| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | Should “native language” claims be verified? Thread poster: XXXphxxx (X)
|
|---|
| Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule | Ty Kendall 
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:40
Hebrew to English
Oliver Walter wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
The first thing that we will need to concede is that nativeness in a language has very little to do with translation quality or proficiency. He wrote it nearly 2 weeks ago (17 August, page 102), and I am surprised that nobody has challenged it.
Ordinarily we might, but if there's one thing we've learnt from this thread it's that there's no point, sadly.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:40
Hebrew to English
| Evidence please, not hearsay | Aug 29, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
He basically dismisses the idea of a native language as any credible criterium other than something on the more sentimental side.
Thanks for paraphrasing, but could you provide the relevant quote. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't like playing Chinese whispers I like to hear things straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
There are many other linguists who are leaning towards his theory.
Such as? Names? Articles where I can read about these leanings?
[Edited at 2012-08-29 18:05 GMT]
| | | | psicutrinius
Spain
Local time: 22:40
Member (2008)
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Well, Lilian. As for Chomsky... | Aug 29, 2012 |
...I have got the following:
Things No Amount of Learning Can Teach
Noam Chomsky interviewed by John Gliedman Omni, 6:11, November 1983
CHOMSKY: Precisely. But let me give you another example.
English contains grammatical constructions that are called parasitic gaps. In these constructions, you can drop a pronoun and still understand the sentence in the same way as when the sentence contains a pronoun. Consider the sentence, "Which article did you file without read... See more ...I have got the following:
Things No Amount of Learning Can Teach
Noam Chomsky interviewed by John Gliedman Omni, 6:11, November 1983
CHOMSKY: Precisely. But let me give you another example.
English contains grammatical constructions that are called parasitic gaps. In these constructions, you can drop a pronoun and still understand the sentence in the same way as when the sentence contains a pronoun. Consider the sentence, "Which article did you file without reading it?" Notice that you can drop the pronoun "it" without changing meaning or grammaticality. You can say, "Which article did you file without reading?" But you can't say, "John was killed by a rock falling on," when you mean, "John was killed by a rock falling on him." This time, omitting the pronoun destroys both meaning and grammaticality.
Constructions of this type -- where you can or cannot drop the pronoun -- are very rare. In fact, they are so rare that it is quite likely that during the period a child masters his native language (the first five or six years of life), he never hears any of these constructions, or he hears them very sporadically. Nonetheless, every native speaker of English knows flawlessly when you can and can't drop pronouns in these kinds of sentences.
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/198311--.htm
The emphasis is mine, of course.
Am I right in deducting here that Chomsky is all FOR the concept of native language and that he provides positive proof that (a) it is a sound concept and (b) of at the very least one of the "nativity" effects which cannot be offset by no matter how much training/learning is received later on?.
So, you enrolled Chomsky to your side while he stands clearly at the other side of the fence?
Well, I still wait for that legion of linguists abominating the "N" word.
But now the bluff has been definitely called.
Cheers ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
psicutrinius wrote: […] Constructions of this type -- where you can or cannot drop the pronoun -- are very rare. In fact, they are so rare that it is quite likely that during the period a child masters his native language (the first five or six years of life), he never hears any of these constructions, or he hears them very sporadically. Nonetheless, every native speaker of English knows flawlessly when you can and can't drop pronouns in these kinds of sentences. http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/198311--.htm The emphasis is mine, of course. Am I right in deducting here that Chomsky is all FOR the concept of native language and that he provides positive proof that (a) it is a sound concept and (b) of at the very least one of the "nativity" effects which cannot be offset by no matter how much training/learning is received later on?.
I really shouldn’t say anything on this topic any more, but you really can’t get this conclusion from what you have quoted. “Every native knows” does not imply “non-natives don’t know.”
From the perspective of language teachers—at least according to my own experience (yours might, and very likely do, vary)—if, even after years of training/learning, a non-native still fails to have an intuition of when such pronouns can be dropped and when they can’t, then the said non-native has pretty much failed to learn the language.
[Edited at 2012-08-29 19:50 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:40
Hebrew to English
| The line between extremely proficient and native | Aug 29, 2012 |
Ambrose Li wrote:
I really shouldn’t say anything on this topic any more, but you really can’t get this conclusion from what you have quoted. “Every native knows” does not imply “non-natives don’t know.”
From the perspective of language teachers—at least according to my own experience (yours might, and very likely do, vary)—if, even after years of training/learning, a non-native still fails to have an intuition of when such pronouns can be dropped and when they can’t, then the said non-native has pretty much failed to learn the language.
[Edited at 2012-08-29 19:50 GMT]
No, but it does imply the vast majority of non-natives don't know.
I'm not sure it's about knowing. I think Chomsky's choice of verb there is unfortunate, it would have been better to use "senses" (every native speaker of English can sense/senses when you can/can't....).
If a non-native fails to acquire this instinct it does not mean they have failed to learn the language, it means they have not managed to become a native speaker, which is neither a realistic goal nor the intention of language instruction. I say this as an ex-/occasional language teacher.
| | | | Kay Denney
France
Local time: 22:40
French to English
| I'm sorry... | Aug 29, 2012 |
Ambrose Li wrote: psicutrinius wrote: […] Constructions of this type -- where you can or cannot drop the pronoun -- are very rare. In fact, they are so rare that it is quite likely that during the period a child masters his native language (the first five or six years of life), he never hears any of these constructions, or he hears them very sporadically. Nonetheless, every native speaker of English knows flawlessly when you can and can't drop pronouns in these kinds of sentences. http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/198311--.htm The emphasis is mine, of course. Am I right in deducting here that Chomsky is all FOR the concept of native language and that he provides positive proof that (a) it is a sound concept and (b) of at the very least one of the "nativity" effects which cannot be offset by no matter how much training/learning is received later on?. I really shouldn’t say anything on this topic any more, but you really can’t get this conclusion from what you have quoted. “Every native knows” does not imply “non-natives don’t know.” From the perspective of language teachers—at least according to my own experience (yours might, and very likely do, vary)—if, even after years of training/learning, a non-native still fails to have an intuition of when such pronouns can be dropped and when they can’t, then the said non-native has pretty much failed to learn the language. [Edited at 2012-08-29 19:50 GMT]
No, come on, Ambrose, why would Chomsky specify "native" if that's not what he meant?
Of course some non-native might get a handle on this sort of point but in my experience as a jaded burned-out English teacher, very few ever do. I'm sure that not all the "non-natives" contributing to this thread would be able to score 10/10 on this sort of test.
And as we've tried to point out I don't know how many times already, we're not actually out to catch those who would score 10/10. If they did they would deserve to have that precious N!
The point I understand Psicutrinius to be making is merely that Chomsky does actually draw a line between native and non-native speakers, whereas Liliana has claimed that he considers it an outdated notion. (Please Psicutrinius correct me if I am wrong)
| | | | Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 22:40
Italian to English
In memoriam | No one is perfect | Aug 29, 2012 |
Ambrose Li wrote:
From the perspective of language teachers—at least according to my own experience (yours might, and very likely do, vary)—if, even after years of training/learning, a non-native still fails to have an intuition of when such pronouns can be dropped and when they can’t, then the said non-native has pretty much failed to learn the language.
[Edited at 2012-08-29 19:50 GMT]
He or she certainly hasn't learned the language perfectly but that's not the point. We're trying to identify non-natives who claim to be native English speakers.
Even if a non-native has mastered the basic mechanisms of English, s/he will have layered this knowledge on top of his/her own language's structures, and these will interfere to a greater or lesser extent with English-language production.
In the course of this epic thread, there have been thoughtful contributions from several highly educated non-native speakers of English who write the language far more precisely than most native users yet still make very occasional errors with articles, phrasal particles and the like that flag up their writing as non-native.
The contributors concerned do not claim to be native speakers of English. They do claim to have specialist sector knowledge, however, and I am sure that their specialised translations into English, particularly if revised by a literate native speaker, would pass any "fit for purpose" test and represent excellent value for money.
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall wrote:
I'm not sure it's about knowing. I think Chomsky's choice of verb there is unfortunate, it would have been better to use "senses" (every native speaker of English can sense/senses when you can/can't....).
If a non-native fails to acquire this instinct it does not mean they have failed to learn the language, it means they have not managed to become a native speaker, which is neither a realistic goal nor the intention of language instruction. I say this as an ex-/occasional language teacher.
I did use the word “intuition” later; the knowing I was talking about was not head knowledge, but an intuitive kind of knowing. I have had more than one language teacher telling me that the language learner’s goal is in fact to acquire such intuition, and I can assure you that this is a realistic, achievable goal.
Of course, being repeatedly told that non-natives cannot in fact achieve this will do nasty things to your intuition, which is, I’d say, very regrettable.
Anyway, as I have said earlier, I should stop commenting on this thread.
| | | | | Chomsky has never said anything about anyone who learned a | Aug 29, 2012 |
language later than his or her L1 that the person cannot reach competence approaching perfection. He was interested in first language acquisition with the intention of discovering general rules which would help someone acquire L2 and competence close to absolute competence of an ideal native speaker -- one whose language developed in a Linguistically isolated group. People who know certain languages well, feel intuitively when to drop certain pronouns and when it is better to keep them. They als... See more language later than his or her L1 that the person cannot reach competence approaching perfection. He was interested in first language acquisition with the intention of discovering general rules which would help someone acquire L2 and competence close to absolute competence of an ideal native speaker -- one whose language developed in a Linguistically isolated group. People who know certain languages well, feel intuitively when to drop certain pronouns and when it is better to keep them. They also know about all the ambiguities of certain structures and about punctuation.
The problem is that we have to take into account speakers who demonstrate really high level of proficiency in a particular language, not an intermediate level language speakers. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:40
Hebrew to English
Well, I disagree. There's something to be said for the cruelty and pressure of telling your students they can all be as good as a native speaker. It's not a realistic goal for 99% of language learners. I know this from a lifetime of interacting with non-native speakers. I'm yet to meet one who isn't betrayed by the smallest detail. (Even if they are passable in every other respect).
You can encourage and inspire your students without giving them the illusion that they will all thoro... See more Well, I disagree. There's something to be said for the cruelty and pressure of telling your students they can all be as good as a native speaker. It's not a realistic goal for 99% of language learners. I know this from a lifetime of interacting with non-native speakers. I'm yet to meet one who isn't betrayed by the smallest detail. (Even if they are passable in every other respect).
You can encourage and inspire your students without giving them the illusion that they will all thoroughly master the language (many won't, many will simply plateau) - other will become extremely proficient non-native speakers - but it's highly unlikely they'll "become" native speakers or achieve this level. There's nothing pejorative there though - there's nothing wrong with being an extremely proficient non-native speaker - it's no better or worse than being a native speaker, it's just different. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | “becoming a native speaker” vs the specific example given | Aug 29, 2012 |
I never said non-natives can “become,” so to speak, native speakers; what I disagreed with was using the specific example given by Chomsky as a test for nativeness, and, by extension, the claim that intuition is something non-natives can never attain.
There is a difference, in terms of the kind of expectation that is created in the students’ mind, between telling them that they are supposed to gain a native-like intuition and telling them that they will never, ever po... See more I never said non-natives can “become,” so to speak, native speakers; what I disagreed with was using the specific example given by Chomsky as a test for nativeness, and, by extension, the claim that intuition is something non-natives can never attain.
There is a difference, in terms of the kind of expectation that is created in the students’ mind, between telling them that they are supposed to gain a native-like intuition and telling them that they will never, ever possibly gain any such intuition. While the former might indeed be a little bit unrealistic (though I really do doubt it), the latter is to set them up for failure. If all non-natives are told that they will never speak and write like natives, then of course what we’re getting is more and more non-native English; this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:40
Hebrew to English
| Middle Ground | Aug 29, 2012 |
Ambrose Li wrote:
I never said non-natives can “become,” so to speak, native speakers; what I disagreed with was using the specific example given by Chomsky as a test for nativeness, and, by extension, the claim that intuition is something non-natives can never attain.
There is a difference, in terms of the kind of expectation that is created in the students’ mind, between telling them that they are supposed to gain a native-like intuition and telling them that they will never, ever possibly gain any such intuition. While the former might indeed be a little bit unrealistic (though I really do doubt it), the latter is to set them up for failure. If all non-natives are told that they will never speak and write like natives, then of course what we’re getting is more and more non-native English; this is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I think you have to find a middle ground. Don't fill their heads with unrealistic expectations (many of which are well documented in L2 acquisition/SLA research) but don't tell them what they never will or never can achieve either. For example, I wouldn't spend a great deal of time informing my students of the relatively modest L2 acquisition success rates but at the same time I wouldn't give them a "happily ever after" spin either.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:40
Hebrew to English
| Trust me..... | Aug 29, 2012 |
LilianBoland wrote:
Chomsky has never said anything about anyone who learned a language later than his or her L1 that the person cannot reach competence approaching perfection.
Chomsky, the man who has himself echoed Lenneberg's Critical Period Hypothesis, believes in the concept of "native language".
[Edited at 2012-08-30 00:03 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 21:40
Hebrew to English
| | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Should “native language” claims be verified? | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
| | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
