lexico said:
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.