is "The applicant had better be a native speaker" grammatically correct? Yes. In the circumstances you've outlined. But your original question was slightly different.
Thanks a lot. You are right, my original question is slightly different from this follow-up. Whew, finally I get what I am so eager to get. A big THANK-YOU to you!
Thanks a lot for citing your corporate culture as an example to explain this language issue, JamesOliv. In mid-March I returned from my 6-month visiting scholar program at the University of Texas at Austin, where I had enjoyed my time a lot. I remember once I went inside the largest gym on the campus and I noticed a poster about the university's employment equity policies pasted on a bulletin board and did fast reading of it. I just wondered how the enforcement of the policy is monitored. And there is this tricky question here. Supposing a Texas company wants to recruit a Spanish tutor for their staff's Spanish-language training, do you mean that in this situation still the job ad cannot say things like "A native speaker of Spanish is preferred"? Isn't a native speaker of Spanish a better choice? I remember once I saw on the L1 city bus the bus driver frequently taking out a pocket Spanish-English to practise Spanish while waiting for the light. I'm afraid the above-mentioned Texas company will not hire this foreign/second language beginner while there is another applicant available who is a native speaker of Spanish.
yes, it is... and yes, someone might say that in conversation, when discussing what requirements should be included in the ad... but for the ad itself, this would not be the wording used, if the people involved in placing it are native english speakers with good grammar skills... 1. a native spanish-speaker would definitely be a better choice... 2. 'is preferred' would mean they will consider hiring someone who is not, so that wording should not be used, if they're not open to that... 3. if there are two applicants who both have equal teaching skills and one is a native spanish speaker, any executive with half a brain would pick the native speaker, imo...
Thanks for your interesting and satisfactory explanation. Maybe this is the last question for you in this thread: I consulted my other dictionary, Oxford Advanced Learner's English Dictionary, and like Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, it says that "had better/best(do sth)" is "used to tell sb what you think they should do". All the example sentences given in Oxford Advanced Learner's English Dictionary, also as in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, are all the "had better DO something" type of senternces and there are no example sentences of the "had better be something" type. I have now realized that "You'd better be a native speaker" is an unnatural expression although it is grammatically correct, but I need to add here that the underlying reason why I thought of asking a question about "You'd better be a native speaker" was that to my understanding, if "sb had better", as explained by the above-mentioned two authoritative dictionaries, is used to give advice(suggesting that the addressee DO something), then "You'd better be a native speaker" can be ambiguous and misleading. In saying "You'd better be a native speaker", the speaker seems to be urging the addressee to assume the new identity of a native speaker, which is impossible to realize if the addressee is not a native speaker of a language more desired by the advertiser. I would like to know whether or my reasoning sounds ridiculous to you native speakers of English. Furthermore, I don't think "You'd better be here by 6.30" or "You'd better be home by 11" and "You'd better be a native speaker" or "The applicant had better be a native speaker" are sentences of the same nature although they are both in the structure of "had better be". "You'd better be here by 6.30" is used to urge the listener to be here by 6.30. However, you cannot urge someone to be a native speaker or suggest that they should be a native speaker. The two verb-to-be phrases "be home" and "be here" equal the verb phrases of "arrive home" and "arrive here" respectively or, to be precise, they are both a state that the listener will be in. Then according to this reasoning, it is obvious that "You'd better be a native speaker" is a sentence of a different nature. As I said above, my feel, which may be ridiculous to you native speakers of English, is that in saying "You'd better be a native speaker", the speaker seems to be urging the addressee to assume the new identity of a native speaker, which is impossible to realize if the addressee is not a native speaker of a language more desired by the advertiser.What is your view on my reasoning?
Under threat of being called stupid, I can't believe that this has become so complicated. The question: is 'you'd better be a native speaker', correct grammar. Yes. It's not the best worded sentence but there's nothing grammatically incorrect there. It's not a sentence you'd use - but then that wasn't the question. The question: is 'The applicant had better be a native speaker.' correct grammar. Yes it is. It's also a better sentence. But again, that wasn't the question. You'd better be a native speaker - or anything else for that matter - is a command. You'd better be home before the pub shuts, you'd better get your homework done, etc. The applicatant had better be a native speaker - is a condition. You'd better be home before the pub shuts if you don't want me to put your tea in the dog. You'd better get your homework done if you want to watch Dr. Who.
You find it hard to understand because it makes no sense. The word "better" implies a preference, not a command. But idiomatic phrases don't make sense. "Had better" definitely implies an absolute requirement or a command, not a preference. I am indeed, of United States English, and so were my parents. On my mother's side, we then shift to England and, yet another generation back, somebody came from Germany. So there are a lot of native English speakers there. I'm pretty sure I did (did you see all of the post that this one replies to?) but I'll try again. "The applicant had better be a native speaker." is indeed grammatically correct. It is still illogical and likely to be off-putting, because while the threat is not _to_ the person being spoken to, it is _from_ the person speaking, and it is an empty and strange threat. It implies: "If the application is not a native speaker, I'm going to do something bad to him." or "If the applicant is not a native speaker, that would be very bad for him." It would be clear that the implied threat was empty, but even implying an empty threat is, well, odd. To put it another way, when someone says: "The applicant had better be a native speaker." the response that would occur to me would be, "Or what? What are you going to do to him if he isn't? Sheesh." But of course I wouldn't say that out loud to my boss. Again, it's an idiomatic expression, so it doesn't necessarily make literal sense. When someone says: "You'd better be home by 6:30." they're telling you or advising you (depending on whether they are the party who can apply consequences for non-compliance) to get home by 6:30. When someone says, in the context of this thread: "You'd better be a native speaker." they're telling you or advising you not to apply for the job if you are not a native speaker - the literal meaning is something like, "If you are not a native speaker, there could be a negative consequence of applying for this job. Therefore, you should not apply." (Edited again to add: I don't mean "literal meaning", do I? Is there a single term for "the words imply this, but they really mean that?" The actual meaning?)
Thanks a lot, ChickenFreak. But it was not that I intended to be offensive in asking whether you are a native speaker or not. The forum does not tell what its members' native languages are, and I sometimes have no way to differentiate them from non-natives whose replies I sometimes need to be cautious about. I just wanted to be clear about every aspect of this language issue based on reliable information if possible. Besides, it is my mind which is slow in processing information you've given me. Thanks again for your patience. Richard
Thanks to all who have given replies to my questions! As I am a teacher of English working at a Chinese university, always wishing to be a good teacher for my students, I have been eager to acquire as much knowledge about the language issue under discussion as possible. I shall apologize to you if I have given you a bad impression of being stubborn in raising endless questions. Thank you all for your great help! Richard
Hi,everyone. I am very sorry that I forgot to mention that I was not asked to revise that job ad for its writer on the forum of the website of the university where I am pursuing my doctoral studies and that I do not know the writer. I revised it for fun at the time of revising it and did not get my revision uploaded onto that same forum. And it was only later on that the idea hit me that I could have it as a good example of the pitfall of Chinglish expressions for my students and explaining it in class.
