3 ms·

> ... most of us will not be able to master grammar like a native speaker — or probably sound like one either. I disagree with the "mastering grammar" point. I

by ablekh 6y ago

> ... most of us will not be able to master grammar like a native speaker — or probably sound like one either. I disagree with the "mastering grammar" point. I think that many native speakers are less than perfect in terms of mastery of their language grammar, especially in various tricky / special cases. Native speakers' ability to use correct grammar stems from combination of language environment immersion and some formal teaching in school. However, I believe that the immersion plays lesser role in grammar mastery and larger role in fluency (due to "thinking in native language"). On the other hand, formal grammar of any language is a relatively limited set of rules, so, given appropriate determination, time and effort, it could be mastered to a native or near-native level regardless of the learner's age. In my opinion, the most difficult aspects of learning a foreign language are richness of vocabulary, idioms, fluency in embedding cultural references, and accent-free pronunciation.

gnulinux 6y ago
Linguistically, there is no such thing possible that a native speaker not being a master of their languages. It is by definition true that all natives speakers who do not have intellectual disability are masters of their mother tongue and are idiomatic, except for idiosyncratic (personal/creative) phrases. However, the issue is, languages live as a complex cloud of many mutually intelligible dialects and argo. The language you learn in school can really not be the language you learned from your parent; that does not mean you're an imperfect native speaker. It is just the case that over the 19th century many nation states (such as Italy, Germany etc...) had to standardize their languages so that there is a way for all citizens understand each other; like a lingua franca except easier to learn. Following this thought, it is possible for a non-native speaker to absorb the "formal" grammar of a language, however learning idiomatic speech and tiniest differences in connotation is a completely different deal. It is very plausible that a non-native speaker cannot master non-formal, "human" aspect of grammar. Languages are formalized by people, so that we can teach them to other people. The assumption is that, although English is not a universal language, human brain has certain universal concepts, such as logic, that can be understood by everyone. Then we exploit this feature of this brain, we construct human languages as formal languages, so that we can study them. Purely speaking, languages are not formal objects, they're just whatever native speakers use to communicate. We can use physics as an analogy. Surely the universe does not operate with mathematical formulas and calculations. Humans observe the nature, then build models that predict nature. And the more predictive a model is, the more useful it is. If you're designing a car Newtononian physics can be a very useful tool to understand the nature, but that doesn't mean nature, intrinsically, uses Newtonian physics to "behave". Similarly, we can observe human languages and construct imperfect models of them (grammar) after the fact. This is only good enough to explain 99% of the spoken language (good enough for all citizens to communicate).
- outworlder 6y ago
  > Linguistically, there is no such thing possible that a native speaker not being a master of their languages. Is this a necessary distinction? Taking this to the extreme, there would be no such concept as a grammatical error. Or even syntax, for that matter. If a native speaker says 'loose' instead of 'lose' (or 'rouge' vs 'rogue') did they just create a new dialect? Shouldn't we consider these as being 'mistakes' - until such a time these forms are the new accepted norm? What about vocabulary? There are natives who never bothered reading a book, and thus are limited in their vocabulary. Are they 'masters' of their language? Is the lack of knowledge about certain words also to be considered a dialect? I am not sure one's upbringing gives them any authority on language usage. Collectively, sure. Not on an individual basis.
  - gnulinux 6y ago
    > Is this a necessary distinction? It is the only possible way to study languages scientifically. You don't go prescribe physical objects, you look at physical objects treat their behavior as a black box and build models to predict them. > Taking this to the extreme, there would be no such concept as a grammatical error. Or even syntax, for that matter. Correct, as I said there really is no such thing as grammar error. A native speaker cannot, by definition, talk in wrong grammar. You need a point of reference to judge sentence to be off grammar. In order to do so, you need to have a formal language which is a model of natural language. The only possible way for you to do this if you observe N native speakers and capture their language formally such that your model can predict sentences they would use to communicate. > Or even syntax, for that matter. Not following you. Syntax is a property of formal languages. English, as defined by institution X, python, Lojban, typed lambda calculus are all formal languages, which have well defined axioms and rules of inference. Natural languages however do not. This is the same distinction between natural numbers and models of natural numbers (Paeno arithmetic, Q, etc). Or electrons as they exist in themselves, and physical theories that predict behavior of electrons. > If a native speaker says 'loose' instead of 'lose' (or 'rouge' vs 'rogue') did they just create a new dialect? Everything I said is about spoken language not written. It's possible for native speakers to make spelling mistakes, it's not possible for them to pronounce a word wrong or make grammatical mistakes. (modulo human errors, of course if a native speaker accidentally says something wrong, they can pick it up and fix themselves) > What about vocabulary? There are natives who never bothered reading a book, and thus are limited in their vocabulary. Register, argo etc. I'm sorry but these are all well understood concepts available to you in first couple chapters if a Linguistic 101 textbook. > I am not sure one's upbringing gives them any authority on language usage. The whole point is there is no authority. Just like no one can judge what is the correct way for an atom to behave, no one can judge what is the correct way for a person to speak. The way you learned from your mom and practice daily is the language you speak as it is.

by ablekh 6y ago

gnulinux 6y ago

Linguistically, there is no such thing possible that a native speaker not being a master of their languages. It is by definition true that all natives speakers who do not have intellectual disability are masters of their mother tongue and are idiomatic, except for idiosyncratic (personal/creative) phrases. However, the issue is, languages live as a complex cloud of many mutually intelligible dialects and argo. The language you learn in school can really not be the language you learned from your parent; that does not mean you're an imperfect native speaker. It is just the case that over the 19th century many nation states (such as Italy, Germany etc...) had to standardize their languages so that there is a way for all citizens understand each other; like a lingua franca except easier to learn. Following this thought, it is possible for a non-native speaker to absorb the "formal" grammar of a language, however learning idiomatic speech and tiniest differences in connotation is a completely different deal. It is very plausible that a non-native speaker cannot master non-formal, "human" aspect of grammar. Languages are formalized by people, so that we can teach them to other people. The assumption is that, although English is not a universal language, human brain has certain universal concepts, such as logic, that can be understood by everyone. Then we exploit this feature of this brain, we construct human languages as formal languages, so that we can study them. Purely speaking, languages are not formal objects, they're just whatever native speakers use to communicate. We can use physics as an analogy. Surely the universe does not operate with mathematical formulas and calculations. Humans observe the nature, then build models that predict nature. And the more predictive a model is, the more useful it is. If you're designing a car Newtononian physics can be a very useful tool to understand the nature, but that doesn't mean nature, intrinsically, uses Newtonian physics to "behave". Similarly, we can observe human languages and construct imperfect models of them (grammar) after the fact. This is only good enough to explain 99% of the spoken language (good enough for all citizens to communicate).

outworlder 6y ago
> Linguistically, there is no such thing possible that a native speaker not being a master of their languages. Is this a necessary distinction? Taking this to the extreme, there would be no such concept as a grammatical error. Or even syntax, for that matter. If a native speaker says 'loose' instead of 'lose' (or 'rouge' vs 'rogue') did they just create a new dialect? Shouldn't we consider these as being 'mistakes' - until such a time these forms are the new accepted norm? What about vocabulary? There are natives who never bothered reading a book, and thus are limited in their vocabulary. Are they 'masters' of their language? Is the lack of knowledge about certain words also to be considered a dialect? I am not sure one's upbringing gives them any authority on language usage. Collectively, sure. Not on an individual basis.
- gnulinux 6y ago
  > Is this a necessary distinction? It is the only possible way to study languages scientifically. You don't go prescribe physical objects, you look at physical objects treat their behavior as a black box and build models to predict them. > Taking this to the extreme, there would be no such concept as a grammatical error. Or even syntax, for that matter. Correct, as I said there really is no such thing as grammar error. A native speaker cannot, by definition, talk in wrong grammar. You need a point of reference to judge sentence to be off grammar. In order to do so, you need to have a formal language which is a model of natural language. The only possible way for you to do this if you observe N native speakers and capture their language formally such that your model can predict sentences they would use to communicate. > Or even syntax, for that matter. Not following you. Syntax is a property of formal languages. English, as defined by institution X, python, Lojban, typed lambda calculus are all formal languages, which have well defined axioms and rules of inference. Natural languages however do not. This is the same distinction between natural numbers and models of natural numbers (Paeno arithmetic, Q, etc). Or electrons as they exist in themselves, and physical theories that predict behavior of electrons. > If a native speaker says 'loose' instead of 'lose' (or 'rouge' vs 'rogue') did they just create a new dialect? Everything I said is about spoken language not written. It's possible for native speakers to make spelling mistakes, it's not possible for them to pronounce a word wrong or make grammatical mistakes. (modulo human errors, of course if a native speaker accidentally says something wrong, they can pick it up and fix themselves) > What about vocabulary? There are natives who never bothered reading a book, and thus are limited in their vocabulary. Register, argo etc. I'm sorry but these are all well understood concepts available to you in first couple chapters if a Linguistic 101 textbook. > I am not sure one's upbringing gives them any authority on language usage. The whole point is there is no authority. Just like no one can judge what is the correct way for an atom to behave, no one can judge what is the correct way for a person to speak. The way you learned from your mom and practice daily is the language you speak as it is.