| Număr de pagini: < [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? Inițiatorul discuției: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
psicutrinius 
Spania
Local time: 03:18
Membru (2008)
din spaniolă în engleză
+ ...
| @texte style | Aug 30, 2012 |
You are right, indeed
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Removed per poster's request | Ty Kendall
Regatul Unit
Local time: 02:18
din ebraică în engleză
| Never listen to the self-serving predictions of ELT teachers | Aug 30, 2012 |
BeaDeer wrote:
"I think that the concept of 'native speaker' will be outdated within twenty years. Because English is being taught so aggressively throughout the world, the success of that endeavor will eventually (possibly already has) mean that competent non native speakers of English will outnumber native speakers"... - The opinion of an English native speaker, recently spotted on the www, one of the ELT discussion board.
These kind of predictions do nobody any favours. Who knows how quickly the wind will change direction? Many people predict Mandarin will soon eclipse English, are they right? Most likely not, but you simply can't predict what will happen with linguistic trends in 20 years time. As someone with a background in ELT I know all too well how ELT teachers love to revel in the dominance of English (it pays their bills after all) and they have a vested interest in perpetuating the belief that English is here to stay. I just take their predictions about English with a pinch of salt.
I also disagree with the notion that just because a language (any language) has a lot of non-native speakers then the concept of the language having native speakers becomes "outdated". The language's native speakers don't stop existing or being any less relevant. Why should any speaker of a lingua franca concede their status as native speakers just because their language has the status of a much-studied language?
Latin had a lot of non-native speakers in its heyday....but they didn't all become Romans or consider themselves native Latin speakers by virtue of having learnt the lingua franca of the day.
[Edited at 2012-08-30 13:49 GMT]
| | | | Bernhard Sulzer
Statele Unite
Local time: 21:18
din engleză în germană
+ ...
| What's your native language? And why? | Aug 30, 2012 |
Hello.
I do not agree with posters here who keep trying to discount the valid concept of native language (and it is valid here, Proz.com agrees - "N”). We have also defined it many times in this thread. I don't believe that just because more and more people all over the world speak English, they all become native English speakers or that the concept of English as a native language will become invalid.
WHEN IN YOUR LIFE did you begin to learn and FOR HOW LONG have you ... See more Hello.
I do not agree with posters here who keep trying to discount the valid concept of native language (and it is valid here, Proz.com agrees - "N”). We have also defined it many times in this thread. I don't believe that just because more and more people all over the world speak English, they all become native English speakers or that the concept of English as a native language will become invalid.
WHEN IN YOUR LIFE did you begin to learn and FOR HOW LONG have you learned, spoken, written, and listened (to) English (any applicable L)?
If you can answer "early on" and "a very long time" you might be a native speaker of English (any applicable L).
Now, I am going to stress again why I believe "native language" claims should be verified.
1. My native language is German, I was born in Austria, grew up there, went to high school and even attended university there until I was 25.
2. My second language is English (I've used it for more than 20 years in the US; I attended university in the US and earned an M.A.)
3. I was "immersed" in the English language from age 25 on.
4. I speak and write English very well and translate from it into German, and sometimes I even translate into English but, in that case, always collaborate with an English native speaker.
5. I know that I am NOT a native speaker of English because I can't say I was born in an English-speaking country, I can't say I grew up in an English-speaking country or family and I can't say I attended primary or secondary educational institutions in an English-speaking country. During my formative years, my exposure to English was limited to the subject "English" taught in high school in Austria. (Well, I listened to and sang along to rock'n' roll a lot )
6. The facts I described can also be found in my profile here on Proz.com.
7. These facts are TRUE.
8. There are users/members here on Proz.com who do claim English as their native language even though they would have to say the same thing I said above - see point 5. Nevertheless, they claim that they are NATIVE speakers of English despite the fact that their English is not even as good as mine. Their claims are false. I understand how a real native speaker must feel about such claims.
9. I have a real problem with point 8 because such users/members claim to have attained something unattainable and they are either unaware that they are wrong, are not informed enough to know what a native speaker is (what is their educational background?), have intentionally construed their own invalid concept of native speaker or intentionally say an untruth.
10. If native languages are not verified, anybody can claim whatever they want and the validity of their claim is "0".
11. In any case but especially when it comes to language services, the native "language(s)" one claims should indeed be one's true native language(s). And if you think you speak English well enough to translate into it but are not a native speaker, you should give true evidence supporting that competence but also be honest and NOT claim you are a native speaker.
Some have argued here that the fact that someone's native language is English does not make him/her a good translator. Yes, granted. But how can someone who claims to be a native English speaker but writes very bad English be a good translator?
It's much more likely that a true native speaker of English indeed has the additional skills required for being a great translator into that language.
What's your native language and why?
B
[Edited at 2012-08-31 13:47 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 06:48
Membru (2006)
din engleză în hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Why native language verification may not happen | Sep 2, 2012 |
Whatever may be the linguistic merits of verifying native language status of members, and these have not been non-controversially established in this thread, it may not happen because of several compelling non-linguistic reasons too.
As far as I can make out, the main source of income of the site is membership fees paid by members. There are a few advertisements, but mostly of translation-related products like CAT tools, I have no idea how much these inserts may be yielding the site... See more Whatever may be the linguistic merits of verifying native language status of members, and these have not been non-controversially established in this thread, it may not happen because of several compelling non-linguistic reasons too.
As far as I can make out, the main source of income of the site is membership fees paid by members. There are a few advertisements, but mostly of translation-related products like CAT tools, I have no idea how much these inserts may be yielding the site, but my guess is that it would only be a minor percentage of the total revenue.
There are two types of memberships to the site – professional and corporate, the latter being about three times as costly as the former. But one can expect that professional membership is the main cash cow, as professional members far outnumber (more than three times at least) corporate members.
There are also a huge number of non-members (the non-paying ones) who are potential paying members. These members would be keenly watching what value for money the site’s membership can yield for them, and restrictions based on native language criterion would distinctly devalue the site for them.
So from a financial point of view, the site’s main constituency is professional membership. If the site behaves like a logical financial entity, it would try to make itself as desirable to this constituency as possible.
The native language issue is critical to this constituency (professional members, existing and potential) for various reasons. The more the site stresses native language and uses it to restrict access to jobs for its members, the less it becomes attractive to a large section of members who mainly look at membership to the site as a commercial investment which is expected to yield returns.
Neither is the site rewarded much (financially that is) by focusing on that part of its members who demand native language verification, because these are already paying members (mostly) and anyway are in a minority.
Even if the site does not apply such cold financial logic, it will be keenly watching emerging trends in the translation market and translation industry and also global trends that are relevant to the translation industry.
These trends clearly point towards the world becoming more and more multi-cultural and multi-lingual, a greater increase in international migration of people, coalescing of monolingual states (countries of Europe) into large multi-lingual entities (the Euro-zone), the increasing internationalization of languages like English (which means that now there are more non-native speakers of English than native speakers), etc.
All these make the native language issue less and less important for the future advancement of the translation industry. It is in fact a major impediment to the development of the translation industry.
Prescient outsourcers too would want to experiment out of the box and try out non-native alternatives in order to keep in tune with the above-mentioned global trends. Thus a small but significant numbers of agencies too (the ones that are more nimble and are better attuned to world trends) wouldn’t want to lay the same stress on native language as earlier.
So if the site leans too heavily on side of the native language verification horse, it might find itself backing a spent and losing horse. The site would want to back the winning horse, which appears to be dumping the idea of native language as a measure of translation quality and plumbing for a more comprehensive measure of translation quality, which it might earnestly try to work out. It will be goaded into doing this also by this epic thread, which has quite comprehensively revealed all aspects of this complex issue.
All these point towards the fact that the site wouldn’t be in too much of a hurry to play ball on this issue as it would want to seriously consider the pros and cons. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 06:48
Membru (2006)
din engleză în hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Translator proficiency index | Sep 2, 2012 |
This thread has amply revealed the inadequacy of native language as a measure of translator proficiency. But that does not obviate the need for such a measure which can be used to sift the wheat from the chaff. This is particularly relevant to outsourcers who are faced with the daunting task of picking out a translator for their projects. They look up to sites like this one to do some preliminary screening so that they are not avalanched by applications which they then have to spent a great deal... See more This thread has amply revealed the inadequacy of native language as a measure of translator proficiency. But that does not obviate the need for such a measure which can be used to sift the wheat from the chaff. This is particularly relevant to outsourcers who are faced with the daunting task of picking out a translator for their projects. They look up to sites like this one to do some preliminary screening so that they are not avalanched by applications which they then have to spent a great deal of time to process.
Traditionally, nativeness in target language has been popular for such screening. But it has increasingly become clear that it alone cannot ensure translation quality. What is needed is a more comprehensive measure that takes into account all those features that go into making a quality translation. Insisting on native language verification is no solution, as it is merely flogging a dead horse.
I have been thinking how such a comprehensive measure can be developed which can satisfactorily replace the native language talisman that has lost much, if not all, of its potency, and the following idea seems workable to me.
Translator Proficiency Index (TPI)
The site already collects a lot of information about its members that in toto reveal quite accurately how proficient a member is. But it is scattered in various places – profile page, kudoz answers, forum posts, WWA feedback, resume, etc. As of now, outsourcers have to sift through this diverse information and make a decision. The TPI collects all this information and converts it into a single number which can be used as an index of proficiency.
Here is how it will work:
1. Identify all relevant factors of translator proficiency. Some of these are:
General
- Target language is native language
- Source language is native language
- Place of residence
- Educational qualification
- Professional qualification
- Experience
-
Site specific
- Kudoz points
- Length of membership
- Brownie points
- Membership of certified professional network
-
Job specific
- Age (some jobs may be suitable only for people who are of a certain age – eg., a very complex political or philosophical text may be unsuited for a twenty-something translator).
- Gender (eg., a document pertaining to pregnancy may be better translated by a female translator).
- Dialect
-
The above list is only indicative and it can be trimmed or inflated after more consideration.
Each of the above will then be given points for each language pair claimed by the member. The points can vary according to the importance attached to the particular criterion. For example, if nativity in target language is given 10 points, nativity in source language can be given 5 points, as that is less important from the point of view of producing a neat translation.
2. These points will then be added up and would constitute the Translator Proficiency Index. It would be specific to a language pair.
3. The point accrued by a translator will then be displayed on the profile page (separate TPIs for each language pair in which s/he works) along with the maximum possible points – something like 345/500. It can also be converted into a percentage in which case the maximum possible points need not be given.
4. The TPI can be used to order translator directories and searches for translators could be made on the basis of these points. For example, after an outsourcer specifies his requirement for a job, he can ask for the top 10 or 20 or 30 translators in that language pair. The search would yield the 10, 20, or 30 translators who have the highest TPI.
5. If people have difficulty in comprehending numbers, we can even have proficiency bands – Translators who achieve a TPI above a certain threshold can be banded together and they all can have single badge like AAA+. There could also be bands like AAA-, AAA, AAB, etc., somewhat like how stocks are graded.
6. There could be mouse-over feature built into these badges/numbers – when the mouse point is moved over the badge or number, it will reveal a more detailed break up of the points for the various categories mentioned above.
The above system is similar to what is used by immigration offices of countries like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, etc. where points are awarded to criteria that are thought to be relevant from the point of view of immigration. These numbers are then used for further processing the applications. The problem faced by the immigration offices is similar to the dilemma of outsourcers – too many applications to evaluate. So, if properly implemented, this idea may work.
The advantages of this system are clear:
1. It comprehensively takes into account all the factors that are relevant for achieving translation quality, including nativeness in target language.
2. No additional data collection, testing, interviewing, etc., are needed as the information is already there with proz.com.
3. The process can be automated to a large extent, so it is completely objective.
4. It will curb lying to a large extent because it would be nearly impossible to lie about all the criteria. For example, if a person reports Chinese as his native language and indicates Karachi as his place of residence. The points for both these would cancel each other out.
5. It confers no undue advantage to those claiming nativity in target language, as it takes into account a host of other relevant factors too. This will to a large extent remove the incentive to misrepresent native language, and also prevent people from using nativity in target language as a masquerade for proficiency.
6. Outsourcers would be saved the trouble and time of evaluating themselves all the information about the applicants and can get a comprehensive idea of proficiency from a single number.
7. Last but not least, this is a dynamic Index, that can change as the translator improves - gains experience, adds on an educational qualification, earns more kudoz points, etc. This is in stark contrast to the nativity criteria which is a branding for life and does not take into consideration the gains in proficiency achieved by the translator during the course of his career.
I think this is a workable idea that can be taken forward and can once and for all settle this vexing issue.
[2012-09-02 06:48 GMT पर संपादन हुआ] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | place of residence vs native language | Sep 2, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
4. It will curb lying to a large extent because it would be nearly impossible to lie about all the criteria. For example, if a person reports Chinese as his native language and indicates Karachi as his place of residence. The points for both these would cancel each other out.
Doesn’t this have precisely the same problem as using native language as the sole measure of translator competency when we talk about immigrant countries?
Suppose I have been a professional translator in a foreign country for years, and then I decide to immigrate to Canada. Why would this have the effect of cancelling out my previous experience? This makes absolutely no sense.
Or the other way. Suppose I immigrated to Canada from a foreign country a long time ago and my English has become indistinguishable from that of a native speaker. (For the sake of the argument: Suppose a significant number of native speakers can’t tell I’m not native and I have to tell them I’m not.) And then suppose I emigrate back to my country of origin. Why would moving back suddenly cancel out my years of day-to-day use of the English language? Again, this makes absolutely no sense.
I actually know an English speaker who is now living in Dubai. Does his decision to work in a foreign country suddenly make him lose his competency in English? I know at least two French people who came here less than a year ago. Does immigrating to Canada make them immediately lose their ability to use French? This is nuts.
I don’t know if it is really that hard for people in non-immigrant countries to understand this, but this is precisely one of the reasons why I stated very early that it can be more misleading to actually state your native language than not state it.
[Edited at 2012-09-02 06:55 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
Regatul Unit
Local time: 02:18
din ebraică în engleză
| Statement of fact, not badge of proficiency | Sep 2, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
This thread has amply revealed the inadequacy of native language as a measure of translator proficiency
You're still not getting it. Calls for honest reporting of native language(s) have nothing to do with being a badge of proficiency, this has been stated many times already on this thread and is further clarified in ProZ small print:
Does the PNS credential tell whether or not someone is a good translator?
Absolutely not. Native language is only one factor that a client may consider when screening a translator or interpreter. It is usually not the most important factor.
It is merely meant to be a statement of fact. Nothing more, nothing less.
| | |
|
|
|
Kay Denney
Franţa
Local time: 03:18
din franceză în engleză
| oh well if money is more important than truth... | Sep 2, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
There are also a huge number of non-members (the non-paying ones) who are potential paying members. These members would be keenly watching what value for money the site’s membership can yield for them, and restrictions based on native language criterion would distinctly devalue the site for them.
So from a financial point of view, the site’s main constituency is professional membership. If the site behaves like a logical financial entity, it would try to make itself as desirable to this constituency as possible.
The native language issue is critical to this constituency (professional members, existing and potential) for various reasons. The more the site stresses native language and uses it to restrict access to jobs for its members, the less it becomes attractive to a large section of members who mainly look at membership to the site as a commercial investment which is expected to yield returns.
The more I read this thread, the more the outcome looks likely to be the tipping point as to my decision to become a member.
I appreciate that there must be many more non-native speakers cashing in on the current anything goes attitude prevailing here than native speakers who consider that they are capable of providing a more natural sounding document than non-native speakers.
And I'll look out for places that do take this issue seriously. Anyone who knows of anywhere, I would be interested to find out (by private message, since I believe we're not allowed to mention the competition in the forums?)
| | | | Kay Denney
Franţa
Local time: 03:18
din franceză în engleză
| The native language issue is an impediment to the development of the translation industry? ??? | Sep 2, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
All these make the native language issue less and less important for the future advancement of the translation industry. It is in fact a major impediment to the development of the translation industry.
Prescient outsourcers too would want to experiment out of the box and try out non-native alternatives in order to keep in tune with the above-mentioned global trends. Thus a small but significant numbers of agencies too (the ones that are more nimble and are better attuned to world trends) wouldn’t want to lay the same stress on native language as earlier.
So if the site leans too heavily on side of the native language verification horse, it might find itself backing a spent and losing horse. The site would want to back the winning horse, which appears to be dumping the idea of native language as a measure of translation quality and plumbing for a more comprehensive measure of translation quality, which it might earnestly try to work out. It will be goaded into doing this also by this epic thread, which has quite comprehensively revealed all aspects of this complex issue.
All these point towards the fact that the site wouldn’t be in too much of a hurry to play ball on this issue as it would want to seriously consider the pros and cons.
The fact is, Balasubramaniam L. , (as we have already said) that people are lying about their native speaker status in order to get work.
If, as you say, native speaker status is becoming less important, why, (as we have already asked) do clients keep asking for it?
My clients want translations that will be sent to people in the UK, and also all over the world. I am occasionally asked to write in simple English since the document will be sent all over the world. I tell the clients that they need to supply me with a document in easy French, since it's not up to a translator to simplify things. Otherwise I charge extra for editing. It still costs them less than translating into the native language of each country. But it costs more than having it translated by a non-native whose command of English might prevent them from writing anything but the simplest of sentences. I wonder why they bother with me!
| | | | Kay Denney
Franţa
Local time: 03:18
din franceză în engleză
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
This thread has amply revealed the inadequacy of native language as a measure of translator proficiency.
In my opinion this thread has amply revealed the linguistic inadequacies of certain non-native translators that nevertheless claim to be native.
(...and the non-natives who don't claim to be native, like Nicole and Samuel, ironically seem to be those with the best command of English!)
| | | | Kay Denney
Franţa
Local time: 03:18
din franceză în engleză
| Is discrimination according to gender or age less offensive than for race??? | Sep 2, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Job specific
- Age (some jobs may be suitable only for people who are of a certain age – eg., a very complex political or philosophical text may be unsuited for a twenty-something translator).
- Gender (eg., a document pertaining to pregnancy may be better translated by a female translator).
-
-
Stop right there!
I'm sure I could translate a text about pregnancy or breastfeeding better than the average male translator, then again so could eminent doctors such as Michel Odent, Frédéric Leboyer and Jack Newman, to name just three bilingual specialists off the top of my head.
I'm also sure that the vast majority of male translators here could translate stuff about cars and football much better than me, but then again I know of several female translators specialising in the automotive and even motorcycle industry, who consistently do a brilliant job translating in those fields. I happen not to be interested in cars, but a woman who is should not be discriminated against!
As for age: I do a lot of translations for record companies, about rapsters and other artists clearly catering more to my kids than to my age group. I also do translations for the fashion industry, for firms marketing products that my kids would love and that I wouldn't be seen dead in. Even if it's not my taste, it doesn't stop me from producing translations and my age doesn't stop my clients from coming back and back again. I somehow manage to find the right linguistic register, even though it's not stuff for my age group.
Just like I manage to translate the press packs and websites of luxury goods firms even though I would never spend €1,000 on a watch or coat. If you had to find a translator who had his own yacht in order to translate about yachts, it would be a difficult task indeed!
| | |
|
|
|
Kay Denney
Franţa
Local time: 03:18
din franceză în engleză
| Place of residence is irrelevant to this thread | Sep 2, 2012 |
Ambrose Li wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
4. It will curb lying to a large extent because it would be nearly impossible to lie about all the criteria. For example, if a person reports Chinese as his native language and indicates Karachi as his place of residence. The points for both these would cancel each other out.
Doesn’t this have precisely the same problem as using native language as the sole measure of translator competency when we talk about immigrant countries? Suppose I have been a professional translator in a foreign country for years, and then I decide to immigrate to Canada. Why would this have the effect of cancelling out my previous experience? This makes absolutely no sense. Or the other way. Suppose I immigrated to Canada from a foreign country a long time ago and my English has become indistinguishable from that of a native speaker. (For the sake of the argument: Suppose a significant number of native speakers can’t tell I’m not native and I have to tell them I’m not.) And then suppose I emigrate back to my country of origin. Why would moving back suddenly cancel out my years of day-to-day use of the English language? Again, this makes absolutely no sense. I actually know an English speaker who is now living in Dubai. Does his decision to work in a foreign country suddenly make him lose his competency in English? I know at least two French people who came here less than a year ago. Does immigrating to Canada make them immediately lose their ability to use French? This is nuts. I don’t know if it is really that hard for people in non-immigrant countries to understand this, but this is precisely one of the reasons why I stated very early that it can be more misleading to actually state your native language than not state it. [Edited at 2012-09-02 06:55 GMT]
I think that place of residence might be more of an issue for billing or practical things like having the translator come and visit the factory than for the actual translation.
An Englishman in Dubai will have to work more on keeping his English in shape than if he stayed in England. As PM I would often choose native English speakers living in their source language country, on the basis that they are more likely to have a decent command of the source language if they're living in a country where it is spoken. This would especially apply for languages not commonly taught in the UK (ie everything except FIGS)
People can't always tell that I'm not French, but that doesn't mean anything. My knowledge of French grammar and spelling far exceeds that of the average French person (I remember a teacher telling us "when you get to this level, there's no point asking French friends to confirm what the teacher says", and that was 30 years ago). Yet French translators will do a better job than me, they can sense what sounds natural, in a way that will be forever beyond me.
As a teacher, I remember often saying to my students "Well I can't explain why we say it like that, you just have to trust me."
Of course I was not as good at teaching as I am at translating...
| | | | Bernhard Sulzer
Statele Unite
Local time: 21:18
din engleză în germană
+ ...
| the native language "credential" should indeed be verified | Sep 2, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
This thread has amply revealed the inadequacy of native language as a measure of translator proficiency You're still not getting it. Calls for honest reporting of native language(s) have nothing to do with being a badge of proficiency, this has been stated many times already on this thread and is further clarified in ProZ small print: Does the PNS credential tell whether or not someone is a good translator?
Absolutely not. Native language is only one factor that a client may consider when screening a translator or interpreter. It is usually not the most important factor. It is merely meant to be a statement of fact. Nothing more, nothing less.
Hello Ty.
It is true that the PNS credential per se would, if verified, apply to any native speaker of that language, and simply mean that they speak this language on a native level, be they waiters, teachers, factory workers, physicians, lawyers etc. (add any profession). In other words, it is no indication that the person is a good translator.
However, the reason it carries more weight on a translation services portal is quite obvious. It indicates that someone can be trusted to be speaking/writing a language on a native level which is indeed a very important aspect when deciding who should translate into that language.
It holds this significance together with other aspects such as education, field of experience, excellent style of writing, etc.
Just as with these other aspects, it can only carry weight if it is true. If it is not verified, there should be no PNS credential. Credential to me and most other people means that it carries the weight of "truth".
If it is not true, a quote from Proz.com’s FAQs might have to read:
Does the PNS credential mean someone is indeed a native speaker of that language?
Absolutely not. Claims of native languages are not verified.
As you will agree, that makes no sense.
Now, how to verify native languages is another question, dealt with on this thread:
http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_suggestions/230297-methods_for_verifying_native_language_claims.html
We shouldn't support distractors' comments by stating that native language holds no significance with respect to a translator's competence (which you do not claim but that's the way distractors interpret it) or that it cannot serve outsourcers looking for professional translators/interpreters. Doing so would only discount native language as an important professional indicator and encourage non-natives with language deficiencies to claim they are professional translators from and into ANY language they choose.
Not verifying native languages makes the PNS credential pointless.
At this time, PNS holders (for one native language only) as well as unverified native speakers of TWO languages must be seen as belonging to the same group - native speakers. They are also listed as such when outsourcers are looking for native speakers. However, anyone can claim TWO languages and not have to verify them and will still be listed in the same category as PNS holders - the native speaker category.
Should native languages be verified?
Well, yes, of course! Or get rid of the PNS credential.
But that would not serve anyone well. Verification is what I support.
B
[Edited at 2012-09-02 17:51 GMT]
| | | | Rachel Fell
Regatul Unit
Local time: 02:18
din franceză în engleză
+ ...
| As the saying goes.. | Sep 2, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
You're still not getting it.
"None so blind as those that will not see."
| | | | | Număr de pagini: < [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 
