| 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)
|
|---|
Michele Fauble 
United States
Local time: 06:50
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| A third option | Sep 11, 2012 |
Rather than testing or a disclaimer, I would like to suggest a third option.
Translators are currently given the option to accept/not accept ProZ.com's Professional Guidelines.
http://www.proz.com/professional-guidelines?pg_version=1.1
I suggest that ProZ specifically add to the guidelines that by accepting ProZ.com's Professional Guidelines the... See more Rather than testing or a disclaimer, I would like to suggest a third option.
Translators are currently given the option to accept/not accept ProZ.com's Professional Guidelines.
http://www.proz.com/professional-guidelines?pg_version=1.1
I suggest that ProZ specifically add to the guidelines that by accepting ProZ.com's Professional Guidelines the translator is asserting/affirming/(swearing?) that he/she has truthfully declared his/her native language. Those translators who for whatever reason do not wish to be truthful about their native language can simply choose not to accept the guidelines.
Alternatively, instead of incorporating this into ProZ.com's Professional Guidelines, it could be offered as a separate affirmation that translators could accept/not accept. ▲ Collapse
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 14:50
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | A few random thoughts | Sep 11, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote: Rather than testing or a disclaimer, I would like to suggest a third option. Translators are currently given the option to accept/not accept ProZ.com's Professional Guidelines. http://www.proz.com/professional-guidelines?pg_version=1.1 I suggest that ProZ specifically add to the guidelines that by accepting ProZ.com's Professional Guidelines the translator is asserting/affirming/(swearing?) that he/she has truthfully declared his/her native language. Those translators who for whatever reason do not wish to be truthful about their native language can simply choose not to accept the guidelines. Alternatively, instead of incorporating this into ProZ.com's Professional Guidelines, it could be offered as a separate affirmation that translators could accept/not accept.
What would the penalty be for a breach? Would the site investigate suspected breaches? I'm not sure it helps the outsourcer either. BTW, AFAIK (please excuse the dreadful overuse of acronyms), it is already a condition of becoming a Certified Pro that you endorse ProZ.com's Professional Guidelines, the first of which is: "represent their credentials, capabilities and experiences [sic] honestly". That's rule 1 and several have already broken it.
[Edited at 2012-09-11 20:13 GMT]
| | | | | This won't work | Sep 11, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote: Rather than testing or a disclaimer, I would like to suggest a third option. Translators are currently given the option to accept/not accept ProZ.com's Professional Guidelines. http://www.proz.com/professional-guidelines?pg_version=1.1 I suggest that ProZ specifically add to the guidelines that by accepting ProZ.com's Professional Guidelines the translator is asserting/affirming/(swearing?) that he/she has truthfully declared his/her native language. Those translators who for whatever reason do not wish to be truthful about their native language can simply choose not to accept the guidelines. Alternatively, instead of incorporating this into ProZ.com's Professional Guidelines, it could be offered as a separate affirmation that translators could accept/not accept.
... because it relies on a universally accepted definition of what a native language is. It shouldn't be Bernhard's, it shouldn't be mine - if I had one; it must be a universally accepted definition and there isn't one.
And it's not my personal case either. There are some people who have spoken English from the day they started babbling as babies through their entire lives so far. Most of them think I am a native speaker of EN, and I tell them I'm not.
I happen to know many non-native speakers of PT (according to Bernhard's orthodox concept) that I'd unhesitatingly rate as native speakers of PT. For the record, most - yet not all - of them are not translators.
Would this whole inquisition help translation quality? I doubt it.
I was trying to find some analogy to illustrate, and all I came up with was a lame one: restaurants advertising that they use stainless steel cookware, and not aluminium. What matters most is the ingredients they will put into it.
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 06:50
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| ProZ.com's Professional Guidelines | Sep 11, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote: Michele Fauble wrote: Rather than testing or a disclaimer, I would like to suggest a third option. Translators are currently given the option to accept/not accept ProZ.com's Professional Guidelines. http://www.proz.com/professional-guidelines?pg_version=1.1 I suggest that ProZ specifically add to the guidelines that by accepting ProZ.com's Professional Guidelines the translator is asserting/affirming/(swearing?) that he/she has truthfully declared his/her native language. Those translators who for whatever reason do not wish to be truthful about their native language can simply choose not to accept the guidelines. Alternatively, instead of incorporating this into ProZ.com's Professional Guidelines, it could be offered as a separate affirmation that translators could accept/not accept. What would the penalty be for a breach? Would the site investigate suspected breaches? I'm not sure it helps the outsourcer either. BTW, AFAIK (please excuse the dreadful overuse of acronyms), it is already a condition of becoming a Certified Pro that you endorse ProZ.com's Professional Guidelines, the first of which is: "represent their credentials, capabilities and experiences honestly". That's rule 1 and several have already broken it.
For the certified PRO network the penalty would be dismissal.
"Evidence of having acted in violation of the guidelines is grounds for dismissal from that program."
http://www.proz.com/professional-guidelines?pg_version=1.1
Strengthen rule 1 by adding native language: "represent their NATIVE LANGUAGE, credentials, capabilities and experiences honestly".
Peer review is already a condition for becoming a member of the Certified Pro network. Make accurate native language screening part of the peer review. Re-screen current members who are suspected of misrepresenting their native language.
| | |
|
|
|
| Lie once, twice, as often as you like.... | Sep 11, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
I suggest that ProZ specifically add to the guidelines that by accepting ProZ.com's Professional Guidelines the translator is asserting/affirming/(swearing?) that he/she has truthfully declared his/her native language. Those translators who for whatever reason do not wish to be truthful about their native language can simply choose not to accept the guidelines.
Alternatively, instead of incorporating this into ProZ.com's Professional Guidelines, it could be offered as a separate affirmation that translators could accept/not accept.
If I were the sort of person minded to lie about my native tongue once, I'm not sure I'd care much about subsequently confirming that statement to be true as many times over as the site cared to ask me, especially since there is absolutely no penalty for being caught out.
And if my native language is wrongfully declared because I am deluded about my skill level or what standard of output is required to equate to "native", I'm not convinced asking me "are you sure?" is going to bring me up short and make me re-assess myself.
I'm not sure what the procedure is if the professional guidelines change (being a complete charlatan, I haven't endorsed them), but I can only see 2 options arising:
a) the records of people who have endorsed them continue to say they have endorsed them, even if they haven't, which means your statement is added to what they have endorsed without them actually endorsing it, which seems a bit, er, pointless?
b) everyone has to re-endorse the guidelines, which has 2 drawbacks:
i) it's a (small) burden on those who have done nothing whatsoever wrong (that old chestnut, I know)
ii) liars are gonna lie and the deluded are gonna confirm their delusion willy-nilly.
[Edited at 2012-09-11 20:29 GMT]
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 06:50
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
[Edited at 2012-09-12 07:21 GMT]
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 15:50
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Michele, that's basically a pinky swear | Sep 11, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
I suggest that ProZ specifically add to the guidelines that by accepting ProZ.com's Professional Guidelines the translator is asserting/affirming/(swearing?) that he/she has truthfully declared his/her native language.
I would not object to a line being added to the guidelines about native language, but I don't think it would solve anything, because:
* If a translator had lied when he signed it the first time, why wouldn't he just lie again?
* I wonder if even half of the folks to signed that declaration had actually read it.
Samuel
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 15:50
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Charlie -- a small correction | Sep 11, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
I'm not sure what the procedure is if the professional guidelines change..., but I can only see 2 options arising:
a) the records of people who have endorsed them continue to say they have endorsed them, even if they haven't, which means your statement is added to what they have endorsed without them actually endorsing it, which seems a bit, er, pointless?
b) everyone has to re-endorse the guidelines, which has 2 drawbacks:
i) it's a (small) burden on those who have done nothing whatsoever wrong (that old chestnut, I know)
ii) ...
Fortunately (or unfortunately) the first three of your four objections are more or less invalid because the guidelines feature doesn't quite work that way (or rather, it works better than that). The guidelines have changed once in the past already. When this happened, they named the original version "version 1.0" and the changed version "version 1.1", and the version of the guidelines to which you had agreed is actually mentioned on your profile page. So you don't have to accept the addition, and not accepting the addition does not invalidate what you've previously accepted. And you're allowed to withdraw your endorsement of either at any time.
| | |
|
|
|
| Good news indeed | Sep 11, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Fortunately (or unfortunately) the first three of your four objections are more or less invalid because the guidelines feature doesn't quite work that way (or rather, it works better than that).
Glad about that. Did wonder rather about the implications of the guidelines being set in stone forever otherwise (I won't nitpick about the confusion of having a proliferation of versions and how one can tell what someone has or hasn't endorsed at any given point in time, since it is a point not unique to this thread).
As for analogies, I was reminded here of the same thing that strikes me every year on the tax return. On ours, we have a box that says something along the lines of "I hereby attest all this stuff is honest & true". Now, if your tax return isn't honest and true, are you really not gonna sign the box? Or, if you're prepared to lie on your tax return, is it not quite likely you'll be cool with idea of lying about whether you've lied or not?
Same here, surely?
| | | | Kay Denney
France
Local time: 15:50
French to English
| This might be a bit off-topic but after 133 pages... | Sep 11, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
As for analogies, I was reminded here of the same thing that strikes me every year on the tax return. On ours, we have a box that says something along the lines of "I hereby attest all this stuff is honest & true". Now, if your tax return isn't honest and true, are you really not gonna sign the box? Or, if you're prepared to lie on your tax return, is it not quite likely you'll be cool with idea of lying about whether you've lied or not?
Same here, surely?
I seem to remember a friend of my parents who forgot to sign that!
Not quite sure what happened but he wasn't carted off to prison or anything dramatic, probably just had a horde of tax inspectors round (I remember it as something that happened when I was still in England so I was too young to worry about tax forms and therefore pay much attention)
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 21:50
Chinese to English
| Indicates consequences | Sep 11, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
As for analogies, I was reminded here of the same thing that strikes me every year on the tax return. On ours, we have a box that says something along the lines of "I hereby attest all this stuff is honest & true". Now, if your tax return isn't honest and true, are you really not gonna sign the box? Or, if you're prepared to lie on your tax return, is it not quite likely you'll be cool with idea of lying about whether you've lied or not?
Same here, surely?
The tax return is just reminding you that you're legally liable for what you've written, and the taxman does have the annoying habit of actually checking the forms and fining you if you've got them wrong.
Not going to happen here, it seems.
| | |
|
|
|
| Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule | | The statement is meaningless | Sep 12, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote:
As for analogies, I was reminded here of the same thing that strikes me every year on the tax return. On ours, we have a box that says something along the lines of "I hereby attest all this stuff is honest & true". Now, if your tax return isn't honest and true, are you really not gonna sign the box? Or, if you're prepared to lie on your tax return, is it not quite likely you'll be cool with idea of lying about whether you've lied or not?
Same here, surely? The tax return is just reminding you that you're legally liable for what you've written, and the taxman does have the annoying habit of actually checking the forms and fining you if you've got them wrong. Not going to happen here, it seems.
The point is they could just state as much. It's not as if the signed declaration makes a difference to the outcome. You don't get harsher penalties because you signed the statement saying it's all true, because if you don't sign the statement, they don't process it. The waffle about it being true adds nothing. It doesn't indicate acceptance of the consequences or even acknowledgement you know what they are, accepted or otherwise - the consequences are the consequences, and ignorance of tax law is no excuse, as eny fule kno. All it effectively says is "this is my tax return, signed me". Of course I'm going to maintain it's a true and accurate reflection blah blah. I suppose you could cross that bit out, and then see what happens...
"Hello, Charlie, HMRC here, we've got your tax return."
"Splendid. Hurrah for the post office."
"You crossed out the words 'correct' and 'to the best of my knowledge and belief'."
"Yes, I did, well spotted."
"Why?"
"Well, it's a pack of lies, really, but I didn't want to lie about it being correct, so I crossed that bit out."
"Stay where you are, we'll be right round...."
Similarly, a liar isn't going to not sign the guidelines as a result of an attack of conscience about lying about their native language. If I've lied about my language and want to sign the guidelines, I'll do it.
[Edited at 2012-09-12 00:28 GMT]
| | | | | how do you know? | Sep 12, 2012 |
Michael Beijer wrote:
I am a native English speaker, whether you like the way I write or not.
Michael
How do you know, Michael, I mean for sure? What definition are you using for native speaker?
Just wondering.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-12 02:23 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? | 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 » |
| | 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 
