on the Hunter posting

[Georges Adassovsky]

>Concerning G. Gerhart's latest laconic lambasting (her target this time:
>Bruce McClelland's thoughts about the Hunter posting), I'd like to protest.
>
>1)  Granted, a year abroad is hardly likely to produce "native-like"
>fluency.  But if such a stay comes after or at the end of four years of
>preparation at a superior university, it may.  Nevertheless, mediocre linguists
> seldom if ever attain native-like fluency and therefore should set realistic
>goals.

No, it may certainly not. A "native speaker" is a person who  is recognised
by national speakers as one of them, ans this may only be obtained by
people who speak the given language since early childhood.
No matter how long one have studied at university, and stayed in a foreign
country, if he began the study of a language too late, he will never become
a native speaker, and local people will always be able to perceive he is
not really one of them.
A diplomed person from an university is a diplomed person, with a certified
knowledge, while a native speaker is a native speaker. When a hirer wants a
diplomed applyer, he asks for a Ph D or a master, and when he wants a
native speaker, he specifies so. Of course he may want both.
So, when an add asks for "a native speaker both in English and in Russian",
it may only concern :
-Either people born in Russia from English parents
-Or people born in an English country from Russian parents
Under the condition, of course, these parents spoke the language of their
origin with their children, making them bilingual.
The term "native" is explicit enough.

Best,
Georges.