| Pages in topic: < [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 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | Should “native language” claims be verified? Thread poster: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
Balasubramaniam L. 
India
Local time: 16:22
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER
The TPI idea is not fully worked out and I have just presented the bare germ of the idea. It can be fleshed out and made workable with a little effort. The main purpose of my post was to sell the idea itself – that it is possible to develop a more comprehensive measure of translator proficiency than native language, and to mention the broad contours of this alternative.
The hurdle as I see it, is not the nitty-gritty of this idea which can be smoothed out if we give more thought t... See more The TPI idea is not fully worked out and I have just presented the bare germ of the idea. It can be fleshed out and made workable with a little effort. The main purpose of my post was to sell the idea itself – that it is possible to develop a more comprehensive measure of translator proficiency than native language, and to mention the broad contours of this alternative.
The hurdle as I see it, is not the nitty-gritty of this idea which can be smoothed out if we give more thought to it, but to get people (both translators and outsourcers and of course the site) to see the possibilities in this new concept and to convince them that this can be a much better substitute for native language.
Such rating systems are already being used in comparable situations. I have mentioned two cases – 1. investment instruments where you have ratings like AAA, AA+, etc, which are actually very complex and composite measures that take into account various factors, much like our own situation where translator proficiency is dependent on a host of factors. 2. the system used by immigration offices of countries like Canada, New Zealand, etc., which again is a composite measure.
Now coming to your specific objection – how is this different from the native language based system.
I agree the way the TPI post is worded, it is rather ambiguous and indistinct. Every aspect of it is open to discussion and change. The information gathering process for the profile of members can be made more elaborate and members can be made to account for every year of their life up to 15 years (the language acquisition period) and the native language issue can be decided based on the information provided there.
Questions like these could be asked:
- What were the languages spoken in the place you spent your childhood?
-
- Where were you born? Did you stay in the same place during your entire childhood. If not, please list all the places where you stayed more than a year during your childhood along with the languages spoken in these places.
-
- Which school did you attend (address)? What languages were taught at school and for how many years? What was the medium of education?
-
The answers to such questions will give a fair non-controversial idea of the language exposure in early childhood of the person concerned. There won’t even be a need to specifically ask what the person’s native language is. It can be inferred from the information gathered. Or if this question is indeed asked, then there would be sufficient information available to verify the answers given for this question.
This will take care of the cases you have mentioned of people migrating from one place to the other.
The main thing to note is that in this system, no one factor (like native language) assumes disqualifying significance. A host of relevant factors are taken into account and there is a lot of scope for the lack in one factor to be compensated by proficiency in other factors.
Moreover, this is a dynamic index and translator rating can improve as the translator improves – by gaining experience, becoming more qualified, etc. This in my view is the most significant advantage of this system visavis native language which is static and invariant and provides no scope for taking into account translator improvement over time. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | no need to discount or dismiss the NS credential | Sep 3, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
The main purpose of my post was to sell the idea itself – that it is possible to develop a more comprehensive measure of translator proficiency than native language, and to mention the broad contours of this alternative.
I don't agree with your point that a more comprehensive measure of translator proficiency than native language" is required. "Native language" in itself is not a comprehensive measure for translator proficiency.
The question raised was:
Thread title: Should native language claims be verified?
My answer and that of many professional native speaker translators:YES (many arguments have been given and discussed in this thread).
The current PNS system, as stated by Proz.com also indicates that verification is to be carried out in the future: (from FAQ):
A member who reports having only one native language is assumed to be a native speaker of that language, and is not required to demonstrate it. However, members who report multiple native languages will in the future be asked to demonstrate their native speech in each language before other native speakers of those languages. Until this has been accomplished, a black and gray icon will be associated with the unconfirmed native languages.
I would argue that honesty about one's native language and verification of native languages is indeed important to most translators and Proz.com.
Discounting or dismissing the importance of the native language credential and arguing that Proz.com may never verify native languages are opinions which I cannot agree with, from my standpoint - that of a true native speaker of German and non-native but advanced speaker of English.
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Traditionally, nativeness in target language has been popular for such screening. But it has increasingly become clear that it alone cannot ensure translation quality.
"Nativeness alone" can certainly not ensure translation quality. And possessing/displaying the NS credential when there's no certainty that these languages are indeed the translator's native languages makes any real native speaker's PNS credential pointless.
However, native language is a very important factor when deciding who should translate a text.
I believe that the NS credential is an important credential based on the real concept of native language. It serves to find "native speakers" (one important factor in the decision to choose someone for a translation job) and it has been used here on Proz.com for a long time. It is my opinion that it should be used and verified to have value.
I edited this post to comply with forum rules.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-04 23:32 GMT]
| | | |
I agree that verifying competence in a language is important, as would be to verify any other fact that can enhance your qualifications.
The category “native” is a very vague measure of language competence if you consider that many non natives speak better English than natives that live in slums or even in many posh apartments in The City. And maybe they understand what they read better and write better.
In this sense “native” should be subdivided into different categ... See more I agree that verifying competence in a language is important, as would be to verify any other fact that can enhance your qualifications.
The category “native” is a very vague measure of language competence if you consider that many non natives speak better English than natives that live in slums or even in many posh apartments in The City. And maybe they understand what they read better and write better.
In this sense “native” should be subdivided into different categories (i.e. “slum native”, “academic native”, “snob native”, and maybe a few others) and verify each one.
On the other hand a person can master English as a native, in the sense of sentence construction and what someone called “intuition” but not be fluent or aware of the jargon in vogue, so he is incapable of communicating with youngsters or other social groups, however, some parents or grandparents aren’t capable of communicating with their own children for the same reason, but that doesn’t mean they are less “native”.
So, why verify the category “native” in a different way that you would verify language competence. I believe there are basically 3 levels of competence in languages (you can add sub-levels if you want):
- common native (someone who has lived 20 years in a country-language or any other equivalent set-up like being brought up in his early (5-10) years by target-language parents and/or environment or born and lived for 5-10 years in the country-language - and ongoing use of the language).
- Academic native (ongoing use of the language to a level accepted for university studies - with success, not dropouts).
- Structured native (a university or equivalent graduate with linguistic studies).
I believe the CEFR tests levels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Framework_of_Reference_for_Languages) are good enough to distinguish the common native from the academic native, and a degree in linguistics should identify the structured native. Although I must say that some structured natives don’t understand what they read when they face certain types of texts. As someone expressed before “an old devil might know more than a fancy youngster, however native he thinks he is”.
But the worst of all natives are those that believe they are great, and are incapable of any self-criticism. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | verify what?? verify native language CLAIMS!! | Sep 3, 2012 |
traductorchile wrote:
But the worst of all natives are those that believe they are great, and are incapable of any self-criticism.
No, the worst "natives" are those who claim to be native speakers but are non-native speakers.
And native language is not a vague concept. It has to do with early exposure to/immersion in and continuing use of and education/schooling in that language.
[Edited at 2012-09-03 07:15 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 11:52
Hebrew to English
| Enough with the redefinition of a perfectly defined word! | Sep 3, 2012 |
traductorchile wrote:
The category “native” is a very vague measure of language competence...
...“native” should be subdivided into different categories (i.e. “slum native”, “academic native”, “snob native”, and maybe a few others) and verify each one.
So, why verify the category “native” in a different way that you would verify language competence. I believe there are basically 3 levels of competence in languages (you can add sub-levels if you want):
- common native (someone who has lived 20 years in a country-language or any other equivalent set-up like being brought up in his early (5-10) years by target-language parents and/or environment or born and lived for 5-10 years in the country-language - and ongoing use of the language).
- Academic native (ongoing use of the language to a level accepted for university studies - with success, not dropouts).
- Structured native (a university or equivalent graduate with linguistic studies).
Again, this attempt at redefining the term "native" is clearly an attempt to redefine the term in such a way so that one could legitimately claim to be 'native', despite the fact it's not true.
It also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the concept of "native speaker" (in a linguistic sense). Having "native speaker competence" in one's native language is about being hardwired - culturally and linguistically in favour of the said language. It does not matter wheter you live in a "slum" (highly offensive by the way), or a penthouse, whether you are 80 or 18, whether you have a PhD or didn't even pass your GCSEs - everyone has access to the same [shared] cultural and linguistic resources. The fact that there is variation in the degree of articulation and composition (written language really doesn't come into it - that's taught, not acquired) across the spectrum of native speakers (many of whom merely speak a different dialect to what you're probably accustomed to - especially in those "slums") does not mean they are any less native, or that non-natives have a stronger claim of nativeness. When all is said and done, the native speaker acquired the language from earliest childhood in most cases, the non-native learnt it.
The fact that SOME non-natives are able to write better standard English than SOME natives does NOT mean they are more native than the native, it means they are more educated. That's all.
It is simply not a vague term at all, unless you want it to be in order to make certain 'claims'.
It is an accepted term and concept used by academics and laypeople alike. You have to ask yourself, if it's such a vague, outdated term, why is there NOT a swath of literature denouncing it? Apart from Paikeday (as I pointed out) there simply isn't any really harsh criticism of the concept, nor a queue of eminent linguists lining up to decry it.
So no, let's not start trying to go down the artificial route of "50 shades of native".
[Edited at 2012-09-03 07:47 GMT]
| | | | | Balasubramaniam L. I get your point... | Sep 3, 2012 |
I really do not wish to become embroiled in this never-ending saga but I would recommend that some of you re-read Balasubramaniam L.'s contribution on why native language claims are unlikely to be verified by the site.
Leaving aside his earlier contributions with which you may well not be in agreement (not sure I am either), he has produced a very good analysis of why the topic starter(s) have little chance of getting what she/they want. It is a sobering thought. Balasubramaniam L. then go... See more I really do not wish to become embroiled in this never-ending saga but I would recommend that some of you re-read Balasubramaniam L.'s contribution on why native language claims are unlikely to be verified by the site.
Leaving aside his earlier contributions with which you may well not be in agreement (not sure I am either), he has produced a very good analysis of why the topic starter(s) have little chance of getting what she/they want. It is a sobering thought. Balasubramaniam L. then goes on to advocate TPI. That is where he and I part company.
But back to my point: whatever else, B's analysis of site rationale and policy are spot on in my book.
Heads... bashing...... walls
[Edited at 2012-09-03 07:55 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 11:52
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
A lot of the recent posts have been completely off topic. We are not discussing language or translation proficiency. This has NEVER been the point of this thread. I hope that is absolutely clear? Mr Balasubramaniam et al, if you wish to discuss these off-topic matters please start another thread as you have completely and utter... See more A lot of the recent posts have been completely off topic. We are not discussing language or translation proficiency. This has NEVER been the point of this thread. I hope that is absolutely clear? Mr Balasubramaniam et al, if you wish to discuss these off-topic matters please start another thread as you have completely and utterly misunderstood the point of this one. We are discussing false claims about speaking a native language - the information that is under your name on your profile page. These are facts, not subjective judgements on proficiency. Please do not waste any more pages of this thread with your off-topic musings. Thank you. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
A lot of the recent posts have been completely off topic. We are not discussing language or translation proficiency. This has NEVER been the point of this thread. I hope that is absolutely clear? Mr Balasubramaniam et al, if you wish to discuss these off-topic matters please start another thread as you have completely and utterly misunderstood the point of this one. We are discussing false claims about speaking a native language - the information that is under your name on your profile page. These are facts, not subjective judgements on proficiency. Please do not waste any more pages of this thread with your off-topic musings. Thank you.
Well said Lisa, once again!
If I remember rightly, you called a moderator to this thread a week or so ago, to advise those of us in favour of verification about how to present a petition to Proz, but it seems that no moderator has yet responded to your call.
Have you any news on that front?
Jenny
| | |
|
|
|
Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 11:52
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| Maybe... maybe not | Sep 3, 2012 |
polyglot45 wrote:
whatever else, B's analysis of site rationale and policy are spot on in my book.
Heads... bashing...... walls
That may be the case. It may be that nothing will come of this. But is that any reason not to demand that things change for the better? We can't know what our actions will result in, but it's clear that inaction is going to result in a worsening of the situation. At least we can, and should, say that to those who can do something about it.
Did those French peasants who literally bashed their heads against the walls of the Bastille give up and go home because they worried that their friends and families still wouldn't get the bread they needed? No! History is full of examples where change has been brought about by public pressure, even when it didn't look as though it would be in the interests of the powers that be.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 11:52
Hebrew to English
I think we're all cynical as to the site's willingness and sincerity in doing anything about the issue at hand. If you go back and look at the regular contributors to this thread I don't think you could accuse any of them of being wide-eyed optimists where ProZ policy and standards are concerned.
I feel you may have fallen into Mr B...'s trap on this one. Just because he made one lucid observation (which we are all well-aware of) amid a sea of less-lucid suggestions.... ... See more I think we're all cynical as to the site's willingness and sincerity in doing anything about the issue at hand. If you go back and look at the regular contributors to this thread I don't think you could accuse any of them of being wide-eyed optimists where ProZ policy and standards are concerned.
I feel you may have fallen into Mr B...'s trap on this one. Just because he made one lucid observation (which we are all well-aware of) amid a sea of less-lucid suggestions....
When you say "native language claims are unlikely to be verified by the site", it seems like you are forgetting that according to their own [existing!] rules, they are already meant to be!
I agree with Sheila, it's not an excuse to throw the towel in at all. Nothing worthwhile is ever achieved by giving up at the first [or even the 2nd, 3rd..] obstacle.
Although I'm sure that's what the native-language-fraudsters are hoping for. They are counting on the fact we will lose interest, give up and go home. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Fallen into a trap? Me?
Re-read my post and you will see that I agreed ONLY with B's statement on site apathy. I detached myself from all the rest.
As a non-member (or tourist), I do not feel the need to comment on anything else. But please don't accuse me of failings I do not have!
| | | | | Not all buyers of translation services are idiots | Sep 3, 2012 |
I don't understand this discussion at all. If we (as a LSP) are looking for a translator, it is our job to verify that the translator meets our spec for this job. Using native translators is just one aspect we "might" take into consideration. There are so many factors and it is relatively easy to check these factors, where is the problem? The concept of nativeness is too vague, to base any robust decision on it. Just give a translation about the German health care system to a British translator ... See more I don't understand this discussion at all. If we (as a LSP) are looking for a translator, it is our job to verify that the translator meets our spec for this job. Using native translators is just one aspect we "might" take into consideration. There are so many factors and it is relatively easy to check these factors, where is the problem? The concept of nativeness is too vague, to base any robust decision on it. Just give a translation about the German health care system to a British translator when you need a translation for the US market, or a marketing text for the Tourist Information in the German Black Forest to a Indian (English native) translator, or try giving an informed consent form for Austria to a German (Germany) translator. In each case you are risking to get a suboptimal result.
A few years ago we employed a German translator (German diploma from Cologne university, born and raised in Germany), it did not work, she had a Turkish background, and her Family was/and always had been talking Turkish to her. When talking to her (she is very intelligent) you would not realize any difference, but when she was translating marketing material, the difference became obvious.
What I want to express here, is my opinion, that being native does not mean that you can handle a certain job.
As a result the buyer of the translation service has to check that the translator he hires is up to the job, and being native is only one factor.
I see no reason in verifying the nativeness of a translator, being native in one language seems to be an advantage, translators claiming to be native in various languages often (IMO) oversee the fact that they have deficencies in both languages and personally I consider people claiming to be native in more than 2 languages not qualified for any job we might have to offer.
The value of selecting a native translator with no or minimal knowledge about the subject over a non native translator with good non native language skills and with expertise in the subject escapes me. Nativeness is only one factor, and it is the job of the buyer to define the requirements and to verify that the translator meets these requirements. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 11:52
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Jenny Forbes wrote:
If I remember rightly, you called a moderator to this thread a week or so ago, to advise those of us in favour of verification about how to present a petition to Proz, but it seems that no moderator has yet responded to your call.
Have you any news on that front?
i.e. I got a reply but it wasn't satisfactory; I replied and asked the relevant mod to join the discussion so we could clarify what we were after but nothing has happened. This was last Thursday. If I'm not mistaken, there's a rule about discussing specifics of support requests, but the bare bones were that the mod appears to have misunderstood our intention and thinks we're seeking better ways of reporting abuse. This is not what I think the majority of us are after (running ProZ like a police state). Rather our wish is simply that they implement their own rules http://www.proz.com/faq/764#764 regarding the Native Speaker Credential, which were there when we all joined the site (in certain cases as far back as 10+ years ago) and finally set up the long-awaited verification strategy. My suggestion would be that we put the petition in place requesting implementation by X date. The technical side of the petition I will have to pass the buck on. There has been a suggestion that Google Docs would work. Would appreciate all and any input and a volunteer for this.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 11:52
Hebrew to English
| Honesty, just honesty | Sep 3, 2012 |
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
The value of selecting a native translator with no or minimal knowledge about the subject over a non native translator with good non native language skills and with expertise in the subject escapes me.
I don't think anybody here would advocate that. We aren't detracting from the importance of specialisation and subject knowledge, these are also vital factors, what we are saying is that (when comparing like for like) - native language can also be a vital tipping factor.
Nativeness is only one factor, and it is the job of the buyer to define the requirements and to verify that the translator meets these requirements.
And it is the job of the seller (if they are professional) to report their attributes and credentials honestly, otherwise they are just misleading the buyer into thinking they have the requisite requirements, when in fact they do not.
A few years ago we employed a German translator (German diploma from Cologne university, born and raised in Germany), it did not work, she had a Turkish background, and her Family was/and always had been talking Turkish to her. When talking to her (she is very intelligent) you would not realize any difference, but when she was translating marketing material, the difference became obvious.
This is a case where honesty would have prevented such a mess. Regardless of the fact she was born, raised and educated in Germany, it seems her native language was Turkish, and I suspect she probably knew her Turkish was stronger than her German (and consequently that her German fell short of native) all along. She may have felt a very strong reason to claim German as a native language (born raised and educated there after all) but the gap between extremely proficient and native is not insignificant. If she was/had been honest about Turkish being her L1 would you have awarded her the project (bearing in mind it was marketing) ? Somehow I doubt it.
| | | | | Nativeness has nothing to do with honesty | Sep 3, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
[This is a case where honesty would have prevented such a mess. Regardless of the fact she was born, raised and educated in Germany, it seems her native language was Turkish, and I suspect she probably knew her Turkish was stronger than her German (and consequently that her German fell short of native) all along. She may have felt a very strong reason to claim German as a native language (born raised and educated there after all) but the gap between extremely proficient and native is not insignificant.
Ty, in your profile you state: "I was born and raised in England, although I like to spend as much time as possible in Israel."
What makes you believe that your English nativeness is worth more/better/more real than hers being native in German? She was born and raised in Germany, studied translating in Cologne and her Turkish was definitely not her L1 language. What I am questioning is the value of being native on its own. Sure, when "comparing like for like" as you call it, being native is an advantage. So, how many "native" variants exist for English?
UK
US
Australian
Indian
Canada
Jamaica
Singapore
Nigeria
Liberia
New Zealand
????
[Edited at 2012-09-03 20:21 GMT]
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [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 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Should “native language” claims be verified? | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
| | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
