| 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)
|
|---|
S E (X)
Italy
Local time: 20:26
Italian to English
| this 'one-stop warehouse' needs to have a quality standard | Jul 16, 2012 |
Robert Forstag wrote:
Once again, I think that the root of the problem is a site that institutes a radical open-door model and then--in the interests of preserving that model--refuses to put the kinds of controls in place that would be necessary to prevent different kinds of misrepresentation or abuse, whether with respect to native language claims, excessive dependence on Kudoz, or posted jobs with ridiculously low rates.
If I am right, then a "one-stop warehouse" model of website would need to be replaced by more of a "boutique model" of different websites, each of which caters to large market niches, but where the service providers have been vetted to a reasonable degree to keep out frauds and impostors.
[Edited at 2012-07-16 13:06 GMT]
I agree that the root of the problem seems to be the site's radical open-door model.
I would add that since the site professes to be a place where clients can 'hire' and 'locate' 'language professionals' (see http://www.proz.com/about/overview/ ), a radical open-door model is counter to this profession and the site instead necessarily needs to define and adhere to a standard for said 'language professionals'. I fail to see the business sense in professing to offer prospective clients a place to find and hire language professionals without setting a bar for what a 'language professional' is. Otherwise, it's an entirely empty promise.
Just as I fail to see the sense in making it possible for a) users to claim native languages and b) outsourcers to search for translators using native language as a criterion without a site system in place for verifying native language claims. I sincerely doubt that outsourcers expect this to be the virtually empty category that it in fact is.
Which leads me to my second and final point: if the site remains committed to maintaining a laissez-faire policy, it can only continue on its apparent present downward spiral, catering to the lowest-common denominator. And as long as it continues catering to the lowest common denominator, as the 'world's largest community of translators' ( http://www.proz.com/about/ ) it can only continue its shaping of the world image of 'translator' according to that lowest common denominator. Why would real 'language professionals' want to be associated with such an organization'? Why would proz.com want to be such an organization?
Why should a site for 'language professionals' be a site for all comers? Are there not enough real language professionals out in the world to support a commercial site for language professionals?
In direct relation to the topic of this thread, what could possibly be undesirable about setting a standard for native language claims, i.e., requiring that native language claims to be verified? This would not prevent people from offering services translating into non-native languages. It would only prevent people from claiming native languages that they don't actually have.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L. 
India
Local time: 00:56
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | The medicine must not be worse than the malady, and the diagnosis must be correct | Jul 16, 2012 |
Sarah Elizabeth Cree wrote:
With all due respect, have you actually read the posts in this thread? I ask because, frankly, if you had, you would know that neither of the above claims have been made here.
As per the title of the thread itself - 'Should "native language" claims be verified?' - this thread seeks to address the recognized problem of a large and growing number of proz.com members claiming to be native speakers of languages that are clearly - as in painfully clearly - not in fact their native languages, by any stretch of the definition 'native'.
As has been specified ad nauseam, it's about the most blatant cases of 'native language fraud'. Not about borderline cases. Not about whether or not it is acceptable for people to translate into non-native languages.
The thread is about the most egregious cases, blatantly fraudulent native language claims, and how the instances of such fraud on this site might be reduced through site policy.
The idea is that if outsourcers using proz.com want a list of native language translators, they should get a list with a good deal more integrity than is presently provided.
edited for typos!
[Edited at 2012-07-16 13:13 GMT]
I assure you, Sarah, I have read the posts, all 50+ pages of them. But I still stand by my words.
The native language issue is a red herring and has very little to do with quality translation. We should be concentrating on this quality issue. If you have this as your primary concern, I have no quarrel with anyone. But the moment you bring in discriminatory practices like nativity, that give an exalted and exclusive status to some and unfairly exclude others, I have serious issues with that.
It has not been conclusively proved that natives make better translators in all cases in any language. The exception to this are too many to make anyone uncomfortable. There are not only historical cases like Max Mueller (a German), William Jones (a British) and many other orientalists of the previous couple of centuries who came to India in their late twenties and thirties (well past the language learning age according to linguists) and mastered difficult languages like Sanskrit and translated very difficult text like the Rig Veda, the plays of Kalidasa and the Indian epics Mahabharata and Ramayana into German, English and many other European languages.
The top English writers of our times are not natives of England - VS Naipaul, Salman Rushdie, Vikram Seth, Arundhati Roy, to name a few.
You already have Conrad's example of earlier times.
I don't buy your excessive concern for outsourcers either. If they want good translators, let them do the research and develop methodologies for identifying talent. Why offer them false talismans like nativity, which we know are phony. Our commitment as a translator's work place should be to fellow translators and how to get them the best business from outsourcers.
We should not be doing the leg work of outsources. They are strong enough to take care of themselves and they won't benefit from our infighting and washing our linen in public. We would only harm ourselves and our profession if we carry on calling each other names.
We need to think more on this, let us not take at face value what old practices have to offer. My feeling is that there is a reason why outsourcers clutched for a straw like nativity to solve their talent search problem.
It was deceptivily (just that) simple and easy to employ. That is about the only virtue it has. But it helps not one bit in identifying proper translation talent. They need to use a mix of criteria, and if we bite for the easy option, we will never be able to develop that genuine touchstone on which to test translators.
So my advice is, for now, let us leave nativity alone, and apply our minds on what alternatives are there for us to consider.
[2012-07-16 14:57 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 00:56
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Not that disconnected from reality | Jul 16, 2012 |
[quote]Michael&Yoshiko wrote:
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
"A translator is a person who very early in age has been exposed to two language cultures.
What this means is that, any worthwhile and competent translator will have two native languages, if not more[!]
Normally one would be surprised if a translator declares only one language as his native language, as that would disqualify him/her from being a translator.
It is actually people who have declared only one language as their native language who are being untruthful and need to be penalised, for by definition translators have to be native in two languages!"
The above claims are so bizarre and disconnected from reality that it's hard to take them seriously.
If each one of us translators peeps into his/her own personal biographies he/she can easily discover the early connection with the two languages in which we work. Any competent translator would be a two-way highway, capable of translating both ways in his language pair. It shows that he/she is equally at home in both linguistic milieus.
In interpreter parlance such translators would be the true bilinguals. They constitute the highest rung in the hierarchy of translators and in numbers they would be few and far between.
You can also have set of less talented people, and who are more numerous, in that they are asymmetrical in their command over the two languages in which they work. Their exposure to the second language would have happened at a much later stage of their life (beyond twenties) and they are incapable of translating in the reverse order. They are actually monolinguals masquerading as translators, and should work only in the direction of their stronger language. I suspect that most of those crying foul over untruthfulness in this forum thread belong to this second rung of translators. They are trying to make a virtue out their monolingual status by trying to make out the true bilinguals as the villains of the piece. Fine sense of justice indeed here!
I am not here talking at all of people who should not be translating at all and who could very well be constituting the largest chunk in a place like proz.com.
[2012-07-16 15:12 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | S E (X)
Italy
Local time: 20:26
Italian to English
| @ Balasubramaniam L. : in that case, you might consider starting a new thread | Jul 16, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
The top English writers of our times are not natives of England - VS Naipaul, Salman Rushdie, Vikram Seth, Arundhati Roy, to name a few.
You already have Conrad's example of earlier times.
[ ... ]
So my advice is, for now, let us leave nativity alone, and apply our minds on what alternatives are there for us to consider.
[2012-07-16 14:55 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
I understand that your point is that native language should not enjoy its present status among the criteria commonly used for selecting translators. But that is another topic for another thread.
The issue here is not whether or not translators should or can translate into non-native languages.
The issue at hand is much simpler and far more limited, seeking only to address fraudulent native language claims. The desired outcome is to increase the number of instances in which native language claims on the site are truthful.
The issue of translating into non-native languages is another conversation.
[Edited at 2012-07-16 15:15 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:26
Hebrew to English
| Given your stance on multiple "native" languages.... | Jul 16, 2012 |
Would you care to comment on why on both your ProZ profile and your C.V. you only list one native language (Hindi).
You seem to have ignored requests to clarify this.
I also agree with Sarah, you're veering massively O/T with this tangent of yours.
N.B. I shan't respond to anything else as it can't seriously be deemed response-worthy.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:26
Hebrew to English
| Wikipedia as academic reference? | Jul 16, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
They don't even believe linguists, the cream of whom is represented through their ideas collected in Wikipedia
If you think "the cream" of linguistic research and knowledge is on Wikipedia, then.... hmm.
There's a reason many universities disallow referencing from Wikipedia in academic assignments.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:26
Hebrew to English
| Clarifications | Jul 16, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
native speakers of English -- the whole school system is in English, or at least most of it, isn't it?
Well that would depend wouldn't it? You wouldn't qualify as a native speaker of English just because the country you were born/grew up in has English as a co-official language per se. What if you grew up not speaking a word of it? If English is learnt at school after an L1 at home, it is still by definition an L2.
Certain comments of some people should not be really taken seriously because they use folk etymology of words, or rather folk definitions, which have nothing to do with linguistic research.
Would you be so kind as to explain what "folk etymology" is, and give me an example please?
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:26
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Please may I paraphrase? | Jul 16, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
Some people look from a very narrow perspective. One small town, perhaps, where almost everybody speaks English, or at spoke English in the past. All the people of the town used similar vocabulary, and used standard English ins school. This is what their definition of a native language is based on.
Do I understand correctly that your belief is that the English native speakers on this thread, who are supporting the idea of native language verification, all come from the same town and the only reason we don't understand/recognise your version of native English is that you come from a different one? Is that what you're saying?
| | |
|
|
|
Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 12:26
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Self-serving definition | Jul 16, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
This could be another working definition of native language
LilianBoland wrote:
... the language you speak best or are most comfortable with, the language of your habitual use, the language you have most education in, the language you identify with...
That's a very convenient definition — if you're not really a native speaker.
[Edited at 2012-07-16 16:53 GMT]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 00:56
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | I will enlighten you | Jul 16, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
Would you care to comment on why on both your ProZ profile and your C.V. you only list one native language (Hindi).
You seem to have ignored requests to clarify this.
By the definitions going on this thread I can claim four to five languages as a native language - Tamil (we still speak a version of Tamil in the family, but I or no one in my family has had any formal education in Tamil, we don't even read Tamil); Malayalam, the language of inhabitance of my family for several generations (we are Tamils living in a Malayalam speaking area), (all members of my family including myself are well versed in Malayalam, and I regularly translate from Malaylam to Hindi and English); Hindi, the language in which I was schooled and in which I spent my childhood and did my Masters; Gujarati, a language which I was professionally involved for twenty-plus years, and I have lived in a Gujarati-speaking area, Ahmedabad for twenty years (I regularly translate from Gujarati to English and Hindi); English, which is the language of my schooling and professional use - I was a copy editor in English for twenty years in a national education centre of excellence in environment education.
Such multilingual cases are the norm in places like India where more than 17 languages are spoken and language changes proverbially every mile you travel in any direction.
People of monolingual countries like those of Europe cannot easily grasp this multilingualism as years of the one-language, one-state concept brutally enforced by dictators, sovereigns and generals, has led to massive wars, segregation of people and cultural and linguistic emasculation of the European continent.
But that does not mean such multilingualism, multiculturalism, multireligionism do not exist else where in the world. India is a classic example.
It is because of this first hand experience of wide-spread multilingualism all around me that I immediately notice the hollowness of concepts like nativity of language.
I think that now the reason why I gave only one language as my native language would be clear - the current wisdom of the site - which I hope to correct through these posts - is that one person can have only one language at native level competence, and when I made my profile, there was no option of choosing multiple languages as native languges. So I chose the language I have most studied and have had the longest association. Even with this limitation, I had two choices available to me - Hindi and English. I went for Hindi because my emotional attachment to this language is greater than my attachment to English, though I am equally dexterous in both these languages. The emphasis of the site was on declaring only one language as native, and there were clear penalties and inconveniences for declaring more than one. At the early stage of my membership of the site, I had no stomach to challenge status quo. So I adopted the dictum of when in Rome, be like the Romans (or its Hindi equivalent, which goes something like this - don't quarrel with the crocodile if you live in the river).
[2012-07-16 16:40 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 12:26
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| More and more bizarre | Jul 16, 2012 |
Michael&Yoshiko wrote:
Bizarre and eccentric claims
At what point does this thread become as damaging to the image of the site as the fact that some people lie about their native language?
[Edited at 2012-07-16 17:05 GMT]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 00:56
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Excluding English from the "native requirement, might be an interim solution | Jul 16, 2012 |
I think Samuel has already suggested this earlier. Excluding English from the native requirement could be a temporary solution to this issue, as owing to its international nature, many people outside the traditional English-speaking countries of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales also have high level of proficiency in English. And in the colonies of England, like USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, etc, many people speak English to native-levels, even though languages of each of these ... See more I think Samuel has already suggested this earlier. Excluding English from the native requirement could be a temporary solution to this issue, as owing to its international nature, many people outside the traditional English-speaking countries of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales also have high level of proficiency in English. And in the colonies of England, like USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, etc, many people speak English to native-levels, even though languages of each of these places can also be categorized as separate languages - American English, Australian English, Indian English, etc. To complicate matters, we also have an international version of English used in multinational bodies like the UN, and in science, trade and business. Many non-English-speaking people like Chinese, Japanese, Arabs and Africans have competence in this version of English at a very high level.
It would be unfair to debar them from English translation jobs just because they were not born in England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales.
But this can only be an interim solution and claims from other international languages like Spanish, Portugese, French and Arabic for a similar status may be equally strong as they too are spoken across geographies, far beyond their original geographical areas in Spain, Portugal, France and Saudi Arabia. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Michael Beijer
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:26
Member (2009)
Dutch to English
+ ...
| ‘Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.’ | Jul 16, 2012 |
:-)
| | | | S E (X)
Italy
Local time: 20:26
Italian to English
| Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent | Jul 16, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
And in the colonies of England, like USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, etc, many people speak English to native-levels, even though languages of each of these places can also be categorized as separate languages - American English, Australian English, Indian English, etc.
You must be joking.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:26
Hebrew to English
| Bee in your bonnet | Jul 16, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
It would be unfair to debar them from English translation jobs just because they were not born in England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales.
It's quite clear that you have a bee in your bonnet, and it's pretty obvious what kind of bee it is. Nobody here is saying you can only claim nativity in English if you were born in the UK.
Calls for native language verification are not only coming from the British, if you take the time to investigate, you'll notice more than a few Americans here too.
I also agree with Sarah (again - and also - she's not British!!!!). There is no basis whatsoever to start declaring British/US/Australian Englishes as separate languages. Under what criteria do you believe they are separate languages??? There's no linguistic, social or political reason to do so I'm afraid.
And as for...
Excluding English from the "native requirement
I think we've already established that that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
[Edited at 2012-07-16 17:21 GMT]
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 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? | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
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 
