| 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)
|
|---|
Samuel Murray 
Netherlands
Local time: 11:02
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Ty and @Luis | Jun 30, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
The problem with the whole "what is a native language" tangent is that some people have a vested interest in muddying the waters where this is concerned.
The problem with the problem with the whole "what is a native language" tangent is that some people have a vested interest in proving abuse, and you can't prove abuse if multiple valid definitions of "native lanuage" truly do exist, because that would unnecessarily complicate policing of it.
Luis Arri Cibils wrote:
If those samples are representative of the entire universe of ProZ members and users, then, 32% to 45% of that universe declare to have two or more native languages. Then,
a) We are among a large number of extraordinarily gifted people who have two or more native languages,
b) We are among a large number of fraudsters,
c) The “standard” definition of native language is either misunderstood or rejected by a large segment of our colleagues.
Thanks for your efforts, Luis. I mostly agree with your conclusions (similar searches on my part got me equally astonishing results).
Say, did you take steps to include/exclude US translators versus Spain translators from your search? I speculate that a Spanish translator who lives in the US (where English is a lanuage that he would use every day and encounter every day and therefore know whether he speaks it just as well as his English native neighbour) might be more inclined to declare English as a native language than a Spanish translator who lives in Spain (where he encounters English mainly on television, in magazines, and on the internet, and where none of his official communication is in English). Don't you agree?
I still think it would be useful to say what the "standard" definition is. For example, I certainly reject the "standard" definition touted by some of my colleagues on this forum, and I do not do so with malicious intent or for any benefit to myself (since I declare only one native language).
I would also not use the word "fraudsters"... for I believe many people bend the rules *slightly* to fit their purpose, and when they do so, they do so believing that it is okay for them to do so... or they believe that there is some special reason why a certain aspect of a thing does not apply to them specifically. The word "fraudster" is a very emotional word. So is "abuse", come to think of it. I would rather we use terms that indicate that the declarations are knowingly not 100% compliant with the definition, but that do not imply that there is malicious or dishonest intent.
For example, if ProZ.com were to define "native language" (as they should have done at the start!) as the Wikipedia defines it in its opening paragraphs, and one translator did not learn a langauge when he was 2-3 years old but only when he was 8-9-10 years old (but used it as one of his main languages ever since, and is highly proficient and fluent in it), he is likely to say "well, I sincerely believe that that definition still applies to me" even though it doesn't 100%. That is what I mean when I say people tend to bend the rules slightly, without ill or dishonest intent.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 10:02
Hebrew to English
| What benefit? | Jun 30, 2012 |
some people have a vested interest in proving abuse
Really? I disagree, even by proving abuse, what benefit is there for people who are proving the abuse?
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 10:02
Hebrew to English
| What's wrong with calling a spade a spade? | Jun 30, 2012 |
I would also not use the word "fraudsters"... for I believe many people bend the rules *slightly* to fit their purpose, and when they do so, they do so believing that it is okay for them to do so... or they believe that there is some special reason why a certain aspect of a thing does not apply to them specifically. The word "fraudster" is a very emotional word. So is "abuse", come to think of it. I would rather we use terms that indicate that the declarations are knowingly not 100% compliant with the definition, but that do not imply that there is malicious or dishonest intent.
If people misrepresent themselves (which is happening left right and centre), then they are commiting fraud, hence fraudsters. Nothing emotional about it, it's merely a factual description. If you wanted to be silly we could start calling them "misrepresenters", but I have a feeling that won't catch on.
| | | | | Black and white | Jun 30, 2012 |
I think some people think in black and white here, and life has various shades of grey, and other colors, as well. I think there are really many talented people here, many bilingual people, more than on any other, non-linguistic, site.These are translators, don't forget that, who have to be at least almost bilingual to be able to translate. There is no feed to call hard-working people, some working for $0.02/w fraudsters.
[Edited at 2012-06-30 10:01 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 17:02
Chinese to English
Samuel Murray wrote:
some people have a vested interest in proving abuse,
That's just a misuse of the term.
Ending abuse is in the public interest (I expect myself and everyone else to benefit from it).
Some people have a vested interest in obfuscating definitions and maintaining abuse.
| | | | BeaDeer (X)
English to Slovenian
+ ...
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
... the aim is to raise the overall professionalism of the site, which has taken a nosedive of late. Shoddy translators are feeding the bottom-end of the market, which is expanding at an alarming rate. Unfortunately, they don’t eliminate themselves.
If you’re paying US$ 0.03/word (many are paying a lot less), you have very low expectations as regards quality. The process is having an inevitable negative impact on rates, the quality of translation and on how the profession is viewed as a whole.
I’ve spoken to decent outsourcers who have a very poor opinion of the site: too much chaff, too little wheat. I suppose we care because we’re professionals.
Nothing to add, I fully agree with this.
| | | | kashew
France
Local time: 11:02
English to French
+ ...
| Native language or Mother tongue? | Jun 30, 2012 |
Mother tongue (like the French langue maternelle) is, for me, a better term for the first language.
| | | | Robert Forstag
United States
Local time: 05:02
Spanish to English
+ ...
| What is in the interest of the greater good of the profession as a whole ought to be obvious | Jun 30, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
some people have a vested interest in proving abuse,
That's just a misuse of the term. Ending abuse is in the public interest (I expect myself and everyone else to benefit from it). Some people have a vested interest in obfuscating definitions and maintaining abuse.
It could indeed be argued that those who honestly and accurately report their native language(s) stand to benefit from any action that curbs dishonest and inaccurate reporting of native languages. OK. What of it? The only important question in the end is what serves the general interests of this site as the primary web portal for professional translators.
I think this question has been effectively answered in this thread: Taking steps to curb admitted abuse in the reporting of native languages, and doing so in a measured and realistic way that minimizes the probability of any unfairness, should be the first priority.
I for one hesitate to draw inferences about the motives of those who disagree with this assertion. At the same time, it is hard not to see someone who produces screed after screed arguing, in effect, that we can't know if there is a problem until we first define terms, and who uses such specious reasoning to defend the indefinite postponement of action that would curb rampant misrepresentation, as engaging in sophistry of the worst sort.
[Edited at 2012-06-30 12:22 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Luis Arri Cibils wrote:
In any event, it is clear why ProZ has not been able to come up with a verification procedure in all these years.
it's too time-consuming and would need a testing procedure... I get the impression that Proz.com is happy with the status quo and will only act if any abuse is reported... I must say I agree with this policy, because, as I said before, it's impossible to police. I also understand, though, that paying members might feel aggravated by this... you pay and some non-member fraudster gets your job. At least I'm not paying for daylight robbery... Happy native translations to everybody!
| | | | DavidMTucker (X)
United States
Local time: 02:02
Spanish to English
| Definition not that simple | Jun 30, 2012 |
Kim Metzger wrote: DavidMTucker wrote:
The issue really, then, is the credibility of the site, i.e., overall professionalism, and not so much about what is considered to be a native language. This is good, because as demonstrated by the multitude of posts, there is no consensus on the criteria of what constitutes a "native" language, let alone how it would be verified.
But we do know what native language means, David. A first language (also native language, mother tongue, arterial language, or L1) is the language(s) a person has learned from birth[1] or within the critical period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_language
Kim, I agree with you that "we do know what native language means," however, IMHO there does not appear to be a "consensus" of the criteria. The definition you quoted from Wikipedia is only a partial definition, and only one of the many explanations of defining the term. The same Wikipedia article goes on to say, "or within the critical period, or that a person speaks the best and so is often the basis for sociolinguistic identity. In some countries, the terms native language or mother tongue refer to the language of one's ethnic group rather than one's first language.[2] Sometimes, there can be more than one mother tongue, when the child's parents speak different languages. Those children are usually called bilingual."
Based on the above (and the remainder of the Wikipedia article on this subject), a consensus would be difficult depending upon which part of the definition one goes by. Unless there can be a consensus to the definition, I don't see how a verification process is possible. This is why I suggested eliminating "native" language from the profile/search criteria.
Although there are 31 pages as of this moment of debate concerning this topic, of varying opinions, it is really good to see such involvement because it means that many do want to insure that professional standards are maintained.
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
| | | | | Who is NOT a native speaker? | Jun 30, 2012 |
DavidMTucker wrote:
Kim, I agree with you that "we do know what native language means," however, IMHO there does not appear to be a "consensus" of the criteria.
But we do know when someone is NOT a native speaker, David. A Dutch translator, born, raised and educated in the Netherlands, who then emigrated to the US at the age of 20 will never be a native speaker of English. She may have an excellent command of English, but that will never make her a native speaker. There are dozens of such persons listing Dutch and English as their native languages. The majority of contributors to this thread believe the site should take steps to eliminate this kind of misrepresentation.
| | | | | I absolutely agree with David | Jun 30, 2012 |
I absolutely agree with David, as always. The notion of native language is not a clear-cut thing.
How can people declare something if most don't even agree on the definition. How relevant is somebody's first language, or mother tongue, as some call it, to translation. It may be of interests to psychologists and linguists interested in various theories of language acquisition. How could people who lie, even if it were true, which I doubt it is, steal your jobs? If they cannot translate how ... See more I absolutely agree with David, as always. The notion of native language is not a clear-cut thing.
How can people declare something if most don't even agree on the definition. How relevant is somebody's first language, or mother tongue, as some call it, to translation. It may be of interests to psychologists and linguists interested in various theories of language acquisition. How could people who lie, even if it were true, which I doubt it is, steal your jobs? If they cannot translate how can the pose any threat to a professional translator?
My mother's first language was German, but she stopped speaking it at the age of 5 or 6, and she did not speak it almost at all later in her life. This is just to illustrate the point.
There is nothing wrong with calling spade a spade when you know what a spade is, and all other people agree with your definition.
[Edited at 2012-06-30 14:00 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-06-30 14:07 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 17:02
Chinese to English
There are a lot of different definitions, that's true. And I think that even if everyone here were in agreement on the detail, it wouldn't be Proz's job to discriminate among all the potentially acceptable definitions.
But... while we can't say exactly what native language is, I think it's fair to say that we can be pretty clear about some things that it isn't.
If a person does not speak a language competently (I'm not talking about not being a good writer, I'm talking... See more There are a lot of different definitions, that's true. And I think that even if everyone here were in agreement on the detail, it wouldn't be Proz's job to discriminate among all the potentially acceptable definitions.
But... while we can't say exactly what native language is, I think it's fair to say that we can be pretty clear about some things that it isn't.
If a person does not speak a language competently (I'm not talking about not being a good writer, I'm talking about being unable to string three sentences together without obvious grammatical errors), then they definitely should not be declaring that language as native on Proz.*
If a person has never spent an extended period in an environment where that language is the standard, then that person is definitely not a native speaker.
Aren't those fair criteria? Not necessarily easy to test, but there's nothing wrong with them as criteria. No-one with any reasonable definition of the word "native" could disagree.
*worded this way, because one could forget a native language; but a forgotten language is definitely not what outsourcers are looking for. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | we all want that... | Jun 30, 2012 |
DavidMTucker wrote:
it is really good to see such involvement because it means that many do want to insure that professional standards are maintained.
but the way the site works doesn't offer the possibility... anyway, the site is not meant to act as some sort of professional organisation and, although it charges a fee for some services, such extensive policing can't be implemented when there are no pre-requisites to registering. There are no barriers and anybody can claim whatever they like, until somebody complaints, basically. The fundamental question remains: cheating is certainly unethical, but, after 31 pages, I don't see a single suggestion that can be implemented successfully. Again, the users have to shoulder the burden of policing the site. Until pre-requisites are introduced, we'll have to put up with it. Personally, my solution has been not renewing, because I don't really see why I should support financially a site which promotes unprofessionalism...
| | | | BeaDeer (X)
English to Slovenian
+ ...
[Edited at 2012-06-30 22:00 GMT]
| | | | | 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? | 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! » |
| | 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! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
