# Writers in English who are not native speakers of English



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

We have here on kindle boards Gabriela Popa, who has translated her own short novel Kafka’s House from Romanian into English. That got me thinking. Virtually all great writers write in their native language. Writing good literature in a foreign language is an incredibly difficult thing to do. So, how many well-known writers of English are there who are not native speakers of English? I can only think of two: Joseph Conrad (Polish) and Ayn Rand (Russian). That’s one per century. There must be more. Any one come to mind?


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2010)

Nabokov. I'm trying to remember if English is the native language of Edwidge Danticat. She must've at least grown up bilingual.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Well, according to many of our friends in the UK, anything by an American, Canadian, Australian, or New Zealander would qualify.


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

I was going to say Nabokov, too -- one of the best prose stylists in English always claimed he wrote better in Russian! 

there's also Andrei Codrescu (Romanian).


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2010)

Thalia the Muse said:


> I was going to say Nabokov, too -- one of the best prose stylists in English always claimed he wrote better in Russian!
> 
> there's also Andrei Codrescu (Romanian).


Yeah, it is sort of mindblowing to think about being that good in a second language. Reading Lolita, the prose was almost too smooth and too deep. Just impressive flow that made something outrageous and unspeakable into something almost logical.


----------



## Gabriela Popa (Apr 7, 2010)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> We have here on kindle boards Gabriela Popa, who has translated her own short novel Kafka's House from Romanian into English. That got me thinking. Virtually all great writers write in their native language. Writing good literature in a foreign language is an incredibly difficult thing to do. So, how many well-known writers of English are there who are not native speakers of English? I can only think of two: Joseph Conrad (Polish) and Ayn Rand (Russian). That's one per century. There must be more. Any one come to mind?


Hi Mark,

Thank you for generously opening up this topic for discussion. I can think of another example, a living one, Junot Diaz. His short story collection Drown is a very fine achievement. Ilan Stavans is another, and Ariel Dorfman. But Nabokov is the epitome of the successful bilingual writer because he achieved such mastery of language.

But to understand Nabokov one must read not only his work but also his other writing, such as confessions and letters. A good example is his interview published in The Paris Review. "Do you feel you have any conspicuous or secret flaw as a writer?" the interviewer says. And Nabokov responds: "The absence of a natural vocabulary. And odd thing to confess, but true. Of the two instruments in my possession, one - my native tongue- I can no longer use, and this is not only because I lack a Russian audience, but also because the excitement of verbal adventure in the Russian has faded away gradually after I turned to English in 1940. My English, this second instrument I have always had, is however a stiffish, artificial thing, which may be all right for describing a sunset or an insect, but which can not conceal the poverty of syntax and paucity of domestic diction when I need the shortest road between warehouse and shop. An old Rolls-Royce is not always preferable to a plain jeep."

I am still trying to understand what made Nobokov the mega-writer he is. It's not talent only, because there are others, enormously talented, and it's not hard work only. He had all that but also something else: an appetite for risk. He discusses above about "verbal adventure." That's a huge distinguishing factor, in my opinion, critical for someone who's playing with a non-native language.

At the other end of the spectrum are immigrants who continued writing in their native language and achieved success: a fine example is Isaac Bashevis Singer who I believe continued to write in Yiddish after he immigrated to US from Poland. In a preface to one of his books he strongly advises writers against abandoning their mother tongue "with its treasure of idioms." Oh, how right he is. How difficult if not impossible is to get mastery of those linguistic jewels in a new language.

Gabriela
PS. Regarding my novel, I actually wrote it in English first, here in US for my writers friends, and translated it back to Romanian when I decided to test whether it would be possible to first traditionally publish the Romanian edition. It was.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

foreverjuly said:


> Yeah, it is sort of mindblowing to think about being that good in a second language. Reading Lolita, the prose was almost too smooth and too deep. Just impressive flow that made something outrageous and unspeakable into something almost logical.


I think English was Nabokov's third language. I remember reading an interview were he was asked his favorite language and he said something along the lines of "My heart says Russian, my tongue says French, and my head says English."

I had a friend from Moscow who claimed Nabokov wrote beautifully in Russian.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

What language does Rushdie write in?


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Ladies and Gents, we are still open for nominations, but I have the first day's results. First an explanation.

There is a critical period for learning languages naturally, i.e. for becoming native speakers. You have to be put in an environment where you are fully surrounded by the language before the age of, _VERY _ roughly, 15 years old for boys and 18 years old for girls. You can add on 3 or 4 (or 5 or 6) years if you are moving to a place where a closely related language is spoken - for example Germanic speakers (German, Dutch, Swedish, Icelandic etc) moving to an English speaking country. Or Romance speakers moving to another Romance country (like Codrescu moving from Romania to Italy at the age of 19).

Using this as the basic criteria, I've wikied the 7 nominees so far and looked at their backgrounds. Four of them, I'd say, might barely qualify as non-native speakers of English writing in English. It would probably be better to call them semi-native speakers of English. They might be virtually native in all but accent. They are, with the ages of their first significant exposure to English:

Joseph Conrad, 21
Ayn Rand, 21
Vladimir Nabokov, 21
Andrei Codrescu, 20

The other three must be considered fully native speakers of English.

Junot Diaz moved to New Jersey when he was 6.
Edwidge Danticat moved to New York when she was 12.
Salman Rushdie was born and raised in Mumbai to an elite family, almost certainly guaranteeing that he was an English speaker from the time he entered elementary school and probably earlier.

Gabriela also mentioned Isaac Bashevis Singer, who continued to write in Yiddish, even after he immigrated to the States. He was 33, then, so I'm guessing it was simply too late for him. He probably did not have the confidence to write in English.

From the results so far, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you can't write great literature in a foreign language. Still waiting, even hoping, for a nominee that will prove me wrong!

I sadly and reluctantly took advatage of my position as the creator of this thread to disqualify all of Nogdog's excellent nominees, which include myself and many others here! 

(Of course, even if you aren't going win a Nobel Prize, you can still write stories definitely worth reading! Check out Gabriela's books.)


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

If Jerzy Kozinski wrote "The Painted Bird" (and I think he did) - what language did he write it in?  He wrote other stuff, but his history is so convoluted I can't keep straight what he wrote in what language and what he's been accused of plagiarizing.


----------



## Martel47 (Jun 14, 2010)

I still wouldn't put Conrad in the category of "near-native".  But maybe I'm just a Conrad apologist.  I happen to think he is one of the greatest writers in English of all time, if not the greatest.  Heart of Darkness alone would put him in this category for me.


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

Yes, I would consider Rushdie a native Englsh speaker.


----------



## Gabriela Popa (Apr 7, 2010)

Mark,

It looks like you are absolutely right. As any self-respecting scientist would do, I spent some time today gathering info to refute your beautiful theory (theory saying that early familiarity with a language is absolutely necessary for complete mastery of that language.) I looked up Beckett, who wrote _En attendant Godot _ in French, Ionesco, Cioran, Djerassi.... well, all of them confirmed your theory. My last hope was Ariel Dorfman, but he spent a few years in NY as a child before returning to Chile with his family. Dasai spoke 5 languages (English included) as a child.

So, here on the Kindle Boards, the Ledbetter theory has been validated. Strong data and strong analytical skills! And a very fun discussion - Thanks!

Gabriela


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Ledbetter’s Theory! Aw, shucks, Gabriella, I’m honored. And I am a man of theories. I have so many I should probably number them. And thanks for the research. You are a true scientist in addition to being a writer.

In the lead post I said, “Writing good literature in a foreign language is an incredibly difficult thing to do.” Now I’m just about ready to say it can’t be done. We still have only 4 solid nominees, and all 4 were 20 or 21 when they came in contact with English, within, though just barely, the possible age limit for becoming a native speaker. (One caveat: the possibility for native speaker accent generally disappears earlier than that).

There’s still one nominee we haven’t considered in depth: Jerzy Kozinski.

From Wiki I deduce the following. He had his first significant exposure to English at 24. Rather too old for becoming a native speaker, yet he wrote in English. But, did he really? Apparently there is a lot of controversy about that. At best, from what I glean out of Wiki, his novels were team efforts with, I think it’s safe to assume, all other team members being native speakers. Considering that we haven’t found any clear non-native speaker who writes great literature in English, we have to assume that the accusations against Kozinski are likely true to some extent: he didn’t really write those novels, or did it with extensive help. So…

Ledbetter Language Theory No. 17: Great literature can only be written in one’s native language.

Actually, it’s no surprise if you know the (rather long) theory no. 3…

Ledbetter Language Theory No. 3: Reconstructing, as children, perfect language in our minds from the chaos of sound around us is the most difficult intellectual feat we will ever accomplish, more difficult than an advanced degree from Harvard, more difficult than writing a great novel, more difficult than the formulating the Theory of Relativity.

Corollary: Since we have all done it, our fundamental intellectual equality is beyond dispute. No adult has ever done anything more wonderful than what every normal child in the world has accomplished.

So, if you think about it, my new Theory 17 is actually contained within Theory 3.

Btw, this thread isn’t closed and the theories are not chiseled in stone. I’d still be happy to find a theory-breaker, though I will examine all nominees with the skepticism that comes from my strengthening belief in 17!


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

Hi,

I was born in India, grew up there, first left India when I was 26 years old. No, I am not a native speaker of English. I still will occasionally write an unidiomatic sentence, even after many years in the U.S. And quite a few excellent writers (and I am not including myself in the "excellent") from India are not native speakers of English either. Just because multiple languages exist around us, and bad English--I mean, ungrammatical English--exists around us doesn't mean we are native speakers of the language. Many of us grow up speaking a "mother tongue"--and sometimes 2 other Indian languages. 

So I think it is an achievement for someone with that background to write English well, beautifully, lyrically. 

And I think Nabokov, Conrad, and Rushdie, all have done that. 

I admit, though, that English is the language of my thought. Because I spent the most time on it, and went farther and deeper into than into any of the other languages. I doubt that makes me a "native speaker" --a term that I in any case regard with a bit of suspicion, because in China and Thailand, essentially, it is a code word to mean they only want white-skinned English teachers. As a result of which, East Europeans sometimes end up as English teachers, thanks to their white skin.

Richard


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Hi, Richard. I certainly don't want to tell you who you are! But I'll go ahead and tell you anyway. I'm really bad that way.

From various things in your letter, I would imagine that you are this: a native speaker of English (and probably other languages, as well). You said, "Just because multiple languages exist around us, and bad English--I mean, ungrammatical English--exists around us doesn't mean we are native speakers of the language."

Linguists know that all it takes to become a native speaker is to be surrounded by, and use, a language as a child. In fact, that's the only way. I know the linguistic situation in India is very complex. From what I know, English has become, by default, the lingua franca of educated Indians. Is that not right? I assume that English was your main language of education when you were a child? That you used it extensively at school and possibly at home? If the answer is yes, you're a native speaker, no matter what language schools in SE Asia (or here in Japan) think.

If you used primarily a different language at school AND home, then it might be possible that you are a non-native or semi-native speaker of English, but only if your English input was quite limited. And from your post, that seems extremely unlikely.

I'm suspicious, also, of the term "bad English." Do you mean Indian English? It IS different, as are all varieties of English. I have seen this used as an example of Indian English: "I am not knowing where to find a stepney." In that sentence, both the vocab and grammar (and pronunciation, if you heard it) are different than the English used in Anglo countries, or Nigeria, or the Philippines etc. But if that is the standard way of speaking for people who have grown up with the language, then, to linguists, it is correct English. A native language is a co-creation of children who grow up speaking that language. Their usage is the correct usage. They are the language geniuses who created it. English teachers who declare their usage a mistake are simply wrong.

I agree that the accomplishment of Nabokov, Conrad, and Rushdie is marvelous. But, for the reasons listed in earlier posts, it's quite probable that Nabokov and Conrad are at least semi-native speakers of English with everything except native speaker accent, and that Rushdie is a pure native speaker of English. To convince me that Rushdie was not a native speaker of English, you will have to tell me, first, that both his home and school language were Hindi or Bengali or Tamil or something. Second, that he didn't have any significant exposure to English until he was well into his 20s. That strikes me as quite unlikely. And since we still don't have any candidates on this thread who fit the requirements for being a non-native speaker, I went ahead and made my declaration: You can only write great literature in your native language.

Ok, off the soapbox! Thanks for your letter, Richard. I truly enjoy talking about language, maybe I enjoy it too much and come on too strong! Anyway, tell me. What is your linguistic background? How many languages do you speak? In what kind of situations did you use each language when you were a child? Or tell me anything else interesting about the linguistic situation in India. I'm all ears!

PS, Before posting this, I just went and took a look at your book. It sounds wonderful (and, if anyone's looking at this, at a reduced price only for a short time!)

And Richard, maybe you will be the one to prove me wrong. Let's say, 1) you are not a native speaker of English and 2) The Revised Kama Sutra (it's a novel folks) is great or even good literature. I'll declare you the winner and withdraw my categorical "it-can't-be-done" declaration.

Anyway, I will, I'm afraid, be spending time in the hospital from text week. But I will have my Kindle and the Revised Kama Sutra looks like a great post-op book (if I can restrain myself until then).

The Revised Kama Sutra at:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003VYCARI


----------



## pdallen (Aug 3, 2010)

Finnish indie author Heikki Heitala is definitely worth mentioning here. Heikki's stories are at the same time literary and heartfelt. He is definitely a storyteller's storyteller.

You can sample his fiction at the Year Zero Writer's Collective http://yearzerowriters.wordpress.com/category/heikki-hietala/

Or you can check out his novel, Taluga Hotel.










Suzanna Burke has a good review of the novel on her blog. http://sooozsaysstuff.blogspot.com/p/promotional-assistance-group.html

In the interests of full disclosure, I should state that Heikki is a friend of mine, and I am a fellow member of the Year Zero Writer's Collective. But this does not diminish the regard I and others share for Heikki's work.


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

Hi,


responding to this:

Hi, Richard. I certainly don’t want to tell you who you are! But I’ll go ahead and tell you anyway. I’m really bad that way.

From various things in your letter, I would imagine that you are this: a native speaker of English (and probably other languages, as well). You said, “Just because multiple languages exist around us, and bad English--I mean, ungrammatical English--exists around us doesn't mean we are native speakers of the language.”

Linguists know that all it takes to become a native speaker is to be surrounded by, and use, a language as a child. In fact, that’s the only way. I know the linguistic situation in India is very complex. From what I know, English has become, by default, the lingua franca of educated Indians. Is that not right? I assume that English was your main language of education when you were a child? That you used it extensively at school and possibly at home? If the answer is yes, you’re a native speaker, no matter what language schools in SE Asia (or here in Japan) think.

If you used primarily a different language at school AND home, then it might be possible that you are a non-native or semi-native speaker of English, but only if your English input was quite limited. And from your post, that seems extremely unlikely.

I’m suspicious, also, of the term “bad English.” Do you mean Indian English? It IS different, as are all varieties of English. I have seen this used as an example of Indian English: “I am not knowing where to find a stepney.” In that sentence, both the vocab and grammar (and pronunciation, if you heard it) are different than the English used in Anglo countries, or Nigeria, or the Philippines etc. But if that is the standard way of speaking for people who have grown up with the language, then, to linguists, it is correct English. A native language is a co-creation of children who grow up speaking that language. Their usage is the correct usage. They are the language geniuses who created it. English teachers who declare their usage a mistake are simply wrong.


Thanks for the reply.  My response:

You don't get anywhere far as an English-language writer with "I am not knowing where to find . . .etc.".  I remember a black writer (and a black anyone) speaking of how, in a white-dominated society, he discovered he had to be twice as good. "I am not knowing" is good for comic or mocking effect, but only for a few sentences. Not for 100,000 words. 

My models were books. Most adults around me in India used bad or pompous and 19th century English. Most of the books were antiquated and stilted--how much Wodehouse can you read? When i came to the US in 1979, it took me years to understand the idiom and to "get it"--to drop the pompous style and be more human. I grew up in a quadrilingual city, and it was complex enough managing just to communicate . . . 

I completed my first novel before Indian writers became "hot"--an agent told me an Indian could never hope to write English like a native.

well, whatever (now I'm speaking American English). Some of this story of what happened to me in America is told in The Killing of an Author, but for your post-op belly laughs, The Revised Kama Sutra is highly recommended (by me, of course).

richard


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> Ladies and Gents, we are still open for nominations, but I have the first day's results. First an explanation.
> 
> There is a critical period for learning languages naturally, i.e. for becoming native speakers. You have to be put in an environment where you are fully surrounded by the language before the age of, _VERY _ roughly, 15 years old for boys and 18 years old for girls. You can add on 3 or 4 (or 5 or 6) years if you are moving to a place where a closely related language is spoken - for example Germanic speakers (German, Dutch, Swedish, Icelandic etc) moving to an English speaking country. Or Romance speakers moving to another Romance country (like Codrescu moving from Romania to Italy at the age of 19).
> 
> ...


Nah, I'd disagree with that. Those don't *have* to be counted as native speakers. It's still a skill and not something everyone gets good at regardless of age. I grew up in a household where Spanish and English were quite common. I am not fluent in Spanish, much to my regret, despite studying it and speaking it on occasion. I spent a year in Japan, under the age of 18 -- completely immersed with English speakers very few and far between. I can pigeon my way along, make myself understood and generally get by. Fluent? No. Translate or write a book? Not even a children's book.

Would I have gotten better at Japanese had I stayed longer? Probably. And by the time I was 50, I might have been able to write a book or translate a short story. I did do some translation back into English.

But I have to say...maybe Diaz on that list can be counted as "native" because he would have had most of his schooling in English, but I wouldn't count the others. I had a full year of Japanese schooling. While it helps in my language skills, math is still math, PE doesn't much matter--you can pretty much wave your arms and follow along with whatever game is being played (I was great in basketball over there. Tallest on the team!!!)

Being bilingual (or more) is a lifelong achievement. Finding the right words in any language is a skill that must be honed continuously, whether you learn it at 6, 18 or 30. It's a hell of a lot of work (My father is bilingual. We've translated a few documents together. He speaks FLUENTLY in both and has since birth. Growing up Spanish was probably his first language, but over the years? I'd say English is now his first, just from everyday use.) It still took dad and I hours and hours to do the translations and say exactly what we needed to say.

FWIW.

Maria


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Everybody, I'm home! I went under the knife a few weeks ago, and now I return, a few ounces lighter, minus the weight of a cancerous prostate. It's great to be back to Kindle boards.

Richard and Maria. I still need some evidence. The people on the list were, barely, close enough to the age restrictions to have been (except for accent) native speakers. Considering the unbelievably complexity of language and the native speaker's astounding control of his/her language, and considering the fact that not a single _clearly _ non-native speaker has been proposed, I think we have to assume for now those on the list must have had native or near-native proficiency.

Here's an important related point. To linguists, the spoken language is the "real" language. Written language is a special highly complex skill different but derived from spoken language. The written form can't be basic. After all, most of the 6,000 languages in the world don't even have written forms, a few hundred tops.

Another point. Richard mentions that you aren't going to get very far writing, "I am not knowing where to find&#8230;" True. But neither are you going to get far writing:

Aye, you canna whack it, man. / I's gannin' iam (I'm going home)
I might could go tomorrow.
Ain't nobody gonna finish before noon.
Or, as they say in Hawaii:
Cute da baby. Hot da sun.
Da water stay cold. (meaning "is," not "stay")
He wen cry. (He cried)

Maria could probably add some examples of non-standard Spanish-influenced English used within a certain speech community. Anyway, native English and standard English are not the same thing. All the above examples are native but non-standard. As Richard points out, you just aren't going to get very far writing non-standard, unless it's dialog. It's not because of any linguistic deficiency in any of those dialects. It's just simply because they aren't accepted as standard, and in fact are often proscribed (wrongly) as illiterate and ignorant.

Maria, you say you aren't a native speaker of Spanish. I'm going to take a wild guess that you might be a "native listener"? Strange thing, speaking and listening are completely different skills. There are lots of people who can understand a language almost to perfection but speak it not at all. When they try to say something, the words and grammar that they understand so easily just don't come into their mind. Btw, Maria, Itsu Nihon ni sundeita? Doko ni ita? Mada nihongo tukaemasuka?

Everybody, I've put a review for Richard's book on Amazon and will add it to kindle boards soon. Revised Kama Sutra apparently had a well-deserved but all too brief period of recognition where it received high praise in both the British and Indian press. a fantastic book, though not for your children (see review).


----------



## Gabriela Popa (Apr 7, 2010)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> Everybody, I'm home! I went under the knife a few weeks ago, and now I return, a few ounces lighter, minus the weight of a cancerous prostate. It's great to be back to Kindle boards.


Mark, welcome back!! So happy to see you here again, debating the intricacies of language. We missed you!
Gabriela


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Gabriela, thanks! I was thinking of you and rooting for your writing career from my hospital bed.

Richard said, "... for your post-op belly laughs, The Revised Kama Sutra is highly recommended (by me, of course)."

Actually, R, it was not the right book.  The slightest use of stomach muscles sent a wave of stinging pain. I think an allout sneeze would have killed me, but even a healthy belly laugh would have been followed by a scream. IE, your book was too funny for my kind of op, but I did it anyway.

Everyone, my Amazon review, for some reason, is slow going up, so let me put it here while we're waiting:

Affected by the Western rationalism and science of his school books, the poor but brilliant Vijay rejects the　rigid　code of　South　Indian　Catholicism,　giving　up　God,　religion,　and　his　dream　of　becoming　a　saint. From there, Vijay's story becomes a search for meaning in a godless material world.

To borrow a bit from a perceptive previous review, Revised Kama Sutra is an exuberant Catcher In The Rye, a South Indian Confederacy of Dunces, spiced with the author's indefatigable love of hilarious word play. Unlike Catcher and COD, though, Kama is auto-biographical (if not, my apologies to the author!).

So far, so good. You might want to read it. But if I add it's a story about obsession with sex (not that Vijay gets much), will you change your mind? Can't be helped. It's the gut-busting hilarity of Vijay's quest to lose his virginity that keeps the story moving.

We are all obsessed. The difference between most of us and Vijay is that we hide away our obsessions or sublimate them under something more suitable for public viewing.

So there it is. That's what the book's about. But good stories usually have something more. A Western reader learns: what Pax Brittania and Pax Americana look like from the other side; about grinding third world poverty seen not through the eyes of Western pity but as a normal everyday reality; how traditional power structures dominate traditional societies despite a veneer of outside Western values (ie, not much chance we're going to make any real societal changes in Afghanistan and Iraq with an army); the way the English language permeates everything, is pursued by everyone, and becomes something new in the process (this last, fascinating to me as a linguist).

Revised Kama Sutra is not your standard novel by a long shot. For those who want to avoid such things, it is super x-rated in both content and vocabulary. But, ultimately and thankfully, this story is uplifting and powerful at the end when the author realizes, in spite of himself, there must be something more.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003VYCARI


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

I'm a decent Spanish listener--for a particular area (southern NM).  There is sooo much slang in use in the speech, that it makes it very hard to listen to other Spanish.  I can do okay in a restaurant or store or even generally understand most questions thrown at me.  If I am not nervous and have enough time, I can even answer (sometimes correct grammar, sometimes to get the point across.)  

I was in the Nagano Prefecture, in a little town called Komoro.  I was there as a foreign exchange student in high school, LO and I mean LO these many years ago.  Obviously I don't still use/speak the language.     I would only embarrass myself!  

So here's the thing.  I think you argued my points in my favor or maybe what I'm thinking is that unless you're practically a native speaker OF BOTH, you can't translate well at all.  When speaking "native" language it really is different from the written part.  I can, if I sit down and work at it, translate into Japanese or out of it, into Spanish or out of it.  I can even get the words correct and the grammar, if not perfect, close.  BUT that very careful working/translation...is not going to be all that great of a story or all that accurate.  In speech, I would probably choose different words if I were a native.  For example, when you asked if I still used Japanese (I think that is what you asked) that is not the word I would have used--I didn't know the word, but I think I got the meaning right.  I would have used a much simpler sentence, "Nihongo mada hanasumasuka?" because I'm not that fluent--there's no grace to my language use; it's more like a conversation with a 3 year old.  

Another example, in Spanish, my dad says, "ratto" a lot.  I don't think this is even a Spanish word.  He means "a little" and most often means "See you in a little while" or "in a bit" or "yes, a little."

If I were to translate (into English)  the correct translation would not be a straight, 'in a little while.'  It would...in some cases, at least, require translating it into an ENGLISH slang, most likely "See you around."  

So in one case, being a non-native speaker, but being surrounded by it, I can do an accurate translation that not only conveys the meaning--it also picks up the slang and translates, in one phrase, the culture, the feel, the *accuracy*.   But I am *not* a native speaker.  It's exposure and while I can capture it in a few instances, it leaves me a far cry from native.

So...I still think you can have a very skillful and talented translator--and "native" is relative to a time and place.  When I was in Japan, my translation and interpretation are much different than today (they would have been much stronger).  When I lived at home and heard the cadence, the slang, the feel of culture--it would affect any translation going on, even if only in my head.  

It's hard to explain, but I think what I'm trying to say is that if a translator is able to do a good job with a translation, whether he is native or not, he has to capture the essence of not only the story (see you around, instead of the more formal, in a little while) and he has to also get the literal meaning correct.  This is a conscious EFFORT that requires someone to actively choose phrases, look them up, or ask someone who is immersed daily--which is the right phrase.  Being a native speaker helps--but even if you grew up with the language around you--you can still FAIL TO BE A NATIVE SPEAKER.   And in that case, the hard work, the talent and the sheer effort take over for "native."  Because even "native" will only get you so far.

When Haunting Clues was translated into Greek, I worked with Emman. George-- a "native" speaker of Greek.  Her "English" is perfect--she speaks British English--perfectly.  She is in the UK, not in Greece.  She consulted with Greek friends over certain phrases--and then back with me to understand whether I was going for "respectful" tone or slang or what have you.  She also had to deal with my stunted English to indicate the speech of a non-native English speaker--and show that effect in Greek.  Let's look at the Non-native things happening.  She has been away from her home country for a while (I don't know the number of years).  When consulting with others, they had slight differences with the way they would have worded things--and in at least once case were "More correct" if you will.  Her English--perfect as it is...differs from mine.  Is she a native speaker?  Or not?  

Language is an evolving thing even within each of us--and it's an evolving thing within a story.  Longer exposure will mean better translations (or it should, theoretically).  Good imagination is going to really help (My story has fairies in it.  And ghosts.  And elves.)  

In short...I'm not sure where the line is for "native" speaker, but I tend to believe it's not so simple as an age of exposure because exposure to that language is only part of "native."  There's a whole lot more work that goes into communication and story telling on the level of two languages...

Or Maybe I'm just in awe of anyone who can manage the task so well.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

> I completed my first novel before Indian writers became "hot"--an agent told me an Indian could never hope to write English like a native.
> 
> well, whatever (now I'm speaking American English). Some of this story of what happened to me in America is told in The Killing of an Author, but for your post-op belly laughs, The Revised Kama Sutra is highly recommended (by me, of course).


To pick on Richard (Hope you don't mind) I read through his various posts. He sounds like a native English speaker. He writes like a native English speaker. BUT, given his background...he didn't define himself as one. Had I heard him back when he was speaking what he calls "pompous" English, I probably would not have thought him "native" either. Even by your own definition of being immersed in it from a young age (which is sounds like he was)...but yet...he appears to have become "native" by sheer force of effort. He was around "English" but not really the 'native' English he speaks now...



I love it when there is no clear line. Because with language there is not. It allows us to zig and zag--and invent. And get better.


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

You said it about no clear line. Even linguists have trouble defining native speaker. But here's something that linguists would generally agree with, I think. If you are exposed to a language in a fairly natural setting as a child, you will become a "native listener" at the least. If you are in a situation where you also need to use the language (which is true 99% of the time), you will become a native speaker, as well.

Just being in a natural setting, though, doesn't work for adults. Depending on how closely related the target language is to one we already know, we have to _really _ study, work, practice, and still won't be able to manipulate the new language like a native speaker. When I started this thread, I thought maybe a few geniuses might be able to overcome their non-native speaker handicap in writing, but I don't think so anymore.

Yes, Maria, even Richard claims he is not a native speaker of English. But from reading his semi-autobiographical novel and from what I know of the Indian language situation, I can't really believe it. He is a native speaker of Indian English which is close enough to "standard" English that, with his intelligence and ability, he can fine tune his variety into the standard for purposes of book writing. A real non-native just never could do what he's done. The distance is too great. No convincing examples of someone covering that distance have been found here even by our highly educated group.

I really like your conclusion. With no clear lines, we can zig and zag and invent, and get better! One of the many great things about language.


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> You said it about no clear line. Even linguists have trouble defining native speaker. But here's something that linguists would generally agree with, I think. If you are exposed to a language in a fairly natural setting as a child, you will become a "native listener" at the least. If you are in a situation where you also need to use the language (which is true 99% of the time), you will become a native speaker, as well.
> 
> Just being in a natural setting, though, doesn't work for adults. Depending on how closely related the target language is to one we already know, we have to _really _ study, work, practice, and still won't be able to manipulate the new language like a native speaker. When I started this thread, I thought maybe a few geniuses might be able to overcome their non-native speaker handicap in writing, but I don't think so anymore.
> 
> ...


Nice conclusion . . . I must admit the situation is pretty confusing for me, personally. I am the kind of child who would have envied Rushdie's childhood, the wealth, the privilege, the possibility of choosing his friends and his company. I had none of that, and very little access to books, until a bit later. Time Magazine and Readers Digest, to be honest, were my two teachers, because it was easier to get hold of these two magazines than a literary book, which the locals would have thought of as a waste of money (unless it was a prescribed textbook). I think I met my first real writer (who wrote in the English language) when I was 23: Two writers, one of whom was R.K. Narayan, who is one of the most successful writers at reproducing the native reality in a "standard" English language, but with some Indian flavor filtering through.

It infuriates me to read job advertisements for English teachers in East Asian countries that demand "native speakers"--which is code for "white-skinned" teachers. As a result of which Yugoslavs and Italians with rudimentary English fluency have managed in some cases to get jobs teaching English . . . This subject certainly deserves more discussion.


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> Richard and Maria. I still need some evidence. The people on the list were, barely, close enough to the age restrictions to have been (except for accent) native speakers. Considering the unbelievably complexity of language and the native speaker's astounding control of his/her language, and considering the fact that not a single _clearly _ non-native speaker has been proposed, I think we have to assume for now those on the list must have had native or near-native proficiency.
> 
> Here's an important related point. To linguists, the spoken language is the "real" language. Written language is a special highly complex skill different but derived from spoken language. The written form can't be basic. After all, most of the 6,000 languages in the world don't even have written forms, a few hundred tops.
> 
> ...


Very fine response, and fine review of my book too: thanks a million for coming out with a genuine review, the first Kindle review of any of my books, and most gratifyingly, one that I didn't have to make a backroom deal for! The abbreviated story of my book, briefly, is that I made a mistake and withdrew the rights from my two best English publishers (Penguin India and Fourth Estate, UK), on account of some genuine grievances of course. Yet, tactically, a bad decision--because I discovered I couldn't resell it to other British/Indian publishers (a kind of gang mentality prevails, or prevailed then, in both countries, against an author who had withdrawn a book), and then I was conned big-time by a scam-running American "publisher". For 14 years, the books have been out of bookstores; now, just returning to Indian bookstores thanks to HarperCollins.

Here's a thought about Nabokov: he's very fine, he's very funny, but yet, except when he is mocking Americans, which he is an ace at, you can say about his language, "Real people don't talk that way." (Of course Nabokov wouldn't worry about that).

In America, it took me a long, long time to speak even 30% like an American (I have a bit of BBC English and textbook English as well as traces of Indian English still in my speech). I am just re-reading Catch-22 (also NOT recommended post-op reading, but on my list of 20 greatest novels of all time), and getting much more of the humor and subtleties now, which I couldn't have gotten at 23, when I first read it in India. Because Catch-22, and even "Herzog", are closer to spoken language than "Lolita".


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

R (and anyone interested) I added your review to a thread called:

"Recollections, Kafka's House, 2184, and of course Threads. And Brian's book."

It's over in Writer's Cafe. It's a collection of Amazon reviews that I've made for KB writers.


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> R (and anyone interested) I added your review to a thread called:
> 
> "Recollections, Kafka's House, 2184, and of course Threads. And Brian's book."
> 
> It's over in Writer's Cafe. It's a collection of Amazon reviews that I've made for KB writers.


Thanks for the review, and apologies if I caused you pain with "The Revised Kama Sutra"--which I now revise to "Not Recommended for Post-Operative Reading".

My other two books (one short book, one longer one) are a bit more somber, with only occasional laughs:

http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Human-Hunger-Touch-ebook/dp/B003X978H8/ (quirky, sexy, may unpublish it anytime)

and

http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Author-Freedom-Trilogy-ebook/dp/B003WQAX4M/
(a story of writing and publishing) Disregard the biased, dishonest PW review, judge it for yourself.

Would really appreciate your thoughts, and even a review

thank you, and all best at the hospital.
Richard


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

MariaESchneider said:


> To pick on Richard (Hope you don't mind) I read through his various posts. He sounds like a native English speaker. He writes like a native English speaker.


I think you've solved my identity crisis. As the saying goes, if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then it is a duck. Therefore, I AM a native English speaker.

Is this clear, or would you rather say that I straddle the line that divides Native Speakers and Non-Native Speakers?

What was George Bush, Sr., by the way? His language (Bushisms) was extraordinary.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Richardcrasta said:


> I think you've solved my identity crisis. As the saying goes, if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then it is a duck. Therefore, I AM a native English speaker.
> 
> Is this clear, or would you rather say that I straddle the line that divides Native Speakers and Non-Native Speakers?
> 
> What was George Bush, Sr., by the way? His language (Bushisms) was extraordinary.


You can certainly be a native speaker.  With no fast, hard line, you can wobble back and forth. On those days when the duck is swimming rather than waddling, you can pretend to be a fish!


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

MariaESchneider said:


> You can certainly be a native speaker.  With no fast, hard line, you can wobble back and forth. On those days when the duck is swimming rather than waddling, you can pretend to be a fish!


fish out of water is more like how I feel at the moment. Flustered, befuddled, at sea, diluted, stretched, at my wit's end, all quacked out . . . I'm a different color of duck, and the ducks that buy books, who happen to be lighter-colored (since brown ducks seem to pile up their cash or use it to make more cash) seem to be ignoring my books. Being polite and well-meaning is one thing, but so far, that's not translated into anything more than that.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Richardcrasta said:


> fish out of water is more like how I feel at the moment. Flustered, befuddled, at sea, diluted, stretched, at my wit's end, all quacked out . . . I'm a different color of duck, and the ducks that buy books, who happen to be lighter-colored (since brown ducks seem to pile up their cash or use it to make more cash) seem to be ignoring my books. Being polite and well-meaning is one thing, but so far, that's not translated into anything more than that.


Well this duck found your premise quite fascinating--and I would have bought it in a flash, but...let's see...it appeared to have too much colorful...language and situations.  I think the humor and situations are targeted mainly toward the male audience and if that is true, then it will make your job a little harder. After all supposedly 60 percent of book buyers (or more) are women. That's not to say that women won't buy your book, but it does sound a tad on the risque side!

Go hang out with authors like Konrath. He writes gory stuff, but I could see some of his audience crossing over to your book (although keep in mind I didn't read it, so I'm guessing.)

The whole writing gig takes a *lot* of time. You have to find the right audience and they do their best to hide from you!!!


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

MariaESchneider said:


> Well this duck found your premise quite fascinating--and I would have bought it in a flash, but...let's see...it appeared to have too much colorful...language and situations.  I think the humor and situations are targeted mainly toward the male audience and if that is true, then it will make your job a little harder. After all supposedly 60 percent of book buyers (or more) are women. That's not to say that women won't buy your book, but it does sound a tad on the risque side!
> 
> Go hang out with authors like Konrath. He writes gory stuff, but I could see some of his audience crossing over to your book (although keep in mind I didn't read it, so I'm guessing.)
> 
> The whole writing gig takes a *lot* of time. You have to find the right audience and they do their best to hide from you!!!


That's just about 15 percent of the book. The majority of the book is about a boy growing up in a convent boarding school and Jesuit school, missing his mother, loving his mother, hilarious descriptions of the family and the chickens that come into the house, first love, building his body, planning success from American success books, writing to Jackie Kennedy and American pen friends, an obsession with success and America, and then, yes, multiple bungling attempts to lose his virginity, and then a search for higher things, for answers. So it is a political, social novel, a bildungsroman, a clash of cultures novel, the story of a larger universe . . . Mark wrote that thing about the sexual component because it is there, and I felt it ought to be there, that a novelist's duty is to show life in all its splendor, and truthfully. But I guess he mentioned it because some people are prudes, and he wished to alert such people. But even his review mentions the broader scope of the book, the Confederacy of Dunces humor and the Catcher in the Rye quest . . .

Two of my Indian editors who loved the book, and the one who is republishing it now at HarperCollins, and the one who bought it in Italy and Austria--all women (five of them!). My first agent, Harriet Wasserman, Saul Bellow's agent, a woman. Some of the best reviews: from women.

My hunch is that you will like it. Of course, it's your choice in the end.

best,
Richard


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

Do you consider Khaled Hosseini who wrote The Kite Runner a native English speaker?


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Geoffthomas: Do you consider Khaled Hosseini who wrote The Kite Runner a native English speaker?

Wiki: "Since he was 15, he has lived in the United States, "

Mark: Yes, he is most certainly a native speaker.

So far the only nominee who, judging from the wiki biography, had no possibility of being a native speaker is Jerzy Kozinski. But also, according to wiki, there's a lot of controvesy about Kozinsky. Outright wholesale plagerism at worst, a team of native speaker editors extensively polishing his work at best.


Maria, and anyone... I really want to push Richard's book, just because it is so good. There is "that," and, as Richard pointed out, I included a warning because that will matter to many people. But it's not only "that" by a long shot. Myself, I don't write like that and couldn't write like that. I am a prude. I admit it. I don't think I have actually used a swear word (other than in linguistic explanations, which is actually a fascinating study) in my life. But sex is part of the human experience and, considering how important it is, probably under-considered in serious literature (like RKS), even if it's overdone in trash literature (which RKS is not!).

Richard, Maria is a well-selling indie writer. She knows what she's talking about. On the topics that I have started at KindleBoards, we haven't been able to generate much interest in your book. Maybe the wrong kind of people gravitate to my topics. You might have to move to some different areas of the board.

G' luck!


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> Maria, and anyone... I really want to push Richard's book, just because it is so good. There is "that," and, as Richard pointed out, I included a warning because that will matter to many people. But it's not only "that" by a long shot. Myself, I don't write like that and couldn't write like that. I am a prude. I admit it. I don't think I have actually used a swear word (other than in linguistic explanations, which is actually a fascinating study) in my life. But sex is part of the human experience and, considering how important it is, probably under-considered in serious literature (like RKS), even if it's overdone in trash literature (which RKS is not!).


I was just reading about yin (the female force) and yang (the male energy) and how they are incomplete without the other; so if you consider the entire picture of life (for example there are entire chapters in my book devoted to tender romantic love --for example, Love in the Region of Filaria--or religion and college), possibly around 80 sexual or anatomical words in a 100,000 word book is not much. Consider that many great books were considered obscene in their time (even "The Leaves of Grass", and Gravity's Rainbow which in 1975 was refused the Pulitzer for only this reason). I think it is natural that some chapters will appeal more to women--the earlier, childhood parts, and certain parts less, but women often spend hundreds of dollars in seminars and books on trying to understand how men think, and here, I decided to discard all prohibitions and be totally frank, so I hope this is considered to be a bonus rather than a defect.


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> Richard, Maria is a well-selling indie writer. She knows what she's talking about. On the topics that I have started at KindleBoards, we haven't been able to generate much interest in your book. Maybe the wrong kind of people gravitate to my topics. You might have to move to some different areas of the board.
> 
> G' luck!


Well, I must express my gratitude for the review in any case, whether or not a single other copy gets sold. Because it is so intelligent and considered, it comes across as 100 % genuine, and has great credibility. It impressed my HarperCollins India editor, who has already published the book anyway.


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Richard, I've been thinking about your "Product Descriptions." I bought Revised Kama, for example, because I downloaded the sample and liked it. If I had only read your product description, I wouldn't have bought it. For me, it's just a mere summary of the story. If you know all the background, it's a fascinating summary, but no one who hasn't read the book will know the background. (There's a kind of a Catch 22 for you!). Check with others and see what they think, but I'd suggest a different approach.

And then in the description of The Killing of an Author... Probably most people won't notice, but eight words into it you have "the the": dreaming the the Great American. As one person at Kindleboards memorably said, typos and mistakes in your product description are the kiss of death.


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

Thanks Mark,

Yes, you are right. Matter of fact descriptions don't work, especially for my kind of novel. It's one of those crazy things: it's almost easier writing the novel than writing a summary or a query letter to an agent/editor. I'll go back and do better, and add quotes from the books, I think. 

Have been away from this board, had been preparing for and just finished a book launch for the 14th worldwide and 4th Indian edition of The Revised Kama Sutra. I guess I mention the reviews on my Kama Sutra thread? Also, the board can get addictive and take up time one needs to spend writing/editing.

take care.
richard


----------



## strether (Dec 15, 2008)

How about Isak Dinesen, who wrote Out of Africa, and other books?


----------



## G. Henkel (Jan 12, 2010)

I am not a native speaker and write all my books in English. I'm originally hailing from Germany and moved to the US 13 years ago. Does that count?


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

Guido Henkel said:


> I am not a native speaker and write all my books in English. I'm originally hailing from Germany and moved to the US 13 years ago. Does that count?


I am not sure, Guido, others more experienced with this discussion might be able to answer this better. But I suppose two pertinent questions would be: 1. Is English or is German the language of your thought? Do you think in German and translate it into English? 2. At what age did you move to the US?

I myself seem to be a borderline case. English is the language of my thought at present, and by far the language in which I have the largest working vocabulary, but I moved to a true English-speaking country only in my mid-twenties, thanks to a GRE test in which my verbal (English) score was in the 98 percentile. (I certainly had crammed in a lot of words.)

You certainly speak good computerese: I wonder how you got all those books to line up so neatly in your signature.

Richard


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Guido Henkel said:


> I am not a native speaker and write all my books in English. I'm originally hailing from Germany and moved to the US 13 years ago. Does that count?


Counts so far as I am concerned, but having studied languages, I may be more lenient than some. :>)

Re: Book descriptions. I'm one that prefers VERY short and pithy. If I see a long description, I may read the first paragraph and then head to the reviews to get a better idea in a few words about the book. I do not like quotes from the book unless a reviewer has pulled them in--it's different than what the author pulls in.

FWIW.

Maria


----------



## Gabriela Popa (Apr 7, 2010)

Hmmm...my instinct tells me (me=the scientist now) that bilingualism is a rising tide and we (Mark, Richard, Guido, and so many others on these boards I am sure) are speaking a language that is neither the native one (whichever that may be) nor the newly adopted one.  I know this seems a bit confusing, but think about this new language as the inteface between the two cultures that blend in you.  

I am not talking about a Spanglish here - which is a rather mechanical way of mixing two things.  I am rather talking about the word choices we make as writers, as we for example pick certain words or idioms as we write.  For example, I have a tendency to "pick" words that have latin roots, because I am from Romania and as such I can "feel" those words much better.  I wonder, Guido - do you have a propensity for words with certain roots as you write in English?  

More interestingly - Mark or Richard, what are your experiences here?  Mark, as a Japanese writer/speaker, you are certainly traveling to the end of the (written) world and back...

Gabriela


----------



## G. Henkel (Jan 12, 2010)

Gabriela, I completely agree. Even though I am thinking in English for the most part, I do find myself picking idioms that have their roots in German. Sometimes unconsciously so, sometimes quite deliberately, because it gives me the opportunity to say something that isn't as cliched as your regular off the mill saying in it's stead. Also, it clearly sows in sentence structures at times and in the choice of adjectives. So, you are definitely on to something there. No matter how long I will live in the US and use English as my main language, my German roots will always manifest themselves in some way in the way I talk and write. I am sure linguists even have a word for this.


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

Gabriela Popa said:


> Hmmm...my instinct tells me (me=the scientist now) that bilingualism is a rising tide and we (Mark, Richard, Guido, and so many others on these boards I am sure) are speaking a language that is neither the native one (whichever that may be) nor the newly adopted one. I know this seems a bit confusing, but think about this new language as the inteface between the two cultures that blend in you.
> 
> I am not talking about a Spanglish here - which is a rather mechanical way of mixing two things. I am rather talking about the word choices we make as writers, as we for example pick certain words or idioms as we write. For example, I have a tendency to "pick" words that have latin roots, because I am from Romania and as such I can "feel" those words much better. I wonder, Guido - do you have a propensity for words with certain roots as you write in English?
> 
> ...


Very interesting question. Firstly, could I call myself septualingual? Ok, here are my languages other than English, and this is a guesstimate, language followed by vocabulary, current as well as easily recovered: English (25 k words), Konkani (1.5 k, mothertongue), Hindi (2k), Kannada (1.5k), Thai (.5k), Indonesian (.5k), Khmer (.5k).

Propensity for words: you'd have to analyze my language, which has grown and weakened and changed over the years. But I do admit to a slight partiality for alliteration. Like this nonsense I wrote this morning: bursts of gunfire and gratitude, the truths about lasses and larvae, defend the dusty and the decorous. I don't know if you would find huge similarities between my writing and that of other Indian English writers--except that most of us would sound somewhat more formal than that of American writers who were born and grew up in America.


----------



## Gabriela Popa (Apr 7, 2010)

Guido Henkel said:


> ...because it gives me the opportunity to say something that isn't as cliched as your regular off the mill saying ...


Guido: How true. One of the things my american writer friends tell me is that I seem to successfully avoid clichees in my writing --- (of course!!! the only benefit perhaps ). I believe we (the few I mentioned: you, Richard, Mark, and others we may not know about yet) should form some kind of "Bilinguals Club" or something because ---- if we are the absolute experts in somethings, than this is it, this interface we are at our best in (if that's going to lead to immortal masterpieces, that shall remain to be seen ).

Plus --- it's too much fun.

Gabriela


----------



## Gabriela Popa (Apr 7, 2010)

Richardcrasta said:


> Very interesting question. Firstly, could I call myself septualingual?


Richard, yes, you are hereby officially declared the septualingual among us. This is truly impressive.

Rushdie gave an interview to a Romanian newspaper a few months ago when he visited Romania and among other fascinating things he says that --- had he not been an immigrant, he would had never written. I found that intriguing, of course. He also said that he was not able to write until he understood who he truly was = a boy from Bombay. The interview is very interesting - it is, however, in Romanian.

Gabriela


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

First, Gabriela, a serious misunderstanding! I was born and raised in America. I am a native speaker of English. My Japanese is ok for conversation (even lecturing, at times), but childish and riddled with mistakes and ackwardness in writing.

Guido, how old were you when you moved to America? That is critical since the child’s brain (made for language creation and native speaking) and the adult’s brain are fundamentally different.

Also, part of the reason it’s difficult to define native speaker is that a language is not a single thing. It’s generally part of a continuum. For example, Gabriela would probably understand nothing of a conversation in Japanese or Konkani (unless she picked out a few words borrowed from English). But, with a bit of practice she could probably understand a fair amount of Italian, Spanish, or even French, without studying them at all. Those are not really separate languages but part of a Latin language continuum.

For yourself, going from German to English is rather easy since both languages are part of a Germanic continuum (even though English has thousands of borrowed French words, from the Norman occupation). Ever noticed how northern Europeans are so much better at English than anyone else? Not only are they good, they are “fluent,” sometimes to the point of being mistaken for native speakers. Non-germanic speakers can’t do that, and Germanic speakers can’t do it either when they try unrelated languages.

An example. (Maybe you can correct my mistakes, as this is from memory.) But, long ago, I read a story in German that had this line:

Das hat nichts zu tun mit es.  (or was it: Das hat, mit es, nichts zu tun)

This is actually a rather complicated sentence, and an idiom I had never studied. But I understood it immediately, without a moment’s thought. Why? Because I am an English speaker and it is, word for word, like the Am. Eng idiom: "That has nothing to do with it". Germanic speakers encounter this kind of familiarity of word flow and word usage continuously when using English. So, if any non-native speaker of English is ever able to “fool” people into believing he/she is a native speaker, it would almost certainly be a German, Dane, Swede, Dutch person etc.

Which leads us to Strether’s question: How about Isak Dinesen?

I would say, conditionally, yes. She may be a non-native speaker who wrote well in English. I may have to revise my blanket statement way up above denying the possibility.

She is Danish, though, which means she is a native speaker of a language which is on a continuum with English. A huge advantage. She also spent many years in Kenya, where English is a lingua franca of the educated, much as it is in India, Nigeria, Singapore etc., even if the English is different than the English of Canada, US, Australia etc.

MARIA: Re:  Book descriptions.  I'm one that prefers VERY short and pithy.  If I see a long description, I may read the first paragraph and then head to the reviews to get a better idea in a few words about the book. 

MARK L: Agreed.

I had to smile at Richard’s examples above. Sounds so much like Revised Kama Sutra.


----------



## G. Henkel (Jan 12, 2010)

Mark,

I was in my early thirties when I moved to the US but I have to point out that I do speak a number of languages myself - as is not uncommon in Europe. As such I speak German, English, French, Spanish and a tad of Italian - most of them as a result of my having studied Latin for many years in school. In addition I can understand a good bit of Vietnamese, though I usually stay away from speaking it myself because its inflections are virtually impossible for me to master. 

So, I do seem to have knack for languages, and I've been interested - and learning English - since I was 9 years old. Though, it is a huge difference to "learn" English and to actually "live" it. While I thought my English was pretty good when I came to the US I soon realized I couldn't have been further from the truth as I was constantly struggling for words to properly express my thoughts during the first words. In fact, it still happens these days, depending on the subject matter. There are moments - when you get into specialized fields like say car repairs for example - where I know perfectly well what the parts of the engine are called in German but simply cannot conjure up the word in English. 

"You know, those thingies they used to make from asbestos that press against that shiny disc behind the wheel when you brake..." "You mean the brake pads?" "Yeah, that's it..."  )

It is funny - and embarrassing - sometimes, but fortunately these things rarely occur during everyday life, as my vocabulary gets a much better workout in those fields.


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Guido, great description of what it's like speaking a foreign language! But I have to tell you, for non-native speakers of English, how many people could pull off a conversation like the one you describe?

"You know, those thingies they used to make from asbestos that press against that shiny disc behind the wheel when you brake..." "You mean the brake pads?" "Yeah, that's it..." 

That's funny. And part of the reason it's so funny is because it's so darn good. After 35 years of teaching non-native speakers from around the world, I can tell you... That kind of fluency is extremely unusual! It's complex, idiomatic, and yet, for you, it just slides off the tongue, no sweat. Germanic speakers, occasionally "Latin" speakers, might pull off something like that. But not too many speakers of other languages no matter how "good" their English is. (Unless, of course, their English exposure was from a young age when the brain still had some of the child's language learning genius).

Btw, how does the German example sound? I actually want to use this in class to show how similar and how different various langauges can be, but I've lost the quote. Is my memory good? Will this work as German?:

Das hat nichts zu tun mit es.  (or was it: Das hat, mit es, nichts zu tun)


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

MARIA: Re:  Book descriptions.  I'm one that prefers VERY short and pithy.  If I see a long description, I may read the first paragraph and then head to the reviews to get a better idea in a few words about the book.

ME: How short? How many words? Do you mean it ought to be a teaser, like the blurb on the back of a book jacket? 

Also, I have to confess an important influence: Gilbert and Sullivan, in whose operettas I played a minor role when I was 9 or 10. I listened and parroted without understanding half of them. Yet, the comedy of the English language was imbibed at some subliminal level.

When I was 23, my brother brought home a Led Zeppelin cassette. And I heard:

You need coolin
Baby I ain't fooling.

but heard the lines as:

You need coolay
Baby I need poulet

and was only corrected six months back, when I Googled the correct lyrics.

Of course, at 23, I understood Poulet to be French for chicken; Coolay was Konkani for buttocks. It made not much sense, yet neither could I have made sense of why a baby (that is a one-year-old) might need cooling. 

Richard


----------



## G. Henkel (Jan 12, 2010)

Mark,

What you're looking for is this

"Das hat nichts damit zu tun."  It means, "It/This has nothing to do with it."


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Richardcrasta said:


> MARIA: Re: Book descriptions. I'm one that prefers VERY short and pithy. If I see a long description, I may read the first paragraph and then head to the reviews to get a better idea in a few words about the book.
> 
> ME: How short? How many words? Do you mean it ought to be a teaser, like the blurb on the back of a book jacket?
> 
> Richard


Yup, back of the book--two, MAYBE three paragraphs. Main character, trouble she is in...what danger awaits...that's it. The thing is, I've read enough books that I'm looking for the feel of the book. I don't want to know the entire history or world building...just a little bit...yes, like you said, a teaser. Hardest things to write...


----------



## Gabriela Popa (Apr 7, 2010)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> First, Gabriela, a serious misunderstanding! I was born and raised in America. I am a native speaker of English. My Japanese is ok for conversation (even lecturing, at times), but childish and riddled with mistakes and ackwardness in writing.


Dear Mark...
No misunderstanding here at all - not even a tiny one . I guess my question was ...well ---too fluffy or too fluid or such. I am well aware that you are a native American English speaker. I was simply interested in your experience as a Japanese speaker. I believe you mentioned you've been in Japan for a few decades (unless I misunderstood)...I have been in US for more than 15 years and so my "internal language" is a bit of a hybrid, although when I speak /most of the time/ I _try_ to hold on to one language only. I guess my (implicit and poorly rendered) question was: is this hybridization happening to you as well? Is that happening to other bilinguals? Is this the phenotype (sorry!) of accultuaration or rather transculturation (at individual level) whereby exposure to foreign cultures creates new fertile terrain in a person's mind?

Secondly, and perhaps obscurely further following on the argument above, I do not believe that, as writers, we should necessarily strive for "linguistic" purity. Being a native speaker of something is not a big thing in itself. We are all native speakers. Sure, being able to express yourself properly in a given language is fundamental, but that is achievable with hard work and 2.5 drops of talent. Going beyond that etc etc is a beast of a different nature. In my opinion (but willing to listen to people wiser that me), linguistic purity (seeking to speak as well as a native) is a sterile exercise. A lack of exposure to other cultures killed more writers than did their lack of linguistic sophistication. And what better way to test (or enhance) your skills than to throw yourself into another culture and just &#8230;well&#8230;swim?

So---I hope I clarified a bit my question (or at least I hope I did not confuse more.)

Irrespective of that, however, I am interested in your point of view (and Guido's and Richard's - and others, if anyone else wants to share their experiences).

Gabriela


----------



## G. Henkel (Jan 12, 2010)

Gabriela,

I agree with you. In some sense I take pride in the fact that some of my expressions may be "different." As long as others can still understand what I'm talking about, these idiosyncrasies give me a certain "voice" in both speaking and writing, creating metaphors and idioms that sound potentially fresher.

On the other hand, naturally, there are moments where create a sentence that a native-speaker turns around makes much more concise by simply changing a few words around. That is the other side of the coin, and I am incredibly grateful for my editor, who does that for me many times.


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

Gabriela Popa said:


> Secondly, and perhaps obscurely further following on the argument above, I do not believe that, as writers, we should necessarily strive for "linguistic" purity. Being a native speaker of something is not a big thing in itself. We are all native speakers. Sure, being able to express yourself properly in a given language is fundamental, but that is achievable with hard work and 2.5 drops of talent. Going beyond that etc etc is a beast of a different nature. In my opinion (but willing to listen to people wiser that me), linguistic purity (seeking to speak as well as a native) is a sterile exercise. A lack of exposure to other cultures killed more writers than did their lack of linguistic sophistication. And what better way to test (or enhance) your skills than to throw yourself into another culture and just &#8230;well&#8230;swim?
> 
> Gabriela


Beautifully said, Gabriela. And bravo! As far as this subject and this conversation is concerned, this is the bravest, most brilliant statement I have come across. I laud your courage and clarity. I hope this is passed around and becomes the centerpiece of a worldwide discussion.

Now I am rendered speechless, and fear that I have nothing more to contribute!


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

GABRIELA: I have been in US for more than 15 years and so my "internal language" is a bit of a hybrid, although when I speak /most of the time/ I try to hold on to one language only.  I guess my (implicit and poorly rendered) question was: is this hybridization happening to you as well?  Is that happening to other bilinguals?  Is this the phenotype (sorry!) of acculturation or rather transculturation (at individual level) whereby exposure to foreign cultures creates new  fertile terrain in a person's mind? 

MARK: I second Richard’s evaluation of your last post as brilliant. Here’s how I conceptualize bilingualism and hybridization. First of all, my theory of boxes.

LEVEL ONE. A box at the deepest level of our minds for thinking. This is a kind of pre-language level or a language substrate. (Unlike most people, I don’t believe we think in language. However, all the boxes influence each other so language does influence thinking.)

LEVEL TWO. A box just above Level One for our native language(s), the one(s) we learned naturally from our surroundings (i.e. not through school study) during our childhoods. This box is intimately intertwined with Level One.

LEVEL TWO and a HALF (Type One). This(these) box(es) is/are for semi-native languages, where the speaker recognizes that his/her language is not perfectly formed, but still has a kind of native speaker fluency and ease that school-taught or adult learners of that language don’t have.

LEVEL TWO and a HALF (Type Two). The above-mentioned boxes are actually divided into two separate parts, one for comprehension, one for speaking. For some people, only the comprehension part of the box is filled. They can understand a language virtually as well as a native speaker, but cannot speak at all. If they try to speak, the words and grammar that they understand perfectly simply don’t come to mind. They are literally speechless. The speech part of the box is empty. This may sound weird to people who haven’t encountered it, but it’s a surprisingly common phenomenon. It happens in a multi-lingual environment where it is not necessary to be a multi-lingual speaker. I know quite a few cases. Most kids at my son’s high school were multi-lingual Japanese and English. My son’s best friend at the school also understands Tagalog perfectly but can hardly speak a word. His mom used Tagalog at home, and he heard it on trips to the Philippines. But both his mom and those he encountered in the Philippines were generally excellent English speakers. The child’s mind, in such a situation, can find no reason to go through the great effort of filling the “speaking” part of the box, so he doesn’t. And often regrets it when he’s grown.

LEVEL THREE:. Above all those boxes, there are boxes for languages we learned later, as adults, usually through some kind of formal study. Level Three is intimately intertwined with Level Two, the native language. This is the source of “native language interference” when speaking a foreign language. Native language interference is greater when the linguistic distance between the native language and learned language is greater. I do it all the time! As do Japanese speaking English.

These boxes do not have inviolable boundaries. They are all interconnected and continuously influencing each other. We slide around and back-and-forth between boxes, especially when we are talking with people who have the same set of boxes. Classmates from the afore-mentioned high school, when they are together, speak an awe-inspiring blending of Japanese and English. I do it at home, too, but not with nearly the same proficiency. I even do it with other native English speakers who are good at Japanese. Certain words or expressions just work better in Japanese. I actually feel stilted or awkward sometimes when I have to speak with people who only know English. The Japanese expression might be perfect, and so my language substrate jumps straight to Level Three to grab that expression. But then I have to take it back down to Level Two to translate that expression into English.

And then there’s the situation of learning a closely related language. In that case you don’t even need to build a completely new box. You just copy-and-paste your native speaker box to a new part of your mind and start making alterations. For many people, with that huge head start of being able to cut-and-paste, learning a related language will sometimes give them semi-native speaker proficiency, Level Two and a Half.

Long ago, in graduate school, I was talking about such things with a Brazilian classmate. She had spent a year in Mexico, and Mexicans complemented her on her excellent Spanish. She always smiled and said thank you. But, she told me, she never actually studied Spanish. She said she was just speaking Portuguese with a Spanish accent! It only took her a few weeks to get the knack. I’m sure she made a few alterations to certain phrases and grammatical structures, just like I have caught myself doing when I speak English with a Brit. But basically, she just cut-and-pasted and then made a few changes. I know quite a few similar stories.

I have more, but this is already way too long! I’ll pull back and listen to the experiences of others.


----------



## Gabriela Popa (Apr 7, 2010)

Richardcrasta said:


> Beautifully said, Gabriela. And bravo! As far as this subject and this conversation is concerned, this is the bravest, most brilliant statement I have come across. I laud your courage and clarity. I hope this is passed around and becomes the centerpiece of a worldwide discussion.


Richard, you are very generous, thank you.

Mark the "theory of boxes" is quite interesting. I actually didn't know you can comprehend without being able to speak a language. But what really took me by surprise is that you believe we do not think in language. If you care to expand on that, I would be very interested...!

Gabriela


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Gabriela Popa said:


> Richard, you are very generous, thank you.
> 
> Mark the "theory of boxes" is quite interesting. I actually didn't know you can comprehend without being able to speak a language. But what really took me by surprise is that you believe we do not think in language. If you care to expand on that, I would be very interested...!
> 
> Gabriela


Hmm. I would agree it is possible comprehend without language. There are several instances where I gleaned the meaning of a conversation with just a few words--using setting, gestures, whatever. It's much like trying to understand what a child wants when that child doesn't yet have the words. So language is not totally necessary. For that matter, if you watch animals long enough, you can begin to understand their communication as well. Cats don't talk, but when one hisses at you, you get the meaning. We adopted a feral cat and she is more than happy to tell us she wants a treat. She sits in a certain spot and waits. No meowing or other language, just a spot she chose for her treat. She communicates with the kitten she dropped on our doorstep as well and it's quite interesting to watch them "Talk."

As for the thinking in a language...I disagree. I think you DO think in a language and even dream in languages. When I lived in Japan, I vividly remember dreaming of giving my report to the class--in Japanese. I still have dreams where I am struggling to get a point across and doing so in Japanese. When my father is talking in rapid Spanish, he is quite obviously thinking in Spanish--when he gets off the phone, he sometimes continues to speak in Spanish (and since I generally understand him, he doesn't have to translate.)

I think there is a higher brain power that switches languages and it's probably more evident when a person speaks more than two languages. When I first went to Japan, my brain automatically filled in the Spanish word as I struggled to learn. When I returned to the US, the first word that came to mind when I tried to speak Spanish, was actually the Japanese word. It takes me some concentration to "switch" but once I start talking/listening in one or the other, the other language words "disappear." If I can't think of the word I want, there is simply...nothing...rather than another language word.


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

I agree it would be hard to develop complex ideas without using language, but language is more like a tool that helps us organize our thinking than actual thinking itself. The same could be said on an even grander scale for writing. I never could have developed my understanding of history without the tool of writing. But still, my thoughts precede my writing. I have to think of them before I can write them down in an organized way, and then I go back to my “thought box” to refine what I write or say.

Gabriela, there are four sentences in your last post. The first is pretty simple. But the next three are quite complex. Despite their complexity, though, didn’t those thoughts occur to you instantaneously? After they occurred to you, you quickly translated those thoughts into language, but the translation took a few seconds. And not because it was English. It would have taken you a few seconds to translate those instantaneous thoughts into Romanian, as well. If the thought is instantaneous but the language is not, the thought must have happened without language. For example, you said:

“But what really took me by surprise is that you believe we do not think in language.”

Wasn’t that conception completely formed in your mind before you put it into language? But putting it into language took a few seconds. The thought included several elements:

1. A counter-thought (but)
2. Your reaction to my belief
3. My belief itself
4. The content of my belief

You didn’t go through, in your mind, step by step, each of those four elements. You had it all right there instantaneously, all four parts of that thought. Then you put it into language, which took a few seconds. The thought occurred to you in the deepest box, the pre-language box of thought. Then you went up to the language level and chose the English box to formulate the thought. Because your command of English is excellent, you formed the thought in language with a great deal of subtlety. For example, you chose to say “took me by surprise” rather than “surprised me,” which not only imparts a sense of fluency but adds nuance. If you had chosen a language box that you were not so proficient in, the language would have been less subtle or clear, but the original thought would have been just as good. It just wouldn’t have been communicated to others as well.

That happens to me all the time when I lecture in Japanese (which I only do occasionaly). I have a great thought! But what I communicate is often quite a bit less great than the original pre-language thought simply because I am forced by circumstances to choose a language box that I am not so skilled at using. Fortunately, if the students are sharp, they can sometimes retranslate my less-than-perfect formulation into something close to the original pre-language great thought. I don’t think in English and translate to Japanese when I lecture in Japanese. I go straight from the thought box to the Japanese box. When I lecture in English, the exact same thought is formulated much better. The original pre-language thought hasn’t changed. I just have a box that I am more proficient at using.

I also agree that certain easy thoughts are so thoroughly tied to language that we don’t need to go to the deepest box (pre-language pure thinking) but can go straight to the language box. These are different in different languages. For example, Maria, you certainly know the Japanese phrase “Iya da!” It’s an easy thought of such simplicity and clarity we can jump straight to it, without bothering to start off in the pre-language box. Funny thing, though, there’s no good English equivalent, is there? Depending on the circumstances it could be: No way! On no! Uh-oh. I don’t like it. I refuse to do it. Gross. And even that doesn’t cover the whole range.

And, Maria, dreaming in language? Absolutely. You wouldn’t believe how great my Japanese is in dreams! Except I have been awakened a couple of times in the middle of a Japanese sentence of marvelous fluency only to realize when I thought about it that it was actually nonsense.

You’re right about the problem of switching, too. Sometimes our foreign language boxes, especially, carry quite a bit of overlap. On my first trip to Europe I made a valiant attempt to talk to people in German and Italian. In Germany, though, I would often answer Si. In Germany and Italy I would often answer Hai. But I never answered Yes!


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

I can see that this discussion has reached a very sophisticated stage. Beautiful! Forgive me for being out, at least for the next few days. Just came back from Delhi after a launch in Delhi and one in Bangalore, and around eight interviews, including a television interview that will be aired nationally in a few days (with hardly anyone watching, possibly). Very stressed, very little sleep, can't focus, got work to catch up with.

I have very interesting and complex dreams, but forget to write them down--and within ten minutes of awaking, they are forgotten, unless written down. So I can't even tell you which language I dream in--but I think it's mostly English, and occasionally, my mothertongue, Konkani.


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Richard, glad to hear you're getting some PR. Hope it sparks a rocket launch for your book! I'm still rooting for it and you.

Mark L


----------



## Steve Silkin (Sep 15, 2010)

early in this thread, gabriela mentioned beckett and cioran, two interesting cases:

beckett wrote in french (and then translated his works into english) as a form of restriction that led to more indirect expression: it forced him to find unusual words and phrases.

cioran moved to france from romania as a young man and spent years and years taking university classes. he was absolutely fluent.

they'd occasionally chat about translations and word choices. once, they were trying to find the french word for 'lessness' but hadn't been able to. cioran called beckett later when it came to him. beckett said it had come to him moments earlier, too, maybe precisely at the same moment: 'sineite.'


----------



## Gabriela Popa (Apr 7, 2010)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> Then you put it into language, which took a few seconds. The thought occurred to you in the deepest box, the pre-language box of thought. Then you went up to the language level and chose the English box to formulate the thought.


Mark, Maria, Richard, hi --- sorry to have missed part of the discussion...I have been away on a busness trip. Now I am back but quite frankly kinda speechless because the question we are dealing with here is beyond colossal. The pre-language box... Because my preferred way of understanding seems to be via the scientific method, I scanned through a number of scientific papers that deal with how the bilingual brain works. Here is one that has me still thinking. It is in PNAS, by Thierry G, Wu YJ. It basically can be interpreted as saying that the native language is somehow accessed during the use of the second language. It may also be interpreted as claiming that some previous lingvistic infrastructure already established in the brain must be accessed by a language, any language (my speculation). Here is the abstract:

"Brain potentials reveal unconscious translation during foreign-language comprehension.
Economic and Social Research Council Centre for Research on Bilingualism in Theory and Practice, University of Wales, Bangor LL57 2DG, United Kingdom. [email protected]
Abstract
Whether the native language of bilingual individuals is active during second-language comprehension is the subject of lively debate. Studies of bilingualism have often used a mix of first- and second-language words, thereby creating an artificial "dual-language" context. Here, using event-related brain potentials, we demonstrate implicit access to the first language when bilinguals read words exclusively in their second language. Chinese-English bilinguals were required to decide whether English words presented in pairs were related in meaning or not; they were unaware of the fact that half of the words concealed a character repetition when translated into Chinese. Whereas the hidden factor failed to affect behavioral performance, it significantly modulated brain potentials in the expected direction, establishing that English words were automatically and unconsciously translated into Chinese. Critically, the same modulation was found in Chinese monolinguals reading the same words in Chinese, i.e., when Chinese character repetition was evident. Finally, we replicated this pattern of results in the auditory modality by using a listening comprehension task. These findings demonstrate that native-language activation is an unconscious correlate of second-language comprehension."

Mark: Of course, the question is what is activated during the native language use by monolinguals - this "pre-language box" that you describe. What is it? Is it a neural network already existent in some primitive form, on which a child builds during education? 
Gabriela


----------



## Gabriela Popa (Apr 7, 2010)

Steve Silkin said:


> early in this thread, gabriela mentioned beckett and cioran, two interesting cases:
> 
> beckett wrote in french (and then translated his works into english) as a form of restriction that led to more indirect expression: it forced him to find unusual words and phrases.
> 
> ...


Hi Steve, and welcome! And thank you for the very interesting tidbit about Beckett and Cioran. Do you know more about their interactions? Come to think about it - two Magnificent Princes of the Darkness (I recall someone asking Beckett if he had a terrible childhood etc -as expected from his literature- and Beckett answering , perplexed: "what terrible childhood? I had a _very _ happy childhood!") Go figure!

Also, just curious, how do you know about Cioran? Not many people around here know him or his work.

Gabriela


----------



## Steve Silkin (Sep 15, 2010)

Gabriela Popa said:


> Also, just curious, how do you know about Cioran? Not many people around here know him or his work. Gabriela


when i was a journalist in paris in the '80s i spent a morning with him and wrote about it. great experience. i've read most of his books. (and he signed my edition of 'drawn and quartered': "to the most pleasant of executioners.") i like the beckett quote you mentioned. interesting to note that he once said (or wrote) that he realized joyce had taken 'knowing' in literature as far as it could be taken, so he would have to go down the road of 'not knowing.' i think that's a great distillation of his thought.


----------



## Gabriela Popa (Apr 7, 2010)

Steve Silkin said:


> when i was a journalist in paris in the '80s i spent a morning with him and wrote about it. great experience. i've read most of his books. (and he signed my edition of 'drawn and quartered': "to the most pleasant of executioners.") i like the beckett quote you mentioned. interesting to note that he once said (or wrote) that he realized joyce had taken 'knowing' in literature as far as it could be taken, so he would have to go down the road of 'not knowing.' i think that's a great distillation of his thought.


Steve,

Very interesting. Where can I read what you wrote about him? And how was he? In the videos I saw he goes back and forth between ideas/words as he talks, he's always searching for a more perfect way of saying it. When he speaks Romanian he abandons expressions in mid flight for a better one etc. I am curious to learn what your impressions were. 
Gabriela

PS. "To the most pleasant of executioners" - that is so Cioran!


----------



## Steve Silkin (Sep 15, 2010)

Gabriela Popa said:


> "To the most pleasant of executioners" - that is so Cioran!


yeah, that's why i mentioned it! (as you can imagine, it's a treasured possession!) i'll message you more soon.


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Gabriela, you never cease to amaze me in your willingness to think and research. Here’s how I would respond to your latest…

GABRIELA: It basically can be interpreted as saying that the native language is somehow accessed during the use of the second language.

MARK: I would agree. Our native language is intrinsic in a way that the others are not, and always influences the others. In fact, sometimes when I speak Japanese, especially when lecturing, I’m not really speaking Japanese. I’m speaking English put into Japanese forms. Which is not to say that I go from the pre-language thought box to the English box and finally to the Japanese box. That would be too cumbersome. I skip English and go straight to the Japanese box. Problem is, my Japanese box is much different than a native speaker’s Japanese box. It was built with a heavy reliance on materials copy-and-pasted from my English box. Unfortunately, that’s the only way adults can build a new box. Of course when you copy-and-paste from a language that uses many similar materials, the result is more sophisticated than my Japanese box. Mine is pretty good for daily conversation, merely functional at best for, say, lecturing.

GABRIELA: “Whether the native language of bilingual individuals is active during second-language comprehension is the subject of lively debate.”

MARK: Linguists can be incredibly stubborn in defense of their own beliefs. Not an attractive attribute.

While those two sides are ferociously fighting, though, I would meekly submit that both sides are right. As explained above, our foreign language boxes are certainly built with heavy reliance on native language materials. But there are “holes” or “flaws” in our foreign language boxes. When we bump up against one, we may quickly dip into our native language box for some materials we can use and then quickly transform them (sometimes with success, sometimes not) into the language we are using.

GABRIELA: “thereby creating an artificial "dual-language" context.”

MARK: When I speak with people who are, like myself, relatively fluent in both Eng and Jpn, we tend to use the “artificial dual-language.” With two languages as a base, it’s actually the easiest and most convenient way for me to speak.

GABRIELA: - this "pre-language box" that you describe.  What is it?  Is it a neural network already existent in some primitive form, on which a child builds during education?

MARK: Now you’re getting into the keystone of Chomsky’s theories: Universal Grammar (UG).

Consider the problem of reconstructing in your mind out of the chaos of verbal sound you hear around you, a perfect language. Adults simply can’t do it. The task is too complex. If you plop yourself down in the middle of New Guinea, after a couple of years you will still be far below the village idiot in terms of language ability. So you should take your child with you. He/She, after a year, will be able to act as your interpreter.

Why is it that every normal child can accomplish what no adult can? The Chomskian answer: they have UG built into their minds to help them in the building of a new language. We adults no longer have that. The child’s mind is designed/programmed for learning language; the adult’s mind is designed for using it but has lost the marvelous child’s ability for language re-creation. (Note: This does NOT mean foreign language education should start young! The child’s brain is designed for recreating language only in natural circumstances, which is NOT a classroom situation)

I still think, though, that there is a deeper box than even the child’s UG box. Thought, to me, does not seem to originate (for the most part) in language, for the reasons explained in the previous post. Is the thought box made up of neural networks. I guess. What else could it be? But I have no idea.

Steve, welcome to our discussion! I have nothing to constructive to contribute to your comments, but I am reading and enjoying.


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

Hi Mark, Gabriela, everybody,

I still don't have time to fully involve myself with the complexity of the discussion presently, but wish to add two human interest tidbits.

--When I first came to America, I remember thinking that Americans were mispronouncing English. "Caa-ledge" for college, and "baa-dy" for "body". Because somewhere in the back of my head, the English pronunciation was right. It was only after I heard Bob Dylan, many years later, using the same accent, and Bob Dylan was God as far as I was concerned, that I fully accepted American English as being just as "correct" as British English. I guess, when I first arrived, I needed something to make me feel superior to the "natives"!

--Indians speaking English (in India) use two phrases which stop me in my tracks, with amusement and wonder, though I have heard these phrases used many times. "No issues" for "No problem" and "Tell me" which is a rough equivalent of "Go on, I am listening." You don't hear these phrases used in any other part of the world.


----------

