| 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)
|
|---|
| Florence Foster Jenkins | Jul 26, 2012 |
Jenny Forbes wrote:
I carry no brief for deliberate liars - certainly not.
However, as a keen follower of this fascinating debate, it occurs to me that just possibly some of the translators who falsely claim language X as their native tongue when it clearly isn't might truly believe that they speak/write it like a native. We don't always see ourselves as others see us and the human being has an amazing capacity for self delusion. Maybe no-one has ever challenged them or pointed out their mistakes?
I remember seeing a TV programme about a rich American woman around the 1900s who believed she could sing opera. She could afford to stage concerts at Carnegie Hall and elsewhere at which she sang excruciatingly. She became a cult figure and performed to packed houses nightly, which simply reinforced her belief that she sang like an angel. Perhaps some of our readers have heard of her - I can't remember her name.
So, to return to the topic, perhaps some of the lying translators we're discussing here really do believe they're as good as native speakers?
And perhaps not ...
Jenny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Foster_Jenkins
| | | | Suzan Hamer 
Netherlands
Local time: 09:17
English
+ ...
| Florence Foster Jenkins | Jul 26, 2012 |
Jenny Forbes wrote:
I remember seeing a TV programme about a rich American woman around the 1900s who believed she could sing opera. She could afford to stage concerts at Carnegie Hall and elsewhere at which she sang excruciatingly. She became a cult figure and performed to packed houses nightly, which simply reinforced her belief that she sang like an angel. Perhaps some of our readers have heard of her - I can't remember her name.
Jenny
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/56666
Great minds, Writeaway.
Your post wasn't visible when I posted mine.
[Edited at 2012-07-26 19:57 GMT]
| | | | | who is that sitting next to me? | Jul 26, 2012 |
JKalina wrote: You're right, bilingual doesn't necessarily mean someone with two native languages. So, let me try again. Here's hoping I don't paint myself into a corner.  I was merely trying to say that I could imagine someone who truly has multiple native languages taking offence at being subjected to additional scrutiny simply because there has been an apparent onslaught of false native-language claims by others. The implication here is that, if you've declared more than one native language, you're lying until proven otherwise. So, perhaps, if there's a consensus that verification is necessary, it's only fair that everyone goes through the process. As for the proposed method, I did read it earlier in the thread and, logistical problems aside, I'm not entirely convinced it's full-proof (if the goal is to expose all fraudsters, not merely the incompetent ones). A talented linguist who has spent a number of years in the country where the language in question is spoken may acquire it to a degree of being able to 'fake' nativeness. I only have one such example in my life: an Italian who's lived in my country for a decade or so and is often mistaken for a local. I'd imagine there'd be more such instances in English, Spanish, French or German. I'm not trying to nitpick or anything, I just don't see a way to truly verify 'native language' claims in this context. The best one could hope for is to weed out the egregious and possibly the borderline cases. A comprehensive solution would be unlikely, of course (that much has also been said before, I think). My only concern would be that, in separating the wheat from the chaff, good, honest, professional wheat is not hurt in the process. K
Hello, JKalina,
I am fairly sure that those who are really native speakers of two or more languages will gladly accept the challenge of proving it.
As far as the rest is concerned, there are two camps, the ones who intentionally give incorrect information and the ones who really think they are native speakers but are clearly not (that must be a very small group indeed and if not it's probably time to open their eyes). Now, for the first camp, I am pretty sure they won't come to a "verification" because they know they'll fail it. The other group might be told after the exam that they failed. They'll just have to accept that decision - or sue the examiners or whoever’s responsible.
Now regarding the case of the Italian who can't be distinguished from a native Macedonian (?) speaker. I agree it is possible for a few to learn a language to a degree that seems to border on native language proficiency. But I still believe this does have to do with age, so I don't know how old this linguist was when he learned and continued to use this language. And I'd be extremely surprised if he's really indistinguishable.
I argued on page 73 that becoming a native speaker usually involves a very different learning process, a very intuitive one or it has to do with complex associations our young brain makes and its fantastic memorizing capability so we do not have to use a vocabulary list or study words, phrases, grammar books etc. as is often done in school when you learn a little bit of another language. No, we all lived in a country when we were very young, we soaked up the language and the culture with our young brains (without being aware of most of that process) and that's usually how we become native speakers and it can't be repeated later.
But I would say to anyone, if you claim two native languages, come on down and prove it. If the true native speakers here can't falsify a native language claim, I see no reason to withhold the acknowledgment. Now I know someone's going to ask who verifies the examiners? Well, you gotta start somewhere.
As far as my stance regarding only one declared native language is concerned, I would say it's much more likely that the person is telling the truth, especially if it is evident where they were born, grew up, went to school and then worked.
So I am not really in favor of checking out all single-native language speakers but suggest a more complex questionnaire/checklist before one receives the "N" icon as well as identity verification (which Proz.com can do and has done).
If the answers to the questions are not satisfactory, the person should have to "verify" their native language, by a certain date.
I am not offended if someone asks me here to prove that German is my native language. What I would hate to see is that someone who blatantly lies about their native language being German sits right next to me on the "profile bench". I said somewhere before if it comes down to having even single-native language speakers verify their language, so be it.
And if I had two native languages, I would be especially offended by those who falsely claim the same languages (all two of them) as their native languages. Because it is much more difficult to truly have two or more native languages than one, the claim of two languages better be right because otherwise it's like a double lie. Or looked at it from another perspective, why would you want to have any fraudsters in the even more exclusive/smaller group of multilingual native speakers? Wouldn't you want to get rid of them? I would gladly ask for verification if I were a true native speaker of two languages - for me the test would be easy, for the liars, well, it 'be impossible to pass and they won't come anyway.
Two or more native languages should have to be verified because otherwise there is no difference between those who truly are and those who aren't native speakers. And we talked about possible consequences already.
Is a test going to be fool-proof? I'd say we'd catch liars 100% of the time (if they would only come). If a few "perfect" non-natives pass the test, so be it.
B
[Edited at 2012-07-27 17:01 GMT]
| | | | JKalina
Local time: 09:17
English to Macedonian
+ ...
| @Bernhard: I still feel differently | Jul 27, 2012 |
Hi, Bernhard,
I'll try and explain myself once again, although it seems that we might have to agree to disagree on this one.
I'm not saying I know how true native speakers of more than one language would feel should the proposed rule be introduced, but I could imagine why some of them might find it unjust. Because of a few bad apples, the whole category of users/members who have declared mul... See more Hi, Bernhard,
I'll try and explain myself once again, although it seems that we might have to agree to disagree on this one.
I'm not saying I know how true native speakers of more than one language would feel should the proposed rule be introduced, but I could imagine why some of them might find it unjust. Because of a few bad apples, the whole category of users/members who have declared multiple native languages are considered guilty until proven innocent.
On the other hand, those who have declared only one are given the benefit of the doubt that the information they've put in their profiles (regarding country of origin, education, experience, etc) is true. If we've established that there are people prepared to lie about their native language - although you were right to point out that some of these fake natives may not be lying per se, but merely lacking in self-awareness - isn't it reasonable to assume that they might throw in a fib or two elsewhere in their profiles too?
I realise I might be projecting a bit since I've had some issues with double standards, but, from where I'm sitting, it just doesn't seem fair. That's why I feel that, should some sort of verification for native language claims be introduced, it should extend to everybody.
As for the verification itself, I'll just briefly repeat the conclusions I came to earlier (with a little help from our friends). I don't think anything you've suggested proves nativeness. But, as some members who have greater personal stake in the matter have pointed out, that particular 'hornets' nest' (hi, Charlie!) is not a priority: exposing the most apparent 'offenders' is. As for the how, you got me here, I've nothing useful to suggest.
K ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Aye, and aye again | Jul 27, 2012 |
We are, I suspect, reaching the point where there is little truly new to be said...
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
INow I know someone's going to ask who verifies the examiners? Well, you gotta start somewhere.
on July 3 (p.41), I said:
I concede there is a potential "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" issue here, but not insurmountable (and not as contentious as defining "native").
To be fair, though, Michele seems to know a lot about these kind of tests and it seems they can be found independently of here (which shouldn't be a surprise, really!).
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I'd say we'd catch liars 100% of the time (if they would only come). If a few "perfect" non-natives pass the test, so be it.
Indeed. My sentiments exactly. Which is why I prefer not to refer to it as a "nativeness" test at all, just a test of the quality of written output in a given language. I'm glad to see we're starting to get convergence on this kind of thing.
| | | | | what are the consequences of failing the test? | Jul 28, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I'd say we'd catch liars 100% of the time (if they would only come). If a few "perfect" non-natives pass the test, so be it. Indeed. My sentiments exactly. Which is why I prefer not to refer to it as a "nativeness" test at all, just a test of the quality of written output in a given language. I'm glad to see we're starting to get convergence on this kind of thing.
Verification yes, but of what? Excellent language skills?
The only thing is if you don't call it "native language verification test/exam/chat" etc., it wouldn't make any sense to administer it unless the consequence is that the status of those who fail it will be changed from "unverified native language" to "no languages verified/native language not declared/Native language - NA" etc - and this time without listing their languages, otherwise it really makes no difference. Would you propose to change the "unverified native language" status in such a way even though the exam is/is not called a "native language verification" exam?
Just thinking ...
B
[Edited at 2012-07-28 04:54 GMT]
| | | | | test questions for native speakers | Jul 28, 2012 |
JKalina wrote: Hi, Bernhard, I'll try and explain myself once again, although it seems that we might have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm not saying I know how true native speakers of more than one language would feel should the proposed rule be introduced, but I could imagine why some of them might find it unjust. Because of a few bad apples, the whole category of users/members who have declared multiple native languages are considered guilty until proven innocent. On the other hand, those who have declared only one are given the benefit of the doubt that the information they've put in their profiles (regarding country of origin, education, experience, etc) is true. If we've established that there are people prepared to lie about their native language - although you were right to point out that some of these fake natives may not be lying per se, but merely lacking in self-awareness - isn't it reasonable to assume that they might throw in a fib or two elsewhere in their profiles too? I realise I might be projecting a bit since I've had some issues with double standards, but, from where I'm sitting, it just doesn't seem fair. That's why I feel that, should some sort of verification for native language claims be introduced, it should extend to everybody. As for the verification itself, I'll just briefly repeat the conclusions I came to earlier (with a little help from our friends ). I don't think anything you've suggested proves nativeness. But, as some members who have greater personal stake in the matter have pointed out, that particular 'hornets' nest' (hi, Charlie! ) is not a priority: exposing the most apparent 'offenders' is. As for the how, you got me here, I've nothing useful to suggest. K
Test for German native, coming from Austria; now granted, only somebody from Austria or Southern Germany could probably guess what that means. Not saying I propose this as a test question. But there are certain questions (even in standard speech) one could ask....
I rather just have a chat with them.
Hau / e / i / a / a / oa / oi - What does it mean? (I would ask it face-to-face).
Forward slashes separate "words".
B
[Edited at 2012-07-28 01:22 GMT]
| | | | Andy Watkinson
Spain
Local time: 09:17
Member
Catalan to English
+ ...
psicutrinius wrote:
And let's call a spade a spade, Lillian: What are YOUR native languages? (and why you believe they are?). Because this might be quite revealing.
I believe it would be very revealing.
Lillian, if I have interpreted your posts correctly, you not only object to all of the various forms of "verification" put forward in the umpteen posts here but to the idea in itself - it's my impression you think it's somehow irrelevant or perhaps not in your best interests.
I don't know.
psicutrinius' question remains unanswered..........
| | |
|
|
|
Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 09:17
Italian to English
In memoriam | Getting practical | Jul 28, 2012 |
@Charlie and Bernhard
How much would you charge to administer the written and/or oral "nativity test" that you envisage?
Name your figure in coin of the realm, brownie points or any other negotiable currency of your choice, please!
| | | | | consequences | Jul 28, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
what are the consequences of failing the test?
.... the consequence is that the status of those who fail it will be changed from "unverified native language" to "no languages verified/native language not declared/Native language - NA" etc - and this time without listing their languages, otherwise it really makes no difference. Would you propose to change the "unverified native language" status in such a way even though the exam is/is not called a "native language verification" exam?
My own suggestions were considered too severe
(That was probably before you joined the thread, in fairness)
I'd kick people who fail off the site, no questions and no refunds (when I say "no questions", you would have to allow an appeal of some sort). This is another advantage of not calling it "native" but a test of the skills. Those who biologically and geographically ARE "native" but just can't write very well have no grounds to take matters to ridiculous lengths. An objective test of written output, that's all it is.
However, the site ethos doesn't like people getting kicked off, even liars. (You'll note even known and proven non-payers, for example, are allowed to stay on this most excellent of websites.)
So yes, you would definitely need a way to separate those who are unverified because they have never taken a test, from those who are unverified in the sense that they have been verified and failed.
| | | | | If you go by the DNA, most likely Old Norse | Jul 28, 2012 |
Through Old Norse you could get into Old English. My native languages are the ones I stated in my profile, although if you wanted to stretch it slightly, I could probably declare Russian and Lithuanian as well, because my father was a native speaker of Russian and Lithuanian, and I speak them at an almost native level, although I do not translate into them. I just got interested in this thread because of some shocking theories of a native language, and as a linguist, I could not ignore them. The... See more Through Old Norse you could get into Old English. My native languages are the ones I stated in my profile, although if you wanted to stretch it slightly, I could probably declare Russian and Lithuanian as well, because my father was a native speaker of Russian and Lithuanian, and I speak them at an almost native level, although I do not translate into them. I just got interested in this thread because of some shocking theories of a native language, and as a linguist, I could not ignore them. The thread caught my attention. Then I got really upset by the fact how some people were biased, some of whom had absolutely no knowledge about anything vaguely related to modern linguistics and the results of modern research. No professional linguist, in a sound mind, will ever agree to any checks or peer witch-hunting, on any internet site. I can assure of that. People who speak many languages may use some unusual constructions, or even words, from time to time, which are the result of language interference. A 100% native speaker would be someone from a group of the kind Chomsky used in his studies -- totally separated from any other linguistic group; who would have no access to TV or radio. This would be a 100% native language -- the language of a person who has grown up in such a group. I don't even know if it can be called native -- it will be a pure L1.
There is no such a thing as biologically native -- where did you get this theory from. It has nothing to do with linguistics. Biologically, I would most likely be German Baltic. Linguistically I am English-Polish, but my Russian is really on a native level as well. My mother was considered a native speaker of Polish. I have lived most of my life in the United States, but I have also some education in Polish and Russian. I don't usually translate into Polish or Russian -- maybe just something very simple, like a letter or a Birth Certificate.
[Edited at 2012-07-28 15:54 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:17
Hebrew to English
| Embodiment of the problem | Jul 28, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
My native languages are the ones I stated in my profile, although if you wanted to stretch it slightly, I could probably declare Russian and Lithuanian as well
This is the very problem at hand, isn't it? People "stretching it slightly".
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:17
Hebrew to English
| Examples....? | Jul 28, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
Then I got really upset by the fact how some people were biased, some of whom had absolutely no knowledge about anything vaguely related to modern linguistics and the results of modern research
Such as.....?
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:17
Hebrew to English
| Creeping towards clarity... | Jul 28, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
my father was a native speaker of Russian and Lithuanian
....
My mother was considered a native speaker of Polish
So, your L1 was.....? Judging from the information above, either Polish, Russian or Lithuanian.
[Edited at 2012-07-28 16:38 GMT]
| | | | | And I repeat... | Jul 28, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
I just got interested in this thread because of some shocking theories of a native language, and as a linguist, I could not ignore them. The thread caught my attention.
Quite so, which is why we have gradually and, in my view, fortunately, started to converge towards focussing on what is a) the initial trigger to this thread and b) the salient point at issue, namely the quality of written output. Just that. No more, no less.
(Interesting that, as I skim read this post before hitting "Post reply", there is one correction that my fingers keep itching to make, but I won't because I don't like changing quotes....Let's be frank here: there's only one reason you're constantly trying to throw up obstacles on this thread, and that's because you've declared English as an "N" and you know that if any kind of proper verification is instituted on this website, be it universal or challenge-based, then you could, eventually, lose it.)
Edit to be slightly less dogmatic and allow for the benefit of the doubt.
[Edited at 2012-07-28 17:14 GMT]
| | | | | 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? | 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 » |
| | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
