| Pages in topic: [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10] > | Methods for verifying "native language" claims Thread poster: psicutrinius
|
|---|
psicutrinius 
Spain
Local time: 15:59
Member (2008)
Spanish to English
+ ...
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.
The ultimate aim is to (a) submit ideas, (b) analyze and discuss them, (c) come up with a formal (and feasible) proposal for Proz to, either be implemented, or rejected (and in the latter case, a well reasoned explanation for the proposal being declined should, of course,... See more 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.
The ultimate aim is to (a) submit ideas, (b) analyze and discuss them, (c) come up with a formal (and feasible) proposal for Proz to, either be implemented, or rejected (and in the latter case, a well reasoned explanation for the proposal being declined should, of course, be offered).
I will say it again: THOSE WHO DISCUSS WHETHER IT SHOULD BE VERIFIED OR NOT HAVE NO PLACE HERE.
I believe that a useful start would be for those who have made one such proposal at the other thread ("Should “native language” claims be verified?") re-post them here, for starters.
Also, since there is no way for us to ban trolls, stonewallers, digressors et. al., (thus they can show up at will) I propose that we isolate them and leave their rants unanswered. That would require sang froid in a number of cases, but judging from the other thread, there is no other way to ensure we keep on track.
[Edited at 2012-08-06 10:40 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-08-06 10:50 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-08-06 12:25 GMT]
[Subject edited by staff or moderator 2012-08-07 11:41 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Thank you, psicutrinius, for starting this thread.
On the other thread, I made a suggestion about a background questionnaire that could be used to pinpoint when/where/how someone gained their "native language(s)".
There hasn't been much commentary on this to date, so I would like to bring it up again, this a direct citation of my previous proposal:
---
The following are just some (bad) examples, but I'm sure they could be refined and extended. The point is, ... See more Thank you, psicutrinius, for starting this thread.
On the other thread, I made a suggestion about a background questionnaire that could be used to pinpoint when/where/how someone gained their "native language(s)".
There hasn't been much commentary on this to date, so I would like to bring it up again, this a direct citation of my previous proposal:
---
The following are just some (bad) examples, but I'm sure they could be refined and extended. The point is, the more options that are available, the more someone can demonstrate and explain their "nativeness" (and free answers could potentially be reviewed by other linguists for indications of non-native errors). Also, as soon as "native language box 2" is checked, the list could simply be repeated - but anyone reviewing the answers would gain an insight as to why this person claims to be bi/trilingual (etc.), for example if the schools listed are in Switzerland - or why their claims are inherently dubious (for example, 2nd "native language" claimed to be Italian but no evidence of any formative years spent in Italy).
1) I went to school between the ages of 1-10 in a country where XXX is an official language (and XXX was the language in which I was instructed) YES/NO
If so, what country/region/city: ___
If so, what school(s): ___
How long/which years: ___
Other details you wish to provide: ___
2) I went to school between the ages of 5-15 in a country where XXX is an official language (and XXX was the language in which I was instructed) YES/NO
If so, what country/region/city: ___
If so, what school(s): ___
How long/which years: ___
Other details you wish to provide: ___
3) I went to school between the ages of 10-18 in a country where XXX is an official language (and XXX was the language in which I was instructed) YES/NO
If so, what country/region/city: ___
If so, what school(s): ___
How long/which years: ___
Other details you wish to provide: ___
4) I attended a university or other advanced educational program in a country where XXX is an official language and XXX was the language in which I was instructed or which I studied YES/NO
If so, what country/region/city: ___
If so, what institution(s): ___
Areas of study: ___
Other details you wish to provide: ___
5) Although I spent my childhood in a country where XXX was not an official language, one or more parents was a native speaker of XXX, and XXX was spoken at home YES/NO
If so, please discuss the frequency of conversations in XXX
If so, please provide information on any formal childhood instruction in XXX
If so, please give a brief explanation of why you feel you are a native speaker of XXX
Other details you wish to provide: ___
6) Although I spent my childhood in a country where XXX was not an official language, I went through a special educational program, the intent of which was to teach XXX YES/NO
If so, what school: ___
How long/which years: ___
Other details you wish to provide: ___
7) Although I left the country where I spent my childhood and learned XXX, I worked/held a position where XXX was required as an official language for internal/other communications YES/NO
If so, age at which you left the country where XXX was the official language: ___
If so, what company/ies, what position(s): ___
If so, how long/which years did you spend doing this work/in such position(s): ___
Other details you wish to provide: ___
8) If any of the above apply partially but not completely, please describe how they apply with respect to your particular situation. Please feel free to provide any and all details you feel will show why you consider XXX to be your native language.
9) If you left the country where XXX is spoken as an official language for more than 5 years at any time during your childhood or for more than 15 years during your adulthood, please provide information as to why you have not lost your competency as a native speaker of XXX. This is a free-form answer, please feel free to be creative.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
---
As I also stated in the other thread, I believe something like this would go a long way toward not only getting people to own up to their true native language (self-evaluation), but would also provide much-needed information to anyone (Proz) reviewing such claims and a starting point in the event of accusations of falsehoods.
If it were publicly accessible (not sure if I am for or against that myself), it would also provide outsourcers with additional information they could use to review whether the linguist fits the particular outsourcer's own profile of "native speaker". In that case, maybe there wouldn't be (as much) need for impromptu chats, essays, etc. (as suggested in the other thread) to "prove" the native language(s). ▲ Collapse
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 15:59
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| My first proposal in this thread | Aug 6, 2012 |
psicutrinius wrote:
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.
Yes, I agree that native language claims should be verified, and I propose that it is done in three steps:
1. The member should state why he/she believes that that language is their native language. I suggest that the selection page contains a number of reasons that the member can select from, as well as a text form for additional comments.
2. The member should have a telephone conversation with ten other members who claim to be native speakers of that language, and most of them should declare that they believe that member.
3. If anyone wants to query a member's claim, his reasons for declaring that language should be investigated one by one, to see if the reasons can be proven to be true.
For example, suppose I claim Chinese as a native language, and I state (in terms of item 1 above) that I claim it because I have lived in China for 10 years. I somehow get 10 ProZians to declare that they think I'm Chinese, based on a telephone call. Then someone else queries my declaration (and gives reasons for it). It is then investigated whether I had really lived in China for 10 years (since that is the reason that I gave for claiming nativeness). If it can't be proven or disproven, the query is listed on my profile page but I remain verified. If it can be proved that I had lied about having lived in China for 10 years, the verification is withdrawn, with a note on my profile page.
[Edited at 2012-08-06 17:08 GMT]
| | | | Diana Coada (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 14:59
Portuguese to English
+ ...
| You still don't get it: | Aug 6, 2012 |
1. No matter how much you polish and adapt the questionnaire above, it will only tell me what my native language is according to you, and not me.
2. This is a commercial site, not the IOL directory - why do you care what people claim?
3. Why do you worry so much about what I consider to be my native language?
4. There are different ways in which to define native language: based on origin, identification and
based on competence/usage. For all I... See more 1. No matter how much you polish and adapt the questionnaire above, it will only tell me what my native language is according to you, and not me.
2. This is a commercial site, not the IOL directory - why do you care what people claim?
3. Why do you worry so much about what I consider to be my native language?
4. There are different ways in which to define native language: based on origin, identification and
based on competence/usage. For all I know, these three definitions might apply to three different languages in many cases.
Over and out. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Robert Forstag
United States
Local time: 09:59
Spanish to English
+ ...
This also from the other thread and one shared by others contributing to that thread.
1.
Those claiming only one native language would be presumed to be verified, with a message appearing identical or similar to the one that appears now when the icon is clicked for those claiming a single native language.
2.
Those claiming more than one native language would not be assumed to be verified in any of the native languages they claim. This would be reflected, mi... See more This also from the other thread and one shared by others contributing to that thread.
1.
Those claiming only one native language would be presumed to be verified, with a message appearing identical or similar to the one that appears now when the icon is clicked for those claiming a single native language.
2.
Those claiming more than one native language would not be assumed to be verified in any of the native languages they claim. This would be reflected, minimally, in different colored icons and, ideally, in a more explicit message at the side, or under, the icon along the lines of "non-verified" or "NV."
3.
Those claiming more than one native language, which by default will be unverified, will, upon entering the multiple native languages in their profile, be asked a number of questions designed to confirm that they are native speakers (along the lines of those suggested by Janet and Samuel previously).
4.
Verification would be in the form of a video conference call in which the verifier would present proof of identification to either some third party. Alternatively, verification could take place through an in-person interaction with an official site representative at a proz.com office or event (e.g., powwow, congress, etc.). A conversation would be held by a site designee who is native in the language claimed, and the person making the claim. The conversation could last 5 minutes or so.
5.
A fee would be charged for this service (irrespective of whether the individual passes the verification test).
6.
Those passing the verification test would have this shown on their profile.
7.
There would be only one opportunity to take this test.
It needs to be remembered that the verification here is of an individual's native language, and not of their translation skills or writing skills. This is why a short conversation is the best, as well as the most realistic approach. The bar could be set fairly low so as to assure that true native speakers are not unjustly failed.
I feel that this is a realistic approach that would get the job done, and that the site might actually accept.
I'd also like to thank psicutrinius for opening this new thread. I agree with the strategy of isolating the stonewallers and trolls. Of course, we could appeal to staff to remove the posts of such individuals for being off-topic (and thus in violation of one of the forum rules) but said rule only seems to be enforced when a post contains some message that staff does not like. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 14:59
Hebrew to English
| Self-assessment is the problem though | Aug 6, 2012 |
Diana Coada wrote:
1. No matter how much you polish and adapt the questionnaire above, it will only tell me what my native language is according to you, and not me.
I really shouldn't be "foruming", I'm snowed under, but I just want to say that self-assessment is the problem, not the solution. It's going to have to be a completely objective process, anything remotely subjective won't work. Otherwise liars will just lie...
This is why I believe some form of peer review is necessary, albeit not ideal.
| | | |
Yes I agree that there should be some way to filter this. Personally, I have doubts about whether it's even POSSIBLE to be 'native' in more than one language, although exceptions will always exist.
Perhaps people should just not be allowed to claim more than one 'native' language. That would force people to honestly assess where their real language strength lies and choose that option. For those who believe they do have a second 'native' language, it would be listed as NL2 or some ... See more Yes I agree that there should be some way to filter this. Personally, I have doubts about whether it's even POSSIBLE to be 'native' in more than one language, although exceptions will always exist.
Perhaps people should just not be allowed to claim more than one 'native' language. That would force people to honestly assess where their real language strength lies and choose that option. For those who believe they do have a second 'native' language, it would be listed as NL2 or some such thing, but the element of doubt would at least have been introduced for those who care enough to check it.
I was born and brought up in Brazil and have lived more than half my life here, however I grew up in an English-speaking family, went to a British primary school and then to higher education in England and the U.S.A. Although my Portuguese is fluent and I write it well, have a diploma in translation from a Brazilian school, have dual nationality etc., I would never dream of claiming Portuguese as a 'native' language because I KNOW I still make mistakes; I KNOW it's not perfect. But there are plenty of translators out there who have no such scruples and get paid good money for submitting translations, answers to Kudoz questions, whatever... with text that gives itself away.
So, maybe this is too radical, but: omit the possibility to claim more than one native language. It wouldn't filter out all the problems, but might at least reduce them. ▲ Collapse
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 14:59
Portuguese to English
+ ...
| Robert's proposal | Aug 6, 2012 |
I back it all the way.
| | |
|
|
|
zigzum
Czech Republic
Local time: 15:59
| native language | Aug 6, 2012 |
When I started working for a company where native Bulgarian was required, a colleague came, we talked 30 minutes in Bulgarian, she asked me which school i went to, what languages we speak in the family, what's my parents background, what is my background, where i spent my elementary school days. When all was verified and she asked me some slang, typical for Sofia, and I answered correctly, they acknowledged that I am native Bulgarian
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 15:59
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| So many issues... | Aug 6, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
I just want to say that self-assessment is the problem, not the solution. It's going to have to be a completely objective process, anything remotely subjective won't work. Otherwise liars will just lie... This is why I believe some form of peer review is necessary, albeit not ideal.
1. Peer review is inherently subjective (not objective). A test can be objective, but (as has been shown in the other thread) you can't verify nativeness using a test alone.
2. I suspect we're going to have to repeat a lot of ground that has been covered. So let me repeat what I said elsewhere (since your post leads me to it):
I'm not convinced that the majority of translators who misclaim native languages do so maliciously, but do so rather because of ignorance, optimistic imprecision or simply difference in definition. This is why I'm in favour of self-assessment as an integral part of verification. The idea that most misclaims about native language are malicious is nothing more than a wild guess or prejudiced presupposition.
Introducing a self-assessment questionnaire similar to the "degrees of nativeness" list that I proposed in another thread will make the "native language" credential much more useful. It won't weed out the liars but it will make the credential worth something more than mere speculation.
Jennifer Byers wrote:
Perhaps people should just not be allowed to claim more than one 'native' language. That would force people to honestly assess where their real language strength lies and choose that option.
No, that would simply force translators into declaring the language in which they believe they will receive more work. Since there is more money in e.g. Chinese-English than English-Chinese, a malicious Chinese speaker would then simply declare English as his native language. Allowing only one native language solves basically nothing. Hence this thread, which is for those who agree specifically that verification is necessary.
[Edited at 2012-08-06 16:34 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 14:59
Hebrew to English
| I disagree then | Aug 6, 2012 |
I think peer review can be objective, if done appropriately....and you yourself are in favour of it (see above) so it can't be all bad
I really think most forms of self-assessment are a total waste of time. I don't believe it will eliminate, or even reduce any false native language claims, which is surely the goal of such an endeavour.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 15:59
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Disagree with Robert's proposal | Aug 6, 2012 |
Robert Forstag wrote:
Those claiming only one native language would be presumed to be verified...
Disagree strongly. What would be purpose of this be? If you're going to call something "verified", at least have some sort of process attached to it other than "didn't claim more than one".
I acknowledge that a translator who claims more than one native language is more likely to claim incorrectly, but that does not mean that translators who claim only one native language should be trusted by default. I therefore agree that a verification drive could focus more aggressively on those who claim more than one native language, but it should not exclude those who claim only one (or assume that they are not relevant to the verification process).
Perhaps it is because you're trying to reduce the number of translators to verify?
It needs to be remembered that the verification here is of an individual's native language, and not of their translation skills or writing skills. ... The bar could be set fairly low so as to assure that true native speakers are not unjustly failed.
If the bar is low, then trained non-native translators will test native... which is exactly what that many pro-verificationers here are trying to prevent.
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 15:59
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Ty: Benefits of self-assessment | Aug 6, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
I think peer review can be objective, if done appropriately... I don't believe [self-assessment] will eliminate or even reduce any false native language claims.
With self-assessment, everyone can see what the person's definition of native is. With peer review, no-one knows what the definition of native is -- each reviewer will use his own definition, and not clients nor translators nor fellow reviewers nor the poor sap who is being reviewed will know what that definition is. Peer review is ideal for a definitionless system (which is what ProZ.com has).
Also, with self-assessment (using a checklist), it is easier to catch liars because you can catch them on specific facts, instead of using a balance of opinions.
Also, with self-assessment, if a person is eventually judged non-native (by himself, or through the answers given to the assessment questionnaire), he is more likely to accept that outcome than if he had been assessed by peers. Peer review is a recipe for appeals.
In my suggestion in my first post in this thread, the self-assessment would stop honest translators from misclaiming their native language. The second step in the proposed process (informal peer review) would help strengthen a translator's claim.
Since we're all about suggestions and proposals here, allow me to make another one (in line with my first post in this thread):
Let there be three categories (instead of the current two) with regard to native language, namely Unverified, Self-verified, and Peer-verified (oh, and a fourth one, Contested). Then, in the search form, let there be a checkbox for "Exclude non-verified" below the native language option, which would limit the search to self-verified and peer-verified native speakers. A self-verified native speaker is one who filled in the self-assessment (the answers of which is visible on his profile page). A peer-verified native speaker was verified by telephone by ten peers (free of charge), whose names appear on his profile page as having verified him.
==
Ty Kendall wrote:
I think peer review can be objective, if done appropriately... and you yourself are in favour of it (see above) so it can't be all bad.
Yes, I'm in favour of informal peer review by telephone. And to repeat what I said in another thread, what should be measured is fluency.
[Edited at 2012-08-06 17:08 GMT]
| | | |
My guess is that many are identifying themselves as "native" based on criteria rather like those of the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) scale (see below or at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILR_scale ). However, their peers are saying they are more likely to be ILR 4 - Full Professional Proficiency. Note the key difference (in bold), and the fact that peer assessment is vital.
So, ... See more My guess is that many are identifying themselves as "native" based on criteria rather like those of the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) scale (see below or at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILR_scale ). However, their peers are saying they are more likely to be ILR 4 - Full Professional Proficiency. Note the key difference (in bold), and the fact that peer assessment is vital.
So, the solution - Introduce a scale and let everyone self-assess up to, say, level 4. Then make everyone subject to verification for level 5.
The honest ones would perhaps be content to claim a 4 without assessment, if such a system existed. A cryptic "N" forces them into an exaggerated claim (rather than make none at all).
The rest will have to face up to the fact that the opinion of native speakers will determine their grade, as stipulated - “fully accepted by educated native speakers”.
---
Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR)
ILR Level 1 - Elementary proficiency
This is the first and essential level of the scale, often called S-1 or Level 1. The following describes the traits of an ILR Level 1 individual:
can fulfill travelling needs and conduct themselves in a polite manner
able to use questions and answers for simple topics within a limited level of experience
able to understand basic questions and speech, which allows for guides, such as slower speech or repetition, to aid understanding
has only a vocabulary large enough to communicate the most basic of needs; also makes frequent punctuation and grammatical mistakes in writing of the language
The majority of individuals classified as S-1 are able to perform most basic functions using the language. This includes buying goods, reading the time, ordering simple meals and asking for minimal directions.
ILR Level 2 - Limited working proficiency
Limited working proficiency is the second level in the scale. This level is sometimes referred to as S-2 or level 2. A person at this level is described as follows:
able to satisfy routine social demands and limited work requirements
can handle with confidence most basic social situations including introductions and casual conversations about current events, work, family, and autobiographical information
can handle limited work requirements, needing help in handling any complications or difficulties; can get the gist of most conversations on non-technical subjects (i.e. topics which require no specialized knowledge), and has a speaking vocabulary sufficient to respond simply with some circumlocutions
has an accent which, though often quite faulty, is intelligible
can usually handle elementary constructions quite accurately but does not have thorough or confident control of the grammar.
ILR Level 3 - Professional working proficiency
Professional working proficiency is the third level in the scale. This level is sometimes referred to as S-3 or Level 3. S-3 is what is usually used to measure how many people in the world know a given language. A person at this level is described as follows:
able to speak the language with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most conversations on practical, social, and professional topics
can discuss particular interests and special fields of competence with reasonable ease
has comprehension which is quite complete for a normal rate of speech
has a general vocabulary which is broad enough that he or she rarely has to grope for a word
has an accent which may be obviously foreign; has a good control of grammar; and whose errors virtually never interfere with understanding and rarely disturb the native speaker.
ILR Level 4 - Full professional proficiency
Full professional proficiency is the fourth level in the scale. This level is sometimes referred to as S-4 or level 4. A person at this level is described as follows:
able to use the language fluently and accurately on all levels normally pertinent to professional needs
can understand and participate in any conversations within the range of own personal and professional experience with a high degree of fluency and precision of vocabulary
would rarely be taken for a native speaker, but can respond appropriately even in unfamiliar situations
makes only quite rare and unpatterned errors of pronunciation and grammar
can handle informal interpreting from and into the language.
ILR Level 5 - Native or bilingual proficiency
Native or bilingual proficiency is the fifth level in the scale. This level is sometimes referred to as S-5 or level 5. A person at this level is described as follows:
has a speaking proficiency equivalent to that of an educated native speaker
has complete fluency in the language, such that speech on all levels is fully accepted by educated native speakers in all of its features, including breadth of vocabulary and idiom, colloquialisms, and pertinent cultural references. ▲ Collapse
| | | | JKalina
Local time: 15:59
English to Macedonian
+ ...
| Questionnaire | Aug 6, 2012 |
I have to admit, I'm growing rather fond of Janet's idea for a questionnaire, if only as a first-level filter, and not a final solution.
It seems simple enough to implement and a questionnaire might reveal users/members who might not be deceptive per se, but honestly believe they deserve the 'native speaker' badge for various reasons. It would also make things a tad bit more complicated for outright liars: it's slightly harder to concoct a whole credible history (with legitimate sch... See more I have to admit, I'm growing rather fond of Janet's idea for a questionnaire, if only as a first-level filter, and not a final solution.
It seems simple enough to implement and a questionnaire might reveal users/members who might not be deceptive per se, but honestly believe they deserve the 'native speaker' badge for various reasons. It would also make things a tad bit more complicated for outright liars: it's slightly harder to concoct a whole credible history (with legitimate school names, dates, etc.) than simply clicking on a language option from a list.
Something of the sort might have been suggested in the previous thread, but it might prove useful to expand the native language field on the profile and allow for second or third languages (as opposed to both native and foreign) to accomodate for cases like Jennifer's and Lisa's. Whereas English is obviously a foreign language to me, Portuguese for you two, if not native, is at least a second language. It might be that some of the false 'native language' claims are made out of a sheer lack of an appropriate category for certain speakers.
As for step two... I still haven't come up with anything useful
Kalina ▲ Collapse
| | | | | 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 | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
