| 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)
|
|---|
| Il ne s'agit pas seulement de l'anglais | Sep 9, 2012 |
Sheila,
While I usually endorse everything you say, and would dare to endorse what you have to say as well, a few things are missing here.
Sheila Wilson wrote:
Firstly, just to say I agree with Ty: English is English, even if it isn't MY English; non-native is NOT English. It's as simple as that! I can't guarantee a 100% American English text, and I don't actively seek American work, but I can guarantee a 100% English text, using American spellings, terms and punctuation to the best of my ability, fully researched and checked. However, if quoted speech is involved, I flatly refuse the job - you need an American for that.
This has been the status quo definition on Proz, since a few years ago. It is the only way of stating that you are able to write 100% in a specific language.
Quite honestly, while I don't say publicly that I translate from FR (my L5), I have done it 3-4 times in my entire life because of the subject matter involved. In all such cases I made it absolutely dead sure that expert reviewers went through it with a magnifying glass before delivery.
The entire issue here is about translators who assert themselves on their profiles as native speakers of X-ese, actually have a command of that language comparable to my lame FR. Now and then I play the aforesaid expert reviewer role, yet sometimes they skip this step.
Bernhard is willing to have these fake-native profiles on Proz covered with a screen-wide red-yellow flashing label saying "LIAR!!!", unless they can prove via certified public documents (and not affidavits) that they were born, raised, and schooled in a place where that language is spoken. I respect his entitlement to request it.
Will that do any good? Maybe for some true natives' pride, at most. Not for translation. The translation client wants their text in X-ese to look and sound as if it had been written in X-land yesterday.
The problem is that some languages are spoken in X1, X2, X3... -lands, which brings us variants to deal with. As we've seen, in several cases translation into one variant will be useless for another. Bear in mind that we are not talking about a toy instructions leaflet, where the kid's dad will stretch his knowledge of high-school French to undersand what's written in Italian. It's usually paid translation work outsourced to a professional.
So, as someone aptly said here, client education is essential.
I've already told about PT-BR and PT-PT not being acceptable as interchangeable. However as stated by both BR and PT Constitutions, they are one and the same language. This means that a product imported into Brazil, say, from Germany, must include instructions in the "one and only" (hence whatever variant of) Portuguese to be allowed through customs.
I once had a nice chat with the Shop Manager of a VW dealership here in Sao Paulo. He proudly showed me the new USD 132K computer they had for complete hands-off electronic engine tune-up and troubleshooting. He commented that it came from Germany with several thousand pages of instructions... in European PT. They had a very hard time to understand it, and were happy that - so far - they hadn't misused it to the extent of causing any damage.
I often - though fortunately not always - see EN-PT jobs on Proz completely neglecting a variant requirement. Some of the outsourcers I ask aboutit say, Whatever!. Of course, material in the 'wrong' variant will go through customs in any PT-speaking country. However I consider that a disservice to their end client.
Once I had a software manual translated from EN to ES by a Mexican, as it was intended for Mexico. An Argentinean translator saw it, and said it was absolute garbage. So I checked it with a Brazilian IT specialist translator living in Mexico, and she said no, it was an absolutely pristine translation into Mexican Spanish.
This ancient thread perfectly illustrates the variants issue.
Back to the PT variants issue, I had a 5-year uphill struggle with Proz (and I lost) advocating the adoption of variants for target languages, both in profiles, and job posts. The final verdict was that Proz did not want to have, e.g. Spanish shattered into umpteen variants. Maybe the keen writers on this thread so far would help driving my point home.
On another front, if Proz is headed for improvement in specifying a translator's working languages, just as we have three levels for subject areas, maybe we should have four levels for working languages:
1. Native - This may be just a curiosity... or not. It's the first language the individual ever spoke. If it doesn't appear again in the other categories, it may imply it was the language s/he used to speak with his/her immediate family, which may have been dropped later, so it remained limited to 'kid talk'.
2. Working target languages - Languages which the individual speaks and writes like any well-educated native and resident of a country where it is official. Subject to verification.
3. Working source languages - All languages the individual understands in verbal and/or written form to a level enabling him/her to translate from. Includes all compatible variants of (2) above. Subject to verification.
4. Passive languages - Languages the induvidual may benefit from using reference material, or to communicate with the client. Not subject to verification.
Sheila Wilson wrote: I don't see any problem with two native languages if both have been subjected to verification. Let's face it, it does happen. Everyone who meets my son (bilingual since the age of 7) is amazed when he tells them he isn't 100% French. In fact girlfriends have had the fright of their lives on finding out he has two 100% English parents!  If he were a translator, I think everyone would be perfectly happy with him declaring both as native.
With all due respect, Sheila, maybe your son can magnificently handle his affairs de coeur in French, but would prefer to translate the thingamajig tech service manual into English. I wouldn't know, however the system above would allow for it.
Sheila Wilson wrote:
BTW I don't think we can "prove" native language in all cases - translation is an ideal career for those who weren't totally monolingual when young! That's why I favour a short 'on the spur of the moment' written text, to be briefly reviewed by a significant number of already-verified native speakers. If a high percentage agree, then that's good enough. I'd be prepared to spend a few minutes doing that - would the rest of you?
My point is that the truly native language one has may be irrelevant for translation. If the person kept that native language as their major working one, okay, it makes a difference. However, if they moved out of the country where it is spoken, they may have frozen their language in time.
Sheila Wilson wrote:
On the other hand, I think there'd still be an awful lot of "real translators" here. Clients would still benefit from an enormous directory with loads of good profiles to choose from - the only difference would be that the directory would be full of translators, with reasonably honest profiles, not inflated by thousands of non-translators and a number of liars.
That's the major goal.
The problem is in forcing the lie, for lack of an adequate classification system.
If you ask me, "Are you able drive a truck or a bus?", I'll answer, Yes I can, done both already. However that's a lie, because I'm only licensed to drive passenger cars.
The question here would be, Are you able to translante into X-ese as a native?. The entire problem stems from this question having been phrased as Are you truly a native of X-land?, which forces the lie as shown above.
| | | | | Oh, finally some signs of sanity and reason | Sep 9, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
2) In any event, translator integrity and competence is more important than nativeness.
3) Bolstering the "target-native" rule is not particularly helpful; other measures to check for output quality would be of more value.
a) it is the responsibility of the translator to only accept jobs he/she can handle. Unfortunatly this is to often not the case
b) it is the responsibility of the client, be it a direct client or an agency to check the output of the translation and normally at least competent agencies do have ways to to check and ensure the quality of a translation
| | | | | In relation to cases like mine | Sep 9, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
...but you can still do that without declaring yourself as a native English speaker.
To receive offers and quote on jobs one must state one is native. Not all outsourcers have the same definition of "native" (in the sense of what kind of output they should expect), and not all are experts in the translation business, so I prefer to do my own evaluation: i.e. am I capable of delivering what the client wants/needs.
Considering the arguments used to define cut-off points for "nativeness", and my compliance with them, gives me further justification to profit from that option, as a means of differentiation from those non-compliant or less compliant, and even from those that being "real natives" are less competent than me in some areas where "native" is being wrongly demanded (i.e. English for global readers; not for US readers, or UK readers, etc).
Your certificate is proof of your ability to use English with fluency and sophistication at a level approaching that of a native speaker. [Ibid]
I have said nothing different, that's the CPE's value (or any other equivalent measuring tool at C2 level).
| | | | Phil Hand 
China
Local time: 05:06
Chinese to English
| Hang on, I haven't gone over to the dark side yet | Sep 9, 2012 |
So, let me put this to Jose, Siegfried, and whoever else...
So, do you really think that just allowing people to write any old thing they want on their Proz profiles is the solution to the problem you raise?
While Jose & traductor might be perfectly capable of delivering very good translations into English, there are many translators on here with *poor English* who nonetheless claim it as a native language. If we take a laissez faire approach to Proz information, the Pr... See more So, let me put this to Jose, Siegfried, and whoever else...
So, do you really think that just allowing people to write any old thing they want on their Proz profiles is the solution to the problem you raise?
While Jose & traductor might be perfectly capable of delivering very good translations into English, there are many translators on here with *poor English* who nonetheless claim it as a native language. If we take a laissez faire approach to Proz information, the Proz directory will get very polluted very quickly.
Siegfried, you run an agency, right? Wouldn't you like some security that information on a translator in Proz is probably accurate? Isn't it helpful to use the Proz sorting/search functions? They won't work if any joker can make any claim on their profile.
I know you'd like a responsible translator - but that really is an imponderable, there's no way a translator can be graded for how responsible they are. But their basic specs: what's your name and where do you come from? What do you speak and what do you translate? If those details could be relied upon, wouldn't that be helpful to you? ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 14:06
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Focus on output | Sep 9, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
Our Chilean friend, Jose and Ambrose have all made a case which is, I thought, much more worthy of consideration than anything we got in the previous 100 pages.
1) Some translators, because of historical circumstance, are very competent and have a lot of experience in translating into L2.
2) In any event, translator integrity and competence is more important than nativeness.
3) Bolstering the "target-native" rule is not particularly helpful; other measures to check for output quality would be of more value.
Don't know if anyone cares to comment?
I agree. I think we should move on to a focus on output.
[Edited at 2012-09-10 17:57 GMT]
| | | | | please don't put words in my mouth | Sep 9, 2012 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
Bernhard is willing to have these fake-native profiles on Proz covered with a screen-wide red-yellow flashing label saying "LIAR!!!", unless they can prove via certified public documents (and not affidavits) that they were born, raised, and schooled in a place where that language is spoken. I respect his entitlement to request it.
I 'm supporting verification of native languages before peers. There are no documents involved. I DEFINED native language (and it's not my invention) as a language one grew up with, spoke in school, at home, with their friends throughout their formative years AND continues to use.
The only thing one has to do is speak with or write something for native language peers and they will verify if they consider the conversation or the writing sample to be on a native level. When that's verified, the applicant would get the PNS credential. If they can't be found to be on a native language level, they won't get the credential, that's all.
Of course it makes sense to ask where one is from and went to school. It makes proving a native language so much easier. But I didn't request any documents as a requirement for the verification procedure.
B
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 22:06
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Phil Hand wrote:
Our Chilean friend, Jose and Ambrose have all made a case which is, I thought, much more worthy of consideration than anything we got in the previous 100 pages.
1) Some translators, because of historical circumstance, are very competent and have a lot of experience in translating into L2.
2) In any event, translator integrity and competence is more important than nativeness.
3) Bolstering the "target-native" rule is not particularly helpful; other measures to check for output quality would be of more value.
Don't know if anyone cares to comment?
On the basis that that there have been enough contributors to this thread who have sworn blind that they are English native speakers, or at least highly proficient, and yet the quality of English in their profile and in the projects listed therein (e.g. links to websites they’ve translated) are sufficient proof to me that they are not in a position to judge the quality of their own output.
| | | |
Just a point of information.
It is forbidden for *native speakers* of English to take Cambridge ESOL exams - if they do, they are immediately disqualified, on the basis of the judgement of the native speakers examining them (who have judged the candidate to be native). I speak as an accredited Cambridge examiner and team leader.
Sorry that this is off topic, but I felt that Cambridge ESOL exams were being misrepresented here.
| | |
|
|
|
| Proz is not the center of the translation world | Sep 9, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
Wouldn't you like some security that information on a translator in Proz is probably accurate? Isn't it helpful to use the Proz sorting/search functions? They won't work if any joker can make any claim on their profile.
That is exactly the reason why we check any information we get. And Proz is definitely not the only source of information or the only place to find qualified translators.
We use very efficient, yet strict procedures to ensure that the final product is up to our client's expectations. This is one area where we might differ from other agencies. Just to give you an example, we are translating a lot of ophtalmology documents. For us, it is absolutely normal to have the translation checked by a qualified proofreader and a real ophtalmologist in the target country. This ensures that the translation is up to the requirements of the target population and will identify every weak spot.
Many translators see agencies only as box shifters (and many agencies are nothing but box shifters), but there is a group of agencies that will and do go the extra mile to identify qualified translators and to deliver the best possible quality. I can claim and support this with evidence that all our translators are excellent in their fields - otherwise we would be out of business (in our target industry) in no time at all.
Yes, we do for example ask (new) translators to provide copies of their credentials and proof of their experience.
We don't trust information on a public website, not even if it hands out a red P badge. If such a website implements an additional yellow P badge, fine with me, but we won't base our decisions on P of any color.
[Edited at 2012-09-09 19:52 GMT]
| | | | | I'm not going over to the other side either | Sep 9, 2012 |
The question is:
"Should native language claims be verified?"
Why was it asked? Because there are profiles in which people claim to be native speakers when they're clearly not and on top of that obviously pretend to be "good" translators.
How can you be a good translator if you're not even able to speak/write the language correctly?
I'm sorry but that's just plain wrong.
We never said that a non-native with exceptional language command a... See more The question is:
"Should native language claims be verified?"
Why was it asked? Because there are profiles in which people claim to be native speakers when they're clearly not and on top of that obviously pretend to be "good" translators.
How can you be a good translator if you're not even able to speak/write the language correctly?
I'm sorry but that's just plain wrong.
We never said that a non-native with exceptional language command and experience shouldn't be allowed to translate into that non-native language.
But don't call yourself a native speaker. You're not.
Bernhard ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Measure of proficiency | Sep 9, 2012 |
Denise Phelps wrote:
Just a point of information.
It is forbidden for *native speakers* of English to take Cambridge ESOL exams
Then, how does a "Native" measure his proficiency in English?
Now, don't say: "being native", because it is a fact that different people have different competences, and as some can understand everything they read, others fail with simple texts, although both are natives and even if both are school graduates.
| | | |
Michele Fauble wrote:
I agree. I think we should move on to a focus on output.
And if anyone feels that I am contradicting what I have written in previous posts, I would just like to say that my views on this issue are evolving.
Let the discussion continue.
Output? What output?
The broken English they display on their profile page and sell as their NL?
Their translations into English?
B
(Edited)
[Edited at 2012-09-09 20:21 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 23:06
Italian to English
In memoriam | Output is all that matters | Sep 9, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
I agree. I think we should move on to a focus on output.
And the only opinion that matters is that of the client, who is in the best position to judge whether the translation added value or not to the original text.
Who cares whether the translator was native, non-native or from Mars if the translation made money for the client?
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 23:06
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| What the "native language" option really means to a client | Sep 9, 2012 |
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
We don't trust information on a public website, not even if it hands out a red P badge. I such a website implements an additional yellow P badge, fine with me, but we won't base our decisions on P of any color.
This comment echoes my sentiments. Clients doing a directory search will eventually do their own due diligence, to determine whether a translator is most likely what he claims to be. The most pragmatic way of looking at the search options in the directory search is to see them as filter that excludes translators who claimed something else than what you're looking for.
The value of the "native language" option
The "native language" option may not be successful at filtering in only those who are natives, but it certainly does a good job of filtering out those who do not claim to be natives. Thanks to that option, a client who's looking for a native speaker can reduce the pool of possibles by a large percentage, reducing the number of candidates to process and evaluate.
Perhaps there are clients who are naive enough to believe anything the search results bring up, and if that is so, then something should be done to educate them (e.g. by making subtle changes to the wording of the options or the wording of the search result output page).
Here's a quick thought: instead of asking translators on their profile pages "What is your native language", rather ask "Are you available for jobs that require a native speaker in this language". This would level the playing field by allowing ultra honest translators the opportunity to share in the take of translators who treat the truth far more economically.
Here's another quick thought: instead of the option "Native language:" on the search page, reword it slightly to something like "Preferably a native speaker of:". Rewording the option should alert any dim, clueless client that he should not be expecting a guarantee to get only native speakers.
After all, translators who claim to be native speakers are far more likely to be native speakers than translators who don't claim to be native speakers in that language, so by choosing such an option, the client gets his wish perfectly -- the search filters help reduce the pool of ProZians to process for his job.
About lies and damage to reputation
I personally doubt if ProZ.com's reputation or any translator's reputation is threatened by the existence of non-natives in the "native" search results, but if it is truly the reputation that we're worried about, we can fix it by making sure that clients are not under the wrong impression about what they get when they do a simple search.
What threatens ProZ.com's reputation and translators' reputation is jobs done poorly by translators who claim to be good (or able) at what they do. The reputation only comes under threat when a job is done poorly, and not automatically whenever misrepresentation is identified.
A client may say of a botched job "This was such a terrible translation, and there is no way that this could have been a native speaker, even though ProZ.com said it was", but read between the lines and you'll find that what the client is really complaining about is the bad translation, not the bad information about the translator.
Clients who get good translations from translators who lie about themselves rarely complain about the lies (even if they become aware of them), but clients who get bad translations will blame anything and everything within range, including the poor sap who referred the translator.
It is not the lie that damages the reputation, but the botched job itself. And ProZ.com simply can't prevent that from happening, even with screening. No amount of "verification" of native language claims will reduce the damage from botched jobs.
Solve what can be solved, ignore what can't be
If there is anything that this thread has proven (in my view) it is that native language verification is practically a non-starter. There are so many views (and shades of view) and so many different circumstances that no consensus can be reached on how to verify native language (let alone consensus on how to define it in any way more precise than broad strokes).
Look, when a translation job goes south, it would have happened so far more likely because the translator simply could not translate those languages in the first place (as opposed to him being able to translate them, but not natively).
The biggest shits that hit the fan are caused not by non-native speakers claiming to be native, but non-speakers claiming to be translators. Even if you could verify the nativeness of all ProZians, it will reduce the number of fouled-up jobs by only a tiny percentage, and it will not really reduce the damage to our (and ProZ.com's) of reputation to any sizeable degree.
Lying about your native language is a small problem in the bigger scheme of things, and eliminating the lying can easily be done by changing the question that the lie is an answer to.
Samuel
[Edited at 2012-09-09 20:48 GMT]
| | | |
traductorchile wrote: Denise Phelps wrote:
Just a point of information.
It is forbidden for *native speakers* of English to take Cambridge ESOL exams Then, how does a "Native" measure his proficiency in English? Now, don't say: "being native", because it is a fact that different people have different competences, and as some can understand everything they read, others fail with simple texts, although both are natives and even if both are school graduates.
Says one English native speaker to another: "Do you really think I am a native speaker of English?" Says the other: "Why would you ask such a silly question?"
"Well", says the other, "I dreamt I had suddenly lost my native language and become a native German speaker. I was trying to be coherent in English in my dream and just couldn't. And the dream felt real. It was more like a nightmare."
Says the other: "Well, you do speak perfect English now. You're definitely not babbling. You sound like you spoke it all your life, like I have. You still have the same accent that I have. Remember all the things you translated into English? Phenomenal. I'm sure, it was just a dream. You just worked too hard and translated too much from German into English, or was it the other way round? Trust me, you are still an English native speaker. I can tell. But if you don't trust me, why don't we talk to those verifying native English translator colleagues at Proz.com. They should be able to tell.
--
B
| | | | | 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 
