| 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)
|
|---|
| I am not sure, Lisa. I think it all depends on a person | Oct 1, 2012 |
and there are too many generalizations in this thread. Even if such a person left the country a long time ago, but had lived there for the first twenty years of his or her life, he or she could still be considered a native speaker (using the native native language terminology -- which is not very precise, but still). Some could be, others may not. It may depend on what culture they identify with, which language they later speak at home; in their everyday life, at work; if they read books and ne... See more and there are too many generalizations in this thread. Even if such a person left the country a long time ago, but had lived there for the first twenty years of his or her life, he or she could still be considered a native speaker (using the native native language terminology -- which is not very precise, but still). Some could be, others may not. It may depend on what culture they identify with, which language they later speak at home; in their everyday life, at work; if they read books and newspapers in that language, watch TV in that language. This is why a person who has lived in the United States for twenty years, let's say, but speaks a different language at home, watches TV in languages other than English, let's say, identifies with a totally different culture, may never really be a native speaker of English, even if they had lived here for forty years. Others, on the other hand, may become native speakers of American English even after 10-15 years, if they have most of their education in that language, speak this language almost exclusively, read in it, write in it and use it at work and at home. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Phil Hand 
China
Local time: 07:22
Chinese to English
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.
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?
I tried having a life for a couple of days. It was rubbish. Back to the native thread I come.
Completely with Lisa on this: if the extra category was really "native-level proficiency" then we'd have a serious problem with Occam's razor. If it were another type of proficiency measure, it would be... unworkable. No-one would sign up for such a test, because of the risk of a less than perfect score.
And all the other objections: it wouldn't limit lying by liars if untested; Proz is very unlikely to have the resources necessary for these tests.
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:22
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Just think it through - both of you. | Oct 1, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: LilianBoland wrote:
I don't believe that someone who had been growing up in Brazil for the first 25 years of her life, especially a translator who translates from that language, does not have a native level of Portuguese as well, and cannot call herself bilingual.
I haven't dissected anyone's profiles, I haven't the inclination or the time, so this is no direct accusation on anybody, but if what Lilian says is true, then we have here another type of lying. A bilingual person who is actually a native of one language not declaring both (or all) his languages as his native languages and opting for one of the languages for his native language, may be because the market is larger in that direction. While we are at it, should we raise Cain over this issue too? Should we insist that every one compulsorily declare all their native languages, just for the sake of truthfulness, and for providing outsourcers with a more complete bio-profile? [2012-10-01 16:46 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
Do you really think that if I had a native command of PT I wouldn't GLADLY add it to my profile and rack up a total of SIX language pairs on my profile? No, I didn't think so.
| | | | | I don't know, Lisa. | Oct 1, 2012 |
It just seems unbelievable to me that a linguistically talented person did not learn Portuguese to a native level (how imprecise this term may be). I just cannot imagine it. But, everybody is different, and everyone has the right to judge for themselves what their native languages are.
I did not really conduct any investigation whatsoever -- Lisa herself mentioned that she had lived in Brazil from the age of 1 to 25, but went mostly to English schools, and spoke English at home. ... See more It just seems unbelievable to me that a linguistically talented person did not learn Portuguese to a native level (how imprecise this term may be). I just cannot imagine it. But, everybody is different, and everyone has the right to judge for themselves what their native languages are.
I did not really conduct any investigation whatsoever -- Lisa herself mentioned that she had lived in Brazil from the age of 1 to 25, but went mostly to English schools, and spoke English at home.
[Edited at 2012-10-01 18:01 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 04:52
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Devil's advocacy | Oct 2, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote: LilianBoland wrote:
I don't believe that someone who had been growing up in Brazil for the first 25 years of her life, especially a translator who translates from that language, does not have a native level of Portuguese as well, and cannot call herself bilingual.
I haven't dissected anyone's profiles, I haven't the inclination or the time, so this is no direct accusation on anybody, but if what Lilian says is true, then we have here another type of lying. A bilingual person who is actually a native of one language not declaring both (or all) his languages as his native languages and opting for one of the languages for his native language, may be because the market is larger in that direction. While we are at it, should we raise Cain over this issue too? Should we insist that every one compulsorily declare all their native languages, just for the sake of truthfulness, and for providing outsourcers with a more complete bio-profile? [2012-10-01 16:46 GMT पर संपादन हुआ] Do you really think that if I had a native command of PT I wouldn't GLADLY add it to my profile and rack up a total of SIX language pairs on my profile? No, I didn't think so.
Lisa, that post was just to show that there could be lying and lying. One type of lying is when people say something that is not exactly true. Another type of lying is when people withhold something that is true.
If a translator has lived 25 years in a place from childhood and does not declare the language of that place as (one of) his native language(s), then he is hiding an important information about his native language, and that qualifies as lying.
According to some of the definitions of native language used here, a native language is absorbed in an unconscious way by children when they find themselves in a particular linguistic environment. They can’t help but do this, it is an involuntary, subconscious process. And according to this viewpoint, to which I think you too subscribe, native language has nothing to do with proficiency, as Bernhard has repeatedly stressed. He has cited his own case and said that he does not consider himself native in English even though he is quite proficient in it.
So, even if you are not proficient in a native language, you should declare it. Not declaring it is untruthful.
What is the difference otherwise between those translators whom we have been freely branding as liars because they have declared a language as their native language in which they can’t string a straight sentence and those translators who can’t string a straight sentence in a language which is their native language either, but which they have smartly not declared as their native language when it is in fact one of their native languages? Both would qualify as liars in my book.
And what would be the justification? Because, by not declaring a language as a native language because you are not proficient in it, you are admitting that it is possible for people to be not proficient in their native language. And if that is so, there is nothing strange in a person not being able to string a straight sentence in the declared native language. They are simply not proficient in the declared native language, but that does not make them liars. But you consider them liars, and by the same logic the reverse case of withholding true information should also qualify as a lie. Do you see my point?
I wonder what would be Bernhard’s take on this. Would he consider a translator not declaring a native language because he is not proficient in it as lying, because according to him, a native language is the language one learns in childhood and it is not necessarily a language in which you are proficient.
I am raising these issues just to strike home that things like native language are intensely personal matters and really no one has a right to comment on one’s native language. You state in your profile what is advantageous to you and withhold what can paint you in a bad light. It is a purely marketing text. Subjecting it to ethical tests can get everyone into trouble. The outsourcer should take it for what it is and independently do due diligence before selecting a translator.
And also to highlight that all that really matters in translation is how proficient you are in your languages, and issues like native language are red herrings.
And a third point that this case brings into focus is that you just can't take native language as a proxy for proficiency. Native language and proficiency are two separate things and they should be scrupulously treated as so. Please see this post of mine (Bringing in "mother tongue" to take some weight off "native language", ) for my suggestions on how we can do this.
For the record, I don’t consider you or any similar translator not declaring a native language in which he is not proficient as lying. I consider it within the ambit of ethical behaviour to present to outsourcers a flattering picture of one’s abilities. Also my position is that what counts in translation is proficiency in the language and native language is only tangentially related to proficiency.
[2012-10-02 06:47 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 01:22
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Do you really think that if I had a native command of PT I wouldn't GLADLY add it to my profile and rack up a total of SIX language pairs on my profile?
Well, yes, think about it.
A translator may be able to do some job but if he doesn't want to, then there is no point in putting it on his profile page. This applies to language combinations and specialisms both. And to tools, too. When I was a younger translator, I thought it would bring more jobs if I were able to use more tools (and more services), and that is true, but more tools means more processes (and some services are not enjoyable even if I'm quite good at it), which means more effort in the end. So now, although I'm able to offer many tools and services, I only mention a few of them when new clients contact me. Not declaring a tool or service that I'm able to offer is not lying, and not declaring a tool that I'm able to offer does not mean that in reality I'm unable to offer it, or that I'm not very good at it. It simply reflects what I choose to market.
[Edited at 2012-10-02 05:59 GMT]
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:22
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | What I choose not to market | Oct 2, 2012 |
I choose to "market" the truth, rather than exaggerate my skills. Mr B, you really are over-complicating issues. The very simple fact is that if you had asked me twenty years ago, I might have added PT too, as I did occasionally translate into it (for friends). However, since it was never my native language (it was not the language I spoke at home, nor the language I was educated in), my grasp of it is more tenuous than my grasp of English... See more I choose to "market" the truth, rather than exaggerate my skills. Mr B, you really are over-complicating issues. The very simple fact is that if you had asked me twenty years ago, I might have added PT too, as I did occasionally translate into it (for friends). However, since it was never my native language (it was not the language I spoke at home, nor the language I was educated in), my grasp of it is more tenuous than my grasp of English, which is not to say that it's not excellent - the only Portuguese dictionaries I use are monolingual. My assumption is that a native language is one that someone speaks and writes as well as any other native speaker. I may write PT better than an uneducated Brazilian but that is not the point; I don’t think people coming to ProZ want to know that. I’m a translator and I don't feel the "need" to make a false declaration about being a PT native speaker in order to secure more clients. Likewise, I have not included full information about my B.A. and M.A. in Russian, since I no longer offer Russian as a source language to new clients. I also include no information on CAT tools, although I've been using Trados since version 3 back in 2000. To be perfectly honest, I think you can tell from my profile that it is not my number one marketing tool, possibly ought to be but it isn’t. I very rarely participate in KudoZ, and you won’t find the majority of my clients on the Blue Board, which is why I have one (unsolicited) WWA. I’d find it mighty odd if you considered any of that to be lying by omission.
Edited for typo.
[Edited at 2012-10-02 07:43 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:22
Hebrew to English
| Another attempt at redefinition? | Oct 2, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Lisa, that post was just to show that there could be lying and lying. One type of lying is when people say something that is not exactly true. Another type of lying is when people withhold something that is true.
If a translator has lived 25 years in a place from childhood and does not declare the language of that place as (one of) his native language(s), then he is hiding an important information about his native language, and that qualifies as lying.
Bala, is this not just another attempt at redefinition? Attempts to redefine "native language" have fell flat on their face, so now you attempt to redefine "lying" so that you can lump everyone in the same category of "liars", thus justifying the native language lying on this site.
I'm sorry, but it won't wash! There's no deception in choosing not to market something you can do (for the proficiency camp) or something you are (for the attribute camp), but there is when you market something you can't do or aren't.
| | |
|
|
|
Theo Bernards (X)
France
Local time: 01:22
English to Dutch
+ ...
| This is a very long thread so I didn't read it all, but | Oct 2, 2012 |
in my opinion, one cannot in good faith claim to be a native language speaker of more than 2 languages. That is my personal opinion, of course, but even if one is born and raised in a bilingual country or raised by parents from different nationalities who each have endeavoured to teach you their language while you grew up (I have seen examples in my life of both situations and I am still seeing them), one language usually seems stronger than the other. I am of course born and raised in Western E... See more in my opinion, one cannot in good faith claim to be a native language speaker of more than 2 languages. That is my personal opinion, of course, but even if one is born and raised in a bilingual country or raised by parents from different nationalities who each have endeavoured to teach you their language while you grew up (I have seen examples in my life of both situations and I am still seeing them), one language usually seems stronger than the other. I am of course born and raised in Western Europe, so my vision on the matter is probably somewhat localised. I wouldn't dream of commenting on how this matter is viewed in countries where many different local languages are spoken (that seems mostly the case in parts of Africa and Asia) but when I find the time I will flick through the pages in this discussion, because I have no doubt the topic is touched from that angle, too .
As for verification: if possible, yes, but how can Proz (or any other organisation, for that matter) verify claims of being a native speaker of languages? False claims of such nature are usually made intentionally, and those that have made such claims will in all likelihood do their utmost to circumvent any verification. As with most situations one may encounter on the world wide web and beyond, common sense usually does the trick. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Rachel Fell
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:22
French to English
+ ...
Theo Bernards wrote: in my opinion, one cannot in good faith claim to be a native language speaker of more than 2 languages. That is my personal opinion, of course, but even if one is born and raised in a bilingual country or raised by parents from different nationalities who each have endeavoured to teach you their language while you grew up (I have seen examples in my life of both situations and I am still seeing them), one language usually seems stronger than the other. I am of course born and raised in Western Europe, so my vision on the matter is probably somewhat localised. I wouldn't dream of commenting on how this matter is viewed in countries where many different local languages are spoken (that seems mostly the case in parts of Africa and Asia) but when I find the time I will flick through the pages in this discussion, because I have no doubt the topic is touched from that angle, too . As for verification: if possible, yes, but how can Proz (or any other organisation, for that matter) verify claims of being a native speaker of languages? False claims of such nature are usually made intentionally, and those that have made such claims will in all likelihood do their utmost to circumvent any verification. As with most situations one may encounter on the world wide web and beyond, common sense usually does the trick.
... tend to agree with Theo
| | | | Kirsten Bodart
United Kingdom
Local time: 01:22
Dutch to English
+ ...
| There is one small issue we seem to be forgetting | Oct 2, 2012 |
The world (and necessarily Proz) has many different languages in it and not all languages are idiomatic, I.e. very colloquially coloured. Even in this thread (somewhere in the beginning, I think it was) there was someone who brought up the fact that some languages are more straightforward, so therefore easier to master to a native level than others.
English is difficult, not in terms of rules, but in terms of nativeness. It is idiomatic and people with a less idiomtic language might... See more The world (and necessarily Proz) has many different languages in it and not all languages are idiomatic, I.e. very colloquially coloured. Even in this thread (somewhere in the beginning, I think it was) there was someone who brought up the fact that some languages are more straightforward, so therefore easier to master to a native level than others.
English is difficult, not in terms of rules, but in terms of nativeness. It is idiomatic and people with a less idiomtic language might struggle to produce that same flow and word choice as a native (although it will not matter in certain areas).
German is difficult in terms of rules initially, but you can learn them, that's a plus. It's more difficult in the choice of words. I might write a good grammaticaly correct text that is perfectly understandable, a German will choose a slightly different word to me. Although in uni, the feeling of 'having to add some more aspect' came pretty quickly.
A German could master Dutch easily (I have met several Germans who do not speak Dutch in a weird way at all), but he would have to take care that he doesn't make his sentences too lyrical, too German.
The point I am making is that, if you are going to assess native language, you are inevitably going to go down the route of 'native proficiency', because that's the only thing you can really claim to test (unless you're staying with the birth cert, which is not desirable). If you do this, you need to take the above into account. We all seem to be ignoring it, as most of this thread seems to be based on English alone. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Oliver Walter
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:22
German to English
+ ...
| Native speaker vs. writer | Oct 2, 2012 |
This title of this thread is about "native language claims", and doesn't explicitly mention speaking or writing.
Some of the posts in this thread over the past day or two have stressed the distinction between native (or native-level) speaking and writing of a language, from which I conclude:- We should avoid talking (i.e. writing!) about a "native speaker" when we really mean a native user of the language and therefore a native speaker and writer.
- If a ProZ programme
... See more This title of this thread is about "native language claims", and doesn't explicitly mention speaking or writing.
Some of the posts in this thread over the past day or two have stressed the distinction between native (or native-level) speaking and writing of a language, from which I conclude:- We should avoid talking (i.e. writing!) about a "native speaker" when we really mean a native user of the language and therefore a native speaker and writer.
- If a ProZ programme of "native language" verification is implemented, it must include tests of speaking and writing, and take care to ensure that the candidate does not cheat (e.g. by getting a true native writer to check his/her writing).
Before this thread started, I didn't realise to the extent I do now that the meaning of "native language" can, in some cases, be such a complicated (and not always well defined) matter. I suspect this makes it even less likely than it already was that ProZ will try to activate native-language verification on a large scale; the attempt might fall at the first hurdle, which is to specify a definition of "native language" that is sufficiently objective and accepted by everybody concerned. (and then there's the logistic problem of actually carrying out such a programme even if there is an accepted definition)
Oliver ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:22
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Other languages | Oct 2, 2012 |
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
We all seem to be ignoring it, as most of this thread seems to be based on English alone.
That would be because, astonishingly enough, so far nobody has come up with an example of large numbers of misrepresentation in any other language. In fact I don't think we've had one example. We're still waiting.
| | | | | Yes, to be honest, I think this thread is mostly related to English, because of | Oct 2, 2012 |
its unofficial lingua franca status. I don't think anybody has been questioning native language claims in other languages (maybe just a few isolated cases of German, and perhaps some other languages I have not heard anything about in this thread).
Otherwise, I agree with most Balasubramaniam said in his last post, except that the linguistic status, or the lack of identification with the language of the country some people have been living in for years, and know really well, has mor... See more its unofficial lingua franca status. I don't think anybody has been questioning native language claims in other languages (maybe just a few isolated cases of German, and perhaps some other languages I have not heard anything about in this thread).
Otherwise, I agree with most Balasubramaniam said in his last post, except that the linguistic status, or the lack of identification with the language of the country some people have been living in for years, and know really well, has more to do with ethnic identification than with the inability of a grown-up, or a teenager to reach the so called native level in a particular language. Some people just don't want to be bilingual, and they have the right to it, but their experience, or preferences rather, cannot form the basis for any general rules related to so called native language.
[Edited at 2012-10-02 11:19 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-10-02 11:22 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:22
Hebrew to English
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
The world (and necessarily Proz) has many different languages in it and not all languages are idiomatic, I.e. very colloquially coloured. Even in this thread (somewhere in the beginning, I think it was) there was someone who brought up the fact that some languages are more straightforward, so therefore easier to master to a native level than others.
English is difficult, not in terms of rules, but in terms of nativeness. It is idiomatic and people with a less idiomtic language might struggle to produce that same flow and word choice as a native (although it will not matter in certain areas).
It's a non-issue for two reasons. Firstly because I've never come across anything in my study of Linguistics which supports the idea the any one language can be more or less 'idiomatic' than any other. It follows the same logic as the "English doesn't have many rules" fallacy. Saying that "some languages are more straightforward" simply doesn't stand up to linguistic scrutiny. 'Idiomatic' can also just mean an example of language which is unmarked. And most if not all languages have marked and unmarked ways of saying things.
The second reason Lisa has just pointed out, that we're still waiting to hear of mass-misrepresentation of another language other than English.
| | | | | 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? | 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 » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
