| 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)
|
|---|
Ty Kendall 
United Kingdom
Local time: 04:25
Hebrew to English
| Does anyone else feel like this? | Aug 3, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
that somebody's L1, or a native language with the meaning of L1, is a perfect thing that makes for a good translator
| | | |
LilianBoland wrote:
Do you suggest genetic tests, Bernhard
Eggs can be only checked for genes, not for linguistic performance. Also eggs don't have feelings, or identity issues.
no egg-/genetic testing is required.
My comment is a play on the chicken-and-egg analogy which usually describes the dilemma of not being sure what came first, the chicken or the egg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg
"Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"
But for our purposes relating to what constitutes a native speaker, what this is supposed to mean is that you can't put a chicken back in its egg (which you would have to do if you want it to acquire a different "native" language). You can't become a native speaker when you're no longer a child, you would have to start over again and go back in time. ("Egg" is more of a metaphor for "beginnings")
You may replace "egg" with "chick" (definition of chick - for the purposes here: young chicken/young child; see: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/chick ) to account for the emotional component or identity issues you would like to see). I realize though that chickens speak the same language all over the world (or do they?), so my analogy might still be unacceptable to you. But I'm confident most here will appreciate it.
In other words: an adult English native speaker (chicken) was never a non-native-English-speaking child (chick).
Bottom line: once you reach a certain age, you can't become a native speaker anymore.
B
[Edited at 2012-08-03 19:09 GMT]
| | | | | A little comprehension correction | Aug 3, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
This whole tread is based on the wrong premise ...
that somebody's L1, or a native language with the meaning of L1, is a perfect thing that makes for a good translator, automatically.
I'm sorry, Lilian, but this thread was never about native speakers being good translators "automatically", not even close.
That particular myth was put to bed in several posts, and if this is still what you understand the premise of this thread to be, then you are laboring under a misapprehension - and severely laboring, at that.
This is the topic of this thread, in the exact words of the OP:
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Bogus claims about native language status actually constitute deception. ... Should greater controls be put in place to cut down on the number of false claims?
LilianBoland wrote:
Some were even convinced that everybody is wired by a certain age, more like four, and this will make the person a perfect, almost automatic translator into their L1.
I'm sorry, Lilian, but again, this is false. I have read every post, and no one here has suggested that people are "wired" by the age of four.
And (again), no one has claimed that having any particular native language - the language one is immersed in during the formative years (older than four!) - makes that person a "perfect, almost automatic translator". Again, if this is what you believe, then you have certainly misunderstood.
LilianBoland wrote:
This thread was started based on somebody's personal interests to make their L1 the main asset in translation, ...
I'm sorry, Lilian, but again, this is completely incorrect. Those contributing to this thread have time and again addressed the real issue - that many linguists on this site LIE about themselves, and that this fraud casts a shadow on everyone and everything that has any relation to this site. Again, I refer you to the OP.
LilianBoland wrote:
Some other people just want to prove that they are perfect translators into their L1 although they have lived in another country for years.
While I know that this aspect of translation came up for discussion, it is certainly not the main topic of this thread, and has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is finding a method or methods to stop the fraud taking place on this platform.
The problem as I see it is that you are not convinced that there is any fraud taking place. Additionally, you seem to believe that tertiary education or even simply advanced secondary education is enough to make someone a "native speaker" of a second language - unfortunately, you seem to be alone in holding this position, because as far as I can tell, no one here agrees with you.
It is certainly your right to choose to "stick to your guns" on this. But when everyone else discussing the matter believes that you are in error - and many quote references to back up their own assertions - you will indubitably face the consequences of going against the grain.
[Edited at 2012-08-03 19:19 GMT]
| | | | | I am glad, it was not about any genetic issues, Bernhard, I wouldn't really | Aug 3, 2012 |
suspect you as a university professor of anything like that. It just sounded kind of strange. I am glad it is just about the dillema of the poor chicken and egg, that no one will ever solve.
"In some countries, the terms native language or mother tongue refer to the language of one's ethnic group rather than one's first language".[2] Wikipedia's quote. Just for some more clarification.
And, I found this story really fascinating, so I just wanted to sh... See more suspect you as a university professor of anything like that. It just sounded kind of strange. I am glad it is just about the dillema of the poor chicken and egg, that no one will ever solve.
"In some countries, the terms native language or mother tongue refer to the language of one's ethnic group rather than one's first language".[2] Wikipedia's quote. Just for some more clarification.
And, I found this story really fascinating, so I just wanted to share it
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13297165/Mother-Tongue-By-Amy-Tan-I-Am-Not-A
[Edited at 2012-08-03 19:02 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-08-03 19:19 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: http://www.proz.com/siterules/general/2#2 | | Some clarifications | Aug 3, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
Yes, Ari said something very similar to what I commented on. I don't really have the time to go through all the posts again, maybe later. Most of the people I know who have been living in the United States for most of their lives and are translators, report English as their second native language
Hi Lilian,
For whatever it is worth, I need to clarify some points:
1. As Sarah pointed out, my full name is Luis Arri Cibils. Arri is my last name, not a given name. Cibils is my mother’s maiden name. I identified myself on this site in the traditional Spanish style, using both parents’ last/maiden names. Of course, you can call me whatever you wish, provided is not intended as an insult. Try, however, to roll the r, even if two should be there, if you call me “Ari.” However, never call me Cibils or Mr. Cibils or Sr. Cibils or Dr. Cibils (even if I am extremely proud of being of Catalan descent), because it would be wrong, both in Spanish and English.
2. Re what I said: I stated that “English legalese” might be considered, if “legalese” were a language, to be my “native legalese,” but I emphasized that English is not, and never will be, my native language. I strive to make it my second language, but I am fully aware it can never be my second native language. And as to those foreign-born Harvard professors allegedly calling themselves as having English as their second native language, believe you me, they are sure they have more than enough qualifications to avoid making false claims. I know personally many of them, professors at the top engineering schools in the US. Their English is excellent, professionally up to scratch, and it needs to be so to teach at a top school, but they would be surprised you call them native, and strongly disagree with you. Being able to professionally use a language is not the same as to be native in the language.
3. (This is the main point of my post.) You have asserted that “some other people just want to prove that they are perfect translators into their L1 although they have lived in another country for years.” You did not mentioned me specifically, but, as I have stated here that I have lived in the US for nearly 40 years and still declare that Spanish is my native and main target language, I felt compelled to respond.
Let’s see how much I need to “falsely” declare that Spanish is my native language and the main target language for my “perfect” translations. To start, for the last five years, at least, I have translated somewhere between 750,000 and 1,000,000 words. In the last two months I translated over 125,000 words and edited over 250,000, all into Spanish. I am glad that the ordeal is over. On the last 12 months, I have accepted only 4-5% of the number of Spanish words I was requested to translate into English. The amount I accepted represents less than 1% of the number of words I translated in that time. From a monetary point of view, I can delete my offer to translate into English at any time. I have my reasons to maintain the offer. And I can deliver a professional work.
Let’s go one step further. Early last year, here in ProZ, of all the places, an agency asked for Spanish native speakers, US citizens or residents, ATA’s certified EN>ES translators, for a potential assignment with a “very prestigious” federal agency. Potential job requests are the only requests I answer on ProZ. Given the high fees I demand, there is no way I will ever get a “regular” assignment, where time constraints are paramount, and the decision is made essentially based on the fee requested.
I was tested, a paid test, and participated in the test taken by the prestigious agency. We won the bid.
The “very prestigious” federal agency was the EOP, the Executive Office of the Presidency, i.e., the White House. The following assignments were to translate President Obama’s speeches, and those translations were the one the White House distributed to the press.
Do you think, Lilian, that I care what you or any other person thinks re whether my Spanish native language remains up to par after 30 to 40 years in the US? The market and, particularly, the upper end of that market is all that I care.
In any event, Lilian, I have to thank you for giving me an opportunity to exercise bragging rights. Of course, I must also apologize to the other participants who could not care less about my translation abilities, but I needed to emphasize that the only thing I care re this thread is to maintain a professional profile so those high quality agencies keep coming to this site to look for professionals, something that will stop if we keep allowing false declarations in the profiles, justifying them with fallacies such as that, after all, the only thing that is important is the content since style (and grammar, and spelling, and even readability or unambiguous translations) is irrelevant.
Hopefully this is my last post.
Regards to all,
Luis
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 11:25
Chinese to English
| I love hearing about what other good translators are up to... | Aug 4, 2012 |
Luis Arri Cibils wrote:
The following assignments were to translate President Obama’s speeches, and those translations were the one the White House distributed to the press...I have to thank you for giving me an opportunity to exercise bragging rights.
I wish I could read Spanish so I could look at your versions. I did a few Obama speeches into Chinese as practice exercises, and they're really hard! The way his rhetorical logic works is distinctive, and it's not a Chinese style at all.
To attempt to steer us back:
Lisa suggested IELTS for all - I'm with Ty and Janet, it's too expensive and time-consuming. Plus, I doubt IELTS would be pleased. It's not supposed to test native speakers.
Charlie suggested: making the system that Jared claims to exist actually work - just private notification of the staff when you notice an egregious case. I could support this, but I still don't see how it's going to happen. Charlie thinks that if we can get "consensus" that will help, but I'm still not seeing it.
Bernhard's suggested skype/face-to-face meetings. The scale problem applies there. It would be very hard to test everyone on the site, unles you did an exponential thing: one person passes the test, they then test two more people, those two test four more, and so on. You can get the numbers that way, but you lose control of the quality.
I've suggested a written test for new members only. Big problem with existing jokers, but over time, quality should improve. Otherwise, the scale problem seems insurmountable.
Bernhard has emphasised, and I think everyone agrees: there must be much clearer indications of which "N"s are verified and which are not. Non-verified Ns should come with BIG warnings plastered all over them.
Did I miss anything important?
| | | |
have deleted post - no merit
[Edited at 2012-08-04 03:12 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| the objective of preventing false declarations | Aug 4, 2012 |
Jared wrote:
Hello all,
Thanks to everyone who has provided input on this subject so far.
As I mentioned earlier, ways of strengthening the native language credential system are being worked on, and the feedback given here and in previous discussions on the topic has proven and will prove useful. It should be noted that initial improvements to the system will most likely center around providing a greater level of differentiation to those who are able to verify a native language, rather than centering around the elimination of declared languages which have not yet been verified.
While I will still be following the thread, I'm signing off for now. I will report back here as soon as the first improvements can be implemented.
Jared
Having read, thought, and written about this issue for a while now, I felt I should ask you if the improvements will keep in mind/include the objective of "preventing false claims" in profiles. The problem I see with simply allowing translators to verify their languages is that they won't do it if "not verifying one's languages" has no consequences. What I mean is someone could declare two native languages (falsely) and just leave it at that.
As long as unverified native speakers can bid on jobs in their declared native languages and show up in the native language search results in the directory, there is no incentive for them to get verified. But required verification is what most participants in this thread are supporting.
I believe the unverified status should only be temporary and all unverified languages (even one) should be verified. I am certain we'll continue to discuss the "how this can be done", meaning the actual procedure.
If verification finds the translator to be non-native in any of the languages she/he claims to be "native", she/he should not be allowed to continue to declare that language as their native language (not even as unverified native language) on their profile because otherwise, we're back to square one and it would again make no difference if one is verified or not because both, verified and unverified translators, and both, honest and dishonest users/members will still be found in the directory and be able to bid on jobs.
One "after-verification" solution for those who fail the test could be that their falsely claimed native language(s) is/are no longer listed on their profile page at all (not even as unverified) which will keep them from applying for jobs that are restricted to native speakers and exclude them from the directory of native speakers of that language.
So, I am proposing a switch from voluntary verification to mandatory verification.
As a temporary measure, I could see a disclaimer on job posts and in the directory informing outsourcers/ clients that "unverified native language" declarations must be viewed with (extreme) caution.
A clear-cut policy in steps would be great.
Step 1: unverified
Step 2: verification (mandatory)
Step 3: permanent display of "verified" language status without any further opportunity to make "unverified" native language declarations (claims).
I am sure you are still reading the thread, but I wanted to reiterate that many here do want a system that clearly makes it impossible (through mandatory verification) to falsely claim native languages once the "unverified" grace period is over. Is this Proz.com's objective as well?
B
[Edited at 2012-08-04 04:52 GMT]
| | | | | I won't really spend too much time on this thread anymore, I promise | Aug 4, 2012 |
but I really have to say this final, hopefully, thing. I was thinking about different things and people, and this thought came to my mind. I have never met in my life, being over forty years of age and having visited at least fifteen countries and lived in four, anyone whose mother was bilingual -- unknown variety of English and another languabut I really have to say this final, hopefully, thing. I was thinking about different things and people, and this thought came to my mind. I have never met... See more but I really have to say this final, hopefully, thing. I was thinking about different things and people, and this thought came to my mind. I have never met in my life, being over forty years of age and having visited at least fifteen countries and lived in four, anyone whose mother was bilingual -- unknown variety of English and another languabut I really have to say this final, hopefully, thing. I was thinking about different things and people, and this thought came to my mind. I have never met in my life, being over forty years of age and having visited at least fifteen countrees and lived in four, any one whose mother was blingual -- unknown variety of English and another anguagge from a different family , the person was born in a country where the language of the mother was considered the mother tongue -- the definitions varies from country to country and English was not the language of that country, then the person lived in a country where another totally different language than English was spoken, for at least a quater of a century, then in another country where yet another language was spoken for many years, and had education in a totally unrelated language to any of the working language pairs or nativeness claims, yet this person would be considered a perfect 100% native speaker of English, considered other people fraudsters -- although I hate this word, which might not even exist in fact -- it gets justly underlined.
This is just another inspiration for a play from the Theatre of the Absurd genre. A person who has grown totally in a country where L2 is the only official language, would not even claim it as her or his second native languge. Isn't it something? How did she or he spend time there? In total isolation? Speaking just to the father?
Can someone who has lived in an an English speaking county for just about 4-6 years claim to be 100% native speaker of that language and offend other members., who may understand the term native language,in a different way -- one of at least five possible meanings, the language of habitual use being one of them.
[Edited at 2012-08-04 08:22 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-08-04 09:55 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | S E (X)
Italy
Local time: 05:25
Italian to English
| thread goal: safeguarding perceived and actual site quality | Aug 4, 2012 |
Luis Arri Cibils wrote:
I have no turf to protect, but I do not want to keep [being] asked: “What is a “nice” translator [like] you doing in a place like that (ProZ).” I am sure that ProZ’s management does not like it either.
Luis Arri Cibils wrote:
the only thing I care re this thread is to maintain a professional profile so those high quality agencies keep coming to this site to look for professionals, something that will stop if we keep allowing false declarations in the profiles, justifying them with fallacies ...
My sentiments exactly, and precisely my reasons for participating in this thread.
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 04:25
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | A vehicle for others | Aug 4, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
Lisa suggested IELTS for all - I'm with Ty and Janet, it's too expensive and time-consuming. Plus, I doubt IELTS would be pleased. It's not supposed to test native speakers.
Just a minor correction. This was a suggestion by proxy.
You can all probably imagine from the numbers of views of this thread that I have received a large number of PMs/emails on the subject. I am delighted that there are so many following it, even though they may not necessarily have contributed. However, please may I take this opportunity to add that, although I am more than happy (and have already done so a couple of times), in the interests of democracy, to put forward suggestions on behalf of those who are:
1) serially vetted and therefore unable to get their message across in due time
2) banned from posting on the site
3) non-members and whose posts are reviewed with such a delay that the message never gets seen by anyone.
I do not wish to do the same for those who:
1) have left the site of their own volition under a black cloud, yet continue to take enough of an interest that they follow the forums
2) do not wish their views to be associated with their name
3) send me messages just to have a dig at the futility of it all.
I would ask you please not to message me and invite you instead to reinstate your account and let us all know your views; the more intelligent contributions we have, the better. I do not wish to be a vehicle for those who have their own issues with site management, nor do I feel it is reasonable to target me. Thank you.
| | |
|
|
|
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
I do not wish to do the same for those who:
1) have left the site of their own volition under a black cloud, yet continue to take enough of an interest that they follow the forums
2) do not wish their views to be associated with their name
3) send me messages just to have a dig at the futility of it all.
I would ask you please not to message me and invite you instead to reinstate your account and let us all know your views; the more intelligent contributions we have, the better. I do not wish to be a vehicle for those who have their own issues with site management, nor do I feel it is reasonable to target me. Thank you.
There are actually people behaving like this? I'm flabbergasted! Nothing better to do? Not busy enough? It's Proz.com, after all, hardly a matter of life and death!
[Edited at 2012-08-04 12:50 GMT]
| | | |
Would you be so kind as to explain what exactly you meant by:" don't wish their views to be associated with their name." This is a total mystery -- it might be just the wording that is not right. Who else could someone's views be associated with, if not with the person to whom they belong?
[Edited at 2012-08-04 15:26 GMT]
| | | | | I've just seen the light! | Aug 4, 2012 |
I've just realised that our native language is the one we use when we do mental arithmetic: when we're in the supermarket and we're working out which item works out cheapest, when we repeat a phone number to ourselves, work out the date or do any mental calculation.
I exclaim in two languages: 'ouch' or 'ay'; I don't often swear but when I do, I use either Spanish or English (it depends why, or at whom, I'm swearing!) but I ALWAYS do my mental arithmetic in English.
My... See more I've just realised that our native language is the one we use when we do mental arithmetic: when we're in the supermarket and we're working out which item works out cheapest, when we repeat a phone number to ourselves, work out the date or do any mental calculation.
I exclaim in two languages: 'ouch' or 'ay'; I don't often swear but when I do, I use either Spanish or English (it depends why, or at whom, I'm swearing!) but I ALWAYS do my mental arithmetic in English.
My discovery's made me feel a lot happier! ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Should “native language” claims be verified? | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
| | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
