| 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)
|
|---|
This thread has taken a life of it's own. I suggest starting a new thread to deal with the original question and leaving this one to those who want to discuss the weather or whatever. You could call the thread, say, "Should 'native language' claims be verified", or something, so there will be no confusion.
| | | | Giles Watson 
Italy
Local time: 09:31
Italian to English
In memoriam
traductorchile wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
This is what many of us have been focusing on again lately - that it is not hard for native speakers to determine if somebody is a native speaker or a non-native speaker.
How would you establish it objectively, not just using your intuition?
By focusing on non-standard usage deriving from failure to absorb the "unwritten rules" of the language and/or the application of the unwritten rules of the speaker's own native language.
Just off the top of my head, some indicators in English might be the use of articles/countability, tense (many non-native speakers assume the present perfect is a past tense, for example), aspect, modality, the stative and dynamic use of verbs, phrasal particles, vocabulary generation, sentence construction and many other things. If the test is oral, then there are all sorts of phonetic "flags" as well.
Natives often get grammar wrong but not in the same way as non-natives.
I don’t like “near native” because it’s just as vague as “native” in terms of translation quality, but instead, the “command of English for specific uses” is a much better, much more objective measure of language competence, for the interest of customers.
I agree.
You're either a native speaker or you're not. The "command of English for specific uses" (why only English?) proposal is worth exploring, but not in this thread.
| | | | psicutrinius
Spain
Local time: 09:31
Member (2008)
Spanish to English
+ ...
I agree. However...
Who can/will keep off-topic / diverting / stone wallers / disinformators / own navel looking posters off? We would end exactly as here - where nobody can sort the chaff off the grain.
| | | | | There's nothing vague or unclear about my native language | Sep 6, 2012 |
traductorchile wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
This is what many of us have been focusing on again lately - that it is not hard for native speakers to determine if somebody is a native speaker or a non-native speaker.
How would you establish it objectively, not just using your intuition?
A few native speakers or even just one will be able to clearly verify if someone has the same native language background - when they talk to that person or even read their writing - just by discussing/reading an essay on everyday topics. They will be able to point it out because a non-native speaker (of English - for example) will display...
see: http://www.englishforums.com/English/HowTellWhetherSomeoneNativeSpeaker/dvcbg/post.htm
...
1. Discrepancies of register. A non-native speaker's English may be impeccable, for the most part; but slight failures of tone or register are most noticeable, in impeccable English. For instance, the non-native may use a word which a native speaker of that kind of English would never use in that context. Or a word may be used in a grammatical but unusual way. The commonest words are the most treacherous, in this connection: "quite", "nice", etc.
2. Absence of context. It's very difficult to provide sample sentences or chat for any length of time without revealing something about your background. When non-native speakers are writing naturally, they reveal something of their native background. When they are writing carefully, however, and perhaps do not wish to be taken for a native speaker, they reveal nothing. There may be literary references, for instance; but the little everyday details are missing.
...........
But one of the first "casual" questions in a "verification" talk would be: Where were you born, where did you grow up and go to school? Really? Hey, I know somebody from there. How long? ... Clearly establishing right away if there is any chance that person is indeed a native speaker.
If you talk to me in German or read my writing, a true native speaker will say within a minute: well of course, he's a native speaker of German and that's all that we really need in most cases. Or: well, why did he/she come to that meeting ???
Pointing out all the mistakes (well maybe not all, just a few very typical ones) "objectively" will be necessary only if the person tested is indeed a non-native speaker of that tested language.
However, many non-natives will make major grammatical and syntax errors that are absolutely obvious.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
In short: I, for example KNOW that I am a still a native speaker of German just as you know that you are a native English speaker, never mind any mistakes we might make occasionally.
traductorchile wrote:
Which kind of mistakes would be acceptable and which not?
Well, I hope I won't make any mistakes but if I make "mistakes", they would most likely be things a native speaker of German might do such as leaving out some endings or letters in words or combine them (and those would be idiosyncracies of German speakers, not real mistakes - something WE know works in German when we talk but a non-native speaker would never do that because he/she wouldn't know about/be sure about being able to do that). We do make real mistakes too, occasionally, in writing, although they are probably typos more than anything else. I wish we would do away with capitalization of nouns, it's a pain, by the time I let go of the shift button, i haven't typed the letter yet .... also the word for "you" must be either capitalized or not capitalized, depending on who you are talking to.
But it's very hard to make a real mistake in a casual conversation or even a simple writing sample, it's just not natural.
Syntax is a big thing. They way a native speaker will always string his/her words and phrases together is just very typical and a non-native speaker will have a very hard time sounding/writing like a true native speaker.
I also won't sound like a non-native.
Honestly, there won't be many mistakes that are acceptable. But true native speakers won't make any real mistakes - continuously.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Note the difference between a "native speaker" and "excellent command of a second, non-native language". No matter how good someone is in a second language, even if they translate into it, they will simply not be able to write/ sound like a native speaker.
traductorchile wrote:
Formal texts, many technical and scientific texts and others, don’t allow the inclusion of slang and “sounding like a native” isn’t needed or even desirable, but instead the correct and clear expression of ideas. Excluding highly competent or good translators, as “not good enough to translate towards English” (or any language as may be the case) in these areas doesn’t help our customers or the industry.
I am not referring to translation work or competency. I am simply saying even if someone does fantastic technical translations into a non-native language (X), it doesn't make him/her a native speaker. That is one big misunderstanding.
Have that technical translator talk to one or two native speakers of X and they will tell you that he/she is NOT a native speaker.
If "native language" is not something the outsourcer is looking for, then it simply isn't a criterion. BUT in most cases it is an extremely important requirement and prerequisite for choosing translators and receiving top notch results.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I would not agree to a "near-native" category. There is nothing wrong with being an excellent non-native speaker of a second or third language.
traductorchile wrote:
I don’t like “near native” because it’s just as vague as “native” in terms of translation quality, but instead, the “command of English for specific uses” is a much better, much more objective measure of language competence, for the interest of customers.
Native is as vague as "near"-native?
Excuse me. You are telling me that I should call myself a near-native in German then????
There's nothing vague about my native language. Ask my parents.
Please read my comments again - there are only two big categories: native and non-native. There are people with exceptional command of non-native languages. But native speakers they are NOT.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-06 17:15 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| This is exactly the point | Sep 6, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
There's nothing vague about my native language. Ask my parents.
This is exactly the point. Having German/English/French... parents does not warrant that the person has a certain competency in a certain language. That is exactly why I consider "native" a vague concept. If we follow this route we will end up with a kind of language specific "Arier-Nachweis".
| | | | | tongue-in-cheek | Sep 6, 2012 |
Siegfried Armbruster wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
There's nothing vague about my native language. Ask my parents.
This is exactly the point. Having German/English/French... parents does not warrant that the person has a certain competency in a certain language. That is exactly why I consider "native" a vague concept. If we follow this route we will end up with a kind of language specific "Arier-Nachweis".
That was tongue-in-cheek, Siegfried.
But my parents are two native German speakers who raised me.
So German came naturally to me.
They could still confirm my native language today. Not that they wouldn't do anything for me anyway!!
B
[Edited at 2012-09-06 18:30 GMT]
| | | | | I have seen too many lousy native translators | Sep 6, 2012 |
In the past 15 years I have seen too many lousy native translators to put a lot of value on the nativeness of translator. But this is not the topic of this forum. The topic here is "can and should" the nativeness of the translators on this site be validated.
Really, I have no objections to this movement, I just find it extremly difficult if not impossible to implement it without causing a lot of administrative overhead.
And no, I do not believe that "nativeness" can be... See more In the past 15 years I have seen too many lousy native translators to put a lot of value on the nativeness of translator. But this is not the topic of this forum. The topic here is "can and should" the nativeness of the translators on this site be validated.
Really, I have no objections to this movement, I just find it extremly difficult if not impossible to implement it without causing a lot of administrative overhead.
And no, I do not believe that "nativeness" can be checked by talking to another "native" person or by looking at some random text a person wrote. My experience is, that this does not work.
As I stated before, translators claiming to be native in more than one language already raise some concerns on hour side and we would definitely take some steps to check the competency of such a person before we give him/her any job. It is the same with translators who are specialised in legal/financial/medical/whatever fields. They might be good translators for many jobs, but we are always looking for "the specialist". ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
And no, I do not believe that "nativeness" can be checked by talking to another "native" person or by looking at some random text a person wrote. My experience is, that this does not work.
So you're saying if you talked to me or I talked to you or if we wrote to each other we wouldn't be able to recognize one other as native German speakers?
Is it an issue about how long we speak or write to each other?
German version:
Du sagst also, wenn wir uns unterhielten oder gegenseitig schrieben, dann könnten wir uns gegenseitig nicht als deutsche Muttersprachler (an)erkennen?
Geht's dir darum, wie lange wir miteinander sprechen oder uns gegenseitig schreiben?
B
[Edited at 2012-09-06 18:54 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Too many false positives | Sep 6, 2012 |
No, what I am saying is that too many people, who in my opinion would not qualify as being real native, would pass the test.
It happened several times that I was absolutely convinced, after talking to German native persons, that their German was "native German" and even when checking their translations/texts about standard topics I could not find any obvious problems. The problem only surfaced in very specific conditions, e. g. certain marketing texts that required a certain cultu... See more No, what I am saying is that too many people, who in my opinion would not qualify as being real native, would pass the test.
It happened several times that I was absolutely convinced, after talking to German native persons, that their German was "native German" and even when checking their translations/texts about standard topics I could not find any obvious problems. The problem only surfaced in very specific conditions, e. g. certain marketing texts that required a certain cultural background they did not have (e. g. baby and kids stuff, toys) or technical/medical texts that required terminology that was introduced into the German language after they left Germany, or their insistence on the old spelling rules or, or.....
To me/us, it really is irrelevant if somebody has French parents, grew up in Greece or if his grandparents had a German shepherd dog. We also do not care if somebody has a strong accent or speaks Oxford English (by the way, the best Oxford English I heard was from a Ukrainian translator). All we expect is that he/she is up to the job and in our opinion, the value of a translator being "native" or not, has lost a lot of weight in the last few years. It definitely was an important aspect in the past, but now with increase mobility, and with the internet that allows you to immerse (to a certain extent) into a language even if you are at the other end of the globe, the demarcation between "native" (my definition: born in the native country, native parents, raised and educated in this country and not having left the country >5 years ago), "near native" (my definition: leave out one of the conditions I already mentioned), and "excellent translation capabilities" (my definition: adequate proficiency in the source and target language, adequate experience in the required domain) is dissolving.
[Edited at 2012-09-06 19:43 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:31
Hebrew to English
| Why, oh why... | Sep 6, 2012 |
Are we still talking about native language and translation competence in the same sentence?
The only competence that becomes relevant in the honest reporting of native language is native language competence which is not the same as translation competence.
| | | | | @Ty - because this is what it is about | Sep 6, 2012 |
This is a "translation workspace" and as an outsource I am only interested in "translation competence" and nothing else.
Why are you interested in honest reporting of native language if not to proof that you and all other natives are more competent in translating into a certain language?
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:31
Hebrew to English
| Because ProZ says so | Sep 6, 2012 |
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
This is a "translation workspace" and as an outsource I am only interested in "translation competence" and nothing else.
Why are you interested in honest reporting of native language if not to proof that you and all other natives are more competent in translating into a certain language?
It's ProZ that says native language is a statement of fact "Does the PNS credential tell whether or not someone is a good translator? - No".
It's up to the beholder to decide what value judgements to assign to these facts. If an outsourcer believes that native language is a very important factor to them then they should be able to find real native speakers. Similarly, if an outsourcer believes that a long list of graduate and postgraduate degrees are important, then they should be able to find someone who has actually done them, not just pulled them out of thin air.
The only thing I'm interested in proving is that I'm ACTUALLY a native speaker of English, and others are not. Of course, as long as there are hoardes of liars out there anybody coming to my profile and seeing my native language claim probably take it with a pinch of salt*.
*In fact, I know they do, because on occasion I have had outsourcers (who have found me through ProZ) emailing me for reassurance about what my native language is - so that tells me they have no faith in the native language claim on my profile.
[Edited at 2012-09-06 20:08 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
It happened several times that I was absolutely convinced, after talking to German native persons, that their German was "native German" and even when checking their translations/texts about standard topics I could not find any obvious problems. The problem only surfaced in very specific conditions, e. g. certain marketing texts that required a certain cultural background they did not have (e. g. baby and kids stuff, toys) or technical/medical texts that required terminology that was introduced into the German language after they left Germany, or their insistence on the old spelling rules or, or.....
I absolutely agree with you in this. I have seen the same situation with English and Spanish.
There can be a long way between acceptable quality (in the sense of how great a native you feel you are, language-wise) and perfection (the ultimate native). Seeking that "perfection" shouldn't prevent competent colleagues (although they may not be perfect) to have access to opportunities.
In conclusion: I’m convinced that the dichotomy “native” - “non-native” is an inconvenient classification - in a website offering translation services - and there should be intermediate categories, established according to language competence. I understand that naturalness and fluency in reading (as if written by a native) is an important factor in some fields and for some type of texts, but not always. The customer can define what he wants, even establish what country the bidder should live in, but shouldn’t close options due to a “perfectionist dichotomy”.
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Empty post. | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 00:31
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Establishing non-nativeness | Sep 6, 2012 |
traductorchile wrote:
How would you establish it objectively, not just using your intuition?
This has been mentioned before, but I'll mention it again. Speech and/or writing that is characterized by non-native errors indicates that the speaker/writer is non-native, e.g. writing 'translate towards English' instead of 'translate into English'.
| | | | | 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? | 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 » |
| | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
