| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10] > | Methods for verifying "native language" claims Thread poster: psicutrinius
|
|---|
Michele Fauble 
United States
Local time: 14:55
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Importance of immersion | Aug 8, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
There are many children born in the United States whose parents speak a different language at home, and at the age of 8, let's say, they can neither be considered proficient speakers of English nor Spanish, just as an example.
Note that I said immersed in the second language. If most of their language exposure is to family, friends and classmates who are not speakers of the second language, then that is not optimal for becoming a native speaker of it. I live near a school where almost 100% of the children are Hispanic, a majority children of recent immigrants, just as an example.
| | | | | Hi Michele. They will become native speakers of English in a year or two with some help of course, | Aug 8, 2012 |
unless they want to claim Spanish as their native language -- some people do in the United States, and they even have the right to it. English has never been officially declared the official language of the United States. Only 27 states declared so far English as their official language. If you believe Navajo is your native language then you have the constitutional right to request education and many other things in that language. No one can tell you either that English is your native language s... See more unless they want to claim Spanish as their native language -- some people do in the United States, and they even have the right to it. English has never been officially declared the official language of the United States. Only 27 states declared so far English as their official language. If you believe Navajo is your native language then you have the constitutional right to request education and many other things in that language. No one can tell you either that English is your native language since you were born in the United States. Many people choose English however as their native language. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 23:55
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Bernhard, re my proposed test | Aug 9, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
If the candidate is unable to tell which texts were written by non-natives, or considers too many native-written texts to have been written by non-natives, he fails the test. This might be a bit complicated. What if only one text is picked wrongly? And what would be the cut-off point for "considers too many native-written texts to have been written by non-natives"?
The pass/fail rate would have to be decided, but the fact that the pass/fail rate would have to be decided does not change the workability of the suggestion. The same applies to any kind of nativeness test -- some candidates will not score 100% and you'd have to decide where lies the cut-off point.
Besides that, a highly fluent non-native speaker could possibly pick them all correctly. Does that make him/her a native speaker? No.
True, but that point has been raised, namely that non-natives might show up as native if they are highly skilled. Such non-natives will pass any kind of test -- there is no way to prevent that. The best a verification process can hope for is to spot obvious non-natives.
Samuel Murray wrote:
In an audio version of such a test, the candidate can listen to ten audio samples of e.g. 3 minutes each (which is randomly selected from a database of e.g. 100 recorded samples).
Would you have the texts read by a native speaker with native accent? Or would you try to trick/trip up the candidate by having a native text read by a non-native? [/quote]
No, the idea is not to deliberately put errors into the written text or to try to trick the candidate with a fake accent. When compiling audio samples, the compiler can phone each volunteer voice artist to check if the accent in his sample is the same as the accent he normally uses.
Recognizing nativeness in texts or speech does not make the candidate a native speaker/writer. The candidate must speak or write something him-/herself and other native speakers must judge it as non-native or native.
The same problems apply to either method. A highly skilled non-native will be judged as native in both methods. The problem with having the candidate write something is that each candidate will write something else, so each case has to be decided individually. If on the other hand the candidate is asked to judge other writers/speakers, the same test files can be used over and over, so the overhead is much less. In fact, after the test files have been compiled, the proposed test can run practically automatically, without constant human interaction required.
All of the tests suggested so far for "verifying" a translator's native language simply verify that non-nativeness could not be detected. In other words, the "verified" label does not mean "certainly native" but "not certainly non-native". My proposed test does not differ from other tests in this respect -- it will catch obvious non-natives but will "verify" highly skilled non-natives as native.
| | | | | make them "speak" | Aug 9, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Besides that, a highly fluent non-native speaker could possibly pick them all correctly. Does that make him/her a native speaker? No.
Samuel Murray wrote:
True, but that point has been raised, namely that non-natives might show up as native if they are highly skilled. Such non-natives will pass any kind of test -- there is no way to prevent that. The best a verification process can hope for is to spot obvious non-natives.
I wouldn't support a listening test. I believe there's a great likelihood that a non-native picks the correct text by accident. And someone who is almost fluent in that language (not even excellent) could pass the exam easily. Even when I first learned English, it was very obvious to me who was a native speaker and who wasn't.
The candidate should "produce", he/she should "speak" or "write" spontaneously in that language, and that should be judged. I wouldn't accept any "easier" way to prove one's native language, at least not for a second native language.
My thoughts.
Bernhard
[Edited at 2012-08-09 07:40 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| regarding getting rid of the "unverified status" altogether | Aug 9, 2012 |
I proposed this on the previous page.
I wanted to add that in case someone first claims one single native language and gets the yellow verified button based on just an assessment (questionnaire), a sworn statement (signed pdf document) and identity verification, I would build in the condition that if she/he later on wants a second language verified, he/she will have to verify both before native speakers (the same when someone wants two languages verified right away, from the beginni... See more I proposed this on the previous page.
I wanted to add that in case someone first claims one single native language and gets the yellow verified button based on just an assessment (questionnaire), a sworn statement (signed pdf document) and identity verification, I would build in the condition that if she/he later on wants a second language verified, he/she will have to verify both before native speakers (the same when someone wants two languages verified right away, from the beginning).
B ▲ Collapse
| | | | | You should see me when it's my round | Aug 9, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
Charlie's proposal is still the most parsimonious
Parsimonious doesn't even begin to cover it
Maybe a simple poll?
e.g. "Is there any point to rules that are not enforced?"
| | | | | in other words | Aug 9, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Besides that, a highly fluent non-native speaker could possibly pick them all correctly. Does that make him/her a native speaker? No. Samuel Murray wrote:
True, but that point has been raised, namely that non-natives might show up as native if they are highly skilled. Such non-natives will pass any kind of test -- there is no way to prevent that. The best a verification process can hope for is to spot obvious non-natives.
I wouldn't support a listening test. I believe there's a great likelihood that a non-native picks the correct text by accident. And someone who is almost fluent in that language (not even excellent) could pass the exam easily. Even when I first learned English, it was very obvious to me who was a native speaker and who wasn't. The candidate should "produce", he/she should "speak" or "write" spontaneously in that language, and that should be judged. I wouldn't accept any "easier" way to prove one's native language, at least not for a second native language.
In other words, what you’re proposing is sort of a “DELF for English” (or whatever) kind of thing, minus the listening and reading parts of the test, right? Actually this is exactly what the current FAQ proposes. So I guess no one can object to this.
Anyway, backtracking to Samuel’s comment that you quoted. Let me say that there are tests that even highly-skilled non-natives might not pass. From my personal experience I can describe a few scenarios where a “highly-skilled non-native” might fail:
- The non-native performs much worse than usual in the test simply because it is a test.
- The test is one such that even natives have a good chance of failing.
- The non-native is a person that is just bad at speaking or writing spontaneously.
Coming from a place where tests used to be a fact of life and a major cause of teen suicide, I will have my reservations about their effectiveness. No tests are foolproof, but since this proposal is indistinguishable from the (as yet unimplemented) status quo, I shall have nothing against it.
| | | |
Ambrose Li wrote: In other words, what you’re proposing is sort of a “DELF for English” (or whatever) kind of thing, minus the listening and reading parts of the test, right? Actually this is exactly what the current FAQ proposes. So I guess no one can object to this. Anyway, backtracking to Samuel’s comment that you quoted. Let me say that there are tests that even highly-skilled non-natives might not pass. From my personal experience I can describe a few scenarios where a “highly-skilled non-native” might fail:
- The non-native performs much worse than usual in the test simply because it is a test.
- The test is one such that even natives have a good chance of failing.
- The non-native is a person that is just bad at speaking or writing spontaneously.
Coming from a place where tests used to be a fact of life and a major cause of teen suicide, I will have my reservations about their effectiveness. No tests are foolproof, but since this proposal is indistinguishable from the (as yet unimplemented) status quo, I shall have nothing against it.
Hello Ambrose,
No, I am not suggesting a formal, possibly stressful test.
I would first give everyone the opportunity to get verified by participating in a powwow by simply "having a chat" with at least 2 native speakers for maybe 10 minutes. (Now, for Chinese variants, this might be more difficult. No stress. The applicant could, at the powwow, write an essay in Chinese (pick a topic from a list), and Proz.com staff will give it to at least two native colleagues for evaluation.
Granted, this could be done online as well.
The identity of the person who's writing must however be verified, through user names and passwords for example. You can also add e-signatures etc.
I'm not in favor of a stressful test situation.
B
| | |
|
|
|
| poll / petition | Aug 10, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
Maybe a simple poll?
e.g. "Is there any point to rules that are not enforced?"
Seems to me that's exactly what one of you should do at this stage - launch a thread that is a poll or a petition of sorts, to show just how much support there is for a new system / verification etc.
If it's manifest that a lot of paying and heavyweight members are behind it, that could make a difference.
Best would be if the OP could update the first post to show all the signatories in a block.
| | | | Lingua 5B
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Local time: 23:55
Member (2009)
English to Croatian
+ ...
The usual linguistic method is having a certified body (usually a team of experts) to review their writing in the respective language. Very simple really, it's just that certified bodies cost money.
| | | | psicutrinius
Spain
Local time: 23:55
Member (2008)
Spanish to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Have been quite busy for most of the week, and I am still...
My idea on opening this thread was to examine options and pitfalls and gradually evolve (a) a common position (not as to the "what" -we all share the idea about this- but as to the "how"). And I thought that the best way would be to summarize every once in a short while into a "draft" petition, which would then be refined into another and so on, until one, hopefully unanimous, position (or one as prevalent as possible) cou... See more Have been quite busy for most of the week, and I am still...
My idea on opening this thread was to examine options and pitfalls and gradually evolve (a) a common position (not as to the "what" -we all share the idea about this- but as to the "how"). And I thought that the best way would be to summarize every once in a short while into a "draft" petition, which would then be refined into another and so on, until one, hopefully unanimous, position (or one as prevalent as possible) could be reached, which would be the petition itself.
Aspects to be taken into consideration:
Let's be realistic: The matter is to (a) cut the most egregious existing abuse; (b) To avoid future abuse as much as possible; (c) No 100% (and I would say, not even 80%)- proof procedure is feasible; (d) The more hurdles abusers find, the less abusers there will be(or, in other words: At least, make abusing as difficult as possible) (e) worst case: ANY measure of control that works is something; perhaps this will have to be a step by step process, but -in the actual state of the matter- ANYTHING will be better that what exists, so even a modest IMPLEMENTED measure will be a real progress. (f) This seems to be difficult indeed, as Proz agree in the rules -since twelve years ago, no less- that, yes, something should be done, but ii is still being thought about...
Problem is (for starters), WHAT control / vetting procedure(s) is/are to be implemented. I see there are a lot of proposals (and many more if the additional ones in the "sister" thread are also taken into account), and as of now I have had no time to gather, study and evaluate them (and, in fact, I do not pretend to claim the right to do so, or to be the one and only, let's say "moderator bis" of this thread. Any of you (I do not mean anyONE, but at least any FEW) can do so.
How about someone starting this process?. There are several facets that require attention:
Review of proposed procedures so far; let's get the global picture and start streamlining.
Positions as to who should carry out the vetting or -if a mix Proz/peers is retained as the best- who does what here (Proz is not exactly collaborating, so this is a difficult one which, in the present state of the matter, and if they don't appear here soon, will have to be made out of guesswork...
Your views will be appreciated. For starters: Do you (or some of you) agree that we should start working towards (a) reaching a draft petition (b) refining it? ▲ Collapse
| | | | | No, absolutely not. Proz is good the way it is. The problems are in 99% of cases imaginary. | Aug 11, 2012 |
Any verifications will only create hatred, and total chaos. Ok, if some people want to get verified -- no problem, if there is a way, which I doubt. Otherwise nothing should be changed because the site is good the way it is. I am really glad nobody suggested "Let them pray in their language'" because it was almost going in this direction. I think all of those discussions, although interesting, serve no real purpose -- perhaps just to enlighten people on which criteria they should base their deci... See more Any verifications will only create hatred, and total chaos. Ok, if some people want to get verified -- no problem, if there is a way, which I doubt. Otherwise nothing should be changed because the site is good the way it is. I am really glad nobody suggested "Let them pray in their language'" because it was almost going in this direction. I think all of those discussions, although interesting, serve no real purpose -- perhaps just to enlighten people on which criteria they should base their decision when declaring languages are their native.
[Edited at 2012-08-11 00:22 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Removed as requested by poster | | Practicality? | Aug 11, 2012 |
I have not read all the postings in this thread, but I have a short question.
If the test for "native" credential is basically a piece of writing, how can it be ensured (in a practical way) that it is actually written by the person being evaluated for the credential?
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Removed as requested by poster | | 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 | 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 » |
| | 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 
