| 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)
|
|---|
| Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule | Balasubramaniam L. 
India
Local time: 20:47
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | There are many cases like yours | Aug 6, 2012 |
Ambrose Li wrote:
Well, I’m one of those people who decided to put no native language on my profile. Putting my actual native language in there would be more misleading than putting English there. So what can I do? No native language.
The problem is with the yardstick.
Nativity is an insufficient condition for quality translation. Yet it is promoted as being one, because it gives certain people professional advantage.
As I said earlier, the protagonists of nativity all come from monolingual situations and don't understand such issues as international migration and mutli-lingualism, or have huge axes to grind.
| | | | | for the last time: this is not about translation quality | Aug 6, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
So we need to abandon the diversion to testing accents and vocal ability and return to the main issue of translation quality.
I invite you to abandon your stance. I am not the first to suggest this.
Page 1 - 92 reveals that this thread is NOT about translation quality.
When someone claims a language as their native language, they should be truthful about it.
If they lie, all other claims on their profile are arguably false as well.
Why does someone claim a native language when it's not his/her native language?
Either they are trying to profit from it because they know translators are very very often sought out for their native language,especially for the target language, or they have no idea what "native speaker" means. The latter is very sad. Because the vast majority of native speakers know it is not the same as having learned it after the critical period/your formative years (see lots and lots of pages of our thread).
If you're still not sure, google it and see what most people have to say.
And what makes any non-native speaker automatically a great translator into that non-native language? It's a highly suspect concept. There are very few who can claim to be great translators into a non-native language.
It's far more likely and logical that native speakers of English should be the ones translating into English. Replace English with any language you like.
And guess what, that's why people falsely claim they are native speakers.
In any case, abuse can't stand and verification is what we want.
This is not about bi- or trilingual colleagues who honestly state which language(s) their native language(s) is/are and who do not claim their other non-native language skills as native ones. No, it's about those who intentionally or "unknowingly" (yeah right) claim a language as native language.
English is spoken all over the world, yes. But to be a native speaker , you must fulfill criteria (please re-read pages 1-92), and based on these criteria, you stand out among other speakers of English, fluent or not, who are nothing more than non-natives (excuse the frank terminology).
Again, you are not engaging in a constructive discussion with colleagues here who have given solid arguments for why "native language claims" should be verified.
I would ask again, nicely, that you accept valid arguments brought forth over 92 pages and not simply reject anything and everything that doesn't fit your personal opinion which is really very different from the majority of contributors here.
You have already used a quote out of context to simply fit your own agenda - to state that every translator has at least two native languages - this is the total opposite of Michelle's opinion - and it seems you completely disregarded her arguments.
Disregarding others' opinions and turning them around for your own purpose as well as continuing to negate what most of us argued for over 92 pages, without valid counter-arguments is hardly a constructive way of participating in this discussion.
You have repeated yourself many times and I am not sure what you are trying to show us by continuously lecturing us on our complete misunderstanding of the concepts we are discussing. As we say in US English, it's not gonna fly.
B
[Edited at 2012-08-06 10:45 GMT]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 20:47
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | You might run into trouble with the nativity brigage... | Aug 6, 2012 |
Michael Beijer wrote:
... for those of you still with me, I would like to ask you: what is my native language? Good question. I presently have it set as ‘Native in: English’
Michael
... because, nativity, according to them, is not something that you can pick or choose, it is something that you are saddled with by the accident of birth and your situation in early childhood.
You stand to be accused of choosing English for the business advantages that it would provide you.
But I am glad you brought up your case. It very effectively demolishes the nativity argument. It proves that nativity is not of universal relevance and there can be, and there are, numerous exceptions to the rule, like yours.
In an integrating world, with technologies that span the globe and travel becoming more easier, and migration of people from one place to the other becoming the norm, the nativity issue becomes less and less important to professions like translation with every passing day.
| | |
|
|
|
| who are you accusing of being selfish? | Aug 6, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
We need to move with the times and rise above our selfish interests.
Speak for yourself.
But do it in moderation.
Flooding this thread with your comments doesn't make them (your comments) any "more true".
B
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 20:47
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | There is another way too... | Aug 6, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
As I said many times before, the only way to end this problem is by verifying native languages.
B
[Edited at 2012-08-03 05:30 GMT]
... which is, abandoning nativeness in a language as irrelevant to translation and sticking to the quality aspect of the translation.
Whether one is native in a language or not is only of academic interest, it is what you deliver in the translation that really matters.
You can't argue back saying that a native always delivers a flawless translation, because you will then also have to account for the existence of the whole industry of proof-readers and editors.
[2012-08-06 08:23 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 20:47
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER
Sarah Elizabeth Cree wrote:
To put a finer point on it, a 'language that one has mastered for professional purposes' and a 'native language' are two separate, if often overlapping, categories.
This is what we should be arguing about - the language that one has mastered for professional purposes.
It is your competence in this language that really matters.
Native language is an entirely separate and irrelevant issue. It is merely a subset of the "language that one has mastered for professional purposes", that is, the "language that you have mastered for professional purpose" is not always your native language, though it can be, too.
And the cardinal error that is being made in this thread is not only to equate the two, but also to reverse the relation between the two, and making native language the superset of the "language that one has mastered for professional purpsoses".
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 20:47
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | That is the point | Aug 6, 2012 |
Sarah Elizabeth Cree wrote:
Professional competency in a language is not equal to being a native speaker of that language.
All that is of matter to the outsourcer is your professional competency in the target language. Whether you a native speaker of it or not is irrelevant as far as s/he is concerned.
Only when you claim that nativity in the target language and your professional competency in the target language are one and the same thing - which you cannot with a straight face - that nativity assumes the false importance that it has in this discussion.
I am glad you brought up the case of non-English speaking people who become professors in prestigious universities like Yale and teach native-English students obtuse subjects in English, and turn out scholarly papers in English that are published in the foremost publications of English.
If their non-native level of English is good enough for these state-of-the-art uses, then surely simple proficiency in the target language is sufficient for translation purposes too, and nativity is just the glitter wrapping.
| | |
|
|
|
| Native language is not irrelevant. It's the subject of this forum! | Aug 6, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Sarah Elizabeth Cree wrote:
To put a finer point on it, a 'language that one has mastered for professional purposes' and a 'native language' are two separate, if often overlapping, categories.
This is what we should be arguing about - the language that one has mastered for professional purposes. It is your competence in this language that really matters. Native language is an entirely separate and irrelevant issue. It is merely a subset of the "language that one has mastered for professional purposes", that is, the "language that you have mastered for professional purpose" is not always your native language, though it can be, too. And the cardinal error that is being made in this thread is not only to equate the two, but also to reverse the relation between the two, and making native language the superset of the "language that one has mastered for professional purpsoses".
The language we mastered for professional purposes. Mastered according to whom? Our own outstanding, unbiased judgement? According to our colleagues who also 'mastered' it for professional purposes? So leave native speakers out of the equation and bingo, a perfect world in which we can all translate professionally from and/or into any language we have mastered 'for professional purposes.
This just keeps getting better and better.........
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 20:47
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | But that is the bone of contention, really... | Aug 6, 2012 |
writeaway wrote:
I don't understand all the maneuvering people are attempting here to sell themselves as native speakers of a source language, English in particular of course. Is there some kind of stigma attached to not being an English native?
The thing is, and surely you know it, outsourcers as well as the site filters translators using nativity is one of the yardsticks.
If a translator feels that he is competent to turn out a decent translation in, say English (but it could be any language), then that is not a sufficient condition for getting jobs from the site and the outsources. He won't even be allowed to bid, or even be visible in many of the searches for the target language, if he also does not declare that he is also native in English (or the target language).
Now here is the unfair part. The translator genuinely believes he can do the job, but unless he makes a false statement, he cannot get the job.
The Hobson's choice is either lose the job or make a false claim (but innocuous claim, forced upon him by a system that is not sensitive enough to meet his special situation).
The solution is, not to persist with the nativity criterion at all, and to allow anyone who thinks himself capable enough for a job to bid for it, and leave it to the outsourcer to decide.
Here I am excluding those cases where the person is not competent enough to do the job at all but still claims competency. I really don't think there are many such cases on this site. I am only talking of those people who genuinely feel that they can competently do a job, meeting all the outsourcer's expectations of quality, even though they might not be native in the target language.
The argument that has been so far put forward is that such a case - of non-native translators turning out quality translations - does not exist at all. This is an argument that I cannot accept.
The reason is simple enough. Most of those who have been so vocal about the native language issue also routinely translate in the reverse direction too, that is into their second language which is not their native language.
So, nativity really has no relevance to quality translation.
| | | | | being fluent in a language is not the same as being a native speaker of a language | Aug 6, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
As I said earlier, the protagonists of nativity all come from monolingual situations and don't understand such issues as international migration and mutli-lingualism, or have huge axes to grind.
For your information, you're completely wrong.
1) There is not one professional translator who "comes from a monolingual situation". A translator usually has at least one native language and one language in which he/she is completely fluent. That's what enables him/her to be a translator. That's what's called a "bilingual" situation even though you define this differently. You don't have to (well, you can't, at the same time) live in Germany and the US to be bilingual in both languages (bilingual I say, not "native"!), you live in one of these countries.
With your definition, you imply that you can only be bilingual or trilingual if you live in India or another multi-lingual country. Well, I am sure that's just your definition.
2) You claim "protagonists of 'nativity' don't understand such issues as international migration and multi-linguism."
What is the basis of such claim?
There is no basis. I am a native speaker of German and a non-native but fluent speaker of US English. That makes me bilingual. I live in the US. I also lived in Austria 3 years ago, for 10 months (I mentioned it earlier in this thread). On top of that, I studied Political Science and are not just acquainted with international migration but know quite a lot about it.
What you are implying is that speakers of "just" one native language, or, as you call us, "protagonists of 'nativity', are not able to understand such issues? Give me a break! As far as translators are concerned, you simply can't support that argument. Seriously.
But not enough, you claim (again)
3) "Protagonists of 'nativity' might have an axe to grind (that's the second time you are saying this on page 92)." If you have really read through all our comments over 92 pages, you must surely realize that this is untrue.
What axe do I have to grind?
None!
I already said in a previous reply to you that we are translators who oppose false native language claims.
Simple but true: if you are not a native speaker of English, you should not say you are.
There's nothing wrong with being a non-native, fluent speaker of English. There are plenty of translators whose source language is English who translate into other languages. That's what I do, into German.
But it's unacceptable to claim a native language as your own if it isn't.
How many times do we have to explain that?
It has nothing to do with any individual translator's policy. If some want to translate into English even if it's not their native language, that's up to them.
I invite you again to accept that the "native language" concept (see discussion) is valid and cannot be defined or replaced by "fluency in a particular language".
NB: The reason someone who is fluent in English doesn't get to quote on jobs here at Proz.com specifically for "native English speakers" or is not listed as English native speaker in the directory, even though they are "fluent", is that that "fluency" in a language is not the same as "being a native speaker." If "fluency" were the criterion, I would get to quote on English jobs as well. Nothing wrong with that in principle if Proz.com wants to do that. Even if that would become policy (and I hope it never does), none of these fluent speakers will all of the sudden become native English speakers!
To say English is an international language and anybody who is fluent in it should be allowed to claim it as their "native language" or should be allowed to quote on native English speaker jobs and be listed in the directory is unacceptable (at least to most people here I'm sure). It opens the door to complete abuse and is a slap in the face of any native English speaker.
B
[Edited at 2012-08-06 09:40 GMT]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 20:47
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Most translations happen in the international languages | Aug 6, 2012 |
writeaway wrote:
Native level isn't good enough? Why lie? Other languages aren't worth less, surely ..........
A few language pairs account for most of the translation volumes - EnglishChinese, EnglishSpanish, EnglishArabic, English>Hindi, etc.
That is why the mad rush for claiming nativity in these languages.
proz.com is after all a market place, and not really a confession room of the church.
| | |
|
|
|
| So all's well that lies well? | Aug 6, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: writeaway wrote:
Native level isn't good enough? Why lie? Other languages aren't worth less, surely .......... A few language pairs account for most of the translation volumes - EnglishChinese, EnglishSpanish, EnglishArabic, English>Hindi, etc. That is why the mad rush for claiming nativity in these languages. proz.com is after all a market place, and not really a confession room of the church.
If I understand this correctly, being a liar is part and parcel of being good at marketing? Cynical but perhaps closer to the truth than many native language claims ....
| | | | | arguing is not the same as putting forward valid arguments | Aug 6, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: You said it Sarah Elizabeth Cree wrote:
To put a finer point on it, a 'language that one has mastered for professional purposes' and a 'native language' are two separate, if often overlapping, categories.
This is what we should be arguing about - the language that one has mastered for professional purposes. It is your competence in this language that really matters. Native language is an entirely separate and irrelevant issue. It is merely a subset of the "language that one has mastered for professional purposes", that is, the "language that you have mastered for professional purpose" is not always your native language, though it can be, too. And the cardinal error that is being made in this thread is not only to equate the two, but also to reverse the relation between the two, and making native language the superset of the "language that one has mastered for professional purpsoses".
You're doing it again!!!! You are quoting someone and then use them for your purposes. And you are completely ignoring the topic of the thread.
The subject line of this entry reads:
"You said it."
Meaning "You said it, Sarah Elizabeth!
And then you quote her and then you say:
"This is what we should be arguing about - the language that one has mastered for professional purposes."
That's not what Sarah Elizabeth meant, so replying to/commenting on her entry with "You said it" and then using this to argue for abandoning the objective of our now 93-page long discourse is ..... well I'm not going there ... let's say, it's clearly inappropriate!
I'm sure she'll agree.
Again, by continuing to disregard valid arguments and/or using the words of others to try to (unsuccessfully I might say) bolster your completely opposite objectives is proof of a total disregard for our valid arguments and implies, to me, that you are intentionally trying to bombard us with as much text as you can possibly type.
Unfortunately, you are not at all helping your own cause.
I would again ask you to refrain from flooding this thread.
That's my last comment for now. I can in no way continue a dialogue with someone like you.
B
[Edited at 2012-08-06 18:38 GMT]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 20:47
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | On arithmetic and language | Aug 6, 2012 |
Counting seems to have a curious relationship with the languages you know. In my case, I always count in Malayalam/Tamil (the languages I was exposed to first) when dealing with small numbers - below 50 - but for larger numbers I switch to English numerals, and for even larger numbers, I use the calculator!
| | | | | 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 
