| 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)
|
|---|
Oliver Walter 
United Kingdom
Local time: 02:51
Bahasa Jerman hingga Bahasa Inggeris
+ ...
| I don't entirely agree | Sep 25, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
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.
The standard version has a lot to do with childhood learning. Childhood is the time when the standard version is most easily learned. In my case, the nearest approach to having to learn the standard language separately was that my lessons at school included English language lessons (given to everybody, not only me!) in which, for example, we wrote essays and the teachers told us what was correct and what was not. This was a preparation both for the English "O-level" examinations and for using standard English in one's ordinary life.
The situation may possibly be a little different in India where, as you wrote (several days ago), everybody learns English but it is not the language of everyday use for most people.
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.
The standard language can differ but it need not. My spoken English is, (apart from errors that are acceptable when speaking and can be corrected when writing) standard British English.
Oliver
| | | | | Agree with Bernhard | Sep 25, 2012 |
I haven't been very active in this thread recently, mostly because:
a) It is largely going around in circles
b) When I do have a thought about some point raised, Bernhard often says it for me
Let me try a different approach from what I've already said on the way-back pages.
Does anyone watch the TV show "House"? You know how every time they treat a new patient, they take a detailed medical history? And every time they do that, House tells them to go b... See more I haven't been very active in this thread recently, mostly because:
a) It is largely going around in circles
b) When I do have a thought about some point raised, Bernhard often says it for me
Let me try a different approach from what I've already said on the way-back pages.
Does anyone watch the TV show "House"? You know how every time they treat a new patient, they take a detailed medical history? And every time they do that, House tells them to go back and get even more information? (And even after all that, his favorite line is "People lie" - take heed)
The reason they take that medical history is because it gives them valuable information about the patient. For example, if someone never visited a tropical region, then it is virtually impossible for that person to have a parasite found only in a tropical climate. However, if the patient doesn't realize that parts of Florida are warm enough to be considered tropical, the patient will not give the right answer to "Have you visited a tropical region?", and the doctors may not be able to provide a correct diagnosis.
The history is the key, and getting the right answers in that history is the key.
Proficiency, schmoficiency. Either someone grew up in an environment that allowed them to absorb their "L1" (or "L1s") during their formative years, or they didn't. It's really that simple.
Many people spent most of their childhood years in one country. That makes things easier for them. For example: I went to elementary school in MD/USA, middle school in MD/USA, and college in MD/USA. Slam dunk for me, yay.
Then there are people who will say - oh, but my history isn't that easy. I was born here and moved there and I went to this international school and my parents spoke XYZPDQ at home and I'm so special...
Great for you - then explain it. Explain how you were able to absorb L2 (and L3 and L4...) on par with L1 (making them all your "native languages"/"L1s"), and if you can make us believe you, no harm, no foul.
I would bet that there will be fewer people with these special only-by-longwinded-explanation situations than people like me. Maybe not fewer by a large margin (I can't guess at that), but I would bet fewer in general.
If they want "native language" on their profile, then they should make that "history" information publicly viewable on their profile. Simple as that.
Will people still lie? Almost certainly. But it's a start. And it will make people have to work for their lies (and risk getting caught more easily). And the most "egregious cases" could then still be vetted through some other method, such as live/teleconferenced discourse as suggested by some here. Then those people would have all the time in the world to state their case - or be caught in their lies.
Peace. Out. ▲ Collapse
| | | | LilianNekipelov
Amerika Syarikat
Local time: 21:51
Bahasa Rusia hingga Bahasa Inggeris
+ ...
| I think the language options should stay the way they are, | Sep 25, 2012 |
and it should be left absolutely to the members to declare which languages they consider their native, if this category is left in the form it is right now. It is for no one to decide what someone's native language is, other than for the speaker himself or herself.
I just think, everyone should be allowed to bid on any job they want. Any, not even in your language pairs.
There aren't any limitations of that sort in the United States -- you can really apply for any jo... See more and it should be left absolutely to the members to declare which languages they consider their native, if this category is left in the form it is right now. It is for no one to decide what someone's native language is, other than for the speaker himself or herself.
I just think, everyone should be allowed to bid on any job they want. Any, not even in your language pairs.
There aren't any limitations of that sort in the United States -- you can really apply for any job you want, and only later, you may get rejected because of the lack of qualifications, experience or an inability do perform the work, not anything else. Try placing an ad in "The New York Times" Classified Section: "a translator whose native language is X is needed to do some work for our company over the next few months." They will never place it in this form. You would have to write: "An X to Y professional translator need".
You cannot even say a non-smoker needed, but rather preferred, even if you are looking for a nanny. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Giles Watson
Itali
Local time: 03:51
Bahasa Itali hingga Bahasa Inggeris
Untuk memperingati | Bidding and selecting | Sep 25, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
and it should be left absolutely to the members to declare which languages they consider their native, if this category is left in the form it is right now. It is for no one to decide what someone's native language is, other than for the speaker himself or herself.
I just think, everyone should be allowed to bid on any job they want. Any, not even in your language pairs.
Hang on a minute there, Lilian.
No one has proposed that there should be restrictions on bidding for jobs.
The point at issue is the reliability of the information that Proz-registered translators supply for outsourcers to use when they are selecting possible collaborators. Given the propensity of a minority of Prozians to make misleading declarations of nativeness, this information is going to be of little value to our customers unless it is corroborated in some fashion.
| | |
|
|
|
Tony M
Perancis
Local time: 03:51
Bahasa Perancis hingga Bahasa Inggeris
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Bidding restrictions | Sep 25, 2012 |
Giles Watson wrote:
No one has proposed that there should be restrictions on bidding for jobs.
That's just the point, Giles — there are restrictions on bidding, since outsourcers posting jobs can choose to restrict the job according to certain criteria, one of which is native language. This is really the reason for this whole vast debate: the implementation of this filter, no doubt in theory useful to the outsourcers, pushes people into lying about their native languages just so they will not be blocked from applying for certain jobs.
| | | | Bernhard Sulzer
Amerika Syarikat
Local time: 21:51
Bahasa Inggeris hingga Bahasa Jerman
+ ...
| the point is ... | Sep 25, 2012 |
Tony M wrote:
Giles Watson wrote:
No one has proposed that there should be restrictions on bidding for jobs.
That's just the point, Giles — there are restrictions on bidding, since outsourcers posting jobs can choose to restrict the job according to certain criteria, one of which is native language. This is really the reason for this whole vast debate: the implementation of this filter, no doubt in theory useful to the outsourcers, pushes people into lying about their native languages just so they will not be blocked from applying for certain jobs.
Hi Tony.
... if you're not a native speaker, don't say you are.
There is no excuse. No matter if you are applying for jobs here or not.
"Native language" is an important selection criterion for clients/outsourcers.
Most people know exactly what their native language is and what it means.
It's very sad that we have to debate here what it entails.
And why would someone who is honest about their native language want to stay in the company of those who aren't honest about it but are nevertheless identified just the same by the "N" badge? That's my question.
B
| | | | Bernhard Sulzer
Amerika Syarikat
Local time: 21:51
Bahasa Inggeris hingga Bahasa Jerman
+ ...
| on bidding restrictions | Sep 25, 2012 |
Tony M wrote:
Giles Watson wrote:
No one has proposed that there should be restrictions on bidding for jobs.
That's just the point, Giles — there are restrictions on bidding, since outsourcers posting jobs can choose to restrict the job according to certain criteria, one of which is native language. This is really the reason for this whole vast debate: the implementation of this filter, no doubt in theory useful to the outsourcers, pushes people into lying about their native languages just so they will not be blocked from applying for certain jobs.
I am sorry but it's as simple as that: non-native speakers really have no business bidding on jobs restricted to native speakers.
Non-natives are not pushed into lying about their native language.
Why should they be?
Because "they" think they can do the job and therefore have a right to lie about their native language? Or because the outsourcers are so dumb they don't know what they really need?
The job description states: native speakers only. It is supposed to be done by natives, not non-natives.
If you want to apply for jobs INTO your non-native language, then apply for the jobs that are not restricted to native speakers of that language.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-25 22:36 GMT]
N.B. Sorry if I seem blunt. But if there exists a problem that there aren't enough native speakers for a particular language or language variant(s) as some have implied here, you can't just excuse or trying to understand and accept false native language claims.
And you can't solve it by "officially" redefining native language so it fits non-native claimants. My thoughts.
[Edited at 2012-09-26 02:09 GMT]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 08:21
Ahli (2006)
Bahasa Inggeris hingga Bahasa Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | That argument cuts both ways... | Sep 26, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Why should they be?
Because "they" think they [non-natives] can do the job and therefore have a right to lie about their native language? Or because the outsourcers are so dumb they don't know what they really need?
That argument can cut both ways, and that is what this whole debate is all about.
Natives "think" non-natives can't do a job meant for natives.
Non-natives "think" they CAN do it.
Now who is to say who is right and who is wrong? Is Jose wrong when he says that he can do a job that is meant for natives of his target language?
Or because the outsourcers are so dumb they don't know what they really need?
Yes, their dumbness has indeed been hinted at quite frequently in this thread. If they are in the translation business they should at least know what produces a good or even a satisfactory translation. If they pin all their hopes on nativeness of the translator for this, the D word fits them to a d.
I have a feeling that proz.com has had an important role in pushing clueless outsourcers into insisting on native language translators for jobs that really don't require one by providing a convenient (if ill thought out) filter that they can use. Many outsourcers unthinkingly use the filter because such a filter is available, and not because native translators are needed for their job.
Since proz.com happens to be the largest fish in its category, it has sort of kicked off a trend among outsourcers for asking for native translators without realizing that may be quite irrelevant for their purpose.
If this premise is true, and I believe it is, then were proz.com to withdraw this filter, the fashion for insisting on native translators for every translation job, whether the specifications of the job call for one or not, will die a natural death, and it will prod outsourcers to think more intelligently while sourcing translators for their assignments, and this will be for the overall good of the translation industry as it will deepen the pool of talent available to the industry.
And, this is exactly why I had suggested pages ago that if truth is so much of value to you [= the pro-native camp] agree to separating the native language filter from job access control and translator selection. Let the native language label be just one attribute of translators like experience, specialty, education, etc with no controlling or filtering function attached to it. If this is done, there won't be any incentive to lie on this discriminatory filter.
Don't assume that being native in a language somehow makes you more truthful than being non-native in a language.
[2012-09-26 02:17 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 08:21
Ahli (2006)
Bahasa Inggeris hingga Bahasa Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | You are thinking of the natural language, standard is different... | Sep 26, 2012 |
Oliver Walter wrote:
The standard version has a lot to do with childhood learning...
What is learned in childhood and in an unconscious manner is the natural language of the community of the child, its mother tongue (I won't even use native language because it seems to have as many meanings as there are proz.com members if not more!).
Whereas the standard of a language is different. It is a small sub-set of the extensive breadth of the natural language (and mind you, this breadth extends not only to your generation, but also to all generations before you, so Shakespeare contributes to it too) that represents best practices of the language usage.
This is done to curb variation in language and keep the language from becoming incomprehensible to future generations. Grammar has the same purpose. Both the standard version and the grammar are artificial constructs, that is why many dictates of grammar and the standard version appear so non-sensical to us. That is because it conflicts with our own intuitive perception of our language, but we are constrained to use it for the sake of remaining comprehensible to others.
That is why I say that every individual, whether he is a native or a non-native of the language, has to learn the standard and the grammar of his language with effort.
It is true that if you happen to be an educated speaker of your language, your natural speech will be closer to the standard and you will have to make less adjustments to your speech to make it confirm with the standard, but the standard can't be exactly your speech for the simple reason that it is a statistical construct to which a lot of expert users of your language down the ages and across geographies have contributed.
Keeping in mind the fact that language enables us to make infinite varieties of expressions will also help comprehend that the standard does not come naturally to every one. The standard is a limited set of constructs of a language which the educated majority considers to be "correct". But that does not mean that other constructs are not possible, or that those constructs are "incorrect". Technically, every construct made by a native speaker is correct, but it may not be standard.
So there is this distinction between standard version of a language and the natural flow of every language.
As more and more people start using a language, the standard moves more and more away from the way the typical native speaker speaks his language.
Take the case of English itself. It started off as the language of the people of a small island or a cluster of islands in one corner of the world. Over the centuries it spread across the globe to places like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Hong Kong, etc. Now, educated speakers from all these places will contribute to the formation of the standard of English. When people from such diverse locations fashion the standard of the language, it begins to move more and more away from the typical speech of the original speaker of the language (the people of the cluster of islands where it all started). So these people (you for example) will find that the standard is becoming more and more different from the way you speak or use your language. You may not notice it, because you will be referring yourself to speakers around you who all speak the language like you do, but that is not how other users of your language, say in the US or India or Hong Kong use it, and they find your usages different.
When these variations increase to such an extent that two different groups of the same language are unable to agree as to what constitutes the standard, new languages or new variants of the language begin to appear. You can say that American English is such a case.
But these are historical processes and we don't notice them in our lives, they happen in spans of time that much exceed human life spans.
[2012-09-26 03:16 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 08:21
Ahli (2006)
Bahasa Inggeris hingga Bahasa Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | But what purpose will that serve other than vanity? | Sep 26, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
There is no such thing as "native language proficiency" (as the proficiency camp here believes it is), there is only "proficiency in a language", bad, good, great, fantastic ..). But that is not what we want to check in our camp.
This is something that entirely escapes my comprehension and the only explanation I can think of for this is pandering to one's vanity - that is, it is somehow important to the translator's self-assessment to have the native badge.
If native language proficiency is not what you want ascertained in a translator, what is the point in making all this fuss about native language verification? After all, isn't it proficiency in native language that an outsourcer is looking for when he asks for a native translator for his job? I am sure no outsourcer in his right mind is interested in hiring just a native translator sans any proficiency in his language.
When an outsourcer asks for a native translator he is indirectly asking for native level proficiency.
Or are you implying that being native in a language means automatically native level proficiency?
[2012-09-26 05:04 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 08:21
Ahli (2006)
Bahasa Inggeris hingga Bahasa Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Before "proficiency" goes the way of "native language" we should define it | Sep 26, 2012 |
Curiously, and also alarmingly, "proficiency" is showing clear tendencies of going the Humpty Dumpty way of "native language". Before it begins to mean anything and everything under the sun, we should quickly define it, so that we are all on the same platform with it. Here is something to start off with; it is sourced from the IOL, UK, and which I had quoted in one of my posts:
A sufficiently advanced and idiomatic command of the languages concerned, with awareness of dialects and other linguistic variations that may be relevant to a particular commission of work; the particular specialist skills required; and where appropriate, an adequate level of awareness of relevant cultural and political realities in relation to the country or countries concerned.
Maybe "the particular specialist skills required" in the above can be omitted for our purpose, as the above is said in the overall context of translator competence.
| | | | Giles Watson
Itali
Local time: 03:51
Bahasa Itali hingga Bahasa Inggeris
Untuk memperingati | Thanks, Bernhard | Sep 26, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Tony M wrote:
Giles Watson wrote:
No one has proposed that there should be restrictions on bidding for jobs.
That's just the point, Giles — there are restrictions on bidding, since outsourcers posting jobs can choose to restrict the job according to certain criteria, one of which is native language. This is really the reason for this whole vast debate: the implementation of this filter, no doubt in theory useful to the outsourcers, pushes people into lying about their native languages just so they will not be blocked from applying for certain jobs.
I am sorry but it's as simple as that: non-native speakers really have no business bidding on jobs restricted to native speakers.
Non-natives are not pushed into lying about their native language.
Why should they be?
Because "they" think they can do the job and therefore have a right to lie about their native language? Or because the outsourcers are so dumb they don't know what they really need?
The job description states: native speakers only. It is supposed to be done by natives, not non-natives.
If you want to apply for jobs INTO your non-native language, then apply for the jobs that are not restricted to native speakers of that language.
B [Edited at 2012-09-25 22:36 GMT]
N.B. Sorry if I seem blunt. But if there exists a problem that there aren't enough native speakers for a particular language or language variant(s) as some have implied here, you can't just excuse or trying to understand and accept false native language claims.
And you can't solve it by "officially" redefining native language so it fits non-native claimants. My thoughts. [Edited at 2012-09-26 02:09 GMT]
That just about sums it up.
@Tony
For many translators, the problem with Proz isn't so much access to jobs as filtering out the ones that are not relevant to their skill sets.
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 02:51
Bahasa Ibrani hingga Bahasa Inggeris
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
This is done to curb variation in language and keep the language from becoming incomprehensible to future generations. Grammar has the same purpose. Both the standard version and the grammar are artificial constructs, that is why many dictates of grammar and the standard version appear so non-sensical to us. That is because it conflicts with our own intuitive perception of our language, but we are constrained to use it for the sake of remaining comprehensible to others.
You said almost the exact same thing on page 155
http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_suggestions/227485-should_“native_language”_claims_be_verified-page155.html#2018504
...it was wrong then and it's still wrong now.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 02:51
Bahasa Ibrani hingga Bahasa Inggeris
| This premise is not true | Sep 26, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Since proz.com happens to be the largest fish in its category, it has sort of kicked off a trend among outsourcers for asking for native translators without realizing that may be quite irrelevant for their purpose.
If this premise is true, and I believe it is
Wait, wait...you think ProZ is responsible for native-speaker demand?
I've heard of "so wrong it's right", but this is just so wrong it's still wrong.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Belanda
Local time: 03:51
Ahli (2006)
Bahasa Inggeris hingga Bahasa Afrikaan
+ ...
| @Ty: slang, dialect, pidgin | Sep 26, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
I was in stitches when I read this. It belies a deep misunderstanding of linguistics that you keep thinking education affects the basic ability of a native speaker to speak their own language.
I'm baffled that anyone would not agree that education affects the basic ability of a native speaker to speak their own language. But... with that jab out of the way, the point of my post:
2) There is a difference between DIALECT and PIDGIN. A rather large difference.
This is a dialect:
Slang is not dialect. Slang is just normal usage with some non-standard elements that are widely understood by the specific social group. Slang forms may be absorbed by the standard language (or not). I'm not slangologist, but I have my doubts about whether thieves' language (code words understood by those in the know) or similar constructs actually constitute slang (despite that they are called "rhyming slang").
I'm sure there is a difference between pidgin and dialect, although they are both often defined as non-standard versions of a standard language. Apart from the fact that a dialect did not evolve from a language that is currently spoken, and a pidgin did evolve from a language (or languages) that is currently spoken, there is little difference of significance between dialect and pidgin. Both dialect and pidgin are "lesser" language variants spoken by speakers who (if they were educated) are considered to be able to speak the officially accepted variant of the language.
Depending on your definition of "pidgin", my native language (Afrikaans) may be a pidgin (this is a hotly contested issue, though mostly for reasons of prestige -- what would your take be on that?).
You also seem to be forgetting that native speaking children are taught the WRITTEN standard throughout their childhood.
Only if your definition of "childhood" is not "critical period" (i.e. age 5) but "pre-teen" (i.e. age 12).
In both my necks of the woods (gosh, I said it!), children's language only get [actively] corrected by the time that they start learning grammar at school, which is two or three years after they start learning to write -- and before that, children are allowed to speak the way they think is best, even if their speech contains errors, as long as they are more or less understood by adults.
I suppose there would be regions in which children's language is aggresively corrected from the moment they start speaking or from roughly the time when they are able to speak comfortably, and in which erroneous language forms are simply not tolerated.
Samuel
[Edited at 2012-09-26 06:20 GMT]
| | | | | 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? | 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 » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
