This is definitely a bit of a stupid question… but methinks this happens to a good number of immigrants. Asking because there is a bit of a funny philosophical debate here:
- Technically the second language is not “native” by virtue of you not growing up with it
- But you speak it better than your native language, so skill-wise it is “native”
So do you have “native” language skills, or would you consider yourself simply highly “fluent” at the second language?
Fluent.
Native means you grew up speaking it.
English is my second language and also my best language. I like to joke that “English isn’t my first language” when I say something silly - always good for an eyeroll from my spouse. But generally, I consider English my best language and my first language as my first/native language, I guess.
It depends on whether you treat the answer as “like a native” or “I am a native”. The word native is etymologically rooted in “born into it”.
To sum up: You can speak a second language better than a native and have a proficiency of a native speaker without being a native speaker of the language.
My first language was Polish, but I’ve lived in the US most of my life and my English is better than many Americans’. So now I say that I’m a native English speaker who is fluent in Polish.
Language is defined by how it is used. You cannot be better than the natives who are using the language. You can use it correctly according to some book and often that book as written by smart people who are avoiding real issues with the language as it is used. It would in those cases be beneficial to everyone if they would follow that book, but if they don’t and you do it makes you wrong and a worse speaker.
In English there is nobody who is authorized to write such a book - many try but they don’t agree with each others. Most have little influence on the real world.
In French and Spanish (I do not know about any other languages) there are organizations who are blessed by law with the ability to define the language and they do have legal power to force how people speak. They are sometimes forced to accept a “bad” addition because everyone is using it to the point where they cannot fight it despite the power of law they have behind them.
You cannot say your English is better than many Americans. That makes no sense. Unless you specifically mean English as it is spoken in some other part of the world. There are several different major ways English is spoken in the US, Australia has their own way of speaking (I don’t know if this is shared with New Zealand or if they are different), and England has many different ways of speaking the same language. However if you are in some part of the world where a significant number of people speak a language from birth you cannot be better than them at it . India doesn’t have many native speakers, but some native speakers are raising their kids English first and so you can probably find a significant population there that is native and has very different ways of speaking.
I believe they were talking about things like knowing the difference between “your” and “you’re”
That is written language which is sometimes minimally related to spoken languge.
I imagine they’re saying that they speak/write over a 6th grade reading level for example, making them “better” at the language than those who read below their level
By your definition an english teacher also can’t be better than a 3 year-old, because they’re both native speakers. So the 3yo would babble something and by definition no one can be better at english.
And I’m not sure if you can smash your forehead on the keyboard and say, this is now an english sentence by definition… Due to lack of a state authority… It’s some consensus what is accepted as english language and what’s not.
It’s certainly correct that there are multiple variants. There is more than one english.
Your typical adult can make themselves understood by their community better than a three year old which makes them better - not until around seven are kids fully able to communicate (when their adult teeth grow in and they can pronounce all sounds)
of course some english teachers use ‘big words’ and so are not understood. in that case I’d call a four year old better. (three year olds generally are worse)
Native means you grew up with it. Otherwise it’s not native no matter how good you are.
I feel like that leaves a little weird wiggle room though.
Let’s say you’re born in a Spanish speaking country, maybe Mexico, for the first few years of life you grow up surrounded by Spanish speakers, your first words are in Spanish, you only know Spanish, everyone you know only speaks Spanish.
Then when you’re about 3 years old, before you’re even forming really solid, permanent memories, you go to live in the US, you’re surrounded by English speakers, almost everyone around you stops speaking Spanish regularly and switches to English, your English vocabulary quickly catches up to or maybe even surpasses your Spanish ability. Your first real memories are of people speaking English, and you spend the rest of your life primarily speaking English. You still speak Spanish though, you keep up with your education in that language and can speak both fluently.
I think there’s a valid argument that both could be considered your native language, even if Spanish was your first language, you’ve still grown up speaking both.
If you start at 3 years old, I’d say that counts as native
ok, so what’s the age cutoff? I moved from turkey when I was nine.
I think there’s a difference between first language and native.
I believe native means a level of language equivalent to the people of the place where that language is talked.
A first language is usually spoken at native level because most people will have been using it all their lives. But if you don’t because you moved away or whatever reason I don’t think you’ll have a native level.
On the other hand you can become native in a language that’s not your first language. If you speak it so well that’s indistinguishable from any other person from that place.
I speak four languages at native level, because I can change languages mid sentence and you wouldn’t know which one is my actual origin language (hint: it’s two).
I’m more than fluent. Fluent just means you can speak in complete coherent sentences without hesitation. You can do this but still have a strong accent - like many of the Indian tech wizards, for instance.
Native, to me, means that it’s practically indistinguishable from a person that grew up in that country, and you can’t tell that I didn’t actually grow up in that country.
I just say my Spanish fluent. I can have a conversation, but it will have a lot of pauses as I try to remember a word. Certainly not usable at an academic level.
I was graced by parents who don’t know their own language very well. Google Translate’s more reliable, so there is a lot of vocabulary I don’t know simply because it’s never been brought up in my family.
I just consider English my main language. I feel bad for the immigrants who were raised not even knowing their language though. Met a few.
My first language is Cantonese, spoken by parent at home.
My second language is Mandarin. Only spoken in school when I was in China, which lasted till I was like grade 1-2.
My third language is English (USA English, that is). Started learning around grade 2-3.
Since arriving in the US, I basically never spoke Mandarin ever again. Like 10+ years now.
English is my most fluent language. I could probably form complex speeches in English, well I mean… I’m basically born here, minus the first decade of my life. I can maybe say a few basic ideas in Cantonese, but cannot discuss anything meaningful like politics, medical stuff, or bussiness terms. I can barely express any ideas in Mandarin. I’d have to think about it in Cantonese, then convert it in my mind into Mandarin, although both are Chinese, there are some unique “quirks” that make some phrases slightly different.
If I went to China today, I’d probably sound like either (1) a new immigrant from korea, japan, or vietnam; or (2) someone with an intellectual disability. In contrast, I could probably talk to any tourist or bussiness people visiting China and have a full conversation with them and they’d be shocked why a “Chinese looking” person can speak perfect English.
I have no idea what “native” language even means anymore. I’d probably describe English as my “most proficient language” and Cantonese as an “old and forgotten tongue”
I call it my “main” or “primary” language. My first language lacks vocabulary due to atrophy and stopping learning it after turning 9.
I learnt german in school, and lost it all.
I’m currently learning spanish
Nah, I just judge the native speakers who suck at their own language (jk I’m not that much of a dickhead)
From a linguistics standpoint, there are some things you have with a native language that you don’t have with a second language by definition (e.g. native speaker intuition). By that metric, your second language cannot be native.
But it’s actually more complicated than that. I’d suggest there needs to be better definition on what counts as a second language for your question.
Brain plasticity as it pertains to language acquisition may (=depending on what study you cite) stick around until the late teens. That means that consistent and continued exposure to a language community will ultimately lead to acquisition if the learner/acquirer is not beyond the critical period threshold. If that occurs, you’d be a native bilingual (or multilingual), and you wouldn’t really have learned a “second language”. You would have two native languages, and in both you would have e.g. native speaker intuition.
This is kind of what you’re asking, but the issue is what is meant by “second language”. If you mean an L2 which was learned by someone after the critical period, then I’d argue that speaker would never be native in that L2 regardless of their proficiency. But if you mean an L2 which was acquired before thr end of the critical period, then by definition it is another native language, not a second one.
Depends how badly you speak your native language?
I’m still better in my native tongue than in English, but I would still consider myself ‘fluent’, with some people considering me ‘native’, which I would never claim for me. This I would call “personal relativity”, as I am probably more fluent in English than quite some native speakers. And I definitely read English faster than most native speakers.
I just describe it as “bilingual level”, because fluent is often used but can represent a range of levels depending on how demanding you are.
For me, fluent is what I’d describe someone who’s studied well and can live only speaking the target language. They may have a crappy accent, make mistakes but they know they can express their ideas and be understood and generally don’t search for words.
I’d use “native level”, but that can be a bit misleading too.
And so, that’s why we have exams/diploma with levels and such.
If someone tells you they have a C2 level diploma in French, I assure you that their command of French is worthy of respect even for a native French person.If I tell you I have HSK3/4 even in Chinese, you know I’m nowhere near fluency, despite how well I can fake it with what little I do know! :P
