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)
Samuel Murray
Samuel Murray  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 06:55
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Agree with most of what B says, but... Sep 20, 2012

Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Michele Fauble wrote:
Samuel Murray wrote:
Balasubramaniam L. wrote
It will be useful to keep in mind that not all natives of a language develop native-level proficiency in their language.

Balasubramaniam's comment is consistent with the idea of an ideal native speaker.

[some comments that deserve separate treatment]

Since in most translation, we use the standard of the language (ie, the standard form of the language) and not the native version of the language that comes naturally to every native speaker, the native does not really have all those advantages that are lumped with being a native speaker.


I agree with most of Balasubramaniam's comments in the quoted post, but it does not change the fact that the "native language" feature is being abused, and that some kind of process must be put into place to weed out the worst offenders. If our focus is only to weed out the worst offenders, then a weeding out based on obvious non-compliance to even mere standard language would be a suitable route to follow.

None of Balasubramaniam's arguments nor any of mine in this sub-thread imply that we should not attempt to verify anything. It is important to realise, however, that if we attempt to verify a very high standard, we will fail (or weed out much of what isn't weed).

The following has been mentioned before, but it bears repeating:

Declaring one's native language on a site like ProZ.com has functional value beyond mere curiosity. We declare our native language because we want to catch the eye of clients who want "native speakers", and not because we simply want to say something interesting about ourselves.

For this reason, a translator can only declare a native language on ProZ.com if he can actually offer "it" to clients as part of the service he offers. And this means that a translator who can't speak or use his native language properly (i.e. at standard level) has no business declaring it as his native language on ProZ.com (even if it really, really is his native language).

Samuel


[Edited at 2012-09-20 06:33 GMT]


 
Bernhard Sulzer
Bernhard Sulzer  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 01:55
English to German
+ ...
talking Sep 20, 2012

Samuel Murray wrote:

... there is very little scientific proof for the idea that most normal or average native speakers of a given language would have similar skills either, or that the ability to learn a second language tapers off with age any more or more suddenly than any other ability that reduces gradually with age. In fact, many of the beliefs in this thread have practically no scientific grounding except argumentative. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be talking, though -- but it does mean that we should not be too dogmatic either.

Samuel


No proof most normal or average native speakers of a given language would have similar skills? What skills are you referring to?
The ability/capability of speaking a language in a very typical, i.e. "native" kind of way?

I'm not prepared to accept that there is no such thing as a common native language that can easily be verified externally by peers.

I am not prepared to accept that any non-native speaker will start learning German at age 20 and, within a few years or even after many years become a German speaker, indistinguishable from a native speaker of German.

You say there is no scientific basis for our assumptions in this thread except argumentative? Not any that there is something like a native language and that it is acquired early in life? I am sure there is.

But what about your own experience?
What is your native language and when did you learn it? Do you consider English your second native language? Why? / Why not?

Do you think your native language peers will recognize you as a native speaker?
What is the basis for that assumption?
I mean, aren't some of these things quite obvious through one's own life experience?




[Edited at 2012-09-20 06:41 GMT]


 
Samuel Murray
Samuel Murray  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 06:55
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Henry Penry Sep 20, 2012

Michael Beijer wrote:
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Henry has kindly replied: "As you can guess, this has been a topic of discussion among site staff. I have not personally read most of the thread. I'll do that and post."

Perhaps we should all, briefly, stop posting, to allow Henry to catch up...


I suspect Henry will get a better overview of the thread if he simply asks a few of the most prolific posters for a summary of their views and a summary of what they think the most prolific views are. A lot of stuff in this thread simply repeat over and over, but every repeat cycle has new nuggets.

Samuel


 
Samuel Murray
Samuel Murray  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 06:55
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
@Bernhard, a quickie (so to speak) Sep 20, 2012

Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I am not prepared to accept that any non-native speaker will start learning German at age 20 and, within a few years or even after many years become a German speaker, indistinguishable from a native speaker of German.


Studies have not been able to exclude motivation as an important factor for late 2nd language learners failing to achieve "native" levels of language use. No-one doubts that the average (as you say, "any") non-native speaker will not reach a "native" level of language use, even after several years of study, but what can't be proven is that the reason for this has something to do with the human brain's abilities.

Unfortunately for us, most research in this field is not concerned with whether a small number of highly motivated users might be able to achieve those levels, but rather whether large numbers of users with average motivation will regularly achieve those levels. Such studies are not useful to us, in discussions about whether specific late-learning speakers who are a professional translators have achieved the right to claim to be native.

==

But what about your own experience? What is your native language and when did you learn it? Do you consider English your second native language? Why? / Why not? Do you think your native language peers will recognize you as a native speaker?


I don't think these questions are directly related to the post that you responded to, but I'll respond nonetheless.

I'm in the fortunate situation that my native language (Afrikaans) is highly standardised and that repressive government policies over several decades have killed practically all regional or social variation that depart significantly from the set standard. This means that it is easy for me to write in a way that most readers will consider "not in any way abnormal". My native language and my second langauge can therefore not be used to evaluate the situation in other languages, in which regional or social variation is greater (even between neighbouring towns or cities) or in which the standard rules are more tolerant of individual style preferences.

If I could choose which Afrikaans speakers should verify that I'm a native speaker, I can virtually guarantee a 100% pass mark, but even if I have no control over which Afrikaans speakers are on the judging panel, then (due to the situation with my language as described above) I have only a small risk of not achieving a 100% pass mark. The same can't be said of many other languages. If you can choose which German speakers should evaluate you, you have a very small risk of not achieving a 100% pass mark, but if you have no control over which German speakers are asked to evaluate your language, you have a much greater risk than I did of not achieving a 100% pass mark. And in some languages this risk is even higher.

The opposite may also be true -- if you ask me to verify a native speaker from one of the few remaining pockets of extreme regional variation in Afrikaans (if judged by writing alone, or with computerised anonymised accent), and you do not tell me that the person is not a standard speaker, I may well judge the person to be non-native, because of my expectation of what a native speaker should be able to do.

The above three paragraphs is simply in response to your question, and is not intended as proof of the point of the post that you replied to.

Samuel


 
Ty Kendall
Ty Kendall  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 05:55
Hebrew to English
A few factual concerns.....Part2 Sep 20, 2012

Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
This is a topic that has not been sufficiently discussed here, and it is of earth-shaking significance for translation.


Oooh, I'm on the edge of my seat......

The standard is a simplified, artificial version of the language.


No, it isn't.

It is no more simple or complex than the spoken form, just different. It obeys a certain set of rules which all/most native speakers agree on, to facilitate communication. It has also undergone codification, but it is not really artificial in the sense of invented out of thin air; it is a natural variety of the language.

which is why the same language a few centuries back in time is almost incomprehensible to current speakers of the language


Not in English, I understand the Bard just fine, thank you. You have to go back about a 1000 years before it gets tricky.

A close parallel is the way new species evolve from existing species by the process of aggregation of minute genetic variations.


I see my warnings about equating linguistics with genetics fell on deaf ears.

Since, enabling communication across generations is an important function of language, methods have been evolved to curb this variation in language, so that language does not change so much as to become incomprehensible to later day speakers. The result is grammar and the standard version of the language.


"Grammar" and Standardization do not exist to "curb variation" in language. What most people call "Grammar" is just an arbitrary construct to help people describe language systems; somewhere along the line it did become a tool to proscribe language systems, but not to eliminate variation in spoken forms as such. Standardization only occured to iron out variation in the written form; to facilitate communication across the nation at the time of standardization.

Out of the infinite variation present in language, a small sub-set of typical forms (the ideal form) is selected and that is promoted as the “correct” way to use the language.


Again wrong. It's not an ideal form of the language which gets selected for standardization, it's the most prestigious and moreover powerful at the time of standardization:
", varieties that become standardized are the local dialects spoken in the centers of commerce and government, where a need arises for a variety that will serve more than local needs"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_language
..in England, that was the dialect(s) surrounding London and the South East at the time.

Since this “correct” way is no way related to how a native intuitively uses his language, but is an artificial, “ideal” construct, the native himself has to learn it with effort


It is related though; it's another variety of the same language. It may follow more intricate and convoluted rules regarding sentence/paragraph construction etc. but at heart it also follows the same basic rules as every other variety of the language (syntax, morphology etc).
It's not artificial in the sense of being invented out of thin air, as I descrived above.
And it really doesn't take that much effort for a native speaker to learn. It's the same language after all.

He has a much harder time learning it than a non-native, who starts with a clean slate, because the native has to suppress his intuitive way of speaking his native language and his mind and tongue have to be consciously trained to use instead the “standard” version.


It's really not such a daily struggle, trust me. I'm sorry, but I really struggle with the concept of it being easier to become literate in a non-native language than in your own (other than the fact that when becoming literate in a 2nd language you can already read and write at least one alphabet etc). What about the non-native who has to suppress his intuitive way of writing his L1? I've seen many a German writing in English and capitalizing almost everything, for example.

So, picking up the standard version is not an intuitive but an artificial process.


The same could be said of learning an L2.

It is actually easier for non-natives to master the standard version of a language because they approach it from the solution end, ...So he has to engage constantly in a mental battle to produce standard output in his language.


No it isn't....and I'm not really sure what the "solution end" is. But maybe I'm fatigued by all this mental battling going on in my brain.

A non-native, on the other hand, holds the stick from the other end...He limits his exposure to the language to only the standard version, so he can pick up the standard more quickly, than a native can.


What stick? It's a very poor language learner indeed who only exposes himself to the standardized version of the language. I dread to think what such a learner's spoken output is like.
Also, the native doesn't need to pick the standard up quickly, they spent their entire childhood learning it, remember? What's the rush anyway? Soon learnt, soon forgotten.

visavis


If I were a dead Frenchman, I'd be turning in my grave.

because in the case of the non-native, there is no interference


Yes there is, L1 interference.

Conrad, V S Naipaul, Salman Rushdie, Amartya Sen and a host of others will contribute substantially to the standard of English.


Oh are we trotting these out again? No offence but I doubt the impact by these writers on the language will be that great, if felt at all. Any more than texting will influence spelling, for example.

This also means that it becomes more and more difficult for a native speaker to confirm [sic] to the ideal native speaker


1. I think you mean "conform".
2. The "ideal native speaker" is a theoretical construct, useful for theoreticians to talk about - I'm sure Chomsky has a great laugh chatting about it round the water cooler, but it doesn't essentially exist in the real world. However, you seem to have really taken it to heart, which is a shame, because I think it will lead you further astray.

That's all folks!

[Edited at 2012-09-20 10:09 GMT]


 
Michele Fauble
Michele Fauble  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 22:55
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
Native, not ideal, proficiency Sep 20, 2012

Samuel Murray wrote:

You're right that the "ideal native language" is a theoretical construct. One can't find proof of its existence because it is simply a theoretical ideal that is only useful in measuring actual native language related abilities against. However, there is very little scientific proof for the idea that most normal or average native speakers of a given language would have similar skills either, or that the ability to learn a second language tapers off with age any more or more suddenly than any other ability that reduces gradually with age. In fact, many of the beliefs in this thread have practically no scientific grounding except argumentative. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be talking, though -- but it does mean that we should not be too dogmatic either.


I never said that "ideal native language" is a theoretical construct. I said "ideal native speaker" is a theoretical construct. Balasubramaniam's idea of an "ideal native language" that native speakers strive to achieve proficiency in is rooted in a fundamental misconception of what a language is. A native speaker, by perfect circular definition, has native proficiency.


 
writeaway
writeaway  Identity Verified
French to English
+ ...
Mini recap Sep 20, 2012

I would like to state that bogus native language claims are not a new occurrence on Proz. There have always been people who have played around with the truth when it came to listing their native language.
What is new however is the proportions this has taken on. I work in 3 language pairs and there are false claims in all 3. But in one pair in particular, which was always a frontrunner in this area, a majority of people now joining are listing both source and target language as their 'na
... See more
I would like to state that bogus native language claims are not a new occurrence on Proz. There have always been people who have played around with the truth when it came to listing their native language.
What is new however is the proportions this has taken on. I work in 3 language pairs and there are false claims in all 3. But in one pair in particular, which was always a frontrunner in this area, a majority of people now joining are listing both source and target language as their 'native language'. In part perhaps because this is what so many others have done before them.
Many participants in this forum rejected the idea of a disclaimer by Proz, one along the lines of one already used:
Disclaimer
ProZ.com does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any posting. ProZ.com staff reserves the right (but assumes no obligation) to remove or edit any content posted here. ProZ.com staff does not review items before they are published; there is no real-time moderator on duty, so readers enter at their own risk.

The naysayers claim it would make it seem that they too aren't being truthful. Does this disclaimer above mean that everyone lies on their blueboard entries? No imo. Some may, but others don't. It just means that Proz isn't liable if they do.
I still feel strongly that a similar disclaimer regarding native language claims is the simplest way out of this dilemma. It will send the necessary word of caution to others (including potential clients) but won't involve long drawn out procedures, committees etc. It's also cost and time effective. Perhaps it could become visible by mousing over a symbol of some sort?
The problem of false native language claims is site-wide and in all membership categories. Putting together a group of people to sit in judgement of others makes no sense imo. Proz isn't an official association with strict criteria of membership. It's a translators' site open to all.
That is why I still feel that a carefully worded disclaimer from the Site itself is the best way to fire a warning shot across profile bows.
Collapse


 
Giles Watson
Giles Watson  Identity Verified
Italy
Local time: 06:55
Italian to English
In memoriam
Seconded Sep 20, 2012

writeaway wrote:

That is why I still feel that a carefully worded disclaimer from the Site itself is the best way to fire a warning shot across profile bows.



It'd be a start.


 
XXXphxxx (X)
XXXphxxx (X)  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 05:55
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
A blanket email Sep 20, 2012

I am also in favour of an email to all registered users of the "It has come to our attention" variety. The less committed liars may decide to pull their socks up in the knowledge that there is increased awareness of this issue

 
Jennifer Forbes
Jennifer Forbes  Identity Verified
Local time: 05:55
French to English
+ ...
In memoriam
"Thirded" Sep 20, 2012

Giles Watson wrote:

writeaway wrote:

That is why I still feel that a carefully worded disclaimer from the Site itself is the best way to fire a warning shot across profile bows.



It'd be a start.


Yes, a disclaimer seems the most practical way of dealing with the "false native language claims" problem.
I suggested this myself some aeons ago in this thread.
The existing "Humpty Dumpty" criterion used by Proz that "native language" means whatever its claimant wants it to mean is completely flabby and useless.
According to that criterion, everyone "wins" in this debate and, to quote Lewis Carroll again (Alice in Wonderland this time) re the Caucus Race - "all have won and all must have prizes".
Jenny


 
Bernhard Sulzer
Bernhard Sulzer  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 01:55
English to German
+ ...
deleted / posted twice Sep 20, 2012



[Edited at 2012-09-20 17:31 GMT]


 
Michele Fauble
Michele Fauble  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 22:55
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
Agree Sep 20, 2012

writeaway wrote:

That is why I still feel that a carefully worded disclaimer from the Site itself is the best way to fire a warning shot across profile bows.


I agree.


This thread itself is one big warning not to take native language claims on ProZ seriously.







[Edited at 2012-09-20 16:15 GMT]


 
Bernhard Sulzer
Bernhard Sulzer  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 01:55
English to German
+ ...
who will come to get verified? Sep 20, 2012

Thanks for your answers.
There is much truth in what you are saying, but I would suggest we look at it pragmatically.

Samuel Murray wrote:

My native language and my second langauge can therefore not be used to evaluate the situation in other languages, in which regional or social variation is greater (even between neighbouring towns or cities) or in which the standard rules are more tolerant of individual style preferences.


So you do acknowledge then that there are native speakers of Afrikaans and English, distinguishable from non-natives?

I grew up in a little village in Austria, but it was a rather popular tourist destination. So, very modern.
If I use my dialect and try to converse with someone in Cologne, and if they would use their dialect, we will indeed have a hard time understanding each other.
By the way, I have used my dialect very seldomly in the last 20 years (with the exception of 2008-2009 when I lived in Austria), but when I talk to my parents on the phone, I have no problem using it.

Fortunately, German speakers use and are taught standard speech and writing in school. That doesn't mean it's a different language and that the dialect doesn't figure in. Anyway, I can go to any German speaking region and converse with anybody in that standard speech, and they will be able to not only communicate with me but recognize that I am a native speaker of German. I do so with my relatives in Germany.

There are standards in all languages, aren't there? I mean when it comes to translating texts, we're not translating for individuals, but for groups of readers. Even if the translation is for one individual, he/she represents a language group.
Not to say that variants shouldn't be considered.

Yet, if someone learns German later, they will have a hard time reaching the native level (we're talking super language man/woman). I have not met one person who learned German as an adult and has become indistinguishable from a native speaker. You argue that it is possible, at least in certain other, even more formalized languages? How long would it take me to pick up Afrikaans and become indistinguishable from other native speakers of Afrikaans? You say if I am motivated enough, I can achieve it. Let's say that's possible, could I ask you to verify me as a native speaker of Afrikaans then?

I am concerned that if we say that anyone can lay claim to any native language and, furthermore, not carry out any verification, we will not change the status quo on this site.

From experience, many translators will agree that there is a big difference between native speakers and non-native speakers, and ...

... wouldn't you agree that these differences always show, even in this thread? We should acknowledge that.

Ask everyone (via a questionnaire - Step 1) where they grew up and where they went to school to get a good idea of why they can claim a native language. Tell everyone that they can't expect to be recognized as native speakers of English - without verification - if they listed a non-English speaking country (or a region where English is not the official language) as the place where they grew up and went to school.
(Hypothetical) Case in point: grew up and went to school in the Netherlands, lived a year in Great Britain as an adult, claims English as a native language. That just shouldn't be possible. I wouldn't be against letting anyone prove that their language is indeed English (or any other language). Go ahead. Verification - Step 2. I do believe, native peers can verify it, preferably from regions where the applicant grew up - but with respect to writing, that might not be as important for certain languages. And if it is, as might be the case with Chinese languages, there aren't like hundreds of written variants - especially with respect to texts that have to be translated into such languages.


Who should verify?

Samuel Murray wrote:
If I could choose which Afrikaans speakers should verify that I'm a native speaker, I can virtually guarantee a 100% pass mark, but even if I have no control over which Afrikaans speakers are on the judging panel, then (due to the situation with my language as described above) I have only a small risk of not achieving a 100% pass mark. The same can't be said of many other languages. If you can choose which German speakers should evaluate you, you have a very small risk of not achieving a 100% pass mark, but if you have no control over which German speakers are asked to evaluate your language, you have a much greater risk than I did of not achieving a 100% pass mark. And in some languages this risk is even higher.


I believe translators and native language peers.
Maybe the risk is indeed greater in certain languages. That doesn't mean though that we should not carry out verifications. Based on available data (place where the applicant grew up and went to school - questionnaire Step 1), we can try to find native peers with the same geographical background. Again, using writing samples, that might even be less important.
I argue that with such verification, a native speaker from that region should not have any problems getting verified.

As far as German is concerned, I am about 99.9% confident that any other German native speaker from anywhere will indeed recognize my speech and/or writing as native German (I am excluding deliberate falsifiers). On top of that, a person (professional translator from Dresden) verifying me will probably say - of course, you are from Austria.

Who should be verified by us?
Samuel Murray wrote:
The opposite may also be true -- if you ask me to verify a native speaker from one of the few remaining pockets of extreme regional variation in Afrikaans (if judged by writing alone, or with computerised anonymised accent), and you do not tell me that the person is not a standard speaker, I may well judge the person to be non-native, because of my expectation of what a native speaker should be able to do.


The ones claiming to have grown up in the same region/to speak/write the same language on a native level.

I am not sure if you don't see it too pessimistic. We're mainly talking about people who have falsely claimed a native language. It stands to reason that they are not good enough in that language to ever pass for a native speaker, at least the majority - based on what we see in the profiles. It stands to reason they won't even show up for verification - and should not get the "N" badge, ever. Or, with respect to the status quo, should lose the "N" badge quickly.

Wouldn't you agree that it is indeed very likely that you would be able to distinguish such a non-native speaker from a native speaker? Especially if they came from the region where you grew up?
Please don't interpret that as an acknowledgment of mine regarding too many variants preventing native language verifications - I see variants as slightly different versions of the main language ("X'') if you will, retaining the main components which allow for verification of that native language X.

Maybe the problem is not existent or not significant in Afrikaans anyway but, theoretically speaking, it could be.

Regarding disclaimers implying there are no guarantees if someone carries the "N" badge:

Well, it doesn't change much (IMO). As long as their is an "N" badge, verified or not, people will be listed as native speakers. Clients will recognize them as native speakers. People will be able to lie.
Granted, a big disclaimer might change visitors' perception a bit. But maybe not in a good way as far as Proz.com is concerned. And again, we'll all look pretty bad then.

Now a definition, that might be a different thing. Define it and tell clients to also check the resumes.

Bernhard

[Edited at 2012-09-20 17:35 GMT]


 
Balasubramaniam L.
Balasubramaniam L.  Identity Verified
India
Local time: 11:25
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER
Not all non-natives learn L2 in their adult stage Sep 20, 2012

A common misconception that is fuelling much of this debate is that all non-natives learn their L2 in their adult stage. This could be true in the case of mostly mono-lingual countries of Europe where this is indeed the normal way of learning L2.

But in many multi-lingual countries and societies and in those countries where European languages (English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc) are extensively used due to historical reasons, an individual is exposed to several languages in c
... See more
A common misconception that is fuelling much of this debate is that all non-natives learn their L2 in their adult stage. This could be true in the case of mostly mono-lingual countries of Europe where this is indeed the normal way of learning L2.

But in many multi-lingual countries and societies and in those countries where European languages (English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc) are extensively used due to historical reasons, an individual is exposed to several languages in childhood. In the case of many of these languages, the exposure remains at a very basic level, but some individuals work on this early exposure later on in life and develop high-levels of proficiency. It can be argued, that the process by which these individuals acquire their L2 is fundamentally different from an adult acquiring an L2.

The reason is, the early, albeit inadequate and sporadic exposure to L2, completes in part the linguistic wiring in the brain of the individual, making it easier for him to build upon it to develop native-like command of the language later in life. This means that, the language learning process is more similar to L1 acquisition as a child than L2 acquisition as an adult. The only difference is, while in orthodox L1 acquisition, the process is completed in an uninterrupted manner by the time the individual reaches his teens, in the second process, it often prolongs to adulthood.

Much of Bernhand's arguments in response to my recent posts can be countered if we take into consideration this intermediate method of language acquisition, in which an individual is exposed to L2 early in childhood, but the language perfection does not happen in childhood, but is a more long-drawn-out process extending into adulthood. When a language is learned in this fashion, I would expect the results to be similar to classic L1 acquisition. The individual would have intuitive grasp of the idioms and cadence of the language, at least at a better level than an individual who learns his L2 completely in his adult stage.

Many of the translators who feel they are native in their L2 would have learnt their L2 in this intermediate fashion, and are really not being untruthful in the same manner an individual acquiring L2 at an adult stage claiming it to be his L1 is untruthful.

The upshot of this is that everything is not simply chalk and cheese, and we have to taken into consideration various intermediate cases.


[2012-09-20 17:20 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
Collapse


 
Oliver Pekelharing
Oliver Pekelharing  Identity Verified
Netherlands
Local time: 06:55
Dutch to English
"Not all non-natives learn L2 in their adult stage" Sep 20, 2012

This is a round-a-bout way of saying some people are native in more than one language. I think most of us had already agreed with that, but the fact remains that these people are exceptions. I will happily support any system that can find a way to validate this select group of dual-natives, but I think this is less important than defining the rules for the rest of us.

 
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?






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! »
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 »