| Páginas sobre el tema: < [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? Autor de la hebra: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
Tony M
Francia
Local time: 04:44
Miembro
francés al inglés
+ ...
LOCALIZADOR DEL SITIO | I agree, but... | Sep 29, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
I personally think all people should be allowed to bid in [sic] 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.
I totally agree — put the ball in the court of the customer (caveat emptor) and the service provider.
BUT... Henry has told us that there is a perceived need on the part of his customers (i.e. the outsourcers) for this distinction to be made. It's easy to understand: they want some simple criterion that will enable them to save time, reduce shortlists, and guarantee their end clients that they have done their due diligence in order to meet their promises of 'only native speakers' — not to mention, their commitments under ISO 90001 or whatever.
So as soon as there is a job posting filter, there is a problem...
Do away with that, post more prominent disclaimers on the site... and the problem goes away.
Thus if it is Henry's business decision to maintain such a system, then the site also needs to take on board all the concomitants... and I sincerely believe that is what Henry is doing, though inevitably, as we have proved here, it is a thorny problem that is not going to be solved overnight.
| | | | | don't call yourself "fully or semi-proficient" | Sep 30, 2012 |
Michael Beijer wrote:
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]
Thank you Michael.
You took "native" out to avoid confusion?
Indeed, combining "native(-something)" and "proficiency" can lead to a lot of confusion and misunderstandings. But so can various "proficiency levels".
As far as proficiency levels are concerned, I would not want them and I wouldn't want them verified. That's indeed opening up a can of worms. You might feel you have to honestly tell your clients how "proficient" you are, but in what regard?
What are you saying with "native speaker" but "semi-proficient in Dutch"? That you can't even read or write Dutch correctly as a native speaker? That's what it sounds like, even though you probably mean you don't feel too comfortable translating into Dutch.
And your proficiency in English? What would you be implying with "native speaker" and "fully proficient" in English? It sounds like you have to assure your clients that you're not just a student, or maybe you are implying you just became fully proficient in what? Translating, reading or writing English? And you're now ready to translate?
That's what it sounds like.
You mean you can take on any translation project (in particular fields) from Dutch into English?
Shouldn't you be at least "fully proficient" in Dutch?
One has to be very careful with definitions and declarations of "proficiency".
High levels of language proficiency should be expected from translators.
Don't make yourself look like you're "semi-proficient" in any language.
"Proficiency" is not something acquired in a vacuum, as Ty and Tony have pointed out. The highest proficiency in "translating from one language into another" has a lot to do with being a "native speaker" in the target language.
Just a couple of thoughts.
Bernhard
[Edited at 2012-09-30 04:19 GMT]
| | | | Paul Cohen 
Groenlandia
Local time: 01:44
alemán al inglés
+ ...
| Sounds reasonable to me | Sep 30, 2012 |
Michael Beijer wrote:
...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.
Sounds reasonable to me, Mike. There is evidently a need for a rating system that serves people like yourself. I see no reason why such a system couldn't be used to rate all "native speakers" in a way that makes sense to potential clients and members of the site.
Okay, in my book you are arguably a "genuine" native speaker of both Dutch and English. The bad apples out there who learned one or more of their so-called "native languages" as an adult and have a tenuous grasp of many of the fine (and not-so-fine) points of their "native languages" would either not submit to testing or would score so poorly that they would have to live with an embarrassingly low proficiency score next to their native-language claims.
If Proz adopted third-party testing with a proficiency rating scale ranging from 1 (lowest score) to 5 (top score), another member's profile might look like this:
• Hungarian: native speaker (4.9)
• English: native speaker (3.1)
• French: native speaker (2.9)
Now, wouldn't that speak volumes about this individual's claim of being a "native speaker" of three languages?
Caveat emptor, indeed!
Many people on this thread have argued in favor of a simple oral test to debunk obviously shaky claims of being a native speaker. This sounds to me like a quick-fix solution aimed at weeding out only the most egregious frauds on the site. It's aiming so low that I find it totally uninspiring.
And it would probably soon go the way of Henry's famous boxes of cassettes and the Dodo bird. Once the most obvious cases have been eliminated from the site, there would be little motivation to continue pursuing only somewhat dubious members because it would become harder and harder to draw the line between "real" natives and "bogus" natives. Furthermore, given the inherent vagueness of the site's definition of what does and does not constitutes a native speaker ("it takes one to know one"), many people are also bound to object to the fact that they have been stripped of their coveted native-speaker status. They won't go down without a fight.
I say let everybody claim all the "native languages" they want, but strongly encourage them to back up their claims with third-party testing of their proficiency in these languages. Those who score horribly low in their proficiency tests could consider themselves officially "exposed." There would, of course, also be a clear disclaimer on the site to warn customers about the dangers of "native speaker" claims that are not backed up by correspondingly high scores. In other words, anyone who scores much less than a perfect 5 should probably be viewed with caution by clients. Ditto for those who haven't been tested at all.
Yes, I know that this would be essentially mixing apples and oranges because being a "native speaker" says nothing at all about one's proficiency in a language, but if you're looking for a translator, chances are you want to hire one with a full command of the language, not someone who, for whatever reason, scores abominably low on a proficiency test.
Oh, and it's not up to us to devise a testing scheme. It's up to the site to find outside professionals who can put together something that makes sense.
[Edited at 2012-09-30 04:20 GMT]
| | | | | don't want proficiency testing | Sep 30, 2012 |
Paul Cohen wrote: Michael Beijer wrote:
...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. Sounds reasonable to me, Mike. There is evidently a need for a rating system that serves people like yourself. I see no reason why such a system couldn't be used to rate all "native speakers" in a way that makes sense to potential clients and members of the site. ...
Hi Paul.
What are you telling customers (let's just play it out even though no one wants this in their profile) with
• Hungarian: native speaker (4.9)
• English: native speaker (3.1)
• French: native speaker (2.9)
One is either a native speaker or not. So the 4.9 or whatever score is talking about "proficiency" in writing and speaking/ the degree of command of that one language? Logically, you would have to at least write this like Michael did:
Native Language: Hungarian / Language Proficiency: 4.9
Because I believe you're not implying that, on a scale of 1-5 for degrees of nativeness, they are 4.9 degrees worth of a native speaker, meaning almost native speakers?!
What I assume you want to find out is if they are either miserable writers or excellent writers which doesn't necessarily have to do with them being native or non-native speakers of that language although for our purposes of verifying native languages, a high proficiency level with regard to translating into that language is implied.
But "proficiency" is a different, additional category besides native language.
I doubt you can devise a test that will indicate every translator's "translating proficiency" - that's what clients would be interested in (and another new credential category) but at the same time, I wouldn't plaster that third party score out there anywhere. There is the WWA score already on Proz.com which displays comments from clients. Yes, I know, are they really representative? Well, everyone who has them probably thinks so. Will an official test by a third party adequately assess my writing or translating ability? Maybe, maybe not. But you will agree that many clients see the verified native language credential as an indicator of a translator's quality work into that language.
I am not really interest in proficiency testing anyway, be it writing or translating.
Verifying a native language based on the "personal history" of the applicants will hopefully cut out the non-natives.
Define native language. Assess eligibility for native language verification with a questionnaire. If the translator's personal history fulfills the requirements of the native language definition, confirm/verify him/her as native speaker (a measure only necessary because people can indeed lie about their personal history.). Have the "talk" with NL peers or have them assess your writing/speaking sample.
Bernhard
[Edited at 2012-09-30 06:54 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 08:14
Miembro 2006
inglés al hindi
+ ...
LOCALIZADOR DEL SITIO | Bringing in "mother tongue" to take off some weight from "native language" | Sep 30, 2012 |
@bernhard, charlie
What I was trying to say, but obviously failed to get across, is that there is too much of overlap between the terms "native language" and "language proficiency", and therefore it will be useful to make them less overlapping (taking a leaf out of Humpty Dumpty!)
I was suggesting that we should keep only those aspects in "native language" that are related to early language acquisition, and move other aspects like cultural knowledge to "proficiency".... See more @bernhard, charlie
What I was trying to say, but obviously failed to get across, is that there is too much of overlap between the terms "native language" and "language proficiency", and therefore it will be useful to make them less overlapping (taking a leaf out of Humpty Dumpty!)
I was suggesting that we should keep only those aspects in "native language" that are related to early language acquisition, and move other aspects like cultural knowledge to "proficiency".
The childhood learning aspects are sort of "biological" that cannot be replicated by non-natives - the kind of intuitive grasp of the language or the highly creative forms of usages bordering on ungrammatical, which often give apoplexy to grammarians, are something that only a native can pull off. These kinds of skills should remain with "native language" (renamed "mother tongue", see below).
Other aspects, such as routine language skills, familiarity of the culture of the language and its people, its literature, its history, politics, art forms, sports, etc., are something that are not "biological" and can be acquired by others even at ages beyond the language learning age. These aspects of proficiency will be common to both natives and non-natives. And they should be stacked under "proficiency".
For example, take the case of an individual who moves to UK at say at fifteen, and thereafter stays on in UK and is say now fifty. He can't become "native" in English language in the sense of the first set of aspects I had mentioned above.
But he can become as proficient as any native of UK in the second set of aspects of proficiency which are not "biological" (routine language skills, the knowledge about history, literature, sports, etc.). These are not limited by biological constraints like the small window of a few years in the early life of a person when a language can be picked up at native level.
Defined this way, native language splits into "mother tongue" and "language proficiency" and these are less ambiguous terms than "native language".
We can then declare our mother tongue(s) and language proficiency separately in our profiles. Proficiency of course can be further graded as suggested by Olly and Michael into 4 or 5 categories. The highest would be native-level.
So in my scheme of things, we would have:
Case 1:
Bernhard:
Mother tongue: German
Working languages: German
Proficiency(German): native-level
And
Case 2:
XYZ:
Mother tongue: Hindi
Working languages: Hindi, German
Proficiency (German): native-level
An outsourcer can then look at these two cases and decide whether Bernhard would do for a job he has in mind or XYZ (or both).
Verification would have to come in to make this work, and it will have to be a third party professional service that does the verification.
The main thing is, the above does not exclude the possibility of a non-native achieving the highest level of language proficiency (this will of course be tested) and clearly only a handful of non-natives will reach this level, but a few will.
At the same time, it does not deny that being native in a language confers certain biological linguistic advantages which are valuable, and should an outsourcer think that these advantages are crucial, he can select a translator with these advantages by using the mother tongue label.
So, by bringing in a better defined term like "mother tongue" to take away from "native language" the biological linguistic advantages of learning a language in early childhood, we can effectively split "native language" into two sets of attributes -1. biological linguistic advantage; 2. proficiency.
I think this is what Charlie was also saying earlier on when he was talking about having two fields in place of the current single native language field.
In summary, I am not saying as Bernhard implies in his recent post that a person sitting in India and attending Max Mueller Bhavan German courses for a few years in Delhi can become a native-level German translator. But that an Indian(say) who migrates to Berlin (say) at fifteen and stays in Germany for the rest of his life can achieve native-level proficiency (minus of course the biological linguistic advantages that a child learning German in the first few years of its life will have).
Of course, Bernhard can argue that native-level proficiency is meaningless without the biological linguistic advantage. But if we take into consideration the following two combinations that are possible in this scheme:
1. mother tongue + native-level proficiency
and
2. non-mother tongue + native level proficiency
then, the first combination is Bernhard's complete native language proficiency in full glory.
So this scheme can accommodate the die-hard native language proponents and also leave a window open to the rarest of the rare cases of non-natives attaining native-level proficiency (Jose, may be, or Conrad!)
A corollary of this scheme is that, having thus disembowelled "native language" to get "mother tongue" and "native-level proficiency" we can now throw away "native language" altogether without any loss, and thus end much of the controversy that is arising from the vagueness inherent in this term.
[2012-09-30 08:56 GMT पर संपादन हुआ] ▲ Collapse
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
Reino Unido
Local time: 03:44
portugués al inglés
+ ...
PERSONA QUE INICIÓ LA HEBRA | “Use me. I'm 'native-level proficient'" | Sep 30, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
And your proficiency in English? What would you be implying with "native speaker" and "fully proficient" in English? It sounds like you have to assure your clients that you're not just a student, or maybe you are implying you just became fully proficient in what? Translating, reading or writing English? And you're now ready to translate?
That's what it sounds like.
You mean you can take on any translation project (in particular fields) from Dutch into English?
Shouldn't you be at least "fully proficient" in Dutch?
One has to be very careful with definitions and declarations of "proficiency".
High levels of language proficiency should be expected from translators.
Don't make yourself look like you're "semi-proficient" in any language.
"Proficiency" is not something acquired in a vacuum, as Ty and Tony have pointed out. The highest proficiency in "translating from one language into another" has a lot to do with being a "native speaker" in the target language.
Just a couple of thoughts.
Bernhard
[Edited at 2012-09-30 04:19 GMT]
I’m with Bernhard on this.
This discussion seems to be heading towards categories of proficiency and ultimately translation quality, which in my view is insane. Imagine a similar directory for doctors, lawyers, plumbers? These are proficient, these less so. Errrr, I think not. Proficiency in all your languages is a given, or at least it should be. Having to underline this smacks of protesting too much.
I can’t say I’m in favour of the “native-level proficiency” category, although I won’t argue against it if it actually gets introduced. I just think it's pointless. I don't see outsourcers shouting a collective "Hallelujah" because we've introduced an entirely new category in the translation world. Who is assessing this "native-level proficiency"? The translators themselves? While outsourcers continue to want genuine native speakers and while there are translators exaggerating their skills, IMHO you will soon find that this “native-level proficiency" group will become redundant and meaningless. Perhaps that’s the idea?
| | | | | Semi-proficient in a language one grew up in? | Sep 30, 2012 |
Michael Beijer wrote:
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]
Why only semi-proficient in Dutch? It's an achievement to be fully proficient in more than one language. Lots of native Dutch speakers prefer to translate into English only but they don't downgrade their Dutch skills to do so. If one has done most of one's education in a language (including successful completion of secondary school and higher education), surely it won't look good to claim only 'semi-proficiency' in that language. Why ever would you fail a written test for Dutch proficiency? Having said that, you are not the first person to eliminate Dutch from the equation. Only the most recent (afaik).
Being native Dutch isn't a hindrance to getting Nl-En jobs only. In fact many Dutch/Flemish end clients prefer to give such work to Dutch natives. Lots of people on NL-En claim Dutch and English as native languages, albeit without the yellow icon at present.
I don't understand the problem with being proficiently native Dutch. If semi-proficiency became a category (ie no tests in that language please), then lots of us could decide to appear with semi-proficient status since many translators are fully fluent in one or more source languages, but simply don't feel they should or could translate into them professionally.
| | | | Ty Kendall
Reino Unido
Local time: 03:44
hebreo al inglés
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
I’m with Bernhard on this.
This discussion seems to be heading towards categories of proficiency and ultimately translation quality, which in my view is insane. Imagine a similar directory for doctors, lawyers, plumbers? These are proficient, these less so. Errrr, I think not. Proficiency in all your languages is a given, or at least it should be. Having to underline this smacks of protesting too much.
I can’t say I’m in favour of the “native-level proficiency” category, although I won’t argue against it if it actually gets introduced. I just think it's pointless. I don't see outsourcers shouting a collective "Hallelujah" because we've introduced an entirely new category in the translation world. Who is assessing this "native-level proficiency"? The translators themselves? While outsourcers continue to want genuine native speakers and while there are translators exaggerating their skills, IMHO you will soon find that this “native-level proficiency" group will become redundant and meaningless. Perhaps that’s the idea?
It's like Lisa has read my mind.
And there's certainly no need to go around 'disemboweling' anything either.
| | |
|
|
|
Michael Beijer
Reino Unido
Local time: 03:44
Miembro 2009
neerlandés al inglés
+ ...
| Why only semi-proficient in Dutch? I'll tell you why... | Sep 30, 2012 |
writeaway wrote: Michael Beijer wrote:
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] Why only semi-proficient in Dutch? It's an achievement to be fully proficient in more than one language. Lots of native Dutch speakers prefer to translate into English only but they don't downgrade their Dutch skills to do so. If one has done most of one's education in a language (including successful completion of secondary school and higher education), surely it won't look good to claim only 'semi-proficiency' in that language. Why ever would you fail a written test for Dutch proficiency? Having said that, you are not the first person to eliminate Dutch from the equation. Only the most recent (afaik). Being native Dutch isn't a hindrance to getting Nl-En jobs only. In fact many Dutch/Flemish end clients prefer to give such work to Dutch natives. Lots of people on NL-En claim Dutch and English as native languages, albeit without the yellow icon at present. I don't understand the problem with being proficiently native Dutch. If semi-proficiency became a category (ie no tests in that language please), then lots of us could decide to appear with semi-proficient status since many translators are fully fluent in one or more source languages, but simply don't feel they should or could translate into them professionally.
Writeaway, I haven't 'downgraded my Dutch skills' in order to translate into English. I have always only translated into English. In fact, I have never written much Dutch. I did high school in the Netherlands, but failed most of my Dutch classes because I hated my teacher and was much more interested in English at the time. While in high school in Hoofddorp, I spent 99% of my time at home, reading and writing in English, and speaking only English with my family. After that I went to an American university, so it is incorrect to say that I did most of my education in Dutch.
As I have said several times already in this thread:
The Language Development of Michael Beijer:
My long and interesting story starts off in Orange County, CA, where I started my life as a small American boy with an abundance of blond hair and a baseball cap. We left America when I was around 6 or 7. We spent a year in Switzerland, where I actually didn't go to school at all. Then, I attended a school in Holland, in Dutch, for 4 years or so. Then we moved to Spain, where I attended an international school, which for all intents and purposes was a British school, where everything was obviously taught in English. Then we moved back to Holland, where I started high school, in Dutch. After that I moved to Greece, where I did a BA in philosophy, at an American university in Athens, in English.
I am sick and tired of having to explain all of this over and over and over. Since at present no one has actually been verified anyway, I think I might just reclaim both of my native languages and await Proz verification.
So, 'Semi-proficient in a language one grew up in?' Yes, it can happen to the best of us.
Michael
[Edited at 2012-09-30 12:18 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-09-30 12:24 GMT]
•••[Added later:]
Writeaway, you wrote:
'I don't understand the problem with being proficiently native Dutch. If semi-proficiency became a category (ie no tests in that language please), then lots of us could decide to appear with semi-proficient status since many translators are fully fluent in one or more source languages, but simply don't feel they should or could translate into them professionally.'
There is a subtle but important difference between being 'fully fluent' in a language, and being a 'native speaker'. I am a native speaker of Dutch, but because I haven't spoken it for a long time, and because I have always spent more time and energy on my English, it is a bit, how shall I put this ... rusty, for lack of a better word. That is, there is a difference between a person who is:
1. 'a Dutch native speaker (semi-proficient)' [e.g., Michael Beijer], and
2. 'fully fluent in Dutch (semi-proficient)' [e.g., writeaway]
*Please note that I am merely making an educated guess about your Dutch language skills. For all I know, you might be fully proficient, not fluent at all, or any combination of the two.
[Edited at 2012-09-30 15:27 GMT]
| | | | | But this is where we came in | Sep 30, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Proficiency in all your languages is a given, or at least it should be. Having to underline this smacks of protesting too much.
Should be. But isn't on here. Which is why you started the thread, is it not? After reading one too many crappy profiles from people who claimed to be native English speakers but without any discernible proficiency in English.
| | | |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
@bernhard, charlie
What I was trying to say, but obviously failed to get across, is that there is too much of overlap between the terms "native language" and "language proficiency", and therefore it will be useful to make them less overlapping (taking a leaf out of Humpty Dumpty!)
Keep it simple, I reckon. Just stick with proficiency concerns... If the job is outsourced to experts (as i said last week, if proz has the clout it claims, suppliers should be beating a path to the door, and I see Paul supports that approach), I'm sure some appropriately culturally-neutral stuff can be produced, y'know, make it about bicycles rather than morris dancing, say.
I think this is what Charlie was also saying earlier on when he was talking about having two fields in place of the current single native language field.
That would be the ideal solution imho (and I don't think I was first to mention it, tbf), but I'm not sure of the technical impact in terms of screens and job filters and whatnot. I must say that I have assumed in most of my comments that we have to stick with the field we've got. I just think we should define it in terms of what it is being used for.
| | | | | There is no biological advantage in relation to language acquisition. | Sep 30, 2012 |
If languages were hereditary, mine would be German and Lithuanian. Some other people's might be Welsh, or something else. I am not sure what are you referring to Belasubramaniam.
Anyhow, have a great Translators Day, everybody. Don't worry too much -- all of those discussions are Utopian anyhow, but still very interesting.
| | |
|
|
|
| The perfect solution | Sep 30, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: I think this is what Charlie was also saying earlier on when he was talking about having two fields in place of the current single native language field. That would be the ideal solution imho (and I don't think I was first to mention it, tbf), but I'm not sure of the technical impact in terms of screens and job filters and whatnot. I must say that I have assumed in most of my comments that we have to stick with the field we've got. I just think we should define it in terms of what it is being used for.
The problem was stated as non-natives lying in their nativeness claims.
In true problem-solving analysis, that's a symptom, or a consequence if you prefer to name it so, however not the root cause of the problem. Therefore, the strictest inquisition to ascertain native speakerness, later submitting infidels to tar and feathers, will not solve the real problem: the need for a reliable criterion to screen translators.
IMHO the solution is NOT in improving the accuracy of native speakers' self-claims, but in adding some "proficiency level" rating. The reason, bluntly stated, as previously mentioned on some posts, is that while there is some overlap between being a native speaker and thoroughly proficient in a language, they are not necessarily a perfect match in 100% of the cases, especially if transltion skill is to be taken into account.
As evidence, I'd like to point out that many Prozians have added their certifications to their NAMES. The OP, Lisa, has a MCIL after her name. I could add a TPIC to mine, which would be meaningless outside Brazil (and even within Brazil it's not so well known). The frequency such additions are seen on Proz proves that there is a need for stating it prominently.
So let those proud native speakers state boldly their original language, regardless of whether they still translate from/into it. It would be the language they used in their very first recognizable utterance as babies. This would limit 'native speaker of...' language to ONE, regardless of how many languages they were raised speaking.
For translation purposes, however, credentials are important as shown above. One of the criteria on Proz job posts is to simply request "credentials" or not. Maybe it would be worthwhile for Proz to give translation credentials more prominence on profiles. This would allow them to stay clear from tests, examinations, interviews, whatever, and leave it to recognized institutions, such as ATA, IoL, NAATI, whatever. Proz will merely acknowledge that evidence of such credentials has been received and checked, whenever possible to do it online; thus waiving any liability.
This should solve the problem, and make everyone happy.
[Edited at 2012-09-30 14:40 GMT]
| | | | Paul Cohen
Groenlandia
Local time: 01:44
alemán al inglés
+ ...
| Insane? Welcome to the translation profession! | Sep 30, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
This discussion seems to be heading towards categories of proficiency and ultimately translation quality, which in my view is insane. Imagine a similar directory for doctors, lawyers, plumbers? These are proficient, these less so. Errrr, I think not. Proficiency in all your languages is a given, or at least it should be. Having to underline this smacks of protesting too much.
Ah, yes, but doctors and lawyers (and plumbers in many countries) are all "protected" professions. You can't call yourself one unless you have the corresponding degrees and certificates to back it up. Not so in the translation profession. Some people have degrees, others don't. But we can all call ourselves translators. That is insane. But it's not likely to change anytime soon.
If it's possible to test someone's IQ, why isn't it possible to devise a simple test that will determine whether someone is a native speaker of a language? Perhaps because "nativeness" is such a slippery beast? The concept is so inextricably intertwined with people's diverse personal and cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Sometimes it's straightforward (Bernhard is a native speaker of German. Period. Paul is not a native speaker of Danish. Period.) Sometimes the waters are muddier. Mike is a good case in point.
So far I've heard everything here from "give me a few minutes alone in a room with someone and I'll tell you if they're a native speaker or not" to "give everyone a questionnaire to fill out and we'll be able to draw the line based on that."
But what it really boils down to, in my opinion, is an honest appraisal of one's background and abilities in a given language. Yes, proficiency in all of one's "native languages" and "foreign languages" should be a given. But often it's not. And it's not really proficiency that we're after here, is it? We're out to identify that intangible thing called the "native speaker."
How often have I had to explain to people in the States that I don't translate into German because it's not my native language? Even close family members have said things like: "Oh, I'm sorry. I thought your German was good, Paul." In situations like that, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Most people outside our profession, especially those who speak only one language, have little clue what the fuss is all about.
And, what's even more frightening, not even everyone inside the profession can agree on what all the fuss is about.
If, as I suspect, it's not possible to concoct a feasible one-size-fits-all test of someone's "nativeness" in any language on the planet, then it makes sense to me to come up an alternative yardstick.
Remember, it's an endless battle. There will always be new crop of wannabe "native speakers" waiting to be challenged. The question is, if you're going to challenge them, would you rather do it in a backroom in your spare time (at a powwow, for ex.), or with a written biographical quiz that would be almost impossible to verify, or with a proficiency test?
Or perhaps with something else entirely?
| | | | Paul Cohen
Groenlandia
Local time: 01:44
alemán al inglés
+ ...
| The search for that elusive seal of quality continues | Sep 30, 2012 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
The problem was stated as non-natives lying in their nativeness claims.
In true problem-solving analysis, that's a symptom, or a consequence if you prefer to name it so, however not the root cause of the problem. Therefore, the strictest inquisition to ascertain native speakerness, later submitting infidels to tar and feathers, will not solve the real problem: the need for a reliable criterion to screen translators.
IMHO the solution is NOT in improving the accuracy of native speakers' self-claims, but in adding some "proficiency level" rating. The reason, bluntly stated, as previously mentioned on some posts, is that while there is some overlap between being a native speaker and thoroughly proficient in a language, they are not necessarily a perfect match in 100% of the cases, especially if translation skill is to be taken into account.
I totally agree.
In fact, I think you touch on one of the reasons that I grew so disenchanted with this site. There is indeed a need to display something that allows one to stand out from the ever-growing crowd. In my opinion, the red certified pro "P" badge was merely a halfhearted attempt at addressing this key issue. For starters, it should have been handled by a reliable third party. The site has no business certifying anyone. The search for that elusive seal of quality continues.
| | | | | Páginas sobre el tema: < [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? | 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 » |
| | 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 
