| 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)
|
|---|
Wasn't aware of that thread. But the fact that it was suggested in 2007 doesn't mean it's not worth looking into again now.
| | | | Samuel Murray 
Netherlands
Local time: 18:32
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Olly Pekelharing wrote:
And just out of interest, would you personally see the benefit in being able to classify your command of English up at the top of the profile page?
I would declare myself as "fully bilingual" but I would not declare my English to be of "native proficiency". For me, there is a slight difference in meaning between those two terms. As with "native language", I think it is important to define it if you want people to treat it consistently.
Samuel
| | | |
Thanks for answering, but would you see any BENEFIT in it? Would it improve your profile if you could declare 'fully bilingual' next to English rather than nothing as is the case now?
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 00:32
Chinese to English
| @Kim & Olly - declaring a target language is a declaration of extreme competence | Sep 24, 2012 |
In underdeveloped pairs like mine, announcing that you translate into English is no more or less than saying "I work as a translator". Every Tom, Dick and Harry (or Zhang San and Li Si) in China claims to be able to translate into English.
But in the European pairs, I would assume that declaring "I translate Dutch to English" while declaring Dutch as a native language means exactly what you were asking for: yeah, I'm Dutch, but my English can slap yours upside the head, just try me,... See more In underdeveloped pairs like mine, announcing that you translate into English is no more or less than saying "I work as a translator". Every Tom, Dick and Harry (or Zhang San and Li Si) in China claims to be able to translate into English.
But in the European pairs, I would assume that declaring "I translate Dutch to English" while declaring Dutch as a native language means exactly what you were asking for: yeah, I'm Dutch, but my English can slap yours upside the head, just try me, big boy.
This option has always existed, and it is used appropriately by some. I can't see how any other category could be added to increase the level of subtlety or specificity here. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:32
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
I'm not sure there's much point in these gradations of proficiency. The bottom line is that the misrepresentation has arisen (we're guessing here, but I think it's a good guess) because of the jobs/directory filter system. Anything that isn't "native" won't get past that filter, so you can fine-tune those different categories as much as you like, people will still want to call themselves native to qualify for jobs.
| | | |
Yes, the filter was in the back of my mind, but I hadn't given it full consideration yet. As long as outsourcers can filter for native language then there'll be translators who will make illegitimate claims to get past the filter, I suppose. Have to give that one more thought.
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 09:32
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Reported native language | Sep 24, 2012 |
Sarah Elizabeth Cree wrote:
Let users declare their native language(s), which will appear as 'reported' or 'self-defined', along with the other information in the 'standardized information' section of the profile.
writeaway wrote:
My vote for taking away the button and have 'native language' listed as reported native language. It won't force anyone to change or backtrack on what is currently listed as native language but it will give others (ie (potential) clients et al.) the necessary heads-up.
I vote for this suggestion.
[Edited at 2012-09-25 00:22 GMT]
| | | | psicutrinius
Spain
Local time: 18:32
Member (2008)
Spanish to English
+ ...
| @Lilian and the sugar | Sep 24, 2012 |
Lilian: I have no doubt that YOU could certainly try that -if only because you believe someone did, or is said to have tried to: I (and I am sure, Ty and others) would instead measure the concentration of sugar in a solution.
I don't even believe that this character in a film you said a number of pages ago was trying to do so. Perhaps you got it wrong?. You should check before writing, otherwise yo might find your bluff called (and in some cases, named).
And no, verifyi... See more Lilian: I have no doubt that YOU could certainly try that -if only because you believe someone did, or is said to have tried to: I (and I am sure, Ty and others) would instead measure the concentration of sugar in a solution.
I don't even believe that this character in a film you said a number of pages ago was trying to do so. Perhaps you got it wrong?. You should check before writing, otherwise yo might find your bluff called (and in some cases, named).
And no, verifying whether something is a lie or not has nothing to do with the KGB or the Gestapo. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 22:02
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | The standard version again | Sep 25, 2012 |
Tony M wrote:
However Euro- and Americo-centric it may seem, the fact remains that a great deal of translation into the only language I know anything about, EN, needs to be for a European / American readership, and hence meet the standards prevailing in those zones. It would be madness to suggest that the rest of the world should accept some kind of 'pidgin English' — and we see the results every day in the 'Chinglish' instruction manuals supplied with so many modern appliances etc. — which would be laughable, were it not for their very real potential to be dangerous.
This is where the standard version of languages (English in this case) comes into the picture. Indians or Chinese or uneducated Londoners for that matter, may speak a pidgin version of English, call it Chinglish, Hinglish or Londonese, but in professional translation and writing, the standard version of English is used which is more or less the same whether it is written in New Delhi, New York or London.
Translators master the standard version by a process that is artificial and hence has nothing to do with childhood learning. The standard version of the language is an artificial construct that has to be separately mastered in addition to learning the native language, and this has to be done equally by both the native as well as the non-native.
Since the standard version can substantially differ from the native language of a person, the native speaker of a language really has no advantage visavis the non-native speaker.
Therefore, the problem Tony is referring to - bad writing in any language- is not what I was referring to in my "cat and mice" post but an entirely different one of proficiency in language ( ie, proficiency in the standard version of a language) acquired by non-natives and I was implying that non-natives routinely acquire the highest levels of proficiency in standard versions of languages and it should be nobody's cause (except the turf protector's) to keep them out of translation jobs.
[2012-09-25 03:58 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 00:32
Chinese to English
| Pointless half measure | Sep 25, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
Let users declare their native language(s), which will appear as 'reported' or 'self-defined'
I can't see how this kind of solution adds any value whatsoever. This sort of solution would mean having a field where Proz says, "Here is some data; we have no confidence in this data; we're not providing any functionality; but here you go anyway."
The point of Proz is to provide more useful data on translators, not less. If Proz can get data on native languages, it should provide it for clients to use (in searches and filtering), because they obviously want it. If it can't get the data (because of concerns about data integrity or false data), then it shouldn't provide it. Translators can report their native languages in their own blurbs, or if like Mr B they don't believe in the whole concept, then they can choose not to report them.
This kind of thing is just going from the half-measure we have now to another half-measure with even less utility.
[Edited at 2012-09-25 03:30 GMT]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 22:02
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | The filter is the crux | Sep 25, 2012 |
Olly Pekelharing wrote:
Yes, the filter was in the back of my mind, but I hadn't given it full consideration yet. As long as outsourcers can filter for native language then there'll be translators who will make illegitimate claims to get past the filter, I suppose. Have to give that one more thought.
If it were not for the filtering of translators on the basis of native language and controlling job access on the basis of the native language filter, this discussion would have petered out long ago.
Since native language is used for such critical functions, it assumes extreme business importance to translators to be on the right side of the filter - the matter of truthfulness takes a back seat in this context.
Were truthfulness and not business sense to be the more coveted value, we should recommend the delinking of native language from translator selection and job access. That would be the one single stroke that would do the greatest to morally uplift a lot of proz.com members!
But I suspect truthfulness is just an undercover, the real intention is turf protection, and since this is deviousness couched in self-righteousness, it is much more difficult to tackle than outright lying on native language by genuinely competent translators who can handle that language, and who would be thwarted by the system from offering translation services in that language, if they were truthful. So the choice before them is truthfulness and denial of business opportunities. Put in such stark terms, it is easy to understand what they would choose.
[2012-09-25 04:14 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 22:02
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | That could be an approach, provided... | Sep 25, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
The point of Proz is to provide more useful data on translators, not less. If Proz can get data on native languages, it should provide it for clients to use (in searches and filtering), because they obviously want it. If it can't get the data (because of concerns about data integrity or false data), then it shouldn't provide it. Translators can report their native languages in their own blurbs, or if like Mr B they don't believe in the whole concept, then they can choose not to report them.
Leaving it open to members to declare or not declare their native language could be an approach to the problem that we can consider, provided of course that it has no bearing on translator selection and job access control. That is, a translator not declaring his native language should in so way find job opportunities reducing for him, or that he is being excluded in translator selections by outsourcers.
To further clarify, native language should be moved down the pecking order, to just another attribute of translators, like experience, specialty, education, etc., with no deciding importance attached to it as far as translator selection or job access is concerned.
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 00:32
Chinese to English
| It's Jack Nicholson in disguise! | Sep 25, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Were truthfulness and not business sense to be the more coveted value, we should recommend the delinking of native language from translator selection and job access. That would be the one single stroke that would do the greatest to morally uplift a lot of proz.com members!
"I think of a Proz member. And I take away reason and accountability."
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 22:02
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | My experience of a powow... | Sep 25, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
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.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-22 17:57 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-09-22 18:14 GMT]
My experience of a powow (the only one I have attended) may have some relevance to understanding the practical issues involved in using powows for verification purpose.
This powow was held in Ahmedabad, India and was attended by seven people (including myself). The native languages covered by these people were: Hindi (3), Dutch (1), French (1), Gujarati (2), Marathi (1). The second person with Hindi (the first was me) was a French translator. The Marathi person also worked in Hindi. One of the Hindi person, spoke no other language, she was more a poet than a translator, and she was native in a particular dialect of Hindi which is spoken in Haryana.
So the only language that this powow could possibly have verified is Gujarati, and maybe Hindi.
The discussions, needless to say, were carried out mostly in Hindi and English (for the benefit of the Dutch person who spoke only the most basic Hindi and Gujarati).
The point is, most powows don't attract enough number of qualified native speakers of any language to form a reliable panel of judges to verify any language, at least not in places like India where many languages are spoken.
| | | | | Truthfulness and business sense | Sep 25, 2012 |
In my world, the two are mutually compatible.
| | | | | 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 » |
| | 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! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
