| 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)
|
|---|
Rachel Fell 
United Kingdom
Local time: 20:15
French to English
+ ...
| Beggars belief... | Sep 27, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
LilianBoland wrote:
If most, so called, native speakers had fluency close to perfection, there would not be anything to do for high school English teachers, newspaper editors, book editors, etc.
How many excellent writers were there in the history of the English language? 100, 200, maybe 300 -- most likely no more than 1000, in my opinion. This is over ten centuries, not to even mention the same time periods.
You are totally misunderstanding the use of the word "perfect" in terms of native language acquisition...but that's ok, why change the habit of a lifetime.  I'm also not sure what the number of "excellent writers" in this history of the English Language has to do with, well, anything.
Indeed, Ty.
[Edited at 2012-09-27 15:35 GMT]
| | | | Paul Cohen
Greenland
Local time: 18:15
German to English
+ ...
| Can't wait to hear about the appeals process | Sep 27, 2012 |
Henry Dotterer wrote:
We'll mock something up and get back to you all.
Take your time, Henry. Nobody here appears to be putting too much pressure on you.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the appeals process because I doubt that every member whose "native-speaker" status has been rejected will just take it in stride. Or will all decisions be final?
| | | | | Spend your time and money on more pressing issues | Sep 27, 2012 |
I still find this whole topic as being blown up. In my opinion as freelancer and as outsourcer it is not a real issue. I would prefer if Proz would spend its resources on other issues, such as missing functionality for outsourcers.
| | | | | native speaker versus being proficient in a language | Sep 27, 2012 |
Henry Dotterer wrote:
There are some good suggestions that have been made here that could be implemented just by staff with only moderate effort (ex. provide the ability to report "native-level proficiency" (thanks, Kim), add some explanation that dissuades people from being too loose in their claims, and so on). We'll do some of those things. We'll update you as we do them. ...
From page 19 of this thread:
Kim Metzger wrote:
DavidMTucker wrote:
The following list of recommended translators have had their credentials, including native language proficiency, verified by Proz.
and later down the list...,
The following list of translators have NOT had their credentials, including native language proficiency, verified by Proz.
Not bad, but drop the "proficiency." With respect to native language, I think most clients just want to know what the potential translator's first language is. Proficiency is another ball of wax.
Although the point could be made that "native-level proficiency" only relates to "native speakers" of a particular language and the typical way they use their language and how long and from what early point in their life on they have done so, I do think "proficiency" in anything is a set of general (here: language) competences that can vary. I didn't see the term used in the FAQ related to the PNS credential, and maybe we don't need to use it.
If it is going to be used, one probably has to separate it clearly from non-native-level proficiency and when one does that, it should become clear that this is not so much about "proficiency" in a language than about "being a native speaker" versus being a "non-native speaker".
The 2012 ACTFL proficiency guidelines list, as highest proficiency level (in terms of functional language use) the level "Distinguished". This is not to be misunderstood as "native speaker-level" or "native speaker".
http://www.actfl.org/files/public/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.pdf
Quote:
"Speakers at the Distinguished level are able to use language skillfully, and with accuracy, efficiency, and effectiveness. They are educated and articulate users of the language. They can reflect on a wide range of global issues and highly abstract concepts in a culturally appropriate manner. Distinguished-level speakers can use persuasive and hypothetical discourse for representational purposes, allowing them to advocate a point of view that is not necessarily their own. They can tailor language to a variety of audiences by adapting their speech and register in ways that are culturally authentic.
Speakers at the Distinguished level produce highly sophisticated and tightly organized extended discourse. At the same time, they can speak succinctly, often using cultural and historical references to allow them to say less and mean more. At this level, oral discourse typically resembles written discourse.
A non-native accent, a lack of a native-like economy of expression, a limited control of deeply embedded cultural references, and/or an occasional isolated language error may still be present at this level."
Unquote.
The reason for the facts in bold (and probably for a few other things - see: http://www.englishforums.com/English/HowTellWhetherSomeoneNativeSpeaker/dvcbg/post.htm ) is that it takes a form of language acquisition typical only for "native speakers" to become "native-level proficient" if you will.
We need to keep in mind that a 10-year old child who has spoken English from birth or very early on is clearly a native speaker whereas a 27 year old translator who never learned English in his/her childhood in an official English-language environment cannot be considered a native speaker even though he/she might reach a rather high "proficiency" level in English.
With regards to Kim's quote above, I have to take first language as the native language, not the language one speaks best, most often, and not even the language one learned first (although the latter mostly is one's native language).
I wanted to add this before the "proficiency" camp takes up the discussion again on proving how "proficient" they are in a language and why that should validate them as native speakers of that language.
Bernhard
[Edited at 2012-09-27 16:38 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| How to undermine the credibility of one's comments | Sep 27, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
We've just been given the regal middle finger..... haven't we?
Yes, we have.
Niccccce...
| | | | | Proficiency by another name... | Sep 27, 2012 |
Henry Dotterer wrote:
... ex. provide the ability to report "native-level proficiency" ...
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Although the point could be made that "native-level proficiency" only relates to "native speakers" of a particular language and the typical way they use their language
...
If it is going to be used, one probably has to separate it clearly from non-native-level proficiency and when one does that, it should become clear that this is not so much about "proficiency" in a language than about "being a native speaker" versus being a "non-native speaker".
I have an idea. As Bernhard knows, I'm completely in his "camp" about this, but if we really want/need to offer another option to those claiming they are (to put it bluntly) "really really good", what about this option:
Near-Native Command
??
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 21:15
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Ah, the multiple meanings of smileys | Sep 27, 2012 |
Katalin Horváth McClure wrote:
Charlie Bavington wrote:
Henry Dotterer wrote:
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
I suppose the question on everyone’s lips is “When can we start seeing some of these ideas rolled out?”
After the next contest gets underway.
We've just been given the regal middle finger..... haven't we?
Yes, we have.
Say, wasn't there a time when smileys always meant "I'm joking" and not "I mean it, and I grin"?
| | | | | [duplicated post] | Sep 27, 2012 |
oops...grrr
[Edited at 2012-09-27 18:34 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
psicutrinius
Spain
Local time: 21:15
Spanish to English
+ ...
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Henry Dotterer wrote:
There are some good suggestions that have been made here that could be implemented just by staff with only moderate effort (ex. provide the ability to report "native-level proficiency" (thanks, Kim), add some explanation that dissuades people from being too loose in their claims, and so on). We'll do some of those things. We'll update you as we do them. ...
From page 19 of this thread:
Kim Metzger wrote:
DavidMTucker wrote:
The following list of recommended translators have had their credentials, including native language proficiency, verified by Proz.
and later down the list...,
The following list of translators have NOT had their credentials, including native language proficiency, verified by Proz.
Not bad, but drop the "proficiency." With respect to native language, I think most clients just want to know what the potential translator's first language is. Proficiency is another ball of wax.
Although the point could be made that "native-level proficiency" only relates to "native speakers" of a particular language and the typical way they use their language and how long and from what early point in their life on they have done so, I do think "proficiency" in anything is a set of general (here: language) competences that can vary. I didn't see the term used in the FAQ related to the PNS credential, and maybe we don't need to use it.
If it is going to be used, one probably has to separate it clearly from non-native-level proficiency and when one does that, it should become clear that this is not so much about "proficiency" in a language than about "being a native speaker" versus being a "non-native speaker".
The 2012 ACTFL proficiency guidelines list, as highest proficiency level (in terms of functional language use) the level "Distinguished". This is not to be misunderstood as "native speaker-level" or "native speaker".
http://www.actfl.org/files/public/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.pdf
Quote:
"Speakers at the Distinguished level are able to use language skillfully, and with accuracy, efficiency, and effectiveness. They are educated and articulate users of the language. They can reflect on a wide range of global issues and highly abstract concepts in a culturally appropriate manner. Distinguished-level speakers can use persuasive and hypothetical discourse for representational purposes, allowing them to advocate a point of view that is not necessarily their own. They can tailor language to a variety of audiences by adapting their speech and register in ways that are culturally authentic.
Speakers at the Distinguished level produce highly sophisticated and tightly organized extended discourse. At the same time, they can speak succinctly, often using cultural and historical references to allow them to say less and mean more. At this level, oral discourse typically resembles written discourse.
A non-native accent, a lack of a native-like economy of expression, a limited control of deeply embedded cultural references, and/or an occasional isolated language error may still be present at this level."
Unquote.
The reason for the facts in bold (and probably for a few other things - see: http://www.englishforums.com/English/HowTellWhetherSomeoneNativeSpeaker/dvcbg/post.htm ) is that it takes a form of language acquisition typical only for "native speakers" to become "native-level proficient" if you will.
We need to keep in mind that a 10-year old child who has spoken English from birth or very early on is clearly a native speaker whereas a 27 year old translator who never learned English in his/her childhood in an official English-language environment cannot be considered a native speaker even though he/she might reach a rather high "proficiency" level in English.
With regards to Kim's quote above, I have to take first language as the native language, not the language one speaks best, most often, and not even the language one learned first (although the latter mostly is one's native language).
I wanted to add this before the "proficiency" camp takes up the discussion again on proving how "proficient" they are in a language and why that should validate them as native speakers of that language.
Bernhard [Edited at 2012-09-27 16:38 GMT]
As far as I know, Kim Metzger has been banned from all ProZ forums.
Must have been or something outside this thread, really. I do not see how the comment you quote can have led to this.
| | | | | Back to Humpty Dumpty | Sep 27, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Say, wasn't there a time when smileys always meant "I'm joking" and not "I mean it, and I grin"?
When I use a smiley, it means just what I choose it to mean.
But then, I'm a native smiley speaker. Look.
[Edited at 2012-09-27 18:47 GMT]
| | | | | Off-topic, but... | Sep 27, 2012 |
A "mini-contest" has just been launched, on a new contests platform. The topic: Quotes from U.S. Baseball Great Yogi Berra
See: http://www.proz.com/topic/233647
| | | | | Regarding Kim's suggestion | Sep 27, 2012 |
psicutrinius wrote:
As far as I know, Kim Metzger has been banned from all ProZ forums.
Must have been or something outside this thread, really. I do not see how the comment you quote can have led to this.
If I remember correctly, Kim commented, in this thread, on the fact that under the current approach people have to choose between declaring that they are native in a given language, and declaring nothing at all about their proficiency in that language. As far as I remember, he theorized (and it makes sense to me), that if the additional option were presented to define one's command of a language as "native-level", some people who would otherwise select "native", would select the new option instead.
To be fair, I believe others may have made similar suggestions in the past. (I think Kim has, too.)
| | |
|
|
|
| Kim's comments | Sep 27, 2012 |
If I remember correctly, Kim commented, in this thread, on the fact that under the current approach people have to choose between declaring that they are native in a given language, and declaring nothing at all about their proficiency in that language. As far as I remember, he theorized (and it makes sense to me), that if the additional option were presented to define one's command of a language as "native-level", some people who would otherwise select "native", would select the new option instead.
To be fair, I believe others may have made similar suggestions in the past. (I think Kim has, too.)
That was another, older thread (http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_suggestions/62666-english_native_speaker.html) as was pointed out to me when I unwittingly rehashed the theory, but an important question remains (before Proz makes this into a spearhead): would they? It all comes down to how you allow outsourcers to filter it. The contra-theory goes that if you allow outsourcers to filter between "native" and "native-level", then you'll be left with the same problem.
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 20:15
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | | what native-level implies | Sep 27, 2012 |
Henry Dotterer wrote:
...
If I remember correctly, Kim commented, in this thread, on the fact that under the current approach people have to choose between declaring that they are native in a given language, and declaring nothing at all about their proficiency in that language. As far as I remember, he theorized (and it makes sense to me), that if the additional option were presented to define one's command of a language as "native-level", some people who would otherwise select "native", would select the new option instead.
To be fair, I believe others may have made similar suggestions in the past. (I think Kim has, too.)
If people who now claim to be "native speakers" (but aren't native speakers) then choose "native-level", then they would still imply that they are on the same "level" as native speakers. It is my conviction that a non-native speaker can never become a native speaker unless he/she is still in his/her teens.
For anyone claiming to be "native-level" when they're non-native speakers would still be a lie in my book.
Bernhard
| | | | | 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? | 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 » |
| | 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 
