|
|
The Assumption, By Very Good Non Native English Speakers
"ESB Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:37 am GMT
I could write a lot on this topic, but I'll try to keep it brief.
Basically, the answer is NO, an emphatic no. Although English is an international language, it has surprisingly many nuances that elude a lot of people who are not native speakers. I urge you to read something like the New York Times and ask yourself if you can achieve the same level of clarity, flow, and usage, before you can claim to be an expert who can compete with native-born speakers of English.
The other facet is the accent. Many people here will disagree, but if you want to be respected and accepted, your accent needs to be native (American or British). Very hard to achieve for most foreign-born people. Very often, what masquerades as their arrogance ("I can compete with native speakers") is actually self-loathing. Just my humble opinion, and observation. "
I can't believe it! So arrogant! Like us "non-native" want to compete with you"anglo-american".
Try to learn foreigh languages and stop be monolingual! I can speak French, Spanish, English, Italian, I understand German and Dutch (I need to progress) and I began to learn korean ...and frankly I don't feel inferior to "native-born speakers of English" .
>>Basically, the answer is NO, an emphatic no. Although English is an international language, it has surprisingly many nuances that elude a lot of people who are not native speakers. [...]
The other facet is the accent. Many people here will disagree, but if you want to be respected and accepted, your accent needs to be native (American or British). Very hard to achieve for most foreign-born people. Very often, what masquerades as their arrogance ("I can compete with native speakers") is actually self-loathing. Just my humble opinion, and observation. <<
Descriptivists often say you don't have to speak like Americans/Brits, etc. They say you only need a good accent of your own, not an artificial one based on a native accent (very often, the "standard" of USA/Britain). But I find this rather empty.
The problem is: how do we define English as an international English? How much should we be respecting non-native accents? Strictly speaking, French and Spanish are also true international languages. The same can be true for Russian and German. Even with all that prescriptivist talks about the importance of NOT considering non-native accents worthless (or disparaging it, or looking down on it, etc), the truth remains that
1) a clear accent based on a native accent makes you express yourself much easier, at least you don't end up getting misunderstood by non-natives
2) a (clear) native accent is even more preferable. The American accent is the best example, since it's the most spoken and popular accent worldwide.
What's more, when you get to know the most advanced parts of the English language, namely idiomatic usage you can find on every page of every English dictionary,... you must remember that, despite being international, English IS a national language with its own culture and belongs to only a few countries there are, mainly defined by the Anglo-American traditions. Even Australian accents and usage, etc, are somewhat the minority in this language. Accents and usage outside Anglophone countries aren't even what you should be learning.
And as for the nuances, it also shows just how idiomatic and national English is, just as how idiomatic and national my mother tongue is. English isn't like Esperanto which is supposed to be easy for international communication. When you do get to know nuances, and when you should be learning nuances in conversations... it ISN'T international any more. So, in reality, there are two kinds of English
1) English that you use as a ________ (insert nationality here) when you talk to other non-Anglophones
2) English that you use with Anglophones
Most people only know a very compromised version of 1). Most people won't even learn 2). But for example, to learn a national language probably and master it ultimately, you have to master 2), not 1). In reality, I can guess that, whenever an Anglophone gets involved with non-natives, s/he does have to compromise his/her own English too. S/he doesn't need to change his/her accent, but to simplify his/her English, or else it just won't work out.
Personally, I find 1) too simple to claim proficiency in English.
The logic above should be easy to follow.
1) I speak Mandarin to Mandarin speakers to practice Mandarin, not other Chinese, and not even foreign learners.
2) I speak German to German speakers (most are also of German nationality) to practice German, not foreign learners.
3) I speak English to English speakers (American, British, Australian, etc) to practice English, NOT foreign learners.
4) If I do ever learn Esperanto, then I speak Esperanto to every learner (anyone, literally) to practice Esperanto, NOT non-learners.
1) may be taken very easily because almost all Mandarin speakers are also ethnic Chinese. I'm not a native speaker, but if you do want to practice Mandarin, I'm also a safe choice. I can at least speak a lot of small talks with a decent accent, and I share the same "native" script with every Chinese speaker. The ratio of Mandarin speakers and learners is VERY low, so you almost always use Mandarin with native speakers.
2) is less national than Chinese, but the chance of using it with non-natives is also pretty slim. The ratio for German is much higher, but again you might not use it at all with non-natives.
3) is different because you meet non-natives far more than natives, the exact source of troubles about accents. Just like how you will NOT learn foreign accents of Mandarin/German, etc, the average Joe hopes to learn a native accent, not acquire a non-native one from some others.
But 4) has no such problems because every accent close to its alphabet is already acceptable and "native"-like. But in reality, you know, who actually learns Esperanto after all? Very few. In that case, you can regard Esperanto as yet another "national" language.
|