User:Sorenhogberg/Identity and language

Reflections on the native speaker

There are different ways of approaching the complex concept of identity. But a very fundamental perspective comes out of the question of what language a person speaks. In fact we have similar words for naming a language and a person, as for example the Swedish language and at the same time a Swedish person. As for me, being a Swedish person, I’ve been brought up in a Swedish speaking environment, able to understand what people around me have been communicating about, never actually dealing with situations when different languages have met on a daily basis. These circumstances have created an uncomplicated question of who I am in relation to a national belonging and the language I’m speaking. However this is not the fact to a huge number of people around the world, as well as in today’s Sweden. The tension between nation and language relates to the concept of the native speaker elaborated by Alan Davis (2003). One of his conclusions is that there can never be a definition of the native speaker. Still the word is used and that’s why it also becomes interesting to find a deeper understanding. Davis divides the discussion into psycholinguistic, linguistic and sociolinguistic aspects.

A psycholinguistic point of view upon the native speaker

When searching for an answer from a psycholinguistic point of view Davis (2003:26) sees four possibilities: 1.	Every individual is a native speaker, which is every person’s own a repertoire of linguistic rules that are under control. This definition though, doesn’t help us much in gaining deeper understanding. It has no explanation and makes it difficult to deal with differences of coordinate or subtractive bilinguals. 2.	Every individual is a native speaker of only one language, acquired as the mother tongue. Also this answer carries problems since it’s not always clear to establish what a person’s mother tongue is. The answer in terms of first language, doesn’t give much further knowledge even when this is possible because it says nothing about competence. 3.	Some individuals are native speakers of more than one language whether or not acquired early in life. The problem Davis arises according to this definition is that bilingual persons doesn’t seem to own similar competence in all contexts. Specific situations are closely connected to certain persons and one of the languages. With this aspect in mind it isn’t possible to talk about native speakers in more than one language. Instead we might have to consider ambilingualism. 4.	Some individuals never achieve native speaker status in any language and may be regarded as semilingual. This answer is build upon the idea that a native speaker has a certain amount of competence. But it is an inverted definition; it doesn’t say what the native speaker is. Furthermore Davis claims the impossibility to judge whether a person is incomplete, in terms of partial or inadequate, in relation to some kind of linguistic system. So we end up with not a good answer to the question of what the native speaker seems to be, when we approach the issue from a psycholinguistic perspective. Even so, the overhaul gives us a possibility to notice the use of these different types of definitions in practice, which in itself carries an analytical value. Before Davis (2003:36) leaves this discussion he take into consideration different theories like Felix’s proposal which claims the existence of two different cognitive systems; both available for language learning. The first is a system of language-specific cognitive structures that are available until puberty. Language learning takes place as a person dwell in an environment of ongoing language communication. The child picks up how to use and when to use the language. The second cognitive language learning system is described as more of a problem solving system, which takes place when we already have a language. The first language is at place and used in order to learn another. This distinction between two systems can be looked upon some kind of answer to what a native speaker is, i.e. a person that has learned a language through a certain kind of learning process; the first one described. But still that doesn’t explain what a native speaker is in relation to bilingualism. Persons can learn more than one language the same way.

A linguistic point of view upon the native speaker

After studying the concept of the native speaker from a psycholinguistic angel Davis (2003:40) gives us a linguistic perspective and says that “Linguistics has as its aim the description of competence…”. In order to elaborate the native speaker in terms of competence he presents three types of grammar as a point of departure. •	Grammar 1; is described as a competence of an individual’s linguistic system •	Grammar 2; is described as a competence of groups shared linguistic system within one language •	Grammar 3; is described as a competence of a universal linguistic system for all language speaking persons Grammar 1 has as its aim to describe an individual’s linguistic system. To some extent this is doable since it’s a single person’s way of communicating and correcting his or hers own mistakes. Grammar 3 could be described as the opposite of Grammar 1 since Grammar 3 aims for a universal description of the native speaker independent from an explicit language. The two extremes on a continuum becomes, according to Davis (2003:44), either psychology (Grammar 1) or philology (Grammar 3), where neither the first nor the third in reality can come up with an answer that deals with the concept of the native speaker in a constructive way. So what is left? Well according to Davis (2003:46) the competence named Grammar 2 has to do with some kind of competence which is shared by a group. Being a native speaker would mean being close linguistically to other speakers, operating with other operators of the same Grammar 2. In other words: Grammar 2 linguistics seems predicated on some kind of sociolinguistic interpretation of social life. (Grammar 1 and 3 seem predicted on a psycholinguistic view.) This conclusion links to the next linguistic point of view upon the native speaker.

A sociolinguistic point of view upon the native speaker

To start with Davis (2003:53) establishes that linguistics is about language while sociolinguistic is about a language, i.e. the singular form of a language spoken by a group of people. Obviously there are different ways how people are able to understand each other. But different languages also carry different understandings which are closely linked to experiences done by different groups of people and their ancestors. The constitution of a group is in fact very much built upon a shared language, including a shared understanding. That is so even though we after a close look realize that every individual can carry a unique personal linguistic system. The role of language is that languages allow for identification. In a speech community there is a great deal of intelligibility but also, as Davies (2003:57) argues a matter of attitude. These two aspects are helpful tools when trying to distinguish the differences between dialect and language. Different languages as well as different dialects carry different attitudes but in linguist terms dialects consist of intelligibility which different languages do not. To continue my retrospective reflection upon my own life I note as I said earlier that I was able to understand everyone’s language spoken. But because my parents had moved to another part of Sweden, I realize that my ability which I still have to speak different dialects also carries different group affiliation including different attitudes to life. Understanding this, is in an odd way an extension of myself being a native speaker of Swedish. But then again what is a native speaker? We shall not forget that Davis has no definition but he makes the conclusion that the phenomenon is connected to Grammar 2 and sociolinguistic aspects. The sociolinguistic point of view also includes a political aspect. According to the explanation above at certain times dialects becomes languages for political reasons which is the case of Norwegian and Danish. Over all the question of borders when understanding how identities are influenced of languages is interesting. To widen the understanding Omoniy (2010:123) talks about frontiers, boundaries and borderlands. Frontiers are looked upon as non static, almost like floating borders, which can differ over time. Boundaries are the outer limit, the determinate physical end and borderland represents the region or a zone on both sides of given boundaries. In this sense borderland represent something that people on both sides of the boundaries have in common even though national borders indicates different official languages on each side. A common way of understanding borders is probably that of a distinction between two differences. The concept of borderland opens up for a complete different understanding i.e. that of a border where it’s possible to meet, to bridge and link people together into mutual interdependence. The question of identity or ethnicity gives us diverse answers according to the type of understanding of borders we comprise. The stronger a culture of borderland the more emphasize tend to stress ethnicity and less national identity and vice versa. Identity can probably be linked to the concept of the native speaker but by no way simply to the official language in a country, not even in Sweden. Omoniy (2010:132) concludes that “the abstract concept of border may become increasingly relevant as we erect mental boundaries to mark, claim, and protect all manners of rights to turfs and domains”. Borders are by no means only geographical; borders can be understood from a sociolinguistic point of view. Jonsson (2007) gives us a rich portrayal of the difficulties to cross over borders with words. When the boy Nejib responds to the researchers many question with the words “Det går inte att förklara” ("It's impossible to explain") this gives us a hint about the difficulties involved (p.255). There is a possibility that the speaker does not know how to explain whatever is to be explained because the words from one context do not fit in another. But there are also possibilities that the speaker, in this case the boy Nejib, does not want to give an explanation since the researcher can be looked upon as belonging to another group of people. Nevertheless in both ways we can understand the problematic situation with the help of mental borders. Mental borders which also may be some kind of an answer to the concept of the native speaker. The example above can be perceived as an aspect of sociolinguistic borders involved when researchers try to conduct ethnographic fieldwork. Dorian (2010) gives us a number of examples on the difficulties of crossing borders. To be able to understand a group of people and give a narrative presentation of another group’s lives seems to be impossible. Researchers have lived for years together with the people that have been their focus without being able to cross the line, because that could be the same as giving up the idea of research. If the object of the scholar is language, well then how can a researcher ever cross borders when s/he isn’t a native speaker, whatever now that is… Dorian (2010:98) presents examples when researchers have made an issue to a common cause just to be allowed to join the group that is the object of the scholar.

Ending

The statement “Det går inte att förklara” presented by Jonsson (2007:255) can be understood as the dilemma of ethnographic fieldwork, as well as the dilemma of ethnographic work can be understood as a bridge across borders where different native speakers meet, which finally can be understood from a sociolinguistic point of view. My reflections in this paper have had as a point of departure the elaboration on the concept of the native speaker made by Davis. This gives me reason to finally pinpoint one of his conclusions. Davis says (2003:65) that the native speaker may be a more useful term in situations where the standard language has an important role to play than in the speech encounters in remote and isolated communities. A rereading of Rickard Jonsson’s ethnographic study of masculinity and language among pupils in a secondary school in Sweden would be interesting to do – this time focusing the idea of the native speaker. It’s there! Even though we don’t exactly know what it is and even though it’s never mentioned (as far as I remember). But it's there in the process of constructing boarders through language.

References

Davies, Alan (2003): The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality. Clevedon: Multilingual matters.

Dorian, Nancy C (2010): Linguistic and Ethnographic Fieldwork. In: Fishman, Joshua A & Garcia, Ofelia (2010): Handbook of language and ethnic identity. Disciplinary and regional perspectives. Volume 1/Second edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Jonsson, Rickad (2007): Blatte betyder kompis – om maskulinitet och språk i en högstadieskola. Stockholm: Ordfront

Omoniyi, Tope (2010): Borders. In: Fishman, Joshua A & Garcia, Ofelia (2010): Handbook of language and ethnic identity. Disciplinary and regional perspectives. Volume 1/Second edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press