# Speaking "English"



## Isis

How do native English speakers look upon non-native English speakers? Is it safe to say that they are better speakers of the language than those who just learned it in school (as what most ESL schools outside the US and Britain say)?


----------



## modgirl

Isis said:
			
		

> How do native English speakers look upon non-native English speakers? Is it safe to say that they are better speakers of the language than those who just learned it in school (as what most ESL schools outside the US and Britain say)?


 
As far as grammar, many non-native English speakers are much better than native speakers! I don't know if any generalizations can be made. However, on the occasion when I visit a forum where the vast majority of participants are not native speakers, I am often accused of not being a native speaker. Why? My English is too perfect! It's funny in one way, yet not so funny in another.

Something that non-native speakers also need to understand is that "English" is a broad category. Obviously, there are many differences between American and British English. Even in the US, there are many different ways to say the same thing. For instance, a sandwich made of (often meat), cheese, lettuce, tomato, and onions on Italian bread can be called many different names. In Boston, it's generally a *submarine* (sandwich). In upstate New York, it's a *grinder*, but in NYC it's a *hero*. It's a *hoagy* in Philadelphia and a *poor boy* in New Orleans. 

What often happens is that a non-native will learn one of those names and upon hearing a different name, will not realize or believe that the very same thing is named differently, depending on where a person lives in the US!


----------



## Isis

[





> QUOTE=modgirl]As far as grammar, many non-native English speakers are much better than native speakers! I don't know if any generalizations can be made. However, on the occasion when I visit a forum where the vast majority of participants are not native speakers, I am often accused of not being a native speaker. Why? My English is too perfect! It's funny in one way, yet not so funny in another.


 
That is the same thing I heard from a Dutch friend who speaks better English ( without the European accent ) than my American and Hawaiian friends! I think this has something to do with him studying the language for about 7 years! Well, I pressume he digested the whole book on grammar and composition!



> Something that non-native speakers also need to understand is that "English" is a broad category. Obviously, there are many differences between American and British English. Even in the US, there are many different ways to say the same thing. For instance, a sandwich made of (often meat), cheese, lettuce, tomato, and onions on Italian bread can be called many different names. In Boston, it's generally a *submarine* (sandwich). In upstate New York, it's a *grinder*, but in NYC it's a *hero*. It's a *hoagy* in Philadelphia and a *poor boy* in New Orleans.


 
I've been to Michigan and they call it *hoagy *too! This was the same reason why they called me *"FOB" *( fresh off the boat ) when I told them that we call it *"sandwich"*  still in the Philippines! Lucky me, that wasn't my first time to eat an Italian bread!



> What often happens is that a non-native will learn one of those names and upon hearing a different name, will not realize or believe that the very same thing is named differently, depending on where a person lives in the US!


[/QUOTE] 

That's the very reason why native speakers of English are being divided by their area of origin because that will determine the words that they are using and a good example are the Americans in the United States, right?

Thanks for the insight modgirl!


----------



## panjandrum

Here are two sweeping generalisations.

A good non-native XXXX speaker will be more consistently grammatically correct than a native speaker.

It is really difficult for non-native XXXX speakers to master the kind of flexibility of usage that marks truly fluent XXXX.

I am certain this is true for XXXX = English.
It seems possible, from my travels to other forums here, that it is true for other languages as well - but it would be interesting to know if native Italian/ French/ German etc speakers agree.


----------



## Mariaguadalupe

I am a non-native English speaker who learned to read and write English before my own language.  I once worked at an American subsidiary in México, where American personnel visited once in a while.  I was once "accused" by one of these visiting employees of not being mexican because I fully grasped English and its nuances.


----------



## Augusto-Cesar

My beloved subjects:

My first language is Latin, then I learned the ones spoken by the barbarians and the plebs, the so-called "vulgo" , namely English, Spanish, French, Italian and understand others. 
I have to, since I have to deal with subjects from different lands. 

Your beloved emperor *Augustus Caesar *wrote this.


----------



## modgirl

Mariaguadalupe said:
			
		

> I am a non-native English speaker who learned to read and write English before my own language.


 
Hi Maria, if English is the first language you learned (and perhaps there was another language you learned before English), wouldn't English then be your native language, regardless of the country in which you were born or reared?


----------



## modgirl

Augusto-Cesar said:
			
		

> My beloved subjects:


 
Just one wee question, oh lord:  what if we choose not to submit to your power?


----------



## Augusto-Cesar

My dear *Puera Moderata*:

In answer to your question of "_what if we choose not to submit to your power_". All I have to say is that you will be dealt with swiftly.  Or maybe I'll ask the US government to do the job for me.

Your beloved, yet just and humble emperor,
*
Augustus-Caesar*


----------



## Luzye

How is this possible? Did you learn to speak, I think, Spanish first and then to speak, write, and read English?





			
				Mariaguadalupe said:
			
		

> I am a non-native English speaker who learned to read and write English before my own language. I once worked at an American subsidiary in México, where American personnel visited once in a while. I was once "accused" by one of these visiting employees of not being mexican because I fully grasped English and its nuances.


----------



## modgirl

Augusto-Cesar said:
			
		

> All I have to say is that you will be dealt with swiftly.


 
_Swiftly_ can be good; it just depends on what the verb is!

(She exclaims with a bow)


----------



## Mariaguadalupe

It is a paradox!

Eventhough my first words as a baby were in Spanish, I began "learning" English when I was 4.  Thus, for a long time I spoke and wrote English better than Spanish.  As a child, I never had "formal" education in Spanish; I learned it only by actually living in México and being spoken to in Spanish.  My mother used to "pay" one of my older brothers to teach me how to read in Spanish, but that was when I was around 8 or 9.   I learned my Mexican history through my mother and family during dinner.  We would dine in the company of our Independence heroes, much to my brothers' annoyance.


----------



## modgirl

Mariaguadalupe said:
			
		

> As a child, I never had "formal" education in Spanish;


 
Is it correct to say that you spoke English in school and at home (except when you were learning Spanish)?


----------



## JLanguage

modgirl said:
			
		

> As far as grammar, many non-native English speakers are much better than native speakers! I don't know if any generalizations can be made. However, on the occasion when I visit a forum where the vast majority of participants are not native speakers, I am often accused of not being a native speaker. Why? My English is too perfect! It's funny in one way, yet not so funny in another.


 
I have to disagree with you there. A non-native speaker may know more grammar rules than a native speaker, but all native speakers have passive grammar, ie. they can recognize when something is correct, that at least in my case, yields grammatically correct sentences most of the time.


> Something that non-native speakers also need to understand is that "English" is a broad category. Obviously, there are many differences between American and British English. Even in the US, there are many different ways to say the same thing. For instance, a sandwich made of (often meat), cheese, lettuce, tomato, and onions on Italian bread can be called many different names. In Boston, it's generally a *submarine* (sandwich). In upstate New York, it's a *grinder*, but in NYC it's a *hero*. It's a *hoagy* in Philadelphia and a *poor boy* in New Orleans.


In Georgia we call that a sub.


----------



## JLanguage

Mariaguadalupe said:
			
		

> It is a paradox!
> 
> Eventhough my first words as a baby were in Spanish, I began "learning" English when I was 4. Thus, for a long time I spoke and wrote English better than Spanish. As a child, I never had "formal" education in Spanish; I learned it only by actually living in México and being spoken to in Spanish. My mother used to "pay" one of my older brothers to teach me how to read in Spanish, but that was when I was around 8 or 9. I learned my Mexican history through my mother and family during dinner. We would dine in the company of our Independence heroes, much to my brothers' annoyance.


 
If you started learning English at the age of 4, than you indeed could be considered a native speaker, though it does depend upon the amount of exposure you had to the language prior to puberty.


----------



## JLanguage

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Here are two sweeping generalisations.
> 
> A good non-native XXXX speaker will be more consistently grammatically correct than a native speaker.


 
I disagree, because though non-native speakers tend to have studied more grammar, it is difficult for them to recognize when things are incorrect because they don't have an intuitive feel for the language.

If I might take Jana as an example, she is a non-native speaker of English and her English writing would be considered excellent even for a native speaker. However, on very rare occasions she might use the wrong preposition or might have an incorrect word order which a native speaker would avoid. I would say this is true for most foreign speakers, although it may not be so accurate for those who have undergone a lengthy period of immersion.



> It is really difficult for non-native XXXX speakers to master the kind of flexibility of usage that marks truly fluent XXXX.
> I am certain this is true for XXXX = English.
> It seems possible, from my travels to other forums here, that it is true for other languages as well - but it would be interesting to know if native Italian/ French/ German etc speakers agree.


----------



## cuchuflete

Jonathan, 
If you are going to disagree with Panj, you'll need to be more careful with your grammar.


			
				JLanguage said:
			
		

> I disagree, because though non-native speakers tend to have studied more grammar, it is difficult for them to recognize when things are incorrect because they don't have an intuitive feel for the language.
> 
> If I might take Jana as an example. The foregoing is not a sentence, but an introductory clause! She's a non-native speaker of English and her English writing would be considered excellent even for a native speaker. On very rare occasions though she might use the wrong preposition or use a construction that is awkward which a native speaker would avoid. That's not grammar, but syntax or style.   I would say this is true for most foreign speakers, although* it(?)* may not be so accurate for those who have undergone a lengthy period of immersion.



Sorry for being so picky.  I've just undergone a lengthy period of immersion in our Culture forum.  I think Panj is correct about the grammar, but you are right in agreeing with him that one may be grammatically perfect and still not idiomatic.


----------



## JLanguage

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Jonathan,
> If you are going to disagree with Panj, you'll need to be more careful with your grammar.
> 
> Sorry for being so picky. I've just undergone a lengthy period of immersion in our Culture forum. I think Panj is correct about the grammar, but you are right in agreeing with him that one may be grammatically perfect and still not idiomatic.


 
It's late and my mind is not so sharp. I'll revise my post.


----------



## Jana337

JLanguage said:
			
		

> I disagree, because though non-native speakers tend to have studied more grammar, it is difficult for them to recognize when things are incorrect because they don't have an intuitive feel for the language.


Absolutely! 





> If I might take Jana as an example. She's a non-native speaker of English and her English writing would be considered excellent even for a native speaker. On  very   not so rare occasions though she might use the wrong preposition or use a construction that is awkward which a native speaker would avoid. I would say this is true for most foreign speakers, although may not be so accurate for those who have undergone a lengthy period of immersion.


I am afraid Jonathan is right. Would I do better in a grammar test than natives? Hardly - if you picked people with a passable level of education. 
My background in other languages definitely provides me with some insight into things that are natural and intuitive for most natives. But I will always say and write things that make you wince. Students of linguistics, who devote their lives to a particular language, can master all its subtleties. People like me cannot.

Jana


----------



## JLanguage

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Absolutely!
> I am afraid Jonathan is right. Would I do better in a grammar test than natives? Hardly - if you picked people with a passable level of education.
> My background in other languages definitely provides me with some insight into things that are natural and intuitive for most natives. But I will always say and write things that make you wince. Students of linguistics, who devote their lives to a particular language, can master all its subtleties. People like me cannot.
> 
> Jana


 
Linguistics refers to the study of language theory, not to the study of a specific language. Thus it would more accurate to say: Native students of a language, who devote their lives to that language, can master all its subtleties. Ah, but you could master all the subtleties of Czech.

-Jonathan.


----------



## Jana337

JLanguage said:
			
		

> Linguistics refers to the study of language theory, not to the study of a specific language. Thus it would more accurate to say: Native students of a language, who devote their lives to that language, can master all its subtleties. Ah, but you could master all the subtleties of Czech.
> 
> -Jonathan.


I was writing about students learning foreign languages. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

Jana


----------



## porchini

I think that much of how you speak a second language depends on how you speak your native tongue.  If you are well educated and well bred, you have a better chance of speaking correctly and picking up on the nuances of the foreign language. On the other hand, if you're used to slang and foul language, that is what you will probably use when you speak the second language.  Old habits die hard.


----------



## elroy

This is a wonderful thread!

Allow me to respond to the wealth of information and insight that has been shared here.

First off, I would like to *disagree *with Mod and *agree* with Jonathan about whether most non-natives have a _better _grasp of grammar than natives.  I think the confusion results from two different understandings of what grammar is.  Grammar is not a set of rules; grammar is the very structure on which a language is built, the skeleton without which there would be no rhyme or reason to the language.  The rules, in turn, are simply exterior _explanations_ of those foundational principles that are ingrained in the minds and speech patterns of native speakers (most of them, anyway).  Granted, there are some advanced grammatical concepts that even native speakers are uncertain of - a phenomenon that usually results from discrepancies between the spoken language and the written language.  That said, it goes without question that native speakers master the basic structures - and on top of that, the inexplicable nuances so difficult to internalize and comprehend (on which point I wholeheartedly *agree* with Panj) - whereas _some_ non-native speakers (the cream of the crop, of which Jana is a supreme example) master the strict rules with flying colors (in some cases, possibly better than natives).  The exceptionally bright among them (again, Jana is a prime example) make giant strides way beyond that and gain knowledge of many of the aforementioned "native" nuances.  Nevertheless, while the non-natives are in a constant process of gradual improvement as they try to pin down those nuances, natives take them for granted.  Furthermore, they may have missed something somewhere along the way (because of inadequate textbooks, lack of exposure, or conflicting theories) that natives are not even aware somebody might not know.  In any case, however, I believe that the aggregate result of natives' mastery of the language (both in the area of subtle nuance and subconscious mastery of structure, and in the area of official grammar) exceeds that of the equivalent in the non-native realm.

Moving right along,...my linguistic situation is almost identical to that of Maria Guadaloupe!  It's almost creepy how similar her background is to mine.  I, too, spoke only Arabic until the age of 5, at which point I enrolled in an English-medium school.  I spoke English exclusively at school, and Arabic at home and everywhere else.  While I did take "Arabic," the academic quality was not strong in that area and I only took it until eighth grade.  That said, I - like many native speakers of English? - have not mastered "official" Arabic grammar.  I can hold my own, but I am definitely inferior in that area to the average educated Arab.  My spoken Arabic, in turn, is beyond acceptable; I am just as aware of the nuances as any other speaker of Arabic.  English is my primary language, though; I speak it like a native (I always hesitate to call it a native language, so I find the above comments in favor of that quite intriguing) and I would like to think I know the grammar - both kinds - pretty well.

There's probably more I could say - language acquisition is one of my biggest passions! - but I'll stop for now.  I might add some more thoughts later.


----------



## JLanguage

Jana337 said:
			
		

> I was writing about students learning foreign languages. Sorry if it wasn't clear.
> 
> Jana


 
You were clear. I just wanted to note the difference between linguistics and the study of a native or foreign language.


----------



## JLanguage

Elroy said:
			
		

> That said, I - like many native speakers of English? - have not mastered "official" Arabic grammar. I can hold my own, but I am definitely inferior in that area to the average educated Arab. My spoken Arabic, in turn, is beyond acceptable; I am just as aware of the nuances as any other speaker of Arabic. English is my primary language, though; I speak it like a native (I always hesitate to call it a native language, so I find the above comments in favor of that quite intriguing) and I would like to think I know the grammar - both kinds - pretty well.


 
Why do you hesistate to call yourself a native speaker of English? I'm not sure I quite understand your logic there.


----------



## elroy

JLanguage said:
			
		

> Why do you hesistate to call yourself a native speaker of English? I'm not sure I quite understand your logic there.


 
Because of a technicality: I spoke Arabic first.

What does "native language" mean anyway?


----------



## moodywop

I am in complete agreement with JLanguage and Elroy.

If you learn a foreign language as an adult you may well attain an extremely high level of proficiency but what will always elude you is the ability to spot an "unidiomatic"(ie grammatically correct but unacceptable to a native) utterance. 

You will also always be cursed(or blessed - my friends are always complaining that I don't have an Italian accent, so I have to put one on, like Kevin Kline in "A Fish Named Wanda") with a foreign accent, unless you are bilingual and learnt the second language as a child.

Consider the case of Joseph Conrad. He wrote beautifully in English but he apparently always spoke with a heavy accent.

Psycholinguistics distinguish "functional motivation" from "integrative motivation" in second language learning. The elderly Italian restaurant owners I met in London spoke pretty basic English even though they had lived in the UK for forty years or more. With functional motivation you reach a "plateau"(the bare minimum for basic communication) and stay there. Their children were perfectly bilingual, since they naturally wanted to become integrated in the host community.

I myself had plenty of "integrative motivation". I left Italy at 21 after an extremely traumatic experience(I was kidnapped) that left me filled with hatred and resentment towards my native country. I spent 10 years in London, only mixing with the natives and purposely avoiding all contact with fellow Italians.(I would go as far as crossing the street if I spotted someone holding a copy of _Il Corriere). _

Although I'm told I "sound" English and am constantly being mistaken for a Brit by Americans I have not attained that "intuitive feel" for what is idiomatic and what isn't(as Panji can confirm from reading my posts in the Italian forum).

On the other hand there are areas that I feel more comfortable discussing in English than in Italian, such as discussing my feelings. This post, for instance, would be painful for me to write in my language. English helps me "distance myself" - I don't know why and I can't afford to go into analysis . I certainly feel like I'm switching identities when I switch from English to Italian - like putting on a different _persona(_no wonder - I have a "posh" accent in English and an "uncouth" Neapolitan accent in Italian_)._I literally "ache" for speaking English if I don't see any of my English-speaking friends for too long.

You may have guessed that this subject is particularly close to my heart. The only book that discusses these issues at length is _Second-Language Learning_ by Paul Christophersen.

Thank you for a stmulating discussion. I guess I'll have to visit the Cultural forum more often.

Carlo


----------



## moodywop

elroy said:
			
		

> Because of a technicality: I spoke Arabic first.
> 
> What does "native language" mean anyway?


 
Elroy

I only saw your post after I sent off mine( I hadn't realized that there was an extra page). What an amazing coincidence. The book I mentioned delves exactly into the issues raised by your extremely relevant question. I very much hope others will join us in this discussion. Language and personal identity are inextricably linked.


----------



## panjandrum

WOW - this is fascinating.



			
				JLanguage said:
			
		

> ... all native speakers have passive grammar ...


Super phrase - I'll use it in a moment or too.

JL disagreed with my first generalisation, saying:


> I disagree, because though non-native speakers tend to have studied more grammar, it is difficult for them to recognize when things are incorrect because they don't have an intuitive feel for the language.


Good point - when native speakers lapse from the strict grammatical rules (more on that in a moment or two ) they have passive grammar as a safety net. As a result, their lapse will often sound fluent, although wrongish, to other native speakers.
Non-native speakers do not have that safety net as a birthright. 
Can JL's passive grammar be acquired by a non-native speaker over time?

Elroy's post included:


> Grammar is not a set of rules; grammar is the very structure on which a language is built, the skeleton without which there would be no rhyme or reason to the language. The rules, in turn, are simply exterior _explanations_ of those foundational principles that are ingrained in the minds and speech patterns of native speakers (most of them, anyway).


 I wish I had written that.

For clarification, in my first generalisation I was using "grammatically correct" in a much more strict sense of "conforming to the rules".

I have lost count of the number of times questions in this forum have made me realise that I have only a very sketchy knowledge of "the rules". Sometimes this even makes me doubt the strength of my safety net - but I don't think I have actually hit the sawdust yet.


----------



## moodywop

elroy said:
			
		

> Because of a technicality: I spoke Arabic first.
> 
> What does "native language" mean anyway?


 
The following quotes are from the book I mentioned:

_...the present book...will argue that there is not in theory any limit to the degree of proficiency that may be achieved in a second language, and that consequently the traditional distinction between 'native' and 'non-native' in language is of doubtful validity._

_The term 'native' is often used as a synonym for a person's 'first' language, nearly always with the implication that it is his 'best' or 'primary' medium, which stands in a special relation to him, different from that of any other language; it is his 'own' language. It is a misleading term, because 'first' and 'best' are not invariably synonymous when applied to language..._

The author also finds "mother tongue" unsatisfactory and opts for "primary language".

Carlo


----------



## modgirl

elroy said:
			
		

> Grammar is not a set of rules;


 
I'm not sure where you obtained that opinion, but at least one authority disagrees with you: _Chicago Manual of Style_.

I believe it's the usage of a language that is the point of your contention. With that, I agree.

However, even in these forums, native speakers commit many grammatical errors. Sentences are frequently unparallel. It's been my experience that overall, the average American does not speak English as well as a (truly) fluent nonnative (I think I misspelled the word earlier; there is no hyphen). Idiomatic usage, of course, is excluded. I also agree that occasionally an odd preposition is used by a nonnative that would seem a bit out of place, as well. But overall, American English used by nonacademics is declining to the point where the nonnatives put us to shame.


----------



## moodywop

modgirl said:
			
		

> I'm not sure where you obtained that opinion, but at least one authority disagrees with you: _Chicago Manual of Style_.
> 
> I believe it's the usage of a language that is the point of your contention.


 
I think what Elroy means is that the rules contained even in the largest, most comprehensive academic grammar cannot account for the richness and complexity of real, living language.

It's basically what Noam Chomsky argues. If a language could be reduced to the set of rules in a book then behaviourists like Skinner would be right when they say(or used to say)we learn a language parrot-style.

Chomsky(and I assume Elroy too) is a firm believer in the existence of rules, except that he sees these rules as a complex network in our minds, ultimately irreducible to a set of rules in a textbook. Otherwise it would mean we have a very limited/limiting view of the complexity of the human brain(like behaviourists).

Chomsky could sue me for summarizing his views in such a pedestrian manner, of course.

Carlo


----------



## fenixpollo

Isis said:
			
		

> How do native English speakers look upon non-native English speakers?


 Speaking only for myself, I look on non-native speakers with respect. It takes a lot of effort to learn a second language. Factoring in the trials of immigration, of culture shock, and many other factors that many non-native-speaking immigrants deal with, and my respect goes up sharply. For those of you who do not immigrate to an English-speaking country, I also respect the effort and the interest it takes to learn a new language. I am also honored that you would choose to study my language, which tells me that you value my culture (if not my president!  ). Pronunciation and grammar are the smallest of issues -- I see one's ability in a language as a continuum; as long as you are_ on it_ somewhere, you have my admiration, patience, assistance and respect.





			
				Isis said:
			
		

> ...why *they* called me *"FOB" *( fresh off the boat ) when I told them that we call it *"sandwich"* still in the Philippines!


Which "they" called you that? In my experiences with Vietnamese, Laotian and Cambodian immigrants, it was the immigrant children who made fun of the new arrivals by calling them "FOB"; while the Mexican and Central American immigrants called the new arrivals things like "chúntaro." Most of the children who teased the new arrivals were born outside of the U.S. and spoke another language besides English until they started elementary school. I hope that it wasn't the native speakers who made fun of you like that (although I wouldn't be surprised).





			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> American English used by nonacademics is declining to the point where the nonnatives put us to shame.


 Implying that the ultimate measure of "correctness" in English is the degree to which the speaker conforms to the rules of grammar. This ignores the fact that the "nonacademics" are the people who speak the language the way they want, while the academics come along behind and create rules to describe what they hear the "nonacademics" (read: _rabble_) saying. That's why "ain't" is in the dictionary, and why we don't speak as they did in Shakespeare's time. Language evolves -- despite the "rules" of grammar.


----------



## Mariaguadalupe

Thank you Mod Girl for your comments.  I did speak Spanish at home most of the times, especially since my sisters also spoke English.  We would communicate among ourselves in English at home and in Spanish the rest of the time.  And yes, Elroy, the similarities are uncanny!  Fortunately for us (my sisters and myself), our mother insisted in our learning our language properly.  She insisted on using only one language at a time, no mixing languages in the same breath.  Thus, we were able to develop our communication skills in Spanish.  We achieved greater knowledge in Spanish when we reached college, we attended mexican colleges.  

I share Fenixpollo's respect towards those who learn a second language.


----------



## xav

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Here are two sweeping generalisations.
> 
> A good non-native XXXX speaker will be more consistently grammatically correct than a native speaker.
> 
> It is really difficult for non-native XXXX speakers to master the kind of flexibility of usage that marks truly fluent XXXX.
> 
> I am certain this is true for XXXX = English.
> It seems possible, from my travels to other forums here, that it is true for other languages as well - but it would be interesting to know if native Italian/ French/ German etc speakers agree.


 
I think it is. 
Even the different levels of language are difficult to master (which gives much "salt" to many expressions of non native speakers, because of small or sometimes wide shears between the situation and what they are saying). 

A non-native isn't usually able to play with the language as a native can do.

More, a french writer (C. Duneton) from southern France noticed that his friends at school, and even the young boys and girls today, weren't as able as young people from northern France to play so and use the different levels. He thought that came from a rather recent mutation of the whole society to French from Occitan ; for him, two generations weren't enough to master all the subtleties of a language (I mean, for ordinary persons).

This year, I was in the most recent part of France (north of Nice, the region of Tende, which became french in 1947) and noticed how boys and girls were speaking a very pure French.

I must say that some native speakers aren't able to master different levels of the language either. As the good non-native speakers (must) stay at a "high-class" level, or "high" by precision and use of correct grammar, which is usually welcome, those native stay at a "low" level, by lack of interest or education.


----------



## Swettenham

Let's take one example of "perfect English." 

Most English professors will tell you that contractions are not to be used in "proper," or at least written, English.  Hence, many people assume that those who speak without contractions are using the "correct" form of the language.  The problem is that in spoken English, contractions are almost always used, unless we want to place emphasis: "I'm Joseph.  Nice to meet you." vs. "I *am* Joseph!  Why don't you believe me?"  

In my view, the complete avoidance of contractions in spoken English can be distracting, because it draws attention to itself. Therefore, it is not necessarily "better" not to use contractions in day-to-day communication, even if some grammarians look down on contractions.

(Shukran, Elias )


----------



## JLanguage

Swettenham said:
			
		

> Let's take one example of "perfect English."
> 
> Most English professors will tell you that contractions are not to be used in "proper," or at least written, English. Hence, many people assume that those who speak without contractions are using the "correct" form of the language. The problem is that in spoken English, contractions are almost always used, unless we want to place emphasis: "I'm Joseph. Nice to meet you." vs. "I *am* Joseph! Why don't you believe me?"
> 
> In my view, the complete avoidance of contractions in spoken English can be distracting, because it draws attention to itself. Therefore, it is not necessarily "better" not to use contractions in day-to-day communication, even if some grammarians look down on contractions.
> (Shukran, Elias )


 
Anyone who avoids contractions in informal speech is clearly not as knowledgeable of the spoken language as he ought to be.


----------



## duder

JLanguage said:
			
		

> Anyone who avoids contractions in informal speech is clearly not as knowledgeable of the spoken language as they ought to be.



Just for fun, sometimes I challenge friends to try to see who can go the longest without using contractions in speech. It serves no purpose, of course, but it's an interesting and silly exercise to try. Of course, this is a _very_ difficult thing to do; the contest has never lasted more than a few minutes.   

Back on topic, I respect any person trying to learn English and understand that it is by no means an easy process. I had several foreign professors/teaching assistants in the university that would receive a lot of criticism (always behind their back, of course) from certain students because their speech was supposedly unintelligible. However, I never found this to be the case, and always enjoyed listening to their explanations even if their grammar, word choice, and accent were different from that of a native English speaker.


----------



## modgirl

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Implying that the ultimate measure of "correctness" in English is the degree to which the speaker conforms to the rules of grammar. This ignores the fact that the "nonacademics" are the people who speak the language the way they want, while the academics come along behind and create rules to describe what they hear the "nonacademics" (read: _rabble_) saying. That's why "ain't" is in the dictionary, and why we don't speak as they did in Shakespeare's time. Language evolves -- despite the "rules" of grammar.


 
Language does evolve.  But there's a huge difference between evolving and sounding silly because one never really learned good English in the first place.

I hope that don't bother yuh none cause really, me and my friends agree with yuh!


----------



## modgirl

JLanguage said:
			
		

> *Anyone* who avoids contractions in informal speech is clearly not as knowledgeable of the spoken language as *they* ought to be.


 
Just so you know, *anyone* is singular.


----------



## JLanguage

modgirl said:
			
		

> Just so you know, *anyone* is singular.


 
I am aware that anyone is singular. The use of "they" was in a singular neuter context, an unconscious mistake on my part. It has however become quite common as of late to use "they'' instead of "he" and "their" instead of ''his" in order to have neuter language. I believe sometime in the near future this usage will become standard.


----------



## mora

Hello

In my experience, the use of 'they' in the  singular, neuter sense has become 'standard' in spoken English, and is only frowned upon in formal writing. Though written, a forum such as this is not formal, and  has more in common with spoken conversation than with writing. I feel that  'they' as used by JLanguage was appropriate. What was the alternative? The cumbersome 'he or she'?

One of the great difficulties with determining what is 'right' in English comes from the two forms- English as it is spoken, and the great many regional variations and constant evolution, and formal written English with its more rigid rules and its variations which are specific and finite- such as the spelling vartiations between AE/BE, with we Canadians sitting on the fence.

To the original question, I think that non-native speakers are accepted as long as they can be understood, and imperfection in grammar and pronunciation are largely ignored, unless they impair understanding. On the other hand, there is a higher expectation with written English. Both native speakers and ESL speakers are expected, in business or academia, to write without making noticeable errors. 

So, no matter what your level of profiency is, it is wise to have formal letters and resumes proofread by someone capable of helping with whatever errors there may be. 

Mora


----------



## modgirl

mora said:
			
		

> What was the alternative? The cumbersome 'he or she'?


 
I don't wish to cause shock, but *he* is what is appropriate. Although one of the meanings of *he* is a male person, another one is a *person whose sex is unknown*.  Look it up in a dictionary.

Unfortunately, political correctness has become the fashionable gig of the day, and mindless robots follow the piper.

If you want to follow the herd, by all means, follow. (The national network news in the United States is written so that a person with an 8th grade education will be able to comprehend it, by definition) However, as an insider tip: if you ever wish to be published or ever taken seriously in any writing you do, never use the ridiculous *they* when a singular pronoun is required.


----------



## asm

Mariaguadalupe, I consider you to be an English native speaker. You might not be American (by birht at least), but that's another story. 



Regarding the original question, I think there are many different approaches. With my broken English I have perceived people who quit in the first try, sometimes they are rude (but not very often). Other times people will listen to you until they think they have understood. The mayority makes a positive effort to understand. However, for people with very low skills, people in general ignore them (I understand part of this behavior).



For those who learned the second language almost simultaneously with the first, should be thankful to their parent(s) and to the situation that brought you to that background. Learning a second language is extremely difficult, if you did not have the opportunity when “baby” is even more difficult. I do not want to demerit your skills, but yours skills were given in a much easier way.

Learning a language, even your own, is extremely difficult, I do not see anybody could reach “perfection”, if that happens with the first, the second is more difficult (when it is a real second one, not when you learned two languages at the same time)

 






			
				Mariaguadalupe said:
			
		

> I am a non-native English speaker who learned to read and write English before my own language. I once worked at an American subsidiary in México, where American personnel visited once in a while. I was once "accused" by one of these visiting employees of not being mexican because I fully grasped English and its nuances.


----------



## Swettenham

duder said:
			
		

> Back on topic, I respect any person trying to learn English and understand that it is by no means an easy process. I had several foreign professors/teaching assistants in the university that would receive a lot of criticism (always behind their back, of course) from certain students because their speech was supposedly unintelligible. However, I never found this to be the case, and always enjoyed listening to their explanations even if their grammar, word choice, and accent were different from that of a native English speaker.


Well, of course learning any second language as an adult is always a difficult process.  Furthermore, in the United States, the adult is most likely working 60 hours (more or less) a week,  while struggling to adapt to so many other changes as well— a new culture, a new way of doing things. If they are Spanish, they are accustomed to an orthography in which words are spelled as they are pronounced.  On top of everything, Spanish speakers may not have any _pressing_ need to learn English at all— in many places in the United States, such as Northern Virginia, thousands of people get through the whole day, every day, speaking nothing but Spanish.  That's why I admire my students for trying.

Don Santos in particular.  At 57, he's well past his prime language acquisition years.  He can understand what I say pretty well, but he can't speak or write very well.  He has told me before that his life is pretty easy: his son runs a construction company, which he works for, so his job is secure and not difficult.  I just learned yesterday that he has attempted to apply for citizenship, but could not fill out the application form adequately.  He told me that it doesn't matter; life is very expensive in the US, so when he retires, he plans to move back to El Salvador.  Here is a man who basically has no use for our ridiculous language, and has a very hard time learning it, and yet he comes in faithfully, day after day, and works hard to learn.  I told him I appreciate that, but I was too shy to say that I admire him. 

Then there's Francisco, who owns a construction company. (!) A few years ago, he bought several acres of land and built his own house on it.  He spent $300,000.  With the sharp rise in property values in our area, he estimates that his estate is now worth a million.  He's already achieved the American Dream, barely speaking English, and yet he comes in to class four evenings a week and struggles to learn.

I agree that it is a pleasure to hear nonnative speakers communicate in English, even when their grammar is "unusual—" I would say "colorful."  My friend Cristian can't simply say "everybody."  It's always, "Everybody people."  Maybe it's selfish of me, but I've never corrected him because I love his little mistakes.  We also have a lot of fun when I try to communicate to him in Spanish.  It's wonderful to live in a place where so many cultures intersect!!


----------



## modgirl

asm said:
			
		

> Mariaguadalupe, I consider you to be an English native speaker.




So do I. Anyone who learns a language (or 3 or 4!) before the age of 5 really is a native speaker.




> For those who learned the second language almost simultaneously with the first, should be thankful to their parent(s) and to the situation that brought you to that background.


 
Absolutely. I am truly envious of those who learned a second language so young. Although people can learn a second language at any age, there is little doubt that the younger the person, the easier it is to learn another language.

Unfortunately, the United States is in the Stone Ages when it comes to languages.  Generally, we don't start serious learning until the junior high or high school level -- entirely too late to speak without an accent.


----------



## Benjy

on the accent front mmm, i don't know. i pass undetected these days in the french speaking world and i only started learning french a couple of years ago. i met a bloke from south america on holiday in the same situation who spoke perfect french as well. depends on the person and their motivation.


----------



## JLanguage

modgirl said:
			
		

> I don't wish to cause shock, but *he* is what is appropriate. Although one of the meanings of *he* is a male person, another one is a *person whose sex is unknown*. Look it up in a dictionary.
> 
> Unfortunately, political correctness has become the fashionable gig of the day, and mindless robots follow the piper.
> 
> If you want to follow the herd, by all means, follow. (The national network news in the United States is written so that a person with an 8th grade education will be able to comprehend it, by definition) However, as an insider tip: if you ever wish to be published or ever taken seriously in any writing you do, never use the ridiculous *they* when a singular pronoun is required.


 
I am in no way, shape or form trying to be politically correct. As I said, my use of they instead of he was mistake. I do however feel that it will become the correct usage in the future.


----------



## VenusEnvy

> 1. Be helpful, not hurtful.
> If someone's English isn't perfect, don't treat him/her badly.







			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> I don't wish to cause shock, but *he* is what is appropriate.
> Look it up in a dictionary.
> 
> Unfortunately, political correctness has become the fashionable gig of the day, and mindless robots follow the piper.
> 
> If you want to follow the herd, by all means, follow.
> if you ever wish to be published or ever taken seriously in any writing you do, never use the ridiculous *they* when a singular pronoun is required.



Take it easy, Mod! Geez!  ::carefully confiscates the grammar book and axe from Mod's hands::



			
				mora said:
			
		

> What was the alternative? The cumbersome 'he or she'?


I don't think it's so cumbersome. I use the he/she often enough.



For all of those reliving the gender-neutral pronoun debate, here's a previous debate  we had.


----------



## cuchuflete

Seems like this ur....ummm...conversation has addressed the original question.

This thread is closed to protect the reading public.


----------

