| 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)
|
|---|
Tony M
France
Local time: 15:25
Member
French to English
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | The truth according to Bala? | Sep 26, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Don't assume that being native in a language somehow makes you more truthful than being non-native in a language.
No, but being a native in a language and saying so is more truthful than being non-native in a language and lying about it!
| | | | Phil Hand 
China
Local time: 21:25
Chinese to English
| Woah, there Samuel - basic concepts | Sep 26, 2012 |
Samuel, you've gone right off the deep end here. Ty was right in everything he said. This is the stuff that you learn in linguistics 101.
I'm baffled that anyone would not agree that education affects the basic ability of a native speaker to speak their own language.
This is just not what language is. Think of someone who's never been to school. They still speak a language, and they are still a native in that language. Someone who gets education may have more vocabulary at their command, but none of a language's syntax, morphology or phonology is taught. They are all acquired through processes we don't understand. They are all acquired "perfectly". And there is no difference in the levels of competence between educated and uneducated speakers. For example: morphology - uneducated English speakers know how to verb nouns and noun verbs in exactly the same way as educated speakers. Morpho-syntax: uneducated Germans make no more word-ending errors than educated speakers.
This is the whole point of the debate. If you don't know this basic fact about language, then you're really arguing in the dark.
Apart from the fact that a dialect did not evolve from a language that is currently spoken, and a pidgin did evolve from a language (or languages) that is currently spoken, there is little difference of significance between dialect and pidgin.
Man, you've just got to hit the Wikipedia before you post.
"Fundamentally, a pidgin is a simplified means of linguistic communication, as it is constructed impromptu, or by convention, between individuals or groups of people. A pidgin is not the native language of any speech community,"
A pidgin is not a full language. When a pidgin acquires native speakers (because people who speak the pidgin have children) the children magically turn it into a creole, which is a full language, with a grammar (phonology, morphology and syntax) as powerful as any other natural language.
children's language only get [actively] corrected by the time that they start learning grammar at school, which is two or three years after they start learning to write -- and before that, children are allowed to speak the way they think is best, even if their speech contains errors,
This is a mosh up of a couple of different ideas. Correcting writing is different to correcting speech. Correcting speech is basically useless - children are extremely resistant to being "taught" their own language. Once they've acquired a language, of course they can be taught to limit themselves to particular prestige constructions when talking at school. Correcting writing is another issue, and a very complex one - the relationship between speech and writing varies a lot from place to place.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 14:25
Hebrew to English
| Linguistics 101 | Sep 26, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Slang is not dialect.
Slang is part of a dialect. This is never more apparent than with "Cockney Rhyming Slang" (hint: there's a reason it's called 'Cockney' Rhyming Slang and not Geordie). Some slang might become widespread - especially with the help of the mass media, but it can be just as localised as most dialects are.
I'm sure there is a difference between pidgin and dialect, although they are both often defined as non-standard versions of a standard language.
Apart from being basially wrong, this is a bit like saying "I'm sure there is a difference between an octopus and a shark, although they both can be defined as things which swim in the sea"...when in reality they are very different beasts.
I think Phil covered everything else I wanted to say, thanks Phil.
[Edited at 2012-09-26 07:15 GMT]
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 15:25
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Phil Hand wrote:
Think of someone who's never been to school. They still speak a language, and they are still a native in that language. Someone who gets education may have more vocabulary at their command, but none of a language's syntax, morphology or phonology is taught.
This is simply not true, I'm afraid.
It is true that a child can pick up much vocabulary, syntax, morphology and phonology form its environment, but unless the child is taught what the correct forms are, the child's usage will always be limited and will always contain irregular forms, unless he is surrounded by perfect speakers of his language and unless erroneous forms are not tolerated by his environment.
They are all acquired through processes we don't understand. They are all acquired "perfectly".
I agree that there is something that is acquired "perfectly" and through processes we don't fully understand, but what is acquired is not [active or passive] knowledge of language rules. The thing that is acquired during the critical period is simply a highly specialised way of thinking. This way of thinking is most compatible with the person's native language, but it does not guarantee that the person's language usage will be the same as everyone else's. Even native speakers need to be taught the rules of their language.
What makes a true native speaker so special is not the odds that he will know his language rules better, but the odds that he will be able to make a globally acceptable or compliant decision when faced with a language situation in which mere rules don't easily apply.
Man, you've just got to hit the Wikipedia before you post.
I used "pidgin" in the general sense of the word, and that includes creoles. The point of my post was not to open the can of worms about the fine distinction between pidgins and creoles. I'll mention two small points to illustrate why I don't want to get into that debate: 1. that which is commonly called Hawaiian Pidgin not a pidgin, but a creole, and 2. if the only (or main) difference between a pidgin and a creole is that a creole has native speakers, then there really is no difference that matters.
So, if you can find it in your heart to look past the fact that I had used "pidgin" where you would personally have preferred me to use "creole", what is your response to what I had originally said?
Children's language only get [actively] corrected by the time that they start learning grammar at school... This is a mosh up of a couple of different ideas.
Yes, but is it my mosh up or is it the previous poster(s)' mosh up?
[Edited at 2012-09-26 07:59 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 15:25
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Ty Kendall wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
Slang is not dialect. Slang is part of a dialect.
Slang is part of any language, whether it is a dialect (in the sense of the non-officially accepted or not mainly used variant of a language) or the officially accepted or mainly used variant of the language (which I will call "non-dialect" here for the sake of simplicity, though I realise that it is not strictly speaking accurate and that there is a risk that someone will respond to my post without having read this disclaimer).
To reiterate: The presence of slang does not turn a non-dialect into a dialect, and removing the slang from a dialect does not turn it into a non-dialect. And slang can occur in both dialects and non-dialects. And the presence or absence of slang is of no help in determining whether a language variant is a dialect or a non-dialect.
The point of my original reply was that your example of "dialect" was in fact an example of "slang". Do you agree with me on that point?
Some slang might become widespread - especially with the help of the mass media - but it can be just as localised as most dialects are.
Yes, of course.
I'm sure there is a difference between pidgin and dialect, although they are both often defined as non-standard versions of a standard language. This is a bit like saying "I'm sure there is a difference between an octopus and a shark, although they both can be defined as things which swim in the sea".
Yes, absolutely.
[Edited at 2012-09-26 07:58 GMT]
| | | | Tony M
France
Local time: 15:25
Member
French to English
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | FAQ on native speaker | Sep 26, 2012 |
Out of curiosity, I looked up the FAQ, and was quite surprised by what I found:
8.6 - What definition of "native speaker" is used? [Direct link]
Rather than imposing a definition of "native", the PNS program leaves the definition to members. When declaring one's own single language, a definition is not required.
In the case of those declaring multiple native languages, the speech will be deemed native if several other ProZ.com N
... See more Out of curiosity, I looked up the FAQ, and was quite surprised by what I found:
8.6 - What definition of "native speaker" is used? [Direct link]
Rather than imposing a definition of "native", the PNS program leaves the definition to members. When declaring one's own single language, a definition is not required.
In the case of those declaring multiple native languages, the speech will be deemed native if several other ProZ.com Native Speakers find it to be native (according to their own definitions.)
Apart from the curious use of 'the speech' (almost suggests it might have been written by a non-native speaker!), this does seem to suggest that ProZ.com does indeed have a verification process in place — even if it seems not to be being implemented.
Does this mean that everyone claiming more than one native language has already been checked? And more importantly, that if 'several other ProZ.com Native Speakers' together vote that someone claiming 2 native languages is not in fact found to be native in one or other of them, this will be removed from the person's profile?
I'm glad we can all make our own definitions — that will eliminate a lot of the arguments in this thread. ▲ Collapse
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 14:25
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Yes, this has been brought up a few times before - not that I expect you to have read everything in the preceding 160+ pages.
Indeed, that is what the very FAQs state (and have done for over a decade) and we're all wondering why this has never been implemented? Nope, to our knowledge nobody has ever been verified.
Some are arguing against this form of verification, I'm perfectly happy with it, mainly because we're more likely to get what is already stated in the site'... See more Yes, this has been brought up a few times before - not that I expect you to have read everything in the preceding 160+ pages.
Indeed, that is what the very FAQs state (and have done for over a decade) and we're all wondering why this has never been implemented? Nope, to our knowledge nobody has ever been verified.
Some are arguing against this form of verification, I'm perfectly happy with it, mainly because we're more likely to get what is already stated in the site's FAQs. It really does not strike me as a complicated process in the vast majority of cases, but those who feel their position is threatened by the prospect of verification keep filibustering with examples of exceptions. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 15:25
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Tony, re the state of ProZ.com's current verification system | Sep 26, 2012 |
Tony M wrote:
Out of curiosity, I looked up the FAQ, and was quite surprised by what I found...
This does seem to suggest that ProZ.com does indeed have a verification process in place... Does this mean that everyone claiming more than one native language has already been checked?
Look at it this way: at the moment, the grey icon means "not verified" and the yellow icon means "verified". The far majority of profiles with more than one native language have one or more grey icons on them, which means that those native languages are simply declared and have not yet been verified.
So... no, hardly anyone currently claiming more than one native language have been checked.
The verification process is in place, yes... on paper, and in rough draft form. I do believe that some members were verified in the distant past, likely when the feature was tested or still new, but that is not a description of the current situation.
Does everyone here agree with my answer to Tony?
| | |
|
|
|
XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 14:25
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Samuel Murray wrote: Tony M wrote:
Out of curiosity, I looked up the FAQ, and was quite surprised by what I found...
This does seem to suggest that ProZ.com does indeed have a verification process in place... Does this mean that everyone claiming more than one native language has already been checked? Look at it this way: at the moment, the grey icon means "not verified" and the yellow icon means "verified". The far majority of profiles with more than one native language have one or more grey icons on them, which means that those native languages are simply declared and have not yet been verified. So... no, hardly anyone currently claiming more than one native language have been checked. The verification process is in place, yes... on paper, and in rough draft form. I do believe that some members were verified in the distant past, likely when the feature was tested or still new, but that is not a description of the current situation. Does everyone here agree with my answer to Tony?
Although the yellow icons mean "verified" none of those people have actually been verified! It also states in the FAQs that if you declare one language that will be accepted as being the truth (or words to that effect). So, it's not just people with two native languages who haven't been verified. Nobody has. I'm not aware of there ever having been testing, even in the distant past.
| | | | Tony M
France
Local time: 15:25
Member
French to English
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER
I apologize for going back over old ground; I've only discovered this thread fairly recently, hence as you rightly say, I haven't managed to plough through the entire thread — not least because some people seem to find it amusing to post vast treatises that are teetering on the very brink of being off-topic, as well as excessively long quotes from these going back and forth...
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
...those who feel their position is threatened by the prospect of verification keep filibustering with examples of exceptions.
Couldn't have put it better myself!
OK, to get rid of the 'exceptions': simply say that in languages / countries where there are such exceptions, no native speaker credential is available, due to unfeasibility.
But in other countries, then let us have verification, if that is what the majority want; personally, I do not feel in any way threatened by the thought of verification, and would be in favour of its introduction.
[Edited at 2012-09-26 08:35 GMT]
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 14:25
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Tony M wrote:
OK, to get rid of the 'exceptions': simply say that in languages / countries where there are such exceptions, no native speaker credential is available, due to unfeasibility.
Very happy with that and this is something that has been suggested recently. As it is, nobody has yet cited an example of what they believe to be misrepresentation in any language other than English.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 14:25
Hebrew to English
| No Samuel, I don't agree. | Sep 26, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
The point of my original reply was that your example of "dialect" was in fact an example of "slang". Do you agree with me on that point?
No, I don't.
If I were to agree with you I'd be saying that Cockney Rhyming Slang is not part of the Cockney dialect, which is not true.
"Rhyming slang is a form of phrase construction in the English language and is especially prevalent in dialectal English from the East End of London; hence the alternative name, Cockney rhyming slang (or CRS)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhyming_slang
"The use of rhyming slang has spread beyond the purely dialectal" Ibid ...which is true, but CRS remains characteristic of the Cockney dialect regardless (I'd even go as far as to say "a defining feature").
I could have used a thousand other examples "If yowm saft enuff ter cum dahn 'ere agooin wum, yowr tay ull be spile't" being a good one, but I chose a more recognisable dialect. There's also an interesting debate to be had (*not here though) about the line between slang and dialect.
My example was an example (which was supposed to be light-hearted but definitely wrong crowd!) of dialect (which happened to use slang associated with that dialect). It also wasn't my intention to get into this debate, merely to point out the difference between a dialect and a pidgin.
Samuel Murray wrote: Phil Hand wrote:
Think of someone who's never been to school. They still speak a language, and they are still a native in that language. Someone who gets education may have more vocabulary at their command, but none of a language's syntax, morphology or phonology is taught. This is simply not true, I'm afraid. It is true that a child can pick up much vocabulary, syntax, morphology and phonology form its environment, but unless the child is taught what the correct forms are, the child's usage will always be limited and will always contain irregular forms, unless he is surrounded by perfect speakers of his language and unless erroneous forms are not tolerated by his environment.
This isn't true. Most English speaking children say "I catched the ball" for quite a long time during their childhood. By the time they get to about 11 (perhaps earlier) they consistently say "I caught" without prompting or instruction. (In fact, as I pointed out earlier in the thread - no amount of prompting or instruction helps with this kind of acquisition quirk - as many parents know - you can tell your child "No, you mean 'I caught'" and get them to dutifully repeat after you, only to hear them say "I catched" again ten minutes later. Education does not eliminate these "errors", ample exposure to comprehensible input does i.e. once they've heard their parents and peers say it a million times over in a vast array of contexts, it falls into place; education or no education.
[Edited at 2012-09-26 08:59 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 15:25
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Something similar | Sep 26, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote: Tony M wrote:
OK, to get rid of the 'exceptions': simply say that in languages / countries where there are such exceptions, no native speaker credential is available, due to unfeasibility. This is something that has been suggested recently. As it is, nobody has yet cited an example of what they believe to be misrepresentation in any language other than English.
This is actually similar to something that was also suggested quite some time ago (but in an opposite sense), namely that verification should be mandatory only for specific languages in which the abuse seems to be most prevalent (yes, English).
Unfortunately, getting rid of the native language option in "unfeasible" languages (or in less abused languages) will suffer the same objections as those who want to get rid of the option for all languages.
The fact is that clients who use the searches do often want to use the option, even for unfeasible languages. So you're going to have to find a way to allow translators of non-verified languages to declare nativeness and get searched by it... and the only option I see for that is to keep the status quo for all languages except the ones in which verification becomes manadatory.
I think many people will say that that is unfair, but I don't think it is, because speakers of the same native language will all be treated the same, even if speakers of different languages aren't. So, I would vote for this option, i.e. that verification be made mandatory only for certain languages in which abuse is most prevalent (i.e. English, mostly).
[Edited at 2012-09-26 08:45 GMT]
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 14:25
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Native speaker credential | Sep 26, 2012 |
Samuel, I think you've misunderstood (Tony, correct me if I'm wrong).
The "native speaker credential" (NSC) is synonymous with verification. I don't think Tony is suggesting doing away with the native speaker badge in languages where it is not feasible to verify them, they simply won't have to be verified. The question is how to display verification without creating a system whereby it is only native English speakers who can display a verification badge and others can't (even thoug... See more Samuel, I think you've misunderstood (Tony, correct me if I'm wrong).
The "native speaker credential" (NSC) is synonymous with verification. I don't think Tony is suggesting doing away with the native speaker badge in languages where it is not feasible to verify them, they simply won't have to be verified. The question is how to display verification without creating a system whereby it is only native English speakers who can display a verification badge and others can't (even though it hasn't actually proved necessary to verify them) and how will the meaning of the whole system be evident to the outsourcer while it is a "work in progress" (i.e. until everyone has been verified). ▲ Collapse
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 21:25
Chinese to English
| No, you have to get these concepts right | Sep 26, 2012 |
No, Samuel, you have to use the words right, otherwise we can't know what you mean. There is no "general" sense of the word pidgin. It's occasionally misused, but it has only one meaning, and that is a system for communication that does not have the full expressive power of a natural language.
On the language acquisition thing, you're just wrong (actually, you're self contradictory). Read a book, any book. Here's Steven Pinker:
... See more No, Samuel, you have to use the words right, otherwise we can't know what you mean. There is no "general" sense of the word pidgin. It's occasionally misused, but it has only one meaning, and that is a system for communication that does not have the full expressive power of a natural language.
On the language acquisition thing, you're just wrong (actually, you're self contradictory). Read a book, any book. Here's Steven Pinker:
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/pinker.langacq.html
Nonetheless, learning a first language is something every child does successfully, in a matter of a few years and without the need for formal lessons.
Part of the problem seems to be that you're still confusing language systems with standard dialects.
It is true that a child can pick up much vocabulary, syntax, morphology and phonology form its environment, but unless the child is taught what the correct forms are, the child's usage will always be limited and will always contain irregular forms, unless he is surrounded by perfect speakers of his language
Firstly, most children are indeed surrounded by perfect speakers of their languages. They are born into language communities where people speak perfectly. They may not be speaking the prestige dialect, but they are perfect speakers of their own dialect. And that's what the child acquires.
Secondly - actually you're wrong, children are immensely powerful language generation machines. The distinction between pidgins and creoles is vital here - children take a non-language, a set of inconsistent signs, and turn them into a fully expressive linguistic system. It's an amazing thing. Children do not only learn the forms that their parents/community teaches them; in the absence of a proper linguistic environment, they actually create it. (Read up on creoles or on sign language (esp. in Nicaragua) for more on this.)
So, no, children don't need perfect speakers around them; they always acquire full languages, with full grammars (syntax, morphology, phonology).
All of which is exactly why the designation "native" is meaningful. Language teaching processes cannot reproduce what happens as a child learns a language. That's why it's so rare to lose an accent completely, for example. ▲ 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? | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
