| 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)
|
|---|
Phil Hand 
China
Local time: 23:11
Chinese to English
| Verification, not quality guarantee | Aug 7, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
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
There's two different ideas mixed up there. The Cert Pro thing is about quality, but Proz doesn't test it. They check to see if you really are qualified ("the purpose of which is to identify qualified translators"). In general, qualification only comes with decent quality, so it serves as a quality test. But it's not a test of quality itself.
On the page about becoming a Cert Pro, it says this: "Sample translation, peer/client review and other data may be considered in the review process, especially in language pairs and areas in which tested credentials may not be as readily accessible."
From where I'm standing, it looks to me like that means Proz wants to stay as far away from testing and direct involvement in review as possible. The only situation in which they'd consider it is if you translate a really odd pair and there's no way of getting a credential.
Proz will verify, but testing is insanely hard. You have to have huge infrastructure set up to ensure you're fair, allow for challenges and appeals... Look how much the ATA charges for it. Then look how much Proz charges. These are qualitative different kinds of services.
[Edited at 2012-08-07 03:08 GMT]
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 23:11
Chinese to English
| There is demand for source natives | Aug 7, 2012 |
Luis Arri Cibils wrote: Marina Steinbach wrote:
I have seen a ProZ job today requiring the translation from English into German, and the outsourcer chose to restrict quoting on this job to those who are native speakers of English.
What sense does that make?
There is absolutely no doubt that this is just an outsourcer´s typo regarding the translation direction.
I'm sure you're right in this case, but in other pairs it happens. Chinese to English jobs are regularly posted asking for Chinese natives, because there aren't enough English natives who will get it right. If you get a Chinese native to do the work (so the tihnking goes), it may not come out in perfect English, but at least the translator will have understood the source.
[Edited at 2012-08-07 22:58 GMT]
| | | | | extra special? Maybe not. But there's a very good chance it's more than up to par. | Aug 7, 2012 |
Luis Arri Cibils wrote: Samuel Murray wrote: 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. ...
Proving "nativeness" is like proving that you are a citizen of a country. Don't take it literally. It's an analogy.
It would be a lie if you say that you are a US citizen if indeed you are a German citizen.
The presupposition for this argument is that the difference between these two citizenships is indeed important.
In the language department, for the sake of argument, the US citizen speaks only English. The German citizen speaks only German. So if the US citizen claims he speaks German he/she is lying.
If a job (not a translation job, it's still an analogy) is posted for the US citizen who is an English speaker, and the German citizen applies for it as an English speaking US citizen, he/she is not going to get far because as soon as he/she arrives at the interview, the jig's up. But who will take that chance???
We want a similar clarity for native languages here. Because it's the criterion that is indeed reality on Proz.com and it is abused as soon as someone claims to be "native" if she/he isn't.
That's really it.
Why the criterion is important (industry standard, expected quality output as target language) has been discussed. But it's really a sub-discussion and I don't know why we keep coming back to it. It will only help those who want to abandon it as an important criterion or want to redefine it so it fits non-native speakers and then can be claimed by pretty much anybody. The "international English language" argument is a typical example for it. I don't know why any native speaker of English would want to go down that path (or any native speaker for that matter).
Samuel stated (what is it about proving 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."
I am actually sure that there is something measurable, testable and to an important degree, „unlearnable“ about native proficiency. I know it every time I speak with someone who is fluent in German but is not a native speaker.
Will it make the text extra special? Yes, it can. Maybe not always. That really depends on how good the translator is. But there's a very good chance it's more than up to par.
But that's not the problem (IMHO).
The problem we're dealing with is that someone can claim any language as their native language, and many simply claim English because they either cheat anyway or are convinced that their level of international English is so good that it really doesn't matter if they're native speakers or not, or worse, they think they need to be considered native speakers.
There is indeed a huge difference between a native speaker and even the best fluent speakers. That's why it is indeed seen as a very important criterion for quality work.
But we're not out to check translation quality. It sort of is implied with "nativeness", much more so than when a non-native claims to be "absolutely competent" in English.
If you are convinced you are a native speaker, you should probably get verified in it.
There are reasons why someone might want a native English speaker to do a translation into German. It could be for a new software/very technical product and the client needs someone who knows the English jargon or will understand the complex technical concepts in English (and again, a "native speaker" most likely will more so than a non-native) and can therefore correctly translate into German, a language he/she speaks at a very high level.
But I would put an English and a German native speaker together anyway or go with the native German speaker if I'm convinced he/she will really understand all the technical jargon - not because he/she is a native speaker but because it's more likely a (verified) native German speaker will indeed understand it and the likelihood to get an incompetent (unverified) non-native is very minimal.
But my point is this: if the job specifies "English native speaker" and that's really what they want, then a "native English speaker" should get the job, and not a non-native speaker.
B
[Edited at 2012-08-07 14:32 GMT]
| | | | Marina Steinbach
United States
Local time: 11:11
Member (2011)
English to German
| It was not a typo. | Aug 7, 2012 |
Luis Arri Cibils wrote:
There is absolutely no doubt that this is just an outsourcer´s typo regarding the translation direction.
It was not a typo. I don't know why the link is no longer working, but the title of the job offer from English into German was:
"Translation and Transcreation Corporate Communication"
The outsourcer explicitly stated (in German) that UK English is preferred:
Muttersprache: Englisch (GB von Vorteil)
Edited: I have added "er" to "long".
[Edited at 2012-08-07 04:30 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Marina Steinbach
United States
Local time: 11:11
Member (2011)
English to German
| Are you referring to me? | Aug 7, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
It would be a lie if you say that you are a US citizen if indeed you are a German citizen.
Are you referring to me?
| | | | | No, Marina, no... | Aug 7, 2012 |
Marina Steinbach wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
It would be a lie if you say that you are a US citizen if indeed you are a German citizen.
Are you referring to me?
I´ve noticed that you have a very particular way to understand people´s posts and tend to get many things personally. First of all, I think it was clear that Bernhard was using an example. But on the top of that he IS a German native speaker and he LIVES in the US. Isn´t it obvious why he took Germany and the US as an example instead of.... Italia and Chile?? So calm down, his example doesn´t have anything to do with you or your situation.
| | | |
Marina Steinbach wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
It would be a lie if you say that you are a US citizen if indeed you are a German citizen.
Are you referring to me?
No, Marina, I am not. It's completely hypothetical. I wouldn't react to anything you say using something like that. I was thinking more of myself, even though I am an Austrian citizen but I wanted to make the example a bit simpler.
Bernhard
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Empty post. |
|
|
| For links avoid punctuation | Aug 7, 2012 |
Just avoid punctuation and links will work
For example:
www.proz.com and not (www.proz.com.
[Edited at 2012-08-07 15:53 GMT]
| | | | | I see the difference, certainly | Aug 7, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote:
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 There's two different ideas mixed up there. The Cert Pro thing is about quality, but Proz doesn't test it. They check to see if you really are qualified ("the purpose of which is to identify qualified translators"). In general, qualification only comes with decent quality, so it serves as a quality test. But it's not a test of quality itself. On the page about becoming a Cert Pro, it says this: "Sample translation, peer/client review and other data may be considered in the review process, especially in language pairs and areas in which tested credentials may not be as readily accessible."
I had thought peer review was systematic - that's just the impression I always had, from other discussions about the process, and that was, admittedly, my underlying assumption, that peers (not proz, but organised by proz, I guess) did the job for the Red "P" that we (or some of us) are (or were) considering here.
From where I'm standing, it looks to me like that means Proz wants to stay as far away from testing and direct involvement in review as possible. The only situation in which they'd consider it is if you translate a really odd pair and there's no way of getting a credential.
Proz will verify, but testing is insanely hard. You have to have huge infrastructure set up to ensure you're fair, allow for challenges and appeals... Look how much the ATA charges for it. Then look how much Proz charges. These are qualitative different kinds of services.
True but you're not comparing like with like, in fairness. One has named itself after the world's oldest profession and has a policy of welcoming all comers with open arms especially if they've got their chequebooks out, the other has standards and a reputation to uphold. Unless I've got the wrong end of the stick about ATA, they are supposed to represent the high-end; being accepted as a member means something. All we were trying to do here was clean up the worst of the bottom end - at least that's all I was bothered about, not least to reduce the size of the "huge infrastructure" and the pointless testing/verification of countless truthful people.
I speak in the past tense because I've turned off notifications. Another thread on the topic has been started, so discussion will inevitably splinter (while the diversions could be annoying, at least everyone was in the same place). Divide and rule - I'm sure the site could not have wished for a better outcome, i.e. no change (despite the fact I reckon we could have achieved some kind of result just by insisting they enforced their own existing rules - laughable, really). Lisa's attention appears to have been diverted away from this onto another old chestnut, and once the OP goes (especially one as eloquent and seemingly enthusiastic as Lisa) the site have every justification in filing under "no further action". Which we knew they would anyway, but the good Lord helps those who help themselves, whereas we've just shot ourselves in the foot. Or head.
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:11
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Charlie Bavington wrote:
Lisa's attention appears to have been diverted away from this onto another old chestnut, and once the OP goes (especially one as eloquent and seemingly enthusiastic as Lisa) the site have every justification in filing under "no further action".
Still here. Just attempting to bring the other matter to the fore as site staff had seemingly buried it.
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule |
|
|
| A native language of a person is the one that feels native to them | Aug 7, 2012 |
It is the language that feels native to them -- the one they understand best, and the one they feel most comfortable writing in, or expressing their ideas orally in. It is the language they would love to see important papers written in before serious surgeries, receive legal help in, when in trouble, or financial advice. This is what a native language is for practical reasons, not necessarily 100% perfect accent (compared to what, in fact? There are so many varieties of certain languages)
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:11
Hebrew to English
| External identification? | Aug 7, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
It is the language that feels native to them -- the one they understand best, and the one they feel most comfortable writing in, or expressing their ideas orally in. It is the language they would love to see important papers written in before serious surgeries, receive legal help in, when in trouble, or financial advice. This is what a native language is for practical reasons, not necessarily 100% perfect accent (compared to what, in fact? There are so many varieties of certain languages)
Why have you left this one out? Seeing as it is perhaps the most telling of all criteria.
| | | |
The concept of native language is first of all an internal identification problem, or phenomenon. If the person understands particular language best of all, this is the language of their everyday use, they would choose all college courses only in that language, even if courses in another language were available -- they definitely consider that language their native.
Can you imagine someone asking the patient in the hospital: "How old were you when you came here? What language did your moth... See more The concept of native language is first of all an internal identification problem, or phenomenon. If the person understands particular language best of all, this is the language of their everyday use, they would choose all college courses only in that language, even if courses in another language were available -- they definitely consider that language their native.
Can you imagine someone asking the patient in the hospital: "How old were you when you came here? What language did your mother speak", when deciding in which language certain papers should be presented to the person, or whether they have to be translated. "Oh, you were 15 when you moved to the United States, so we really think you have to have all the papers in Karelian, or Chukchi. Oh, you have a PhD from an American university? It does not matter. We still believe we have to find someone to translate all the papers to Chukchi, because we believe this might be your only native language. ▲ 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? | 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 » |
| | 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 
