| 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)
|
|---|
Kirsten Bodart 
United Kingdom
Local time: 11:16
Dutch to English
+ ...
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Having deliberated, cogitated and digested, with occasional forays into the essence of “nativeness” and discussions about the pros and cons of translating to/from native languages… am I right in thinking that everyone is perfectly confident about their claims to speak their native language and would therefore not object to having that verified (operating along the principle “nothing to hide”). Any objections?
Hmmm, that's an ineresting question, because my native Dutch I find pedantic, quickly dated, poor as well as poorly regulated and difficult to get the same meaning across as in English. No-one knows what the rules actually are, but it is essential to respect them (even though sources disagree, even on esential points like grammar as I illustrted on here a while ago...). In English, at least everyone agrees there are esentially no rules apart from a few. That's why I prefer not to make Dutch translations.
So, no I would not feel confident if a bunch of Dutchies were to assess me, a Flemish person. I can't help that Flemish is not a language. Maybe there are more people with the same problem?
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 11:16
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Lisa: objections to being tested for nativeness | Jun 24, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Am I right in thinking that everyone is perfectly confident about their claims to speak their native language and would therefore not object to having that verified (operating along the principle “nothing to hide”). Any objections?
In principle I would have no objection to being tested for nativeness, provided that (a) "native language" is clearly defined, (b) the way it is tested is known, and (c) there is an appeal procedure.
[If such tests would exist, I would also let myself be tested for nativeness in my second language, for after all, what would I have to lose?]
The Wikipedia article on native language mentions five ways in which to define native language:
1. Based on origin: the language(s) one learned first (the language(s) in which one has established the first long-lasting verbal contacts).
2. Based on internal identification: the language(s) one identifies with/as a speaker of;
3. Based on external identification: the language(s) one is identified with/as a speaker of, by others.
4. Based on competence: the language(s) one knows best.
5. Based on function: the language(s) one uses most.
I assume the ProZ.com definition would likely be #3, since that is the easiest, least intrusive method of verification (though subjective, and fraught with other problems).
The definition of "native language" that most pro-testing people here seem to favour is not in that list. Their (i.e. your?) definition is "the language(s) one knows as well as an ideal well-educated speaker of the main dialect of the language's originally associated country". But that would be much less likely to gain wide acceptance, particularly from native speakers who do not have the same accent, mannerisms, and thought processes as those ideal speakers.
[Edited at 2012-06-24 20:22 GMT]
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 10:16
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Not sure I see the problem | Jun 24, 2012 |
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
Hmmm, that's an ineresting question, because my native Dutch I find pedantic, quickly dated, poor as well as poorly regulated and difficult to get the same meaning across as in English. No-one knows what the rules actually are, but it is essential to respect them (even though sources disagree, even on esential points like grammar as I illustrted on here a while ago...). In English, at least everyone agrees there are esentially no rules apart from a few. That's why I prefer not to make Dutch translations.
Dutch/Flemish is evidently your native language so why would you object to being verified as a native speaker of Dutch/Flemish (as you prefer)? Perhaps you've misunderstood, this doesn't stop you from translating into English, if you so wish, that's your choice.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 11:16
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Lisa wrt Kirsten | Jun 24, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote: Kirsten Bodart wrote:
My native Dutch I find pedantic, quickly dated, poor as well as poorly regulated and difficult to get the same meaning across as in English. No-one knows what the rules actually are, but it is essential to respect them ... In English, at least everyone agrees there are esentially no rules apart from a few. That's why I prefer not to make Dutch translations. Dutch/Flemish is evidently your native language so why would you object to being verified as a native speaker of Dutch/Flemish (as you prefer)?
The way I understood Kirsten's post (though she should correct me if I'm wrong) is that she is concerned that nativeness may be tested not on ease of use but on quality of use.
In some languages (e.g. English), the language does not change rapidly and the language's rules are the same throughout many countries, and most of what is acceptable in one country is likely to be acceptable in another. In other languages (e.g. Dutch, to a small (?) degree) the language changes relatively rapidly, and what is acceptable in one region may be unacceptable (or incomprehensible) in another, and what may have been idiomatic five years ago may not be quite "normal" today. So if person A from region X would verify person B from region Y, who did not keep up with changes, then person B might well fail verification if verification is based on quality instead of fluency.
Am I right?
| | |
|
|
|
Kirsten Bodart
United Kingdom
Local time: 11:16
Dutch to English
+ ...
I would not even say to 'a small degree' either. The thread in the Dutch Proz.com forum 'Kunnen Vlamingen goede vertalers Nederlands zijn?' (for those who do not understand this blatantly derogatry title, 'Can Flemish people be good Dutch translators?') illustrated that people from above the border with the Netherlands (mainly also above the great rivers, around Amsterdam, Den Hague etc.) see a Dutch text made by a Flemish person and find it odd. Hence a section of them would go so far as findin... See more I would not even say to 'a small degree' either. The thread in the Dutch Proz.com forum 'Kunnen Vlamingen goede vertalers Nederlands zijn?' (for those who do not understand this blatantly derogatry title, 'Can Flemish people be good Dutch translators?') illustrated that people from above the border with the Netherlands (mainly also above the great rivers, around Amsterdam, Den Hague etc.) see a Dutch text made by a Flemish person and find it odd. Hence a section of them would go so far as finding it 'bad'. Flemish eople are more tolerant on this. I was told on Friday that the same happens amongst EU translators.
My native language in a version from only fifty years ago is so horribly dated that you couldn't pass it off for one that was written now. Conjunctions from 100 years ago (apart from those that are very common) are hopelessly archaic to the point of really obsolete.
I can still easily use the words of Jane Austen in an English text, provided I don't overdo the sentence structure, yet the words of a Mutltatuli (1825) are not all usable anymore. Dickens sounds old, but he is not overly difficult. If you take a book of Emants (that is 30 to 40 years later), you are reading sublime prose, but extremely outdated, yet the man wote the most modern Dutch of his day (it was his mission).
Apart from which, as soon as you start debating sentence structure, there are five different versions of the same rule. Better not to think about it. So no, assessment by peers would not be a solution.
[Edited at 2012-06-24 21:18 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 17:16
Chinese to English
| Repeat ad infinitum: this is not about complex European situations | Jun 25, 2012 |
I have a lot of sympathy with the issues of genuinely multilingual mainland Europeans and Africans. You grow up in complex environments, and *any* system may well fail to capture the reality of your language competence.
This thread is not about that problem.
I'm trying to be really circumspect here, because we're not allowed to make accusations about other translators in the forums. But it's important that Kirsten & Samuel realise what we're talking about. So look at t... See more I have a lot of sympathy with the issues of genuinely multilingual mainland Europeans and Africans. You grow up in complex environments, and *any* system may well fail to capture the reality of your language competence.
This thread is not about that problem.
I'm trying to be really circumspect here, because we're not allowed to make accusations about other translators in the forums. But it's important that Kirsten & Samuel realise what we're talking about. So look at this link:
http://bit.ly/MlCPZK
This is just the most basic search that an outsourcer might do looking for translators in my pair whose native language is English. Without naming any names, more than half of the people who appear on the first page of results are lying about their native language. Not Singaporean marginal cases. Just completely untrue statements. Mods, if that's too direct, I apologise. I'll edit.
Edit3: And I suppose I ought to add, I know this because I've interacted with some of them on the forums/kudoz and they can't write competently in English. It's not that they have perfect English, just didn't learn it as a child. Their writing is ungrammatical.
Let me turn this around:
Kirsten, Samuel, do you think that's OK? If not, what do *you* suggest Proz do about it?
Edit: sorry about the link distorting the page - how do I fix that?
Edit2: Bitly to the rescue!
[Edited at 2012-06-25 04:40 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-06-25 04:49 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-06-25 05:29 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Nuno Rosalino
United Kingdom
Local time: 10:16
Member (2012)
English to Portuguese
+ ...
Phil Hand wrote:
Edit: sorry about the link distorting the page - how do I fix that
Tinyurl.com (http://tinyurl.com/8xkz5qh would be your link, I believe)
| | | | 564354352 (X)
Denmark
Local time: 11:16
Danish to English
+ ...
| Make it voluntary | Jun 25, 2012 |
I strongly object to the whole idea of 'policing' by 'peers' on this site. It remains a commercial site, and in commerce 'anything goes', like it or not. The Internet is notorious for people making false claims about their identity if they so please, and there is nothing that suggests to me that ProZ.com is different in this sense.
The insistence that people be honest so as not to be favoured over others who consider themselves to be 'real' native speakers of any particular language... See more I strongly object to the whole idea of 'policing' by 'peers' on this site. It remains a commercial site, and in commerce 'anything goes', like it or not. The Internet is notorious for people making false claims about their identity if they so please, and there is nothing that suggests to me that ProZ.com is different in this sense.
The insistence that people be honest so as not to be favoured over others who consider themselves to be 'real' native speakers of any particular language is impossible to reinforce on this site. However, as some of you seem to think this is an important issue, why not make it an OPTION to have your native language verified. People could then OPT to have any claims of native language verified, just as it is optional to have your credentials verified.
There would be nothing rammed down people's throats, it wold all be voluntary, and the holy outsourcers would be able to check on people's sites whether their 'nativeness' has been verified.
P.S. I still think the emphasis should be on 'language proficiency' rather than on nativeness, as we have already discussed at length, that nativeness is not the same as proficiency.
P.P.S Any verification system that is based on commercial competitors being 'validators' will be flawed. A verification system would have to be objective, non-biased, and not made up of 'peers' from within the ProZ.com community of translators.
[Edited at 2012-06-25 07:05 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 11:16
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Optional *and* in the search results | Jun 25, 2012 |
Gitte Hovedskov Hansen wrote:
It remains a commercial site, and in commerce 'anything goes', like it or not.
Why do people always bring up this silly argument? Yes, ProZ.com is a commercial site and it has commercial interests, but unless it does business in good faith, it will eventually fail as a business. So don't say "ProZ.com won't do the right thing because it is a commercial site".
However, as some of you seem to think this is an important issue, why not make it an OPTION to have your native language verified. People could then OPT to have any claims of native language verified...
Making verification optional would only be useful if the label in search results and the KudoZ and jobs system is changed from "native" to "verified native" (or if that extra option is added). Do that, and people will volunteer in droves to get verified.
[And those who deliberately lie about it currently will invariably find ways to fake it during verification...]
| | | | | Verification of nativeness and/or quality | Jun 25, 2012 |
So theoretically it is possible for a translator to pass the nativeness test and still be a bad translator.
Where's the line between translations that are bad because they are done by non-natives and those that are bad because they are done by professionally incompetent translators? How would a testing peer (or whoever does the testing) be able to distinguish? Or to refrain from rating someone non-native simply because they are professionally incompetent although native?
Edit... See more So theoretically it is possible for a translator to pass the nativeness test and still be a bad translator.
Where's the line between translations that are bad because they are done by non-natives and those that are bad because they are done by professionally incompetent translators? How would a testing peer (or whoever does the testing) be able to distinguish? Or to refrain from rating someone non-native simply because they are professionally incompetent although native?
Edited to add:
To make it worse, it could very well happen that an outsourcer selects a verified native but professionally incompetent translator, then he would come back to the translator with "but you've told me you were a native!"
I think this whole nativeness issue also depends on the language pairs. Most bad translations in one of my language pairs I've seen were bad because done by incompetent natives, while in my other language pair, most of the bad translations were bad because done by non-natives.
I think it was Christine who said that nativeness is just one of the factors that make a good translation. I agree - this factor shouldn't be emphasized to such an extent as to lead an outsourcer/client into thinking that all translations done by natives must be good. Other factors should be considered too.
[Edited at 2012-06-25 08:07 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Annamaria Amik wrote:
So theoretically it is possible for a translator to pass the nativeness test and still be a bad translator.
This topic has nothing to do with being a good translator or not but with being a lier and damaging the image of this professional site and the business chances of honest colleagues.
I don´t know what about you, but I can smell a non-native of Spanish from afar with just a few forum posts.
| | | |
Nani Delgado wrote:
This topic has nothing to do with being a good translator or not but with being a lier and damaging the image of this professional site and the business chances of honest colleagues.
Well, as I said, in one of my language pairs, most bad translations are done by professionally incompetent translators. That is so damaging to the local industry that I've personally heard direct clients say they refuse to turn to "official" translation agencies in my town because they produce bad translations (nothing was mentioned of the nativeness thing).
I understand that English (or Spanish) is more exposed to this type of lie. In my languages, the nativeness debate is not that heated at all.
However, I wouldn't identify "honesty" as you said with honesty about nativeness only. There will always be translators who lie about their qualifications too.
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 17:16
Chinese to English
| Enforcing honesty about native languages won't bring world peace, either | Jun 25, 2012 |
Annamaria Amik wrote:
So theoretically it is possible for a translator to pass the nativeness test and still be a bad translator...
No-one on this thread or anywhere else has suggested that being a native speaker is sufficient to make you a good translator. Why are you arguing with a straw man?
I think it was Christine who said that nativeness is just one of the factors that make a good translation. I agree - this factor shouldn't be emphasized to such an extent as to lead an outsourcer/client into thinking that all translations done by natives must be good. Other factors should be considered too.
No-one on this thread or anywhere else has suggested that being a native speaker is the only relevant factor when selecting a translator. Why are you arguing with a straw man?
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 10:16
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Nani Delgado wrote:
I don´t know what about you, but I can smell a non-native of Spanish from afar with just a few forum posts.
It certainly wouldn't take 10+ pages of text and a panel of experts, as suggested above.
| | | | 564354352 (X)
Denmark
Local time: 11:16
Danish to English
+ ...
| Thou must not tell a porky pie | Jun 25, 2012 |
Samuel, when I brought up the silly argument of ProZ.com being a commercial site, it was merely to point out that anyone who wants to join is able to, and they can benefit from/abuse the ridiculously priced job offers if they push the right buttons. I am not saying that ProZ.com is a dishonest site, I am saying that anyone who wants to abuse the site can pay their fee and do so.
Telling a liar that they must not lie simply won't work.
I could go along with a 'verified n... See more Samuel, when I brought up the silly argument of ProZ.com being a commercial site, it was merely to point out that anyone who wants to join is able to, and they can benefit from/abuse the ridiculously priced job offers if they push the right buttons. I am not saying that ProZ.com is a dishonest site, I am saying that anyone who wants to abuse the site can pay their fee and do so.
Telling a liar that they must not lie simply won't work.
I could go along with a 'verified native proficiency' indication, not a 'verified native' indication, as that still doesn't say anything about linguistic competence. IF, and only if, some way of verification could be found that did not involve competing translators from this site being the 'judgement panel', and IF the mere fact of being a 'native speaker' would not be equated with the only qualification for being a competent translator into that particular language.
However, if verification can be faked, what's the point of this whole discussion? ▲ Collapse
| | | | | 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 
