| Număr de pagini: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | Should “native language” claims be verified? Inițiatorul discuției: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
| Is native langauge critical for clients? | Sep 13, 2012 |
I just thought I'd contribute the stats for Dutch to English: roughly speaking, I'd say about 99% of the jobs posted for NL-EN include the native speaker criterion in the restrictions and/or in the body of the post. And why wouldn't they? Why go to a lot of effort to find a competent Dutch native speaker for translating into English as long as there are plenty of competent English native speakers available? If expertise is important the client can simply drop or qualify the native criterion. Of ... See more I just thought I'd contribute the stats for Dutch to English: roughly speaking, I'd say about 99% of the jobs posted for NL-EN include the native speaker criterion in the restrictions and/or in the body of the post. And why wouldn't they? Why go to a lot of effort to find a competent Dutch native speaker for translating into English as long as there are plenty of competent English native speakers available? If expertise is important the client can simply drop or qualify the native criterion. Of course this is unfair to the group who really are qualified to do the job but can't because they don't claim to be native speakers, but this is surely a large minority? Is my pair highly unusual in this respect?*
Olly
*I haven't been following this thread all that closely so apologies if I'm repeating what's already been said. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | An issue, certainly | Sep 13, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote: Yup, that's true, and it also runs counter to Phil's ground rule about proz not dealing with matters of quality, just matters of fact, although I like to think the point that it is that attitude that got us into this mess and sometimes you have to re-assess your ground rules may have pushed that idea aside, at least for a while. Harrumph. I'm still dubious (would you trust Proz/your peers to assess your quality?), but I'll try anything once. Thing is, you have to give me some ideas about what this quality-assessment regime might look like before I can work out whether I think it might be a good idea.
My lack of trust in my proz peers is precisely one of the key reasons I haven't applied to join the red "P" scheme (which otherwise I think is a great idea, given the state of this place). Around the time it was introduced (if memory serves) there was a flurry of kudoz questions about IT with the level of ignorance on display and consensus about its correctness (we've all got computers, after all, so we can all do IT texts) that defied belief, and I thought to myself I could submit a brilliant translation for this scheme and these people would say it was wrong...
Moving on. I haven't yet personally given thought to procedures. As I said many moons ago, there's no point (in my mind) suggesting detailed solutions when we are not yet agreed on what the problem is, or the end-point we would like to reach.
For instance, the original problem was outlined as "people are misrepresenting their native language".
I think now that the problem actually is "some people are using the native language field to indicate languages they are proficient in (rather than native language per se) and, furthermore, some of them are far from proficient in those languages".
The options to solve that (reach a different end point) are many and varied. You could seek to enforce "native" not "proficient", for example. I'm more inclined to go with the flow and endorse "proficiency" as the field's function (while still lobbying for proz to enforce its own rules against misrepresntation on that basis). I would point out that verifying proficiency does not presuppose peer involvement, although it is obviously one of the options (and probably one of the cheaper options at that).
But until there is broad agreement on a) the problem and b) the end point to be reached, I see no point discussing details of routes to get there. (Which is, in truth, one of the problems with this thread - solutions proposed from all sides and then discussed and criticised without a firm foundation of the actual problem they are solving.)
| | | | XXXphxxx (X) 
Regatul Unit
Local time: 21:32
din portugheză în engleză
+ ...
INIŢIATORUL SUBIECTULUI | Another analogy | Sep 13, 2012 |
We’ve had cats and chickens, but to expand on Ty’s “cultural understanding”: if I request a woman doctor and get a cross-dressing male doctor, some may argue that’s fine, he has the same level of medical competence. I agree. Some would argue that the differences are too subtle to be worth arguing about. I disagree. I asked for a woman doctor because I expected that I would get a level of understanding that I personally don’t feel I would get from a male doctor. It’s my prerogative.... See more We’ve had cats and chickens, but to expand on Ty’s “cultural understanding”: if I request a woman doctor and get a cross-dressing male doctor, some may argue that’s fine, he has the same level of medical competence. I agree. Some would argue that the differences are too subtle to be worth arguing about. I disagree. I asked for a woman doctor because I expected that I would get a level of understanding that I personally don’t feel I would get from a male doctor. It’s my prerogative. It’s not just the vehicle that’s different, the end product is too. Let the client decide and let's stop patronising them with talk about educating them. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Analogies and the actual need | Sep 13, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
I asked for a woman doctor because I expected that I would get a level of understanding that I personally don’t feel I would get from a male doctor. It’s my prerogative.
Your need, then, is for female levels of proficiency in the art of understanding. Which is likely to be found in a female, but not guaranteed. And could in fact be found in a male.
(The analogy does start to break down, as they all do eventually, because there are of course other reasons why you are entitled to that prerogative in that situation.)
Let the client decide and let's stop patronising them with talk about educating them.
I agree that talk of educating clients in this thread is laughable.
It does nonetheless seem a shame to deny clients the benefit of, say, JHL's services into English, or anyone else of his ability but honest enough to deny being native, when he is perfectly able to meet the underlying need being expressed in the description "native".
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 04:32
din chineză în engleză
| You've been brainwashed | Sep 13, 2012 |
I think now that the problem actually is "some people are using the native language field to indicate languages they are proficient in (rather than native language per se)
Balls. You've been brainwashed by Mr B. People put down native whatever because they want to bid on certain jobs. They may also persuade themselves that they're "proficient", but it's the economic imperative that comes first. Says me.
It's not a case of having a different interpretation of what native means. It's knowing perfectly well what native means, and not giving a monkeys because this is the internet and there are no consequences.
Thus, if you replaced the one field with two - proficient and native - you would not get increased compliance. So long as outsourcers ask for native, people will lie about native. I'm so confident that I will go so far as to say that I *know* this to be the case, because the experiment has been done! We are already asked to enter our working pairs, and even if you don't believe that a translator should be proficient in any working language they put down, they must be proficient in any target language they put down. The statement "I translate into Spanish" necessarily implies "I write competently in Spanish".
But until there is broad agreement on a) the problem and b) the end point to be reached, I see no point discussing details of routes to get there.
Nah, discussion of routes to get there is one of the processes through which ideas emerge and kinks are ironed out. So, at this moment in time, I cannot imagine a situation in which I'd trust Proz or my peers to evaluate my quality. If we talk about it a bit, the cogs might start turning and who knows, some ideas might get squeezed out.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Ţările de Jos
Local time: 22:32
Membru (2006)
din engleză în afrikaans
+ ...
| @Lisa, re another analogy | Sep 13, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
If I [am a woman and I] request a woman doctor, and get a cross-dressing male doctor, some may argue that’s fine, he has the same level of medical competence. I agree. Some would argue that the differences are too subtle to be worth arguing about. I disagree.
If I was homosexual and I requested a gay doctor, and got a lesbian doctor instead, some may argue that it's fine, since both males and females can be homosexual. Others might argue that it's not fine, because if I had wanted a lesbian doctor I would have said "lesbian", and if gender didn't matter I would have said "homosexual".
Now if I requested a gay doctor and I got a bisexual doctor instead, some may argue that it's fine, because they define "gay" as "sexually attracted to the same gender". Others may argue that it's not fine, because they define "gay" as "not sexually attracted to the opposite gender". And if the latter group finally got their wish, I might end up with a frigid doctor (who is, after all, not sexually attracted to the opposite gender).
So, I agree with you Lisa, but I have to repeat: d-e-f-i-n-i-t-i-o-n.
Samuel
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
Regatul Unit
Local time: 21:32
din portugheză în engleză
+ ...
INIŢIATORUL SUBIECTULUI | That's not what is showing now | Sep 13, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
It does nonetheless seem a shame to deny clients the benefit of, say, JHL's services into English, or anyone else of his ability but honest enough to deny being native, when he is perfectly able to meet the underlying need being expressed in the description "native".
JHL has indeed been honest about it on this thread, but it's not what his profile is saying and until some form of verification process has been implemented and profiles then state: "This person has been verified to be a native speaker" (or even "...to have native-level proficiency", if we decide to go there), then that statement and that of hundreds of others on this site currently constitute misrepresentation, because that icon and filter is understood by outsourcers to mean "native speaker". This "interpretation" that "native speaker" = "native proficiency" by users of this site is what has led to this current free-for-all. JHL (forgive us continuing to use you as an example) and many others may very well be able to meet the need, but there isn't a shortage of equally (am I allowed to say "perhaps more"?) competent native speakers in that language pair, nor is there in the Dutch > English pair in which there is apparently a huge amount of abuse. We're not talking Urdu > Latvian, or even Chinese > English. I don't see clients being "denied" anything.
| | | | | Balls to you too, sir. | Sep 13, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote: I think now that the problem actually is "some people are using the native language field to indicate languages they are proficient in (rather than native language per se) Balls. You've been brainwashed by Mr B.
Here's a confession. I don't read his posts. I even tend to glaze over the bits people quote.
People put down native whatever because they want to bid on certain jobs. They may also persuade themselves that they're "proficient", but it's the economic imperative that comes first. Says me.
Agreed. They're using the field for purposes other than what the label itself indicates, because of an inference of what the field is used for and how they can work it to their advantage. That is the issue to be addressed. Says me.
It's not a case of having a different interpretation of what native means. It's knowing perfectly well what native means, and not giving a monkeys because this is the internet and there are no consequences.
Indeed. They probably know what native actually means. Then they look at the use the site makes of the field labelled "native", and act accordingly.
Thus, if you replaced the one field with two - proficient and native - you would not get increased compliance. .....
Also true. But if you had 2 fields, you would or could hypothetically have two different sorts of verification (e.g. the kind of documentation-based verification we have seen proposed for nativeness, plus a test for proficiency, be they universal or just for the exceptions). But yes, people would still misrepresent proficiency, as they do now via the native field.
But until there is broad agreement on a) the problem and b) the end point to be reached, I see no point discussing details of routes to get there. Nah, discussion of routes to get there is one of the processes through which ideas emerge and kinks are ironed out.
Get where, though; that is my point.
I think I can see why you said earlier (or maybe on another thread) that you said you hate driving, if you think deciding on the route is the best way to decide the destination.
Edit to sort out nested quotes and to suggest we could probably trade vulgarities all day but I'm sure what purpose it would serve.
[Edited at 2012-09-13 12:51 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Well, in many countries, you cannot really request a woman doctor or | Sep 13, 2012 |
a male plumber, unless you had specific reasons -- like getting a female obstetrician perhaps. It might be better illustrated with a lawyer's example, because you don't have to get undressed in front of them. You can only really ask for a qualified lawyer, if they are provided to you by some organization, free of charge especially. Of course when hiring people yourself, you can take sex or other criteria into consideration, but theoretically this is considered discrimination, and there are even... See more a male plumber, unless you had specific reasons -- like getting a female obstetrician perhaps. It might be better illustrated with a lawyer's example, because you don't have to get undressed in front of them. You can only really ask for a qualified lawyer, if they are provided to you by some organization, free of charge especially. Of course when hiring people yourself, you can take sex or other criteria into consideration, but theoretically this is considered discrimination, and there are even laws against it, if an employer were using such criteria.
As to the Dutch-English pair -- it might be different than with other languages, Dutch is at least a language from the same family as English -- a Germanic language, or it may not. You may only think that there are enough qualified translators who can accurately translate from Dutch into English. There aren't definitely that many in many other language pairs. I agree, very few people can translate with ease into more rare languages than English, especially if they don't use that language in everyday life. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 04:32
din chineză în engleză
Here's a confession. I don't read his posts. I even tend to glaze over the bits people quote.
That's how they get you. It's subliminal.
@Samuel:
There comes a point in every man's life when he's talking about lesbian doctors and nurses on the internet, and then suddenly realises - oh, feck, wrong website! That moment has surely come for you.
The vulgarity is born of my frustration that those of us on the side of quality and right thinking have talked ourselves into accepting the mindset of the zombies.
Native is native. Misrepresentation is misrepresentation. The objective is to reduce misrepresentation.
(That's the answer to "Get where, though; that is my point.")
Now if the hug-a-hoodie approach where we proceed on the assumption that everyone has the best of intentions works, then I'm all for it. But that wouldn't mean that it's true, about people's intentions.
And I can't see any reason to believe that it would work.
So why not be honest about the intentions?
This is economic behaviour, and it one effective way of dealing with it would be to use economic methods, by altering the balance of costs and benefits.
Another (my favoured idea as of now) is to use psychological "tricks" backed up by rather more inflexible site rules.
Right, I've started writing in the style of the Daily Mail, which is freaking me out, so I'm stopping.
Petition time!
| | | | | Sanctioning what happens anyway | Sep 13, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
....This "interpretation" that "native speaker" = "native proficiency" by users of this site is what has led to this current free-for-all.
Indeed. In a way, my suggestions are a way of sanctioning and attempting to control what is happening, and what will likely continue to happen, anyway. Frankly, one (opponents, say) might term it giving up or pandering to a minority; I prefer to view it as acceptance of a sub-optimal situation and sanctioning a more overt use of the what is, after all, the underlying purpose of the field anyway.
You and I would remain entirely unaffected. JHL could claim "N" for English with a clear conscience. That Italian profile you showed me weeks ago would still fail verification for Eng. Others who have tied themselves in knots in this thread trying to demonstrate their entitlement to an "N" would just fail 'cos their English ain't up to it - and since proficiency in English is what called into question the "N" for English in the first place under the existing yardstick..... I need not go on.
JHL (forgive us continuing to use you as an example) and many others may very well be able to meet the need, but there isn't a shortage of equally (am I allowed to say "perhaps more"?) competent native speakers in that language pair, nor is there in the Dutch > English pair in which there is apparently a huge amount of abuse. We're not talking Urdu > Latvian, or even Chinese > English. I don't see clients being "denied" anything.
Hmm, this looks a bit like "there's loads of us anyway, we don't need any more, no matter good they are" and I certainly thought that turf protection was NOT the reason we were pursuing this. It's certainly not why I've been involved. I am a little surprised.
| | | | | The "perché mi piace" thing | Sep 13, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
JHL has indeed been honest about it on this thread, but it's not what his profile is saying and until some form of verification process has been implemented and profiles then state: "This person has been verified to be a native speaker" (or even "...to have native-level proficiency", if we decide to go there), then that statement and that of hundreds of others on this site currently constitute misrepresentation, because that icon and filter is understood by outsourcers to mean "native speaker". This "interpretation" that "native speaker" = "native proficiency" by users of this site is what has led to this current free-for-all. JHL (forgive us continuing to use you as an example) and many others may very well be able to meet the need, but there isn't a shortage of equally (am I allowed to say "perhaps more"?) competent native speakers in that language pair, nor is there in the Dutch > English pair in which there is apparently a huge amount of abuse. We're not talking Urdu > Latvian, or even Chinese > English. I don't see clients being "denied" anything.
Today's harvest of this issue is here:
http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_job_systems/213437-french_native_speaker_not_accepted_for_translation_english_french.html
Again, the "perché mi piace" thing. Sorry, Charlie, no boobs joke today.
Just as there is abuse on the translators' side by misrepresenting their "native speaker" qualification, there is abuse on the outsourcers' side in demanding such attribute. Tit for tat (as I said above, this ain't a boobs joke).
My point is that as long as proficiency in translation can be adequately ascertained, "native speakerness" is completely irrelevant. It's just a label.
As I'm being used for an example, I claim my right to use anything else for the same purpose. Suppose you walk into a store, and decide to by some Nestlé chocolate. As you read the label, you discover it's not Swiss... but Brazilian! (rest assured, it's excellent) Would you drop it immediately?
In the early 1990s, on a trip to Florida, I rented a brand new Pontiac LeMans, that looked exactly like the Opel Kadett. General Motors couldn't be bad. However this car was. A sticker somewhere read "manufactured by Yoo No Hoo - or whatever - in Korea". Bottom line was that only one from three things, viz. a) engine power, b) brakes; and c) air conditioning would be functional at a time. (When I returned it, the rental agency attendant made a remark to the tune of "Ah, you were one of the rare lucky customers who managed not only to drive one of these lemons out of the lot, but also to return it without a tow truck!")
In the mid-to-late 1990s, I owned a Korean-made Daewoo Espero. All its mechanics had been developed by General Motors. All parts for the Opel Ascona/Chevy Monza were exactly the same, though the design was some Bertoni's leftover from the Citroën Xantia. It was absolutely superb from any standpoint. So it's not any kind of incompatibility between GM/Opel and Korea, just a label issue.
The point is that labels can often be misleading. And if after all these messages we haven't be able to draw a universally acceptable definition of native speaker for translation purposes, it remains just a label.
I have a measuring tape from Stanley. On one side of the case it says "Made in the USA". On the other it says "Indústria Brasleira" (our standard way to say "Made in Brazil"). It stands to reason that only one of these statements can be true. Who cares? Maybe the tax authorities; I don't. So I wouldn't care what's the native language of a translator who is thoroughly competent in the languages and specialty area I need.
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
Regatul Unit
Local time: 21:32
din ebraică în engleză
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
My point is that as long as proficiency in translation can be adequately ascertained, "native speakerness" is completely irrelevant. It's just a label.
Even when competency is assured, I'm not sure the translator's native language is ever completely irrelevant. It's impossible to get away from the fact we work with language, therefore native language will always be there, whether as a barely-significant speck of dust, a major concern, an afterthought, etc. My point is I think it always has some significance, even if it's minimal significance.
Also, let's not tar all outsourcers with the same brush just because one or two are being sloppy with filling out fields properly...as is the case I read today of an English-Russian translation requiring a German native speaker. Now, the person responsible for that was either very tired, very distracted or very misinformed....but we can't use that as an example that all outsourcers are misinformed about the linguistic issues and don't know their own minds.
| | | | Ty Kendall
Regatul Unit
Local time: 21:32
din ebraică în engleză
| Does the misrepresentation run deeper than that? | Sep 13, 2012 |
I just wanted to mention that I think the misrepresentation on here runs a bit deeper than craftily "misinterpreting" the native language criterion. It's not a 'slip' of the finger when filling out your profile, not when you have people anglicizing their names (to give credence to their claim), adding a decade or two to their claimed periods of residence in country x, claiming to be true bilinguals because their maid once sang a nursery rhyme in language x, claiming to have been taught in langua... See more I just wanted to mention that I think the misrepresentation on here runs a bit deeper than craftily "misinterpreting" the native language criterion. It's not a 'slip' of the finger when filling out your profile, not when you have people anglicizing their names (to give credence to their claim), adding a decade or two to their claimed periods of residence in country x, claiming to be true bilinguals because their maid once sang a nursery rhyme in language x, claiming to have been taught in language x as an instructional language etc.
Just a thought. ▲ Collapse
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
Regatul Unit
Local time: 21:32
din portugheză în engleză
+ ...
INIŢIATORUL SUBIECTULUI | Turf protection | Sep 13, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
JHL (forgive us continuing to use you as an example) and many others may very well be able to meet the need, but there isn't a shortage of equally (am I allowed to say "perhaps more"?) competent native speakers in that language pair, nor is there in the Dutch > English pair in which there is apparently a huge amount of abuse. We're not talking Urdu > Latvian, or even Chinese > English. I don't see clients being "denied" anything. Hmm, this looks a bit like "there's loads of us anyway, we don't need any more, no matter good they are" and I certainly thought that turf protection was NOT the reason we were pursuing this. It's certainly not why I've been involved. I am a little surprised.
I was aware as I was typing this that I would be accused of turf protection (not that I frankly see anything wrong with that anyway). My point is that rare language combos are being used all the time by those on the other side of the argument to defend misrepresentation. Now, if an Urdu native speaker came on this forum and said "Look guys, clients are clamouring for Urdu > Latvian translations. I know I'm not a Latvian native speaker but I'm highly proficient, did my engineering degree in Riga and there's nobody else in the directory [I've checked, he/she'd be right]." I don't think anyone would quibble, would they?
[i]Edited to try and fix quotes, not sure I've succeeded. Is there a "preview" option by the way?
[Edited at 2012-09-13 14:01 GMT]
| | | | | Număr de pagini: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Should “native language” claims be verified? | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
