| 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)
|
|---|
Kirsten Bodart 
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:41
Dutch to English
+ ...
| The English te press uses | Sep 4, 2012 |
Ok, I hope we're not going to take the Daily Mail as a standard then...
Maybe better either The Times or The Guardian, The Telegraph or The Indipendent. I'm not sure how trustworthy the Daily Express and The Sun are. Even worse, News of the World... Although wasn't that closed down recently?
BBC English/the Queen's English was once the standard, but since introducing regional accents, maybe that's also a bit tricky. I don't know how far the regional thing goes.
lu... See more Ok, I hope we're not going to take the Daily Mail as a standard then...
Maybe better either The Times or The Guardian, The Telegraph or The Indipendent. I'm not sure how trustworthy the Daily Express and The Sun are. Even worse, News of the World... Although wasn't that closed down recently?
BBC English/the Queen's English was once the standard, but since introducing regional accents, maybe that's also a bit tricky. I don't know how far the regional thing goes.
lus we have still not addressed the idea of immirgants who speak a different language at home.
Let's say the client has the final say in this. I agree the client never wants a text with mistakes in it that make its readers squirm, but most of the mistakes I think we are alluding to here (and I still don't really know, because a list is conveniently not made of them, of course) can be cleared up. If the client likes what he is reading, then he will return. If he doesn't he doesn't.
But I am not getting into this again. I am too busy. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 07:41
Hebrew to English
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
Ok, I hope we're not going to take the Daily Mail as a standard then...
Maybe better either The Times or The Guardian, The Telegraph or The Indipendent. I'm not sure how trustworthy the Daily Express and The Sun are. Even worse, News of the World... Although wasn't that closed down recently?
All newspapers are written in standard (UK) English here. The only difference is that the broadsheets have a few longer words thrown in. No real differences here....
BBC English/the Queen's English was once the standard, but since introducing regional accents, maybe that's also a bit tricky. I don't know how far the regional thing goes.
lus we have still not addressed the idea of immirgants who speak a different language at home.
Introducing regional accents on TV, in public life (i.e. SPOKEN)...yes, but there's been no introduction of regionalisms in WRITING. We're all still taught the standard there.
| | | | Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 07:41
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| Different registers of the same language | Sep 4, 2012 |
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
Ok, I hope we're not going to take the Daily Mail as a standard then...
Maybe better either The Times or The Guardian, The Telegraph or The Indipendent. I'm not sure how trustworthy the Daily Express and The Sun are. Even worse, News of the World... Although wasn't that closed down recently?
They are all written in English, for heavens' sake. You may not like the content, you may not like the register, but an English native speaker will have absolutely no problem identifying each and every one (and similar publications in other English-speaking countries) as written by English native speakers.
Isn't it significant that so many non-natives here query the meaning of "native English speaker" and yet I don't believe that any of us who claim to be English native speakers (only) have any problem with the term? People originating from the UK, the US, Australia, New Zealand etc. know perfectly well there are differences between the variants; but we also know how to write standard English.
I agree that it would be helpful to have a sub-category for native speakers of all those languages which have variants. It's something which is missing from all parts of the site, not just with regard to native language. BUT, that is a separate issue and in no way does it detract from the need to have correctly-recorded details of native language. In general terms, I'm a native English speaker. I'm a native British English speaker, to be specific.
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 07:41
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | What are we debating? | Sep 4, 2012 |
We COULD debate standard English and dialects until the cows come home but in fact none of this is relevant to the discussion, nor is it the point of the thread. Some of you have clearly declared a native language; one of you has even emphasised it in your profile, so what exactly is the issue? If the problem is with the fact that there is a not insignificant contingent who would like to push for verification of native language claims, those were the terms under which we all joined the site so t... See more We COULD debate standard English and dialects until the cows come home but in fact none of this is relevant to the discussion, nor is it the point of the thread. Some of you have clearly declared a native language; one of you has even emphasised it in your profile, so what exactly is the issue? If the problem is with the fact that there is a not insignificant contingent who would like to push for verification of native language claims, those were the terms under which we all joined the site so there’s nothing new there either. What are you therefore objecting to? ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall wrote: Anne Diamantidis wrote:
Interesting but not enough - what the press in the US uses is not the same English than what the press in the UK uses. No, but it's extremely close. Whilst the spoken differences between Glaswegian and Louisiana English might be vast, the written differences between standard UK and US English are rather slim in comparison.
So the world standard for English is what - UK English or American English?
My point was, I thought there's no "standard English". That applies to any global language, see :
Anne Diamantidis wrote:
I'm not even talking about translation and localization. I'm refering to your comment that "standard English" is what the press uses. Which press?
French press uses France French. Quebec press uses Quebec French.
French press does not use Quebec French. Quebec French press does not use France French.
Which one is "world standard" for French?
Not debating over the quality of that or this newspaper. Just asking whether you native speakers of English consider that there is one variant of the English language that you consider a standard for all native speakers of English (be it UK, US, NZ, Australia, India, Canada...).
The discussion over native speakers in the ProZ forum is an old one and without throwing the cat in the pigeons, I am under the impression that mostly English speakers seem so "affected" by these concerns - or maybe I'm wrong, thats just the way it feels. AFAIK, French speakers worldwide do not have those. You're a native speaker from Canadian French, France French, Swiss French, or whichever and for example, we France French speakers do not consider that our French is the world standard for all French speakers worldwide. You are native in whichever French variant you are native in and thus translate into that language variant.
I fail to see why it seems so hard to see / feel the same for English variants. You are American English natives, UK English natives, Australia English natives, etc. There.
However I was not aware there was a "standard English" used worldwide for all native speakers. Interesting. Where can I read/learn that language?
Anyway - as Sheila points it out, this is off-topic but it would be definitely great to be able to add language variants in profiles.
Cheers
Anne
[Edited at 2012-09-04 14:18 GMT]
| | | | Kirsten Bodart
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:41
Dutch to English
+ ...
| About the regional and the register | Sep 4, 2012 |
Sheila Wilson wrote: Kirsten Bodart wrote:
Ok, I hope we're not going to take the Daily Mail as a standard then...
Maybe better either The Times or The Guardian, The Telegraph or The Indipendent. I'm not sure how trustworthy the Daily Express and The Sun are. Even worse, News of the World... Although wasn't that closed down recently? They are all written in English, for heavens' sake. You may not like the content, you may not like the register, but an English native speaker will have absolutely no problem identifying each and every one (and similar publications in other English-speaking countries) as written by English native speakers. Isn't it significant that so many non-natives here query the meaning of "native English speaker" and yet I don't believe that any of us who claim to be English native speakers (only) have any problem with the term? People originating from the UK, the US, Australia, New Zealand etc. know perfectly well there are differences between the variants; but we also know how to write standard English. I agree that it would be helpful to have a sub-category for native speakers of all those languages which have variants. It's something which is missing from all parts of the site, not just with regard to native language. BUT, that is a separate issue and in no way does it detract from the need to have correctly-recorded details of native language. In general terms, I'm a native English speaker. I'm a native British English speaker, to be specific.
I wasn't questioning the idea that there is something like Standard English (i.e. what Cambridge teaches foreigners), but you do have to be careful with 'the press'.
You can call that different registers, yes, but different registers with spelling and grammar mistakes. What if the press starts to confuse the apostrophe (to keep it simple), as they definitely do? Is 'mens' suddenly Standard English? I seem to recall that on our Olympics Tickets there was even a spelling mistake too... Horror.
Surely there are non-native journalists working in the press. What about those? Their English becomes Standard English, 'because the press uses it.'
I am not quesitoning the term 'native', all I am saying, and the issue no-one apparently wants to solve, is that you need to know what you are looking for in a native speaker. Are you looking for a birth cert, a passport, what? Only then can you start to consider if someone can be deemed a native speaker or not (give him an N), because in the English-speaking world you are dealing with many immigrants and expats who can experience interference with another language. They are not all living in the UK, in a family with two English parents (for two generations at least), going to an English school and only watching BBC. What do you do with a Pakistani, born in Birmingham to Pakistani parents, but who never set foot in Pakistan, knows a little Pakistani from speaking it at home, but went to an English private school and studied English at Oxford? Is their English Standard English? Or does this person still experience interference from the language he learned during his critical period?
If I personally, as a native Dutch speaker, am looking at a text, and I notice some very very bad mistakes (word order), then I go, 'Hmmm, maybe this person shouldn't be translating.' Still, if it's a good text, but it's done by a non-native speaker and there is somewhere a tiny mistake, I go, 'Ah, caught you. But, wow, your Dutch, well done.'
I am not questioning the idea of a label, I am questioning how you should go about this. It's easy to ask for an accredited label (that's fine by me), but you need to be able to award it. A passport is not enough, because you could get immigrants with bad English claiming native status, that's clear. But there is still no real progress made in trying to define what you all want this person to fulfil to be able to get the accredited N.
Strategy is everything.
If you want this label to come in practice, then be constructive and do not debate the idea (it's obvious that it would be great for everyone if bad abuse could be nipped in the bud), but debate the criteria, although that's of course the problem and it's why you are going round in circles. I would say it's easier to do in Dutch, French and German (and that's the three I know), because there is a book or an official body that says what is wrong and what is right. If there is a discussion about it, look in the book. Dutch even has an official list of all words. If it's not in there, it's not standard. English doesn't have a source like that, or its sources do not define, they record. That's a totally different approach. So it is up to you, the native speakers, to define 'the native speaker'. That's all I'm asking. Is that so hard?
Make a list. It's easy to do. Samuel has been trying to do this, but hasn't got very far with it. I wonder why? Too difficult maybe?
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 07:41
Hebrew to English
My point was that there isn't a "world" standard for English. The two dominant varieties are UK & US. I'm yet to see a translation advert asking for translation into "Liberian English".
Sometimes AUS English gets a look in but for the vast majority of cases UK & US are the desired variants. Of the other variants, many of them base their standard on....you guessed it, either UK or US standards. So, even across the whole spectrum of global English(es), the written standard is quite un... See more My point was that there isn't a "world" standard for English. The two dominant varieties are UK & US. I'm yet to see a translation advert asking for translation into "Liberian English".
Sometimes AUS English gets a look in but for the vast majority of cases UK & US are the desired variants. Of the other variants, many of them base their standard on....you guessed it, either UK or US standards. So, even across the whole spectrum of global English(es), the written standard is quite uniform,...considering.
Just asking whether you native speakers of English consider that there is one variant of the English language that you consider a standard for all native speakers of English (be it UK, US, NZ, Australia, India, Canada...).
No, but most variants' written standard tends to end up resembling the others, usually because they intentionally follow one of the main ones (as I said). It's a well known fact that Australia, NZ and even India have leant towards a British model of writing standard, other places look to a US model. The end result is that there simply isn't that much variation in the written language. It's not that I consider UK English as a standard for all native speakers of English, it's that I see hardly enough differences in the others to consider them altogether different.
Not that I believe any of this is relevant to "honest reporting of native languages".
Honest reporting of native language variant is another kettle of fish (and another debate waiting to happen should the site ever implement the listing of language variants). ▲ Collapse
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 23:41
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| National standards | Sep 4, 2012 |
Anne Diamantidis wrote:
So the world standard for English is what - UK English or American English?
My point was, I thought there's no "standard English". That applies to any global language,...
There is no world standard. The idea that "standard" implies a world standard is the source of your confusion. There is standard written UK English, standard written American English, etc. There are national standards. Standard English means any of these national standards. Other "global" languages, such as French, also have national written standards.
| | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for clarifying! | Sep 4, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote: My point was that there isn't a "world" standard for English. The two dominant varieties are UK & US. I'm yet to see a translation advert asking for translation into "Liberian English". Sometimes AUS English gets a look in but for the vast majority of cases UK & US are the desired variants. Of the other variants, many of them base their standard on....you guessed it, either UK or US standards. So, even across the whole spectrum of global English(es), the written standard is quite uniform,...considering. Just asking whether you native speakers of English consider that there is one variant of the English language that you consider a standard for all native speakers of English (be it UK, US, NZ, Australia, India, Canada...). No, but most variants' written standard tends to end up resembling the others, usually because they intentionally follow one of the main ones (as I said). It's a well known fact that Australia, NZ and even India have leant towards a British model of writing standard, other places look to a US model. The end result is that there simply isn't that much variation in the written language. It's not that I consider UK English as a standard for all native speakers of English, it's that I see hardly enough differences in the others to consider them altogether different.
Thanks Ty, it's clearer now.
Interesting that you as a native speaker see little differences. Even though I learned Cambridge English and passed my Cambridge ESOL tests, I'm more famliar with US English because of movies and because I used to work with Americans (well, at ProZ). So I'm actually more comfortable in US English - But I remember a job we had a while ago, FR>UK EN - when the translator delivered his work and I started the quality check, the translation felt to me just... wrong! There were words in there that made no sense to me, phrasings that I found "weird" and all. In the end it was actually all right - it was UK English and I'm just not used to it. I'm no native speaker but that gives me maybe an external eye? I don't know, but the same goes for movies, when I watch an American film and a British film, I hear the differences (not in the accent, in the words used) and to me, as a non native, I really feel like UK and US English are as different as France and Quebec French. Funny how our perceptions can be so different
Ty Kendall wrote:
Not that I believe any of this is relevant to "honest reporting of native languages".
Honest reporting of native language variant is another kettle of fish (and another debate waiting to happen should the site ever implement the listing of language variants).
Agreed with both - then again, maybe my own native language background makes me see those issues with another eye.
Thanks again!
Cheers,
Anne
[Edited at 2012-09-04 15:50 GMT]
| | | | | That was exactly my point | Sep 4, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote: Anne Diamantidis wrote:
So the world standard for English is what - UK English or American English?
My point was, I thought there's no "standard English". That applies to any global language,...
There is no world standard. The idea that "standard" implies a world standard is the source of your confusion. There is standard written UK English, standard written American English, etc. There are national standards. Standard English means any of these national standards. Other "global" languages, such as French, also have national written standards.
That was precisely my point - that there are local standards English(es). but not one "standard English"- thank you!
[Edited at 2012-09-04 15:57 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 07:41
Hebrew to English
| Illustrating the similarity | Sep 4, 2012 |
Anne Diamantidis wrote:
I don't know, but the same goes for movies, when I watch an American film and a British film, I hear the differences (not in the accent, in the words used) and to me, as a non native, I really feel like UK and US English are as different as France and Quebec French
You'll always be able to identify the differences in spoken language far more easily than written language; a testament to the uniformity of the written "standards" across the English speaking world.
For example, using the same story (about scandals in the Chinese leadership) from 4 different newspapers across the English speaking world:
1.A SORDID tragedy involving a 20-something playboy, two scantily-clad women and a two-seater Ferrari has once again exposed the Communist Party's challenges in hiding its dirty laundry in the information age.
The black Ferrari 458 Spider, reportedly bought for close to $1 million, was travelling so fast along Beijing's North Fourth Ring Road that it split in two when it smashed into the Baofusi Bridge about 4am on Sunday, March 18.
A photograph of the tangled, smouldering engine block - resting far from the main car body - was published in the Beijing Evening News and immediately spread across the internet. The paper reported the driver was killed and two female passengers seriously injured.
2. China’s carefully scripted leadership transition appears to have suffered another glitch: a fatal car crash involving a Ferrari, a privileged son and two women. According to several well-connected party officials, the crash, on Beijing’s Fourth Ring Road earlier this year, killed the man on impact and left both women seriously injured. All were said to have been in various states of undress, these officials said.
It might have been just another example of China’s crassly rich elite exercising bad judgment — except for the identity of the driver. On Monday, the officials said he was the son of one of China’s most powerful men.
3. A fresh scandal has hit China's leadership ahead of this autumn's once-a-decade transition of power, with reports that a close ally of president Hu Jintao has been blocked for promotion or even demoted following his son's involvement in a fatal Ferrari crash.
Photos of the horrific smash in Beijing were deleted within hours of appearing on microblogs and websites in March. Even searches for the word "Ferrari" were blocked on the popular Sina Weibo microblog – prompting widespread speculation that a senior leader's child was involved.
Now unnamed sources have identified the driver of the black sports car as the son of Ling Jihua, who was removed as head of the party's general office of the central committee this weekend, the South China Morning Post and Reuters reported.
4. China has suspended an army officer after reports he assaulted a flight attendant spread like wildfire on the Internet, fuelling growing outrage against the misbehavior of some government and Communist Party officials.
China's leaders want to project a good image ahead of a once-a-decade leadership transition later this year, but the Party is being hurt by reports of officials abusing their position. A series of corruption scandals, a reported orgy as well as incidents involving the offspring of senior leaders have not helped.
They come from: The Times of India, The Sydney Morning Herald, The New York Times and The Guardian.
Linguistically, it's pretty hard to tell which is which. (If not impossible to say definitively).
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 07:41
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Any suggestions on the wording?
| | |
|
|
|
Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 07:41
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| A native speaker CAN identify another native-level speaker | Sep 4, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
there simply isn't that much variation in the written language. It's not that I consider UK English as a standard for all native speakers of English, it's that I see hardly enough differences in the others to consider them altogether different.
Absolutely! We see the differences for what they are: variant forms, no better, no worse.
I evaluate sample translations submitted by applicants to TWB. I'm not told the origin of the translator, nor do I need to be told. It's clear to me from the translation. The applicant may be (A) a 100% British native speaker (as I am); (B) a native of another variant (I can't always say which); (C) a native-equivalent (often using a mix of variants, but writing totally natural English); (D) a non-native speaker with an imperfect command of English. I give all this information to TWB to use as they see fit. I only reject a text if it contains errors, whether in comprehension or expression. Sometimes I note that the translation has been performed by a native speaker with a most uninspired writing style - I leave it to TWB to decide whether to take them on.
What I'm trying to say is that a native speaker CAN identify another native-level speaker. I don't have a unique skill in this area, believe me. And I believe that those with native-equivalent writing skills should be allowed to tick the second box on their ProZ.com profile if they choose. If they have reached such a high standard in the language then let them have recognition for that, even if they didn't happen to live in the right place at the right time. I believe they are relatively few, anyway.
When I recommend TWB to reject an application it's because I think there's a real risk of major errors and/or such poor quality texts that the credibility of the client NGOs will suffer. For the ProZ.com profile, we aren't considering quality (although potential clients should be!), but we are conscious of the credibility of the site.
Of course, I wouldn't expect TWB to depend solely on my opinion: applications are evaluated by several people before being finally accepted or rejected by TWB. Couldn't the same sort of thing be implemented here? I wouldn't mind giving a few minutes of my time to review short English texts. I propose a non-detailed evaluation by as many known native speakers as possible. If 25 "yes" votes out of 30 are required for native speaker verification, then I think we'll see the credibility of the site improve.
| | | | Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 08:41
Italian to English
In memoriam | Literacy and nativeness | Sep 4, 2012 |
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
I wasn't questioning the idea that there is something like Standard English (i.e. what Cambridge teaches foreigners), but you do have to be careful with 'the press'.
You can call that different registers, yes, but different registers with spelling and grammar mistakes. What if the press starts to confuse the apostrophe (to keep it simple), as they definitely do? Is 'mens' suddenly Standard English? I seem to recall that on our Olympics Tickets there was even a spelling mistake too... Horror.
Surely there are non-native journalists working in the press. What about those? Their English becomes Standard English, 'because the press uses it.'
You are confusing literacy with nativeness. As you say, English is quite tolerant of non-canonical forms, particularly if they have some semblance of logic.
So it is up to you, the native speakers, to define 'the native speaker'. That's all I'm asking. Is that so hard?
It's very easy if you do it by empirical examination on a case-by-case basis.
Make a list. It's easy to do. Samuel has been trying to do this, but hasn't got very far with it. I wonder why? Too difficult maybe?
I doubt if any two native-speaking "examiners" would agree on how to evaluate other speakers of English but their assessments would likely be very similar.
| | | | | I don't want to look like a fool | Sep 4, 2012 |
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
I understand quite well what people are trying with this thread, but my point of view is from an agency's angle.
I did state that the concept of nativeness is to vague. Let me try to explain why this is my opinion.
I am a native German, meaning my family roots in Germany go back to the year 1519, both of my parents are Germans and I was born and raised in Germany and spent most of my time in Germany. Nobody would or could argue that I am not a a native German. Does this qualify me to translate texts for Switzerland, Austria or Belgium? In my opinion no, it does not. And neither does it qualify any Indian translator who is native in English to translate a text into UK or US or Australian English. We do a lot o localization into French for Switzerland or German for Switzerland or Belgium. The fact that somebody claims the he/she is native German or French is of relatively little value for these jobs as it might just be the wrong locale.
Sorry about my persistence. But I don't agree for what I believe are good reasons.
I don't agree.
You ask if that would qualify you to translate into German for Austria?
Well, it might just be an important qualifying factor, depending on additional factors (experience in the subject field being one).
I have provided many translations into German for readers in Germany and for readers in Germany and Austria.
But does it qualify you to translate into English?
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
This is what I mean with "too vague". It is the same as a translator claiming "I am using a CAT tool", when I need a translator using Trados 2007. No I don't want a translator using Trados 2009 or MemoQ, I want a translator who uses Trados 2007. No, I don't wan't a translator who can handle TTX files or can produce bilingual Word files, I want a translator who uses Trados 2007.
I don't think it's the same.
Cat tool in your example above would simply be the equivalent to "native language" (any native language), and the actual brands of CAT tools are the individual native languages, Trados being English and MemoQ being German, for example.
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
The infomation "native English" may be valid and true for many people, I have seen contributions from translators who in my opinion have any right to claim that they are native English speakers, yet their type/locale of English was completely useless for most other English locales.
I believe you are again referring to variants of a language, such as English.
But any true native speaker of English who also happens to be a translator should however be able to do an excellent job translating into English in many subject fields although it often does make sense to pick the variant needed (especially between UK and US audiences). To say a native English speaker was completely useless for most other English locales strikes me as a very improbable situation (unless the native speaker wasn't really a native speaker or had no experience as translator whatsoever).
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
My 2nd point is that people claiming to be native in more than one language often have deficiencies in both of their languages, and are not even aware of it. Yes I do support the concept that some people are non-natives in any language, i.e. they don't have a native language. They can still be successful and good translators.
I am also convinced that in most cases the native language suffers if a translator already lives/lived > 5 years in an environment where his/her native language is not spoken.
That sounds like a good point, but I don't think it is. You are generalizing.
Even if I would admit deficiencies in German to you, I dare you talk to me and a non-native translator (whose second language is German) and pick out the native speaker.
What I am saying is it takes an incredible amount of exposure to and use of German to be indistinguishable (or be even fairly good in German). It also takes a lot for a native German speaker translator to all of the sudden become a non-native German speaker translator.
And your statement that people who do not (not any longer) have a native language (let's say language X) can be good translators into X only helps those who have never been native speakers of X but think they are competent enough to do the same job a competent native speaker translator can do, and of course, again blurs the line between native and non-native speakers which is never blurry.
Also, if your native language was never X or Y and you claim to be an excellent translator into X and/or Y, I'd say that is highly doubtful. More so, if you never reached a level of competency that would qualify you to even think about being a translator.
Native speakers are simply on a different ship than non-natives. Simple as that.
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
Therefore, being honest would mean for example, that a translator states: "I am born and raised in Germany, worked in Germany and lived and worked for 5 years in Switzerland. This and my experience of 15 years of translating texts into German for Belgium gives me the confidence to translate texts in certain topics into German/Germany, German for Switzerland and German for Belgium, and no, I do not translate into German for Austria."
Being honest would mean that one doesn't lie about one's native language, yes and gives a true account in their resume and profile. But if NL is an official credential used on this site, it should be verified. We don't live in Fairyland, pardon the expression.
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
Also, I do not support the idea that all excellent non native translators are exceptions to the rule as it was claimed here. Many, and there are many of them, are just better in their foreign language than many so called natives.
I disagree. Non-native translators of language X who render excellent translations into X are a big exception (at least in my book). You are saying many are better in the foreign language than many so-called natives. You mean better than real native speaker translators, not just non-natives who call themselves natives? Who are these people?
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
I have no idea how the proficiency to translate into a certain language can me measured and expressed, but being "native" is definitely not informative enough and adding another administrative layer to Proz to verify nativeness would not solve anything.
We never said that "native language" is informative enough to be the sole criterion for making the decision about who should translate a text but if one of the criteria is that "you need a native speaker", that criterion becomes enormously important.
So it is indeed an informative criterion and seen as such in the industry and on Proz.com via the PNS. When you dismiss verification of NL and say it would not solve anything, I can't agree. Verification is deemed necessary by many translators and is a stated goal in the Proz.com policies. If anyone can claim as native languages whatever languages they want and get a credential for it, what do you think does that make a real native speaker look like who states the truth? Like a fool.
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
I recommend that translators give as much detailed information as possible on what they can do and where their limits are. The more information a translator provides in his quote/CV/résumé, the more likely it becomes that the customer chooses the "right" translator for a certain job.
Giving as much information as you can is one thing. Being pressed to make a true statement and being verified to be able to display the NS credential is another.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-04 18:05 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? | 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 » |
| | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
