| 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)
|
|---|
Rob Grayson 
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:25
French to English
| A numbers game | Jun 21, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
I'm just not sure why they are getting away with it? Is it sheer numbers?
Yes, I think that's pretty much it. Introducing some kind of verified native speaker status would potentially seriously limit the number of wannabees and pretenders eligible to slurp from the proz trough. So both site officials and fake native speakers tacitly ignore the anti-fraud rule. It's the elephant in the room.
| | | | Rob Grayson
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:25
French to English
| Resignation in context | Jun 21, 2012 |
Tom in London wrote:
In life generally I deplore resignation, and particularly so in this case.
I am not resigned about the translation market in general. What I am resigned about is the downward spiral this site is following. I used to cling on to hope that it might change, that the site owners would see the folly of their ways. I realised such hope was futile a long time ago.
| | | | Rob Grayson
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:25
French to English
| Exactly, Robert | Jun 21, 2012 |
Robert Forstag wrote:
A more realistic (but also not unproblematic) idea would be to initially accept all claims at face value, but then accept challenges to claims of native language proficiency from other site members on the basis of Kudoz and forum contributions. Moderators could perhaps also be empowered to make (or at least corroborate) such challenges.
The rules could be made such that the evidence indicating that an individual is not native would have to be overwhelming. While not catching all who make such a fraudulent claim, this kind of rule should identify at least the most egregious violators, and thus improve the professional profile of the site as a whole.
Quite so. Even accepting that true native speaker status would be hard to police, site policy seems to be actively in favour of protecting fraudulent self-promotion – witness the way that the modz generally come down like a ton of bricks on any KudoZ user who dares to question an asker's native command.
| | | | neilmac
Spain
Local time: 20:25
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Yes ... but how? | Jun 21, 2012 |
It would be nice, but it don't see how it could be enforced in practice. It's reached the stage now where I take everything with bucket of salt and when I see someone claiming TWO native languages I just think "yeah, right" and move on to the next spurious assertion.
| | |
|
|
|
Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 19:25
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| Verify 2nd native language? YES! | Jun 21, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Should greater controls be put in place to cut down on the number of false claims?
Absolutely! Allow everyone on ProZ.com to state one, and only one, native language when they register. Subsequent "native" languages should only be added when they have been verified by staff. Difficult to do? Why? How many thousands of people have been registered here long enough to prove that they are a native speaker of the language and therefore able to spot a non-native? For very unusual languages which cannot be adequately verified, staff could add a remark to that effect.
Bogus claims about native language status actually constitute deception.
I totally agree. And that does nobody any good - freelancers, agencies, end clients and ProZ.com itself all suffer. And if it's something like a patient medical record that's being translated, who knows where the suffering will end.
this issue wouldn’t arise if questions were only placed on KudoZ by people translating into their native language).
I don't think we ought to restrict KudoZ questions to native speakers of the language. There are all sorts of reasons why people post questions. For example, I have seen FR>EN questions posted by people who don't actually translate in that pair, and aren't native in English - maybe they translate from French (and English) to Hebrew but haven't been able to get an answer in the FR>HE pair.
| | | | neilmac
Spain
Local time: 20:25
Spanish to English
+ ...
| In a nutshell | Jun 21, 2012 |
Rob Grayson wrote:
... I don't care how good your command of a learned language may be; it cannot be as good as a native speaker's innate command. My French is very good, to the extent that when in France, I have often been taken for a French person. But there is no way I have anything close to the innate reflexes and "feel" for French that I have for English.
I believe this misuse of the term "native", and its passive encouragement by the site administrators, has been one of the key factors in opening the floodgates to the stream of low quality garbage with which the site has increasingly been awash in recent years.
For me native language proficiency is all about "innate reflexes and "feel", as well as cultural knowledge. For example, an English friend of mine in her 30s didn't know who the "Mad Jaffa Cake Eater" (who sadly passed away the other day) was, but at least she knew it was a biscuit...
[Edited at 2012-06-21 13:50 GMT]
| | | | Robert Forstag
United States
Local time: 14:25
Spanish to English
+ ...
Rob Grayson wrote: Robert Forstag wrote:
A more realistic (but also not unproblematic) idea would be to initially accept all claims at face value, but then accept challenges to claims of native language proficiency from other site members on the basis of Kudoz and forum contributions. Moderators could perhaps also be empowered to make (or at least corroborate) such challenges.
The rules could be made such that the evidence indicating that an individual is not native would have to be overwhelming. While not catching all who make such a fraudulent claim, this kind of rule should identify at least the most egregious violators, and thus improve the professional profile of the site as a whole. Quite so. Even accepting that true native speaker status would be hard to police, site policy seems to be actively in favour of protecting fraudulent self-promotion – witness the way that the modz generally come down like a ton of bricks on any KudoZ user who dares to question an asker's native command.
Thanks, Rob.
A corrollary to my suggestion would be that each person, prior to entering a native language when generating a new profile, would have to check a box indicating they have read a statement to the effect that the claim of a native language is essential to one's professional credibility, and that any spurious claim could result in challenges to and, eventually, removal of said claim.
Once again, if the criterion for proving false claims requires multiple and egregious misuse of one's supposed native tongue, then enforcement of such a rule should not prove either onerous or controversial.
[Edited at 2012-06-21 14:04 GMT]
| | | | | As an aside + a FWIW | Jun 21, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
I see little point in reviving ancient threads, for two reasons:
1) the majority of those members/participants are no longer around
a) that's an interesting interpretation of the word "majority"
(Agreed, the fact the first 2 have both left does colour one's first impression.)
b) the fact that contributors may no longer be members does not necessarily invalidate their opinions, some of which in that particular thread are very well reasoned, even if I don't agree with all of it.
2) anyone wishing to read/comment would be put off having to wade through pages and pages of what has gone before.
Very true, which is why I was keen to imply that I see the pros and cons of both approaches to reviving old topics (I especially agree with new threads where technology is concerned, for example). Although one might add a pearl of wisdom attributed to various people, most of whom are also no longer around, along the lines that those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it, or somesuch (pick your preferred flavour and add salt to taste).
FWIW, I agree with your basic point, but feel that the manpower needed to enforce it just isn't there, even if the will existed.
| | |
|
|
|
XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:25
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Resignation... | Jun 21, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
Yours, resignedly....
didn't win women the vote or abolish slavery.
| | | | Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:25
Member (2008)
Italian to English
| The topic is wandering.... | Jun 21, 2012 |
This risks turning into a sterile debate about the usefulness or otherwise of re-opening old threads.
That isn't what it's about.
Anyway I think it would be absurd if, just because a topic was discussed before, it can't be discussed again.
So can we get back to it now, please?
[Edited at 2012-06-21 14:12 GMT]
| | | | Oliver Walter
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:25
German to English
+ ...
| No native language? | Jun 21, 2012 |
Tom in London wrote:
...
A more useful definition would be “the language that a person has acquired from earliest childhood *** and that they have continued to use on a daily basis***”
Using that definition, I suppose it's possible for a person to have no native language. Suppose, for example, a person is born and brought up in one language until the age of about 3 or 4, then lives in a different family (adopted?) in a country with a different language. For that person there is then no language to which the above definition would apply!
I think that in this situation, the person would effectively be native in the second language by the age of about 10, but not satisfying the definition. Yes, it's a deliberately contrived case, but it could happen.
Oliver
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:25
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | The "majority" | Jun 21, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: a) that's an interesting interpretation of the word "majority" (Agreed, the fact the first 2 have both left does colour one's first impression.) b) the fact that contributors may no longer be members does not necessarily invalidate their opinions, some of which in that particular thread are very well reasoned, even if I don't agree with all of it.
Okay, perhaps not the "majority" but a quick scroll down the pages would suggest that about 7 are no longer on the site at all and a considerable number rarely contribute anything (if at all) these days.
The passing of time certainly doesn't invalidate their opinions, my only point being that they are no longer around to take part in this "virtual" vote.
Edited for typo.
[Edited at 2012-06-21 14:20 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:25
Member (2008)
Italian to English
| Trying desperately to stay on-topic | Jun 21, 2012 |
Oliver Walter wrote:
I suppose it's possible for a person to have no native language.
Indeed - I hadn't thought of that, although it's quite common.
There are other problematic examples. Take the case of Joseph Conrad, who always spoke Engish with a marked Polish accent but is one of the greatest writers in the English language.
[Edited at 2012-06-21 14:31 GMT]
| | | | psicutrinius
Spain
Local time: 20:25
Member (2008)
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Rules are rules (set in stone, it seems...) | Jun 21, 2012 |
And that's the way it is, at least here.
This thread arises from the one about the "profiteering questioners", who can ASK in any numbers and who can also choose not to answer. Numbers should be higher in this case (I mean, numbers of profiteering askers), than of bogus native language claimers: The " native language" has been very properly defined here.
However, by the very nature of the question, any bogus native is bound to require more "assistance" than a real one,... See more And that's the way it is, at least here.
This thread arises from the one about the "profiteering questioners", who can ASK in any numbers and who can also choose not to answer. Numbers should be higher in this case (I mean, numbers of profiteering askers), than of bogus native language claimers: The " native language" has been very properly defined here.
However, by the very nature of the question, any bogus native is bound to require more "assistance" than a real one, and that means that they must be a very substantial paro of such questioners.
The others are the ones who seem to believe they can tackle no matter what, even if they have no idea about the subject in ANY language which makes them bogus "squared", in that the first part (native) is bogus and the second (knowledge about the subject matter) as well, hence they square the "bogusism" (oops. excuse the neologism).
On the other hand, checking thoroughly enough about proof of the "native" language is NOT possible.
Which leads me back to square one (for both threads): If there were filters for answerers other than blocking individuals only, I really believe that most experienced and really solidary answerers would very quickly weed out most of the trash implicitly (no explicit mention, but in a few days (or, maximum, weeks), the profiteers would clash against a deafening silence.
Judging from the number of posts in the other thread (and, looking how the posts are piling up thick and fast here as well, this one too), it seems that there is quite a number of people who want, not to alter the site rules (you would stand a better chance to destroy a tank with a toothpick than to modify a site rule here), but to decide by themselves what CATEGORIES of questions / questioners they do not want to answer.
But this seems to be also against the rules. Therefore, I am afraid that both threads are (in effect) no more than a rant (in effective terms: I do not believe any of us wishes to do so -we have many other, more positive things to do), but unless we can persuade ProZ to act about this, that is the fact. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Not necessarily born with it? | Jun 21, 2012 |
Indeed I think that some people don't have a native language. If I had moved to France 20 years ago (in my early teens), and subsequently lived only with and surrounded by French people, I really don't think I could be confident of having a native ear for English. But I would probably, through total immersion in the language and culture, be able to say I had a native level of French. I would also have people around me to whom I could turn if I needed absolute certainty about something I'd writ... See more Indeed I think that some people don't have a native language. If I had moved to France 20 years ago (in my early teens), and subsequently lived only with and surrounded by French people, I really don't think I could be confident of having a native ear for English. But I would probably, through total immersion in the language and culture, be able to say I had a native level of French. I would also have people around me to whom I could turn if I needed absolute certainty about something I'd written. But if I'd moved 10 years ago then I would probably be 'between two stools' in that regard.
So I don't think your native language necessarily needs to be the one you're born with (despite the actual meaning of the word). However, I think to have two native languages you really need to have been brought up bilingual. ▲ 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? | 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 
