Register  Login  Active Topics  Maps  

Studying a language to native fluency

 Language Learning Forum : General discussion Post Reply
96 messages over 12 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 7 ... 11 12 Next >>
alexptrans
Pentaglot
Senior Member
Israel
Joined 6765 days ago

208 posts - 236 votes 
Speaks: English, Modern Hebrew, Russian*, French, Arabic (Written)
Studies: Icelandic

 
 Message 49 of 96
08 October 2009 at 3:52pm | IP Logged 
irrationale wrote:
So I take it that no one here claims to have reached "native fluency". If such a person exists, make your self known here. If not, can we all assume it is practically impossible for an adult, then? Even the most dedicated among us language learners haven't done this?


Go ahead and assume that. Maybe the people who have reached native fluency are simply tired of trying to convince everyone that it's doable and, having realized the futility of that exercise, have moved on to more productive ways of spending their time.
1 person has voted this message useful



zenmonkey
Bilingual Tetraglot
Senior Member
Germany
Joined 6552 days ago

803 posts - 1119 votes 
1 sounds
Speaks: EnglishC2*, Spanish*, French, German
Studies: Italian, Modern Hebrew

 
 Message 50 of 96
08 October 2009 at 4:45pm | IP Logged 
irrationale wrote:
So I take it that no one here claims to have reached "native fluency". If such a person exists, make your self known here. If not, can we all assume it is practically impossible for an adult, then? Even the most dedicated among us language learners haven't done this?


Me. ;) English and French. These are my second (started at 10) and third (started seriously at 22) languages.
1 person has voted this message useful



datsunking1
Diglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 5585 days ago

1014 posts - 1533 votes 
Speaks: English*, Spanish
Studies: German, Russian, Dutch, French

 
 Message 51 of 96
08 October 2009 at 4:46pm | IP Logged 
I believe it's possible certainly possible to reach native fluency in a language, with given time. In 7 years (I'll be 25) I should be close to native-like fluency in both Spanish and German. after all, IT'S SEVEN YEARS. lol

I just want to understand music, news, books etc. I don't want to have to "think" about it. I want it all to flow. Like a switch I'll be able to turn it on and off. Into certain languages.

I picture it as if I'm atttending school in the country of whose language I'm learning, I try to translate EVERYTHING a teacher or friend says to me into my target language. My Spanish is pretty fluent in that, I miss only a couple idioms or words a day.

It's my personal challenge :D     


1 person has voted this message useful



Cainntear
Pentaglot
Senior Member
Scotland
linguafrankly.blogsp
Joined 6011 days ago

4399 posts - 7687 votes 
Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic
Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh

 
 Message 52 of 96
08 October 2009 at 5:14pm | IP Logged 
numerodix wrote:
some portion of Brits write things like "would of" and don't even know that it's incorrect.

So who's kidding who? I mean, native speakers have no bar to clear in order to qualify as natives. Whatever their level is, *that* is a native speaker.

Those two statements are kind of contradictory, don't you think?

If they're natives, it's their language so what they say must surely be right.

"In language, there´s no such thing as a common mistake."
(Can´t remember who said that.)
1 person has voted this message useful



numerodix
Trilingual Hexaglot
Senior Member
Netherlands
Joined 6783 days ago

856 posts - 1226 votes 
Speaks: EnglishC2*, Norwegian*, Polish*, Italian, Dutch, French
Studies: Portuguese, Mandarin

 
 Message 53 of 96
08 October 2009 at 5:35pm | IP Logged 
Cainntear wrote:
Those two statements are kind of contradictory, don't you think?

If they're natives, it's their language so what they say must surely be right.

"In language, there´s no such thing as a common mistake."
(Can´t remember who said that.)

This is getting semantic. Every language I would think has some kind of official national body that presides over the language definition at any given time. Statements outside that definition are then wrong, at least for the time being. Otherwise, what is the point of sending kids to school in England to learn English if anything they say is automatically English?

There is a language, English, which is defined. There is a standard, "the native speaker", which is not defined and merely exists as a consequence of the degree to which any English person speaks English. If you say you want to speak as well as a native, you should know which native (or group of natives) you're talking about.

Edited by numerodix on 08 October 2009 at 5:36pm

1 person has voted this message useful



Cainntear
Pentaglot
Senior Member
Scotland
linguafrankly.blogsp
Joined 6011 days ago

4399 posts - 7687 votes 
Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic
Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh

 
 Message 54 of 96
08 October 2009 at 5:52pm | IP Logged 
numerodix wrote:
Every language I would think has some kind of official national body that presides over the language definition at any given time. Statements outside that definition are then wrong, at least for the time being. [...] There is a language, English, which is defined.

The English language has no "academy" or any other body to define what is officially "correct", so anyone who tries to define one form as more "correct" than another is not adhering to a "standard", but trying to impose one, and more often than not one that does not reflect the (statistically measurable) language of the street.
4 persons have voted this message useful



Chung
Diglot
Senior Member
Joined 7156 days ago

4228 posts - 8259 votes 
20 sounds
Speaks: English*, French
Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish

 
 Message 55 of 96
08 October 2009 at 5:59pm | IP Logged 
Numerodix, English doesn't have an official national body. The most that it has are dictionary or reference manual publishers. Publications made by Oxford University Press or Merriam-Webster are usually held to be representations of what is "standard" in British or American English respectively. At the same time, these publishers (more like "recorders") have no overt prescriptivist sway as they describe what they observe and publish their findings in the form of dictionaries or style manuals. Users themselves consult these publications when they're unsure of a certain usage. To reiterate, the content of these publications reflects what been recorded and is indicative of usage among the speech community.

The idea of having a purist/prescriptivist linguistic regulatory body which is dominated by a small group of academic elitists as in France, Croatia or Iran is not applicable to the English-speaking world.
1 person has voted this message useful



numerodix
Trilingual Hexaglot
Senior Member
Netherlands
Joined 6783 days ago

856 posts - 1226 votes 
Speaks: EnglishC2*, Norwegian*, Polish*, Italian, Dutch, French
Studies: Portuguese, Mandarin

 
 Message 56 of 96
08 October 2009 at 7:35pm | IP Logged 
Wow, that's surprising. I've never heard of such anarchy before. :) You learn something new everyday.

So if that's the case, on what basis can you ever claim that something is incorrect in English? Because Oxford University Press, which is not a prescriptive institution, has recorded it so statistically? Sounds very odd.


1 person has voted this message useful



This discussion contains 96 messages over 12 pages: << Prev 1 2 3 4 5 68 9 10 11 12  Next >>


Post ReplyPost New Topic Printable version Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page was generated in 0.4531 seconds.


DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved
No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization.