| Pages in topic: < [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? Thread poster: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
Ty Kendall 
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:05
Hebrew to English
| Brilliant! :-) | Jul 16, 2012 |
Nani Delgado wrote: I got my words distorted many times in my life but that tops it all. Of course, Balasubramaniam, just last week a client of mine wanted a gun manual to be translated by a murder, because they know what they´re talking about. As I don´t outsource, I decided to kill my neighbour. Now I am fully qualified to do the job. The client is king. 
I totally agree, it's much more important for you to understand the product by using it i.e. the act of murder by murdering your neighbour than it is to correctly render the language dealing with the trigger mechanism or bullet chamber. Well done!
BTW if you want me to testify at your trial, I'm here
[Edited at 2012-07-16 07:32 GMT]
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:05
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Nani Delgado wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote: Nani Delgado wrote:
But you should respect what the clients are looking for. And if they are looking for native speakers that´s what they should get. If you stretch that argument a bit, you could say, if the client is looking for murderers, nazis, and people of other undesirable bents of mind, we should have no qualms about fulfilling those client requirements. I got my words distorted many times in my life but that tops it all. Of course, Balasubramaniam, just last week a client of mine wanted a gun manual to be translated by a murder, because they know what they´re talking about. As I don´t outsource, I decided to kill my neighbour. Now I am fully qualified to do the job. The client is king.
That's "Quote of the Week"
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 04:35
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | This could be another working definition of native language | Jul 16, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
... the language you speak best or are most comfortable with, the language of your habitual use, the language you have most education in, the language you identify with...
This is again a good working definition of a native language for our purpose, with the caveat that we might want to think further about the relevance of the "speaking" part of it to us translators who work mostly with the written version of the language.
A further detail that can be added to this definition is - "the language that you were exposed to fairly early in your life..."
Linguists are divided on what the cut-off age should be for acquiring any language at native-level of competence - some draw the line at 4-5 years, others move the bar up to puberty, ie, 13-14 years.
A third relevant point that needs to be deliberated upon is how much nativity is actually required for translation purposes, as translators are working with only an abridged sub-set of the whole target language, that is with only the written version of the language, and their output is primarily meant for being read, not heard.
The written version of the language automatically removes a considerable part of the cultural nuances of the message and brings the message to a more standardized level. So any advantage that a native speaker may have in understanding the cultural aspects of the language cease to be of any great relevance to translation, owing to its nature of being a written form.
The idea is not to let more of the "fraudsters" and "liers" in by making a very broad definition of native language, but to arrive at a more scientific solution to this whole discussion.
Also much of the translation done commercially - and which I am sure is the bread and butter of most of us translators - is culture-neutral. They are straight communication of single-meaning ideas from one language into another. Anyone with a good grounding on the grammar of the target language can do this.
Examples are software interface strings, user manuals of gadgets and software packages, scientific texts, etc.
Fussing over the nativity requirement for such jobs is mere cussedness, if not an ulterior ploy to keep out competition.
A fourth relevant point for us to consider is that we translators, in addition to working with the written version of the language, also work with the standardized version of the language, which further curtails variance and cultural baggage. A standardized version, is the version of the language that is spoken by the educated elite of the linguistic group and which has the stamp of approval of the grammarians. This version of the language is much easier to learn, particularly for written purposes (and I may mention again, that we translators work exclusively with the written version of the target language) as it has even less cultural add-ons and variations and idiomatic usages which mostly fox non-natives of a language.
If we view the issue objectively in this way, we can easily see that the native requirement is a red herring for achieving quality translation, and outsourcers should be concentrating on entirely other things for getting good translations.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:05
Hebrew to English
| Turn the lights off on your way out | Jul 16, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
A third relevant point that needs to be deliberated upon is how much nativity is actually required for translation purposes.
There's no deliberation to be done. It's already been acknowledged that nativity is a useful criterion in translation. There's nothing left to debate there, everyone's got their coats and gone home.
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:05
Hebrew to English
| The language you identify with? Really? | Jul 16, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote: LilianBoland wrote:
... the language you speak best or are most comfortable with, the language of your habitual use, the language you have most education in, the language you identify with...
This is again a good working definition of a native language for our purpose
If you think that "the language you identify with" is a good definition for native language then we are just on different planets.
I might indentify with the Klingon language, because it's the language of a proud warrior race. And I feel an affinity there.....However, this does not make me a native speaker of Klingon.
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:05
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Missed the point | Jul 16, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
If we view the issue objectively in this way, we can easily see that the native requirement is a red herring for achieving quality translation, and outsourcers should be concentrating on entirely other things for getting good translations.
That is not what we are debating here, or at least that is not the point of the OP. The client decides how they want to achieve a quality translation. It is up to an individual to debate that with the outsourcer, not the site. What we should be aiming for is to present clients with a choice of translators that have verified credentials and have made truthful claims about their native languages. Surely you have to agree that presenting them with a bunch of profiles riddled with falsehoods is doing the outsourcers a disservice?
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:05
Hebrew to English
| I'm yet to be asked for a "culture-neutral" translation | Jul 16, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
The written version of the language automatically removes a considerable part of the cultural nuances of the message and brings the message to a more standardized level. So any advantage that a native speaker may have in understanding the cultural aspects of the language cease to be of any great relevance to translation, owing to its nature of being a written form.
So idioms and semi-fixed phrases don't exist in writing then? I'll alert the populus at once!
Also much of the translation done commercially - and which I am sure is the bread and butter of most of us translators - is culture-neutral. They are straight communication of single-meaning ideas from one language into another. Anyone with a good grounding on the grammar of the target language can do this.
I have never been asked, nor have I seen anywhere....a request for a "culture neutral" translation....and we all know where an over-reliance on Grammar leads.....
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 04:35
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | That would be the only way of really knowing, but... | Jul 16, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
What are your thoughts on judging nativeness by fluency instead of grammatical inerrancy?
Samuel
I agree, the only way of knowing whether a person is really native in a language is to test his speaking ability, for the simple reason that speaking involves physical dexterity - the suppleness of our vocal cord and tongue, which harden after a certain age which coincides with the age at which languages are best learnt.
But how relevant is speaking ability to a translator? Language learning, other than spoken dexterity, is a life-long process and for translators who use the written form, there is hope even beyond the cut-off age for picking up the correct spoken language.
I am on that side of the discussion that strongly questions the relevance and the efficacy of using nativity as a measure of translator capability, mainly for the above reason. We translators continue to perfect our language proficiency throughout our lives and we learn new things with each job that we do. So even non-native translators can accumulate formidable skills over a period of time which could be valuable to outsourcers and may even tip the scales against a novice native translator.
The only "practical" argument that has surfaced so far in this 50-plus-page discussion is that clients use nativity as a yardstick. There has been no consensus, and I think there can't be, that nativity is the best measure of translator ability.
If that is so, wouldn't our interests as translators be served better if we educate clients on the shortcomings of using "nativity" as a fool-proof translator selection method?
A widely used site like proz.com can easily lend a very strong shoulder to this effort of client education.
Looked at this from this stand point, our energies would be better spent if we concentrate on client education instead of calling each other fraudsters and liers or spying on each other.
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:05
Hebrew to English
| It's not about EDUCATING them, they are already AWARE | Jul 16, 2012 |
Many of them are fully aware of the issues involved, and they just so happen to agree with the major professional bodies in THIS industry who endorse the promotion of nativity as a useful and meaningful criterion in translation.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 04:35
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | That is still lying, Lisa.... | Jul 16, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
As translators I don't think it's necessary to hear them speak. If they can write English and pass as a native speaker then that should suffice...
If it is possible for non-natives to pass a test and get themselves declared or accepted as natives, then they still continue to be liers, don't you see?
For, nativity, as commonly understood in this thread, is a birth-right and cannot be acquired. It is blue-blood stuff, no passing of tests can turn your blood blue.
So you see how pointless all this exercise is?
By even proposing a test to identify non-natives, you are tacitly accepting that there could be non-natives who are as good as natives, for the very idea of the test means some of the test-takers will clear it, for no native is required to take this test, and all those who take the test will be non-natives.
Now, once you accept that non-natives can be as good as natives for translation purposes, your whole 50-page discussion falls through, because it is all built up on one basic premise that natives come with a chip on their shoulders which non-natives cannot have.
Why go through all this logical yoga, and why not simply shelve the idea of this nativity nonsense and campaign for something more scientific?
I could even get a bit perverse and suggest that natives too take this test, and those who fail in it have their native status stricken off their profile. I am sure many natives will fail this test as proficiency in languages is not a birth right in the real world and has to be assiduously acquired.
[2012-07-16 10:05 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:05
Hebrew to English
| Still missing the point...... | Jul 16, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
If it is possible for non-natives to pass a test and get themselves declared or accepted as natives, then they still continue to be liers, don't you see?
No test is foolproof.
For, nativity, as commonly understood in this thread, is a birth-right and cannot be acquired. It is blue-blood stuff, no passing of tests can turn your blood blue.
There's been no consensus on what nativity is "understood" to be. That's part of the problem. It certainly hasn't been proposed that it has anything to do with blue blood, whatever that means.
By even proposing a test to identify non-natives, you are tacitly accepting that there could be non-natives who are as good as natives, for the very idea of the test means some of the test-takers will clear it, for no native is required to take this test, and all those who take the test will be non-natives.
Of course there are non-natives who could pass as natives. See above. And who said no native would be required to take the test??? Nobody. I think you need to go back and read the 50 pages....in fact native language verification would only be imposed on those claiming more than one language in the first place. It's not a clear native - don't take test, non-native - take test split.
Now, once you accept that non-natives can be as good as natives for translation purposes, your whole 50-page discussion falls through, because it all built up one basic premise that natives come with a chip on their shoulders which non-natives cannot have.
Erm, what? I think you have misunderstood, this thread (as repeated ad nauseum) is about deceit, professionalism, misrepresentation.
Why go through all this logical yoga, and why not simply shelve the idea of this nativity nonsense and campaign for something more scientific?
Which is?
I could even get a bit perverse and suggest that natives too take this test, and those who fail in it have their native status stricken off their profile. I am sure many natives will fail this test as proficiency in languages is not a birth right in the real world and has to be assiduously acquired.
See above (again).
| | | | | I'll agree to that ... :-) | Jul 16, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
I could even get a bit perverse and suggest that natives too take this test, and those who fail in it have their native status stricken off their profile.
.... (if only because I suggested it eons ago!) if you agree that people who don't read threads before contributing to them should have their eyes poked out with a rusty spoon
And seriously my good man, you might want to take your logic circuits for an MOT. The only parallel to be drawn in this thread with murderers and Nazis is that if the client specifies they want their text to be translated by a murderer or Nazi, then we shouldn't lie about whether we are in fact murderers or Nazis. That is the sum total of the analogy that can be drawn.
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 04:35
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | A language is a dialect with an army... | Jul 16, 2012 |
Angie Garbarino wrote: NO, it does NOT depend, languages are languages and dialects are dialects, also it does not absolutely matter if a language is spoken in a different way inside a country in which it is official, otherwise we should say that in Italy there are at least 30 variants of SPOKEN Italian. What matters is not the way in which a language is spoken but the way in which it is written as a dialect has its own grammar and can be written. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialect [Edited at 2012-07-15 10:58 GMT]
I was reminded of this saying when I read your post.
There is no reason otherwise why English is spoken so universally in the world.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:05
Hebrew to English
| Talking of chips on shoulders..... | Jul 16, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
A language is a dialect with an army...
I was reminded of this saying when I read your post.
There is no reason otherwise why English is spoken so universally in the world.
a) you should be reminded of that saying, since I quoted it 2 pages ago
b) the dominance of English is relevant to the current discussion how?
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
natives come with a chip on their shoulders which non-natives cannot have
I think you just disproved your own point.
[Edited at 2012-07-16 09:43 GMT]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 04:35
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | A translator by definition cannot have "a" native language | Jul 16, 2012 |
A translator is a person who very early in age has been exposed to two language cultures. He/she is a unique person and very different from a monolingual who has exposure to only one language.
What this means is that, any worthwhile and competent translator will have two native languages, if not more.
Normally one would be surprised if a translator declares only one language as his native language, as that would disqualify him/her from being a translator.
I... See more A translator is a person who very early in age has been exposed to two language cultures. He/she is a unique person and very different from a monolingual who has exposure to only one language.
What this means is that, any worthwhile and competent translator will have two native languages, if not more.
Normally one would be surprised if a translator declares only one language as his native language, as that would disqualify him/her from being a translator.
I am surprised why people here are missing this simple fact about their own profession and are going on a 50-page rampage calling people who have been honest to themselves in declaring two languages as their native languages, liers, fraudsters, and worse!
It is actually people who have declared only one language as their native language who are being untruthful and need to be penalised, for by definition translators have to be native in two languages!
A clear case, if any, of the kettle calling the pot black!
What this further proves is that the whole discussion on native languages is flawed and is not based on any clear understanding about how languages are learned and how one becomes a translator or an interpreter.
[2012-07-17 03:35 GMT पर संपादन हुआ] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [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? | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
| | 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 
