legitimizing

<Correct. Did you have to be taught the rules of your native language? >

My native language is divided into dialect and the Standard form. Isn't yours?

The latter of those was broken down, taught and tested at school. I never make mistakes in my dialect, but I do in the Standard form. Don't you?

"So, when at school, native speakers are not taught rules and how to apply them, right?"

Of course they're taught "rules" in school - if they go to school.

But "rules" taught in school are entirely extrinsic in nature. They range from reaffirming many of the "requirements" the speaker already possesses* to dictating relatively arbitrary social standards for the language (e.g. "don't use double negatives," "don't say 'ain't" and "it is I").

The fact remains that an illiterate Amazonian tribesman, without a scrap of formal "grammar rules" instruction, will be completely fluent in his own language regardless.

* Essentially confirming that, for example, although the native speaker might not know what a verb is, he or she is still capable of using one.

<The fact remains that an illiterate Amazonian tribesman, without a scrap of formal "grammar rules" instruction, will be completely fluent in his own language regardless. >

If his language has variants, as English does, he's bound to make a mistake in one of them at some time.

Where do you think such advice, directed at native speakers, comes from?

"Affect vs. Effect. Affect is a verb that means to influence. Effect is a noun that means a result. If you affect something, you can cause an effect. "

It comes from native speakers confusing the two words in endless texts and conversations over centuries.

Native speaker e-mail example:

"Dear Teacher,

At Pearson Longman we really value the feedback we get from teachers. We would really like to hear your views on what are the most important factors that you think about when choosing to adopt a coursebook. We would be greatful if you could take 5 minutes to complete our online Course Adoption Survey....."

See any errors?

Any errors here?

"Yesterday I saw a pair of shoes on a girl that I loved and hadn't seen in shops."

It's a nonsense to say that natives don't make errors. A nonsense!

Of course they make mistakes or use non-standard forms but they are NOT called errors.

Non-standard forms used by native speakers of a particular dialect are not considered to be errors, not even mistakes. It happens that a speaker of a regional dialect makes grammatical mistakes when trying to speak "Standard English", which is obviously not his/her native dialect. But if you speak in your original "non-standard" regional dialect, the use of forms such as "ain't" or double negatives etc. are NOT regarded as errors (if they are part of your dialect). At least they shouldn't be...

My above two messages are a reply to M56, who wrote:

<<It's a nonsense to say that natives don't make errors. A nonsense!>>

"If his language has variants, as English does, he's bound to make a mistake in one of them at some time."

So? I don't recall ever suggesting native speakers didn't make mistakes. Still, terms such as "error" or "mistake" are pretty ambiguous. What kind of error? What kind of mistake?

The two examples that M56 provided are:

1. a spelling mistake ("greatful") - not exactly a "language" mistake since spelling is a purely written artifice. You can't spell a word wrong when you say it. And given our eccentric spelling system in English, I'm always surprised there aren't far more mistakes (I'm also surprised at how many people don't spell-check - even though they happily use a PC).

2. a syntactical mistake ("I saw a pair of shoes on a girl that I loved and hadn't seen in shops") - quite common actually, particularly in extemporaneous speech because a speaker is quite literally "making it up as he goes along."

And your example ("affect" vs "effect") is a vocabulary mistake - again quite common.

None of these invalidates the essential fluency of a native speaker.

<Of course they make mistakes or use non-standard forms but they are NOT called errors. >

Nonsense of semantics.

We are not only speaking about dialect speakers, are we, Liz? Tell me that when a Standard English user makes mistakes, are they called errors?

<Still, terms such as "error" or "mistake" are pretty ambiguous. >

And for some, mean the same.

<1. a spelling mistake ("greatful") - not exactly a "language" mistake since spelling is a purely written artifice.>

Hey, wake up! It's a written-language mistake/error.

<You can't spell a word wrong when you say it. >

And speaking is only one part of English use which one has to become proficient in.

<I'm always surprised there aren't far more mistakes >

Is "far more" an error?

<None of these invalidates the essential fluency of a native speaker>

Indeed not, but we are taling about errors and not fluency in general.

"It's a nonsense to say that natives don't make errors. A nonsense!"

I thought you were a native speaker, M56. I guess not, because a native speaker would never say "a nonsense".

<I thought you were a native speaker, M56. I guess not, because a native speaker would never say "a nonsense". >

If he did, would he be commiting an error of usage?