| 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)
|
|---|
| There is a difference, yes! | Sep 27, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
If people who now claim to be "native speakers" (but aren't native speakers) then choose "native-level", then they would still imply that they are on the same "level" as native speakers. It is my conviction that a non-native speaker can never become a native speaker unless he/she is still in his/her teens.
For anyone claiming to be "native-level" when they're non-native speakers would still be a lie in my book.
Bernhard
Bernhard, you have a clear definition of what is a native speaker. Clients are free to request it, as I said, like any other requirement they wish, blue eyes, blond hair, big breasts, smokes Marlboros, drives a Ford, etc.
I happen to know many native speakers of PT (my truly native language) who wouldn't be able to write a proper text in their very own, very native language. No, they are not ignorant. They have higher education degrees in some possibly technical area. Some of them write using flawless syntax... in a computer programming language, because machines are much less tolerant to defective syntax and spelling than humans. Yet when they write for humans... you'll probably have seen some software manuals that clearly illustrate what happens.
Some of these people eventually land in the translation marketplace for miscellaneous reasons. The result is obvious, and I see it whenever I'm asked to fix/redo their translation work.
Yet some people are able to write in both their native and another languages in a way that is fully acceptable by these languages' respective native speakers. While they may be competent professional translators, they are not technically native in both languages. This new classfication would relieve them from the need of lying about being 100% native, as their command of that language is only 95% native.
This opens an interesting possiblity: true native speakers can claim native-like command of that language... or not! I happen to know some people who spoke their native language at home until their teen years, while their grandparents were still alive. Afterwards, their entire home switched to the language of the country they were living in. As they never studied that language formally, their command of it may be quite limited.
Outsourcers could then choose only true natives with native-like command of the target language, or merely anyone having native-like command, including legit native speakers. While "native speakerness" is hard to ascertain, proficiency can be rather accurately determined.
| | | | | @Psicutrinius et al. | Sep 28, 2012 |
psicutrinius wrote:
Must have been or something outside this thread, really. I do not see how the comment you quote can have led to this.
I believe Henry refers to Kim's post (from page 8 of this thread)
http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_suggestions/227485-should_“native_language”_claims_be_verified-page8.html#1967429
and Kim's link to another thread of his:
http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_suggestions/62666-english_native_speaker.html
The reason I brought up "proficiency" in my previous posts is I can see where translators will claim to have "native-level" proficiency when they actually should claim"excellent command of a language for a non-native translator" which by some has been referred to as "near-native" language proficiency in or command of a language.
Kim's quote which I used in my previous post shows that he suggested to drop "proficiency" from "native-level" proficiency "because proficiency, and I agree, "is another ball of wax entirely". Native-level to me means "native speaker." What else is it supposed to mean? Near-nativeness? So I wanted to make clear that "native-level" shouldn't be understood as something a non-native can reach/achieve/learn etc. It is simply not something that can be attained by non-natives. Or is it? "Native-level" as in proficiency? Any halfway decent non-native speaker is as proficient writing a simple sentence when compared to a 9 year old native speaker.
"Near-native level" then? Do you see where I'm going with this?
Would you include non-verified "near-natives" in the list of "native speakers" displayed when clients/outsourcers are looking for a "native speaker"?
I would hope not.
Would you include "native-level" speakers in the list of "native speakers" displayed when clients/outsourcers are looking for "native speakers"?
If you don't, I would expect they will declare themselves "native speakers" anyway, especially if there is no verification.
I hope I'm being clear about the difference between declaring or assessing "proficiency" and declaring or assessing/verifying "nativeness/native language(s)".
Although proficiency plays an important role in our job, and a translator should be highly proficient and competent in all his/her working languages, you cannot claim to be a native speaker because of it.
You can call yourself a "distinguished" speaker of a language (see the 2012 ACTFL proficiency guidelines I quoted in my previous post), highly proficient etc in language X. That would definitely be better than having the proficiency level of a five year old native speaker of language X. But does any "proficiency" make you a native speaker? I certainly wouldn't think so.
I said it before, you need to be proficient in languages to be a translator. That's a given. So when we want to verify someone's native language, we assess translators' NLs, not a five year old kindergartner's native language. In other words, we won't expect a five year old's speech. But that's it with regards to proficiency.
Assessing "native language" is not the same as assessing "language proficiency".
Only a native speaker is a native speaker. "Native-level" also implies "native". Herein lies the danger in using that label (native-level that is.)
"Near-native" (with respect to proficiency) would imply you're almost at the proficiency level of a native speaker and here, a native speaker translator, but what is that proficiency exactly? The proficiencies of native as well as non-native speakers vary. But what "near native" means (if one really wants to use that term) is that you are not (like) a native speaker, no matter how old or young they are, no matter if they are translators, hair stylists or highly competent toddlers. I don't even think you can make the argument for a "near-native" speaker in the sense of proficiency or nativeness. How can you be near-native? What prevented you from becoming a native speaker?
If you are not a native speaker, you are a non-native speaker.
The problem is that here the label "near-native" or even "native-level" (with or without the proficiency add-on) would be putting their bearers in the vicinity of or on an equal footing with a "native speaker" 's nativeness, i.e. not in terms of his/her good or bad language proficiency but in terms of being almost as genuinely "native" as the native speaker, and that is incorrect and misleading.
I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.
Here's that link to the 2012 ACTFL proficiency guidelines again:
http://www.actfl.org/files/public/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.pdf
Add-on: And before someone tells me I slipped up by implying that the language proficiency of a native speaker could possibly be worse than that of a non-native speaker? Possible. But among professional translators, not likely. The reason native speakers are chosen as translators into their native language is because they are truly "at home" in their language; nativeness is a different layer, above anything a non-native can ever achieve. That has nothing to do with vanity. It just comes with the territory.
Oh, and they are not chosen just because they are native speakers. They are translators and they do work in certain fields of expertise (well, most do).
B
[Edited at 2012-09-28 06:40 GMT]
| | | | | "nativeness is a different layer, above anything a non-native can ever achieve" | Sep 28, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer said: "nativeness is a different layer, above anything a non-native can ever achieve"
"Ever"?
Very rarely, yes.
And yet among the masters of the English language, for example, there is a small number of people who achieved that mastery while writing in a language that was not their native one. Joseph Conrad (native speaker of Polish, yet among the acknowledge masters of English literature "one of the great novelists in English, though he did not speak the language fluently until he was in his twenties") for one, or Vladimir Nabokov (native speaker of Russian, writer of several novels in Russian before turning to English prose - and to the translation into English of his own Russian works).
So, should Nabokov's Russian novels have been entrusted to someone else for translation? After all, he was not a native speaker of English.
| | | | Giles Watson 
Italy
Local time: 10:14
Italian to English
In memoriam | Not "above", just elsewhere | Sep 28, 2012 |
Riccardo Schiaffino wrote: Bernhard Sulzer said: "nativeness is a different layer, above anything a non-native can ever achieve" Joseph Conrad (native speaker of Polish, yet among the acknowledge masters of English literature "one of the great novelists in English, though he did not speak the language fluently until he was in his twenties") for one, or Vladimir Nabokov (native speaker of Russian, writer of several novels in Russian before turning to English prose - and to the translation into English of his own Russian works).
"Above" sounds a bit too much like a value judgement. Can we settle for "different"?
So, should Nabokov's Russian novels have been entrusted to someone else for translation? After all, he was not a native speaker of English.
Nabokov was a notorious control freak. It was his decision and should really be respected.
| | |
|
|
|
Giles Watson wrote:
"Above" sounds a bit too much like a value judgement. Can we settle for "different"?
I am not set on the word "above". I just wanted to express that "nativeness" in any language is unattainable once the window of opportunity for native language acquisition has closed.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-28 07:00 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-09-28 12:47 GMT]
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:14
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Riccardo Schiaffino wrote: Bernhard Sulzer said: "nativeness is a different layer, above anything a non-native can ever achieve" "Ever"? Very rarely, yes. And yet among the masters of the English language, for example, there is a small number of people who achieved that mastery while writing in a language that was not their native one. Joseph Conrad (native speaker of Polish, yet among the acknowledge masters of English literature "one of the great novelists in English, though he did not speak the language fluently until he was in his twenties") for one, or Vladimir Nabokov (native speaker of Russian, writer of several novels in Russian before turning to English prose - and to the translation into English of his own Russian works). So, should Nabokov's Russian novels have been entrusted to someone else for translation? After all, he was not a native speaker of English.
Riccardo, just to answer your question.
We did touch on this several times earlier in the thread. One contributor was very keen on quoting Conrad as an example. The fact is these are exceptions and we generally agreed that there was little point dwelling on these since I don't think there are many Conrads or Nabokovs on this site.
| | | | | We'll do our best! | Sep 28, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote: Henry, let's not skirt around the issue, would you care to comment on the "regal middle finger"? Is that indeed the case or are you going to commit to a time schedule? We're all ears (unaware that smileys have taken on some, unbeknownst to me, double meaning).
"regal middle finger"? Absolutely not! My fingers are not regal -- no part of me is -- and I don't think I have ever "given the finger" to anyone in my entire life. (I've done worse, I am not claiming to be a saint, but that sort of sneering just isn't me.)
And why would I have anything but appreciation for people passionate about making the data at ProZ.com as accurate and useful as possible? You are talking about a guy who has schlepped a box of "native speaker" cassette tapes around with him over four moves...
As for the "when", I want to stay away from making promises, having failed to deliver on some over the past several years. (Hence the contests "joke" that fell flat.) I will say that I've talked about how to approach this project with one of our developers, a guy who always does very good work in a reasonable period of time, but he is in the middle of doing some long-requested mobile features right now. What I can promise is that we'll do something on this topic as soon and as well as we can.
Thank you again for the topic, Lisa.
| | | | | Yes, I agree with you, Bernhardt. | Sep 28, 2012 |
Absolute nativeness is not attainable, at all, in my opinion. A person who was born and has lived in a totally hermetic group -- linguistically and otherwise isolated will probably have a 99.9% native fluency of the language exclusively spoken by that group. Where would they take their source language from, to become translators? How many the people you call "real native" speakers know the target language well enough to translate from it, or do they hope that the MT will do the job for them. Wis... See more Absolute nativeness is not attainable, at all, in my opinion. A person who was born and has lived in a totally hermetic group -- linguistically and otherwise isolated will probably have a 99.9% native fluency of the language exclusively spoken by that group. Where would they take their source language from, to become translators? How many the people you call "real native" speakers know the target language well enough to translate from it, or do they hope that the MT will do the job for them. Wishful thinking.
What you call a real native speaker, is in my opinion, a monolingual person, who has spent most of his or her life in the country where the language is spoken, most likely in a place without too many influences from the outside in the form of different languages, with quite high level of education in that language, like a Master's Degree in English, or Journalism. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
LilianBoland wrote:
Absolute nativeness is not attainable, at all, in my opinion. A person who was born and has lived in a totally hermetic group -- linguistically and otherwise isolated will probably have a 99.9% native fluency of the language exclusively spoken by that group. Where would they take their source language from, to become translators? How many the people you call "real native" speakers know the target language well enough to translate from it, or do they hope that the MT will do the job for them. Wishful thinking.
What you call a real native speaker, is in my opinion, a monolingual person, who has spent most of his or her life in the country where the language is spoken, most likely in a place without too many influences from the outside in the form of different languages, with quite high level of education in that language, like a Master's Degree in English, or Journalism.
It takes your breath away, doesn't it, n'est-ce pas, verdad, nicht wahr?
| | | |
Jenny Forbes wrote: LilianBoland wrote:
Absolute nativeness is not attainable, at all, in my opinion. A person who was born and has lived in a totally hermetic group -- linguistically and otherwise isolated will probably have a 99.9% native fluency of the language exclusively spoken by that group. Where would they take their source language from, to become translators? How many the people you call "real native" speakers know the target language well enough to translate from it, or do they hope that the MT will do the job for them. Wishful thinking.
What you call a real native speaker, is in my opinion, a monolingual person, who has spent most of his or her life in the country where the language is spoken, most likely in a place without too many influences from the outside in the form of different languages, with quite high level of education in that language, like a Master's Degree in English, or Journalism.
It takes your breath away, doesn't it, n'est-ce pas, verdad, nicht wahr?
yup, sure nuff, zeker weten, davvero
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:14
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
You two managed to follow the line of argument? That must make me a non-native.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:14
Hebrew to English
| The toys are well and truly out of the pram | Sep 28, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
Absolute nativeness is not attainable, at all, in my opinion. A person who was born and has lived in a totally hermetic group -- linguistically and otherwise isolated will probably have a 99.9% native fluency of the language exclusively spoken by that group. Where would they take their source language from, to become translators? How many the people you call "real native" speakers know the target language well enough to translate from it, or do they hope that the MT will do the job for them. Wishful thinking.
What you call a real native speaker, is in my opinion, a monolingual person, who has spent most of his or her life in the country where the language is spoken, most likely in a place without too many influences from the outside in the form of different languages, with quite high level of education in that language, like a Master's Degree in English, or Journalism.
...and scattered all on the floor....and all because "el jefe" has (at least in theory, even if superficially) thrown his weight behind a native language verification system.
| | |
|
|
|
| Native of what? | Sep 28, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
You two managed to follow the line of argument? That must make me a non-native.
Bad news, Lisa. By the strict standards proposed by the inquisition folks here, considering what you wrote about yourself, you are clearly a native speaker of Brazilian Portuguese.
Seja bem-vinda de volta, colega!
If you (wisely or not) don't translate into PT-BR it any more, it's not their problem.
The inquisition is proposed to be merciless.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 13:44
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | "Native-level" seems to me a sensible and practical option... | Sep 28, 2012 |
Henry's "native-level" option in addition to "native" seems to me a sensible and practical option.
While textbook nativeness in a language cannot be achieved, a good enough level of proficiency for the purpose of translation is achievable by non-natives under certain circumstances, and has been achieved by many translators as evidenced by this thread itself.
It will clean up misintepretation in profiles to a large extent and will also provide a larger pool of translator... See more Henry's "native-level" option in addition to "native" seems to me a sensible and practical option.
While textbook nativeness in a language cannot be achieved, a good enough level of proficiency for the purpose of translation is achievable by non-natives under certain circumstances, and has been achieved by many translators as evidenced by this thread itself.
It will clean up misintepretation in profiles to a large extent and will also provide a larger pool of translators to outsourcers which will include both natives and native-level translators.
But this fine distinction can work against natives in a subtle way which could goad them to don war paint all over again. The reason is this:
A translator declaring his language proficiency at native-level implies a clear, very high level of proficiency in the target language, for no one who has average proficiency will qualify for native-level proficiency.
Whereas a translator declaring himself as native in the target language doesn't really say much about his proficiency, for it is well known that all natives do not necessarily acquire high-level proficiency in their language.
So an outsourcer opting for a native translator just on the basis of the "native" label would be taking a very big risk. On the other hand, he would be placing a relatively safe bet by opting for a "native-level" translator.
If this logic sinks in, then one could expect a scramble for the "native-level" label, and down the line another Lisa would be prompted to start a thread on "Should native-level claims be verified?"!!
[2012-09-28 12:36 GMT पर संपादन हुआ] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | I think..... | Sep 28, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
You two managed to follow the line of argument? That must make me a non-native.
.. the underlying idea might be that no translator can possibly have a native tongue that is entirely unsullied by other (source) language influences. That the purest of the pure can only be utterly unexposed to anything else. And therefore be unlikely to make much of translator.
Which is an interesting proposal, I suppose. Sod all to do with proficiency verification in that, AFAIAC, we wouldn't be looking for anything outstanding, just the ability to write a coherent and reasonably error-free sentence in a language. Which would probably include Conrad, FWIW, but might not include some other people....
| | | | | 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 » |
| | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
