Why do people lie about level ?

[aaleks]

If I recall correctly, Cavesa wrote in one of threads on the forum that the confidence in what you write or speak is a border line between B2 and C-levels. I agree with this. And it is one of the reasons why I proofread and spell-check/google-check my texts. I do it because I’m afraid that my words would be taken wrong (or wouldn’t be understand at all), in other words - I think about a reader. Plus it’s a part of studying. There is probably a part of vanity in it too, I’m just a human after all , but it isn’t the main reason why I check my texts.

P.S. I’ve checked only spelling in this post . Just for an experiment . But it’s “one-time action”

[Iversen]

A couple of pages ago the phrase "in every my post" and several variants thereof were discussed. I would definitely not use "in every my post", but I might say or write "in my every post" just for fun. And I would not avoid it just because some (but not all) native speakers wouldn't use it.

Actually it is a good example of borderline grammar. The role "every" plays here reminds me of some similar constructions with "very" and "same" where these words acquire some of the construction possibilities of adjectives. And maybe it is precisely this flirt with another word category that makes such constructions interesting and enticing to use for people with slightly aberrant linguistic preferences. It is clear that native speakers have a keener sense of what is possible and what not, but I would argue that this is more likely to be the result of having been subjected to more exposure than I as a foreigner ever would get, and consequently it is more a matter of degree than a sharp dichotomy. Chomsky's idea that all native speakers and only native speakers can be allowed to judge what is grammatical and what not in a language is simply too simplistic because it rests on the flawed assumption that all the native speakers form one uniform group. They don't.

Besides I wouldn't use a grammatical analysis to prove that no native speaker ever would use a certain construction. I have seen too many cases where native speakers utter things that in theory shouldn't be possible - and not always due to some hapax error: sometimes they deliberately say preposterous things. A grammatical analysis that covers 98% of all relevant cases is however a good basis for discussing the few borderline cases, but you can't be sure about the remaining 2%: they may represent the direction the language is going, and a hundred years from now the current golden rule may be totally obsolete.

Sometimes when you study foreign languages you do discover that things you would have deemed totally impossible actually are possible - and maybe even the rule in certain languages. Like the word order in complex Greek nominal syntagma like "Την τελευταία του πνοή" - literally "the last his breath" ("his last breath"). In such cases we may have to drop certain grammatical assumptions, no matter how self evident we think they are in our own languages.

About levels: I try to avoid using the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEF) and other similar systems, both because they tend to rely on the assumption that the ultimate goal always is speaking and because I can see that my own levels fluctuate wildly - especially the active ones, and especially in my weaker languages.

[galaxyrocker]

I don't know if it's lying. Subjective assessments can be self-deceptive, and there are complexities. For example, I can read Spanish newspapers and novels and rarely need to look up a dictionary. I have interpreted for Spanish speakers and although it works more or less, my level of understanding of the spoken language tends to be lower than my reading level and I have sometimes had to ask them to repeat themselves, which they do, sometimes simplifying the sentences they used.

I definitely wouldn't call it lying as much as an honest mistake (at least for the most part, I'm sure there's some who lie about it). A lot of people have trouble objectively judging themselves, for instance. Another part of the problem is that a lot of people don't have first-hand experience with the CEFR, which means that they're not able to see how their skills actually compare. I know when I first went to take the B2 exam for Irish, I thought for sure that I was at a B2, possibly closer to C1 level. This was my interpretation from my readings of the CEFR info found on Wikipedia and the like. Then I start studying for it, and go take it and realize I'm not as advanced as I thought I was based on those criteria. I was still B2, but not near C1 yet. So, really, it's just not knowing and over-estimating (I hate to call it ignorance, as the tests aren't cheap, and taking one is really the only way to know what is indicative of each level).

[aokoye]

Besides I wouldn't use a grammatical analysis to prove that no native speaker ever would use a certain construction. I have seen too many cases where native speakers utter things that in theory shouldn't be possible - and not always due to some hapax error: sometimes they deliberately say preposterous things. A grammatical analysis that covers 98% of all relevant cases is however a good basis for discussing the few borderline cases, but you can't be sure about the remaining 2%: they may represent the direction the language is going, and a hundred years from now the current golden rule may be totally obsolete.

To be clear, I wasn't using syntactic analysis to prove that a native speaker wouldn't say those phrase. I was using it to explain why both phrases were ungrammatical. In following posts I then went on to say that it is an example of a. native speakers not always using grammatical sentences and b. why grammar is a social construct. A corpus search would be a better tool for answering the question "would a native speaker ever say this?" than syntactic analysis.

Edit: I think the excerpt of the book I quoted also noted that the author was only talking about English DP rules.

[Cainntear]

The problem with "in my every post" is that a noun phrase can't have two determiners and my and every are both determiners.

We are hanging on your every word. :-p

Although to be fair, that's a fixed phrase, so an exception. I would agree with you that in contemporary modern English, this just doesn't happen as a productive rule -- the most natural phrase would be "all of my posts". In fact, when I look at "in my every post", my brain keeps putting into a bit of an anachronistic posh voice -- a sort of "Famous Five" type voice.

I think you're right grammatically speaking, but i've definitely heard people use 'in my every + noun' in daily life. It's probably not 'correct', but a lot of English which is used naturally isn't but it will sound right to a lot of normal native speakers.

It's certainly not wrong, as it does occur in the corpus data, but it's not a common form at all. BNC has 219 hits for a possessive followed by "every", and every single one of them is in the written corpus, not the spoken one, and about half of them are in fiction. It's at least a very stylised form in most of the English speaking word, evoking a quite formal literary register (hence my "Famous Five" reaction).

One such thing is, how people will say to my son 'where is your + plural noun'. I've heard everyone from myself, my wife, my wife's educated mum, her professor husband, to a nursing home carer use it. They will say 'where's your ears'? Or 'where's your shoes'. To me, correcting this in a foreign speaker isn't necessary even though it's 'wrong'. It should be 'where ARE your + plural noun', and i try to avoid making this mistake myself but it just comes out. 'Fluency' indeed !

Ah, the "northern subject rule". Basically, in Nurthumbrian-derived lects (so Scots and NE English), the plural verb conjugation is traditionally only used with pronouns -- so "they're coming" but "my friends is coming". I used to think that I didn't use it at all, with the exception of the idiomatic "how's things", but then I noticed that I do have a sort of intermediate form -- I use it fairly often with question words -- "where's the rest of them?" etc.

It is clear that native speakers have a keener sense of what is possible and what not, but I would argue that this is more likely to be the result of having been subjected to more exposure than I as a foreigner ever would get, and consequently it is more a matter of degree than a sharp dichotomy. Chomsky's idea that all native speakers and only native speakers can be allowed to judge what is grammatical and what not in a language is simply too simplistic because it rests on the flawed assumption that all the native speakers form one uniform group. They don't.

There were certainly flaws in Chomsky's notions of grammaticality (not least the observation that his "colourless green ideas sleep furiously" sentences is only judged grammatical by people from an educational culture that examines grammar in the abstract) but I don't recall him saying that a form was only grammatical if all native speakers agree it is, so I think this is a bit of a strawman. I also don't think "exposure" explains everything, because there is a lot of evidence that incorrect generalisations aren't necessarily overcome by increased exposure.

I sometimes think I've got a good feel for grammaticality in Spanish, but I never fully believe myself and it's probably mostly an illusion. However, that feel for grammaticality comes from a combination of grammar study and exposure -- because I accept that the rules are incomplete (and potentially wrong) I keep my mind open to adjusting them, but learning those rules consciously was (I think) necessary to avoid overgeneralisation and incorrectly associating structures with similar (but not identical) structures in English.

[Cainntear]

[quote="aokoye"][/quote]
Here's my ready reckoner for trying to distinguish between ungrammatical constructions and ones that are merely archaic or literary: drop in archaic or flowery words and see if it feels more acceptable.

So do you find the following more acceptable:
He was most successful in his every endeavour
than something mundane like:
He went to France on his every holiday
?

And does
He was most successful in his every endeavour
feel more acceptable than an unarguably ungrammatical sentence like
He was most successful in every his endeavour
?

[aokoye]

The problem with "in my every post" is that a noun phrase can't have two determiners and my and every are both determiners.

We are hanging on your every word. :-p

Although to be fair, that's a fixed phrase, so an exception. I would agree with you that in contemporary modern English, this just doesn't happen as a productive rule -- the most natural phrase would be "all of my posts". In fact, when I look at "in my every post", my brain keeps putting into a bit of an anachronistic posh voice -- a sort of "Famous Five" type voice.

Yeah I vote that it's a fixed phrase and thus an exception. *We're hanging on your every string. doesn't work. But yes - I agree with that and the rest of your post

[Iversen]

I don't have Chomsky's Syntactic Structures in front of me, but as i recall it he referred to "a" native speaker without specifying that this speaker should fulfil any academic or social or geographical criteria. I took the liberty to assume that any native speaker of a certain language then would be qualified to divide sentences into grammatical and nongrammatical.

As for the rule that you can't have two determiners it is obviously only valid for some languages, not for others, and even in English where it is true in almost all cases there are a few exceptions. Even those who see grammars as normative instruments which should be used to teach people 'good' language habits will generally acknowledge such exceptions if some famous author have used them, but probably not if the culpable is a child in primary school or an old weirdo somewhere in the countryside. And the question is whether this fair.

For me as a descriptivist a grammatical rule is just a generalization made on the basis of empirical studies, but it is obvious that any serious grammarian will ignore some utterances because they obviously are errors. Asking a sensible native speaker of the language in question about dubious cases is just a practical way to solve such cases, besides being a convenient shortcut to filling out holes in the corpus or do experiments. It would however be naive to expect any such person to be totally honest (or aware) of his/her own occasional deviations from the norm.

And what consequences does this have for language learners? First and foremost to prepare them for the sad fact that their grammar doesn't tell them everything about a language, just as their dictionary doesn't contain each and every word they see or hear in the real world.

[whatiftheblog]

My $0.02 - I would use "my every + noun", but only in certain collocations like "hanging on to his every word" or "listening to his every breath". It would definitely be in a dramatic setting, though, not a daily thing.

The OP's "every my post" is a direct Russian -> English "translation"/transposition? of word order - каждый мой пост is perfectly valid and is used far more frequently in Russian than "my every + noun" would be used in English.

Separately, though, on the topic of lying about level, it's incredible how many people lie about their language skills in job interviews, even if they're explicitly told the job requires them to be able to perform a variety of tasks in said language. After a few burns we're now very strict - half the interview is in the language required for the position, and it's just as demanding as the part in English - and yet people still fall through the cracks. This must be Dunning-Kruger on steroids - it's one thing to lie on a message board, but when you actually face real-life shame and job loss?

[Systematiker]

The grammar bit of this thread developed nicely. Y'all have also managed to explain to me why I do it, on top of the rules around it.

TIL