How do you define native English speaker?

[seasurfer]

Do Cantonese have a writting system? I don't think so.

Yes, Cantonese does have a writting system. You may go to Hong Kong can get yourself some Hong Kong magazines, some of them are written in Cantonese. You may attempt to use Mandarin to read those megazine, but you will find a lot of words unintelligible.

In fact, some other dialects such as Hokkien does have writting system as well, but it is incomplete.

We can read book in dialect. In fact, magistrates usually use dialect on a conference or when they make a speech.

Yes, you can read book in certain dialects, but not all. Those people use dialect because that particular dialect is more widely spoken in that region, however, when it comes to writting, Mandarin is still use.

 

[seasurfer]

In your example, if the Japanese-American parents' English carried a heavy accent initially, it may hurt the child's English pronunciation especially in the early years. As time goes by, the child would mingle with the neighbors and eventually overcome much of his/her inherited accent, so to speak. Then in the long run, more damaging for the child's language development seems to be the psychological damage rather than pronunciation. A sense of insecurity or inferiority, if that was indeed the parent's attitude regarding native speakers' English, might be copied by the child although it wasn't necessary.

I've also met several individuals from Korean-American parents. One person's parents were speaking English only in the house, but they were perfectly acculturated, and had no trouble being fully functional in the American environment although they retained some accent. The children spoke no Korean, and they excelled in school without any problem. But that would be an exceptional case of having super parents. In another case, the parents took the other route and spoke only Korean in the house. The child grew up without any problem in either Korean or English, and even majored in English and excelled in it.

Going back to Bossel's example, I must correct my statement "true bilingual" to "at least truely bilingual," because I don't know what country the child will grow up in. If in an English speaking environment, the child will definitely grow up to become a "true trilingual" as you have pointed out. Thanks, I'm having a hard time keeping up with these language configurations!

In summary, the child will have two first languages from the mother and the father; a true native speaker of Cantonese and German.

Furthermore, (let's suppose in Japan) the child will gain Japanese from its neigborhood playmates and in school, and acquire Japanese upto a native speaker's proficiency although by definition, Japanese is not the native language of the child. The child will become a true trilingual. :relief:

In my opinion, as long as a person is able to command the language just like the native speaker, he is considered proficient in that language, whether or not it is his mother tongue or his first language.

Going back to your example, why not? This child will be a true trilingual. There are already many cases, especially in country like Malaysia, where people simply have to learn multilanguages since the day they are born to survive. You won't be surprised to see a Malaysian able to command in English, Mandarin, Cantonese, Malay etc..

 

[lexico]

In my opinion, as long as a person is able to command the language just like the native speaker, he is considered proficient in that language, whether or not it is his mother tongue or his first language.

Yes, I understand what you mean. For some odd (esoteric) reasons, linguists seem to make a distinction between competence, nativeness, and proficiency. I would guess the purpose would be for logical clarity in dealing with complicated language situations involving both individuals, speaker groups, and language policies all in interaction. To be able to distinquish these elements gives one the theoretical tool to go deeper into the reaserch of language phenomenon.

Yet for all practical purposes, the universal and innate language competence would not be a problem (unless in a pathological case), and the distinction between first language and language proficiency could disappear in many cases. (Of course we could find odd examples, but let's keep it simple for now?)

Going back to your example, why not? This child will be a true trilingual. There are already many cases, especially in country like Malaysia, where people simply have to learn multilanguages since the day they are born to survive. You won't be surprised to see a Malaysian able to command in English, Mandarin, Cantonese, Malay etc..

This also seems to be a controversial issue as I mentioned earlier because there is still strong arguments against true bi/multilingualism. Linguists of that school strongly deny that any person can be multilingual, arguing that a person will always have one dominant language no matter what. I do not have the details of their reasoning, yet feel compelled to be cautious. Hence comes my qualification, or hesitation if you will.

But yes, if there are Malaysians who are fully proficient in all four languages without any shortcomings, this very fact could be strong eveidence for the existence of true multilinguals. Full proficiency would involve communication ability at all levels of social and individual activity. That this is rarely the case seems to be one of the arguments against it.

 

[seasurfer]

Yes, I understand what you mean. For some odd (esoteric) reasons, linguists seem to make a distinction between competence, nativeness, and proficiency. I would guess the purpose would be for logical clarity in dealing with complicated language situations involving both individuals, speaker groups, and language policies all in interaction. To be able to distinquish these elements gives one the theoretical tool to go deeper into the reaserch of language phenomenon.

Yet for all practical purposes, the universal and innate language competence would not be a problem (unless in a pathological case), and the distinction between first language and language proficiency could disappear in many cases. (Of course we could find odd examples, but let's keep it simple for now?)
This also seems to be a controversial issue as I mentioned earlier because there is still strong arguments against true bi/multilingualism. Linguists of that school strongly deny that any person can be multilingual, arguing that a person will always have one dominant language no matter what. I do not have the details of their reasoning, yet feel compelled to be cautious. Hence comes my qualification, or hesitation if you will.

But yes, if there are Malaysians who are fully proficient in all four languages without any shortcomings, this very fact could be strong eveidence for the existence of true multilinguals. Full proficiency would involve communication ability at all levels of social and individual activity. That this is rarely the case seems to be one of the arguments against it.

From a linguist point of view, yes, you are right. However, from a point where everyday life is concerned, following the linguist definition is impractical, and could even lead to more problems, especially those terms, such as nativeness, first language, mother tongue. That is why I open this thread. Hence, for everyday life purpose, I will keep it very simple, my rule is, as long as one can speak it well enough to express one's idea very clearly. I will consider that person having native level ability.

In Malaysia, it is really very common for people who can speak at least two languages at native level. A large number of people can in fact speak 3-4 languages at native level, so I don't think this is considered as rare.

Malaysia is a multiracial country, for example, a chinese parents, one of them speak cantonese, the other speak hakka, their children most likely will learn both, at the same, if their neighbour are mostly Malay, when the child goes around and mix with other Malay children, he/she will start to learn Malay, if their parents sent their child to a Chinese school, the child will have to speak Mandarin in school for 12 years, and because Malaysia government requires that all schools have to teach Malay language as a subject, the government exam is in Malay language, in order to get high grade, this child has to be proficient in Malay, since this is a Chinese school, school exam will be in Mandarin, to get high grade in school, this child has to be proficient in Mandarin as well. Because English is a must to enter university in Malaysia, text books are also in English when they are in university, in a nut shell, this child can basically speaks 5 languages without having any trouble, and this is not rare in Malaysia. Moreover, a lot of Malaysian students tend to go abroad to further their study and get experiences, and most of them choose to go to English speaking country such as US, UK, Australia, NZ, Canada, Ireland, while they are in these countries, their English ability will be further strenghten to native level.

Thus, I have never agree with that school of taught, saying that a person will have one dominant language. Fact in Malaysia tells me that a person can have more than one dominant language, because enviroment circumstances forced them to do so. Sorry, lexico, I am a person who knows those "impractical academic theory" yet hates to follow those strict "impractical academic theory", I would rather stick to what is real in front of my eyes.

 

[lexico]

I think, there are a lot of people who mistakenly identify ethnicity with language...... even if your speaking skills are considerably lower in your mother tongue than in another language. Nowhere is it said that native speakers should have a better command of their language than others.
......someone grew up in Germany, with German as his mother tongue, moves to the US & lives there - say 20 years - without much contact to German speakers. His language skills in German most probably will deteriorate severely......There are a lot of native speakers who don't have what I would consider native speaker level......I would still consider him native German speaker.

This goes back a couple of posts, but it touches on my person in that I have spent many years learning and then forgetting and then relearning a language. So eventhough my native language is Korean, I lost full fluency for at least 3 years, and struggled to regain it for so long. My second language is English, but a similar thing happened there. I don't consider myself fully fluent in all modes of Korean or English. Yet I am not so hampered in either languages that I can't make myself understood. If one forgets how to speak the native tongue, but retains some ability to understand it, is that person still considered a native speaker of it?

What about the case of being reared by a nanny who speaks a different language from one's parents, would the nanny's language be considered the mother tongue? King Oedipus, although a native of Thebes, was abandoned and reared in Corinth. Returning to Thebes, should his mother tongue be considered Theban Greek or Corinthian Greek? What about the case of Moses? Was his native language Hebrew or Egyptian? Could his stuttering be accounted for by the multiple languages combined with uncertain identity?

These could be some examples for the argument that true bilingualism does not exist. But only from my limited personal experience.

 

[bossel]

This is interesting, because it didn't occur to me that modern (recent) child rearing is becoming more evenly divided between BOTH the mother and the father. Another factor that I failed to notice is whether the parents from the two different languages choose to speak in either language without individual preference.

Well, there will be individual preferences, but I would see to it that the child gets input evenly from all angles. Bi(or multi)lingualism can be quite some advantage in later life.

the child may lose the opportunity to develop much language ability in either German or Cantonese, but speak only in English. What will be his native language then?

Good question! That made me ponder the situation of a Japanese friend whose child was 2 years old when she came to Germany. Originally only subjected to Japanese, the mother dating Germans (& later marrying one) brought heavy German (& a bit of English) influence. The kid's German is probably better than his Japanese, although his mother often speaks Japanese with him. I'd say he is native speaker of Japanese, but I can't decide whether I should call him also a native German speaker. Theoretically not, practically yes?

Let's call it an exceptional case (although in Malaysia it may be not an exception). Since exceptions are so abundant in linguistics, my position is probably still firm, even though I feel a bit shaky now.

If a German speaking father and a Cantonese speaking mother raise their child in an English speaking environment, I believe the child would be tri-lingual.

Good point, but I don't think that this a question of native or non-native speaker. You can be multi-lingual, but still have only one mother tongue.

It would get really funny if we lived in eg. Beijing & the child attended an English school there. Cantonese & German at home, Mandarin in the neighbourhood & English at school. May be a good idea, actually.

When I say full-fledged language, I mean a language that has a well recorded rules of grammar, well recorded rules of pronounciation and a well recorded way of writing. This is an open topic for everyone to discuss. It is too difficult to give a definition.
I would consider those languages without a writing system an incomplete language, again, this is open for discussion, I can be wrong too.

I don't think I can follow you there. Human language is before all speech. Writing is absolutely not necessary for a language to be complete.

I wouldn't say that you're necessarily wrong, though. In linguistics you can find the strangest theories & definitions. As long as it makes sense in one way or another, you will find people supporting your position. Not unlike religion, I think.

If this Singaporean wants to apply a job as an English teacher, and that company has strict native speaker requirement, this Singaporean guy may not get the job, he will not be considered a native speaker.

That's what I never really understood. This strange focus on "native" speakers in some areas, be it education or economy. They don't look for someone with competence in English, but for someone who speaks English "naturally" & who "looks" English or US American.

That's just as strange as the differentiation in "good" or "bad" English.

 

[Sensuikan San]

I think that it is possible not to have a "mother tongue".

Here in Canada, our previous Prime Minister (The Rt. Hon. Jean Chretien) was somewhat famous for his strong accented, sometimes garbled English. He is, of course, a native French-Quebecer.

....but my Quebecois friends tell me that he is also quite famous for ... his strong accented, sometimes garbled French !

I guess you can have two "half mother tongues"!

Regards,

?W????

 

[lexico]

I think that it is possible not to have a "mother tongue"...The Rt. Hon. Jean Chretien) was somewhat famous for his strong accented, sometimes garbled English...he is also quite famous for ... his strong accented, sometimes garbled French !

I guess you can have two "half mother tongues"!

What you say is quite relevant to the issue of "true bi/multilingualism" which some people doubt. I do not remember the names, but at least a handful of polyglots were known, sometimes ridiculed, for their bizarre choice of words no matter which language they chose to speak at the moment. Although there are those exceptoinally multifluent polyglots who can converse without any inferterence from other languages that s/he knows.

Often multilinguals were looked upon with suspicion from the mostly monolingual neighbors; I wonder if antisemitism in Europe was at least in part caused by the general tendency to doubt the integrity of any polyglot ("a spy, maybe ?"), an orthodox Jewish person often being stereotyped as multilingual.

Some questions that arise from this polyglot phenomenon:

1. Does being multilingual help or hinder the polyglot's language performance in any way ?

2. If the answer is "helps," does that mean polyglots are in general more fluent than the average native speaker ?

3. If the answer is "hinders," what is the nature of the interference that can get the polyglot in trouble ?

4. Does being intelligent have anything to do with multilingualism, either as a cause or result of either ?

5. Does being muntilingual make the polyglot unduely demanding/ discriminating with his speech act in general ?
About her/his own language performance or that of others ?

6. If the answer to Q.5 is yes, what kinds of problems are expected from it ?

7. How would you define the common psychological profile of a typical polyglot from your answers to Q's 1-6 ?

The main controversy is that some people do not believe that a true polyglot is possible; this in the sense that compared to a monolingual native speaker, the bilingual person will find at least some language situations where s/he prefers one language over the other because of some inhibition. The cause of the inhibition can be linguistic, cultural, religious, psychological, or other. For whatever reason, s/he the polyglot, will find some situations awkward or inappropriate for at least one of his multilingual stock.

 

[Index]

What about the issue of pronunication as a part of the definition of native speaker? If you had perfect pronunication in a language then people may think you are a native speaker.

 

[Index]

The main controversy is that some people do not believe that a true polyglot is possible; this in the sense that compared to a monolingual native speaker, the bilingual person will find at least some language situations where s/he prefers one language over the other because of some inhibition. The cause of the inhibition can be linguistic, cultural, religious, psychological, or other. For whatever reason, s/he the polyglot, will find some situations awkward or inappropriate for at least one of his multilingual stock.[/QUOTE]

But even monolingual native speakers, depending on their education level, will find themselves in situations where they are inhibited or limited. Does this mean they are not really monolinguistic?

 

[lexico]

But even monolingual native speakers, depending on their education level, will find themselves in situations where they are inhibited or limited. Does this mean they are not really monolinguistic?

What you say is true. The point you raise is quite significant in two ways; the individual speaking the language and the society that speaks it.

As for the individual, in addition to education, the individual's particular experience, family history, work history, peers, personal interests, and values can color his/her language habit. As a result the language (s)he speaks will invariably show personal preferences and not show what is considered negative by the individual or society at large. Idiosyncracy is a universal phenomenon; it is only a matter of degree how much a person is idiosyncratic.

As for the language community, all natural languages belonging to at least one culture, and all cultures encouraging certain behavior, thought, and speech while discouraging others, this preference/avoidance will affect the speech act of many idividuals to a greater or less degree.

When one monolinguist shows these individual-specific and culture-specific traits in one's speech act, another monolinguist's speech act may depart to a certain degree from the first monolinguist.

What can be expected from the typical polyglot is that some of his/her preferences from one culture-language will interfere when speaking in another culture-language. In most situations this effect may not be so evident, but there will be situations when two cultures-languages will compete within the polyglot and confuse him/her resulting in a unique speech act.

Besides that it would be difficult to say that a plyglot has spent an equal amount of time and social/acedemic interaction across all the languages aquired. This will bring additional uniqueness to his/her language. Adding to this, the polyglot may be overly discriminating or undiscriminating with his/her choice of words, as a result of having multiple languages interfering with one another.

The effect may be humorous, refreshing, stimulating, even illuminating when taken with openness. On the other hand, it may equally be taken with surprise, unpleasantness, suspicion, and even hatred when seen from a closed, xenophobic point of view.

 

[bossel]

What about the issue of pronunication as a part of the definition of native speaker? If you had perfect pronunication in a language then people may think you are a native speaker.

I don't think, including "perfect" pronunciation in the definition would make any sense. There is no perfect pronunciation.

 

[lexico]

I don't think, including "perfect" pronunciation in the definition would make any sense. There is no perfect pronunciation.

What you say is true from the modern linguists' view who do not subscribe to prescriptive grammar since 1901. They are politically neutral in their description of the language and its dialects, and hence do not consider one dialect or one standardized form of speech and writing better than any other dialect or non-standard froms.

But most people in applied linguistic almost have to be concerned with practical matters as well as scientific objectivity. What is the nature of the language that should be taught to the language learner as a foreign or send language? When we look at the English language teaching field, many ESL/EFS/TESOL teachers and language schools who employ them as language instructors are concerned about the standard language.

Someone who can only speak in one's reagional dialect but not in the internationally acceptable sound range will obviously be discriminated against, whereas a non-native speaker who performs well in either Queen's English, BBC/CNN English, or RP, would/could be favored for purely teaching purposes.

Considering the black box example when a speaker's native tongue is unknown, a non-native speaker can very well be considered a native speaker for practical purposes. Although the "pronunciation" criterion of native speaker will fall apart under close scrutiny, some people may think that way anyway.

 

[Index]

I don't think, including "perfect" pronunciation in the definition would make any sense. There is no perfect pronunciation.

What I meant was pronunication that would be considered normal by native speakers of that particular language.

 

[bossel]

What I meant was pronunication that would be considered normal by native speakers of that particular language.

Well, OK, that makes more sense. But, then again, in different regions you will have people consider different pronunciations as normal (in Germany this is called regiolects). Different, but still native.

To me, a standard (perfect?) pronunciation makes only sense in education (what Lexico mentioned above). There you need a certain standard to achieve what you want: that people of varying linguistic backgrounds can communicate without major obstacles. At the same time the students should be told that their education encompasses just that: a standard (which essentially means "the least common denominator").

Edit: Regiolects are perhaps not what Lexico called regional dialects above. A regiolect is simply the standard language with regional differences in pronunciation. Lexicon & grammar should be identical to a very high degree.

 

[lexico]

Edit: Regiolects are perhaps not what Lexico called regional dialects above. A regiolect is simply the standard language with regional differences in pronunciation. Lexicon & grammar should be identical to a very high degree.

Thanks for the definition; I find your distinction reasonable and useful. I'd like to use it in this question. In your opinion, would you say that native English speakers of the country's respective standard speech from England, Ireland, the US, the Phinppines, Singapore, Malaysia, India, and South Africa would speak distinct dialects of English or simply regiolects of one language loosely called International English ?

Or does that become difficult due to some kind of continuous grading of speech goegraphically ? Or is it even more complicated than that ?

 

[bossel]

Or does that become difficult due to some kind of continuous grading of speech goegraphically ?

I think, that's it. As most stuff in linguistics there are no clear borderlines. Regiolects & dialects merge somewhere, just as dialects & languages. It all depends on the definition & where a certain linguist draws the line.

For what I know, Indian English is nowadays generally considered a dialect (or, IIRC, even a number of dialects) of English. The same goes seemingly for Singapore, Malaysia, South Africa, Philippines, Ireland & the US. US English is also being split into different smaller dialects, don't know about the others.

 

[Saim]

How is Mandarin the only Sinitic language with a writing system?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_transliteration has a list of different transliterations of so-called Chinese 'dialects'.

 

[Brett142]

Your mother tongue is the language your parents teach you.
Your 1st language is the one you can speak the best.

I have a friend whose mother tongue is Malay, but she can speak English far better.

 

[ritabos]

A person who learned to speak the language of the place