| 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)
|
|---|
| the category is "native speaker", not "writing skills" | Sep 16, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: 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".
Charlie Bavington wrote: That is a fairly unequivocal and clear position that is the polar opposite of my own preferred solution. 
Any non-native speaker of English with some English skills can write sentences in English.
Charlie Bavington wrote:
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...
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: It seems "native speaker" is not an important category to you.
Charlie Bavington wrote:
...is nonsense (it is important because of its probable implications for skills), ...
To me, it's not about verifying "skills", "skills" are, to a certain degree", implied, as you say, because we are on a translator portal.
"Nativeness" is the issue of contention. It is used to insinuate "that you grew up with the language" AND that you possess the required skills to be a translator in certain fields of expertise in the first place.
It's just blatantly wrong that people get to imply these skills AND their nativeness by displaying "native in" or "unverified native in".
Charlie Bavington wrote: 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.
I'm sorry but what you are proposing is, as you admit, not a nativeness check but instead checking writing skills (for all who claim a native language?) with the purpose of ranking everyone according to their writing skills!?
First, I am not going to take the writing skills test. Not going to do it.
What skills? In my field of expertise? Whose going to judge me?
Does that make me a native speaker?
On the other hand, I am always open to meeting with any of my native language peers to prove my native language.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-16 19:44 GMT]
| | | |
Michele Fauble wrote: 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]
It would serve it if a speaker like that is asked to verify nativeness.
But I can imagine it being verified by a translator colleague who has lived, in his/her childhood and for most of his/her life, and now lives in the country or region where the particular language is spoken.
However, I still hold that we can come up with a workable definition. If not and if there are no changes made to the status quo (such as questionnaires based on the definition and subsequent affirmation and/or verification of the NS status), I will surely be leaving.
B
| | | | | on checking output | Sep 16, 2012 |
@Charlie.
You can have people write up something. Sure.
Then check it for"nativeness". Agreed. Not a problem.
But don't call it "writing skills".
B
| | | | Michele Fauble 
United States
Local time: 13:42
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Conflicting criteria | Sep 16, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
It would serve it if a speaker like that is asked to verify nativeness.
As I noted before, if you are determining native language by verifying nativeness, then you are implicitly defining native language as nativeness. As I have understood your posts, you insist that the definition of native language is a matter of when it was learned. If age of learning and nativeness were inextricably linked, this would present no problem. However if age of learning and nativeness are not inextricably linked, but instead the link is a matter of probability (albeit a very high probability), we face just the type of problem of definition that we are struggling with.
[Edited at 2012-09-16 20:26 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| clarification | Sep 16, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
It would serve it if a speaker like that is asked to verify nativeness.
As I noted before, if you are determining native language by verifying nativeness, then you are implicitly defining native language as nativeness. As I have understood your posts, you insist that the definition of native language is a matter of when it was learned. If age of learning and nativeness were inextricably linked, this would present no problem. However if age of learning and nativeness are not inextricably linked, but instead the link is a matter of probability (albeit a very high probability), we face just the type of problem of definition that we are struggling with. [Edited at 2012-09-16 20:26 GMT]
I have used the term nativeness as "being native in a language."
So, yes, we need a definition for "native language."
B
| | | | Oliver Walter
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:42
German to English
+ ...
| Is it still there? | Sep 16, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
The objective here was to try to clear out some of those cases that make your eyes bleed, where they write in their profiles "Ich bin der Deutsch Mutterspracher".
Well, I couldn't find that one today (16 Sep, using a well-known search engine). There are a few "Deutsch Mutterspracher", but they're from people looking for one, not claiming to be one.
(Perhaps Phil is quoting what he thinks is typical, not one that he actually saw.)
Oliver
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 13:42
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Pragmatic definition | Sep 16, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
So, yes, we need a definition for "native language."
Yes, and we need to arrive at a pragmatic definition of native language that serves our purposes, and not waste our efforts trying to discover an essentialist definition inhabiting a Platonic heaven.
| | | |
Oliver Walter wrote: Phil Hand wrote:
The objective here was to try to clear out some of those cases that make your eyes bleed, where they write in their profiles "Ich bin der Deutsch Mutterspracher". Well, I couldn't find that one today (16 Sep, using a well-known search engine). There are a few "Deutsch Mutterspracher", but they're from people looking for one, not claiming to be one. (Perhaps Phil is quoting what he thinks is typical, not one that he actually saw.) Oliver
The correct way:
Singular: (Ich bin) Deutscher Muttersprachler = (I am a) German native speaker
Singular feminine:(Ich bin) Deutsche Muttersprachlerin (I am a) female German native speaker
(Suche) Deutschen Muttersprachler = Seeking German native speaker (male or gender-neutral)
articles are not used in German for that ( a German native speaker = German native speaker)
Many might advertise this in English.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-16 20:57 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Oliver Walter
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:42
German to English
+ ...
| No exams for grown-ups? | Sep 16, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
1) People hate tests. Never having to take exams again is one of the great joys of being a grown up. I think people will revolt - it doesn't matter how easy/hard the test is, just the very notion of a test gets people's teeth on edge.
One of my joys of being grown up was that I was happy to take exams in my 50s (I assume that counts as being grown up!). That was when I took a master's course in technical translation. I was not frightened of the exams, and without them (and 1 or 2 other items like a dissertation) I would not be able to declare, as I do, that I am qualified in translation.
Oliver
| | | | Oliver Walter
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:42
German to English
+ ...
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
As an important function of this thread is client and translator education on the complex issues connected with native language, ...
No, it isn't (client education). Perhaps it should be, but I doubt whether potential clients will read it, certainly not much of it.
I suppose a function of this thread is, in fact, translator education, although it was not started with that purpose.
Oliver
| | | |
Michele Fauble wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
So, yes, we need a definition for "native language."
Yes, and we need to arrive at a pragmatic definition of native language that serves our purposes, and not waste our efforts trying to discover an essentialist definition inhabiting a Platonic heaven.
Then, when we have that pragmatic definition, we must verify it as a reliable determinant that people matching it will - in at least 80% of the cases - deliver significantly better translations than those who don't fit there.
If that pragmatic definition cannot have its reliability verified to this relatively modest level, this entire thread will have been a waste of time: native speakerness will serve absolutely nothing beyond an individual's national pride.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:42
Hebrew to English
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
native speakerness will serve absolutely nothing beyond an individual's national pride.
...or a figment of an individual's imagination, wishful thinking, an object of someone's deluded fantasy, etc.
| | |
|
|
|
Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 13:42
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Separate issues | Sep 16, 2012 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
Then, when we have that pragmatic definition, we must verify it as a reliable determinant that people matching it will - in at least 80% of the cases - deliver significantly better translations than those who don't fit there.
These are separate issues. A pragmatic definition of native language that suits our purposes (identifying native speakers), for example one that defines it as proficiency in a language that is indistinguishable from that of a monolingual speaker of the language, signifies just that, neither more nor less. Conflating the two issues of native language and translation quality introduces needless complications.
[Edited at 2012-09-16 21:32 GMT]
| | | | | Precisely my point, Michele | Sep 16, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote: José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
Then, when we have that pragmatic definition, we must verify it as a reliable determinant that people matching it will - in at least 80% of the cases - deliver significantly better translations than those who don't fit there.
These are separate issues. A pragmatic definition of native language that suits our purposes (identifying native speakers), for example one that defines it as proficiency in a language that is indistinguishable from that of a monolingual speaker of the language, signifies just that, neither more nor less. Conflating the two issues of native language and translation quality introduces needless complications.
- IF the native speakerness attribute of a person relative to a language fails to hold a solid correlation with reliably better translation; AND
- IF Proz is - and should be - all about translation;
- THEN there is no point in highlighting a Prozian's native speaker attribute so prominently on their profile.
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 13:42
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Native language label | Sep 16, 2012 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
IF the native speakerness attribute of a person relative to a language fails to hold a solid correlation with reliably better translation;
The correlation may not hold for the global quality of the translation, but it does hold for one parameter of that quality (or lack thereof) — nativeness of language. An excellent translation is the result of several factors, such as subject knowledge, translation skill and experience, and native language proficiency. A label for global translation quality might be desirable, but native language is not that label.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Should “native language” claims be verified? | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
| | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
