ryuudou Wrote:

vosmiura Wrote:

ryuudou Wrote:This applies to all languages and not just Japanese. Mere connotations don't matter; there is only one denotation. Without considering the illiterate, If you speak and write better than the average of a native country, and you aren't residing in an alternative reality; it is factual that you are fluent. Accent has no role in this (hi vosimura). Referencing crappy TV shows has no role in this (hi again, vosimura).

I was speaking about "native level". Accent certainly has a role in this.

No. Language isn't an attribute of nativity. I lived in a sound proof box my entire life, and I have a friend who lived his entire life in a camp where only languages that are not the main of the respective country are allowed. Now your point is moot.

These examples aren't realistic but what they demonstrate is factual.

Sorry I don't understand your answer or its relevance.

Quote:To everyone: Stop. Attributing. Your. Lack. Or. Abundance. Of. Language ability. To. Nativity.

English is my 2nd language. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people here have more ability than you and Yanosa. You guys seem very childish.

vosmiura Wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people here have more ability than you and Yanosa. You guys seem very childish.

Well Vos, I guess I'm not one of those people.

Yonosa Wrote:are you stupid?
...unintelligent?

I was told I was stupid and unintelligent...

Musashi Wrote:

Tobberoth Wrote:

Yonosa Wrote:Your writing is easily above native level, I live with natives everyday, I went to school with them and proofread and tutored them, lots of them are idiots, even if you have an accent. I guarantee you can probably explain your self better than the people from the Bad part of my town, who Even i have trouble understanding what theyre saying....
And I tutored these kids, it's not a matter of speaking style like I though it was... It is true inability to communicate outside of their subculture. This is when I quit a tutoring session early once because I was frustrated the student couldn't understand that he "has to **consider** the audience for his paper"! I got yelled at by the school for walking out on his poor ass, but dude I can only try and help so much, before it's like talking to a brick wall.

Well... why did you tutor them? Because they are idiots or did you work as a real teacher or something? Because, if they are actual idiots, that would kinda explain it. I mean, there are idiots in all languages, in all cultures. I'm not really in a position to make a claim since I've never lived or even BEEN to a country where English is the native language, but if someone doesn't understand what "consider" means, aren't they like.. in the bottom 0.1% of the population? It just... sounds insane to me, even my mother would understand what consider means and her English is horrible.

Now we know what 'fluency' is according to Yonosa.
Thanks for that insight.

Can't even figure out the implied point, nativity and fluency aren't connected, it is possible for natives to barely be understood by other natives even while speaking the native language of that country, therefore it is important to see that there is no high level that is upheld by the natives of a population, for every intelligent speaker there are many non-intelligent ones, therefore the best we can do is to generalize and find a median to judge others from, and that being the average ability of a native in a given language.

You'll disagree, to the end and I am really, done, but I hope you see the experiences I've had to fell I know what I am talking about, I probably tutored 70 different students in total, but often joked with the other tutors and we shared stories, what I cam across was the norm more often than the exception.

Also I want to say you hold you english to a higher standard than most American I often correct my siblings grammar and they become enraged!, and they say this is "way it's spoken", I hate to tell them, that that's only the way it is spoken by the unintelligent(ldon't get me wrong I love my siblings, and always encourage them... but they only ever apply themselves for very short amounts of time, unfortunately)

Tobberoth Wrote:

ryuudou Wrote:

Tobberoth Wrote:So you will honestly consider a foreigner in China who can't properly use the tones to be of native-like fluency because he can read and write better than a Chinese person? Because, if that's true, you have a REALLY odd idea of what fluency natives have. Well, regardless, even if YOU consider yourself native-like in your fluency, no Japanese person will agree if your accent is off. They may very well consider you fluent, but not like a native. And remember, accent in Japanese is more than simple pronunciation, it can often carry meaning, just like tones in Chinese.

Accent can be learned. It has nothing to do with nativity.

Obviously. That isn't the point. The point is that if your accent is off, you can hardly be considered fluent like a native. Because they're accent won't be off. And that's the point of the concept of native-like fluency.

I'm trying to explain something but you're not getting it. You agreed with me and then you continue to give nativity credit for accent. It's not about being considered fluent like a native because there are natives who can't read or write, but about being considered fluent, which isn't 100% connotations. That's it. Also, as I've started earlier, I attribute fluency to writing AND SPEAKING on at least an average level without considering the illiterate population.

Tobberoth Wrote:You have to be JUST as good as the average native, in ALL aspects of the language. And if your accent is off, you aren't.

That's just your connotation of the phrase. There is no definition of native-fluency it's just two words tacked together which puts people into the wrong state of mind. Nativity only gives an advantage in language learning due to coincidence and has nothing to do with language. Anyone can become fluent (For example, above average in all aspects and not any silly connotations whoever reads this might have).

vosmiura Wrote:

ryuudou Wrote:

vosmiura Wrote:I was speaking about "native level". Accent certainly has a role in this.

No. Language isn't an attribute of nativity. I lived in a sound proof box my entire life, and I have a friend who lived his entire life in a camp where only languages that are not the main of the respective country are allowed. Now your point is moot.

These examples aren't realistic but what they demonstrate is factual.

Sorry I don't understand your answer or its relevance.

Then perhaps you should go practice your English? Hurry up before the scary natives get you.

I quit though, and if any full thread readers come by later, reply to this post, and note on who's points of views seem to have more thought in them.

THis post applies to noone who took part though, if any objective parties want to answer that go on.


I'm done!LAter, this whole thread burned me out from the site for a few days, I'll wander back around then, I have huge amounts of reviews to catch up on too... damn

Yonosa Wrote:I quit though, and if any full thread readers come by later, reply to this post, and note on who's points of views seem to have more thought in them.

THis post applies to noone who took part though, if any objective parties want to answer that go on.


I'm done!LAter, this whole thread burned me out from the site for a few days, I'll wander back around then, I have huge amounts of reviews to catch up on too... damn

Yea go do something useful like your reviews, as a matter of fact, we all should.
*and drag ryuudou and his silly connotations with you pls

Quote:Then perhaps you should go practice your English? Hurry up before the scary natives get you.

lame

Quote:I quit though, and if any full thread readers come by later, reply to this post, and note on who's points of views seem to have more thought in them.

THis post applies to noone who took part though, if any objective parties want to answer that go on.

lame

ryuudou Wrote:I'm trying to explain something but you're not getting it. You agreed with me and then you continue to give nativity credit for accent. It's not about being considered fluent like a native because there are natives who can't read or write, but about being considered fluent, which isn't 100% connotations. That's it. Also, as I've started earlier, I attribute fluency to writing AND SPEAKING on at least an average level without considering the illiterate population.

You can attribute fluency any way you want, it won't matter since it's so broad. But NATIVE-LIKE fluency isn't, because it's based on something concrete: the average native. You seem to think I'm making birth the central concept. I'm not, I'm making the average native the central concept. Yes, there are idiots who don't know what consider means. They are still native. But they aren't the people I'm talking about when I'm talking about native-like fluency. Just like you yourself are excluding the illiterate population.

The average native is going to have a HUGE advantage over any learner, and this advantage won't go away. They don't specifically have this advantage because of where they were born, they have it because they were brought up in said language and lived IN it, being exposed constantly (for example, adopted children should be considered native, even if they weren't born there). To idiots and illiterates, the advantage won't make a difference because they are unable to use it. The usage of this advantage is what gives natives the almost unattainable skill they have in fluidly expressing themselves in their language. Like I said, this level can be attained, it's just important to make the distinction between what is fluency (being able to use the language decently and work in a country) and what is native-like fluency (being just as good as the average citizen who was brought up in that country).

We are probably talking about the same thing anyway. I've just defined my terms more than you.

Tobberoth Wrote:You can attribute fluency any way you want, it won't matter since it's so broad. But NATIVE-LIKE fluency isn't, because it's based on something concrete: the average native.

There seems to be a misunderstanding at the very least. Despite of it's many connotations, Fluency has a denotation which hardly leaves room for interpertation. I'm attributing it exactly how it's defined.

Native-like fluency on the other hand isn't defined as the fluency of the average native, but the fluency of someone native-like. That's why the term is misleading because it's completely contextual.

And even if we do consider it your way, the average native of a language does NOT have anything, by any means, unattainable (except for a coincidental head start that doesn't mean anything in the end) which leads back to my point for people to stop mystifying natives. They aren't special, smarter, naturally adept, or any of the other outrageous beliefs people seem to have.

ryuudou Wrote:Native-like fluency on the other hand isn't defined as the fluency of the average native, but the fluency of someone native-like. That's why the term is misleading because it's completely contextual.

The way I interpret 'native-like' is being indistinguishable from a native, by a native. We can further refine to 'native-like in ... case' or 'native-like in every way'.

This is based on the assumption that the 'native' who is doing the judging is one who is qualified to do so - but that's another argument.

Also 'native-like' is different from 'high level'. 5 year old kids can be 'native-like', PhD's can be 'native-like'. The question of level is separate from whether or not one is 'native-like' or not.

Quote:And even if we do consider it your way, the average native of a language does NOT have anything, by any means, unattainable (except for a coincidental head start that doesn't mean anything in the end) which leads back to my point for people to stop mystifying natives. They aren't special, smarter, naturally adept, or any of the other outrageous beliefs people seem to have.

Yes this is true, the average native has nothing except a head start. I don't think we are mystifying natives. It's a misunderstanding, and I guess explains your previous posts (which I didn't get before). Nobody is saying being a "native" of a country gives you some mystical advantage.

The reason why "natives" are significant is because they are the ones who do the judging. You learn a language so that you can communicate with people who speak that language. If they don't think you speak normally, you can't just say "screw you guys, you suck anyway".

My opinion is just that as an adult one has a lot of catching up to do, and I haven't seen convincing evidence that people can truly catch up. I know as a child it is possible though.

vosmiura Wrote:

ryuudou Wrote:Native-like fluency on the other hand isn't defined as the fluency of the average native, but the fluency of someone native-like. That's why the term is misleading because it's completely contextual.

The way I interpret 'native-like' is being indistinguishable from a native, by a native. We can further refine to 'native-like in ... case' or 'native-like in every way'.

This is based on the assumption that the 'native' who is doing the judging is one who is qualified to do so - but that's another argument.

Also 'native-like' is different from 'high level'. 5 year old kids can be 'native-like', PhD's can be 'native-like'. The question of level is separate from whether or not one is 'native-like' or not.

Quote:And even if we do consider it your way, the average native of a language does NOT have anything, by any means, unattainable (except for a coincidental head start that doesn't mean anything in the end) which leads back to my point for people to stop mystifying natives. They aren't special, smarter, naturally adept, or any of the other outrageous beliefs people seem to have.

Yes this is true, the average native has nothing except a head start. I don't think we are mystifying natives. It's a misunderstanding, and I guess explains your previous posts (which I didn't get before). Nobody is saying being a "native" of a country gives you some mystical advantage.

The reason why "natives" are significant is because they are the ones who do the judging. You learn a language so that you can communicate with people who speak that language. If they don't think you speak normally, you can't just say "screw you guys, you suck anyway".

My opinion is just that as an adult one has a lot of catching up to do, and I haven't seen convincing evidence that people can truly catch up. I know as a child it is possible though.

I live in New Zealand which has a hugely diverse cultural population, most of which have immigrated from china/india/middle east/South africa/Pacific Islanders and some europeans nations... So I see a huge variety of different ethnicities that have move from a non-english speaking country at varying stages in their lives and attained english "fluency" (hot topic)...

I would like to say that the vast majority speak english very well... not all speak it perfectly, 90% still have their native accent, Some are still terrible (mostly chinese adults) and there are a few who are fluent just like a native and sound like a native...

Most these are first generation immagrants with the second generation growing up right about now... Although I have heard a few second generation immigrants speak in my life and it is a really bizzare experience when someone who is full blooded indian speaks and sounds EXACTLY like a native new zealander... (to the point where its kinda creepy? no offence, its just mind blowing weird).

In my opinion there is a BIG difference between the former and the later... The difference being that one always views the former as immigrants (although they are welcome here) and views the latter as just another "kiwi" (the nickname for NZ natives)

Interestingly enough there are 2 native accents here... one for white people and a totally different for native Maoris (who we techinically stole the country off and they whinge about it to no end)... They actually have their own language which is dying out. All of them speak english (but its all freakin' Eubonics and death threats and haggling for bus money) but it could be considered a seperate dialect than white people speak, although the white people do understand them... it's a unique flavor of english (much like african americans "eubonics")

So if a native country has 2 native languages or different dialects of a native language this also skews the "native like/level" fluency...

To summarize I would consider most of the immagrants fluent as I can hold a conversation with them and they can function perfectly well in society (except some chinese adults) but only a select few would be native=level/like in terms of how a native "feels" about that person. Despite the fact that majority of the immigrants would probably have close to native like ABILITY to speak and understand the language.

What everybody seems to be forgetting is that none of this even matters. There is no international standard of fluency. There is no one standardized person who is just barely native or fluent who you can judge yourself on. Even if there was, what would it matter?

To me, fluency is something you FEEL. If you tell someone you are fluent but feel a little guilty when you say it, maybe you know you are not yet fluent. If you truly believe it, then who am I to say you are not fluent? So what if you can't understand 100% of everything you hear or read?

@mezbup

Where those Maori in the movie "Whale Rider"? Have you seen that movie? I thought that was just normal New Zealand accent (now that you mention it though, I'm pretty sure they were Maori, they had traditional dances and certain rituals in another language). Anyway, I loved their accents in that movie.

This thread is a great example of why terms need to be defined before there can be any debate on them. I think there are several differing definitions of terms like "native" and "fluency" being argued in this thread, and that most of the disagreement would be resolved if we defined what we were talking about.

Fluent, by definition, means that the language flows. From there we can distinguish it further with terms like "basic fluency," "advanced fluency," and "native-like fluency."

I think we can agree that when we speak of natives' fluency, we are referring to the language usage of educated native speakers. And no, having a sheet of paper that says you got a bachelor's degree does not necessarily make you educated. Some of the least educated people I know hold bachelor's degrees from well-known and respected universities, but they cheated their way through school to get that sheet of paper.

We need to also remember that there is a difference between a native speaker mistaking you for a native and your brain actually functioning like a native. Linguistics is a cognitive science, so I think it is more appropriate to define linguistic ability from a cognitive perspective rather than a performance perspective. Except in rare cases (such as the Japanese man who lived in Ukraine for 60 years mentioned above), your L1 will always be your dominant language, whether you can fool natives or not.

I worked very closely on a daily basis with a girl for over a year before realizing English wasn't her first language, but her brain still functions better in Korean than in English. She has "native-like fluency," and even educated native speakers of English won't know that English is her L2 unless she tells them. But she will never have native ability (as defined earlier in this post as "the cognitive ability of an educated native speaker") in the language. Korean will always be her dominant language, unless perhaps she manages to not use it at all over the next few decades. This isn't likely since she interacts with her family daily in Korean, watches Korean movies, reads Korean books, etc.

Anyway, hopefully it's evident now that there must be some sort of consensus on the definition of terms before there is any debate. Otherwise, train wrecks like this thread ensue, and people leave the forum frustrated. I think Yonosa has a lot to contribute to the site, and I hope he will. But I'm sure we'll lose people in frustration if too many threads like this happen. I'm not blaming anybody specifically. These things happened on all sides of the debate.

That's my two cents.

danieldesu Wrote:There is no international standard of fluency. There is no one standardized person who is just barely native or fluent who you can judge yourself on. Even if there was, what would it matter?

To me, fluency is something you FEEL. If you tell someone you are fluent but feel a little guilty when you say it, maybe you know you are not yet fluent. If you truly believe it, then who am I to say you are not fluent? So what if you can't understand 100% of everything you hear or read?

Something you can "feel" is hardly something objective, and therefore you can never have any sort of logical discussion about it. And there are standards out there, though none of them are universal. I like the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages though. They are intended for European languages but I think they are applicable.

Wikipedia Wrote:The Common European Framework divides learners into three broad divisions which can be divided into six levels:

A Basic User

A1 Breakthrough
A2 Waystage

B Independent User

B1 Threshold
B2 Vantage

C Proficient User

C1 Effective Operational Proficiency
C2 Mastery

The CEFR describes what a learner is supposed to be able to do in reading, listening, speaking and writing at each level.

A1 Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type. Can introduce him/herself and others and can ask and answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and things he/she has. Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help.

A2 Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment). Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters. Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in areas of immediate need.

B1 Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. Can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes & ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans.

B2 Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical discussions in his/her field of specialisation. Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strain for either party. Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options.

C1 Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognise implicit meaning. Can express him/herself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions. Can use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and professional purposes. Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices.

C2 Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Can summarise information from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation. Can express him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning even in the most complex situations.

Quote:Except in rare cases (such as the Japanese man who lived in Ukraine for 60 years mentioned above), your L1 will always be your dominant language, whether you can fool natives or not.

Does it include children who grow up in an L2 environment also, because I learned English from 10 years old and it completely dominated my L1 after a few years (even though I spoke in L1 at home with my family), so I think children can have a dominant L2 fairly quickly. The younger the quicker.

Yonosa Wrote:Dude, overtime if you delve into massive amounts of native sources, the time could be made up. I mean certainly there are people with considered native fluency who dropped out of High School and have only read 5 books in their whole lives, they're natively fluent "they grew up there" and that's the key right??

This describes me. It is very true though my English am bad. Too many big words on this thread I not able to understand!

vosmiura Wrote:

Quote:Except in rare cases (such as the Japanese man who lived in Ukraine for 60 years mentioned above), your L1 will always be your dominant language, whether you can fool natives or not.

Does it include children who grow up in an L2 environment also, because I learned English from 10 years old and it completely dominated my L1 after a few years (even though I spoke in L1 at home with my family), so I think children can have a dominant L2 fairly quickly. The younger the quicker.

No, I don't think it does. I was talking about adult learners who grew up monolingual. I should have specified that.

bflatnine Wrote:Fluent, by definition, means that the language flows.

That's improper usage of the denotation. Fluent as in "flowing" usually applies to something like water. The proper usage would be the attribute of adeptness in a language, or "ease" is also a common word.

bflatnine Wrote:We need to also remember that there is a difference between a native speaker mistaking you for a native and your brain actually functioning like a native. Linguistics is a cognitive science, so I think it is more appropriate to define linguistic ability from a cognitive perspective rather than a performance perspective.

That's not realistic. Ask yourself what really matters in the art of language. If I outperform a native person of a respective country there's nothing his native brain can do. I am better than him at that language. Attributing nativity to language ability is misleading to the learners. It implies that they have something the learners don't, when in reality it's just a head start.

tl;dr: Performance > Cognitive

Results matter. Otherwise we wouldn't need to speak or write. As long as our brain functions in a certain way (which is only related to nativity by coincidence, as your examples made apparent) we're fine, right? No.

bflatnine Wrote:Except in rare cases (such as the Japanese man who lived in Ukraine for 60 years mentioned above), your L1 will always be your dominant language, whether you can fool natives or not.

Except the fact that situations where people are cut off from their native language happen all the time. This further expands on what I said above. Attributing language ability to nativity in the real world is misleading.

vosmiura Wrote:

Quote:Except in rare cases (such as the Japanese man who lived in Ukraine for 60 years mentioned above), your L1 will always be your dominant language, whether you can fool natives or not.

Does it include children who grow up in an L2 environment also, because I learned English from 10 years old and it completely dominated my L1 after a few years (even though I spoke in L1 at home with my family), so I think children can have a dominant L2 fairly quickly. The younger the quicker.

Grr, 'the younger the quicker'
these are the kind of crappy phrases I hate hearing. An adult can become fluent far quicker than a child supposing that they are doing the right things. Blocking out every aspect of your L1 language and doing everything in your target language, an adult would absolutely kill a child in learning time. P.S. I'm not an adult, it's just true.

ryuudou Wrote:That's improper usage of the denotation. Fluent as in "flowing" usually applies to something like water. The proper usage would be the attribute of adeptness in a language, or "ease" is also a common word.

Actually, that seems to be the proper use of the word 'fluent' in linguistics. You could hardly be 'adept' at all and still speak fluently. Only colloquially does fluent means adept and with ease (and literate, etc.).

When you are close to never mystified by any aspect of a language, you are at a native level fluency. It is important to remember that even natives don't know everything about their language.

thecite Wrote:

vosmiura Wrote:

Quote:Except in rare cases (such as the Japanese man who lived in Ukraine for 60 years mentioned above), your L1 will always be your dominant language, whether you can fool natives or not.

Does it include children who grow up in an L2 environment also, because I learned English from 10 years old and it completely dominated my L1 after a few years (even though I spoke in L1 at home with my family), so I think children can have a dominant L2 fairly quickly. The younger the quicker.

Grr, 'the younger the quicker'
these are the kind of crappy phrases I hate hearing. An adult can become fluent far quicker than a child supposing that they are doing the right things. Blocking out every aspect of your L1 language and doing everything in your target language, an adult would absolutely kill a child in learning time. P.S. I'm not an adult, it's just true.

I think you misunderstand. An adult can become fluent in a foreign language faster, but it doesn't override/dominate their native language. If you become fluent in Japanese in a few years, your English is still fine and strong. But in vosmiura's case, the child's L1 becomes weaker than than their L2. The younger they are, the quicker L2 will dominate L1(not "the younger they are, the faster they learn L2")

thecite Wrote:

vosmiura Wrote:..., so I think children can have a dominant L2 fairly quickly. The younger the quicker.

Grr, 'the younger the quicker'
these are the kind of crappy phrases I hate hearing. An adult can become fluent far quicker than a child supposing that they are doing the right things. Blocking out every aspect of your L1 language and doing everything in your target language, an adult would absolutely kill a child in learning time.

I was talking about L2 dominating the L1.

Quote:P.S. I'm not an adult, it's just true.

Very scientific.

First, sorry I've been away. I've been busy moving but I'm done with all that now. OK, back to the discussion.

ryuudou Wrote:

bflatnine Wrote:Fluent, by definition, means that the language flows.

That's improper usage of the denotation. Fluent as in "flowing" usually applies to something like water. The proper usage would be the attribute of adeptness in a language, or "ease" is also a common word.

"Ease" does not mean native-like. A person could speak his L2 with "ease" and not be able to do much more than chit chat and order food. I've known people like this. But we wouldn't say that person has language ability comparable to an educated native speaker (remember from earlier that this is what I mean by "native-like fluency"). Same thing goes for "flowing," so I believe we can agree that "fluent" means that the language flows, not necessarily that the person has any particular level of ability in the language. That has to be further defined, hence the reason for the existence of terms like "basic fluency," "advanced fluency," and "native-like fluency."

Quote:

bflatnine Wrote:We need to also remember that there is a difference between a native speaker mistaking you for a native and your brain actually functioning like a native. Linguistics is a cognitive science, so I think it is more appropriate to define linguistic ability from a cognitive perspective rather than a performance perspective.

That's not realistic. Ask yourself what really matters in the art of language. If I outperform a native person of a respective country there's nothing his native brain can do. I am better than him at that language. Attributing nativity to language ability is misleading to the learners. It implies that they have something the learners don't, when in reality it's just a head start.

I should have been more clear about this. I'm not arguing that a person can't demonstrate fluency and literacy equivalent to an educated native speaker. I'm arguing that we need to define our terms from a cognitive perspective. There is a difference between "native ability" and "native-like ability." One has to do with L1, the other with L2. Note that these terms (L1 and L2) have nothing to do with birth, and everything to do with mother tongue versus second language.

The point is not that I'm "attributing nativity to language ability;" it's that, outside of rare circumstances like I noted before, the L2 will never be the same to you as your L1. In other words, you will never have "native ability" in your L2. They occupy different places in the brain. This is a well-known and well-researched area of second language acquisition.

"Native-like ability" (defined as "the fluency and literacy equivalent to that of a native speaker") is a performance-based assessment, and can describe L2 proficiency. "Native ability," (defined as "the ability of an educated native speaker") is only applicable to L1. The casual observer may not be able to tell the difference. But if you were to see which portions of the brain are active, you'd see that there is a difference between L1 and L2, no matter how proficient the person may be in his L2. L1 input stimulates more activity in the brain (namely in the left temporal lobe, including the temporal pole) than does L2 input.

Quote:tl;dr: Performance > Cognitive

This was pointless, arrogant, and a little irritating. Let's try to keep this discussion a little more mature. If I couldn't be bothered to even read your post, I'd have the decency to drop out of the conversation rather than waste your time. I hope you'd have the same courtesy.

Quote:Results matter. Otherwise we wouldn't need to speak or write. As long as our brain functions in a certain way (which is only related to nativity by coincidence, as your examples made apparent) we're fine, right? No.

Read above for a better explanation. Sure, performance is what we're after in learning a foreign language, but for the sake of accuracy in our terms and clarity in our discussion we have to define terms from an academic standpoint. I'm not saying that people can never demonstrate fluency and literacy indistinguishable from that of an educated native from an outside view. I'm saying that we can't call that "native ability." It has to be called "native-like ability." Native=mother tongue=L1 for all intents and purposes, not counting rare instances I noted earlier. Native-like=second language=L2. Again, I'm not disagreeing with you on the level of proficiency a person can attain, I'm disagreeing on which term is more appropriate so the discussion can continue with (hopefully) less confusion.

Quote:

bflatnine Wrote:Except in rare cases (such as the Japanese man who lived in Ukraine for 60 years mentioned above), your L1 will always be your dominant language, whether you can fool natives or not.

Except the fact that situations where people are cut off from their native language happen all the time. This further expands on what I said above. Attributing language ability to nativity in the real world is misleading.

Hopefully I've clarified this above. It also bears mentioning that in these situations, the older you are when you become "cut off" from your L1, the less likely you will be to have your L2 take the place of your L1 in your brain.

Anyway, I think that maybe this thread has been derailed enough. Maybe some of this side-discussion could be split into its own thread so this one could get back to the original question of "Is anyone here Fluent? How long did it take, and what was your method?"

Burritolingus called it first (though many of us could see it by the first post): 7 pages of arguing fluency, one post talking about his fluency.