| 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)
|
|---|
| the native speaker of multiple languages | Jul 3, 2012 |
I'll ask this again:
What I want to know is - do all who say they have two or more native languages consider all these as their 1st languages or the languages they speak best?
I can only doubt that. Even if you learned three languages during the "critical period", there had to be one language that you STILL speak (=continue to speak) AND are (still) most comfortable with.
Here, again is the definition (slightly different from my first one on page 36) for native la... See more I'll ask this again:
What I want to know is - do all who say they have two or more native languages consider all these as their 1st languages or the languages they speak best?
I can only doubt that. Even if you learned three languages during the "critical period", there had to be one language that you STILL speak (=continue to speak) AND are (still) most comfortable with.
Here, again is the definition (slightly different from my first one on page 36) for native language: the/a language that you 1) acquired during the critical period, 2) STILL (continue to) speak and write AND 3) consider the language you speak and write BEST.
for the declaration page:
4): Translator X further declares that his/her statement about his/her native language is truthful. Violations are subject to .........
Bernhard ▲ Collapse
| | | | Andy Watkinson 
Spain
Local time: 04:24
Member
Catalan to English
+ ...
LilianBoland wrote:
-- the Stalin's informants, the Water Gate.
Glad to see you are back on topic.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 04:24
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Lisa -- hundred paces | Jul 3, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
1) There are a number of people making erroneous claims about their native languages and this should be stopped.
2) In most cases one would be able to spot a non-native speaker of one’s own language at a hundred paces.
1. Yes.
2. No, in very few cases, in fact. And only if he is so careless that he makes the types of mistakes that can be spotted at a hundred paces. If you're near-native in my native language, I would need to examine you much more carefully to discover you that if you were nowhere near native. And if you're a professional translators then you are even less likely to make those types of mistakes. Only in the worst of worst cases would you be able to spot non-natives purely by spotting.
| | | | | But those are the ones the thread is about...! | Jul 3, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Only in the worst of worst cases would you be able to spot non-natives purely by spotting.
....Hence the frustration felt by many and expressed by some with the constant attempts to fine tune the definition of native. If I have to read a text for 30 minutes before I can decide if it's native or not, I'm happy to accept that it's of a level that is likely to meet some professional need somewhere. Makes no sense (to me) to have to "examine" something in order to declare it "nowhere near" native, as you described it.
It's the kind of bilge that sets your teeth on edge or leaves you scratching your head in bemused befuddlement that grinds most people's gears, and about which Something Ought To Be Done.
| | |
|
|
|
DavidMTucker (X)
United States
Local time: 19:24
Spanish to English
| It is getting more and more... | Jul 3, 2012 |
@Lisa - This thread is becoming more and more fascinating, and definitely (as is normal in forums) has taken on a life of its own. I actually look forward to reading the latest post, and must say that I am learning some very interesting, and different, points of view of the various topics that have been intertwined since the thread started. I don't necessarily agree with everyone, but still find it interesting.
What I like about this discussion, now at 40 pages, is the amount of pas... See more @Lisa - This thread is becoming more and more fascinating, and definitely (as is normal in forums) has taken on a life of its own. I actually look forward to reading the latest post, and must say that I am learning some very interesting, and different, points of view of the various topics that have been intertwined since the thread started. I don't necessarily agree with everyone, but still find it interesting.
What I like about this discussion, now at 40 pages, is the amount of passion being shown by the participants. Whether I agree or disagree with the point of this thread, or the contents of the various posts, I certainly have great respect for the each poster and their passion on the subject(s).
Something will, I believe, be done at some point and time regarding claims within the profile, and it will be because of people like you that took notice and campaigned for a change. For this, I thank you and respect you. It may be soon, or it may be way down the road, but it will happen. Just like the forums take on a life of their own, Proz is not today what it was when it started. There is growth and with growth there are changes. These changes, of course, don't happen as fast as many would like, but they do happen.
Until a change does occur (whenever that may be), I will look at what Proz can offer me now, what the current benefits are to me, and be thankful there is such a portal where, without cost if I choose, I may join a world-wide community of others within the same related fields. Everyone who joins Proz knows its strengths and limitations upon becoming a member, and to my knowledge no one is required to stay if, in their view, their needs are not being met. To me it is the same as a restaurant. The staff/cooks may try to accommodate my special requests within their current ability, but at some point I will need to make the decision that I like their food/service enough to stay, or I go to another restaurant.
My best to all.
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
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 04:24
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Whatever... let this thread be whatever you believe it to be | Jul 3, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
Only in the worst of worst cases would you be able to spot non-natives purely by spotting. But those are the ones the thread is about...!
I have the distinct impression that this thread is not about detecting only the worst offenders but actually about detecting most of the offenders.
Hence the frustration felt by many and expressed by some with the constant attempts to fine tune the definition of native.
The less fine-tuned your definition, the more offenders will slip through the cracks. In fact, the worst offenders will be the ones that first slip through the cracks, if the noose is not tightened. No doubt those who wish to fine-tune the definition are equally frustrated by those who believe otherwise.
| | | | | What would be the reason | Jul 3, 2012 |
What would be the reason of examining somebody's writing if the text looked almost impeccable from grammatical and stylistic points of view? What would that be for? Just for art's sake. As I said before my mother's first language was German, but she almost did not speak it later in her life, as a grown-up. So some simplistic theories fail here. Yes, native language according to most linguists is : L1, the language you speak best or are most comfortable with, the language of your habitual use, th... See more What would be the reason of examining somebody's writing if the text looked almost impeccable from grammatical and stylistic points of view? What would that be for? Just for art's sake. As I said before my mother's first language was German, but she almost did not speak it later in her life, as a grown-up. So some simplistic theories fail here. Yes, native language according to most linguists is : L1, the language you speak best or are most comfortable with, the language of your habitual use, the language you have most education in, the language you identify with, and a few other things. With some simplistic definitions, some people would be left without a native language. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Setting the scope | Jul 3, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
I have the distinct impression that this thread is not about detecting only the worst offenders but actually about detecting most of the offenders.
The very first sentence in the thread set the scope, IMHO.
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
We’ve all seen it: people who claim to be native in more than one language but whose command of English (for example) is tenuous at best.
Naturally, the focus of a thread can shift, but a number of us have, from time to time, underlined this original point.
No doubt those who wish to fine-tune the definition are equally frustrated by those who believe otherwise.
No doubt
But whose frustration is more justified.....?
| | |
|
|
|
S E (X)
Italy
Local time: 04:24
Italian to English
| peer review to verify second native language | Jul 3, 2012 |
Having followed this thread since its inception I'd like to first offer support to those who have been trying so valiantly to remind others that the issue is not rare exceptions to the general rule nor borderline cases of near-native proficiency, etc.
As I understand it, this thread is about addressing the problem of people claiming to be native speakers of more than one language where all evidence is to the contrary.
Further, I don't believe anyone has said that... See more Having followed this thread since its inception I'd like to first offer support to those who have been trying so valiantly to remind others that the issue is not rare exceptions to the general rule nor borderline cases of near-native proficiency, etc.
As I understand it, this thread is about addressing the problem of people claiming to be native speakers of more than one language where all evidence is to the contrary.
Further, I don't believe anyone has said that people CAN'T be native speakers of more than one language. The point of the thread is to address the problem of those who say they are but are clearly not. Of which there are loads.
In my own pair, such claims are rampant and I am shocked by the ease with which so many native speakers of my source language claim to be native speakers of my target language on the flimsiest of bases and when their writing in my target language is clear evidence that they are not at all native speakers of it, much less writers.
Since this site claims to be a platform for professional translators and a virtual marketplace where clients and service providers can find one another, I would think that allowing people to claim more than one native language necessitates a verification system, not unlike those already in place for so many other kinds of claims made by members.
Suggested solution:
Step 1. Handle native-speaker claims the same way as, for example, translation credential claims. Such a system would look like this, for someone who claims to be a native speaker of both Italian and English:
Native language(s): Italian (verified), English (unverified)
or, as the case may be:
Native language(s): English (verified), Italian (unverified)
Step 2. To get the second (or third or ...) native language verified, use a peer review process similar to that used for Certified Pro applications.
edited to make post more rapidy readable
[Edited at 2012-07-03 16:38 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 03:24
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | The Peer Review system | Jul 3, 2012 |
It took me a few days to get round to posting this as I had to check first that I wasn’t breaking this site rule (http://www.proz.com/faq/proz_com_certified_pro_program.html#is_there_anything_about_the_certified_pro_network_that_can_not_be_discussed_in_the_public_forums_) by discussing it. I’m sure there’ll be questions but forgive me if I am unable to answer them as I have a few myself. As I understand it, the scheme I will describe below is now “under consideration (i.e. being evaluated for possible implementation)”.
One of the things I had in mind when I started this thread was the Peer Review scheme that is already in existence in the Certified Pro network. Actually, there are two forms of Peer Reviews, reviews of applications to join the network (e.g. samples of your translation work) and another scheme (and the one I am interested in for the purposes of this discussion), which allows you to give feedback at any time, a simple multiple-choice question (nothing open-ended), on whether or not your colleague is a native speaker of their target language. It is anonymous and confidential and comprises a button that appears under their name when they contribute anything on the site. You can also access lists of colleagues in your certified language combination and review them that way instead. This involves considerably less site management than the verification processes we have been discussing but I think, as a compromise, is a fairly neat way of dealing with the current problems. I, for one, would like to see it rolled out across the site. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Michael Beijer
United Kingdom
Local time: 03:24
Member (2009)
Dutch to English
+ ...
| @Lisa & Sarah: | Jul 3, 2012 |
The anonymous and confidential multiple-choice question button mentioned by Lisa does seem to be a good way to go about this. I think that any system, given the scale of the problem at hand, will have to be as automated as possible and this does seem to be a rather elegant solution. The results of this peer review could then be used to identify the native languages of site users as ‘verified’ or ‘unverified’, as per Sarah’s suggestion.
Michael
[Edited at 2012-07-0... See more The anonymous and confidential multiple-choice question button mentioned by Lisa does seem to be a good way to go about this. I think that any system, given the scale of the problem at hand, will have to be as automated as possible and this does seem to be a rather elegant solution. The results of this peer review could then be used to identify the native languages of site users as ‘verified’ or ‘unverified’, as per Sarah’s suggestion.
Michael
[Edited at 2012-07-03 18:20 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | No, I don't think peer evaluation is a good idea at all | Jul 3, 2012 |
This idea does not look professional: it encourages spying on people and it can be used by some people to eliminate competition.
| | |
|
|
|
| for our purposes here, native language means native language competence | Jul 3, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
What would be the reason of examining somebody's writing if the text looked almost impeccable from grammatical and stylistic points of view? What would that be for? Just for art's sake. As I said before my mother's first language was German, but she almost did not speak it later in her life, as a grown-up. So some simplistic theories fail here. Yes, native language according to most linguists is : L1, the language you speak best or are most comfortable with, the language of your habitual use, the language you have most education in, the language you identify with, and a few other things. With some simplistic definitions, some people would be left without a native language.
Yes, and no.
Hi Lilian, if your mom hardly spoke German later in life, what other language did she speak? Which language did she consider her best language, meaning the one she would have been most comfortable with? That would probably be the language she was most proficient/competent in. Let's just say it wasn't German anymore but another language. Would she then still be able to claim that German is her mother tongue?
Yes, but she wouldn't be speaking it on a par with other native speakers of German.
She would have lost her "native language competence".
"Native language" for the sake here, I would say, is "native language competence" - and I argue that you CANNOT claim it if you haven't acquired it in your youth, didn't speak it long enough to earn that competence status, didn't continue to speak and write it and can't consider it your "best" language now. Fluency does not a native speaker make.
In your mom's case, that would have meant she lost her native language competence, she acquired a second language (which she could have never claimed as her native language). Yes, you could say she had no more native language, but it would be more correct to say she lost her native language competency.
Looking at it that way, I believe it is possible to weed out false claims (also see my previous posts) fairly easy by having applicants fill out certain check boxes. (Also tell what can happen if they lie).
As far as verification of ADDITIONAL native languages is concerned, I would say yes, it should be done (orally and by some written evaluation) because it would mean you acquired them both during the critical years, you still speak and write both at native language level, and you consider them both your BEST languages.
Who can claim that?
So, as long as we don't have an evaluation system ready for verifying additional native languages (or native language competence), only one language should be accepted as native language (and given the yellow dot). If claims are made for additional languages, then all these languages need to be verified (just my opinion) by some sort of procedure - oral evaluation online via video-link, Skype, etc. would be just one part. But that's just my opinion.
Looking forward to your thoughts.
edited to fix typos
[Edited at 2012-07-03 20:04 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-07-03 20:48 GMT]
| | | | | not sure that's such a good idea | Jul 3, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
... another scheme (and the one I am interested in for the purposes of this discussion), which allows you to give feedback at any time, a simple multiple-choice question (nothing open-ended), on whether or not your colleague is a native speaker of their target language. It is anonymous and confidential and comprises a button that appears under their name when they contribute anything on the site.
You can also access lists of colleagues in your certified language combination and review them that way instead. This involves considerably less site management than the verification processes we have been discussing but I think, as a compromise, is a fairly neat way of dealing with the current problems. I, for one, would like to see it rolled out across the site.
I'd be against it. Very good speakers of a language could that way become "native speakers" and you would have never heard them say one word in that language and would have never talked to them face-to-face.
Also, obviously, you don't know if the person pushing the button is qualified to make such a decision.
I would rather prefer a meeting with selected professionals and "one-language" native speakers to verify my credentials. By the way, I only have one native language (competence) so I would not have to be verified for that one.
Bernhard
edited typos
[Edited at 2012-07-03 17:37 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-07-03 20:07 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-07-03 20:49 GMT]
| | | | Robert Forstag
United States
Local time: 22:24
Spanish to English
+ ...
| I don't see a "verification by vote" system as working | Jul 3, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
....and another scheme (and the one I am interested in for the purposes of this discussion), which allows you to give feedback at any time, a simple multiple-choice question (nothing open-ended), on whether or not your colleague is a native speaker of their target language. It is anonymous and confidential and comprises a button that appears under their name when they contribute anything on the site. You can also access lists of colleagues in your certified language combination and review them that way instead. This involves considerably less site management than the verification processes we have been discussing but I think, as a compromise, is a fairly neat way of dealing with the current problems. I, for one, would like to see it rolled out across the site.
I don't see such a scheme as working for the following reasons:
1.
The existence of such buttons attached to the postings of those with one or more unverified native languages would seem to perpetuate an atmosphere of hostility and suspicion throughout the site, and even (it might be argued) imply a presumption of misrepresentation.
2.
It begs the question of what exactly the criteria would be for verification/denial. Would 80% percent (for example) of affirmative responses to the multiple choice items based on a sample of 300 respondents be enough to constitute verification?
3.
[Related to the above concern] It would seem possible for a given individual desirous of verification to simply recruit his or her friends to provide positive input into such a system, and there would be no way of knowing if this has happened or not.
4.
Such a process provides no evaluation whatsoever of speech or listening comprehension (two critical language skills that ought to be assessed as part of any verification of a claim of native language ability).
5.
Because such a scheme would evaluate only written content whose provenance could not be guaranteed, it would leave open the possibility that one seeking verification of a native language uploading a number of forum posts that have been edited by skilled native speakers in order to serve as (bogus) evidence of native skills, at least until such time that the desired verification has been obtained.
In short, I don't see this kind of process as having much reliability or validity. I'm afraid this is a case in which, if it is to be done right, the validation system will need to go beyond computer-processed responses and actually involve direct human interaction and judgment calls. I also don't think that enlisting volunteers to carry out such a scheme (even with enticements such as the awarding of several thousand browniz, discounted membership, or enshrinement in the site's Hall of Fame) is the way to go here.
[Edited at 2012-07-03 17:50 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? | 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 » |
| | 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 
