> Linguistically, there is no such thing possible that a native speaker not being a master of their languages.
Is this a necessary distinction? Taking this to the extreme, there would be no such concept as a grammatical error. Or even syntax, for that matter.
If a native speaker says 'loose' instead of 'lose' (or 'rouge' vs 'rogue') did they just create a new dialect? Shouldn't we consider these as being 'mistakes' - until such a time these forms are the new accepted norm?
What about vocabulary? There are natives who never bothered reading a book, and thus are limited in their vocabulary. Are they 'masters' of their language? Is the lack of knowledge about certain words also to be considered a dialect?
I am not sure one's upbringing gives them any authority on language usage. Collectively, sure. Not on an individual basis.
It is the only possible way to study languages scientifically. You don't go prescribe physical objects, you look at physical objects treat their behavior as a black box and build models to predict them.
> Taking this to the extreme, there would be no such concept as a grammatical error. Or even syntax, for that matter.
Correct, as I said there really is no such thing as grammar error. A native speaker cannot, by definition, talk in wrong grammar. You need a point of reference to judge sentence to be off grammar. In order to do so, you need to have a formal language which is a model of natural language. The only possible way for you to do this if you observe N native speakers and capture their language formally such that your model can predict sentences they would use to communicate.
> Or even syntax, for that matter.
Not following you. Syntax is a property of formal languages. English, as defined by institution X, python, Lojban, typed lambda calculus are all formal languages, which have well defined axioms and rules of inference. Natural languages however do not. This is the same distinction between natural numbers and models of natural numbers (Paeno arithmetic, Q, etc). Or electrons as they exist in themselves, and physical theories that predict behavior of electrons.
> If a native speaker says 'loose' instead of 'lose' (or 'rouge' vs 'rogue') did they just create a new dialect?
Everything I said is about spoken language not written. It's possible for native speakers to make spelling mistakes, it's not possible for them to pronounce a word wrong or make grammatical mistakes. (modulo human errors, of course if a native speaker accidentally says something wrong, they can pick it up and fix themselves)
> What about vocabulary? There are natives who never bothered reading a book, and thus are limited in their vocabulary.
Register, argo etc. I'm sorry but these are all well understood concepts available to you in first couple chapters if a Linguistic 101 textbook.
> I am not sure one's upbringing gives them any authority on language usage.
The whole point is there is no authority. Just like no one can judge what is the correct way for an atom to behave, no one can judge what is the correct way for a person to speak. The way you learned from your mom and practice daily is the language you speak as it is.
This seems weirdly asymmetric: the same intuition that forms sentences also recognizes some of the sentences it hears as incorrect. In the former activity it’s always right but in the latter it’s always wrong?
What’s happening when I identify a mistake while proofreading my own writing or listening to a recording of my own speech? When I can’t figure out how to make a sentence work because none of the ways I can think to phrase it sound good?
I’d totally believe that the workings of this recognizer are too slippery to conveniently model and study. But I can’t believe that it doesn’t exist or is completely personal. There are definitely communities with broad alignment on some intelligible sentences being good and others being bad.
Is this a necessary distinction? Taking this to the extreme, there would be no such concept as a grammatical error. Or even syntax, for that matter.
If a native speaker says 'loose' instead of 'lose' (or 'rouge' vs 'rogue') did they just create a new dialect? Shouldn't we consider these as being 'mistakes' - until such a time these forms are the new accepted norm?
What about vocabulary? There are natives who never bothered reading a book, and thus are limited in their vocabulary. Are they 'masters' of their language? Is the lack of knowledge about certain words also to be considered a dialect?
I am not sure one's upbringing gives them any authority on language usage. Collectively, sure. Not on an individual basis.