KOIIA/Davies. Reflections

The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality

A summary

This book problematises the concept of the native speaker (NS) by exposing and exploring its complexity. It is a quest for an acceptable and informed definition of the NS, one that accommodates the complexity of issues the concept raises. Is the NS concept a mythical idea which affords no instances in the actual or is it one we can identify among individuals and groups of language users? Common sense views of the NS are important but need to be subjected to thorough theoretical discussion. The volume assumes a tension between ‘NSs’ as ‘flesh and blood’ persons and abstract ideals which have crystallized around the concept. It sets out to examine the concept from various points of view in search of more precise criteria for its definition. In particular it explores the relationship between NS and second language learner, raising the question as to whether the latter can become the former. In the opening chapter, Alan Davies (AD) outlines reasons for why the ‘NS’ is significant in linguistics and education. In seeking to study linguistic competence and performance, linguists have naturally turned to examining the abilities and skills of ‘NSs’. In applied linguistics, the need for benchmarks of acceptability and intelligibility has been satisfied by the use of a model type. However, the term is controversial and has caused offence, not least because it seems to ignore that “everyone is a native speaker of something” and has often denied that a highly proficient non NS may have linguistic and communicative competence that are, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from a NS. In the second chapter, AD explores four possible psycholinguistic answers to the question of what it means to be a NS. The ‘answers’ throw up several issues which include that of semilingualism, the meaning of ‘competence’ and the issue of whether individuals can have linguistic (and communicative) competence in more than one language, that is, be ambilingual. Semilingualism is a description of the condition of having no fully developed linguistic system or a set of partial systems as a result of an impoverished linguistic environment. AD rejects the idea that a child can be semilingual in terms of having one inadequate systems basically on developmental grounds. He also dismisses the view that languages other than a first language provide only partial systems. The idea of a learner’s interlanguage, that is an interim linguistic system in its own right which is both dynamic and systematic, is favoured today rather than the view that second or foreign languages amount to a set of deficient proficiencies. AD highlights the “more attractive” view of two or more systems that what is lacking in one system can be compensated for by “a corresponding replacement component in another system or other systems” (30).By ‘compensating’, AD is referring to the commonly-held view of bilingualism which means that there are certain things that community members do in one language and other activities they conduct in another or other language(s). With regard to the ‘competence-in-more-than-one-language’ issue, he seems to side with Felix in accepting the possibility of a pre-pubertal second language learner becoming a native speaker. In other words, second language learning is in complementary distribution to native speakerness in that second language learning is by definition language learning that takes place after puberty. Felix rationalizes this conclusion by distinguishing between two cognitive systems. He argues that the NS learns one or more first languages by using the language-specific system whereas the non-NS learns a second language through the problem-solving system, a less efficient language learning capacity. The thrust of chapter 3 is a set of arguments which lead to the conclusion that the NS should be defined on the basis of not the grammar of an individual’s idiolect, nor on the ideas of universal grammar, but rather on the grammar that one individual shares with another because they share the same language. The latter is the set of language rules and skills that members of the same language group share and use for mutually intelligible communication – the ‘grammar’ of separate and distinct languages such as, the grammar of Swedish, French, Spanish, etc. In chapter 4, AD considers a number of sociolinguistic aspects of the NS. Major misunderstandings are often traced to a lack of sociocultural and pragmatic assumptions and awareness associated to particular languages. Languages, AD asserts are defined linguistically, in terms of their historical development, sociolinguistically, whether speakers of a language share sufficient understanding to be intelligible to one another, and politically which concerns the symbolic rather than the communicative value of a language. A speech community is a group of people fro whom language behaviour has some important shared community meaning and who share similar attitudes to such behaviour. Dialects are distinguished from languages in that, because they share a recent history of similar origins, they are intelligible with one another while languages are not. Many ‘languages’ which are mutually intelligible are called ‘languages’ for political and national reasons. AD argues that, if a nation has a developed institutional layering of, for example, a centralized administrative and education systems, the language chosen as the ‘official’ language will go through a process of standardizing, with or without a national language-promoting academy. Such a process is necessary for efficiency and intelligibility. English, he notes, with its increasingly wider international use, is more likely to become more uniform that break up into non intelligible varieties. In this context, AD link the NS to the adoption of a standard language by arguing that the process of describing, of standardizing a language is also “the act of defining native speakers”. Against the backdrop of a standard language which makes both speakers and learners as well as the language systems they are using more like one another, it becomes possible to include ‘equivalent’ native speakers such as second language learners who have high level mastery of the standard language. AD considers the NS in three ‘high-mobility’ situations: the immigrant ethnic community, the situation where ‘new Englishes’ function as official second languages and those in which English is being used as an international lingua franca. He argues that it is only in these situations that being a NS matters. Various issues emerge from this discussion. Should the scope of native speakerness be assessed in terms of communicative competence or simply linguistic competence? AD distinguishes between the standardization process which all languages are susceptible to and the idea that there is a separate, unique, homogeneous grammar at the base of any language. Because ‘langue’, though it relates to ‘grammar 2’, is affected by variability, boundaries which are set arbitrarily and fluidity across such boundaries, considering NSs in terms of ‘grammar 2’ will not lead to clear definitions. In chapter 5, AD turns to the topic of ‘bilingualism’, more particularly, the possibility of being a native speaker of more than one language; the possibility of the bilingual native speaker. His general conclusion is that the child can acquire bilingual linguistic competence, but he is doubtful whether this competence ever extends to comprehend the communicative. He qualifies this with the possibility of communicative competence practice being “made up” in the appropriate circumstances although he goes on to cite well-known linguists who point that “bilinguals are rarely equally fluent in their languages” and that they experience diminished power to learn other things. The answer to this question is related to age of acquisition and AD notes that there are probably some features of native speakerness which can only be acquired in childhood. In order to further clarify the issues at stakes, AD uses the analogy of a game of chess to distinguish between four kinds of knowledge namely, metalinguistic, discriminating, communicational and skills knowledge. The first of these three are basically knowledge/what (or that) – competence – while the fourth is knowledge/how – performance. Although proficiency appears at all levels, it is most evident in ‘skills knowledge’. Just as non-SPs differ in terms of their proficiency, so do NSs, which further complicates the distinction between them. AD turns in chapter 6 to consider the NS in relation to communicative competence and argues that NSs are to be distinguished in terms of culture – shared cultural understandings and assumptions with community members as well as of language – how to form grammatical sentences, etc. He refers to the many ‘layers’ of culture individual speakers carry in order to underline the point that the further we are from the immediate local cultural situation, the more difficult it will be to comprehend and to know how to communicate with others in the situation in an appropriate and harmonious way. Implicit in this argument is the fundamental importance of cultural awareness and knowledge for defining NSs, a significant part of which is assimilated very early in childhood. It is therefore much harder for the non-NS to achieve NS levels of communicative competence than linguistic competence. In defining communicative competence, AD learns heavily on Hymes and highlights four components of communicative competence, namely historical, practical, useful and contextual facts. In effect, this means that these facts demand that a NS can decide what is in contemporary use, be aware of what is practical, communicable, have a built-in sensitivity as to when to observe or deviate from his/her own norms and infer meaning from a range of different contexts. Learning communicative competence, AD argues, like linguistic competence is generatively drawn from a limited number of sociocultural experiences and engagement in social intercourse. AD concludes by defining the nature of communicative competence as “the articulation of linguistic competence in situation; that is the practice of interaction and the recognition of appropriacy”. Yes, the acquisition of culture is vital to language learning and this definition puts such learning well within the second language learner’s grasp. In chapter 7, AD maintains that a speech community is built up on the shared attitudes and norms of its members, norms regarding language, accent, discourses, prestige and rhetorics. A speech community, he claims, requires at least one (explicit or implicit) standard language involving correctness notions and norms for all the basic means of expression. Within a speech community, there will inevitably be difference in language behaviour, but variation can be accepted as long as that variation is not used as an excuse for abandoning the norm or for setting up new ones. By adhering to the limits that such norms exert on the degree to which they can be departed from, NSs demonstrate identification with them and show that they recognize one another. Although AD describes a standard language as an “idealization”, he comes down firmly on the view that an acceptance of the norms of a standard language is a practical necessity for successful communication and that all groups in a community should be given as much access as possible to it. AD ends the chapter with a challenge to education, particularly to teachers. Attacks on contemporary English teaching have often been aimed at standards of English and the claim that these standards have fallen. AD insists that standards have always been low and there has always been a need to encourage and improve NSs’ control of their own language. What is lacking, he claims, is “a proper education in the rhetoric, registers, discourses and resources of the language, that is the norms and how to break them” (149). It is teachers who need such ‘grammar’ so that they can fulfil their English teaching responsibility. In chapter 8, AD considers the challenge to the concept of the NS particularly from post-colonialism. He examines the effect of ‘linguistic imperialism’ and the global expansion of English in the twentieth century on indigenous languages and personal identities. In applied linguistics, these issues have led to attempts to decouple the NS as the model from second language learning and to highlight the several advantages of being a non-NS teacher in foreign language contexts. AD concludes that “hegemony of the standard language is decided as much by those who regard themselves as oppressed as by their oppressors” (150). In his final chapter, AD seeks to draw the many strands of his arguments together in addressing the question: Who is the native speaker? Yes, there are many differences between NSs and non-NSs, but this does not gives us access to a NS definition. It simply allows us to define the NS negatively as not being non-NSs. In this chapter, AD summarizes the characteristics of the NS which included acquiring his/her L1 in childhood, having grammatical intuitions and unique capacities to produce fluent discourse, to write creatively and to interpret and translate into the L1 of which s/he is a NS. As AD has admitted several times, there is a circularity to this description which makes a definition of the NS elusive. Can L2 learners evolve into NSs of the target language and develop trustworthy intuitions about idiolectal and group language grammar, discourse and pragmatic control, creative performance and the ability to interpret and translate proficiently? AD answers ‘Yes’ as long as language acquisition starts very early. After puberty, he concludes, it is highly unlikely that a second language learner can become a NS of the target language. By implication, one can define a NS as a person who has acquired the language early. He concludes that the concept of the NS “is not a fiction” (207) but has the reality which ‘membership’ of a community always gives. The idea of ‘membership’ – the group s/he identities with – counts for a great deal since it disposes language speakers to choose a particular standard language. Community membership and identities are at the heart of the NS-non-NS distinction because we define minorities in relation to majorities, that is, to be a NS means not being a non-NS. By the same token, a non-NS can be defined as someone who is not regarded by him/herself or by NSs as a NS. It is in this sense that the NS is not a myth but encompasses very real feelings of confidence and identity.

A few reflections

There are several deep tensions (though not necessarily contradictions) running through this book and I will briefly mention three. First of all, there is the tension related to the scope of native speakerness – does it embrace communicative competence or not. There is, in my view ambivalence here. In chapter 5, AD seems to assume that communicative competence needs to be integral in defining the NS. He doesn’t establish this dimension as integral earlier and so there is, in my view, an unnecessary repetition and reformulation regarding the issue of native speakerness scope. For example, much of the discussion in chapter 5 in the context of bilingualism about activities in people’s lives being specific to one language parallels previous arguments in chapter 2. Secondly, there is tension with regard to the definition of communicative competence. More recent descriptions of communicative competence include not only linguistic, sociolinguist and discourse competence, but also strategic and intercultural competences. This amplified view of communicative competence is suggested by AD on occasions as including an array of cultural sensitivities and attitudes, when, for example, referring to shared cultural understanding and knowledge in chapter 6. This inclusive suggestion seemed not easy to reconcile with what I can only describe as the reductionist definition of communicative competence as “the articulation of linguistic competence in situation; that is the practice of interaction and the recognition of appropriacy” (116-117). Thirdly, there seems to me to be a tension between, on one side, the gravitation towards norms and standards and, on the other hand, the sovereignty of context. In chapter 7, AD emphasises that norms are crucial to the speech community as a basis for the creation of a standard language. NSs always create a standard language and abandoning common norms is “to give up on community”, etc. Against this overwhelming tendency towards norms and notions of correctness is the maxim that “correctness if it exists depends on context” (14).

A few reflections on the notion of ‘first language’

I want to reflect on the notion of ‘first language’ briefly because it is still not quite clear to me why this term is problematic. I am not assuming it is unproblematic; I simply want to try to gain some clarity on the issue. In relation to ‘first language’, AD raise several points which I will take in turn. First he maintains that the mother tongue (MT) and the ‘first language’ (L1) may be different because the role of ‘mother’ may be taken by another ‘caretaker’ who may be multilingual. In such cases, the MT may be more than one language so that it becomes difficult to decide which of them is most primary. Secondly, AD points out that a ‘ first language’ can change from a MT learned and used in childhood to another language which has grown in usefulness and prominence in a person’s social and professional life. First, I do not see how the role of ‘mother’ being taken by another ‘caretaker’ directly impacts this issue; it simply shifts the source of meaningful input. Whether a ‘mother’ is a biological mother or another caring adult (or even a sibling) does not alter the assumption that a MT is acquired in relation to a ‘mother’ figure who provides personally meaningful language input and communicative opportunities. Secondly, AD argues that, if there are more than one language vying for ‘first place’, it is difficult to decide which is ‘first’ and yet a major thrust of his book casts considerable doubt on whether it is possible to interact with and develop two languages equally intimately, intuitively and intensely! In chapter two, for example, he considers the possibility of an individual being ambilingual and concludes that “this must be rare if not impossible, that is in the sense that no one can be equally at home in every aspect of life in more that one language…” (29). The third point that an L1 may change over time is perhaps, in my view, more difficult to answer critically. In this process, if the term continues to be used, the label ‘first’ shifts in meaning from ‘earliest’ or ‘native’ to ‘most commonly used’, ‘principle’ or even ‘most fully developed’. This is not an uncommon experience and it is useful that the word ‘first’ accommodates both these sets of meanings denotationally. An explanation or qualification is sufficient for meaningful usage and this common phenomenon does not, in my view undermine the validity of the term. (Most terms include potential ambiguity and need definition when used). It is interesting to note that AD continues to use the term and assumes an equation between the ‘first language’ and ‘mother tongue’ throughout the book (e.g. chapter two, p.28).

Oliver St John 13/26 Feb. 2008