Category talk:User en-4

Why’d you change my edits for grassfield high? You’re taking away from peoples accomplishments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:1F10:E100:71CE:5FC:C86F:82B5 (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Near-native / Native Level

 * For my part, I'd prefer "Native level" over "near-native." The use of "Near-native" without a further category suggests that non-native speakers of English are universally unable to achieve a level of proficiency with the tongue on par with a native. This is clearly not the case. My guess would be that Wikipedians would not confuse "Native level" with "Is a native speaker" - we should give them more credit. "Near-native" is in many cases, incorrect, as many non-native speakers of English are more adept with the language than natives. I think it should be changed back. - Hayter 11:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

---Squigish 00:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I feel that the difference between a native speaker and a non-native speaker who is nevertheless highly proficient in the language is significant, and it shows up in many, albeit subtle, ways.  While there are certianly some non-native speakers of English who are more proficient than certian native speakers, in the general case, native speakers have a more intuitive grasp of the langage than non-natives.  As such, I think that some way of differentiating between native speakers and non-native speakers who have simply learned the language is essential.  Saying that someone speaks English at a native level is too close to saying that someone is a native speaker of the language, and as such, the text should be changed.  A few suggestions:
 * This user, while not a native speaker, speaks English at a native level.
 * This user speaks english at a level comprable to that of a native speaker.
 * This user, while not a native speaker, speaks english fluently.
 * This user speaks english at a near-native level.


 * Why must this difference be pointed out? A person's grasp of a particular language, though aided or hindered by the place and circumstances of their birth is not controlled by it. As it is perfectly possible for a non-native speaker to have the same (or a greater) level of proficiency in the language as a native, the description of 'near-native' is aside from anything else, incorrect for these people, as you realise. But we should note that "native speaker" does not reflect a person's proficiency in the language - it simply informs us that it is their primary dialect. "At a native level" clearly shows that this person has an excellent grasp of the language. I fail to see an adequate reasoning as to why the distinction must be made between natives and non-natives. If a wikipedian wishes to make known their nationality, they can do so via other templates. What is the practical difference between a native speaker (assuming a native level of skill for them) and a non-native with a native skill level who has as you say, "simply learned the language?" (Surely something everyone must do, natives included.) - Hayter 13:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The difference has to do with the way one learns a language. Before the age of 2, a child's brian has the capacity to absorb a language in an entirely different way than after that age.  This has to do with the neurons and synaptic pathways in the brain.  Note that this capacity is not limited to a single language.  A child who is exposed to multiple langages as an infant can actually have more than one "first language," meaning that they understand the language on a more intutive level than someone who learned the language later in life.  --Squigish 22:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's an extraneous seperation. The category is for identifying how talented a person is with the English language, not how they learnt it. It is not a practical difference and no more relevant for the purposes of this category than the nationality (or sex, height or weight for that matter) of the wikipedian's primary language instructor. - Hayter 15:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

...and it seems we're discussing this away from everyone else. Clever us. Check here. Hayter 15:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Question
Why is this at a higher level than 3, which is advanced? Isn't advanced better than near-native? I've listed myself as 3 and native... or am I misinterpreting 3 as being a university pursuit of english and journalism when it's more in a foreign learning context? Tyciol 07:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The idea is that the various levels 1-4 are for non-native speakers. So if you're a native speaker, you'd just use the En template. Also, as Hayter pointed out, we're discussing it in the wrong place. Go talk here. Squigish 01:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

An Answer, of sorts

 * This is an old topic which has been bugging me for awhile. I like to classify myself as near-native writer, though not a near-native speaker, let alone native per se. So I think my rationale for categorizing myself as such might help clear the confusion a bit. Or I hope so at least...


 * If you really talk and write at the native level, you don't mostly have to search for words or be reminded of them. You instinctively understand puns and native metaphors. Even if they go to cultural things and modes of thought no non-native ever had to witness or share in real life. Plus even friends of mine who've now lived more than a decade in the US, rarely shed *all* of their Finnish linguistic legacy. I certainly haven't, even if I worked in Finland for a decade plus in a workplace whose primary working language was English.


 * As such, I wouldn't be comfortable placing myself at the native level. Because my language just isn't that good, yet, and doesn't come as naturally as it would come to a true native. I'm certainly *near*-native, in grammar, vocabulary, and even in my knowledge of idioms, based on multiple statistically well-founded tests. I've even repeatedly been painted as someone who "speaks beyond his years" in the far past.


 * But I'm still just near-native as far as the English language -- my only second language, really -- goes. I believe it's not such a bad place to be, either. I mean, being near-native sometimes even means you can surpass a native in your linguistic proficiency. Sometimes it really can mean your spelling is better, or for example that as a native speaker of a language from another language family you can sometimes utilize the English language in ways natives wouldn't think of. All things I've done.


 * But you can't really go into language without understanding and having lived the culture it's imbedded in. You can't really claim to be native till your linguistic reflexes go *well* beyond what a normal second-language speaker has to offer. You have to understand poetry, history, and whatnot, in order to do language right.


 * I can't instinctively do that even in my favourite English, second language, no matter how much I try. So, I have to classify myself as not a native, but a near-native. Decoy (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)