| 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)
|
|---|
Ty Kendall 
United Kingdom
Local time: 11:37
Hebrew to English
| Bernhard has already said a lot but....... | Jul 25, 2012 |
JKalina wrote:
I realise this too has been asked before, but I still wonder: how does one prove nativeness?
Well there doesn't appear to be a universally agreed method but I think most people will agree that a five minute conversation is usually enough to spot a non-native speaker of your language. An informal chat is also far less invasive than some of the other options. I hasten to add that it would have to be a chat with more than one native speaker, to avoid vendettas and other corruption. If someone can talk to me for more than a few mins and go unspotted as being non-native then they deserve to call themselves native in my opinion - they certainly have a strong claim to do so if they can go undetected by more than one native speaker.
Furthermore, I’m not sure if the proposed verification methods actually help prove nativeness. They test different levels of linguistic competence and/or performance, so they would, at best, expose obvious cases of fraud
As alluded to above - very proficient speakers of English probably would pass as native speakers (although I think that number would be incredibly smaller than most people presume). However, I think the best we can hope for is to catch the most egregious cases - as these are the people doing the real damage anyway.
The informal chat option also has the benefit of being roll-outable for a myriad of languages, if not all languages.
Again, not a perfect system, but then what is?
[Edited at 2012-07-25 19:37 GMT]
| | | | JKalina
Local time: 12:37
English to Macedonian
+ ...
You're right, bilingual doesn't necessarily mean someone with two native languages. So, let me try again. Here's hoping I don't paint myself into a corner.
I was merely trying to say that I could imagine someone who truly has multiple native languages taking offence at being subjected to additional scrutiny simply because there has been an apparent onslaught of false native-language claims by others. The implication h... See more You're right, bilingual doesn't necessarily mean someone with two native languages. So, let me try again. Here's hoping I don't paint myself into a corner.
I was merely trying to say that I could imagine someone who truly has multiple native languages taking offence at being subjected to additional scrutiny simply because there has been an apparent onslaught of false native-language claims by others. The implication here is that, if you've declared more than one native language, you're lying until proven otherwise. So, perhaps, if there's a consensus that verification is necessary, it's only fair that everyone goes through the process.
As for the proposed method, I did read it earlier in the thread and, logistical problems aside, I'm not entirely convinced it's full-proof (if the goal is to expose all fraudsters, not merely the incompetent ones). A talented linguist who has spent a number of years in the country where the language in question is spoken may acquire it to a degree of being able to 'fake' nativeness. I only have one such example in my life: an Italian who's lived in my country for a decade or so and is often mistaken for a local. I'd imagine there'd be more such instances in English, Spanish, French or German.
I'm not trying to nitpick or anything, I just don't see a way to truly verify 'native language' claims in this context. The best one could hope for is to weed out the egregious and possibly the borderline cases.
A comprehensive solution would be unlikely, of course (that much has also been said before, I think). My only concern would be that, in separating the wheat from the chaff, good, honest, professional wheat is not hurt in the process.
K ▲ Collapse
| | | | JKalina
Local time: 12:37
English to Macedonian
+ ...
| @Ty and Bernhard :) | Jul 25, 2012 |
Ty has apparently read my mind and already addressed the concerns I had regarding Bernhard's explanation.
I promise you, Ty, first I posted my reply to Bernhard and read your post only afterwards. I'll leave it on, superfluous though it may be.
Thank you both.
K... See more
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 18:37
Chinese to English
| I don't accept this distinction at all | Jul 26, 2012 |
Bin Tiede wrote:
Hi Phil,
Germans and Chinese communicate with each other mostly in English. It is not necessary, neither for the Germans nor for the Chinese, that the English should have the native fluency. If you get the terms correct and your writing is understandable, they would consider it a good translation.
Hi, Bin.
Firstly, who are you arguing with? Do you think that I believe no Chinese native should ever translate into English? If this thread is too long, please go and read the Chinese thread, where I explain what I think very carefully, multiple times.
This thread is NOT saying non-natives should never translate into English. This thread IS saying non-natives should not claim to be natives.
But having said that, your arguments don't really work.
For one thing, I just don't think that what you're saying makes any sense. There is no group of people in the world who "get the terms correct" and whose "writing is understandable" but whose language lacks "native fluency".
Perhaps you're thinking about business correspondence, where a bit of roughness might be acceptable. But that's only one genre. I'm asked to translate contracts, promotional materials, patents, research papers. I don't do medical translations, but others do. In these genres, those things that you think of as small grammatical errors can easily be meaningful differences. In a contract, the difference between "a Party" and "the Party" is enormous. In a medical history, the difference between "experienced" and "has experienced" can be crucial. In promotional material, if you get a word with the right meaning, but fail to notice whether it has positive or negative connotations, you can mess up the entire piece.
(all these examples are from my own experience with texts I've been asked to proofread)
I can write fairly competent business correspondence in Chinese (in fact, I would expect to do better than my Chinese-native colleagues in their L2, because I don't think that grammar mistakes are OK). But I don't think that my skills are up to writing contracts, patents or advertisements in Chinese.
There is also a completely different class of error which would also benefit from better language skills. Those are reading errors. Though English production errors grate, actually, you're right: someone who knows their stuff will generally communicate it well in L2. (I've proofread papers written directly in English by non-English speakers, and though there are a lot of errors, the meaning is generally clear.)
But most translations I read do not communicate the meaning effectively, because the translator is lazy, and hasn't bothered to fully understand. They've tried to just "translate the words", not the meaning. Now, if they had decent English skills, they would realise that what they were writing made no sense. Good target language skills force you back to the source text, because good translation requires very deep text analysis. But translators with poor English don't get that feeling. They don't know if their English is making any sense or not.
The target audience (most of them) ist not even able to tell the difference, why do you bother so much?
To me, that's like saying, a patient can't tell the difference between good and bad medicine, so why does a doctor bother so much?
1) Because I'm a professional, and it's my job to bother (so the client doesn't have to)
2) Because quality makes a difference, even if the client doesn't realise it.
So, finally, is this really the argument you want to be making? Is this what you tell your clients? "I can't offer you a really high quality service, but it doesn't matter, you can't tell the difference anyway."?
There are good arguments for why Chinese natives should do translation; and there are good ways to mitigate the problems inherent in L1>L2 translation. Pretending that it's OK not to "bother" is neither a good argument nor a good mitigation strategy.
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 18:37
Chinese to English
| First amendment: thou shalt not mess with anyone's Proz rights | Jul 26, 2012 |
JKalina wrote:
I can see how someone who is truly bi- or even multilingual might take offence...doubly victimised...hurt professionally...subjected to unjust scrutiny...take one for the team...How would you go about protecting these users/members?
This is all a bit hysterical. We're not trying to draft the Patriot Act here, nor does anyone have a sacred right to say what they want on Proz.
Proz is a website. A translator can choose to use Proz to advertise themselves, find work and engage with colleagues. Or they can choose not to. Proz doesn't have a monopoly, and no-one is forced to use it.
If Proz makes a change to its systems (presumably to make the website run a little smoother and to provide better services), that's not an attack on anyone. It's a change in a business product. As a result, customers (translators) may choose to buy more or less of the product. But let's not pretend that Proz is some kind of surveillance state monster.
how does one prove nativeness?
That's an interesting question. BUT over the course of this thread we've come to a consensus that it's not a relevant question.
We don't really need to distinguish absolutely who is and who is not a native speaker. That's not the problem we're trying to solve. The problem is what Lisa said in post 1:
"people who claim to be native in more than one language but whose command of English (for example) is tenuous at best"
The problem is poor English speakers who claim to be native speakers of English. We want to prevent them from claiming to be natives, and we can find them very easily by a simple test of English competence.
Now, this approach has run into a firestorm of complaints from the LOGIC COMMANDOS, who point out, with impeccable logic, that native and competence are not the same concept, and so we are doing a great disservice to the world if we allow any confusion between them even for one second.
Personally, I think that if we sacrifice a goat to the Great God Logic, we'll probably get away with it. But it's this distinction that has caused so much argument over the last 1000 or so posts.
| | | | JKalina
Local time: 12:37
English to Macedonian
+ ...
My wording may have been somewhat dramatic, but my point still stands (and I don't feel it's hysterical; at least I hope it's not): if it's decided that measures for verifying native language claims should be put into place, it's only fair that everyone is verified, not just users/members who have declared more than one native language. (By your logic, you, or anyone else affected by this problem, are free to leave the site too, b... See more My wording may have been somewhat dramatic, but my point still stands (and I don't feel it's hysterical; at least I hope it's not): if it's decided that measures for verifying native language claims should be put into place, it's only fair that everyone is verified, not just users/members who have declared more than one native language. (By your logic, you, or anyone else affected by this problem, are free to leave the site too, but I'm guessing this discussion has attracted so much attention precisely because members want to see the situation improve; and I'm with you on that.) I tried explaining as much in my reply to Bernhard, but that post is still being vetted, so, unfortunately, you couldn't see it.
As for the 'logic commandos', having read through a lot of posts, I can understand where they're coming from. That's the reason I asked my initial question: why is this so important to you? I was given a number of legitimate reasons, some of them practical, some of them quite noble. Perhaps I should've added another question: what are you trying to accomplish? If you aim to eradicate dishonesty (regarding this issue), then none of the proposed methods work. If, however, your goal is more pragmatic - exposing obvious frauds who pollute the business - I can see a number of suggestions doing the trick. This has been clarified for me in Ty's last post, though, so I'm good.
I'm not trying to be contentious, Phil. As a reader, I saw discrepancies between stated goals and proposed solutions, so I wanted to understand better: that's the only reason I dared join in. And now, in fact, I do (understand better, I mean).
K ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Wrong question (IMHO) | Jul 26, 2012 |
JKalina wrote:
I realise this too has been asked before, but I still wonder: how does one prove nativeness?
"Why prove nativeness at all?" would be my reply.
To my way of thinking, the crux of the problem is simply a group of people who claim to be able to produce a decent quality of written output in a language, but who cannot.
There is undoubtedly a strong correlation, in terms of those likely to register on proz if not in the world at large, between nativeness and the ability to produce competent written texts. But if this thread shows anything, it shows that proving nativeness is a hornets' nest. So I say, let's not bother. Let's just test the writing skills, 'cos that's our only concern here (for translators, at least). If the writing skills show too many mistakes, that is enough to reject the claimed "N" symbol.
And that, as the Beatles would no doubt have said had they been members here, is all you need.
| | | | JKalina
Local time: 12:37
English to Macedonian
+ ...
| @ Charlie: It still gave me the answers I was looking for :) | Jul 26, 2012 |
The question may have been wrong, but I truly was puzzled by the demand that native language claims be verified (I couldn't see how one would go about it). Meanwhile, Ty, Phil, and now you have helped clarify (for me) what the real(istic) goal is. So, thanks.
| | |
|
|
|
psicutrinius
Spain
Local time: 12:37
Member (2008)
Spanish to English
+ ...
I don't know whether you checked, but the way you put it, yes: Santa has been in New York in summer (and not this last one only), complete with reindeers and all paraphernalia. I see you noticed him as much as you have noticed the profiteers here.
Seen your ophtalmologist, lately?
[Edited at 2012-07-26 11:47 GMT]
| | | | | Hi Psicutrinius. | Jul 26, 2012 |
Yes, this is true, I would not notice what people put in their profiles, because I have absolutely no interest in it - 0. It just seems to me totally illogical that anyone would do it. What for? To translate into a language they don't know? There must be a reason why they call a particular language their native -- other than stealing jobs or making money. As per Santa -- the real Santa was not here yet, not in the summer at least -- I can assure you. He is a cold-loving man.
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 03:37
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
LilianBoland wrote:
It just seems to me totally illogical that anyone would do it. What for? To translate into a language they don't know? There must be a reason why they call a particular language their native -- other than stealing jobs or making money.
I once had a small bit of legal matter in a large job. I decided to outsource this small legal section and posted it as a job on ProZ. A translator responded with an offer and I checked out her profile. She had declared two native languages, one of which was English, the target language of the job. I assigned the job to her. When I received the translation, it was totally unusable. She was not a native English speaker. I was deceived and she got a job.
By the way, native English speakers say 'living authors', not 'alive authors'.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 11:37
Hebrew to English
| There goes Santa now! | Jul 26, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
There must be a reason why they call a particular language their native
Yes, there is a reason, it's called delusion.
To translate into a language they don't know?
To translate into a language they think they know.
It's practically viral on this site - you don't have to go far to see it, in a variety of languages.
It's bad enough when people have this attitude when it comes to source languages, it's unforgivable when it comes to applying it to target languages.
| | |
|
|
|
| Self delusion? | Jul 26, 2012 |
I carry no brief for deliberate liars - certainly not.
However, as a keen follower of this fascinating debate, it occurs to me that just possibly some of the translators who falsely claim language X as their native tongue when it clearly isn't might truly believe that they speak/write it like a native. We don't always see ourselves as others see us and the human being has an amazing capacity for self delusion. Maybe no-one has ever challenged them or pointed out their mistakes?
I rem... See more I carry no brief for deliberate liars - certainly not.
However, as a keen follower of this fascinating debate, it occurs to me that just possibly some of the translators who falsely claim language X as their native tongue when it clearly isn't might truly believe that they speak/write it like a native. We don't always see ourselves as others see us and the human being has an amazing capacity for self delusion. Maybe no-one has ever challenged them or pointed out their mistakes?
I remember seeing a TV programme about a rich American woman around the 1900s who believed she could sing opera. She could afford to stage concerts at Carnegie Hall and elsewhere at which she sang excruciatingly. She became a cult figure and performed to packed houses nightly, which simply reinforced her belief that she sang like an angel. Perhaps some of our readers have heard of her - I can't remember her name.
So, to return to the topic, perhaps some of the lying translators we're discussing here really do believe they're as good as native speakers?
And perhaps not ...
Jenny ▲ Collapse
| | | | psicutrinius
Spain
Local time: 12:37
Member (2008)
Spanish to English
+ ...
@Jenny
This might be true -delusion is a distinct possibility. But it is also an "untruth" if the believer has never had a tinge of objectivity and put it to the test, or a liar in the other case.
@Lillian
It just seems to me totally illogical that anyone would do it. What for? To translate into a language they don't know? There must be a reason why they call a particular language their native -- other than stealing jobs or making money.
... See more @Jenny
This might be true -delusion is a distinct possibility. But it is also an "untruth" if the believer has never had a tinge of objectivity and put it to the test, or a liar in the other case.
@Lillian
It just seems to me totally illogical that anyone would do it. What for? To translate into a language they don't know? There must be a reason why they call a particular language their native -- other than stealing jobs or making money.
When I received the translation, it was totally unusable. She was not a native English speaker. I was deceived and she got a job.
Best case: He really believes to be proficient enough. He is NOT and Michele (or any outsourcer) pays a price for believing without checking.
Worst case: He KNOWS he is not, but tries anyway. Same as above, but this is an outright lie.
That's a stark fact, and that's what makes a difference. Again, the point here is the FACT: Whether these are "untruths" or outright lies or not (a simple YES or NO question) is irrelevant.
I am not in the slightest interested in the REASONS, but in the CONSEQUENCES as almost everybody here (except you, that is), but this is NOT what this thread is about. You want to stick to the reasons, you open a new one.
There ARE such people here (deluded or plain liars) as Michele -and I believe others- have discovered the hard way. You say that YOU believe this about as much as Santa appearing in summer?. Well, this is of your own making, but I gather that since the first is true, the second is (for you) too.
And let's call a spade a spade, Lillian: What are YOUR native languages? (and why you believe they are?). Because this might be quite revealing.
[Edited at 2012-07-27 03:16 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Rachel Fell
United Kingdom
Local time: 11:37
French to English
+ ...
| Indeed they do | Jul 26, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
By the way, native English speakers say 'living authors', not 'alive authors'.
| | | | | 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! » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
