| 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)
|
|---|
Samuel Murray 
Netherlands
Local time: 12:41
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Ty, re Phil's petition wording | Sep 12, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
Am I right that it currently looks like it will be a petition? Yep, and I liked Phil's wording (I believe I posted at the time to that effect).
My problem with Phil's wording (with all due respect for him) is that it is not specific enough. It basically says to ProZ.com that we are unhappy and concerned about the nativeness option. I think a petition should be more specific, and demand/suggest a time frame. Otherwise ProZ.com staff might simply implement something that is a surprise to most of us. Phil's petition wording basically says to ProZ.com staff "hurry up, please".
| | | | | Running out of titles. Er, .... | Sep 12, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote:
See, in fact, if I were coming at this with my old data analyst hat on ..., it seems to me ... that the problem is that we have a badly designed field being used for two purposes. Thank you. So if Proz.com were my client here, my initial recommended solution would actually be to have two fields. One native language in its quasi-nationality/prestige-conferring sense. One native language in its proficient-written-output sense. This sounded like a very sensible idea when I first read it.
Thanks - but to be fair, it's a device. While it may be my ideal, money-no-object solution, I'm just trying to highlight that perhaps this field a) has 2 jobs now and b) cannot do the two jobs it implicitly has, and so we need to pick one of them.
The main problem with this idea is this: if a proficiency option is based on nothing else than the translator's opinion of himself, then everyone would want to have it. To be of any use, it must be exclusionary, and for that to happen it must be based on something measurable. It can't be just a self-declaration of excellence.
[By the way, I disagree with Phil (though I won't quote him, to keep this post tidy) that "working languages" already is the proficiency option. I think what is meant by this extra option is not mere standard proficiency but excellence in proficiency. You could say that this is not really a proficiency option but an excellence option.]
Yup, that's true, and it also runs counter to Phil's ground rule about proz not dealing with matters of quality, just matters of fact, although I like to think the point that it is that attitude that got us into this mess and sometimes you have to re-assess your ground rules may have pushed that idea aside, at least for a while.
And yes, if we agreed the field was for ii), it would have to be largely self-assessed, with tests only for those spotted as seemingly substandard, for my anti-universal-testing reasons given before. Tests which could be triggered, oh, I dunno, by submitting a support request, say.
Proz enforcing its own rules, for instance...?
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 18:41
Chinese to English
| In the absence of consensus | Sep 13, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Phil's wording (with all due respect for him) is that it is not specific enough. It basically says to ProZ.com that we are unhappy and concerned about the nativeness option. I think a petition should be more specific, and demand/suggest a time frame. Otherwise ProZ.com staff might simply implement something that is a surprise to most of us. Phil's petition wording basically says to ProZ.com staff "hurry up, please".
Yeah, I was hoping to have something more detailed. Problem is, we haven't really reached a consensus on the thread. Bernhard's view, my view and Charlie's view cover quite a broad spectrum, and they're a bit incompatible. The only thing they share is that we'd like something done.
Yup, that's true, and it also runs counter to Phil's ground rule about proz not dealing with matters of quality, just matters of fact, although I like to think the point that it is that attitude that got us into this mess and sometimes you have to re-assess your ground rules may have pushed that idea aside, at least for a while.
Harrumph. I'm still dubious (would you trust Proz/your peers to assess your quality?), but I'll try anything once. Thing is, you have to give me some ideas about what this quality-assessment regime might look like before I can work out whether I think it might be a good idea.
(I really don't think it's the failure to consider quality that got us here, though. There is one comedy profile of someone in my pair which claims English N, then says baldly in the first three lines of the blurb "I'm a native Chinese speaker". Refusing to do anything about that isn't a sign of insufficient attention to quality. It suggests a darker trauma, something Proz has tried to forget. But the harrowing events of the The Native Thread will force the young website to confront its past, and test its courage to the limit...)
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 16:11
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | The two faces of native language | Sep 13, 2012 |
The quality of the discussion in the recent posts of this thread is truly breath-taking. I personally want to thank Samuel, Jose, Charlie and others for their insightful comments and the way they have dissected the concept of native language to identify the root problems with it.
I think it is a path-breaking conclusion that they have reached, although it was always known and has also been expressed quite often in this thread, but less cogently and less convincingly.
Sa... See more The quality of the discussion in the recent posts of this thread is truly breath-taking. I personally want to thank Samuel, Jose, Charlie and others for their insightful comments and the way they have dissected the concept of native language to identify the root problems with it.
I think it is a path-breaking conclusion that they have reached, although it was always known and has also been expressed quite often in this thread, but less cogently and less convincingly.
Samuel, et al, are spot on in their diagnosis that the native language idea actually packages two disparate ideas – identity and proficiency. Finally we have put the finger on why native language is so nebulous and fuzzy. It is nebulous and fuzzy because when people want to talk about identity and use native language in this sense, they also imply proficiency, which is unacceptable to others. And when others talk about proficiency, they seem to imply identity with a language, which they are not actually implying, and which raises the hackles of those for whom native language is all about identity.
So the solution is to give separate strait-jackets to these two ideas sitting inside native language (ie, identity and proficiency) so that there would be less scope for confusing one for the other.
To take above diagnosis forward, we would need to discontinue the practice of using native language for job and translator selection, for the composite native language (ie, the way it is understood now) obfuscates identity with proficiency, and discredits proficiency, and the end result is discrimination against competent non-native translators.
Identifying with a language may be important for some translators and there is no harm if proz.com provides for that. But using it for job and translator selection is quite another thing, which has professional implications. The only fair way of doing the latter is to base it on proficiency.
So, in the light of the conclusions of the recent discussion, I propose that we suggest to proz.com to discontinue job and translator selection based on native language. That is, end the native language filter that is currently available to outsourcers. It should be replaced by a proficiency-based filter.
[2012-09-13 02:57 GMT पर संपादन हुआ] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 16:11
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | Both these are sound ideas... | Sep 13, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
... unless you actually slightly rename the native option, or else do something quite drastic about verification of it, clients will still use the nativeness option in the way that they are currently using it (and eventually, so will translators... again). One helpful idea that has been mentioned before is to move the nativeness option further down the list of options, so that it is not someting that clients are likely to select unless they really mean it, which in turn will make the option less attractive to those who abuse it because of its prominence.
...
Another thing that is important for the excellence option to succeed is that it should be (relatively) easy (or at least possible) for excellence to trump nativeness.
I like both these ideas. The first (renaming the native option) whittles away some of the impreciseness in native language, and the second gives proficiency/excellence what is its due, which is as it should be.
[2012-09-13 03:12 GMT पर संपादन हुआ]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 11:41
Hebrew to English
| Abolishment is.....about as likely as me becoming a native Hindi speaker. | Sep 13, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
So, in the light of the conclusions of the recent discussion, I propose that we suggest to proz.com to discontinue job and translator selection based on native language. That is, end the native language filter that is currently available to outsourcers. It should be replaced by a proficiency-based filter
Apart from your roping in and invocation of people who don't really agree with you, this is not what some of our colleagues are saying at all.
I've just leafed through the past few pages and I don't see a lot (if any) of "abolishment" talk.
I've read more about moving it, adding to it, changing it somehow, but not abolishing it.
Jose:
"This is why I think "native speaker" for a translator is an attribute often overrated in selection processes. The strength of its cause/effect ratio IMHO does not justify making it a stonewall to unquestionably qualified potential applicants."
Charlie:
"my initial recommended solution would actually be to have 2 fields"
Samuel:
"one helpful idea that has been mentioned before is to move the nativeness option further down the list of options".
Not to mention that outsourcers, no matter what is discussed and agreed and petitioned about here or as a result of this thread, will still want, even demand a native language filter and ProZ will not risk alienating anyone by doing away with it.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 12:41
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Balasubramaniam, and @Ty | Sep 13, 2012 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
[Why is] native language is so nebulous and fuzzy? [Because:] When people want to talk about identity and use native language in this sense, they also imply proficiency, which is unacceptable to others. And when others talk about proficiency, they seem to imply identity with a language ... and which raises the hackles of those for whom native language is all about identity.
You have succeeded in summarising the key point of my two-camps post in a way that is much less brash than the way that I had written it. I do not agree with your conclusions, but your summary is quite close to the truth.
For translators who equate identity with proficiency, altogether removing the nativeness option from searches would likely be completely unacceptable (and I can understand that).
==
Ty Kendall wrote:
Not to mention that outsourcers, no matter what is discussed and agreed and petitioned about here or as a result of this thread, will still want ... a native language filter, and ProZ will not risk alienating anyone by doing away with it.
I'm not convinced that a nativeness option in searches is a deal-breaker for most clients (though I don't believe it is entirely unimportant either). Do we have statistics or comments available somewhere that support this idea that native langauge is critical for clients? I doubt it.
It is unfortunate that the "native language" option is so close to the top of the search page, and that "Target language" is automatically selected in the native language question on the jobs post page (though it is not near the top), and that "Target language" is the only available option for native language in KudoZ posts. This means that statistics from these three sources (directory searches, jobs posts, KudoZ posts) is likely already skewed towards supporting the idea that native language is crucial for clients/users.
Wouldn't it be great if ProZ.com could (for a month or three), change these three so that selecting native langauge is not actively encouraged, to see if clients/users still select native language in their searches? For the directory search, it would mean moving the "Native language" option down to the bottom of the list of search options, and adding the choice "Either" to it. For the jobs posts, remove the "Target language" choice so that the client has to scroll down and select the language himself. For KudoZ posts, add the choices "Any", "Either" and "Source language", and select "Any" by default. Then we would get a good idea about whether native language is really, really important to those using those services.
Samuel
[Edited at 2012-09-13 08:32 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 11:41
Hebrew to English
| Anti-abolitionist | Sep 13, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
For translators who equate identity with proficiency, altogether removing the nativeness option from searches would likely be completely unacceptable (and I can understand that).
Samuel
I don't equate identity with proficiency. Although they are both elements which can be attributed to native language. I also think identity isn't totally irrelevant either, at least not for some translations.....and this isn't a native-centric argument either, it works both ways.
Identity doesn't necessarily lead to quality (or proficiency) but it can lead to understanding (both linguistic and cultural). And as I said, this isn't the sole preserve of the native; the non-native has a native(source) language identity too. It could also be claimed that there can be no separation of language and identity (and culture) - Claire Kramsch's "Language & Culture" is interesting reading here.
I'm against the abolition of nativeness because it can be very relevant, even if it isn't all the time. Abolishing the native language criterion is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
| | |
|
|
|
XXXphxxx (X)
United Kingdom
Local time: 11:41
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | If that’s where we’ve ended up | Sep 13, 2012 |
I’m afraid I’m not in agreement. However, if that’s the majority vote, then so be it. However, just for the record; I don’t agree for the simple fact that I don’t think an individual should judge their own level of proficiency and then take the mental leap to equate that subjective assessment of proficiency with what is essentially a statement of fact. Nobody is arguing with the working pairs anybody wishes to offer, but to me native language is as much a statement of fact as one’s c... See more I’m afraid I’m not in agreement. However, if that’s the majority vote, then so be it. However, just for the record; I don’t agree for the simple fact that I don’t think an individual should judge their own level of proficiency and then take the mental leap to equate that subjective assessment of proficiency with what is essentially a statement of fact. Nobody is arguing with the working pairs anybody wishes to offer, but to me native language is as much a statement of fact as one’s country of residence (also stated on the profile). Neither, by the way, is a statement of competence. If “native” is what an outsourcer is looking for, then “native” should be what he/she gets. IMHO, doing away with the native badge or equating it with proficiency really is the slippery slope to chaos. This site needs more filters not fewer. ‘nuff said. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Kirsten Bodart
United Kingdom
Local time: 12:41
Dutch to English
+ ...
| I agree with José Enrique's overall point and Samuel's below | Sep 13, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
I'm not convinced that a nativeness option in searches is a deal-breaker for most clients (though I don't believe it is entirely unimportant either). Do we have statistics or comments available somewhere that support this idea that native langauge is critical for clients? I doubt it.
It is unfortunate that the "native language" option is so close to the top of the search page, and that "Target language" is automatically selected in the native language question on the jobs post page (though it is not near the top), and that "Target language" is the only available option for native language in KudoZ posts. This means that statistics from these three sources (directory searches, jobs posts, KudoZ posts) is likely already skewed towards supporting the idea that native language is crucial for clients/users.
Wouldn't it be great if ProZ.com could (for a month or three), change these three so that selecting native langauge is not actively encouraged, to see if clients/users still select native language in their searches? For the directory search, it would mean moving the "Native language" option down to the bottom of the list of search options, and adding the choice "Either" to it. For the jobs posts, remove the "Target language" choice so that the client has to scroll down and select the language himself. For KudoZ posts, add the choices "Any", "Either" and "Source language", and select "Any" by default. Then we would get a good idea about whether native language is really, really important to those using those services.
[Edited at 2012-09-13 08:32 GMT]
I tend to agree that clients are mostly going with the flow. Indeed, as Samuel says, there is no option to select anything else but native target. To be able to assess whether the native thing is so hugely important to clients (as it is for some translators) you would have to verify that. Indeed, give people looking in the directory an 'all' default option and in a drop-down list two more, native target and native source. Then register who presses what. Ideally you should look at why they think that option is the best.
For a long time translators from German were preferably native source. I seem to remember reading some comments on the Proz German forum about this. The point there amounted to the idea that 'no-one really understands colloquial German'. It can be a challenge, that's very true.
Admittedly sometimes the quality of EN>GE translations isn't very good grammatically (I have seen job postings with 'please, no German natives'). From the other side there seems to be a problem with into German translations by presumably natives in the EU, because the parliament can't understand them. Maybe it's the rates the EU pays, though, I'm not sure about that.
However, as José Enrique says, clients don't always know what they need. They might know what they want, but is what they want always best? Hence Samuel's good idea.
Compare it to the Trados thing: 'must have Trados' most of the time means 'must be able to use a TM' and sometimes it just means 'must have Trados, as that's the mark of a good translator' even. All the TMs and termbases I have worked with so far are mostly useless. Some clients don't even seem to know what they are actually for.
I don't think scrapping the native option is a good idea (there is clearly a market for it), but I think, before changing the policy for all languages you should get a good basis you can ground that new policy on.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 12:41
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Lisa, I agree with much of what you say | Sep 13, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
If “native” is what an outsourcer is looking for, then “native” should be what he/she gets.
That is a nice ideal.
Your post seems to have been a reply to Balasubramaniam's "lets get rid of it" and not to my "lets supplement it" idea.
Do you think that my idea (i.e. much lower prominence of the nativeness option, coupled with stricter verification of it, coupled with a new proficiency/excellence option with high prominence) would solve many of the problems that people have with the native language option?
[Native language] ... is essentially a statement of fact.
Yes, and that is what the current situation is supposed to be. But... unless you define it, or allow translators to define it, the "fact" of native language is no better than the "fact" of one's mojo, don't you agree?
. To me native language is as much a statement of fact as one’s country of residence (also stated on the profile).
Interesting that you mention country of residence, because this is another profile item that different translators interpret differently. For some, it means "country that I'm now in", and they change their country of residence regularly based on where they are. For others, it means "legal residence", i.e. the country in which you spend more than 6 months per year. For many, however, it is simply the country in which your freelance business is legally registered (or where your postal address is located).
Any of these three would not be considered a lie by me, although they are three very different answers to the question. But if you put down your country of residence as the place where you would most like to live in future, or the country that you simply identify with personally (e.g. because of your roots), etc, then I'd call it a lie.
My point here is that country of residence may be a fact, but people will declare it in ways that differ from your definition of it until it is clearly defined by ProZ.com. This is why I initially pushed for solutions that help translators define it more clearly, or that help clients know what translators actually mean when they say it. I still think that such solutions are worth looking into.
To me native language is as much a statement of fact as one’s country of residence ... [which is not] a statement of competence [either].
I'm afraid country of residence has bearing on perceived competence.
While some clients may choose to limit searches to certain countries of residence purely for financial reasons (e.g. the ability to make local payments instead of international payments), I suspect many clients choose country of residence because they believe it will affect the actual translation.
In the same way, both clients and translators often believe that native language will affect the translation. There is no getting away from this perception. If it is important that the native language label should not have bearing on competence or quality, then simply saying "well, it simply aint so" won't be sufficient -- you'd have to take specific steps to remove that belief.
Samuel
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 12:41
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Phil, re the petition wording | Sep 13, 2012 |
Phil Hand wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
Phil's wording (with all due respect for him) is that it is not specific enough. Yeah, I was hoping to have something more detailed. Problem is, we haven't really reached a consensus on the thread. ... The only thing [our views] share is that we'd like something done.
Perhaps detailling possible solutions (as I had done) is not the way to go, then. Perhaps the petition should instead contain details of what the problems are -- in general but also specifically. We are far more likely to agree on what the problems are than on what the ideal solutions are.
Samuel
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 11:41
Hebrew to English
| Not convinced | Sep 13, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Do you think that my idea (i.e. much lower prominence of the nativeness option, coupled with stricter verification of it, coupled with a new proficiency/excellence option with high prominence) would solve many of the problems that people have with the native language option?
I'm just not convinced that making it harder for OUTSOURCERS to specify it i.e. what they want (and what they need - who are we to patronize?) will stop TRANSLATORS from lying about it.
At the moment we can't even get ProZ to enforce stricter verification of it, much less implement the other steps you suggest and I don't think that reduced visibility - by itself - will achieve the desired effect.
| | | | | Agree, but it ignores reality | Sep 13, 2012 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
.... but to me native language is as much a statement of fact as one’s country of residence (also stated on the profile). Neither, by the way, is a statement of competence.
Agree with that.
If “native” is what an outsourcer is looking for, then “native” should be what he/she gets. IMHO, doing away with the native badge or equating it with proficiency really is the slippery slope to chaos.
The way I see it, we already have a degree of chaos because the field is clearly being used by some members, and arguably by the site, as a kind of "languages I am proficient in" field. This seems, upon reflection, to me, to be valid for proz purposes.
- People who ask for "native" are effectively asking for someone who can write proficiently in the target; we know there is not a 100% match, but it helps reduce the risk
- The way that you, the OP originally complaining about misrepresentation of native language, and me and many others of us actually identify the miscreants is by their proficiency level.
- The options many people propose testing for nativeness include proficiency.
Yes, you could still stick to the "nativeness is an unchanging attribute line". We have seen suggestions of how verification could be achieved without reference to proficiency, although personally I find those ideas long-winded and a little intrusive, if I'm honest. But since, as I say, it's all just a step towards reducing the risk of hiring someone without target language skills, let's just go direct to the point.
| | | | | I stress this was a rhetorical device | Sep 13, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
Charlie:
"my initial recommended solution would actually be to have 2 fields"
This was just me trying to emphasise that we currently have a situation where one field is being used to represent 2 different things by different sets of people. (This is, incidentally, by no means uncommon in a computer system that has been running for several years.)
So, as a data analyst, I would therefore recommend 2 fields (native and proficiency) as the ideal solution. This means everyone sees there is a difference.
But, we know (assume, anyway) that proz doesn't want the time and expense of redesigning screens and whatnot to have one or the other or both fields as appropriate.
So, given how the system works now, and the use and purpose of the field as it stands today, and as a subsidiary aspect, given the way in which misrepresentation is identified and the nature of some proposals to verify it, which approach to the field best fits with reality?
I remember drafting a post - not sure if I hit 'Send' - back in July that hypothesised about the nature of this discussion if the field had been given a different name... I think part of the issue is obsessing about the label and not the function. Sure, the label should indicate the function, but if it doesn't, it's probably easier to change the label than to play Canute (sorry, I can't take the risk of attempting the modern spelling!) and hold back the tide of function drift, which happens for good reason, as here.
| | | | | 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 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 » |
| | 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 
