| 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)
|
|---|
| That's how I saw your stance | Sep 29, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
I just think that other, people who are not native speakers of English, let's say, should be also allowed to bid on the jobs they honestly think they are capable of doing,.....
(...)
I personally think all people should be allowed to bid in any job they want to bid on,
FWIW, this is how I had always understood your stance.
The trouble is that people are bidding on jobs they are not capable of doing (whether dishonestly or through misjudging their abilities), and our industry has one feature (not unique to us) that clients are often not able to judge the quality of what they are getting. Any guidance they can get, they take.
If a website is purporting to offer that guidance, it should do so accurately.
based the person's CV,
'course, in our business, biographical backgrounds are often stated on CVs for obvious reasons....
writing samples,
indeed.
Your stance, as I understand it, has its merits. I don't agree with the stance, but I accept its validity. Other points you have made also have merit - a recent example being your response to Phil about the teaching of standardised versions of languages in schools. The trouble is, as I see it, is that you then often go off on a massively tangential and highly speculatative riff which your adversaries find easy to kick holes in. Worse than that, this riffing only serves to highlight an unfortunate truth which leads to inevitable conclusions being drawn as regards self interest...
I'm not one to lecture (no, really!).
See, I don't agree with Phil & co. either. I think adopting the "native language as an attribute/biographical information" approach is wrong for proz too. Not because it's wrong per se. Like Kim and no doubt others before me, and now Henry after me, I've said 2 fields (native attribute + native proficiency) would be ideal. I just think that logically and practically, if we're only going to have one field and if we are going to verify that field, proficiency is the way to go (as my blog post said)
In short, (and the same applies to Balasubramaniam) I see no point trying to discredit a general notion on a thread like this, a notion that actual experts (which as far as I can ascertain, none of us are, when exhortations to read wikipedia are as intellectually rigorous as it gets!) write entire books on and still draw no conclusions. It really is a "Humpty Dumpty notion", and it only goes part of the way down the road the clients want to reach the end of - just stick with the logical superiority of your position, if you believe it has one, and try to convert people that way.
(I would point out that quite a few of biographical attribute squad have mentioned proficiency of late, in terms that to me suggested that proficiency testing was, at least, no longer rejected outright. Still, as Paul Simon warbled, inspired by Blake, perhaps, "a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest" and I recognise that as a weakness in myself.)
| | | | Ty Kendall 
United Kingdom
Local time: 02:18
Hebrew to English
| Not convinced,...or disenchanted ? ! %$? | Sep 29, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
I don't really like the term native language, the same way as many other linguists and people related to linguistics don't like it in reference to work and studies
Again, I would ask: "who are these eminent linguists?", "where can I read their opinions and alleged distaste for the term 'native language' in academic peer-reviewed journals etc?".
should be also allowed to bid on the jobs they honestly think they are capable of doing
Really, I'm not bothered who bids on what jobs. I don't rely on ProZ for jobs so I really couldn't care less if it descends into a free-for-all (if it isn't already), apart from the catastrophic damage that would do to the site's image and having my name associated with that, so as far as job bidding is concerned, fill your boots. Just don't lie about your native language.
Taking into consideration the Utopian nature of all the things proposed here
Trust me, there's nothing Utopian about anything being proposed here.
certified native language thing should be changed -- since there is really no way a site like Proz, or any other place for that matter, could certify someone's native language.
But there is, Henry even reiterated that there was one before, it just wasn't scalable.
I personally think all people should be allowed to bid in any job they want to bid on, and only then, based the person's CV, references, writing samples, or short tests, the client could decide whom they want to choose. This is the only thing really that makes any sense to me.
Like I said, fill your boots.
Another official and authoritative source your quote there Liliana! ....that advice on the link is clearly meant for anyone about to engage in an employer-employee relationship. It doesn't refer to "any work arrangement" at all, and applies even less to people who aren't employees, such as freelancers.
Again, this is a claim you have made umpteen times on this thread, I won't spend my afternoon fishing it out, because frankly, I have a life, but I have already provided you with the evidence that this is nonsense. Questioning someone's native language when this aspect impacts upon the work to be undertaken is very legal, even for employers hiring employees, and even in the US. (Also remember that little US job advert I posted not long back?)
So no, I remain resolutely unconvinced.
| | | | Michael Beijer
United Kingdom
Local time: 02:18
Member (2009)
Dutch to English
+ ...
| two fields + paid verification system | Sep 29, 2012 |
In light of the Henry's recent comments, I would like to add one more point (#1) to my Perfect Total Solution List:
(1) Two fields: native language + native proficiency
(2) Everyone gets a grey icon who has not actually been verified
(3) A disclaimer is added
(4) A paid verification system is created, for those users who wish to earn the yellow icon. Perhaps make it cost €100-200 or so, so as to dissuade the rabid non-native hordes fr... See more In light of the Henry's recent comments, I would like to add one more point (#1) to my Perfect Total Solution List:
(1) Two fields: native language + native proficiency
(2) Everyone gets a grey icon who has not actually been verified
(3) A disclaimer is added
(4) A paid verification system is created, for those users who wish to earn the yellow icon. Perhaps make it cost €100-200 or so, so as to dissuade the rabid non-native hordes from trying to diddle the system.
Michael ▲ Collapse
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 06:48
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Separating nativeness and proficiency | Sep 29, 2012 |
Now that (with Henry’s verdict) the way to go seems to be to accommodate proficiency (the native-level means just that, according to me), I think we need to deliberate on where to draw the line between nativeness and proficiency.
There are certain attributes of proficiency that are linked to the way a language is acquired (early childhood acquisition versus language acquisition later in life) and there are certain other attributes of proficiency that have got more to do with expos... See more Now that (with Henry’s verdict) the way to go seems to be to accommodate proficiency (the native-level means just that, according to me), I think we need to deliberate on where to draw the line between nativeness and proficiency.
There are certain attributes of proficiency that are linked to the way a language is acquired (early childhood acquisition versus language acquisition later in life) and there are certain other attributes of proficiency that have got more to do with exposure to the culture of the language and its people.
While the former part of proficiency is difficult for a non-native speaker to reproduce except in rare cases and in cases where the language learning process of the non-native has been similar to that of the native, the latter part has nothing to do with childhood learning and is a consciously put together skill or knowledge that every individual, native or otherwise, has to achieve by personal effort. Here natives do not have any advantage over the non-native.
Recently the British Prime Minister hilariously failed in some of these skills and his failure was gleefully reported by Indian newspapers. This doesn't make the British Prime Minister any less native of the English language, but certainly his proficiency in British culture and history has been found to be wanting.
The type of proficiency that should be kept out of native language should include knowledge about culture, literature, history, lifestyle, and other human created aspects of life, which are all very relevant in a business like translation. These can be easily acquired by any individual who has sufficient exposure to the culture of a language or its society. For example, it doesn't require childhood learning of the English language to be at par with a native on English literature or pop music or pop culture. Also, a native who has stayed out of the culture of his language for extended periods of time (Bernhard?) would grow rusty in these areas, even if he does not lose linguistic grip over his language.
Thus, compared to a native who has stayed away from his native culture for extended periods of time, it is quite possible that a non-native with native-level proficiency in that language who continues to stay in the culture of the language, can have greater proficiency in the language for translation purposes.
[2012-09-29 13:52 GMT पर संपादन हुआ] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 02:18
Hebrew to English
| Hold your horses | Sep 29, 2012 |
Recently the British Prime Minister hilariously failed in some of these skills and his failure was gleefully reported by Indian newspapers. This doesn't make the British Prime Minister any less native of the English language, but certainly his proficiency in British culture and history has been found to be wanting.
You're talking about the Life in the UK Test. Who hasn't failed it? It's a joke, but the bad kind, the kind which your dad tells in front of a bunch of your mates and which just makes you cringe and wish the Earth would open up and swallow you whole.
"It has been demonstrated that most British citizens would be unable to pass the test. When over 11,000 of them took a sample test, they had a pass rate of just 14% - far below the pass rate for actual candidates from other countries. For instance, between 2005 and 2009, Indian candidates had a pass rate of 79.2%.
So does this mean those Indian candidates are more qualified to be British citizens than native-born people? Of course not. It simply underscores how pointless the test is."
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/British-prime-minister-fails-UK-citizenship-test-questions-on-TV-talk-show/articleshow/16593348.cms
N.B. I'm gratified you finally desisted with the "nativity" talk.
[Edited at 2012-09-29 15:43 GMT]
| | | | | define native proficiency please | Sep 29, 2012 |
Michael Beijer wrote:
In light of the Henry's recent comments, I would like to add one more point (#1) to my Perfect Total Solution List:
(1) Two fields: native language + native proficiency
(2) Everyone gets a grey icon who has not actually been verified
(3) A disclaimer is added
(4) A paid verification system is created, for those users who wish to earn the yellow icon. Perhaps make it cost €100-200 or so, so as to dissuade the rabid non-native hordes from trying to diddle the system.
Michael
Hi Michael,
Define "native proficiency" for me then, would you?
When you say "two fields: native language + native proficiency"
what is your reasoning behind that?
Will you call for a verification of these levels or simply let anyone claim them, especially "native proficiency". (I believe you do want it verified).
I would assume you mean "native translator proficiency" (= "like" a native speaker translator") when you say "native proficiency" but there is a problem - which proficiency of which native speaker translator???
Do you mean by it that, for example, every non-native translator who translates into German and displays the "native proficiency (in German)" icon is at least as "proficient" translating as I (Bernhard) am or any native speaker translator or any native speaker (I hope not)? Or who? And how are you going to check that? And who is going to assess that?
I can't make you read all of my posts but I have contributed about "proficiency" and what such term entails and what it could and should/should not imply.
I would really be interested in what your reasoning is for that "native proficiency" credential.
I will wait for your explanation and definition.
Bernhard
| | | |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Now that (with Henry’s verdict) the way to go seems to be to accommodate proficiency (the native-level means just that, according to me), I think we need to deliberate on where to draw the line between nativeness and proficiency.
(...)
Thus, compared to a native who has stayed away from his native culture for extended periods of time, it is quite possible that a non-native with native-level proficiency in that language who continues to stay in the culture of the language, can have greater proficiency in the language for translation purposes.
If you would like to get in an early plea for proficiency verification to be as culturally neutral as possible, why can't you just say so?
Edit for the avoidance of doubt: smiley to indicate my point is meant seriously, but in a friendly manner, not the opening salvo in a flame war. I would also gladly accept the point it is easier to summarise someone else's work than one's own.)
[Edited at 2012-09-29 16:09 GMT]
| | | | | The bottom line is -- you are really not allowed to ask anyone about their native language | Sep 29, 2012 |
according to the American labor law, in reference to anything work-related, unless the people volunteer to tell you something about their background. Various tests can only test proficiency, not nativeness. Even if there were tests that theoretically could test nativeness, this would not be allowed.
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 02:18
Hebrew to English
| I like big 'buts' and I cannot lie | Sep 29, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Now that (with Henry’s verdict) the way to go seems to be to accommodate proficiency (the native-level means just that, according to me), I think we need to deliberate on where to draw the line between nativeness and proficiency.
(...)
Thus, compared to a native who has stayed away from his native culture for extended periods of time, it is quite possible that a non-native with native-level proficiency in that language who continues to stay in the culture of the language, can have greater proficiency in the language for translation purposes.
If you would like to get in an early plea for proficiency verification to be as culturally neutral as possible, why can't you just say so? Edit for the avoidance of doubt: smiley to indicate my point is meant seriously, but in a friendly manner, not the opening salvo in a flame war. I would also gladly accept the point it is easier to summarise someone else's work than one's own.) [Edited at 2012-09-29 16:09 GMT]
BUT.....Can you really claim native-level proficiency if you are incapable of handling cultural elements?
| | | |
Ty Kendall wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Now that (with Henry’s verdict) the way to go seems to be to accommodate proficiency (the native-level means just that, according to me), I think we need to deliberate on where to draw the line between nativeness and proficiency.
(...)
Thus, compared to a native who has stayed away from his native culture for extended periods of time, it is quite possible that a non-native with native-level proficiency in that language who continues to stay in the culture of the language, can have greater proficiency in the language for translation purposes.
If you would like to get in an early plea for proficiency verification to be as culturally neutral as possible, why can't you just say so? .....Can you really claim native-level proficiency if you are incapable of handling cultural elements?
Quite so. I was merely trying to make sure I had got to the bottom of the point being made, not trying to support or attack it at this point. Although clearly there must be some kind of consideration of where a text (or test, for that matter) crosses the border between general culture and specialisation. The older I get, the more I realise that there is, in fact, very little in life that can be accurately described with a blasé "everybody knows THAT".
| | | | | since you brought up my name | Sep 29, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
The type of proficiency that should be kept out of native language should include knowledge about culture, literature, history, lifestyle, and other human created aspects of life, which are all very relevant in a business like translation. These can be easily acquired by any individual who has sufficient exposure to the culture of a language or its society.
First you say the type of proficiency that should be kept out of native language should include knowledge about culture, literature, ...
- Out of native language- what? the native language credential or the native-level proficiency credential? Your use of terminology is less then clear here.
You mean my history is not going to matter for a definition of my native language? Or do you mean for a definition of my proficiency as in knowing about cultural aspects as in having actually lived in a particular region/experienced its culture?!
At least for the native language credential, they define me very much, I would say.
By the way, not a good idea to bring in "proficiency" again for a definition of "native speaker" or "possessing a native language".
Anyway, so you think those "cultural" things are usually not important for a translator, maybe only if they are doing business translations. Let's not talk about other fields of expertise such as literature, history, any kind of culture (art?!). Let's not worry about it.
Alright then, let's just say what's important is how well an average native Hindi speaker and translator (who translates between Hindi and German) writes, in German, someone who never set foot into Germany but learned about Germany from books, and went to a translation school in India where he learned German. Now, a native speaker he isn't, but writing German and translating into German he can after getting a degree in it from that translation school.
How good is his German compared to a Hindi-German translator who is a native speaker of German and grew up in Germany, went to school there and then went to a translation school in Germany where he majored in Hindi-German translation?
Whose services are you, the outsourcer (let's just say you are an outsourcer, for the purpose of this example) going to use for a literary translation from Hindi into German?
They are both "native-level proficient", supposedly, according to their icon at Proz.com (I am theorizing this is displayed sometime in the future). Well, does it matter?
It shouldn't really. You said we should leave any aspects related to culture, literature etc. out of the definition for native-level proficiency, right? I mean, it wouldn't be important for, say, technical translations? Do you really believe that?
Define cultural aspect in technical translations.
Well, you think it's important for something. You said: " ... which [=these aspects] are all very relevant in a business like translation."
But, hey, not a problem. You said and I quote:
"These ( literature, lifestyle, ...) can be easily acquired by any individual who has sufficient exposure to the culture of a language or its society."
Now I 'm confused. What do you mean by easy acquisition through "sufficient exposure to the culture of a language or its society?" Through books, through the internet, through personal experience living in that culture? What is "sufficient"?
Well, I would take the German native guy, he grew up in Austria and Germany and actually went back there a couple of years ago and worked there for 10 months. He has also lived in India for the last 15 years so he is really "proficient" in the knowledge of Hindi culture (sufficiently exposed?!). (I'm not talking about me, this is an example).
And he's also actually "verified" as a native German speaker at Proz.com (I am theorizing about the verification actually having been carried out). The other guy (who is verified as a Hindi native speaker) is also listed as a "native-level proficient" translator (in German) on Proz.com but this is not verified, and all it says for a definition is that he writes German like your average native German speaker (not really a guarantee for quality). Now I know, they're all translators there but I wouldn't bet on the native Hindi speaker translator being more "proficient" in German than the other guy.
Couple of more general thoughts:
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
For example, it doesn't require childhood learning of the English language to be at par with a native on English literature or pop music or pop culture. Also, a native who has stayed out of the culture of his language for extended periods of time (Bernhard?) would grow rusty in these areas, even if he does not lose linguistic grip over his language.
Are you talking about any "native" speaker of English? What do you mean by on a par with a native speaker of English? That I know who Lady Laga is and know her hits or do you mean that I can adequately translate her lyrics into German??? (Just an example).
Knowing who she is does definitely not require anyone to live anywhere in particular. For the second challenge, the translation of her song lyrics into German, if required, would it be necessary to have learned English as a child in order to understand and translate them? Maybe not. Might depend on how sophisticated the lyrics are.
The more sophistacted something is, the more easily understood it will be by a native speaker (idiomatic expressions, cultural background and everything) and the more difficult it might be for a non-native speaker to understand it. But, I agree, you can probably understand her lyrics even if you are just a German-English translator who grew up in Germany and learned English later in life (after the formative years).
And in what way would a native (translator - right?) like me become rusty if I stayed out of the culture of my language (you mean native language German, right) for extended periods of time (you mean as in 20 years or so)? Rusty with regard to German literature or pop music or pop culture?
Well, let me ask you this: in what way would a native English speaker translator be on a par with a German native speaker translator about German culture if he never lived in Germany at all? Or: in what way would a native English speaker be on a par with or superior to a native German speaker translator, if he (the English native speaker) had lived in Germany for the last 20 years and if the German native speaker had lived in the United States for the last 20 years, given they both have continuously worked as translators (mostly into their native languages) and have thus, as you theorized above, been able to "not lose linguistic grip over their respective native language?" You meant native language, right?
It shouldn't be a problem. They could all be equally proficient with respect to the cultural "proficiency" which, as you theorized, can be ...
easily acquired by any individual who has sufficient exposure to the culture of a language or its society.
Although there is a clear dichotomy in that statement of yours ("easily acquired" versus "sufficient exposure to the culture of a language or its society"), let's just go with "can be easily acquired".
So, if there is any difference between them, it must lie with the proficiency related to how well they write in German and how well they translate into German, something you want to call native-level proficiency, right?
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Thus, compared to a native who has stayed away from his native culture for extended periods of time, it is quite possible that a non-native with native-level proficiency in that language who continues to stay in the culture of the language, can have greater proficiency in the language for translation purposes.
[2012-09-29 13:52 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
Yeah, with respect to cultural aspects - mostly very recent cultural aspects.
But not necessarily with respect to "writing in German and translating from English into German"!
Define native-level proficiency, Mr. B.
(Also see my question to Michael.)
Bernhard
[Edited at 2012-09-29 18:30 GMT]
| | | | | deleted/double entry | Sep 29, 2012 |
[Edited at 2012-09-29 18:19 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Michael Beijer
United Kingdom
Local time: 02:18
Member (2009)
Dutch to English
+ ...
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Michael Beijer wrote:
In light of the Henry's recent comments, I would like to add one more point (#1) to my Perfect Total Solution List:
(1) Two fields: native language + native proficiency
(2) Everyone gets a grey icon who has not actually been verified
(3) A disclaimer is added
(4) A paid verification system is created, for those users who wish to earn the yellow icon. Perhaps make it cost €100-200 or so, so as to dissuade the rabid non-native hordes from trying to diddle the system.
Michael Hi Michael, Define "native proficiency" for me then, would you? When you say "two fields: native language + native proficiency" what is your reasoning behind that? Will you call for a verification of these levels or simply let anyone claim them, especially "native proficiency". (I believe you do want it verified). I would assume you mean "native translator proficiency" (= "like" a native speaker translator") when you say "native proficiency" but there is a problem - which proficiency of which native speaker translator??? Do you mean by it that, for example, every non-native translator who translates into German and displays the "native proficiency (in German)" icon is at least as "proficient" translating as I (Bernhard) am or any native speaker translator or any native speaker (I hope not)? Or who? And how are you going to check that? And who is going to assess that? I can't make you read all of my posts but I have contributed about "proficiency" and what such term entails and what it could and should/should not imply. I would really be interested in what your reasoning is for that "native proficiency" credential. I will wait for your explanation and definition. Bernhard
Hi Bernhard,
Here goes nothing...
I am bilingual. That is, I am a native speaker of both English and Dutch. However, although Dutch is one of my two native languages, English is my strongest language, which is why I opted to remove Dutch from my native languages after reading a few of the three hundred and eighty-four thousand, nine hundred and ninety-four posts in this thread. Incidentally, I don't translate into Dutch, but I would't be comfortable taking a written test in Dutch, so I removed it from my profile.
However, if the NEW system were to have two categories,
(1) 'native language' and
(2) 'SOME SORT OF proficiency' (I removed the word 'native' to avoid confusion),
I would once again select two native languages, and list them like this:
• English: native language (fully proficient)
• Dutch: native language (semi-proficient)
That is, I would like to be able to further specify my native language claims with a proficiency level. Agreeing on the various levels of proficiency is yet another spectacularly terrifying can of worms, which I would rather leave to Samuel, Ty, Charlie, Mr B, LilianBoland, and you to argue about.
Michael
[Edited at 2012-09-29 20:13 GMT]
| | | | Tony M
France
Local time: 03:18
Member
French to English
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | UK test is a farce! | Sep 29, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote: ...the Life in the UK Test. Who hasn't failed it? It's a joke, but the bad kind, the kind which your dad tells in front of a bunch of your mates and which just makes you cringe and wish the Earth would open up and swallow you whole. "It has been demonstrated that most British citizens would be unable to pass the test. When over 11,000 of them took a sample test, they had a pass rate of just 14% - far below the pass rate for actual candidates from other countries. For instance, between 2005 and 2009, Indian candidates had a pass rate of 79.2%.
So does this mean those Indian candidates are more qualified to be British citizens than native-born people? Of course not. It simply underscores how pointless the test is." http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/British-prime-minister-fails-UK-citizenship-test-questions-on-TV-talk-show/articleshow/16593348.cms
I had a great deal of amusement recently with a number of friends on facebook: the majority of my friends in the UK who took the test failed that pass mark; whilst I, an expatriate, passed with a reasonable score.
As you say, this does not prove that my EN native friends in the UK should be deported, nor that I, as someone who has chosen to leave the country, would make a better citizen. All it proves is the total irrelavancy of this test.
I have two comments to make on the general comments made by Bala:
of course there may always be isolated exceptions to any generalization; but I have been horrified to see, frequently, in KudoZ, how people outside the EN culture have been totally unaware of some key aspects of Western culture — I well remember one occasion where we were discussing 'slate' (the idea of asking for credit in a bar etc.), and one of our colleagues (and yes, I'm sorry, but the person was from India) went on and on about schoolchildren in the olden days writing on slates... completely unaware of the cultural significance of this term in vernacular language.
in terms of technical translation (the only field about which I can comment), it is all too obvious how people without the necessary cultural background are unable to do better than to offer word-for-word literal, dictionary translations of slightly colloquial terms; now either they are blissfully unaware of their own ignorance — or they really do not understand how collquial language works.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 02:18
Hebrew to English
| No thanks Mike! | Sep 29, 2012 |
Michael Beijer wrote:
Agreeing on the various levels of proficiency is yet another spectacularly terrifying can of worms, which I would rather leave to Samuel, Ty, Charlie, Mr B, LilianBoland, and you to argue about.
I have zero interest in debating proficiency levels. I'm in the "native as attribute" camp at heart.
This is not to say I don't have an opinion on the matter (I've already expressed an opinion that any proficiency test which ignores culture isn't a test which would enable the participants to truthfully claim "native-level", or any other similar term: native-like, near native etc. for example).
| | | | | 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 » |
| | 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 
