| 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)
|
|---|
| No threat to me, either | Jun 26, 2012 |
Olly Pekelharing wrote:
I don't feel threatened by non-natives with claims to nativeness. All the agencies I work for employ native speakers like you and I who can spot bogus native speakers a mile away. Those that get through assumedly do so because they really do write the target well, and so good for them.
Absolutely, I agree entirely, and said so in the first few pages.
And I wouldn't want to restrict people's ability to offer services in any combination whatsoever; who knows what resources they have behind the scenes? If they can continue to make a living, more power to their elbow.
The main benefit, as I see it, is that of improving the professionalism in general of a website with which I have, for better or worse, been associated with a long time, a website moreover many have left since they no longer have faith that the "pro-" part of the name necessarily represents what it purports to represent (and may indeed have rather less welcome connotations!), by improving the accuracy and good faith of the personal and individual attributes claimed by its members.
Although as I also said in the first few pages, I tend to be sceptical that any such change is likely; an opinion reinforced by Jared's latest post.
| | | | | Let's hypothesise... | Jun 26, 2012 |
Jared wrote: It would appear that I could have been clearer in my explanation of this earlier in this thread. A site FAQ, http://www.proz.com/faq/2401#2401 , explains what the different native speaker icons represent. Note that the black and grey icon "is used to represent native languages that have been reported, but not confirmed." Now, a profile may display two of these black and grey icons when two languages have been reported. "Members who report multiple native languages will in the future be asked to demonstrate their native speech in each language before other native speakers of those languages. Until this has been accomplished, a black and gray icon will be associated with the unconfirmed native languages." (see http://www.proz.com/faq/2380#2380 )
I shall skip lightly over the fact that despite having been here since 2005? 2003? (I forget), I was unaware of the colour scheme. I just see "N" and think "claims native". I doubt I'm alone, but moving on....
Suppose an "N" of any colour is proven to be a false claim. Would it then be removed? And if so, what would there be to prevent anyone waiting for the fuss to die down and then put it back (as the black/grey version, I guess)? What happens now if someone fails this native language credential thingy (I would guess the outcome would be similar)?
| | | | | Why not create a 'near-native' option in the native language area of the profile page | Jun 26, 2012 |
Hi Jared,
I don't think opening investigations will prove feasible in the long term. After all, apart from what we see on the profile page itself, suspicions that people haven't been truthful about their native language usually emerge from what their writing demonstrates in Kudoz questions, answers and in forum postings. They make mistakes that no native would make. Simple basic mistakes in grammar, syntax and/or vocabulary that stand out like a sore thumb because they look odd and/or amus... See more Hi Jared,
I don't think opening investigations will prove feasible in the long term. After all, apart from what we see on the profile page itself, suspicions that people haven't been truthful about their native language usually emerge from what their writing demonstrates in Kudoz questions, answers and in forum postings. They make mistakes that no native would make. Simple basic mistakes in grammar, syntax and/or vocabulary that stand out like a sore thumb because they look odd and/or amusing and draw attention.
Near-native would at least allow people to continue selling themselves as being as good as or (as we have read in these pages) even better than authentic native speakers, but it would help make things clearer to colleagues and (potential) customers.
The only problem is that since the native language is not officially checked by Proz at present time, even for P badge colleagues (there are also non-natives there who have actually dropped their real native language and have the P for a native language that isn't theirs), the use of the word 'certified' can give credence to statements that aren't true. Perhaps it would be better/fairer for the site's certification to implement much more stringent rules for native language declarations.
[Edited at 2012-06-26 13:47 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Good points, Charlie | Jun 26, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
Suppose an "N" of any colour is proven to be a false claim. Would it then be removed? And if so, what would there be to prevent anyone waiting for the fuss to die down and then put it back (as the black/grey version, I guess)? What happens now if someone fails this native language credential thingy (I would guess the outcome would be similar)?
Good questions. Some of this, such as the ability to re-declare a language, is simple to control or track. Other points, such as determining what everyone is talking about when we say native language, how it is confirmed, or what happens if it cannot be confirmed, are reasons why something like this may not be as cut and dried as it might seem, and need to be appropriately considered.
Jared
| | |
|
|
|
XXXphxxx (X) 
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:52
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Back full circle... | Jun 26, 2012 |
to page 1 (or thereabouts) where Angie mentioned the grey and yellow icons and somewhere I seem to remember we discussed it (possibly in a PM since I can't find the exchange now) and the fact that it's an obscure and actually meaningless coding system. This is what led me and others to propose one native language only for everyone, the second can sit under a title "Pending verification" until the site staff decide on the best way to do this.
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 06:52
Chinese to English
| Kirsten - I have modest aims | Jun 26, 2012 |
Kirsten wrote:
If someone were to write a fully correct text in terms of grammar, would that be enough?
No, obviously.
Actually, for me, for now, that would be enough. I do recognise that not everyone on my side of the argument has been saying this.
So I'll address this to everyone: the objective is to have complete honesty in all reporting of native languages. (Ideally through honesty; with the lightest of checks possible if the honour system isn't working.)
But from where I'm standing, the biggest/most grating issue is the reporting of native speaker status by people who obviously can't write a decent sentence in English (English because that's my language - the same would apply to other languages).
Could we agree to try a measure (like reporting to staff) to fix these egregious cases first? And think about how to deal with the "Joseph Conrads" - non-natives with native-like proficiency - later.
Anyone?
| | | | | The ability to verify proficiency in a given language may be one way to approach this | Jun 26, 2012 |
Hi writeaway,
writeaway wrote:
I don't think opening investigations will prove feasible in the long term. After all, apart from what we see on the profile page itself, suspicions that people haven't been truthful about their native language usually emerge from what their writing demonstrates in Kudoz questions, answers and in forum postings. They make mistakes that no native would make. Simple basic mistakes in grammar, syntax and/or vocabulary that stand out like a sore thumb because they look odd and/or amusing and draw attention.
I think it might be more complex than that. I am a native speaker of English, but I'm sure if you review my forum posts alone you will find some English for me to be embarrassed over. I know other native speakers of English who have much more difficulty stringing thoughts together in writing. Does that necessarily mean we're not native speakers of the language? How obvious or terrible does the mistake need to be? Is evaluation based solely on what I write in a forum? What is a potential client looking for in a native speaker of X, how are they defining it, what is expected? All things that probably need to be taken into account.
I agree that opening an investigation each time we see someone post something "non-native" is probably not the most productive path. I can imagine that the ability to show confirmation of a native language is a much more powerful tool.
Near-native would at least allow people to continue selling themselves as being as good as or (as we have read in these pages) even better than authentic native speakers, but it would help make things clearer to colleagues and (potential) customers.
The ability to verify proficiency in a given language may be one way to approach this. Would you verify this separately from translation ability into/from that language?
Jared
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:52
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | In the meantime | Jun 26, 2012 |
Jared wrote:
Good questions. Some of this, such as the ability to re-declare a language, is simple to control or track. Other points, such as determining what everyone is talking about when we say native language, how it is confirmed, or what happens if it cannot be confirmed, are reasons why something like this may not be as cut and dried as it might seem, and need to be appropriately considered.
Jared
Thank you Jared, so pending any decisions on how to sort out the current confusion and mess, may I suggest that everyone chooses one native language (their choice, they can choose whatever they feel is correct for them) and any further ones remain "Pending verification"?
| | |
|
|
|
| But we probably know what it isn't... :-) | Jun 26, 2012 |
Jared wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote:
Suppose an "N" of any colour is proven to be a false claim. Would it then be removed? And if so, what would there be to prevent anyone waiting for the fuss to die down and then put it back (as the black/grey version, I guess)? What happens now if someone fails this native language credential thingy (I would guess the outcome would be similar)? Good questions. Some of this, such as the ability to re-declare a language, is simple to control or track. Other points, such as determining what everyone is talking about when we say native language, how it is confirmed, or what happens if it cannot be confirmed, are reasons why something like this may not be as cut and dried as it might seem, and need to be appropriately considered. Jared
Clearly the actual line, to say nothing of the name given to the line, is open to debate. However, there are some pretty clear cases of people claiming to be native who just plain and simple ain't. Let's just clear them buggers out the way first.
Otherwise, it seems to me, to use a timely sporting analogy, you're like a bloke who has invented tennis, but hasn't invented Hawkeye yet, so you're dithering over how to decide whether a ball is out. Meanwhile rank amateurs are cheerfully belting the ball into the stands and claiming it's in.
| | | | Neptunia
Local time: 00:52
Italian to English
| just to have a little more fun beating a dead horse | Jun 26, 2012 |
The way I see it, Joseph Conrad is a perfect example of someone who should not be able to claim English as a native language. He is certainly a great writer but that isn't what native means, and for good reason.
A quick google reveals:
"Polish language itself has also left an imprint on Conrad's prose. Not only in the form of Polonisms (words and idioms used in their Polish rather than English sense), and errors committed here and there in the use of tenses. Occasional loo... See more The way I see it, Joseph Conrad is a perfect example of someone who should not be able to claim English as a native language. He is certainly a great writer but that isn't what native means, and for good reason.
A quick google reveals:
"Polish language itself has also left an imprint on Conrad's prose. Not only in the form of Polonisms (words and idioms used in their Polish rather than English sense), and errors committed here and there in the use of tenses. Occasional looseness of Conrad's syntax and the rhetorical, rolling rhythm of his phrases can be easily traced back to the influence of his native speech." http://conrad-centre.w.interia.pl/pages/conrad_life_en.htm
Indicating native status when it isn't true or when what you mean is "highly proficient" isn't fair to the real natives or ultimately the employers. Ideally, proficiency and nativeness would be separate qualities, each measured objectively for the convenience of the translation seeker, but right now that is completely impractical. In the meantime, by all means, report and uncover the egregious liars.
...and how cool is it that Joseph Conrad's dad was a translator? ▲ Collapse
| | | | DavidMTucker (X)
United States
Local time: 15:52
Spanish to English
| Why not eliminate from profile? | Jun 26, 2012 |
Hello everyone,
I am new here (not new to the world of translation), and hope it is okay for me to place my two cents in on this interesting topic.
After reading the posts (there are a lot on this subject), I began to wonder why not just eliminate "native language" from the profile, and only have "translation pairs" i.e., Spanish > English, etc. The standard that I have always gone by is to only translate into ones native language, but then there is the debate of "nat... See more Hello everyone,
I am new here (not new to the world of translation), and hope it is okay for me to place my two cents in on this interesting topic.
After reading the posts (there are a lot on this subject), I began to wonder why not just eliminate "native language" from the profile, and only have "translation pairs" i.e., Spanish > English, etc. The standard that I have always gone by is to only translate into ones native language, but then there is the debate of "native language," "mother tongue," "dominate language," etc. My thought is that by only listing the translation pairs instead of dealing with the native verses not native language issue, it will be the client that makes the final decision. After all, the client is the one that needs to be satisfied with the end result, not fellow translators.
Well, that is my two cents. Again, I hope it was okay for me to jump in here. I put an intro in the "interpreting" thread about myself and have been reading and keeping up with the various threads for a long time, and decided it was time jump in and participate.
David Martin Tucker (Spanish Interpreter)
http://www.spanishdavid.com
https://www.facebook.com/SpanishDavid
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmartintucker
http://www.twitter.com @DavidMTucker ▲ Collapse
| | | | Robert Forstag
United States
Local time: 18:52
Spanish to English
+ ...
| @ Jared: I think it important to keep matters simple | Jun 26, 2012 |
Jared wrote:
How obvious or terrible does the mistake need to be? Is evaluation based solely on what I write in a forum?
Jared
No, at least unless one can point to a sizable collection of forum posts that are so consistently littered with serious mistakes that one cannot possibly reach any conclusion other than that the individual in question is not native.
As I pointed out in a previous post, I think the site (and, by extension, those making reports of bogus claims) will be on safest ground if the focus is trained on the most egregious cases. I believe that this category of cases is indeed "cut-and-dried," and will not involve particularly onerous burdens on staff.
Cases that are not so clear-cut can perhaps most realistically be dealt with through a verification procedure along the lines Lisa mentioned in a recent post. (In other words, all claimed native languages beyond the first will be listed as "unverified" on profiles until such time as a workable verification procedure is instituted, and such claims are vetted. I think it would even be justifiable for the site to charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs of such a procedure (a task that ought not to be delegated to volunteers).
This strikes me as an eminently workable (if admittedly imperfect) solution.
[Edited at 2012-06-26 15:28 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| In the meantime... | Jun 26, 2012 |
Hi Lisa,
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Thank you Jared, so pending any decisions on how to sort out the current confusion and mess, may I suggest that everyone chooses one native language (their choice, they can choose whatever they feel is correct for them) and any further ones remain "Pending verification"?
The path has already been laid for the native speaker credential, and the grey icons in essence represent that verification has not been made. Those who wish to declare only one native language in the meantime are able to do so-- if two have been declared, the icons will be grey. Clicking on the icons shows further information. I see no reason to change this at the moment and I feel it would be more productive for me to focus on some of the improvements I've made mention of here instead.
Jared
| | | |
we'll all have to turn into informants/spies? I will be calling myself out of this...
| | | | Robert Forstag
United States
Local time: 18:52
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Addendum to previous post | Jun 26, 2012 |
So the burden would be on those claiming more than one native language to provide solid evidence of their claims. And the challenge for proz.com staff would be to institute a verification process to effectively determine the legitimacy of such claims.
Given the evident widespread practice of falsely claiming more than a single native language, this would seem an unimpeachably reasonable approach.
In a worst case, then, individuals who know they would be unable to pass ... See more So the burden would be on those claiming more than one native language to provide solid evidence of their claims. And the challenge for proz.com staff would be to institute a verification process to effectively determine the legitimacy of such claims.
Given the evident widespread practice of falsely claiming more than a single native language, this would seem an unimpeachably reasonable approach.
In a worst case, then, individuals who know they would be unable to pass a proper vetting procedure can stick with their "unverified" native claims of more than one language.
The approach outlined here would seem an elegant solution, in that it obviates all of the handwringing surrounding a definition of what constitutes native command of a language, and all the grandstanding about possible unjustified persecution of the Conrads and Nabokovs among us....
[Edited at 2012-06-26 15:26 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Should “native language” claims be verified? | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
| | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
