, it's the non-natives complaining about the unfairness of it all and how hard done by they are. The whole thing was also kicked off by non-natives way back on page 1 (it became a native/non-native thread from the very first post!)
What's strange is that some of the most die-hard protesters on this thread don't even intend on translating into their non-native language. Some people just like to argue.
[Edited at 2013-07-31 09:17 GMT]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 00:03
Miembro 2006
inglés al hindi
+ ...
LOCALIZADOR DEL SITIO
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
a native language is one in which you have proficiency equal to that of educated native speakers of that language. but what's your point? After 398 pages, I still don't know what you want...
Lincoln has explained the problem in his recent post.
Simply put, and as I understand it, it is the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation faced by many members because of the ambiguity regarding native language on this site. If you declare a language you are proficient in as your native language (in the absence of any clear definition of what native language means) you become dishonest. And if you don't want to give the perception of being dishonest, you have to pay the price of being kept out of jobs you can legitimately do (because you would not have declared one of your proficient language as your native language).
By proficiency here, I mean "educated native level proficiency", not L2-level proficiency.
Why should a member who pays the same amount money as anyone else suffer this indignity and loss of opportunity on this site?
That is the issue. And in my view, the solution is to regularize a consensus definition of what native language is, like the one I have proposed and implement it throughout the site, or don't use native language anywhere on this site.
The issue has nothing to do with European norms and Europe and America being the dominant translation markets, as Phil and G. argue. It is a very site-specific issue.
| | |
|
|
|
| ok, got it... | Jul 31, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
a native language is one in which you have proficiency equal to that of educated native speakers of that language. but what's your point? After 398 pages, I still don't know what you want... Lincoln has explained the problem in his recent post. Simply put, and as I understand it, it is the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation faced by many members because of the ambiguity regarding native language on this site. If you declare a language you are proficient in as your native language (in the absence of any clear definition of what native language means) you become dishonest. And if you don't want to give the perception of being dishonest, you have to pay the price of being kept out of jobs you can legitimately do (because you would not have declared one of your proficient language as your native language). By proficiency here, I mean "educated native level proficiency", not L2-level proficiency. Why should a member who pays the same amount money as anyone else suffer this indignity and loss of opportunity on this site? That is the issue. And in my view, the solution is to regularize a consensus definition of what native language is, like the one I have proposed and implement it throughout the site, or don't use native language anywhere on this site. The issue has nothing to do with European norms and Europe and America being the dominant translation markets, as Phil and G. argue. It is a very site-specific issue.
yes, you become "unverified" if you declare two native languages. But Enrique has said in this very thread that this will be fixed and people will be able to be verified in two languages. He doesn't say how, though. So, I think you should be a little patient and it will be fixed... if you are not happy at the moment with the "discrimination", then maybe you should stop supporting the site via your membership?
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
Reino Unido
Local time: 19:33
portugués al inglés
+ ...
| Get certified | Jul 31, 2013 |
The doubters would also be silenced if you got some serious certification in that particular language pair (as Giovanni has been suggesting all along).
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 00:03
Miembro 2006
inglés al hindi
+ ...
LOCALIZADOR DEL SITIO | No, that is not the issue | Jul 31, 2013 |
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
a native language is one in which you have proficiency equal to that of educated native speakers of that language. but what's your point? After 398 pages, I still don't know what you want... Lincoln has explained the problem in his recent post. Simply put, and as I understand it, it is the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation faced by many members because of the ambiguity regarding native language on this site. If you declare a language you are proficient in as your native language (in the absence of any clear definition of what native language means) you become dishonest. And if you don't want to give the perception of being dishonest, you have to pay the price of being kept out of jobs you can legitimately do (because you would not have declared one of your proficient language as your native language). By proficiency here, I mean "educated native level proficiency", not L2-level proficiency. Why should a member who pays the same amount money as anyone else suffer this indignity and loss of opportunity on this site? That is the issue. And in my view, the solution is to regularize a consensus definition of what native language is, like the one I have proposed and implement it throughout the site, or don't use native language anywhere on this site. The issue has nothing to do with European norms and Europe and America being the dominant translation markets, as Phil and G. argue. It is a very site-specific issue. yes, you become "unverified" if you declare two native languages. But Enrique has said in this very thread that this will be fixed and people will be able to be verified in two languages. He doesn't say how, though. So, I think you should be a little patient and it will be fixed... if you are not happy at the moment with the "discrimination", then maybe you should stop supporting the site via your membership?
No Govianni, that is not it at all. It is the indignity of it that is the issue. Exclusion from jobs is a separate issue, though it is also important.
Why should I suffer the indignity of being thought dishonest when I declare a certain language as my native language in which I have excellent proficiency?
And why should I be forced to declare a language which I don't consider as my native language (English, for example) just to get jobs? That I can do the jobs in English is a different matter altogether. The issue is, the site forces me to resort to falsehood in order to access an opportunity.
Enrique will of course say that no one is being forced into falsehood and the rules of proz.com allow one to declare two native languages. But unless proz.com defines what native language is, there is always the risk of being thought dishonest in doing this.
I may not want to run this risk, and for this I have to pay by not being able to access the jobs that I can do.
To make it more clear, let us say, for me only Hindi can be my native language because I culturally and personally identify myself with it. The native language is a slot in my identity which can only be occupied by Hindi. Call it sentimentalism or whatever. But let us say for the sake of argument that this so.
At the same time I have equal competency in English as in Hindi and am eligible for translating into English. To do this, I will have to declare English also as my native language, which may not be palatable to me.
Why put me (and many others like me) in this unenviable position? Matters can be simplified for all concerned if we define native language as a language you are proficient in.
But for this proz.com will have to unequivocally say what it takes native language to be.
If proz.com defines native language as an identity thing, I will declare only Hindi as my native language. But if it defines native language as a proficiency thing I will declare both Hindi and English as my native language. There would then be no dishonesty involved or no perception of being dishonest would be conveyed.
Maybe as a solution, you could continue to have native language as an identify badge, but for professional purposes, you only use proficient languages. May be this could solve the problem, as I see it.
If that is done, I can declare Hindi as my native language, and Hindi and English as my proficient languages. And these proficient languages would be used by job posters for filtering translators, but not the native language. The native language would be used only as an identity indicator of the person.
| | | |
no system is perfect... I think using words as "indignity", "falsehood", "dishonest" is a bit over the top. You might not like to define English as a native language of yours (because it isn't), but your command is at native level, so what's the problem? Semantics? I agree that Proz could be more flexible and introduce different definitions, but it looks like it never will. Also, if you don't like the system, why are you part of it? You can vote with your feet and discontinue the membership or l... See more no system is perfect... I think using words as "indignity", "falsehood", "dishonest" is a bit over the top. You might not like to define English as a native language of yours (because it isn't), but your command is at native level, so what's the problem? Semantics? I agree that Proz could be more flexible and introduce different definitions, but it looks like it never will. Also, if you don't like the system, why are you part of it? You can vote with your feet and discontinue the membership or leave the site altogether. I don't quite understand what you are doing on a site which makes you suffer such "indignity". I wouldn't be here. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Lincoln Hui
Hong Kong
Local time: 02:33
Miembro
chino al inglés
+ ...
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
The doubters would also be silenced if you got some serious certification in that particular language pair (as Giovanni has been suggesting all along).
...I don't take kindly to being called a liar, and I don't take kindly to anyone forcing me to prove my innocence.
Well, in fairness, it's the non-natives complaining about the unfairness of it all and how hard done by they are. The whole thing was also kicked off by non-natives way back on page 1 (it became a native/non-native thread from the very first post!)
...it has stopped being so as soon as somebody brought in the previous marathon thread. I, at least, have no complaint about the current system in ProZ; my complaints are about the people who are complaining that the system is too lenient.
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote:
no system is perfect... I think using words as "indignity", "falsehood", "dishonest" is a bit over the top. You might not like to define English as a native language of yours (because it isn't), but your command is at native level, so what's the problem? Semantics? I agree that Proz could be more flexible and introduce different definitions, but it looks like it never will. Also, if you don't like the system, why are you part of it? You can vote with your feet and discontinue the membership or leave the site altogether. I don't quite understand what you are doing on a site which makes you suffer such "indignity". I wouldn't be here.
The problem is whether one risks legal issues by declaring English as native language.
[Edited at 2013-07-31 10:43 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
Reino Unido
Local time: 19:33
hebreo al inglés
| Proz have made it abundantly clear.... | Jul 31, 2013 |
...that they have ZERO interest in defining "native language" for ALL its users. So I think you'll be waiting a while Bala.
You're better off asking them to add a "proficient/near-native" option in addition to the native language option rather than telling them to redefine native language in a way that will allow people to list anything there.
| | | |
Lincoln Hui wrote:
The problem is whether one risks legal issues by declaring English as native language.
You have hands and a brain, don't you? When you apply or start a collaboration with a new client, you explain... they will be more than pleased to use you if you are at least half as good as you claim to be. In fact, they will be even happier, because they can use the right person for the job. What's the problem with that?
| | | | | See this is why the native category is totally illegal in the US | Jul 31, 2013 |
Michele Fauble wrote: Nicole Schnell wrote:
Germany is a popular immigration country. As a "native speaker" and especially from a distance, I can tell what the abundance of immigrants has done to the German language. Technically, any migrant kid who was born in Germany should be a native speaker. Sorry, far off. Very, very far off. The migrant kids learn their "German" on the street and in class rooms that are populated by 90% of non-native speakers. They stay among themselves. German youngsters find this influence on the German language hilarious and entertaining, and more and more appalling ghetto phrases make their way into day-by-day language.
So, who are the native speakers of German?
People who grow up speaking a variety of German are native speakers of German. The immigrant children you mention are native speakers of Einwanderer Deutsch. [Edited at 2013-07-31 02:09 GMT]
in relation to work -- and mostly anything else.If you know what your native language is, having accepted the innate vagueness of the term -- you can volunteer the information, but it cannot be required.
If questions like that were allowed -- some people may start comparing English from Boston with the kind from New Jersey, for example, or Texas -- which one is better. They may start asking you questions about the educational background of your parents -- which may also influence someone's linguistic skills, or the ethnicity of your grandparents.
Secondly, if you go to college in the US and study translation you are supposed to translate mostly into English. If you work as US translation -- you translate into English mostly, no one ill ask you any crazy questions about nativeness. Many people born here may also have some traces of the interference from other languages in their English.
As to many outsourcers' idea of a native language -- I think many assume, especially some of their administrative personnel, but not only, that native language is the language the person is almost born with -- the first language their mommy spoke to them, and some agencies don't care whether the person has any education in it, or not. If you have a typical English last name that helps even more. Many also assume that if you were born in an English-speaking country, have an English-sounding name and some education, you can automatically translate any text from any language you just have a grasp of -- including difficult medical texts, technical and legal. Some may even think you are capable of translatiing PhD dissertations.
In the view of those facts, I agree with all the people who think that the native category as any kind of a guarantee of the best quality of translation is totally absurd, especially that many people have confirmed that it is not always someone's best language.
This category appeared in the translation industry as a result of the territorial wars between translators in the EU, mostly after more countries joined, and was related to the main European languages, such as German, French, Spanish, perhaps, and the Scandinavian languages. It was created to protect work for British translators, the same as the preaching that native teachers of English are better than local teachers was, which is just not true -- maybe at certain stages, but otherwise the teacher has to be able to explain everything in details in the language the students understand well.
Now, the people from such countries as India, China, and some other areas affluent with quite rare and difficult languages, have to suffer because of the EU territorial wars between translators.
[Edited at 2013-07-31 11:36 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Lincoln Hui
Hong Kong
Local time: 02:33
Miembro
chino al inglés
+ ...
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote: Lincoln Hui wrote:
The problem is whether one risks legal issues by declaring English as native language.
You have hands and a brain, don't you? When you apply or start a collaboration with a new client, you explain... they will be more than pleased to use you if you are at least half as good as you claim to be. In fact, they will be even happier, because they can use the right person for the job. What's the problem with that?
There is no problem with this situation as it stands, which is why I said I was fine with the status quo. I will not link or directly quote from the locked thread because it's against the rules to do so, but I will paraphrase them as "general arguments given":
- Someone who has native proficiency in a language and putting it as their native language is misusing the word "native"
- If someone who learned English later and puts it as their native language, they are lying
- Anyone putting a second language as native is a fraud
- ProZ is promoting fraudulent self-promotion
- No one's learned language can be as good as that of a native speaker's
- No one's second language can be better than their first
These are the people who want ProZ to allow only one native language, and these are the people who are now, either through short memories or deliberate deception, trying to place the blame on the other side.
Between the law and my conscience, I will side with my conscience every time. But that doesn't mean that I won't be put to the chair.
[Edited at 2013-07-31 11:13 GMT]
| | | | | Converging... | Jul 31, 2013 |
Luis Arri Cibils wrote:
when we finally become members of a respected and self respecting profession, or when ethical principles are enforced.
This is a major point.
I think the translation profession is one fraught with too many amateurs everywhere. The burden lies with the client, who has to set apart the wheat from the chaff.
I often compare translation with photography as professions. For several years I played the role of a professional photographer; industrial photography to be specific. I used professional equipment (the same camera astronauts took to the Moon), did extensive B&W processing lab work. Wall-size enlargements of my "snapshots" impressed everyone.
My ex-sister-in-law (though she says in-laws are forever) in Toronto is now a retired wedding photographer. Equally impressive pictures, however hers involved live human beings with their expressions, often in motion, not posing like machines. She says that during her last years in the profession, she was often "replaced, for budgetary reasons," by a teenage nephew using a pocket-size digital camera, and Photoshop later.
This was the (lost!) hope of machine translation. While one can learn all about f-stops, shutter speeds, and depth-of-field without too much effort, photography involves freezing for eternity on film something that everybody can see. Translation involves capturing the thoughts one individual encoded as text, decoding it, and re-encoding it with a different "code" (a language). This cannot be "seen", so it takes more than just depressing the shutter button on a fully automatic electronic camera.
So translators are here to stay. Yet the translating profession is as respected as medicine would be, if self-claimed healers were allowed to practice their craft without any constraint. At least in civilized countries, we can't find an orthopedist eager to do brain surgery, nor an ophtalmologist taking psychiatric cases. Yet in translation this happens every single day. This is what professional translators, not necessarily native speakers of any specific language, are struggling against.
Luis Arri Cibils wrote: José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
...
Any subject matter; any media, video, dubbing, subtitling, interactive DVD; PDF; DTP; PPT; whatever! Keep 'em comin'!
Of that list, translating into my native language, I may, with reservations, take PPT files.
Meanwhile I'll take any of the items I listed, however I wouldn't do a mere TXT to TXT translation, if it involved technical medicine, biology, finance, accounting, or sports. (My off-limits list may eventually grow: I don't know all I don't know yet, perhaps never will.)
Luis Arri Cibils wrote:
And here is my question: Do you believe by any chance that the situation would be improved having general non-natives translating into foreign languages? Are they, by any chance, more ethical people? Are they showing how ethical they are, claiming that they are natives in a given language and then showing in their profiles they are not?
No, I don't.
Like I said, as a sworn translator in Brazil, my country's Foreign Affairs department will endorse a translation I do into my technically non-native language for official purposes elsewhere, so I cannot take that lightly. As I am disallowed to reject such jobs, if one of them requires expertise in any of my self-imposed off-limits areas, I I will secure reliable specialized support to do it properly.
My ethics involve being open about my limitations before my clients. I feel it is my duty to honor their trust upon assigning me a job. If stretching my skills will be necessary, they will be the first to know in case some post-translation review or editing will be necessary.
The problem lies in those translators whose life-saving mission is to get as many jobs as they can, no matter what. IMHO Proz restraining their possibility of stating as many native languages as they wish won't cut it; to reach their goals, they'll have to find some way to circumvent that.
Perhaps the solution is on the other side. Outsourcing PMs will have to work harder on selecting their translators. Tests over the Internet won't work; some Cyrano translator might be taking them instead. Using the natives-only formula - as agreed recently here - is not a fail-proof solution. They'll have to wear the HR manager's hat, and strive to cultivate the relationship they develop with the reliable translators they find.
| | | | Ty Kendall
Reino Unido
Local time: 19:33
hebreo al inglés
| Prove it, part 3 | Jul 31, 2013 |
LilianBNekipelo wrote:
See this is why the native category is totally illegal in the US
Prove it.
If questions like that were allowed -- some people may start comparing English from Boston with the kind from New Jersey, for example, or Texas -- which one is better. They may start asking you questions about the educational background of your parents -- which may also influence someone's linguistic skills, or the ethnicity of your grandparents.
Yes, I can totally see this happening.
It was created to protect work for British translators
I can assure you that native language was not "created" to protect work for British translators.
| | | | | Páginas sobre el tema: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Ten common myths about translation quality | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
| | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
