Methods for verifying "native language" claims

Neil Coffey wrote:

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".

Neil Coffey wrote:
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.

Neil Coffey wrote:
(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"

Oliver Walter wrote:

In other words, I propose that native speakers who act as verifiers of other people's native knowledge should be what Neil calls "canonical" native speakers. This would, I think, solve the "bootstrapping" problem of getting the process started...

...and of course, the test for "nativeness" is not the same as a test for not making any errors at all, but for not making certain types of errors. ...

Neil Coffey wrote:

Some potential problems with the "verified verifier" method:

- it seems somewhat overengineered (both the amount of work involved to verify all the claimants, plus will people really be that motivated to start digging out and submitting school leaving certificates-- assuming they even still have them...?)
- it assumes that the "verifiers", just because they themselves are native speakers, will be fully aware of all of the variation that can occur among other native speakers. That's not necessarily the case and could create some 'false positives' in the identification of non-native speakers posing as natives.

For the method to be reliable, you may even have to have, say, a "panel" of 5 judges, with the criterion that (say) 4 out of the 5 must judge the person to be "native" for them to qualify. I think it could then be quite reliable... but even more overengineered.

Cilian O'Tuama wrote:

I'm a native speaker of English.

If anyone thinks otherwise, I beg the site to give them an opportunity to express their doubts.

Likewise, I beg the site to give me the opportunity to express any doubts I may have about other people's claimed native language(s).

Thank you.

Bernhard Sulzer wrote:

This is where it stands. So, no, a "verification" procedure has not been established. But Proz.com is working one out right now.
...

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.

Katalin Horváth McClure wrote:
...
So, I see no sign of change/development regarding this issue - staff has not commented otherwise either.
Katalin

Jared wrote:

Hello all,

Thanks to everyone who has provided input on this subject so far.

As I mentioned earlier, ways of strengthening the native language credential system are being worked on, and the feedback given here and in previous discussions on the topic has proven and will prove useful. It should be noted that initial improvements to the system will most likely center around providing a greater level of differentiation to those who are able to verify a native language, rather than centering around the elimination of declared languages which have not yet been verified.

While I will still be following the thread, I'm signing off for now. I will report back here as soon as the first improvements can be implemented.

Jared

Bernhard Sulzer wrote:



Quote from Proz.com policies:

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.
-------

Well, that's what it says,

and the ever-growing need for it (as many believe) prompted the other thread (link below). How about - the future is now.

In that other thread, you will find that staff has indeed reacted to the discussion and confirmed that they are working on it and are taking our suggestions into account.

So I don't believe in "wasted time"

or "I see no sign of change/development."

One change is that many are currently voicing their opinions, contributing ideas and suggestions.
I'm sure you can either acknowledge or even appreciate that.

Neil Coffey wrote:

- it assumes that the "verifiers", just because they themselves are native speakers, will be fully aware of all of the variation that can occur among other native speakers. That's not necessarily the case and could create some 'false positives' in the identification of non-native speakers posing as natives.

Phil Hand wrote:



Ambrose, if you could explain this a little more, I think it would help me to understand better where some of the opposition is coming from. I cannot understand what your sentence above means. How would someone be "struck out" if we say that English is not their native language? Canada is a famously tolerant place. Neither Canadian law nor the majority of Canadian citizens would think that someone's first language being Chinese or Spanish is a reason to "strike them out". To turn it round, I live in a country where I'm not a native speaker of the official language. I don't feel "struck out".

I would like to understand where you're coming from, because I think for most of us Brits, native language is not an emotional thing. But it seems that it does raise great passions in people from other parts of the world. I would like to be sensitive and work around that, but I honestly don't know why it generates such heat.

Do you mean that if you say to a Chinese (for example) immigrant to Canada that English is not his native language, then he's going to understand it as an attack on his identity?

Samuel Murray wrote:

Hey, I have a great idea about HOW TO VERIFY a person's native language. Simply ask him in which language he would be happy to receive materials to sign before e.g. a serious operation, or in which language they prefer to get legal advice if or financial advice. I hope this suggestion is on-topic...

Ambrose Li wrote:

The key phrase from Lisa’s original post was “from earliest childhood.” There are people who came here at a later age but are for all practical purposes indistinguishable from native-born English speakers. One of my classmates in high school came from China at eight (so from his childhood, but not earliest childhood) and by the time he was in Grade 11 he could (according to himself) speak about 8 Chinese sentences. I once met someone who came here from Hong Kong in his late teens and by the time I knew about him all he spoke was English. To say these people are not at least equivalent to native English speakers (or worse, to say they are native Chinese speakers) is to stretch the imagination.

I do not believe these are isolated cases. Even if this is not as widespread as I suspect, narrowly defining native as having acquired the language from “earliest” childhood is to automatically strike these people out from the pool of speakers who for all practical purposes are native.