| 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)
|
|---|
| On a lark, she asked... | Aug 7, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
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)
Since other people here (except for yourself and Balasubramaniam) appear to broadly agree that a person's "native language" is one that a person grew up with/was immersed in during the formative years... why would someone have a distinguishable foreign accent in his or her own "native tongue"?
[Formative means "forming" - that would imply that not only the intuitive knowledge of the language but also the accent is "formed" based on what is learned at that time. (Hint: that's why the other people here use this as a defining factor of "native").]
Please note I am not referring to dialects and regional accents, which most people who grew up in any particular language will be able to identify as rightfully belonging to their "home country/region"*, if not the particular subset thereof.
- - -
*actually, I have not run into anyone who *couldn't* do this, but let's suppose for argument's sake that it's "most" and not "all"
| | | | | Interesting (from the FAQ) | Aug 7, 2012 |
http://www.proz.com/faq/2377#2377
"However, members who report multiple native languages will in the future be asked to demonstrate their native speech in each language before other native speakers of those languages."
"In the case of those declaring multiple native languages, the speech will be deemed native if several other ProZ.com Native Speakers f... See more http://www.proz.com/faq/2377#2377
"However, members who report multiple native languages will in the future be asked to demonstrate their native speech in each language before other native speakers of those languages."
"In the case of those declaring multiple native languages, the speech will be deemed native if several other ProZ.com Native Speakers find it to be native (according to their own definitions.)"
[Edited at 2012-08-07 20:25 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall 
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:57
Hebrew to English
Janet Rubin wrote: http://www.proz.com/faq/2377#2377 "However, members who report multiple native languages will in the future be asked to demonstrate their native speech in each language before other native speakers of those languages."
There is a God.
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:57
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Forgive me for my brain hath gone fuzzy | Aug 7, 2012 |
What's the change?
| | |
|
|
|
Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 15:57
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Relevance for translation | Aug 7, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote: External identification? 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.
External identification is the one that is relevant for translation since translations are generally meant to be read by others.
Some people seem to want to throw the baby out and keep the bath water.
| | | |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
What's the change?
Probably a lot has changed, Lisa. At a minimum your question has been answered: if you join this site, you are contractually required to follow this site´s rules, among them, to subject yourself to a verification re your native languages if you declare you have two native languages or more. Your only option is to delete your profile (keeping which is a contractual right of yours as long as you comply with the site´s rules).
Further, it is now abundantly clear that the site has the right to ask the members to check compliance by testing those declaring multiple native languages. In addition, what is a “native language” is reserved to the discretion of the members. As the rules say: In the case of those declaring multiple native languages, the speech will be deemed native if several other ProZ.com Native Speakers find it to be native (according to their own definitions.)
We, the multilingual “native camp”, are now engaged in developing a “testing protocol”, here and on the other site. Clearly, now it is patent that is not valid, and that it never was, to make any claim of turf protection, when we simply were asking compliance with the site rules.
Best, Luis
| | | | | External is a very vague criterium as well. | Aug 7, 2012 |
It depends who does the screening. Some people would not be recognized as native speakers of certain varieties of English, just as an example. Who would be recognized as a native speaker of Norwegian if there are basically so many different dialects -- most recognized and acceptable. Would you be judging somebody's texting, slang, translations? Most of the people I know would definitely be considered native speakers of Brooklyn English Would that be important to you, for translation purposes? Do... See more It depends who does the screening. Some people would not be recognized as native speakers of certain varieties of English, just as an example. Who would be recognized as a native speaker of Norwegian if there are basically so many different dialects -- most recognized and acceptable. Would you be judging somebody's texting, slang, translations? Most of the people I know would definitely be considered native speakers of Brooklyn English Would that be important to you, for translation purposes? Do you want to learn a few phrases. It ain't that hard, sweetie. After all, you was right that native language ain't that damn easy to imitate but you could learn. I know someone who say he's goin teach you the way many speak here. This is definitely native. Would that be native to you? This is definitely native for many people. This is great language, but would that really matter for the purposes of translation? So I don't really understand what some purists want -- what is the goal here, to check if someone spent most of their childhood in one place, or to assure the quality of translation. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | the goal is verifying native speakers | Aug 7, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
what is the goal here, to check if someone spent most of their childhood in one place, or to assure the quality of translation.
Neither. Although spending one's childhood in a particular place has a lot to do with becoming a native speaker. And it shows, especially to other native speakers.
B
| | |
|
|
|
| The "purists" want the truth, that's all | Aug 8, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
I don't really understand what some purists want -- what is the goal here, to check if someone spent most of their childhood in one place, or to assure the quality of translation.
The way I see it, it is about the truthfulness of information publicized in profiles.
We publish information about ourselves organized in various predefined categories and fields. It doesn't matter HOW that information is used, if we publish it, I think it is expected to be true.
Take for example the "Gender" field of the profile (it is on the "Contact" tab).
We have the option of not entering the info, but once we enter it, it is expected to be true, isn't it? There is no point in discussing whether this piece of information, this attribute of the person is relevant to translation - it may or may not be (we could bring up examples for both cases). However, entering false information would be seen as misrepresentation (a lie) in any case, right? Regardless of the purpose of the site, or the relevance of this info to any particular purpose.
I guess you would not argue against the logic of the identity verification process that ProZ has in place. That serves just one purpose, to verify whether the person really is who he/she says he/she is. This is done regardless of whether it is relevant to translation in any way, it is simply done to prevent misrepresentation.
Declaring one's native language is the same thing. We have the option of not declaring it, but when we declare it, it is expected to be true. So, the issue discussed in this thread has nothing to do with the quality of translation. It is about providing information in profiles that are accurate, so whoever reads the profiles, could trust the information found there, and use it for his/her purposes in any way he/she sees it fit. Whether an outsourcer thinks it is important to work with a native speaker, and whether they think the translator or interpreter should be native in the source or the target language is their prerogative. But they expect the information to be true.
This thread is discussing the need for a verification process, which - according to the FAQ - will be implemented in the future. My understanding is that this thread is meant to call that old promise and request action from site management regarding the implementation of the process.
Katalin
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:57
Hebrew to English
LilianBoland wrote:
It depends who does the screening. Some people would not be recognized as native speakers of certain varieties of English.
Liliana, I don't know how it works in Polish, but in English most speakers (educated or otherwise) are perfectly capable of recognising other native varieties of English. It wouldn't be hard to restrict screening to people from the same country, just to narrow things down a bit, but even this measure really wouldn't be necessary, the only variety of English they don't recognise as "native" is non-native English which is more than a little dissimilar to any variety of native English.
Quite simply, non-native English is not another native variety of English (the clue is in the title).
*And please, no more condescending remarks about how the average American wouldn't recognise a British English speaker - this is nonsense.
Would you be judging somebody's texting, slang, translations?
No, speech will be judged according to their own definition of "native speaker" (which I can guarantee won't match yours!)- see above on the FAQS quoted.
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:57
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | The query was about the FAQs | Aug 8, 2012 |
Luis Arri Cibils wrote: Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
What's the change? Probably a lot has changed, Lisa. At a minimum your question has been answered: if you join this site, you are contractually required to follow this site´s rules, among them, to subject yourself to a verification re your native languages if you declare you have two native languages or more. Your only option is to delete your profile (keeping which is a contractual right of yours as long as you comply with the site´s rules). Further, it is now abundantly clear that the site has the right to ask the members to check compliance by testing those declaring multiple native languages. In addition, what is a “native language” is reserved to the discretion of the members. As the rules say: In the case of those declaring multiple native languages, the speech will be deemed native if several other ProZ.com Native Speakers find it to be native (according to their own definitions.) We, the multilingual “native camp”, are now engaged in developing a “testing protocol”, here and on the other site. Clearly, now it is patent that is not valid, and that it never was, to make any claim of turf protection, when we simply were asking compliance with the site rules. Best, Luis
Luis I wasn't being sarcastic I was just asking, since Janet had quoted from the FAQs, if the wording in the FAQs had just been changed in any way. To my knowledge, that has been the wording for years and, as you say, all we're asking for is compliance with the site's own rules. If they have been amended, then that could represent a breakthrough, but I don't see where they've been amended.
Edited for typo
[Edited at 2012-08-08 12:27 GMT]
| | | | | What truth have you been talking about -- there is no one truth | Aug 8, 2012 |
as far as the nation of native language is concerned, and many other notions as well, for that matter. No one is in a position to tell anyone what their native language is, because only they know which language feels native to them, which one is best understood by them and the easiest to use.
Some of you are after some very outdated definition which might have been good at the beginning of the 20th century, when linguistics was still its early stages of development.
No one would gi... See more as far as the nation of native language is concerned, and many other notions as well, for that matter. No one is in a position to tell anyone what their native language is, because only they know which language feels native to them, which one is best understood by them and the easiest to use.
Some of you are after some very outdated definition which might have been good at the beginning of the 20th century, when linguistics was still its early stages of development.
No one would give any one any rights to conduct any witch-hunting type of thing. From what I have seen most of the proposals amount to that -- nothing constructive at all. This thread is really, I think just a an attempt to compensate for some people's offended pride, or an attempt to salvage the only asset they might have in translation -- their presumed native language benefit in the absence of proper education. According to your rules, half or immigrants in Germany, just as an example, nothing personal, would not be considered native speakers of German. There are also many variety's of languages -- would German from Austria be good enough for a company from Hamburg? One of my great grandmothers was from Austria, and apparently her husband who was from Prussia was often making jokes, in a nice way, about her German. According my standards, and the versions of the languages I learned some 40 years ago in my early childhood, I would consider 60% of the young generation of those countries not to qualify as native speakers of the languages I learned.
I don't mean the United States here, but some countries with less diverse standard language.
This is why I would never attempt, even for a second, to try to tell anyone what their native language is. All of the verifications you have been proposing will never be allowed because they are not legal and have no merit for the purposes of translation. Otherwise, it is absolutely illegal to be trying to check someone's ethnicity, or where some people grew up. All of this terns into some kind of questionable art for art's sake -- checking for the sake of checking the truth of something which is not an expression of a single truth. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Copies of old FAQ’s | Aug 8, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Luis I wasn't being sarcastic I was just asking, since Janet had quoted from the FAQs, if the wording in the FAQs had just been changed in any way. To my knowledge, that has been the wording for years and, as you say, all we're asking is for is compliance with the site's own rules. If they have been amended, then that could represent a breakthrough, but I don't see where they've been amended.
By the way, a few old copies of the FAQ can actually be found on the Internet Archive, though unfortunately there are only 6 such copies and they only go as far back as February 2009, which can be found here.
[Edited at 2012-08-08 08:54 GMT]
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:58
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Thank you Ambrose | Aug 8, 2012 |
Have printed and will keep a record
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 00:58
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Too sweeping for my taste | Aug 8, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
I don't know how it works in Polish, but in English most speakers (educated or otherwise) are perfectly capable of recognising other native varieties of English.
I think this statement is a little too sweeping. It really depends on how much exposure the grader has had to different English accents. It also depends on how well the grader knows that particular English accent.
To speculate, I would not be able to tell a native Maori speaker speaking Kiwi English from a native Kiwi English speaker speaking Kiwi English, since both would sound "Kiwi-like" to me. A Kiwi himself may well be able to tell the difference, however.
The same applies to any Indian speaking native Indian English -- I speculate that I would not be able to distinguish between the accent of a native Indian English speaker and the accent of a non-native Indian English speaker if the native Indian English speaker has a heavy Indian accent (if all other things are the same). Both speakers' English are likely to contain Indian regionalisms, so I would not be able to tell them apart by looking for barbarisms either.
Some French friends of mine from Canada sound like Americans (i.e. US) when they speak English, without a hint of Frenchness (but: I'm not French, so my idea of "Frenchness" is limited to what I experience in films and books). I'm sure an American would be able to pick out the French Canadian within seconds... but: would he also be able to distinguish between a native English speaker who grew up in a French Canadian village (where no English is spoken except in his home) and a native French Canadian speaker who speaks English very well? I doubt if we can say for certain (and that has nothing to do with the argument about stupid Americans).
Native English South Africans who speak Afrikaans have a very specific Afrikaans accent. I would not be surprised if a native Afrikaans South African who had lived in the UK and spoken English for most of his life would speak Afrikaans with the same accent -- which could lead me to classify him as non-native, if he has that same accent. What this illustrates is that I would be likely to judge him non-native because he sounds similar to known non-natives.
Quite simply, non-native English is not another native variety of English (the clue is in the title).
I agree, but that goes without saying. A related question is, however: do you (or others) regard second and third generation English first language speakers from countries that were not mainly colonised by the British as really native English speakers?
The reason I ask that is that I suspect that it would be very easy to mistakenly allow cultural assessment to form part of one's assessment of nativeness. When speakers from other regions (particularly multilingual regions) simply don't "feel" like natives of one's own region, it may well cloud the judgment about whether they are native speakers of that language.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Should “native language” claims be verified? | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
| | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
