| 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)
|
|---|
| Native means "origin", that is exactly the problem | Sep 16, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
The ordinary meaning of the word "native" is "origin", not "skill".
So what is the origin of the "Germans" that came back from having lived several 100 years in Russia, what is the origin of Turkish kid that grew up in Germany, and what has origin to do with the ability to speak a language. Sorry this all sounds like complete nonsense to me. I know you won't like it, but also to me there is a faint sound of racism, if you start to connect "abilities" or "lack of abilities" to the origin of a person. I might be extremely sensitive to this issue, but as a native German, I have all the right to state, that we have "been there, done it" and we don't want this to creep in again - anywhere, not even in PROZ.
I understand the problem that PROZ allows everybody to claim being native in any language; I also see the problem that there are too many crap translators competing with skilled translators.
PROZ started in a good way to resolve this problem by introducing the red P process. But as with many other initiatives, it was watered down and has no real value any more.
I do not believe that anything will change on PROZ independent of the result of the current discussion.
I love to follow this discussion, it did trigger some thinking, I especially liked the comments about "nativeness of a MT systems" or that people cheat to be able to apply for jobs in PROZ, or "can you lose your native language or learn a new native language" - all extremely interesting topics - but none of these topics will get us anywhere with the underlying problem - which is in my opinion not "Should native language claims be verified?"
| | | | Michele Fauble 
United States
Local time: 20:50
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
Samuel Murray wrote:
When we define "native", we just ask ourselves what "native" ordinarily means.
Not at all. The literal meaning and etymology of the word "native" does not constrain the meaning of the term "native language", just as the meaning of "moederspraak" is not constrained by the word for mother. We are trying to arrive at a satisfactory definition of native language for a specific purpose. The term "native language" is not a well-defined term, which is why we cannot look up its meaning or ask an expert what it means.
[Edited at 2012-09-16 11:22 GMT]
| | | |
Samuel Murray wrote:
The ordinary meaning of the word "native" is "origin", not "skill".
True dat. Thing is, origin is interesting but serves little or no purpose here; the function of the field on this website is the reason people misrepresent about it, and the function of the field is, effectively, skill. To use your terms, which seem as good as any.
In that respect, yes, it does smack slightly of redefining the problem, but only because people misrepresenting their origins is not, AFAIAC, a problem in the slightest. Where people come from is of no concern in this matter, which is a matter of people claiming, via a field referring to origins, to possess a skill that they do not. This casts all of our claims to possess that skill (neatly if inadequately expressed by a reference to origins) into doubt. That is what pisses me off. I don't give a stuff where they went to school. Really.
[Edited at 2012-09-16 10:51 GMT]
| | | | | Yes, gentlemen ... | Sep 16, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
The ordinary meaning of the word "native" is "origin", not "skill".
True dat. Thing is, origin is interesting but serves little or no purpose here; the function of the field on this website is the reason people misrepresent about it, and the function of the field is, effectively, skill. To use your terms, which seem as good as any. In that respect, yes, it does smack slightly of redefining the problem, but only because people misrepresenting their origins is not, AFAIAC, a problem in the slightest. Where people come from is of no concern in this matter, which is a matter of people claiming, via a field referring to origins, to possess a skill that they do not. This casts all of our claims to possess that skill (neatly if inadequately expressed by a reference to origins) into doubt. That is what pisses me off. I don't give a stuff where they went to school. Really. [Edited at 2012-09-16 10:51 GMT]
Yes, Charlie and other gentlemen recently contributing.
That is precisely why we need to know what Proz's definition of "native language" is. Did none of you read my "modest proposal" just now? Please do.
I have submitted a support ticket asking Proz to tell us its definition of "native language".
If we don't know Proz's definition, we can continue thus charmingly debating what "native language" means and whether or not it can be acquired in later life, etc. etc. etc. and even (Wow!) reach a conclusion, but if our definition is different from that of Proz, where would that get us?
It is Proz which places native language in a prominent position in members' profiles and says it verifies native language claims (but apparently doesn't in practice). So let Proz tell us what the definition is on which it bases (or should base) its verification.
Patient smile (what's the emoticon for that?)
Jenny
[Edited at 2012-09-16 11:09 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| I like Jenny's approach | Sep 16, 2012 |
You proposal is one that really makes sense.
a) Proz uses the selection criterion "native"
b) Proz claims that they are verifying the nativeness
You are absolutely right, Proz should provide a definition for "their" criterion and they should explain how they are verfying it/or not verifying it.
However, being me, and given the long experience with this website, this does not change my opinion that it is extremly unlikely that anything will cha... See more You proposal is one that really makes sense.
a) Proz uses the selection criterion "native"
b) Proz claims that they are verifying the nativeness
You are absolutely right, Proz should provide a definition for "their" criterion and they should explain how they are verfying it/or not verifying it.
However, being me, and given the long experience with this website, this does not change my opinion that it is extremly unlikely that anything will change. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | You said you'd get back to us | Sep 16, 2012 |
Jenny Forbes wrote:
Yes, Charlie and other gentlemen recently contributing.
Recently? I'm on page 1, I'll have you know
Did none of you read my "modest proposal" just now? Please do.
I have submitted a support ticket asking Proz to tell us its definition of "native language".
You also said I'll report back if/when I receive a reply
I'll be honest, that being so, I didn't think any further comment was warranted until you heard back, or reported later that you hadn't heard back. It was too late to stop you doing it if I/we thought you shouldn't, and you don't need thanks or congratulations. So why respond?
If we don't know Proz's definition, we can continue thus charmingly debating what "native language" means and whether or not it can be acquired in later life, etc. etc. etc. and even (Wow!) reach a conclusion, but if our definition is different from that of Proz, where would that get us?
You have a point, but the idea, AFAIAC, is to clearly state the nature, causes and resolution(s) to a (perceived) problem. That means, again AFAIAC, that nothing is given, per se.
That said, my approach, for instance, is to take the function as a fixed point and make changes based on that.
Other take additional fixed points, such as "the field by virtue of its label reflects an unchanging attribute" and riff around that idea, e.g. by suggesting ways that can be confirmed, or by suggesting the site raises a big warning flag that every member here is potentially full of crap and none of us is to trusted.
Yeah, site contribution might be useful but might also stifle debate. Swings and roundabouts. Anyway, we know they're reading 'cos stuff keeps disappearing into the pampas, never to be seen again....
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 05:50
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Michele Fauble wrote:
"Native language" is a linguistic term.
For what it's worth, here are some definitions of "native language" by the first couple of books I was able to match in Google. I did not remove examples from this group that did not fit my view:
The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality, by Alan Davies PhD
"The native speaker is for a start one who can lay claimm to being a speaker of a language by virtue of place or country of birth."
The Native Speaker Concept, by Neriko Musha Doerr
"The native speaker is often thought as an ideal person with a complete and possibly innate competence in the langauge. It is based on the idea that there is a bounded, homgeneous, and fixed language with a homogeneous speech community, which is linked to a nation-state."
Mother Tongues and Nations, by Thomas Paul Bonfigio
Argues in the introduction that real-life examples of the use of the term clearly "belie the ostensible innocense and netrality of the locution 'native speaker', which is invariably taken to indicate an objective description of someone possessing natural authority in a language".
Teaching English as an International Language, by Sandra Lee McKay
Mentions various definitions, including these three: language you first learnt, language you use continuously thoughout life, language you have high proficiency in. Says that Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics defines native language as "the langauge that a person acquires early in childhood because it is spoken in the family and/or it is the language of the country where he or she is living".
International Handbook of English Language Teaching, by Jim Cummins and Chris Davison
Says that the definition of native language includes it being the first language that you learnt.
Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native Discourse, by Simone Müller
Says that referring to native and non-native without defining the terms is quite common, even in papers that focus on it, and then states that the term itself is not undisputed. For her purposes, she defines a prototypical native speaker of English as a person who speaks only English, or for whom it was the first langauge they learnt and still use it predominantly.
We are trying to arrive at a satisfactory definition of native language for a specific purpose. The term "native language" is not a well-defined term...
Agree, which is why I proposed that we try to define it by looking at what "native" means. Incidentally, the idea that native language is closely tied to origin is borne out by most of the resources quoted above.
As to the specific purpose we have in mind, well, the purpose is simply to ensure that we all mean similar things when we use the term later, when the petition is drawn up and sent to ProZ.com.
==
Siegfried Armbruster wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
The ordinary meaning of the word "native" is "origin", not "skill". So what is the origin of the "Germans" that came back from having lived several 100 years in Russia, what is the origin of Turkish kid that grew up in Germany, and what has origin to do with the ability to speak a language.
When I say "origin" I don't mean origin from before the person's birth. I mean origin from after the person's birth. In other words, I mean origin from before the person was an adult.
I don't care who a person's ancestors were or where they originally lived -- a person doesn't learn a language from his ancestors, and he doesn't learn it from a place (and certainly not from a place where he's never been until recently).
Charlie Bavington wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
The ordinary meaning of the word "native" is "origin", not "skill". Where people come from is of no concern in this matter...
I'm taken by surprise at how many people interpret "origin" to mean place. I apologise for the confusion -- I did not mean place or race. Note that I had contrasted origin with "skill" -- my statement was in the context of whether nativeness can be defined primarily as a skill or primarily as something that relates to how you spent your childhood.
==
Jenny Forbes wrote:
...if our definition is different from that of Proz, where would that get us?
If the petition to be presented to ProZ.com contains a definition, the ProZ.com may use that definition as a base for its own definition. Remember, at present ProZ.com doesn't have one. I realise that you've submitted a support ticket asking ProZ.com what their definition of "native language" is, but I would be surprised if they would give a straight answer.
| | | | | Merci, messieurs | Sep 16, 2012 |
Thank you chaps, that's better! I agree with some of you that we're not likely to get a satisfactory answer about Proz's definition of "native language", but at least it's a try - a nudge - a trailing coat, what you will.
Charlie, I know you've been contributing ab initio - I was just referring to your post and those of other chaps of this morning . I have issued a polite support request to Proz and will indeed tell you what the result is - if anything.
I'll shut up now and get back ... See more Thank you chaps, that's better! I agree with some of you that we're not likely to get a satisfactory answer about Proz's definition of "native language", but at least it's a try - a nudge - a trailing coat, what you will.
Charlie, I know you've been contributing ab initio - I was just referring to your post and those of other chaps of this morning . I have issued a polite support request to Proz and will indeed tell you what the result is - if anything.
I'll shut up now and get back to my knitting ...
J ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| More weight to the "skill" argument, IMHO | Sep 16, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
The ordinary meaning of the word "native" is "origin", not "skill". Where people come from is of no concern in this matter... I'm taken by surprise at how many people interpret "origin" to mean place. I apologise for the confusion -- I did not mean place or race. Note that I had contrasted origin with "skill" -- my statement was in the context of whether nativeness can be defined primarily as a skill or primarily as something that relates to how you spent your childhood.
You did well. I think you've highlighted that skill is both easier to grasp and more appropriate to these circumstances. Skills are what proz is about. Not childhood (despite the level of argument sometimes displayed!)
I originally had some pretend-poseur hifalutin nonsense including the world sociological. Interesting to note that you seemingly interpret "where" to necessarily mean place.
| | | | | At last! A clear definition for the root cause of the problem | Sep 16, 2012 |
Jenny Forbes wrote:
It is Proz which places native language in a prominent position in members' profiles and says it verifies native language claims (but apparently doesn't in practice).
(my bold above)
Decaffeinated coffee...
Fat-free milk or bacon...
Imitation mayonnaise...
Sodium-free salt...
Sugar-free sweeteners...
Non-alcoholic wine & beer...
Veggie beef & chicken...
Nicotine-free tobacco...
Modern humans strive to eliminate the 'harm agents' from their intake.
What's the harm agent in translation?
The answer is pretty obvious: foreign influence in the target language text.
Hypothetically, maybe coffee grown on the South Pole would be naturally decaf. The problem is whether it is at all possible to grow coffee on the South Pole.
However translation is 'man-made', hence it should be possible to screen out that foreign influence. Some people believe that an effective tool for this purpose is to restrict such work exclusively to native speakers of the target language.
However the overall translation process is too complex at least on two counts:
a) After so many messages, we haven't been able to arrive at one unanimous and unchallenged definition of a native speaker; and
b) We have no unquestionable evidence that a native speaker will always deliver a better thranslation, since the specialized subject area may play an important role there.
My example is lame, but it should convey the message: While sugar is definitely a strong harm agent for diabetics, it is just a matter of vanity for weight watchers. Therefore the latter would not be harmed by a mix that has some sugar complemented by an artificial sweetener.
Just for the sake of this argument, imagine that Aspartame were as deadly as some people say (please don't argue about whether this is true or false - it's about translation here). In this case, it would be a 100% sugar free sweetener with devastating health effects. It's equivalent in translation would be a true native, yet devoid of translation skills.
Therefore, IMHO the best solution would be to play down target language non-nativeness as a 'harm agent' in translation.
| | | | | Just noticed this gem | Sep 16, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
I therefore suggest an alternative proficiency-based definition:
The language in which you are most proficient and into which you translate regularly. I understand all of the advantage of this proficiency-based definition, but there is one problem with it. We're not trying to redesign the "native language" option in ProZ.com -- we're simply trying to refine it. This means that when writing a definition, we have to take into account the assumed current meaning of the label, and the label is "native". The word "native" by itself (i.e. in its ordinary meaning) denotes "where you come from" and not "what you are".
The label is irrelevant. As i said as the start of the thread (I think - I wrote it down - I may not have pressed send!) and probably since, this thread may have taken a different direction if the site had chosen a different label, but still used the field for the same purpose. Hell, they could have even just used an icon (a pen? a book?), then where would you be?
The thread would be "people are using the pen icon to include themselves in searches where clients are asking for English/French/German skills, and yet these people clearly cannot write English/French/German properly at all. It also makes us all look bad, the state of their profiles, tsk tsk. Something Must Be Done."
So, a bit less of the "We're not trying..." if you'd be so kind
Frankly, I'm all about the function not the label, so include me out of your "we", ta muchly!
| | | | | Skill -- yes, ideally. | Sep 16, 2012 |
I can assure you that 80 percent of the population born in certain places would not pass the native proficiency test -- the kind of proficiency that is required form translators. The rest does not really matter. What would anyone care for what someone's native language is otherwise.
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 05:50
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Phil, re the definition | Sep 16, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
Yesterday, or sometime, Bernhard and I appeared to come to agreement. A barely comprehensible phenomenon on this thread, but we managed it. We agreed that a usable working definition of "native language" could be this...
I think if the past few pages have shown anything, it is that you'll get more support for your petition if you omit the definition altogether and let people battle it out on a dedicated thread when ProZ.com creates a petition subforum. Or am I too cynical?
| | | | | Proz.com does not define it | Sep 16, 2012 |
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
You proposal is one that really makes sense.
a) Proz uses the selection criterion "native"
b) Proz claims that they are verifying the nativeness
You are absolutely right, Proz should provide a definition for "their" criterion and they should explain how they are verfying it/or not verifying it.
However, being me, and given the long experience with this website, this does not change my opinion that it is extremly unlikely that anything will change.
Proz.com does not and has never defined it. It leaves it up to the user to "declare" it (whatever native speaker means to the user) and it wants native speaker peers to verify it in the future, according to their definition.
So, native speakers must know what it means. Well, granted, some don't.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-16 14:45 GMT]
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 11:50
Chinese to English
| A better version of your argument | Sep 16, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
In that respect, yes, it does smack slightly of redefining the problem, but only because people misrepresenting their origins is not, AFAIAC, a problem in the slightest. Where people come from is of no concern in this matter, which is a matter of people claiming, via a field referring to origins, to possess a skill that they do not. This casts all of our claims to possess that skill (neatly if inadequately expressed by a reference to origins) into doubt. That is what pisses me off. I don't give a stuff where they went to school. Really.
This is more persuasive. I still disagree, for a random no. of reasons.
1) Most people on the site aren't lying about their native language, and those who fill in the field honestly aren't using it to express their level of skill. Now, it happens to be a contingent fact about humans that our native language is 99.99% of the time the one in which we have the most skill, so it serves the same function - hence its utility to outsourcers. But when you or I came to this field, we didn't stop and think, "Hmm, 'Native language'. I should fill in a language here that I want to claim proficiency in." At least I didn't. I just filled in my native language.
So I think it's a bit insulting to all the people who are using this field correctly to say, a minority are abusing it, therefore we have to change what it means.
2) I don't think that people who fill in "Native" wrongly are making a claim about their abilities. Case in point - Nicole's story. A Dutch woman claimed German native, and was normally able to consult her German husband. But even when the German husband was away on a trip, Dutchie still took a translation into German job. There's not as much thought going into this misrepresentation as you'd like to believe. With a few honourable exceptions, they don't care that they're lying about their origins, and they don't care that they're lying about their level of competence as well (or they're completely unable to judge their level of competence, in which case we should be having no truck with any claims they make.
3) As you say, no-one cares where we went to school, up to the moment where we lie about it. And then all of a sudden, it becomes an issue. Watering this down to "well they're just using it in another way" I think misses half of the problem. Yes, I'm not happy that they are misrepresenting their skills. But as much as that, I don't want to be in the same directory as a bunch of people who are lying full stop.
Other random comments:
For once, I could actually accept something Mr B says. His definition of native language - the language in which you are most proficient - I could accept that. Because, like I said, it's a contingent fact about humans that we are most proficient in the language(s) we learned as children. It's not usable as a working definition, because to test someone's native language, you'd have to test all their languages, and see which one they did best in - major hassle! But I don't disagree with it.
Samuel - on the nature of definitions
You were talking about how a definition doesn't need to be functional - well, actually it does. Like I said, what I offered wasn't strictly a definition, it was a step toward an operationalisation. "Native" is wickedly underdefined, as you've pointed out, and no-one here has the expertise to define it. All we can do is propose some working definitions which Proz can use. And a working definition has to work to be any good.
On the definition of nativeness
Here's what I think, cos no-one asked.
A man called George Lakoff has written a bit about how meaning actually works in people's heads (as opposed to in snooty logic books). One of his big ideas is that a "definition" isn't a set of attributes, it is an ideal stereotype. Real things in the world are tried against the stereotype for "goodness of fit", and thus we decide if they count as an X or not.
The fabulously underspecified native is just like that. As Samuel's definitions implied, the ideal native speaker is someone who was born to a French speaking family in a French speaking community, received schooling in French, and spends their entire life in a French-dominated cultural context. They are linguistically the perfect Frenchman (not as defined by the Academie, but by real usage) and culturally French. They are an authority on French as much as any person can be.
Now, real people often don't fit this ideal perfectly, so it's just a question of how much deviation you allow, in which directions.
It is my observation that for everyone except Lilian, the childhood learning bit seems to be crucial. But I think there are lots of different ways of understanding how one can deviate from the model, and how far one can deviate. And I really don't want to try to solve those issues before getting to the practical issue: stopping the obvious numpties.
| | | | | 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? | 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 » |
| | 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 
