| 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)
|
|---|
XXXphxxx (X) 
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:31
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Have we digressed? ;-) | Jul 15, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
However, this argument shouldn't be used to argue that Geordie and Scouse are a different language to standardised English, as they are not.
The issue of dialects, albeit interesting, is by and large irrelevant to the core of the debate. We could, for the sake of argument, put it to the test here and now via this forum thread, hands up anyone who feels that they translate into an obscure variant of their native language which would not pass muster with other native speakers?
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:31
Hebrew to English
| It was a pre-emptive digression to prevent a digression.... | Jul 15, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote: Ty Kendall wrote:
However, this argument shouldn't be used to argue that Geordie and Scouse are a different language to standardised English, as they are not. The issue of dialects, albeit interesting, is by and large irrelevant to the core of the debate. We could, for the sake of argument, put it to the test here and now via this forum thread, hands up anyone who feels that they translate into an obscure variant of their native language which would not pass muster with other native speakers?
...I think....
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 09:31
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| I don't believe it is relevant, therefore it is not relevant | Jul 15, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
The issue of dialects, albeit interesting, is by and large irrelevant to the core of the debate.
Instead of trying to simply sweep the issue of dialects under the rug, now that is has been raised, why not rather tell us why you believe that the issue of dialects is not relevant to the "core" of this debate? Have the reasons tendered in the past page or two not convinced you that it is relevant? If not, why not?
Simply saying "I don't believe it is relevant, therefore it is not relevant" does not contribute to the discussion. If you do not wish to discuss it, then you don't have to, but that does not mean that others don't have the right to, if they believe it is relevant and are willing to argue their point.
I am surprised that you regard the issue of dialects to be of no concequence to the question about whether native language can be verified, and if so, how it should (or should not) be attempted.
[Edited at 2012-07-15 16:23 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:31
Hebrew to English
| I think........ | Jul 15, 2012 |
The issue of dialects was raised in relation to the thread title with the following reasoning:
If peer review (or something similar) were to take place for native language claims to be verified, the fact that I speak "X" dialect of "X" language means that I would be deemed a non-native speaker of "X".
....which is, of course, nonsense.
I presume peer review (or something similar) would work on written language (if we are talking about translators), as I sai... See more The issue of dialects was raised in relation to the thread title with the following reasoning:
If peer review (or something similar) were to take place for native language claims to be verified, the fact that I speak "X" dialect of "X" language means that I would be deemed a non-native speaker of "X".
....which is, of course, nonsense.
I presume peer review (or something similar) would work on written language (if we are talking about translators), as I said either here or in another thread, even if you speak X dialect of X language, if you're an educated native speaker you will have been educated in the standardised variety of whatever language you speak, therefore will have access to it to pass a peer review system. Nobody writes in their dialect. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:31
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Why it's not relevant | Jul 15, 2012 |
We had established (or I thought we had) a page or two ago that the written languages we work with are, with very few exceptions, the standardised version of the respective language. There are people on this site claiming to be native speakers of English who are unable to write two sentences without causing furrowed brows. Now, not to put too fine a point on it, trying to pass that off as the fact that they actually speak a dialect of English is just compounding a lie with another lie.
| | | | | Not a question :) | Jul 15, 2012 |
Nani Delgado wrote:]
Angie: I am sorry but I didn´t understand your question, if that was any.
Just a new strange thing (for me as I am not Spanish), and just wanted to share because Lombardy and Catalunya are not very close.
But perhaps I was not clear in English, sorry then.
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 00:31
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| A language or a dialect? | Jul 15, 2012 |
They are all dialects, and some are also "languages" (for social, historical and political reasons.)
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 15:31
Chinese to English
| Dialects - not about claiming that you are, but about being marked down for it | Jul 16, 2012 |
I think this was raised with reference to a peer review system. And I have some sympathy. I was once on a forum with a bunch of Americans who decided that I was Chinese because I write "different to" instead of "different from". It's an extreme example, and they were not the sharpest tools in the box, but it illustrates the point: when people are conditioned to look for "language errors", they find them. There have been a couple of examples earlier on this thread, too.
This is not t... See more I think this was raised with reference to a peer review system. And I have some sympathy. I was once on a forum with a bunch of Americans who decided that I was Chinese because I write "different to" instead of "different from". It's an extreme example, and they were not the sharpest tools in the box, but it illustrates the point: when people are conditioned to look for "language errors", they find them. There have been a couple of examples earlier on this thread, too.
This is not to say that peer review can't work, but you would have to be very careful with any peer review system. If you frame it as: "can you find any errors in this person's language", then the answer will be 'yes' much of the time. An incautious system could easily result in many people being improperly rejected as native speakers. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 13:01
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Quite an interesting definition | Jul 16, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
The defition of "native speaker" used by the American National Corpus to decide whether an English speaker is a native "American English" speaker is interesting because it overlaps only partially with many of the definitions touted in this thread. They admit that their definition is not a universal definition and is suited mostly for their own purpose.
However, for those who didn't read the URL, here it is:
You are definitely a native speaker if:
1 you were born in the language's main country and have lived there all your life, OR
2 you were born in some other country, but emigrated to the language's main country before you started school, and have lived in your new country ever since, OR
3 you have lived and went to school in the language's main country even if you did not speak that language at home, OR
4 you have lived in the language's main country since you left school, but when you lived in your previous country at least one of your parents were a native speaker of that language and spoke that language to you.
You may well be a native speaker if:
5 you have lived in in the language's main country since adolescence, OR
6 you have never lived in the language's main country, but both your parents were native speakers of that language and that language was used by them and you at home.
I suspect that many posters here would not regard #4 above as a reliable measure for native language, and I think #3 might also not be widely accepted by participants in this thread. In particular #5 and #6 would be rejected by most people here as an indication of native language.
The above seems to be quite an inclusive definition of a native speaker.
It is, however, not clear why you would want to exclude 3, 4, 5, 6.
If American National Corpus defines native language as above, there must be some reason to include 3, 4, 5, 6.
It might serve as a working definition for us, so that the discussion can proceed from a more common platform of understanding.
As of now, this thread is strikingly similar to the five blind men of Panchatantra, the Sanskrit book of fables, trying to define an elephant, and each coming up with a different definition, which meets the facts observed by him, but only partially applying to the elephant in toto.
Also, another thing that we need to be clear about, is the distinction between translators and interpreters. For translators, writing ability in the target language is the deciding factor, not their their speaking ability, the reverse is true for interpreters.
A translator who cannot speak like a native, but who can write like one, can be good enough for most translation jobs in that target language.
If we try to apply the native language concept on both interpreters and translators, it will make the task more complicated. We can keep things less complex by concentrating for now on translators and not on interpreters.
proz.com too describes itself as a workplace for translators, and does not specifically mention interpreters.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 13:01
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | That is a bizarre argument | Jul 16, 2012 |
Nani Delgado wrote:
But you should respect what the clients are looking for. And if they are looking for native speakers that´s what they should get.
If you stretch that argument a bit, you could say, if the client is looking for murderers, nazis, and people of other undesirable bents of mind, we should have no qualms about fulfilling those client requirements.
The client, as has been pointed out in this thread itself, is often clue-less as to what is needed to get his/her job done, often has no understanding of the process of translation, or how languages are mastered, and a host of related issues.
It is part of the task of a site like this and each one of us translators to educate and enlighten the client on all these issues.
The client is looking for easy solutions, as all of us would be. He simply uses "native language" as a magic wand or a silver bullet for all his translation woes. He fondly hopes that a native translator would deliver a flawless translation in all situations and types of translation requirements. We all know how pitifully mistaken he is. It would be cruelty to allow him to persist with this delusion.
"Native language" criterion is not going to solve most of his problems. There is a host of other factors to be taken into consideration to get a translation right.
And, by not relying blindly on the crutch of nativity and making the much needed effort to identify and develop a more comprehensive and scientific yardstick for determining translation quality, he will not only benefit himself, but also the entire translation profession, that is, each one of us.
Only he has the money to invest in this exercise, but we can benefit him, and ourselves, with our knowledge and understanding of the process of translation and language acquisition, in developing this yardstick.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 13:01
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | The problem is with the rule, not the people | Jul 16, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
I can tell you that the level of deceipt, dishonesty and fabrication on these profiles is beyond your wildest imaginings...
[Edited at 2012-07-03 11:56 GMT]
If too many people are found to be breaking a rule, the logical conclusion should be that the rule is defective, not that people are depraved.
The very concept of native language is flawed, and translators are forced to get around it; you can call them depraved, but another way of tackling the problem would be to look again at the rule.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:31
Hebrew to English
| What's bizarre is invoking murders and nazis | Jul 16, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Nani Delgado wrote:
But you should respect what the clients are looking for. And if they are looking for native speakers that´s what they should get. If you stretch that argument a bit, you could say, if the client is looking for murderers, nazis, and people of other undesirable bents of mind, we should have no qualms about fulfilling those client requirements.
C'mon, let's not be silly.
[Edited at 2012-07-16 07:10 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:31
Hebrew to English
| Again, I ask that we credit outsourcers with more than 2 brain cells | Jul 16, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
The client, as has been pointed out in this thread itself, is often clue-less as to what is needed to get his/her job done, often has no understanding of the process of translation, or how languages are mastered, and a host of related issues.
Pointed out by those whom it serves to peddle that belief, but it hasn't been proved.
The truth is outsourcers are not the clueless morons people would have us believe. If they ask for a native speaker, it's for a good reason. We should respect that. We should respect they know what they're talking about. We shouldn't lie to circumvent their wishes. It's disrespectful and unprofessional.
It is part of the task of a site like this and each one of us translators to educate and enlighten the client on all these issues.
No, it isn't.
The client is looking for easy solutions, as all of us would be. He simply uses "native language" as a magic wand or a silver bullet for all his translation woes. He fondly hopes that a native translator would deliver a flawless translation in all situations and types of translation requirements.
What evidence do you have to support this belief? (Because it is a belief, not a fact).
[Edited at 2012-07-16 07:16 GMT]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 13:01
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | What has speaking got to do with translation? | Jul 16, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
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
Bernhard, aren't you confusing issues a bit here? What has speaking got to do with translation? Translation is a written medium. It is how you write that matters, not how you speak.
I will emphasize again, we need to separate translation from interpretation. Both are closely allied activities, but with different skill requirements. Translation requires written abilities, and is practiced for the purpose of intake through one's eyes, not one's ears. The eye does not perceive differences in intonations. The written message is bereft of much cultural baggage. It only captures a fraction of all the information that is there is the spoken version of the message.
Most of the controversies and grey areas of this discussion will disappear if we make this clear distinction.
| | | | | That tops it all. | Jul 16, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Nani Delgado wrote:
But you should respect what the clients are looking for. And if they are looking for native speakers that´s what they should get. If you stretch that argument a bit, you could say, if the client is looking for murderers, nazis, and people of other undesirable bents of mind, we should have no qualms about fulfilling those client requirements.
I got my words distorted many times in my life but that tops it all.
Of course, Balasubramaniam, just last week a client of mine wanted a gun manual to be translated by a murder, because they know what they´re talking about. As I don´t outsource, I decided to kill my neighbour. Now I am fully qualified to do the job. The client is king. 
| | | | | 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! » |
| | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
