Talk:Nativization

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brian Cox95. Peer reviewers: Rodristeph.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Fact}} requests and requests for page referencing[edit]

It may help to say that it is pointless to ask for a page reference, such as Sankoff & Laberge (1972:?), when the article in the bibliography has only 9 pages to go for and when the sourcing points to the article as a whole. Eklir (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the claim "Examples of creole genesis that can be attributed undisputedly to the children-nativizing factor are few" isn't about Sankoff & Laberge (1972) or Pfaff (1981). If either of these articles makes the claim, a page number is an improvement though not terribly necessary since, as you point out, neither article is terribly long.

As for "The Tok Pisin language reported by Sankoff & Laberge (1972) is one such language where such a conclusion could be reached by scientific observation.", there is perhaps a rewrite necessary. Sankoff & Laberge (1972) is not the only academic source in which Tok Pisin is discussed. If Sankoff & Laberge are exclusive in making this claim about Tok Pisin then it should be something like "Sankoff & Laberge (1972) argue that Tok Pisin is a language in which such a conclusion could be reached by scientific observation." (with no footnote citation since the attribution is embedded in the prose). If it's a more widespread assertion, then it could be something like "Tok Pisin is one language in which such a conclusion could be reached by scientific observation." (with a footnote citation attributing Sankoff & Laberge (1972), potentially with a page number). — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-technically, you might find more evidence and examples of said evidence, if you chose not to deny the truth before you heard it. It's natural to recognize it, but only when a person is genuinely open to at least hearing the truth first, and only after or secondarily deciding to deny it. While it is relatively easy to decide creole genesis as Tok Pisin, it takes quite a practiced denier or Truth to call Serial Genesis, piss talking.

Nativization is technically a weasel word for Naturalization, as only the dead can attest of the discovery of languages as opposed to man-made-up or the fictional history assigned to many languages that existed in complete form long before mankind discovered them. To date, Math and it's numerous dialects (arithmetic, multiplication, subtraction, caculus, and so forth) are the only languages that men will admit were discovered. Honest persons realize that the spoken translations of Math and the corresponding distinctions in sound between distinct notes, were all always there complete from A to G, and every octave in every key was not invented by men. Just because it was not active in our lives does not mean it didn't exist nor was it dependent on being invented by the hands or mouths of men-Dirtclustit (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

another meaning to nativization / nativisation[edit]

This would be the regular process found in how one pronounces a foreign word that is borrowed into everyday speech. For example, Mozart is pronounced with the ts sound in American English, but the z sound elsewhere. MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2012_August_5#What_do_you_call_phonetic_nativization_of_borrowed_words? This article explains the different ways loan-words from one language change when adopted by people who speak another language: spelling, pronunciation, meaning, word order, and new combinations with parts of speech. However, the article addresses just one language pair. http://web.archive.org/web/20150824080748/https://www.csun.edu/~bashforth/301_PDF/301_P_P/EnglishLoanWordsJapanese.pdf And, yes, the word that linguists generally use is "nativization." The phonetic changes are nativization of phonology to conform to the phonetic inventory and co-occurrence constraints of the language doing the borrowing. There is also an element of code-switching that can occur when the native pronunciation and the foreign pronunciation vie for prestige. MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments[edit]

Overall a significant improvement to the original article. It would be good if there were citations on the feature transfer and cultural identity portions (now with the citation needed tag). Siewyeng (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wrong (?) stress patterns[edit]

I'm a little confused as to why in the little table comparing the stress patterns of British and Singapore English pronunciations, the British examples are wrong? It would seem, in fact, that *all* the words given are stressed on the first syllable in BE, not on the second as stated. I'm neither a native speaker nor a Brit. But I have consulted several dictionaries, and they confirm this. Any thoughts?