| 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: 11:34
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Another point that merits deliberation – not everyone has native language | Sep 5, 2012 |
I myself had been under the impression that every human being necessarily has one or the other language as his/her native language.
But this thread, particularly Ambrose Li’s posts, have enlightened me to the error of my belief. In this world of increasing migration, there are large numbers of people (of whom many would be translators) who technically do not have a native language confirming to any of the 10 definitions listed in my earlier post.
It is only meaningful... See more I myself had been under the impression that every human being necessarily has one or the other language as his/her native language.
But this thread, particularly Ambrose Li’s posts, have enlightened me to the error of my belief. In this world of increasing migration, there are large numbers of people (of whom many would be translators) who technically do not have a native language confirming to any of the 10 definitions listed in my earlier post.
It is only meaningful in their case to talk of “the language in which they are professionally trained to translate”.
Take for example, a child from Language A whose parents migrate to a country or region of Language B when the child is say 10 years old and thereafter the child continues to live in the region of Language B and has no opportunity of interacting with Language A, then technically he cannot have a native language, save by a very elementary definition like Definition 1 of my earlier post. But the level of language competence that this would entail would not be sufficient for any meaningful translation purpose.
So any verification scheme would need to take into account this category of translators who have no native language. The native language verification system should not attach any stigma on such people and they should enjoy equal access to job opportunities as anyone else.
How meaningful would native language verification be for them?
Or, what alternative provisions can be made for them so that they are not discriminated against in jobs?
These are some issues that we will have to carefully go into.
[2012-09-05 08:32 GMT पर संपादन हुआ] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 11:34
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | The “How” comes last | Sep 5, 2012 |
This is the last installment of my recent posts, which actually constitute a single thought, which I have broken up into different posts to avoid making one huge post (which entails the danger of no one reading it to the end!).
Actually this thread is quite ambitious in its scope. It is simultaneously trying to tackle three questions “What”, “Why” and “How”.
Unfortunately, discussions have not happened in this order, as it should have. People have jumped to... See more This is the last installment of my recent posts, which actually constitute a single thought, which I have broken up into different posts to avoid making one huge post (which entails the danger of no one reading it to the end!).
Actually this thread is quite ambitious in its scope. It is simultaneously trying to tackle three questions “What”, “Why” and “How”.
Unfortunately, discussions have not happened in this order, as it should have. People have jumped to discussing the “How” before thrashing out the “What” and the “Why”.
My first post of definitions tries to address the “What” question. What are we trying to verify, in other words, what do we mean by native language? Only when we know this, can we think of ways to verify it.
But before discussing how to verify native language we need to be clear as to “Why” we need to verify native language. Does it serve any meaningful purpose? This thread has addressed this issue intermittently, but inconclusively.
The recent outsourcer/agency inputs that have enriched this thread have amply clarified that contrary to what had been put forward as the main argument in favour of verification – that outsourcers demand it, outsourcers actually seem to be laying much less stress on native language and actually seem to be using a mix of criteria to spot talent. This considerably weakens the argument in favour of verification, as it is mostly pinned on the premise that it is useful to outsourcers.
A parallel reason put forward in answer to the “Why” question has been “dishonesty is bad”. This again is strategically a very weak argument because outsourcers and end clients don’t care a damn whether you are honest or dishonest, all that they are concerned about is, do you have it in you to deliver an error-free, elegant translation?
Honesty is definitely a good value to have in one’s character, but let us face it, as far as producing a good translation is concerned, it does not even have a tangential significance. An extremely dishonest person can also theoretically produce an excellent translation. I think it was Mao-Tse-Tung who had said “How does the colour of the cat matter, so long as it catches mice?”, which is true of translation (in fact, of any profession).
Race, creed, moral values, sexual orientations, marital status and such things have very little to do with good translation output.
We need to separate the end product (the translation) from the producer (the translator). If the product is good, it will do, whoever may be the producer, or however despicable s/he may be. An analogy would be any consumer product we buy, say a mobile phone. We don’t buy it by taking into consideration who has made it, but on the basis of what features it has. Same is it with translation.
So, two of the arguments given in answer to “Why” so far – “outsourcers use it” and “dishonesty is bad” are weak arguments. We need to think up better arguments in their place.
Finally we come to “How”. Although a lot has been said about “How”, much of it is unusable because it has been said before answering the questions “What” and “Why” satisfactorily.
We will first have to answer the first two questions and then revisit the posts pertaining to the “How”.
The answer to “Why” can even emerge as, “it need not be verified”, “it does not really matter whether we verify or not (the “maintain the status quo” decision)”, or, “we might have to expand the scope and develop something that is more representative of translation quality than native language, and verify that instead of native language.”
It is in the light of the third possible answer to the “Why” question that my post about Translation Proficiency Index (TPI) must be read.
[2012-09-05 08:36 GMT पर संपादन हुआ] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 11:34
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | On gaining and losing native language | Sep 5, 2012 |
Another very interesting point that this thread has elucidated for me is that native language is something that you can gain and lose. And this has immense bearing on any verification system for native language.
If a person stays too long away from his language area, he gradually loses his grip on the language and language interference of the language of his new place of residence begins to get more and more pronounced.
Once we accept this, we will also have to accept t... See more Another very interesting point that this thread has elucidated for me is that native language is something that you can gain and lose. And this has immense bearing on any verification system for native language.
If a person stays too long away from his language area, he gradually loses his grip on the language and language interference of the language of his new place of residence begins to get more and more pronounced.
Once we accept this, we will also have to accept that native language capability is a dynamic thing and keeps changing for every individual depending on his individual circumstances. Which means, a one-shot verification would not be sufficient, it will have to be periodically done again and again.
This is in line with other language capability verification systems such as TOFEL. TOFEL scores are considered valid for a two year period, after which this examination has to be taken again and fresh scores are to be obtained.
The converse situation is also true, that is, just as losing native language capability is possible, it is also possible to gain native language capability. This can seem less apparent, but I will illustrate it by an example.
Consider a fifteen year old who migrates from his language area to another language area and remains there for the next ten years. After that, he returns to his original linguistic area and actively immerses himself in his original language.
In this case, the person can be said to have no native language for the period from 15 to 25 years, or at best under-developed capabilities in his native language. But after coming back to his original language area and having spent some time (say a couple of years) in intense immersion into his original language, he can be said to have refreshed his knowledge of his native language and can be said to have reacquired his native language at a high level of proficiency.
Both these cases make it essential for the verification process to be a periodic one, one that will have to be repeated after say every two years.
So it will be advantageous to keep the process simple and low-cost so that the cost or complexity of the process does not come in the way of repeated implementation of the verification process for each individual.
[2012-09-05 08:11 GMT पर संपादन हुआ] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 07:04
Hebrew to English
traductorchile wrote:
Please be honest, you are trying to lobby and join forces to reduce competition.
We are the ones being honest, and no we're not.
We're not some monolithic, homogenous entity, we all work in different language pairs, different markets etc.
It simply wouldn't reduce competition for the vast majority of us (people working in Chinese-English may an exception), there are still markets for non-native English translation. In most language pairs and markets it simply wouldn't make a noticeable difference on that front.
It's quite simply about being professional and honest and also about getting the site to implement and exercise EXISTING rules....and it has nothing to do with discrimination or exclusion or any other emotive word you want to attach to it.
I don't feel discriminated against when I see a job posting asking for "US Citizens only" and I don't scream blue murder about the injustice of it all. Simple market forces and the REQUIREMENTS of the outsourcer, which should be respected, not circumvented by lying.
[Edited at 2012-09-05 08:14 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 07:04
Hebrew to English
| @Balasubramaniam | Sep 5, 2012 |
Your essays keep focusing on the very rare and very unusual cases and exceptions (which have already been discussed).
1. We know about language attrition and L2 interference.
2. We know that a minority of cases will be rather complex.
3. We know that all these translator children of immigrants might require special treatment* (this was addressed by me personally about 70 pages ago - long story short - it's actually rarely complex for long, if they are 2nd generation imm... See more Your essays keep focusing on the very rare and very unusual cases and exceptions (which have already been discussed).
1. We know about language attrition and L2 interference.
2. We know that a minority of cases will be rather complex.
3. We know that all these translator children of immigrants might require special treatment* (this was addressed by me personally about 70 pages ago - long story short - it's actually rarely complex for long, if they are 2nd generation immigrants).
4. We know that under certain definitions, some people can legitimately claim to have NO native language.
If you hark back to the scientific criteria I posted a while back, some of those criteria actually cover all of the above - in that they could easily take them into consideration on any vetting procedure. (internal and external identification etc).
[Edited at 2012-09-05 08:13 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 07:04
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Honesty and professionalism | Sep 5, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote: traductorchile wrote:
Please be honest, you are trying to lobby and join forces to reduce competition. We are the ones being honest, and no we're not. We're not some monolithic, homogenous entity, we all work in different language pairs, different markets etc. It simply wouldn't reduce competition for the vast majority of us (people working in Chinese-English may an exception), there are still markets for non-native English translation. In most language pairs and markets it simply wouldn't make a noticeable difference on that front. It's quite simply about being professional and honest and also about getting the site to implement and exercise EXISTING rules....and it has nothing to do with discrimination or exclusion or any other emotive word you want to attach to it. I don't feel discriminated against when I see a job posting asking for "US Citizens only" and I don't scream blue murder about the injustice of it all. Simple market forces and the REQUIREMENTS of the outsourcer, which should be respected, not circumvented by lying. [Edited at 2012-09-05 08:14 GMT]
It is about giving outsourcers what they deserve, not duping them with claims about speaking English or anything else as a native language when it is most evidently not true. We have all seen websites on a multitude of ProZ profiles that have been translated by individuals declaring that they have this level of competence - the results would make you want to weep. They are a disgrace to the profession.
| | | | BeaDeer (X)
English to Slovenian
+ ...
| jyuan_us
United States
Local time: 02:04
Member (2005)
English to Chinese
+ ...
| All your recent postings are strongly agreed | Sep 5, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Another very interesting point that this thread has elucidated for me is that native language is something that you can gain and lose. And this has immense bearing on any verification system for native language.
If a person stays too long away from his language area, he gradually loses his grip on the language and language interference of the language of his new place of residence begins to get more and more pronounced.
Once we accept this, we will also have to accept that native language capability is a dynamic thing and keeps changing for every individual depending on his individual circumstances. Which means, a one-shot verification would not be sufficient, it will have to be periodically done again and again.
This is in line with other language capability verification systems such as TOFEL. TOFEL scores are considered valid for a two year period, after which this examination has to be taken again and fresh scores are to be obtained.
The converse situation is also true, that is, just as losing native language capability is possible, it is also possible to gain native language capability. This can seem less apparent, but I will illustrate it by an example.
Consider a fifteen year old who migrates from his language area to another language area and remains there for the next ten years. After that, he returns to his original linguistic area and actively immerses himself in his original language.
In this case, the person can be said to have no native language for the period from 15 to 25 years, or at best under-developed capabilities in his native language. But after coming back to his original language area and having spent some time (say a couple of years) in intense immersion into his original language, he can be said to have refreshed his knowledge of his native language and can be said to have reacquired his native language at a high level of proficiency.
Both these cases make it essential for the verification process to be a periodic one, one that will have to be repeated after say every two years.
So it will be advantageous to keep the process simple and low-cost so that the cost or complexity of the process does not come in the way of repeated implementation of the verification process for each individual.
[2012-09-05 08:11 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | |
|
|
|
jyuan_us
United States
Local time: 02:04
Member (2005)
English to Chinese
+ ...
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
We have all seen websites on a multitude of ProZ profiles that have been translated by individuals declaring that they have this level of competence - the results would make you want to weep. They are a disgrace to the profession.
How did you know these websites have been translated by translators whose native tonguesare not the target languages?
All the poor Chinese websites translated from other languages I have seen were translated by Chinese native speakers so far.
[Edited at 2012-09-05 13:08 GMT]
| | | | | This is entirely pointless | Sep 5, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
I don't feel discriminated against when I see a job posting asking for "US Citizens only" and I don't scream blue murder about the injustice of it all. Simple market forces and the REQUIREMENTS of the outsourcer, which should be respected, not circumvented by lying.
I fully agree with you on this count.
I have met US citizens (both native and naturalized) and residents who had a noticeably heavier foreign accent in English than I do. This doesn't make me any more, nor them any less... native than we are, respectively. I remain a non-native EN speaker living in a non-EN-speaking country, while they remain native EN speakers living in the US, UK, or wherever EN is the national language. So chances are that this criterion doesn't necessarily make a difference.
Meanwhile my translations within my major specialty - HRD courseware - into my non-native EN get praised by acclaimed US scholars. One of them wished that more of his (native) graduate students could write in EN so well. Conversely, my medical translations into my native PT - if I dared to do them, which I don't - would be a real shame.
So what's the point here?
The point - at least MY point - here is that the client is king. They are free to request anything they want.
For instance, some clients obdurately demand Trados, and I know a few colleagues who manage to 'fake' having Trados using WordFast.
Likewise, a less sensible client may demand translators who have blue eyes and dimensionally privileged breasts. Contact lens and falsies might enable me to qualify, if I were SO desperate to grab that job, as long as they failed to require NOT wearing a moustache.
Bottom line is that ANY claim should be verified by the prospect to their satisfaction, not only "native language". IMHO this entire discussion is about finding a way to make Proz liable (viz. a scapegoat) for any outsourcer's neglect in carrying out their due diligence.
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 14:04
Chinese to English
| We, the undersigned... | Sep 5, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Any suggestions on the wording?
Proz is the biggest and best translation website on the internet. We believe that it is well run and that its rules help to create a fair and effective marketplace and forum for translators and our clients. In particular, we appreciate the importance of site rule 6: Misrepresentation and fraud are forbidden.
However, it has become apparent that certain members are misrepresenting themselves by claiming to be native speakers of languages in which they are not even competent, let alone native. We believe that allowing this state of affairs to continue brings the website into disrepute, and we request that Proz takes measures to curb the problem, not just for an elite subset of members, but for all members.
Name Proz member
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 07:04
Hebrew to English
Phil Hand wrote: Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Any suggestions on the wording? Proz is the biggest and best translation website on the internet. We believe that it is well run and that its rules help to create a fair and effective marketplace and forum for translators and our clients. In particular, we appreciate the importance of site rule 6: Misrepresentation and fraud are forbidden. However, it has become apparent that certain members are misrepresenting themselves by claiming to be native speakers of languages in which they are not even competent, let alone native. We believe that allowing this state of affairs to continue brings the website into disrepute, and we request that Proz takes measures to curb the problem, not just for an elite subset of members, but for all members. Name Proz member
I second that
| | |
|
|
|
| Using your common sense | Sep 5, 2012 |
My participation here not only relates to supposed “non-natives” that translate towards English, but also to supposed “non-natives” that translate towards Spanish; but it mainly relates to “natives” and “not-natives” that irresponsibly take on jobs they are ill-prepared to perform adequately.
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
It is about giving outsourcers what they deserve, not duping them with claims about speaking English or anything else as a native language when it is most evidently not true. We have all seen websites on a multitude of ProZ profiles that have been translated by individuals declaring that they have this level of competence - the results would make you want to weep. They are a disgrace to the profession.
If you are capable of recognizing the incompetence of those translators, why do you think a customer won't be able to do the same, either before or after getting a job done? After, will have worst consequences for that translator than before: he won’t be paid, his reputation will fall, and maybe more consequences.
Ty Kendall wrote:
and it has nothing to do with discrimination or exclusion or any other emotive word you want to attach to it.
It is discrimination when you don’t consider that individual differences can produce different competences. If you put everyone in the same sack without consideration of all the factors involved, that’s discrimination. It is discrimination and exclusion when you try to exclude people using arbitrary conditions, conditions that don’t reflect if that person is competent or not. Because the main point is that the person is capable of doing a good job.
In translation:
- Being born or not in a country doesn’t assure any competence at all, except to being born.
- Living at a place for a long time gives a person the basic competences of language but doesn’t assure he’ll be competent at a professional level, tackling with complex ideas.
- Living elsewhere is not an argument for incompetence.
And so on....with discriminating arguments. And that has nothing to do with emotion but with common sense.
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 07:04
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | The client doesn't know!! | Sep 5, 2012 |
traductorchile wrote:
If you are capable of recognizing the incompetence of those translators, why do you think a customer won't be able to do the same, either before or after getting a job done?
There appears to be a bizarre assumption by many on this site that the client is a native speaker of the target and will immediately recognise the poor quality of the translation. WRONG! They are trusting the "professional" and may not realise until MONTHS after the translation has been submitted and paid for; until their website has gone live or their document has gone to publication and someone happens to point it out to them. In the meantime, that translator will have moved on to another client and churned out several more thousand words of sub-standard nonsense, and on it goes...
| | | | | He should know, its part of the business. | Sep 5, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
There appears to be a bizarre assumption by many on this site that the client is a native speaker of the target and will immediately recognise the poor quality of the translation. WRONG! They are trusting the "professional" and may not realise until MONTHS after the translation has been submitted and paid for; until their website has gone live or their document has gone to publication and someone happens to point it out to them. In the meantime, that translator will have moved on to another client and churned out several more thousand words of sub-standard nonsense, and on it goes...
Wrong Lisa, the main customers of this website (I dare suppose about 90%) are agencies and translating companies. If these are not capable of some sort of evaluation (specially a previous evaluation) then they shouldn't be in business, because they are working blind and putting to risk the investments of their own customers, end users.
| | | | | 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 » |
| | 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 
