| 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] > | What is your definition of “native speaker” and why does it matter to you to have a definition? Thread poster: Bernhard Sulzer
|
|---|
Balasubramaniam L. 
India
Local time: 22:35
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | English learning in India | Oct 16, 2014 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
By the way, when do you/did YOU start to learn English in India? Would you ever regard it as your native language even if it is a particular variation of English? But as you said, it's not used in social settings much, especially during childhood and seems to be a language reserved for certain purposes only.
There are two types of schooling in India:
1. schooling in the regional languages where the medium of instruction is a particular regional language. In all these schools Hindi (if it is different from the language of instruction) and English are taught as second languages. The stage at which this happens varies from state to state. In most cases, it starts from the fourth standard onwards (which corresponds to 9 years) and continues for a varying length of time from four years to all the way up to higher education (where English predominantly takes over). Children learning English in this fashion, generally do not pick up English as a native language, but there are always exceptions.
The overwhelming number of schools in India are of this type.
2. There are also a small number of English-medium schools where the medium of instruction is English. Here English is taught from nursery onwards (that is 4 years onwards). Hindi and the regional language are also taught, but more-or-less in the same manner as English is taught in the first category of schools, that is, as a second languages. And this starts from fourth standard (9 years) only. In other words, to children in these schools the first language of exposure (at least in the classrooms) is English.
However, since India is not an English-speaking country, to most of the teachers in the English-medium schools, including the teachers who teach English, English is a second language. Some of these teachers, paradoxically teach English in Hindi and other regional languages to their young students. Both students and the teachers find this helpful, but to what extent this contributes to picking up correct English is a different matter.
Also, the environment within the schools (even in the best English-medium school) as well as in the family and in the outside world, is predominantly Hindi and the regional language. That is to say, the exposure to English that a child in these schools gets cannot be compared to the immersion that children in English-speaking countries get.
Even then, surprisingly, many of these children later in life develop exceptionally good proficiency in English which is often better than the average native English proficiency.
Perhaps this is because language acquisition is more complex than we imagine and even when a language is taught by teachers for whom it is a second language and even when a child grows up in an environment where that language does not predominate, many children in some miraculous way pick up almost perfect felicity in the language.
This is the reason why I am skeptical about the claim that early exposure to a language is crucial to gaining later proficiency in the language. The experience in India tells otherwise.
Or perhaps we need to more finely define what we mean by "early exposure". Does it mean immersion in near ideal conditions where everyone around the child is a native speaker of the language? Or does it mean a nominal introduction to the basics of the language from a teacher for whom the language is a second language, as the case is in India?
If we accept either of these extremes, our notions of nativity will undergo a tectonic change. If we adopt the first case, many of those who now claim a particular language as native will get disqualified, and if we accept the other extreme, it would become legitimate for a vast number of people who have little proficiency in the language to claim a language as their native language.
This is why bringing in proficiency as a crucial aspect of native language is imperative.
It is also imperative from a practical point of view for selecting skilled translators.
The other option, of course, is to treat nativeness just a factual information, and divest it of all proficiency related baggages. In which case, it should no longer be used for translator selection.
As to what I consider as my native language, it is not an easy question to answer. I belong to a place called Palakkad in Kerala which is located at the confluence of two major Indian languages, Malayalam and Tamil. I myself belong to a Tamil speaking family which has been staying for generations in Malayalam speaking area. So the home language is a mixture of Tamil and Malayalam, a curious dialect which is known as Iyer Tamil or Palakkad Tamil. It is a vibrant dialect, but it is neither Tamil nor Malayalam. The basic grammar is Tamil, but the vocabulary is laced liberally with Malayalam. Even the diction is distinctly Malayalam oriented and different from chaste Tamil.
I attended early schooling in a Malayalam medium school, where only Malayalam was taught.
At about 8 years, my whole family moved northward to Lucknow where I was enrolled in an English medium school where Hindi was taught as a second language, but the predominant linguistic milieu in and around the school was Hindi. I remained in this situation till end of my graduation in science. I follwed it up with a formal Master's degree in Hindi and took up job as an English-Hindi writer and translator in an organization. I remained in this job for 20 years after which I became a fulltime English-Hindi freelance translator.
I have stated my native language as Hindi, but it can equally be English, or both Hindi and English, as I consider myself to have equal proficiency in both these languages.
If we go by the strict child exposure rule, it should have been Malayalam or Tamil, but I know neither of these languages well enough to translate. I speak a rare dialect of these two language which is nowhere recognized as a language, not even as a dialect. It is exclusively spoken in the Iyer community, which numbers a few thousand families.
While I accept that early exposure to language is important, I am not sure this is of critical importance. In my own case, I have had the privilege of early exposure as well as later exposure to languages, and my proficiency levels in these languages is more or less the same.
When I took up a job, I had to move to Ahmedabad in Gujarat, which is a Gujarati-speaking area. I was about 23 years of age at that time, well past the normally accepted language learning period. That was when my first exposure to Gujarati language began. Now when I compare my proficiency in Tamil, Malayalam and Gujarati, I find that my proficiency level in Gujarati is much higher than my proficiency levels in Tamil or Malayalam to which I was exposed at the critical language learning period. In none of the three languages - Tamil, Malayalam and Gujarati - I approach even remotely, native-level proficiency. But if we compare what little proficiency I have in these three languages, I would say it is Gujarati, to which I was exposed to at a much later age, in which I am more proficient. I even translate occasionally from Gujarati to Hindi or English, my main working languages. I wouldn't even think of doing this for Tamil or Malayalam, except in very limited contexts.
So my personal experience does not confirm the notion that learning a language in the critical period of early childhood is important. It can also be learnt much later. Of course the end results would be different, but for the purposes of translation, I don't think that really matters, and through continued education, effort and motivation, the kinks can be ironed out.
[Edited at 2014-10-16 07:04 GMT]
| | | | jyuan_us
United States
Local time: 13:05
Member (2005)
English to Chinese
+ ...
| You are right but a lot of educated people, say masters' degree holder, don't write well | Oct 16, 2014 |
Michele Fauble wrote: jyuan_us wrote: Michele Fauble wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
... native describes a way of acquiring a language, not how proficient one is. Either you acquired it like a native speaker or not. Some might say, "near-native" goes more in the direction of how well one speaks it, but apples and oranges, you know.
Are you saying that native language has no relationship to proficiency? I have seen too many people in my native language (Chinese) write very poorly in Chinese. The vast majority of native speakers throughout the history of the human species have been illiterate. Good writing, spelling and punctuation are learned at school and are not relevant to native speaker status.
I was not talking about illiterate people. I think about 50% of the B.A. holders can barely write in their native language to a quality that require no further editing in an employment setting.
[Edited at 2014-10-16 06:29 GMT]
| | | | S E (X)
Italy
Local time: 19:05
Italian to English
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote: Sarah Elizabeth wrote:
The US State Department, ITI, CIOL and ATA all seem to agree (see my above post for direct links to this information on their websites). Oh tell me more about how translators' associations are packed choke full of warm and tender feelings for non-native translators.  [Edited at 2014-10-16 03:16 GMT]
Łukasz, did you check the links?
I do not have experience applying as as non-native, but each of the four mentioned bodies accepts the fact that it is possible to translate professionally into an "acquired target language" or "language of habitual use", and the US Dept. of State, ITI, CIOL publicly accept applications from those who do.
Does this not mean anything? It would surprise me if it didn't and I would be interested in hearing why. Especially because the public positions of these bodies reflect, in my view, a smart understanding of what a good translator really is, and it is not tied exclusively to being a native speaker.
Are you saying that this does not mean anything in real-world terms? That these are empty words? Or...?
[None of this is off-topic, as it deals with real-world use of the categories 'native speaker' and 'native language' etc., introducing alternative options that taken all together say quite a lot about what these categories mean in real-world translation contexts. See Bernhard's original post, which has quite a lot to say about his motivations for asking us to answer his two questions, and real-world application of the terms and the translator selection process used by clients are front and center.]
| | | | | The obvious parable | Oct 16, 2014 |
Andy Watkinson wrote:
José, no-one SEZ anything. Jenn was merely re-stating the aim of the discussion. I thought that much was obvious.
No definition is being imposed; quite the contrary, read the title of the thread - you're being asked for your definition; no more, no less.
... what Bernhard asked for, some 380 posts ago, was how you define a native speaker - must be a tough question when it generates so much heat and so little light.
The proverbial situation we are having:
http://www.jainworld.com/literature/story25.htm
No spoilers included here.
| | |
|
|
|
S E (X)
Italy
Local time: 19:05
Italian to English
| The world is more complex than that -- indeed. | Oct 16, 2014 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Sarah Elizabeth wrote:
But coming to your own definition quoted above, I have some problems with the term "target language country" used in it.
I was actually hesitant to write "target language country". Of course I realize and agree that it is a woefully imperfect term. I had hoped that what I wrote to flesh out the idea would at least in part remedy the lack.
Ultimately, what is important to me in the term "native speaker" is what it can tell me about a translator's ability to work with and produce texts. If "native speaker" does not contain this information (for example, if it is used to refer to the language of someone's formative years or early childhood), I am not sure how useful the term would be in a translation context.
But I think that is why organizations and bodies like the US State Dept., ITI, CIOL and even the ATA, put the focus on proficiency, with "native speaker" customarily, but not necessarily, being an attribute of those who have achieved the requisite proficiency.
| | | | | Absolutely. Beautifully said. | Oct 16, 2014 |
Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote: LilianNekipelov wrote: Łukasz Gos-Furmankiewicz wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I assume that what you are saying here is that he "sounded" to your ears indistinguishable from other Polish native speakers and you judged this based on the fact that you are a native Polish speaker. Nah, I didn't say that. I didn't refer to him as a native speaker, so there are no 'other Polish native speakers' in the picture here. The only situation in which I'd say an adult can become a native speaker is when one's so old it doesn't matter whatever one's native language was 50 or 60 years ago, and then only if one really is almost totally indistinguishable. Which almost never happens. When it does, it probably happens because the new language fills the void left by the loss of one's first language. However, I believe that people who had started early and have been nearly indistinguishable for many years, or really are totally indistinguishable, should probably tick the native box in questionnaires for simplicity, choosing the response which is most representative of their situation. Many educated people whose education has been predominantly in English, especially if they have lived in an English-speaking country for years, have a "native level of English"--if they use the language in everyday life, which does not mean, however, they will be completely free from making some small mistakes from time to time, like everybody else--almost. It is true than I never even met anyone who spoke Polish well, other than the people who have grow-up in that environment, but still no one would classify them as 'non-native speakers'. There aren't even such terms in Polish and most other languages. My father's Polish did not sound standard at all, at least initially, but no one would brand him as anything. Almost the same with Russian. I have only met one person in my entire life who spoke Russian pretty well, other than the people from the former Soviet Union--a man from Africa who have lived in Russia for many yeas, and studied there--other than that--never--not even an intermediate level, which does not mean that those people should be branded in any way, or asked--what they spoke when they were one, how about three, which language their grandparents spoke, etc., in which region they have grown up, or were= growing up This seems really offensive. One again, I think this thread is really about our lingua franca, not as much about any other language. You can even become a "native speaker' by watching TV these days. Well, I can confirm that Polish has no term like 'native speaker', only very ugly literal translations of the English expression, or sarcastic phonetically spelt borrowings ('nejtiw' etc.) plus the horrible adjective 'natywny' one mentally associates with native drivers for something inside a PC or such like (or native support for something somewhere in the IT world). Nobody brands non-native speakers as anything, either, and Polish nationality, in general, used to be a multi-layered thing not inconsistent with Ruthenian or Lithuanian or Tartarian or some other ethnic identity (we even have assimilated some ethnic Scots from a vibrant self-governed minority back in the 16-17th century), especially among the nobility. There is hardly such a thing as an ethnically pure Pole anyway. It really something akin to what being American is these days. Nobody would think of American Poles as non-native speakers of the language, even though their Polish might fail to be comprehensible or they might fail to understand standard Polish, including for the reason of low proficiency as opposed to merely speaking an archaic non-literary dialect of the language (or archaic literary/genteel dialect of the language as the case may be). This thought pattern can make it difficult for people to realize that using assimilated American Poles to translate between (standard modern) Polish and English is far from optimal unless communication is meant to take place with American Poles. ... But no, you can't become native by watching telly. Forgetting your first language and totally immersing yourself in the new language... maybe, but it still is not a native language as a result, only L1/dominant language. [Edited at 2014-10-15 17:01 GMT]
As I said before, people from Lithuania speak a different variety of Polish, or many Silesians, even if they don't have any non-standard accent (I don't because I learned Polish mostly by listening to the radio--not as much from the people surrounding me--who spoke either a different variety, other languages, or Polish mixed with German), but yet people would not ask them anything about any 'native language'. It is an exclusively English-language thing--some people may just ask you about it or analyze you with regard to English only. My father had a very strong accent in Polish--nice, yet strong, and he often used some Russian words when speaking, not too many, but some, which did not prevent him from getting the highest level of education in Polish, and becoming a specialist in his field (I think he read most of the textbooks in Russian, but still).
The bottom line is that, of course, various translation assignments should be given to the best translator for that type of translation--talking everything into account, not just based on some imaginary "native speaker" concept. Of course, the people who have grown up speaking a particular language may have an advantage, especially if they specialize in the field the translation is related to, but there should not be such sharp-cut criteria, simplistic in a way, filtering people by 'native language'
I think it might be all right to ask people to list all the languages they speak, or use for work, and indicate the level of each of them, but not to brand people as any kind of 'natives'. This term really reminds me of the colonial times. 'Native level' then will be the highest educated level in that language, not necessarily completely free of any trances from another language--the type of language that you couldn't tell the person's background whatsoever. You can even tell when analyzing the language of the people born and educated in an English-speaking country, if you really wanted to or were interested in it, whether they come from an Italian background or Jewish, by the word usage, (unless of course they live in New York--then most people use some Yiddish words).
By the way--"run-ons" are grammatical mistakes, which have nothing to do with any "nativeness'. Sometimes they may also be allowed, especially in creative writing--for special effects.
I really liked, Bernhard's summary--it just shows that as many people as many views on that sensitive subject.
[Edited at 2014-10-16 09:59 GMT]
[Edited at 2014-10-16 10:03 GMT]
| | | | S E (X)
Italy
Local time: 19:05
Italian to English
Glad you liked the reference, José.
Sarah Elizabeth wrote:
Unsurprisingly most of the people contributing to this thread have different language combinations, different specialist fields, work in different markets and have different backgrounds. A bit like the six blind men and the elephant. Where one blind man's experience of the elephant is of the tusk, another's is of the tail. It is small wonder that they each "see" the elephant differently. It seems to me this is a little (or a lot) like what is going on here.
| | | | Peter Zhuang
Germany
Local time: 19:05
German to English
+ ...
| OT: just for laughs | Oct 16, 2014 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
The vast majority of native speakers throughout the history of the human species have been illiterate. Good writing, spelling and punctuation are learned at school and are not relevant to native speaker status.
After I read your post, I found this article in my FB news feed:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/crimes-committed-against-the-english-language?bffb&utm_term=4ldqpgp#4bx4fjs
Coincidence? I don't think so.
Admittedly, the girl who wrote no. 10 already has a brilliant life plan.
"love when guys have manors and hold the door opened for girls"
| | |
|
|
|
| Great minds think alike | Oct 16, 2014 |
I hadn't noticed your reference (or maybe I did, subconsciously). It just struck my mind when I was reminded that MY definition was required, and I realized that it shouldn't be taken as more valuable/valid than anyone else's.
Sarah Elizabeth wrote: Glad you liked the reference, José. Sarah Elizabeth wrote:
Unsurprisingly most of the people contributing to this thread have different language combinations, different specialist fields, work in different markets and have different backgrounds. A bit like the six blind men and the elephant. Where one blind man's experience of the elephant is of the tusk, another's is of the tail. It is small wonder that they each "see" the elephant differently. It seems to me this is a little (or a lot) like what is going on here.
| | | | S E (X)
Italy
Local time: 19:05
Italian to English
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
I hadn't noticed your reference (or maybe I did, subconsciously). It just struck my mind when I was reminded that MY definition was required, and I realized that it shouldn't be taken as more valuable/valid than anyone else's.
I am glad it struck your mind as well -- to me, it really seems unavoidable for the international translator community to be like the six blind men, although unfortunately for us the issue cannot be resolved so easily as it was for them.
| | | | | It depends what type of BA or BS. | Oct 16, 2014 |
jyuan_us wrote: Michele Fauble wrote: jyuan_us wrote: Michele Fauble wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
... native describes a way of acquiring a language, not how proficient one is. Either you acquired it like a native speaker or not. Some might say, "near-native" goes more in the direction of how well one speaks it, but apples and oranges, you know.
Are you saying that native language has no relationship to proficiency? I have seen too many people in my native language (Chinese) write very poorly in Chinese. The vast majority of native speakers throughout the history of the human species have been illiterate. Good writing, spelling and punctuation are learned at school and are not relevant to native speaker status. I was not talking about illiterate people. I think about 50% of the B.A. holders can barely write in their native language to a quality that require no further editing in an employment setting. [Edited at 2014-10-16 06:29 GMT]
The people with BAs, not to mention MAs, in the humanities can usually write really well because essay writing is required, in most of the courses. (Usually 2-4 essays per course)
[Edited at 2014-10-16 11:05 GMT]
| | | |
Everyone has a definition, here is mine: your native language is the one you speak/write *naturally*, where you don't have to wonder for a moment which preposition or article is appropriate for the particular sentence. If you use these *naturally*, you are a native speaker of that particular language, if you have to think about it before saying it, you're not.
Obviously, that's a generalization but let me present my own personal experience:
I arrived in the US with my parents at the ... See more Everyone has a definition, here is mine: your native language is the one you speak/write *naturally*, where you don't have to wonder for a moment which preposition or article is appropriate for the particular sentence. If you use these *naturally*, you are a native speaker of that particular language, if you have to think about it before saying it, you're not.
Obviously, that's a generalization but let me present my own personal experience:
I arrived in the US with my parents at the age of 4. They befriended numerous Czechoslovaks, and these people were part of my social network growing up. Some 45 years later, I can say with certainty (in my group) that those who were under the age of about 7 retained no discernible accent in speech and their writing shows no signs of not being native, but those who were older than 7 still retain the 'non-nativeness' - can you tell they're not native?: only if they speak or write something.
Has this prevented them from becoming successful? Not in the least. Are they aware that they are NOT native speakers of English? Of course. And they don't try to make a big deal about it. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
jyuan_us
United States
Local time: 13:05
Member (2005)
English to Chinese
+ ...
| Not necessarily so | Oct 16, 2014 |
LilianNekipelov wrote: jyuan_us wrote: Michele Fauble wrote: jyuan_us wrote: Michele Fauble wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
... native describes a way of acquiring a language, not how proficient one is. Either you acquired it like a native speaker or not. Some might say, "near-native" goes more in the direction of how well one speaks it, but apples and oranges, you know.
Are you saying that native language has no relationship to proficiency? I have seen too many people in my native language (Chinese) write very poorly in Chinese. The vast majority of native speakers throughout the history of the human species have been illiterate. Good writing, spelling and punctuation are learned at school and are not relevant to native speaker status. I was not talking about illiterate people. I think about 50% of the B.A. holders can barely write in their native language to a quality that require no further editing in an employment setting. [Edited at 2014-10-16 06:29 GMT] The people with BAs, not to mention MAs, in the humanities can usually write really well because essay writing is required, in most of the courses. (Usually 2-4 essays per course) [Edited at 2014-10-16 11:05 GMT]
When I studied for my MS, I was a TA, having the opportunity of grading papers for undergraduate students in humanities majors. In a class of 20 students, typically you would find 2 or 3 student writing excellently, another 2 or 3 students writing very poorly. Most of the students were in between.
[Edited at 2014-10-16 12:39 GMT]
| | | |
Sarah Elizabeth wrote:
I do not have experience applying as as non-native, but each of the four mentioned bodies accepts the fact that it is possible to translate professionally into an "acquired target language" or "language of habitual use", and the US Dept. of State, ITI, CIOL publicly accept applications from those who do.
DoS is no surprise, given as diplomatic services tend to have common sense with regard to translation issue, on top of actually knowing what they're talking about. However, translators' associations routinely promote codes of professional ethics that prominently feature this or that variety an obligation to translate only into one's mother tongue, with or without attendant rationale. Rationale which usually sounds semi-educated to me and makes it embarrassed to be a fellow translator and fellow intellectual. It's quite a challenge for me to remain somewhat respectful in my choice of phrasing when holders of university degrees sink to the level of superstition, making themselves look like witch doctors with their peculiar academic rigour. (Essentially passing down a received taboo That Must Not Be Questioned.)
This said, most native speakers shouldn't write in their own language without heavy post-editing, or translate into it from a foreign language, so no wonder that non-native speakers of the target language, who have it all the harder, are usually even more horrible.
Are you saying that this does not mean anything in real-world terms? That these are empty words? Or...?
Only referring to how superstition is promoted in ethical codes throughout most of the international translation scene and especially those parts of it which are rooted in the Anglosphere.
| | | | | I have a completely different experience | Oct 16, 2014 |
Nathaniel2 wrote:
Everyone has a definition, here is mine: your native language is the one you speak/write *naturally*, where you don't have to wonder for a moment which preposition or article is appropriate for the particular sentence. If you use these *naturally*, you are a native speaker of that particular language, if you have to think about it before saying it, you're not.
Obviously, that's a generalization but let me present my own personal experience:
I arrived in the US with my parents at the age of 4. They befriended numerous Czechoslovaks, and these people were part of my social network growing up. Some 45 years later, I can say with certainty (in my group) that those who were under the age of about 7 retained no discernible accent in speech and their writing shows no signs of not being native, but those who were older than 7 still retain the 'non-nativeness' - can you tell they're not native?: only if they speak or write something.
Has this prevented them from becoming successful? Not in the least. Are they aware that they are NOT native speakers of English? Of course. And they don't try to make a big deal about it.
Many people born here who speak a different language in everyday life have an accent specific to the language they speak a lot--not all of them, of course, but many. As to their English in writing--it varies from very basic English, with mistakes of various types, to very sophisticated academic level.
I think the people who moved to another country with their parents speak mostly the language of their parents at home, as opposed to other people. There is not that much difference really where anyone was born. 143,000 school children in New York cannot read--can you imagine that? Many British people, after they have lived in the US for a while, start speaking with a different accent compared to what they spoke in Britain.
http://www.familiesforexcellentschools.org/campaign/dont-steal-possible
[Edited at 2014-10-16 14:13 GMT]
| | | | | 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] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » What is your definition of “native speaker” and why does it matter to you to have a definition? | 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 » |
| | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
