| Páginas no tópico: < [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? Tópico cartaz: Bernhard Sulzer
|
|---|
| No--it is true. Of course, if the person's writing is very fluent, not | Oct 18, 2014 |
Andy Watkinson wrote: LilianNekipelov wrote:
Also, if you change someone's name to a more typical for the X language, everything will sound more 'native" right away.
[Edited at 2014-10-18 17:39 GMT]
[Edited at 2014-10-18 17:41 GMT] Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. And please don't tell me wishful thinking is illegal in the US, N.Y., or elsewhere.
"Me like go to movie". Just with some sporadic mistakes. i know that for a fact. Change the name of a famous--slightly unclear, writer into a totally foreign name and tell the reviewer to look for mistakes--hundreds found--many branded ' non-native'. I did this experiment with Jack London's text. I told the people that it was written by a writer in Siberia. (one of the less famous pieces, with all the names taken out).
[Edited at 2014-10-18 18:18 GMT]
[Edited at 2014-10-19 07:25 GMT]
| | | | Peter Zhuang 
Alemanha
Local time: 15:16
alemão para inglês
+ ...
| I can't think of a good title. | Oct 18, 2014 |
Phil Hand wrote:
That sentence is fine; I wouldn't get overly worked up about comma use anyway; and finally, I suggest you get out of the benighted world of language blogs and look at other stuff. Science blogs, finance blogs, art blogs. The quality of the language is, well... perfect. It's just not the case that native speakers make grammar errors all the time.
I am far from being an authoritative figure in English grammar, so I am not going to insist that the sentence is wrong. But the sentence bothers me because it is, at best, unfortunately structured.
I took an example that I happen to read on a language blog. No, I don't just read language blogs. And no, I don't think native speakers make grammar mistakes all the time.
I agree with all that. What I think you're missing is that writing and grammar are two separate things. You can write perfectly grammatically, and still be a rubbish writer. One can even be an excellent writer with poor grammar: if your thinking is clear enough, the meaning can shine through, even when the clauses themselves are muddled.
But it's much harder to be a good writer with bad grammar; and good grammar is an end in itself when you are a professional writer. So grammar is important, and native speakers get it right, and the rest of the world doesn't.
I agree that writing and grammar are two different things. But I don't think someone who neglects grammar can be an excellent writer; we just have to disagree on that.
But coming back to the topic, I believe that there are native-speakers who are excellent writers (it would be silly to disagree), but that doesn't mean that non-natives can't achieve the same level of writing skills with practice.
Your last sentence confuses me; maybe that statement is an hyperbole.
| | | | Lincoln Hui
Hong Kong
Local time: 21:16
Membro
chinês para inglês
+ ...
| Sure you don't want a mulligan on your examples? | Oct 18, 2014 |
I hold that my seven year old knows how to chew with his mouth shut; and yet he doesn't. I hold that men know how to control themselves; and yet there is domestic violence.
There are kids who chew with their mouths shut, and there are men who can control themselves. Nothing you said contradicts the assertion that this is an issue of education and attention - really attention for the most part, but education is necessary for that.
And what I said was merely the starting point. Range of expression will come with proficiency, as will the ability to write at a higher level without errors. Perhaps it will flow less smoothly, perhaps the vocabulary is less expansive, but these are not the same as errors. Virtually all formal language training that I saw in grade school emphasize the avoidance of errors - and little else. As for dull writing, after a certain point it becomes a function of stupidty, not language proficiency, independent of any errors that one may or may not make.
One who makes an error has not tried hard enough. In every aspect of life those who are deficient by nature must make up by nurture, in this case simply hard work supported by adequate education.
Have you been reading the same blogs as me? This came up on DailyNous just the other day.
I might have learned about this issue before I ever read the words "begging the question" in an actual piece of writing. This is an expression that everyone knows is misused, and everyone misuses it.
| | | | | There is nothing wrong with the clause. | Oct 18, 2014 |
It is an adverbial clause. (Of reason).
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 21:16
chinês para inglês
| Learning android style | Oct 18, 2014 |
Lincoln Hui wrote:
One who makes an error has not tried hard enough.
There is no theory of human learning in which this makes sense. Not language learning, not music learning, not maths learning. People make mistakes. In fact, most psychologists suggest that we need to make mistakes in order to learn. We can all imagine learners who make no mistakes, we can all define what they would be like, but in reality they don't seem to exist. Hence my extravagant claim: it's not an a priori claim about the nature of (non)nativeness; it's an empirical observation (and prediction, I guess).
I didn't really want to raise or defend such an absolute claim, though. It was just a jab at the very false equivalence which I saw some people drawing where
"non-native speakers make errors in writing" = "native speakers make errors in writing"
| | | | Andy Watkinson
Espanha
Local time: 15:16
Membro
catalão para inglês
+ ...
How long before some of us here suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous English "go postal".
Anyone?
[Edited at 2014-10-18 20:11 GMT]
| | | | Lincoln Hui
Hong Kong
Local time: 21:16
Membro
chinês para inglês
+ ...
| Music vs writing | Oct 18, 2014 |
There is no theory of human learning in which this makes sense. Not language learning, not music learning, not maths learning. People make mistakes. In fact, most psychologists suggest that we need to make mistakes in order to learn. We can all imagine learners who make no mistakes, we can all define what they would be like, but in reality they don't seem to exist. Hence my extravagant claim: it's not an a priori claim about the nature of (non)nativeness; it's an empirical observation (and prediction, I guess).
A music performance is subject to temporal contraints. You do not get to go back, listen to what you just played and correct any mistakes before the audience hears it. In writing you have every opportunity to correct each and every error before anyone else has to see it, assuming reasonable time limits, therefore there is no reason why they cannot be corrected. There is a general expectation that recordings are free of error, with rare exceptions, and the same applies even to professional live performances.
Note that we are not talking about the learning process here, but production work. Of course mistakes are made during learning - a learner, by definition, has not reached a level of education that is being aimed for. If all efforts were made and an error still occurs, this indicates insufficient education with respect to that particular aspect. Conversely, if one is already aware that something is an error and still commits that error, this certainly indicates a failure to make the best possible effort.
The first lesson for any students taking an exam or test is to eliminate careless errors.
[Edited at 2014-10-18 19:16 GMT]
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 21:16
chinês para inglês
| Only the perfect need apply | Oct 18, 2014 |
Once again, you want to limit the relevant test population to those who have "reached a level of education that is being aimed for". This population doesn't exist, or it's so small as to be irrelevant. I'm uninterested in trying to decide what tests or guidelines might apply to this theoretical category of people because they're so rare. The interesting group is translators currently working, who (basically) all have an imperfect grasp of at least one of their languages.
I might not... See more Once again, you want to limit the relevant test population to those who have "reached a level of education that is being aimed for". This population doesn't exist, or it's so small as to be irrelevant. I'm uninterested in trying to decide what tests or guidelines might apply to this theoretical category of people because they're so rare. The interesting group is translators currently working, who (basically) all have an imperfect grasp of at least one of their languages.
I might note that I don't even think your theory works, because as you noted above, language learning never stops - particularly L2 learning. But I'm very confident that in practice what you're saying is irrelevant, because it doesn't address the actual translators working in the world today.
On the time constraint thing, I was gesturing toward that with my spontaneous/edited prose distinction. I take the point, but again, time constraints exist naturally in the form of our attention spans and other life duties. It's not the case that writing is free from time constraints just because it's not a live performance. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Lincoln Hui
Hong Kong
Local time: 21:16
Membro
chinês para inglês
+ ...
| I believe the appropriate expression is ORLY | Oct 18, 2014 |
This population doesn't exist, or it's so small as to be irrelevant.
This is simply untrue, especially with regards to English. I might question in turn if you are simply taking the population that simply have downright poor English.
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 21:16
chinês para inglês
| therein lies the rub | Oct 18, 2014 |
Well, I don't know where this great big cohort of fantastic English writers is hiding. They're not translating, so far as I can tell - at least, I've never bumped into them. At this point, I'm saying, if you've got 'em, show 'em. I've made my absolute claim, and I'm ready to be proved wrong.
| | | | XXXphxxx (X)
Reino Unido
Local time: 14:16
português para inglês
+ ...
| Going postal | Oct 18, 2014 |
Andy Watkinson wrote:
How long before some of us here suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous English "go postal".
Anyone?
...is without a shadow of doubt: illegal.
| | | | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Removed per poster's request. |
|
|
| Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Post being quoted has been removed. | Bernhard Sulzer
Estados Unidos
Local time: 09:16
inglês para alemão
+ ...
CRIADOR(A) DO TÓPICO | Trying to connect language proficiency to growing up | Oct 19, 2014 |
Thomas Frost wrote:
Let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone.
[Edited at 2014-10-18 22:53 GMT]
Everybody makes mistakes, and yes, it happens often when one writes quickly. To all.
My answer to the question "Why does it matter to you to have a definition for native speaker" is this: if there's no definition, anyone can claim to be a native speaker of any language (they learned). If the term is defined, not everyone speaking German for example will be able to say he/she is a native speaker. When people tick the native speaker box, they should get a translator that fits the definition of native speaker.
I realize the usefulness of all this depends on the actual use of the term and its definition. I propose that if the definition includes everyone indiscriminately, it's worthless.
If it clearly distinguishes between native and non-native speakers, it has merit.
Various definitions are possible. We have collected a few and discussed why they might matter and why not.
The latest discussion seems to have shown that quite a few people do distinguish between natives and non-natives. Not saying this proves anything conclusively about the value of the concept, but it helps put the term into perspective.
I would like to comment, keeping in mind my own definition for native speaker - someone who acquired the language from childhood (and grew up) in the cultural environment of the language* - and my native language (German).
(*cultural environment isn't necessarily just a geographical criterion but includes family and/or the community of other people communicating with the child, school, friends, any other communications and media).
Now, is a native speaker someone who doesn't make non-native mistakes, only native mistakes? As far as I am concerned, most likely yes; but is he/she a person that doesn't make any mistakes? No.
However, in our job, we proofread our work and try to correct any mistakes we deem mistakes. Will the native speaker find all his/her mistakes? Hopefully, but maybe not all. Could some of his/her mistakes be taken for a non-native's mistakes? Possibly. Anything can happen and even typos could be interpreted as non-native or native mistakes if someone wants to prove a point. Is it very likely to find many non-native mistakes in a native speaker translator's text? I would suggest no. Is it very likely to find many native mistakes in a native speaker translator's text? Probably not. Is it very likely to find any mistakes in a target text? Hopefully not. We all strive to get rid of mistakes. But yes, some mistakes might remain.
But I propose to get away from talking about mistakes.
We all make mistakes when we write but I hold that a text written by a native speaker has less to do with what kind of mistakes he/she makes and more with the unique way a native speaker writes (with or without mistakes). That is backed up by some contributors to this thread.
Some hold that the way one learned a language will have nothing to do with how well that person will write the target text; others will believe the opposite is true. They (some translators, clients or native-speaking target audience) will argue that only a native speaker can guarantee the idiomatically correct text, the natural flow of words; in other words, write the way the target audience (as long as they are indeed mainly native speakers and readers of the target language) read and speak and even think if you will, and many clients will want a native speaker to translate the text. It's this last argument that I find a very strong indication for the value of the native speaker concept. In other words, if the target audience encompasses 100 million people who all acquired their language from childhood and grew up in regions or cultural environments of that language, it seems natural to me to want someone doing the job who also grew up there, in other words, a native speaker.
The problem is that some claim anyone can reach that level of speech and writing, even if they have not grown up in a the cultural environment of a particular language. As Phil has said, the proof is in the pudding. But do we have that proof here in this forum thread?
What to do? We need a strong argument to be able to claim that there is such a difference and that the native speaker concept has merit. Note that I am now shifting from the concept as simply tied to the word "native" indicating "from birth" or "originally" to assessing language proficiency. But if we prove that the people who didn't grow up with the language lack that unique proficiency, we don't need tests to call someone a native speaker. You might say we'll need a lot of testing. Maybe. Maybe not.
To me, two factors count for assessing the proficiency: personal experience (and honest self-assessment) and the assessment of others. Again, this now relates to the proficiency of language which is an argument for those who deny there is a difference between native and non-native proficiency or those who simply reject the concept.
Personal experience:
I spoke exclusively German until I was 25 (except I did learn English as a foreign language from age 10 on and used it to read texts at Salzburg University from age 20 on). For the next 20 years, I was immersed in the American cultural background. I first studied at a university, then I worked in the US, not as a translator, so I had hardly any opportunity to speak German. My main language was English. I didn't have much chance to speak German at all. After 5 years, I became a German instructor. The first couple of months were pretty tough because I wasn't used to speaking it. The only thing I had done to keep up with my German was reading. Since that point, 16 years have gone by of which I spent only 10 months in Austria (as a translator), but I have worked intensely with German and English as a translator and, until last May, as a part-time German instructor at the local university and a few other colleges. From all this, I can say that no matter what, English is definitely not my native language. Although I mostly think in and speak English in everyday life, I also think and write German because of my job as a translator and instructor. For the last couple of years, I have also intensely watched German TV over the internet. When I translate into German, my main thinking shifts into the German mode. And in this mode, the structures I use in sentences, the idiomatic phrases, everything comes much more easily when compared to my English thinking mode (I'm not talking about natural speech patterns like here in the forum where I think and write in English and just write it down as it comes to me. I catch myself sometimes and correct mistakes.) That won't happen that much in German, I am still much more certain about everything I write in German. I don't need a proofreader (well unless it's for certain other reasons, not related to the way I write). I continue to improve my English by speaking with others in English, listening to their speech on TV and in personal communication, by reading, by working as a translator etc. But I feel my English is still much less complete than my German. There are things I hear and then go: what did he just say? Some phrase, some idiom I never heard of. But more than anything else, it's about the patterns of speech and writing that will be more difficult to master when it comes to sophisticated texts in my non-native language.
Based on this personal experience I hold there is a definite difference between my command of German and English and I attribute it to the way I acquired these two languages. Even though the way I think and write in English seems very natural to me and I feel I have two modes of thinking, speaking, reading, and writing, I hold them to be different, miles apart if you will. I am actually proud of my command of English and feel I can continue to improve. But I am not a native speaker. The way German is entrenched in my brain becomes especially clear when I switch to the dialect with which I grew up. Also, as far as the actual formation of sounds is concerned, I am much more natural in my native language. I tell you that one of the hardest things for German speakers to master in English (not that it has something to do with writing) is the "w" sound in the word window. Not the "w" sound in any word, just in that one (has to do with what follows: indow) I realize that actual pronunciation and the way vowels and consonants are voiced in speech doesn't seem to figure prominently here with regard to writing. But I have a hunch that speaking and forming of vowels and consonants with all its aspects has a big influence on what words we use and say etc. But that's something for the scientists.
In any case, short of comparing texts, there is probably one's own experience that helps distinguish between native and non-native language. I subjectively see the difference for myself. If others don't, I would recommend comparing the way they write with some sophisticated texts in the language they acquired after puberty and ask themselves: could I have written that? There is a big difference between having learned a language after the age of 20 and the way one learns it from shortly after birth. And the result is that we have a better command of our native language and even if that command is diminished later by learning another language and then using that new language exclusively, I hold that it's not possible to acquire that language to the same degree and perfection as the one learned in childhood. Many of us actually agree on that. Those are the ones who hold that NL is acquired "from childhood" on.
b) Assessments by others
Others might not believe in the difference between native and non-native language acquisition or will purport that anyone can reach a perfect or best or first-learned language level in two or more languages and thus they reject the native language label altogether. If they didn't grow up with the language, I'd be at least very skeptical. If they make a lot of mistakes or write in a way that other people who grew up in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, South Tyrol or in certain regions of Belgium and Luxemburg find "unnatural," I would suggest they are not native speakers of German (this could be checked in forums or blogs, especially there because we write as we think without giving much thought to the way we write - at least I do, and so it reveals how we master the language, how we think).
And even in professional texts, if non-native writers write excellent German (example) without having had help from a native German speaker editor, they might be huge exceptions to the rule, but the last check would have to be conducted by a person who grew up with German and writes in the same field. I am fairly certain there are always some "unnatural" forms of writing that stick out = where these unnatural ways matter; and they matter in most texts I hold, even in more formulaic subject fields. Unfortunately, I can't prove this here in the forum with regard to professionally translated texts, but the way people write here in the forums, in English at least, indicates how they process language, everyday language if you will, and I believe if you can't be counted as a native speaker here, you shouldn't call yourself a native speaker. It's easy to call people out for their mistakes, but all kinds of mistakes happen to all of us. I would suggest that it is also possible to point to particular speech/writing patterns here that will show that they are non-native patterns (the people who grew up within English-speaking environments will find them unnatural - which would be a good reason for me to believe in the existence of a native language acquisition process that starts early in life and thus a native speaker concept.)
So, if a few speakers who did grow up in English-speaking environments find someone else's speech or writing patterns unnatural, and if it happens more than once or often with someone who calls him/herself a native speaker or claims to be able to use the language in a natural way, indistinguishable from other speakers in English-speaking regions, it would point to the difference between native and non-native speakers and the concept would seem to have merit.
For translators who believe that any translator working to the best of his/her ability and using his/her best or main languages in a subject field they know very well can achieve the same linguistic results, there would be no need for the native speaker label or the distinction between native and non-native speaker. But they would have to agree that others who find such differences or find them very likely or base it on their own life-long experience and/or want a text translated by someone who grew up within a certain language environment, might want to use the concept.
I happen to be a member of "the others"group. But I don't say that non-natives shouldn't translate.
There might be non-natives and some of their clients who will be happy to work together for a translation into the translator's non-native language. Although I don't think this should be the typical choice, I have no problem with accepting a client's choice which might have been based on other criteria than a translator's native language (for the target text). However, I hold that two things matter:
a) in certain subject fields, the "natural way" a speaker writes in that language (= native language) is essential for a successful translation. (Many hold to that concept)
b) one should only claim to be a native speaker if he/she really is
As far as b) is concerned, that means you either grew up with the language or someone finds no difference between your speech or writing and that of people who grew up with the language (and again, I am referring to translators in the same fields). I believe that there is a big difference and if someone ever reaches the native-speaker level, he/she would be an extraordinary exception. If we could agree on the latter, we could simply ask: with which language did you grow up" and then bestow the native speaker plaque.
What to call someone with language skills seemingly matching native speakers? (although that would be absolutely extraordinary):
A highly proficient non-native speaker of that language. Someone who grew up with another language, their native language.
I know there is this dichotomy between looking at a native speaker as the one in perfect command of the language and the one having grown up with a particular language.
That makes it hard to find common ground in this discussion. But this dichotomy is resolved when people can admit that reaching the perfect command level (= the natural way of using a language) only comes through growing up with the language, at least for more than 99% of all people. If you can embrace that, you might embrace the concept of native speaker.
Sorry this was so long and some of it might not be so well-thought-out, but I commented (and rambled on) based on what I read the last couple of days here in this thread.
I also think that there are now lots of arguments for and against the native speaker concept and whether or not such term might need to be defined and whether the definition is something that matters to people.
Please keep the original questions in mind, I will keep reading the thread but I might have it locked soon to keep it from getting too long and unfocused. Let me know if you disagree.
[Edited at 2014-10-19 04:21 GMT]
Afterthought: Much more people than ever before learn English these days and lots of them speak it pretty well (although levels vary greatly as is evident in this thread). Language skills are hardly criticized in forums. Could it have to do with that fact that so many people think they are just as good as the native speakers of English? Or is it because many don't agree/think that there is still a big difference between their arguably high proficiency level and that of a native speaker (and translator)?
[Edited at 2014-10-19 07:48 GMT]
| | | | | I agree with Lincoln, here. | Oct 19, 2014 |
Phil Hand wrote: Lincoln Hui wrote:
One who makes an error has not tried hard enough. There is no theory of human learning in which this makes sense. Not language learning, not music learning, not maths learning. People make mistakes. In fact, most psychologists suggest that we need to make mistakes in order to learn. We can all imagine learners who make no mistakes, we can all define what they would be like, but in reality they don't seem to exist. Hence my extravagant claim: it's not an a priori claim about the nature of (non)nativeness; it's an empirical observation (and prediction, I guess). I didn't really want to raise or defend such an absolute claim, though. It was just a jab at the very false equivalence which I saw some people drawing where "non-native speakers make errors in writing" = "native speakers make errors in writing"
Any person can learn anything at any age, unless they do not have talent in that field--completely (for music or languages, in this case) or a disability, like a hearing impairment. But even then, they could be good writers--if they have talent of course.
As to idioms, for example, they are basically all cliches, especially if overused, at least most of them, so many people who do not like glitz, born in an English-speaking country or not, don't use them too often.
I can also assure you, that you would not want your texts translated by some people who use 'authentic, idiomatic speech' (it does not mean full of idioms, as some people may wrongly assume).
Plus, in some language pairs--it absolutely not an issue where the translator was born and if the learned the language, initially from a semi-Native speaker, and only later in an English speaking country, since there would not be too much competition from the so called, "100% natives'--really very little competition, if you are good, and bilingual, or trilingual--a few people in the world in my language pairs. I said once, that I could put Klingon as my native language, and I would still get hundreds of offers, when I send them my samples. The rates are the problem, not the competition.
[Edited at 2014-10-19 08:05 GMT]
| | | | | Páginas no tópico: < [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? | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
| | 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
