| 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: 19:06
Hebrew to English
| The thread seems to have stalled | Jun 23, 2012 |
So in an attempt to bring it back (back to life and back to topic), I would repeat the question: "Should native language claims be verified?". My answer to that would be "Why not?". If ProZ can develop a strategy as they claim to be doing, then why not? If you make a claim in life you have to be prepared to prove/defend it.
I also think a lot of people are worrying about people on the wrong end of the spectrum. I keep hearing cries of "but xxx is a non-native speaker and is better t... See more So in an attempt to bring it back (back to life and back to topic), I would repeat the question: "Should native language claims be verified?". My answer to that would be "Why not?". If ProZ can develop a strategy as they claim to be doing, then why not? If you make a claim in life you have to be prepared to prove/defend it.
I also think a lot of people are worrying about people on the wrong end of the spectrum. I keep hearing cries of "but xxx is a non-native speaker and is better than your average native" or something along these lines of trotting out exceptions. My answer to that would be that these gifted people are not the ones who need to worry, nor will they be affected by such a proposal of native language verification. If someone is so good as to pass as a native then they deserve to be able to list xx language as native.
However, the vast majority of people who claim a bogus native language aren't so proficient and would get caught out if challenged on it. These are the people who this measure would target. And rightly so.
Kirsten wrote:
Outsourcers surely do their research. If they see a Russian who claims to be 'native' in English and forgets his articles, then surely they will abandon that translator? Those agencies who pay too low don't care, and they would not employ a European anyway, so there is no use in trying to eradicate it. They would take a non-native anyway, whatever his native languages on here are and whether they are legitimate or not.
By the same argument, we may as well attempt to eradicate it though. If it makes no difference....However, I believe it does make a difference. What about the cases where an agency hires someone believing them to be a native speaker (sometimes it's hard to tell just from a handful of brief formulaic emails) and then the handed-in result reveals them to be anything but native. The damage is done then. Damage to the job in hand, damage to the translation profession and damage to the reputation of this site. Call me crazy but if an outsourcer stipulates "native speaker" as a prerequisite, chances are they want a native speaker. It's true that the lower-end of the market won't care, but the higher end will and bogus native language claims only serve to scare them away from ProZ altogether.
(And then we complain that quality outsourcers are nowhere to be found on ProZ, we scratch our heads and wonder why......). ▲ Collapse
| | | | Shiya Luo
Local time: 11:06
English to Chinese
+ ...
| How to even define nativeness? | Jun 23, 2012 |
I enjoyed the above arguments and would like to give my two cents in this thread.
According to some of the peers above, I might be close to a very thin line of whether I should identify myself as a native speaker of English. In a nationality point of view, I would not come close to qualify as a native, since I have not obtained permanent resident status in any English speaking country, despite I have not lived in China for more than half of my life.
I received English based bi... See more I enjoyed the above arguments and would like to give my two cents in this thread.
According to some of the peers above, I might be close to a very thin line of whether I should identify myself as a native speaker of English. In a nationality point of view, I would not come close to qualify as a native, since I have not obtained permanent resident status in any English speaking country, despite I have not lived in China for more than half of my life.
I received English based bilingual education ever since I was 10 upon moving to Singapore, before that my home education came from my parents where I was learning languages 95% of the time, both English and Chinese.
Since 10, I was educated in the British school system (Primary, Secondary, and IB as it was more accepted than A-level in American Universities), then came to the US and received double degree in math and electrical engineering. I speak English in an native proficiency, people I know have all thought I was an American born Chinese until I brought up my true nationality, or until they hear me speak Chinese .
My cultural identity? Han Chinese, not a bit Singaporean or American. Not that I am not influenced by any of these cultures, but I have pride of being Chinese coming from China.
I can write decent Chinese, better than my English writing.
I have not been told to be a good writer in general English, but have been complimented to write very efficient technical documentations, when I worked on documentations in my projects as an engineer. After all, engineers are mostly not very good writers and beautiful language is just an overkill when all one needs is a point across. Readers flipping through pages of manual are most likely not amused by fluff, but how short a time it takes for them to find what they need and how accurate it is especially if they have to dwell on a sentence to really understand the material. In a translation perspective, it's more important to convey the context of a material from one language to another, rather than having the correct syntax and grammar (like whether i or j represent current or a complex number when a formula is explained), if one of them have to be compromised.
English is the only language I have written technical reports and documentations for.
If I was only allow to claim one native language, it will be Chinese. I will be much more limited translating technical documents into my native language, since I have never written them in Chinese.
What I have been doing so far, is general translation from English to Chinese, IT translations both ways, and Chinese to English for highly technical documentations. This has been working out pretty well for my clients and I.
What I would like to suggest to proz though, is to the ability to self identify different levels of competency instead of just native languages. "Native proficiency" "Near native proficiency" and the like. The only option to identify proficiency of whether native or not is a very thick line where many of us may be swimming in the middle of it. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Shiya Luo
Local time: 11:06
English to Chinese
+ ...
| Being an native does not mean better grasp on technical material, experience in the field does. | Jun 23, 2012 |
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
However, those people are maybe proficient up to a certain level, but I would not be confident that if you gave them a proper text (technical, high-brow academic or something they don't really come across in a normal day-to-day setting), that they would understand it properly.
I disagree. Many translators who came from China and received higher education in English have majored in science, math and/or engineering. Some of them are already published individuals in an English journal. No, I do not think a native English-speaking language specialist without any experience in the field can do better in technical or high-brow academic Chinese to English translations than them. Even in some IT localizations facing a general public readership I have seen mistakes where the translator clearly have not enough understanding of the field or their audience. Even though one can probably still argue that they are very competent and experienced translators based on the way they use their language.
We should mimic the process of what most universities go through before they submit papers to a journal: have it written by someone with experience in the field, then proofread by a native speaker to correct the syntax and grammar. However, this will be completely up to the agency, not the translators.
[Edited at 2012-06-23 10:42 GMT]
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 20:06
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| A single solution for all types of false declarations | Jun 23, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
So in an attempt to bring it back (back to life and back to topic), I would repeat the question: "Should native language claims be verified?".
1. I have also tried to get the thread back to topic, and failed. From the posts that follow your post, I'd say that you have failed too. Sorry about that, mate.
2. Allow me to tackle this issue from a different angle: if we were to make a list of (a) things that are crucial to verify and (b) things that not crucial to verify (but which would be nice to verify anyway), would "native language" be on the first list?
To put this into perspective, ProZ.com has practically no means of verifying a translator's language combination (except by asking translators to declare "credentials" (but not verifying it)). You can increase the strength of your claim that you translate X or Y langauges by declaring credentials. But that is unfair to translators who do not have credentials that prove that they are proficient in their languages, even if they are highly skilled and very experienced. This leads to many translators making false claims about credentials on ProZ.com (I'd say half of the paying members in my language combination make false claims about it).
So why should ProZ.com expend disproportionate efforts to verify native language? One can have various mechanisms to strengthen a claim that X is your native language, but eventually translators who believe that clients filter them out due to reasons that they feel is not fair, will start to manipulate their data in their favour. And there would be nothing you can do about it unless you verify *everything*.
So my answer to your question is: in the greater scheme of things, it is not worth verifying native language. It is impractical and potentially very resource expensive, for very little gain.
However:
3. Lisa's original problem seems to be not with verifying per se, but with people who declare more than one native language and with people who declare a language that is clearly nowhere near their best language.
The solution to this would be a a whistleblower system, I think. In other words, any user of ProZ.com can query the truth of any declared item (not only native language), and if a certain number of queries occur, Staff initiate an investigation process.
The initial step of the investigation can simply be to ask the translator to make sure that he is being truthful, and to give the translator the opportunity to change his details. If a translator insists that his details are accurate, a peer review system may be used for some cases, or the translator may be asked to provide certain evidence. On the flip side, anyone submitting a query should be clear about their reasons for doing so.
For transparency, a translator for whom a query was submitted, should be told about it immediately. I do not think anonymous whistleblowing should be used for this, although the name of the query submitter(s) may be kept secret until there are sufficient queries to warrant an investigation. Then, when an investigation is started, all those who submitted queries are asked if they are willing to be named, and the investigation then continues with those who agree to it.
[Edited at 2012-06-23 11:40 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:06
Hebrew to English
| Responsibility | Jun 23, 2012 |
I think it boils down to this. Responsibility.
With respect to Shiya, I believe you/she (I'm really addressing everyone) is going off on a slight tangent.
a) I don't think we need to define what a "native language" is. "Credentials" can also be interpreted in many different ways and can mean different things to different people, yet ProZ still verifies these according to their own definition. I see no reason why the same cannot be done for native language.
... See more I think it boils down to this. Responsibility.
With respect to Shiya, I believe you/she (I'm really addressing everyone) is going off on a slight tangent.
a) I don't think we need to define what a "native language" is. "Credentials" can also be interpreted in many different ways and can mean different things to different people, yet ProZ still verifies these according to their own definition. I see no reason why the same cannot be done for native language.
b) Texts which require an in-depth subject knowledge (usually technical) are an acknowledged exception to the "native only" rule. In many cases it may indeed be preferable to find a non-native with the subject knowledge (although I find it hard to believe that in most arenas there aren't natives with the required knowledge too). I have a sneaking suspicion that $$$ plays a part in such decisions.
Back to responsibility.........
Outsourcers have a responsibility to choose the right person for the job. They must decide whether a native speaker is necessary or not. If they choose a native speaker for a highly technical text, then it must be for a reason and vice versa (should they choose a non-native).
Our responsibility is to represent ourselves truthfully and professionally. If hoardes of non-natives are misrepresenting themselves as natives, then we're just complicating things for the outsourcers to find the right person for the job. They have to spend longer sifting through false natives should they want a real native.....making the whole thing just a big mess. ▲ Collapse
| | | | B D Finch
France
Local time: 20:06
French to English
+ ...
| Fluency levels and definitions of "native" | Jun 23, 2012 |
Tom in London wrote:
There's a fluency people have in their native language that can't be faked by others.
[Edited at 2012-06-21 13:36 GMT]
Yes and no: sadly, many people have limited fluency in any language. There are also language communities within each "native language" so, for instance, I would not claim to be fluent in the English used by the English medical linguistic community.
While I agree with previous contributors that having used a language since childhood is essential, there is the sticky problem of cut-off age. I had a primary school friend who returned to England at the age of nine from Ceylon, where her (English) parents had been missionaries. Her English was not very good when we first met, because they had spoken Sinhalese at home. Her command of English very quickly became indistinguishable from that of the rest of the class.
While I find Shiya Luo's contributions interesting and agree with much of what she writes, I cannot agree that her command of English is native level. To support this, I would take the following extract:
"In a nationality point of view, I would not come close to qualify as a native, since I have not obtained permanent resident status in any English speaking country, despite I have not lived in China for more than half of my life.
I received English based bilingual education ever since I was 10 upon moving to Singapore, before that my home education came from my parents where I was learning languages 95% of the time, both English and Chinese."
Corrected version:
From the point of view of nationality, I would not even come close to qualifying as a native, since I have not obtained permanent resident status in any English speaking country, in spite of the fact that I have not lived in China for more than half my life. [NB. Nationality and being a native speaker are not necessarily connected.]
From the age of ten, I had a bilingual, English-based education, after having moved to Singapore. Before that my parents educated me at home and 95% of the time was spent learning languages, both English and Chinese.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:06
Hebrew to English
| Whistleblowing | Jun 23, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
3. Lisa's original problem seems to be with people who declare more than one native language (but also with people who declare a language that is clearly nowhere near their best language). I think a whistleblower system would work best for that, i.e. any member of ProZ.com can query the truth of any declared item, and if a certain number of queries come in, Staff initiate an investigation.
For transparency, a translator for whom a query was submitted, should be told about it (although the name of the submitter may be kept secret until an investigation is initiated).
I would agree with a whistleblowing system. I'm sure some people might claim it will lead to witch-hunts, but I doubt that would happen. As long as ProZ can remain objective as an impartial investigator then I envisage that this could work.
The only reservation I have is that, if I'm not mistaken, the vast majority of site staff and moderators are non-natives (of English)...might this not skew or affect the decisions? Does it take one to know one??
Another thought: what about other languages? Who will be able to judge? (although I'm positive that bogus claims of nativeness in other languages is nowhere near the epidemic levels of English).
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:06
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Allow me to explain, since I think you've missed the crux of the argument and it's an important point. Nobody is suggesting that you must stop offering Chinese to English translations. That is your business and it is up to the outsourcer to decide if your qualifications and technical background are of such value as to override the need for a native speaker. All we are saying is that your native language, which is Chinese, should be what is stated on your profile so that outsourcer can be clear o... See more Allow me to explain, since I think you've missed the crux of the argument and it's an important point. Nobody is suggesting that you must stop offering Chinese to English translations. That is your business and it is up to the outsourcer to decide if your qualifications and technical background are of such value as to override the need for a native speaker. All we are saying is that your native language, which is Chinese, should be what is stated on your profile so that outsourcer can be clear on what they are hiring. The outsourcer may have a choice between you and another native English speaking translator with equivalent qualifications, technical knowledge and experience and it is only right that they should not be misled and end up booking a non-native speaker.
I agree with you that nationality is utterly irrelevant. I am a French and British dual national but wouldn't dream of claiming that I am a French native speaker. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 20:06
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Whistleblowing and witch hunts | Jun 23, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
I think a whistleblower system would work best for that, i.e. any member of ProZ.com can query the truth of any declared item, and if a certain number of queries come in, Staff initiate an investigation. I would agree with a whistleblowing system. I'm sure some people might claim it will lead to witch-hunts, but I doubt that would happen.
Well, it could lead to witch hunts in the same way that KudoZ users can band together to support each other and shut others out.
One version of it (with staff investigation): Whenever a translator submits a query (i.e. questions the validity of something), the query is checked by Staff to ensure that it is not threatening, and if not, it is passed to that translator. He can then make the change and ask that the query be deleted. If he does not make the change, the query remains in the system. When e.g. ten queries were made for the same item, Staff initiates an investigation. The type of investigation depends on what is being queried.
Another version of it (without staff investigation): If at least ten translators query something, it gets mentioned on that translator's profile page. The identities of the queriers and their reasons must be somehow available. There must be a space next to the query notice for the translator to answer in his defence. It is then up to clients to decide who to believe. If a translator decides to change the queried item, the queries (and the fact that it was queried) are removed.
The only reservation I have is that, if I'm not mistaken, the vast majority of site staff and moderators are non-natives (of English)...might this not skew or affect the decisions?
I don't see how that would affect their judgment. If they decide to judge nativeness by asking 10 red pee members to verify the claim, then they don't have to be able to speak the language. Or, they could ask that the queried translator himself finds 5-10 ProZ.com red pee members who would be willing to validate that his claim is correct.
[Edited at 2012-06-23 12:04 GMT]
| | | | | In brief, then | Jun 23, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
So in an attempt to bring it back (back to life and back to topic), I would repeat the question: "Should native language claims be verified?". My answer to that would be "Why not?".
My answer to your answer would be (given the type of website proz is and will remain), why?
My answer to your actual question (and the OP) is, in essence (and this time despite, not because of, the type of wesbite proz is, but still within a proz context), "only if challenged".
I'm sure you've probably grasped that is my approach by now
If I were creating that ideal website we chuntered about a few weeks ago, then anybody making any kind of false claim would just be deleted once the case was proven, but I'm not sure whether I'd bother to ask people to state their native language on a foum for, by and about professionals.
I don't actually see much value in declaration of a native language per se, and especially on here. To borrow a distinction I have just read, for the site owners, this is a commercial venue, not a professional forum. People offer services into language pairs, they may or may not do the actual work themselves, they may have access to native language services without knowing a word of the language, thus declare themselves a native for marketing purposes, rather than to deceive. It's a tricky business to define a set of rules to cover every eventuality. Especially since for some, their false claims are also for marketing purposes, because they're following the money.
So, let's delete the native language field, which serves no useful purpose, then no-one can lie about it
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 02:06
Chinese to English
| Time to ignore the naysayers? | Jun 23, 2012 |
So, it starts to become clear to me that the real resistance in this thread is being put up by those who do not translate into their native languages, and who object to any improvement of the native language reporting system because they believe either that it is fundamentally flawed or that it would be inimical to their business interests.
My attitude to these people is: we should ignore them. There is a clear and generally supported convention in the industry *and on this site* th... See more So, it starts to become clear to me that the real resistance in this thread is being put up by those who do not translate into their native languages, and who object to any improvement of the native language reporting system because they believe either that it is fundamentally flawed or that it would be inimical to their business interests.
My attitude to these people is: we should ignore them. There is a clear and generally supported convention in the industry *and on this site* that native languages are one important factor (among many) in choosing a translator. Rather than allowing the protestations of a (vocal) minority who disagree with this convention to derail us, I suggest that those who would like to see improvement in the Proz system come to some agreement amongst ourselves, then present it on the suggestions for Proz forum.
Samuel - I disagree with your version there, because you're dumping the native idea. Who knows, maybe it needs to be dumped, but I think that remains to be proven. Proz still recognises the validity of the native concept, and that's what I'd like to work on.
So, on that basis, I'd happily support Lisa's suggestion of:
1) Acceptance of one native language only.
2) A mechanism for application of second native language status wherein the applicant has to post materials to the site, which are then voted on (anonymously) by other native speakers of the language of application. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 20:06
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Dumping the native idea | Jun 23, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
Samuel - I disagree with your version there, because you're dumping the native idea.
...
2) A mechanism for application of second native language status wherein the applicant has to post materials to the site...
The fact that you believe nativeness can be tested by posting materials to the site, shows that your definition of "native" has to do with competence, and not with growing up with a language. And if that is so, then my "dumping the native idea" idea should be right up your alley, since my idea is to judge "it" exclusively on competence and not by an emotional response.
| | |
|
|
|
XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:06
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Phil Hand wrote:
So, it starts to become clear to me that the real resistance in this thread is being put up by those who do not translate into their native languages, and who object to any improvement of the native language reporting system because they believe either that it is fundamentally flawed or that it would be inimical to their business interests.
You've hit the nail on the head.
I suggest that those who would like to see improvement in the Proz system come to some agreement amongst ourselves, then present it on the suggestions for Proz forum.
This IS the "Proz.com suggestions" forum yet, as noted above, staff have been glaringly absent.
2) A mechanism for application of second native language status wherein the applicant has to post materials to the site, which are then voted on (anonymously) by other native speakers of the language of application.
I'd don't even see a need to post materials to the site (apart from anything else this could be copied from somewhere else); the forums and KudoZ are amply sufficient to judge whether or not someone is a native speaker.
| | | | | Silent majority? | Jun 23, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
I'd don't even see a need to post materials to the site (apart from anything else this could be copied from somewhere else); the forums and KudoZ are amply sufficient to judge whether or not someone is a native speaker.
Many (the majority of?) members do neither, though - there are vast numbers of silent people out there. So if you've lied about your native tongue, all you need to do is stay quiet in public (just keep applying in private for jobs other people don't think you should get) and you'll be laughing, then, is that it?
| | | |
Samuel Murray wrote:
And if that is so, then my "dumping the native idea" idea should be right up your alley,
I was jocular about it earlier, but I'm coming round to this way of thinking. Especially for here.
| | | | | 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 Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
| | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
