| 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)
|
|---|
Robert Forstag 
United States
Local time: 11:17
Spanish to English
+ ...
| The benefits of voicing concerns | Jul 19, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
And because site staff has indicated they want to improve the status quo, I see above suggestions as one possible step. It's not a perfect solution. It's a suggestion.
But giving up on improving a situation after 61? pages?
I don't think so. I'm not giving up as such, and site staff may have articulated a desire for change, but after recent revelations as to site staff response to fraud and misrepresentation, it's hard to ascertain whether they are just paying lip service. You can talk solutions till you're blue in the face, if nobody's listening (or receptive to such solutions) then it won't matter either way....nothing will change.
I no longer see the value of raising concerns regarding proz.com as dependent on said concerns being adequately addressed by staff. I've simply witnessed too much evidence of inaction to feel otherwise.
Instead, I think that discussions about the various concerns regarding this site have a broader purpose of raising awareness (and reaffirming one another's perceptions!) among site users and members. Although it may sound a tad idealistic, I venture to say that something good can come out of such a process in the long run.
Let's just hope that the "run" is not too long....
[Edited at 2012-07-19 19:54 GMT]
| | | | | Verified Nationality | Jul 19, 2012 |
Why not keep the existing “N” system, and add a box beside it for Verified Nationality?
Everyone with a verified name can easily verify their nationality(ies) by emailing a copy of the relevant page of their passport(s).
I realize a lot of people will jump in with a list of exceptional cases, how it's unfair… BUT! this is NOT meant to be any kind of proof of native speaker status! That’s the beauty of it. It simply adds an extra element that outsourcers can cons... See more Why not keep the existing “N” system, and add a box beside it for Verified Nationality?
Everyone with a verified name can easily verify their nationality(ies) by emailing a copy of the relevant page of their passport(s).
I realize a lot of people will jump in with a list of exceptional cases, how it's unfair… BUT! this is NOT meant to be any kind of proof of native speaker status! That’s the beauty of it. It simply adds an extra element that outsourcers can consider when looking for a translator.
e.g.
Language: English Native, Verified Nationality: British
may, perhaps, be more interesting (and more native-looking) for an outsourcer than
Language: English Native + German Native, Verified Nationality: German
Or perhaps not… who knows?
But nobody will be arbitrarily discriminated against – it will simply be the TRUTH. One extra dimension thereof. A bonus is that it actually enhances the level of information provided by the site.
And there would ONLY be an option for Verified Nationality – no unsupported claims. Those who leave it blank would have to deal with the consequences of their air of mystery 
And all PROZ would have to do would be to introduce one more box, and allow for verification. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | I have a question for you (English native speakers) | Jul 19, 2012 |
I read this thread (well not all the pages) and I am under the impression that some people are not sure to be able to spot a non native... I wonder why?,
No irony intended, really, mine is a purely linguistic question as I'd be able to spot a non native Italian or French after one written line or 5 spoken words. I can also provide examples
Did you spot me not?
Really interested in your an... See more I read this thread (well not all the pages) and I am under the impression that some people are not sure to be able to spot a non native... I wonder why?,
No irony intended, really, mine is a purely linguistic question as I'd be able to spot a non native Italian or French after one written line or 5 spoken words. I can also provide examples
Did you spot me not?
Really interested in your answers for linguistic reasons only.
Ciao! A.
[Edited at 2012-07-19 21:57 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Angie Garbarino wrote:
I read this thread (well not all the pages) and I am under the impression that some people are not sure to be able to spot a non native... I wonder why?, ... as I'd be able to spot a non native Italian or French after one written line or 5 spoken words.
I can only give you one very unfounded answer (my own), and that is that I do believe I can spot non-native writing and very quickly too - only I have been told in a few very odd, very surprising cases that the work I had evaluated as non-native was indeed (supposedly) written by a native speaker of English.
That means one of two things:
1) The person was indeed a native speaker, but so bad at translating that he/she could only render horribly mangled translations based obviously on literal translations that somehow also affected his or her innate sense of syntax and grammar, or
2) The person lied about being a native speaker.
I personally always suspected the latter.
But without other proof (being able to talk to or meet the person), this scenario could be said to demonstrate that poor writing by a native speaker could potentially be mistaken for non-native writing. This in turn creates a dilemma with regard to the topic at hand, namely, how to devise a test that would definitely - but only - catch non-native speakers.
[I apologize to the English native speakers out there if I just invented new adjectives]
| | |
|
|
|
Janet Rubin wrote:
this scenario could be said to demonstrate that poor writing by a native speaker could potentially be mistaken for non-native writing. This in turn creates a dilemma with regard to the topic at hand, namely, how to devise a test that would definitely - but only - catch non-native speakers.
This occurred to me this afternoon, as I pondered the thread. I've had situations like that - a stilted translation with not many errors as such, that could have been an English-speaker having a bad day (or just not great at translation) or a really fairly good non-English speaker without native style.
For various reasons (not least practicality), I'm not a fan (as I've said) of trying to hold voice conversations to determine the truth, pretty much infallible though it would be.
On the grounds that my view was that, in effect, the "N" is intended to say to potential clients "I will produce a text in this language that is of competent native standard" (and not necessarily "I am a native speaker" per se, despite vast swathes of this thread debating that very point), I've always been against the idea that we needed to categorise the errors, we just needed to count them.
But I suppose the truth is that, in fact, a text can be (almost) free of errors, and still not be of a competent native-level standard. On the other hand, perhaps in the first instance, we could let those case slide and just try to deal with those people who would fail any sensible error threshold, talking of which...
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
As nobody knows (now picture big question marks on a screen) what they are actually looking for in a non-native, apart from the 'very obvious' cases (a threshold no-one actually agrees about either)
... to be fair, I don't think we've tried to agree yet. Personally, I've never mentioned a threshold (not in seriousness, at least) because even the idea of just counting errors wholesale without categories has yet to meet much in the way of approval
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 23:17
Chinese to English
| This is why the writing test would be a good compromise | Jul 20, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: Janet Rubin wrote:
this scenario could be said to demonstrate that poor writing by a native speaker could potentially be mistaken for non-native writing. This in turn creates a dilemma with regard to the topic at hand, namely, how to devise a test that would definitely - but only - catch non-native speakers.
This occurred to me this afternoon, as I pondered the thread. I've had situations like that - a stilted translation with not many errors as such, that could have been an English-speaker having a bad day (or just not great at translation) or a really fairly good non-English speaker without native style.
This is what lies behind the suggestions that the native test not be a translation. Translation inevitably introduces some L2 interference for proper native speakers, so its usefulness as a diagnostic test is diminished. A conversation would be effective, though logistically hard; but a piece of free writing, produced under medium time pressure, would be a) easy to do and b) a good representation of one's writing skills, abstracted away from the difficulties of translation.
@Angie
You're fairly spottable. We've talked a lot about grammar in this thread, but often semantic errors stand out more. In that last post, you're using "under the impression" wrong, and the collocation of "irony" with "intended" is a bit strange. There are also some clues in your composition - it doesn't quite have the casualness that native speakers bring. Your use of a rhetorical question stands out as odd - it's a highly rhetorical form in English, not common in forum posts. That's often true of people with good English: they pick too high a register (come to think of it, I sometimes do it in my L2). Your dropping of the subject in the last line is a nicely casual feature, but it feels a bit calculated - people do that, but not quite in that way.
Finally, a weird one: I never see native English speakers do double punctuation. It's something we react against and fix immediately. But I see it from non-natives quite often, so your "?," is a telltale for me.
| | | | | Havin' a convo | Jul 20, 2012 |
As for this:
Phil Hand wrote:
A conversation would be effective, though logistically hard
I have one word: Skype
And about this:
Phil Hand wrote:
That's often true of people with good English: they pick too high a register (come to think of it, I sometimes do it in my L2).
If I've slept more than 4 hours, my register is probably "too high for the average joe" in either language - I blame it on translating German contracts day in and day out.
| | | | | translation skills are a different matter | Jul 20, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
...
For various reasons (not least practicality), I'm not a fan (as I've said) of trying to hold voice conversations to determine the truth, pretty much infallible though it would be.
On the grounds that my view was that, in effect, the "N" is intended to say to potential clients "I will produce a text in this language that is of competent native standard" (and not necessarily "I am a native speaker" per se, despite vast swathes of this thread debating that very point), I've always been against the idea that we needed to categorise the errors, we just needed to count them.
...
Hi Charlie.
As far as practicality goes, I wouldn't be too concerned. If someone really wants to get that evaluation done, they might also appreciate the difficulties involved (i.e. having to meet with somebody far away in person) because it will deter non-native speakers craving the native-speaker/writer status.
Maybe video conferencing is a relatively easy way out with regard to practicality. But it shouldn't be too practical anyway.
But please see my previous post where I talked about how to transfer the incentive/responsibility for such testing to the applying translator.
Regarding your second point: I still believe that's a different matter. I think I would only be looking to evaluate the native-language (mostly "speaking") component, not someone's translation skills even though, as you say, clients will take the "N" icon as an indicator of how well that person can "translate". Let me just argue that a person who has been identified (through evaluation) to be a person with two native languages or even one native language (verified status!!) is probably much more competent translating than somebody who "pretends" to have two native languages but would never dare take the test. I see the verified native language status as one important component in choosing someone as a translator. But it will never mean that based on this one component, you will get a good translator. But there is a good chance.
And we're not trying to disqualify the true native speakers (most of them with a valuable claim to working as translators) but those who falsely claim two or more native languages.
That should be pretty easy after a fairly in-depth conversation with competent native speakers.
For those who are truly speaking two or more native languages and go through the trouble of taking the test, they are very likely well educated and most likely already working as competent translators. If not, they probably deserve a chance. I wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't think there will be thousands of perfect bi-native language speakers coming out of the woods.
The native language verification should just be that: evaluation if someone is a true native speaker, not a great translator.
....my thoughts.
B
[Edited at 2012-07-20 00:43 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| No need for tests, dude :-) | Jul 20, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
This is what lies behind the suggestions that the native test not be a translation..... but a piece of free writing, produced under medium time pressure, would be a) easy to do and b) a good representation of one's writing skills, abstracted away from the difficulties of translation.
Like, er, say a profile page? Which is where this all started
(I'd also include websites linked to from profile pages, if there ain't enough material to form an opinion. The garbage spouted on kudoz was also mentioned, IIRC.)
@Angie
You're fairly spottable.
No need to look any further than "some people are not sure to be able to spot" - I certainly wouldn't dream of using an infinitive (to use a common if arguably strictly speaking inaccurate term) there: some people are not sure they can spot... is how I'd expect to see it.
Phil Hand wrote: you're using "under the impression" wrong,
a) I don't think she is
b) wrongly, surely?
| | | | | The nub and crux of our difference, old bean :-) | Jul 20, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
The native language verification should just be that: evaluation if someone is a true native speaker, not a great translator.
For the purposes of this website, I disagree, in the most amicable way possible, naturally
See, I don't ultimately give a flying one at a rolling doughnut about the personal attributes of the profile holder. I do care that people do not misrepresent what they claim to be able to deliver to clients, because that casts doubt on my own representations by association.
(Or I might hire one, and be stitched up a right kipper!)
Evidently, on a Venn diagram, say, of the population of people on proz (and only them), if you had a circle for native speakers (definition: still to be decided after nigh on 1,000 posts!) and a circle for those who can truly deliver what they claim, the circles would overlap a great deal. I just happen to think we should focus on the circle of people who claim to be in the cricle of, er, "true deliverers" (?!?) but should not be. They might be native, they might not be, I don't care. If their written output in that language sucks, then they should be cast out of the circle. And that is the process I would prefer to see discussed (not only that, I think the whole discussion on nativeness shows it might be easier to establish rules/thresholds/whatever for "true deliverers" anyway).
[Edited at 2012-07-20 00:50 GMT]
| | | | Michael Beijer
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:17
Member (2009)
Dutch to English
+ ...
| The crux indeed... | Jul 20, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
The native language verification should just be that: evaluation if someone is a true native speaker, not a great translator.
Charlie Bavington wrote:
They might be native, they might not be, I don't care. If their written output in that language sucks, then they should be cast out of the circle.
These two positions pretty much sum up what is going wrong here.
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 23:17
Chinese to English
| Use of the phrase "stitched up a right kipper" should mean auto-disqualification as a native speaker | Jul 20, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: Like, er, say a profile page? Which is where this all started
I'd be a little tougher than that. When I write my CV/advertising blurb in Chinese, I spend hours and hours on it, making sure that it's really really right. Of course, what's amazing is that so many people don't bother. I is good translator in English.
A test with set format brings in a modicum of uniformity, in theory better for consistent results. Plus, the news from the site is that they don't fancy taking action against obvious numpties. The challenge now is to design a minimum-fuss native-verification system.
a) I don't think she is
Have a little look at this. I'm sure it will bring you round to my way of thinking.
bit.ly/r8BnRM
| | |
|
|
|
| if you can't even speak the language ... | Jul 20, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
The native language verification should just be that: evaluation if someone is a true native speaker, not a great translator.
For the purposes of this website, I disagree, in the most amicable way possible, naturally
Hey, no problem if you disagree. But do you agree that a true native speaker of two languages who is registered here is most likely already a translator or at least deserves a chance? How good or bad they'll be as translators depends on many factors. But if they can't even speak the language correctly, we won't have to worry about finding additional errors in written tests - they're disqualified a soon as they speak.
I gotta say though the difference between "verified" and "unverified" native speaker will only matter if the two groups are clearly separated and clearly recognizable to outsourcers - when outsourcers receive job applications via the submit option, and also in the directory search where an outsourcer should be asked to check "unverified" or "verified" native language status when they're looking for a native speaker of the target language (or even source language) or as long as they are presented with that distinction in no uncertain terms on the results page.
Otherwise, who cares if someone is verified or not?
Young Bean
[Edited at 2012-07-20 05:58 GMT]
| | | |
:
@Angie
You're fairly spottable
I know I am spottable, thanks for answering my question
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:17
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Why is Angie the guinea pig? | Jul 20, 2012 |
Angie Garbarino wrote: :
@Angie
You're fairly spottable I know I am spottable, thanks for answering my question
Good of her to be good-natured about it, but I'm not sure she'd actually invited an assessment of her writing. She's never claimed to be an English native speaker. I only wish the ones on this thread who do claim it (and aren't) would give us a similar opportunity
| | | | | 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? | 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! » |
| | 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 
