| 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)
|
|---|
| Valiant, worthwhile-but unfortunately fruitless (so far) | Sep 22, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote: And I don't want a Level 1 language, a Level 2 language or a Level 3, sub-section A of sub-paragraph 5 language, I just want a native language  *I do however think the suggestion is a valiant and worthwhile attempt at solving the problem! [Edited at 2012-09-22 11:42 GMT]
I agree that this forum has put forward valiant and worthwhile attempts at solving the problem of bogus native speaker claims. That has never been in doubt. A resounding 'yes' to the title: Should “native language” claims be verified. (Even if the question now is can they be).
But if one faces the facts, it's all been fruitless so far. It has stirred the sleeping into action, sometimes in a counterproductive way.
We need to find a feasible solution forward or this could go on and on (and round and round) forever.
[Edited at 2012-09-22 12:09 GMT]
| | | | | The proof of the pudding | Sep 22, 2012 |
The system would only be worthwhile if any of those making deliberately false (for whatever reason) or misguided claims to 'native' (level 1) command of a target language would opt for level 2 if this opportunity were available. Is there anyone following this thread who would change their level 1 status to 'bilingual' (level 2) if this option was available? And those thousands of translators on the site offering services into languages they don't claim to be native in? Would such a distinction s... See more The system would only be worthwhile if any of those making deliberately false (for whatever reason) or misguided claims to 'native' (level 1) command of a target language would opt for level 2 if this opportunity were available. Is there anyone following this thread who would change their level 1 status to 'bilingual' (level 2) if this option was available? And those thousands of translators on the site offering services into languages they don't claim to be native in? Would such a distinction serve any purpose for them?
Obviously if the answers are 'no' and 'no' then the whole escapade is indeed pointless.
[Edited at 2012-09-22 12:39 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Michael Beijer 
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:42
Member (2009)
Dutch to English
+ ...
| paid verification system? | Sep 22, 2012 |
Given that Proz has over 500,000 users, I doubt they are going to be willing or able to verify all of these people themselves. I therefore suggest three things:
(1) everyone gets a grey icon who has not actually been verified
(2) a disclaimer is added
(3) a paid verification system is created, for those users who wish to earn the yellow icon. Perhaps make it cost €200 or so, so as to dissuade the rabid non-native hordes from trying t... See more Given that Proz has over 500,000 users, I doubt they are going to be willing or able to verify all of these people themselves. I therefore suggest three things:
(1) everyone gets a grey icon who has not actually been verified
(2) a disclaimer is added
(3) a paid verification system is created, for those users who wish to earn the yellow icon. Perhaps make it cost €200 or so, so as to dissuade the rabid non-native hordes from trying to diddle the system.
Michael ▲ Collapse
| | | | Kirsten Bodart
United Kingdom
Local time: 20:42
Dutch to English
+ ...
| To dispell the myth about this | Sep 22, 2012 |
writeaway wrote: Michele Fauble wrote:
Belgian Dutch TV programs are subtitled in the Netherlands, and European Portuguese TV programs and movies are subtitled in Brazil.
[Edited at 2012-09-21 18:41 GMT] And vice versa. NL TV programs shown on Dutch language channels in Belgium are often subtitled.
A part of the Dutch public is extremely resilient in its refusal to understand anything apart from Dutch coming from the Randstad (i.e. The Hague-Amsterdam area). Whatever happens below that (Limburg and Zeeland) they don't really care about. They will not accept anything as Standard Dutch which is not from there. Hence Flemish translators sometimes have a hard time as well. At best, the kind of Dutch spoken below the big rivers is 'funny' to listen to because it is softer and more elaborate. In the worst case it is unacceptable.
One of the first cases in this subtitling business was the series [iWindkracht 10[/i] which was a nineties co-production of both the Flemish TV corporation and a Dutch channel. A Dutch testing audience claimed they couldn't understand the Flemish actors, although they spoke perfectly normally, without regional accent. Only not with Dutch features like vocablised Rs adn exaggerated diphthongs. To please their audience, the Dutch channel subtitled the whole thing. Not so for teh Flemish corporation.
This was in the nineties. Before that, there was no extensive subtitling in either language sub-area. Not even for dialect. And I mean, proper dialect which was hardly understandable. Television clips from the sixties show farmers speaking to programs like Countryfile in proper West-Flemish dialect. They could have subtitled, but did not.
The VRT (Flemish TV corporation) then later in the nineties subtitled the detective series Baantjer only because there was one episode where Amsterdam dialect was spoken (Bargoens) which is difficult to understand for anyone, because it is very old and idiomatic. As they had a contract with the subtitling company, they couldn't do otherwise but subtitle the whole series. It was the start of consistent subtitling. Even for dialects which were not subtitled earlier. For example on the news. There was a satirical program In de Gloria which criticised this.
Nowadays, even people who speak with a slight regional accent are subtitled. Completely unnecessary. It's dumbing down, that is all. It is the same as if the BBC were to subtitle EastEnders or Neil Oliver. Completely unacceptable.
The fact that same language programs are subtitled in certain countries does not mean anything. It means there is laziness at least on one side. When I speak to my Dutch Dutch friends here, I do not need subtitles, nor do they need subtitles to understand me. If I write to Dutch colleagues I am not completely incomprehensible, nor are they to me. There are certain differences in vocab, but it is nothing really bad. Mainly when it comes to household devices, foods and administrative things.
You cannot compare the Dutch language area with European and Latin-American Portuguese or Spanish.
The point being that subtitling is not really a mark of languages being different. Apparent Americans find EastEnders so inomprehensible that they have a it subtitled. If I can understand it (wit some practice), surely an American should with some practice?
I have the impression that subtitling these depends on contempt for people's minds and political correctness. Imagine, God forbid, that someone shouldn't understand A or B, he'll feel stupid.
That level structure would be a good start at determining language knowledge. Although, how would you asses it? (again)
| | |
|
|
|
| paid verification system? | Sep 22, 2012 |
Hit 'em where it hurts, aye? Might even be something in that.
| | | | Tony M
France
Local time: 20:42
Member
French to English
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER
Michael Beijer wrote:
Given that Proz has over 500,000 users, I doubt they are going to be willing or able to verify all of these people themselves. I therefore suggest three things:
(1) everyone gets a grey icon who has not actually been verified
(2) a disclaimer is added
(3) a paid verification system is created, for those users who wish to earn the yellow icon.
Your point #3 is exactly what I suggested a few posts back. I think your suggested figure of €200 is perhaps a little high — and bearing in mind that the 'rabid hordes' tend to be at the 'lo-cost' end of the market, I feel a somewhat lower fee would still have the desired deterrent effect. No doubt some kind of costing could be worked out so as to ensure that it was at least self-financing (there's no real reason why anyone ought to actually make a profit out of this!) And if people wish to claim 2 native languages — well, it's only fair they should pay twice for 2 verifications.
[Edited at 2012-09-22 13:23 GMT]
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Deleted by poster. | | well meant but not helping to solve the problem | Sep 22, 2012 |
Hello Olly,
I put in bold face the parts that jumped out at me.
Olly Pekelharing wrote:
... mother tongue: Only one possible, the language you learnt first (and most) as a child and teenager, the formative years, whatever, but there has to be only one, otherwise this system breaks down (yes there will be exceptions again, there always will be).
native (let's call it 'level 1'): In the vast majority of the cases this is your mother tongue. You have absolute command of this language including full ‘control’ and capacity to ‘innovate’ as described by Phil. The vast majority of cases will only have one native language, is my belief.
bilingual ('level 2'): You have far-reaching command of this language, but lack the full ‘control’ and the capacity to ‘innovate’ that the native has.
fluent ('level 3'): You have good command of this language.
basic ('level 4'): You have basic command of this language
...
I think such a system would circumvent some of the problems discussed in this forum. Translators can declare a 'native' (level 1) language that is not their 'mother tongue', outsourcers can see at a glance that this is the case and take the necessary steps to affirm that the claim is valid, or look for a mother tongue=level 1 combination if they can't be bothered. ...
Either way, this minority gets at least a chance to participate in the 'native' market without having to resort to lies. (Obviously, outsourcers will not be able to preselect for 'mother tongue', only for 'level of command'; otherwise the whole circus will start again.) As far as I can see it, the only ones who would luck out here are those who declare two (or more!) mother tongues. Umm...
I realise that this is just juggling with terminology to a large degree, but in the spirit of democracy I thought I'd give it a go.
Regards,
Olly
[Edited at 2012-09-22 10:41 GMT]
1) Declaring "a 'native' language (your level 1) that is not your mother tongue implies that there is a difference between these two.
There isn't, not if you define "native language" as most do in this market, namely a language that you learned either from birth or during your formative years/the critical period (= as a child and certainly before adulthood). That also means you must have spoken it for quite a few years. You don't necessarily are a native speaker if you spoke/wrote it from age 8 to 9 and then did not speak/write it again until you were an adult. that also goes for persons who learned it as a non-native language as a child, in a non-native language environment.
Verification (by a third party) means you will prove your nativeness by talking to NL peers or have them evaluate your writing, not for grammatical correctness and fancifulness, but for "nativeness".
But you define "native" as "You have absolute command of this language including full ‘control’ and capacity to ‘innovate". Nothing else. You implicitly allow that this language "level" can be acquired at any point in your life, anywhere, and furthermore, has a lot to do with how well you speak and write it, and think in it.
2) By creating a difference between these two terms, you are playing into the hands of the "would be native speakers" who will see this as a chance to declare themselves "native". Think about it. Those individuals will indeed claim: "I have absolute command of this language including full ‘control’ and capacity to ‘innovate’."
3) Your categories (which I wouldn't subscribe to , especially the "bilingual" category - bilingual or multilingual describes a person who can communicate in more than one language and it's not a description of how or how well a person speaks or writes one particular language) - would in no way improve the status quo - an unresolved problem regarding too many false native language claims. I believe it would actually encourage people more to lie about their native language and their speaking and writing competences. It will make "native language" again look like something you can learn, at any point in your life, and it will, as part of your category system, imply a level of how well someone writes in or speaks a language.
That could be called an advanced level of fluency. This is not what constitutes "nativeness". I talked about that two pages back.
At least one person already hinted that they would NOT switch any of their declared native languages to a lower level.
4) Your suggestions are well-meant, okay, but they do not (re)present the concept of native language as it should be (IMO), and they do not answer the question: should native language claims be verified? And they do not include a method for verifying native language(s).
All your system does is let translators self-assess their skills regarding command of a language.
Third-party verification of native language is surely not part of your (declaration) system.
If you believe that native language claims should be verified and if you can suggest a method for it, please post it here:
http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_suggestions/230297-methods_for_verifying_native_language_claims.html
My suggestion: participate in a Powwow with NL peers and get it done there. It can be done.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-22 17:30 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| I wish you had kept it, as it's elucidative | Sep 22, 2012 |
Olly Pekelharing wrote:
@José; sorry to use you as an example again...
... but I believe that at some stage during this discussion
you reported that you 'had' to report English as a native
language even though you do not actually claim to be a
native speaker. Assuming you mean you don't completely
master English to the 'native' level (full control and
innovative ability), would you switch English as a target
language from level 1 (native) to level 2 (bilingual) if the
option was available?
No, I would keep English at Level 1 (for the reasons I've explained before on this thread), however it would no longer be a breach of ethics, validating Bernhard's concept of native speaker. Considering the feedback I've had from native translation clients, as well as from plain natives, my "gap" (I began learning English at age 9) hasn't been noticeable for a few decades already.
Meanwhile I'd take the chance to add Italian, French, and Spanish as my Level 4 languages.
The real trouble would be for 'translators' who don't qualify as Level 1 in any language whatsoever. Unfortunately, I've seen their output a bit too often.
| | | | | It can be done | Sep 22, 2012 |
writeaway wrote:
I agree that this forum has put forward valiant and worthwhile attempts at solving the problem of bogus native speaker claims. That has never been in doubt. A resounding 'yes' to the title: Should “native language” claims be verified. (Even if the question now is can they be).
But if one faces the facts, it's all been fruitless so far. It has stirred the sleeping into action, sometimes in a counterproductive way.
We need to find a feasible solution forward or this could go on and on (and round and round) forever.
[Edited at 2012-09-22 12:09 GMT]
Feasible solution:
1) a sensible definition of native language: learned it from birth or within the formative years/critical period, within a native language environment, and (for the purpose of verification) speak it today.
If you fit that definition:
2) verification method: go to a Powwow and talk to NL peers or have them evaluate a writing sample you create there and ask them to confirm your native language.
If they can't, try again (maybe one more time). Their judgment is then final.
You may ask for peers who grew up close to where you grew up. Ge it done within a reasonable time frame.
It's doable.
N.B. add-on to prevent any further "lunacy" comments: Above is ONE suggested method; for those you can't or won't come to a Powwow, online versions of verification (video conference, online-writing sample) should be offered. I did suggest these things many times in this thread before.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-22 17:57 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-09-22 18:14 GMT]
| | | |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
2) verification method: go to a Powwow and talk to NL peers or have them evaluate a writing sample you create there and ask them to confirm your native language.
If they can't, try again (maybe one more time). Their judgment is then final.
You may ask for peers who grew up close to where you grew up. Ge it done within a reasonable time frame.
It's doable.
I'm all for people making a bit of an effort when it comes to matters from which they could or should benefit, and indeed when it comes to running their business, but this strikes me as being a bit steep. For one thing, some people live hundreds of miles from their nearest pow-wow, or indeed their nearest colleagues who could conceivably pitch up if they organised one themselves in their own back garden. Secondly, it's a lot to ask of people (in terms of time and money) for something that ought to take ten minutes. Third for those living in countries where their native tongue is not a national tongue, other natives may not be available.
I see what you're trying to achieve (although even then, there are loopholes as there with ANY proposal) but I do feel that whatever method is decided upon, it should be reasonably feasible for any and all site members (even if the verification itself is not universal).
| | | | | @Olly: correction | Sep 22, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Olly Pekelharing wrote:
Mine's English, since you ask, which is also my 'first language', which I declare to master at the 'native' level, while Dutch is my 'second language', which I declare to master at the 'bilingual' level. This agency obviously sees a distinction between 'mother tongue' and 'native language', and apparently they are aware of the fact that some native speakers weren't born that way (as it were) and are happy to give these people (the ones I call the exceptions) a chance. So everybody's happy, right? ... The ad said L1 and L2. You would put Dutch as native under L1 yes? What would you say for English under L2? Well, you wouldn't choose "native", correct? If you were to put them both under "native" you would be implying that you speak/write them on a native speaker's level. that's the same as "mother tongue".
Correction I got your languages mixed up. As you stated clearly above, you consider English your native L1 and Dutch your non-native L 2.
So, here's the corrected part of my post:
-----------------------------------
The ad said L1 and L2.
You would put English as native under L1 yes?
What would you say for Dutch under L2? Well, you wouldn't choose "native", correct?
If you were to put them both under "native" you would be implying that you speak/write them on a native speaker's level. that's the same as "mother tongue".
----------------------------------
Again, sorry for the mistake.
Bernhard
| | |
|
|
|
| lunacy aside, more feasibility | Sep 22, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
2) verification method: go to a Powwow and talk to NL peers or have them evaluate a writing sample you create there and ask them to confirm your native language.
If they can't, try again (maybe one more time). Their judgment is then final.
You may ask for peers who grew up close to where you grew up. Ge it done within a reasonable time frame.
It's doable.
I'm all for people making a bit of an effort when it comes to matters from which they could or should benefit, and indeed when it comes to running their business, but this strikes me as being a bit steep. For one thing, some people live hundreds of miles from their nearest pow-wow, or indeed their nearest colleagues who could conceivably pitch up if they organised one themselves in their own back garden. Secondly, it's a lot to ask of people (in terms of time and money) for something that ought to take ten minutes. Third for those living in countries where their native tongue is not a national tongue, other natives may not be available. I see what you're trying to achieve (although even then, there are loopholes as there with ANY proposal) but I do feel that whatever method is decided upon, it should be reasonably feasible for any and all site members (even if the verification itself is not universal).
Okay. So I suggested ONE possible method. Here's another, adding a few things.
2) verification method: go to a Powwow and talk to NL peers or have them evaluate a writing sample you create there and ask them to confirm your native language.
If they can't, try again (maybe one more time). Their judgment is then final.
Same can be achieved by meeting your NL peers online (video conference, Skype, etc.) or creating, online, a writing sample (after your identification is verified) which then will be evaluated by NL peers.
You may ask for peers who grew up close to where you grew up. Get it done within a reasonable time frame.
Chip in if you care, Charlie.
Bernhard
[Edited at 2012-09-22 18:19 GMT]
| | | | | verification | Sep 22, 2012 |
Yes, I suppose I agree that verification is the best solution to counter false claims of native speaker competency. Sorry for getting so sidetracked from the OP. My suggestion should be seen more as alternative should we or the powers that be fail to come up with a workable verification system.
| | | | Oliver Walter
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:42
German to English
+ ...
| How to get it started | Sep 22, 2012 |
Topics here: 1. How to find the very first verifiers;
2. Who can verify which language variants;
3. How to avoid cheating during verification.
1.
If a verification process is defined, that involves using native-language peers to judge the "nativeness" of the candidate, how is this going to be started? I mean, who will be the few ProZians who are 100% certain to be natives, who will then participate in verifying the claims of others?
For English and perhaps on... See more Topics here: 1. How to find the very first verifiers;
2. Who can verify which language variants;
3. How to avoid cheating during verification.
1.
If a verification process is defined, that involves using native-language peers to judge the "nativeness" of the candidate, how is this going to be started? I mean, who will be the few ProZians who are 100% certain to be natives, who will then participate in verifying the claims of others?
For English and perhaps one or two more languages, that's probably not very difficult - staff members of ProZ who are themselves native in the language concerned could provide the initial verifications, and the resulting verified natives can then participate in further verifications.
Is this going to be significantly more difficult for languages not known by any ProZ staff members?
2.
In other words, the question of principle is: how are real native speakers of a language going to be found who can start the verification process? (and, possibly, will it be permissible and/or possible for natives in, for example, Amsterdam Dutch or Madrid Spanish, to verify Belgian Flemish or Mexican Spanish speakers?) That perhaps implies a question of what is a language, not only the already-discussed question of what is "native".
3.
A further question, that has been hinted at a few times is: how will it be ensured that during the "test" the candidate is really the person undertaking the test and s/he does not have secret help in the background during the test? At a Powwow, that is presumably not difficult to ensure, but for people who will not or cannot attend a powwow and therefore have to be tested by online conferencing, Skype or something similar, that could be a problem.
Oliver
[Edited at 2012-09-23 10:14 GMT] ▲ 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? | 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 » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
