| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10] > | Methods for verifying "native language" claims Thread poster: psicutrinius
|
|---|
| Hi, Sarah. What about different varieties of AE -- including regional varieties, | Aug 14, 2012 |
AAVE, rap type of language? Do the clients want a certain regional variety for their general translations? A perfect native speaker is an idea, which does not have a physical representation, and so is native language -- it is mostly an idea. In my opinion the only solution is to raise the consciousness and ethics of the members, so they don't report languages as native, if they don't have any basis for it.
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Empty post. | B D Finch 
France
Local time: 05:16
French to English
+ ...
| How good is "native" | Aug 15, 2012 |
I fully agree with Bernhard - keep that broken record on the turntable!
However, there is another question that needs to be asked: is "native" good enough? I have known and worked with plenty of people who are indubitably native speakers of English and graduates of British universities, often with good degrees (frequently in science subjects), yet whose standard of written English is depressingly poor. I am sure we all are aware of how many people can scarcely string a coherent sent... See more I fully agree with Bernhard - keep that broken record on the turntable!
However, there is another question that needs to be asked: is "native" good enough? I have known and worked with plenty of people who are indubitably native speakers of English and graduates of British universities, often with good degrees (frequently in science subjects), yet whose standard of written English is depressingly poor. I am sure we all are aware of how many people can scarcely string a coherent sentence together when speaking their native language, never mind when writing it.
Those who offer their services as professional linguists, whether translators or interpreters, should not merely be native speakers of their target language, but should be skilled users of that language. In a very few cases, that will mean that some people who have learnt that language as a foreign language will qualify, particularly for technical and specialised translation where general cultural knowledge, slang etc. is not required. Sadly, in a high proportion of cases, people who learnt the target language at their mother's knee and had all their education in that language will not qualify.
Many years ago a Nigerian friend (a university graduate, trained as a journalist in English but in a non-anglophone country) and I had a minor falling out when I was critical of his draft novel. I thought that I was a better friend being honest rather than flattering and it was only honest to remark that if the heroine "adjusted her dressings", it sounded as though she had been in a fight, rather than as though she was preparing to receive her guests at a party. His grammar, was also really poor. I have never seen Ngugi's manuscripts, but I'd be prepared to bet that they didn't give his publishers much cause to use the blue pencil to correct stuff like that.
As another example, my parents were both native speakers of English, both left school at 14 and had no further, formal education. My father was very literate and wrote well and accurately; my mother's writing was full of spelling mistakes, though you would never have guessed that from her speech.
So, it is about the actual language spoken at home and in one's peer group while growing up, the quality of language spoken read and written at home and in the peer group, education, an ear and a gift for both spoken and written language. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | OT Reminder: What IT's about | Aug 15, 2012 |
B D Finch wrote:
However, there is another question that needs to be asked: is "native" good enough?
[snip]
So, it is about [snip] education, an ear and a gift for both spoken and written language.
B D, I'm sorry but I feel the need to point out that the question you think needs to be asked is not actually up for debate in this thread.
On the Proz.com site/platform, there is an option for those placing job ads to request replies from native speakers, and there is an option for linguists to identify themselves as native speakers.
THIS thread is ONLY about finding a method to minimize the fraud that occurs on this platform when linguists falsely claim that they are native speakers of a language that is not a native language.
It is not about abilities, an ear, a gift, any other skills, whether or not trained non-natives can be better translators than untrained natives, how good natives are at writing, translating, etc., or any other indicator (or not) of quality.
| | |
|
|
|
LilianBoland wrote:
Very sorry, Bernhard, but US universities don't
require Toefl exams from US students who have been permanent residents of the United States for over a year, or US citizens. You can call some Universities if you don't believe me. Even you could probably be considered bilingual, if you cared, since as far as I remember you said all your college education had been in English. T...
Just because a TOEFL exam is not required doesn't mean that the person is a native speaker.
Same goes for permanent residents or US citizens.
There are reasons why persons are not required to take the TOEFL but these reasons do not just extend to native speakers of English.
In this thread, we discuss methods of verifying native language speakers and the reason we're doing that is because "unverified" native speakers have been able to claim two native languages here for a long time without ever having to prove it.
Part of your reasoning is that it can't be proven, our reasoning is that it can.
Part of your reasoning is that it is difficult to define "native" language, our reasoning is that it is pretty easy.
May I make a suggestion.
A non-native speaker of English (example) who speaks it very well could regard this as great achievement. Many native speakers will be impressed by her/his extraordinary competence in that language and the fact that someone was indeed able to reach a level of English that is admirable. This is something the non-native speaker can be proud of if she/he so cares.
What no non-native speaker should be proud of or claim is that she/he is a native speaker when that's just not possible. (Remember my chicken to chick(egg) analogy?)
The requirement is again that you have learned the language from any early age on, have used it with your childhood peers, spoke this language in school, and did all that for several years.
Which language(s) would be yours then, if you consider the requirement above?
I for example do consider/ and am considered "bilingual". But that does not mean I am a native speaker of two languages, not according to the definition and opinion we follow. I would never want to call myself a native speaker of English because I am well aware of the difference because as a native speaker of German, I know what it means to be a native speaker. That's why I don't understand how one can ever not know the difference between a native and a non-native speaker. Everyone has at least one native language (unless they lost it completely which is very hard to do once you really were a native speaker).
LilianBoland wrote:
I am very sorry, but you (general you) really need a lot of linguistic education and knowledge in the area of sociolinguistics to understand the problem. With all my respect, many people with marketing or other business education will never understand it, just like I will probably never understand marketing.
I think you should be able to understand the problem easily:
1) Follow our definition of native and non-nativeness in a language, a definition that is widely accepted.
2) Realize that there are too many people here on this site who wrongly claim two native languages.
LilianBoland wrote:
I am really done with this thread, most likely -- I said all I felt I wanted to say, and I don't want to sound like a broken record. Some of the opinions I expressed have been confirmed by university professors -- so this is not something I made up.
Which opinion has been confirmed? That someone who did not grow up with English spoken in their home, did not speak English with their childhood peers and did not attend an English-speaking school and did not do any of these things can nevertheless be considered a native speaker? Which university, which professor?
You are thinking of non-native English speakers who have been accepted at a university because they satisfy the English language requirement.
That is never the same as being considered a "native" speaker.
As a non-native, you can be an excellent speaker of English and attend or work as a professor at a US university, but that does not mean you are a native speaker.
And if someone claims it, they're wrong.
And if they do it here on Proz.com, they're wrong and you know it shouldn't be tolerated.
You know, excellent translators have no reason to lie about their native or non-native language(s) and I am sure there are a few who rightly claim two native languages.
I argue (and most others here probably would too) it's those who aren't excellent translators who falsely claim two languages and try to benefit from such false claims. That is the main problem.
Taking a look at many profiles and forum posts, you will find that opinion confirmed. The English (example) is so bad that it makes no sense to assert that they must be excellent translators into or even from that language, but they claim it as one of two native languages.
So, we recognized the problem which is compounded by the fact that "unverified" native language claims have never been "confirmed/verified" in 12 years, and we are proposing methods for such confirmation/verification. The latter is the goal of this thread.
LilianBoland wrote:
I honestly believe that not too many people lie on this site -- they might just be misunderstood or their variety of English is looked down at.
Your opinion is the opposite of, I believe at this point, all other contributors to this thread.
LilianBoland wrote:
I don't have any personal interests in this thread, whatsoever, believe me. I don't even bid on jobs. I may get interested in some offers from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. I really don't care if I declare a native language or not, or perhaps declare all the languages I can declare as native, for one reason or another, just some of the opinions expressed here have literally shocked me.
Well, we care because we don't want to be in the company of those who falsely claim native languages, be it because they are lying or because they are not capable of understanding what "native language" means.
HTH
B
[Edited at 2012-08-15 19:27 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 04:16
Hebrew to English
| Prestige varieties (remain UK and US) | Aug 15, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
AAVE, rap type of language? Do the clients want a certain regional variety for their general translations? .....
I am very sorry, but you (general you) really need a lot of linguistic education and knowledge in the area of sociolinguistics to understand the problem.
I'm sorry, but I have never ever seen a request for translation into Black English Vernacular (African American Vernacular English). The reason being prestige. If you don't understand this, then you must have skipped that bit in your sociolinguistics class (shame - it's a rather important part of sociolinguistics - prestige varieties of a language)...And I'd be careful with borderline racist statements, whilst all rap might be considered AAVE (debatable in itself), I'm sure not all AAVE speakers would describe their language as "rap type of language".
The existence of AAVE and other non-prestigious varieties of English do not justify the false labelling of non-native English as native...and there is still a big divide between a non-prestigious variety of English and non-native English.
_________________________________________________________________________________
And it's not about "looking down at anyone's variety of English", it's about acknowledging that non-native English is not native no matter what, and it is not and cannot be conflated with native varieties out of some misguided belief in equality. Not all language variants are created equal, or as Orwell might say some language variants are more equal than others, this is a sociolinguistic phenomenon, not a socio-political one (which you keep trying to make it).
I really don't care if I declare a native language or not, or perhaps declare all the languages I can declare as native, for one reason or another
Erm, .... .... Nevermind.
[Edited at 2012-08-15 15:24 GMT]
| | | | B D Finch
France
Local time: 05:16
French to English
+ ...
Janet Rubin wrote: B D Finch wrote:
However, there is another question that needs to be asked: is "native" good enough?
[snip]
So, it is about [snip] education, an ear and a gift for both spoken and written language. B D, I'm sorry but I feel the need to point out that the question you think needs to be asked is not actually up for debate in this thread. On the Proz.com site/platform, there is an option for those placing job ads to request replies from native speakers, and there is an option for linguists to identify themselves as native speakers. THIS thread is ONLY about finding a method to minimize the fraud that occurs on this platform when linguists falsely claim that they are native speakers of a language that is not a native language. It is not about abilities, an ear, a gift, any other skills, whether or not trained non-natives can be better translators than untrained natives, how good natives are at writing, translating, etc., or any other indicator (or not) of quality.
OK, I admit to having tried to widen the debate. I think it needs widening - though perhaps I overdid it - because people are ignoring the elephant in the room (to use a French expression). There are a number of countries, other than the UK and US, where at least a large proportion of the natives consider themselves to be native speakers of English: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India, Jamaica, South Africa - to name but a few. If a government agency from one of those countries wants a native speaker of English to translate a document into English from another language, what would count for that purpose as a "native speaker"?
You may, perhaps, notice that I have deliberately included countries with variants of English that are generally accepted as OK and ones where either the variant or the general level of competence might be questioned because they use English as a lingua franca that may be used alongside another language.
[Edited at 2012-08-15 16:41 GMT]
| | | | | Consider themselves to be native speakers of English? Virtually all ARE native speakers!!!! | Aug 15, 2012 |
B D Finch wrote:
There are a number of countries, other than the UK and US, where at least a large proportion of the natives consider themselves to be native speakers of English: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India, Jamaica, South Africa - to name but a few. If a government agency from one of those countries wants a native speaker of English to translate a document into English from another language, what would count for that purpose as a "native speaker"?
How can anyone refer to natives of all those countries as people who consider themselves to be native speakers of English? All native English speakers speak their own variation of the language and that includes UK and USA English. The biggest exception here may be Indian English which seems to have a life of its own.
This forum is about native Dutch, German, French, Italian, Chinese, Slovenian, Spanish, Danish, Swedish, Russian, Polish et al. speakers who apparently consider themselves to be native English speakers.
| | |
|
|
|
| Just the wrong thread | Aug 15, 2012 |
B D Finch wrote:
OK, I admit to having tried to widen the debate. I think it needs widening...
Hi B D, please don't get me wrong - none of what I posted is a reflection of any opinion of value of your contribution.
It is just that the OP specifically stated that THIS thread is intended for a discussion of methodology of limiting/minimizing fraudulent "native language" claims (through verification).
The OTHER thread - Should "native language claims be verified" - has been used (ad nauseum) to debate tangent topics, so you might find a more willing audience there.
I would like to remind everyone again that those tangent topics (not relating directly to the methodology of verifying native language) really do belong on the OTHER thread...
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 08:46
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | A possible solution | Aug 17, 2012 |
The real bone of contention seems to be the misrepresentation that nativeness in a language somehow indicates quality of translation. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The site itself does not subscribe to this view. Here is an extract from the FAQ for CPN:
----------------------------
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 consid... See more The real bone of contention seems to be the misrepresentation that nativeness in a language somehow indicates quality of translation. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The site itself does not subscribe to this view. Here is an extract from the FAQ for CPN:
----------------------------
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.
----------------------------------
It has sufficiently been established in the various posts in the two threads that nativeness in a language in no way ensures quality of translation. Then why are people making such a fuss over verification of nativeness in a language.
The simple answer is, it provides commercial advantage (not professional advantage, please note) to those who can claim native status.
This is what is making the verification issue so contentious.
One possible solution would be to delink the two concepts - that of nativity and proficiency.
Once we do that, we can easily verify nativieness by simple and inexpensive means like documentary evidence of residence in early childhood in an area where the language is spoken.
I have elaborated this idea in the other thread here:
http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_suggestions/227485-should_“native_language”_claims_be_verified-page102.html#1999975
[2012-08-17 19:08 GMT पर संपादन हुआ] ▲ Collapse
| | | | psicutrinius
Spain
Local time: 05:16
Member (2008)
Spanish to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Mr. BALASUBRAMANIAM | Aug 17, 2012 |
psicutrinius wrote:
PLEASE NOTE EVERYBODY
This thread is addressed ONLY to those who agree that, yes, native language claims should be verified, and who propose methods/ways of so doing.
I will say it again: THOSE WHO DISCUSS WHETHER IT SHOULD BE VERIFIED OR NOT HAVE NO PLACE HERE.
The quotation above is an excerpt of the opening post in this thread.
Ideas as to how native language claims can be verified are welcome here.
Discussing not the HOW to do that but whether it should be done or not are not, because they do NOT belong into this thread.
Therefore, please: Stick with the matter and either (a) submit possible methods for so doing or (b) open a new thread, but DO NOT GO OFF TOPIC here
Thanks
[Edited at 2012-08-17 20:49 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 04:16
Hebrew to English
| Please see my other post on the other thread | Aug 17, 2012 |
I don't wish to break rule 3.3 but I've already highlighted the fact that the only bone of contention is yours. And like an energetic puppy, you simply won't let go of it.
Native language is merely presented. Nowhere does it say that it is a guarantee of quality.
The outsourcer decides what value judgements to attach to it.
... See more I don't wish to break rule 3.3 but I've already highlighted the fact that the only bone of contention is yours. And like an energetic puppy, you simply won't let go of it.
Native language is merely presented. Nowhere does it say that it is a guarantee of quality.
The outsourcer decides what value judgements to attach to it.
For what I said before:
http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_suggestions/227485-should_“native_language”_claims_be_verified-page102.html#1999994 ▲ Collapse
| | | |
psicutrinius wrote: psicutrinius wrote:
PLEASE NOTE EVERYBODY
This thread is addressed ONLY to those who agree that, yes, native language claims should be verified, and who propose methods/ways of so doing.
I will say it again: THOSE WHO DISCUSS WHETHER IT SHOULD BE VERIFIED OR NOT HAVE NO PLACE HERE.
The quotation above is an excerpt of the opening post in this thread. Ideas as to how native language claims can be verified are welcome here. Discussing not the HOW to do that but whether it should be done or not are not, because they do NOT belong into this thread. Therefore, please: Stick with the matter and either (a) submit possible methods for so doing or (b) open a new thread, but DO NOT GO OFF TOPIC here Thanks [Edited at 2012-08-17 20:49 GMT]
The customers will decide whether or not a translator's level is "native" or not. If it is not, they will not send this translator any more work.
| | | | Tony M
France
Local time: 05:16
Member
French to English
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | But the reverse definitely IS true! | Sep 22, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
The real bone of contention seems to be the misrepresentation that nativeness in a language somehow indicates quality of translation. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
True enough: not ever native speaker will necessarily be a good translator.
However, the reverse is more pertinent to the discussions here: someone who is NOT a native speaker is a lot less likely to be a good translator.
To get back on topic, I am in favour of a two-tier approach:
First, a short written test of some kind, with the text changed frequently, and containing a number of specific 'colloquial' errors to 'catch out' non-natives. This could be, for example, a short text to correct + a short essay to create from scratch.
This could be reviewed by a small panel of native speakers (working blind, of course), and ought to weed out at least some of the more over-optimistic claimants! I think it would also weed out a goodly proportion of the deliberate misleaders, since from the look of their profiles and/or KudoZ answers, it seems that they are either blithely unaware of their own shortcomings — or imagine they can get away with it. To avoid too many instances of getting it proofed/corrected by someone else, this test could be administered with a deliberately short turnaround time.
On the basis of the results of this test, one could then decide whether or not to move on to an oral assessment — perhaps this part could be made paying (to cover phone costs etc.), to discourage time-wasters. Also, let's note that only ONE person per KudoZ profile could be accepted per test; so this would stop all that business of "my partner is a native speaker of X and so s/he can check my work" — if "my partner" is involved in your translation business, then s/he should have to pay for a separate test.
No such system could ever be 100% objective nor 100% selective — but I do believe it would weed out an awful lot of those people who are currently giving our community a bad name.
After that, it is up to outsourcers themselves to decide how important the native-speaker status is to them — and of course their due diligence ought to be based on several other criteria as well.
The other day, I saw a job advertised by someone who appeared to be a FR native-speaker, seeking a FR>EN translator for what appeared to be a very specialized academic document, but insisting they wanted a FNS to translate it! At that level, I can't help thinking it is sheer folly — but after all, at this point, it is their choice and their problem.
[Edited at 2012-09-22 17:36 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 | 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! » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
