| Pages in topic: < [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? Thread poster: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
Balasubramaniam L. 
India
Local time: 18:57
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Two comments | Sep 17, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
These are separate issues. A pragmatic definition of native language that suits our purposes (identifying native speakers), for example one that defines it as proficiency in a language that is indistinguishable from that of a monolingual speaker of the language, signifies just that, neither more nor less. Conflating the two issues of native language and translation quality introduces needless complications.
1.
"our purposes" is identifying native-level proficiency, not necessarily "native speakers". I think this is a crucial point. The latter serves no useful purpose, while the former is of significant importance to translation.
2.
The needless complication arises when we take nativeness to imply native-level proficiency.
It will be useful to keep in mind that not all natives of a language develop native-level proficiency in their language. This proficiency is the result of several factors like individual level of intelligence, proclivity to learning languages, level of education, level of immersion into the language, etc. And many natives of a language fail to achieve this level of proficiency in their language. Whereas, it is within the realm of possibility that a non-native speaker of that language, because, may be, of higher IQ, better education, better immersion into the language, better opportunity, etc. acquires native-level proficiency in that language.
That is why I had added "educated monolingual speaker" to your definition. So that it does not get construed that by just being a native of a language you become expert in that language.
And this is the main reason why the identity or "origin" based definition of native language is inadequate for our purpose.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 18:57
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER
Phil Hand wrote:
The definition of "quality" is always dependent on nativeness; turning that around appears to get my goat.
I am in complete agreement with this statement.
One can talk about a standard of nativeness, as represented by the way "educated speakers of that language" use that language.
And may be, one can measure how close one has approached that standard.
That makes perfect sense. But not making it into a sort of identity issue, of "not allowing those who are not similar to you sitting in the same club" which in my dictionary is just racism.
| | | | | native speaker - only from childhood on | Sep 17, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Whereas, it is within the realm of possibility that a non-native speaker of that language, because, may be, of higher IQ, better education, better immersion into the language, better opportunity, etc. acquires native-level proficiency in that language.
That is why I had added "educated monolingual speaker" to your definition. So that it does not get construed that by just being a native of a language you become expert in that language.
And this is the main reason why the identity or "origin" based definition of native language is inadequate for our purpose.
You obviously don't agree that you can only become a native speaker when you learn the language as a child and go through a unique process that no adult can replicate.
Although you (= any non-native who claims to be native) think you can "write" as well (grammatically correct, more or less) as a native speaker (especially better than those you decided to give labels above), you will never become a native speaker with all the intrinsic idiomatic advantages they possess which allow them to identify non-natives, no matter how good or bad they are in that particular language and which allow them to become sought after as translators into that language.
Granted, you must have a certain level of education to be able to show your native level command of the language in writing, but that's a given here.
When we talk about checking for native command of a language, peers can look through a writing sample or talk to the applicant in person and they will be able to see if the speaker is indeed a native speaker, not by focusing on how well he/she writes (a certain level is necessarily implied), but how typically for a native they write or speak.
That's what it means to check for "native language".
No matter how bad or good a non-native's writing is in a particular language, he/she will never be a "native speaker" and should not claim it.
B
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 18:57
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Could you clarify a bit more? | Sep 17, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
As I noted before, if you are determining native language by verifying nativeness, then you are implicitly defining native language as nativeness. As I have understood your posts, you insist that the definition of native language is a matter of when it was learned. If age of learning and nativeness were inextricably linked, this would present no problem. However if age of learning and nativeness are not inextricably linked, but instead the link is a matter of probability (albeit a very high probability), we face just the type of problem of definition that we are struggling with.
You seem well up on linguistics. So I would like to ask you, for my own education, if you could clarify the latter part of the above quote.
Specifically, what does the literature say on the link between age of learning and nativeness.
In the above quote you have qualified it with an IF.
I would be interested to know what the "professors" view is on this. Are the experts unanimous in that native-level proficiency is "inextricably" linked with age of learning, at least the "written proficiency" part of it. I can understand speech is a different kettle of fish altogether as it has to do with the body's capabilities which can be best at a certain age. Such as, it is impossible to begin at 40 and become a great athlete. You could do it if you begin at 4 though.
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 18:57
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | You will need to test only that particular language | Sep 17, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
For once, I could actually accept something Mr B says. His definition of native language - the language in which you are most proficient - I could accept that. Because, like I said, it's a contingent fact about humans that we are most proficient in the language(s) we learned as children. It's not usable as a working definition, because to test someone's native language, you'd have to test all their languages, and see which one they did best in - major hassle! But I don't disagree with it.
You would actually need to test the proficiency in only the claimed language, not all the languages learned by that person in childhood.
But I agree that doing even that would be beyond the capabilities of a site like proz.com.
| | | | | on native speaker jobs and native language | Sep 17, 2012 |
It is a well established fact that in this business native-speaker translators are very often (but not always and not necessarily for all language directions) preferred to carry out translations into their native language.
I see it especially in my language direction. But it is not an exclusive thing.
I have carried out translations into English, but I work with English native speakers because I am indeed well aware that I am not a native speaker. The important thing is I do n... See more It is a well established fact that in this business native-speaker translators are very often (but not always and not necessarily for all language directions) preferred to carry out translations into their native language.
I see it especially in my language direction. But it is not an exclusive thing.
I have carried out translations into English, but I work with English native speakers because I am indeed well aware that I am not a native speaker. The important thing is I do not offer work I carry out as that of a native English speaker.
Some contributors here argue that non-natives can, within a few years I presume, not as children but as adults, gain command of that non-native language, indistinguishable from natives, and we're clearly not talking about any native speakers here but professional translators.
I say there is no way.
There are many reasons clients use the services of a translator, and we have pointed out many times that "native language" is one of many factors, but when someone claims a native language, the client already assumes they are translators. That's a very important point.
Falsely claiming a language doing it under the illusion/delusion that one is indeed a "native speaker" says plenty about the person's lack of knowledge of the concept of (acquiring a) native language
What gets me here is that these claimants usually do have a native language (because everyone usually does) and they should know the difference between native and non-native language very well.
If they do, why are they claiming a non-native language of theirs as native language? You figure it out.
If they don't, I'm not sure if they can be helped/educated.
True native speakers will be able to tell them that they are not native speakers.
But as I always say, I will not accept a definition of native speaker that doesn't include
acquisition of the language during childhood and continued and current use.
There may be other definitions of native language and native speaker. But I dare say the majority of translators and clients alike will support my definition's main points.
B ▲ Collapse
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 18:57
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | A bit of quibbling | Sep 17, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
-- a person doesn't learn a language from his ancestors...
But we do learn language from our ancestors. Why else would Premchand, Nirala, Dr. Ramvilas Sharma or Nagarjun (the ancestors) be relevant to a Hindi writer or translator who wants to perfect his craft?
Or, to put it in terms that you would relate better - Shakespeare, Dickens, Winston Churchill, P G Wodehouse, Bertrand Russel, etc., (a few English ancestors) are very much relevant to those who want to perfect their English and attain native-level proficiency of English.
So in that sense we do learn from our ancestors. In fact, language is crucial for human progress for the very reason that our ancestors can leave behind for us their wisdom and linguistic expertise that they have acquired, in the form of their writing and challenge us to better them.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 18:57
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Some fallacies in your arguments | Sep 17, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Whereas, it is within the realm of possibility that a non-native speaker of that language, because, may be, of higher IQ, better education, better immersion into the language, better opportunity, etc. acquires native-level proficiency in that language.
That is why I had added "educated monolingual speaker" to your definition. So that it does not get construed that by just being a native of a language you become expert in that language.
And this is the main reason why the identity or "origin" based definition of native language is inadequate for our purpose. You obviously don't agree that you can only become a native speaker when you learn the language as a child and go through a unique process that no adult can replicate. Although you (= any non-native who claims to be native) think you can "write" as well (grammatically correct, more or less) as a native speaker (especially better than those you decided to give labels above), you will never become a native speaker with all the intrinsic idiomatic advantages they possess which allow them to identify non-natives, no matter how good or bad they are in that particular language and which allow them to become sought after as translators into that language. Granted, you must have a certain level of education to be able to show your native level command of the language in writing, but that's a given here. When we talk about checking for native command of a language, peers can look through a writing sample or talk to the applicant in person and they will be able to see if the speaker is indeed a native speaker, not by focusing on how well he/she writes (a certain level is necessarily implied), but how typically for a native they write or speak. That's what it means to check for "native language". No matter how bad or good a non-native's writing is in a particular language, he/she will never be a "native speaker" and should not claim it.
There are some serious fallcies in your arguments above which considerably weaken your case.
You obviously don't agree that you can only become a native speaker when you learn the language as a child and go through a unique process that no adult can replicate.
That seems to be general perception – that you pick up native-level proficiency at a young age. But most literature say this in the context of monolingual speakers. We are talking of translators here who of necessity have to stride two languages. And the laboratory conclusions may not be too applicable to them. This very thread has thrown up several case studies of people who seem to contradict this general perception.
When we talk about checking for native command of a language, peers can look through a writing sample or talk to the applicant in person and they will be able to see if the speaker is indeed a native speaker, not by focusing on how well he/she writes (a certain level is necessarily implied), but how typically for a native they write or speak.
It is not as simple as that.
You are clearly confusing “the standard of native language proficiency” with “the ability of an isolated individual native speaker of the language” – the “peers” to use your terminology.
Now who is to verify to what extent the said “peer” has internalized the “standard of native language proficiency”? In other words, to what extent is the “peer” qualified or even capable of, making this judgement?
Your statement implies that every native speaker has equivalent (and a high level of) competence in his native language. Do you see that this can be far from the truth?
Let me explain what I mean by “The standard of native language proficiency” so that you do not misunderstand my meaning. I will use English to illustrate as that is the only common language between the two of us, but you can easily extrapolate it to German.
In the case of English, the standard of native-level proficiency would be what people like Shakespeare, Dickens, Kipling, P G Wodehouse, Bertrand Russel, Bacon, etc. (you get the drift?) have achieved with the language.
It is an ideal, which no one individual can actually achieve, but how close to it you come is what can be of importance to anyone.
For German, may be you would include the achievements of writers and thinkers like Karl Marx (the only German writer I can think of, but you can add more...) and use their level of achievements in the language to judge how much of a native-level proficiency you have achieved.
The “peers” whom you so confidently state will testify the nativeness of others, won't even approach these standards of native-level proficiency, and they cannot, for the simple reason, it is beyond the capacity of any individual to surpass the collective excellence of so many great masters of the language.
Do you realize now, how futile this business of “peers” judging other’s language ability is? First of all, you will have to prove that the “peers” are qualified to do this. Which is why I emphasized...
So that it does not get construed that by just being a native of a language you become expert in that language.
Secondly, the standard of native-level proficiency in any language is truly unachievable for anybody, including the natives themselves. It is an ideal concept to which you aspire but can never achieve.
No matter how bad or good a non-native's writing is in a particular language, he/she will never be a "native speaker" and should not claim it.
Delink job access and translator selection from native language and you will instantly achieve your above stated objective.
Don’t assume that people who claim to be native language of a particular language want to barge into your exclusive “native only” club because they in some way covet that status (as Robin argues – out of jealousy he had put it) but they do it due to simple business reasons. As they say it in Hindi, “bhai, yah to pet ka sawal hai” (to parapharase, “brother, it is a matter of livelihood”).
[2012-09-17 06:24 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | |
|
|
|
| how much of a native speaker am I? | Sep 17, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
In the case of English, the standard of native-level proficiency would be what people like Shakespeare, Dickens, Kipling, P G Wodehouse, Bertrand Russel, Bacon, etc. (you get the drift?) have achieved with the language.
It is an ideal, which no one individual can actually achieve, but how close to it you come is what can be of importance to anyone.
For German, may be you would include the achievements of writers and thinkers like Karl Marx (the only German writer I can think of, but you can add more...) and use their level of achievements in the language to judge how much of a native-level proficiency you have achieved.
An ideal. Seriously? Okay, since you asked. I am indeed a native speaker of German, the level is called "native speaker." Never mind Karl Marx' writings.
I "acquired" my native language naturally, from early childhood on, and was educated in it.
B
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 18:57
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | That is not the question | Sep 17, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
In the case of English, the standard of native-level proficiency would be what people like Shakespeare, Dickens, Kipling, P G Wodehouse, Bertrand Russel, Bacon, etc. (you get the drift?) have achieved with the language.
It is an ideal, which no one individual can actually achieve, but how close to it you come is what can be of importance to anyone.
For German, may be you would include the achievements of writers and thinkers like Karl Marx (the only German writer I can think of, but you can add more...) and use their level of achievements in the language to judge how much of a native-level proficiency you have achieved.
An ideal. Seriously? Okay, since you asked. I am indeed a native speaker of German, the level is called "native speaker." Never mind Karl Marx' writings. I "acquired" my native language naturally, from early childhood on, and was educated in it. B
The question is not whether you are a native speaker of German or not. The question is, to what extend you approach the standard of native-level proficiency in German that masters of the German language like Karl Marx have achieved before you.
Are you claiming that just because you happen to be a German native, you have achieved that standard in German?
| | | | | breaking the sound barrier | Sep 17, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Secondly, the standard of native-level proficiency in any language is truly unachievable for anybody, including the natives themselves. It is an ideal concept to which you aspire but can never achieve.
[Bearbeitet am 2012-09-17 06:49 GMT]
| | | | | there are about 100 million native German speakers | Sep 17, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
The question is not whether you are a native speaker of German or not. The question is, to what extend you approach the standard of native-level proficiency in German that masters of the German language like Karl Marx have achieved before you.
Well if that's your question, that's fine. But it's not mine.
My question would indeed be: is someone a native speaker of German or not?
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Are you claiming that just because you happen to be a German native, you have achieved that standard in German?
I speak and write German the way 100 million people do.
I tried to point out that we are talking about translators who are educated individuals.
Native German speaking translators can recognize other native speakers of German and non-natives. Not because they all write like Marx or other well-known individuals, but because they all grew up with German as their native language.
B
[Bearbeitet am 2012-09-17 07:01 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 14:27
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Anyone prepared to have a bet? | Sep 17, 2012 |
Will site staff, nay the site founder, give this issue attention and respond to our multiple support requests before we reach 200k views?
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 14:27
Hebrew to English
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
It will be useful to keep in mind that not all natives of a language develop native-level proficiency in their language. This proficiency is the result of several factors like individual level of intelligence, proclivity to learning languages, level of education, level of immersion into the language, etc. And many natives of a language fail to achieve this level of proficiency in their language. Whereas, it is within the realm of possibility that a non-native speaker of that language, because, may be, of higher IQ, better education, better immersion into the language, better opportunity, etc. acquires native-level proficiency in that language.
Incorrect.
Unless the native in question has a neurological impediment, resulting in a language disorder...then all natives indeed do develop native proficiency. Regardless of whether they are the next Einstein or dumb as a box of bricks. Level of education will only help them manipulate language by training and give them better access and knowledge of the written standard, but they both have access to the same building blocks of the same linguistic system.
Extremely proficient non-natives can and do very well with replicating the written standard/educated bit. They fare less well in replicating the latter as they are equipped with a whole other set of building blocks.
And, as I illustrated earlier - SLA studies have shown that no amount of education, no amount of study can necessarily overcome that all too easily in the vast majority of cases.
The grossly over-simplified argument that an educated non-native has learnt a language better than the native acquired it is simply, more often than not, deeply flawed.
| | | | | I'll have a punt | Sep 17, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Will site staff, nay the site founder, give this issue attention and respond to our multiple support requests before we reach 200k views?
I hear you, Lisa. I'm prepared to bet 50p on their replying by the 200,000th view. I might even win another ten bob. Mind you, I expect they're still asleep over the pond at the moment.
Love, Jenny
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [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? | 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 » |
| | 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 
