| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10] > | Methods for verifying "native language" claims Thread poster: psicutrinius
|
|---|
XXXphxxx (X) 
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:07
Portuguese to English
+ ...
| On the basis that… | Aug 7, 2012 |
we work with what we’ve got. You may not approve of/like the Certified P network but they are translators that by and large the site believes have been vetted to a greater/lesser degree. If, added to that, those Ps are members of recognised professional associations, I don’t frankly see the issue. After all, this thread is about seeking methods of verification. This was simply a suggestion.
| | | | | you can disagree | Aug 7, 2012 |
Diana Coada wrote: No we don't Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
We agree what native language means (the language acquired from a specific point on in your childhood (there is a cut-off age)...
Bernhard
[Edited at 2012-08-07 04:12 GMT] Many of you seem to be saying that a person who born in Spain and left the country at 10/15 and then lived in Germany for 20/30/40/50 years is a native Spanish speaker. Sorry, but I don't agree. @Lisa If you were raised bilingually in Brazil from the age of 1 how can you say Portuguese is not your native language??? Doesn't that contradict your own definition of native?
"We agree" - I meant the majority in this thread and arguably the majority of people everywhere.
As I discussed in the other thread, a person who once was a native speaker of say Portuguese could lose their native language proficiency if they stop using that language altogether although I am sure that once they were a native speaker, they can probably get that proficiency back if they begin again to use that language.
Example: someone leaves Brazil at the age of 14 and goes to live in Ireland. He hardly speaks a word of Portuguese for 40 years. Then he goes back to Brazil and lives there for a few years.
On the other hand, if someone leaves Ireland at the age of 20 and lives in Brazil for 40 years, it will not make him a native speaker of Portuguese unless he was immersed in that language within a native speaker environment in his childhood in Ireland through his parents - but it would take an incredible amount of discipline and focus to make sure the native environment is preserved while he is also exposed to Irish English in school, on the playground, and in society in general.
B
[Edited at 2012-08-07 15:49 GMT]
| | | | | I am very sorry Mr. P, but most of what you are saying in your last post is not true | Aug 7, 2012 |
My mother's L1 was German, and no matter whether she was emerged in it later or not -- she was to a certain extant she never regained her native fluency in German. A person who knew a certain language from their childhood and then immigrated to a country where this language was spoken, might well be considered a native speaker of that language.The cut-off age refers only to pronunciation, and even that varies. There are some talented people who can learn the right pronunciation at a later age t... See more My mother's L1 was German, and no matter whether she was emerged in it later or not -- she was to a certain extant she never regained her native fluency in German. A person who knew a certain language from their childhood and then immigrated to a country where this language was spoken, might well be considered a native speaker of that language.The cut-off age refers only to pronunciation, and even that varies. There are some talented people who can learn the right pronunciation at a later age than 14-16. Some muscles apparently tighten at puberty. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | regarding mandatory verification | Aug 7, 2012 |
Couple of more ideas for a first step:
Preliminary action:
Install a verification method (even if it is just a conversation with native peers at a powwow). Am I riight that this already exists?
1. Make it mandatory (by a certain time after someone first declares their native language) to verify all translators with "unverified languages", meaning (at first) those who claimed more than one language.
2. Translators with "unverified langua... See more Couple of more ideas for a first step:
Preliminary action:
Install a verification method (even if it is just a conversation with native peers at a powwow). Am I riight that this already exists?
1. Make it mandatory (by a certain time after someone first declares their native language) to verify all translators with "unverified languages", meaning (at first) those who claimed more than one language.
2. Translators with "unverified languages" are only allowed to quote on the job board and be listed as native speakers in the directory and on their profile page BEFORE verification. After they've been "verified", they continue to be able to use the job board and be listed as verified "native speakers".
If someone fails verification or does not get verified by the deadline, they can no longer use the job board to bid for jobs in that native language or be listed as native speakers of that language in the directory and on their profile page.
This could be expanded to all claimants, even those with just one language, retroactively.
B
[Edited at 2012-08-07 15:17 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:07
Hebrew to English
| Who is Mr P and who mentioned your mom???? | Aug 7, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
My mother's L1 was German
Confuse me? On another post on another thread you said:
LilianBoland wrote:
my father was a native speaker of Russian and Lithuanian
....
My mother was considered a native speaker of Polish
Not that I care too much, I'm just not seeing too much consistency, that's all.
Note: you don't need to address this, I already know what you're going to say. I'm just thinking aloud.
The cut-off age refers only to pronunciation
No it doesn't, it refers to all aspects of language acquisition. Feral children were never able to master proper syntax, semantics, pragmatics, morphology etc. as well as pronunciation.
Aaaanyway, let's leave the irrelevancies and heed the requests of the OP and others to please stay on topic.
[Edited at 2012-08-07 15:57 GMT]
| | | | Ildiko Santana
United States
Local time: 16:07
Member (2002)
Hungarian to English
+ ...
MODERATOR | Question to Staff: how is verification done currently? | Aug 7, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Install a verification method (even if it is just a conversation with native peers at a powwow). Am I riight that this already exists?
I've been searching all over the site to find out how the verification of any (single or multiple) 'native speaker' claim is conducted but found nothing. I would love to know who qualifies those 'native peers' whose job is to verify others.
| | | | | Not done currently | Aug 7, 2012 |
AFAIK, verification is not done currently at all. If you claim one native language, that will be displayed with the little "N" circle on your profile. If you are a paying member, it will turn yellow, otherwise it stays grey.
If you claim a second language as native, both of your languages will have a grey "N" circle, regardless of whether you are a paying member or just a user.
I was told not very long ago that nobody should have two yellow "N"s currently, and when I pointed out a pr... See more AFAIK, verification is not done currently at all. If you claim one native language, that will be displayed with the little "N" circle on your profile. If you are a paying member, it will turn yellow, otherwise it stays grey.
If you claim a second language as native, both of your languages will have a grey "N" circle, regardless of whether you are a paying member or just a user.
I was told not very long ago that nobody should have two yellow "N"s currently, and when I pointed out a profile I came across that had two yellow Ns, I was told it was a bug.
By the way, here is the relevant FAQ:
http://www.proz.com/faq/2377#2377 ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Particularly interesting | Aug 7, 2012 |
Thank you, Katalin.
I found this part particularly interesting:
"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 20:26 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| This is absolutely true, Ty | Aug 7, 2012 |
I am not sure if I can answer it here, but if you ask. My mother's L1 was German, which she lost at about the age of 6. Then she was considered a native speaker of Polish. My Father was Lithuanian and his first Language was Lithuanian, but having spent 16 years of his early years 12-18, and having had high school education in Russian, he was considered a native speaker of Russian as well. I am not sure if he could have known some Russian from his early childhood. He spoke Polish as well, but not... See more I am not sure if I can answer it here, but if you ask. My mother's L1 was German, which she lost at about the age of 6. Then she was considered a native speaker of Polish. My Father was Lithuanian and his first Language was Lithuanian, but having spent 16 years of his early years 12-18, and having had high school education in Russian, he was considered a native speaker of Russian as well. I am not sure if he could have known some Russian from his early childhood. He spoke Polish as well, but not native level at all. Good, but not 100% native. He read most books in Russian. My maternal grandparent's did not speak Polish at all, only German, Polish mixed with German and my grandfather spoke quite good English having lived in GB for many years.
My paternal grandfather mostly spoke Lithuanian whenever he could. He also spoke Polish and Russian, but not native, I think. This is true. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | a verification procedure is indeed being worked out | Aug 7, 2012 |
Ildiko Santana wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Install a verification method (even if it is just a conversation with native peers at a powwow). Am I riight that this already exists?
I've been searching all over the site to find out how the verification of any (single or multiple) 'native speaker' claim is conducted but found nothing. I would love to know who qualifies those 'native peers' whose job is to verify others.
Hi, Ildiko.
Here is where it stands right now. I boldfaced the parts that seem important to me.
Most importantly, it is shown here that Proz.com is indeed working on a native language verification procedure.
http://www.proz.com/faq/proz_com_native_speaker_credential.html#what_is_the_proz_com_native_speaker_credential_
8.1 - What is the ProZ.com Native Speaker credential? [Direct link]
The Native Speaker credential is a mark that signifies that a ProZ.com member is a native speaker of a given language.
A "capital-N" icon already appears on profile pages, and in a few months will appear throughout the site beside the names of members who have received the credential. It looks like this: ProZ.com Native Speaker: Russian Russian
Mousing over the mark or clicking on it reveals additional information.
8.2 - How do I get the credential for a single language? [Direct link]
ProZ.com members with one native language are asked to simply declare that language. To report your native language, go to the "Languages" section of your Profile updater, select your native language from the list to the left in the "Native language" section and click on "Add". Once the language is part of the list to the right, click on "Save and update profile" at the bottom of the page to save your selection.
8.3 - How do I get the credential in more than one language? [Direct link]
A member who reports having only one native language is assumed to be a native speaker of that language, and is not required to demonstrate it. 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. Until this has been accomplished, a black and gray icon will be associated with the unconfirmed native languages.
8.4 - I need to declare a second native language, or I've made a mistake in entering my native language(s). [Direct link]
Please submit a support request for assistance.
8.5 - How many native languages can be reported? [Direct link]
Until we have developed a strategy to verify multiple native languages, only two unverified native languages are allowed to be reported in profiles.
8.6 - What definition of "native speaker" is used? [Direct link]
Rather than imposing a definition of "native", the PNS program leaves the definition to members. When declaring one's own single language, a definition is not required.
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.)
8.7 - Will clients see the credential? [Direct link]
In the short term, native speaker credentials will only be shown on profile pages. After enough time has been given for all members to consider applying for the credential, it will also appear at other points throughout the site. In addition, members will be given a means of showing the credential to potential clients on and off the site.
The choice of whether or not to apply for, and show, the credential, is left to each member.
8.8 - Does the PNS credential tell whether or not someone is a good translator? [Direct link]
Absolutely not. Native language is only one factor that a client may consider when screening a translator or interpreter. It is usually not the most important factor.
8.9 - How much does it cost to apply for the PNS credential? [Direct link]
There will be no fee for declaring native language ability in one language. It has not yet been determined whether a fee will be necessary for the verfication procedure involved for those who declare multiple languages.
8.10 - My two native languages are pending. How soon can I prove them? [Direct link]
We are developing a strategy now. When we have a practical program in place, you will be notified.
8.11 - What do the different colored icons mean? [Direct link]
A blue and yellow ProZ.com Native Speaker icon () is used to represent native languages that are reasonably certain to be accurate. This includes native languages that have been confirmed by ProZ.com, and native languages reported by ProZ.com members who have sworn that they only have one native language (a native language cannot be changed once it is declared).
A black and gray ProZ.com Native Speaker icon () is used to represent native languages that have been reported, but not confirmed. This includes native languages reported by non-members, even when they only report a single native language. This is because it is possible that a non-member might create multiple profiles with a different single native language for each, to get around the requirement that multiple native languages must be confirmed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is where it stands. So, no, a "verification" procedure has not been established. But Proz.com is working one out right now.
What is possible already is that you can verify your identity by (among other things) going to a powwow and talk to a Proz.com staff member. Follow the information by clicking on the identity verified check mark.
But because it can be assumed that 2, 3 or 4 native speakers at a powwow will be able to verify that someone else speaks their native language, it is, to me, one possible (and arguably good) way to verify native languages.
So you give people enough time to go to a powwow (or possible, visit one online and talk/chat-type with native speakers online) to get verified.
I hope that the following quote from above (8.3) is indeed a sign that in the foreseeable future someone cannot go on leaving their unverified languages "unverified". Otherwise, they would continue to be able to bid on native language jobs and be listed in the directory and in their profiles as "native speaker" even if they are really not.
Here's that passage:
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.
B
[Edited at 2012-08-07 23:49 GMT]
| | | | Neil Coffey
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:07
French to English
+ ...
| Suggestion for the melting pot... | Aug 7, 2012 |
I wonder if part of the problem is that people are focussing too much on trying to shoehorn all of the corner cases into a definition of "native" and that there's been too much focus on a theoretical definition of "native" which-- as people have rightly pointed out-- can actually be quite a complex issue.
I wonder if as a starting point, there need to be two categories:
(1) A "canonical" native speaker as will be assumed to be the 'preferred' case and be useful for tran... See more I wonder if part of the problem is that people are focussing too much on trying to shoehorn all of the corner cases into a definition of "native" and that there's been too much focus on a theoretical definition of "native" which-- as people have rightly pointed out-- can actually be quite a complex issue.
I wonder if as a starting point, there need to be two categories:
(1) A "canonical" native speaker as will be assumed to be the 'preferred' case and be useful for translation clients in the majority of cases: "instinctively acquired that language since birth, growing up and conducting their school education in that language in a country to which that language is native, and then undergoing higher education/performing the job(s) involving their areas of specialism in that language"
(2) Some "not quite canonical" near-native speaker, e.g. performed their education in another language, didn't start acquiring the language till age 3, simultaneously acquired 3 languages at home/school, or whatever other complicated scenarios people come up with.
Maybe as a first step, translators should be able to define a single "canonical" native language on the basis of definition (1), and optionally specify some "non-canonical/near" native languages on the basis of (2). [It could also be that some people have no "canonical" native language, and only have "near" native languages as of definition (2)... I don't see this as a big problem.]
Conversely, clients when specifying the required "native" language on the understanding of definition (1) can then specify whether they would be happy to consider a "near/non-canonical native" speaker on the basis of definition (2)?
P.S. Part of the rationale for this is that officially having a space for "native" speaker as according to definition (2) might eliminate some of the cases of people lying because they think it's the only way they'll get jobs.
[Edited at 2012-08-07 19:37 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-08-07 19:39 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Neil Coffey wrote:
I wonder if part of the problem is that people are focussing too much on trying to shoehorn all of the corner cases into a definition of "native" and that there's been too much focus on a theoretical definition of "native" which-- as people have rightly pointed out-- can actually be quite a complex issue.
I wonder if as a starting point, there need to be two categories:
(1) A "canonical" native speaker as will be assumed to be the 'preferred' case and be useful for translation clients in the majority of cases: "instinctively acquired that language since birth, growing up and conducting their school education in that language in a country to which that language is native, and then undergoing higher education/performing the job(s) involving their areas of specialism in that language"
(2) Some "not quite canonical" near-native speaker, e.g. performed their education in another language, didn't start acquiring the language till age 3, simultaneously acquired 3 languages at home/school, or whatever other complicated scenarios people come up with.
Maybe as a first step, translators should be able to define a single "canonical" native language on the basis of definition (1), and optionally specify some "non-canonical/near" native languages on the basis of (2). [It could also be that some people have no "canonical" native language, and only have "near" native languages as of definition (2)... I don't see this as a big problem.]
Conversely, clients when specifying the required "native" language on the understanding of definition (1) can then specify whether they would be happy to consider a "near/non-canonical native" speaker on the basis of definition (2)?
P.S. Part of the rationale for this is that officially having a space for "native" speaker as according to definition (2) might eliminate some of the cases of people lying because they think it's the only way they'll get jobs.
[Edited at 2012-08-07 19:37 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-08-07 19:39 GMT]
Hi Neil,
May I try a little verification with you?
Do you consider yourself a native speaker of French or Spanish?
Why or Why not?
Do you consider yourself a native speaker of English?
Why or Why not?
Thanks.
Bernhard
| | |
|
|
|
Neil Coffey
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:07
French to English
+ ...
| Answer to Bernhard's question | Aug 7, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Do you consider yourself a native speaker of French or Spanish?
Why or Why not?
No, primarily because I didn't intuitively acquire these languages from birth and conduct my day-to-day business in them until adulthood as implied in my definition (1).
[Depending on the exact criteria, I might define them as "near" native languages. But I certainly wouldn't claim that they were "native" languages if the only choice available was "native" or "non native".]
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Do you consider yourself a native speaker of English?
Why or Why not?
And for converse reasons, I consider English to be my native language: that was the language I intuitively acquired from birth and effectively conducted all of my day-to-day affairs in until adulthood.
Now, I should say that there are *technical* definitions of "native" that a linguist might use that differ from the definition I am applying here. For example, you could have a case where a child begins normally acquiring a language L1 until (say) age 10, and then spends the rest of their life in another country, where they begin to learn and eventually become highly proficient in another language L2, with little contact with L1 to the point where after several years they can speak very little of L1.
A linguist may well still say that the person's "native" language is still L1, and that they have undergone a process of "language attrition".
Under my definition, I'm saying that for the purposes of a translation client, that's not what they have in mind by "native language".
In the meantime, many linguists may well not class L2 as being the person's "native" language. Whether to a translation client their proficiency is sufficient for the language to be to all intents and purposes classed as their "native" or "near native" language is something that the client and translator would need to assess between them. But the point is that they're no longer a *canonical* case of a "native" speaker, and it is a useful starting point to separate the "canonical" from the "non canonical" case.
[Edited at 2012-08-07 20:08 GMT]
| | | | | near-native is not native | Aug 7, 2012 |
Neil Coffey wrote:
I wonder if part of the problem is that people are focussing too much on trying to shoehorn all of the corner cases into a definition of "native" and that there's been too much focus on a theoretical definition of "native" which-- as people have rightly pointed out-- can actually be quite a complex issue.
As far as I'm concerned, there isn't a vast number of corner cases, On the contray, there is a vast amount of cases who think they are true native speakers when they are clearly not.
Neil Coffey wrote:
(2) Some "not quite canonical" near-native speaker, e.g. performed their education in another language, didn't start acquiring the language till age 3, simultaneously acquired 3 languages at home/school, or whatever other complicated scenarios people come up with.
The scenarios you describe here are not typical non-native/near-native scenarios. One can certainly become a native speaker from the age 3 on.
Or you could even argue you acquired 3 languages from age 3. But did you continue all 3 languages later in life, on the same level? Not very likely.
But if you acquired, say, English from age 3-10, and then you acquired French from age 10-16, and then you studied French at a UK university, you could be a native speaker of these two languages.
I don't think a "near-native" category solves the problem.
"Near-native means "non-native.
This thread is about how to verify "native languages".
Why should native languages be verified is being discussed here:
http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_suggestions/227485-should_“native_language”_claims_be_verified.html
Bernhard
[Edited at 2012-08-07 21:03 GMT]
| | | | Neil Coffey
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:07
French to English
+ ...
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, there isn't a vast number of corner cases, On the contray, there is a vast amount of cases who think they are true native speakers when they are clearly not.
I think I'd probably agree with that, though I don't know what the situation is on ProZ for language pairs where it's culturally more common for speakers of the language(s) in question to be 'bilingual' of some form or another.
As a close to home example, finding a "native Welsh speaker" that actually fits in to my definition (1) is probably quite difficult.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
One can certainly become a native speaker from the age 3 on.
So, there's certainly a theoretical debate you could have about that. Some linguists would tell you that technically you can't (because e.g. certain aspects of speech perception have been 'molded' in the brain by that age). But there's certainly the argument that you can for the purposes of translation.
My point is: let's define a category (1) that includes all the cases where there's clearly no debate, then have a category (2) for "possibly effectively native to some degree or other, to be argued out between client and translator".
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Bu If you acquired, say, English from age 3-10, and then you acquired French from age 10-16, and then you studied French at a UK university, you could be a native speaker of these two languages.
Maybe... arguably... so again, cases like this where there's a "debate", let's keep them outside our "clean" category of 'clearly a canonical native speaker'.
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I don't think a "near-native" category solves the problem.
"Near-native means "non-native.
I think if properly implemented, it could solve the problem you initially mention-- with which I agree-- that many people are claiming to be "native" when they're not, because it removes some of the motivation for making such a claim. And then, in that case, they way you 'detect' that somebody is in the "native" or "near native" category is that you ask them whether or not they fulfil a definition similar to (1) or (2) that I mention.
People could still lie about this or anything else on their profile. But I think as a starting point it would help to give them a category where they can "tell the truth without eliminating all possibilities of applying for jobs".
[Edited at 2012-08-07 20:23 GMT]
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Methods for verifying "native language" claims | 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 » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
