| 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)
|
|---|
| Are you native | Sep 9, 2012 |
Denise Phelps wrote:
CPE is a measure of acceptable performance in a non-native language.
Thanks, I will put your answer in a frame:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxx xxx
xxx CPE is a measure of acceptable performance in a non-native language.xxx
xxx xxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
That is, performance in German, Spanish, Finnish or any other non-native language.
I thought it was about performance of non-natives in the English language.
As you see, anyone can make mistakes, even natives.
Your mistake does not refer to a culturally wrong, but understandable term, its about not being able to express yourself correctly in your native (supposedly) language, and in consequence you deliver the wrong message.
[Edited at 2012-09-10 00:49 GMT]
| | | | Samuel Murray 
Netherlands
Local time: 18:26
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| I fully agree with you, Michelle | Sep 9, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
The problem I see with this is that you are defining native language in one way and then testing for something else.
If native language is defined by when and where it was learned and when and where it was used, then this is the information that needs to be made available to determine whether or not a person is a native speaker. If a person is judged to be a native speaker as a result of the ability to produce native output, then the ability to produce native output becomes the definition of native language.
What you say is exactly what the problem is.
However, this thread has shown that a sizeable number of pro-verifiers actually believe that these two issues are so closely related (and have an exclusive causal relationship) that it would be (say) 90% safe to test for native language in this way. Several people in this thread genuinely believe that only in exceptional cases will a person's "childhood language" and "language of current skill" not be the same language, and that for that reason one can determine the one by testing for the other.
| | | |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
What matters to me is that people can't lie in their profiles and state a native language when it's CLEARLY not. Never mind their output.
B
Surely the output IS the indicator that someone is "clearly" not native?
It being, as I keep saying, the dead giveaway that inspired the thread in the first place, and all that...
| | | | | Could someone please lock this thread, | Sep 10, 2012 |
and put us out of this misery!
It can't come to anything. So many very different things are being discussed simultaneously. It's sickening.
| | |
|
|
|
Charlie Bavington wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
What matters to me is that people can't lie in their profiles and state a native language when it's CLEARLY not. Never mind their output.
B Surely the output IS the indicator that someone is "clearly" not native? It being, as I keep saying, the dead giveaway that inspired the thread in the first place, and all that...
Yes, if you mean "speech and writing" in general.
But not if output means "translation output". I don't want that to be confused.
See Giles Watson's comments on page 123 (16:25) There, output is meant to be translation output as far as I can tell.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-10 04:05 GMT]
| | | | | native language: what it is and how you check it | Sep 10, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
The problem I see with this is that you are defining native language in one way and then testing for something else (native level). If native language is defined by when and where it was learned and when and where it was used, then this is the information that needs to be made available to determine whether or not a person is a native speaker. If a person is judged to be a native speaker as a result of the ability to produce native output, then the ability to produce native output becomes the definition of native language.
Michele,
It's not always easy to prove through documents by when and where it was learned. On the other hand, simply stating the facts is not proof either.
But if it's true, it will be obvious when the person speaks to / writes for native language peers.
When you said "output" I asked you "what output"? Output could mean "translation output" and that's not what I am after.
It seems you mean how a person speaks and writes a language in general, right?
Well, then yes, that output will prove to his/her peers if it is native language speech or writing. But the way this level of speech and writing was acquired was by a long-lasting process in one's youth.
I don't see a problem with the definition versus checking it by verifying speech and writing through native language peers.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-10 04:57 GMT]
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 00:26
Chinese to English
| OK, some of these arguments came up before | Sep 10, 2012 |
@ Michele - why measure quality to assess nativeness to predict quality?
Charlie put forward the same argument a while back. My response is: Proz is not set up to measure quality (quality of translation/quality of language). Measuring quality directly is really hard (witness the fuss about exam results every year in the UK). You need a big, dedicated team to make sure it's fair. This isn't Proz's business, and it's never going to be.
The tests that some are advocating (... See more @ Michele - why measure quality to assess nativeness to predict quality?
Charlie put forward the same argument a while back. My response is: Proz is not set up to measure quality (quality of translation/quality of language). Measuring quality directly is really hard (witness the fuss about exam results every year in the UK). You need a big, dedicated team to make sure it's fair. This isn't Proz's business, and it's never going to be.
The tests that some are advocating (I'm now not supporting verification just because the number of members is too big to make it universal) could be quality based, or could be native intuition based, but either way, they're not supposed to be strict quality measures. They're a rough empirical check on a claim of nativeness, just a glance at a person's language, to say, is this claim plausible? And they yield only a yes/no answer.
@ Siegfried - a bit contradictory
You said that you don't bother with nativeness as a criterion for some texts. Fine. But for some other texts, you are stricter than nativeness, you demand that someone be a native in the right dialect, and very up-to-date.
Nicole gave an example on this very thread of how she hired a Proz translator who claimed to be German German, but turned out to be Dutch. I'm sure you have very good checks in your agency, and yes, you can catch the fakers much of the time. But why should you have to? And what about other agencies? What about the Japanese agency who gets a request for English-German, and has no German-speaking staff to do these checks? If Proz provides this service for them, wouldn't that be a good thing?
How would it be bad for you if Proz found a way to tighten up on its policing of native speaker-ness?
@ Samuel
"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."
But the question can't be changed. Being a native speaker is relevant, as has I think been established ad nauseam. Whether it's Siegfried demanding the right local variant, the ATA with its gold standard, Chinese clients wanting to go beyond their Chinglish... all the hedging and prevarication in the world won't get us around this point.
People keep popping up here and telling us that native is irrelevant. But it's not. Clients want it. Native defines the standard (as Jose noted).
Secondly, this is how quality is built, by addressing the small issues. The "bigger scheme of things" is translator competence and integrity. But there's no easy way to get at that. The options are not "should Proz verify native language, or should Proz verify translator competence and integrity instead". Proz can only chip around the edges of the "bigger scheme", push for honesty in the small things, the factual basics. Anything beyond that has to be left up to the clients and the community. But establishing an objective foundation of true basic facts gives everyone a great start.
@Jose
If Proz told you you couldn't have your English N any more, would it hurt you? Do you still get a significant number of jobs into English through Proz? Have you ever?
I can see the positives of verification/greater strictness; I'm trying to work out if the harm done would outweigh them.
@ Cilian
Use the drugs. You know you want to. It's what they're there for. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | a few more thoughts | Sep 10, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote: 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.
So it doesn't matter to you if people are lying about their native language? If you are looking for native speakers in the Proz.com directory, what's it good for if it's incorrect to say the least. What kind of filter is this? If you want "native speakers", then that's what the directory search should give you, not wannabe natives or liars.
Samuel Murray wrote:
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.
Again, why is it okay and how is it helpful to get results for native speakers who include folks who really have no right to claim it? Where is the filter for natives who don't lie about their nativeness and people who lie about their nativeness? What does that say about the value of the filter and Proz.com translators?
Samuel Murray wrote:
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).
So it's naive to assume that a PNS credential is valid? It is smart to assume it's at best an approximation, at worst completely pointless? I'd like Proz.com staff's opinion on that.
But you're right about the state of the PNS credential. That's why we need verification.
Samuel Murray wrote:
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.
Are you available for jobs that require a native speaker of language X??? Why should that be different from asking for a native speaker?
Are you implying that a non-native speaker should say he/she is right when the client clearly wants a native speaker?
And why is being "economical" (fibbing??/) the same or better as being honest?
Samuel Murray wrote:
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.
So any client who specifically wants a native speaker (and thinks it's a legitimate request based on the PNS credential) is dim and clueless? It's just naive or whatever to expect a native speaker? Why call it "preferably a native speaker" when they specifically want a native speaker?
Samuel Murray wrote:
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.
How does that keep non-natives from lying about their nativeness as long as they can proudly display the PNS? And what does that say about the pool of so-called "native speakers'?
Samuel Murray wrote:
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.
To do that, native language claims should be verified. The PNS credential will then indeed give them the right "impression".
Samuel Murray wrote:
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.
I don't agree. My reputation and that of Proz.com is on the line as long as there are people who depreciate and devaluate the pool of native speakers. It's an ethical issue as well as a business issue.
Samuel Murray wrote:
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.
Why read between the lines when the fact is (could be) indeed that the job was done by a non-native who claimed to be a native and also lied about his/her experience.
Samuel Murray wrote:
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.
I doubt that a good translator will lie about his/her native language (and lying about that is the problem that started this thread).
Samuel Murray wrote:
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.
You keep being nonchalant about lies. And I don't agree with your evaluation here. First of all, a non-native who lied about his/her language is much more likely to lie about other things. Why is he/she lying in the first place? Why would verification of one's native language not help reduce the number of botched jobs? And as far as the reputation is concerned, I don't care about the liar's reputation but about Proz.com's reputation and mine because I have a profile here that says I am a native speaker.
Samuel Murray wrote:
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).
Again, I don't agree with your evaluation. It seems to me there are those like me who have no problem understanding / admitting to what native language means. And then there are those who want to change that concept to fit pretty much any non-native speaker of X who ever came in contact with X, even if it's obvious they have great language deficiencies which certainly disqualifies them from claiming X as their native language and makes it more than unlikely that they could ever produce a good translation.
Samuel Murray wrote:
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).
Really not sure what you're saying here. Do you mean non-natives over non-speakers of a language? Where's the argument here?
Anyway, a true native speaker with experience is more likely to produce a good job than your general non-native with the same experience.
It takes a very advanced non-native command of a language to even think you can do the same as a native in the same field of expertise (especially in marketing for example). But if you are convinced you are indistinguishable from a native speaker, get verified. That's the least one should do. Especially if you did not acquire the language the way a native speaker usually acquires it.
On the other hand, I am sure there are plenty of jobs out there for excellent non-native speaker translators. It's not going to hurt them, on the contrary. A native language combined with excellent command of a second language will get you far. No lying about a second native language is necessary.
Samuel Murray wrote:
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.
What do you call a non-native speaker who can hardly string together sentences in a language he/she claims as their native language? A speaker or a non-speaker?
Certainly not a native speaker nor a professional translator.
The reason this thread was started was because something did hit the fan.
Although I can't guarantee that verification will reduce the number of fouled-up jobs, I would a) expect an improvement of Proz.com's reputation and a stronger position for all native speakers/writers of a language, especially through a "valid" PNS credential and b) a likely reduction of poor translations performed by "native speakers.
Samuel Murray wrote:
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
What are you suggesting? A convenient cop-out? What is the new question?
B
edited
[Edited at 2012-09-10 05:28 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 09:26
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Nativeness of output | Sep 10, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
@ Michele - why measure quality to assess nativeness to predict quality?
I don't think I said anything about measuring quality. You can look at output (speech/writing) to make judgments about the nativeness of the output produced by the speaker/writer.
| | | | Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 18:26
Italian to English
In memoriam | Output again | Sep 10, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Yes, if you mean "speech and writing" in general.
But not if output means "translation output". I don't want that to be confused.
See Giles Watson's comments on page 123 (16:25) There, output is meant to be translation output as far as I can tell.
Thanks, Bernhard, it certainly is 
We've been using "production" for language production in general so I thought Michele was referring to translation "output". If people want to use the two terms as synonyms, that's OK, though.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:26
Hebrew to English
| There's nothing wrong with what she said..... | Sep 10, 2012 |
traductorchile wrote: Denise Phelps wrote:
CPE is a measure of acceptable performance in a non-native language. Thanks, I will put your answer in a frame: That is, performance in German, Spanish, Finnish or any other non-native language. I thought it was about performance of non-natives in the English language. As you see, anyone can make mistakes, even natives. Your mistake does not refer to a culturally wrong, but understandable term, its about not being able to express yourself correctly in your native (supposedly) language, and in consequence you deliver the wrong message. [Edited at 2012-09-10 00:49 GMT]
Denise's point is that the CPE is meant to measure performance in a non-native language i.e. it is meant for non-native speakers of English, a fact echoed by Cambridge themselves on their website (as I showed earlier). It is not designed to test a native speaker's performance in (what is for them) a native language.
So, I don't see any mistake here. She expressed her opinion perfectly well.
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:26
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
traductorchile wrote: Denise Phelps wrote:
CPE is a measure of acceptable performance in a non-native language. Thanks, I will put your answer in a frame: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxx xxx CPE is a measure of acceptable performance in a non-native language.xxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx That is, performance in German, Spanish, Finnish or any other non-native language.
Sorry, I realise this is off-topic but can someone please clarify what the CPE is? I thought those Cambridge exams were for people learning English as a foreign language (?). Monolingual exams. If that's the case, why is "traductorchile" mentioning any other language and why does he have the CPE in English to Spanish (verified) and Spanish to English (not verified). Is the CPE also some form of translation qualification???
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 18:26
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
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. So it doesn't matter to you if people are lying about their native language?
There is nothing in my statement that could possibly have lead you to that conclusion.
Samuel Murray wrote:
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.
Why is it okay and how is it helpful to get results for native speakers who include folks who really have no right to claim it?
The answer to your question is right there in the quote that you quoted. It is helpful because it reduces the pool of candidates to evaluate.
Imagine how unhelpful the ProZ.com directory would have been if you could not search for translators by language combination. Yet we all know that anyone can register at ProZ.com within minutes, so even though you can search for translators by language combination, that does not mean that the results are a guarantee that those translators can all translate in it.
If a search result isn't a guarantee, then what good is it? You seem to say "it's no good at all", but I say "its good is that it helps reduce the pool of candicates to choose from and dramatically decreases the likelihood that there are translators in the pool that are unsuitable for your job".
Samuel Murray wrote:
Perhaps there are clients who are naive enough to believe anything the search results bring up... So it's naive to assume that a PNS credential is valid?
There is no PNS credential (it exists only in theory, and has a nice web page about it, but it hasn't been implemented beyond the most basic of exploratory steps). Yet clients can already filter on "native language". What they're filtering on is not a credential (from ProZ.com) but a declaration (from the individual translators). If the "native language" option was truly based on the PNS credential, then of course it would have been reasonable to expect that the credential is valid.
Samuel Murray wrote:
1. 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". 2. 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. 1. Are you available for jobs that require a native speaker of language X??? Why should that be different from asking for a native speaker?
Because for many (most?) translators the question "are you a native" is an emotionally loaded question. For many, native language is what defines them. Having to admit that the language that you use most or best is not your native language can be devastating. Unless the existing definition is very strict and rigid, it is very tempting to simply broaden one's own definition of "native language" until includes oneself and that language one so dearly identifies with.
The question "are you available for X type of jobs" is far less confrontational. Those who believe that they are qualified to take on such jobs would answer "yes". Those who are honest to admit that they are unsuited for such jobs can answer "no" without compromising their self-worth.
In fact, I wonder if it wouldn't be good to separate the profile declaration from the search filter declaration, given that this is such an emotional issue. In such a scenario the translator's answer to the question "are you available for X type of jobs" is not publically visible but is used in directory searches, and the translator can declare a langauge on his profile page as his "native language" if he truly identifies with it, even if he answered "no" to the search filter question.
2. And why is being "economical" (fibbing??/) the same or better as being honest?
I never said nor implied that it was. Both can be pretty bad (i.e. being economical about truth versus being ideological about truth). Honesty (and self-honesty) is often better than either.
Samuel Murray wrote:
Rewording the option should alert any dim, clueless client that he should not be expecting a guarantee to get only native speakers.
So any client who specifically wants a native speaker ... is dim and clueless?
Because you are native in German, and not in English, I will assume your comment was made in good faith, and so allow me to explain something about English to you: the phrase "any client that is X and wants Y" does not mean "any client is that wants Y is X".
Samuel Murray wrote:
After all, translators who claim... How does that keep ... as they can proudly display the PNS?
You keep mentioning the PNS, but I never did. Face it, the PNS is a dead stick.
None of the statements in my post that you replied to relate to the PNS in any way. My comments are about the current option to filter based on "declared native language". If you want to discuss the PNS, then that is fine, but don't reply to my statements about native language filtering as if my statements were all about the PNS.
Samuel Murray wrote:
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. To do that, native language claims should be verified.
We are offering two different solutions to the same problem (in this case, the problem of damaged reputation). The cause of the problem is two-fold, namely that (a) clients are under a certain impression about what they would get and (b) what they get is not what they are under the impression they are getting.
Your solution is to change B (i.e. making sure clients get what they expect). My solution is to change A (i.e. making sure clients expect what they get). Changing B would involve massive resources and months or even years to implement. Changing B would involve no more than a few ProZ.com staff meetings and a few hours to ponder the new wording.
Samuel Murray wrote:
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. Why read between the lines when the fact is (could be) indeed that the job was done by a non-native who claimed to be a native and also lied about his/her experience.
I believe it is naive to take the statements of an angry person at face value, if you want to determine the cause of his anger and the solution to prevent it in future. A client who is angry about a bad translation might make a number of accusations, e.g. that the translator clearly was not a native speaker, that the translator clearly did not finish school, that the translator clearly did not read his e-mails, that the translator clearly doesn't know the first thing about translation, that the translator clearly wasn't sober, that the translator clearly didn't do a spell-check, etc. Most of this outburst is not relevant to the problem of bad translations, so you have to read between the lines if you want to solve anything and not simply gossip about how bad it is.
Samuel Murray wrote:
Clients who get good translations from translators who lie about themselves rarely complain about the lies... I doubt that a good translator will lie about his/her native language...
No, this reply is bait and switch. I said "good translation", and then you say "good translator" as if it means the same thing, and (more importantly) as if my statement would mean what I had meant by it if I had said "good translator".
A good translator (if I can infer a preliminary definition based on your reply) is one that has high moral values, right? A good translation (if you'll permit me to define it after the fact) is one that the client is happy with (even after QC) and that is perfectly suitable for the client's purpose. I know it is tempting to believe that high morals lead to high quality, and that high quality is almost impossible without high morals, but that is not the reality.
Samuel Murray wrote:
It is not the lie that damages the reputation, but the botched job itself. You keep being nonchalant about lies.
To the contrary -- I take lies very seriously. But what I will not do is to blame lies for something that lies are not the cause of. Not all problems are caused by lies. Even if parties to a problem had lied, their lies may not necessarily have cause the problem.
First of all, a non-native who lied about his/her language is much more likely to lie about other things.
That opinion of yours assumes that the various things a translator can lie about all have the same emotive value to the translator and are all equally easy to define and equally simple to measure against a situation. In reality, some things are easier to lie about than others, and being willing to lie about one thing is no indication of how willing you would be to lie about something else.
Samuel Murray wrote:
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). It seems to me there are those like me who have no problem understanding / admitting to what native language means. And then there are those who...
I suspect most people here have no problem understanding / admitting to what native language means, but I'm fairly certain that what you would admit and what they would admit would not be the same thing. So who is right? You, or they? Well, you of course... (joke, sorry).
Samuel Murray wrote:
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. What do you call a non-native speaker who can hardly string together sentences in a language he/she claims as their native language?
Anyone who can't string together sentences in a language is lying (or hopelessly self-deceived) if he claims to be a translator in it. Whether he claims it to be his native language does not affect the lie about it being one of his languages.
To answer your question: I would call him a non-speaker.
Although I can't guarantee that verification will reduce the number of fouled-up jobs, I would expect ... a likely reduction of poor translations performed by "native speakers".
If you're talking about a credential, then I fully agree with you. It stands to reason that only people who can actually speak a language will become verified natives of it, so having native language verified also verifies that the translator can actually use the language (though it does not verify quality of translation), and of course that will reduce the chances of a client getting a translation that was done by someone who could not even speak the language.
Samuel
[Edited at 2012-09-10 09:28 GMT]
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 18:26
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Phil Hand wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
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. But the question can't be changed. Being a native speaker is relevant...
Changing the question does not affect whether being a native speaker is relevant (and it does not change the usefulness in gauging nativeness either).
If you want to find a native speaker and you can choose between asking a very precise question that lends itself to lying and a slightly less precise question that does not lend itself to lying, which question would be most useful to you, in your search of a native speaker? In an ideal world there are no liars, but my question to you relates to the current world. What would say?
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 00:26
Chinese to English
| Bring it on! | Sep 10, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
If you want to find a native speaker and you can choose between asking a very precise question that lends itself to lying and a slightly less precise question that does not lend itself to lying, which question would be most useful to you, in your search of a native speaker? In an ideal world there are no liars, but my question to you relates to the current world. What would say?
I say I'm all for it, but I haven't read any such question yet.
I've seen some ridiculous workarounds ("Can you translate at the level of a native speaker of this language?")
I've seen some questions that are so woolly as to be completely meaningless ("Are you competent to translate into this language?")
I've seen some suggestions that are impractical ("Have you achieved IELTS grade 9 in this language?")
If you have a question which will a) elicit more honest responses and b) is as easy to implement as "native", then I'll support it. But none of the options yet have been any good.
| | | | | 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? | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
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 
