# Speaking like a native, or speaking correctly?



## vince

Do you think it is better to learn to speak in the way natives do, or to speak correctly?

I think that unless one is primarily learning a language for business, they should learn to talk like a native, rather than speaking grammatically correctly.

Because if one wishes to make friends and socialize with people in their new language, they don't want to sound like they're reading from a textbook. Learning to sound natural is half the language barrier, IMO.

One night at a party, I asked a French guy, "D'où viens-tu?". Right away he told me that people don't talk like that, people say: "D'où tu viens?".

So what do you think, should non-business-course language teachers teach colloquial speech? I don't mean uneducated, coarse language, but what is natural, rather than what is textbook-correct?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

vince said:


> Do you think it is better to learn to speak in the way natives do, or to speak correctly?



I'd hope that speaking like natives does imply speaking correctly, if we agree  to take in account only well-spoken people..


----------



## vince

What do you make of me saying "D'où viens-tu" as being the mark of a non-native speaker?

How about when, even when talking to a superior, French people rarely use "ne" as a negation? "Ce n'est C'est pas de ma faute"


----------



## Akialuz

I think both are important.  I am teaching my children to speak correct Spanish so they can communicate with people from different Spanish speaking countries.  If I were to teach them "native"  they would only be understood in one Spanish speaking country.  And they can use the slang I know from my country.
~Akialuz


----------



## Gutenberg

Speaking correctly is the answer! Bien parler, c'est se respecter.
Once you know the native, you may speak like him if you wish and if you know how. Donc on doit dire : "D'où viens-tu?"
Always use "Ce n'est pas de ma faute." The other form ("C'est pas de ma faute") is not correct. It's spoken French (and not grammaticaly correct).


----------



## vince

But when was the last time you said or heard someone say "Ce n'est pas de ma faute" or "D'où viens-tu?"
 (I am not sure if the grammar of Québecois is the same here, so maybe I am wrong)

If no one ever uses it, how can it be correct (spoken) language? (Not talking about writing or formal speeches here)

So many things I learned in textbook French was "wrong", as in no one ever says it.
The difference between "more" and "no more"/"not anymore" is the pronunciation of "plus", not the presence/absence of "ne".

Textbook:
Are there more tomatos? : "Y a-t-il plus de tomates?"
There aren't any more tomatos? : Il *n*'y a plus de tomates?

REAL version:
Are there more tomatos? : "Il y a plu*s* [plys] de tomates?"
There aren't any more tomatos? : "Il y a plus [ply] de tomates?"

What a misunderstanding I created when I asked (seeminly rudely): "Y a-t-il plus de tomates?" (No more tomatos!) when I really wanted to ask "Il y a plu*S* de tomates?" (are there more?) !

Don't you think by teaching only the textbook version we are misleading students?


----------



## Gutenberg

Je ne veux pas entrer dans une telle discussion. Mais en ce qui me concerne, on ne devrait enseigner aux étudiants d'une autre langue maternelle que le français international. Ensuite, il sera plus facile à chacun de s'adapter pour se faire comprendre dans la francophonie. Would you teach Pidgin English for people to be understood in all English-speaking countries? Or teach Acadian French for people to be understood in French-speaking Switzerland. Swiss Germans from Basel speak a dialect but write in German. They don't write in Swiss German. Among them they speak Swiss German, with Germans they speak German. If Swiss Germans would only learn Swiss German, they would be lost in Germany, and probably in Austria. This my opinion.


----------



## vince

That is why it is important to take into account the purpose of the language education.

For example, there is no reason for French language education to be compulsory in Canada other than for national reasons: so that anglophone Canadians can have some relationship with francophones. It is not because it is the most important international language in the world. In this case, I believe that the focus of French education in Canada should be toward Quebec French: teach the vocabulary and pronunciation of Quebec French, as well as the _spoken_ norms of Québécois. I am not saying that they should only learn forms that only Quebeckers can understand, but the emphasis should be on French spoken in Canada, not international French.


----------



## Brioche

In my humble opinion, you teach students the formal, written version of the language first, and when they have a good grasp of that, you introduce colloquialisms and regionalisms.

The written French that Anglo Canadians will encounter in Canada is essentially "international" French, except you won't see "passé simple" very much.

Would you really teach francophone Quebeckers just "oral North American", or would you also teach them the written language, too?


----------



## Etcetera

The problem is that the actual spoken language is in most cases much less regular than the written language. So it's much harder to learn. 
To me, it sounds really strange when a non-native tries to imitate the way natives speak. There are many nuances in language use; one should learn a language for a long time, even live in the country of that language for some time to learn how to speak it properly. 
I am sure that a learner should learn to speak _properly_ first. No matter how we speak our language, we are always able to understand proper language, aren't we? So we'll always understand a non-native speaking our language, if they speak properly. But it can be really tricky to understand them if they try to speak the "real" language.


----------



## lazarus1907

I don't think that speaking "naturally" necessarily implies using bad grammar, and speaking "correctly" means reading from a textbook. There is surely something in between. If you want to socialise with teenagers who are trying to look and sound different, you probably want to use their (probably) affected way of speaking, and maybe imitate their slang, but in many contexts you don't have to sound posh if you use proper grammar; just get used to the way native speakers tend to express things, and avoid word-by-word translations from your own language.


----------



## Luke Warm

I don’t know which is better.  In English, people consistently seem to make mistakes with adverbs.  For example, people usually say “He drives slow” as opposed to the correct “He drives slow*ly*”.  Another one is with the verb “to be”.  Most people say “It was *him*” as opposed to the correct “It was *he*”.  Another one that bugs me is the conditional for of “to be”.  Most people say, for example “If I *was* rich, I would buy a new house” when it should be “If I *were* rich, I would buy a new house” or “*Were* I rich, I would buy a new house”.  I try to use the correct forms (and probably do make mistakes too from time to time), and though I don’t usually notice it, I’m sure some people consider it haughty.  That’s not my intention;  I just think it’s important to speak correctly.  In the end though, I wonder if turns people off unnecessarily. Regardless, I think speaking correctly is more important.  I’d rather be right and alone than wrong and with the crowd, but maybe that's just me.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

This is actually an interesting question, because it raises the other question: what is 'correct' language? Is language divided into one version used by its native speakers and another, sort of elevated 'correct' version (almost like Saussure's division of _la langue_ and _parole_)?
After all, isn't it us speakers of the language that defines how it works? If suddenly everybody decided that they'd say 'chairs' instead of 'cars', would that then be incorrect? 

But on to the original question; I agree that language learners should be taught the formal version of the language first, and eventually the more colloquial way of speaking only after they've mastered the former (how is this done with Arabic though, where there is both a formal and a colloquial language, fairly different from each other?).

I can't think of any examples in Norwegian, other than some pronounciation issues (there is a good deal of assimilation and reduction in the spoken language), but I think the 'correct' way of speaking should be taught before learning how it is actually spoken (e.g. r+t -> retroflex t).
Another reason for learning to speak 'correct' Norwegian is that it seems a lot of the population is raging prescriptivists who'll rant on about the downfall of the language because kids and teens have started pronouncing [ç] as [ʃ], and are starting to drop the object form of some personal  pronouns


----------



## Etcetera

Luke Warm said:


> I’d rather be right and alone than wrong and with the crowd, but maybe that's just me.


So do I. 
In Russia, the situation with language is terrible. When I happen to watch TV, I can't but remember Professor Higgins's words: Hear them down in Soho Square/Dropping 'h's everywhere/Speaking English anyway they like. 
There are some mistakes I just can't stand. For example, use of зв*о*нит instead of звон*и*т. The former is used by many, many people (mainly in Moscow), but it's totally incorrect!


----------



## karuna

Luke Warm said:


> Most people say “It was *him*” as opposed to the correct “It was *he*”.



If *most* people say "It was *him*" then it too should be a correct form and textbooks have to be corrected. I also learned at school that we should say "It was *he*" but when confronted with real spoken language I gradually switched to "it was *him*". 

I think that there is no big necessity to learn a slang of the social group you don't want to become associated with, but if it is a common occurance among most native speakers then it should be given priority over the textbook language.


----------



## Luke Warm

karuna said:


> if it is a common occurance among most native speakers then it should be given priority over the textbook language.


 
I think that’s a bit of a dangerous precedent. Many people say “aks” instead of “ask” or “He be”, “You be”, or “We be” instead of “He is”, “You are”, and “We are”. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think we want those taught in schools. Sure, those are extreme cases, but rules are there for a reason—to keep uniformity of language. And some rules (though not all) have logic behind them. An example is the comparative. Many people say “She is taller than him” when it should be “She is taller than he”. The reason for using “he” instead of “him” is that the logic of the sentence is “She is taller than he is tall”. “Him is tall” just makes no sense at all. Also, "It was he" makes sense because you might continue the sentence with "It was he who stole the book". "Him stole the book" makes no sense either, because "him" and "her" only work as objects in sentence structure. Obviously languages evolve, but I think a blanket change of the textbooks because of common usage is not a good idea.


----------



## karuna

In Latvian the direct object usually takes accusative case (darīt darb*u*), except when the verb is in debitive mood, in which case the direct object should be in nominative case (*jā*dara darb*s*). Nowadays most people have started to use accusative case in spoken and written language alike. It irks me very much when I hear this incorrect usage because people of the place I was born do not make this mistake, but I can also understand that for many people this gramatical rule does not mean anything so I don't feel need for them to follow it. And if they are not native Latvian speakers then I don't mind that they use the spoken form, instead of the textbook version.


----------



## palomnik

To a marked extent this depends on the language involved. Virtually all languages have a gulf between the "formal" written form of the language and the colloquial; for some languages this is greater than it is in others and when it is, some training in the colloquial forms is a necessity. 

In a language like Arabic, where the gulf is notoriously large, most academic curricula start the student on the Modern Standard Literary form, and the student will start learning one of the colloquial dialects maybe a year later, in a separate course. 

Most more recent courses developed for French (which, as European languages go, has a fairly wide gulf) will provide separate material for the student to learn acceptable "written" vs. "spoken" forms.

When I was an undergraduate studying Russian I was struck by the fact that most material printed in Russia was very proper, avoiding colloquialisms, while material printed in the USA tended to emphasize colloquial forms more.  When I got to Russia, I appreciated the reason; while Russians may not use the correct form all the time, they almost always are (or at least were) aware what the correct form should be and for a foreigner to use forms that were too colloquial would be considered a sign of ignorance.


----------



## Chipolata

I think we should always learn the standard language, since it can be used in both formal and informal occasions. The colloquial language can be learned watching television, listening radio, going to parties with native speakers, etc. 
Of course, when I first came to Mexico, I felt I couldn't understand a word of what people were saying in colloquial mexican Spanish. I learned, though. Now I can use formal Spanish when I am working and colloquial Spanish with my friends...
The day I will travel to Colombia, for example, I will use the formal Spanish, since the vocabulary differs in the two countries.


----------



## ireney

As palomnik (welcome by the way  ) said it depends on the language. The mistakes that are  committed by Greeks have less to do with grammar (in truth almost nothing to do with grammar) and everything to do with vocabulary. Then there's the case of slang and expressions and suchlike not all of which  are actually considered colloquiallism or slang any more. 

When it comes to languages such as the Greek therefore it's better to learn the formal language at first and the colloquiallisms afterwards (although learning them at the same time wouldn't really hurt; it's just that you'll have to learn "extra" vocabulary).

I personally prefer learning the "correct" forms in any language and deal with colloquialisms afterwards. You see, even the slang etc are based in the "logic" of each language. It's better, as I see it, to learn the mechanism of a language, how it works first and then start fiddling with it.

This however may have to do with the fact that I never had any problem with being identified as a non-native speaker of a language. English is not my mother language for instance. Why should it bother me if someone understands that? (they will by my unmistakably non-native accent anyway ). Being complimented on the level of comprehension and use of a language (either in its formal or its informal form) is nice and something I seek so to speak. Being "mistaken" for a native doesn't interest me.


----------



## Etcetera

palomnik said:


> When I was an undergraduate studying Russian I was struck by the fact that most material printed in Russia was very proper, avoiding colloquialisms, while material printed in the USA tended to emphasize colloquial forms more. When I got to Russia, I appreciated the reason; while Russians may not use the correct form all the time, they almost always are (or at least were) aware what the correct form should be and for a foreigner to use forms that were too colloquial would be considered a sign of ignorance.


Yes, the Russian mass media usually try to use standard language. But they fail to use it too often, if you ask me. 
As for foreigners trying to use colloquial forms of Russian, it, indeed, looks pretty strange to the natives. Most people would think that the person just doesn't know Russian well.


----------



## karuna

When I first time went to Russia everybody around me kept saying _schas_, the contracted form of _seichas_. At first I couldn't understand so I was looking through the dictionaries and grammar books but it was not mentioned anywhere. There are many forms that are used in spoken language every day but are not described in textbooks. That is quite frustrating when you are trying to learn the spoken language to communicate with people about daily things and not to discuss the works of Pushkin or Dostoyevski.

Language purism can also be politically motivated. In Latvian there is a daily radio program that teaches correct speech. The problem is that half of their examples of supposedly incorrect usage are normal colloquial expressions with the only fault that they happen to be very similar to Russian expressions. Sometimes such nit-pickers are more annoying than slang users.


----------



## Julz

Luke Warm said:


> For example, people usually say “He drives slow” as opposed to the correct “He drives slow*ly*”.


I agree



Luke Warm said:


> Another one is with the verb “to be”.  Most people say “It was *him*” as opposed to the correct “It was *he*”.


As karuna said, it's use of the accusative. "It was him" is perfectly acceptable and fits with the grammatical logic of nearly every other language in the word. Use of "him" simply means that "he" is the _indirect object_ of the sentence; the direct object being "it".



Luke Warm said:


> Another one that bugs me is the conditional for of “to be”.  Most people say, for example “If I *was* rich, I would buy a new house” when it should be “If I *were* rich, I would buy a new house” or ...


Yes, it is in conditional statements but is actually the subjunctive. Conditional would be "I would/might be rich". The idea of the subjunctive being used for conditional statements is a Germanic attribute.



Luke Warm said:


> That’s not my intention; I just think it’s important to speak correctly. In the end though, I wonder if turns people off unnecessarily. Regardless, I think speaking correctly is more important. I’d rather be right and alone than wrong and with the crowd, but maybe that's just me.


I agree completely. If it's worth saying, it's worth saying correct    ...(ly)


----------



## justjukka

I prefer to learn the proper grammar first.  Once I have that down, it becomes easier for me to learn the street-talk.  I'm usually speaking all properly, anyway.  It drives some people crazy, but I've had a few people try to copy me.


----------



## Julz

Well I think you should only try colloquial speech once you have mastered formal speech. For example, if a French person learnt only colloquial British English and met the Queen, he would have problems trying to communicate, and it wouldn't be a good impression to make. If he learnt only formal English, and was talking to some British school children, it wouldn't really matter whether he used colloquial language or not. He may just get teased a bit, but nothing too serious.

I know some people in my grade at school who are learning a foreign language and try to use colloquialisms although they haven't mastered the language themselves... It sounds and appears dreadful! I know one guy who is doing French, he is as thick as two short planks, and he would have no idea what "ouvre le robinet" means (turn on the tap), yet he would know phrases like "ta mere en short"... It definitely doesn't make him look any smarter, in fact it makes him look dumber.

So after all that, I agree completely. Master the formal language first before you delve into colloquial usage, or even dialects.


----------



## Nicomon

vince said:


> In this case, I believe that the focus of French education in Canada should be toward Quebec French: teach the vocabulary and pronunciation of Quebec French, as well as the _spoken_ norms of Québécois.


 
But then - here speaking as a born and raised Quebecer-  you'd need to decide exactly which Quebec pronunciation is the "correct" one? There are distinctive differences between a Montrealer's pronunciation and that of say, people from the Gaspé or Lac St-Jean. I also think you should master "international French" pronunciation first. Don't worry, we will understand. As for vocabulary, Quebec French is not THAT different from international. We have of course a lot of "regionalisms", but those are only added vocabulary. Just don't say myrtilles, for blueberries. Bleuets is better understood here.


----------



## Outsider

Julz said:


> As karuna said, it's use of the accusative. "It was him" is perfectly acceptable and fits with the grammatical logic of nearly every other language in the word.


Certainly not! Most Indo-European languages would use "he", because the verb is a copula.


----------



## vince

Nicomon said:


> But then - here speaking as a born and raised Quebecer-  you'd need to decide exactly which Quebec pronunciation is the "correct" one? There are distinctive differences between a Montrealer's pronunciation and that of say, people from the Gaspé or Lac St-Jean. I also think you should master "international French" pronunciation first.



Who in Québec speaks "International French"? For national cultural reasons, don't you think it would be more helpful to learn some local dialect, rather than a foreign one? A Canadian is more likely to interact with a Quebecker than a French person. So I think that learning Metropolitan French in Canada is like a foreigner learning Received Pronunciation who wants to immigrate to Los Angeles.

You bring up the point that there is no single "Québécois accent". Then pick  whichever one is the most widely spoken, e.g. a Montreal accent. It will at least sound closer to the locals than Paris French. When someone speaks British English, no matter how flawless their grammar and accent, they still sound foreign in English-speaking Canada, I'd presume the same thing occurs with French-speakers in Québec.


----------



## Gutenberg

vince said:


> Who in Québec speaks "International French"? For national cultural reasons, don't you think it would be more helpful to learn some local dialect, rather than a foreign one? A Canadian is more likely to interact with a Quebecker than a French person. So I think that learning Metropolitan French in Canada is like a foreigner learning Received Pronunciation who wants to immigrate to Los Angeles.
> 
> You bring up the point that there is no single "Québécois accent". Then pick  whichever one is the most widely spoken, e.g. a Montreal accent. It will at least sound closer to the locals than Paris French. When someone speaks British English, no matter how flawless their grammar and accent, they still sound foreign in English-speaking Canada, I'd presume the same thing occurs with French-speakers in Québec.



I speak "International French". And there are more than 30,000 French-speaking people from Europe and North Africa in Quebec who do, most of them in or around Montreal. And when they land here they find it difficult to understand the language, depending where they live. So, like I did years ago, they learn it, eventually. French from France is not a local dialect. And there is no such a thing as Metropolitan French. That was maybe the case at the beginning of the 20th century, but after World War One, most of the French dialects disappeared. The French Army made sure to mix people from the different provinces of France in the different battalions so they would have to communicate among themselves in French. Radio and television did the rest. People from Louisiana of Acadian origins learn French from teachers born in Quebec and in France. And the English-speaking people of Ontario should learn international written French, not spoken Quebecois French, nor Acadian, nor the French spoken in New Brunswick. Would you say it would help English-speaking students to learn spoken French from _C't'à ton tour, Laura Cadieux_ (by Michel Tremblay)? Here it is: _À m'a pas répond! Au bout de deux-trois menutes, chus v'nue pour me lever, mais Madeleine m'a pris par la main pis à m'a dit: "Non, reste, moman. J'pas capable de parler, là, mais j'vas te parler, tantôt. Tantôt, j'vas être capable... Reste. J'ai besoin de toé..." Chus sortie sur le bout des pieds. J'avais le coeur tout croche... Quand chus t'arrivée dans' cuisine..._ You want to teach that French instead of International French? I really don't get it! We are soon in 2007, and because of globalization it is important to learn a language understood by the largest number of people. English, of course, but also French, but not a French that is spoken by only 3 of 4 million people, but a French spoken by some 100 million people throughout the world.


----------



## fenixpollo

Etcetera said:


> The problem is that the actual spoken language is in most cases much less regular than the written language.  I am sure that a learner should learn to speak _properly_ first.





Chipolata said:


> I think we should always learn the standard language, since it can be used in both formal and informal occasions.





Julz said:


> Well I think you should only try colloquial speech once you have mastered formal speech.





Brioche said:


> you teach students the formal, written version of the language first,


So, according to most of you, what makes "correct" language is _that which is formal, standard, written, textbook and proper._  That implies that normal, natural, everyday speech is not correct -- when the opposite is true. The goal should not be to speak like a textbook reads, but to communicate. Not to get off topic, but to base one's knowledge on any subject on what appears in a textbook is an approach that is inherently flawed to begin with.  Not to mention that you end up talking funny.





Lemminkäinen said:


> This is actually an interesting question, because it raises the other question: what is 'correct' language? Is language divided into one version used by its native speakers and another, sort of elevated 'correct' version (almost like Saussure's division of _la langue_ and _parole_)?  After all, isn't it us speakers of the language that defines how it works?


 Not sure who Saussure is, but I agree totally.


----------



## Nicomon

vince said:


> Who in Québec speaks "International French"?
> 
> You bring up the point that there is no single "Québécois accent". Then pick whichever one is the most widely spoken, e.g. a Montreal accent. It will at least sound closer to the locals than Paris French.


 
Don't get me wrong. It all depends on your definition of "international French". I would say that eventhough I was born and raised in Montreal, I write and speak an international French, by this meaning that people from France would understand me, even if they just landed. And yet, I don't sound Parisian at all, and can easily revert to joual if and when I want to. 

Gutenberg's example of Michel Tremblay's writing is extreme. This is *not *what Quebec French is all about. There is a happy medium. In my opinion, you can speak normal, yet good French without sounding textbook or formal. I personally don't see much wrong in saying "Tu viens d'où" or eluding the "ne". I happen to think that several quebecisms and Acadian and New Brunswick regionalisms are very colourful. But I just don't think that diphtongs (i.e. saying lava*ou*ge instead of lavage, or p*aï*re instead of père) words like toé, moé, making wrong liaisons or using anglicisms are very cute.


----------



## Brioche

fenixpollo said:


> So, according to most of you, what makes "correct" language is _that which is formal, standard, written, textbook and proper._ That implies that normal, natural, everyday speech is not correct -- when the opposite is true. The goal should not be to speak like a textbook reads, but to communicate. Not to get off topic, but to base one's knowledge on any subject on what appears in a textbook is an approach that is inherently flawed to begin with. Not to mention that you end up talking funny. Not sure who Saussure is, but I agree totally.


 
You are setting up a false dichotomy. The choice is not "communication or text book".
If you speak "like a text book", you will be understood. They'll know you are a learner or a foreigner, but you will communicate. You are also less likely to embarrass yourself. Fuck   is probably the most commonly used word in English. I know people who use it in every sentence. It's their normal, natural, everyday speech - but I don't recommend imitation.

Unless you are particularly gifted, [_or move, at a very young age, to a second language area_], you will never speak a second language like a native.

As I've said before, if you learn the "salon" language first, you can always add the "street" version. 

I speak educated, grammatically correct English. My aim when I speak other languages is to do the same.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

There's a difference sometimes between speaking the international version of a language and speaking like a textbook.

If I have learned one thing from the different posts in this forum, it's that I should never place 100% of my trust in a textbook or in an instructor.  The French materials in Canadian schools are of quite a high standard, but this was not always the case; and there are many French teachers who are not francophones and inevitably make mistakes.  As for some of the glaring errors that forer@s have reported in their English materials, especially from China ... well!!!

In my experience, there's a happy medium between working with a good textbook and the language (hopefully) spoken around you.  

Two cents from someone who speaks the Queen's English ..... with a Canuck accent.


----------



## fenixpollo

Brioche said:


> You are setting up a false dichotomy. The choice is not "communication or text book".


  I didn't set up the false dichotomy -- the thread starter did, and then several posters reinforced it (including you and me). I would have to agree with you, but then we would open the argument about "is there a correct way to speak a language?" (the answer is "no"). I wasn't willing to do that with my first post, so I just disagreed with the original question and left it at that.  Thank you for holding me accountable.


----------



## panjabigator

I think one should learn the proper way first, but should be instructed along the way that there other more common expressions as well.  For example, when learning English, I feel a learner should be told that "I am not" is the correct and so-called standard for America, however do not be suprised if "ain't" is also encountered.

For teaching Indic languages, I think speaking like a native is more important than speaking correctly.  I interpret speaking correctly as using strictly formal Hindi, which is sometimes very distant from regular speech due to vocabulary.  But I would still teach them the correct way because it is more universal...it will take you further (you'll seem educated).


----------



## karuna

Brioche said:


> Unless you are particularly gifted, [_or move, at a very young age, to a second language area_], you will never speak a second language like a native.



If you are learning only from textbooks then it is probably true. But I know completely normal woman (housewife) who in a year or two learned to speak Latvian so well that many people she met refused to believe that she is not a native Latvian. Her accent could be a give-away but there are dialect speakers in Latvia who also have difficulty to pronounce properly certain sounds in standard Latvian (ķ and ģ), so people don't pay much attention to these details. Her secret was her Latvian husband and they decided to speak only Latvian together. Of course, probing deeper her language skills, she wouldn't know many things but on the colloquial level she was perfect. 

On the other hand there are a lot of people who have lived whole life in Latvia and are unable to learn even elementary Latvian because they think that they have a right not to learn the local language. It all depends on motivation and necessity and no extraordinary skills are required. 



> As I've said before, if you learn the "salon" language first, you can always add the "street" version.



I think that thread starter didn't mean "street" slang but educated spoken language versus formal language that is mainly used in writing.

I once inspected Latvian language study book for foreigners and I think that the quality can be improved a lot. The first sentence in it was "_Mani sauc xxx_" (I am called xxx) which struck me as awkward way of introducing myself. It is completely correct and often used in writing but I really have never heard anyone saying this loadly, except for comical effect. We normally say "_Mans vārds ir ..._" (My name is...), or "_Es esmu..._" (I am...) or if something asks you directly, what is your name, you just answer with your name or full name despite what teachers at school about not speaking in full sentences. 

I don't understand the problem of teaching the standard colloquial version first and only then the written style. Believe me, you won't sound more refined by saying book version "_mani sauc..._", it will only add stiffness to your relationships. And there is no use to think how you will impress our president with the formal language because she herself speaks Latvian with terrible mistakes due to living in foreign countries for long time.



> I speak educated, grammatically correct English. My aim when I speak other languages is to do the same.



Question is, can we learn the same level of educated, correct English from textbooks alone? Or even learn to understand full details of spoken language. Or maybe we can if replace the current textbooks with better ones? 

I was watching movie in Japanese where a girl addresses another person as "*onīsan*" and according to 5 or 6 dictionaries and other learning materials this form is used only to address *someone else's* elder brother and nothing else. But something in that movie didn't ring right with this definition. Today I finally found proof in the ruminations of Jack Seward (Japanese in Action) where he mentions that _onīsan _is also often used when addressing *one's own* elder brother. I already had understood it from the context but for me it also shows the limitations of textbooks. 

Maybe for bigger languages like English or Spanish one can find good materials on current colloquial usage more easily, but for rarer languages I would accept the usage of a native speaker (educated and well-mannered, of course, not the one who uses F-word in every sentence) before a dubious textbook.


----------



## La Foca

Both are important, but their relative importance varies in different situations. By "correctly" I suppose that you mean using "prestige dialect" (what socioliguists call it)--it shows that you are an educated speaker of the language.  People listen to every detail of what you say and make judgements about you.  It's up to you to control your message in order to control the impression you make on others.
When you are in an informal setting (with your pals), you probably won't use prestige dialect (unless you hang out with English teachers)--you will use language that helps idetify you with that group. Everyone does it; it's  just important that you know you are doing it!
La Foca


----------



## La Foca

On going native:

What is your motivation to "speak like a native?"  Do you want to be mistaken for a native of a particular place?  You can do it if you have a very good ear for language. It helps to be surrounded by speakers of that particular dialect. Most adults are unable to accomplish this feat, which is why they are told they are "not good language learners." In fact, adults are efficient language learners because they can learn and use rules. Children are more able to pick up a native accent, but they (depending on age and intellectual development) are less able to use rules to speed up their learning.

There are practical considerations as well. I usually only push my students to achieve clear enough pronunciation so that native speakers can understand them easily. I usually ask them to pronounce the /t/ in words such as butter, little, and bottom--native speakers of American English tend to pronounce the /t/ as a "flap" (more like a /d/). Since they often blur this into an /r/, it comes out too garbled for native speakers to understand. On the other hand, many native speakers enjoy the spice that English learners lend to the language  when they speak with a light accent.  We tend to think that French sound cultured and Italians and Spanish speakers sound romantic...and so on. A bit of an accent can be a very good thing!


----------

