I think that, perhaps, you are reading your own ability to be articulate into the way that others converse in a language, which is wholly understandable. For most people the need to communicate a feeling or thought is what drives them to converse, and they will not stress about having to overcome the hurdle of perfection to carry it off. In my opinion, the raw intelligence, at least in the sense that raw intelligence is used/defined for those that are predisposed to master the syntax of communication, is what you are getting at. I don't think it is a matter that the multi-lingual amongst us are not properly anchored in one tongue, it is simply that you are smart enough in oral communication to pay attention to the mastery of speech. As an example, my nephew is 16 and a very athletic teenager. He is strong and quick, and the quickness he expresses physically could in some way be defined as a facet of intelligence, i.e., he is able to make decisions concerning distance and speed at a mind-boggling rate, and in different sports. If one was to ask if his quickness and acumen in one sport was damaged by his ability to play several well, then I would probably think this to be untrue. He is good at it because he has a talent for it.AldenG wrote:Does there seem to be, in the research or in personal experience, a point at which "multi-" becomes "too many?"
I ask because some kids I've known from childhood into adulthood over the years, who grew up tri-lingual, did indeed seem fluent in the sense of flowing, comfortable, in the two languages I could assess. But I wouldn't call them exactly "native level" in either of those languages and I'm guessing probably not in the third one, either. Well, there are different levels of native, I suppose. Many people who grow up with only one language probably don't use it well enough to be in the top 25% on a matriculation exam (at least 75% don't), much less to write unsupervised for publication. It's not that I mind people using the "wrong" prepositions and such; I simply notice it and wonder how much it has to do with not having one "anchor" language. (I don't even particularly mind the handful of inferior choices I myself inevitably make in most any Finnish or Swedish email or letter I write, as long as it reaches a reasonably high level of clarity, intelligence, and correctness. I learn but certainly don't cringe when later reviewing some of them with the family Finn.) The benefits of growing up spontaneous and quite good in three languages might outweigh the advantages of not having a true and certain ear in any of them. (What do others think about this notion?) However, it could cause problems in some contexts such as trying to earn teacher certification.
And he is terrible in languages
