| Halaman dalam topik: < [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? Penyiaran jaluran : XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
Giles Watson 
Itali
Local time: 16:03
Bahasa Itali hingga Bahasa Inggeris
Untuk memperingati | Verification | Sep 19, 2012 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
My point is that the "native speaker" qualification alone, as it is prominently displayed on Proz profiles, no matter how punctilliously and thoroughly ascertained, leads to no universally reliable conclusion whatsoever.
No one is suggesting that nativeness equates with proficiency. You're either a native speaker of a language or you are not. Nativeness indicates how you produce the language concerned, not how well.
As you imply, the more technical or formal the genre - and therefore the more explicit its conventions - the easier it is for a specialist non-native translator to produce excellent work.
However, many outsourcers rightly or wrongly want to know their translator's native language and if a Proz profile volunteers this information, it should at least be accurate. Verification might discourage some of the more egregious truth-stretchers but is there a fair, cost-effective way of checking?
| | | | LilianNekipelov
Amerika Syarikat
Local time: 10:03
Bahasa Rusia hingga Bahasa Inggeris
+ ...
| I think many outsourcers simply choose the option | Sep 19, 2012 |
because they think it is something good, without fully realizing the intricacies of it and possible problems this term may entail. If it is something good, and given for free, why not ask for it?
I must agree, however, that very few people who have learned their target language at a later age (over 20), and especially, if they don't live in the country where it is being spoken, including using it at home and at work, can without problems translate into that language.
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:03
Bahasa Portugis hingga Bahasa Inggeris
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Charlie Bavington wrote:
I should probably get on with other stuff now; I hate to admit defeat or seem to be lacking in perseverance (notwithstanding my initial cynicism anyway) but if I were Henry, I wouldn't respond either after the nonsense posted since the weekend, which alone probably vindicates his decision to let this burn itself out. (I assume that is his decision, anyhow!)
No time like the present. I'll let you know if I get a reply although I have requested that he post to the thread.
Henry has kindly replied: "As you can guess, this has been a topic of discussion among site staff. I have not personally read most of the thread. I'll do that and post."
| | | | Michele Fauble
Amerika Syarikat
Local time: 07:03
Bahasa Norway hingga Bahasa Inggeris
+ ...
| Ideal native speaker | Sep 19, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Balasubramaniam L. wrote
It will be useful to keep in mind that not all natives of a language develop native-level proficiency in their language.
Balasubramaniam's comment is consistent with the idea of an ideal native speaker.
The ideal native speaker is a theoretical construct useful for the purposes of theoretical linguistics in the same way that theoretical constructs are useful, even necessary, in other sciences. No native speaker is an ideal native speaker in the theoretical sense, but all native speakers have native proficiency in their native language. Each native speaker is proficient in the language system that that speaker has acquired, which may differ to a lesser or greater extent from the language systems of other native speakers. It is because of the need to abstract away from the non-uniformity among individual language systems in order to discover the rules of a language system as a whole that linguists posit the (theoretical) ideal native speaker.
The overwhelming majority of the rules (the mostly unconscious intuitions about what is correct) that native speakers follow when speaking/writing are shared among all the individual language systems of a language. Among the rules that differ, some come to be considered sub-standard ("wrong") by the literate elites; an educated standard arises and with it the notion of (native) "mistakes".
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:03
Bahasa Ibrani hingga Bahasa Inggeris
| No, I'm not talking about genetics (that was the point!) | Sep 19, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
Ty Kendall wrote:
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
(I will substitute pear with "date" as I don't know the geographical requirements of pear.)
If the date palm (which grows best in desert environment) is grown in colder climates, it may grow, but it will be stunted, may not even bear fruits.
Similarly, if a native is taken out of his native area he may not turn up that much of a native.
Coming back to the pear, if the seed of the pear is defective, it may not grow up to be a healthy pear tree (or bush).
Similarly, if the native is lacking in language learning attributes, intelligence, education and a host of other factors, he will not acquire high-levels of proficiency in the native language.
I think we really have veered way off course when we are calling native speakers "pears" and talking about what happens if their "seed is defective" (equating it with a lack of intelligence, linguistic defects etc).
Giles' original analogy was good enough, trying to extend it to make some kind of point (although it escapes me) has not achieved the desired result and is actually encroaching on very shaky ground best avoided in my opinion.
Which seed, is defective, Ty. Are you talking about genetics?
There ani't [sic] no seeds in language -- only words, and grammatical structures, acquired at an early age, or a little bit later. Some more standard, others more causal or typical of idiolects.
Please re-read the relevant posts. I wasn't the one invoking genetics, I was the one warning against such a thing.
[Edited at 2012-09-19 17:47 GMT]
| | | | Michael Beijer
United Kingdom
Local time: 15:03
Ahli
Bahasa Belanda hingga Bahasa Inggeris
+ ...
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Charlie Bavington wrote:
I should probably get on with other stuff now; I hate to admit defeat or seem to be lacking in perseverance (notwithstanding my initial cynicism anyway) but if I were Henry, I wouldn't respond either after the nonsense posted since the weekend, which alone probably vindicates his decision to let this burn itself out. (I assume that is his decision, anyhow!)
No time like the present. I'll let you know if I get a reply although I have requested that he post to the thread.
Perhaps we should all, briefly, stop posting, to allow Henry to catch up...
I can't say that I envy him.
Michael
[Edited at 2012-09-19 21:25 GMT]
| | | | Yaotl Altan
Mexico
Local time: 08:03
Ahli (2006)
Bahasa Inggeris hingga Bahasa Sepanyol
+ ...
Don't you think you have recycled several times your opinions, colleagues?
| | | | LilianNekipelov
Amerika Syarikat
Local time: 10:03
Bahasa Rusia hingga Bahasa Inggeris
+ ...
| There is really no need rereading the thread -- it is basically at the point it | Sep 19, 2012 |
started -- asking for the impossible. The requests posted in this thread are really beyond the scope of linguistic sites like Proz. They might even be impossible for Harvard's Linguistic Department to handle, not to mention other schools. This might be, in fact, a totally Utopian task, just like trying to determine what was first: the chicken or the egg. How do you determine what someone's native language is, even if you came up with a workable definition of one which I don't think would be even... See more started -- asking for the impossible. The requests posted in this thread are really beyond the scope of linguistic sites like Proz. They might even be impossible for Harvard's Linguistic Department to handle, not to mention other schools. This might be, in fact, a totally Utopian task, just like trying to determine what was first: the chicken or the egg. How do you determine what someone's native language is, even if you came up with a workable definition of one which I don't think would be even allowed or practical, how would your determine who is who, who is speaking, or taking the test, if there were one, which there isn't. If someone wants to lie, they will lie. The only way is to raise general ethics among the members, and let people describe their linguistic situation in more details, instead of relaying only on such categories as native vs. non-native. There are many shades of blue. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 19:33
Ahli (2006)
Bahasa Inggeris hingga Bahasa Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | This kind of bears out what I had earlier said about peer review, plus a few more points... | Sep 20, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
Samuel Murray wrote:
Balasubramaniam L. wrote
It will be useful to keep in mind that not all natives of a language develop native-level proficiency in their language.
Balasubramaniam's comment is consistent with the idea of an ideal native speaker.
The ideal native speaker is a theoretical construct useful for the purposes of theoretical linguistics in the same way that theoretical constructs are useful, even necessary, in other sciences. No native speaker is an ideal native speaker in the theoretical sense, but all native speakers have native proficiency in their native language. Each native speaker is proficient in the language system that that speaker has acquired, which may differ to a lesser or greater extent from the language systems of other native speakers. It is because of the need to abstract away from the non-uniformity among individual language systems in order to discover the rules of a language system as a whole that linguists posit the (theoretical) ideal native speaker.
The overwhelming majority of the rules (the mostly unconscious intuitions about what is correct) that native speakers follow when speaking/writing are shared among all the individual language systems of a language. Among the rules that differ, some come to be considered sub-standard ("wrong") by the literate elites; an educated standard arises and with it the notion of (native) "mistakes".
Yes, it is easy to see that "natives differ to a lesser or greater extent from... the ideal native language" ie, from the standard for that language.
So the "peer" who would be enlisted to verify nativeness, cannot entirely be trusted to do this effectively for two reasons: first, he may differ to a greater extent from the standard of his language; and secondly, his own understanding of the standard of the language may be deficient.
Also, natives do not necessarily confirm in all respects with the standard of their language, for the simple reason that the standard is a kind of selection of best practices in their language. It is not something that comes naturally to natives, that is, they can't produce a standard output in their language by just being native - they have to internalize the standard of their language by putting in an effort. That is, and this is a very significant point, this does not happen intuitively in the way a person picks up a native language. Which means, a native picks up the standard of his language more in the way people learn their L2, that is, by a conscious effort.
Since in most translation, we use the standard of the language (ie, the standard form of the language) and not the native version of the language that comes naturally to every native speaker, the native does not really have all those advantages that are lumped with being a native speaker.
Since acquiring the standard of the language (as opposed to acquiring the native language itself) is an artificial, conscious process, it is possible for even non-native speakers with sufficient exposure in the language to acquire the standard of the language (even if not the actual language itself).
This fact is routinely demonstrated in the translation profession by almost every translator who translates in the reverse direction of his language pair.
[2012-09-20 02:14 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 19:33
Ahli (2006)
Bahasa Inggeris hingga Bahasa Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | The standard is a beaten path; native language is unchartered territory | Sep 20, 2012 |
This is in continuation with my earlier post on the standard of the language. This is a topic that has not been sufficiently discussed here, and it is of earth-shaking significance for translation.
The standard is a simplified, artificial version of the language. The language itself comes with infinite variation. Every new speaker of a language introduces minute variations to his language, which is why the same language a few centuries back in time is almost incomprehensible to curr... See more This is in continuation with my earlier post on the standard of the language. This is a topic that has not been sufficiently discussed here, and it is of earth-shaking significance for translation.
The standard is a simplified, artificial version of the language. The language itself comes with infinite variation. Every new speaker of a language introduces minute variations to his language, which is why the same language a few centuries back in time is almost incomprehensible to current speakers of the language. That is how languages evolve and new languages emerge.
A close parallel is the way new species evolve from existing species by the process of aggregation of minute genetic variations.
Since, enabling communication across generations is an important function of language, methods have been evolved to curb this variation in language, so that language does not change so much as to become incomprehensible to later day speakers. The result is grammar and the standard version of the language.
Out of the infinite variation present in language, a small sub-set of typical forms (the ideal form) is selected and that is promoted as the “correct” way to use the language.
Since this “correct” way is no way related to how a native intuitively uses his language, but is an artificial, “ideal” construct, the native himself has to learn it with effort. He has a much harder time learning it than a non-native, who starts with a clean slate, because the native has to suppress his intuitive way of speaking his native language and his mind and tongue have to be consciously trained to use instead the “standard” version.
So, picking up the standard version is not an intuitive but an artificial process. It is similar to the mastering of any skill. What this means is that anyone with average mental capabilities can do it, and it is routinely done, as is demonstrated by vast numbers of translators and bilinguals.
It is actually easier for non-natives to master the standard version of a language because they approach it from the solution end, while a native takes an entirely different approach to the standard of his language. The native's intuitive grasp of his language suggests something (subconsciously, and subconscious suggestions are very powerful) while the standard says something else. So he has to engage constantly in a mental battle to produce standard output in his language.
A non-native, on the other hand, holds the stick from the other end. He first internalizes the grammar and the standard version, and then builds upon it to develop his language skill – vocabulary, usage, etc. He limits his exposure to the language to only the standard version, so he can pick up the standard more quickly, than a native can.
The only advantage a native can have is, the more he confirms to the ideal of the native speaker, the more similar his intuitive grasp of the language would be to the standard version of his language. So there would be less conflict in his mind between the natural flow of the language and its limited standard version. This is really no advantage visavis the non-native, because in the case of the non-native, there is no interference from the natural form of the language, as the native selectively learns only the standard version.
Now, the interesting part is, the standard is not static either. As the language spreads and moves out of its geographical area and more and more non-native speakers start using the language at an educated, standard level, the standard picks up more and more aspects from the usage of the language by these non-native users. Which moves the standard of the language even further from the native flow of the language internalized by the native speaker.
For example, in the case of English, non-natives wielders of English like Conrad, V S Naipaul, Salman Rushdie, Amartya Sen and a host of others will contribute substantially to the standard of English. And the native speaker of English will find himself more and more at sea when confronted with these aspects of the new standard of English language which he doesn’t learn from his mother’s lap.
This also means that it becomes more and more difficult for a native speaker to confirm to the ideal native speaker when a language moves beyond its original geographical area. When a language like English is spoken in as diverse locations as England, America, Australia, India, etc., an individual in any of these locations can only pick up in an intuitive way a very small portion of the educated usage (the standard) specific to his own location, and other standard forms of usage found in other location (America, Australia, India, etc), will have to be learned by him artificially. Note that, here I am not talking about different versions of the English language such as American English, Australian English, Indian English, etc, but the standard version of English, which is the same for all these versions of English, that is, in practice there is only one standard version of any language. If there are different standards, then for all practical purposes, they are different languages.
So what I am arguing is, the human capacity to learn can in many cases easily overcome and compensate for the advantages conferred by being a native speaker of a language. And being native is not sufficient to produce standard output in a language. What I am also saying is, it is not necessarily easier for natives to produce standard output in their language. They too have to learn the standard of their language in an artificial, non-intuitive way, just as an L2 language or any skill is learned. And in this, any human being with comparable intelligence can equal them, or even better them.
[2012-09-20 03:53 GMT पर संपादन हुआ] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 19:33
Ahli (2006)
Bahasa Inggeris hingga Bahasa Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | But the relevant question is... | Sep 20, 2012 |
Giles Watson wrote:
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
My point is that the "native speaker" qualification alone, as it is prominently displayed on Proz profiles, no matter how punctilliously and thoroughly ascertained, leads to no universally reliable conclusion whatsoever.
No one is suggesting that nativeness equates with proficiency. You're either a native speaker of a language or you are not. Nativeness indicates how you produce the language concerned, not how well.
As you imply, the more technical or formal the genre - and therefore the more explicit its conventions - the easier it is for a specialist non-native translator to produce excellent work.
However, many outsourcers rightly or wrongly want to know their translator's native language and if a Proz profile volunteers this information, it should at least be accurate. Verification might discourage some of the more egregious truth-stretchers but is there a fair, cost-effective way of checking?
... should proz.com volunteer to provide (wrongly in my opinion) information that is of questionable relevance to the quality of the translated output?
The real solution is in educating the client about the intricacies of producing quality translation output, not in pandering to his whims and fancies.
By taking steps to strengthen or improving a process that is detrimental to the development of the translation industry, proz.com would be taking a retrograde step.
[2012-09-20 02:59 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | | One more analogy | Sep 20, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Since acquiring the standard of the language (as opposed to acquiring the native language itself) is an artificial, conscious process, it is possible for even non-native speakers with sufficient exposure in the language to acquire the standard of the language (even if not the actual language itself).
Dear Balasubramaniam, I notice that you are very fond of analogies as a means for creatively exploring an issue from other, sometimes surprising, perspectives. Let me present you with another one, which will perhaps throw some light on the "pro-native" argument.
Consider musical instruments and concert-level performance. Instruments offer a good analogy to the "instrument" of language - with the caveat that instruments require manual dexterity too, so you can't really begin playing them until 4 or 5 (whereas language starts from day 0, and arguably well before...).
Now, anyone can learn an instrument at pretty much any time in life. With application, time (and a bit of that indefinable "talent") you can start in your teens or your fifties, and you can achieve a high level of competence, even taking on some virtuoso pieces, with a bit of effort.
But look at, say, a concert pianist or violinist. And there are thousands of them, I'm not just counting the elite big names. They can play the most incredibly technically challenging pieces, and make them look effortless, while their bodies, minds and souls are engaged in the higher aspects of expression. Why? Because from a very early age they've been completely immersed in playing that instrument, practicing it for hours every day.
And no, not everyone who starts to learn an instrument early on becomes a great interpreter. BUT if you want to be a concert performer, you MUST start very young and practice enormously, because that is the only way to achieve the complete oneness and ease with the instrument required.
So, to stress the analogy: native speakers have started early and had a lot of practice. Yes, some later-in-life instrument learners will surpass the skills of the not-so-good early learners. But if you want a concert pianist, it's just never going to be someone who started learning at 16 or 20, or who mostly studied violin with a bit of piano here and there.
A native-speaker (early learner and hard practicer) thus has the POTENTIAL for concert performance, which in our world means the highest level of language production. It means the ability to write richly creative novels, devise and assess clever advertising slogans, write poems that resonate deeply with people, or deal fluently with the complexities of legal or scientific texts because that level of intimacy with the vehicular element (the language) means that (like the musician focusing only on expression, not technique) your higher faculties can be devoted to higher issues.
So, to sum up, what "native speaker" means is a POTENTIAL due to early learning, immersion and exposure*. And when you're looking for a world-class concert performer, not just an adequate café pianist, that does mean something.
*Re: exposure: a lot of nonsense has been said about "regional issues". This myth is soundly put to rest by looking at the most widely-used entertainment medium in the world: TV. Via TV native speakers (at least in English) are exposed from very early ages to all manner of different "Englishes". Americans watch Australian TV series, Bollywood Movies, see UK actors on TV all the time - one of the most popular TV shows in the US last year was Game of Thrones, with a cast of dozens of UK actors speaking in VERY broad and quasi-archaic accents. Nothing was incomprehensible, and no-one (in their right mind) thought they were speaking Norwegian.
| | |
|
|
|
Michele Fauble
Amerika Syarikat
Local time: 07:03
Bahasa Norway hingga Bahasa Inggeris
+ ...
| "Ideal native language" | Sep 20, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Michele Fauble wrote:
The ideal native speaker is a theoretical construct useful for the purposes of theoretical linguistics in the same way that theoretical constructs are useful, even necessary, in other sciences. No native speaker is an ideal native speaker in the theoretical sense, but all native speakers have native proficiency in their native language. Each native speaker is proficient in the language system that that speaker has acquired, which may differ to a lesser or greater extent from the language systems of other native speakers. It is because of the need to abstract away from the non-uniformity among individual language systems in order to discover the rules of a language system as a whole that linguists posit the (theoretical) ideal native speaker.
You have quoted what I wrote, but you have failed to understand it. It in no way supports your idea of an "ideal native language". There is no "ideal native language". Real speakers speak and write real languages, and if they are educated native speakers, they write the educated standard language.
[Edited at 2012-09-20 06:02 GMT]
| | | | Bernhard Sulzer
Amerika Syarikat
Local time: 10:03
Bahasa Inggeris hingga Bahasa Jerman
+ ...
| who is the master of a native language? | Sep 20, 2012 |
I put certain words in bold to allow for easy comparison.
Balasubramaniam L. wrote (on page 150):
Let me explain what I mean by “The standard of native language proficiency” so that you do not misunderstand my meaning. I will use English to illustrate as that is the only common language between the two of us, but you can easily extrapolate it to German.
In the case of English, the standard of native-level proficiency would be what people like Shakespeare, Dickens, Kipling, P G Wodehouse, Bertrand Russel, Bacon, etc. (you get the drift?) have achieved with the language.
It is an ideal, which no one individual can actually achieve ...
"Ideal" is in the eye of the beholder. And we're not talking about any lofty ideals. Were the writers you mentioned above all native speakers of English? Yes.
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
The standard is a simplified, artificial version of the language. The language itself comes with infinite variation. ...
Out of the infinite variation present in language, a small sub-set of typical forms (the ideal form) is selected and that is promoted as the “correct” way to use the language.
Since this “correct” way is no way related to how a native intuitively uses his language, but is an artificial, “ideal” construct, the native himself has to learn it with effort. He has a much harder time learning it than a non-native, who starts with a clean slate, because the native has to suppress his intuitive way of speaking his native language and his mind and tongue have to be consciously trained to use instead the “standard” version. ....
No, not at all. The only "standard" version I accept and use is the one I (and all other native speakers) acquired through immersion AND education within my (our) German-speaking environment, throughout all of my (our) childhood and teenage years, and I (we) kept expanding it with more "words". Much of the use is indeed intuitive, the way I (we) build phrases and sentences, the way I (we) use idiomatic expressions, it's all ready to be used at any moment. That doesn't mean we will all form the same sentences when we express our thoughts. There are many many ways to express something. But all these expressions will be typical of a native speaker.
I do not, no, I do not suppress my intuitive way of speaking or writing. As a matter of fact, when I speak with native language peers, we will all intuitively form our sentences and communicate.
When I translate sentences from English into German, phrases and sentences
"build" themselves, so to speak, in my mind, and they do it pretty effortlessly, unless I come across an unknown word or some information I need to learn about or need to think about a slogan or the best way of saying/writing something, working my intuitive German native language "brain".
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
It is actually easier for non-natives to master the standard version of a language because they approach it from the solution end, while a native takes an entirely different approach to the standard of his language. The native's intuitive grasp of his language suggests something (subconsciously, and subconscious suggestions are very powerful) while the standard says something else. So he has to engage constantly in a mental battle to produce standard output in his language.
03:53 GMT पर संपादन हुआ] [/quote]
The standard of a language according to you seems to be what you believe non-natives can easily acquire, say, in a year or two, as adults?
Your statement - "So he [=the native] has to engage constantly in a mental battle to produce standard output in his language" - is, in my opinion, a statement as inapplicable to any sensible definition of "standard language" or to a description of the use of standard language by native speakers as I can possibly think of.
No wait, I forgot (your statement):
"It is actually easier for non-natives to master the standard version of a language."
Try that theory on some other native speakers here.
Let's see what they say.
I cannot accept your definitions for standard native language proficiency, standard language or native language - they are contradictory or at best unclear, and completely different from my definitions and understanding of what "native language" means, and they will hopefully appear as such to most readers of this thread.
Native language is a valid concept; it is seen as an important aspect in our industry (by clients and translators) for choosing a translator because it is seen as a factor enhancing other factors such as experience or field of expertise; native languages are being acquired by millions of people every day, in their childhood and teenage years; native language competence is a set of language skills no non-native can acquire in adulthood.
I believe Proz.com should curb false native language claims as soon as possible. For starters, a serious questionnaire pinning down the origins of one's native language competence would be a first step before verification.
I support verification before peers, online (video conference) or in person at a powwow, through speaking and/or with writing samples. This has nothing to do with "translation" competence.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-20 06:47 GMT]
| | | | Samuel Murray
Belanda
Local time: 16:03
Ahli (2006)
Bahasa Inggeris hingga Bahasa Afrikaan
+ ...
| Ideal native language | Sep 20, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Michele Fauble wrote:
The ideal native speaker is a theoretical construct useful for...
[something]
You have quoted what I wrote, but you have failed to understand it. It in no way supports your idea of an "ideal native language". There is no "ideal native language".
I also understood your post to mean that you support the idea of an ideal native language, but I understood it to mean that you don't think that the issue of an ideal native language is relevant to us.
I did read your post (though I haven't read Balasubramaniam's reply yet) but I don't see any argument -- you basically say that you don't think it is relevant. Scientific (linguistic) literature does mention ideal native language when defining or discussing native language, and as such it is not an unknown concept. I believe it is relevant, if only to show that we should temper any optimistic ideas about what a "normal" native speaker should be capable of doing or judging.
There is very little we can do about the misconceptions of clients who use ProZ.com's search tools, so for our purposes we should try to find solutions that take clients' prejudices more into account than linguists' research, despite which one is more likely to "know better".
You're right that the "ideal native language" is a theoretical construct. One can't find proof of its existence because it is simply a theoretical ideal that is only useful in measuring actual native language related abilities against. However, there is very little scientific proof for the idea that most normal or average native speakers of a given language would have similar skills either, or that the ability to learn a second language tapers off with age any more or more suddenly than any other ability that reduces gradually with age. In fact, many of the beliefs in this thread have practically no scientific grounding except argumentative. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be talking, though -- but it does mean that we should not be too dogmatic either.
Samuel
| | | | | Halaman dalam topik: < [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? | CafeTran Espresso |
|---|
You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
| | 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 
