| A témához tartozó oldalak: < [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? Téma indítója: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
Michele Fauble 
Egyesült Államok
Local time: 20:11
Tag (2006 óta)
norvég - angol
+ ...
| What is a non-native speaker? | Jul 3, 2012 |
There has been much discussion here about the definition of a native language. What started this thread was discomfort with the fact that some people claim a native language on their profiles when there is evidence that the claim is inaccurate. It might be better then to try to determine what characterizes a non-native speaker (excepting those who are native equivalent), rather than try to define native speaker.
I would propose that this be limited to linguistic characteristics, since it i... See more There has been much discussion here about the definition of a native language. What started this thread was discomfort with the fact that some people claim a native language on their profiles when there is evidence that the claim is inaccurate. It might be better then to try to determine what characterizes a non-native speaker (excepting those who are native equivalent), rather than try to define native speaker.
I would propose that this be limited to linguistic characteristics, since it is these that are relevant to translation quality.
Here is a start:
The speech and writing of non-native speakers (except those who are native equivalent) is characterized by non-native errors (errors that native speakers recognize as errors that would not be made by native speakers). ▲ Collapse
| | | | | This is getting too complicated | Jul 3, 2012 |
I agree with Robert-a 'voting' system is really impracticable.
Imo, since a native language is what it is, and not really open to debate (despite all these pages of discussion in umpteen directions), the best (and simplest) bet is for Proz to find a way to "make" people tell the truth.
A person born in Germany, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal et al. is highly unlikely to be anything other than a native German, Dutch, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese (et a... See more I agree with Robert-a 'voting' system is really impracticable.
Imo, since a native language is what it is, and not really open to debate (despite all these pages of discussion in umpteen directions), the best (and simplest) bet is for Proz to find a way to "make" people tell the truth.
A person born in Germany, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal et al. is highly unlikely to be anything other than a native German, Dutch, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese (et al.) speaker. Studying the language at university or elsewhere, emigrating to your source language country as an adult etc. etc. will NOT change your native language, no matter how much screaming, yelling, insisting or wishing you do.
Just be professional enough to tell the truth. And then explain that you are near-native, native-equivalent in any other language you choose. But be honest about your native language. Please.
That's all that matters. Stop lying on the profile page. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Nicole Schnell
Egyesült Államok
Local time: 20:11
angol - német
+ ...
Az Ő emlékére: | Indeed. "I don't see a "verification by vote" system as working" | Jul 3, 2012 |
[quote]Robert Forstag wrote:
I don't see such a scheme as working for the following reasons:
1.
The existence of such buttons attached to the postings of those with one or more unverified native languages would seem to perpetuate an atmosphere of hostility and suspicion throughout the site, and even (it might be argued) imply a presumption of misrepresentation.
2.
It begs the question of what exactly the criteria would be for verification/denial. Would 80% percent (for example) of affirmative responses to the multiple choice items based on a sample of 300 respondents be enough to constitute verification?
3.
d to the above concern] It would seem possible for a given individual desirous of verification to simply recruit his or her friends to provide positive input into such a system, and there would be no way of knowing if this has happened or not.
4.
Such a process provides no evaluation whatsoever of speech or listening comprehension (two critical language skills that ought to be assessed as part of any verification of a claim of native language ability).
5.
Because such a scheme would evaluate only written content whose provenance could not be guaranteed, it would leave open the possibility that one seeking verification of a native language uploading a number of forum posts that have been edited by skilled native speakers in order to serve as (bogus) evidence of native skills, at least until such time that the desired verification has been obtained.
It reminds me of the "Red Badge" process. I never applied for this thingy because ProZ.com is NOT a linguistic institution, yet I helped 6 or 8 colleagues to obtain theirs by providing my evaluation.
I do appreciate a stringent approach regarding honesty in all information provided in the profile pages. However, I just had to notice that one of the most vehement fighters for labeling each and everything in terms of proficiency just considered "30 years experience" perfectly fine for an absolute newbie because the newbie might have done the one or the other translation on the side.
Now, THIS is deception.
???
Any standards? PLEASE??
| | | | | Innocent until proven guilty, perhaps? | Jul 3, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
There has been much discussion here about the definition of a native language. What started this thread was discomfort with the fact that some people claim a native language on their profiles when there is evidence that the claim is inaccurate. It might be better then to try to determine what characterizes a non-native speaker (excepting those who are native equivalent), rather than try to define native speaker.
My thoughts were (again) heading in this direction this afternoon, following the earlier exchange with Samuel.
Rather than define who passes the test, simply set a threshold for failing it....
I would propose that this be limited to linguistic characteristics, since it is these that are relevant to translation quality.
...and this threshold would indeed relate purely to the quality of written output (for translators - spoken for interpreters, I guess).
It would have diddly squat to do with birthplace, schooling, degrees, parents/guardians(!), years living in a (foreign) country (or not), and everything to do with producing writing in keeping with the grammatical standards of educated writers of the language in question.
More than x errors per y words (as reported and/or agreed by a certain number of site members who actually give a stuff about standards, and ideally confirmed by people not working in the same pair(s) to avoid any cross-language pollution, or indeed, petty accusations of revenge, remocing competition, etc.) and, if your attempt to justify yourself (e.g. having a bad day, screeds of impeccable text unquestionably by your own hand, sworn affadavit by the Archbisop of Canterbury, etc.) fails, your "N" is history.
I concede there is a potential "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" issue here, but not insurmountable (and not as contentious as defining "native").
And we still need to decide what happens to people who have an "N" removed. At the very least, I think, a ban from claiming it as "native" for at least 5 years (more coding - sorry). And checks on people deleting a profile and re-creating one.
(This assumes we're sticking with the profile as representing the attributes of the individual, not the attributes of the services the individual is able to provide.)
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Hollandia
Local time: 05:11
Tag (2006 óta)
angol - afrikaans
+ ...
| Huh? Who else? | Jul 3, 2012 |
Nicole Schnell wrote:
However, I just had to notice that one of the most vehement fighters for labeling each and everything in terms of proficiency just considered "30 years experience" perfectly fine for an absolute newbie because the newbie might have done the one or the other translation on the side.
I'm fairly certain that I'm the bloke you're referring to in the underlined part of the quote, given my reply here, which reflects my approach of assuming good faith until evidence suggests otherwise, instead of assuming bad faith until proven otherwise, as some people prefer, but who was the person who wanted to label everything?
[Edited at 2012-07-03 18:50 GMT]
| | | | Nicole Schnell
Egyesült Államok
Local time: 20:11
angol - német
+ ...
Az Ő emlékére:
Samuel Murray wrote: Nicole Schnell wrote:
However, I just had to notice that one of the most vehement fighters for labeling each and everything in terms of proficiency just considered "30 years experience" perfectly fine for an absolute newbie because the newbie might have done the one or the other translation on the side. I'm fairly certain that I'm the bloke you're referring to in the underlined part of the quote, given my reply here, which reflects my approach of assuming good faith until evidence suggests otherwise, instead of assuming bad faith until proven otherwise, as some people prefer, but who was the person who wanted to label everything?
I was certain that you will get the hint immediately (huge compliment for being fast, as usual..).
I have been following this thread with great interest (and at times with great yawn, I must say). It is all about honesty and integrity, right? Then how come that self-declared native speaker issues are dissected to excess (the client will be told by the proofreader that the pseudo-native-speaker-of-something just committed social suicide anyway) whereas truly brutal lies such as made-up years and decades of translation experience are perfectly fine and accepted?
| | | | Michele Fauble
Egyesült Államok
Local time: 20:11
Tag (2006 óta)
norvég - angol
+ ...
| Testing for non-nativeness | Jul 3, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
My thoughts were (again) heading in this direction this afternoon, following the earlier exchange with Samuel.
Rather than define who passes the test, simply set a threshold for failing it....
...and this threshold would indeed relate purely to the quality of written output (for translators - spoken for interpreters, I guess).
A simple written test for non-nativeness would not be difficult to devise. It would consist of a series of sentences, some of which contain non-native errors. The testee would be asked to judge which sentences contained errors and asked to correct those errors so that the sentences were correct as judged by native speakers. This is similar to the process used by linguists to discover the rules of a language.
[Edited at 2012-07-03 19:13 GMT]
| | | | | Spontaneous output | Jul 3, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
A simple written test for non-nativeness would not be difficult to devise.
I'm sure you're right. I'm also sure google would throw up the answers in a jiffy. And of course, telling people they're doing a test will put them on their guard (I do quite well in French language tests that Le Monde and so on shove out there from time to time, and I can't write French for shit). I'd prefer to see what pepple produce spontaneously and naturally - or what they've produced for money.
But I'd rather see a test than nothing, if that what it takes to move this forward.
Edit - "pepple"... native or non-native error. You are deciding, yes?
[Edited at 2012-07-03 19:25 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Visible and obvious | Jul 3, 2012 |
Nicole Schnell wrote:
Then how come that self-declared native speaker issues are dissected to excess .... whereas truly brutal lies such as made-up years and decades of translation experience are perfectly fine and accepted?
Prob'ly cos the former are easy to spot. English "N" on the profile while posting about "the German citizenship" or "the Water Gate" - bingo. Someone claims to have spent the 1990s translating for the UN in Geneva - how the hell do I know?
| | | | Samuel Murray
Hollandia
Local time: 05:11
Tag (2006 óta)
angol - afrikaans
+ ...
| @Charlie and Michele -- going to have to go ahead and disagr... | Jul 3, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: Michele Fauble wrote:
I would propose that this be limited to linguistic characteristics, since it is these that are relevant to translation quality. And this threshold would indeed relate purely to the quality of written output.
Well, I don't want to "disagree", but I do want to "voice an opposite opinion":
I'm sure nativeness or non-nativeness can be tested using a written test, and I acknowledge that those who suggest it acknowledge that is has its flaws, and I would have no objection to a written test, but I think that nativeness can be more efficiently and accurately tested with a spoken test.
What does a good native speaker have that a bad non-native does not have? The answer is not good grammar, and it is not good pronunciation. It is fluency. Native speakers are fluent.
I realise that speech is not nearly as important to translators as written aspects of the language, but we're not testing how good you are in a language -- we're testing "how native" you are in that language, and that means being able to use the language fluently without the type of hesitations or stumbling that would characterise a non-native speaker.
The only way to make the written test as good as the spoken test would be to (a) first determine the translator's typing speed and (b) then giving him a strict time limit in which to do write the test. If you allow the translator 24 hours to do his written test, then it becomes nearly useless, since most translators would have been able to fix their errors by then.
I think I actually suggested this (though in this thread few suggestions get as much coverage as disagreements about what native language is and whether non-natives can be good translators), so I'll repeat it here: Let each person who wants to be verified be interviewed for 10-15 minutes by 10 randomly selected translators who indicated that they are willing to help verify people. The test can consist of a bit of free chatting, a chat about current afairs, open-ended questions aimed at generating sufficient verbal content to judge the person's fluency. Lack of good vocabulary may be penalised but should not be the overall criteria of "fluency".
What are your thoughts on judging nativeness by fluency instead of grammatical inerrancy?
Samuel
| | | | Nicole Schnell
Egyesült Államok
Local time: 20:11
angol - német
+ ...
Az Ő emlékére: | Oh, the tests. | Jul 3, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: Prob'ly cos the former are easy to spot. English "N" on the profile while posting about "the German citizenship" or "the Water Gate" - bingo. Someone claims to have spent the 1990s translating for the UN in Geneva - how the hell do I know?
If you want to be certified by the ATA you either have to produce a diploma or something or, to prove a minimum of 5 years experience, INVOICES for jobs accomplished. Why can't ProZ.com be a little more like the ATA? All problems solved.
| | | | Sheila Wilson
Spanyolország
Local time: 04:11
Tag (2007 óta)
angol
+ ...
| Expat communities? | Jul 3, 2012 |
writeaway wrote:
A person born in Germany, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal et al. is highly unlikely to be anything other than a native German, Dutch, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese (et al.) speaker.
Most countries have expatriate communities where children can be born to two natives of another country and go to a school to be educated in their language. Those kids may well grow up being native speakers of their parents' country's language, even if they rarely visit it.
To give just one example: my son went to the French school in Den Haag, the Netherlands. It's a school which accepts kids all the way from kindergarten through to the Bac. There was a large French community centred around the school, the Embassy, ESA etc., with some transient families but also many who were there on permanent contracts. Of course, many spoke Dutch very well, but not all the children were bilingual, and I imagine all would have - rightly - claimed that their native language was French.
So I don't see that working either, writeaway.
Sheila
| | |
|
|
|
| The difference is | Jul 3, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote: Michele Fauble wrote:
I would propose that this be limited to linguistic characteristics, since it is these that are relevant to translation quality. And this threshold would indeed relate purely to the quality of written output. Well, I don't want to "disagree", but I do want to "voice an opposite opinion": I'm sure nativeness or non-nativeness can be tested using a written test, ..... I realise that speech is not nearly as important to translators as written aspects of the language, but we're not testing how good you are in a language -- we're testing "how native" you are in that language,
I need to pop out, but briefly - testing translators speech is IMHO pointless, and time consuming. The whole point of translation is that it is written. One could easily be deaf (at least one active Fr-Eng kudoz contributor was, back in the day), or mute. Extreme perhaps. But possible, and demonstrativ of its relevance, i.e. borderline to none.
I think the difference is this. You appear to want to comprehensively test a particular attribute personal and specific to the individual that owns a profile. You want positive proof they are who and what they say they are. They need to earn the "N".
I just want to see false claims removed about the level of service a profile purports to represent.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Hollandia
Local time: 05:11
Tag (2006 óta)
angol - afrikaans
+ ...
Charlie Bavington wrote:
I just want to see false claims removed about the level of service a profile purports to represent.
That is fine, Charlie, but those who pass your test should not be allowed to say that they are verified as native speakers, but rather those who fail your test should be allowed (forced?) to say that they are verified as being not native speakers. If the aim of a test is not to find honest translators but to find lying translators, then any certificates awarded or labels granted in terms of the test should be given to the liars, e.g. a little icon on their profile saying "verified non-native".
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
Egyesült Királyság
Local time: 04:11
portugál - angol
+ ...
TÉMAINDÍTÓ
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Very good speakers of a language could that way become "native speakers" and you would have never heard them say one word in that language and would have never talked to them face-to-face.
As translators I don't think it's necessary to hear them speak. If they can write English and pass as a native speaker then that should suffice; if a few slip through, then I'm sorry but no system is perfect. We've had a fair number of people passing through this thread alone claiming English as a native language and they've been spotted half-way through the first paragraph (not even). I don't actually see that many slipping through the net, or "very good speakers" becoming "native speakers".
Also, obviously, you don't know if the person pushing the button is qualified to make such a decision.
As mentioned above, I have questions myself and I don't know how they would propose rolling this out outside the C.P. network, within which one has supposedly proven competence in a particular language pair (although it would be a lie to say I haven't seen dubious cases). My language pair for example is PT>EN. I can only peer review for that pair.
This isn't the perfect solution by any means, but is being suggested because it is one that is already in place. We've all mentioned the need for a solution that requires minimal site intervention and minimum changes if we're to stand any hope at all of moving forward. As I said, it's a compromise.
[Edited at 2012-07-03 20:35 GMT]
| | | | | A témához tartozó oldalak: < [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 
