| 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)
|
|---|
Balasubramaniam L. 
India
Local time: 13:27
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | So natives are not infallible... | Jul 29, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote: ...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]
...though they can have excuses!
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:57
Hebrew to English
| Being obtuse just doesn't help, does it? | Jul 29, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Ty Kendall wrote: ...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] ...though they can have excuses!
It's not about being infallible....and you know it isn't. Go back and read the umpteen posts on the difference between native and non-native errors. I shan't repeat them here.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:57
Hebrew to English
You musn't have read the rest of the posts to bring up that old argument. For the record - I never said "I am under the impression" was non-native, I said it was less common than "I was under the impression". Please read the thread carefully before trying to resurrect dead and buried arguments that were settled already.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:57
Hebrew to English
| Couldn't be more wrong | Jul 29, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
who handle these languages to perfection.
It has nothing to do with handling a language "to perfection" - everyone (including native speakers) make mistakes (albeit different ones) and exhibit disfluencies. I implore you to go back and re-read the native/non-native distinction in disfluencies/errors rather than make me explain it again.
nativeness in a languages [sic] (defined narrowly by residence in the original geographical area of the language) doesn't make much sense.
It has nothing to do with residence in the original geographical area of the language either.
[Edited at 2012-07-29 07:48 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 13:27
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Riddled with contradictions | Jul 29, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote: 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.
You start off with one thing and then agree to an entirely opposite view.
No, native speakers, (taken in general as individuals), are not the final authority of the standard version of the language (which we all use in translation). It is the language standard that is the final authority. This standard is established based on the usage of the language by the educated, elite (not in a political sense, but in the intellectual sense) and is carefully codified by grammarians and lexicographers. In the case of English, the Oxford English Dictionary, Fowler's books on English usage, the Chicago Manual of Style, and such codifications are the standard. Users (I include natives in "users") have no choice but to constantly refer to these standards and adjust their languages, for they are the standard, just as a metre rod is the standard of length. Anything that deviates substantially from the standard - even if the deviators are native speakers - will be held up by everybody as wrong usage.
So it would be completely wrong to claim that individuals (natives or otherwise) set the standard or are the final authority of democratic institutions like languages. Language is a collective endeavour by its very nature. It is how people use it that defines what is correct and what is not. And nothing what a single individual does has the least affect on the institution of language, except in the distant future, when a large number of educated people begin to imitate the individual themselves and thus set the standard in that particular area of usage.
It is this language standard that gives languages stability and prolonged life. Languages, as we all know, are constantly changing. The English of Chaucer or Shakespere is not the same as the English of Dickens, which again is the not the English of Salman Rushdie.
We are in a way are using the snapshot version of our languages. The way our languages exist at the current moment, just as a snapshot records the current position of our lives. This snapshot edition of our language is clearly defined in the standard version of our language and can be easily and completely learned by anyone if he/she is exposed to it early in life.
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 00:57
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Native vs non-native knowledge | Jul 29, 2012 |
Native speakers of English know that the following sentence can have two meanings:
"Who do you want to kiss?"
They also know that in speech 'want to' is often reduced to 'wanna'.
"Who do you wanna kiss?"
Native English speakers know whether this reduction of 'want to' to 'wanna' can be used for both of the meanings of the sentence, and if not, which meaning allows the reduction.
Even the best non-native speakers will usually... See more Native speakers of English know that the following sentence can have two meanings:
"Who do you want to kiss?"
They also know that in speech 'want to' is often reduced to 'wanna'.
"Who do you wanna kiss?"
Native English speakers know whether this reduction of 'want to' to 'wanna' can be used for both of the meanings of the sentence, and if not, which meaning allows the reduction.
Even the best non-native speakers will usually not acquire all the grammatical and other subtleties of a non-native language. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 15:57
Chinese to English
| I don't like grammar tests | Jul 29, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
Native speakers of English know that the following sentence can have two meanings:
"Who do you want to kiss?"
They also know that in speech 'want to' is often reduced to 'wanna'.
"Who do you wanna kiss?"
Native English speakers know whether this reduction of 'want to' to 'wanna' can be used for both of the meanings of the sentence, and if not, which meaning allows the reduction.
Even the best non-native speakers will usually not acquire all the grammatical and other subtleties of a non-native language.
My problem with this is that
(a) a non-native learner can learn any arbitrary set of grammar rules we come up with
and
(b) natives disagree (particularly in a language as varied as English)
I've been caught out once on this thread already!
On the example you give, I would allow reduction to "wanna" in both senses, if there was stress on the "you" in the question:
"I've made Kermit and Miss Piggy kiss. Who do YOU wanna kiss?"
I don't know if this is a change, or if I'm weird, but I don't think the wanna gonna reduction rules are simple, easy to codify or uniform across populations. So I'd be very wary of using this as a diagnostic test for nativeness.
Production is the only respectable test. Either speaking or writing.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:57
Hebrew to English
| It's at times like this that I must remind myself..... | Jul 29, 2012 |
I often forget and throw a few crumbs out of frustration.
| | |
|
|
|
| Incredible... | Jul 29, 2012 |
It has become impossible to argue with some people here without being personal, because either some statements are simply not true or this certain person is incredibly bad at (at least) a certain language given his/her education and life situation. So I´ll try my best not no feed the troll.
Let´s see if I can explain my ideas well enough… I have become a bit severe. I have come to the conclusion that the best thing to get rid of liars and/or individuals who overestimate themselv... See more It has become impossible to argue with some people here without being personal, because either some statements are simply not true or this certain person is incredibly bad at (at least) a certain language given his/her education and life situation. So I´ll try my best not no feed the troll.
Let´s see if I can explain my ideas well enough… I have become a bit severe. I have come to the conclusion that the best thing to get rid of liars and/or individuals who overestimate themselves would be to allow a “native” status/icon/whatever only to paying members of this site. Sorry Charlie (and others), but I really think this could be useful for all of us in the long run, including non-paying members like Charlie that actually are undoubtedly professional and care about our profession.
I think every professional translator could afford the annual fee if one really wants to use the site as a marketing tool. And if one doesn’t want it, well, there are many other marketing tools; if one is not serious enough about being a professional translator or if it is not worth to state which language one really is native in, so be it, there is plenty of internet that one can use at one´s own discretion and where one can state whatever one wants. But please not here; we should see here only true claims.
As I said, I would only allow paying members to appear in the directory search or to have the possibility to quote for posted job. This would be also good for proz.com because it would be a motivation to become a paying member. Sheila and Phil already suggested good ideas regarding which kind of test it could be possible to implement. A short freely written text submitted within a certain (short) time is a really good idea in my opinion. A small chat in real time would also be very good.
Who should evaluate these texts? Well, we have to start somewhere. I would suggest that we first “clean” the Certified PRO Network, which actually has the possibility to evaluate peers according to their native languages. So we (ok, I am one of them and, of course, willing to be tested) could first evaluate CPN members. Those who fail in the native language question would be out of the network (and I actually agree with Charlie, they should be out of proz at all, they broke the site rules, but that´s another question). Once the CPN is clean, we would have the first group of professional translators that really are what they claim to be and, of course, they would be perfectly capable to evaluate whether other peers are native or not, I mean: to evaluate the application of other translators that want to be paying members in order to get a “native in XXX” status and also be included in the directory search and to be able to bid for jobs if they want. I am sure there are some CPN members willing to help and if not, proz could give some kind of incentive like browniz or whatever.
In order to avoid confusions between language varieties, the verification process should be made between native speakers of the same language variety. I am sure I am not only able to say if a Spanish native speaker from Spain really is a native speaker, I am pretty sure I also can say it if someone comes from Latin America, but let´s be really accurate at this point, i.e.: British English native speakers evaluate only applications of translators that claim BE to be their native language, the same applies to American English, to Spanish from Spain, Spanish from Mexico/Chile/Argentina…, to German from Germany, German from Austria… you get the point.
I really don´t want to have my shop window next to the shop window of someone who claims to be native in X because it was supposedly acquired since the age of 3, claiming to be a linguist (wow, that´s confidence), reasoning like a 5 year old child and writing so poorly in said “native” language that even non-native speakers notice that it can´t be true.
If we could finally implement some sort of verification, I am sure many of the non-paying members at this moment would gladly pay (again?) for membership because the site would (again?) reflect what it is supposed to reflect: quality, professionalism, honesty, credibility. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Yes, you are right Nani | Jul 29, 2012 |
You could just pay for every native language up to $100, perhaps. Is that your idea? Have you seen my professional writing? So don't judge people by some forum posts written in the middle of 5 translations and fifteen phone calls. I can assure my English is really top quality, for professional purposes, especially. I hate stilled, pathetic, empty words -- perhaps that's what you mean. Some of you purposely use a lot unnecessary, sophisticated idioms just to prove something. No one speaks like th... See more You could just pay for every native language up to $100, perhaps. Is that your idea? Have you seen my professional writing? So don't judge people by some forum posts written in the middle of 5 translations and fifteen phone calls. I can assure my English is really top quality, for professional purposes, especially. I hate stilled, pathetic, empty words -- perhaps that's what you mean. Some of you purposely use a lot unnecessary, sophisticated idioms just to prove something. No one speaks like that, at least in the US. And no more personal comments, alright. I don't think this is really permitted. How do you want people to participate in any discussions on the forums, if you are into winch-hunting for their typos, or short-cuts. Most regular AE speakers would think that some of the writing here is not only from Europe, but rather from a different planet. And the ideas from some totalitarian systems, long gone.
You ain't got no shop window, Nani. Is that what you want? Does it sound native enough to you, Sugar?
Wanna -- you cannot use wanna in any standard variety of English, unless for stylistic reasons. I did not read all the posts related to it, but you cannot use it in written English; perhaps just in a dialogue, in a novel.
See, this is exactly what I meant. They would find a post that you wrote carelessly, or when you were tired, and then they will prey on you. I swear everything I said is true. Maybe you are not the person you are saying -- your English seems usually good for a translator who translates from German into Spanish, only. You might be just lying that you know German well because there is more work probably from such clients as the big auto companies, and some financial organizations, or German banks.
The longer I see the biased attitudes of some people on this site, the longer it will take to become a paid member. Also, I usually have a lot of work, and I am not really that willing to take much more work in the summer. People can become paid members whenever they are ready.
[Edited at 2012-07-29 10:17 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | psicutrinius
Spain
Local time: 09:57
Member (2008)
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Back to square one | Jul 29, 2012 |
Let’s see:
(1) ProZ is a forum of translators (and interpreters, but this thread is of no concern to the latter, so I will leave this aside).
(2) It is also a forum for PROFESSIONALS, where outsourcers can publish job offers and recruit PROFESSIONAL translators.
(3) Outsourcers know what they want or need, so they draw the proper requisites (a few don't, but then they are sloppy and if they get conned, they deserve it).
(4) Since the translat... See more Let’s see:
(1) ProZ is a forum of translators (and interpreters, but this thread is of no concern to the latter, so I will leave this aside).
(2) It is also a forum for PROFESSIONALS, where outsourcers can publish job offers and recruit PROFESSIONAL translators.
(3) Outsourcers know what they want or need, so they draw the proper requisites (a few don't, but then they are sloppy and if they get conned, they deserve it).
(4) Since the translators are PROFESSIONAL, the outsourcers expect the translators to translate SEAMLESSLY into the target language (that is, so that the translated text cannot be traced to the original language, but conveying faithfully and exactly the meaning (nuances included) of the original.
(5) Because Proz is very open to any declaration by translators as to both their “target languages” and their fields of expertise (there is another thread about kudoz questions here: see http://www.proz.com/forum/kudoz/224848-what_is_the_highest_number_of_kudoz_questions_asked_by_a_single_individual.html) there are a number of so-called translators who offer themselves without proper knowledge of their so-called target language and the subject matter, in a number of cases (more than a few), and they solve the latter asking kudoz questions.
(6) That is: There is money to be earned (low rates or not) for anybody who can persuade any outsourcer that s/he can translate both into a given language and a given subject. Since, in the actual state of the matter, everybody can declare to be proficient enough in both, because there is no way of ascertaining these declarations to ANY extent, the outsourcers can fall into traps such as this one:
“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.” (Michele Faublé dixit)
(6) This happens in every language but, English being the “lingua franca”, this seems to be the most abused “target language” throughout (nitpickers and equivocators: please note that I wrote “seems” above).
(7) That outsourcers coming to Proz in good faith can be deceived is the best way for them to shun Proz, unless they are prepared for getting crap instead of a translation (and, by the way, this might be a reason for the rates plummeting precipitously, as they do), and this is BAD both for the HONEST translators here and for Proz as well.
(8) Language matters are complex and do not lend themselves to clear-cut answers. From what comes above, the need to CHECK the ability of any translator to "translate seamlessly into the target language, nuances included, in such a way that it cannot be traced to the original while conveying faithfully and exactly the meaning” is awfully evident. Call the target language “native” or whatever, this is the point, and this is to be checked.
(9) Because “language matters are complex and do not lend themselves to clear-cut answers”, nobody can define a clear-cut test for a 100% reliability, and this is compounded by the complexity of such a test, which would require vast resources that are unavailable. Therefore, we need to define one which, being imperfect, at least allows weeding out the most egregious cases. BUT A TEST IS UNAVOIDABLE, given the current state of affairs here. I fully concur with Nani Delgado when she says "I really don´t want to have my shop window next to the shop
window of someone who claims to be native in X because it was supposedly acquired since the age of 3, claiming to be a linguist (wow, that´s confidence), reasoning like a 5 year old child and writing so poorly in said “native” language that even non-native speakers notice that it can´t be true.”
(10) Whether the so-called translator claims his/her target language to be native or not, the point is that what is MANDATORY is that s/he can “translate seamlessly into the target language, nuances included, in such a way that it cannot be traced to the original while conveying faithfully and exactly the meaning”. If s/he cannot, be it by delusion or by a straight lie, s/he does not belong here. If the name of the exercise is to have a database of PROFESSIONAL TRANSLATORS, as defined here, and if folding money is involved, there is no way out other than to establish a minimum level of compliance, and this is no witch hunt, nor needs “big brother”, KGB or STASI-like work or whatever. Whoever says so is either a liar-deceiver who knows s/he is not able to pass any test or a blighted “libertarian/freemarketeer” who is deluded enough as to really believe that, when gain is involved, gain will not overwhelm any finer point.
[Edited at 2012-07-29 09:27 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-07-29 10:15 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | psicutrinius
Spain
Local time: 09:57
Member (2008)
Spanish to English
+ ...
There are also paying members who are deceivers/liars.
The investment required to become a paying member is not what would deter them (and there are some certified Pros who lie/deceive).
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 15:57
Chinese to English
| Excellent summary | Jul 29, 2012 |
I agree with everything in there except for one bit:
psicutrinius wrote:
...the need to CHECK the ability of any translator to "translate seamlessly into the target language, nuances included, in such a way that it cannot be traced to the original while conveying faithfully and exactly the meaning” is awfully evident...
I don't think it's Proz's job to do that - to say how good we are. That's an agency's job, and they get a lot more money for doing it than Proz takes from us.
I do think that Proz has a responsibility to try to ensure that the information we provide through Proz is reasonably accurate.
In the case of native languages, as we've come to agree, an absolute test would be extremely hard. But a test of basic language competence would be a good proxy. But being a native speaker doesn't necessarily make you a good translator, and I don't think these two concepts should be confused.
| | | |
psicutrinius wrote:
There are also paying members who are deceivers/liars.
The investment required to become a paying member is not what would deter them (and there are some certified Pros who lie/deceive).
But if Proz first of all changed the site settings in that way that only paying members appear in the directory search and can bid for jobs, this would be a first step. Then we/Proz should beginn to clean the site, that is: to verify paying members, beginning with CPN members so we soon have a group of professional translators who are qualified to verify others. Those who fail are out. New members would have to get verified, and if they fail: no paid membership would be possible and, therefore, no possibility to appear in the directory search nor to bid for jobs.
After a few weeks there should be enough verified native speakers that are not CPN members but equally qualified to verify other "native speaker status" application. And if Proz implements some sort of incentive for the time and effort spent, it would reduce the site staff owns efforts for verification.
| | | | psicutrinius
Spain
Local time: 09:57
Member (2008)
Spanish to English
+ ...
In fact, we agree.
The definition is actually my own yardstick, and this, by the way, precludes me from quoting Catalan as my second language. I am not FULLY sure that I can write in Catalan with not ONE grammatical fault (none, that is, ZERO POINT ZERO ZERO), specifically for the "tildes", and that's why I do not declare it as a native language.
The definition is the "ideal" one, but I say later on that, since this level cannot be achieved, the point is to get as close... See more In fact, we agree.
The definition is actually my own yardstick, and this, by the way, precludes me from quoting Catalan as my second language. I am not FULLY sure that I can write in Catalan with not ONE grammatical fault (none, that is, ZERO POINT ZERO ZERO), specifically for the "tildes", and that's why I do not declare it as a native language.
The definition is the "ideal" one, but I say later on that, since this level cannot be achieved, the point is to get as close to it as POSSIBLE.
At least, that's what I meant. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | 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? | 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 » |
| | 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 
