on the Hunter posting

[Georges Adassovsky]

Tsuji wrote:

>My experience contradicts this. First of all what make one a true
>"native speaker" is not necessarily an ability or a deep knowledge of
>the given language.

I agree.

 >The criteror is completely different. If your
>pronunciation (rhythm, enunciation, etc. all included) and the basic
>knowledge of grammar is perfect, that is, if your command of the language
>has reached the level of an eight year old user of the language, you will
>be regarded as one of them.

I agree.

>The reason why grown-ups do not acquire
>"native level" command of the language is that they are usually not
>interested in that sort of ability (being too busy learning special terms
>in their own field of interest).

I disagree. They just can't, because of the muscular difficulties in the
tongue and the palate. An intensive training may help, but one has to stay
very concentrate, and will never acquire instinctive reflexes. Soon or
later he will be discovered as a foreigner.

>  I know very many people personally who speak more than one languages
>with no trace of foreignness.

Certainly bilingual people since childhoood.

>Although it is very pleasant to speak
>with them, I always notice that they rarely have the true command of the
>language just as the majority of the other "native" speakers speak/write
>quite unsatisfactorily. (I have observed students in Oxford and Tokyo
>and have a conclusion that ordinary university students cannot speak/write
>properly).

I agree with the fact that a foreigner may have a better knowledge of a
language than a native speaker. But he always will be perceived as a
foreigner, no matter of his knowledge.

>  On the other hand, as I watched Dr Donald Keen lecturing on Japanese
>classic literature, I became deeply convinced that he has an incomparably
>greater command of the Japanese language (his vocabulary being many times
>greater) than myself even though his accent was very foreign.

Our arguments are concordant.

> Koreans and
>Mongolians will speak Japanese "like one of us" after a three year training,
>but the vocabulary is usually poor (there are virtually no overlapping
>of words with the Japanese language).

I can't argue about asiatic languages. May be they are close to each other,
I don't know. But, as a native speaker of French, I am sure I'll be able to
discover any English man speaking French. And as a native speaker of
Russian, it will be even easier to demask any foreigner.

>  What I should like to comment is this: if "native" means a skill in
>pronuciation, you cannot teach pronunciation if you are not "native".

Not necessarely. Pronounciation is so instinctive for a native speaker,
that he may not know how to teach it. But he will remain the best
"demonstrator", if not the best teacher.

>If "native" means the perfect knowledge of the basic grammar (I see too
>often my compatriots using articles when they speak English!), I think
>that is an essential requirement for the language
>teacher.

Anybody is able to acquire a perfect knowledge of the basic grammar. It's a
matter of work.

> I think teaching a language is a profession in its own right that
>requires two or more years of training even if your command of the
>target language is perfect. I am saying you cannot teach Russian or whatever
>simply because you speak it like a Russian; you will need a special
>training as a teacher of the Russian Language As a Foreign Language.

I completely agree.

>I repeat my points: Being a "native speaker" means very little, i.e. the
>skill of an eight year old. Language teacher will need far greater
>skill and knowledge, but the skill in pronunciation (accent, especially)
>can be dispensed with sometimes.

We can't be more in accord.

Best,
Georges.