| 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)
|
|---|
| never mind the output | Sep 9, 2012 |
Giles Watson wrote:
Michele Fauble wrote:
I agree. I think we should move on to a focus on output.
And the only opinion that matters is that of the client, who is in the best position to judge whether the translation added value or not to the original text.
Who cares whether the translator was native, non-native or from Mars if the translation made money for the client?
What matters to me is that people can't lie in their profiles and state a native language when it's CLEARLY not. Never mind their output.
ADD-ON (edited): with output I mean "translation output".
Point is we're not talking about verifying translation skills.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-10 02:09 GMT]
| | | | | bad dream come true? | Sep 9, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Says one English native speaker to another: "Do you really think I am a native speaker of English?" Says the other: "Why would you ask such a silly question?"
"Well", says the other, "I dreamt I had suddenly lost my native language and become a native German speaker. I was trying to be coherent in English in my dream and just couldn't. And the dream felt real. It was more like a nightmare."
Says the other: "Well, you do speak perfect English now. You're definitely not babbling. You sound like you spoke it all your life, like I have. You still have the same accent that I have. Remember all the things you translated into English? Phenomenal. I'm sure, it was just a dream. You just worked too hard and translated too much from German into English, or was it the other way round? Trust me, you are still an English native speaker. I can tell. But if you don't trust me, why don't we talk to those verifying native English translator colleagues at Proz.com. They should be able to tell.
Seriously, I am surprised that someone from the US would say something like this.
But I seriously should stop babbling now.
| | | | Samuel Murray 
Netherlands
Local time: 01:48
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Denise Phelps wrote:
It is forbidden for *native speakers* of English to take Cambridge ESOL exams - if they do, they are immediately disqualified, on the basis of the judgement of the native speakers examining them (who have judged the candidate to be native). I speak as an accredited Cambridge examiner and team leader.
Can you confirm that with a URL? The very first point in the ESOL handbook for centres is:
Cambridge ESOL exams may be taken by people of any age, gender, race, nationality or religion. Although they are designed for people whose native language is not English, no language related restrictions apply. However, some exceptions apply. Please see each specific exam ... for further details.
Could it be that your experience is with only a very specific exam or exams? Which ESOL exams are reserved for non-native speakers only?
Samuel
| | | | | back to page 1 | Sep 9, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
If there is anything that this thread has proven (in my view) it is that native language verification is practically a non-starter.
And that's because some will never admit to what native language is even though it's a simple concept.
What a shame.
B
| | |
|
|
|
| We do not use the filter "native" when searching the Proz database | Sep 9, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
What the "native language" option really means to a client
We do not use this feature. Why should we exclude potential capable translators from the results?
| | | | | bad dream part II | Sep 9, 2012 |
Ambrose Li wrote:
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Says one English native speaker to another: "Do you really think I am a native speaker of English?" Says the other: "Why would you ask such a silly question?"
"Well", says the other, "I dreamt I had suddenly lost my native language and become a native German speaker. I was trying to be coherent in English in my dream and just couldn't. And the dream felt real. It was more like a nightmare."
Says the other: "Well, you do speak perfect English now. You're definitely not babbling. You sound like you spoke it all your life, like I have. You still have the same accent that I have. Remember all the things you translated into English? Phenomenal. I'm sure, it was just a dream. You just worked too hard and translated too much from German into English, or was it the other way round? Trust me, you are still an English native speaker. I can tell. But if you don't trust me, why don't we talk to those verifying native English translator colleagues at Proz.com. They should be able to tell.
Seriously, I am surprised that someone from the US would say something like this.
But I seriously should stop babbling now.
Part II:
Says the one that had the dream:
"Well, the thing is they don't verify native languages on Proz.com.
Anyone can claim they are a native speaker of English or any other language and get a badge for it."
Says the friend: "Now there's something wrong with that, isn't there?"
Says the other: "Well, I'm definitely confused."
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 01:48
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Simple only if you want something simple | Sep 9, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Samuel Murray wrote:
If there is anything that this thread has proven (in my view) it is that native language verification is practically a non-starter.
And that's because some will never admit to what native language is even though it's a simple concept.
To the contrary: it is a simple concept only if you want to write a one-sentence definition of it. A one-sentence definition works well in the opening paragraphs of a book on the subject, but won't help you if you want to verify it universally, precisely because of the range of circumstances and shades of exceptions to which such a verification would have to apply.
Besides (following on your "back to page 1" comment), this thread has shown that even the simple definition can't be agreed upon, by several people who are genuinely being truthful. Saying that those who refuse to be converted to your simple definition are ignorant or dishonest does not help this debate (or any other debate, for that matter).
No, native language verification it is a non-starter for the reasons that I mentioned in my post (and that you chose not to quote and not to comment on in any way that evaluates the statements).
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 01:48
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Are you playing devil's advocate? | Sep 9, 2012 |
Siegfried Armbruster wrote:
Samuel Murray wrote:
What the "native language" option really means to a client...
We do not use this feature. Why should we exclude potential capable translators from the results?
Are you serious??? By that logic, you should not use any of the filtering options in the search page, for who knows which translators may be a "potential capable" translators?
Well, if you are happy to include translators in your search results who specifically claim that they do not regard themselves as native in that language, then that is your prerogative, I suppose. Me, if a search turns up 10 000 translators, I'd fiddle with the options to reduce the number of candidates.
| | |
|
|
|
| Back to basics, what's the point here? | Sep 9, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
Bernhard is willing to have these fake-native profiles on Proz covered with a screen-wide red-yellow flashing label saying "LIAR!!!", unless they can prove via certified public documents (and not affidavits) that they were born, raised, and schooled in a place where that language is spoken. I respect his entitlement to request it.
I 'm supporting verification of native languages before peers. There are no documents involved. I DEFINED native language (and it's not my invention) as a language one grew up with, spoke in school, at home, with their friends throughout their formative years AND continues to use.
The only thing one has to do is speak with or write something for native language peers and they will verify if they consider the conversation or the writing sample to be on a native level. When that's verified, the applicant would get the PNS credential. If they can't be found to be on a native language level, they won't get the credential, that's all.
Of course it makes sense to ask where one is from and went to school. It makes proving a native language so much easier. But I didn't request any documents as a requirement for the verification procedure.
B
Bernhard,
As the Proz system stands, yes, I am a liar (in stating that I'm a native EN speaker), and you are fully entitled to have that label spread on my profile.
This should cause some disappointment to all Brits and Aussies who felt so sure I was American, that they didn't bother to ask. The same would occur to all those Yankees who thought I was from California.
The greater disappointment, however, will be to a bunch of possibly less informed translation outsourcers, yet purist nonetheless. They'll eventually discover that, in spite of being a native of Brazil, my native language is Portuguese, not Tupi-Guarani (the real native language here), and that I'm not clad in feathers nor carrying a bow and arrow.
Can you suggest any other option on Proz - as it is - to those who have proven their ability to translate into a non-native language, to serve outsourcers who think this should be the one-and-only selection criterion? (I am not asking whether you agree with them.)
My entire point is that this information so boldly displayed on Proz is overrated, to the point of often being rendered useless. Bottom line is that liars like me abound on Proz. While some may be 'exposed' to no avail, many 'fakes' like me might get through.
Therefore such intended Inquisition is unlikely to bring about the desired outcome, which has not been defined translationwise yet, to the best of my understanding, unless it is to dump on Proz the accountability for the translation outsourcers' duty to carry out due diligence.
| | | | | No, I am not playing devils advocate | Sep 9, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Are you serious??? By that logic, you should not use any of the filtering options in the search page, for who knows which translators may be a "potential capable" translators?
I said, "We do not use this feature." There are enough filter options such as source and target language, field of expertise, self-defined expertise in field selected.
And yes, sometimes it can take days to find the right translator for a certain job.
And if Richard Perez would not have stated that he is native English, why on earth should we exclude him as a specialist on Fisheries and Marine Biology from our search results if we were looking for a qualified translator ES-EN for a job about Fisheries.
"Native" just carries to little relevance for a lot of technical/scientific etc. translation jobs.
The same applies if we were looking for a translation that requires a certain cultural background e.g. for Switzerland or Austria. Even if Bernhard will have another bad dream, I won't give a translation for Austria to a German/Germany translator (the terminology is just too different) nor to a translator who left Austria some 20 years ago. Here again, the label "German" is just useless, I even might prefer a native English translator who translates into German/Austria who spent the last 20 years in Austria.
| | | | | By other means | Sep 9, 2012 |
[quote]traductorchile wrote:
Denise Phelps wrote:
Just a point of information.
It is forbidden for *native speakers* of English to take Cambridge ESOL exams
Then, how does a "Native" measure his proficiency in English?
CPE is a measure of acceptable performance in a non-native language. It does not equate with being a native speaker. Native speakers are specifically debarred from taking the exam.
| | | | | Pearls of wisdom | Sep 9, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
What threatens ProZ.com's reputation and translators' reputation is jobs done poorly by translators who claim to be good (or able) at what they do. The reputation only comes under threat when a job is done poorly, and not automatically whenever misrepresentation is identified.
A client may say of a botched job "This was such a terrible translation, and there is no way that this could have been a native speaker, even though ProZ.com said it was", but read between the lines and you'll find that what the client is really complaining about is the bad translation, not the bad information about the translator.
Clients who get good translations from translators who lie about themselves rarely complain about the lies (even if they become aware of them), but clients who get bad translations will blame anything and everything within range, including the poor sap who referred the translator.
It is not the lie that damages the reputation, but the botched job itself. And ProZ.com simply can't prevent that from happening, even with screening. No amount of "verification" of native language claims will reduce the damage from botched jobs.
Look, when a translation job goes south, it would have happened so far more likely because the translator simply could not translate those languages in the first place (as opposed to him being able to translate them, but not natively).
The biggest shits that hit the fan are caused not by non-native speakers claiming to be native, but non-speakers claiming to be translators. Even if you could verify the nativeness of all ProZians, it will reduce the number of fouled-up jobs by only a tiny percentage, and it will not really reduce the damage to our (and ProZ.com's) of reputation to any sizeable degree.
Lying about your native language is a small problem in the bigger scheme of things, and eliminating the lying can easily be done by changing the question that the lie is an answer to.
Samuel
Great post Samuel! I've cut it to the highlights, and put it in bold, hoping that everyone will read it... twice!
| | |
|
|
|
Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 17:48
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Definition and testing output | Sep 9, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I 'm supporting verification of native languages before peers. There are no documents involved. I DEFINED native language (and it's not my invention) as a language one grew up with, spoke in school, at home, with their friends throughout their formative years AND continues to use.
The only thing one has to do is speak with or write something for native language peers and they will verify if they consider the conversation or the writing sample to be on a native level. When that's verified, the applicant would get the PNS credential. If they can't be found to be on a native language level, they won't get the credential, that's all.
The problem I see with this is that you are defining native language in one way and then testing for something else (native level). If native language is defined by when and where it was learned and when and where it was used, then this is the information that needs to be made available to determine whether or not a person is a native speaker. If a person is judged to be a native speaker as a result of the ability to produce native output, then the ability to produce native output becomes the definition of native language.
| | | |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Denise Phelps wrote:
It is forbidden for *native speakers* of English to take Cambridge ESOL exams - if they do, they are immediately disqualified, on the basis of the judgement of the native speakers examining them (who have judged the candidate to be native). I speak as an accredited Cambridge examiner and team leader.
Can you confirm that with a URL? The very first point in the ESOL handbook for centres is:
Cambridge ESOL exams may be taken by people of any age, gender, race, nationality or religion. Although they are designed for people whose native language is not English, no language related restrictions apply. However, some exceptions apply. Please see each specific exam ... for further details.
Could it be that your experience is with only a very specific exam or exams? Which ESOL exams are reserved for non-native speakers only?
Samuel
I can envisage this getting embarrassing for me. We (speaking examiners for KET, PET, FCE, CAE, CPE) have always been told to disqualify native speakers (there has never been a case of this in my area). But I have looked at the public website, and this is not mentioned. I have written to the coordinator for Spain to see if this rule has been changed and they have omitted to tell us. I will let you know when I get her reply.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 01:48
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Somewhat off-topic: about natives taking a non-natives test | Sep 9, 2012 |
Denise Phelps wrote:
I can envisage this getting embarrassing for me. We (speaking examiners for KET, PET, FCE, CAE, CPE) have always been told to disqualify native speakers (there has never been a case of this in my area). But I have looked at the public website, and this is not mentioned.
Well, to be fair, I can understand if such a restriction would apply. Foreign-language speakers of a local language are always judged less harshly than local speakers.
The Dutch exam that I passed qualifies me for entry into university in Holland, but if a real Dutch speaker could only muster enough skill to pass that very same exam, he would probably not last more than one week at university. That is because the second-language language test is in actual fact used (by universities and potential employers) as a measure of intelligence or as a measure of likelihood to succeed in matters only vaguely related to language skill.
| | | | | 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 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 » |
| | 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! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
