| 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: 16:22
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Phil -- copywriting versus bad translation | Jul 17, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote: http://www.cma.org.cn/ensite/index/ExchangePrograms/2012612/1339484437225_1.html "Chinese-French Medical Week (CFMW) was initiated in 1980 aiming at enhancing communications and cooperation between the two countries in the field of medical sciences. It was proposed by France-China Medical Exchange Committee during their visit to China in April 1979." This passage has several distinctively non-native errors. Lack of proper use of articles is one (the..committee). Odd vocabulary use is another (initiated). Incorrect use of verb forms is a third (aiming). ... On their own, it is possible that any one of these errors could be made by a native speaker. Taken together, they form a distinctive pattern.
If that was a piece of copywriting, I'd have to agree with you. But isn't it possible that a native English speaker who is just a sloppy or hurried translator could have been responsible for that rather direct translation?
After all, the more hurried the translation, the more traces you'll find of the source language in the target text. This adds weight to the idea that trying to catch the non-native is better done when he converses (i.e creates text himself), and not when he translates.
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 22:22
Chinese to English
| I drifted away from the thread... | Jul 17, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Say, would the errors that you have in mind here also be identified in a simple language test that does not focus on trying to identify non-nativeness? I mean, would my "preliminary proficiency test" idea (mentioned a few posts back) catch most of the blokes you're referring to here?
I think I missed that post, but probably. Yes, I've been arguing for a bit that a test which is presented explicitly as a "catch the non-native" test is likely to fail, because people easily become hyper-critical. You'd have to present it as a general quality test, or better, get a monolingual proofreader to go through a passage, and just count the errors.
This adds weight to the idea that trying to catch the non-native is better done when he converses (i.e creates text himself), and not when he translates.
Absolutely.
But I disagree with you about the translation. I've seen work by some pretty dodgy native English translators of Chinese, and they would never produce something like that. Initiated - possible. Aiming at - no way. Missing the "the" before committee - no way.
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 07:22
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| non-native errors = non-native | Jul 17, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
I suppose it should be possible to use writing to unmask a non-native speaker, but you'd need to supplement your evaluation with additional information about the writer, and make your decision on the balance of evidence, not simply on the presence of a number of typical non-native errors.
If we could speculate a bit: If you find errors in writing that are accepted by scholars to be typical non-native errors for that language combination, and you suspect that those errors are evidence of non-nativeness, you'd have to devise a second test (possibly more) to verify that those errors are truly not the result of any other reason. For example, if a person makes a typically non-native grammar error but also makes similar grammar errors that non-natives typically do not make, then it casts doubt on whether those typically non-native errors are made because of non-nativeness.
No, it doesn't matter whether the errors are "typical" non-native errors or not. If a writer makes non-native errors, that is conclusive evidence that the writer is not native in that language.
| | | | psicutrinius
Spain
Local time: 16:22
Member (2008)
Spanish to English
+ ...
| @ moderators, please | Jul 17, 2012 |
This thread has derailed long ago.
Summing up:
1). There is the possibility of the system being abused by people claiming a "native language" which I believe has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt NOT to be true. This needs to be addressed, in my view, and there is a number of possible methods for doing so, most of which have been explained ad nauseam in this thread (although there is chaff, enough of it as to make it tedious and difficult to find them).
... See more This thread has derailed long ago.
Summing up:
1). There is the possibility of the system being abused by people claiming a "native language" which I believe has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt NOT to be true. This needs to be addressed, in my view, and there is a number of possible methods for doing so, most of which have been explained ad nauseam in this thread (although there is chaff, enough of it as to make it tedious and difficult to find them).
2) There are in this very thread people claiming to be "native" in English who decidedly are NOT, which I myself (and I am NOT) have spotted clearly. At the very least, even if they are native, they are not PROFICIENT enough (grossly enough that a Spaniard who got English as a THIRD language has spotted it).
3) Let's not get TOO MUCH out of focus: The "raison d'être" of this thread is to exercise control on this, and weed out the abusers or, at least, the worst abusers of it all, that is:
Whenever someone claims a language as a native language but is not proficient enough to put together a few phrases -to the point that a non-native like me can spot the fact- the claim should be revoked "ex-officio".
I believe that this sums it all up. Politics, colonialism, bees-in-bonnets, just plain obstreperousness, hidden or apparent agendas (but NOT PERTAINING TO THE SUBJECT) notwithstanding are OUT OF PLACE HERE.
Therefore, please come up with your conclusions and a plan and let's call it a day -all of us.
[Edited at 2012-07-17 19:59 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Lying and explaining | Jul 17, 2012 |
After two days, I have finally managed to skim through all of the previous posts in this thread - and may I say: Wow.
The first thing I'd like to say is that I do (I, too) find it atrocious that so-called professional translators LIE about being native speakers. It's unprofessional, it's unethical, it's just plain dishonest, and it should be stopped if we can ever come up with a way to do that. Cross your fingers and wish upon a star.
That said, there was one thing that... See more After two days, I have finally managed to skim through all of the previous posts in this thread - and may I say: Wow.
The first thing I'd like to say is that I do (I, too) find it atrocious that so-called professional translators LIE about being native speakers. It's unprofessional, it's unethical, it's just plain dishonest, and it should be stopped if we can ever come up with a way to do that. Cross your fingers and wish upon a star.
That said, there was one thing that was brought up by someone in the "other camp" (those debating the whole nativeness issue) that made me think, and that was the motivation behind these lies. The mere fact that Proz.com BLOCKS people from bidding on jobs actually encourages them to lie about their credentials, their qualifications, their specializations, and/or their native language(s) (etc.).
Perhaps - just perhaps - we should consider changing the function of actually BLOCKING people from bidding. What about an active filtering system (for example)?
Instead of keeping certain linguists from bidding at all, outsourcers could (still) request native speakers, medical experts, whatever - but not block those without those aspects claimed in their profiles. INSTEAD, quotes sent through the Proz.com system from linguists not claiming those aspects in their profiles would be clearly identified to the outsourcers as such. That would at least put the onus on the outsourcer to thoroughly vet their candidates, and also give linguists who think they are qualified the opportunity to at least defend their rationale. It's just a thought, but it would remove some of the MOTIVATION behind the lying.
As far as determining "nativeness", why can't basic measures be instituted - not barring further, more detailed measures or verification systems or challenges or whatever down the road - to put anyone claiming any native language through a series of combination multi-choice/free answer questions when setting up their profile, much like the criteria suggested by Bernhard and Samuel at various points in the discussion?
Someone already suggested something very similar (it is darned hard to find individual posts in nearly 60 pages), something along the lines of "I claim to be a native speaker of XXX because:"
The following are just some (bad) examples, but I'm sure they could be refined and extended. The point is, the more options that are available, the more someone can demonstrate and explain their "nativeness" (and free answers could potentially be reviewed by other linguists for indications of non-native errors). Also, as soon as "native language box 2" is checked, the list could simply be repeated - but anyone reviewing the answers would gain an insight as to why this person claims to be bi/trilingual (etc.), for example if the schools listed are in Switzerland - or why their claims are inherently dubious (for example, 2nd "native language" claimed to be Italian but no evidence of any formative years spent in Italy).
1) I went to school between the ages of 1-10 in a country where XXX is an official language (and XXX was the language in which I was instructed) YES/NO
If so, what country/region/city: ___
If so, what school(s): ___
How long/which years: ___
Other details you wish to provide: ___
2) I went to school between the ages of 5-15 in a country where XXX is an official language (and XXX was the language in which I was instructed) YES/NO
If so, what country/region/city: ___
If so, what school(s): ___
How long/which years: ___
Other details you wish to provide: ___
3) I went to school between the ages of 10-18 in a country where XXX is an official language (and XXX was the language in which I was instructed) YES/NO
If so, what country/region/city: ___
If so, what school(s): ___
How long/which years: ___
Other details you wish to provide: ___
4) I attended a university or other advanced educational program in a country where XXX is an official language and XXX was the language in which I was instructed or which I studied YES/NO
If so, what country/region/city: ___
If so, what institution(s): ___
Areas of study: ___
Other details you wish to provide: ___
5) Although I spent my childhood in a country where XXX was not an official language, one or more parents was a native speaker of XXX, and XXX was spoken at home YES/NO
If so, please discuss the frequency of conversations in XXX
If so, please provide information on any formal childhood instruction in XXX
If so, please give a brief explanation of why you feel you are a native speaker of XXX
Other details you wish to provide: ___
6) Although I spent my childhood in a country where XXX was not an official language, I went through a special educational program, the intent of which was to teach XXX YES/NO
If so, what school: ___
How long/which years: ___
Other details you wish to provide: ___
7) Although I left the country where I spent my childhood and learned XXX, I worked/held a position where XXX was required as an official language for internal/other communications YES/NO
If so, age at which you left the country where XXX was the official language: ___
If so, what company/ies, what position(s): ___
If so, how long/which years did you spend doing this work/in such position(s): ___
Other details you wish to provide: ___
8) If any of the above apply partially but not completely, please describe how they apply with respect to your particular situation. Please feel free to provide any and all details you feel will show why you consider XXX to be your native language.
9) If you left the country where XXX is spoken as an official language for more than 5 years at any time during your childhood or for more than 15 years during your adulthood, please provide information as to why you have not lost your competency as a native speaker of XXX. This is a free-form answer, please feel free to be creative.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
[Edited - more pages than I thought! - And edited again because Samuel's quote highlighted where I had accidentally deleted words - d'oh!]
[Edited at 2012-07-17 19:24 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
[Edited at 2012-07-17 19:59 GMT]
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 07:22
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| What are non-native/native mistakes? | Jul 17, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
What are non-native mistakes, anyhow?
Non-native mistake:
"He no have some."
(ill-formed according to the grammatical rules of English)
Native mistake:
"He don't got none."
(well-formed according to the grammatical rules of the speaker's sub-standard variety of English, but ill-formed according to the rules of educated standard English)
[Edited at 2012-07-17 19:06 GMT]
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 16:22
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Michele's definition, and Gallego's plea | Jul 17, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
No, it doesn't matter whether the errors are "typical" non-native errors or not. If a writer makes non-native errors, that is conclusive evidence that the writer is not native in that language.
Aah, well then we're talking about different things. To you, any error that a native might also make is not a "non-native error". To me, any error that is typical of non-natives, regardless of whether it is exclusively found among non-natives, is a "non-native error".
psicutrinius wrote:
This thread has derailed long ago. ... Therefore, please come up with your conclusions and a plan and let's call it a day -all of us.
Actually, this thread still contains fruitful discussion. I have seen other threads that turned into general mud slinging and private jokes within a page or two. Those threads can be closed. This one is still broadly on-topic.
[Edited at 2012-07-17 19:21 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 16:22
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Janet's idea | Jul 17, 2012 |
Janet Rubin wrote:
Instead of keeping certain linguists from bidding at all, outsourcers could (still) request native speakers, medical experts, whatever - but not block those without those aspects claimed in their profiles. INSTEAD, quotes sent through the Proz.com system from linguists not claiming those aspects in their profiles would be clearly identified to the outsourcers as such. That would at least put the onus on the outsourcer to thoroughly vet their candidates, and also give linguists who think they are qualified to at least defend their rationale. It's just a thought, but it would remove some of the MOTIVATION behind the lying.
Interesting thought. So, if I understand correctly, some search options would be deemed "non-exclusive", so that if an outsourcer or KudoZ asker selects those options, those options are not taken into account when filtering translators, but when translators respond (via the ProZ.com response system), their compliance with those options are clearly labelled in the response. And when responses were asked via e-mail, the mail sent to translators indicates that the outsourcer had selected those options (so that the translator can make a point of mentioning it). Is that correct?
Apart from native language, what else would you consider as non-exclusive options? Country of residence, perhaps? Red pee status? Field of expertise? Certification? Profile completeness?
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:22
Hebrew to English
| Gratitude for your permission, but I cannot lie | Jul 17, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
I think , Ty, you can claim Hebrew as your native language, if you are absolutely proficient in it, if it feels to you like a native language, if you have a native level of understanding of that language, if you identify with it somehow (this is an important part), if you could write PhD dissertations in it on a subject you know well. This should do it. Even if you have a slight accent it does not matter. Hebrew is a reconstructed language anyhow. The identification part is very important when deciding whether a language is your native or not.
And it's not because I'm not proficient in it. I am.
It's not because I don't have a native level of understanding of it. I do (or like to think I do).
It's not because I don't identify with the language. I do.
I've never attempted to write a PhD thesis in Hebrew, although I'm sure I could do it.
Regardless, it's not my native language. I didn't start speaking Hebrew until I was 14. My cultural references are English, I was educated in English. My linguistic instincts are geared towards English. Whether I like it or not, English is my native language.
No amount of wishful thinking or selective amnesia will change that for me, or anyone else.
| | | | | My (nascent) idea | Jul 17, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
So, if I understand correctly, some search options would be deemed "non-exclusive", so that if an outsourcer or KudoZ asker selects those options, those options are not taken into account when filtering translators, but when translators respond (via the ProZ.com response system), their compliance with those options are clearly labelled in the response.
That's how I was picturing it, yes.
And when responses were asked via e-mail, the mail sent to translators indicates that the outsourcer had selected those options (so that the translator can make a point of mentioning it). Is that correct?
I'm sorry, it's verrry late here, I'm not sure I understand "when responses were asked via e-mail". Are you talking about the situation where job announcements are sent to translators' e-mail addresses? Then yes, all of the outsourcer's "required criteria" would still be mentioned as requirements, they just would not physically block the translator from responding. That way, the translator knows s/he is swimming upstream, so to speak (and can, as you say, address those points).
Apart from native language, what else would you consider as non-exclusive options? Country of residence, perhaps? Red pee status? Field of expertise? Certification? Profile completeness?
Picture me shrugging my shoulders and making the "I dunno" noise. This isn't my decision, obviously, but theoretically could apply to nearly any category, I presume.
| | | |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Should greater controls be put in place to cut down on the number of false claims?
Seconded!
| | |
|
|
|
| speaking is believing | Jul 17, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
Say, would the errors that you have in mind here also be identified in a simple language test that does not focus on trying to identify non-nativeness? I mean, would my "preliminary proficiency test" idea (mentioned a few posts back) catch most of the blokes you're referring to here
I think I missed that post, but probably. Yes, I've been arguing for a bit that a test which is presented explicitly as a "catch the non-native" test is likely to fail, because people easily become hyper-critical. You'd have to present it as a general quality test, or better, get a monolingual proofreader to go through a passage, and just count the errors. This adds weight to the idea that trying to catch the non-native is better done when he converses (i.e creates text himself), and not when he translates. Absolutely. But I disagree with you about the translation. I've seen work by some pretty dodgy native English translators of Chinese, and they would never produce something like that. Initiated - possible. Aiming at - no way. Missing the "the" before committee - no way.
Going back to verifying by "speaking":
I find nothing wrong with having to show up at a Powwow when you want to be verified for more than one language as long as the peers who evaluate you are good judges (those who declared that language as their only native language and are verified and have shown in other ways on the site here that they are capable and fair).
This could be organized. It could be done online, in a video chat, as long as the person's identity can be verified first. Maybe this should not be the only test but it's a big part, I believe. I would still favor a real meeting, not just an online chat.
Written tests would have to be given in a test setting where we'd have to be sure it's really that person writing. I wouldn't want to be judged just by comments in the forums. But what would we be evaluating? Not translation skills, for sure, but how somebody writes an essay, how one writes in a way only a native speaker will write.
Would we require a certain level of written proficiency (because we are all translators and this has to do with our business)? Yes, we would have to, otherwise we find ourselves back where we can't distinguish a non-native "writer" from a sloppy native "speaker/writer".
Whatever the test would be, it might not be enough to reject "nativeness" but it will catch obvious "non-natives". But ...
... the real offenders of multiple language claims won't come to the tests or chats anyway because they are happy with the greyed-out "unverified"-status as long as clients believe they are the real thing.
They should appear separate from "verified" and "one-native-language-only" folks in the directory search results.
Just my thoughts.
Bernhard
| | | | | I really believe Ty, Hebrew might be your second native language | Jul 17, 2012 |
if you moved to Israel and lived there for 15, 20 years. Some religious people would always say that Hebrew was their native language, even if they did not speak it perfectly. It has nothing to do with your background or believes, but this is really the truth. This is the ethnic part of the definition of a native language. Now tell some of those people that this is not their native language because they make some mistakes, since they have been living in America or somewhere else for the last X y... See more if you moved to Israel and lived there for 15, 20 years. Some religious people would always say that Hebrew was their native language, even if they did not speak it perfectly. It has nothing to do with your background or believes, but this is really the truth. This is the ethnic part of the definition of a native language. Now tell some of those people that this is not their native language because they make some mistakes, since they have been living in America or somewhere else for the last X years, or Hebrew wasn't fully reconstructed when they were children. People who have never lived in a different country long enough don't know what it means to speak different languages than your L1, and how it influences your L1. Some people almost totally lose their L1. By some of very unprofessional definitions of a native language here, 80% of Americans should be without a native language. There is language interference in multi-lingual environments -- people will pick up various phrases and structure even that may not seem native to other people.
I agree that all ProxZ members should be allowed to bid on all jobs in their language pairs. The client can decide later to whom the job should go. They can ask for a resume, references and test sample, so they find out for themselves the quality of the translation.
I basically think this thread does not have much sense anymore, although it was very interesting. There will never be a definite solution to this problem. I don't even see there is a problem. The main problem that is causing some people to lie, if there are any people like that, is that they cannot bid on jobs they think they could handle.
Secondly, does anybody honestly believe that people who can hardly write in a particular language, and are just lying that this is their native language, could steal any jobs from professional, highly qualified translators, even if the bid on them? I think this is just some kind of a fairy tale for five year old children. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Great minds, etc. :) | Jul 17, 2012 |
Janet Rubin wrote:
That said, there was one thing that was brought up by someone in the "other camp" (those debating the whole nativeness issue) that made me think, and that was the motivation behind these lies. The mere fact that Proz.com BLOCKS people from bidding on jobs actually encourages them to lie about their credentials, their qualifications, their specializations, and/or their native language(s) (etc.).
Perhaps - just perhaps - we should consider changing the function of actually BLOCKING people from bidding. What about an active filtering system (for example)?
Instead of keeping certain linguists from bidding at all, outsourcers could (still) request native speakers, medical experts, whatever - but not block those without those aspects claimed in their profiles.
Indeed. Not to steal any glory because you've expressed it in more concrete, site-related terms and I was thinking in the abstract, which is what happens to you when you press "Quote" too often on Samuel's posts (be warned ), but this was the idea when I was talking about trying to distinguish between the attributes of those owning a profile and the services those people are in a position to provide. It was not an idea which had much in the way of legs at the time, but consider this to be an "Agree" with your version.
So yeah, starting from "why people lie" sounds good.
Better than a caste system or 50 Shades of Nativeness, anyway.
| | | | | 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 
