| Páginas sobre el tema: < [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? Autor de la hebra: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
| What he said | Jul 24, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote: JKalina wrote:
I’m new here, but I’ve been drawn to your discussion for three days now and I’m really curious about one thing: why is this so important to you? 1. Because it's against site rules ( http://www.proz.com/siterules/general/6#6). All other site rules are enforced with German-like efficiency, this particular rule is swept under the carpet like a Greek tax bill.
Aye. There is some sport to be had, on the few occasions the site bigwigs grace us with their presence. Most of the rules are designed to encourage participation on the site, even by people with no skills and no professionalism. There is just this one rule which could be said to be restrictive. And it's the only rule that's not enforced. It's amusing and irritating in equal measure.
2. There is an emotional connection;
3. This one's important: it's not that we're saying you can't translate into English.
These don't bother me, but I have no issue with those that do, naturally
4. Professionalism. and 5. Being sullied by association.
Especially the second, i.e. 5th, one.
it certainly isn't borne out of fear of losing jobs (chances are we're in different markets anyway) or even competition (for the same reason).
Agreed. However I would also draw the reader's attention to the theory of the market for lemons, which has elements of 5, and indeed no doubt 3, as factors.
| | | | Phil Hand 
China
Local time: 10:58
chino al inglés
| Effectiveness of Proz; changing the dynamics of my pair | Jul 24, 2012 |
JKalina wrote:
I’m new here, but I’ve been drawn to your discussion for three days now and I’m really curious about one thing: why is this so important to you?
Hi Kalina.
A long way up the thread I said this:
One of the primary ways in which I represent myself to the wider translation industry is through Proz. I choose to use Proz because it has many good features, including detailed information about translators and their native languages. However, if this native language information is untrue for a significant number of people on Proz (as it is in my pair), then outsourcers and other industry people have no choice but to discount the information that I put on my profile.
Another reason specific to me is that my pair is a mess. The average quality of Chinese translation is unbelievably poor - even the world's biggest and best corporations are having to muddle through with inaccurate, unreadable translations. Something's gotta change, and trying to achieve clarity on the simple question of the human resources available to do this work seems like a decent way to start.
Ty said: "it certainly isn't borne out of fear of losing jobs"
Actually, that is a real possibility for me. It's not something I worry about, but in my pair, I am competing with those people. And even if I don't lose jobs in direct competition, they're messing up the market. You know, I present clients with perfectly normal sentences in English, and they refuse them, demand changes to make it more like the pidgin that some of my Chinese-native colleagues peddle. My market is deeply polluted, and the confusion over who is what doesn't help. So, yes, I'd say I have a financial interest as well.
| | | | Giles Watson
Italia
Local time: 04:58
italiano al inglés
In Memoriam | Hang in there, Phil | Jul 24, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
Ty said: "it certainly isn't borne out of fear of losing jobs"
Actually, that is a real possibility for me. It's not something I worry about, but in my pair, I am competing with those people. And even if I don't lose jobs in direct competition, they're messing up the market. You know, I present clients with perfectly normal sentences in English, and they refuse them, demand changes to make it more like the pidgin that some of my Chinese-native colleagues peddle. My market is deeply polluted, and the confusion over who is what doesn't help. So, yes, I'd say I have a financial interest as well.
The Italian market was rather like that fifteen or twenty years ago.
Nowadays, though, even the most self-referential outsourcers find that their English-language texts often attract comments from people who know what they're talking about, which makes them think twice about scrimping on the translation budget.
If you focus on quality, I'm sure there are enough Chinese who need top-end translations for you to be able to leave pidgin to the birds.
| | | | | Not subjecting oneself to verification should have consequences, yes. | Jul 24, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
[If] translators ... declare two or more native languages... Temporarily, they could get the greyed-out icons but for a very limited time. After a certain time, they must verify their native languages or lose their right to display (any) native languages. (= no native language declared). I would also have no objection to this method of coercing members to get verified (or at least to answer any pre-verification questions that is tied to the native language declaration). To pipe up at what Bernhard says: anyone who declares more than one native language is given 3 months to answer the questions related to it (or to get verified), and when that time expires, the native languages on their profile is replaced with a notice saying "Translator has declared native languages, but hasn't verified them yet".
Thanks for your comments, Samuel! Couple of thoughts.
Yes, but after some one has been given the "translator has declared native languages, but hasn't verified them yet", they should no longer come up in any native-language search for translators (in the directory) and ideally, they shouldn't be allowed to apply for a job using the submit button (this is more difficult to control if the translator is supposed to apply via email). Otherwise, they won't feel pressured to ever verify any languages. This should also go for those who failed a verification test.
Samuel Murray wrote:
I would also have no objection if a similar thing is done to current yellow-icon translators. In other words, if they don't start the verification process within 3 months, their icons turn grey.
This would currently apply to all who have declared ONE native language only, right? Because there aren't any users/members yet with two yellow icons.
I would be lenient here and simply let them answer some questions or adhere to some standards (checklist) and not necessarily request verification via, say, a personal conversation. But I wouldn't be against it if that's the general consensus.
Samuel Murray wrote:
Oh, here's another variation on what has been suggested:
Let translators say why they regard a language to be their native language, using a freeform comment field with a character limitation. When the user fills in this form, example sentences are shown of common reasons why a language is considered native, so that the user can simply copy those or adapt it. Then, on the user's profile page, the titleText of the icon next to the declared native language includes the user's reason. In other words, if a visitor hovers his mouse over the icon, he will see the member's reasons in a tooltip.
To make this more effective, add the words "(declared)", "(verified)" or "(not verified)" after each language on the profile page, and if the user had filled in the comment field with a reason, let his label be "declared" and let the label have a tooltiup with the member's reasons in it.
It can certainly add to the veracity of one's claim, especially if it applies to two native languages. But the reader/outsourcer might take anything the translator states or chooses to adopt as just that: valid reasons why this translator is indeed a native speaker of one or more languages. Translators might just leave their status as "declared' or "not verified" forever without verifying it as long as they are listed in the directory as native speakers and have the ability to apply for jobs. So, a mandatory verification within a certain time period would have to be instituted alongside.
Once the language(s) is/are verfied, the tooltips should probably disappear.
My thoughts
B
[Edited at 2012-07-24 19:44 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 10:58
chino al inglés
| Thanks, Giles | Jul 24, 2012 |
I appreciate the sentiment.
There certainly is a lot of demand for good translation. Unfortunately at the moment, you could pay 20 dollars a word, and still not get it. The problem in my pair is more on the supply side than on the demand side. It'll get better, it just needs lots and lots of time and effort.
| | | | Ty Kendall
Reino Unido
Local time: 03:58
hebreo al inglés
| @Kalina (again) :-) | Jul 24, 2012 |
JKalina wrote:
Now, I might be very naive here, but isn't this misrepresentation hurting the liar more than anyone else?
I think it hurts everyone - in the end. What gets my back up is that outsourcers come here to ProZ and do a search and tick the little "native in the target language" box - they expect to get native speakers of the target language. The reality as it is now is that they have to sift through their search results as the search results are saturated with profiles of liars. Now, some people on this thread have tried to argue that the "poor" uninformed outsourcer doesn't know the ins and outs of the translation "industry" or of language issues and that we should "educate" them. Apart from being incredibly condescending to the outsourcer, it's also irrelevant. Chances are they know exactly what they're asking for when they specify they want a native speaker. In my opinion, it's both arrogant and disrespectful to attempt to circumvent their wishes by lying. If you want a shot at the job anyway - fair enough - but go to them with your cards on the table and if they choose to hire you anyway, then great, if not, then accept you are not what they are looking for. There's nothing wrong with this. Clients have stipulations and restrictions on jobs all the time (must be a UK resident, must have US security clearance, must have experience in XX etc.) It's neither illegal, nor immoral...despite what the opposing camp would have you believe. Anyway - every time an outsourcer walks away from a ProZ search with a bad taste in their mouth from the ludicrous search results, then that's another potential client for the rest of us gone. And it's another nail in the coffin for ProZ's reputation....
So somewhere along the line we all get burnt by this practice whether it's immediately evident or not (in my opinion).
Don't give up on the thread, some of us do go back to check for vetted posts!
[Edited at 2012-07-24 20:30 GMT]
| | | | Michele Fauble
Estados Unidos
Local time: 19:58
Miembro 2006
noruego al inglés
+ ...
| Manpower issue | Jul 24, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: Well, I prompted Michele to confirm that was, in fact, what she meant, and then she started talking about nuts.
Part of the thinking behind my suggestion was, in fact, the manpower issue.
Let members/users declare one native language. If a member/user wants to declare a second native language, the burden of proof that the second native language claim is true should be borne by the member/user. Let him or her submit whatever evidence in support of the claim he or she wishes. Let the claim be evaluated by ProZ with the help of native speakers of the second declared language.
My assumption was that anyone falsely claiming a second native language, not having the evidence to support the claim, would not seek to have it accepted by ProZ, leaving only true claims to be evaluated.
Resources could then be directed toward the residual cases:
1) those declaring one native language which is not the real native language
2) those setting up another profile to claim another native language
There is more manpower to carry out false native language claim find and destroy missions if first you get as many people as possible to lay down their false claims.
| | | | JKalina
Local time: 04:58
inglés al macedonio
+ ...
| Right back at you, Ty :) | Jul 24, 2012 |
I'm beginning to understand why it might be a real issue for some. But I could also understand why some of the proposed methods of verification - I haven't read every single entry in the thread - might pose serious problems for others.
I know that without a working verification system there's no way of telling how prevalent these false claims are and which language pairs they're most common in (although I'm assuming there would be a considerable number in X>EN combinations). So the... See more I'm beginning to understand why it might be a real issue for some. But I could also understand why some of the proposed methods of verification - I haven't read every single entry in the thread - might pose serious problems for others.
I know that without a working verification system there's no way of telling how prevalent these false claims are and which language pairs they're most common in (although I'm assuming there would be a considerable number in X>EN combinations). So there's also no way of knowing what the ratio between actual and false bilinguals, for instance, is.
Now, I haven't read through all the pages of the discussion (you guys have been prolific), but the suggestions I did read all shared some form of presumption of guilt, so to speak. I can see how someone who is truly bi- or even multilingual might take offence at having to prove who they are. One might say they'd actually be doubly victimised: first they're hurt professionally for the same reasons you are, and then they're being subjected to unjust scrutiny and basically asked to take one for the team in the name of a greater good. How would you go about protecting these users/members?
Unfortunately, once again, I don't really have a solution to the problem, just another quiestion. Thank you for including me in the conversation, though, I really appreaciate it. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
JKalina
Local time: 04:58
inglés al macedonio
+ ...
| I'm sorry, I do have another question, Ty :) | Jul 25, 2012 |
I realise this too has been asked before, but I still wonder: how does one prove nativeness?
I mean, it is possible, in theory, by presenting a number of documents that only a high-level government agency has the right to ask, but I doubt people would agree to provide them for a platform such as ProZ. Would you? Especially since, if such an invasive measure were to be introduced (which would be rather excessive, as someone has already pointed out), it would only be fair to e... See more I realise this too has been asked before, but I still wonder: how does one prove nativeness?
I mean, it is possible, in theory, by presenting a number of documents that only a high-level government agency has the right to ask, but I doubt people would agree to provide them for a platform such as ProZ. Would you? Especially since, if such an invasive measure were to be introduced (which would be rather excessive, as someone has already pointed out), it would only be fair to extend it to everyone, no matter how many native languages they have reported.
Furthermore, I’m not sure if the proposed verification methods actually help prove nativeness. They test different levels of linguistic competence and/or performance, so they would, at best, expose obvious cases of fraud (which, I understand, would help the cause considerably), but would not necessarily provide evidence that the other ‘test takers’ are in fact native speakers (hence not really serving the purpose of verifying ‘native language’ claims). This would obviously clean up the market somewhat (especially for members like Phil, for instance), but all the problems you listed in response to my initial question would remain. They’d just be better hidden.
Bon voyage, post, call me when you get there... ▲ Collapse
| | | | | "talk" with a native speaker | Jul 25, 2012 |
JKalina wrote:
I realise this too has been asked before, but I still wonder: how does one prove nativeness?
I mean, it is possible, in theory, by presenting a number of documents that only a high-level government agency has the right to ask, but I doubt people would agree to provide them for a platform such as ProZ. Would you? Especially since, if such an invasive measure were to be introduced (which would be rather excessive, as someone has already pointed out), it would only be fair to extend it to everyone, no matter how many native languages they have reported.
How do you prove your native language? One way (discussed here) is to "speak" with another (or two or more) trusted native speaker(s) directly, face-to-face, or during a video conference (see previous comments in this thread).
The ones who falsely claim their native language won't even be interested in such a conversation.
But they will lose their tentative "native language status" if they don't verify their native language(s) after a set deadline (see thread also).
This measure can be extended to every user/member although, personally, I would ask those for an interview who declared more than one native language.
For one-native language speakers, I would ask them to fill out a form, upon which they will receive the "N" icon, first only tentatively, and once their identity is verified (which Proz.com does), they will receive the permanent "N" icon. If they're not able to complete all requirements on the checklist (and I'm not talking about "verification" here, I'm just talking about answers to questions), then they should also be asked to "verify" their native language.
JKalina wrote: Furthermore, I’m not sure if the proposed verification methods actually help prove nativeness. They test different levels of linguistic competence and/or performance, so they would, at best, expose obvious cases of fraud (which, I understand, would help the cause considerably), but would not necessarily provide evidence that the other ‘test takers’ are in fact native speakers (hence not really serving the purpose of verifying ‘native language’ claims ). This would obviously clean up the market somewhat (especially for members like Phil, for instance), but all the problems you listed in response to my initial question would remain. They’d just be better hidden. Bon voyage, post, call me when you get there...
Believe me, if I (a native speaker of German) speak with a non-native speaker of German, I will know that he/she is a non-native speaker of German. I would suggest that there are always at least two verified native speakers participating in such a conversation with a "native-language status" applicant.
The true native speakers will gladly have a talk with us, I'm sure.
Are there additional ways of verifying native-language claims, i.e. through essay-writing? Maybe. But the way I can really tell if somebody is a native or non-native speaker of German is when I "hear" them speak it.
B
[Edited at 2012-07-25 19:39 GMT]
| | | | wonita (X)
China
Local time: 22:58
| Medium for communication | Jul 25, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote:
The problem in my pair is more on the supply side than on the demand side. It'll get better, it just needs lots and lots of time and effort.
Hi Phil,
Germans and Chinese communicate with each other mostly in English. It is not necessary, neither for the Germans nor for the Chinese, that the English should have the native fluency. If you get the terms correct and your writing is understandable, they would consider it a good translation.
The target audience (most of them) ist not even able to tell the difference, why do you bother so much?
Bin
| | | | | bilingual and multilingual does not necessarily mean "native speaker" | Jul 25, 2012 |
JKalina wrote:
I'm beginning to understand why it might be a real issue for some. But I could also understand why some of the proposed methods of verification - I haven't read every single entry in the thread - might pose serious problems for others.
It is a real issue - it's called lying and pretending to be a native-language speaker when you're really not; that is simply not acceptable.
Jkalina wrote: Now, I haven't read through all the pages of the discussion (you guys have been prolific ), but the suggestions I did read all shared some form of presumption of guilt, so to speak. I can see how someone who is truly bi- or even multilingual might take offence at having to prove who they are. One might say they'd actually be doubly victimised: first they're hurt professionally for the same reasons you are, and then they're being subjected to unjust scrutiny and basically asked to take one for the team in the name of a greater good. How would you go about protecting these users/members? Unfortunately, once again, I don't really have a solution to the problem, just another quiestion. Thank you for including me in the conversation, though, I really appreaciate it.
A "true" native speaker will not be offended by a request to prove her/his native language. I'm not. When you implicitly equate "bilingual or multilingual" with "native speaker", I wouldn't agree with that. I could say about myself (and most translators will) that I am bilingual, because I need to have an excellent knowledge of at least two languages to be a professional translator. But that doesn't mean I necessarily have two native languages. There is no unjust scrutinity involved when asking someone to verify their native language. Especially when there are too many truly non-native language speakers claiming otherwise and appearing alongside the true professionals in the search directory or, for that matter, simply side by side with "professional" translators here at Proz.com
B
[Edited at 2012-07-25 19:05 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| native language claims, not "so-so translator" claims | Jul 25, 2012 |
Bin Tiede wrote: Phil Hand wrote:
The problem in my pair is more on the supply side than on the demand side. It'll get better, it just needs lots and lots of time and effort. Hi Phil, Germans and Chinese communicate with each other mostly in English. It is not necessary, neither for the Germans nor for the Chinese, that the English should have the native fluency. If you get the terms correct and your writing is understandable, they would consider it a good translation. The target audience (most of them) ist not even able to tell the difference, why do you bother so much? Bin
Bin,
it's about false native language claims and people trying to take advantage of it in any language but especially in a few.
The "transation quality" is not the same issue although it's got a lot to do with it. A Chinese company wanting to expand their business say to the United Kingdom would probably want to have an excellent English translation of their documents, carried out by a native speaker of UK English with an excellent command of Chinese. And vice versa
Wouldn't you agree?
The same would be applicable to the EN>GER pair for a US company who wants to do business in Germany.
B
[Edited at 2012-07-25 18:27 GMT]
| | | | | Does anyone claim here that | Jul 25, 2012 |
some people, if there are any, who intentionally lied about their native language with the sole purpose of defrauding the system and stealing someone's jobs, actually got any of those jobs and got paid for them? Do you actually believe this? I will sooner believe that Santa will come to New York in the middle of the summer than anything like that. How can they steal your jobs, if they cannot do those jobs?They don't speak the language. This is all here just for PR. I mean this thread.
| | | | Ty Kendall
Reino Unido
Local time: 03:58
hebreo al inglés
| Vehicular Language vs Native Language | Jul 25, 2012 |
Bin Tiede wrote:
Germans and Chinese communicate with each other mostly in English. It is not necessary, neither for the Germans nor for the Chinese, that the English should have the native fluency. If you get the terms correct and your writing is understandable, they would consider it a good translation.
The target audience (most of them) ist not even able to tell the difference, why do you bother so much?
Bin
The situation you describe is quite different. English being used as a vehicular language by two cultures who want to talk to each other. In these cases then yes, the English being used doesn't have to be perfect. Like any other pidgin it only has to be good enough to get the message across.
In these cases though any translation request would surely not specify a desire for a native speaker.
In other cases, such as those Bernard has already mentioned, it is desirable, preferable and even compulsory to have a native speaker at the helm. If an outsourcer is saying they want a native speaker of the target language then chances are we aren't talking about the former situation but the latter (there is always the chance the outsourcer doesn't want non-native English even if the audience is wholly non-native - there's nothing wrong with that either).
I believe there's a lot to be bothered about.
| | | | | Páginas sobre el tema: < [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? | 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! » |
| | 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 
