| صفحات الموضوع: < [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? ناشر الموضوع: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
Ty Kendall 
المملكة المتحدة
Local time: 02:10
عبري إلى أنجليزي
| Black hole of numbness | Sep 16, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Ty Kendall wrote:
That's the trouble with self-assessment. But I presume we intend to test it, and it will be easier to test written output than spoken output.
Hasn't that been poopooed too? Who's going to trust the testers? Will the testers be 100% genuine native speakers? Won't the non-natives be up in arms about that? Who's going to ensure the person submitting the written sample actually wrote it?
What about bias?
What about legality? (LOL)
What about God-given human rights?
Aaaaaaargh!
| | | | | I suppose you can put it that way... | Sep 16, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
I understand the point you're making, but consider this:
If you have spoken English, Hindi, the state language and your regional language since childhood, and if you still speak them all regularly, then in terms of the proposed definition they would all be native languages for you, and (assuming that ProZ.com can be convinced that Indian English+Hindi translators can have four native languages), then you would be included in jobs that require any of these languages as a native language anyway. So I don't think your objection is to the definition but to the presumed implementation of it (the presumption that ProZ.com will continue to allow only two native languages), and I right?
The current wisdom seems to be that it is normal for people to have just one native language, at most two. It will take much convincing to accept four. But such scenarios are quite possible in a place like India.
But what I was really arguing was that the language you start of with in life (your mother-tongue or "native" language) doesn't often remain your main working language later in life. So if X language is someone's childhood langauge, in which he does not get much schooling but is schooled in a different language (this could be Hindi, or English or the state language) then the language he was schooled in will become his main language in which he is most proficient. But this language won't be his native language.
Which is why I had proposed "the language you are most proficient in" as the criterion.
| | | | Samuel Murray
هولندا
Local time: 03:10
عضو (2006)
أنجليزي إلى أفيقاني
+ ...
| The word "native" means "where you come from", not "what you are" | Sep 16, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
I therefore suggest an alternative proficiency-based definition:
The language in which you are most proficient and into which you translate regularly.
I understand all of the advantage of this proficiency-based definition, but there is one problem with it. We're not trying to redesign the "native language" option in ProZ.com -- we're simply trying to refine it.
This means that when writing a definition, we have to take into account the assumed current meaning of the label, and the label is "native". The word "native" by itself (i.e. in its ordinary meaning) denotes "where you come from" and not "what you are".
I realise that for many people "who you are" is defined or heavily influenced by "where you come from", but that does not change the fact that "who you are" is not what "native" ordinarily means.
Samuel
| | | | Samuel Murray
هولندا
Local time: 03:10
عضو (2006)
أنجليزي إلى أفيقاني
+ ...
| @Ty, re the purpose of the definition | Sep 16, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
If there was ever a definition which was open to abuse and false claims, you've just read it.
Erm, I think this comment is out of line, because: the validity of a definition is not measured by how open it is to abuse or false claims. The purpose of the definition is not to prevent false claims or prevent abuse.
Samuel
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
المملكة المتحدة
Local time: 02:10
عبري إلى أنجليزي
| What are we all here for then? | Sep 16, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote: Ty Kendall wrote:
If there was ever a definition which was open to abuse and false claims, you've just read it. Erm, I think this comment is out of line, because: the validity of a definition is not measured by how open it is to abuse or false claims. The purpose of the definition is not to prevent false claims or prevent abuse. Samuel
...but it should be here surely? Isn't that what we're all here debating? The current policy of "it means what you want it to" has resulted in the current situation. If we implement a site-approved definition which is only a few shades short of "it means pretty much what you want it to" then nothing will change and this monumental thread will be a complete waste of megapixels.
Any attempt here to adapt or refine a definition surely should aim to plug some of the holes of the previous mess and to reduce if not eliminate the false claims and abuse which spawned this entire thread. Any "new" definition which doesn't do that simply isn't as valid for the current purpose.
[Edited at 2012-09-16 08:08 GMT]
| | | | Samuel Murray
هولندا
Local time: 03:10
عضو (2006)
أنجليزي إلى أفيقاني
+ ...
| The proposed definition does cover it | Sep 16, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
[1.] But what I was really arguing was that the language you start of with in life doesn't often remain your main working language later in life.
[2.] So if X language is someone's childhood langauge, in which he does not get much schooling but is schooled in a different language ... then the language he was schooled in will become his main language in which he is most proficient. But this language won't be his native language.
I can see the point you make in #1 and I don't doubt it. As for #2, the way I see it that person will be able to declare his schooled langauge as his native language (using the Petitioners' proposed definition), because school implies childhood.
| | | | Samuel Murray
هولندا
Local time: 03:10
عضو (2006)
أنجليزي إلى أفيقاني
+ ...
| @Ty, seeing the trees for the wood | Sep 16, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote: Samuel Murray wrote: Ty Kendall wrote:
If there was ever a definition which was open to abuse and false claims, you've just read it. Erm, I think this comment is out of line, because: the validity of a definition is not measured by how open it is to abuse or false claims. The purpose of the definition is not to prevent false claims or prevent abuse. ...but it should be here surely? Isn't that what we're all here debating?
Yes, we've been debating how to prevent abuse, but not all of the tools for doing so will do so by themselves. The definition is an important tool in preventing abuse, but it does not prevent any abuse by itself (nor is it supposed to be able to). It is useful only as a catalyst, in combination with other tools (e.g. verification). Right now, here, we are discussing this particular tool. What you did was to say that a particular design of this tool is unsuited because it makes the tool unsuited for something that it is not meant for anyway. Do you see my point?
[Edited at 2012-09-16 08:24 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
المملكة المتحدة
Local time: 02:10
عبري إلى أنجليزي
Samuel Murray wrote:
What you did was to say that a particular design of this tool is unsuited because it makes the tool unsuited for something that it is not meant for anyway.
Do you see my point?
To be honest, no. But that's ok. I think I (kinda) agree in parts.
I'm not saying that the definition has to be worded in such a way as to conclusively exclude 99% of the population, but neither should it be ambiguous in such a way as to allow any old Tom, Dick or Harry to claim nativeness due to "their interpretation" of it.
I agree the definition won't do the entire job for us, it has to work in tandem with other aspects (whether that's verification or whatever)....but I do think it's a good place to start plugging holes and preventing abuse (and it's actually a key aspect because people (liars too) will always refer back to the definition to defend their claims. If you have a wishy-washy get-out-of-jail-free definition then we'll be back here again in no time.
My personal opinion is that "The language in which you are most proficient and into which you translate regularly" is woefully inadequate for the current purposes. Who is going to decide someone's most proficient language? For a person speaking 3 or 4 languages you'd have to test them all and decide their strongest. How can it be tested that they translate into it regularly? This definition also sidesteps the issue of acquisition, completely ignoring how and when the language was acquired or learned. These are relevant aspects in defining "native language" - as we know, adults don't acquire native languages, so how can it be right to have a definition of "native language" which would include that possibility?
[Edited at 2012-09-16 08:34 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
psicutrinius
أسبانيا
Local time: 03:10
عضو (2008)
إسباني إلى أنجليزي
+ ...
Agree.
I believe that the point is to raise as many hurdles to lying / misrepresenting / delusion as possible. If definition itself can dissuade a few of them (or even, at the very least, leave no doubt that if, after reading the definition, in certain cases they are on precarious grounds), this in itself means that there will be at least a few of them that would not require further screening / verifying.
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
المملكة المتحدة
Local time: 02:10
برتغالي إلى أنجليزي
+ ...
بادئ الموضوع | I don't understand the comparison | Sep 16, 2012 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote: If I got a form, typically from the US government, asking to state my race, they'd expect me to choose "Caucasian" from the options available. That, IMHO, is as much of a lie as saying that I am a native EN speaker. I am a first-generation Brazilian, and my entire ancestry was born in Krakow, Southern Poland, between 1750 (perhaps before - that's how far I got in my research) and the early 20th Century. That's a bit far away from the Caucasus shown on this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caucasus-political_en.svg But there is no other valid choice for me on that form.
You are Caucasian, the Caucasus only comes into it insofar as it is one of the regions that people of the Caucasian race come from. So there is your category, in the same way that PT is your category when it comes to picking your native language. I really don't see any difficulty at all. I'm the one with the difficulty here, invariably I ALWAYS have to tick the "Other" box. It seems to me that grey areas are being created when they don't even exist.
| | | | Michele Fauble
الولايات المتحدة
Local time: 18:10
عضو (2006)
نرويجي إلى أنجليزي
+ ...
| Practical definition | Sep 16, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
This definition also sidesteps the issue of acquisition, completely ignoring how and when the language was acquired or learned. These are relevant aspects in defining "native language" - as we know, adults don't acquire native languages, so how can it be right to have a definition of "native language" which would include that possibility?
As a practical matter, a definition that focuses on native proficiency resolves the problem that started this thread — self-declared native speakers who show clearly by their writing that they are not genuine native speakers. A definition that emphasizes childhood acquisition, even with the condition of continuous use, does not do so.
| | | | Samuel Murray
هولندا
Local time: 03:10
عضو (2006)
أنجليزي إلى أفيقاني
+ ...
| @Ty, inadequate definition | Sep 16, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
My personal opinion is that "The language in which you are most proficient and into which you translate regularly" is woefully inadequate for the current purposes.
For what it's worth, I also think that that definition is inadequate (for the acquisition related reasons mentioned in your post).
| | |
|
|
|
| Ask Jeeves ?! | Sep 16, 2012 |
That was a joke. What I mean is: ask Proz.
Of course it is important to those of us who want verification of "native language" to have a clear definition of those words.
As it is Proz itself which places "native language" in such a prominent position, and says that it is verified, it should be Proz which defines exactly what it means by that.
I therefore propose to ask Proz (in a support ticket) exactly what it means by "native language".
I'll report back if/when I receiv... See more That was a joke. What I mean is: ask Proz.
Of course it is important to those of us who want verification of "native language" to have a clear definition of those words.
As it is Proz itself which places "native language" in such a prominent position, and says that it is verified, it should be Proz which defines exactly what it means by that.
I therefore propose to ask Proz (in a support ticket) exactly what it means by "native language".
I'll report back if/when I receive a reply.
Then, we might be able meaningfully to proceed with drafting a petition requesting its verification.
Patience Wins. Off-topic point: that was the name of the first horse I ever backed that won - I think I got ten bob. If you know what that means, you're a native UK English speaker (of a certain age).
Jenny ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
المملكة المتحدة
Local time: 02:10
عبري إلى أنجليزي
Michele Fauble wrote: Ty Kendall wrote:
This definition also sidesteps the issue of acquisition, completely ignoring how and when the language was acquired or learned. These are relevant aspects in defining "native language" - as we know, adults don't acquire native languages, so how can it be right to have a definition of "native language" which would include that possibility?
As a practical matter, a definition that focuses on native proficiency resolves the problem that started this thread — self-declared native speakers who show clearly by their writing that they are not genuine native speakers. A definition that emphasizes childhood acquisition, even with the condition of continuous use, does not do so.
I think that the entire focus shouldn't be on one or the other...maybe we can include them both?
| | | | Samuel Murray
هولندا
Local time: 03:10
عضو (2006)
أنجليزي إلى أفيقاني
+ ...
| Resolving a problem versus dissolving a problem | Sep 16, 2012 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
As a practical matter, a definition that focuses on native proficiency resolves the problem that started this thread — self-declared native speakers who show clearly by their writing that they are not genuine native speakers.
That definition does not resolve the problem -- it simply turns the "problem" into something that is not a problem, but the situation itself remains the same. In other words, it takes the problem and redefines it as not a problem.
When we define "native", we just ask ourselves what "native" ordinarily means.
An animal that is called "native" to a certain country isn't called native because it is capable of surviving in that country as successfully as other animals in that country. Similarly, a person who is called a "native" of a certain region isn't called native because he succeeded in making it his home. In the same way, a speaker who is called "native" isn't called native simply because he has managed to attain the same level of skill in it as other speakers of that language.
An idealistic zoologist may believe that only native animals are capable of achieving native survivability, an idealistic anthropologist or sociologist may hold that only native residents of a country are able to succeed in that country, and an idealistic linguist may suffer from the superstition that only real native speakers can ever use the language as proficiently as native speakers.
Conversely, a realistic zoologist may point out that certain non-native animals often to better in an environment than the native animals, a realistic sociologist will know that non-native residents are sometimes more successful in life than native residents, and hopefully a realistic linguist will admit that non-native speakers can sometimes be better translators than native speakers. But the ability of these animals, residents or speakers to perform well does not make them "native".
The ordinary meaning of the word "native" is "origin", not "skill".
Samuel
| | | | | صفحات الموضوع: < [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 » |
| | 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! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
