4 ms·

Strange choice of interview subjects given the article title: the first seems to be a native speaker and the second asserts he is a native speaker. They're just

by tgb 5y ago

Strange choice of interview subjects given the article title: the first seems to be a native speaker and the second asserts he is a native speaker. They're just not from the US.

azangru 5y ago
> the first seems to be a native speaker What makes you think so?
- telesilla 5y ago
  Perhaps because they have accents not associated as 'native' of that area. I moved away from my home country a long time ago: when I get back, people I don't know ask where I'm from because my accent has changed. After a few days it comes back and I blend back in. I believe this is very common to migrants, so not only do they have an accent not from 'here' but maybe they have a twinge of the local sound.
- tgb 5y ago
  It might depend upon what you count as native (as the article talks about later), but she certainly seems to have had constant English exposure since early childhood. Anyone more familiar with New Dehli might have a better guess, but to me it felt like the article was doing what the second speaker complained of: > "I grew up with three languages, as my parents did not share the same 'mother tongue' " Madani says. "And, in any case, how would this manager know what language I grew up with? I was especially miffed as she spoke but one language." It's my (possibly mistaken) assumption that anyone from India, self-described as a linguistic "have", and majoring in English and teaching English now, probably has been speaking it since before they started school. It seems strange that article doesn't actually clarify anything about her language education and the second interviewee specifically shows that the authors didn't only select for non-native speakers. I assume the editor wrote the title without sufficient thought and the author would have chosen something else.
  - jxramos 5y ago
    I didn't even understand what that sentence meant > But that day in the classroom, my incomprehensible English taught me that being an linguistic "have" is unstable and delusional at best. What does it mean to be a linguistic have? Is this a reference to the haves/have-nots. Is she trying to say someone with linguistic fluency? Seems like the "an" is misapplied there too which mucks up the sentence.
- mirkules 5y ago
  It might help to have a strong definition of “native”. The problem is that the definition changes slightly from person to person. In my opinion, “native speaker” should mean “a person who is completely fluent in a language and formulates their thoughts in it.” But I’m wondering if we should include “social norms” in the definition of “native”... I did not speak English until we moved to America when I was 12. Now I hardly have a chance to speak my “native” language anymore, and instead am fluent, accent-less and conduct my daily activities (and even dream) almost exclusively in English. My kids and my wife all speak English only. I have become a native speaker, and by my own definition, I have become a foreign speaker in the language I learned as a kid. I’m still fluent in it, but I struggle sometimes to find the right words (translate from English). Another anecdote, my wife, who is an Australian native - speaking what is closer to the “Queen’s English” than American English - was forced to take an ESL test when she first moved here to start college to assess her English knowledge. Is she a native speaker? Linguistically, yes. But she struggled to understand others in America and, more importantly, have others understand her. “Can I have some cutlery?” directed at a waiter for met with a blank stare (clearly unfamiliar with that term, I interjected with “eating utensils”). This is where societal norms and cultural lingo comes into play.
  - wldcordeiro 5y ago
    So would someone have two or more native languages if they can change which one they formulate their thoughts in? I guess that just emphasizes your point or the article's point more that it's a vague term to begin with.

by tgb 5y ago

Strange choice of interview subjects given the article title: the first seems to be a native speaker and the second asserts he is a native speaker. They're just not from the US.

azangru 5y ago

> the first seems to be a native speaker What makes you think so?

telesilla 5y ago
Perhaps because they have accents not associated as 'native' of that area. I moved away from my home country a long time ago: when I get back, people I don't know ask where I'm from because my accent has changed. After a few days it comes back and I blend back in. I believe this is very common to migrants, so not only do they have an accent not from 'here' but maybe they have a twinge of the local sound.
tgb 5y ago
It might depend upon what you count as native (as the article talks about later), but she certainly seems to have had constant English exposure since early childhood. Anyone more familiar with New Dehli might have a better guess, but to me it felt like the article was doing what the second speaker complained of: > "I grew up with three languages, as my parents did not share the same 'mother tongue' " Madani says. "And, in any case, how would this manager know what language I grew up with? I was especially miffed as she spoke but one language." It's my (possibly mistaken) assumption that anyone from India, self-described as a linguistic "have", and majoring in English and teaching English now, probably has been speaking it since before they started school. It seems strange that article doesn't actually clarify anything about her language education and the second interviewee specifically shows that the authors didn't only select for non-native speakers. I assume the editor wrote the title without sufficient thought and the author would have chosen something else.
- jxramos 5y ago
  I didn't even understand what that sentence meant > But that day in the classroom, my incomprehensible English taught me that being an linguistic "have" is unstable and delusional at best. What does it mean to be a linguistic have? Is this a reference to the haves/have-nots. Is she trying to say someone with linguistic fluency? Seems like the "an" is misapplied there too which mucks up the sentence.
mirkules 5y ago
It might help to have a strong definition of “native”. The problem is that the definition changes slightly from person to person. In my opinion, “native speaker” should mean “a person who is completely fluent in a language and formulates their thoughts in it.” But I’m wondering if we should include “social norms” in the definition of “native”... I did not speak English until we moved to America when I was 12. Now I hardly have a chance to speak my “native” language anymore, and instead am fluent, accent-less and conduct my daily activities (and even dream) almost exclusively in English. My kids and my wife all speak English only. I have become a native speaker, and by my own definition, I have become a foreign speaker in the language I learned as a kid. I’m still fluent in it, but I struggle sometimes to find the right words (translate from English). Another anecdote, my wife, who is an Australian native - speaking what is closer to the “Queen’s English” than American English - was forced to take an ESL test when she first moved here to start college to assess her English knowledge. Is she a native speaker? Linguistically, yes. But she struggled to understand others in America and, more importantly, have others understand her. “Can I have some cutlery?” directed at a waiter for met with a blank stare (clearly unfamiliar with that term, I interjected with “eating utensils”). This is where societal norms and cultural lingo comes into play.
- wldcordeiro 5y ago
  So would someone have two or more native languages if they can change which one they formulate their thoughts in? I guess that just emphasizes your point or the article's point more that it's a vague term to begin with.