| Pages in topic: < [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? Thread poster: Bernhard Sulzer
|
|---|
Ty Kendall 
United Kingdom
Local time: 03:02
Hebrew to English
| My thoughts exactly | Oct 18, 2014 |
LilianNekipelov wrote:
not the best language proficiency in the world
I was just thinking the exact same thing! Spooky!
| | | | Peter Zhuang
Germany
Local time: 04:02
German to English
+ ...
| Practice and dedication | Oct 18, 2014 |
Phil Hand wrote:
Want the proof? Pick a blog, any blog.
While I do not dispute the existence of the advantages that a native speaker has (by virtue of their head start on non-natives), it is still my personal opinion that writing is a skill that can be learnt. Just as people enrol into elocution schools to acquire posh accents, writing skills can be honed through practice and education. I would ascribe erroneous usages to a lack of experience and knowledge (and maybe idiosyncrasies?), more so than to a personal attribute (like nativeness). That is, no one is born a good writer, but it takes a certain level of dedication to become one.
To answer your question, I found this dubious sentence structure on a blog dedicated to the English language (written by whom I presume to be a native speaker). I modified some of the nouns in the sentence so that the blog is not so easily identified (I can send you the link via PM though).
... because for chimpanzees every uneaten banana is a wasted opportunity.
The sentence sounds strange (to me) without a comma after the word "chimpanzees".
In my opinion, these are the exact people who can't write proficiently in any language... nearly there, but not quite and this is the reason why I haven't brought up my children bilingual.
I grew up bilingual with two very different languages. Then, I had a language in which I was stronger, but that is mostly because I didn't have any motivation to learn and perfect the weaker language (I was a only a child, didn't know better ).
In hindsight, I wish that someone had encouraged me to do better then. I had classmates that excelled at both languages. What I am saying is: don't underestimate the malleability of the mind.
| | | | | Further proof as if proof were needed | Oct 18, 2014 |
LilianNekipelov wrote: Cilian O'Tuama wrote:
Your attempts at English really are quite good.
Cilian
I am sorry, Cilian, but I don't really understand your individual way of phrasing things... It has nothing to do with your English being "native' or "non-native'. Just an individual thing. I am not sure if it is just something ironic or something completely rude and out of place, or perhaps something nice and funny, so I won't be able to comment at this time.
See, now I only know Cilian from forum postings, but, as a native English speaker, I can read between the lines of even the pithiest of remarks from another native English speaker. I know exactly what he means.
Not that this ability is necessarily confined to us natives. I wager Giovanni, for instance, knows exactly what Cilian is saying.
| | | | | I think it is a perfect clause. | Oct 18, 2014 |
Peter Zhuang wrote: Phil Hand wrote:
Want the proof? Pick a blog, any blog. While I do not dispute the existence of the advantages that a native speaker has (by virtue of their head start on non-natives), it is still my personal opinion that writing is a skill that can be learnt. Just as people enrol into elocution schools to acquire posh accents, writing skills can be honed through practice and education. I would ascribe erroneous usages to a lack of experience and knowledge (and maybe idiosyncrasies?), more so than to a personal attribute (like nativeness). That is, no one is born a good writer, but it takes a certain level of dedication to become one. To answer your question, I found this dubious sentence structure on a blog dedicated to the English language (written by whom I presume to be a native speaker). I modified some of the nouns in the sentence so that the blog is not so easily identified (I can send you the link via PM though). ... because for chimpanzees every uneaten banana is a wasted opportunity. The sentence sounds strange (to me) without a comma after the word "chimpanzees". In my opinion, these are the exact people who can't write proficiently in any language... nearly there, but not quite and this is the reason why I haven't brought up my children bilingual.
The chimpanzees ate all the bananas on the table, regardless of what they had been told, because for chimpanzees every uneaten banana is a wasted opportunity.
[Edited at 2014-10-18 15:44 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| I cannot--in any language. | Oct 18, 2014 |
Charlie Bavington wrote: LilianNekipelov wrote: Cilian O'Tuama wrote:
Your attempts at English really are quite good.
Cilian
I am sorry, Cilian, but I don't really understand your individual way of phrasing things... It has nothing to do with your English being "native' or "non-native'. Just an individual thing. I am not sure if it is just something ironic or something completely rude and out of place, or perhaps something nice and funny, so I won't be able to comment at this time. See, now I only know Cilian from forum postings, but, as a native English speaker, I can read between the lines of even the pithiest of remarks from another native English speaker. I know exactly what he means. Not that this ability is necessarily confined to us natives. I wager Giovanni, for instance, knows exactly what Cilian is saying.
I also did not want to assume that he was that rude--certain types of irony, I do not understand in any language. It must vary from person to person.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 03:02
Hebrew to English
| Put the shovel down... | Oct 18, 2014 |
LilianNekipelov wrote:
The chimpanzees ate all the bananas on the table, regardless of what they had been told, because for chimpanzees every uneaten banana is a wasted opportunity.
...and stop digging.
| | | | | |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
Not that this ability is necessarily confined to us natives. I wager Giovanni, for instance, knows exactly what Cilian is saying.
correct... 
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 10:02
Chinese to English
| No problem with that sentence | Oct 18, 2014 |
Peter Zhuang wrote:
To answer your question, I found this dubious sentence structure on a blog dedicated to the English language (written by whom I presume to be a native speaker). I modified some of the nouns in the sentence so that the blog is not so easily identified (I can send you the link via PM though).
... because for chimpanzees every uneaten banana is a wasted opportunity.
The sentence sounds strange (to me) without a comma after the word "chimpanzees".
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.
While I do not dispute the existence of the advantages that a native speaker has (by virtue of their head start on non-natives), it is still my personal opinion that writing is a skill that can be learnt. Just as people enrol into elocution schools to acquire posh accents, writing skills can be honed through practice and education. I would ascribe erroneous usages to a lack of experience and knowledge (and maybe idiosyncrasies?), more so than to a personal attribute (like nativeness). That is, no one is born a good writer, but it takes a certain level of dedication to become one.
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.
| | | | Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 03:02
Member (2008)
Italian to English
| It wasn't me | Oct 18, 2014 |
Phil Hand wrote: My sweeping generalisations there are undoubtedly a bit dangerous. But I'll stack them up against the key generalisation made by you (and Lukasz) any day: I can all but forget about translating into anything else than my mother tongue because of the way the field is used in real life .
I didn't say that, nor would I ever have phrased anything in that way. I actually don't understand it.
| | | | Lincoln Hui
Hong Kong
Local time: 10:02
Member
Chinese to English
+ ...
| Dangerous waters | Oct 18, 2014 |
Phil Hand wrote:
Sorry, Ty & Lisa, this isn't going to help your argument at all, but...
I'm sick of pussyfooting around this issue so as not to hurt anyone's feelings, and for fear of being caught out by a single counterexample (Joseph bloody Conrad).
Having taken Samuel's little test earlier in this thread; and having read these forums for a good few years; I'm ready to stand up and say: non-native speakers always produce serious language errors sooner or later. Apologies to anyone on this thread who is offended by that; I can of course back it up with detailed examples, but not in public.
But yeah, enough of this super-cautious "most" and "many". It's not most and many. It's all non-native speakers of English, and I assume it holds for other languages. If you're not native, you can't guarantee normal use, and sooner or later you will produce a serious error. If you want an operationalisation, I'll make one up: in 2,000 words of spontaneous prose written by a non-native speaker, there will be at least one language error which compromises meaning; in 10,000 words of self-edited prose, there will be at least one language error which compromises meaning.
I might live to regret this...
-
Edit:
I really shouldn't have said "compromises meaning". I think a few commenters here might pass that test, actually. If you're feeling generous, then allow me to amend it to "error which a proofreader would have good reason to edit."
[Edited at 2014-10-18 12:18 GMT]
I thought this thread was supposed to be about defining native speakers, which is quite necessary for your assertions. In any case, if we hold that these forums are full of frauds and liars, then one could always contend that it is simply frauds who produce serious language errors sooner or later.
I was about to rant on your "compromises meaning", but your edit rendered it largely moot - and no, you really shouldn't have said it. Instead I offer this: in my experience with Japanese, if I'm not confident about something, I either look it up or simply avoid it. I hold that any learner of a language that has properly learned the form of negation are perfectly capable of producing correct output, though their range of expression will be limited.
I have never been professionally trained in Japanese writing, but if I were trained as such I believe that I can produce entirely correct Japanese. It will not be indistinguishable from that of a native speaker, of course, but all errors are the product of insufficient education or attention. Being a native speaker removes the bulk of this burden, not its entirety, while a non-native speaker has to work harder at it. There is no such thing as an unavoidable error.
Range of expression is another thing altogether, but right now I'm not pursuing the nativeness-proficiency argument. I simply state that the assertion that all non-native speakers will commit errors in a piece of moderate length is, like the assertion that any native speaker can identify another native speaker (or identify a non-native speaker), pure turd.
By the way, this practice of looking things up happens in all my languages. Certainly in Japanese far more frequently than in Chinese or English on a rate basis, but as an extension on your thread about dictionaries, there are always things in your own languages that you know but do not KNOW. The popular misuse of "begging the question" should give any writer pause before writing anything.
=====
I have an anecdote related to the BA/MA topic broached earlier.
While I was in college I had the dubious fortune of having to write a peer commentary on what was hands down the worst piece of English writing that I have ever witnessed. It was worse than anything that I wrote in primary school, thoroughly devoid of content, with terrible language flow, sentence writing reminiscient of a five year old, atrocious paragraph structure, and a thorough misreading of the source material that the essay was based on. And yes, errors.
It was so bad that I had to step away from my computer and take in the evening air for a while before returning to eviscerate the essay. The professor told me in my debriefing that there were "some weaknesses" in the essay that I commented on, which are the harshest words that you would (should) hear a professor say about a student's work to another student. This was an upper-level history course. The offender graduated with a BA in history and currently works in his native Pennsylvania.
Take from this story what you will. But certainly a bachelor's degree in the humanities from a major US university is no guarantee of good English writing skills...or elementary English writing skills...or elementary reading skills.
[Edited at 2014-10-18 16:59 GMT]
| | | | | In the US (at least in New York) you are not allowed to control people with regard to how they | Oct 18, 2014 |
should express themselves (communication is the only criterion)--this might be the reason. You are not even supposed to correct any grammatical mistakes that high school students often make--only if this is a test, or an essay related to the English language--not another field. This is why I think that most people in the United States use idiolects--their own versions of English.
Another thing, if a lawyer or a researcher is not expected to speak X language as "native' (in the sens... See more should express themselves (communication is the only criterion)--this might be the reason. You are not even supposed to correct any grammatical mistakes that high school students often make--only if this is a test, or an essay related to the English language--not another field. This is why I think that most people in the United States use idiolects--their own versions of English.
Another thing, if a lawyer or a researcher is not expected to speak X language as "native' (in the sense of first language only), why should a translator be? It is often embarrassing at various symposia when the interpreter uses a more sophisticated language than the scientists, or some lawyers. If a lawyer can be a lawyer speaking good but not perfect X language, and draft mediocre documents in it, why is the translator expected to write like a Supreme Court Justice?
Also, if you change someone's name to a more typical for the X language, everything will sound more 'native" right away, and many people will even be afraid to criticize any constructions, or mistakes--just in case it was something regional.
Change the name of a person born and raised in England to Katarzyna Kowalska or Pedro Rodriguez, and people will find hundreds of "non-native mistakes' in their forum (especially forum--casual) writing.
[Edited at 2014-10-18 17:47 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 10:02
Chinese to English
| Ideal behaviour versus human behaviour | Oct 18, 2014 |
Lincoln Hui wrote:
I hold that any learner of a language that has properly learned the form of negation are perfectly capable of producing correct output, though their range of expression will be limited.
I have never been professionally trained in Japanese writing, but if I were trained as such I believe that I can produce entirely correct Japanese. It will not be indistinguishable from that of a native speaker, of course, but all errors are the product of insufficient education or attention. Being a native speaker removes the bulk of this burden, not its entirety, while a non-native speaker has to work harder at it. There is no such thing as an unavoidable error.
Range of expression is another thing altogether, but right now I'm not pursuing the nativeness-proficiency argument. I simply state that the assertion that all non-native speakers will commit errors in a piece of moderate length is, like the assertion that any native speaker can identify another native speaker (or identify a non-native speaker), pure turd.
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.
When I was a kid, I often shared top marks in French with another boy. I sometimes looked at his compositions, and they were in accurate French, only cripplingly dull. I would rather have eaten my fist than write that maman est a la maison dreck. He looked at mine and snorted in derision because I made grammar errors; though he recognised that I was trying to write something.
So, yeah, anyone can write correctly to any length they please, so long as they are willing to prioritise correctness and forego communication. But communication is so fundamental to human life, that no-one actually does that. (My school friend excepted, but he was an English prep school boy. They're barely human.) I see your turd, and I raise you human nature.
No argument on the bad writing from college students.
The popular misuse of "begging the question" should give any writer pause before writing anything.
Have you been reading the same blogs as me? This came up on DailyNous just the other day.
@Tom - that was directed at Thomas Frost, not you!
[Edited at 2014-10-18 17:46 GMT]
| | | | Phil Hand
China
Local time: 10:02
Chinese to English
| Fallibility of the native speaker | Oct 18, 2014 |
I'm now taking a moment to reflect on how ill-advised the phrase "I see your turd" is. I thought it was clever at the time.
| | | | Andy Watkinson
Spain
Local time: 04:02
Member
Catalan to English
+ ...
| The importance of being........ | Oct 18, 2014 |
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.
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [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? | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
