| 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)
|
|---|
XXXphxxx (X) 
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:35
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Call it what you will. | Sep 7, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
As I have said, until proz.com defines in so many words as to what it considers a native language, there is no dishonesty in what anyone declares as a native language.
There's a very fine line between "dishonesty" and "exploiting a loophole". I suspect ProZ naïvely felt that there was no need to define “native language” since it is obvious to most, even those with complicated linguistic backgrounds like mine. I’m not sure other sites define it either, but the difference for example on the IoL register is that you don’t create your own profile, they do it, so you certainly can’t go chopping and changing your native language at the drop of a hat, or even adding language pairs without submitting this to the admissions panel - the process takes months/years and they are stringent about the back-up documentation/qualifications required to do so. Anyway, we're discussing chalk and cheese here, ProZ is certainly no professional association.
| | | | | sorry to interrupt but | Sep 7, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
But what you're writing is worthless. It's nonsensical. It's self-contradictory.
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Also note the wrong English usage by a self-declared native English translator in "you're writing is worthless...".
What wrong English usage? Where? What Phil wrote was completely grammatical.
| | | | inkweaver
Germany
Local time: 16:35
French to German
+ ...
| If you misquote... | Sep 7, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Phil Hand wrote:
But what you're writing is worthless. It's nonsensical. It's self-contradictory. PS: Also note the wrong English usage by a self-declared native English translator in "you're writing is worthless...".
then yes, it is wrong.
"You're writing is worthless" would be wrong if writing was used as a noun here but it isn't. For whatever reason you forgot to quote the "what" at the beginning of the sentence which should read "What you're (you are) writing is wrong", which is absolutely correct in my non-native opinion.
Apart from that I can only agree with Nani: Give us all a break please.
And yes, I am in favour of native language verification and I really don't see why anyone would see this as a problem. (There may be special cases but these could be treated separately.) Anyone wishing to do so could still offer translations in whichever combination they wanted to, but lying about one's skills and abilities is simply unprofessional.
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:35
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Still no reply from staff | Sep 7, 2012 |
psicutrinius wrote: Nani Delgado wrote:
"We" want to talk about it. If you don´t, then don´t do it. If you want to talk about something else than "native language verification", please open your own thead and give this one (and all of us) a break. Thank you. Since this thread has been thoroughly derailed (through misleading statements, navel-gazing, off-topic posts et. al.)... so thoroughly, in fact, that even though there is very worthwhile grain among the chaff, it has become impossible to sort it out, may I suggest that those who think along Nani's words above migrate lock, stock and barrel to the alternative thread, where at least any excursions from the subject "ways to verify native language" are off topic and therefore can be brought to the moderators' attention to have them deleted?. That would at least allow us to move forward, while leaving this thread to keep drifting away and, hopefully, closing in a medium term? [Edited at 2012-09-07 09:26 GMT]
Since we're not getting any replies from the staff nor any specific objections to the petition I vote that we comment on the wording (Phil made a good start a few pages ago) and at least get that up and running. The last petition to ProZ had 866 votes and I believe got results. It was not something I followed, others may be able to comment (?)
| | |
|
|
|
XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:35
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 07:35
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| ProZ definition | Sep 7, 2012 |
ProZ.com does provide a definition of native language for those declaring more than one native language.
"In the case of those declaring multiple native languages, the speech will be deemed native if several other ProZ.com Native Speakers find it to be native (according to their ... See more ProZ.com does provide a definition of native language for those declaring more than one native language.
"In the case of those declaring multiple native languages, the speech will be deemed native if several other ProZ.com Native Speakers find it to be native (according to their own definitions.)"
http://www.proz.com/faq/profiles/proz_com_native_speaker_credential.html#what_is_the_proz_com_native_speaker_credential_
[Edited at 2012-09-07 15:57 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | If you insist Phil | Sep 7, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
But your comments are so incorrect, it's not wrong to say they're stupid.
Many of us have earned Certified Pro Status. This obliges us to act according to good citizenship, that is, hold back any misconduct. Now I can understand one possible reason why some people haven’t earned their Pro Status yet.
Phil Hand wrote: And while I'm here and being honest with people: traductorchile wrote:
Criticizing at a personal level is bullying Not, it's not.
Nitpicking is a bullying behaviour, nitpicking repeatedly is bullying. Before you give an opinion I suggest you learn something about the topic. You can start at Wikipedia. I won’t give any more explanations because this thread is not about bullying, so please don’t take us off the topic.
Phil Hand wrote:
Again, in the reality-based world, we haven't. (“accusing people of lying and dishonesty”)
I suggest you read all the 140 pages again, but with an open mind.
If you say people misrepresent themselves, it’s quite clear, they might not be doing it with the intention or even the belief that they are lying or being dishonest.
Phil Hand wrote:
But it's also a fact about the industry today that "native" serves a rough wheat-from-the-chaff function as well.
So, then you agree that you want the term “native” as a tool for filtering out those translators that you believe are not “native enough”. The only problem is that you also leave out translators that are “good enough”.
Phil Hand wrote:
Within that there are many shades of meaning that we can choose among...
Well, at least you accept there are different shades. Maybe you should take that into account when you express your absolutist views.
Phil Hand wrote:
A Chinese (nationality, ethnicity) translator who was born, educated, lives and works in China is not a native speaker of English, not by any possible definition...
That is pure prejudice, because you don’t know anything about the individual background of that translator, without even considering if he belongs to Hong Kong.
Then you could say the same of someone in the US or Australia, where there are significant cultural and language nuances different to those in the UK. Would you say an Australian citizen is not capable of translating towards British English at an acceptable quality level? Isn’t that putting wheat and chaff in the same bag?
Michele Fauble wrote:
"In the case of those declaring multiple native languages, the speech will be deemed native if several other ProZ.com Native Speakers find it to be native (according to their own definitions.)"
I suppose you recognize how absurd that is, because I could ask Balasubramaniam to verify my speech and vice-versa, together with a few other friends, unless of course, what you would really like is for Phil and you and a few others in this thread to be part of the committee that selects who is "native" and who isn't. This reminds me of the cold war and Stalin and some organizations in the US.
| | | | | I must agree in part | Sep 7, 2012 |
psicutrinius wrote:
Since this thread has been thoroughly derailed (through misleading statements, navel-gazing, off-topic posts et. al.)...
......
That would at least allow us to move forward, while leaving this thread to keep hopelessly drifting away as it is doing since long ago (in terms of numbers of posts, if not time itself) and, hopefully, closing in a medium term?
But the derailing, and transforming this thread into a battle ground instead of building useful ideas has been driven by absolutism, insults (personal and general), demeaning, etc., with little care on the use of language, something that is not inclusive but exclusive.
I still haven't read anyone asking for moderation regarding the elements I have mentioned, although I haven't read pages 6 to 90 (approximately).
| | |
|
|
|
Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 07:35
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Genuine native speakers | Sep 7, 2012 |
traductorchile wrote:
I suppose you recognize how absurd that is, because I could ask Balasubramaniam to verify my speech and vice-versa, together with a few other friends, unless of course, what you would really like is for Phil and you and a few others in this thread to be part of the committee that selects who is "native" and who isn't.
It doesn't matter who they are as long as they are genuine native speakers. Like it or not, native speakers judge whether other speakers are native or non-native based on the speech/writing of those speakers.
[Edited at 2012-09-07 18:01 GMT]
| | | | | Charlie says.... | Sep 7, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
With some adroit nudging from Siegfried with his agency perspective, we are finally touching upon some common ground.
Phil has already conceded that it is translator competency that is really worth measuring and verifying and native language has a place only in the context of translator competency. Charlie B. has already been saying this way back in this thread. This is also the gist of the idea I had presented in my post on Translator Proficiency Index, and what I have been saying all along.
Actually, I'm not sure I ever mentioned translation proficiency. I seem to recall banging on about the quality of written output a lot, but that is to be taken in isolation, not relative to the faithful (or otherwise) rendering of a source text in a target language. Just whether the person can produce written text in a language that would pass muster as being written by any reasonably well-educated native of that language.
And the reasons I focus on that are:
a) poor written output in languages claimed to be "N" is the trigger for this thread
b) written output would be one possible reasonable option for determining nativeness (there are others, not least speach) under any circumstances
c) written output is particularly relevant to translation, without actually referring to translation proficiency per se; merely can the translator produce a target text that doesn't make people's eyes bleed
d) it can be tested (as my own splendid O-level in English Language testifies, and no doubt countless other exams the world over do likewise, and as has been indicated by more knowledgeable folk than me earlier in the thread)
| | | | | The root cause was neglected | Sep 7, 2012 |
traductorchile wrote:
But the derailing, and transforming this thread into a battle ground instead of building useful ideas has been driven by absolutism, insults (personal and general), demeaning, etc., with little care on the use of language, something that is not inclusive but exclusive.
The root cause for this abusively extended thread is that there is no proven correlation between a) a person being a native speaker of any language; and b) their ability to competently translate anything into that specific language or any other.
Some people here embarked on a vanity trip for their birthplace, and completely disregarded some very important tenets we - professional translators - hold dear, such as, though not limited to, translation skills and subject specialization.
Others pointed their fingers at colleagues who were not born and/or raised in the locus of their target languages, rubber-stamping them as 'liars', 'pretenders', 'dishonest', and other things.
The important issue is whether one specific translator is capable of delivering a translation into X-ese, good enough for any educated natural citizen and resident of X-land to firmly believe that it was originally written by another educated natural citizen and resident of X-land. Nothing else should matter.
Though it may sound like bragging, my personal case is the only one I'm fully authorized to discuss in public.
I was happily translating EN > PT since 1973. Though I could translate the other way around, I didn't care about advertising it. In 1999 I took the Brazilian government exam to become a Sworn Public Translator & Interpreter, and passed, being officially appointed in 2000. The fact is that the exam covered translating and interpreting both ways, and I was certified to do it both ways. Now the Brazilian law on that matter is peculiar... Provided several other conditions are met (including statutory rates), such a sworn translator is forbidden to refuse any such job in the languages s/he has been certified.
Now, if my government determines that I must translate into my non-native EN, and if the governments of EN-speaking countries like the USA, UK, Australia, and others (where there is no national law on this matter) readily accept my sworn translations into EN for their official purposes, what good does any truly native EN speaker do in negating my ability to translate into English?
On the other hand, there is the specialty area issue. While some acclaimed American scholars expressly wished their graduate students could write HRD courseware as well as I translate it into EN, I can assure you that if I dared to translate any medical text into my truly native PT, that translation wouldn't be worth the kilobytes it occupied on a cheap pen drive.
The reason why this thread became so intense has been concealed so far. It's not about native language claims, as stated, instead it deals with the ethics behind those claims.
While I translate into my non-native EN, I bluntly refuse to translate from IT and FR. I studied these for a few years, however IMHO not enough to start translating from them. Yet I see some people, who studied EN to a lesser extent than I studied IT/FR, bravely translating into EN. This is when the true natives get their feathers ruffled, because they would have done it much better. They blame it on the translator being a non-native speaker, while the root cause is the translator having been merely unethical, by overrating their competence.
Bottom line is that a 'being native' claim is pointless for translation. Some translations into the perp's original language stink... they may be lousy writers, unskilled as translators, or simply ignorant in the subject matter. Meanwhile competent outlanders can do a great job. It's purely an ethics issue... not selling more than one can actually deliver.
[Edited at 2012-09-08 10:11 GMT]
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 07:35
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Translation competence and native language | Sep 7, 2012 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote: Bottom line is that a 'being native' claim is pointless for translation. Some translations into the perp's original language stink... they may be lousy writers, unskilled as translators, or simply ignorant in the subject matter.
It is more likely that they are competent translators into their native language and poor translators into their non-native language. I see no reason to assume that translators who deliver poor translations into a non-native language are simply poor translators. When I edit translations done by non-native translators, it is the non-native English language errors that I usually need to fix.
Meanwhile competent outlanders can do a great job.
Some translators can do a great job translating into their native language and translating into a non-native language. For these translators, which language is native may be irrelevant. Other translators can do a great job translating into their native language, but do a very poor job translating into a non-native language. Here the determining factor IS native language competence.
| | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for making my point clearer | Sep 7, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote: José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote: Bottom line is that a 'being native' claim is pointless for translation. Some translations into the perp's original language stink... they may be lousy writers, unskilled as translators, or simply ignorant in the subject matter. It is more likely that they are competent translators into their native language and poor translators into their non-native language. I see no reason to assume that translators who deliver poor translations into a non-native language are simply poor translators. When I edit translations done by non-native translators, it is the non-native English language errors that I usually need to fix.
Meanwhile competent outlanders can do a great job.
Some translators can do a great job translating into their native language and translating into a non-native language. For these translators, which language is native may be irrelevant. Other translators can do a great job translating into their native language, but do a very poor job translating into a non-native language. Here the determining factor IS native language competence.
"More likely..." and "some can..." (while others don't) throws reasonable doubt on whether being 'native' necessarily has anything to do with the translation quality actually delivered. Therefore it's just a probability enhancer, yet by no means a reliable indicator. Why bother?
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:35
Hebrew to English
| I'm not claiming it's anything more than a probability enhancer... | Sep 7, 2012 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
"More likely..." and "some can..." (while others don't) throws reasonable doubt on whether being 'native' necessarily has anything to do with the translation quality actually delivered. Therefore it's just a probability enhancer, yet by no means a reliable indicator. Why bother?
Nobody here is claiming that "native language" is a badge of quality or a guarantee of proficiency. It's merely one factor, amongst many, such as educational background, credentials, work experience, subject knowledge, specialization etc., which may and in some cases does have an impact on translation matters.
...but even as a probability enhancer, it should still be reported honestly. If it means so little as many here claim, why lie about it?
| | | |
Ty Kendall wrote:
Nobody here is claiming that "native language" is a badge of quality or a guarantee of proficiency. It's merely one factor, amongst many, such as educational background, credentials, work experience, subject knowledge, specialization etc., which may and in some cases does have an impact on translation matters.
...but even as a probability enhancer, it should still be reported honestly. If it means so little as many here claim, why lie about it?
Ty, maybe we are finally getting somewhere. Perhaps it's the wrong question!
For translation purposes, the valuable question would be:
"Is your delivery in language X equivalent to a native's?"
I happen to know some people born in X-land, native speakers of X-ese, whose command of it would not be acceptable for translation purposes.
| | | | | 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 Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
| | 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 
