Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2015 June 1

= June 1 =

Native level of proficiency?
Is "native" a level? Some natives cannot read or write, and many have a very limited vocabulary. I am pretty sure that an educated foreigner could write better than the bottom 25% of the the natives. And that's being generous. Wouldn't that mean that something like "full professional proficiency" is sometimes higher than "native"?--Llaanngg (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has an article titled First language which covers the various ways this can be defined; under the "defining native speaker" section of that article, the most relevant definition for your purposes is likely "The individual is able to produce fluent, spontaneous discourse". Note, also, that most linguists treat spoken language different than written language, notably that a spoken language is acquired naturally, without instruction or intervention, by children, and will even be invented spontaneously by isolated populations with no contact with other languages (see Nicaraguan Sign Language which is the most famous case study for spontaneous language creation of this type).  Written languages, on the other hand, are artificial constructs which exist to represent the spoken language, they must be taught, and are only acquired by a learner after mastery of the spoken language.  Reading and writing are not important variables in determining linguistic fluency, many languages worldwide have no written form; and yet their speakers are self-evidently fluent in communicating with others in their own tongue.  -- Jayron 32 13:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * A native level of proficiency and a professional level of proficiency are not the same thing, otherwise all native speakers would be good writers and announcers. That's obviously not true. A look at the article Oral Proficiency Interview (run by an American company, but viewed as industry standard) and related topics such as the written tests and the various scales is a good way to start. μηδείς (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I dislike the term immensely. I am a native English speaker, can speak French passably well, Hungarian day to day, some Spanish, get by in Italian and Romanian and other Latinate languages. Even though I can pass off as a French speaker, I would never describe myself as native. The rule, if you are a professional translator, is you translate into your native language never out of it. It's not just the words but idioms &c. one is likely to miss. I have never met anyone in my life (and I have lived in six countries with six languages, oh and Wales) who is genuinely bilingual or can claim a second language as a "native" language. The designation is absurd. But unfortunately, forms for jobs etc often say "Native, Intermediate, Basic" so one has to put "Native" if one thinks one is more than "Intermediate". But I dislike the term. Si Trew (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Positive would be that before you check the square you're forced to think about what it means, and where you are. "Native" means that you've got the vernacular and if you do it just does make no sense to check "Intermediate". But again, that's a case where you have to be yourself clear about of where you are. --Askedonty (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)