| 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)
|
|---|
Janet Rubin wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote:
Given that nativeness is a can of worms of such size, I would suggest that the idea of focussing on output, not the attribute itself, is precisely an effort towards "(b) work that criterion as best they can"... Can we presume from this that you are talking about applying some method of assessing error rate and quality of errors, such as in a timed essay or chat ("output" not= "translation")? Or would you care to elaborate in your own words?
I believe I have said as much more than once. I tend to think measuring spontaneous output is the ideal. Originally I anticipated this would mean looking at existing output (profiles, kudoz, CVs - anything produced on a voluntary basis) but the suggestion of using IM has some appeal, and I can see the argument that e.g. forum posts might not reflect a person's level of output consistently. Some of the arguments in favour of standard testing (albeit put forward in a context I though too broad) also swayed me a little.
I have no fixed views on the "how" at this stage. I've yet to hear any convincing counter argument to my position on the "what", which is based on yet-to-be-disproved assumption of the "why". Since it seems to me we're still not in agreement on the "what", an in-depth proposal of the "how" seems pointless at this stage (see also previous comments to Phil about what we don't know, which we would need to know before developing a "how").
In essence, I see the issue as being one of what we do, not what we are. In this case, what we are (native) can be an indicator, and overlaps a great deal with, what we do (write a language). But it's not infallible. Since what we do is also what interests our clients, I prefer to see the focus on that. Too much emphasis on what we ARE, not what we DO, makes me twitchy (politically, ethically, morally, whatever) but without feeling the need to cast aspersions on the opposing view - merely persuade them of the error of their thinking!
Furthermore, if the tests of what we ARE are going to rely (largely or wholly) on testing what we DO anyway, then why not just limit ourselves to what we do?
| | | | Ty Kendall 
United Kingdom
Local time: 03:24
Hebrew to English
| Easier said than done! | Aug 6, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
without feeling the need to cast aspersions on the opposing view - merely persuade them of the error of their thinking!
I suspect that the fear of some vague notion of financial disincentives and/or unfair native advantage will forever prevent the opposing view from ever budging an inch.
| | | |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
Furthermore, if the tests of what we ARE are going to rely (largely or wholly) on testing what we DO anyway, then why not just limit ourselves to what we do?
Because what we all do is the same thing: we translate. A good translation depends on many elements:
- Are we proficient in the fields we say we are?
- Are we as educated as we say we are?
- Are we proficient in the source language(s) we say we are?
- Are we as experienced as we say we are?
- Are we native speakers of the language(s) we say we are?
- Are we [... placeholder for whatever other criteria may be important ...]?
I don´t think we should now start discussing again what is (most) important to achieve a good translation. I assume we all know that all this criteria (and many more, I´m actually in a hurry) are important in translation, being “being native speaker of X” only one of them. But it is a criterion by itself.
The thing is that this criterion is an attribute, not a skill. It is something we don’t choose by ourselves, it´s given to you by your particular life situation. The fact that being native speaker is an attribute doesn´t make it less valid: it is also better for a basketball player to BE tall, although also small people can play basketball very good. And, of course, not every tall person is a good basketball player. If someone is looking for a tall person to play in his team, so be it, it´s a very valid criterion. He is surely able to also put other criteria there to find the right basketball player he is looking for.
When customers search for a translator, they are looking for someone who is X, Y and Z, because these are the criteria the customer thinks a translator has to meet for the job he is offering, and I am sure he has good reasons for that: customers are not as silly as some trolls here want us to believe.
You don´t make yourself a native speaker: either you are or you are not. Apart from that there are other aspects one should bear in mind in order to offer high quality translations, but that´s not the topic here.
Charlie, I agree with you that measuring spontaneous output would be the ideal. If only proz.com would let us report obvious false claims… but, if I understood Jared well, this is not the way to go. However, if we can already answer Lisa´s question with a clear “Yes”, then it´s time to move to this thread, and leave all the “whats and whys” behind.
| | | | | Clarifying my opponents (!) | Aug 6, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote:
without feeling the need to cast aspersions on the opposing view - merely persuade them of the error of their thinking! I suspect that the fear of some vague notion of financial disincentives and/or unfair native advantage will forever prevent the opposing view from ever budging an inch.
I'd hate to see anyone labouring under a misapprehension, but you cut the quote strangely - for the purposes of that discussion, the opponents in question are those who want verification with the emphasis on what we are (as against what we do).
I mean, I've seen the other thread, and I remember Samuel's similar list of stuff from weeks back, but again, I have to ask - what is the intended purpose behind asking those questions - what is the ultimate objective of proving (or not) nativeness? What is the "N" for? Is it not simply to guide clients towards a certain level of expectation as regards the quality of output (while naturally proving or stating whatsoever about how that output matches the source input which is irrelevant to this discussion)? There are those who prefer to ignore the question, merely taking it as a given, beyond our ken, ours not to reason why, and all that, but surely the hypothesis that people like "natives" 'cos natives can write proper bears some scrutiny? And if writing proper is what people want (and I believe it is, as supported bhy the fact that not writing proper was the trigger for the whole thread), just test that. It's so self-evident to me that I can hardly type straight.
All that said, I'd rather see a preposterous questionnaire about where I went to school when I was 7 than nothing at all.
[Edited at 2012-08-06 12:35 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Nani Delgado wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote:
Furthermore, if the tests of what we ARE are going to rely (largely or wholly) on testing what we DO anyway, then why not just limit ourselves to what we do?
Because what we all do is the same thing: we translate.
Let's stop right there. Yes, it is. But for the purposes of this thread, that translation aspect is not wholly relevant (and could distract some posters!!)
The thing is that this criterion is an attribute, not a skill.
Abso-bloody-lutely. I started using the word attribute weeks ago, to make the same contrast. And I would then take that idea forward to say that attributes are (strictly speaking) irrelevant, when skills are what people want to pay for.
You don´t make yourself a native speaker: either you are or you are not.
True too (I think!)
But then the point is to think back to what that attribute (nativeness) is intended to convey to clients....
but, if I understood Jared well, this is not the way to go.
That was some time ago. The discussion was still somewhat confused. At the time, in fact, I'm not sure many (if any?) of us realised that, in fact, at minimum, the situation could be improved with no changes required whatsoever, just site willingness to enforce its own rules, something they're usually only too happy to do. Anything else would just be elements to make the process more transparent, clearer and consistent.
Edit to add I would also lobby hard for the "ideal" as the starting point, then negotiate. As I said before, it doesn't do (IMVHO) to make assumptions about e.g. what the existing system is capable of handling, when we know so very little about the nuts and bolts of it.
[Edited at 2012-08-06 12:48 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-08-06 12:50 GMT]
| | | | | A higher probability to get a quality product | Aug 6, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
But then the point is to think back to what that attribute (nativeness) is intended to convey to clients....
Of course, I think we both agree in that it implies to a certain point that looking for a native speaker means to have a higher probability to get a quality product. We all know that this is not the only important criterion to assure a good translation, but the fact that this is not the only thing one should be aware of when it comes to translating is actually being abused by others and making it very difficult to discuss the matter without suffering from temporary high blood pressure. 
Maybe that´s why I do want to stress again that nativeness is not a skill.
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 03:24
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Claiming one native language | Aug 6, 2012 |
I would like to illustrate the implications of this with one (anonymous) example:
A professional association that I belong to clearly feels that native language is important enough for this to be stipulated on one's profile. Having contacted their membership department for facts and figures, I am told that someone who claims two or more native languages has to provide proof of this: “When someone applies for membership and they state that they have two native languages, we always ... See more I would like to illustrate the implications of this with one (anonymous) example:
A professional association that I belong to clearly feels that native language is important enough for this to be stipulated on one's profile. Having contacted their membership department for facts and figures, I am told that someone who claims two or more native languages has to provide proof of this: “When someone applies for membership and they state that they have two native languages, we always require further information e.g. were they brought up speaking both languages at home? Did they go to a bilingual school? References usually back up an applicant’s bilingual status.” All such information is submitted to a panel of respected professionals for their consideration. I also asked how many of their members are registered as having two or more native languages. The answer: 5.5%.
A contributor to this thread has argued somewhat assiduously that he/she has two native languages and it is not up to ProZ or anyone else to decide otherwise. All along I have had some doubt about their second native language claim. This same person is listed on the above-mentioned professional association’s website in a sub-category to membership, i.e. he/she still hasn’t qualified/applied for membership (the site calls them “pre-professional”), but the categories in the profile are the same as for members. Sure enough, on that site, this person is listed as having the one native language I had no doubt about. What does this prove? Of course ProZ can force people to pick one language without the need for the extra site administration involved in verification – an onerous task and the reason why the site has not come up with one yet. Yes, an ideal scenario to my mind is the one Bernhard has suggested, whereby native language claims must be verified within a given time period, but is this a realistic expectation from the least proactive site known to man (or woman)? As I’ve already mentioned, if we try the “non-verification path”, Janet’s questionnaire will help to focus people’s minds (for the innocent few who really are in doubt as to what their native language is). Those who persist in lying about their sole native language can be dealt with by other means (to be discussed). I do not believe the latter will leave in droves, as has been suggested, for the change will help to improve the professional standing of this site and in turn the quality of the outsourcer. Nobody will walk away from that. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | I don't know Lisa, whom you have in mind, | Aug 6, 2012 |
but if this somehow refers to me, I don't belong to any paid associations, and I would never declare just one native language, especially for translation purposes. There are some sites where you register for courses, or for something else, and they have just one option in the native language category, unless you are talking about something like that.
[Edited at 2012-08-06 13:33 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 04:24
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Charlie: why ask for native translators | Aug 6, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
I mean, I've seen the other thread, and I remember Samuel's similar list of stuff from weeks back, but again, I have to ask - what is the intended purpose behind asking those questions - what is the ultimate objective of proving (or not) nativeness?
It is to satisfy the superstition of clients who believe that there is something magical, unmeasurable, untestable, unlearnable about a native speaker that will make his text just that extra bit special.
In a way it relates to the definition of native language, but I believe that most of the definitions have something in common, namely that they assume that if a person is a native speaker then his language will be characterised by something that is purer than that of a non-native speaker.
For the most part, I think that native language is irrelevant to translation quality because most honest translators have received training in translation or in their languages, and many of the things that an untrained native speaker has that an untrained non-native speaker does not have will be had by a trained translator regardless of nativeness.
However, many clients (and some translators too) believe otherwise -- they believe that since untrained natives do better than untrained non-natives, trained natives will always do better than trained non-natives. I don't think it is that simple, but... it is for those clients and translators that the ProZ.com search functions have the option to specify native language.
To summarise the problem again: Some translators lie about their native status, because it is so easy to lie about it. Those who lie about it gain an unfair advantage over those who don't lie about it. While it may seem reasonable to think that one can remove the lie factor by introducing verification, this thread has proven at least that workable verification is really a pipe dream.
Whether a translator is likely a native speaker can't be verified using a test -- the only thing you can verify using a test is if it is unlikely that a translator not a native speaker. Is that sufficient?
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 10:24
Chinese to English
| @Charlie - too back to basics | Aug 6, 2012 |
Synthetic response to your several posts:
I think the upshot of my approach and your approach would probably end up looking rather similar. I'm drawing a conceptual distinction that could be rather moot.
To test nativeness, many of us have proposed quality tests; the reason for requiring nativeness is undoubtedly quality-related; I can see your point that cutting the native concept out of that chain seems to make it simpler and cleaner.
My reasons for want... See more Synthetic response to your several posts:
I think the upshot of my approach and your approach would probably end up looking rather similar. I'm drawing a conceptual distinction that could be rather moot.
To test nativeness, many of us have proposed quality tests; the reason for requiring nativeness is undoubtedly quality-related; I can see your point that cutting the native concept out of that chain seems to make it simpler and cleaner.
My reasons for wanting to keep it in are similar to what Samuel says just above. The concept of native is out there. Clients use it. Associations dig it. (I dig it!)
Furthermore, if it were cut out entirely, then Proz would now be in the business of language assessment. Even if they're not saying how good we are as translators, cutting out the native concept means that Proz would now be assessing language quality and then selling those assessments to outsourcers (either separately or as part of the package they offer to job posters). That's not something they want to do. It's not their business.
Even though a native test might be a quality test (pace other options like Janet's/Samuel's questionnaires), if it's a quality tests purely in the service of giving a little bit of spine to the native criterion, then Proz can justifiably say: we're not testing quality, we do not guarantee quality. We just make a decision yes or no on whether this translator's native language claim is plausible.
If, as you've suggested, we just concentrate on getting a challenge-based system working, then there's no way you could get a quality "reading" out; but it could work for native/not.
So, native offers Proz a way to give buyers a useful quality-related signal without having to set up testing systems strict enough to provide "qualifications" that stand up to scrutiny.
Anyway, see you on the other thread. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 19:24
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Attribute (nativeness) | Aug 6, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
But then the point is to think back to what that attribute (nativeness) is intended to convey to clients....
It is intended to convey that we can deliver a product that is not characterized by "non-nativeness of language".
| | | |
Michele Fauble wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote:
But then the point is to think back to what that attribute (nativeness) is intended to convey to clients....
It is intended to convey that we can deliver a product that is not characterized by "non-nativeness of language".
So verify that, then, that's what I say Instead of asking me where I went to school, or what language I used to fill in government forms.....!
(I get the feeling my rhetorical device elsewhere today of asking questions rather than making statements backfired rather, since everyone seems to be adopting the patient tone they would use with a not very clever child. Or a non-native who has recently suffered a blow to the head.)
(Edit to correct vocab choice influenced by today's work)
[Edited at 2012-08-06 20:12 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote:
And why do they think it's relevant?
Because it is an indication of expected quality of output.
But it doesn't guarantee it ...
So you have a situation where you wish to accurately ascribe an attribute (nativeness) to individuals for the purpose of indicating their likely performance level, and you plan to decide on ascribing that attribute by measuring the same kind of performance which is the sole point of ascribing the attribute in the first place. Slightly circular logic, no?
Stick to measuring performance (competence of output) and be done with it. No, Charlie, this is impossible. It is not and can never be Proz's job to say how good we are.
What's that Certified Pro thing all about then? The threshold may not be high, but I believe the underlying notion is, or was, to provide some minimum quality standard - the intro page (http://www.proz.com/pro-tag/info/about/) talks about "screening" and "competence" and that is, essentially, the same idea as what I have been pushing today. More than one person has made the link between this thread and the red "P" before today, if only because the claimed "screening" for "competence in target" seems to be failing (or has set the bar so low as to be meaningless).
I put it to you Proz is more than happy to say how good we are, subject to certain conditions. Like paying. And not being too gobby on the forums.
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Requested edition not made. | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Empty post. | | 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? | 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 » |
| | 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! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
