| 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)
|
|---|
| Criticizing at a personal level is bullying | Sep 7, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote: traductorchile wrote:
How would you establish it objectively, not just using your intuition?
This has been mentioned before, but I'll mention it again. Speech and/or writing that is characterized by non-native errors indicates that the speaker/writer is non-native, e.g. writing 'translate towards English' instead of 'translate into English'.
Thanks, maybe you would like to review the rest of my texts and articles in Proz.com, Linkedin, Digg, Facebook, and in my websites so you can show the whole world that I am not a native English writer.
Do you think I'm worried?
I have stated clearly my condition in my website, and I do the same in my CV, and in my first posts I stated clearly why I mention in Proz.com that I do translations towards English (because proz doesn't allow any other option). I am very selective on what texts I accept to translate to English, because I am honest in my work.
Can you say the same?
I don't think it is very honest to bully someone taking this topic to the personal level. I have refrained from filing a complaint till now but if you continue I will have to.
| | | | Phil Hand 
China
Local time: 00:41
Chinese to English
| This point is important | Sep 7, 2012 |
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
No, what I am saying is that too many people, who in my opinion would not qualify as being real native, would pass the test.
It happened several times that I was absolutely convinced, after talking to German native persons, that their German was "native German" and even when checking their translations/texts about standard topics I could not find any obvious problems. The problem only surfaced in very specific conditions, e. g. certain marketing texts that required a certain cultural background they did not have (e. g. baby and kids stuff, toys) or technical/medical texts that required terminology that was introduced into the German language after they left Germany, or their insistence on the old spelling rules or, or.....
...All we expect is that he/she is up to the job and in our opinion, the value of a translator being "native" or not, has lost a lot of weight in the last few years...the demarcation between "native" (my definition: born in the native country, native parents, raised and educated in this country and not having left the country >5 years ago), "near native" (my definition: leave out one of the conditions I already mentioned), and "excellent translation capabilities" (my definition: adequate proficiency in the source and target language, adequate experience in the required domain) is dissolving.
I think Siegfried is making a much more coherent, experience-based version of the point that has been repeated ad infinitum by, er, less coherent contributors: the "native speaker" criterion is of use, but that use can be limited and domain-specific.
I completely agree with that. I would love to see "native" become part of a more nuanced set of translator selection tools - and we know that good agencies already do this.
But it's also a fact about the industry today that "native" serves a rough wheat-from-the-chaff function as well.
In both of these functions, it would be helpful to have widespread openness and honesty about nativeness. Having looked at the numbers, I now lean toward a "nudge" method - something like the questionnaires that have been proposed, more detailed questions about members' backgrounds. I think that would be easier to implement than testing. And as Siegfried says, testing would be a very blunt instrument.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 22:11
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | One more answer to the “why” question | Sep 7, 2012 |
Before Ty and co go off on their refrain of “it is about honesty and lying that we are talking here” let me forestall them with the explanation that I am working here to a plan of first establishing unequivocally the need for verification before we even start talking about the modalities of how we do the verification.
Needless to say, this has not been satisfactorily done so far, and the two arguments that have so far emerged – “outsourcers demand it” and “dishonesty is ... See more Before Ty and co go off on their refrain of “it is about honesty and lying that we are talking here” let me forestall them with the explanation that I am working here to a plan of first establishing unequivocally the need for verification before we even start talking about the modalities of how we do the verification.
Needless to say, this has not been satisfactorily done so far, and the two arguments that have so far emerged – “outsourcers demand it” and “dishonesty is bad” are easily countered (please see my post “ “How” comes last” for details).
There is a third powerful argument that can explain the phenomenon which kicked off this thread – non-natives declaring themselves as native speakers of a language, and this is the cultural argument.
I suspect that those members who are so vociferously accusing others of mis-representing their native language are thinking in terms of a certain culture of translation (a certain way of doing translation) which they assume is THE ONLY way, whereas, the members who have allegedly mis-represented their native language are more familiar with a different culture of translation where it is commonplace for people to be translating in their second and even third language. So this latter group are greatly puzzled if not even incensed by all this ruckus about lying and dishonesty.
In many parts of the world, like Hong Kong, Poland, India, etc. it is quite normal for translators to translate into languages that are not their mother tongue. The clients are fully in the loop and they in fact even demand it for various reasons.
The case of Hong Kong and Poland was extensively quoted by me in my earlier posts. In the case of Hong Kong, the price factor and certain political developments of recent times make this a necessity. In the case of Poland shortage of native language translators makes this a necessity.
And this shortage is not something that is transient (something that will go away soon) but it is a structural feature of the way our world is. Also it is not restricted to Poland, the situation can be found in most parts of the world which are the sources of migration of people.
You will find more native speakers of those languages from which people migrate, than native speakers of the language into which people migrate for every language pair. This is because migration of people is mostly unidirectional. People migrate to the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, etc., from various parts of the world like Poland, Russia, India, China, Algeria, Africa, etc. But Germans, French, Italians, etc. rarely migrate to Poland, India, China, Algeria, Africa, etc.
So in a language pair like Polish-English, there would be more native speakers of Polish than there would be native speakers of English. Now if translation need in Polish to English spurts, as it has after Poland has joined the EU and its economy has begun to boom, there arises an acute shortage of native English translators who know Polish. To fill this void, Polish translators who know English as second language get recruited to fill the need.
The same is the case with the Chinese-English pair in Hong Kong. The same is the case with umpteen other language pairs.
Given this situation, a Polish or a Chinese translator who has been routinely and quite honourably doing translation into English is well within justification to consider himself qualified to do English translation from Polish. His client is satisfied and fully aware that English is a second language for him, and he fulfills a crucial market need by doing English translation. So where is the dishonesty?
In most cases such translators are aware of their deficiencies in the target language and it is quite usual for them to pair up with a person who is native in the target language, but who may not know the source language (ie, Polish in the above case) who edits the translation to iron out the language deficiencies. Even if this is not the case, the agencies commissioning the translation are knowledgeable enough about translation to understand the need to get the translation vetted by a native speaker.
In either case the end translation is a satisfactory one.
This will also explain the oft repeated argument of “people who can’t even string a straight sentence in English” declaring English as their native language. The explanation to this is simple enough. While these people take the effort to get their translations vetted by a native speaker, few bother to do this for their forum posts.
So the whole issue is one of cultural perception. Those coming from countries like UK, USA, Germany, etc. which are the end destinations of migrations are used to a culture of translators working only in their native languages. Whereas translators coming from countries which are the sources of migration like Poland, China, India, etc, are used to a different culture of translation where it is routine to translate into the second language (English, German, French, etc.) as there is an acute shortage of translators in this language direction.
Now, in a place like proz.com where native language is used to restrict job access, translators from the latter culture perforce have to declare English etc., as their native language if they are to get any jobs.
Technically there is no dishonesty in this, as the site has not defined what native language is and has left it to each member to define it for himself/herself (a very wise policy in my opinion). So if these translators define native language as “the language in which they habitually work”, then there is no prevarication involved.
So we have just been making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Do you still want to go ahead with the verification rigmarole? Ty, what do you say?
[2012-09-07 03:16 GMT पर संपादन हुआ] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 00:41
Chinese to English
| Personal attacks are wrong... | Sep 7, 2012 |
So I won't say anything about you personally, Balasubramaniam. But your comments are so incorrect, it's not wrong to say they're stupid.
Given this situation, a Polish or a Chinese translator who has been routinely and quite honourably doing translation into English is well within justification to consider himself qualified to do English translation from Polish. His client is satisfied and fully aware that English is a second language for him, and he fulfills a crucial market need by doing English translation. So where is the dishonesty?
The dishonesty is when that translator claims that English is his native language.
The point has been repeated so many times that your refusal to understand it can only be deliberate.
Now, in a place like proz.com where native language is used to restrict job access,
This is untrue. Proz does not restrict translators from bidding on jobs into L2. Some clients do so, but not all. Particularly in my pair, some clients actually request Chinese natives for Chinese to English. Many do not impose nativeness requirements.
And while I'm here and being honest with people:
traductorchile wrote:
Criticizing at a personal level is bullying
Not, it's not.
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 22:11
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | I wonder if you have been reading my posts... | Sep 7, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
The dishonesty is when that translator claims that English is his native language.
The point has been repeated so many times that your refusal to understand it can only be deliberate.
I have been to great lengths in my posts to explain that there is no dishonesty at all involved here, it is all a figment of some people's imagination.
Since proz.com has not defined what native language is and it has left it to the members as to what they think a native language is, there can be no prevarication at all.
If you keep in mind that "language of habitual use" is also a valid definition of native language from proz.com's point of view, then a non-English-native translator who works in English is perfectly justified in declaring English as his native language.
Before accusing people of lying and dishonesty, you should first have got proz.com to clearly define what native language is. Only when that has been done can anyone be accused of not confirming to that definition.
Your repeated refusal to see this elementary logic smacks strongly of deliberateness (the old grinding axe!).
Proz does not restrict translators from bidding on jobs into L2. Some clients do so, but not all. Particularly in my pair, some clients actually request Chinese natives for Chinese to English. Many do not impose nativeness requirements.
No, that is not true. Outsourcers are given the option to filter out non-native translators, which is tantamount to discriminating against them, although proz.com is quite apologetic about doing this, too, for it also tries to clarify its position in the faq with these words:
Native language is only one factor that a client may consider when screening a translator or interpreter. It is usually not the most important factor.
It appears that proz.com is doing a bit of a difficult balancing act here - trying to placate outsourcers who misguidedly use native language to screen translators on the one hand and being fair to its own translator members on the other.
[2012-09-07 05:01 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 22:11
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Oh, had it not been so, then ? | Sep 7, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
Personal attacks are wrong so I won't say anything about you personally, Balasubramaniam...
Thank you for your kindness. What if it had been right?
[2012-09-07 04:02 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 00:41
Chinese to English
| Round, like the circles in my mind... | Sep 7, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
I wonder if you have been reading my posts...
No. TL:DR. Learn to express yourself concisely.
Since proz.com has not defined what native language is and it has left it to the members as to what they think a native language is...
Incorrect. Proz has left the issue open, but that does not mean that I can define native language as anything I like. I cannot define it as a fish. Native language is native language. Within that there are many shades of meaning that we can choose among, but choosing a meaning that is completely wrong is not acceptable.
"language of habitual use" is also a valid definition of native language from proz.com's point of view, then a non-English-native translator who works in English is perfectly justified in declaring English as his native language.
I don't accept the premise as it happens, but even if I did, you seem to be impressively unaware of what "habitual use" means. It's not a working language. It's a living language. The language of habitual use of Chinese translator who lives in China is Chinese. Chinese is one of my languages of habitual use. Now, if a Polish translator lived in the UK, and put a strong argument that her habitual use was sufficient to make her a "native", then I do agree that Proz's open policy would leave them open to such arguments. I'm arguing that the policy should be changed.
Before accusing people of lying and dishonesty
Again, in the reality-based world, we haven't. We're not allowed to. Proz doesn't allow accusations on the forums (an excellent policy). So I'll thank you to refrain from telling me what I have and have not done.
you should first have got proz.com to clearly define what native language is. Only when that has done can anyone be accused of not confirming to that definition.
Simply incorrect. Let us suppose that I could show you a Proz profile in which a user claims English as a native language, and then in the blurb below says that her native language is another language. Such profiles exist. I'm not going to link to them, because that would be inappropriate. But that is fairly obvious misrepresentation without any need for definitions.
But as we've said a million times, while there is great disagreement on what native is, there are vast swathes of linguistic territory which it is not. A Chinese (nationality, ethnicity) translator who was born, educated, lives and works in China is not a native speaker of English, not by any possible definition, no matter how much you twist it.
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 09:41
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
So this latter group are greatly puzzled if not even incensed by all this ruckus about lying and dishonesty.
Even more puzzled by your argument for why it is acceptable to lie:
There is an acute shortage of native English speakers who can translate from certain languages. Because of this shortage of English native speakers who can translate from these languages, non-natives are needed to translate from them into English, and despite the acute shortage of English native speakers, these non-native translators need to lie to get the jobs!
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 22:11
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Yes, why don't you... | Sep 7, 2012 |
Olly Pekelharing wrote:
This thread has taken a life of it's own. I suggest starting a new thread to deal with the original question and leaving this one to those who want to discuss the weather or whatever. You could call the thread, say, "Should 'native language' claims be verified", or something, so there will be no confusion.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 22:11
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | There is no lying involved as I have explained umpteen times... | Sep 7, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
So this latter group are greatly puzzled if not even incensed by all this ruckus about lying and dishonesty.
Even more puzzled by your argument for why it is acceptable to lie: There is an acute shortage of native English speakers who can translate from certain languages. Because of this shortage of English native speakers who can translate from these languages, non-natives are needed to translate from them into English, and despite the acute shortage of English native speakers, these non-native translators need to lie to get the jobs!
Since proz.com has not defined what native language is and it has left it to the members as to what they think a native language is, there can be no prevarication at all.
If you keep in mind that "language of habitual use" is also a valid definition of native language from proz.com's point of view, then a non-English-native translator who works in English is perfectly justified in declaring English as his native language.
Before accusing people of lying and dishonesty, you should first have got proz.com to clearly define what native language is. Only when that has been done can anyone be accused of not confirming to that definition.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 22:11
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | A large part of this has got to do with the way the site is structured | Sep 7, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
Let us suppose that I could show you a Proz profile in which a user claims English as a native language, and then in the blurb below says that her native language is another language. Such profiles exist. I'm not going to link to them, because that would be inappropriate. But that is fairly obvious misrepresentation without any need for definitions.
If that is the rationale for this debate then you should not be talking about native language at all and arguing instead of tightening up the membership enrollment process as this has more to do with how the site is structured and how it functions.
There are three levels of members: non-paying, professional/corporate, and certified.
Non-paying members I suspect constitute the largest chunk, many of whom are just drifters into the site or people of other trade who occasionally dabble in translation to earn a few extra bucks. Mostly students or people out of job. Most of the incomplete profiles and profiles with factual errors in them belong to this category.
Proz.com pays a lot of attention to this category because they are the main source for winning paying members later on. The usual trajectory of membership is, a few months or years of non-paying membership when one explores the site and its features, and then after convincing oneself of the usefulness of the site, the members opt for one of the paying membership categories.
So it is quite natural to see a lot of unprofessional behaviour in this lot as they are not really professionals (there would of course be exceptions).
And the solution to this problem is certainly not to burden the site with cumbersome administrative overheads like native language verification.
I don't think such unprofessional behaviour is much of a concern in the higher levels of membership like professional/corporate and certified.
[2012-09-07 04:27 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 22:11
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Wow, that is a neat definition of native language... | Sep 7, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
Native language is native language.
Any takers?
| | |
|
|
|
Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 09:41
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| It is what it is | Sep 7, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Wow, that is a neat definition of native language... Phil Hand wrote:
Native language is native language.
Any takers?
Much better than: Native language is anything you want it to be.
[Edited at 2012-09-07 04:46 GMT]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 22:11
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Ok, let us go ahead then... | Sep 7, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Wow, that is a neat definition of native language... Phil Hand wrote:
Native language is native language.
Any takers? Much better than: Native language is anything you want it to be. [Edited at 2012-09-07 04:46 GMT]
Ok, let us then build a verification system based this definition of native languge:
Native language is native language.
Would you like to fire the first salvo?
| | | | Nicole Schnell
United States
Local time: 09:41
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam | Maybe it's time for a real-life example | Sep 7, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
I have been to great lengths in my posts to explain that there is no dishonesty at all involved here, it is all a figment of some people's imagination.
Since proz.com has not defined what native language is and it has left it to the members as to what they think a native language is, there can be no prevarication at all.
If you keep in mind that "language of habitual use" is also a valid definition of native language from proz.com's point of view, then a non-English-native translator who works in English is perfectly justified in declaring English as his native language.
Before accusing people of lying and dishonesty, you should first have got proz.com to clearly define what native language is. Only when that has been done can anyone be accused of not confirming to that definition.
With prior permission from the agency client I once hired a translator from this site for some legal text EN>GER as a part of a huge website translation. The translator claimed to be a specialist in this field and of course claimed to be a native speaker of German on her profile page. I was able to allow comfortable 3 days for 3k words, and I offered the rate that I was paid without taking a cut. I was just happy as a clam at high tide to get help. Until the job was delivered. The result was a joke, and I sent it back to be reworked.
It took another 3 days and quite a bit of correspondence until I received a usable translation.
We delivered late. The agency lost their client and got stiffed in terms of payment.
What has happened?
The translator was neither a native speaker of English, nor a native speaker of German. She was Dutch. She admitted that the test translation was done by someone else but thought she could do the job by herself anyway, given the comfy deadline.
Outsourcers are given the option to filter out non-native translators, which is tantamount to discriminating against them,
So, what exactly is the point of this filter when people lie?
| | | | | 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 » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
