| 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)
|
|---|
| what to do for now | Jul 4, 2012 |
to make people refrain from falsely listing a language as their native language:
A) Have everybody go through a checklist before the native language credential appears on their profile page.
Suggestion:
1. You acquired this language during the critical years (add definition)
2. You have used this language continuously since childhood.
3. You consider this language your best language.
If this is done for one language only, I ... See more to make people refrain from falsely listing a language as their native language:
A) Have everybody go through a checklist before the native language credential appears on their profile page.
Suggestion:
1. You acquired this language during the critical years (add definition)
2. You have used this language continuously since childhood.
3. You consider this language your best language.
If this is done for one language only, I have no problem accepting the person as a native speaker of that one language. Please tweak.
If somebody tries to run the checklist again for a second language, the result will be that the first and the second language will appear as unverified. They will have to go through verification (powwow etc.)
B) When clients search the translator directory for a German (any language) native speaker, they now click options for German next to the line called "native language".
Here it could be changed to two separate lines:
Native language (accepted) or Native language (confirmed)
Native language (unverified) or Native language (confirmation pending)
Please tweak
and/or (on the profile page)
C) write "accepted native language" or "confirmed native language" next to just one declared native language,
write "unverified native language" or "unconfirmed/confirmation pending" next to each of two native languages
Just a few thoughts.
Your input please.
B
[Edited at 2012-07-04 16:00 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Michael Beijer 
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:54
Member (2009)
Dutch to English
+ ...
| [deleted duplicate] | Jul 4, 2012 |
[deleted duplicate]
[Edited at 2012-07-04 17:47 GMT]
| | | | Michael Beijer
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:54
Member (2009)
Dutch to English
+ ...
| I appreciate your thinly veiled sarcasm, writeaway... | Jul 4, 2012 |
writeaway wrote:
All this discussion and the comments about the colour-coded symbols next to the profile page language claims seems to have spurred at least one colleague to take action.
Before there were 2 (grey) native language claims (one for the actual native language, one for English) but the problem has now been resolved. Now there is only one native language claim in bright blue/yellow (so looking very official). And guess what, it's NOT for the actual native language, but the person has used the system to become a native English speaker only! In the click of a mouse.
It's (still) that simple apparently. Faster than Dorthy's red slippers! Wishful thinking turned into virtual reality. Sure to fool as many people as the Emperor's New Clothes. Storybook fantasy all.........
...but English IS actually my native language. And Dutch.
Perhaps a little history will help to clarify the issue:
– My father was Dutch and my mother is American. I grew up speaking both Dutch and English at home.
– I have two passports.
– I lived in the US for 6 years, between the ages of 1 and 7, where I attended a Montessori school
– I attended primary school and HAVO in the Netherlands, where I lived in Hoofddorp, Haarlem, Utrecht, Zaandam, and Amsterdam.
– My family lived in Spain for around 4 years, where I went to a British school.
– I studied fine art at the Utrecht School of the Arts (HKU) in Utrecht (in Dutch), and at the Rietveld Art Academy in Amsterdam (in English and Dutch) for approximately 1 and 4 years, respectively.
– I completed a BA in Philosophy at an American university in Greece.
– I presently live in the UK, with my British wife, where I plan to stay. My wife is a Cambridge English graduate, a published author, and a former English teacher. She proofreads all of my translations.
What is my native language? Your guess is as good as mine.
After following this thread for the last day or so, I decided to drop the Dutch native language claim because, although I speak/read/write Ducth fluently, English is the language that I have spent most of my life actually writing and reading. My spoken Dutch is great, but when I have to write it I have to think too much and this slows me down. The reason I initially wanted to list both languages as my native language is that they in fact both ARE my native language. This, and the fact that I only translate from Dutch INTO English. However, having thought about it more as a result of this thread, I realised that English is actually my ‘first’, or ‘best’ native language, and Dutch my second. That's why I changed it today.
Michael
@writeaway: Or was this perhaps aimed at someone else?
[Edited at 2012-07-04 23:57 GMT]
| | | | | Not for seniors :-) | Jul 4, 2012 |
septima wrote: Wouldn't a high school diploma/O-levels, A-levels/school leaving certificate etc. be sufficient proof that a person has successfully passed through the school system of a given country (presumably including basic, compulsory language education), and therefore in all likelihood has a "native" command of the relevant language? A scanned copy of such a certificate (dating from the translator's school years) would seem to offer reasonable assurance that a person's claims to native level skill are justified. True bilinguals and people with itinerant childhoods might have to come up with something extra, but at least it would be an easy method to verify most claims. Just an idea, not that I really care about this issue  s
Hi Septima,
I suppose that you are very young (I'm only guessing as your profile is absolutely empty). Be reassured, I'm not criticizing (about your age, whatever it is). If I say that, it is because your suggestion could certainly be a good idea, but not for seniors.
Your post made me laughing out loud, because I realized that I have absolutely no clue about the place where might be hidden out my Baccalauréat certificate (even if passed with mention très bien (approx: summa cum laude)). Can you believe it? It was exactly forty years ago! It sort of dates me
I'm sure that I'm not the only one in this case
Catherine
| | |
|
|
|
| Neither necessary nor sufficient? | Jul 4, 2012 |
Catherine GUILLIAUMET wrote: septima wrote:
Wouldn't a high school diploma/O-levels, A-levels/school leaving certificate etc. be sufficient proof that a person has successfully passed through the school system of a given country (presumably including basic, compulsory language education), and therefore in all likelihood has a "native" command of the relevant language?
A scanned copy of such a certificate (dating from the translator's school years) would seem to offer reasonable assurance that a person's claims to native level skill are justified.
If I say that, it is because your suggestion could certainly be a good idea, but not for seniors. Your post made me laughing out loud, because I realized that I have absolutely no clue about the place where might be hidden out my Baccalauréat certificate
This came up several billion pagges ago - I may have mentioned it myself (!) - but I think the consensus is it proves nothing in and of itself. It's the kind of stuff that may help support a claim, without proving it, basically.
In fact, to be honest, I wouldn't trust an English GCSE certificate post 1990 to prove anything other than the individual was probably in the country on the exam date
| | | | Jen Rouse
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:54
Member (2012)
English
| Native speakers not necessarily great translators anyway? | Jul 4, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: In fact, to be honest, I wouldn't trust an English GCSE certificate post 1990 to prove anything other than the individual was probably in the country on the exam date
So true, Charlie! Mine is the gallows humour of an ex-educator. (And a post 1990 GCSE certificate holder, but let's not talk about that!)
I'm afraid I don't have much in the way of practical suggestions here, but thought I'd just add some thoughts anyway. Cutting across this debate is this idea that by proving your native language you're somehow guaranteeing the quality of your translation work, which is pretty problematic in any case. I of course have seen all those profiles of "native speakers" written in terrible English (and only English, mind, I'm a proofreader not a translator myself) - and of course, they pose a significant problem to outsourcers looking to find a "(wo)man of quality".
But as a proofreader I take on lots of texts written by people I know to be unambiguously native speaking - that is, they were born, raised and educated in England - but who write extremely poorly. (The writers obviously know this, or else they wouldn't be paying me to do it.) Still, from where I'm sitting, there's much more to good writing than native proficiency. Clarity of thought and phrase, subject knowledge, accuracy, a wide syntactical and lexical range, confidence with nuance and subtext, the ability to anticipate reader responses, and, in the case of translation, the ability to circumnavigate the constant non-translatable elements of a foreign text - all these are features of good writing in any field, and without wishing to undermine the argument, hiring a native speaker does not guarantee they'll do a good job. I much prefer to proofread something in poor English but with exceptional subject knowledge that withstands exhaustive research, especially if I get to actually communicate with them about intended meanings (proofreading and mind reading not being 100% interchangeable, contrary to popular belief). Then I feel like the end client's getting the best of both worlds: a text translated by a non-native expert in, say, the fine details of specific foreign political institutions, but proofread by a language expert.
That said, I do feel sad for the agencies and end clients when I end up proofing texts that were poorly translated in the first place, not least because while I feel confident in the quality of my language work, without access to the original text, my hands are tied when it comes to content. Translators do occupy a curious space in terms of power and accountability anyway. Many outsourcers don't have the language skills to translate something themselves, which leads me to think that assuring the quality of work undertaken by a third party for them must be a nightmare, whether that work is flawed due to the translator's substandard proficiency in the target language or a native-speaking translator's inaccuracy.
Although of course, I don't disagree that weeding out the most flagrant offenders here on ProZ would certainly be a step in the right direction.
| | | | | You are right, Jen. | Jul 5, 2012 |
Hi Jen,
You are perfectly right, nobody here said otherwise. Being native speaker doesn´t automatically give you the talent to write and express yourself properly, just like being bilingual (as José Henrique Lamensdorf said) doesn´t mean you are able to convey others' ideas into another language. But the ability to write properly in your native language is a *minimum requirement* if you consider yourself a professional translator. That´s why I assume that every native speaker th... See more Hi Jen,
You are perfectly right, nobody here said otherwise. Being native speaker doesn´t automatically give you the talent to write and express yourself properly, just like being bilingual (as José Henrique Lamensdorf said) doesn´t mean you are able to convey others' ideas into another language. But the ability to write properly in your native language is a *minimum requirement* if you consider yourself a professional translator. That´s why I assume that every native speaker that becomes a professional translator is also an excellent writer in their native language.
I would like to stop talking about non-qualified or non-educated native speakers because having excellent writing skills is the very first requirement that everyone of us professional translators should fulfil and generally does. You wouldn´t call yourself a guitar player if you couldn´t play guitar, right? So please let´s assume that we all are above that level, otherwise we wouldn´t be professional translators.
But in addition to that, there are other skills that can be required in order to be eligible for a certain job of a certain client: certain university education, certain training, certain specialty, certain place of residence... and also being native speaker of a certain language. Clients come here to find *the* translator that meets his requirements whatever they are, and that´s what they should find.
Being native speaker is just one of a list of requirements, but it is an important one. All we want is bogus native language claimers to stop lying about this. They are damaging the image of this site and the credibility of our profession as a whole.
*Edited to add:
Charlie Bavington wrote: (Christ, I'm starting to sound like some rabid republican evangelist. I'll start saying "those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear" next. Look what you've done to me. Look! I'm going to have a nice cup of tea now. )
It´s a pleasure reading your posts. Thank you, Charlie! You made me laugh.
[Edited at 2012-07-05 05:17 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:54
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | We’re not talking about people who can’t write | Jul 5, 2012 |
Nani Delgado wrote:
But the ability to write properly in your native language is a *minimum requirement* if you consider yourself a professional translator. That´s why I assume that every native speaker that becomes a professional translator is also an excellent writer in their native language.
We're assuming that nobody would be a translator in the first place if they didn’t have decent writing skills and a good eye for detail (and I include technical manuals here). For me that's a given.
When I did the Diploma in Translation (from Spanish into English), the focus all the time was on the ability to write English well. It was drilled into us that what was being tested was our English. For the exams, our teacher had recommended that we bring along one bilingual dictionary, an English dictionary and a Thesaurus, that’s it, perhaps a specialist bilingual dictionary if you really felt you needed one for the specialist papers. Most ignored his advice and came armed with trolley-loads of bilingual dictionaries. The only person in our group already working professionally as a translator was a Dutch lady; she'd been translating for some five years; the rest of us had next to no experience. I was there just brushing up on my Spanish, which I missed and had gone a bit rusty due to an over-dominance of Russian at work. Anyway, the Dutch lady’s Spanish was excellent, her (spoken) English even more so, she was right up there, worked hard and was competent to boot. When it came to the exam results, we found to our astonishment that she’d failed. Okay, she wasn’t the only one, about three-quarters of the class failed, but we thought she was a model of excellence! Speaking to the teacher later I realised that what I didn’t know was how good her written English actually was, clearly not good enough. Now others may have had completely different “Dip. Trans. experiences” and I’m not saying the Dip. Trans. is the gold standard either. Perhaps the criteria would now be considered old-fashioned, and of course there are wonderful translators translating into non-native languages, nobody on this thread has ever denied any of that, or categorically stated that it shouldn’t be done. However, on the balance of probability, which is all that outsourcers have to go on (think how risky the decision is for them), I know what I would choose, every time, and if I then found out that person had been lying about their native language and subsequently delivered a sub-standard translation, I would feel perfectly within my rights to withhold payment. Is that a risk anyone wants to take?
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 14:54
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| How would a tribunal decide the case? | Jul 5, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
I know what I would choose, every time, and if I then found out that person had been lying about their native language and subsequently delivered a sub-standard translation, I would feel perfectly within my rights to withhold payment.
Let's talk about this issue from the viewpoint of Lisa's latest comment.
If you withhold payment from such a translator and he sues you before a tribunal, and you refuse to give in, how do you think would the judges decide the case? Assuming that you had said in a public forum that the lie about the native language was a key decider in not paying him (you can't back down from that and claim that you're only refusing to pay because of substandard work), what would you have to prove?
Remember, when accusing someone of lying about their native language, it is insufficient to show that they themselves can't prove that it is their native language. The onus is on the accuser to prove that the accused had lied, and not on the accused to prove that he didn't lie.
I'm not trying to get back to the "definition" discussion, although I think that this may have somewhat to do with definition anyway.
You could evaluate (a) his background as a person, to show that he is not a native speaker. And you could evaluate (b) his translation, to show that it contains errors that only non-native speakers would make.
Point A comes back to definition. You'd have to show that he does not comply with your definition of "native language" and you'd have to convince the judges that your definition is right (so merely saying "c'mon, we all know what it really means" isn't going to fly). In addition, you would have to show that any reasons he might have for calling himself a native speaker are not relevant.
Point B has to do with proficiency. You'd have to show that there are an abundance of errors that native speakers typically do not make and that non-native speakers are prone to make. Simply saying "the text does not feel native to me" isn't going to go down well with the judges, if they are impartial. I suppose it may be in order to show errors in his other translations, too, since the issue is not the quality of his translation for you but cues abou this translation in general.
What else am I missing here? Can you think of other issues that will have to be taken into account, if you (or we) were to have to prepare for such a hearing?
Samuel
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 20:54
Chinese to English
| Not sure it's relevant, but... | Jul 5, 2012 |
I'm fairly sure you're misunderstanding how the law would work, there, Samuel.
Samuel Murray wrote:
when accusing someone of lying about their native language, it is insufficient to show that they themselves can't prove that it is their native language. The onus is on the accuser to prove that the accused had lied, and not on the accused to prove that he didn't lie.
Except, in this case, it would be the translator suing the company, not the other way round.
You'd have to show that he does not comply with your definition of "native language" and you'd have to convince the judges that your definition is right (so merely saying "c'mon, we all know what it really means" isn't going to fly).
Actually, in common law, that's exactly the kind of thing that does fly. Firstly, a small claims court is not going to want to get into academic details. Secondly, unless you can show that there is some highly specific industry definition, a court will rule that the words people use when making a contract have their normal meanings. Thirdly, if the translator turns up in court and is speaking noticeably broken English - as would be the case for all the egregious claims that we're really interested in clearing up - then the court isn't going to hesitate for very long.
But this court scenario isn't relevant at all, because Proz is not a court. And no-one in this argument except you thinks that careful definition of native language is necessary or even useful. I don't know or care exactly what a native language is, but I do know this:
A native language is not a pink elephant.
A native language is not a variety of tomato.
A native language is not a language spoken by someone who has never lived in that language environment.
A native language is not a language in which a translator makes multiple obvious errors when writing their promotional blurb.
Any translator who makes any of the above claims on this site is breaking rule 6. But the site is not dealing with it at the moment.
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 05:54
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
[Edited at 2012-07-05 21:19 GMT]
| | | | jyuan_us
United States
Local time: 08:54
Member (2005)
English to Chinese
+ ...
1). If there are any outsourcers here, tell you what, it might save you a lot of time/money/energy/resources/clients if you use an excellent non-target-native, as compared to the use of an average target native. This is because an average target-native might have a lot of problems understanding the source text.
2). A higher portion of my income comes from translating from my native tongue.
3). Whether native or non-native, it depends on the type of the text to be trans... See more 1). If there are any outsourcers here, tell you what, it might save you a lot of time/money/energy/resources/clients if you use an excellent non-target-native, as compared to the use of an average target native. This is because an average target-native might have a lot of problems understanding the source text.
2). A higher portion of my income comes from translating from my native tongue.
3). Whether native or non-native, it depends on the type of the text to be translated. For certificates, medical records, transcripts, personal letters, etc., it is really not neccessary to use a native speaker of the target language. On the otherhand, you'd better off using someone translating into his native tongue for promotional materials.
4). When you say "We only use translators who translate into their native languages" to an end client, he might not understand the reason why. he might feel your claim weired. The issue of native vs non-native is a topic that has its room for discussion only among the language professionales. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 14:54
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Phil -- I still think the onus would be on the client | Jul 5, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
Firstly, a small claims court is not going to want to get into academic details. Secondly, unless you can show that there is some highly specific industry definition, a court will rule that the words people use when making a contract have their normal meanings.
Very well, and what is the normal meaning? Presumably what a dictionary says its normal meaning is. Or how else would you determine the normal meaning?
Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics
native speaker: a person who learned a language as a child
Longman
native speaker: someone who has learned a particular language as their first language, rather than as a foreign language
MacMillan
native speaker: someone who has learnt a particular language from the time that they began to speak
Cambridge
native language: the first language that you learn
Merriam-Webster
(does not have either native language or native speaker)
Oxford
native speaker: a person who has spoken the language in question from earliest childhood
Thirdly, if the translator turns up in court and is speaking noticeably broken English...
...assuming that the judges speak the translator's native language, or course.
Well, none of the above definitions say anything about current main language or anything about current language skill. If the person claims that he had learnt X as a child, even though his current language skills at it is poor, then he would satisfy the "normal meaning" of the term. He could claim that he now works together with an editor to ensure that his translations are still good.
But this court scenario isn't relevant at all, because Proz is not a court.
Erm, if a client refuses to pay me, I'm not going to ask ProZ.com to arbitrate the matter. I'm going to ask a debt collector to get the money. If the client does not want to pay, he would have to prove that I have breached the agreement, and he would have to do that in a... court.
And no-one in this argument except you thinks that careful definition of native language is necessary or even useful.
Actually, the point of my post was to move away from the debates about "careful definitions". You can't get away from definitions, but you don't have to hammer on them in every argument.
Any translator who makes any of the above claims on this site is breaking rule 6.
The debt collector isn't going to care about "rule 6".
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 20:54
Chinese to English
| We've been over this before | Jul 5, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Well, none of the above definitions say anything about current main language or anything about current language skill.
You keep making this claim, and it's not getting any truer.
If I tell you that my grandmother was dead last Tuesday, that doesn't tell you anything at all about whether or not she's alive today... or does it?
If I tell you I was a child during the 1980s, that doesn't tell you anything about whether or not I'm an adult today... or does it?
If I tell you that I learned English as a child, that doesn't tell you anything about my ability to speak English... or does it?
The answers to all the above questions are the same. A claim about nativeness is a claim about language competence because it is a fact about human beings that we learn to speak languages competently (with a few exceptions).
Erm, if a client refuses to pay me, I'm not going to ask ProZ.com to arbitrate the matter.
Yes. That's what I said. And that's why the court example is pretty irrelevant to Proz. The way a court might choose to think about nativeness is not (directly) relevant to us, because they operate in different spheres, with different objectives.
Proz is trying to match up translators with outsourcers with the greatest efficiency (among other things). In order to do that, it needs to ensure that both sides provide accurate, searchable data.
| | | | | No deterioration? | Jul 5, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
A claim about nativeness is a claim about language competence because it is a fact about human beings that we learn to speak languages competently (with a few exceptions).
You don't allow for the possibility of "use it or lose it" applying also, to a lesser extent, to the native tongue?
FWIW I suspect you may be right in terms of following the basic rules of grammar, but you meet expats who have immersed themselves in a locale such that the only English they read is the stuff the produce themselves, and they almost never speak it, and by God they come out with some crap (and sadly I know of a couple of translators like this).
I'd say you're probably mostly right, but you've done yourself no favours by drawing a comparison with 2 things which are uneqivocally and universally right, in that the dead stay dead and any kid in the 80s would have to be at least 22 by now which (I'm guessing!) must be over the the age of majority in most places....
However, has put down a useful marker about your view of what "native" means, since I admit I had always thought a native language could deteriorate and even, under rare circumstances, be lost. OK, the rare ones are unlikely to be on proz, but the others..... well, least said, soonest mended, let's say (IOW, there are some natives who, I think, could do with a refresher course in their native tongue).
| | | | | 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 
