| Páginas no tópico: < [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? Tópico cartaz: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
Phil Hand 
China
Local time: 10:05
chinês para inglês
| prestige/truth, comparing like with like | Sep 12, 2012 |
I'm Lisa, suddenly hit by the ugly stick.
Samuel Murray wrote:
For several folks in this thread (yourself included, I think), the main value of "native language" is the prestige of it. The label is something that defines you.
I don't see it as prestigious, nor do I understand why it would be. It's no more prestigious to be a native speaker of English than it is to be a native speaker of Chinese. But it is a fact about a person - it does define them to some extent.
For several other folks in this thread (myself included), the main value of "native language" is translation quality (or, as some had called it, reduced risk of poor quality).
But if people are applying the label inaccurately or incorrectly, then it has no predictive value for quality at all. I recognise that saying "native makes for better quality" is very contested. But if it's "claims native for economic reasons", then there's no argument at all.
Folks in the second camp often suggest and are satisfied with solutions involving near-nativeness and native-likeness. But if you're in the first camp, only solutions that [help] guarantee absolute nativeness are acceptable, and other suggestions are deemed utterly irrelevant to the issue.
Bernhard has made arguments along these lines, I think, but for many of us in this thread who regard ourselves as in your first camp, the current objective is to go for a realistic incremental improvement - to get rid of some of the egregious cases, not to achieve absolutely strict enforcement. So, to give an example for clarity: I regard it as a shame that Jose has to put inaccurate info on his profile, but I'm not interested in trying to "catch him out".
A proficient speaker may make an infinitesimal number of mistakes but when they make them, they are still the mistakes that a native speaker would never make. That's not to say that native speakers don't make mistakes, of course not, but they are native mistakes. ... Well, there are several problems with that argument. Firstly, it assumes a laboratory native speaker, shielded from all influence by non-native speakers and non-native cultures. Secondly, it misinterprets the concept of "non-native error" -- after all, a non-native error is not an error that a native would never make, but rather an error that the average non-native is more likely to make. Thirdly, it denies any value of specific language and translation education and training -- for if non-native errors can be known, they surely can be taught not to commit.
Just no. Compare like with like. I'm sure you can find a native speaker of any language who writes terribly, then compare them to someone who's learned that language to a high level, and find it favours the non-native. But *any* fair comparison will find that natives have a better grasp of their language than non-natives. High school grads with high school grads. Doctors with doctors. Translators with translators. So, for example a fair test might be highly educated professionals in the USA who were born there, and those who arrived in the USA after the age of...10? 15? You do a fair test like that, and the results are clear.
Why is it important that translators don't lie about their native language? Is it because lying about it reduces quality and increases risk of poor quality for clients? Or is it because those damned liars have no right to erode the fabric of our proud identity by their pernicious claims to be "one of us"?
Because it's important that translators don't lie. Damned liars have no right to erode the fabric of our business community.
| | | |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote: José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
And it's not my personal case either. There are some people who have spoken English from the day they started babbling as babies through their entire lives so far. Most of them think I am a native speaker of EN, and I tell them I'm not. Nobody has said it yet, but you get full marks for honesty  . More than once on this thread you have been very clear about the fact that you are not a native speaker of EN, which is more than any other non-native speaker has done so far. What confuses me however is why you have therefore declared it on your profile as one of your native languages?
I've said it once here, however maybe I failed to provide sufficient detail.
I am a sworn translator, certified by the Brazilian government to translate both ways between PT-EN. The reason I'm so certified - on top of having passed the exam - is that since 1943 there is a federal law in Brazil ruling on sworn translations. That law renders any document drawn in a foreign (i.e. other than PT - the national language) unacceptable unless attached to a sworn translation done by someone holding this certification.
In a nutshell, a few of the many sine qua non requirements to apply for the exam for these qualifications:[list] must be a Brazilian citizen (may be naturalized);
must be a resident in one of the 26 states of Brazil or the Federal District for at least one year already, and remain so to stay enabled (i.e. there are no Brazilian sworn translators outside the national territory);
must be legally registered as a freelancing/independent translation professional in the city where they practice (so there are no Brazilian sworn translation agencies).
As I said, the nationwide provisions are generally described at http://www.lamensdorf.com.br/faqs.html . Specifics on the Sao Paulo state interspersed with my personal m.o. are explained at http://www.lamensdorf.com.br/my-system.html . (While the law is federal, administration is statewide.)
The cherry on the top of this law is that such a sworn translator is forbidden to refuse service in their language pair, as long as all other legal provisions (which include statutory rates & terms) have been met.
So far, so good for Brazil. Now most EN-speaking countries don't have a national law on sworn/certified translations. I mean the USA, UK, Canada, and Australia*, AFAIK. This means that each organization/agency/office/whatever is free to set and enforce their very own rules on the requirements. Nothing bad about it: we have exactly the same situation in Brazil regarding notarized signatures or copies.
* Australian government recommends, on their web sites, using NAATI-certified translators for official documents, however they readily accept Brazilian documents with sworn translations by people with the same certification I have.
I don't have so many unusual cases to report, so I'll stick to one, to give an example. One graduate Brazilian professional moved to Canada, and wanted to revalidate his/her diploma. The local certifying board for that profession said OK, however they required a certified translation of that person's 120-page academic syllabus. They got a Brazilian translator in Canada, duly certified by ATA and two other similar Canadian institutions. It was rejected. They showed in the small print that the translation must have been done by whatever was deemed an 'official' translator in the country where the documents were issued.
Taking all this into consideration, as I see many prospects inadvertently using must be a native speaker (just as others use must have Trados**) as their first and foremost requirement, I'd consider it a disservice to them not including myself as a native English speaker. At least I can thwart Proz's stone wall to this respect, and offer them proper guidance (if you read my web pages above, you'll understand what kind of guidance I'm referring to).
** Off-topic on "must have Trados": After all these years, I think I have WordFast for some 8 years already, yesterday for the very FIRST time a prospect checked on my availabilty for a project, and I immediately realized that Trados was really a must there. I immediately referred them to a colleague whose qualifications in that specialty area I consider equivalent to mine, and who uses Trados AFAIK.
Personally, I used to think that a truly professional translator should be equally competent in doing it both ways. This served its purpose: It gave me the motivation to hone my English to its max. It also led me to completely abandon Italian and French for translation. I'd need to study 3 (IT) or 4 (FR) more years to begin translating from them, under my criterion.
Time proved that I was wrong. After the entire preceding paragraph above became a fait accompli, I met countless very competent colleagues who couldn't and/or wouldn't translate in reverse gear. To my dismay, I also saw too many 'translaters' who were working from English with a lesser command of it than I still have in IT/FR, despite all these years.
Yet I never emphasized my translation in reverse gear skills, until my government said, in 1999, that I was good at it. Apart from the sworn translations I do, I only have such assignments occasionally. Yet some 3-4 reputable outsourcers - most of them American, and in the USA - said that I am one of the few non-native, non-US-resident translators they trust to translate into English.
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
There is no doubt whatsoever that you are highly proficient in English and you do not fall into the category of egregious cases that most of us are talking about. I'm not sure how long you've been reading this thread but many here who declare one native language are also highly proficient in another language, it's just not evident since we're all writing in English. However, proficiency does not equate with being native. A proficient speaker may make an infinitesimal number of mistakes but when they make them, they are still the mistakes that a native speaker would never make (not in a month of Sundays). That's not to say that native speakers don't make mistakes, of course not, but they are native mistakes.
What the "verification proponents" are basically saying is that you are welcome to translate into English and keep that as your language pair, but I suppose what we wonder is why people post their native language as English when it is not the case (in this instance by your own admission)? Perhaps if you can explain that we might understand why we have different interpretations of the term.
I answered this one too already. In a nutshell:
1. The definition of "native speaker" varies with each individual's personal history.
(A short break - humor is better than commercials)
I once met a woman who was born in Flushing Meadows, NY. She said that one is allowed t change many things, but not their birthplace. She hated the fact that every time she mentioned hers, people trained in mnemonics would mentally envision her "Flushing Toilets".
However native-level 'speakerness' can be acquired. As I said, I know several very competent translators in Brazil which I wouldn't hesitate to rate as legit PT native speakers, though they learned it after having spoken their original language alone for many years in their lives.
2. The fact of being a native speaker may have an influence on someone's quality in translation.
In some languages, as we saw here, variants play a much, much more important role. While I am rated and rate myself as a native EN-US translator (not individual), a fact that I seldom disclose is that I originally learned EN-UK. My teacher in some 70% of the ESL classes I took over 7 years had been a BBC anchorman during WWII. In 1975 I went through a complete conversion in Los Angeles, and nowadays I reckon that have to pay extra attention to understand EN-UK. Of course, I wouldn't be able to translate into EN-UK.
Another point could be described as being there. When I translated my own book into EN, I had it edited by a native Canadian (no particular reason, he was friendly and available) professional. As a cousin from LA aptly stated: "You did the right thing. No matter how good your English may be, the simple fact that you live in Brazil almost ensures that you won't be expressing your ideas in the way an American living here today would."
That's why if the translation involves some text that is catchy, inspirational, or anything expected to directly impact the reader's emotional response, I prefer to have it translated by someone (competent, of course!) who has been living for some considerable time in the target language's country, regardless of their native language. I usually decline such jobs; however when I do them, a bold caveat emptor is always issued in advance.
This is why I think "native speaker" for a translator is an attribute often overrated in selection processes. The strength of its cause/effect ratio IMHO does not justify making it a stonewall to unquestionably qualified potential applicants.
| | | | | The reverse effect | Sep 12, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote: I like this comment: It's difficult enough persuading clients that you are a native speaker of English if your name is Konstantin Kisin without the problems created by their negative experience of dealing with translators who have claimed to be natives in the past. I hope Konstantin doesn't mind me quoting him. But it's another little example of how dishonesty can harm our industry as a whole and individual translators as well.
I hope the colleagues I'll mention won't mind either, however there are (at least) three translators in the Sao Paulo State, Brazil, named:- Jose Henrique Lamensdorf (yours truly)
- Adolfo Von Randow
- Curt Schönberger
I've met Adolfo personally a couple of times, and talked with Curt on the phone. All three of us are Brazilian natives, and we work with English! None of us can speak, not even understand, any German at all!
Nevertheless outsourcers often write us in German, not considering the possibility that we don't understand any of it. Curt told me prospects phone him outright in German.
My case sometimes gets a bit worse. Some people discover that the Lamensdorfs are actually Polish, in Krakow since circa 1750 as far as I could research. So they force me to use either Google Translate or Poltran to see what they said in Polish. I can't recall which MT contrivance did it into English, but once I was asked about translating 180 towels (sic!)!!!
| | | | Ty Kendall
Reino Unido
Local time: 03:05
hebraico para inglês
| @xxxMediaMatrix | Sep 12, 2012 |
rjlChile wrote: Ty Kendall wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Here is one more extract from the earlier discussion on this topic (Born Again (and self-proclaimed) natives?) Another very long article. To summarize - it is basically saying that "because I once met a couple of natives who were crap then that must mean non-natives (in their droves) have a right to call themselves native". Not to mention that the native speakers in question aren't translators. We've been over this flawed argument more than once.... and we've already dismissed that logic eons ago. [Edited at 2012-09-12 09:51 GMT] As the author of the paragraphs that BL has chosen to re-post here OUT OF CONTEXT, I hasten to point out that Ty's interpretation and paraphrasing of my words is totally and utterly incorrect. (xxx)MediaMatrix
That's the danger when quotes are taken out of context. Apologies if I offended you, but I was under the impression that's where HE was going with it.
Thanks for clarifying.
[Edited at 2012-09-12 15:07 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
Índia
Local time: 07:35
Membro (2006)
inglês para híndi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Written output and definition of native language | Sep 12, 2012 |
rjlChile wrote:
Of the former non-British colleagues I referred to in that post, NOT ONE claimed any native language other than his own: German, Serbian, Slovenian or whatever. And, indeed, whereas they could all deliver top-notch technical papers for publication in English (‘cos that’s what they were recruited for and paid huge salaries to do…), their off-the-cuff social writing, and their informal conversation in English was often riddled with typical non-native errors (of a kind that were totally absent from the rambling drivel of the Brits I referred to).
As translators mainly produce written output and not spoken output, I think the above quote is quite relevant to our discussion. It illustrates that testing spoken output cannot be a reliable measure of the quality of written output that the tested person can produce. And this invalidates some of the verification methods suggested in this thread.
As such, that quote is totally off-topic and out of context in this thread, since here we are concerned with non-natives claiming to be natives when they obviously are anything but.
(xxx)MediaMatrix
I would be interested to know how you define native language.
| | | | rjlChile (X)
Local time: 23:05
| Dubious conclusions | Sep 12, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote, with my emphasis:
As translators mainly produce written output and not spoken output, I think the above quote is quite relevant to our discussion. It illustrates that testing spoken output cannot be a reliable measure of the quality of written output that the tested person can produce. And this invalidates some of the verification methods suggested in this thread.
It may indeed illustrate that that testing spoken output may not be a reliable measure of the quality of written output that the tested person can produce. But that is not the topic of this thread. And it might perhaps invalidate some of the verification methods suggested in this thread, especially those aimed at testing proficiency and not nativeness.
In my book, one of the many traits of a native English speaker is that when reading plain English (s)he doesn't exaggerate the conclusions that may be drawn from the accurate comprehension of a written text (unless it's done to mislead, of course).
| | | | Samuel Murray
Holanda
Local time: 04:05
Membro (2006)
inglês para africâner
+ ...
Phil Hand wrote:
I'm Lisa, suddenly hit by the ugly stick.
I wish I could use more smileys in my posts, particularly where humour is intended.
But if people are applying the label inaccurately or incorrectly, then it has no predictive value for quality at all.
The label currently has no predictive quality anyway, because of its definition (or lack thereof).
We have no way of knowing what a client has in mind when he selects "native" and we have even less chance of knowing what a translator has in mind when he selects "native". Those who regard nativeness as an identity issue may hope that clients attach the same meaning to "native" as they themselves do, but I think that it is a dim hope, because I'm convinced that most clients relate "native" to quality and not to identity (or, if they do relate it to identity, it is because they suffer from the superstition that identity leads to quality).
Why is it important that translators don't lie about their native language? Because ... liars have no right to erode the fabric of our business community.
Say, do I understand Jose correctly, that the reason he claims to be native even though he admits to be non-native is because he second-guesses clients' need for a native speaker? In other words, he suspects that clients choose natives for the wrong reasons, and since he qualifies for those same reasons, he is justified in using the label, so that those clients may find him?
It is for a similar reason that both your and my ProZ.com profile pages mention TEN specialisms even though by many definitions of "translator specialism" that figure can't be right unless we're both 100 years old. Are we liars, or do we just apply a different definition than those who hold that no translator can possibly be specialised in more than one or in rare cases two fields?
Samuel
[Edited at 2012-09-12 16:26 GMT]
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 10:05
chinês para inglês
| Specialisms/native | Sep 12, 2012 |
The specialisms thing is a fair point. Those ten subjects are certainly not specialisms in terms of me having worked in those industries or having a degree or similar. They are areas in which I believe I can deliver quality - in a way that is very much like your understanding of native.
It may be that I'm being somewhat hypocritical in making the distinction between nativeness and specialism. I don't think so for a few reasons:
1) A specialism isn't something you're stu... See more The specialisms thing is a fair point. Those ten subjects are certainly not specialisms in terms of me having worked in those industries or having a degree or similar. They are areas in which I believe I can deliver quality - in a way that is very much like your understanding of native.
It may be that I'm being somewhat hypocritical in making the distinction between nativeness and specialism. I don't think so for a few reasons:
1) A specialism isn't something you're stuck with - a native language is. I could live in China the rest of my life, speak flawless Chinese, and my native language wouldn't change. Specialism can, however: you can acquire new ones, and old ones can become irrelevant (a 1980s computer science degree wouldn't get you very far now).
2) Proz tells us something about specialisms when it allows you to select up to ten. This suggests to me that a Proz specialism does not imply years of experience. Also, Proz allows you to change your specialisms with a click of the mouse. To change your native language, you have to email. So in terms of this site, they're handled quite differently.
3) Specialisms come in various degrees. I've seen job postings asking for X years of experience in the petrochemical industry. Now I've done petrochemical translations; I think I can do them well. But I don't have that experience, so I didn't apply. Nativeness is not subject to degree. It's a binary, yes or no state.
So I see them as quite different types of information about a translator. But I know that not everyone understands "specialism" in the same way, and I think that does leave me open to some challenges there.
The label currently has no predictive quality anyway, because of its definition (or lack thereof).
We have no way of knowing what a client has in mind when he selects "native"
Nah, we went through this before. If a client selects it, obviously he thinks it has something to do with quality. And though definitions vary, they all include something like learning it as a child and being a competent (perfect) speaker.
The fact that understanding varies does not mean that the word is empty, or that we don't know anything about it.
they suffer from the superstition that identity leads to quality).
You're suffering from an attack of the black & whites here. We've all fought ad nauseam to agree that being a native speaker does not *necessarily* make you the best gigolo in town. But it is a factor in sexual prowess. I may be getting my arguments mixed up here.
It's not a superstition to believe that aspirin cures headaches, though not every aspirin will cure every headache.
My understanding of Jose's argument is exactly what you said. Now, when I'm king of the world, and everything is perfect, there will be no need for the white lie that Jose is telling. But it's an imperfect world, and thus my favoured solution is something that will catch/discourage casual and egregious misrepresentation, without getting all mediaeval on those who aren't causing a problem. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Camping it up some more | Sep 12, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote: Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
However, proficiency does not equate with being native. For several folks in this thread (yourself included, I think), the main value of "native language" is the prestige of it. (...) For several other folks in this thread (myself included), the main value of "native language" is translation quality (or, as some had called it, reduced risk of poor quality).
I would probably slightly adjust your description of the second camp (which I'm in, firstly because I agree with it a secondly because I'm far too dashing to be Phil and Lisa's apparently "ugly stick" camp), in that I prefer to avoid mention of translation per se, and refer to an inherent quality of written output in the language in question. The translation might be utter bollocks, but it will always read well. And yes, production of that level of output is not restricted to natives, as you and JHL ably demonstrate.
See, in fact, if I were coming at this with my old data analyst hat on (and bearing in mind I wasn't the world's greatest), it seems to me (after all this time) that the problem is that we have a badly designed field being used for two purposes. Pretty much as outlined by the two camps.
One set of people use it and understand it as an attribute of the individual, as its name suggests. You could substitute the word "nationality" is some of the discussion, and it would not be out of place. It is something you can't change once you're, what, 16-18-20 years old (or so). In this regard, I can see the argument that taking this definition of it, and then deciding to use it as a filter, is discriminatory (in the sense that discrimination is bad when it is on the basis of factors people cannot change - it's just I also think that this definition of nativeness is pointless in the context of proz).
Others, no doubt partly because of the use made of it in searches and jobs, see it more as a functional field, being broadly a natively-like ability to write in the language (albeit likely with different types of error), and this is where the truth-stretching comes in, either in the form of delusion or in the form of attempting to claim a competitive advantage that is not strictly due. It is, in fact, something that can change, in that it is a skill can be acquired or lost in adulthood, and as such it's fine to filter (or discriminate) on it.
So if proz were my client here, my initial recommended solution would actually be to have 2 fields. One native language in its quasi-nationality/prestige-conferring sense. One native language in its proficient-written-output sense. I would then invite the client to consider which ones are to appear on which screens and why that is. Whether they can be updated or not, and if so why. That kind of thing. Indeed, and why not, the kind of universal verification that could be applied to each field.
I would then remind the client that they are skint, and they've only got one field and no money or time or inclination to have 2 fields, so which one do they want to keep, and why. I know what my anwer is.
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 10:05
chinês para inglês
| They already have that | Sep 12, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
So if proz were my client here, my initial recommended solution would actually be to have 2 fields. One native language in its quasi-nationality/prestige-conferring sense. One native language in its proficient-written-output sense.
The first is native language. The second is working languages. People get worried when I say this, but stuff 'em. If you don't speak your source language (and by speak I mean you're able to hold a conversation without making language errors, and you're able to write a business letter and a kid's story without embarrassing yourself), then you've got no business translating from it in the first place.
Of course, it's very mean of me to say such a thing, but Christ on a bike, does no-one but me wish for the (good old, non-existent) days when men were men, women were women, and translators actually knew their sodding second languages?
| | | | Samuel Murray
Holanda
Local time: 04:05
Membro (2006)
inglês para africâner
+ ...
| Okay, back to the main thread, I think | Sep 12, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
Nah, we went through this before...
We've all fought ad nauseam to agree that...
Yes, we have.
But it's an imperfect world, and thus my favoured solution is something that will catch/discourage casual and egregious misrepresentation...
Well, if I'm not mistaken, the main thread was last left off where Lisa asked for suggestions for wording for a poll, to which only two people [1][2] replied. Do you want us to pick up from there?
I also posted a suggested update to the petition wording, but got no replies (except a private mail from someone who actually thought I was making fun of the petition). Can we confirm at this point what the current conclusions are that we have reached, at least with regard to the plan of action? Am I right that it currently looks like it will be a petition?
Samuel
[Edited at 2012-09-12 18:43 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
Reino Unido
Local time: 03:05
hebraico para inglês
Samuel Murray wrote:
Am I right that it currently looks like it will be a petition?
Yep, and I liked Phil's wording (I believe I posted at the time to that effect).
| | |
|
|
|
| I knew you'd pop up | Sep 12, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote:
So if proz were my client here, my initial recommended solution would actually be to have 2 fields. One native language in its quasi-nationality/prestige-conferring sense. One native language in its proficient-written-output sense.
The first is native language. The second is working languages.
And yes, when the idea struck me in the playground this aftrnoon, it did include the point that it does occupy some, but only part, of the ground of "working languages", or working pairs, as I was thinking of it, in that a) it is only the target half of any pair declared and b) working pairs can come and go as life moves on (well, not for me, but for talented people).
I was thinking of a hierachy of:
i) native language (the fixed attribute)
ii) language of proficient written output (can be gained and lost; nothing to do with translation per se; likely to include language i))
iii) working pairs (where the target side would probably be a ii) language, but perhaps not necessarily if e.g. a working pair is routinely outsourced elsewhere)
The trouble being, of course, that we have one field, which is named, labelled, displayed and used on the site, and thus viewed, interpreted and populated by members in a incoherent jumble of both i) and ii).
As you say, perhaps it should be ii) and iii) that are viewed as combinable in that ii) is half of iii). I do think the current issue is that it is i) and ii) that are getting blurred both by site functions and site members. Never mind testing and verifying the contents of the field: we need to decide what the field is actually for, and THAT might involve more work than proz might like to see.
[Edited at 2012-09-12 19:16 GMT]
| | | |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Say, do I understand Jose correctly, that the reason he claims to be native even though he admits to be non-native is because he second-guesses clients' need for a native speaker? In other words, he suspects that clients choose natives for the wrong reasons, and since he qualifies for those same reasons, he is justified in using the label, so that those clients may find him?
I don't know whether these are labeled "Nike people", but some professionals "just do it".
It's that plumber who fixes your leaking tap, sees the rusty pipe about to burst, but doesn't say a word about it. It's the doctor who examines you, prescribes some drugs, but doesn't tell you what you have, and if there was any way of avoiding it. It's that lawyer who takes your case, gets you to sign some papers, and will only give you news when a final court order has been issued. It's that translator who takes your text, and delivers it translated in the way they understood you wanted.
In spite of having a few of their products, I'm not a 'Nike guy' according to the definition above. Anyone who has browsed my web site knows that. I provide anyone who contacts me professionally with as much information as I can to enable them to make an intelligent decision, even if they won't be hiring me - but someone else - for their immediate needs. That's part of my marketing. Some come back later for more help, and some of these eventually hire me on a whim, as soon as they have something they immediately know that's in my line of work.
I often see job posts requiring Portuguese as target, however failing to specify a variant. This issue is so relevant, that I immediately know they are headed either to a) a 50% chance of disaster; or b) one helluva waste of time setting apart "samba" and "fado" singers/listeners around the world (not counting the time wasted by wrong-variant applicants).
So I want to advise them. If they demand Trados (I don't have, and won't lie about it), I do it via the Proz staff. If the subject area is something I've ruled out (5 general areas so far), I just give them the URL to my page on PT variants, and wish them good luck. They usually thank me, and amend their job post. Quite often they need European PT. However some have sought me years later, when they had a request for Brazilian. Marketing again.
Now some - and not so few - need their often confidential documents in English translated into Portuguese to have some legal/official effect in Brazil: business agreements, divorce decrees, criminal records, bank statements... Having no idea what a translator looks like, they may want at least a native EN speaker. Perhappys day ravvy heddy sommy badgee eexpeereance een commewneekayshun widdy summy selfee accleimedgee Brezilian trainslayter. (Native EN speakers may have to read it aloud to understand, and then be introduced to the Brazilian accent.)
My page on sworn translations in Brazil gives them in English all the general information on why it won't work their way, and how it should be done. In fact, I developed this page in Portuguese, and the English version was made on the request from a friend in the Brazilian embassy in Washington: his staff spent a good part of the week explaining all that by phone to Americans.
Yet this is not self-advertising. I tell them to get the sworn translator in Brazil physically closest to their needs (e.g lawyer, relative, themselves if they are/will be here), since it involves hard copy, and provide links to all online directories for such translators (which are a pain to keep up-to-date).
So this white lie (saying I'm native) is a way to thwart Proz's contrivance that precludes me from making this valuable information reach such people. Though I didn't spend one red cent in SEO, it pops up first on Google, however one must make the correct query to find it. That page has been reprinted elsewhere, however nobody else bothers to keep those links updated.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Holanda
Local time: 04:05
Membro (2006)
inglês para africâner
+ ...
| @Charlie, re the proficiency/excellence option | Sep 12, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
See, in fact, if I were coming at this with my old data analyst hat on ..., it seems to me ... that the problem is that we have a badly designed field being used for two purposes.
Thank you.
So if Proz.com were my client here, my initial recommended solution would actually be to have two fields. One native language in its quasi-nationality/prestige-conferring sense. One native language in its proficient-written-output sense.
This sounded like a very sensible idea when I first read it.
The main problem with this idea is this: if a proficiency option is based on nothing else than the translator's opinion of himself, then everyone would want to have it. To be of any use, it must be exclusionary, and for that to happen it must be based on something measurable. It can't be just a self-declaration of excellence.
[By the way, I disagree with Phil (though I won't quote him, to keep this post tidy) that "working languages" already is the proficiency option. I think what is meant by this extra option is not mere standard proficiency but excellence in proficiency. You could say that this is not really a proficiency option but an excellence option.]
A smaller but important issue is that unless you actually slightly rename the native option, or else do something quite drastic about verification of it, clients will still use the nativeness option in the way that they are currently using it (and eventually, so will translators... again). One helpful idea that has been mentioned before is to move the nativeness option further down the list of options, so that it is not someting that clients are likely to select unless they really mean it, which in turn will make the option less attractive to those who abuse it because of its prominence.
Another thing that is important for the excellence option to succeed is that it should be [relatively] easy (or at least possible) for excellence to trump nativeness. If nativeness is regarded as yet another label of excellence, instead of something factual, then everyone will still clobber for it.
So while the excellence option is a good idea, it would have to be backed by additional changes, if you want it to succeed in reducing abuse or misuse of the nativeness option.
A potential use for an excellence option would be to offset a much stricter nativeness option. Remember, one objection to a too-strict too-soon verification of native languages is that it would leave too many translators out in the cold. But if translators booted from the nativeness option can be pacified with an excellence option that allows them to maintain their edge, it could make stricter treatment of nativeness a more attractive option. By "stricter, sooner" I mean that the nativeness option in searches be restricted to verified natives, and that natives be considered verified only if they have indeed been *verified*.
We can talk about how "excellence" would be measured, though I suspect there would be many opinions about that, and the actual measure is likely to be quite arbitrary. Since a test is out of the question, I would favour something simple, e.g. to a score based on a combination of e.g. the translator's WWA score and number of referrals (possibly divided by the number of BB posts). Very arbitrary, though not entirely irrelevant, and easy to measure.
If I may speculate about how such an excellence would work in practice: when clients select the option in a directory search, then results are sorted by excellence score instead of KudoZ score, or when clients select the option for a jobs notification or KudoZ notification, then mail is sent to the top 30% scoring translators.
Anyway, I'm "discussing" something here that is not on the table.
Samuel
[Edited at 2012-09-12 19:48 GMT]
| | | | | Páginas no tópico: < [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? | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
