| 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 problem is... | Jul 20, 2012 |
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
Mainly @Charlie: the problem is you need to define a line betwwen who is (deemed to be) a native speaker and who is not. Prefereably from a written text.
No, I don't....
I need to define an acceptable standard of written output.
But see my post immediately above for what (I think) "the problem is...."
Truth is, at this point, I only think we need to define an acceptable standard of written output. I think this because unacceptable standards of written output were the trigger of the discussion.
A definition of nativeness that included a standard of written output (given I think nativeness is more than just writing, even if exactly what nativeness is remains... unresolved) would undoubtedly fix that. However, my view is that defining and verifying nativeness, especially given the intensity of debate on nativeness, is basically a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Or, if the relative scale of that comparison is excessive to you, I suggest it is a complex solution (especially in terms of verifying everyone's "N"s) to what is, I believe, a lesser problem, if only because while everyone has an "N" that could be potentially open to verification, not everyone is lying about their ability to produce an acceptable standard of output.
| | | |
writeaway wrote: Rob Grayson wrote:
There is one obvious problem with written tests. What's to stop the person being tested just going and finding some suitable text on the internet and copying it and pasting it? Or having someone who really is a native speaker write it or tweak it to eliminate the obvious blunders? A written test won't prove anything. It will only provide another opportunity to cheat/beat the system. Imo.
Which is why I think our efforts would be best directed at those who have already outed themselves (or who will out themselves in future) by voluntarily churning out tosh. Set the tosh threshold and the job's a good 'un
(See page 1 !)
| | | | Ty Kendall 
United Kingdom
Local time: 10:15
Hebrew to English
| Tosh spouters | Jul 20, 2012 |
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
Not so easy. The other day, I encountered a person from Turkey who had learned Dutch when she was about 18 and studied in the Netherlands. Perfect accent, perfect grammar. I had to listen at least 15 whole minutes to spot a tiny mistake (I think it could have been a wrong article) that gave her away. I know another Czech person who lived in the Netherlands for a while. Her Dutch itself is not terribly good, but I am sure, if she had lived there for an extensive number of years, she could fool anyone. Some accents are easy to do and some are not. A nice English accent is difficult. A nice German one is not so difficult (at least for me). According to a local French guy here,
It's all to do with how well you can mimic the sounds you hear. I am not sure how good the Turkish woman's written Dutch is, but if she passed her exams in the Netherlands, it will be d*mn good.
Again, you are mistaken as to the target of such an initiative.
The kind of people you describe, at length, are not those who would need to worry. If they are so fantastically talented as to practically pass for native speakers (either in their speech or writing) then they probably would pass for native speakers in any "test" which could be thrown at them.
Egregious cases, remember?
Or as Charlie puts it - the people who churn out tosh!
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 11:15
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Phil, re Angie, and @Lisa | Jul 20, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
@Angie
You're fairly spottable. ... (1) In that last post, you're using "under the impression" wrong... I never see native English speakers do double punctuation.
1. "under the impression" is something in English that is over-used in forums. I rarely use it in speech but I often use it in written discussions, because one has to qualify any statement with a degree of uncertainty, so avoid being accused of speaking in absolutes, and because it is polite to do so (English is overly polite compared to some other Western languages).
Saying "I'm under the impression that you're not Chinese" is more polite and a lot safer than saying "You're obviously not Chinese", and though in reality both statements mean basically the same thing (see how I added the word "basically", again as safety-catch qualifier), the one is acceptable and the other is not.
That said, erm, what exactly do you find wrong with her use of it? It can't be "I have an/the impression" because that is more insinuating than the apologetic "I'm under the impression", and the accusatory "you create the impression" simply won't do at all in a forum (unless you're trying to initiate a flame war).
2. Yes, I think punctuation can mark a non-native speaker, but on the other hand I think that punctuation is something that an average translator should get right anyway. Sadly I see many otherwise competent translators foul up punctuation issues, so the punctuation test would have to be applied with caution.
==
Janet Rubin wrote: Phil Hand wrote:
A conversation would be effective, though logistically hard. I have one word: Skype
Surely a telephone call is much simpler than arranging a Skype meet (or worse: a Hangout). But I suspect the logistics problem is not so much the actual call but with arranging the call and verifying that the call had been made, and being able to back up claims made on the strength of a call (which would require a recording and in appeal cases also a transcription).
==
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote: Angie Garbarino wrote: :
@Angie
You're fairly spottable I know I am spottable, thanks for answering my question... Good of her to be good-natured about it, but I'm not sure she'd actually invited an assessment of her writing.
She did, I think, here.
Anyway, please, please could you spot me too? Please? Although it may not be the same as Angie's case, since Angie's top two languages do not include "into English" (and mine do). I'd be interested to know which of my errors you all consider to be "non-native" errors as opposed to sloppiness, under-editing, and haste.
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 11:15
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @TY, the poll | Jul 20, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
Should be interesting.
Title: Did you grow up in a bilingual household?
It's early in the day, but 85% of the respondents so far have already answered "No".
I consider myself [to be] bilingual, but my answer to that poll would be "no", since I did not grow up in a bilingual household (although both my parents were bilingual).
I suspect some people answering that poll might think that "bilingual household" means a household in which one parent spoke one language and the other parent spoke another, and not simply a household in which both languages were frequently or roughly equally spoken.
Since this is my 103rd post on this thread, I shan't be goaded into repeating myself again.
Dang! I'm only at 94, though I'd like to believe that I generally didn't repeat myself.
| | | | | Flattery will get me everywhere, I hope :-) | Jul 20, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Anyway, please, please could you spot me too? Please? Although it may not be the same as Angie's case, since Angie's top two languages do not include "into English" (and mine do). I'd be interested to know which of my errors you all consider to be "non-native" errors as opposed to sloppiness, under-editing, and haste.
I've always been under the impression (!) you are a native English speaker, to all intents and purposes at least (e.g. Afrikaans/English bilingual, or acquired later but to an extremely high level). You could've knocked me down with a feather when you said you weren't. Anything that looks odd, I've always assumed is down to the other 3 reasons you listed.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 10:15
Hebrew to English
| 105 and counting | Jul 20, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Dang! I'm only at 94, though I'd like to believe that I generally didn't repeat myself.
When you talk to a brick wall there's a lot of repetition needed
| | | | | Ummmm, what? | Jul 20, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote: Janet Rubin wrote: Phil Hand wrote:
A conversation would be effective, though logistically hard. I have one word: Skype Surely a telephone call is much simpler than arranging a Skype meet (or worse: a Hangout)
I respect your opinion, but I don't understand it. If you have a computer (and if you have a mic), you can use Skype - plus, it's free.
Most if not all laptops (sorry, "notebooks") today come with built-in mics *and* cameras. And I bet a LOT of translators have laptops (and/or can plug in a headset).
What's the difference between saying "I will call you at xx xx your time for a chat" and "I will be on Skype and call you at xx xx your time for a chat"? Maybe I'm missing something about the supposed degree of difficulty here, could you enlighten me?
Another bonus, even if you have a computer and you *don't* have a mic, you can use Skype for instant chats - so you could, theoretically, get the person on the other end to type out short impromptu passages of the kind advocated by some here to "test" native quality writing.
And although people do make typos, especially when typing quickly and/or under pressure, one could argue that the mark of a true native speaker is being quick to catch them when looking back at his/her own text (easily viewable in the last few lines) and saying "oops, I meant to type xyz!"
| | |
|
|
|
Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 10:15
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
Charlie Bavington wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
Anyway, please, please could you spot me too? Please? Although it may not be the same as Angie's case, since Angie's top two languages do not include "into English" (and mine do). I'd be interested to know which of my errors you all consider to be "non-native" errors as opposed to sloppiness, under-editing, and haste.
I've always been under the impression (!) you are a native English speaker, to all intents and purposes at least (e.g. Afrikaans/English bilingual, or acquired later but to an extremely high level). You could've knocked me down with a feather when you said you weren't. Anything that looks odd, I've always assumed is down to the other 3 reasons you listed.
I specialise in proofreading non-native texts and teaching business English, so I normally spot each and every mistake, and have to bite my tongue so I don't correct people inappropriately. But I really have to say that I've never noticed anything that was truly non-native in your texts, Samuel.
That's one reason why I advocate testing or other feedback on ability for people who are in any way uncertain about whether they are native speakers, e.g. for all those claiming to have two or more native languages. I think you, and others in your situation, ought to be able to tick the box as "native-equivalent", even though you can't truthfully tick the "native-speaker" box.
However, native-equivalent is far, far removed from "advanced" or any other level awarded for foreign language acquisition. And many who don't even have an advanced level in English are claiming to be native English speakers.
Sheila
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 10:15
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Since you ask... | Jul 20, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Anyway, please, please could you spot me too? Please? Although it may not be the same as Angie's case, since Angie's top two languages do not include "into English" (and mine do). I'd be interested to know which of my errors you all consider to be "non-native" errors as opposed to sloppiness, under-editing, and haste.
You can probably spot it and correct yourself, but the first paragraph of the first post I went back to look at contained this:
I've been a member pretty much from the start, but there are always services that I didn't use or have forgotten about.
Having said that Samuel, I would be perfectly happy to accept you as a borderline case or native speaker - not that it's my prerogative. I don't think anyone's got a beef with your English.
| | | | | verify by also seeing the person | Jul 20, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
...
Surely a telephone call is much simpler than arranging a Skype meet (or worse: a Hangout). But I suspect the logistics problem is not so much the actual call but with arranging the call and verifying that the call had been made, and being able to back up claims made on the strength of a call (which would require a recording and in appeal cases also a transcription). ...
I argued earlier that it shouldn't be too simple anyway but a conversation at a Powwow or a video conference isn't too hard to arrange (well the first one might be a bit difficult if you have to travel far). But as long as the "judges" are reliable and sanctioned by Proz.com, the verification process should be fairly easy. I'd want a face-to-face verification though, in person or online (video), not a telephone call.
B
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 17:15
Chinese to English
| To reply to just a few things: | Jul 20, 2012 |
Rob Grayson wrote:
There is one obvious problem with written tests. What's to stop the person being tested just going and finding some suitable text on the internet and copying it and pasting it?
That's really easy to stop.
1) You generate a large list of questions and send a question to the applicant at random, and require that the piece of writing be germane to the question.
2) You google the writing they submit.
@ Samuel
I agree with everyone above - I can't remember seeing anything in your posts which marked you out as a non-native speaker. All your errors feel like the kinds of mistakes that I make myself when I'm typing quickly.
That said, I still think you're using "under the impression" wrongly - or rather, you're using it in a way in which it doesn't work in my dialect/idiolect. For me, the phrase "I am under the impression" is not possible, because "under the impression" refers to belief in something untrue. I can say "I was under the impression this was all just a game (but now I know better)". But to say "I am under the impression" implies that I know the following to be untrue, and yet I still believe it.
But apparently Charlie disagrees, and as I reluctantly concede his native speaker status, I'm forced to accept that "under the impression" doesn't necessarily imply untruth for everyone. I live and learn!
@Bernhard, Janet
I'm still a bit conflicted about video calls and meetings. I understand the urge to verify identity, but I'm not really convinced it's necessary (there's no need for elaborate protections against every fraud here, just some basic hurdles to prevent casual dishonesty). And seeing people can have negative aspects - I'm thinking specifically of racial prejudice here. It's not far-fetched to say that it's easier to agree that someone of the same race is a member of your group than someone of a different race. You don't have to think someone's a racist for this to apply. People do it unconsciously all the time, and it's difficult to prevent. So blind testing has a certain value.
My favoured model is still:
Send three randomly generated questions, requiring 100 word answers (or equivalent length for other languages) to each, to be returned within 20 minutes.
The answers are then checked by either trusted existing members of Proz, or are sent for proofreading, and anything more than a certain number of errors would result in a rejection.
| | |
|
|
|
wherestip
United States
Local time: 04:15
Chinese to English
+ ...
| both are correct | Jul 20, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
That said, I still think you're using "under the impression" wrongly - or rather, you're using it in a way in which it doesn't work in my dialect/idiolect.
Phil,
I can't believe you bought that.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wrong?show=2&t=1342794834 wrong adv Definition of WRONG 1: without accuracy : incorrectly (guessed wrong) 2: without regard for what is proper or just (was reprimanded for what he had done wrong) 3: in a wrong direction (turned wrong at the junction) 4a : in an unsuccessful or unfortunate way (something went wrong) b : out of working order or condition 5: in a false light (don't get me wrong) Examples of WRONG 1. I entered the numbers wrong. 2. Her name was spelled wrong on the form. 3. I can't get this to work; could you show me what I did wrong?
| | | | | Lisa, do you think you will qualify as a native speaker of English | Jul 20, 2012 |
by some of those definitions that people came up with, if you have only lived in England for a few years. I know your English is very good, but are you sure you will easily qualify?
| | | | | Just a response | Jul 20, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
@Bernhard, Janet
I'm still a bit conflicted about video calls and meetings. ... It's not far-fetched to say that it's easier to agree that someone of the same race is a member of your group than someone of a different race. You don't have to think someone's a racist for this to apply. People do it unconsciously all the time, and it's difficult to prevent. So blind testing has a certain value.
My reference to Skype was in response to how "difficult" it would be (I think it's not) - but nothing says you *have to* make a video call with Skype. You can absolutely make "voice only" calls, and as I stated previously, you don't even have to do that, you can also just use the IM chat (typing) function.
| | | | | 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? | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
| | 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! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
