| Stron w wątku: < [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? Autor wątku: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
| separate languages (some are written languages only) | Sep 9, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
Mandarin and Cantonese are the most important example. They are mutually unintelligible.
Mandarin (which is a recent synthetic language - there is an argument to be made that there are no native speakers of Mandarin at all!) defines the written standard for Chinese.
You can write Cantonese, but most people don't. There's a bit of Cantonese writing in Hong Kong, but it very rarely happens in Guangdong.
There are a significant number of people in Guangdong/Hong Kong who grew up as natives in Cantonese (not speaking Mandarin), but writing "written Chinese" - i.e. the standard based on Mandarin. That's what's taught in the schools (as I understand it - Ambrose, do Hong Kong schools teach you to write Cantonese?).
This certainly complicates any attempt to use conversation as a verification of "Chinese" as a native language.
Would you then agree, Phil, to treat spoken as well as written "variants" of Chinese as separate languages of the Chinese language group? That should help with the verification process. Verification of "written" languages would have to be through writing/reading.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-09 06:00 GMT]
| | | | Ambrose Li 
Kanada
Local time: 17:51
angielski
+ ...
| Yes, those are the ones | Sep 9, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
Mandarin and Cantonese are the most important example. They are mutually unintelligible.
Mandarin (which is a recent synthetic language - there is an argument to be made that there are no native speakers of Mandarin at all!) defines the written standard for Chinese.
You can write Cantonese, but most people don't. There's a bit of Cantonese writing in Hong Kong, but it very rarely happens in Guangdong.
There are a significant number of people in Guangdong/Hong Kong who grew up as natives in Cantonese (not speaking Mandarin), but writing "written Chinese" - i.e. the standard based on Mandarin. That's what's taught in the schools (as I understand it - Ambrose, do Hong Kong schools teach you to write Cantonese?).
Writing in Cantonese is usually considered to be writing at a very low register, if I can say that. It is discouraged, but as far as I understand it is not uncommon in informal contexts (even in Guangdong it’s done, as far as I understand, but not in the same way it’s done in Hong Kong), and there are also a few specific use cases that may require writing in Cantonese, such as when you are dealing with video and audio scripts and transcripts or TV/radio advertising copy.
In Hong Kong schools don’t teach you to write Cantonese; they actually discourage people from writing it, to such an extent that some valid Mandarin constructs are actually disallowed because they sound too colloquial.
This certainly complicates any attempt to use conversation as a verification of "Chinese" as a native language.
Things get even more interesting when we take into account the two writing systems (simplified and traditional). Many agencies seem to be utterly ignorant about the interplay between spoken dialects, regional differences in the written language, and the two writing systems.
I have seen enough job postings with internally contradictory native language requirements. I wonder how Bernhard would define lying when confronted with such requests.
[Edited at 2012-09-09 06:11 GMT]
| | | | Phil Hand
Chiny
Local time: 05:51
chiński > angielski
| Don't see the need | Sep 9, 2012 |
To be honest, I can't imagine this "verification" can ever go beyond a small group of fairly professional people.
All you have to do is this: specify that for Chinese, people will only be assessed by peers of the same geographical variant (CN/HK/TW) (the meaning of HK would thus be smeared a bit to "Cantonese"), and leave the professionals themselves to work out the rest. If by some unfortunate chance a speaker of one dialect was asked to verify a speaker of another dialect, and fou... See more To be honest, I can't imagine this "verification" can ever go beyond a small group of fairly professional people.
All you have to do is this: specify that for Chinese, people will only be assessed by peers of the same geographical variant (CN/HK/TW) (the meaning of HK would thus be smeared a bit to "Cantonese"), and leave the professionals themselves to work out the rest. If by some unfortunate chance a speaker of one dialect was asked to verify a speaker of another dialect, and found herself unable to do so, we should trust her to report that fact honestly. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | wow, it goes so fast! | Sep 9, 2012 |
Sheila Wilson wrote: PROBLEM REDUCTION I propose we split the two parties: 1) Users who don't wish to use the platform professionally - let's call them "language users" for want of a better title. Free and fast registration (as now); only the barest of information required (as now); no mandatory displayed fields (as now); no verification (as now). However, from a certain date, existing and new "language users" would NOT appear in the translator directory; they would NOT be able to quote for jobs; they would NOT be able to access the BB and outsourcer directory. I see no problem with this - they are language USERS, not language PROFESSIONALS. 2) The other party would then be "language professionals" (or a similar title). Users (present and future) who wish to make use of the job board and directories would use the platform just as at present, choosing whether to pay or not. (This is similar to what Nani was proposing many pages back but it doesn't make payment obligatory.) However, for this account type, there would be verification of both identity and native language(s), and some profile details would be mandatory. Of course, with verification in place it stands to reason that one profile equals one person - it would be (it already is, IMO) an absurdity for people to "share" a profile. I'm sure some mechanism could be put in place for those who want to be linked (e.g. couples). Personally, I would like to see ProZ stating that they reserve the right to verify ALL details. Of course, they won't have the resources to check much, but users should be made aware of the NEED FOR HONESTY and the PERILS OF LYING. IMPLEMENTATION What I envisage is a staged implementation: 1) Give lots of advance notice of the changes (emails to all users?) and give us time to change our account type, add required information and think hard about our native language(s). 2) On a stated date, all those who have not changed their account type to "language professional" will be deemed to be non-professional "language users". This account type will be removed from the translator directory (that alone would be a tremendous step forward  ) and access to certain parts of the site will be removed. However, any KudoZ and BrowniZ points will remain in place. The moment a registered user re-emerges, logs onto ProZ.com and wonders what on earth has happened, s/he will be able to switch account type. 3) From this date on, all "language professionals" would become liable for native language verification. Let's leave the "how" for another posting  . Of course, we could register for verification earlier if it's in place, to avoid everybody needing to be verified at the same time. SUMMARY I think those of us who want to earn money by looking for clients on ProZ.com, or simply want to be visible to potential clients (e.g. in the directory) need to become more accountable. We need to give a clear message to potential clients that we are "real" translators, able to do "real" translations, not just faceless non-entities (without going as far as forcing display of real name). That would give the more serious clients a better feeling and perhaps a lot of other good things would follow without the need for major system changes.
I am not getting into this language varieties discussion, as it has nothing to do with the topic. Non-native language proficiency will never be a variety of any language, it´s as simple as that. But I think that maybe Sheila´s post got lost in the middle of this adjacent discussion. And I´d like to say: great ideas, Sheila!
| | |
|
|
|
| verification by peers from the same regions | Sep 9, 2012 |
Ambrose Li wrote:
Things get even more interesting when we take into account the two writing systems (simplified and traditional). Many agencies seem to be utterly ignorant about the interplay between spoken dialects, regional differences in the written language, and the two writing systems.
I have seen enough job postings with internally contradictory native language requirements. I wonder how Bernhard would define lying when confronted with such requests.
[Edited at 2012-09-09 06:11 GMT]
What would need to be done is a clear definition of all the spoken and written Chinese languages and writing systems.
Do I understand you right that a typical native speaker of Chinese will speak at least one spoken and one written, possibly two written "languages" if there is a standard, and write in one or two writing systems? The specific native language combination will mostly depend on the region the translator grew up. Therefore, verification could be carried out by peers from the same region (IMO).
I would leave the specifics of how to carry out verifications to native speakers and writers of the Chinese language group.
Please feel free to suggest methods on the other thread:
http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_suggestions/230297-methods_for_verifying_native_language_claims.html
No matter how complicated one's native language background is, it is still important to state it truthfully. Verified PNS credentials will ensure that clients aren't duped. Granted, they will also need to know what Chinese language they exactly need.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-09 06:42 GMT]
| | | | Ambrose Li
Kanada
Local time: 17:51
angielski
+ ...
Nani Delgado wrote:
I am not getting into this language varieties discussion, as it has nothing to do with the topic. Non-native language proficiency will never be a variety of any language, it´s as simple as that. But I think that maybe Sheila´s post got lost in the middle of this adjacent discussion. And I´d like to say: great ideas, Sheila!
Well, it is easy to say that when your language does not have multiple variants that interact in ways that make it sometimes difficult to determine what “non-native” or “lying” even means. Let me just stop at that. I really shouldn’t have commented in this thread.
| | | | Ty Kendall
Wielka Brytania
Local time: 22:51
hebrajski > angielski
Ambrose Li wrote:
Well, it is easy to say that when your language does not have multiple variants that interact in ways that make it sometimes difficult to determine what “non-native” or “lying” even means.
I'm not trying to speak for other languages, because I can't. Every language has its own dynamics, I'm only speaking for English, but I don't believe the multiple variants of English make it difficult to determine what "non-native" is (or what lying is).
If I hear someone speaking Jamaican Creole or Cajun English (both rather different from my variant) I don't think "non-native" because of the vast differences, I can still recognize them as just as native as I am in "English" and I can usually bet on the fact (if they are reasonably educated) that they have/had access to the same "standardized" written variety which is pretty uniform the world over (which I demonstrated in an earlier post with the newspaper excerpts).
When I see "Get off of me!" I don't think "My lord, what an awful error" just because I, personally, would use "Get off me!"...they are both acceptable in different varieties of English.
However, the line between native diversity and non-native errors is still rather clear in English in my opinion. Now there may come a time when that isn't so, but we haven't got there yet.
So, at least where English is concerned, demonstrating what a non-native is, or what a liar is, is rather straightforward (99% of the time - I'm trying to not be accused of absolutism).
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
Wielka Brytania
Local time: 22:51
portugalski > angielski
+ ...
NOWY TEMAT | We're having parallel discussions here | Sep 9, 2012 |
Nani Delgado wrote:
I am not getting into this language varieties discussion, as it has nothing to do with the topic. Non-native language proficiency will never be a variety of any language, it´s as simple as that. But I think that maybe Sheila´s post got lost in the middle of this adjacent discussion. And I´d like to say: great ideas, Sheila!
In a room where something is being discussed, things often break down into lots of "mini-discussions". Hopefully we'll bring everyone together again at some point. Just to add that I was disappointed that Sheila's suggestion got pooh-poohed as it was mainly a summary of what several of us have already discussed, put together in a coherent form. It's a pragmatic step in the right direction.
Sheila, I have some questions for you:
1) how do you envisage the language "professionals" would display their native languages? With/without coloured icons? Would two languages still be allowed?
2) What is to make people think that their claims might be verified since 12/13 years on the long-promised verification process mentioned in the site's FAQs still hasn't seen the light of day?
| | |
|
|
|
Sheila Wilson
Hiszpania
Local time: 22:51
Członek ProZ.com
od 2007
angielski
+ ...
| I don't really see why my proposal would hurt ProZ | Sep 9, 2012 |
Firstly, just to say I agree with Ty: English is English, even if it isn't MY English; non-native is NOT English. It's as simple as that! I can't guarantee a 100% American English text, and I don't actively seek American work, but I can guarantee a 100% English text, using American spellings, terms and punctuation to the best of my ability, fully researched and checked. However, if quoted speech is involved, I flatly refuse the job - you need an American for that.
Secondly, thanks t... See more Firstly, just to say I agree with Ty: English is English, even if it isn't MY English; non-native is NOT English. It's as simple as that! I can't guarantee a 100% American English text, and I don't actively seek American work, but I can guarantee a 100% English text, using American spellings, terms and punctuation to the best of my ability, fully researched and checked. However, if quoted speech is involved, I flatly refuse the job - you need an American for that.
Secondly, thanks to you, Nani, for bringing my posting to the fore again. It was just a rehash, and based on your point back near the start of this marathon. The big difference is that I'm not anxious to see ProZ.com become a 100% fee-paying site. I'd hate to see all the newbies being excluded. So many doors are shut to them and I'd like to see this one staying open.
To address your questions, Lisa:
1) how do you envisage the language "professionals" would display their native languages? With/without coloured icons? Would two languages still be allowed?
Once language verification is up and running (which would hopefully be at the same time as the split or even before), then the icons wouldn't be relevant. For a short time after registration, a new user would have no native language recorded at all. I don't see any problem with two native languages if both have been subjected to verification. Let's face it, it does happen. Everyone who meets my son (bilingual since the age of 7) is amazed when he tells them he isn't 100% French. In fact girlfriends have had the fright of their lives on finding out he has two 100% English parents! If he were a translator, I think everyone would be perfectly happy with him declaring both as native.
2) What is to make people think that their claims might be verified since 12/13 years on the long-promised verification process mentioned in the site's FAQs still hasn't seen the light of day?
Well, of course, that's why we're all here, isn't it? I'm assuming it does actually happen! And right from the split, too. That would be when the two types of users would be treated differently: "language users" would be free to claim what they like (or nothing at all), but "language professionals" (I don't like that term but haven't thought of a better one yet) are claiming professional capabilities and should be required to provide some basic details: verified ID, verified native language, country etc., AND should be prepared to back up their claims with evidence. BTW I don't think we can "prove" native language in all cases - translation is an ideal career for those who weren't totally monolingual when young! That's why I favour a short 'on the spur of the moment' written text, to be briefly reviewed by a significant number of already-verified native speakers. If a high percentage agree, then that's good enough. I'd be prepared to spend a few minutes doing that - would the rest of you?
To my mind, when a potential client comes to ProZ.com - "serving the world's largest community of translators" - then they should expect to find only people capable of providing an adequate translation of a straightforward text. Surely that has to be a minimum, doesn't it? Many clients here are NOT fluent speakers of the target language, let alone native speakers. Quite a few are actually direct clients, who don't even know the industry, let alone the language. How many of them not only waste their money here but potentially damage their business? The way things are, there are definitely some, and probably quite a few, "translators" here who simply don't have a clue - and don't care, either. And that's not good news for the rest of us, nor for the site, nor for our clients.
I'm expecting that a lot of registered users would remain as "language users", so verification wouldn't apply to them. Frankly, I'd let their records stay just as they are. If they lie, then the worst they can do is mislead others on KudoZ. That's a shame, but track records will hopefully show up the worst offenders, as they do at present.
On the other hand, I think there'd still be an awful lot of "real translators" here. Clients would still benefit from an enormous directory with loads of good profiles to choose from - the only difference would be that the directory would be full of translators, with reasonably honest profiles, not inflated by thousands of non-translators and a number of liars. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | English for the global market | Sep 9, 2012 |
Before taking part in this “crooked debate”, I only offered my services to customers in Chile when they needed English as the target language, because I was very self-critical of my cultural awareness, and I believed that in Proz there should be many so-called “natives” that could do a better job than me, so till now I have never posted bids on a job offer.
Considering the different arguments I have read, and non-arguments, it becomes clear to me that in many cases I should ... See more Before taking part in this “crooked debate”, I only offered my services to customers in Chile when they needed English as the target language, because I was very self-critical of my cultural awareness, and I believed that in Proz there should be many so-called “natives” that could do a better job than me, so till now I have never posted bids on a job offer.
Considering the different arguments I have read, and non-arguments, it becomes clear to me that in many cases I should be able to translate into English, targeted to global English speakers, not localised English slang, at a similar level of proficiency, if not better, than many so called “natives” including those self-assumed “real natives”. Clearly I can do a better job than those that let incompetence, prejudice, blindness, navel-gazing and arrogance interfere with their development of ideas and their work. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
In any case I should be able to do a better job than some inexperienced translator, who finished his translating studies yesterday, has no specialised technical studies, has no scientific training whatsoever, declares translations performed in a wide array of fields in the last years (a generalist), and has no client feedback, as is the case of Mr. Phil Hand. When a person declares he is a specialist in astrophysics, because he translated one text on Hollywood stars, he is a liar, he is dishon... See more In any case I should be able to do a better job than some inexperienced translator, who finished his translating studies yesterday, has no specialised technical studies, has no scientific training whatsoever, declares translations performed in a wide array of fields in the last years (a generalist), and has no client feedback, as is the case of Mr. Phil Hand. When a person declares he is a specialist in astrophysics, because he translated one text on Hollywood stars, he is a liar, he is dishonest, and he is involved in counterfeit and swindling.
If Mr. Hand wants to bully me, I also can do it, and if Proz.com moderators don’t moderate, that is, they allow insults on this thread; then anyone else should be able to insult other colleagues as freely as they wish, of course, unless there is a double standard.
It is a fact that bullies are narcissists, they act mainly motivated by envy, and their main goal is to downgrade their competitors because bullies are not capable of fulfilling the requirements.
[Edited at 2012-09-09 17:00 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Competent Native English Translations | Sep 9, 2012 |
I declare myself as a Native English translator because I can deliver competent English translations from Spanish, when the English output required is neutral, academic and does not consider modern slang. My proficiency with idiomatic knowledge and use was accredited by passing the Cambridge CPE exam. The other arguments I use to declare my classification as “Native” (with or without limitations), are of a personal and confidential nature so I don’t publish them, least in a forum where p... See more I declare myself as a Native English translator because I can deliver competent English translations from Spanish, when the English output required is neutral, academic and does not consider modern slang. My proficiency with idiomatic knowledge and use was accredited by passing the Cambridge CPE exam. The other arguments I use to declare my classification as “Native” (with or without limitations), are of a personal and confidential nature so I don’t publish them, least in a forum where psychopaths can roam. The fact that I don’t mention them doesn’t mean they don’t exist, and the fact that they fulfil most of the requirements needed, mentioned by most of the participants of this thread, except for some absurd arguments like “place of birth”, not only give grounds for me to continue using that title but to also start bidding at whatever job where “Native” is required, although I will keep on being as selective as I always have been, because I value my 100% delivery on time, I value never having a complaint about the quality of my work, and I value being considered a trustworthy and honest translator by my customers.
And that is more valuable to me, and I hope to my customers and potential customers, than the artificial assumption that “Native” is equivalent to quality in all areas covered by a language.
This will be my last posting related to my personal situation regarding why I consider myself “Native” in the English language, as I don’t believe this forum is for discussing personal situations. If any psychopath wants to keep on with this, just troll along on your own. I have better things to do than feed the ego of a psychopath.
That doesn’t mean I won’t keep checking the arguments related to the title of this forum, although I believe I have said all that I needed to say. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
Wielka Brytania
Local time: 22:51
hebrajski > angielski
| CPE - Certificate of Proficiency, not Nativeness in English | Sep 9, 2012 |
traductorchile wrote:
I declare myself as a Native English translator because I can deliver competent English translations from Spanish, when the English output required is neutral, academic and does not consider modern slang.
...but you can still do that without declaring yourself as a native English speaker.
My proficiency with idiomatic knowledge and use was accredited by passing the Cambridge CPE exam.
That's a bit of an odd thing for a native speaker to do. Not many native speakers take the Cambridge CPE exam. By Cambridge's own admission, it is....
an examination designed for speakers of other languages
http://www.cambridgeesol.org/exams/cpe/index.html#tab2
...Moreover, passing the CPE doesn't quite make one a native speaker, again as Cambridge says:
Your certificate is proof of your ability to use English with fluency and sophistication at a level approaching that of a native speaker. [Ibid]
**N.B. Please don't misunderstand - I am making no judgements as to your status as a native speaker, as you say, you have additional reasons for the declaration which you do not wish to disclose on this public forum, fair enough....I am merely responding to the reasons you have disclosed as I believe it touches on a point we have discussed here a lot, and that's that there is indeed quite a significant chasm between extremely proficient (CPE level, for example) and native. I also believe it is why Cambridge don't offer a "CNE" - Certificate of Nativeness in English, because it cannot be taught or learnt through any amount of L2 study and exams; it must be acquired "organically", like an L1.
| | | | Phil Hand
Chiny
Local time: 05:51
chiński > angielski
| Keep a civil tongue in your head, would you? | Sep 9, 2012 |
Mr Chile?
I know you don't like the fact that I state that your profile details are untrue; but the fact remains that they are. You brought yourself into this argument. I did not seek to discuss your personal case, and I'm certainly not going to discuss mine with you.
You're welcome to read back through the thread, and you will find that I have not felt the need to call you names at any point.
Get a grip, for goodness sake.
| | | | Phil Hand
Chiny
Local time: 05:51
chiński > angielski
| Despite the theatricals... | Sep 9, 2012 |
Our Chilean friend, Jose and Ambrose have all made a case which is, I thought, much more worthy of consideration than anything we got in the previous 100 pages.
1) Some translators, because of historical circumstance, are very competent and have a lot of experience in translating into L2.
2) In any event, translator integrity and competence is more important than nativeness.
3) Bolstering the "target-native" rule is not particularly helpful; other measures to check for o... See more Our Chilean friend, Jose and Ambrose have all made a case which is, I thought, much more worthy of consideration than anything we got in the previous 100 pages.
1) Some translators, because of historical circumstance, are very competent and have a lot of experience in translating into L2.
2) In any event, translator integrity and competence is more important than nativeness.
3) Bolstering the "target-native" rule is not particularly helpful; other measures to check for output quality would be of more value.
Don't know if anyone cares to comment? ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Stron w wątku: < [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 » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
