| 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)
|
|---|
Kirsten Bodart 
United Kingdom
Local time: 02:48
Dutch to English
+ ...
| The brick wall | Jul 20, 2012 |
Oh, so, Ty, you consider me a brick wall.
I am glad!
As to accents:
My point was that they are not a reliable thing to try and spot a non-native speaker. That's all. Non-native speakers use strange constructions. Their accents may still be very good nonetheless. That depends.
Has nothing to do with writing.
A person speaking 15 minutes without mistake says nothing about his writing.
So only the egregious cases. Fine. That's c... See more Oh, so, Ty, you consider me a brick wall.
I am glad!
As to accents:
My point was that they are not a reliable thing to try and spot a non-native speaker. That's all. Non-native speakers use strange constructions. Their accents may still be very good nonetheless. That depends.
Has nothing to do with writing.
A person speaking 15 minutes without mistake says nothing about his writing.
So only the egregious cases. Fine. That's clear, isn't it, and where is the line? That is what the tricky thing is. The brick wall still stands.
The written test is a good idea, but indeed open to (easy) fraud. That's obviously the reason why Cambridge does proficiency exams in exam centres.
Anyone thought about who is going to mark the tests and whether those people are reliable?
If we already disagree about 'to be under the impression that', I dread to think what's going to follow. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 01:48
Hebrew to English
| Look for offence and ye shall find it | Jul 20, 2012 |
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
Oh, so, Ty, you consider me a brick wall.
I am glad!
I was talking to Samuel about no-one in particular. You are far from the only person I have repeated myself to. Please, don't take it so personally...it was not meant so.
[Edited at 2012-07-20 15:35 GMT]
| | | | | telephone calls, voice only Skype, IM chat | Jul 20, 2012 |
Janet Rubin wrote:
My reference to Skype was in response to how "difficult" it would be (I think it's not) - but nothing says you *have to* make a video call with Skype. You can absolutely make "voice only" calls, and as I stated previously, you don't even have to do that, you can also just use the IM chat (typing) function.
Hi Janet,
would be okay with me but the identity of the person tested would have to be established somehow or there is at least a bigger chance someone else is taking the test - at least it's a possibility ...
B
[Edited at 2012-07-20 15:33 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 01:48
Hebrew to English
| Under the impression was used strangely | Jul 20, 2012 |
In that it was used in the present tense by Angie originally:
"I am under the impression".
Since this expression essentially means believing an incorrect assumption (which at some point afterwards was revealed to be incorrect) using it in the present in the first person is a bit odd as it is like saying "I believe..[something]...which is probably or will later be shown to be a false assumption" (which is possible, but not usual).
It's less str... See more In that it was used in the present tense by Angie originally:
"I am under the impression".
Since this expression essentially means believing an incorrect assumption (which at some point afterwards was revealed to be incorrect) using it in the present in the first person is a bit odd as it is like saying "I believe..[something]...which is probably or will later be shown to be a false assumption" (which is possible, but not usual).
It's less strange in the 3rd person in the present (He is under the impression that....) as you are then commenting on the person's lack of awareness (he is under the impression that his wife is faithful) i.e. he doesn't know otherwise.
When it is used in the first person it is most commonly used with simple past (I was under the impression that....) which implies "I" was later enlightened i.e. I was under the impression my wife was faithful,...then I walked in and found her with my best mate!
So, yes, Phil was initially correct, there was something a bit off about the way Angie used it, it wasn't completely incorrect, it just needed a different tense which is why I believe Charlie approved of its use there, it doesn't strike one as particularly out of place initially, but it definitely needs to be shunted back a tense.
And, just because native speakers can quibble over usage, it doesn't mean we should abandon the whole idea of this thread.
[Edited at 2012-07-20 15:38 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Positive identification (cheaters will be cheaters) | Jul 20, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
would be okay with me but the identity of the person tested would have to be established somehow or there is at least a bigger chance someone else is taking the test - at least it's a possibility ...
I suppose without photo ID *plus* video, there is always a chance that a paid stooge is undergoing whatever evaluation is set up - video, test-taking, you name it.
| | | |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I argued earlier that it shouldn't be too simple anyway but a conversation at a Powwow or a video conference isn't too hard to arrange (well the first one might be a bit difficult if you have to travel far). But as long as the "judges" are reliable and sanctioned by Proz.com, the verification process should be fairly easy. I'd want a face-to-face verification though, in person or online (video), not a telephone call.
B
And while you are at it, why wouldn't you play "CSI: ProZ" ("Les Experts : ProZ", for our French-speaking colleagues)? Why not conduct the whole battery of tests, including fingerprints and DNA analysis?
This is really more and more ridiculous
Catherine
| | | | | Under a misapprehension | Jul 20, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
Since this expression essentially means believing an incorrect assumption (which at some point afterwards was revealed to be incorrect) using it in the present in the first person is a bit odd as it is like saying "I believe..[something]...which is probably or will later be shown to be a false assumption".
And Phil said something similar. Or indeed identical
I would say that is a misapprehension. I would say (by which I mean I use the word to mean!) an impression is something that is thought to be true rather than definitely known to be true (or untrue). Which makes it ideal for being equivocal or undogmatic, as Samuel pointed out, in threads. And is the way Angie used it, UIAMM.
I have deliberately not sought out dictionary definitions for the purpose of this post, which is, nonetheless (or do I mean nevertheless!) indicative of the type of argy bargy you're likely to encounter. It's interesting that of all of Phil's objections to Angie's post, none of them bothered me, and the one that metaphorically battered me over the head with a shovel, he failed to mention. Which just goes to show how very unpredictable the kind of process many are proposing is likely to be.
| | | | | Wrong word :-) | Jul 20, 2012 |
Janet Rubin wrote:
a paid stooge
or indeed an impressionist
| | |
|
|
|
Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 17:48
Norwegian to English
+ ...
LilianBoland wrote:
Who told you that? Of course they do -- it just depends of what quality native language they learned as children, and what other factor influenced their competence late in life.
If you think native speakers make competence errors, you don't understand the concept of competence as used by linguists.
Michele Fauble wrote:
The competence of some native speakers will differ from that of native speakers of the educated standard variety of the language.
| | | | | OT: don't get it (?) | Jul 20, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
Wrong word
stooge
1 a : one who plays a subordinate or compliant role to a principal b : puppet
Errr, well, I see the smiley face, but I missed the joke (?)
[Edited at 2012-07-20 16:18 GMT]
| | | | | non-verified status should be granted only for a short time | Jul 20, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
...
@Bernhard, Janet
I'm still a bit conflicted about video calls and meetings. I understand the urge to verify identity, but I'm not really convinced it's necessary (there's no need for elaborate protections against every fraud here, just some basic hurdles to prevent casual dishonesty). And seeing people can have negative aspects - I'm thinking specifically of racial prejudice here. It's not far-fetched to say that it's easier to agree that someone of the same race is a member of your group than someone of a different race. You don't have to think someone's a racist for this to apply. People do it unconsciously all the time, and it's difficult to prevent. So blind testing has a certain value.
My favoured model is still:
Send three randomly generated questions, requiring 100 word answers (or equivalent length for other languages) to each, to be returned within 20 minutes.
The answers are then checked by either trusted existing members of Proz, or are sent for proofreading, and anything more than a certain number of errors would result in a rejection.
Hi Phil,
Yes, blind testing as you described it would be great and counteract racist prejudice allegations but I honestly believe unless you hear a native speaker speak you won't be able to determine with 100% certainty that she/he is indeed a native speaker or that the language she/he speaks is indeed her/his native language.
On the other hand, the written tests you propose would definitely catch the true non-native speakers, and they are the ones we're concerned about. But wouldn't there still be a good chance people cheat - if you don't see the person or have proof that the person you're talking to on the phone or typing to in the chat box is really who they claim to be? I mean if they were indeed lying about their native language, it seems likely they'll try to lie again.
Earlier, I proposed to shift the incentive to take these tests to the applying translators by clearly communicating to the clients who accept job applications through the job board or by searching for translators in the directory that they are dealing with either a "verified" or an "unverified" native speaker.
In other words, if you had a chance between choosing a verified or an unverified native speaker, who would you choose. At this point though the distinction is not made abundantly clear to clients looking for a translator. If it were, those who are not verified would seem to have a lesser chance of getting the job. But that's not necessarily so, as you will agree.
In the end, I am sure that's not enough. As long as somebody wants to pick an unverified person who charges less than the verified guy/girl, they'll pick the unverified one.
So, above measures could be a temporary thing but in the long run the false claims need to be dealt with. It just shouldn't be possible to continuously lie.
Having said that, I would really like to only see "temporary" unverified statuses, and that only for a very short time.
It should be the general rule that after a certain, relatively short time, you will have to get verified or you are not allowed to bid on jobs or list any native languages on your profile page.
That would have an impact I believe.
B
[Edited at 2012-07-20 16:18 GMT]
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 02:48
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Ty Kendall wrote:
Since this expression essentially means believing an incorrect assumption (which at some point afterwards was revealed to be incorrect) using it in the present in the first person is a bit odd... It's less strange in the 3rd person in the present (He is under the impression that....) as you are then commenting on the person's lack of awareness (he is under the impression that his wife is faithful) i.e. he doesn't know otherwise.
Well, I'm always willing to learn, and a dictionary search sometimes reveals beliefs to be superstitions, even in my native language (e.g. when I'm convinced that something can't possibly mean X, and then I find that the dictionary says that it can).
I was under the impression that "under the impression" (with first person, present tense) does not imply that the belief is incorrect, but merely that there is a belief that may be wrong, i.e. a belief that hasn't been proven to be correct [yet]. So, I googled...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/under%20the%20impression
Thinking, assuming, or believing something, as in "I was under the impression that they were coming today". This idiom often suggests that the idea or belief one had is mistaken.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/impression_1
to think or understand a particular stated thing
(the examples imply that the belief is unproven but not necessarily incorrect)
http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/impression
believing, usually wrongly, that something is true or is happening
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/impression
believing, mistakenly or on the basis of little evidence, that something is the case
So, after consulting four dictionaries, I'm satisfied that my use[age?] of "under the impression" is in fact correct, but it did highlight the fact that some people might misunderstand that expression (e.g. that it implies that the belief is necessarily mistaken).
| | |
|
|
|
| Explained jokes are never funny but anyway.... | Jul 20, 2012 |
Janet Rubin wrote:
Charlie Bavington wrote:
Wrong word
stooge
1 a : one who plays a subordinate or compliant role to a principal b : puppet
Errr, well, I see the smiley face, but I missed the joke (?)
We were just discussing the meaning of "under the impression" and an impressionist is someone who pretends to be someone else (admittedly usually someone famous, and usually for entertainment purposes) who could therefore play the role of someone else for evaluation purposes.
I'll get me coat....
| | | | | Sorry, Charlie! | Jul 20, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
Explained jokes are never funny but anyway...
Ahh, but at least I get the play on words now.
Thanks for sharing
[Do you know about this one? Sorry Charlie Catchphrase]
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 08:48
Chinese to English
| Who needs solidarity when you've got an Englishman's inner certainty? | Jul 20, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
It's interesting that of all of Phil's objections to Angie's post, none of them bothered me, and the one that metaphorically battered me over the head with a shovel, he failed to mention. Which just goes to show how very unpredictable the kind of process many are proposing is likely to be.
That is interesting. I deliberately didn't mention the obvious one because I assumed someone else would (actually, because I assumed Angie would spot it herself). Not mentioning that clause does not mean I didn't think it was a problem. Equally, the rhetorical question isn't an error at all, just something that feels familiar to me from conversations with English learners.
'Tis interesting that you weren't struck by any of my list, though. Mileage does vary on this stuff.
As for your reasoned arguments and solid references, Samuel, fie upon them! If an Englishman can't retain blind prejudices about his language, then what's the world coming to, eh?
I have revised my views a bit, but I do get quite a lot of support from Google: if you put in "am under the impression" in quotes, you get a qualitatively different type of result to what you get for "is under the impression". Still, not the point of the thread, and I'm not arguing it, really. I'll accept that there are users for whom other usages are OK; in return, you have to live with the fact that for some users (me and Ty, apparently), only the "false" reading of "under the impression" is correct.
@Bernhard
Absolutely agree. Verification must be easy, and there must be some incentive to do it.
| | | | | 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? | 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 » |
| | LinguaCore |
|---|
AI Translation at Your Fingertips
The underlying LLM technology of LinguaCore offers AI translations of unprecedented quality. Quick and simple. Add a human linguistic review at the end for expert-level quality at a fraction of the cost and time.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
