| 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)
|
|---|
| Quality of written output | Sep 8, 2012 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
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.
Have I mentioned that I see quality of written output as the focus of this issue?
I have? More than once?
Oh, OK, I won't say any more for now, then. Just keep an eye on the thread for more jokes about tits
| | | |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
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?
Any information I should disclose regarding my personal condition, if I can be considered a "native" English speaker or not, in the same way as any other user of this website, shall be disclosed using the formal channels that the website establishes. That's my duty, and the only responsible way to go.
For colleagues here to challenge my condition, and even insult me/and others individually, at a personal level, with no knowledge of my background, not only is bullying, but also has legal consequences in many countries (in Chile it is called "injuria"), and in no case has it to do with “the benefit of the doubt”.
The insistence on attacking the presumed “non-native” condition of a colleague, instead of answering the arguments related to the title of the thread, shows there is no intention on debating an issue, but imposing your own ideas, by demeaning the interlocutor.
| | | | | The factual difference | Sep 8, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
You also implicitly admit the factual difference between native and non-native languages.
It is factual, however it isn't objectively measurable, nor reliably serves any useful purpose in translator selection.
The fact of someone being a native speaker of the target language MAY increase the likelihood of their translation into that language being better than otherwise.
The real problem occurs when people blindly believe it MUST do so, and therefore assume that no other criterion should be taken into consideration.
| | | | Nicole Schnell 
United States
Local time: 01:09
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam
Phil Hand wrote:
What school did you go to?
If you happen to be an old hag like me, you might even run into problems such as corroborating the name and address of any schools you went to. My old secondary school in Germany (I don't want to call it high school because attendance lasts 13 years, not 12) has since changed it's name and moved into larger buildings, so did the faculty / division of my university in Germany.
| | |
|
|
|
| native language does matter IMO | Sep 8, 2012 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
You also implicitly admit the factual difference between native and non-native languages. It is factual, however it isn't objectively measurable, ...
The fact is my native language is German. Can it be "objectively/externally validated? I believe it can.
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
... nor reliably serves any useful purpose in translator selection.
I hold it can, especially together with the other factors every translator displays in their profile pages.
But because everyone advertising here is supposed to be a language professional,
many translators and clients argue that "native language" and "truthful stating of one's native language" are indeed very important (and often the first) aspects in determining/choosing a translation professional for a translation into (and even from) a language.
In addition, NL is presented as a CREDENTIAL here on Proz.com which is supposed to be valid.
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
The fact of someone being a native speaker of the target language MAY increase the likelihood of their translation into that language being better than otherwise.
It MAY indeed.
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
The real problem occurs when people blindly believe it MUST do so, and therefore assume that no other criterion should be taken into consideration.
Who says it must? Who says no other criterion should be taken into consideration?
I am not saying it MUST, not every native speaker is a translator and not every translator is a good translator.
But the real problem arises when people argue that native language MUST NOT be considered / CANNOT be determined / CANNOT or SHOULD NOT be verified / DOES NOT matter / MAY BE lied about (any and all of these).
What follows from that is that nothing really matters indeed.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-08 20:14 GMT]
| | | | | At least a hundred translation outsourcers say so | Sep 8, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
The real problem occurs when people blindly believe it MUST do so, and therefore assume that no other criterion should be taken into consideration. Who says it must? Who says no other criterion should be taken into consideration? I am not saying it MUST, not every native speaker is a translator and not every translator is a good translator.
I can't mention names here, however a short visit to the translators application page on an expressive number of outsourcers' web sites will show that they won't accept anyone working into any language other than their native one.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
But the real problem arises when people argue that native language MUST NOT be considered / CANNOT be determined / CANNOT or SHOULD NOT be verified / DOES NOT matter / MAY BE lied about (any and all of these).
What follows from that is that nothing really matters indeed.
Quite the opposite, Bernhard, they ALL matter. The problem is that while many people have the very same certifications as translators, many people have proven experience in specific areas of human knowledge, each individual's personal history with each language they've learned will be different.
If your native language is German, and that's unmistakenly evidenced throughout your life, good for you! However a large number of translators, with a large number of different languages, may have a less straightforward biography.
I assume you are native from Germany. How 'native' would you consider a 'truly native' speaker of German from Austria or Switzerland?
The Proz label only says 'native speaker of X'. No variants implied.
| | | |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
... nor reliably serves any useful purpose in translator selection.
I hold it can, especially together with the other factors every translator displays in their profile pages.
It also is a fact, that many translators in Proz express they are "specialists" in such or such other field, and as far as I know no translator is screened for that assumption.
I am a specialist in Fisheries, because I studied the career in the University and I worked in the field. There are multiple cases of translators that declare the same specialty or that they work in the field, they scarcely have 5 years experience in translating, and probably wouldn't be able to provide proof of documents translated in the field that could add up to really be considered specialists in the field.
Is this off-topic? Well, maybe but if we really want to enhance Proz.com as a website that offers services that can guarantee results according to declared competences, then we should consider all Proz.com system flaws.
[Edited at 2012-09-08 21:35 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-09-08 22:27 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:09
Hebrew to English
| I don't think this is about "little Englanders" or "little Germaners" or.... | Sep 8, 2012 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
I assume you are native from Germany. How 'native' would you consider a 'truly native' speaker of German from Austria or Switzerland?
This is a bit like saying "Ty, I assume you are a native from England. How 'native' would you consider a speaker of English from America, Australia or New Zealand?".
Well, I can't speak for Bernhard, but I'd consider them all to be native. What I wouldn't consider native is a Romanian, a Spaniard, a Pole, a Russian etc. who merely learnt English in their teens or in adulthood as an L2,... aaand whose current written output shows any number of obvious non-native errors, or whose reading comprehension of English falls far short of native (i.e. getting the wrong end of the stick or a diminished capacity for reading between the lines, difficulty with humour, inability to identify sarcasm or irony etc.) These are all things which are difficult to master even for extremely proficient non-native speakers.
I don't think it's unreasonable for me to be allowed to consider these cases (in my personal opinion) as non-native speakers (that is, chances are the people I consider non-native speakers are only the ones we have classified as the most egregious cases - the kind where your jaw hits the floor with some force). I'm not interested in playing Russian Roulette with borderline cases, I don't think anybody here is.
In essence, ...what I'm trying to say... is that I don't think it's about narrow-mindedness or the perceived superiority of one's own variety of English (or whatever language), in fact, I think English speakers are far more tolerant than most of linguistic diversity...but there can and should be a limit to how far that will go (and that line shouldn't involve the inclusion of obvious non-native speakers as native ones out of political correctness or fear of critiquing someone's written or spoken output).
I'm also dismayed at the perceived derogatory connotation of "non-native speaker". As Bernhard has already pointed out, there's nothing derogatory about it at all. I'm rather proud of being a non-native speaker of my source language and I wouldn't want it any other way. I wouldn't want to be thought of as a native speaker of it, especially with being an extremely proficient speaker of it - I'd much rather people know I got that good at the language by sheer hard work, dedication and sacrifice, not by the "easy" path of merely hearing it all my life and acquiring it by default.
...which is why I find the scramble to be falsely deemed a native speaker unfathomable.
But that's just me.
*In short, if you are a less than proficient non-native speaker you should want the non-native label to explain away your linguistic quirks and if you are an extremely proficient non-native speaker you should want it so people can recognize your achievement....I'd have thought - I just don't understand the desire to shed it so quickly.
[Edited at 2012-09-08 21:59 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 01:09
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Another perspective | Sep 8, 2012 |
PROF. CHOMSKY: So then what is a language and who is a native speaker? Answer, a language is a system L-s, it is the steady state attained by the language organ. And everyone is a native speaker of the particular L-s that that person has “grown” in his/her mind/brain. In the real world, that is all there is to say.
http://www.paikeday.net/speaker.pdf
| | | | | A new interesting point: language variants | Sep 8, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
This is a bit like saying "Ty, I assume you are a native from England. How 'native' would you consider a speaker of English from America, Australia or New Zealand?".
Precisely. Which one matters most for commercial (or any other) translation?... being a native speaker of 'country X' (in your case, England), or being a native speaker of X-ese (in your case, English - the national language in several other countries)?
I was once hired to interpret officially for a proud Brit here in Sao Paulo, as required by law for him to personally sign and register a public POA. There was a moment when the Brit and his (Brazilian) attorney moved aside, and began a somewhat heated argument. Then the lawyer came smiling to me, telling me that his client felt insulted from him having hired an American in Brazil to pose as a locally sworn translator. I showed him my credentials as both a sworn translator and as a Brazilian natural citizen. He felt reassured, and cooled off.
The variants issue is particularly delicate in my truly native language, Portuguese. You may read about it in English here. To give you an idea on how serious it is, some peers across the Atlantic prefer to communicate with me in English, to assure that there won't be any misunderstanding. Bottom line is that when PT is the target language, it is better to use a non-native speaker of the desired PT variant, than a native speaker of the 'wrong' one, provided all other qualifications as a translator are adequate.
FYI, as an undeniably native speaker of PT, I turn down immediately each and every request to translate into any PT variant other than Brazilian.
Honestly, I can't, and I don't believe that more than a few translators - if any - can reliably translate into more than one variant of Portuguese. However all the PT variants are legally one and the same language, so we can all translate FROM any variant of it, though it will be more tiresome to do it from any other than our own.
| | | | | English native speakers come from various English-speaking countries | Sep 8, 2012 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote: Ty Kendall wrote:
This is a bit like saying "Ty, I assume you are a native from England. How 'native' would you consider a speaker of English from America, Australia or New Zealand?". Precisely. Which one matters most for commercial (or any other) translation?... being a native speaker of 'country X' (in your case, England), or being a native speaker of X-ese (in your case, English - the national language in several other countries)?
I believe what Ty means is that one shouldn't claim to be a native speaker of Portuguese when one didn't grow up in ANY Portuguese-speaking country (= a country where Portuguese is the or one of the official languages), did not attend schools in a Portuguese-speaking country before they turned a certain age and did not continue to use it.
When it comes to verifying, it would indeed make sense to ask a Portuguese native speaker from Brazil to carry out verifications of the Brazilian variant. What wouldn't make sense is to ask a non-native speaker of Portuguese to do it. Wouldn't you agree?
B
[Edited at 2012-09-09 00:12 GMT]
| | | | | they're natives | Sep 8, 2012 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
I assume you are native from Germany. How 'native' would you consider a 'truly native' speaker of German from Austria or Switzerland?
The Proz label only says 'native speaker of X'. No variants implied.
I was born and grew up in Austria.
To answer your question: I would consider them "native", just that.
If you want to add subcategories, that's fine. This can be verified by peers.
But any subcategories must not include non-native speakers.
B
| | |
|
|
|
| a special case | Sep 8, 2012 |
traductorchile wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote: José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
... nor reliably serves any useful purpose in translator selection.
I hold it can, especially together with the other factors every translator displays in their profile pages. It also is a fact, that many translators in Proz express they are "specialists" in such or such other field, and as far as I know no translator is screened for that assumption. I am a specialist in Fisheries, because I studied the career in the University and I worked in the field. There are multiple cases of translators that declare the same specialty or that they work in the field, they scarcely have 5 years experience in translating, and probably wouldn't be able to provide proof of documents translated in the field that could add up to really be considered specialists in the field. Is this off-topic? Well, maybe but if we really want to enhance Proz.com as a website that offers services that can guarantee results according to declared competences, then we should consider all Proz.com system flaws. [Edited at 2012-09-08 21:35 GMT] [Edited at 2012-09-08 22:27 GMT]
If someone is falsely claiming his/her native language and displays it by way of the PNS CREDENTIAL on Proz.com, then why would anything else matter?
But to be fair, yes, it should all be TRUE, the native language, the experience, the field of expertise, etc.
What makes the "native language" competence so special is that it is the hardest to acquire: you have to really grow up with a language to be able to claim it as your native language.
You can't just get it through "experience later".
When someone turns "native" by the click of a mouse, I can't take them seriously.
Wouldn't you agree?
B
[Edited at 2012-09-08 22:51 GMT]
| | | | | Objective measurements | Sep 8, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
Well, I can't speak for Bernhard, but I'd consider them all to be native. What I wouldn't consider native is a Romanian, a Spaniard, a Pole, a Russian etc. who merely learnt English in their teens or in adulthood as an L2,... aaand whose current written output shows any number of obvious non-native errors, or whose reading comprehension of English falls far short of native (i.e. getting the wrong end of the stick or a diminished capacity for reading between the lines, difficulty with humour, inability to identify sarcasm or irony etc.) These are all things which are difficult to master even for extremely proficient non-native speakers.
The following describes the overall proficiency and particulars measured by the CPE exam, which in fact measures the proficiency of so-called "non-natives". I believe this is as far in objectivity a measurement can get (a highly recognised tool), and its measurements cover more than those errors you have mentioned above. In fact I believe the CAE (Certificate of Advanced English) covers most of those errors.
The Cambridge English: Proficiency exam uses real-life situations that are especially designed to help you communicate more effectively and learn the language skills you need to function at the very highest levels of professional and academic life.
Cambridge English: Proficiency is set at Level C2 of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). C2 is the level of English needed to:
• study demanding subjects at the highest levels, including postgraduate and PhD programmes
• actively engage in academic life by participating confidently in tutorials and seminars
• lead on complex and challenging research projects
• negotiate and persuade effectively at senior management level in international business settings.
For example, at C2 level you can expect to:
• understand the main ideas of complex pieces of writing
• understand documents, correspondence and reports, including the finer points of complex pieces of writing
• advise on or talk about complex or sensitive issues, understanding colloquial references and dealing confidently with hostile questions
• write on any subject and take full notes of meetings or seminars with good expression and accuracy.
Globally accepted
Introduced in 1913, Cambridge English: Proficiency was the world’s first public English examination designed for speakers of other languages at this level. Employers, universities and government departments around the world have trusted and accepted Cambridge English: Proficiency for almost 100 years. Your certificate is proof of your ability to use English with fluency and sophistication at a level approaching that of a native speaker.
Mainly for Translators:
Reading
Shows you can deal confidently with different types of text, such as fiction and non-fiction books, journals, newspapers and manuals.
Writing
Requires you to be able to write a variety of items, such as essays, proposals, reports and reviews.
Use of English
Tests your ability to use the right words, tenses and idioms in the right situation, at the right time.
Mainly for Interpreters:
Listening
Requires you to be able to follow and understand a range of spoken materials, such as lectures, speeches and interviews.
Speaking
Tests your ability to communicate effectively in face-to-face situations.
(that is, chances are the people I consider non-native speakers are only the ones we have classified as the most egregious cases - the kind where your jaw hits the floor with some force). I'm not interested in playing Russian Roulette with borderline cases, I don't think anybody here is.
Good.
| | | | Nicole Schnell
United States
Local time: 01:09
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam | Native of what? | Sep 8, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
I assume you are native from Germany. How 'native' would you consider a 'truly native' speaker of German from Austria or Switzerland?
The Proz label only says 'native speaker of X'. No variants implied. I was born and grew up in Austria. To answer your question: I would consider them "native", just that. If you want to add subcategories, that's fine. This can be verified by peers. But any subcategories must not include non-native speakers. B
I, as a native German speaker refuse to do high-end translation into Austrian or Swiss German. I hire natives or hire native editors from Austria or Switzerland respectively. I can NOT do it by myself. Just as a Brit can not deliver proper American English and vice versa.
| | | | | 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? | 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! » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
