Rights: whose English is it anyway?

<If you're talking about being able to be very flexible in your grammar while still sounding "right" then the native speaker will almost always win. >

Conclusion: non-standard native speakers will always win over standard speakers. Non-standard speakers are very flexible in their use of grammar. Coded forms are less flexible.

<< The real revelation here is that there are many native spakers who also suck at speaking the language. Therefore, the term "reach native speaker competence" has no value. >>

Few native speakers produce foreign-sounding errors, and foreign errors are often grating, more so than native "errors". That doesn't sound like a very nice thing to say, but it's true... of course, I'm fully aware this applies when I try to write or speak Spanish. It's just a part of learning a language.

- Kef

We are talking about the term "native speaker competence", Kef. What do you think that term means and who does it apply to?

That doesn't interest me at the moment. I was only pointing out that foreign speakers making mistakes is rarely the same thing as native speakers making mistakes.

- Kef

<<<<The real revelation here is that there are many native spakers who also suck at speaking the language. Therefore, the term "reach native speaker competence" has no value.>>

This is absolutely 100% *NOT TRUE*!!!. Native speakers, provided that they are a) adults, b) not brain-damaged, have full competence in their language. A non-native speaker may equal this, but not surpass it, because that isn't possible. Language proficiency is the capacity to speak the language; the language is spoken by native speakers; ergo, no one can speak 'better' than native speakers. >>

Josh, I am a native English speaker, and I agree that there are native speakers who cannot speak English correctly. If I am correct to assume, I believe you are from Canada? Well, I can understand why you may feel that this statement is false. HOWEVER, I live in the US, and I can tell you that I can drive ten miles down the road and hear grown adults, either black or white who *CANNOT* speak English correctly even if they were seriously trying.

Granted, it is not like this everywhere in the US, but I live in the South-Eastern US, and it is a true fact here. (One that I am not proud of for sure.)

The errors I hear often include pronunciation (loss of final -s and -z sounds), and grammar ("you is", "I is", etc.) and I have even seen people fired at my job because they simply couldn't speak English right.

Guest,

<<Josh, I am a native English speaker, and I agree that there are native speakers who cannot speak English correctly. If I am correct to assume, I believe you are from Canada? Well, I can understand why you may feel that this statement is false. HOWEVER, I live in the US, and I can tell you that I can drive ten miles down the road and hear grown adults, either black or white who *CANNOT* speak English correctly even if they were seriously trying.

Granted, it is not like this everywhere in the US, but I live in the South-Eastern US, and it is a true fact here. (One that I am not proud of for sure.)

The errors I hear often include pronunciation (loss of final -s and -z sounds), and grammar ("you is", "I is", etc.) and I have even seen people fired at my job because they simply couldn't speak English right.>>

Again, you are equivocating. You are talking about who properly uses the prescriptivist grammar and pronunciation, but we are talking about who speaks in a way that feels "right" in their own dialect. In the southeast, they have a dialect they speak, it sounds "right" to them and probably to other native speakers; it may not fit the prescriptivist grammar, but it sounds "right." Do you see the important distinction that you have to make in this?

<<Again, you are equivocating. You are talking about who properly uses the prescriptivist grammar and pronunciation, but we are talking about who speaks in a way that feels "right" in their own dialect. In the southeast, they have a dialect they speak, it sounds "right" to them and probably to other native speakers; it may not fit the prescriptivist grammar, but it sounds "right." Do you see the important distinction that you have to make in this? >>

No. You are incorrect. I am also from the South-East US, and I do not speak like they do. We're not talking dialect here, it is uneducated slang they are using. Otherwise, anytime someone makes a mistake is it justified as a new variety? Absurd!

You don't know what you are talking about.

Guest,

<<
No. You are incorrect. I am also from the South-East US, and I do not speak like they do. We're not talking dialect here, it is uneducated slang they are using. Otherwise, anytime someone makes a mistake is it justified as a new variety? Absurd!

You don't know what you are talking about.>>

How is it a _mistake_? (_Mistake_ implies attempting to speak the proper, prescriptivist way but failing, but remember the _attempt_ is there. There is no attempt, as far as I know, among the population of which you speak to use the proper, prescriptivist way.) That is the way they speak. It sounds _right_ to them and among them. In general, a foreigner who doesn't speak like they do would have a very difficult time coming in and fitting into the pattern of the way they speak. It is a product of receiving a lot of input from their way of talking then making every effort to imitate, in order to fit in to that group.

Every time this sort of discussion comes up, I ask to define "correct English", and I never seem to get a definition...

Furrykef, what exactly is there to define? There is a correct way to speak the language. Perhaps you should open a goddamn book if you want to know the intricacies of the language as opposed to asking people to explain what "correct English" is.

Geez!

<<You have only to ask yourself one question to realize the illogicality of this position: where does 'correct English' come from? The answer can only be that it comes from the native usage of prestige speakers (unless you claim some sort of divine intervention that gave us correct English). But the usage of prestige speakers changes, just as all other varieties change; so does the identity of the prestige group. Shakespeare clearly spoke a very different form of English than anyone does today, but what he spoke was 'correct' wasn't it? So how is it that what was correct then is incorrect now, and what is correct now would have been incorrect then?>>

If we were in the times of Early Modern English we'd be expected to speak like how it was defined back then. I'm not denying that language changes. I'm denying that you can cover your ass by using Shakespeare's English as an excuse NOT to speak the correct way. Unless you want to dispute that somebody saying "Me like truck red" is NOT incorrect but instead just another way of expressing oneself because there IS no correct English, I don't see how you can use language evolution as an excuse as to not learn the language properly.

Exactly. Who determines "correctness", and what makes their idea of it "correct"? Telling me to "open a goddamn book" does not answer the question; it sidesteps it. Well, I'm not going to answer until you answer that question.

- Kef

Anon,

I think another way to look at it is like so:

There are many dialects of English, and they each have their own internal systems of rules. Yet, when they speak they sound perfectly naturally, even if what they speak doesn't match the standard language.

I think you and Guest misunderstand what we are talking about and we are getting confused over semantics. You see, there are two meanings, at least, of "correct grammar." Here they are:

1) The proper, formal way of speaking/writing that carries with it prestige and a sense of having education.

2) What would sound natural to native speakers.

To continue hitting us with definition 1, while we are discussing something related to definition 2, is simply a wasted effort and doesn't help us learn anything. I think way too many people confuse the 2 definitions and it results in confusion on both sides.

This, btw, is what is meant by equivocation. Where you take advantage of a word that has more than one meaning, by using a certain definition for a word at one point and "sneaking in" another definition at another point. Observe:

Margarine is better than nothing
Nothing is better than butter
Therefore margarine is better than butter

The above is a practice of the fallacy of equivocation. Here is another example:

A Jackass is a male member of the species Equus asinus
All Jackasses have long ears
Karl is a jackass
Therefore, Karl has long ears

Please realize that, at least for me, I am discussing definition 2. Attempting to rebut my arguments with use of definition 1 will get you nowhere ultimately, except perhaps to a flame war (though I am not a flame warrior).

<where does 'correct English' come from? The answer can only be that it comes from the native usage of prestige speakers (unless you claim some sort of divine intervention that gave us correct English).>

Not true. If you get things wrong in my, non-prestige, dialect, you'll be told that you've got it wrong, that your usage is incorrect.

<1) The proper, formal way of speaking/writing that carries with it prestige and *a sense of having education*.>

a sense of having been educated up to sixteen years old