TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:re: Something more to put after the full stop. From:Sean Hower <hokumhome -at- freehomepage -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
Mark Emson wrote:
On the subject of native speakers, it has occurred to me that maybe
native speakers are at a disadvantage when set against the educated
'foreigner'. As infants we learn by example and only learn the 'rules' when we go to school. As an adult student we already understand the concept of language and this time we learn the real rules of the new language because now, as adults, we need also to understand the subject, not just apply it.
That's probably a good interpretation of the situation. I would think that learners of a second/foreign language end up getting a clearer understanding of meta-language about the language they're studying.
When you say "the real rules" what are you referring to?
Having studied several languages from different language families, it seems that the way you learn to speak in a foreign language class is based on the prescriptive grammar of the language. These are the rules that the dominant political and social structure of the society impose. Whether these rules are real or not depends on, IMHO, how closely they match the speach patterns of the language's native speakers.
For instance, I learned Tokyo dialect Japanese, which is different from other dialects, like Oosaka dialect (I think that's what it's called). That dialect is different enough that when you watch Japanese TV, a translation into Tokyo dialect is provided. (I'm stretching my memory here. I could be wrong on this. If anyone else knows, let me know. hehe) No matter what dialect they speak, the person speaking is still a Japanese person. The dialect is recognized by a large group of Japanese people as Jbeing apanese. So which one is the "real" one? This is the problem of prescriptive grammar.
As someone once said, "A language is just a dialect with an army and a navy."
Promote your group and strengthen ties to your members with email -at- yourgroup -dot- org by Everyone.net http://www.everyone.net/?btn=tag
Your monthly sponsorship message here reaches more than
5000 technical writers, providing 2,500,000+ monthly impressions.
Contact Eric (ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com) for details and availability.
Buy RoboHelp Deluxe starting at only $798: you'll get RoboDemo, the hot new
software demonstration tool that's taking the Help authoring world by storm,
together with RoboHelp Office. Learn more at http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.