Re: that
- From: Dominic Bojarski <dominicbojarski@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:45:54 -0700
On Aug 14, 9:31 pm, Farhad <fvafa...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 14, 11:00 pm, Dominic Bojarski <dominicbojar...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Aug 14, 7:32 pm, Farhad <fvafa...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 14, 8:37 pm, Dominic Bojarski <dominicbojar...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:06 pm, Farhad <fvafa...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 13, 1:51 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Eh? Your English is usually very good, but if I were you I'd leave it to
the native speakers in the group to give the advice.
You should operationaly define "the native speaker", Mike!
Farhad
Can you think of a definition that would include you?
I don't intend to include myself in what is traditionally meant by the
native speaker.
A traditional threefold definition of the concept "native speaker" has
been provided by Guy Cook in his Applied Linguistics. A native speaker
of English is traditionally defined to be one who:
a) has aquired English naturally and effortlessly in childhood;
b) uses English correctly and has insight into what is or is not
acceptable;
c) has the knowledge of, and loyalty to, the community which uses
English.
This defintion, as Cook rightly points out, is problamatic. There are
lots of people who use English just as expertly, if not more expertly
than, as the traditionally defined English native speakers. There
might be some minor differences of accent, phrasing, etc., but these
are usually compensated for by additional expertise which a
traditionally native speaker may not have.
The defintion concentrates only on proficiency in speech. There are
lots of illiterate native speakers. And many of those who can write,
like some members of this group, do so innacurately or clumsily. Also,
native speakers' knowledge of the language, excluding those who have
acquired the meta-language knowledge, is impilicit rather than
explicit. They use the rules correctly but cannot necessarily explain
them. Prof. Cook rightly says "it is quite common to find that the
expertise of the non-native speaker exceeds that of many native
speakers."
Farhad
Reference:
Cook, G. (2003). Applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
I doubt that the expertise of many non-native speakers comes even
close to that of the five native speakers whose judgment you
repeatedly questioned in another thread, whose knowledge of the
language, by the way, far surpasses the level described described by
Cook.
Robert Lieblich, Mark Wallace, and some other people in this group and
AEU are not the average native speakers Cook and I have meant. Their
quality of writing and content of postings vividly manifest their
excellent knowledge of the language and ABOUT it. However, what a
native speaker says is not necessarily correct. There are lots of
errors the native speakers of any language have in their own native
language. Even Lieblich, whom I highly respect, has some errors in his
native language. He is not aware of them, for if he were, then they
would be mistakes rather than errors. However, I do believe what
native speakers, rather than a native speaker, say should be regarded
as a yardstick in terms of which the well-formedness of sentences can
be judged.
As for my expertise, there are lots of things I know about English and
at the same time lots of things I do not know. The question asked by
fyfpoon in this thread is one of those things I know. But it seems my
judgement on the question has threatened some people of losing the
ownership of their language.
Farhad
Fahrad, your overconfidence is unjustified, as is your distrust of the
highly qualified native speakers whose judgment you have been
questioning.
Let me explain what the rules in the grammar books you are reading
are. They are an imperfect, incomplete and necessarily simplified
description of how highly educated native speakers like Robert
Lieblich, Mark Wallace, Donna Richoux, I and many of the other posters
here actually speak. We are the standard by which the rules are
measured, not the other way around.
For example, one famous grammarian has written more than twenty pages
on the use of "shall" and "will". Even so, he concludes by writing "it
is unlikely that this rule has ever had any consistent basis of
authority in actual usage, and many examples of English in print
disregard it". Notice that the authority that justifies the rule
derives from the native speakers upon whose usage the rule is based,
and, again, not the other way around.
A book that exhaustively describes how native speakers use the word
"get" hasn't yet been written, and it would be a very thick book
indeed.
Nobody here feels "threatened" that you are challenging their
"ownership of the language". We just don't think you are fully
qualified to answer questions on the fine points of usage.
A lot of the posters here have a soft spot for language learners, and
don't want anyone to give them unqualified advice. That is why you
were told to back off.
Now let me give you my qualifications: I have degrees in Classical
Languages and German Philology. In addition to English, I speak
German, Danish and Polish. German and Danish, by the way, are related
to English, so an English speaker who speaks them understands the
English language a lot better than most monolingual English speakers
do.
I have been teaching English as a foreign language for many years, so
I'm quite familiar with the rules that are taught to language
learners. I am abundantly familiar with the limitations of the rules,
too. I am also a high-level professional translator. Even so, I am
still learning about the English language, and will continue to do so
until I die.
Many of the posters here have qualifications no less impressive than
mine. I can't for the life of me imagine why you would consider your
knowledge of the English language to be on the same level as ours.
This is what I meant when I said that you were being unrealistically
self-confident.
I've taught a lot of students English, and I have seen more than a few
go through the phase that you are going through now. I've had lots of
students tell me "But the dictionary says ..." or "The grammar book
says ...", only to have to explain that the dictionaries and grammar
books are not perfect and complete.
You've found an excellent resource for learning English in AUE: a pool
of highly qualified native speakers with a vast amount of knowledge
and experience. Take advantage of that. However, don't make it harder
for them to help other language learners.
And be very careful in concluding that posters like Robert Lieblich
"has some errors in his native language". One of my students came to
me once saying that he found a error in one of the readings I had
assigned. The writer was, of all people, Oscar Wilde. Oscar Wilde, as
you should know, is the very model of perfect English.
The "mistake" did indeed violate the rule that the student had been
taught, but was not a mistake at all, just one of the fine points that
the simplified rule in the grammar book did not cover.
Was the rule bad? No, it was appropriate for the student's level, and
was valid about 95% of the time. Most of the rules in the dictionaries
and grammar books that you so slavishly rely on are likewise not valid
100% of the time. They have exceptions and limitations that would be
senseless to burden language learners with until they have become
proficient in English.
Dominic Bojarski
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: that
- From: Frank ess
- Re: that
- References:
- that
- From: fyfpoon@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: that
- From: Farhad
- Re: that
- From: fyfpoon@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: that
- From: Farhad
- Re: that
- From: fyfpoon@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: that
- From: Farhad
- Re: that
- From: fyfpoon@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: that
- From: Farhad
- Re: that
- From: Mike Lyle
- Re: that
- From: Farhad
- Re: that
- From: Dominic Bojarski
- Re: that
- From: Farhad
- Re: that
- From: Dominic Bojarski
- Re: that
- From: Farhad
- that
- Prev by Date: Re: Dem stones, dem stones, dem plum stones.
- Next by Date: "Alec" and "reddish"
- Previous by thread: Re: that
- Next by thread: Re: that
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
