| 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)
|
|---|
Ty Kendall 
United Kingdom
Local time: 22:42
Hebrew to English
If I presumed people were still talking about native language declaration and verification.
How silly of me to presume people might want to stay on topic.
| | | | | Minor confusion ? | Jun 28, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote: Nani Delgado wrote: Samuel Murray wrote: Phil Hand wrote:
If you're not near-native, you have no business working with this language in the first place. ... (1) Just by putting a language on your profile on a professional translators website, you are saying "I'm pretty [darn] proficient in this language." (2) If you offer to translate into language X, you are saying I'm a good enough writer in X to produce professional-looking material. I think you're setting the bar much higher than most people do. I disagree with your statement #1 but I fully agree with your statement #2. I think Phil set the bar in the right height of professionalism. If most people - here on Proz - don´t set the bar that high, how can they call themselves professional translators? Would you still have that opinion if (a) you were reasonably good at Spanish to German and (b) the amount of German to Spanish work you get is irrevocably reduced by e.g. 50%? It is easy to set the bar high if the atmosphere is favourable.
Personally, I don't see this debate as being about what services you can or cannot (claim to) provide so much as it is about components of your..... ah, now here, I could say "very being" (the native/mother tongue thing) or "skills set". Either way, I'm not sure anyone's level in a language is market-dependent. How they choose to use that language may be. I don't care if you are the only person in the world offering Estonian to Portuguese - if you're not a Portuguese native speaker by nature or nuture, then you keep the "N" away from Portuguese.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 23:42
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Charlie and @Phil | Jun 28, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
Usually I'd agree with your thorough approach, and I see your point. But you are nit-picking this issue to death...
I must admit that I have made more replies to this thread than ever before (currently standing at "26"), though I have the impression that if anyone is nitpicking to death, it would be Ty and Phil (and I mean no offense when I say that). At least I have offered multiple possible solutions and view points on the issue -- some people here just said the same things over and over.
D'y want people to say "yeah, that Samuel Murray, he says a lot on that website that lets people lie their arses off about what and who they are. He says he can do our project, but can we believe him?"
Most of my clients don't associate my translation skills with the policies of ProZ.com. I'm also a member of ATA and SATI, but that does not mean everything they do or say is a reflection of me and the services that I offer. I think I shall continue to discuss things here without fear of recrimination from potential clients (even if they read the forums).
I'm gonna go back to the tennis analogy I used before. You're like a tennis tournament organiser, sitting there wondering about whether chalk dust is a reliable indicator or whether you should introduce Hawkeye; meanwhile you have no rules at all and a ball whacked into the stand still counts as in.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't regard this thread as a debating contest in which each participant should choose beforehand which opinion he will defend to [the] death. I have made several suggestions here -- do not read them as a single, attempted coherent suggestion, or you will be thoroughly confused.
==
Phil Hand wrote:
I think arguments about exactly what the verification process would be are a bit misplaced. We're not seeking to get at some absolute and lasting truth about what a native language is here. We're just looking to weed out the obvious wrong'uns. So if the verification process is a bit rough and ready, or if it doesn't quite match your personal idea of what native means, it doesn't really matter.
In this thread (just like many before it) different people discuss different aspects of the original question. Your opinion about what is relevant and what is not relevant to the original question is quoted above. What did Lisa say is this thread about? Check out her initial post and also her clarifying post here.
My interpretation of Lisa's initial and clarifying posts is that this thread is first about verification in the context of reducing abuse, and second about other means of reducing abuse. My point has always been that you can't verify what you don't define (which is why definition is important to me), and as far as I know your point has always been that one does not have to define what those who perform the verification regard as obvious (which is probably why it is not important to you).
Very well then -- let's say that I'm one of the abusers. How will you stop me? Or is that not what we're discussing?
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 23:42
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Charlie (and Ty, though I don't quote you) | Jun 28, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: Samuel Murray wrote: Nani Delgado wrote: Samuel Murray wrote: Phil Hand wrote:
If you're not near-native, you have no business working with this language in the first place. ... (1) Just by putting a language on your profile on a professional translators website, you are saying "I'm pretty [darn] proficient in this language." (2) If you offer to translate into language X, you are saying I'm a good enough writer in X to produce professional-looking material. I think you're setting the bar much higher than most people do. I disagree with your statement #1 but I fully agree with your statement #2. I think Phil set the bar in the right height of professionalism. If most people - here on Proz - don´t set the bar that high, how can they call themselves professional translators? Would you still have that opinion if (a) you were reasonably good at Spanish to German and (b) the amount of German to Spanish work you get is irrevocably reduced by e.g. 50%? It is easy to set the bar high if the atmosphere is favourable. Personally, I don't see this debate as being about what services you can or cannot (claim to) provide so much as it is about components of your..... ah, now here, I could say "very being" (the native/mother tongue thing) or "skills set".
I fully agree. Phil doesn't, though (if I understand his point correctly, quoted above). Am I right, Phil? For Phil (if I understand correctly), what language you may translate into is inseparably linked to the issue of native language, so if a discussion is about native language, then it is also about what language you may translate into.
Either way, I'm not sure anyone's level in a language is market-dependent. How they choose to use that language may be.
I agree with both statements.
I don't care if you are the only person in the world offering Estonian to Portuguese - if you're not a Portuguese native speaker by nature or nuture, then you keep the "N" away from Portuguese.
I fully agree.
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 05:42
Chinese to English
Sorry, Samuel, if you feel like you're getting pecked to death here! You have indeed been contributing most constructively.
My phrasing there was wrong.
What I was failing to express clearly was this idea:
A number of responses on this thread have said something like "It's all very well to talk about native speakers, but verification must fail because..." and then the person lists some problem with their imagined version of what verification would be.
... See more Sorry, Samuel, if you feel like you're getting pecked to death here! You have indeed been contributing most constructively.
My phrasing there was wrong.
What I was failing to express clearly was this idea:
A number of responses on this thread have said something like "It's all very well to talk about native speakers, but verification must fail because..." and then the person lists some problem with their imagined version of what verification would be.
I'm suggesting that it would be useful to go at this in two steps.
1) Try to generate consensus that a problem exists.
(This involves agreeing that it is relevant to have native labels; agreeing that abuse exists; agreeing that it would be preferable not to have abuse)
2) Discuss possible solutions
(verification, extra steps at registration, etc.)
At the moment, these two steps are being confused, and there have even arguments of the type: "X method of verification wouldn't work, therefore the problem doesn't exist"
I was aiming more for a separation of concepts, not a rejection of them. But I worded it completely wrong, sorry! ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 22:42
Hebrew to English
so if a discussion is about native language, then it is also about what language you may translate into
Not necessarily. One is about misrepresentation (the theme of this thread), the other is not.
| | | | | There is no way of verifying anybody's native language | Jun 28, 2012 |
If this thread is only about verifying somebody's native language, then the chances are really scarce. There is no way of verifying anybody's native language by a site like this one. Maybe the Federal Police, could do it somehow, but not a linguistic site. Do you expect that people will provide copies of their Birth Certificates and make them available for viewing?A Birth Certificate is not any kind of proof either, but no one will provide it for various reasons.
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 05:42
Chinese to English
| No, I didn't mean to imply this | Jun 28, 2012 |
I fully agree. Phil doesn't, though (if I understand his point correctly, quoted above). Am I right, Phil? For Phil (if I understand correctly), what language you may translate into is inseparably linked to the issue of native language, so if a discussion is about native language, then it is also about what language you may translate into.
Quite the opposite. In my pair 99% of the work is done by non-natives. I would like (a) acknowledgement of the relevance of nativeness, followed by a constructive discussion on how to handle a pair where target-native translation cannot be the norm. I certainly wouldn't want to prevent anyone from translating into L2 (though I would support outsourcers' rights to select only native translators - until they can't find any, which happens a lot!).
[Edited at 2012-06-28 12:13 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| My turn to nit pick! | Jun 28, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote:
Personally, I don't see this debate as being about what services you can or cannot (claim to) provide so much as it is about components of your..... ah, now here, I could say "very being" (the native/mother tongue thing) or "skills set". I fully agree. Phil doesn't, though (if I understand his point correctly, quoted above). Am I right, Phil? For Phil (if I understand correctly), what language you may translate into is inseparably linked to the issue of native language, so if a discussion is about native language, then it is also about what language you may translate into.
I distinguish between the pairs offered or the services provided under a profile, and the skills claimed by the actual individual who owns the profile.
If I have (or think I can get!) people to regularly and professionally translate in my reverse pair (which would be Eng->Fr) or indeed between Estonian and Portuguese, then I think I should be allowed to offer them as pairs.
Your offering a service (listing a language pair) is not the same as the "language you [by which I understand you as the individual] may translate into". English would remain my only "N" language. D'y see what I mean, or am I muddying the waters too?
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 23:42
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Ty Kendall wrote:
Feel free to enlighten me, but I wasn't interested in Nani's post, I was more interested in your response, which seems to insinutate that if Nani was "reasonably good" at translating in the opposite direction then she'd believe contrary to what she [currently] does.
I wasn't insinuating it. I was saying it. Except... you're not quoting the whole story -- you don't mention the deteriorated circumstances, which is central to what I was saying (or insinuating).
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 22:42
Hebrew to English
I wouldn't want to quote the whole story, I might be accused of nit-picking.
I've already acknowledged that I presumed you were still talking about native language, not about translating into non-native languages, the thread is now 25 pages long and I didn't notice the tangent, I got a bit muddled - so shoot me.
It doesn't change anything with the response you gave to Nani.
I still think you're dead wrong.
[Edited at 2012-06-28 12:27 GMT]
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 23:42
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Phil's attempt to get the thread back on topic | Jun 28, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
A number of responses on this thread have said something like "It's all very well to talk about native speakers, but verification must fail because..." and then the person lists some problem with their imagined version of what verification would be.
Yes, and I have posted such posts myself (I think). After all, when we talk about verification, we might as well talk about types of verification, and then we might as well talk about possible pros and cons of those types of verification, etc.
I'm suggesting that it would be useful to go at this in two steps.
1) Try to generate consensus that a problem exists.
This involves (1.1) agreeing that it is relevant to have native labels; (1.2) agreeing that abuse exists; (1.3) agreeing that it would be preferable not to have abuse.
I agree with all three points. If anyone disagrees with # 1.1, then this thread is not the place to voice it. We all agree with # 1.2 although there is not consensus about the extend of the abuse (though the extend is certainly extensive, particularly in some languages).
Do we really need to talk about this? We all mostly agree about it.
2) Discuss possible solutions (verification, extra steps at registration, etc.)
Yeah, that is more interesting too, though the solutions aren't always simple, and the more complex a solution is, the more likely that someone will find fault with it, and the more likely it will lead to little minithreads within the main thread, right?
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 05:42
Chinese to English
So my objective was to say, don't let arguments about step two feed back to step one, or don't let worries about some difficulty in step two lead you do go back and say, let's do nothing at all. You haven't said that kind of thing, but others have.
I'm actually holding off a bit on discussion of step 2 for the moment, because Jared popped his head up on Monday and told us the current situation. I'm giving it a week, and plan to post more on this next Monday morning, when I feel it w... See more So my objective was to say, don't let arguments about step two feed back to step one, or don't let worries about some difficulty in step two lead you do go back and say, let's do nothing at all. You haven't said that kind of thing, but others have.
I'm actually holding off a bit on discussion of step 2 for the moment, because Jared popped his head up on Monday and told us the current situation. I'm giving it a week, and plan to post more on this next Monday morning, when I feel it would be reasonable to talk about whether the current set up is working or not. ▲ Collapse
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 22:42
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | One step at a time | Jun 28, 2012 |
We could of course examine the various ways and means of verification and not be off-topic, but the thread changed course a little when Jared said that this was something the site was already working on (so perhaps we can think of that as "stage 2"). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we then moved on to try to seek a satisfactory interim measure (since the implementation of this verification process could take years). What I was therefore trying to push for was a clearer form of identificatio... See more We could of course examine the various ways and means of verification and not be off-topic, but the thread changed course a little when Jared said that this was something the site was already working on (so perhaps we can think of that as "stage 2"). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we then moved on to try to seek a satisfactory interim measure (since the implementation of this verification process could take years). What I was therefore trying to push for was a clearer form of identification than the somewhat indistinguishable yellow/grey icons we have at present, instead adopting a system of one native language for each individual, with any other "native languages" listed below under the title of "Pending verification". After 14,000+ views of this thread in the space of a week, one would hope that those who had innocently declared native languages without quite understanding the meaning of the term would already have amended their profiles. Those who are deliberately misrepresenting themselves would have to reconsider their claims in line with the new site policy, and those who genuinely have two or more native languages will at least have the benefit of having one of those marked as verified, rather than the two unverified ones they have at present. The "verified" single native language could be disputed by colleagues, as can be done at present, so in fact the change is very small but would be an excellent first step. Are we agreed? ▲ Collapse
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 23:42
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Another (?) proposed solution: reported versus verified native status | Jun 28, 2012 |
G'day everyone (Phil, Ty, Charlie, etc)
[If for the moment we assume that native language status can be verified, and that it is voluntary to get verified, and that there is a verification process in place, then I think very few people will apply for verification unless it becomes disadvantageous for them not to have it.
One way to reduce abuse is to make abuse less attractive, and one way to do that is to make the opposite of abuse more attractive. This may sound obvi... See more G'day everyone (Phil, Ty, Charlie, etc)
[If for the moment we assume that native language status can be verified, and that it is voluntary to get verified, and that there is a verification process in place, then I think very few people will apply for verification unless it becomes disadvantageous for them not to have it.
One way to reduce abuse is to make abuse less attractive, and one way to do that is to make the opposite of abuse more attractive. This may sound obvious but the point is that one may be able to reduce abuse by not trying to reduce it directly, but by creating conditions that are more favourable to those who do not abuse.]
If we were to change the directory searches so that only verified native speakers are matched in a search for "native language", there would be an outcry, even if getting verified is voluntary. However, if we can allow clients to search for verified native speakers in addition to searching for non-verified native speakers, then those who are not verified would feel less slighted or less unfairly treated, while those who do get verified will benefit.
Suggestion:
At present, clients can also select "reported" credentials and "verified" credentials. What if we do the same for native language? In other words, the drop-down box for native language in a Chinese-English search would not contain "Any | Chinese | English" as it currently does, but "Any | Chinese - reported | Chinese verified | English - reported | English - verified".
Initially, very few people will apply for verification, but it will gain momentum, since getting verified reduces one's risk of being excluded from a directory search.
Those who lie about their native status will not get verified, and will still be matched if the client selects "English - reported" instead of "English - verified", and there is nothing you can do about that, but it is far more likely that a client would select "verified" than "reported" if he does select something in the "native speaker" dropdown list.
Your thoughts? This does not address how verification will take place, though -- it is independent of that question.
Samuel
[Edited at 2012-06-28 13:25 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! » |
| | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
