| 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] > | What is your definition of “native speaker” and why does it matter to you to have a definition? Thread poster: Bernhard Sulzer
|
|---|
| This is what I've been saying all along... | Oct 15, 2014 |
Lisa Simpson, MCIL MITI wrote:
to me the bottom line is still: “Would other native speakers of the language consider this person to be a native speaker?” If so, great; if not, then with all the will in the world they can’t be considered to have passed the test.
the proof of the pudding is in the eating...  Trying to find a definition is impossible. In fact, as a said before, we don't even have it in Italian... and other languages too... I wonder why...
| | | | | It does not matter to me to have a definition | Oct 15, 2014 |
I do not have a definition of "native speaker" because it is such a complex question, as it is obvious from the many answers posted here.
Anyway, to answer the second question: It does not matter to me to have a definition of "native speaker". Like others have said, all I'm interested in, as far as translating is concerned, is the quality of the translation. From an outsourcer's point of view (which I'm not), I'd say: if it's up to par, great. If it's not, bye-bye.
That... See more I do not have a definition of "native speaker" because it is such a complex question, as it is obvious from the many answers posted here.
Anyway, to answer the second question: It does not matter to me to have a definition of "native speaker". Like others have said, all I'm interested in, as far as translating is concerned, is the quality of the translation. From an outsourcer's point of view (which I'm not), I'd say: if it's up to par, great. If it's not, bye-bye.
That's all there is to it, isn"t it?
For the record: I do not translate into English. I translate from German to French and from French to German (about 50/50). I'm a native speaker of German (no difficulty here: born in Germany, raised in Germany, went to school and uni in Germany) and I've been living in France half of my life now. On Proz, if the choice had existed, I'd have chosen "fully bilingual" or "near-native" for French. As it isn't, I have indicated both as native languages, and I explain in the "About me" section what it is about.
I don't know which language is my dominant one, French or German. It varies, I think, and I do everything to keep immersed in both languages and cultures. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Removed per poster's request. | Bernhard Sulzer 
United States
Local time: 06:37
English to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | If someone is native in, then others are non-native in that language | Oct 15, 2014 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote: LilianNekipelov wrote: Merab Dekano wrote:
I have seen, continuously and consistently, errors made by native Spanish speakers born and raised in Spain, who went to school in Spain, who went to the university in Spain, who spent their entire professional careers in Spain: It is a myth that "native speakers"--whatever that means, do not make mistakes. It is really laughable. Writing mistakes are those exclusive to a single-language process. One typical case, often overemphasized as the kiss of death by translation agencies, is "its" vs. "it's". Some people here would rate me as a non-native liar in English, as I only began learning it at age 9, got my FCE at 15. While I can promise that I've NEVER made this mistake, I've seen it done quite often by truly native EN speakers, many monoglots included.
I propose to look at the concept detached from comparing grammatical mistakes. Any such mistakes are certainly undesireable in our profession, be they native or non-native.
Before I have a quick look at definitions given in this thread, I wanted to emphasize one more time:
Native speaker or simply "native in" is used in our profession as a criterion, that's a fact.
If someone is native in a language and the term holds meaning, then there are certainly people who are non-native in that language and that means something else than native; otherwise, we really should do away with the term; if you are worried about the term's possible negative implications with regard to aspects outside of our profession or don't like it personally but you are not opposed to the concept and its use, I have invited you and invite you again to come up with an equivalent term.
We are clearly no experts in all the intricate ways language is acquired and we won't be able to list or explain exactly all the factors that go into becoming a native speaker, but there are basic assumptions I suggest we can make in order to arrive at a workable definition. I propose that the word "native" holds meaning that should help us arrive at that definition.
Also, even though we can attach language proficiency to this term - especially with regard to writing texts during the translation process or proofreading these texts in our native or non-native language - I propose to look at it as a concept that does not depend on any linguistic test to be verified. That doesn't mean certain native speakers who are translators can't possibly judge who else in their profession and language is a native speaker but that doesn't help us because native speaker isn't defined through a verification process.
If it seems hard to define the term, maybe think of it in terms of what it implies.
As far as this discussion is concerned, it is clear to me that some hold that a translator who is a non-native speaker can achieve the same proficiency level as a native speaker. If that is the case, what are the consequences for the term: I hold that then the definition of the term would shift to fulfilling well-defined conditions of what this proficiency entails, and anyone can become a native speaker of a language through acquiring the proficiency at any point in life (after having acquired the language in some undefined way). The word "native" would then really be wrong, and we should probably replace it by "perfect proficiency." I hold that it's impossible to do that because being "native" and "being perfectly proficient" would be two different concepts whereby the latter seems to be even harder to pin down. Tests that exist try to assess someone's proficiency in a language but this cannot define "nativeness" in the sense that the word "native" seems to imply to me. But let's look at what people think "native in," "native speaker/writer", "native language" and "native speech" mean. I'll be back with a list a soon as possible.
[Edited at 2014-10-15 13:42 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Didn't you find this book fascinating? | Oct 15, 2014 |
I did--it is always a pleasure to read some non-simplistic, scientific discourse on language issues.
http://www.paikeday.net/speaker.pdf
[Edited at 2014-10-15 13:17 GMT]
| | | | Bernhard Sulzer
United States
Local time: 06:37
English to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | What is implied? | Oct 15, 2014 |
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote: Lisa Simpson, MCIL MITI wrote:
to me the bottom line is still: “Would other native speakers of the language consider this person to be a native speaker?” If so, great; if not, then with all the will in the world they can’t be considered to have passed the test.
the proof of the pudding is in the eating... Trying to find a definition is impossible. In fact, as a said before, we don't even have it in Italian... and other languages too... I wonder why...
You are saying you don't have a definition in Italian for, correct me if the term is wrong, lingua madre?
But native speakers of Italian are using the term?
I think you already said somewhere what it means to you, right?
| | | | S E (X)
Italy
Local time: 12:37
Italian to English
| native language or acquired target language | Oct 15, 2014 |
(I am reposting this as there was a bit of delay in making it visible and in the meantime the discussion moved on to a new page -- I am hoping this contribution does not get left in the dust.)
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
Many examples have been cited in this thread itself of people (for eg., Thomas Frost) whose childhood language was one and their later working language was a different one.
If we go by a pedantic definition of childhood exposure, all these translators would be deprived of important career opportunities.
That is why we have two options:
1. Concede that language proficiency can be acquired in ways other than that of childhood exposure; and
2. Stick to the pedantic definition based on childhood exposure, but drop the use of native language for translator selection.
I agree with Option One ("Concede that language proficiency can be acquired in ways other than that of childhood exposure").
But I wonder if anyone would really disagree?
Having followed this thread (as well as the earlier 100-pager) from the beginning, I agree with those that say that "native speaker" is used in the world of translation as an indicator of quality and strongly agree that it is often erroneously perceived as shorthand for quality.
Frankly, I believe it is down to the client to be capable of selecting the right translator for the job and I do not believe that any set of ticked boxes can ever replace actual verification of a translator's skills. As has already been discussed, if a client is seriously looking for a competent translator, they will not stop their search at a "native language" qualification.
Personally, I think that the proz classification should be changed to something along the lines of "Native Language or Acquired Target Language". This would be in keeping with many serious, well-considered sets of requirements for professional translators (for example, those of the US Dept. of State, as I mentioned and documented in an earlier post).
Why "Native Language or Acquired Target Language"? As has been discussed above, being a native speaker of a given language is by no means a guarantee of the quality of one's work as a translator. Just as a serious client would need to verify a native speaker's actual skills, so would they need to verify those of someone with an acquired target language. More work might be involved in verifying the latter, but who says choosing a translator should be quick and easy?
On the other hand, leading clients to believe that it is (quick and easy) is, I think, a sure-fire way of ensuring low quality work and contributing to (if not causing) the downward spiral of the industry.
Since language proficiency is really what the client is after, "Native Language or Acquired Target Language" keeps the pool open with a focus on proficiency, and puts the onus on the client to do their homework before making a choice.
| | | | | There is no term in Polish. Only "jezyk ojczysty" | Oct 15, 2014 |
but that implies the language of your homeland, and has nothing to do with any fluency, but rather patriotic feelings and identity.
In the recent years, many people have been using the term ' natywny" (really a horrible term--even just from the phonetic point of view--as used in Polish).
| | |
|
|
|
| Interesting idea | Oct 15, 2014 |
Sarah Elizabeth wrote:
Since language proficiency is really what the client is after, "Native Language or Acquired Target Language" keeps the pool open with a focus on proficiency, and puts the onus on the client to do their homework before making a choice.
That might be a good approach. Definitely worth contemplating.
| | | | Bernhard Sulzer
United States
Local time: 06:37
English to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Trying to define the term | Oct 15, 2014 |
Thomas Frost wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
I can't say I have that same experience with non-natives in German.
Is it possible that this is the reason why you insist it is impossible in all cases? Do you think you somehow extrapolate from your own experience with non-natives in German to all other languages? It is human to evaluate the world based on one's own experiences because we learn by observing and copying what we see and hear around us, at least in early age.
Not my experience with regard to speaking with many non-natives. But you might have a different experience. That's fine. I for myself doubt there is a majority of non-native speakers who sound or write exactly like German natives. If some do, I would still not call them "native speakers" - to me that term ought to be reserved for people who grew up with it. And I don't mean to discriminate against non-natives. It just has to do with acquiring a language a certain way.
My aim is the definition of the term. If it holds meaning, it should be defined. If not or if it can be equated with "proficiency" in a language, than we should do away with it or change it. See my comment above.
Thomas Frost wrote:
Nobody would presumably dispute your experience with non-natives in German, but it is quite a step to go from that and to conclude that nobody can achieve native-equivalent skills in any language unless they are born into it.
German has a very particular structure that you don't find in Scandinavian languages, English, Roman languages, or any other language I know. The effort required for a non-native to sound native is not the same in all language combinations; yet you are attempting to apply a one-size-fits-all rule without having any documentation to support your claim.
It's not me originally who is trying a one-size-fits-all term for "perfect proficiency in a language."
I just follow the use of the term "native in" in all languages here on this site and in our profession in general: "native in"
If it holds a universal meaning, which I think it does, we should define it.
What is your definition? Would it matter to you to have one?
Thomas Frost wrote:
Some have referred to "dead giveaways" for non-natives. How about "I don't know nothin'"? I would claim that's not a dead giveaway for a non-native but for a native American from a disfavoured social environment. Yet, you want the latter to enjoy the privilege that 'native' status gives over a highly educated and proficient non-native. It makes no sense to me.
Not a dead giveaway, agreed. And "nothin" is used by natives and non-natives for various reasons, no matter where they come from socially. Its use in speech will depend on several things. This doesn't help us define what "native" or "first-learned" or "originally-learned" language means. My opinion.
| | | | Bernhard Sulzer
United States
Local time: 06:37
English to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Does it hold any implications for you? | Oct 15, 2014 |
Andrea Jarmuschewski wrote:
I do not have a definition of "native speaker" because it is such a complex question, as it is obvious from the many answers posted here.
Hello Andrea.
Should it then mean whatever anyone says it means?
Do you not call yourself a native speaker of a particular language?
If so, doesn't it imply something to you?
I see you do have a definition.
[Edited at 2014-10-15 13:38 GMT]
| | | | | Beginning to make sense, adding one more variable | Oct 15, 2014 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
As far as this discussion is concerned, it is clear to me that some hold that a translator who is not a non-native speaker can achieve the same proficiency level as a native speaker. If that is the case, what are the consequences for the term: I hold that then the definition of the term would shift to fulfilling well-defined conditions of what this proficiency entails, and anyone can become a native speaker of a language through acquiring the proficiency at any point in life (after having acquired the language in some undefined way). The word "native" would then really be wrong, and we should probably replace it by "perfect proficiency." I hold that it's impossible to do that because being "native" and "being perfectly proficient are two different concepts whereby the latter seems to be even harder to pin down. Tests that exist try to assess someone's proficiency in a language but this cannot define "nativeness" in the sense that the word "native" seems to imply to me. But let's look at what people think "native in," "native speaker/writer", "native language" and "native speech" mean. I'll be back with a list a soon as possible.
Bernhard, this is beginning to make sense.
Your thoughts above led me to consider a previous point I made, using an analogy between "native speaker" and "safe driver", to add another variable. Put it in its bluntest possible form, it would be: SEZ WHO?
The local DMV equivalent would state that someone is a safe driver if s/he's had no traffic tickets and no accidents; this is all they have on record. That feller's passengers would say s/he is a safe driver if they feel tempted to take a nap while s/he's at the wheel, no matter if it's on a winding mountain road in a rainy/foggy night, regardless of the aforesaid records.
Civil and school records can evidence that someone is a native speaker of the language used in some geographic area. Likewise the natives living in that area (including translation clients) can recognize an individual as "one of them"... or not, from the way s/he uses the local language, regardless of the aforementioned records.
The "native" attribute on Proz profiles is neither of the two options above: it is self-claimed, regardless of ANY records or third-party opinions!
Can this set of three 'SEZ WHO?' options lead us to any solution?
| | |
|
|
|
Bernhard Sulzer
United States
Local time: 06:37
English to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Typo correction | Oct 15, 2014 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote: Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
As far as this discussion is concerned, it is clear to me that some hold that a translator who is not a non-native speaker can achieve the same proficiency level as a native speaker. If that is the case, what are the consequences for the term: I hold that then the definition of the term would shift to fulfilling well-defined conditions of what this proficiency entails, and anyone can become a native speaker of a language through acquiring the proficiency at any point in life (after having acquired the language in some undefined way). The word "native" would then really be wrong, and we should probably replace it by "perfect proficiency." I hold that it's impossible to do that because being "native" and "being perfectly proficient are two different concepts whereby the latter seems to be even harder to pin down. Tests that exist try to assess someone's proficiency in a language but this cannot define "nativeness" in the sense that the word "native" seems to imply to me. But let's look at what people think "native in," "native speaker/writer", "native language" and "native speech" mean. I'll be back with a list a soon as possible. Can this set of three 'SEZ WHO?' options lead us to any solution?
No answer yet, Jose, just fixing a typo in the quote from above, sorry:
Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
As far as this discussion is concerned, it is clear to me that some hold that a translator who is not a native speaker can achieve the same proficiency level as a native speaker.
| | | | | No definition per se | Oct 15, 2014 |
Bernhard Sulzer wrote: Andrea Jarmuschewski wrote:
I do not have a definition of "native speaker" because it is such a complex question, as it is obvious from the many answers posted here. Hello Andrea. Should it then mean whatever anyone says it means? Do you not call yourself a native speaker of a particular language? If so, doesn't it imply something to you? I see you do have a definition. [Edited at 2014-10-15 13:38 GMT]
No, Bernhard, as I said, I do not have a definition, for this term recovers a large range of individual situations. Nevertheless, it is easy to see why I say that I am a native speaker of German (same reason as you, I believe - see my previous post). But that doesn't mean that this is an exclusive definition.
Maybe the only possibility is indeed to let it mean whatever anyone says it means.
And, in our context, to look for proficiency rather than for "nativeness".
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 11:37
Hebrew to English
| No privilege | Oct 15, 2014 |
Thomas Frost wrote:
Some have referred to "dead giveaways" for non-natives. How about "I don't know nothin'"? I would claim that's not a dead giveaway for a non-native but for a native American from a disfavoured social environment. Yet, you want the latter to enjoy the privilege that 'native' status gives over a highly educated and proficient non-native. It makes no sense to me.
In my opinion, a native speaker who writes "I don't know nothing"** should no more be a translator than a non-native who can't get their articles or subject-verb agreements in order.
**Unless they are writing it for effect, mimicking spoken discourse, joking, quoting Rolling Stones or Maroon 5 lyrics etc.
As far as I recall, even the most staunch supporters of the term "native language" do not advocate placing semi-literate uneducated native speakers (who really shouldn't work with languages) on a pedestal above highly educated, specialized and proficient non-native speakers (who really should).
| | | | | 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] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » What is your definition of “native speaker” and why does it matter to you to have a definition? | 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 » |
| | 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! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
