| Páginas sobre el tema: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | Should “native language” claims be verified? Autor de la hebra: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
Paul Stevens 
Local time: 15:22
Miembro 2003
español al inglés
+ ...
writeaway wrote: Ty Kendall wrote: Phil Hand wrote:
We should be so lucky. Here's Lucia's latest reply to my test case:
"Thanks for the details, I am looking into it now. I am thoroughly documenting reports of abuse like yours to be able to take action when the first improvements to the Native Speaker Credential system that Jared mentions in the forum can be introduced."
No action to be taken on anyone until we get a new system - and Jared's already said that the new system will be an added-value verification system, that there will be no attempt to purge existing problems.
There is at present no way to deal with an case of misrepresentation on a profile. And no proposal to create a way to deal with it.
[Edited at 2012-07-19 01:12 GMT] I don't understand how there can be no way to tackle misrepresentation on a profile. I mean, it's a site rule. How can there be no way to: a) enforce it b) take action against those who flout it They manage to do this with other site rules, why not this one? This rule won't be enforced because it may cause large numbers of paying members to stop paying.
I fear, very sadly, that this is the crux of the issue for proz.com.
writeaway wrote:
So, should native language claims be verified? Yes, if professionalism matters. But will they be? No, apparently. Imo, (yet) another colour-coded 'symbol' will only serve to help make the false claims look 'official', which means the 'symbol' would ultimately be counterproductive.
Agreed.
| | | | | I agree. No testing will ever happen because most people would leave. | Jul 19, 2012 |
I agree with the person who said it would never happen. Of course it will not happen, and it should not happen, in fact. No one is really authorized to tell anybody what their native language is. Texts could be evaluated by certain qualified people, such as university professors, or editors, whether they are of publishable quality. This is about as far as this may go.
| | | | Robert Forstag
Estados Unidos
Local time: 10:22
español al inglés
+ ...
| Once again: The heart of the problem | Jul 19, 2012 |
The most recent response by staff is disappointing, if not particularly surprising. It also confirms the suspicion many of us had earlier in the discussion that reports of blatant misrepresentation--despite the fact that they were expressly solicited--would not be acted upon.
To follow up on one of Lisa's other points, the recent CPN initiative to include agencies does not seem to be at all promising to those translators with the badge who are in fact good and accomplished (rather ... See more The most recent response by staff is disappointing, if not particularly surprising. It also confirms the suspicion many of us had earlier in the discussion that reports of blatant misrepresentation--despite the fact that they were expressly solicited--would not be acted upon.
To follow up on one of Lisa's other points, the recent CPN initiative to include agencies does not seem to be at all promising to those translators with the badge who are in fact good and accomplished (rather than merely meeting the criterion of "adequate" required to obtain the badge). As some of us have pointed out, the existence of a badge that denotes nothing more than "adequacy" itself constitutes a tacit admission on the part of staff that there are a good many people with profiles here who are, shall we say, "less than adequate." Which once again brings us to the heart of the problem.
As long as this site is committed to accepting any and all comers as site members and users (and all evidence suggests that this will remain the case in the foreseeable future) then it is reasonable to expect that no changes will be made that might adversely impact proz.com's bottom line (just as writeaway has indicated).
[Edited at 2012-07-19 12:19 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
Reino Unido
Local time: 15:22
portugués al inglés
+ ...
PERSONA QUE INICIÓ LA HEBRA | I’m not clear what IS stopping them | Jul 19, 2012 |
Is it the bottom line (as in numbers of members) or is it site traffic? Having said that, by their own admission, the revenue from advertising is minimal compared to what they earn from membership. Okay, they'd lose a bunch of liars but not all. People aren't going to give up translating and site membership in their droves just because they can no longer lie about their native language here. I don't actually believe that. Remember that plenty of these people making these fraudulent claims aren�... See more Is it the bottom line (as in numbers of members) or is it site traffic? Having said that, by their own admission, the revenue from advertising is minimal compared to what they earn from membership. Okay, they'd lose a bunch of liars but not all. People aren't going to give up translating and site membership in their droves just because they can no longer lie about their native language here. I don't actually believe that. Remember that plenty of these people making these fraudulent claims aren’t even members anyway. Conversely, by taking a step in the right direction they might entice some decent members who stay away because they currently associate the site with shoddy practices. We need our number-cruncher Luís back with some site statistics. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Robert Forstag
Estados Unidos
Local time: 10:22
español al inglés
+ ...
Lisa Simpson, MCIL wrote:
Is it the bottom line (as in numbers of members) or is it site traffic? Having said that, by their own admission, the revenue from advertising is minimal compared to what they earn from membership. Okay, they'd lose a bunch of liars but not all. People aren't going to give up translating and site membership in their droves just because they can no longer lie about their native language here. I don't actually believe that. Remember that plenty of these people making these fraudulent claims aren’t even members anyway. Conversely, by taking a step in the right direction they might entice some decent members who stay away because they currently associate the site with shoddy practices. We need our number-cruncher Luís back with some site statistics.
I agree that by defining the bottom line as it does, the site tends to shoot itself in the foot. (As an aside, I think that it will in the end pay a terrible price for doing so, but that is another matter.)
There is now abundant evidence that proz.com operates according to a very sensitive barometer when it comes to any real or perceived financial loss. This is why it so steadfastly defends its open-door model, which is at the root of the most serious problems here (i.e., profile misrepresentation, Kudoz abuse, posted jobs offering outrageous rates, and excessive direct and indirect advertising).
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
Reino Unido
Local time: 15:22
portugués al inglés
+ ...
PERSONA QUE INICIÓ LA HEBRA | "Perceived financial loss" | Jul 19, 2012 |
You've hit the nail on the head. I don't for a moment see a mass exodus and personally, I think it's short-sighted to imagine there would be one.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Países Bajos
Local time: 16:22
Miembro 2006
inglés al afrikaans
+ ...
| Sites and papes on non-native errors and analysis | Jul 19, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
You don't have to believe us, go to Google (google scholar if you must) and search for academic literature (usually pedagogically based) about "non-native errors" and "error analysis". It's there for all to see.
I have done that during this thread, and I have followed links of people who offered URLs.
The problem is that (a) all of the sites and papers[1] dealing with analysis deal with the analyses themselves and not with identifying the data to be analysed, and (b) the papers dealing with non-native errors deal with errors made by non-natives, and not with errors made by ONLY non-natives. These papers only succeed in evaluating non-native errors because the non-nativeness is already known. You can't use any of those methods to identify non-native speakers who insist that they are native speakers.
Perhaps you know of sites and papers dealing with what you are referring to, but I don't expect you to give examples of that.
I'm not saying that I agree with Kirsten's point completely, though, since non-native-only errors could arguably exist in certain languages, which would make it possible to use it in judgments.
==
[1]all sites and papers that I saw.
[Edited at 2012-07-19 14:01 GMT]
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 22:22
chino al inglés
| I don't think it's quite so calculated | Jul 19, 2012 |
@ Lisa and Robert
I imagine it's more just that nothing in the Proz organisation is set up to handle confrontations with site users/members. The way this site runs is entirely about being a broker, a venue for others to exchange information. Their own input to the information is minimal.
It's fair to recognise that what we're asking for is a big change in the culture of the site: from hands-off broker to interventionist standard-setter. Not wanting to get into that kin... See more @ Lisa and Robert
I imagine it's more just that nothing in the Proz organisation is set up to handle confrontations with site users/members. The way this site runs is entirely about being a broker, a venue for others to exchange information. Their own input to the information is minimal.
It's fair to recognise that what we're asking for is a big change in the culture of the site: from hands-off broker to interventionist standard-setter. Not wanting to get into that kind of a role until they're completely ready, and to do it on their own terms, is understandable.
Obviously, that leaves us with a problem. But I don't think this problem can be solved by calculations about numbers of site members. It needs a commitment to be involved in information transactions. And that may be a change that goes beyond the site's business model. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
Reino Unido
Local time: 15:22
hebreo al inglés
| Haven't evaluated them all..... | Jul 19, 2012 |
So I can't comment on what they do/don't reveal. Michael Swan's "Learner English" is a decent basic starting point though. It documents (by language) typical L2 interference in people's non-native English. It doesn't claim that some* of the errors can't also be made by native speakers, but it does give a good indication of predicted errors in English caused by learning English as a foreign language/L2 interference.
(*As I mentioned in another post, things like articles and pr... See more So I can't comment on what they do/don't reveal. Michael Swan's "Learner English" is a decent basic starting point though. It documents (by language) typical L2 interference in people's non-native English. It doesn't claim that some* of the errors can't also be made by native speakers, but it does give a good indication of predicted errors in English caused by learning English as a foreign language/L2 interference.
(*As I mentioned in another post, things like articles and prepositional/phrasal verbs don't get massacred by native speakers, especially educated native speakers claiming to be language specialists).
I don't think it would be a stretch to identify someone, who lives in say Russia, whose background tells you they grew up and were educated in Russia and whose English output contains a vast array of article and other errors atypical of native English speakers to reach the conclusion that they aren't in fact "native" English speakers.
I agree that error analysis alone would not be sufficient a test, I do believe it could work if used in conjunction with other methods though. I'm also not saying that error analysis is necessarily the right option for this site and its conundrum with hoardes of liars, since there's no "one-size-fits-all" error analysis procedure (people with different L1s make different errors), it may end up being rather unworkable.
I also think that error analysis may be of less assistance with very proficient speakers of English who aren't native....but then, I think it was established that borderline cases would not be the target of such an initiative, only the most egregious cases.
I only mention it here as an "if all else fails" option....
Although in light of more recent posts it all seems rather futile anyway
[Edited at 2012-07-19 14:34 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Hi, Lisa, why do you care about this so much? | Jul 19, 2012 |
What is the reason you care about this subject so much? I could not care less what someone considers his or her native language and if all the people are allowed to bid on jobs. I just got interested in this thread because of some unusual ideas, and just the passion that people write with.
| | | |
Ty Kendall wrote: ... I don't think it would be a stretch to identify someone, who lives in say Russia, whose background tells you they grew up and were educated in Russia and whose English output contains a vast array of article and other errors atypical of native English speakers to reach the conclusion that they aren't in fact "native" English speakers. I agree that error analysis alone would not be sufficient a test, I do believe it could work if used in conjunction with other methods though. I'm also not saying that error analysis is necessarily the right option for this site and its conundrum with hoardes of liars, since there's no "one-size-fits-all" error analysis procedure (people with different L1s make different errors), it may end up being rather unworkable. I also think that error analysis may be of less assistance with very proficient speakers of English who aren't native....but then, I think it was established that borderline cases would not be the target of such an initiative, only the most egregious cases. I only mention it here as an "if all else fails" option.... Although in light of more recent posts it all seems rather futile anyway
I believe there are solutions.
Let's assume those who pretend to be native speakers know that they really are non-native speakers - I think we can assume that much for the majority of them.
Would they seriously subject themselves to an evaluation that will clearly show they are not native speakers? Probably not. Especially if it involves actually talking to native speaker "judges".
Will, on the other hand, true native speakers of two native languages want to take such a test? Some will, some will not see the point in it if they are already excellent and established translators.
In any case, as long as both of the above groups have not undergone such evaluation (possibly wrote an essay, talked in person to other established native speakers of that language at a Powwow etc...) they could be more clearly shown as "unverified" speakers; for example, when trying to apply for a job that calls for a native speaker of English, their quote should automatically feature a clear pre-set statement/disclaimer (based on their native-language declaration on their profile page) explaining to the outsourcer that this person has declared English as their native language but that their declaration is "unverified".
Would that help a bit? Maybe. The burden of proof/incentive to become verified has been passed to the translator.
In addition, I am supporting a checklist such as Janet and I have proposed a few pages back, and if certain conditions are not met, then even one native language cannot be declared as such (I am thinking of - where were you born, where did you grow up, go to school, etc. and combine it with identity verification) If the conditions are met, the applicant will receive his/her native language status (yellow icon) and will be shown as true native speaker when applying for jobs or in directory search results. I would do this in case someone tries to declare ONE native language. As soon as they declare two, neither language will appear as "verified" until they pass an evaluation.
Regarding directory search results: if a client chooses "native speaker of English" in her/his search, he/she could be asked to check either "verified" native language speaker" or "unverified native speaker" or the result page could present the translators as clearly "verified" or "unverified" speakers of English.
Some have argued that changes to the current system would mean less memberships sold here at proz.com
I am not sure this is true. I believe those who wouldn't stand a chance passing a native-speaker/writer test will simply continue as they have because what else are they going to do?
They will rather take a chance and still be able to quote on jobs than give up the use of the site altogether. Now, granted, that's a theory, but who says outsourcers wouldn't be interested in them, especially if they make certain other "claims" on their profile pages.
And because site staff has indicated they want to improve the status quo, I see above suggestions as one possible step. It's not a perfect solution. It's a suggestion.
But giving up on improving a situation after 61? pages?
I don't think so.
B
fixed a typo
[Edited at 2012-07-19 17:27 GMT]
| | | | Michele Fauble
Estados Unidos
Local time: 07:22
Miembro 2006
noruego al inglés
+ ...
| Competence errors vs performance mistakes | Jul 19, 2012 |
Native speakers do not make competence errors. In other words native speakers have acquired the rules of the language and can judge whether their own speech/writing and the speech/writing of others is correct according to those rules.
Native speakers make performance mistakes. Performance mistakes are made when the speaker/writer knows the correct form but still makes a mistake. This may be due to distraction, inattention, fatigue, drunkenness, etc. The native speaker/writer has the... See more Native speakers do not make competence errors. In other words native speakers have acquired the rules of the language and can judge whether their own speech/writing and the speech/writing of others is correct according to those rules.
Native speakers make performance mistakes. Performance mistakes are made when the speaker/writer knows the correct form but still makes a mistake. This may be due to distraction, inattention, fatigue, drunkenness, etc. The native speaker/writer has the underlying native competence, i.e. knows the correct form, but still makes a mistake.
Non-native speakers make competence errors. They have not acquired all of the rules of the language, and so the competence underlying their performance differs from that of native speakers.
Some non-native speakers can acquire competence that closely matches that of native speakers.
The competence of some native speakers will differ from that of native speakers of the educated standard variety of the language.
The mistakes of native speakers are sporadic.
The errors of non-native speakers/writers are systematic, reflecting non-native competence. Non-natives also make performance mistakes. As with native speakers, these are sporadic. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| There are ways - is there a willingnes? | Jul 19, 2012 |
I basically agree with this:
Ty Kendall wrote:
(*As I mentioned in another post, things like articles and prepositional/phrasal verbs don't get massacred by native speakers, especially educated native speakers claiming to be language specialists).
And this thought...
Ty Kendall wrote:
I don't think it would be a stretch to identify someone, who lives in say Russia, whose background tells you they grew up and were educated in Russia and whose English output contains a vast array of article and other errors atypical of native English speakers to reach the conclusion that they aren't in fact "native" English speakers.
...goes with this:
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
...a checklist such as Janet and I have proposed a few pages back, and if certain conditions are not met, than even one native language cannot be declared as such (I am thinking of - where were you born, where did you grow up, go to school, etc. and combine it with identity verification)
Not too many people (anyone other than Bernhard?) have commented on the checklist option, but it has one big advantage, as Bernhard implicitly points out: Anyone filling in the same form for multiple "native languages" will have to find some way to show how/why the acquisition of native-speaker status in the first language does not actually (physically) interfere with the acquisition of native-speaker status in the other languages.
In other words, if someone admits that they grew up and went to school in Turkey, they are going to really have to go out of their way to show why they are also a native speaker of Portuguese.
The only potentially problematic issue I see with this is who will review it. I personally know next to nothing about how this site is run and what kind of procedures are in place, so I have no idea how "simple" or "incredibly difficult" it would be to find appropriate reviewers. But in essence, it just doesn't seem like that big a deal (since it's similar but even less in-depth than the "Certified Pro"-process) - if the site wants to do it, that is.
What we need to do is write up a SIMPLE AND CONVINCING PROPOSAL as to how this would work and present it fait accompli to the site.
If such a thorough checklist/initial review were actually in place, I bet the onus of testing would be greatly reduced. A site member who is provisionally refused a second (or third, etc.) language based on their checklist responses could request such a test, for example. And as Bernhard says:
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Let's assume those who pretend to be native speakers know that they really are non-native speakers - I think we can assume that much for the majority of them.
Would they seriously subject themselves to an evaluation that will clearly show they are not native speakers? Probably not.
| | | | Ty Kendall
Reino Unido
Local time: 15:22
hebreo al inglés
| Actions speak louder than words | Jul 19, 2012 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
And because site staff has indicated they want to improve the status quo, I see above suggestions as one possible step. It's not a perfect solution. It's a suggestion.
But giving up on improving a situation after 61? pages?
I don't think so.
I'm not giving up as such, and site staff may have articulated a desire for change, but after recent revelations as to site staff response to fraud and misrepresentation, it's hard to ascertain whether they are just paying lip service.
You can talk solutions till you're blue in the face, if nobody's listening (or receptive to such solutions) then it won't matter either way....nothing will change.
| | | | | It is not true that native speakers don't make competence errors | Jul 19, 2012 |
Who told you that? Of course they do -- it just depends of what quality native language they learned as children, and what other factor influenced their competence late in life.
| | | | | Páginas sobre el tema: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Should “native language” claims be verified? | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
| | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
