Can a L2-learner become a native speaker?

oh hell no... as usual, they gave me a rather hyprocritical reply, saying that it is a 'difficult choice to make'. Well... Anyways, I am quite happy with the rather... effortless courses I am forced to take. I'd even taken a philosophy of language class (PHI ***) and got an A for my mid - term. That's quite encouraging for me. But thanks to the chap who had the guts to call himself a 'Doctor' and who gave me a C and a D (apparently because we do not agree on the approaches to take), there's still a long way to go for my GPA, if I am to go on for my M. Phil. and perhaps PhD.

Randy_Tam wrote:

btw: Mr.P, I am not denying a physiological approach to L2 learning or even linguistics in general. Phonology, for example, is a successful attempt for such an approach. Beyond phonology, however, I don't think science has provided us with sufficient resources for adopting such an approach. Like the 2 papers you showed, there are certainly researches directed at that unification between language and the brain. It has become, for example, really trendy these days to talk of neural electron activities as related to linguistic computation. But to talk of these as 'physiological theories' would have been premature, unless the relation between such and such an electron and such and such a syntactic operation has been suggested. Therefore, what I was suggesting is just that we should retreat and adopt a philosophical approach to language, at least for the time being. In the end, it may turn out that everything we know about language is simply wrong (as has been the case for pre - quantum era physics).

Hello Randy

Would you deny that every human utterance has a physiological basis – both in terms of where it originates (the brain), and how it manifests itself (through muscular effort)?

MrP

Englishuser wrote:

Hi Marvin A., I should add that you're probably less likely to notice foreign sounding in British-sounding English than in American-sounding English. If a foreigner did address you in something that sounds almost exactly like your own dialect, but with a very slight foreign tinge, I think you'd still notice it almost immediately. Englishuser

Yes, probably.  So, there's something to be said about learning a different variety of English.

Englishuser wrote:

What do you mean, Marvin? Englishuser

Well, in some ways, learning a different variety of English could be a good idea.  If the lady I had met had learned English with a North American accent, I would most likely have realized that she was not a native speaker.  But because she had learned English with a British accent, I actually thought that she was a native speaker.  Thus, in order to receive "native speaker status" (and by this I mean that people assume she is a native speaker of English.), she could get away with speaking less than perfect British English, whereas she would have to speak with an absolutely *perfect* North American English accent in order to be thought to be a native speaker here.  Since learning a fairly good British accent is *much* easier than learning an absolutely flawless North American accent, foreigners from countries that are known to be able to learn to speak English with a fairly good accent, for example, Denmark and the Netherlands, might consider opting to learn the opposite accent from the country they are planning to visit.  I have heard many non-native speakers who have learned English when they were older, who have had to my ears a native-sounding British accent, but very few who have had a native-sounding North American accent--there are always certain things that give it away.

I wonder if it's the same on the other side of the pond?  Do you more often mistake foreigners who have a North American accent for native speakers, than foreigners who have an accent that is a closely approximated, but not quite British accent?

We also need to consider that there are many different accents of North American English, just as there are many British English accents. You might well pass for a native speaker from New York in Alabama, for instance, although a New Yorker would be able to place you for a foreigner (or at least not a New Yorker).

Very true.  I can speak with a perfect British accent to North Americans, but you would be able to tell that it was fake, because my accent is far from perfect.

Some people also think receiving 'native speaker status' is unimportant. Why would anyone like to sound as if they were from New York if they are from Madagascar? Why would you try to completely eradicate your foreign accent in the first place?

Some people that move to another country don't like to labelled the "foreigner" for the rest of their life.  I've met several people, who would get very offended if anyone asked where they were from--because they had been living here for several years, and considered themselves to be from *here*, and not a foreigner.  Even after living here for several years, they still had traces of an accent.  It's true that if they spoke with a New York accent in Alabama, they would still be asked where they were from, and would never really be considered a native Alabamian, but at least they would be perceived as being much less foreign.  Of course there are some people that love to be considered foreign and exotic, and wouldn't care if they ever achived a native-sounding accent--because that would make them less exciting and unique.

Why would you try to completely eradicate your foreign accent in the first place?

Well, let's say someone moved from Latvia to an France when they were 16.  Let's also say that they then lived in France for 70 years, and they considered themselves to be French, and had almost completely forgotten about the old country.  Would they really feel like a foreigner in France after 70 years?  Do you think they would appreciate being considered a foreigner after all that time?