| 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)
|
|---|
Phil Hand 
China
Local time: 20:52
Chinese to English
Samuel Murray wrote:
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?
I put it in to try to garner more support. If it's stirring up more controversy then out it comes.
| | | | | verification | Sep 16, 2012 |
Option 1 (for one native language)
You submit a Curriculum Vitae that clearly shows when in early life and how long you have been exposed to and have been using that language*.
You REALLY sign a sworn statement that what you stated is true.
Your identity must be verified. Then you receive your native language certificate and get to display it and the yellow P.
Those single-language native speakers who currently have the yellow P and whose identity has been verified... See more Option 1 (for one native language)
You submit a Curriculum Vitae that clearly shows when in early life and how long you have been exposed to and have been using that language*.
You REALLY sign a sworn statement that what you stated is true.
Your identity must be verified. Then you receive your native language certificate and get to display it and the yellow P.
Those single-language native speakers who currently have the yellow P and whose identity has been verified, would be asked to submit that CV, REALLY sign the sworn statement and receive their certificate without losing their badge.
However, if your CV does not show that you learned the language as a child and were schooled in it and used it for a specific amount of years and are currently using it (working language)*, you will lose the badge.
*Or as defined. It shows that we need an official definition of native language. I wouldn't agree to any definition that doesn't include "learned it as a child and currently use it".
Option 2 (mandatory for more than one language)
You visit a powwow of your native language peers and get verified one language at a time by assigned native language peers. Your peers will judge your speaking or writing to be "native" or "non-native".
In addition, you still have to supply the CV and fulfill the definition conditions.
You still sign the sworn statement and your identity must also be verified.
If found to be a native speaker of the language you are screened for, you will get your certificate and yellow badge, one language at a time.
As long as you don't have the yellow badge, you do not get to call yourself a native speaker of any language and you do not appear as such in the search results or are able to bid on native speaker jobs.
Do you have to define "native language" for the purpose of verification? I'm afraid so. Otherwise it can always mean anything to anyone.
PS: if you want to replace the CV with a questionnaire, that would be fine with me. Surely easier to check than CVs.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-16 15:54 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Verifying what you learned as a child? | Sep 16, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
It shows that we need an official definition of native language. I wouldn't agree to any definition that doesn't include "learned it as a child and currently use it".
(...)
Do you have to define "native language" for the purpose of verification? I'm afraid so. Otherwise it can always mean anything to anyone.
So, if I understand correctly, you want to be able to verify the language I learned as child? Verify. Not just ask me a couple of dozy questions when I register (that I could just as easily lie about, as the idea's supporters have admitted), but actually verify my statements about a period of my life when record keeping was a scant importance to me? And this to provide in-depth personal information to a website that has been already been hacked quite substantially to harvest profile information at least once to my certain knowledge? And this to convince clients that my claimed proficiency in a language is actually accurate....
| | | | | Some responses, for the hell of it | Sep 16, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote: 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.
A "random number of reasons"? This should be good....
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. (...)
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.
For those who have filled it in right, there is no issue, as you say. My suggestion makes it possible for your 00.01% to fill in the language that is of most benefit to potential clients, and therefore offers a best fit with the purpose of this website.
2) I don't think that people who fill in "Native" wrongly are making a claim about their abilities. (...) 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
Is that not inconsistent? They're not making a claim about abilities.... but they are lying about competence? Well, the upshot is the field does not reflect the truth about those abilities and abilities are what clients are interested in, so verify/test the abilities.
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.
I agree with your final sentiment. If you're worried about people lying about where they went to school, accidentally or deliberately, then consider whether knowledge of where they went to school is particularly vital to proz's role in life, compared to, as you say, misrepresenting their skills. And then ask yourself which it is a) most harmful to you to be associated with and then b) which, given that resources are finite, you would rather be able to check. Where I went to school, or whether I can write sentences in English?
| | |
|
|
|
| no, I just want you to state it. | Sep 16, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
It shows that we need an official definition of native language. I wouldn't agree to any definition that doesn't include "learned it as a child and currently use it".
(...)
Do you have to define "native language" for the purpose of verification? I'm afraid so. Otherwise it can always mean anything to anyone.
So, if I understand correctly, you want to be able to verify the language I learned as child? Verify. Not just ask me a couple of dozy questions when I register (that I could just as easily lie about, as the idea's supporters have admitted), but actually verify my statements about a period of my life when record keeping was a scant importance to me? And this to provide in-depth personal information to a website that has been already been hacked quite substantially to harvest profile information at least once to my certain knowledge? And this to convince clients that my claimed proficiency in a language is actually accurate....
No, it's part of the "DEFINITION"!
Quote Bernhard: I wouldn't agree to any definition that doesn't include "learned it as a child and currently use it".
So, if someone doesn't state, in his/her CV or in the application questionnaire that they learned language X as a child and still speak language X today, their certification of X as a native language will be denied (maybe let them try Option 2 then).
Sure they can still lie about it and sure, I'm not verifying proficiency directly here (my Option 1 above), but by adding the definition, the questionnaire, the sworn and signed statement and the certification document, I am sure fewer people will lie.
I am not suggesting checking documents. Your words (CV or questionnaire) are what is being weighed and your sworn statement.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-16 16:18 GMT]
| | | | | cleaning up ... | Sep 16, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: Phil Hand wrote:
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. I agree with your final sentiment. If you're worried about people lying about where they went to school, accidentally or deliberately, then consider whether knowledge of where they went to school is particularly vital to proz's role in life, compared to, as you say, misrepresenting their skills. And then ask yourself which it is a) most harmful to you to be associated with and then b) which, given that resources are finite, you would rather be able to check. Where I went to school, or whether I can write sentences in English?
I also don't and won't for very much longer be in the same directory as a bunch of people who are lying, period.
As long as there is a native speaker category here, it should not be something signifying that the person "can write sentences in English/language X".
Then call it the "can write sentences in English/language X" category and do some subcategories: a) writes like a child b) writes like a schoolboy/girl, ....writes great.
None of that will signify nativeness.
It seems "native speaker" is not an important category to you. You also are implying that it is better or more important to check writing skills per se. Well, you are entitled to your opinion.
I for one want the "native speaker" category cleaned up. Or it's sayonara.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-16 16:48 GMT]
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 20:52
Chinese to English
| You know what I think about this | Sep 16, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
which, given that resources are finite, you would rather be able to check. Where I went to school, or whether I can write sentences in English?
Where you went to school, every time. They do "verification" of degree certificates. I can just about imagine verifying GCSEs or similar, though I admit it's a stretch.
This is why I keep pressing you to offer some actual possible solutions, because I am still very dubious about the ability to test quality. If you would be so kind as to suggest how it might happen, I could consider it, but you're giving me nothing to help me change my mind.
I can picture two scenarios:
1) You want actual testing of language quality - which I just flatly reject. Proz can't do it, I would barely trust my peers to do it in English, and as Ambrose has pointed out, the situation in Chinese is much worse.
2) You're just after a rough check of the kind that I was suggesting a while back - a little bit of writing to see if it stands scrutiny, some eyeballing of what people write on their profiles.
If it's (2), then (a) I think you shouldn't refer to it as quality testing, because it's so rough that it doesn't deserve the term; and (b) I should stop arguing with you, because that would be perfectly acceptable to me as well. In my head it could be a "native check"; in your head it could be a "quality check".
But you're still doing a disservice to the people who answer honestly, and who might think that nativeness is relevant to translation because it has always been regarded as so by the translation profession. For what it's worth, I see nativeness as rather sui generis - not capturable by any other measure of quality.
But, as I say, I will stop arguing, if your solution is in the style of my (2). This is why I've said to you a number of times, solutions matter. These problems aren't easy enough to apply a tidy, logical, "define your terms" approach.
My suggestion makes it possible for your 00.01% to fill in the language that is ...
Worries about the 0.01% are way beyond our remit. We're trying to go from 0 to getting rid of the worst 20% of offenders - don't kid yourself that we can do any more than that.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:52
Hebrew to English
| And they can't even get that right | Sep 16, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
They do "verification" of degree certificates.
Not when monolingual Cambridge ESOL exams are verified as bilingual credentials.
| | |
|
|
|
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
It shows that we need an official definition of native language. I wouldn't agree to any definition that doesn't include "learned it as a child and currently use it".
(...)
Do you have to define "native language" for the purpose of verification? I'm afraid so. Otherwise it can always mean anything to anyone.
So, if I understand correctly, you want to be able to verify the language I learned as child? Verify. Not just ask me a couple of dozy questions when I register (that I could just as easily lie about, as the idea's supporters have admitted), but actually verify my statements about a period of my life when record keeping was a scant importance to me? And this to provide in-depth personal information to a website that has been already been hacked quite substantially to harvest profile information at least once to my certain knowledge? And this to convince clients that my claimed proficiency in a language is actually accurate.... No, it's part of the "DEFINITION"!
A definition that you go on to say is needed "for the purpose of verification".
Makes sense to me. You verify something; you need a yardstick, a definition, to verify against.
And forgive me, I thought you were taking this seriously - if you verify, you can reject; if you reject, you need to allow an appeal, and you need to allow for evidence. Evidence to be measured against your yardstick or definition. Which includes where I went to school.
But then I read.....
So, if someone doesn't state, in his/her CV or in the application questionnaire that they learned language X as a child and still speak language X today, their certification of X as a native language will be denied...
Sure they can still lie about it (.....) I am sure fewer people will lie.
I am not suggesting checking documents.
... and the penny drops.
Given the situation that has started this thread, the faith in human nature demonstrated recently by those suggesting solutions with no enforcement or compliance mechanism (in other words, no change from now, other than the information not be checked and fresh opportunities to lie being offered) is touching, truly.
This thread title includes the word "verified", and these proposals all seem to lack that key element. From which I conclude that the answer for the supporters of such proposals is "no".
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 20:52
Chinese to English
| Random musing | Sep 16, 2012 |
Just thinking about this, about why I'm so anti this idea of native being understood to represent quality.
I think part of it is that that seems very backwards to me. It presupposes that there is such a thing as "quality", and that being native helps you to achieve quality.
Whereas I see these two concepts as the other way round. There is a thing called "native", and (language) quality is *only* a measure of how close you come to the standard of nativeness.
... See more Just thinking about this, about why I'm so anti this idea of native being understood to represent quality.
I think part of it is that that seems very backwards to me. It presupposes that there is such a thing as "quality", and that being native helps you to achieve quality.
Whereas I see these two concepts as the other way round. There is a thing called "native", and (language) quality is *only* a measure of how close you come to the standard of nativeness.
The definition of "quality" is always dependent on nativeness; turning that around appears to get my goat.
On verification:
Again, Charlie, this is where solutions have to be considered. I'm currently anti-verification on logistical grounds. Do you have a solution to the logistical problem of tens of thousands of Proz members? If you have, suggest it!
The decision on being pro-/anti-verification is not one that can be made a priori, without getting into the detail that you're unwilling to supply. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | improving - yes; giving up - no! | Sep 16, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
It shows that we need an official definition of native language. I wouldn't agree to any definition that doesn't include "learned it as a child and currently use it".
(...)
Do you have to define "native language" for the purpose of verification? I'm afraid so. Otherwise it can always mean anything to anyone.
So, if I understand correctly, you want to be able to verify the language I learned as child? Verify. Not just ask me a couple of dozy questions when I register (that I could just as easily lie about, as the idea's supporters have admitted), but actually verify my statements about a period of my life when record keeping was a scant importance to me? And this to provide in-depth personal information to a website that has been already been hacked quite substantially to harvest profile information at least once to my certain knowledge? And this to convince clients that my claimed proficiency in a language is actually accurate.... No, it's part of the "DEFINITION"! A definition that you go on to say is needed "for the purpose of verification". Makes sense to me. You verify something; you need a yardstick, a definition, to verify against. And forgive me, I thought you were taking this seriously - if you verify, you can reject; if you reject, you need to allow an appeal, and you need to allow for evidence. Evidence to be measured against your yardstick or definition. Which includes where I went to school. But then I read.....
If you state in your CV that you went to school SoandSo and were taught in language Y for 10 years and you are applying to be certified in X, and you are rejected because of the definition, you surely cannot ask for an appeal!!!??
What are you going to appeal?
And if you are not happy with Option1 and are not certified, I give you Option 2 - look at my post and Option 2 is actual verification by native peers.
You've got to work with me, Charlie, ... [edited]
So, if someone doesn't state, in his/her CV or in the application questionnaire that they learned language X as a child and still speak language X today, their certification of X as a native language will be denied...
Sure they can still lie about it (.....) I am sure fewer people will lie.
I am not suggesting checking documents.
Charlie Bavington wrote:
... and the penny drops.
Given the situation that has started this thread, the faith in human nature demonstrated recently by those suggesting solutions with no enforcement or compliance mechanism (in other words, no change from now, other than the information not be checked and fresh opportunities to lie being offered) is touching, truly.
No enforcement? No compliance????
Please re-read my posts. If you don't fulfill set criteria for "native speaker", you won't be able to be featured as a native speaker.
Status quo is that you can claim to be a native speaker in any language you want with no consequences unless someone calls you out on it but by what definition is that supposed to be possible? There is no definition.
I proposed definitions, I proposed two options to affirm/verify (Option 1)/Option 2) and opportunity to reject applications.
And all you have to say is that it's touching, truly.
Charlie Bavington wrote:
This thread title includes the word "verified", and these proposals all seem to lack that key element. From which I conclude that the answer for the supporters of such proposals is "no".
It seems more likely, to me anyway, that you have given up on improving the status quo.
B
Edited: just to avoid misunderstandings:
PS: you don't get to appeal the definition once it's in place. You can argue against it here, of course.
I don't agree with you here because I'm talking about a definition (my proposed one) when it is in place.
Charlie Bavington wrote:
if you verify, you can reject; if you reject, you need to allow an appeal, and you need to allow for evidence. Evidence to be measured against your yardstick or definition. Which includes where I went to school.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-16 19:15 GMT]
[Bearbeitet am 2012-09-17 00:47 GMT]
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 05:52
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Etymological fallacy | Sep 16, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote: Michele Fauble wrote:
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.
The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. This is a linguistic misconception. An argument constitutes an etymological fallacy if it makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on its etymology.
A variant of the etymological fallacy involves looking for the "true" meaning of words by delving into their etymologies, or claiming that a word should be used in a particular way because it has a particular etymology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy
[Edited at 2012-09-16 18:37 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| In a nutshell, yes | Sep 16, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
As long as there is a native speaker category here, it should not be something signifying that the person "can write sentences in English/language X".
That is a fairly unequivocal and clear position that is the polar opposite of my own preferred solution.
I did actually say earlier in the week that my absolute ideal solution in a perfect world would include 2 fields, one for the attribute, one for the skill.
Which means that this...
It seems "native speaker" is not an important category to you.
...is nonsense (it is important because of its probable implications for skills), whereas this....
You also are implying that it is better or more important to check writing skills per se. Well, you are entitled to your opinion.
... is absolutely true because instead knowing about an attribute that implies probable skills, we could just know about the skills. That does not mean "native speaker" is not important. It means I think we (the website collectively) can do better.
It seems more likely, to me anyway, that you have given up on improving the status quo.
I can no doubt be accused of a lot of things. That strikes me, even to the casual reader, as patently untrue.
My affinity with the status quo begins and ends with owning a copy of 12 Gold Bars.
| | | | | Where we came in | Sep 16, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
This is why I keep pressing you to offer some actual possible solutions, because I am still very dubious about the ability to test quality. If you would be so kind as to suggest how it might happen, I could consider it, but you're giving me nothing to help me change my mind.
As I said, I wasn't going to waste time and effort on a non-starter. But you've opened the door a crack.....
You want actual testing of language quality - which I just flatly reject. Proz can't do it, I would barely trust my peers to do it in English,
I made clear my opinion of (some? many? most?) peers a day or 2 ago.... although I'd be willing to cut them more slack in monolingual situations, I think.
I would prefer something as objective as possible - multi-choice questionnaires from other sources have been found by others.
That said, I also prefer to judge (more) spontaneous output. Are you in on Robin's epic? He made a suggestion in there which in turn sparked an idea - you could ask people to produce a précis of an article in the online "quality press". This has the advantage of not asking the same Qs over and over again. I also quite like the idea of IM chats, as offered by gmail inter alia.
I accept that almost all these options could probably be abused by the hardcore liar.
Which is why I would be tempted to include pre-existing material as evidence - profiles, kudoz, CVs... even actual work - not the translation quality, just the target text as a piece of writing.
It goes without saying, I suppose, this is not universal. Just for those spotted as seeming to be possible misrepresenters.
2) You're just after a rough check of the kind that I was suggesting a while back - a little bit of writing to see if it stands scrutiny, some eyeballing of what people write on their profiles.
If it's (2), then (a) I think you shouldn't refer to it as quality testing, because it's so rough that it doesn't deserve the term; and (b) I should stop arguing with you, because that would be perfectly acceptable to me as well. In my head it could be a "native check"; in your head it could be a "quality check".
As you wish. I've been the one banging on about ignoring labels and focusing on function. Call it what the hell you like. You're still looking at the quality of written output, not people swearing blind what junior school they went to; I'm cool with that.
But you're still doing a disservice to the people who answer honestly, and who might think that nativeness is relevant to translation because it has always been regarded as so by the translation profession.
For one thing, people who have been honest so far remain unaffected as far as I can tell.
Secondly, people who are so unquestioning of their environment, and have never sought to wonder why that might be so, are not especially deserving of attention. The life unexamined, and all that.
But they escape unscathed anyway, so win-win for the scarcely sentient as well.
But, as I say, I will stop arguing, if your solution is in the style of my (2).
I'd certainly be happy to accept that as a minimum approach (I think! - is there a catch, if we are agreeing...?)
My suggestion makes it possible for your 00.01% to fill in the language that is ... Worries about the 0.01% are way beyond our remit. We're trying to go from 0 to getting rid of the worst 20% of offenders - don't kid yourself that we can do any more than that.
Who's worried? They are just a bonus. More happy punters for no extra effort. Hurrah!
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 05:52
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Ill-defined term | Sep 16, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
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.
Incidentally, the idea that native language is closely tied to origin is borne out by most of the resources quoted above.
They put forth definitions of native language and then critically examine them. They are no more successful at arriving at a definitive definition than we have been.
Linguists can escape the problem of the ill-definedness of the term native language by assuming a monolingual speaker who has learned the language from birth. That serves their purpose. It doesn't serve ours.
[Edited at 2012-09-16 19:42 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 Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
