| صفحات الموضوع: < [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? ناشر الموضوع: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
XXXphxxx (X) 
المملكة المتحدة
Local time: 10:39
برتغالي إلى أنجليزي
+ ...
بادئ الموضوع
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote: Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
You two managed to follow the line of argument? That must make me a non-native. Bad news, Lisa. By the strict standards proposed by the inquisition folks here, considering what you wrote about yourself, you are clearly a native speaker of Brazilian Portuguese. Seja bem-vinda de volta, colega! If you (wisely or not) don't translate into PT-BR it any more, it's not their problem. The inquisition is proposed to be merciless.
I think you misunderstood my ironic comment.
However, I am more than happy to undergo verification. Bring it on!
| | | | | Excuse me, am I awake or nightmaring :-) | Sep 28, 2012 |
Jenny Forbes wrote: LilianBoland wrote:
Absolute nativeness is not attainable, at all, in my opinion. A person who was born and has lived in a totally hermetic group -- linguistically and otherwise isolated will probably have a 99.9% native fluency of the language exclusively spoken by that group. Where would they take their source language from, to become translators? How many the people you call "real native" speakers know the target language well enough to translate from it, or do they hope that the MT will do the job for them. Wishful thinking.
What you call a real native speaker, is in my opinion, a monolingual person, who has spent most of his or her life in the country where the language is spoken, most likely in a place without too many influences from the outside in the form of different languages, with quite high level of education in that language, like a Master's Degree in English, or Journalism.
It takes your breath away, doesn't it, n'est-ce pas, verdad, nicht wahr?
Maybe you are describing a Martian native?
| | | | | Verify irony claims instead :-D | Sep 28, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote: José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote: Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
You two managed to follow the line of argument? That must make me a non-native. Bad news, Lisa. By the strict standards proposed by the inquisition folks here, considering what you wrote about yourself, you are clearly a native speaker of Brazilian Portuguese. Seja bem-vinda de volta, colega! If you (wisely or not) don't translate into PT-BR it any more, it's not their problem. The inquisition is proposed to be merciless. I think you misunderstood my ironic comment. However, I am more than happy to undergo verification. Bring it on!
Lisa, MY comment was ironic! (hopefully more than yours)
| | | | Ty Kendall
المملكة المتحدة
Local time: 10:39
عبري إلى أنجليزي
| Won't go donning the war paint just yet | Sep 28, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
While textbook nativeness in a language cannot be achieved, a good enough level of proficiency for the purpose of translation is achievable by non-natives under certain circumstances, and has been achieved by many translators as evidenced by this thread itself.
What this thread has shown is that many people believe they have achieved something, when to the outside observer, it is blatently clear they have overestimated themselves and their abilities.
A translator declaring his language proficiency at native-level implies a clear, very high level of proficiency in the target language, for no one who has average proficiency will qualify for native-level proficiency.
Whereas a translator declaring himself as native in the target language doesn't really say much about his proficiency, for it is well known that all natives do not necessarily acquire high-level proficiency in their language.
So an outsourcer opting for a native translator just on the basis of the "native" label would be taking a very big risk. On the other hand, he would be placing a relatively safe bet by opting for a "native-level" translator.If this logic sinks in, then one could expect a scramble for the "native-level" label
Now I know you don't seriously believe that would ever happen.
What would actually happen is that the non-native hoarde would continue to claim "native" for fear of "native-level" being deemed as sub-standard (i.e. not 'quite' native enough).
| | |
|
|
|
XXXphxxx (X)
المملكة المتحدة
Local time: 10:39
برتغالي إلى أنجليزي
+ ...
بادئ الموضوع | Yes, that's what I thought | Sep 28, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
You two managed to follow the line of argument? That must make me a non-native. .. the underlying idea might be that no translator can possibly have a native tongue that is entirely unsullied by other (source) language influences. That the purest of the pure can only be utterly unexposed to anything else. And therefore be unlikely to make much of translator. Which is an interesting proposal, I suppose. Sod all to do with proficiency verification in that, AFAIAC, we wouldn't be looking for anything outstanding, just the ability to write a coherent and reasonably error-free sentence in a language. Which would probably include Conrad, FWIW, but might not include some other people....
However, this was the bit that really threw me:
"What you call a real native speaker, is in my opinion, a monolingual person, who has spent most of his or her life in the country where the language is spoken, most likely in a place without too many influences from the outside in the form of different languages, with quite high level of education in that language, like a Master's Degree in English, or Journalism."
So what do we call the other 99.99% without that M.A. in English/Journalism? "Unintelligible gibbons"?
| | | | Ty Kendall
المملكة المتحدة
Local time: 10:39
عبري إلى أنجليزي
| Liliana's 180 | Sep 28, 2012 |
What might be making Liliana's post so difficult to understand is the complete 180 she's done since Henry's post.
For far too many pages than I can care to recall, Liliana has argued that she is indeed a native English speaker (under her own definition, not recognised by anyone else though, apart from her sidekick from another continent). She has also extolled the virtues of various "fringe definitions" of native language, the kind of definitions which go something like "the languag... See more What might be making Liliana's post so difficult to understand is the complete 180 she's done since Henry's post.
For far too many pages than I can care to recall, Liliana has argued that she is indeed a native English speaker (under her own definition, not recognised by anyone else though, apart from her sidekick from another continent). She has also extolled the virtues of various "fringe definitions" of native language, the kind of definitions which go something like "the language you identify with" - despite the fact no academic literature, nor mainstream linguist endorses these definitions. In any case, she has never questioned the existence of the concept.
And then Henry arrives.
His posts can only be construed as pro-verification (whether you believe in his sincerity or not) and he clearly believes that "native language" holds an important place in the industry and in the profession.
Lo and behold.....
Liliana no longer believes anything she has been banging on about for the past gazillion pages and the icing on the cake is - she no longer believes in the concept of "nativeness" itself.
Priceless.
[Edited at 2012-09-28 15:19 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Problem solved: there is no such thing | Sep 28, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
Absolute nativeness is not attainable, at all, in my opinion. A person who was born and has lived in a totally hermetic group -- linguistically and otherwise isolated will probably have a 99.9% native fluency of the language exclusively spoken by that group. Where would they take their source language from, to become translators? How many the people you call "real native" speakers know the target language well enough to translate from it, or do they hope that the MT will do the job for them. Wishful thinking.
What you call a real native speaker, is in my opinion, a monolingual person, who has spent most of his or her life in the country where the language is spoken, most likely in a place without too many influences from the outside in the form of different languages, with quite high level of education in that language, like a Master's Degree in English, or Journalism.
| | | |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
So what do we call the other 99.99% without that M.A. in English/Journalism? "Unintelligible gibbons"?
If I were a gibbon, I would be a bit narked at the implication that gibbons are a lower life form than journalists. We all know the opposite is actually the case.
| | |
|
|
|
| Lisa you slightly misunderstood my post | Sep 28, 2012 |
When I said "you" or "your" I did not mean a generic "you", this time, but rather I was referring to the people here who believe that there is some absolute nativeness, almost synonymous with perfect competence, based on the place of birth, mostly. This kind of an absolute native speaker you have been talking about -- the one to be tested, approved, of whom samples should be taken of, before he is chipped, etc., would be someone like I described in my previous post -- a monolingual person, who w... See more When I said "you" or "your" I did not mean a generic "you", this time, but rather I was referring to the people here who believe that there is some absolute nativeness, almost synonymous with perfect competence, based on the place of birth, mostly. This kind of an absolute native speaker you have been talking about -- the one to be tested, approved, of whom samples should be taken of, before he is chipped, etc., would be someone like I described in my previous post -- a monolingual person, who was not exposed to other languages that much, and had a really high level of education in his or her L1.
Maybe you should also invent a way to assure that the translations handed to that perfect native speaker are not done by someone else. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | "Exceptions" and "not ever" don't go well together | Sep 28, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote: One contributor was very keen on quoting Conrad as an example. The fact is these are exceptions and we generally agreed that there was little point dwelling on these since I don't think there are many Conrads or Nabokovs on this site.
Of course Conrad and Nabokov (and Koestler, and several others) are exceptions. That's my point: that you cannot make such a sweeping statement as Bernard did ("not ever"), because there are, in fact, exceptions.
| | | | Bernhard Sulzer
الولايات المتحدة
Local time: 05:39
أنجليزي إلى ألماني
+ ...
| maybe not an exception | Sep 28, 2012 |
Riccardo Schiaffino wrote: Bernhard Sulzer said: "nativeness is a different layer, above anything a non-native can ever achieve" "Ever"? Very rarely, yes. And yet among the masters of the English language, for example, there is a small number of people who achieved that mastery while writing in a language that was not their native one. Joseph Conrad (native speaker of Polish, yet among the acknowledge masters of English literature "one of the great novelists in English, though he did not speak the language fluently until he was in his twenties") for one, or Vladimir Nabokov (native speaker of Russian, writer of several novels in Russian before turning to English prose - and to the translation into English of his own Russian works). So, should Nabokov's Russian novels have been entrusted to someone else for translation? After all, he was not a native speaker of English.
Hi Ricardo,
You say about Nabokov, he was not a native speaker of English. Did or could he have ever become one?
Just to clarify. I didn't say that Vladimir Nabokov wasn't or couldn't have been highly proficient in English. What I would say with regard to him is that he was taught English from a very early age on and read a lot in English; not sure if his English teachers were actually native speakers of English. His parents also spoke English with him. English was his first reading and writing language (at least according to some sources) even though it wasn't necessarily spoken to him by native speakers. And Russian, English and French were spoken in his family.
On the other hand, his early exposure to the written English word might have had a lot to do with his later proficiency.
Be it as it may, he certainly wasn't growing up in an environment where English was spoken by everyone or by many native speakers of English but he did have a lot of exposure to it very early on, especially through his reading. I believe that this fact combined with his talent for using "language(s) helped him attain a unique kind of proficiency in English that could be called extraordinary - as long as all that we read in his works was really written by him, without any editing by native speakers of English. Did he however attain "nativeness" in English? Would he have said that English was his native language? Is his English typical for a native English speaker?
So, even though Nabokov is indeed a very unique case and atypical with regard to his language acquisition and proficiency, he might not be an exception when it comes to "native language" acquisition. i.e. the same rules applied to him as well.
And that's what I was referring to.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-29 03:09 GMT]
| | | | | Very sorry, Ty, I don't want to disenchant you. | Sep 28, 2012 |
I absolutely believe in everything I have been saying from the beginning of this thread; I don't really know what you have been reading into someone's words. I have no idea what your imagination can lead you to. I don't really like the term native language, the same way as many other linguists and people related to linguistics don't like it in reference to work and studies, especially, because it is a very vague term in multilingual societies, and may create discrimination issues. I would rather... See more I absolutely believe in everything I have been saying from the beginning of this thread; I don't really know what you have been reading into someone's words. I have no idea what your imagination can lead you to. I don't really like the term native language, the same way as many other linguists and people related to linguistics don't like it in reference to work and studies, especially, because it is a very vague term in multilingual societies, and may create discrimination issues. I would rather say Polish (and some other languages learned from birth) should be considered my L1 and English my primary language, or if you insist on using the term native language -- my native language based on the definition of a language almost exclusively used through most of someone's life, the language the person is most comfortable with; has the highest level of education in and uses in everyday life. There is even no question here about it. Of course I did not change any of my views. I just think that other, people who are not native speakers of English, let's say, should be also allowed to bid on the jobs they honestly think they are capable of doing, such as many technical, or medical translations, which require specialized knowledge and grammatical coherent language, rather than Shakespearean masterpieces.
Taking into consideration the Utopian nature of all the things proposed here, I think the system should stay the way it is -- with a disclaimer, perhaps, and the certified native language thing should be changed -- since there is really no way a site like Proz, or any other place for that matter, could certify someone's native language. I personally think all people should be allowed to bid in any job they want to bid on, and only then, based the person's CV, references, writing samples, or short tests, the client could decide whom they want to choose. This is the only thing really that makes any sense to me.
This is a link you may find interesting to finally convince yourself that most of what you have been proposing is absolutely out of question. http://www.ehow.com/about_5529867_employment-interview-laws.html
This refers to any work arrangements -- not just full time employees, by the way.
It was interesting to participate in this discussion, after all. I hope this is the end of it, finally. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Ideal exposure to language is not necessary for picking up correct language | Sep 29, 2012 |
There seems to be some misconception here regarding how a child learns its mother tongue.
It is not necessary for the child to be exposed to completely correct standard language to be able to pick up correctly its mother tongue. In most cases the child hears both correct and incorrect usages of languages in its childhood, yet develops a flawless command of the mother tongue. This is the amazing thing about human language acquisition.
What this also means is that it is n... See more There seems to be some misconception here regarding how a child learns its mother tongue.
It is not necessary for the child to be exposed to completely correct standard language to be able to pick up correctly its mother tongue. In most cases the child hears both correct and incorrect usages of languages in its childhood, yet develops a flawless command of the mother tongue. This is the amazing thing about human language acquisition.
What this also means is that it is not necessary for a child to be in a community of proficient speakers of its mother tongue to be able to pick up the mother tongue. This is why children who grow up in multi-lingual environments pick up all the languages spoken in their environment, even though their exposure to these languages is patchy and intermittent.
This also explains the fact that people become proficient in the colonial languages which are used as official languages in their country and which are taught at school by non-native teachers.
I think every human child comes into this world with 99% of the language acquisition apparatus complete. All that it needs to wrap up its language acquisition are a few reference points to the mother tongue which it receives from its childhood environment.
The exact process of language learning is still a mystery and research has contributed little to dispelling this mystery.
I think one of the projects that Chomsky undertook was to discover universal grammar, in an attempt to understand the human language learning process. His premise was that there is such a universal grammar because children so easily and quickly pick up languages, which implies that they already come into the world with much of the grammar rules wired into their brain. If we can discover these universal grammar rules we can better understand the language learning process.
What all this means is that looking at childhood history and places of residence will aid little in identifying a person’s native language. Children pick up even those languages which are imperfectly and non-natively spoken in their neighhourhood. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
المملكة المتحدة
Local time: 10:39
عبري إلى أنجليزي
| Back to Linguistics 101 | Sep 29, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Ideal exposure to language is not necessary for picking up correct language
There seems to be some misconception here regarding how a child learns its mother tongue.
It is not necessary for the child to be exposed to completely correct standard language to be able to pick up correctly its mother tongue. In most cases the child hears both correct and incorrect usages of languages in its childhood, yet develops a flawless command of the mother tongue. This is the amazing thing about human language acquisition.
Like Liliana before you, you have completely misunderstood the term "perfect" in terms of native language acquisition.
What this also means is that it is not necessary for a child to be in a community of proficient speakers of its mother tongue to be able to pick up the mother tongue....This is why children who grow up in multi-lingual environments pick up all the languages spoken in their environment, even though their exposure to these languages is patchy and intermittent.
Wellll, it depends how far you want to take it. All linguistic output/input is "patchy and intermittent", this forms the backbone of the 'Poverty of the Stimulus' argument...but you have to be careful how far you try to take this argument.
I think one of the projects that Chomsky undertook was to discover universal grammar
Whoa, hold on there fella. He didn't discover anything, he hypothesised it. The existence of UG has NOT been proven, but it has come under extreme scrutiny and criticism.
What all this means is that looking at childhood history and places of residence will aid little in identifying a person’s native language. Children pick up even those languages which are imperfectly and non-natively spoken in their neighhourhood.
That's actually NOT what it means at all. The trouble is your premises are often wrong, so it's no surprise your conclusions follow suit.
This is exactly where you are stretching the POTS (Poverty of the Stimulus) argument to ludicrous lengths.
[Edited at 2012-09-29 07:30 GMT]
| | | | | I really did not want to write anymore in this thread. Let me just add one thing. | Sep 29, 2012 |
In this case, I don't agree with you Belasubramanian. A human being does not come to this world with any knowledge of his or her L1 -- perhaps with the potential to acquire any human language. Children who grow up in environments where their parents, or people around them, speak different variations of a particular language will not automatically speak the standard language -- the acquisition of a more standard language usually happens in school in such cases. These days they can also learn a lo... See more In this case, I don't agree with you Belasubramanian. A human being does not come to this world with any knowledge of his or her L1 -- perhaps with the potential to acquire any human language. Children who grow up in environments where their parents, or people around them, speak different variations of a particular language will not automatically speak the standard language -- the acquisition of a more standard language usually happens in school in such cases. These days they can also learn a lot from TV, radio programs, etc.
After I have reread your post, I am not sure, but you might have meant just a universal language -- the universal grammar rules proposed by Chomsky. There is definitely the potential in every human being to learn the human language (animals don't have that potential, at least at this stage). I don't know, however, what is necessary to acquire a perfect language. What would even a perfect language mean? I am not sure at this time if I agree with everything Chomsky said. I have to think about it for some days.
[Edited at 2012-09-29 11:48 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | صفحات الموضوع: < [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? | 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! » |
| | 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 
