| 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)
|
|---|
| Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule | XXXphxxx (X) 
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:58
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Nobody is disagreeing | Sep 15, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
The point I am making is that when two languages are structurally so close to each other as say Hindi and Punjabi, or Marathi and Gujarati, or Malayalam and Tamil, or Telugu and Kannada, or the above case of Norwegian and Swedish, then I think it is easier for a person knowing one language at native level to pick up the other language even at a later stage in his life.
Forgive me, but you are somewhat stating the obvious. What I questioned was achieving the standard of a "native speaker" in other languages belonging to the same family, as was inferred above. Once again, I think we just all have very different thresholds, but since it's so easy I think I'll just pop off and learn a spot of German, I should be a native speaker by the end of the month.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:58
Hebrew to English
| Don't confuse Indo-European with Indo-Aryan | Sep 15, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
The case of English is similar. English belongs to the same linguistic group as Hindi and the other north-Indian languages like Punjabi, Marathi, etc. - the Indo-Aryan group of languages. So structurally they are all very similar. Further, most Indians have an exposure spanning several centuries to English and it is extensively used in India in administration, business and higher education. All these contribute to Indians picking up English fairly early in their life and many of them develop their knowledge of English in later years by further study or continued professional use.
Well, not exactly.
English is not an Indo-Aryan language.
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages . It is an Indo-European language, but so are maaany other languages and whilst they might be on the same tree, they are on completely different branches. You'll find English on the Germanic branch, not the Indo-Aryan one. Structurally, they aren't that similar....a handful of similarities and convergences doesn't mean it's jumped branch. You are inferring a much closer relationship based on a few similarities.
I've been told I share a few similarities with George Clooney (ahem!), but we aren't brothers
| | | | | What's wrong with translators lying about their native language? | Sep 15, 2012 |
I think that after all these pages on the subject Should “native language” claims be verified? and all the indignant replies (and in some cases lies) regarding native speakership, there is one point I'd like to make.
While I am sure that many of those making false native speaker claims do speak the coveted language fluently with or without much (telltale, ie foreign) accent.
However translation is not about verbal skills. It is about native writing skills and that is wh... See more I think that after all these pages on the subject Should “native language” claims be verified? and all the indignant replies (and in some cases lies) regarding native speakership, there is one point I'd like to make.
While I am sure that many of those making false native speaker claims do speak the coveted language fluently with or without much (telltale, ie foreign) accent.
However translation is not about verbal skills. It is about native writing skills and that is where nearly all false claims start to unravel. To be a truly competent professional translator, apart from knowing a language or two, one must possess outstanding writing skills. This doesn't mean being able to own a library full of bilingual dictionaries, being subscribed to every bilingual dictionary online, being able to google up all sort of translations. This means having the gut instincts one can only have for the true native language, the one a person was born into, grew up with, was educated in etc. Not the one acquired through a couple of years of exposure at whatever age; it's not the language acquired by moving abroad as an adult, not the language one adopts because the actual native language has become too difficult to translate into (what professional linguist loses the ability to write in his/her native language???) and so on. Rather, the real native language is the one that enables a person to know instinctively which preposition is correct, if the definite or indefinite article is needed or not, which verb tense is needed, regardless of the verb tense used in the source text, what the correct/most idiomatic word order is, which word zeroes in best on the meaning, which is totally unsuitable in the context, etc. etc. etc.
This what native language means when speaking about translation. And it's nearly impossible to fake it when one writes. This is why the idea of 'verifying' native speakers was proposed. I realise that it will never happen because the resources needed are too much to ask of any commercial translator site and it's not really Proz policy to discourage anyone from being whoever they want to be on this site. We see false claims posted by non-paying members, ordinary members as well as badged members. Trying to get so many people (back) on the straight and narrow would be like trying to stop a tsunami. Impossible, imo. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Michael Beijer
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:58
Member (2009)
Dutch to English
+ ...
| small change | Sep 15, 2012 |
writeaway wrote:
I think that after all these pages on the subject Should “native language” claims be verified? and all the indignant replies (and in some cases lies) regarding native speakership, there is one point I'd like to make.
While I am sure that many of those making false native speaker claims do speak the coveted language fluently with or without much (telltale, ie foreign) accent.
However translation is not about verbal skills. It is about native writing skills and that is where nearly all false claims start to unravel. To be a truly competent professional translator, apart from knowing a language or two, one must possess outstanding writing skills. This doesn't mean being able to own a library full of bilingual dictionaries, being subscribed to every bilingual dictionary online, being able to google up all sort of translations. This means having the gut instincts one can only have for the true native language, the one a person was born into, grew up with, was educated in etc. Not the one acquired through a couple of years of exposure at whatever age; it's not the language acquired by moving abroad as an adult, not the language one adopts because the actual native language has become too difficult to translate into (what professional linguist loses the ability to write in his/her native language???) and so on. Rather, the real native language is the one that enables a person to know instinctively which preposition is correct, if the definite or indefinite article is needed or not, which verb tense is needed, regardless of the verb tense used in the source text, what the correct/most idiomatic word order is, which word zeroes in best on the meaning, which is totally unsuitable in the context, etc. etc. etc.
This what native language means when speaking about translation. And it's nearly impossible to fake it when one writes. This is why the idea of 'verifying' native speakers was proposed. I realise that it will never happen because the resources needed are too much to ask of any commercial translator site and it's not really Proz policy to discourage anyone from being whoever they want to be on this site. We see false claims posted by non-paying members, ordinary members as well as badged members. Trying to get so many people (back) on the straight and narrow would be like trying to stop a tsunami. Impossible, imo.
Change:
'This doesn't mean being able to own a library full of bilingual dictionaries, being subscribed to every bilingual dictionary online, being able to google up all sort of translations.'
to:
'This not only means being able to own a library full of bilingual dictionaries, being subscribed to every bilingual dictionary online, being able to google up all sort of translations, but also...'
...and I would agree with most of what you said.
| | | | rjlChile (X)
Local time: 19:58
| Read my lips,please. | Sep 15, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: rjlChile wrote:
Having English as one’s native language, for example, is just such a natural asset; and in the modern world it is widely considered as being of high value (and not only in the context of translation). Faced with this unpalatable truth, folk who aren’t blessed with English as their native language but nonetheless need to use the language as a tool for getting on in life, form two groups.
...
Robin I must point out that this discussion is not about English, but languages in general. English is just a subset of the issue, although it is a prominent subset. Your arguments of childlike jealousy being the prime motivator of this debate is at best childish.
You seem not to have spotted the words "for example" in the first line of your quote. I use English as an example mainly because this thread is in English and we can all relate to that language. But I could have replaced English with French, Spanish, Chinese or almost any other language without altering the thrust of my argument. You could even slot in a minority language like Mapundungun, for example, and the point I was making stays the same.
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 06:58
Chinese to English
| Another step toward the summit of mount impossible | Sep 15, 2012 |
Yesterday, or sometime, Bernhard and I appeared to come to agreement. A barely comprehensible phenomenon on this thread, but we managed it.
We agreed that a usable working definition of "native language" could be this:
A language which you spoke during your childhood and still speak today.
It's still very flexible (which I like), but it does put just a little bit of meat on the bones, and points the way towards what potential tests and factors for exclusion... See more Yesterday, or sometime, Bernhard and I appeared to come to agreement. A barely comprehensible phenomenon on this thread, but we managed it.
We agreed that a usable working definition of "native language" could be this:
A language which you spoke during your childhood and still speak today.
It's still very flexible (which I like), but it does put just a little bit of meat on the bones, and points the way towards what potential tests and factors for exclusion could be (information about your history; test of your ability to speak it today).
Does anyone have any major objections to proposing this as a working definition? Anything to add?
Could it be added to the petition text?
Here's the petition text as was:
Proz is the biggest and best translation website on the internet. We believe that it is well run and that its rules help to create a fair and effective marketplace and forum for translators and our clients. In particular, we appreciate the importance of site rule 6: Misrepresentation and fraud are forbidden.
However, it has become apparent that certain members are misrepresenting themselves by claiming to be native speakers of languages in which they are not even competent, let alone native. We believe that allowing this state of affairs to continue brings the website into disrepute, and we request that Proz takes measures to curb the problem, not just for an elite subset of members, but for all members.
Now we could add a bit and make it:
Proz is the biggest and best translation website on the internet. We believe that it is well run and that its rules help to create a fair and effective marketplace and forum for translators and our clients. In particular, we appreciate the importance of site rule 6: Misrepresentation and fraud are forbidden.
However, it has become apparent that certain members are misrepresenting themselves by claiming to be native speakers of languages in which they are not even competent, let alone native. We believe that allowing this state of affairs to continue brings the website into disrepute, and we request that Proz takes measures to curb the problem, not just for an elite subset of members, but for all members.
For this purpose, we would like Proz to consider using this working definition of a native language: "A native language is a language which you spoke during your childhood and still speak today." Potential steps toward curbing the problem of misrepresentation could include: encouraging members to consider their own linguistic history more carefully; testing members' ability to use the language(s) they claim as native.
▲ Collapse
| | | | | Unfortunately most what rightaway wrote is of mythological nature | Sep 15, 2012 |
Translation is not about native writing only -- whatever you mean by that term. It is about conveying the message from one language into another in as accurate a way as possible. It is great if someone can express it with G.B. Shaw's type of language, it might even be essential in literary translation, but for other types of translation accuracy is really number one. Who cares that the translation can win a literary prize for language usage, if a car will explode because of the inaccuracies in i... See more Translation is not about native writing only -- whatever you mean by that term. It is about conveying the message from one language into another in as accurate a way as possible. It is great if someone can express it with G.B. Shaw's type of language, it might even be essential in literary translation, but for other types of translation accuracy is really number one. Who cares that the translation can win a literary prize for language usage, if a car will explode because of the inaccuracies in it. All this stuff about intuitive knowledge and translation is just some mysticism -- nothing tangible. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 00:58
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Slight adjustment | Sep 15, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
[Bernhard and I] agreed that a usable working definition of "native language" could be this: A language which you spoke during your childhood and still speak today.
It's still very flexible, but it does put just a little bit of meat on the bones, and points the way towards what potential tests and factors for exclusion could be...
I like it, but I immediately spotted a problem: This definition works fine for monolingual countries, where children only start using (i.e able to converse in it usefully) their second/foreign language in their late-teens/early-tweens. In bilingual and multilingual countries, children use their second languages from a rather early age, at a useful level (not quite similar to their first language, but fully capable of conversing with speakers of the other language). Are you satisfied that your definition will favour multinativeness for translators from typically non-monolingual countries?
In addition, I'd refine the definition as follows: A language that you were fluent in during your childhood and that you still speak fluently today.
I'd love to refine it even further, as follows, but I know that one can't build too much into a simple definition before it is no longer simple: A language that you spoke fluently in during your childhood and that you still speak and write fluently today.
You may need to define "childhood" a little more clearly -- does it mean "before the age of 5", "before the age of 8-10" or "before the age of 15-18"? Or perhaps you are satisfied with this ambiguity in the definition...? Remember, a definition can be simple even if it is qualified in explanatory comments that supplement the definition, so you don't have to build this distinction right into the definition. I simply point to it because I suspect it would be an issue for some.
Samuel
[Edited at 2012-09-15 14:44 GMT]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 04:28
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | For many translators native language is not the working language | Sep 15, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
Yesterday, or sometime, Bernhard and I appeared to come to agreement. A barely comprehensible phenomenon on this thread, but we managed it.
We agreed that a usable working definition of "native language" could be this:
A language which you spoke during your childhood and still speak today.
Unfortunately this definition won't do.
For many translators, native language is not their working language.
So, if we adopt this definition, then job access cannot be made on the basis of native language.
Somehow we will have to bring in the proficiency aspect into the definition, or stop using native language for controlling job access. In which case it will only have ornamental or vanity uses.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:58
Hebrew to English
| Phil / Samuel | Sep 15, 2012 |
The definition is perfect, both the original and Samuel's updated versions. I could live with either/both. And to address the childhood thing - I'd say let's keep it simple again - children are children until they become teenagers, so let's say childhood is 0-12 (unless you want to leave it ambiguous, which doesn't sit well with me because I think you'll find a lot of overgrown children around...and I mean this in more than one way! ... See more The definition is perfect, both the original and Samuel's updated versions. I could live with either/both. And to address the childhood thing - I'd say let's keep it simple again - children are children until they become teenagers, so let's say childhood is 0-12 (unless you want to leave it ambiguous, which doesn't sit well with me because I think you'll find a lot of overgrown children around...and I mean this in more than one way! ). ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Re: closely related languages | Sep 15, 2012 |
Here I don't agree. Closely related languages, at least the ones I can comment on, Slavic or Baltic, or Scandinavian languages. It is not so easy to master them -- if you want to speak a few of them well without mixing them. It is much easier, in my opinion, to speak two distant languages well. As far as understanding them is concerned, yes, perhaps -- someone can understand a few of them for general purposes, although there are a lot of false friends.
Swedish and Norwegian in the ... See more Here I don't agree. Closely related languages, at least the ones I can comment on, Slavic or Baltic, or Scandinavian languages. It is not so easy to master them -- if you want to speak a few of them well without mixing them. It is much easier, in my opinion, to speak two distant languages well. As far as understanding them is concerned, yes, perhaps -- someone can understand a few of them for general purposes, although there are a lot of false friends.
Swedish and Norwegian in the spoken form are not mutually intelligible at all. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
BeaDeer (X)
English to Slovenian
+ ...
| @Ty and Robin - You have misread my post | Sep 15, 2012 |
And missed the slight pinch of irony in it to boot. Has it really not occurred to you that you are pointing out the obvious? We are all educated linguists here, not taxi drivers or self-styled translators fresh out of secondary school who need sprinkling with a pinch of salt. There is absolutely no need for that schoolmaster pose.
I cannot find a word that contradicts your views in my post. I answered politely and respectfully. Regardless of education and experience, it is not mine... See more And missed the slight pinch of irony in it to boot. Has it really not occurred to you that you are pointing out the obvious? We are all educated linguists here, not taxi drivers or self-styled translators fresh out of secondary school who need sprinkling with a pinch of salt. There is absolutely no need for that schoolmaster pose.
I cannot find a word that contradicts your views in my post. I answered politely and respectfully. Regardless of education and experience, it is not mine to judge whether any of my (virtual) colleagues here can or cannot learn to speak another language like a native. I know a number of non-native speakers of Slovenian who have made the effort to speak Slovenian well and whom I admire and respect very much for their attitude to my native language. Many Slovenian native speakers treat their language like dirt (I really do not wish to get mixed up in an "coveted English language" debate); I would certainly be more likely to give a job to a foreigner who makes an effort to learn my language to a high standard rather than an uneducated native speaker who does not care about how he speaks and writes (I am not talking about translation but generally).
P.S.
When Proz starts to enforce its own rules, I'll be happy to resume my paid membership.
Edited. (Never write in a hurry!)
[Edited at 2012-09-15 16:23 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 00:58
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Balasubramaniam, can't see the logic here | Sep 15, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Phil Hand wrote:
A language which you spoke during your childhood and still speak today. 1. For many translators, native language is not their working language. 2. So, if we adopt this definition, then job access cannot be made on the basis of native language.
I struggle to see what the logic behind these statements is. First, why would Phil's definition affect translators whose native language is not their working language? I can't think of any reason for that. And secondly, why would not using one's native language as a working language affect whether one can access jobs based on native language? Remember, I don't question the idea that some translators do not use their native language as a working language, in some countries.
Samuel
| | | | | You must be joking -- no one can invent a native language language definition, | Sep 15, 2012 |
especially someone who is not a professor of linguistics, but even then they could just do it for the purpose of their own publications, until there is some kind of a consensus from other academics.
This way insurance companies, or banks could also make up their own definitions of profit, or interest or anything they please.
How do you know what the clients mean by a native language? Are you going to teach them what is meant by it on this site, as opposed to other places. In... See more especially someone who is not a professor of linguistics, but even then they could just do it for the purpose of their own publications, until there is some kind of a consensus from other academics.
This way insurance companies, or banks could also make up their own definitions of profit, or interest or anything they please.
How do you know what the clients mean by a native language? Are you going to teach them what is meant by it on this site, as opposed to other places. In the US, it really not that often used anymore for things related to studying or employment -- I checked. It is mostly replaced with primary language, and L1 for first language acquired, not necessarily spoken well later in life. This would be just for language acquisition studies, of bilingual children, mostly. Otherwise, it is sometimes mentioned for sentimental reasons, or in relation to identity issues, belonging to certain cultures, family tradition, etc., not really in relation to anything connected to employment or services.
[Edited at 2012-09-15 15:10 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? | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
| | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
