| 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)
|
|---|
Michele Fauble 
United States
Local time: 09:50
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| A nativeness test | Jul 20, 2012 |
Janet Rubin wrote:
... how to devise a test that would definitely - but only - catch non-native speakers.
By testing linguistic intuitions (competence in the sense used by linguists).
A simple written test for non-nativeness would consist of a series of sentences, some of which contain non-native errors. The testee would be asked to judge which sentences contained errors and asked to correct those errors so that the sentences were correct as judged by native speakers. The test would not contain spelling or punctuation mistakes, since spelling and punctuation are not acquired, but learned at school.
This is similar to the process used by linguists to discover the rules of a language.
Of course any non-native who had acquired native-equivalent competence would pass the test, but that would be the case with any test.
| | | |
| Native speakers can make competence errors as well | Jul 20, 2012 |
I can repeat it a hundred times. Maybe you misunderstood Chomsky's concept of universal grammar. If they learned certain wrong forms in their childhoods, or acquired the some non-standard forms through language interference, their language can exhibit competence errors as well, not just slip-of-tongues. Errors on a deeper level.
[Edited at 2012-07-20 16:54 GMT]
| | | |
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 00:50
Chinese to English
| Possibility of disagreeing with professionalism | Jul 20, 2012 |
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
Anyone thought about who is going to mark the tests and whether those people are reliable?
If we already disagree about 'to be under the impression that', I dread to think what's going to follow.
Revising/proofreading is part of our job. I know we see lots of threads on the forum about how bad proofreaders can be, but 99% of the time proofreading goes pretty smoothly. No-one posts about that.
And yes, people can disagree about language. Did you not know this? What's great about grown-up people is that we can disagree and still keep functioning.
| | | |
| what is ridiculous is | Jul 20, 2012 |
Catherine GUILLIAUMET wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
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 And while you are at it, why wouldn't you play "CSI: ProZ" ("Les Experts : ProZ", for our French-speaking colleagues)? Why not conduct the whole battery of tests, including fingerprints and DNA analysis? This is really more and more ridiculous  Catherine
that people lie about their native language and get away with it.
And a personal conversation at a Powwow or via Skype helps verify their identity.
It would also deter liars.
If someone is not comfortable or able to come to a Powwow, I for one would gladly accept any evaluation procedure that includes "hearing" the applicant speak and ensures that the right person is tested.
B
[Edited at 2012-07-20 17:51 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
S E (X)
Italy
Local time: 18:50
Italian to English
| "Ridiculous" would be ... | Jul 20, 2012 |
... a website that purports to be a place where clients can find professional translators but that at the same time invites (only partially passively, but not at all intentionally, to be sure) fraud.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Catherine GUILLIAUMET wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
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 And while you are at it, why wouldn't you play "CSI: ProZ" ("Les Experts : ProZ", for our French-speaking colleagues)? Why not conduct the whole battery of tests, including fingerprints and DNA analysis? This is really more and more ridiculous Catherine that people lie about their native language and get away with it. And a personal conversation at a Powwow or via Skype helps verify their identity. It would also deter liars. B [Edited at 2012-07-20 17:31 GMT]
Agreed.
What's more, the call for verifying native languages is
A) in line with a policy that Proz has already been working on and has already partially implemented;
B) in line with policies already in place for verifying identity and translation credentials;
C) in line with the policies regulating admission to the Certified Pro Network.
I would say that native language verification is absolutely on a par with identity verification and translation credential verification.
| | | |
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:50
Hebrew to English
| Nitpicked to death before I had chance to clarify | Jul 20, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote: Ty Kendall wrote:
Since this expression essentially means believing an incorrect assumption (which at some point afterwards was revealed to be incorrect) using it in the present in the first person is a bit odd... It's less strange in the 3rd person in the present (He is under the impression that....) as you are then commenting on the person's lack of awareness (he is under the impression that his wife is faithful) i.e. he doesn't know otherwise. Well, I'm always willing to learn, and a dictionary search sometimes reveals beliefs to be superstitions, even in my native language (e.g. when I'm convinced that something can't possibly mean X, and then I find that the dictionary says that it can). I was under the impression that "under the impression" (with first person, present tense) does not imply that the belief is incorrect, but merely that there is a belief that may be wrong, i.e. a belief that hasn't been proven to be correct [yet]. So, I googled... So, after consulting four dictionaries, I'm satisfied that my use[age?] of "under the impression" is in fact correct, but it did highlight the fact that some people might misunderstand that expression (e.g. that it implies that the belief is necessarily mistaken).
It appears I didn't explain myself quite well enough, I should have added that the assumption doesn't necessarily have to be incorrect, just that it carries the possibility of being incorrect. I let my train of thought run away with me there....
I didn't realise it would get nitpicked so quickly and thoroughly and I have been stuck in traffic so haven't been able to get back and clarify.
My real point was that, despite nuances, "I am under the impression" is far less common than "I was under the impression". I believe I said that "I am under the impression" is possible (I just didn't elaborate - my mistake!). A crude Google search shows you that "I was under the impression" is ten times more commonplace than "I am under the impression".
When looking at the Google hits for "I am under the impression" a great many of them actually "sound" better (in a native speaker feel-type way) when shunted into the past simple.
This is the kind of thing a dictionary can't always help you with.
[Edited at 2012-07-20 18:03 GMT]
| | | |
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:50
Hebrew to English
| Seems like we're saying the same thing | Jul 20, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
there is a belief that may be wrong, i.e. a belief that hasn't been proven to be correct [yet].
Ty Kendall wrote:
it is like saying "I believe..[something]...which is probably or will later be shown to be a false assumption"
...despite the poor wording of my original post (I was in a hurry) - I've just re-read it, it didn't come across as I had intended. I kinda messed up that first paragraph. Oops....definite performace error!
[Edited at 2012-07-20 18:22 GMT]
| | | |
Kirsten Bodart
United Kingdom
Local time: 18:50
Dutch to English
+ ...
@Ty:
I apologise if that reply of mine seemed to involve the idea I felt singled out. That wasn't what I wanted to get across.
As to 'being under the impression', I was also under the impression that the simple past version is more common, whereas the present version is slightly odd, but should still fit with the definiton.
Who said I couldn't do this?
As a native speaker Dutch, I sometimes ... See more @Ty:
I apologise if that reply of mine seemed to involve the idea I felt singled out. That wasn't what I wanted to get across.
As to 'being under the impression', I was also under the impression that the simple past version is more common, whereas the present version is slightly odd, but should still fit with the definiton.
Who said I couldn't do this?
As a native speaker Dutch, I sometimes come across words that I don't know or definitons I don't know, too. 'It can't possibly exist!' The other day I had that with the Dutch equivalent of 'sloven(ly)'. Knew the English word, could name a few things that come close in Dutch, but did not know the Dutch word for it.
It's dangerous to think that you are the authority, because you are native speaker.
@Phil:
Indeed, proofreading is part of our job, although I mainly leave that up to others in my native language, because I do not have the eagle-eyes it takes to spot mistakes. My husband has those in English, as he is a teacher, like Sheila. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:50
Hebrew to English
| Not "THE" authority, but "AN" authority | Jul 21, 2012 |
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
It's dangerous to think that you are the authority, because you are native speaker.
I agree, as the recent discussion shows, even native speakers can disagree. However, there is some authority in being a native speaker. Another dangerous thing (which is endemic with English in particular) is learning a bit of English and thinking oneself an authority in a language you have a tenuous grasp of; this is the very definition of delusion and it can be frequently witnessed on this site (unfortunately).
[Edited at 2012-07-21 13:35 GMT]
| | | |
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 00:50
Chinese to English
| Actually, I (we) am the authority... | Jul 21, 2012 |
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
It's dangerous to think that you are the authority, because you are native speaker.
There is no other authority for what is right/wrong in a language other than the native speakers of this language. I know those comedy Frenchmen and women like to believe that you can set up an Academie and rule the language that way, but I'm afraid they're wrong.
Now, there's a bunch of caveats to be put around this:
I'm an authority on my own dialect only. While I have a pretty good grasp of American English, for example, it's still a foreign dialect. I have to learn it, in almost the same way as I have to learn Chinese.
And my authority is positive rather than negative. Anything that I find to be OK is definitely OK; anything I think is definitely wrong still has to be checked, because I might be failing to understand a technical usage; anything I say doesn't exist has to be checked, because I might just not know a particular expression.
And my authority is exercised through my performance of the language, not my statements about the language. Native speakers often talk a lot of codswallop about their own language, making up rules and assertions which they break all the time in their own usage. As translators we *should* be more able than most to distill accurate generalisations about our languages, but the fact remains that it is use of the language that defines it, not statements about the language.
So, yeah, you're right to say that one shouldn't set oneself up as the only definitive authority on one's language. But we are all authorities, nonetheless.
| | | |
XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:50
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | A suggestion (if you missed it) first time round | Jul 21, 2012 |
septima wrote: Why not keep the existing “N” system, and add a box beside it for Verified Nationality? Everyone with a verified name can easily verify their nationality(ies) by emailing a copy of the relevant page of their passport(s). I realize a lot of people will jump in with a list of exceptional cases, how it's unfair… BUT! this is NOT meant to be any kind of proof of native speaker status! That’s the beauty of it. It simply adds an extra element that outsourcers can consider when looking for a translator. e.g. Language: English Native, Verified Nationality: British may, perhaps, be more interesting (and more native-looking) for an outsourcer than Language: English Native + German Native, Verified Nationality: German Or perhaps not… who knows? But nobody will be arbitrarily discriminated against – it will simply be the TRUTH. One extra dimension thereof. A bonus is that it actually enhances the level of information provided by the site. And there would ONLY be an option for Verified Nationality – no unsupported claims. Those who leave it blank would have to deal with the consequences of their air of mystery And all PROZ would have to do would be to introduce one more box, and allow for verification.
I think we have touched on this before but here is a post that the contributor feels was missed because it took 24 hours to be vetted. I have to say that I didn't see it and I don't like the fact that everyone isn't allowed to post "in real time". So, for the sake of democracy and fairness I am putting it on the table again for those who might also have missed it (it's on page 62) and who may have some thoughts about this.
| | | |
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:50
Hebrew to English
| Hmmmm....... | Jul 21, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote: septima wrote: Why not keep the existing “N” system, and add a box beside it for Verified Nationality? Everyone with a verified name can easily verify their nationality(ies) by emailing a copy of the relevant page of their passport(s). I realize a lot of people will jump in with a list of exceptional cases, how it's unfair… BUT! this is NOT meant to be any kind of proof of native speaker status! That’s the beauty of it. It simply adds an extra element that outsourcers can consider when looking for a translator. e.g. Language: English Native, Verified Nationality: British may, perhaps, be more interesting (and more native-looking) for an outsourcer than Language: English Native + German Native, Verified Nationality: German Or perhaps not… who knows? But nobody will be arbitrarily discriminated against – it will simply be the TRUTH. One extra dimension thereof. A bonus is that it actually enhances the level of information provided by the site. And there would ONLY be an option for Verified Nationality – no unsupported claims. Those who leave it blank would have to deal with the consequences of their air of mystery And all PROZ would have to do would be to introduce one more box, and allow for verification. I think we have touched on this before but here is a post that the contributor feels was missed because it took 24 hours to be vetted. I have to say that I didn't see it and I don't like the fact that everyone isn't allowed to post "in real time". So, for the sake of democracy and fairness I am putting it on the table again for those who might also have missed it (it's on page 62) and who may have some thoughts about this.
Whilst I do see it as a possibility with some merit, I do believe it will have its detractors.
For example, someone having British nationality could be relatively reassured that it might create the impression of being a native English speaker (although as we all know it's more than possible to be a British "citizen" and not speak a word of English), but what would happen with a Swiss national? There would be no such automatic correlation because of the multiple-language situation in Switzerland.
I think people will only want to buy into this if it's a kind of "implied" native speaker verification, but it won't work for everyone like that owing to the multi-lingual nature of some nations....as well as the fact that nationality and language are no longer so intertwined even in so-called "monolingual" nations (as they might have been 50+ years ago).
Therefore if it has no bearing on the native language angle then I think people won't be rushing to send off copies of their passport.
| | |
|
|
|
Robert Forstag
United States
Local time: 12:50
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Launching mortars from glass houses | Jul 21, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote: Kirsten Bodart wrote:
It's dangerous to think that you are the authority, because you are native speaker. I agree, as the recent discussion shows, even native speakers can disagree. However, there is some authority in being a native speaker. Another dangerous thing (which is endemic with English in particular) is learning a bit of English and thinking oneself an authority in a language you have a tenuous grasp of; this is the very definition of delusion and it can be frequently witnessed on this site (unfortunately). [Edited at 2012-07-21 13:35 GMT]
I quite agree, and those who, in making such claims, show that they clearly are not native speakers, receive their just due when attention is drawn to evidence of their non-nativeness. (And the more strident and belligerent they are in their claims, the more richly do they deserve their comeuppance.)
I also think the evidence is clear that English is especially victimized by such false claims and that--the Conrads and Nabokovs excepted (and I see none who merit inclusion in such august company in the present discussion)--there is ceteris paribus a wide gulf indeed that separates native speakers from accomplished and fluent non-natives.
[Edited at 2012-07-21 15:52 GMT]
| | | |
| Looking at it practically | Jul 21, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
For example, someone having British nationality could be relatively reassured that it might create the impression of being a native English speaker (although as we all know it's more than possible to be a British "citizen" and not speak a word of English), but what would happen with a Swiss national? There would be no such automatic correlation because of the multiple-language situation in Switzerland.
I think people will only want to buy into this if it's a kind of "implied" native speaker verification, but it won't work for everyone like that owing to the multi-lingual nature of some nations....as well as the fact that nationality and language are no longer so intertwined even in so-called "monolingual" nations (as they might have been 50+ years ago).
Fair comments, and I do realize that it's a workaround, or, rather, an independent, supplementary piece of information, which only indirectly reflects on the translator's linguistic abilities.
However, the theoretical problems you cite rather fade away when you consider what this would mean in terms of practical application. And it is meant to be a pragmatic measure. An outsourcer, searching for a quality, native English speaking, legal translator for some GB contracts, would obviously search based on the individual CVs and references of translators. It's highly unlikely that a hypothetical "British "citizen" [who doesn't] speak a word of English" would get very far. The outsourcer now has a set of candidates who look up to the job, but wonders if they are all really native speakers, going by their profiles. The Verified Nationality token simply offers an extra possibility for "reasonable assurance" on the outsourcer's part that they are getting the real deal. As a bonus, they will also know immediately that they're getting a GB (or US or AUS...) English speaker for the specified assignment, without having to read through biographies. That information will also be guaranteed (by PROZ), not a subjective claim. Likewise, your Swiss example can also be seen from the other perspective - perhaps an outsourcer would actually LIKE to have a Swiss national for a particular German translation, because their product will be marketed there. They'd like someone who's aware of any local nuances of usage.
All in all, it's just one more item of info that may corroborate (or in its absence cast some doubt on) a native language claim, ALONG WITH the translator's demonstrable experience and presentation. And why shouldn't this information be there? After all, it's a matter of fact that may well be of interest to outsourcers, regardless of whether you feel it reflects on translators' linguistic skills.
Putting aside the exceptions, then, on a positive note look how it can very quickly and clearly provide the kind of differentiation that posters to this thread have been looking for. I hope I'm not misinterpreting Phil Hand completely when I say he'd like to be able to distinguish his abilities from those claimed by Chinese nationals. Verified Nationality would offer him, and others like him, one more tool.
Therefore if it has no bearing on the native language angle then I think people won't be rushing to send off copies of their passport.
Scanning and emailing the relevant pages would take 5 mins. PROZ would charge a nominal fee for processing the verification, and then it would be done. One more nugget of incontestable fact on a translator's profile. What is there to lose?
| | | |
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:50
Hebrew to English
| Nothing to lose | Jul 21, 2012 |
septima wrote:
Scanning and emailing the relevant pages would take 5 mins. PROZ would charge a nominal fee for processing the verification, and then it would be done. One more nugget of incontestable fact on a translator's profile. What is there to lose?
I absolutely agree, there's nothing to lose and I'm quite in favour of the idea. I just think there will be those who will fight tooth and nail against it as they might perceive it as a negative (or as a threat to their misrepresentation!).
| | | |
| 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] > |
Login to reply/comment 
