| 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)
|
|---|
Phil Hand wrote:
No-one on this thread or anywhere else has suggested that being a native speaker is sufficient to make you a good translator. Why are you arguing with a straw man?
No-one on this thread or anywhere else has suggested that being a native speaker is the only relevant factor when selecting a translator. Why are you arguing with a straw man?
Because all debates have a context, and you can't discuss the native issue out of context without distorting the very purpose (translation quality?) why translators should be honest about their native languages.
| | | | Cetacea 
Switzerland
Local time: 20:34
English to German
+ ...
| Some of us actually care about quality | Jun 25, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
No-one on this thread or anywhere else has suggested that being a native speaker is sufficient to make you a good translator. Why are you arguing with a straw man?
No-one on this thread or anywhere else has suggested that being a native speaker is the only relevant factor when selecting a translator. Why are you arguing with a straw man?
Maybe because Annamaria is more concerned with the damage done to this profession by poor-quality translations than with the nativeness issue? What is more important to you: the quality of a translation or the birth certificate of its translator? For what it's worth, my clients (strange people that they are...) care more about what they get than who produced it.
If it's not about quality, then (like Gitte) I'd like to know: What is the point of this whole discussion? Which, incidentally, isn't as intense as it may seem judging by its length because most contributions have been posted by the same 3 or 4 people...
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:34
Hebrew to English
| Stop digressing | Jun 25, 2012 |
I'm not sure why people keep bringing up the "what about natives who lack the necessary specialisation to produce a good translation?" ..."doesn't that mean non-natives can do a better job"?.
Erm, no.
They are totally separate issues. This thread is about bogus claims of native language and misrepresentation of one's language history.
Incompetence in a specialisation is a great debate - so start another thread already!
Even quality is not reall... See more I'm not sure why people keep bringing up the "what about natives who lack the necessary specialisation to produce a good translation?" ..."doesn't that mean non-natives can do a better job"?.
Erm, no.
They are totally separate issues. This thread is about bogus claims of native language and misrepresentation of one's language history.
Incompetence in a specialisation is a great debate - so start another thread already!
Even quality is not really what's under discussion here. Quality is a secondary issue.
This thread is about deceit, plain and simple. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Difference between context and purpose | Jun 25, 2012 |
Annamaria Amik wrote:
Because all debates have a context, and you can't discuss the native issue out of context without distorting the very purpose (translation quality?) why translators should be honest about their native languages.
It´s obvious that quality doesn´t only have to do with nativeness, it depends on many other factors as source language competence, specialisation, etc... And I think we all agree on that. Haven´t we made it clear enough?
But the other aspects don´t belong to the purpose of this topic. Guess what: it is about lying about the own native language(s). And I wonder why you people continue arguing against our desire to reduce the possibility of so-called "professional linguists" lying about their nativeness with reasons like "you could fake everything you want". That´s true, and if this is also damaging the image of Proz and its honest members, feel free to propose ways to fight against other forms of abuse, but please open a new thread for that. We are not saying other lies are acceptable because they are definitely not. But this topic is only related to false native language claims.
[Edited at 2012-06-25 09:28 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 03:34
Chinese to English
| It's a closed issue | Jun 25, 2012 |
Cetacea:
" this whole discussion? Which, incidentally, isn't as intense as it may seem "
That's true. This issue is not a topic of hot debate in the translation industry. It's decided, closed, finito. The links to the ATA, IoL and ITI have already been given in this thread. All major industry bodies declare translation into the native language to be the gold standard.
Apparently we have to include caveats for those who love nitpicking:
The fac... See more Cetacea:
" this whole discussion? Which, incidentally, isn't as intense as it may seem "
That's true. This issue is not a topic of hot debate in the translation industry. It's decided, closed, finito. The links to the ATA, IoL and ITI have already been given in this thread. All major industry bodies declare translation into the native language to be the gold standard.
Apparently we have to include caveats for those who love nitpicking:
The fact that translation into the native language is the industry standard does not mean that no translation by a source-native or non-native can ever be good. It means: long experience has shown that the practice which comes closest to ensuring good quality is translation by a qualified native speaker of the target language.
The industry believes it. Proz accepts nativeness as relevant (that's why we declare native languages at all). And outsourcers accept it: in my pair, at a guess, about half of jobs posted here seem to be restricted to target natives. Outsourcers have a reason for doing so.
Now, you may disagree with the entire industry. That's your own business.
But there is a problem on Proz. Certain groups of non-English natives (apparently it's particularly prevalent in Dutch, and it's common in Chinese) are declaring English as a native language when it's not. They are causing trouble on kudoz & in job bids, because they offer poor kudoz answers and flood outsourcers with bids they don't want.
This problem can likely be solved quite simply by a little bit of enforcement of honesty about native languages. We'd like to talk about how to do that.
If you want to discuss overturning decades of consensus in the translation industry, that sounds pretty important, and you should probably start your own thread. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Kirsten Bodart
United Kingdom
Local time: 20:34
Dutch to English
+ ...
| The quality thing | Jun 25, 2012 |
I would have to go with the quality argument. The idea of nativeness is blown so much out of proportion. In the face of quality, it hardly matters if someone is native or not. If he produces a good translation, then that's fine, isn't it? Whatever his native language is.
And yes, you can indicate one native language and make translations in a different language, but what if outsourcers are looking for a native speaker? Then they still land with a possibly bad translator, who is mayb... See more I would have to go with the quality argument. The idea of nativeness is blown so much out of proportion. In the face of quality, it hardly matters if someone is native or not. If he produces a good translation, then that's fine, isn't it? Whatever his native language is.
And yes, you can indicate one native language and make translations in a different language, but what if outsourcers are looking for a native speaker? Then they still land with a possibly bad translator, who is maybe verified native, but is still incompetent.
@Nani:
You might be able to spot a non-native Spanish speaker, but there are people in this world who need more evaluation than a few forum posts.
Joseph Conrad, for example, only learnt English when he was 20 and I am sure you could find some of those today.
If we can spot a non-native 'from a mile off', then I can't see why an outsourcer could not spot him. As an outsourcer, you know you are taking a risk by writing someone with a profile on an internet site a message asking for a translation. You are doing this in terms of native language (and sometimes it is hard to spot), but also in expertise, competence, deadline, etc.
I agree that there are non-natives who clearly are not native as they claim (I have seen Russians on here forgetting articles and making grammar mistakes, for example), but for me the issue is not about those. It is easy to spot them. The issue of verification is about those non-natives who have a very good knowledge of English or another laguage and who are going to be assessed by a set of peers, based uniquely on a mistake they made one day because they were tired. It is for those people that peer assessment is not adequate.
Such a policy would also involve the whole website and all language pairs, not only the English section, which is in this thread by far the section that is most represented. As I demonstrated and Samuel agreed to (to a certain degree?), such a policy would pose specific problems in specific language areas and pairs.
@Phil:
No, it isn't fair that people are offering what they cannot deliver, but that happens on a wider scale than merely this native thing. As Gitte said, verification based on competitors grading each other will be flawed. Self-regulation is a farce which we all know about now. In a worst case scenario, you would get certain pairs being policed more than others. Either because members can't be a**ed, because they have too much work or because there are no assessors. Is an assessment by 50 equivalent to one by 10?
Is that fair? ▲ Collapse
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 03:34
Chinese to English
| Kirsten - talking past each other | Jun 25, 2012 |
Annamaria Amik wrote:
why translators should be honest ...
Seriously? I think translators should be honest because it's good professional practice.
Kirsten wrote:
The issue of verification is about those non-natives who have a very good knowledge of English or another laguage and who are going to be assessed
OK, this is where we're disagreeing, because this is really really not what I've been talking about for the past 200 posts. As I understand it, it's not what Lisa's objective was in starting the thread, either.
I'm talking about translators who are not competent in English, but who claim to be English natives. Like you say, they're easy to spot, so I wish we could just deal with them.
I do refer you to the argument above though - I find it odd that we should have to argue for honesty. It's a pretty universally-recognised virtue, isn't it? And no, I don't think one crisis in one industry (were you talking about the financial crisis?) means that all self-regulation is doomed to fail.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:34
Hebrew to English
| Let's be honest......... | Jun 25, 2012 |
Any test which ProZ would/could implement would hardly be foolproof. I have no doubt extremely proficient speakers of English like those contributing on this thread (and the other) would stand a good chance of slipping through, which is why I'm finding their belligerence hard to fathom. I just don't understand why the (extremely proficient) non-natives feel so threatened.
So what point is there in implementing a flawed verification process?
At the very least it will eli... See more Any test which ProZ would/could implement would hardly be foolproof. I have no doubt extremely proficient speakers of English like those contributing on this thread (and the other) would stand a good chance of slipping through, which is why I'm finding their belligerence hard to fathom. I just don't understand why the (extremely proficient) non-natives feel so threatened.
So what point is there in implementing a flawed verification process?
At the very least it will eliminate those translators whose claims to "native" English are but a pipedream. We've all seen those posts which you have to read 5 or 6 times to try to glean some meaning from it only to come away empty handed (or empty headed not knowing what the hell they were trying to say). You then realise upon looking at their profile that not only do they delusionally list English as "native", but they sometimes translate INTO it (adding insult to injury). I'm pretty sure that the non-native contributors to these threads do not wish to be associated with this rung of translators. However, the kind of blanket dismissal of anything which might improve the situation only serves to protect these kind of people (who go about on their business giving non-native translation a bad name!).
[Edited at 2012-06-25 10:38 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand wrote:
Annamaria Amik wrote:
why translators should be honest ...
I do refer you to the argument above though - I find it odd that we should have to argue for honesty. It's a pretty universally-recognised virtue, isn't it? And no, I don't think one crisis in one industry (were you talking about the financial crisis?) means that all self-regulation is doomed to fail.
Well, you also mentioned envy at some point. I would say that envy is a complete lack of virtue in many societies, so do I see a double standard here? Being unvirtuous (envious) when it has to do with profit (all >EN translations go to you instead of your non-native colleagues), yet claiming that the non-native argument is simply for the sake of virtue?
I still maintain that you cannot discuss this native/non-native issue out of the entire context, and if you had indeed proposed to cleanse the translation industry from dishonesty, you would also have to deal with other subjects of dishonesty or at least mention them. But everybody can do as they please.
Sorry, I realize that I'm digressing. So I'll go back to my native target language translation/revision, and trust me, I wish the original translation was done by a non-native who knows the field instead of this obviously native person who has no idea about it
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:34
Hebrew to English
| Another thing I'm finding hard to digest.... | Jun 25, 2012 |
Is the blatent disregard for outsourcers' wishes.
[Edited at 2012-06-25 10:47 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:34
Hebrew to English
| Now you are moving the goalposts Annamaria... | Jun 25, 2012 |
Annamaria Amik wrote:
If you had indeed proposed to cleanse the translation industry from dishonesty, you would also have to deal with other subjects of dishonesty or at least mention them.
But he didn't, and we don't.
Nobody is talking of ridding the translation industry of all deception, so I'm not sure why you mention it. You are just purposefully moving the goalposts. We are talking about eradicating bogus native language claims on Proz.com.
Nobody is trying to change the entire universe, just our little corner of it.
[Edited at 2012-06-25 10:53 GMT]
| | | | | Objective verification | Jun 25, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
Annamaria Amik wrote:
If you had indeed proposed to cleanse the translation industry from dishonesty, you would also have to deal with other subjects of dishonesty or at least mention them.
But he didn't, and we don't.
Nobody is talking of ridding the translation industry of all deception, so I'm not sure why you mention it. You are just purposefully moving the goalposts. We are talking about eradicating bogus native language claims on Proz.com.
Nobody is trying to change the entire universe, just our little corner of it. [Edited at 2012-06-25 10:53 GMT]
Don't get me wrong, I do think it's a good idea to verify native language claims. But only if there are objective standards to verify them, and definitely not based on peer revision. And I must reiterate that it also depends on the specific languages. Perhaps it's harder or impossible to acquire English at a native level (whatever nativeness means), but I've seen non-native Romanians speak, write and publish Romanian at levels that make it impossible to distinguish them from the so-called native Romanians. And I've also seen tired highly educated native Hungarians make mistakes that would be characteristic of the non-natives.
| | |
|
|
|
Kay Denney
France
Local time: 20:34
French to English
| Published work gets thorough editing | Jun 25, 2012 |
Annamaria Amik wrote:
I've seen non-native Romanians speak, write and publish Romanian at levels that make it impossible to distinguish them from the so-called native Romanians.
Well of course. I can name several non-native writers of English and non-native writers of French who have produced wonderful literature in English and French respectively, using beautiful prose.
What everybody seems to ignore is the fact that any published work has been carefully edited by the publisher, that's what makes the difference between stuff published by a bona fide publisher and the vast majority of stuff published by the vanity press. Many editors working in publishing make very considerable and significant changes before going to press.
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:34
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Is it just me or is there a lot of misunderstanding? | Jun 25, 2012 |
Kirsten Bodart wrote:
but what if outsourcers are looking for a native speaker? Then they still land with a possibly bad translator, who is maybe verified native, but is still incompetent.
How does it follow that a native speaker is incompetent? No chance at all of the non-native being so? There's no logic in that argument. In any event, I reiterate we're not talking about translation skill here, we're talking about being truthful about one's native language.
Joseph Conrad, for example, only learnt English when he was 20 and I am sure you could find some of those today.
I think we already established a few pages back that there ain't no Conrads here. Let's stop dwelling on exceptions.
If we can spot a non-native 'from a mile off', then I can't see why an outsourcer could not spot him.
An outsourcer may not speak the source, target or either. That's why.
| | | | Cetacea
Switzerland
Local time: 20:34
English to German
+ ...
Phil Hand wrote:
Now, you may disagree with the entire industry. That's your own business.
Thank you very much, how gracious of you. But that's not what I said, and you know it. I was asking about the point of this whole discussion, as I have done before, since this is definitely not the first time the issue has been brought up, and I have yet to get an answer.
They are causing trouble on kudoz & in job bids, because they offer poor kudoz answers and flood outsourcers with bids they don't want.
And you're hoping to eliminate that problem by verifying native language?
This problem can likely be solved quite simply by a little bit of enforcement of honesty about native languages. We'd like to talk about how to do that.
You can't. Honesty can't be enforced.
If you want to discuss overturning decades of consensus in the translation industry, that sounds pretty important, and you should probably start your own thread.
Again, I appreciate the gracious comment, but I don't, and I won't. It's bad enough I've let myself be sucked into such a futile discussion, I'm certainly not about to start one. Not least because
Ty Kendall wrote:
I just don't understand why the (extremely proficient) non-natives feel so threatened.
I don't feel threatened. And I'm pretty sure none of the others who dare to disagree feel threatened. Maybe exasperated. And somewhat amused because every once in a while (see above), posters admit what this recurrent issue is really about: not nativeness in general, but nativeness in (British) English. Which doesn't concern me at all, so I'd better get back to work. After all, whatever the ProZ powers that be will decide won't concern me, either. I don't come here looking for jobs anyway.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Should “native language” claims be verified? | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
| | 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 
