| 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)
|
|---|
| Should "native language" claims be verified? | Sep 25, 2012 |
Is the question being answered or bandied about?
Simply give a sample of a translation to someone you know is a good native speaker and he will be able to tell whether or not the writing is good English, French, Swedish, or whatever...
Don't give it to a translator or proofreader -- he may have ulterior motives!
[Edited at 2012-09-25 13:06 GMT]
| | | | | Mind reader? | Sep 25, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
All they want is some close to perfection production in the target language -- not a text full of idiomatic expressions, that of course everyone from a particular region could recognize as the writing of their own, even such as Cockney, or East New York English, or Silesian. ((not that these dialects are inferior to any other dialects, but this is not usually what clients want).
I am not, but you appear to be as you "know" what end clients want so maybe you are.
However, as an occasional end client I can assure you that I do not want "some close to perfection production in the target language". I want someone who has a FULL command of the relevant language as well as the relevant cultures.
For example, if I had a text about education to be translated EN > SV or SV > EN, I would want the translator to know why "inner city school" and "innerstadsskola" are complete opposites rather than the same as GT would suggest. Would your "close to perfection" translator have this knowledge? I think not.
Please note that this linguistic and cultural knowledge is not limited to specific areas. Regardless of subject, you have to sing from the same hymn sheet as the client will be listening to.
[Edited at 2012-09-25 13:26 GMT]
| | | |
Do tell us more about Cockney, Lilian ... and come round for a nice glass of Vera.
J
| | | | Paul Stevens 
Local time: 23:06
Member (2003)
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Let's all go for a rabbit | Sep 25, 2012 |
Jenny Forbes wrote:
Do tell us more about Cockney, Lilian ... and come round for a nice glass of Vera.
J
I'd rather go down the apples and pears and take a ball of chalk to the ol' rub-a-dub for a pig's ear!
| | |
|
|
|
| the native language claim that makes sense ?! | Sep 25, 2012 |
Tom in London wrote:
Please stop this thread.
I understand your wish.
It's like being on a carousel. There are convictions that keep coming up again and again, and they don't seem to change. And there keep coming up outrageous comments to say the least.
But the thing that distinguishes the two main camps is that one camp defends "nativeness" and the other one "proficiency in a language".
The difference has been discussed ad nauseum without any apparent change in these camps' attitudes.
I'm in the "nativeness" camp. I grew up and was schooled in one official language, German. I also speak and write it today, thousands of miles from where I grew up. That's why I am convinced I am a native speaker of German. In order to "get verified" as a native speaker of German, I have no problem speaking or writing to any other German native speaker who went through the same language development (growing up in a German speaking environment, schooling in German). It should be a casual talk/essay about anything, not a regular "test" of how good or bad my German is. It's pretty good, I might add.
What I reject is the idea that some think they can claim English as their native language when they did not grow up and were not schooled (= the teachers used English to teach their classes) in English in a country where English is the main official language.
In order to be eligible for a native language "talk" I'd say you have to have stated clearly and sworn to it that you indeed grew up and were schooled in that language and speak it today.
Granted, it might not be so easy to assemble native speakers from particular areas at all times, not even online, but I am sure it can be achieved within a reasonable period of time. And first on the list would be verification of English anyway.
Back onto the ...
B
[Edited at 2012-09-25 15:35 GMT]
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:06
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Pointless because... | Sep 25, 2012 |
...the difference between a “native speaker” and “native proficiency” is almost immaterial when, as I understand it, we’re generally agreed that the latter cannot be “self-assessed” (no matter how good they think they are), which leads us to verification and the minute that is mentioned those of "native proficiency” kick up a fuss.
| | | | | a point or two | Sep 25, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
...the difference between a “native speaker” and “native proficiency” is almost immaterial when, as I understand it, we’re generally agreed that the latter cannot be “self-assessed” (no matter how good they think they are), which leads us to verification and the minute that is mentioned those of "native proficiency” kick up a fuss.
I took the "native proficiency camp" as those proclaiming they're native speakers because they are so proficient (= know how to write grammatically correct) in English (for example). I don't think they would be unwilling to "prove" that.
Whereas in my camp, I believe we see "proficiency" (= how well or grammatically correct one speaks or writes a language) as something that is ( in the case of translators, a given) immaterial really for the "nativeness" test; even if a person who does not know exactly how to write "correctly" would like to be proven a native speaker; not that we would expect someone like that here on the translator portal.
There is no such thing as "native language proficiency" (as the proficiency camp here believes it is), there is only "proficiency in a language", bad, good, great, fantastic ..). But that is not what we want to check in our camp.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-25 16:07 GMT]
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 06:06
Chinese to English
| Native is not just one thing | Sep 25, 2012 |
@Kirsten
You've fallen into the trap of thinking that "native" must be a single-criterion concept. If native means language quality, it can only mean language quality; or if native means language learning history, then it can only mean language background, and can't mean quality.
This is wrong. Native is a complex concept, and it includes at least two pillars: childhood acquisition and competence. That means that any test is likely to be a partial test only.
If you are going to test proficiency here...
Don't worry, that ain't never going to happen. As I've asked others, would YOU trust Proz to test your proficiency?
@Charlie
I love conceptual clarity; I hate the fact that it means we've lost you to the forces of darkness.
| | |
|
|
|
XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:06
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
...the difference between a “native speaker” and “native proficiency” is almost immaterial when, as I understand it, we’re generally agreed that the latter cannot be “self-assessed” (no matter how good they think they are), which leads us to verification and the minute that is mentioned those of "native proficiency” kick up a fuss. I took the "native proficiency camp" as those proclaiming they're native speakers because they are so proficient (= know how to write grammatically correct) in English (for example). I don't think they would be unwilling to "prove" that. Whereas in my camp, I believe we see "proficiency" (= how well or grammatically correct one speaks or writes a language) as something that is ( in the case of translators, a given) immaterial really for the "nativeness" test; even if a person who does not know exactly how to write "correctly" would like to be proven a native speaker; not that we would expect someone like that here on the translator portal. There is no such thing as "native language proficiency" (as the proficiency camp here believes it is), there is only "proficiency in a language, bad, good, great, fantastic ..). But that is not what we want to check in our camp. B
You're right Bernhard, I'd reverted to using the silly, made-it-up terms that have emerged from this thread. I missed a word: "level". "Native-level proficiency" I think is what is being claimed. Ultimately it's splitting hairs since, if I'm not mistaken, none of them have agreed to undergo any form of verification/testing whatsoever. They're all dead against it and you have to wonder why. If I had that much certainty of my proficiency in a language I'd be eager to prove it - as I am
| | | | | on proficiency and quality | Sep 25, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote: @Kirsten You've fallen into the trap of thinking that "native" must be a single-criterion concept. If native means language quality, it can only mean language quality; or if native means language learning history, then it can only mean language background, and can't mean quality. This is wrong. Native is a complex concept, and it includes at least two pillars: childhood acquisition and competence. That means that any test is likely to be a partial test only. If you are going to test proficiency here... Don't worry, that ain't never going to happen. As I've asked others, would YOU trust Proz to test your proficiency? @Charlie I love conceptual clarity; I hate the fact that it means we've lost you to the forces of darkness.
I am afraid I also have to disagree with Kirsten. A check of "nativeness" or "native language" has in my opinion nothing to do with "quality" or "proficiency". That's why so many non-native speakers of English think they can claim English as their native language.
Language quality or language proficiency of a native speaker, as I believe Kirsten (but to a certain degree you as well, Phil, or maybe not?) understand(s) it - how badly or well someone speaks/writes a language in grammatical and even in idiomatic terms - is not what "native language" is about. See my previous posts on this page. A five year old child growing up in Germany would be a native German speaker, but a translator having learned German say between the ages of 20 and 25 would not.
Now, do you have to have some language proficiency to take the test? Yes. But that's not what we're testing.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-25 16:34 GMT]
Edited to correct spelling of names and to address everyone correctly.
[Edited at 2012-09-25 16:41 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-09-25 16:44 GMT]
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:06
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Phil Hand wrote: @Kirsten You've fallen into the trap of thinking that "native" must be a single-criterion concept. If native means language quality, it can only mean language quality; or if native means language learning history, then it can only mean language background, and can't mean quality. This is wrong. Native is a complex concept, and it includes at least two pillars: childhood acquisition and competence. That means that any test is likely to be a partial test only. If you are going to test proficiency here... Don't worry, that ain't never going to happen. As I've asked others, would YOU trust Proz to test your proficiency? @Charlie I love conceptual clarity; I hate the fact that it means we've lost you to the forces of darkness. I am afraid I have to disagree. A check of "nativeness" or "native language" has in my opinion nothing to do with "quality" or "proficiency". That's why so many non-native speakers of English think they can claim English as their native language. Language quality or language proficiency of a native speaker, as I believe you understand it - how badly or well someone speaks/writes a language in grammatical and even in idiomatic terms - is not what "native language" is about. See my previous posts on this page. A five year old child growing up in Germany would be a native German speaker, but a translator having learned German say between the ages of 20 and 25 would not. B
Okay Bernhard, I think the confusion arose because some in the other camp started to claim "native-level proficiency"; this is where the whole "proficiency" malarkey came in. Nevertheless, they're still against verification. Let's face it, there is not a single genuine native speaker on the thread so far who is against proving that they are what it says on the tin (in the form of a Skype chat, powwow, written output, you name it). Or am I wrong?
| | | |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Okay Bernhard, I think the confusion arose because some in the other camp started to claim "native-level proficiency"; this is where the whole "proficiency" malarkey came in. Nevertheless, they're still against verification. Let's face it, there is not a single genuine native speaker on the thread so far who is against proving that they are what it says on the tin (in the form of a Skype chat, powwow, written output, you name it). Or am I wrong?
Well, I can only speak for myself, not sure if they all agree, but I have no problem with it.
B
| | |
|
|
|
| I am not a mind reader here-- I just attend many seminars, linguistic conferences | Sep 25, 2012 |
and know the guidelines well. Most of translation is not creative writing, after all, and for those types of translations, including: technical translation, medical, business-related, translation of scientific materials, and many other types, what is needed is clear, grammatical language which would accurately convey the meaning encoded in the source language to the target language. Unclear language, full of idioms is not anything desired by most clients, other than in fields related to literary... See more and know the guidelines well. Most of translation is not creative writing, after all, and for those types of translations, including: technical translation, medical, business-related, translation of scientific materials, and many other types, what is needed is clear, grammatical language which would accurately convey the meaning encoded in the source language to the target language. Unclear language, full of idioms is not anything desired by most clients, other than in fields related to literary translation.
I was thinking about he fact that some people are prevented on bidding on some jobs they may be capable of doing -- I personally think this should really change. This might solve a part of the native language alleged lying problem. Preventing people from bidding on any type of work would be illegal in the United States. When applying for a job, or freelance work, even, they may ask you which languages you speak, and other things, but no one can really be prevented from applying for any type of work based on the languages they speak or even their education level. Of course, many may not get a job as a Spanish interpreter, let's say, if they don't speak Spanish well, but no one could prevent them from applying.
It is for the clients later to decide whom they want to choose to handle their projects -- no one should be prevented from applying though.
[Edited at 2012-09-25 18:48 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:06
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
There's our answer! Those against any form of verification of, say English, are not English native speakers. It took lots of pages but we got there in the end
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 06:06
Chinese to English
| I think Mr B might be | Sep 25, 2012 |
It's never going to be quite as clean and clear cut as that, I'm afraid, Lisa.
In general, I do see some of the arguments for "quality testing" (real quality testing, not where quality is being used as a proxy for nativeness) as a bit of a canard. Seeing as real quality testing is impossible on this site, it's a very safe argument to push.
But I'm not that cynical most of the time. And I don't believe that the argument for quality is completely without merit, so I give ... See more It's never going to be quite as clean and clear cut as that, I'm afraid, Lisa.
In general, I do see some of the arguments for "quality testing" (real quality testing, not where quality is being used as a proxy for nativeness) as a bit of a canard. Seeing as real quality testing is impossible on this site, it's a very safe argument to push.
But I'm not that cynical most of the time. And I don't believe that the argument for quality is completely without merit, so I give the benefit of the doubt in most cases.
(Before Mr B decides to selectively quote me again: the argument for quality is not without merit; it's just wrong. That can happen.) ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Should “native language” claims be verified? | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
