Category talk:User en-4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Near-native / Native Level

• For my part, I'd prefer "Native level" over "near-native." The use of "Near-native" without a further category suggests that non-native speakers of English are universally unable to achieve a level of proficiency with the tongue on par with a native. This is clearly not the case. My guess would be that Wikipedians would not confuse "Native level" with "Is a native speaker" - we should give them more credit. "Near-native" is in many cases, incorrect, as many non-native speakers of English are more adept with the language than natives. I think it should be changed back. - Hayter 11:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree. I feel that the difference between a native speaker and a non-native speaker who is nevertheless highly proficient in the language is significant, and it shows up in many, albeit subtle, ways. While there are certianly some non-native speakers of English who are more proficient than certian native speakers, in the general case, native speakers have a more intuitive grasp of the langage than non-natives. As such, I think that some way of differentiating between native speakers and non-native speakers who have simply learned the language is essential. Saying that someone speaks English at a native level is too close to saying that someone is a native speaker of the language, and as such, the text should be changed. A few suggestions:
  • This user, while not a native speaker, speaks English at a native level.
  • This user speaks english at a level comprable to that of a native speaker.
  • This user, while not a native speaker, speaks english fluently.
  • This user speaks english at a near-native level.

---Squigish 00:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Why must this difference be pointed out? A person's grasp of a particular language, though aided or hindered by the place and circumstances of their birth is not controlled by it. As it is perfectly possible for a non-native speaker to have the same (or a greater) level of proficiency in the language as a native, the description of 'near-native' is aside from anything else, incorrect for these people, as you realise. But we should note that "native speaker" does not reflect a person's proficiency in the language - it simply informs us that it is their primary dialect. "At a native level" clearly shows that this person has an excellent grasp of the language. I fail to see an adequate reasoning as to why the distinction must be made between natives and non-natives. If a wikipedian wishes to make known their nationality, they can do so via other templates. What is the practical difference between a native speaker (assuming a native level of skill for them) and a non-native with a native skill level who has as you say, "simply learned the language?" (Surely something everyone must do, natives included.) - Hayter 13:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• The difference has to do with the way one learns a language. Before the age of 2, a child's brian has the capacity to absorb a language in an entirely different way than after that age. This has to do with the neurons and synaptic pathways in the brain. Note that this capacity is not limited to a single language. A child who is exposed to multiple langages as an infant can actually have more than one "first language," meaning that they understand the language on a more intutive level than someone who learned the language later in life. --Squigish 22:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• That's an extraneous seperation. The category is for identifying how talented a person is with the English language, not how they learnt it. It is not a practical difference and no more relevant for the purposes of this category than the nationality (or sex, height or weight for that matter) of the wikipedian's primary language instructor. - Hayter 15:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

...and it seems we're discussing this away from everyone else. Clever us. Check here. Hayter 15:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Why is this at a higher level than 3, which is advanced? Isn't advanced better than near-native? I've listed myself as 3 and native... or am I misinterpreting 3 as being a university pursuit of english and journalism when it's more in a foreign learning context? Tyciol 07:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The idea is that the various levels 1-4 are for non-native speakers. So if you're a native speaker, you'd just use the En template. Also, as Hayter pointed out, we're discussing it in the wrong place. Go talk here. Squigish 01:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)