In many websites dealing with English learning difficulties, you can encounter phrases like "Native English speakers say it this way and not that way", "Native English speakers only". They are always cited as benchmark, as a maximum you can hope for. What do you think? Is it something right?
Native Engilsh Speakers
When I began to learn English I knew I will NEVER be a perfect English speaker like a Native speaker.
In addtion to this I always believed one is never fully fluent in a language (including me with my Native German) as languages are always developing new words, adopting new words,etc. I may have German as my first language but from day to day I still pick up new words.
A nice example of what I am trying to explain is a Rocket scientist explaining (in English) his work to a normal person (who is a native English speaker) who have no idea about Rockets. Do you think this person have fully understood what the Rocket scientist said?
I wished I could explain it better but due to the lack of English I speak. I hope someone here could explain it better than me.
In addtion to this I always believed one is never fully fluent in a language (including me with my Native German) as languages are always developing new words, adopting new words,etc. I may have German as my first language but from day to day I still pick up new words.
A nice example of what I am trying to explain is a Rocket scientist explaining (in English) his work to a normal person (who is a native English speaker) who have no idea about Rockets. Do you think this person have fully understood what the Rocket scientist said?
I wished I could explain it better but due to the lack of English I speak. I hope someone here could explain it better than me.
Thank you Hans for your time,
I don't believe there is a "perfect English speaker". "Native English Speaker" is a fictive notion intended to protect the language and exclude the non-native. None can reject the fact that a scientist (even a non-native) could practice better English than a normal person (even a native).
I don't believe there is a "perfect English speaker". "Native English Speaker" is a fictive notion intended to protect the language and exclude the non-native. None can reject the fact that a scientist (even a non-native) could practice better English than a normal person (even a native).
In addtion to this I always believed one is never fully fluent in a language (including me with my Native German) as languages are always developing new words, adopting new words,etc. I may have German as my first language but from day to day I still pick up new words. "
Hans,
I agree with you, but Americans are the only ones who believe that they are fluent in their native language.
The rest of the World admited that the opozite is true.
Hans,
I agree with you, but Americans are the only ones who believe that they are fluent in their native language.
The rest of the World admited that the opozite is true.
averoestone, On question though is what do you mean here by "better"? If you mean that someone speaks more "correctly" formally, that is the exact *problem* here, as just because one is fluent in the formal language, written and spoken, does not mean that one is fluent in whatever the local dialect of the informal language may happen to be, and if one is so intent on speaking "correctly", that probably means that one is effectively disregarding if not avoiding the actual everyday spoken language. Also, if one has been taught primarily just "correct" English, that also means that one probably was *not* taught the actual everyday English in whatever chosen dialect one is teaching, including all the nuances of it with respect to cliticization and like which are most likely to be ignored if not looked down on by grammarians and their like. The matter is that actual spoken language is not that which is taught "correctly", but rather just that which happens to be spoken natively, within whatever group of dialects one is looking at, and hence of course a native speaker will have a strong advantage over a non-native learner, even an extremely proficient one, who will likely have to pick up how said dialect(s) are *actually* spoken on their own, with regards to such.
Fluency is a difficult concept. I believe the actual definition of "fluent" doesn't even imply complete knowledge in the language, but merely an ability to use and understand it rapidly and effortlessly. In that sense, I think any of us could become fluent in any language given the opportunity to practice enough, even if we couldn't discuss any topic in that language.
However, complete understanding is almost certainly never possible. I have spoken with some people who have amazing English and I would never have guessed they were foreign if not for a slight accent. But there will always be gaps. It's simply impossible to substitute education for the intense exposure we've had for our entire lives (including our most impressionable years) to our native language. I will continue to struggle to understand a German every time a strange, new, or colloquial expression appears, but in English, it's very difficult to confuse me.
This is why I have a love-hate relationship with languages. I find them fascinating and I love learning and studying them. But I know I will never, ever be perfect. Even if I finally get to the point that I can flawlessly, fluently communicate with a German at any time on any topic, I would quickly lose that ability if I stayed away from Germany for six months. It's a constant struggle to gain and maintain knowledge and speed.
That being said, I think that "native English speakers" are the best benchmark (and not just because I am one!). What difference does it make how great or "perfect" your English is if a native either doesn't understand you or is put off by what you're saying? I know it's a more difficult issue with English, because it's quickly becoming a "world language" and being yanked out of our hands. But the point remains that you should want to speak it in a standard way so that everything "sounds right" to everyone else who speaks it. Of course, it really isn't such a big deal when two non-natives are using it.
I guess it's mostly a matter of appearance. When I speak German to a native, I don't want him to think less of me or look down on me because my speech is flawed. I want to build my sentences the way a German would, even if I am forcing them out through an American accent. The same with French or Russian or any other language I might end up studying. I know I'll never be perfect at it, and so I never expect others to speak perfect English to me. But I'm more understanding than most :)
However, complete understanding is almost certainly never possible. I have spoken with some people who have amazing English and I would never have guessed they were foreign if not for a slight accent. But there will always be gaps. It's simply impossible to substitute education for the intense exposure we've had for our entire lives (including our most impressionable years) to our native language. I will continue to struggle to understand a German every time a strange, new, or colloquial expression appears, but in English, it's very difficult to confuse me.
This is why I have a love-hate relationship with languages. I find them fascinating and I love learning and studying them. But I know I will never, ever be perfect. Even if I finally get to the point that I can flawlessly, fluently communicate with a German at any time on any topic, I would quickly lose that ability if I stayed away from Germany for six months. It's a constant struggle to gain and maintain knowledge and speed.
That being said, I think that "native English speakers" are the best benchmark (and not just because I am one!). What difference does it make how great or "perfect" your English is if a native either doesn't understand you or is put off by what you're saying? I know it's a more difficult issue with English, because it's quickly becoming a "world language" and being yanked out of our hands. But the point remains that you should want to speak it in a standard way so that everything "sounds right" to everyone else who speaks it. Of course, it really isn't such a big deal when two non-natives are using it.
I guess it's mostly a matter of appearance. When I speak German to a native, I don't want him to think less of me or look down on me because my speech is flawed. I want to build my sentences the way a German would, even if I am forcing them out through an American accent. The same with French or Russian or any other language I might end up studying. I know I'll never be perfect at it, and so I never expect others to speak perfect English to me. But I'm more understanding than most :)
<<When I began to learn English I knew I will NEVER be a perfect English speaker like a Native speaker.
In addtion to this I always believed one is never fully fluent in a language (including me with my Native German) as languages are always developing new words, adopting new words,etc. I may have German as my first language but from day to day I still pick up new words.>>
As a linguist, I would disagree with that narrow of a definition of "fluency." While "fluency" can be a nebulous concept in general, I think it's safe to say a native speaker of a language (so, their dominant language) is fluent!
<<A nice example of what I am trying to explain is a Rocket scientist explaining (in English) his work to a normal person (who is a native English speaker) who have no idea about Rockets. Do you think this person have fully understood what the Rocket scientist said?>>
That just has to do with technical jargon and is not the best example at all. That same rocket scientist who goes to the store and orders fruit will be understood perfectly well by other native speakers. I can talk someone's ear off with highly technical linguistics jargon and they may not understand me, but in a normal everyday context I'm understood perfectly well by other native speakers :)
<<Thank you Hans for your time,
I don't believe there is a "perfect English speaker". "Native English Speaker" is a fictive notion intended to protect the language and exclude the non-native. None can reject the fact that a scientist (even a non-native) could practice better English than a normal person (even a native).>>
I don't think it's a fictional notion at all, and linguistic fact doesn't back up your statement. Native speakers are fluent in their respective languages (whether it be English or Korean or Tagalog). This has nothing to do with anyone "protecting" English. Also, I agree nonnatives can often have excellent capacity in their nonnatve acquired language, but to say they're "better" than any native speaker is clearly against basic linguistic fact.
<<I agree with you, but Americans are the only ones who believe that they are fluent in their native language.
The rest of the World admited that the opozite is true.>>
That makes no sense. I think most native speakers of their own language naturally assume (correctly) that they're fluent in it. Even if you have such a narrow definition of "fluent" (one I don't espouse...I believe many nonnative speakers of any language can acquire fluency in their nonnative languages), you can't claim that no one would ever be fluent in their native language--then what would be the point of the entire concept of fluency in the first place?
In addtion to this I always believed one is never fully fluent in a language (including me with my Native German) as languages are always developing new words, adopting new words,etc. I may have German as my first language but from day to day I still pick up new words.>>
As a linguist, I would disagree with that narrow of a definition of "fluency." While "fluency" can be a nebulous concept in general, I think it's safe to say a native speaker of a language (so, their dominant language) is fluent!
<<A nice example of what I am trying to explain is a Rocket scientist explaining (in English) his work to a normal person (who is a native English speaker) who have no idea about Rockets. Do you think this person have fully understood what the Rocket scientist said?>>
That just has to do with technical jargon and is not the best example at all. That same rocket scientist who goes to the store and orders fruit will be understood perfectly well by other native speakers. I can talk someone's ear off with highly technical linguistics jargon and they may not understand me, but in a normal everyday context I'm understood perfectly well by other native speakers :)
<<Thank you Hans for your time,
I don't believe there is a "perfect English speaker". "Native English Speaker" is a fictive notion intended to protect the language and exclude the non-native. None can reject the fact that a scientist (even a non-native) could practice better English than a normal person (even a native).>>
I don't think it's a fictional notion at all, and linguistic fact doesn't back up your statement. Native speakers are fluent in their respective languages (whether it be English or Korean or Tagalog). This has nothing to do with anyone "protecting" English. Also, I agree nonnatives can often have excellent capacity in their nonnatve acquired language, but to say they're "better" than any native speaker is clearly against basic linguistic fact.
<<I agree with you, but Americans are the only ones who believe that they are fluent in their native language.
The rest of the World admited that the opozite is true.>>
That makes no sense. I think most native speakers of their own language naturally assume (correctly) that they're fluent in it. Even if you have such a narrow definition of "fluent" (one I don't espouse...I believe many nonnative speakers of any language can acquire fluency in their nonnative languages), you can't claim that no one would ever be fluent in their native language--then what would be the point of the entire concept of fluency in the first place?
Kirk thankyou for your interesting message.
<As a linguist, I would disagree with that narrow of a definition of "fluency." >
Yes Kirk I understand your point of view. But remember my message is from a Non Native English speaker point of view. I know the English language have words with many meanings - which is true.
I am trying to say that we (people trying to learn English) are not taught to 'think outside of the square' thus the reason we Non natives tend to have a narrow mind of a definition on a word.
Kirk I hope you can understand what I'm trying say. I would like to say sorry for my lack of English.
<As a linguist, I would disagree with that narrow of a definition of "fluency." >
Yes Kirk I understand your point of view. But remember my message is from a Non Native English speaker point of view. I know the English language have words with many meanings - which is true.
I am trying to say that we (people trying to learn English) are not taught to 'think outside of the square' thus the reason we Non natives tend to have a narrow mind of a definition on a word.
Kirk I hope you can understand what I'm trying say. I would like to say sorry for my lack of English.
Fluency is a difficult concept to define. I'd say it has to do with being able to be understood by other users of that language when speaking. One can be fluent with even a limited vocabulary (which you'll notice of many "native speakers" when you watch the Jerry Springer Show). As long as you are understood with little difficulty, you have fluency in that language.
Kirk on another note can you explain the word 'jargon'? I do not understand the word.
<<Kirk on another note can you explain the word 'jargon'? I do not understand the word.>>
Sure. "Jargon" refers to specific, highly technical words that aren't familiar to people outside of a small, usually a specialized knowledge-base group. For instance, when rocket scientists get together and start talking about the details of their trade and their expertise, they'll surely use a lot of technical words I'm not familiar with. An example of a sentence with linguistic (specifically phonological) jargon could be: "I use a mid-centralized monophthongal /o/, which is roughly cardinal 7 but with little lip-rounding in closed-syllable morae except for before the phonological environment in which a velarized alveolar lateral approximant follows, in which case the sound anticipates the oncoming velar articulation by backing and in the process experiences higher degrees of lip-rounding as compared to the underlying phonemic /o/ in most other phonological environments." (that, by the way, is true for my speech).
I hope you didn't think I was trying to show off, but that's really the only area where I know enough to be confident of my technical jargon, and I still have a lot more to learn even as that goes :)
Anyway, about fluency, all I was trying to say was that you can be confident in declaring yourself as a fluent speaker of German. Just because you still learn new words from time to time (which all of us do in our respective languages...that process never completely stops) doesn't mean you're not fluent. Anyway, your English is good--I understand it just fine, so don't beat yourself up too much over your English abilities :)
Personally, I would define fluency similarly to how Ryan did. I definitely know a lot of nonnative English speakers who do have noticeable accents and for whom it's clearly not their dominant or native language, yet they function well in English, are able to make themselves understood in most situations, and are able to understand what people say to them for all practical purposes. I would define those people as fluent in English, even if they still make mistakes sometimes. Similarly, I would define myself as fluent in Spanish because I can understand almost anything and am able to express myself in almost any situation while speaking Spanish. Altho I will never speak just like a native speaker, that doesn't stop me from expressing myself, communicating and understanding just fine.
Sure. "Jargon" refers to specific, highly technical words that aren't familiar to people outside of a small, usually a specialized knowledge-base group. For instance, when rocket scientists get together and start talking about the details of their trade and their expertise, they'll surely use a lot of technical words I'm not familiar with. An example of a sentence with linguistic (specifically phonological) jargon could be: "I use a mid-centralized monophthongal /o/, which is roughly cardinal 7 but with little lip-rounding in closed-syllable morae except for before the phonological environment in which a velarized alveolar lateral approximant follows, in which case the sound anticipates the oncoming velar articulation by backing and in the process experiences higher degrees of lip-rounding as compared to the underlying phonemic /o/ in most other phonological environments." (that, by the way, is true for my speech).
I hope you didn't think I was trying to show off, but that's really the only area where I know enough to be confident of my technical jargon, and I still have a lot more to learn even as that goes :)
Anyway, about fluency, all I was trying to say was that you can be confident in declaring yourself as a fluent speaker of German. Just because you still learn new words from time to time (which all of us do in our respective languages...that process never completely stops) doesn't mean you're not fluent. Anyway, your English is good--I understand it just fine, so don't beat yourself up too much over your English abilities :)
Personally, I would define fluency similarly to how Ryan did. I definitely know a lot of nonnative English speakers who do have noticeable accents and for whom it's clearly not their dominant or native language, yet they function well in English, are able to make themselves understood in most situations, and are able to understand what people say to them for all practical purposes. I would define those people as fluent in English, even if they still make mistakes sometimes. Similarly, I would define myself as fluent in Spanish because I can understand almost anything and am able to express myself in almost any situation while speaking Spanish. Altho I will never speak just like a native speaker, that doesn't stop me from expressing myself, communicating and understanding just fine.