What makes you think so?
In my opinion, “native speaker” should mean “a person who is completely fluent in a language and formulates their thoughts in it.” But I’m wondering if we should include “social norms” in the definition of “native”...
I did not speak English until we moved to America when I was 12. Now I hardly have a chance to speak my “native” language anymore, and instead am fluent, accent-less and conduct my daily activities (and even dream) almost exclusively in English. My kids and my wife all speak English only. I have become a native speaker, and by my own definition, I have become a foreign speaker in the language I learned as a kid. I’m still fluent in it, but I struggle sometimes to find the right words (translate from English).
Another anecdote, my wife, who is an Australian native - speaking what is closer to the “Queen’s English” than American English - was forced to take an ESL test when she first moved here to start college to assess her English knowledge. Is she a native speaker? Linguistically, yes. But she struggled to understand others in America and, more importantly, have others understand her. “Can I have some cutlery?” directed at a waiter for met with a blank stare (clearly unfamiliar with that term, I interjected with “eating utensils”). This is where societal norms and cultural lingo comes into play.
> "I grew up with three languages, as my parents did not share the same 'mother tongue' " Madani says. "And, in any case, how would this manager know what language I grew up with? I was especially miffed as she spoke but one language."
It's my (possibly mistaken) assumption that anyone from India, self-described as a linguistic "have", and majoring in English and teaching English now, probably has been speaking it since before they started school. It seems strange that article doesn't actually clarify anything about her language education and the second interviewee specifically shows that the authors didn't only select for non-native speakers. I assume the editor wrote the title without sufficient thought and the author would have chosen something else.
> But that day in the classroom, my incomprehensible English taught me that being an linguistic "have" is unstable and delusional at best.
What does it mean to be a linguistic have? Is this a reference to the haves/have-nots. Is she trying to say someone with linguistic fluency? Seems like the "an" is misapplied there too which mucks up the sentence.
