| 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: 10:51
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Hey, not that old ;-) | Sep 8, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
In the bad old days, people used to pack children off to boarding schools in other countries sometimes
Did that too
| | | | | Exactly-as we have already seen here | Sep 8, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
Haters gonna hate, liars gonna lie
I also don't want to knock any idea put forward as I believe any measure implemented would have to be better than the status quo, but would what stop liars lying on a questionnaire with some well researched lies?
It might force liars to be more creative, but lie they still will.
Personally, however it's implemented, I'm in favour of external identification by a panel of native speakers, which seems to be ProZ's intended path as highlighted by Michele:
"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 also think external identification is the most effective method available and whilst some "false positives" would slip through, they:
a) probably deserve to if they are that "passable"
b) would be far fewer in number than alternative methods.
I also find it quite bizarre that some of the contributors to this thread who are most vocal in speaking against external identification are those who have already opened themselves up to it once when they joined the Certified Pro Program.
People who are determined to sell themselves as native speakers of a language that isn't their native language will cheerfully continue to do so. The 'system' is beatable and they will just keep on finding ways to beat it. Imo it's the old 'leopards can't change their spots' syndrome.
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 17:51
Chinese to English
| How would you deal with the numbers? | Sep 8, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
Personally, however it's implemented, I'm in favour of external identification by a panel of native speakers, which seems to be ProZ's intended path as highlighted by Michele:
There are hundreds of thousands of site users, and from the ticker tape on the front page, it looks like there are dozens joining every day. What resources would they use to keep up with that?
I think verification can only work for a small elite group (thousands at most), and that leaves the general site with the same problem.
@Lisa - sorry, slip of the tongue there, I'm not very good with my tenses, being a Chinese speaker and all!
| | | |
Phil Hand wrote:
I think verification can only work for a small elite group (thousands at most), and that leaves the general site with the same problem.
Indeed. Any universal system seems to me to be massively unwieldy, and would also involve a long transition period which would be bound to be unfair on some people (e.g. those undeservedly without the 'label' until they are 'processed').
Although whether the verification should involve some kind of "elite" or those who are "uncovered liars" is perhaps still open to debate....?
But yes, I agree, any scheme that tries to verify everyone surely has to be impossible to implement within a decent enough timeframe without costing the earth.
| | |
|
|
|
Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 11:51
Italian to English
In memoriam | A nudge, not a knock on the head | Sep 8, 2012 |
writeaway wrote:
People who are determined to sell themselves as native speakers of a language that isn't their native language will cheerfully continue to do so.
AFAICS, Phil's idea is not to eliminate cheating but to reduce the phenomenon significantly by making it ever so slightly more difficult.
The 'system' is beatable and they will just keep on finding ways to beat it. Imo it's the old 'leopards can't change their spots' syndrome.
Any system is can be got round sooner or later but if you give your leopards one or two hoops to jump through before they get their meat, some will decide it isn't worth continuing to pretend that they aren't actually predatory carnivores.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 11:51
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Get this entire thread | Sep 8, 2012 |
Hello everyone
Someone asked in another thread how to download this entire thread. I wrote a script that can do it (see that other thread), so if anyone wants to download this entire thread to read it (or nitpick even more precisely), be my guest.
Samuel
| | | | | Who is my opponent in the argument | Sep 8, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
Jose - who are you arguing with?
I'm arguing with the translation outsourcer who said perché mi piace! (= "because I like it!" in EN), and keeps Proz accountable for the veracity of all the claims Prozians make on their Proz profiles.
The Italian expression above comes from a joke, that goes like this:
Once the Pope became very ill, and many doctors examined him, until one reached a solid diagnosis, and knew the cure. The physician said His Holiness could take a specific medication every day for six months, and there would be a 60% chance of healing, however with devastating side effects.
The cardinals were deeply concerned, and they asked the doctor whether there wouldn't be any other possible treatment, with a higher success rate, that would work faster, and that wouldn't be so harsh on the Pope's well-being.
The doc said, "Of course! That's why this disease is so rare. If His Holiness will just have one complete sexual intercourse with a woman, mother Nature will take over, the secreted hormones will do the job, and on the next day he'll be in perfect health."
So the cardinals convened, to discuss who should be the privileged woman to do it. Their conclusion was that she must be blind, so she couldn't see who would be her partner. She should be mute as well, so she wouldn't be able to tell anyone about it, in case she suspected it.
When they explained their decision to the Pope, he said, "And she must have big breasts!" The cardinals were puzzled, and asked him why. This was when the Pope gave the proverbial answer, "Perché mi piace!" (translation above)
The point is that too many oustsourcers on Proz became addicted to "perché mi piace" demands, like being native when it's not needed, having Trados when no CAT tool can be used (e.g. script-less audio/video translation), etc.
I won't lie about having Trados (I don't), because I can't handle its proprietary format files. Conversely, if a modest, however significant, number of reputable, truly native EN-speaking translators and outsourcers trust me to translate into their language, my legal nativity is not so relevant.
And yet it's not about me alone. I happen know several people who translate into a language that is not their native better than a considerable number of natives. As Proz has a way to "shield" outsoucers from applicants that don't meet certain requirements - no matter how preposterous they may be - I see it as no breach to my ethics code to state that I am a native speaker, if I can deliver equivalent service, as long as I consistently turn down any request for a job I am unable to do properly, even if it is into my native language.
Yesterday an individual direct client told me about his visit to my web site. What amazed him most was the patience I have to explain to anyone interested the nuts and bolts of my trade. That's my way, can't help it. So my point here is to have a chance to explain prospects - when it's the case, not always, and even not so often - that demanding a native speaker might be counterproductive to their intent, thus thwarting Proz's "shield" for a good cause.
Phil Hand wrote:
1) If you're an incompetent translator into English, then any native or non-native speaker of any language would be doing you a favour by telling you so.
2) If you're a competent translator into English, no-one on this thread would tell you that you're not.
Who are you arguing with?
I'm arguing with people - and there are many - who bluntly rule that people should only translate into their native language, when 'native speaker of X' is a rather cloudy attribute.
This stance would lead to a very simple answer to the OP: No! ... on two counts:
a) ALL claims should be verified, however by the prospective translation outsourcer, not by Proz; and
b) Everyone should be free to claim whatever they want, and remain directly accountable for all their claims.
Phil Hand wrote:
The reason the thread has been so intense is that what we are suggesting would hurt some people's bottom line, and some (not necessarily the same) people have persistently misread what we're hoping to achieve.
You may have a point there. As it was not my case, I failed to consider it. Some people may have a 50/50 demand regarding translation direction in their pair. Others may have higher demand for translating out of their native language.
It make me think it over. In fact, I am always more interested in the content, in preserving the intent of the core ideas I'm translating across two cultures, than in the translation direction itself. If I were suddenly forbidden to translate in reverse gear, the impact on my bottom line could be quickly compensate. However this may be rather the exception than the rule.
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.
Phil Hand wrote:
Yes! Yes! Yes! Molly Bloom and Sally/Meg Ryan yes!
IMHO more like Catherine Tate, from the kind of things now and then people send me to redo.
Phil Hand wrote:
This is absolutely right. Failing to correctly report your native language is an example of unethical behaviour by people who overrate their competence. It is one of a broader class of problems. You rightly identify subject competence as another area of concern: a non-medical specialist who tries to take on a difficult medical text and makes a hash of it is guilty of a similar thing.
That's why we have mechanisms to solve these problems. There are certifications for medical translators (certainly for medical interpreters); legal translators have their own degree programs.
The mechanism for solving the native thing isn't a degree or a certification. It's accurate self-reporting of language competence, specifically which language(s) is your native language.
This thread was started because there is quite a lot of inaccurate self-reporting.
(my bold above)
My point is that being a native speaker or not is just one factor in language competence, not all of it, though too many people think otherwise.
If my country's government did its due diligence in ascertaining my competence in translating into a foreign language, and several EN-speaking countries assented in their actions, not merely in words, this should suffice to assure my competence to do it. I can focus my ethics on screening what kind of material I can competently translate into either language.
Bottom line is that a 'being native' claim is pointless for translation.
Phil Hand wrote:
Oh, for goodness sake, Jose. You're an intelligent man, please don't come up with this silly binary tripe.
Being a native speaker of English is not sufficient to make you a competent translator into English. Nor is it irrelevant to being a translator into English. Neither one of these extreme positions is correct or even interesting.
The reality is in the middle: being a native speaker is relevant to translation. Not the only relevant factor, not a unique sufficient condition, but one relevant factor.
Thanks for the compliment, Phil. Building on it, while I agree with you, I could list a few hundred translation outsourcers who don't, picking them from the Proz database alone. While I agree that hiring a competent translator who is a native speaker of the target language is the best solution, sometimes compromises must be made.
Yet these hundreds of outsourcers clearly state on their web sites that they will not hire any translator who ever dares to translate (even if it's for other clients) into a language different from their native one.
This - if widespread - could indeed impact my bottom line, since my government rules that I must translate both ways between the languages they certified me.
It's purely an ethics issue... not selling more than one can actually deliver.
Phil Hand wrote:
You can put it that way, but you've got to think of the clients. Before they work with a (new) translator, they face a quality risk. They cannot know the quality before the work is done, so they assess their risk using a number of relevant factors.
I always think of the client first, even before they become a client of mine. If I am not the best solution for a prospect's need, being a well-networked guy in the translation market, I'll point them to the best solution I can, often referring to colleagues.
The problem is in the client being professional, and actually mitigating their risk by considering all the relevant factors. The most popular approach - and I'm displeased in throwing the argument that way - involves only two factors: Is it a native? Cheap enough? Then no other solution can be better. They blindly rely on the verification of a native language, and stop right there, when they see that the rate is low enough for them to make a bundle.
If they get complaints afterwards, they can dump the blame on whoever ascertained that translator's native language.
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.
Phil Hand wrote:
So your criterion is whether you can translate better than an incompetent? Way to raise standards, bro.
No. My criterion goes back to the definition I developed after almost four decades in professional translation:
"A bilingual individual is someone able to express their own ideas in two different languages; meanwhile a translator is someone capable of accurately and faithfully expressing someone else's ideas in a language and cultural framework different from the one in which they were originally issued."
Phil Hand wrote:
You're also slightly missing the point about what being a native involves. With a non-native, they may well be able to write a good recipe; they may be able to write a technical specification; they may be able to write legalese. You've got to check off each of these genres one by one - you can't assume anything. If a person is a native speaker, you get the whole package. Unless they tell you that they are incompetent to write in a genre (e.g. I don't do medical), you assume competence. It means that working with a native saves a lot of checking.
Here you arrived at my very conclusion. Translator ethics involves a true professional knowing what s/he is able - as well as unable - to do within certain high quality standards, and being a native speaker of the target language certainly helps, however that's not all of it. There is no point in excluding all professional translators who will not be working into their native language for this reason alone. Yet too many outsourcers do it. Of course, it's their privilege, but it's foolish.
They'd save a lot of checking if they considered each translator's ethics. However for many outsourcers, having translators bound by a vendor agreement and/or NDA seems to be deemed a failproof way to ensure compliance to ethics. IMHO not in the present globalization days. Proz fora and the Blue Board are crammed with complaints from both sides (translators/outsourcers) derived from how difficult it is to enforce an agreement when the distance between the parties is too large.
After all this rigmarole, the bottom line remains unchanged: You may have someone's native-speakerness tested ad nauseam, yet it won't ensure high quality translations in a reliable percentage of occasions. There is more to be gained in widespreading what other selection criteria would improve such reliability. Too many outsourcers seem oblivion to them.
| | | | Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 10:51
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| Reduce the problem before trying to solve it | Sep 8, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
At this point in the argument I'm not actually pro-verification, for simple logistical reasons (there are too many members to verify).
I've already said in this thread that I think it's essential to verify native language, but this posting is about defining WHOSE native language we really want and need to verify, thereby avoiding trying to scale Everest, when planting our flag on top of a much smaller mountain would tick all the boxes. I realise it goes somewhat off-topic, but I think it's a precursor to getting anything done. Anyway, isn't every posting discussing the very nature of native language (as opposed to its verification on ProZ.com) somewhat off topic?
As Phil says, what we have here is a problem that's simply too big to tackle - there are nearly 600,000 registered users of the site. Many only registered on a whim: they assigned themselves a user name, asked a question on KudoZ (or whatever), and disappeared. There's no way ProZ could (or would want to) verify their native language. On the other hand, I understand this massive number of registered users is important to ProZ.com - something about attracting higher advertising revenues and better Google positioning etc?
All we're concerned with is verifying the native language of people who use the site as their professional platform, right? NOT because people making false claims are taking our jobs but because we want ProZ.com to remain (go back to being?) a credible and respected platform where serious translators can meet serious clients.
BTW, wherever I've referred to users as "professional", I just mean practising translators, legally registered as such or not, qualified or not. I doubt that ProZ would want to try verifying our right to work. That really would a be formidable challenge.
PROBLEM REDUCTION
I propose we split the two parties:
1) Users who don't wish to use the platform professionally - let's call them "language users" for want of a better title.
Free and fast registration (as now); only the barest of information required (as now); no mandatory displayed fields (as now); no verification (as now).
However, from a certain date, existing and new "language users" would NOT appear in the translator directory; they would NOT be able to quote for jobs; they would NOT be able to access the BB and outsourcer directory. I see no problem with this - they are language USERS, not language PROFESSIONALS.
2) The other party would then be "language professionals" (or a similar title).
Users (present and future) who wish to make use of the job board and directories would use the platform just as at present, choosing whether to pay or not. (This is similar to what Nani was proposing many pages back but it doesn't make payment obligatory.)
However, for this account type, there would be verification of both identity and native language(s), and some profile details would be mandatory. Of course, with verification in place it stands to reason that one profile equals one person - it would be (it already is, IMO) an absurdity for people to "share" a profile. I'm sure some mechanism could be put in place for those who want to be linked (e.g. couples). Personally, I would like to see ProZ stating that they reserve the right to verify ALL details. Of course, they won't have the resources to check much, but users should be made aware of the NEED FOR HONESTY and the PERILS OF LYING.
IMPLEMENTATION
What I envisage is a staged implementation:
1) Give lots of advance notice of the changes (emails to all users?) and give us time to change our account type, add required information and think hard about our native language(s).
2) On a stated date, all those who have not changed their account type to "language professional" will be deemed to be non-professional "language users". This account type will be removed from the translator directory (that alone would be a tremendous step forward ) and access to certain parts of the site will be removed. However, any KudoZ and BrowniZ points will remain in place. The moment a registered user re-emerges, logs onto ProZ.com and wonders what on earth has happened, s/he will be able to switch account type.
3) From this date on, all "language professionals" would become liable for native language verification. Let's leave the "how" for another posting. Of course, we could register for verification earlier if it's in place, to avoid everybody needing to be verified at the same time.
SUMMARY
I think those of us who want to earn money by looking for clients on ProZ.com, or simply want to be visible to potential clients (e.g. in the directory) need to become more accountable. We need to give a clear message to potential clients that we are "real" translators, able to do "real" translations, not just faceless non-entities (without going as far as forcing display of real name). That would give the more serious clients a better feeling and perhaps a lot of other good things would follow without the need for major system changes.
I also believe strongly that faceless job posters should be given the same treatment. It really isn't the mark of a professional translation platform to allow people to register simply as "Joe Bloggs" of "Nowhere" and then post a job. But that really IS off-topic.
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 17:51
Chinese to English
I've been waiting 119 pages for that.
That is the reasoned position against what we've been arguing for - the only one that I can think of.
My quick responses would be:
1) My experience is very different. In my pair, things don't work like that at all.
2) While brief individual deception is a reasonable response to get past the barrier of flawed market practices, what's going on on Proz is more than that. By refusing to intervene in even the most obvious ca... See more I've been waiting 119 pages for that.
That is the reasoned position against what we've been arguing for - the only one that I can think of.
My quick responses would be:
1) My experience is very different. In my pair, things don't work like that at all.
2) While brief individual deception is a reasonable response to get past the barrier of flawed market practices, what's going on on Proz is more than that. By refusing to intervene in even the most obvious cases of misrepresentation, Proz is almost institutionalising what should be short-term dodge. I don't think that's a reasonable development.
I will probably try to respond better than that, but hundreds of pages of mush have left me ill-prepared to get into the real argument! Data and proper thinking are required... I'll get back to you!
@Sheila
I still think that that kind of solution kills Proz dead. Like that EU report says, Proz lives on its scale. An outsourcer comes here, and they can always find someone. Quality? Caveat emptor. But there's always someone. So there's always jobs. So there's always more people. So there's ad revenue.
If you insist on verification before someone can bid on jobs, I'm worried that the site would lose that benefit of scale. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | reminder for verification supporters | Sep 8, 2012 |
To all of you, contributors to or readers of this thread who are indeed in favor of verifying native languages:
Please post ideas and comments on the following thread:
http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_suggestions/230297-methods_for_verifying_native_language_claims.html
This will help our c... See more To all of you, contributors to or readers of this thread who are indeed in favor of verifying native languages:
Please post ideas and comments on the following thread:
http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_suggestions/230297-methods_for_verifying_native_language_claims.html
This will help our cause.
I want to point out though - the thread there is not about the IF but the HOW.
So anyone who is still not sure what his/her native language is or is of the opinion that native languages should not be verified, that thread does not deal with that.
And by the way, please keep in mind that Proz.com is not opposed to the idea of verification, has been planning it for a long time, and has suggested that it should, for two claimed native languages, (note: and IMO can) be carried out before native language peers.
B ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Language proficiency categories - unofficial | Sep 8, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote: traductorchile wrote:
Although I don't recognize all my mistakes, specially when returning quick messages in a forum, I am capable of distinguishing the difference between "perfect British" and "non-perfect British" or "foreign language mildewed English" and I believe most above average translators can identify "lousy English" (or should I call it "lousy English written by a native").
Exactly. Even non-native speakers can often tell when someone is a non-native speaker. So isn't it a bit silly for non-native speakers to claim that they are native speakers when it is obvious to native speakers, and even many non-native speakers, that they are not?
Did I say "native" there. Where? My categories are "perfect", "non-perfect", "foreign-mildewed" and "lousy". I only mention "native" to enhance that a so called "native" can also have "lousy english" in his writting.
| | | | | Verify before you speak | Sep 8, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
At this point in the argument I'm not actually pro-verification......
Your behaviour in this thread proves that is true.
Phil Hand wrote:
“And it is not a good reason to lie to clients about yourself.”
You are not capable of refraining from using insulting/fighting words although you have no knowledge of the background of those colleagues who you insult.
Someone that is not willing, and probably not capable, of verifying information before jumping to conclusions probably is a terrible translator, because that is one of the important elements of science in translating, specially with complex texts.
Someone whose personal ethics are condemnable, can arouse doubts about his business ethics. I doubt that person has a right to demand explanations from others.
| | |
|
|
|
XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 10:51
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Will "deluded" do? | Sep 8, 2012 |
traductorchile wrote: Phil Hand wrote:
“And it is not a good reason to lie to clients about yourself.” You are not capable of refraining from using insulting/fighting words although you have no knowledge of the background of those colleagues who you insult.
What kind of "knowledge" is required? We're assuming that someone who is clearly not a native speaker of English (for example), as evidenced by their written output, is either lying or (to give them the benefit of the doubt) deluded. Please explain why that is such an unreasonable assumption?
| | | |
Robert Forstag wrote:
this kind of rule should identify at least the most egregious violators, and thus improve the professional profile of the site as a whole.
I believe this is a good starting point, because it recognizes the existence of shades, including the shades of different varieties of English (and varieties of other languages), each one with its own cultural nuances.
| | | |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
... I see it as no breach to my ethics code to state that I am a native speaker, if I can deliver equivalent service, as long as I consistently turn down any request for a job I am unable to do properly, even if it is into my native language.
Unfortunately, you're not alone.
You also implicitly admit the factual difference between native and non-native languages. Just as an aside.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-08 18:38 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? | 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! » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
