ArticlePDF Available

The Native Speaker: An Achievable Model?



In this more mobile and globalized world, the concept of what it means to be a native speaker of a language is becoming ever more difficult to define, especially in regards to English. In recent developments in second language acquisition and language teaching, this concept has been the focus of attention for numerous scholars (e.g. Davies, 1991; Medgyes, 1992; Phillipson, 1992) to get a better understanding of this concept, and, perhaps, to reevaluate and revise the “native speaker model” in the field of language teaching. In this article, the definition of the native speaker is explored based on the works of various scholars who have investigated this concept. Based on the findings of what it takes to be a native speaker, the issue of whether the native speaker model is the appropriate model in language teaching is discussed.
Volume 7. Issue 2
Article 9
Article title:
The Native Speaker: An Achievable Model?
Joseph J. Lee
About the author:
Joseph J. Lee taught ESOL for six years in South Korea before returning to the U.S. to do
graduate studies. He is currently in the M.A. English: TESOL program at San Francisco
State University.
In this more mobile and globalized world, the concept of what it means to be a native
speaker of a language is becoming ever more difficult to define, especially in regards to
English. In recent developments in second language acquisition and language teaching,
this concept has been the focus of attention for numerous scholars (e.g. Davies, 1991;
Medgyes, 1992; Phillipson, 1992) to get a better understanding of this concept, and,
perhaps, to reevaluate and revise the “native speaker model” in the field of language
teaching. In this article, the definition of the native speaker is explored based on the
works of various scholars who have investigated this concept. Based on the findings of
what it takes to be a native speaker, the issue of whether the native speaker model is the
appropriate model in language teaching is discussed.
The concept of the native speaker is one that is understood and self-explanatory until the
notion is explored or thought about (Ellis, 1993). There are those who would argue that it
is a unitary concept, hence the question of what it means to be a native speaker is
pointless as “everyone is a Native Speaker of the particular language states that the
person has “grown” in his/her mind/brain. In the real world, that is all there is to say”
(Chomsky, 1965, quoted in Paikeday, 1985, p. 58). However, the quest for a better
understanding of the concept of the native speaker, and, perhaps, reevaluation, is not
pointless and has been critically discussed by numerous scholars in recent times (e.g.,
Davies, 1991; Medgyes, 1992; Phillipson, 1992) in the field of language teaching. As the
English language and the mobility of the human race become more and more accessible,
the concept and perception of the native speaker is being challenged. In this paper, I
attempt to explore and systemize a more cohesive definition of the native speaker based
on the collective works of various scholars in the field of language teaching, particularly
English. The question of what the native speaker actually knows is, then, examined.
Based on the internalized knowledge that a native speaker has of his or her language, the
abilities of the native speaker is presented. Upon presenting the concept of the native
speaker, the issue of whether it is possible for a nonnative speaker to acquire membership
into the “native speakerdom” (Nayar, 1994) is addressed, briefly. At last, the question of
whether the native speaker is the appropriate model and goal of language learning and
teaching is discussed.
What is a Native Speaker?
Is there a systematic way of defining or characterizing what a native speaker is? Or is
this a question that is so circular that it needs no attention? In recent developments in the
field of language teaching, this question seems to be of particular importance and
necessity to resolve the issue of what a native speaker is, and whether he or she is the
goal that learners should strive to achieve. However, this puzzle seems to be elusive
since it is unclear as to what a native speaker is and knows based solely on being a native
speaker of a language (Davies, 1991; Myhill, 2003; Paikeday, 1985). In this section of
this paper, I will attempt to make some sense of this elusive enigma based on recent
investigations and studies by different scholars in the fields of Second Language
Acquisition and language teaching.
The first account of the use of the native speaker, according to Davies (1991), seems to
have been referenced by Bloomfield (1933) who states, “The first language a human
being learns to speak is his native language; he is a native speaker of this language” (p.
43). However, this definition seems to be too restricting. In fact, the first learned
language can be replaced by a language that is acquired later (although may not be
completely forgotten) through the more frequent and fluent use of the later-acquired
language where the first language is “no longer useful, no longer generative or creative
and therefore no longer ‘first’” (Davies, 1991, p. 16), as in the case of children who are
transplanted, either through migration or adoption, at an early age. In the field of
theoretical linguistics, the native speaker is the authority of the grammar of his or her
native language (Chomsky, 1965) who “knows what the language is […] and what the
language isn’t […]” (Davies, 1991, p. 1). According to this logic, a native speaker is an
individual who is infallible and has perfect command of his or her language. This may
not absolutely be the case, as Nayar (1994) argues that native speakers are not “ipso facto
knowledgeable, correct and infallible in their competence” (p. 4). He further contends
that the notion that the native speaker “has the power to err without a blemish in his
competence” based purely on the fact that the individual is perceived as a native speaker
needs to be challenged and reevaluated. So far, the two explanations presented by
Bloomfield and Chomsky do not adequately resolve this complex puzzle.
From an etymological perspective, the word “native” suggests that an individual is a
“[native speaker] of a language by virtue of place or country of birth” (Davies, 1991, p.
ix). This implies that the individual acquired the language from birth (Davies, 1991;
Paikeday, 1985; Phillipson, 1992). However, as stated above, this is inadequate in
determining whether an individual is a native speaker of a language, or not, due to the
fact that individuals can be resettled to other places in childhood, as in the case of
children who immigrate or are adopted in early childhood. Additionally, being born in a
place does not guarantee that the person will be a native speaker of the native area
because the language that the individual speaks at home may not coincide with the
language in the native area; and children who are adopted in early childhood may not
develop in the same linguistic environment of his or her birthplace.
Some may state that the only bona fide native speaker is a monolingual speaker of a
language; being a monoglot is the only attribute that absolutely guarantees membership
owing to the fact that the individual does not have any other language to be a native of.
However, this assumption is not completely factual, as many native speakers of a
language do, in fact, speak other languages besides their own; and monoglots may be the
exception rather than the norm (Maum, 2002). So, where does that leave us? Being a
monoglot (which is rare) and being born in a particular place does not adequately
facilitate the quest in defining the native speaker. To get a clearer picture of what a
native speaker is, I have isolated six defining features of a native speaker that numerous
scholars in the field of Second Language Acquisition and language teaching support and
agree with.
1. The individual acquired the language in early childhood (Davies, 1991;
McArthur, 1992; Phillipson, 1992) and maintains the use of the language (Kubota,
2004; McArthur, 1992),
2. the individual has intuitive knowledge of the language (Davies, 1991; Stern,
3. the individual is able to produce fluent, spontaneous discourse (Davies, 1991;
Maum, 2002; Medgyes, 1992),
4. the individual is communicatively competent (Davies, 1991; Liu, 1999; Medgyes,
1992), able to communicate within different social settings (Stern, 1983),
5. the individual identifies with or is identified by a language community (Davies,
1991; Johnson & Johnson, 1998; Nayar, 1998)
6. the individual does not have a foreign accent (Coulmas, 1981; Medgyes, 1992;
Scovel, 1969, 1988).
Other features of the native speaker include race (Liu, 1999; Kubota, 2004); the capacity
to write creatively (Davies, 1991); knowledge to differentiate between their own speech
and the standard form of the language (Davies, 1991; Kubota, 2004); and the “capacity to
interpret and translate into the L1 of which s/he is a native speaker” (Davies, 1991, p.
149). These four other features that have been presented are debatable and dubious in
many ways. The race (or ethnicity) of an individual, I believe, is not a determining factor
since, as noted above, in the case of a child who is adopted by individuals who differ
from the child’s ethnic background can surely transplant him or her to a place where he
or she is not a native inhabitant of. Therefore, an ethnically Chinese child, at an early
age, can be adopted by a family who is not Chinese (and does not speak the child’s first
language) who relocates the child to another country where the local language is not the
child’s first language. The child will mature and develop, perhaps, being no longer a
native speaker Chinese, but rather his first language—Chinese—will most likely be
substituted with the language of his new environment. As a result, the later-acquired
language will, in all probability, become his native or first language. Furthermore, in
countries like the United States, individuals who are not ethnically of English decent do,
in fact, speak English as their first and native language, as in the many cases of
descendents of non-British immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for several
generations. Additionally, in China, although 91.8% of the people are of Han Chinese
background (CIA, 2003), not all 91.8% speak the same language. The people of China
who are ethnically Han Chinese speak languages such as Mandarin, Cantonese, and
others, although some may consider these dialects or variants of Mandarin.
Davies (1991) stated that a native speaker has the capacity to write creatively in his or her
language. This feature is not completely accurate. We can only suppose this feature to
be factual if we assume that all native speakers are highly proficient and creative in
writing in their languages through a great number of years of formal schooling, and, most
of all, from a talent for expressing themselves creatively in written language. We, also,
have to account for proficiency level differences among literate members of a language
community, not to mention those individuals who are not literate in their language.
Moreover, there are languages that are preliterate (Florez & Terrill, 2003) where there are
no written forms of the languages. Therefore, the notion that native speakers are creative
writers would only be accurate, if all languages have writing systems, and all native
speakers of those languages were highly proficient and creative individuals such as
writers and poets.
The last two features that Davies suggests of a native speaker are debatable as well.
Cook (1999) indicates that “many native speakers are unaware how their speech differs
from the status form, as shown, for example, in the growing use of nonstandard between
you and I for between you and me even in professional speakers such as news readers” (p.
186). Hence, the claim that native speakers can differentiate their speech and that of the
standard variety is not as obvious as Davies asserts. Moreover, Cook challenges Davies’
claim that native speakers have the capacity to interpret and translate from another
language to their own. This capacity, according to Cook, is only reserved for those
individuals who have a language other than the language that they are natives of, and not
necessarily by all of them.
Among the six essential features of the native speaker that have been laid out above, the
most incontrovertible factor in defining the native speaker is that the individual acquired
the language in childhood and sustains the use of the language. According to Cook
(1999), an individual is not a native speaker of a language unless the individual acquired
it in childhood. Furthermore, an individual who did not acquire the language in
childhood will most likely maintain a recognizable foreign accent in his or her speech
(Scovel, 1969, 1988). Therefore, all other features besides the one that I have mentioned
are secondary; a matter of competence and performance of the individual (that is, how
well the individual uses his or her language). The most poignant summation of what it
means to be a native speaker of a language is offered by Kourtizin (2000):
English is the language of my heart, the one in which I can easily express love for
my children; in which I know instinctively how to coo to a baby; in which I can
sing lullabies, tell stories, recite nursery rhymes, talk baby talk. In Japanese, there
is an artificiality about my love; I cannot express it naturally or easily. The
emotions I feel do not translate well into the Japanese language, and those which I
have seen expressed by Japanese mothers do not seem sufficiently intimate when
I mouth them (p. 324).
Keeping the above ideas about what it is to be a native speaker in mind, I will present the
knowledge and abilities that a native speaker of a language possesses.
What Does a Native Speaker Know?
In exploring the definition of a native speaker, the notion that a native speaker has
intuitive knowledge of the language he or she is a native speaker of, and has linguistic as
well as communicative competence (Hymes, 1971) have been offered. What does that
actually mean? What is it that a native speaker knows that a nonnative speaker does not
that distinguishes the two? In this section of this paper, I will present what the native
speaker actually knows and can perform that differentiates him or her from a nonnative
speaker. Based on findings and studies by scholars in the fields of Linguistics, Applied
Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and English Language Teaching, the
knowledge of a native speaker has been cataloged. Native speakers have internalized
knowledge of:
1. appropriate use of idiomatic expressions (Coulmas, 1981; Medgyes, 1992, 1994;
Phillipson, 1996),
2. correctness of language form (Coulmas, 1981; Davies, 1991; Phillipson, 1996),
3. natural pronunciation (Coulmas, 1981; Medgyes, 1992, 1994),
4. cultural context (Medgyes, 1992, 1994; Phillipson, 1996) including “response
cries” (Goffman, 1978, cited in Coulmas, 1981), swear words, and interjections,
5. above average sized vocabulary, collocations and other phraseological items
(Coulmas, 1981; Medgyes, 1992, 1994),
6. metaphors (Coulmas, 1981),
7. frozen syntax, such as binomials or bi-verbials (Coulmas, 1981),
8. nonverbal cultural features (Coulmas, 1981; Davies, 1991).
Additionally, native speakers of a language have pragmatic and strategic competence of
their language. They are able to attend to pragmatic conventions of the language, to not
only accomplish communication goals but pay heed to interpersonal relationships with
other interlocutors simultaneously, depending on different sociocultural contexts (Kasper,
1997). They have the internalized strategic competence to use different verbal and
nonverbal communication skills to repair breakdowns in conversational exchanges
(Canale & Swain, 1980). Native speakers avoid avoidance (Davies, 1991); that is, they
shun from giving up on comprehension or production. However, avoidance is a strategy
commonly found in communication acts of nonnative speakers. With the automatized
knowledge that native speakers have, what is it that they are able to perform? Native
speakers possess the ability to manifest and perform:
1. spontaneous, fluent discourse (Davies, 1991; Maum, 2002; Medgyes, 1992),
2. circumlocutions (Davies, 1991; Halliday, 1978),
3. hesitations (Brown, 2001; Davies, 1991; Halliday, 1978),
4. predictions of what the interlocutor will say (Davies, 1991; Halliday, 1978),
5. clarifications of message through repetition in other forms (Davies, 1991;
Medgyes, 1992, 1994).
Additionally, native speakers have other verbal as well as nonverbal communication
skills that enable them to communicate effortlessly, in most instances, with other
participants in communication exchanges, within appropriate sociocultural contexts.
The question as to whether a nonnative speaker can become a native speaker has been a
concern in the field of language teaching. Based on what has been presented, we can
conclude that it is impossible for any learner of a language, after the critical period
(Scovel, 1988), to become a native speaker unless he or she is born again. It is
impossible due to the fact that in order to be considered a native speaker of a language, an
individual must satisfy the one most salient criterion—acquire the language in early
childhood and maintain the use of that language. If a nonnative speaker cannot become a
native speaker based on this one definitive element, then can a nonnative speaker, after
the critical period, attain all of the other elements discussed above? According to
Phillipson (1996), a nonnative speaker, through effective training, can acquire most of the
other elements that define the concept of a native speaker. However, Medgyes (1992)
points out that many aspects of linguistic competence do pose tremendous challenges for
nonnative speakers. Among the aspects of linguistic competence, accent seems to be a
hurdle that is most difficult, if not impossible, to overcome (Scovel, 1969, 1988).
Coulmas (1981) asserts that the ability to produce natural pronunciation and perfect
grammar are other areas of linguistic competence which are extremely difficult for
nonnative speakers. Furthermore, target cultural competence (Liang, 2003) seems to
pose another challenge as the exposure to this element is not substantial for nonnative
speakers. However, as mentioned above, most of the elements that a native speaker
knows and can perform can, through effective learning and teaching principles and
approaches, be learned and acquired by nonnative speakers except, perhaps, accent.
Therefore, instead of focusing on the elements that is out of the control of language
learners and language teachers, such as the definitive element of what a native speaker is
and accent, teachers as well as learners should focus on the elements that are achievable.
If the native speaker model is not achievable in language learning, perhaps, it should be
reevaluated and revised to set forth models that are achievable by learners. Perhaps, it is
time to shift our focus from ‘who you are’ to ‘what you know’ (Rampton, 1990).
Alternative terms can be employed, instead, in the field of language teaching (Cook,
1999). Such alternative terms have been explored by Paikeday (1985) who suggest
“proficient user of the language;” Rampton (1990) proposes “language expert;” Cook
(1991) puts forward “multicompetent speaker;” and I offer “competent language user
(CLU).” The purpose of using alternative terms in place of the native speaker is to shift
not only the attention away from ‘who you are,’ but to focus the attention on what we are
actually attempting to accomplish in language teaching—communicative competence.
We should attempt to set the goals for our learners to more attainable goals; not goals
which are nearly impossible, if the most irrefutable definition of a native speaker is that
he or she acquired the language in childhood and continues to use it. Now, should the
label ‘native speaker’ be removed from our mental as well as written lexicon for good?
No, the label will not and should not go away (Cook, 1999). However, as stated above, it
is time to revisit this label and, perhaps, use alternative terms in the field of language
teaching to eliminate the native speaker-nonnative speaker dichotomy which perpetuates
exclusion, rather than inclusion of all individuals who are users of a language; to permit
all users access into the membership of “competent language userdom.” Additionally, by
introducing and maintaining alternative labels in the field of language teaching, we, as
educators, are setting a goal for the learners—to become a competent language user of
the target language—that is achievable. After all, as Davies (1996) aptly inquires, what
is it that we are trying to achieve in language teaching, the native speaker or proficiency?
The author would like to express his sincerest appreciation to Dr. Thomas Scovel at San
Francisco State University for his invaluable insights, guidance, and comments.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt Rinehart Winston.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language
pedagogy. Second Edition. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
CIA. (2003). The world factbook. Retrieved May 5, 2004, from
Cook, V. J. (1999). Going beyond the Native Speaker in Language Teaching. TESOL
Quarterly, 33, 2, 185-209.
Coulmas, F. (1981). Spies and native speakers. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), A festschrift for
native speaker (pp. 355-367). The Hague: Mouton.
Davies, A. (1991). The native speaker in applied linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Davies, A. (1996). Proficiency or the native speaker: what are we trying to achieve in
ELT? In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied
linguistics (pp. 145-157). Oxford: OUP
Ellis, J. M. (1993). Language, thought, and logic. Evanston: Northwestern University
Florez, M.C., & Terrill, L. (2003/July). Working with literacy-level adult English
language learners. Washington, D.C.: National Center for ESL Literacy
Education (NCLE). Retrieved May 10, 2004, from
Goffman, E. (1978). ‘Response cries’. Language, 54(4), 787-815.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
Hymes, D. (1971). On communicative competence. Philadelphia: University of
Philadelphia Press.
Johnson, K., & Johnson, H. (Eds.). (1998). Encyclopedic dictionary of applied linguistics.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? (Network #6) [HTML
document]. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and
Curriculum Center. Retrieved May 5, 2004, from
Kouritzin, S. G. (2000). A mother’s tongue. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 311-324.
Kubota, M. (2004). Native speaker: A unitary fantasy of a diverse reality. The Language
Teacher, 28(1), 3-30.
Liang, J. (2003, November). Models of NNESTs’ teacher development: Rethinking the
NS/NSS dichotomy. NNEST Newsletter, 5(2), 1-5. Retrieved May 2, 2004, from
Liu, J. (1999). Nonnative-English-speaking professionals in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly,
33(1), 85-102.
Maum, R. (2002). Nonnative-English-speaking teachers in the English teaching
profession. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved May 3,
2004, from http//
McArthur, T. (Ed.). (1992). The Oxford companion to the English language. Oxford:
Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: Who's worth more? ELT Journal, 46(4), 340-
Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. London: Macmillan Publishers.
Myhill, J. (2003). The native speaker, identity, and the authenticity hierarchy. Language
Sciences, 25, 77-97.
Nayar, P. B. (1994). Whose English is it? [Electronic version]. TESL-EJ, 1(1), F-1.
Retrieved May, 6, 2004, from
Paikeday, T. M. (1985). The native speaker is dead. Toronto: Paikeday Publishing Inc.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Phillipson, R. (1996). ELT: The native speaker’s burden. In T. Hedge & N. Whitney
(Eds.), Power, pedagogy, & practice (pp. 23-30). Oxford: Oxford University
Rampton, M.B.H. (1990). Displacing the "native speaker": expertise, affiliation and
inheritance. ELT Journal, 44(2), 338-343.
Scovel, T. (1969). Foreign accents, language acquisition, and cerebral dominance.
Language Learning, 19, 245-253.
Scovel, T. (1988). A time to speak: A psycholinguistic inquiry into a critical period for
human speech. New York: Newbury House.
Stern, H.H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: OUP.
... Cook (1999Cook ( , 2008 Although for some scholars, the term 'non-native speaker' does not have negative connotations, there have been discussions on alternative terms (e.g. Braine, 2010;Lee, 2005) . ...
... -29 -'non-native' speaker (e.g. Cook, 2008;Lee, 2005) , while others have recommended its usage. For example, Braine (2010) stated that although ' [t] he term "native speaker" undoubtedly has positive connotations' (p. ...
... Digital language resources represent an important role in improving language and developing an inclusive information society, where efficient communication is needed [1,2]. It is perceived that English is established as the main language of the global society and there are only a few most spoken languages; however, the issue of the native language is essential for the development of the global environment [3]. Native language proficiency was found to contribute to a higher sense of national identity and belonging to the host society [4]. ...
... For the purpose of this paper, we define as a native language one in which a person holds a significant proficiency and that person can have several native languages. Moreover, in order to be considered as a native speaker of a language, an individual must satisfy the one most salient criterion-have acquired the language in early childhood and maintained the use of that language [3,24]. Digital language resources are defined as "collections of language manuals (dictionaries, spellings etc.) and language collections (corpora, language databases) which are used on a daily basis by speakers for independent and efficient communication" [25]. ...
Full-text available
Important keys to effective communication are language competences, which can be supported by using digital language resources. These usually assist the acquisition of a second language, despite their potential for improving one’s native language. Our study was, thus, aimed at raising awareness about the possibilities of improving the native language of an adult population by using digital language resources for the Slovenian language. We conducted workshops, a survey and, partly, semi-structured interviews with 124 participants. We examined whether the perceived usefulness and ease of using digital language resources depends on age, education, self-assessed language proficiency, and experience with language training. The analysis revealed that self-initiative use of analogue language resources is related positively to using digital ones for seeking information, improving language use, as well as for study or work. Moreover, self-assessed proficiency in language was found to affect the perceived ease of using digital language resources. These findings may help language professionals support developing language skills by using digital language resources and preserving language in an adult population.
... It developed amongst NNES researchers and practitioners to address issues such as ownership of the language, NS primacy in defining the language and its curriculum, linguistic and language standards for assessment, recruitment and working conditions, and monocultural or multicultural focus. The work within the movement has been primarily focused on confronting the NS construct as well as reconceptualizing the essentializing terms of NS and NNS (Lee 2005;Mahboob 2010). As a result, a great amount of research has considered the impact of the NS/NNS dichotomy on NNS teachers (Llurda 2005;Mahboob 2010;Rudolph 2018) and NNS preservice teachers (Aneja 2016a;2016b;. ...
Full-text available
In the field of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), studies and scholarly publications questioning the NEST/NNEST (Native-English-Speaker Teacher/ Non-native-English-Speaker Teacher) dichotomy have steadily increased over the last 25 years. This dichotomy has resulted in discriminatory practices against NNESTs, underpinning the contested assumption that native speaker status should be the gold standard in TESOL. This study explores how this problematic perception plays out in the specific context of the Preparatory Year Programs (PYP) in two Saudi universities. This study, based on the analysis of 18 teacher interviews, examines the lived experiences of university English teachers, both native and non-native, locally and internationally recruited, working in the same programs. This paper discusses two themes: the participants’ qualifications and their beliefs about the main reason why they were recruited. The data indicate that only a few teachers believe that being a NS is the main factor in being hired whereas the majority believe that qualifications are the most important requirements for job recruitment. As the most required and obtained certificate for English Language Teaching (ELT) in the PYP, The Cambridge Certificate in English Language Teaching to Adults (CELTA) does appear to replace the NS status requirement based on the participants’ opinions. However, CELTA does not escape criticism as an English teaching qualification. The study argues that buying into the CELTA requirement perpetuates colonialism in ELT.
... Admittedly, there are still some criticisms to be levelled against this conceptualization, some of which are: • It is still oppositional -the native user (and analogously the non-native speaker) is still constructed and viewed through the prism of the native speaker • It is still problematic -autochthonic membership to the native speakerness is the major yardstick against which the non-native speaker is benchmarked since the native speaker is the depository of the language • It is still elusive -the native speaker (as a real native) is constructed as occupying the real realm (native realism), whereas the non-native speaker (as a surreal native) is hypothesized as inhabiting the mythical realm (mythic realism) • It is still dichotomous -the native speaker is on the one side of the native speakerness fence, while the non-native speaker is on the other side. Irrespective of Davies's refined theorization of the native speaker, his dualistic representation of this concept has attracted criticisms from far and near quarters (see for example, Bonfiglio, 2013;Crookes, 2009;Higgins, 2003;Lee, 2005;Lowe, 2015;Mariño, 2011;Rajagopalan, 2007;Shakouri & Shakouri, 2014;Toker, 2012). Some of these criticisms assume, the paper maintains, one or more of the following approaches: periodization; ideological slant; colonial-postcolonial stance; spatial orientation; ethnolinguistic approach; and multiple English varieties paradigm. ...
Full-text available
This paper sets out to answer two questions by characterizing and deconstructing Alan Davies’s seminal views and concepts - especially his ostensive views and his native speakerism - within the context of applied linguistics. Arguing that these are some of Davies’s seminal views and concepts, it offers a philosophical framing of his ostensive views and his other views by maintaining that they entail elements of philosophizing and fragments of the postmodern turn in the manner in which they are articulated in relation to applied linguistics. The paper also argues that Davies’s views of native speakerism are constructed within a classical binary perspective and, thus, can be construed to be fostering othering non-native speakers. In addition, it situates native speakerism within de-coloniality, epistemic break and de-linking, arguing that a de-colonial framework lends itself well to critiquing native speakerism. On this basis, it contends that there is a need to reconceptualize the notion of native speakerism that resonates with a de-colonial perspective. Lastly, the paper offers implications de-coloniality has for ELT.
... By using speakers of English from countries like the UK to set standards for what to expect of language learners, language teaching institutions risk establishing unattainable goals (Ortega, 2019). Scholars have suggested that, instead of native-speaker norms, learners should work towards acquiring communicative competence (Canale & Swain, 1980) using alternative terms, such as "multicompetent speaker" (Cook, 1999) or "competent language user" (Lee, 2005). There has also been a push among some scholars towards setting standards according to the concept of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF), which places more emphasis on the competencies that are needed for two speakers with different first languages to communicate (e.g. ...
Full-text available
This exploratory research project aims to investigate metadiscourse features in English essays written by upper secondary pupils attending schools in Norway, Sweden and the UK. Metadiscourse refers to the linguistic features that authors use to interact with their readers. This project recognises two main types of metadiscourse: signposting and stance. Signposts are words and phrases that authors use to guide their readers through the unfolding text. Stance markers are used to offer evaluations, navigate knowledge claims, and anticipate reader reactions. A large body of research has investigated the use of metadiscourse in professional and tertiary-level educational settings. However, comparatively few studies have investigated metadiscourse features in pre-tertiary essay writing. This research project contributes to this currently limited pool of research by analysing metadiscourse in final- year upper secondary pupils’ English essays in both L1 and L2 educational contexts. Furthermore, by incorporating interview methods, this research also aims to investigate English teachers’ general views towards metadiscourse and to what extent their instruction affects their pupils’ compositional decisions. The project involved collecting a corpus of non-fiction essays and holding interviews with teachers in upper secondary schools situated in Norway, Sweden and the UK. The essays were written for assignments set by teachers and grouped in five genres: political essays, literary essays, opinion pieces, linguistic investigations and commentaries. A metadiscourse taxonomy was adapted based on previous studies and a close reading of a sub-sample of 50 essays. The resulting taxonomy, which comprises 26 sub-categories and accounts for over 1,000 metadiscourse types, was utilised in four steps. Firstly, the types were used to electronically scan the corpus using a concordancing program. Secondly, the concordance lines were manually read to filter out non- metadiscoursal results. Thirdly, the number of each metadiscourse sub-category per 1,000 words in each essay was calculated. Finally, the descriptive statistics and concordance lines were used to identify trends regarding the use of each sub-category in the corpus. Additionally, semi- structured interviews were held with 19 teachers to gain insight into the metadiscourse-related advice they offered their pupils. The interview data were used to supplement the interpretation of the results from the textual analysis. The findings are reported in four articles that each focus on separate aspects of metadiscourse and different stages of the research process. Article 1 reports results from a preliminary study using a sub-set of 56 essays collected from the Norwegian and UK schools. This preliminary analysis was conducted in order to devise the adapted taxonomy, as well as to gain insight into the pragmatic usage of metadiscourse features in the upper secondary essays. Article 2 reports the results from an analysis of signposts in a corpus of 115 essays from the Norwegian, Swedish and UK schools, supplemented by data from the teacher interviews. Whereas the pupils frequently used a wide range of linguistic features to explicitly signal sentential relations, their use of markers that signal structural relations was somewhat sporadic, probably due to the short length of the essays. Although signposts were used similarly across the three educational contexts, their usage seemed to reflect the purposes of the target genres. While the UK teachers tended not to address the use of these features, the teachers in Norway and Sweden tended to provide pupils with decontextualised lists of signposts, which raises questions about whether upper secondary teachers in these L1 and L2 contexts should offer more explicit instruction in the pragmatic use of organisational features. Article 3 reports results from an analysis of epistemic stance and engagement features in the same corpus, alongside data from the teacher interviews. The pupils used a wide range of features to navigate knowledge claims, draw on extra-textual material, and anticipate reader reactions. These features seemed to be used in ways that reflected the communicative purpose of the target genre. The findings also indicated that the pupils sometimes used boosters inappropriately, which suggests pupils at this level may benefit from explicit instruction in the appropriate use of these features. The interviews revealed that the teachers offered advice regarding epistemic stance and engagement features, but this was sometimes inconsequential, categorical, or outdated. Article 4 reports results from an analysis of attitude markers in 135 essays collected from the Norwegian, Swedish and British schools. For this study, 218 attitude markers belonging to four sub-categories were used to scan the corpus. The results revealed the wide range of types that the pupils used to offer their affective evaluations of the material in question and how these varied across the educational contexts and genres. While many other metadiscourse features seemed to be used similarly across the educational contexts, attitude markers were more varied and frequent among pupils in the UK. This may be explained by several factors, such as the UK pupils having a broader lexical vocabulary, or that the UK genres required pupils to more frequently offer their affective reactions. Overall, these articles offer insight into the wide range of linguistic features that pupils rely on to signal textual relations, negotiate knowledge claims, engage readers, and express attitudes. On the one hand, many of these features seemed to be used at relatively similar frequencies across the three educational contexts. This might demonstrate the seemingly high written proficiency of L2 learners of English in Norway and Sweden. Alternatively, this may partly be due to the linguistic similarities of Norwegian, Swedish and English, enabling the Scandinavian upper secondary pupils to directly transfer many metadiscourse features from their L1s to English with relative success. On the other hand, metadiscourse usage seemed to reflect the communicative purposes of the target genres. Other factors may also have influenced the pupils’ metadiscourse usage, such as teacher advice, essay writing prompts, and individual preferences. The interview data suggest that the teachers tended to offer advice that was somewhat disconnected from professional writing practices, which consequently requires further investigation. This project contributes to the field by offering insight into the types, frequencies and usage of metadiscourse features among this under- researched group. The analysis required compiling an adapted taxonomy that accounts for the idiosyncratic types and sub-categories that characterised the corpus, which provides a comprehensive starting point for future studies that aim to investigate how metadiscourse features are used in pre-tertiary educational contexts. A further major contribution of this project is the use of interview methods to investigate teacher views regarding metadiscourse-related instruction. The findings have implications for teachers who aim to develop their pupils’ pragmatic knowledge of how signposts and stance markers vary across different genres. Engaging pupils in writing essays of varying lengths across a range of genres can contribute to preparing them for the written demands they are likely to face in higher education and among professional discourse communities.
This paper investigates the preference for Andalusian Spanish (second language, L2) over German (first language, L1) in bilinguals who have a lisp and do not encounter a feeling of belonging to their L1 society due to reactions such a divergent pronunciation provokes. This issue is novel due to its interdisciplinary nature within this unique language combination, and it draws particularly on the fields of speech (pathology), language preference, communication, bilingualism, phonetics, psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics. To test the hypothesis ‘some bilinguals who have a lisp prefer to use Andalusian Spanish (their L2) over German (their L1) to avoid the noticeability of their speech divergence’, within the boundaries of the present exploratory case study, interviews with participants were recorded. It was found that participants sacrifice the usage of their L1 in favour of their L2 in an attempt to vanish their phonetic divergence. Such a finding is important because in Andalusian Spanish the pronunciation of the /s/ is significantly reduced during the conversation flow on account of many of the language’s specific phonetic conventions.
Full-text available
Монография посвящена одной из актуальных проблем, связанных со структурой, содержанием и сущностью языковой картины мира, лингвокультурными особенностями языковой личности. Рассматриваются вопросы о языковом сознании носителя языка и его видах, феномене родного языка и влиянии других языков на языковую картину мира. Представлено комплексное исследование как причин трансформаций в узбекском языке и роль русского языка в этом процессе, так и роль узбекского языка в трансформации языка русскоязычных граждан Узбекистана. Результаты исследования дополняют теорию формирования языковой картины мира и роли личности в этом процессе. Монография рекомендована филологам-лингвистам, социологам, преподавателям, стажерам-исследователям, магистрантам и может быть использована в учебном процессе по лингвистическим, социологическим специальностям.
The aims of this research are; (1) to know the strategies used by native English teachers to teach speaking to the students of Vietnam National University of Agriculture, (2) to describe how the strategies contributed to the students speaking skills, and (3) to explain the problems faced by native English teachers in EFL speaking classes. This research is descriptive research with a qualitative approach. The data were collected through classroom observation, interviews, and documentation. It presents the result of the study in the form of a descriptive explanation. The findings of this research are the strategies used by native English teachers to teach speaking to the students of Vietnam National University of Agriculture, namely (a) group discussion, (b) role play, (c) brainstorming, (d) storytelling, (e) story completion, (f) describing picture, (g) game (guessing the word), (h) using target language/interview. Based on those strategies, the results show that the strategies help students to improve their speaking skills, vocabulary, and confidence. Also, it can help students to solve problems, increase sensitivity, think critically, and express their ideas. Furthermore, the findings of the problems faced by native English teachers in speaking class are (a) pronunciation, (b) lack of confidence, (c) lack of ending sounds, (d) no vocabulary and grammar.
Full-text available
Reesor (2003) contends that "for many years, Japan has been held up as a poster child for industrialized countries that have been largely unsuccessful in regards to English language education" (Reesor, 2003, p. 57). This claim is supported by the 2019 TOEFL iBT test and score data summary(TOEFL 2020) , which saw Japan ranked 27 th of the 29 the countries listed under the'Asia'category. Reesor(2003, p. 57)suggests that attitudinal factors affect how English is perceived in Japan; thus, attitudes towards English could be one possible reason for Japan' s difficulty with EFL learning. Therefore, this paper explored the relationship between attitudes and language learning, and how this may affect English language learning (ELL) in Japan. By carrying out a literature review on the topic of attitudes and ELL it was determined that a connection between attitudes and ELL success does exist in Japan. Several factors were identified as important in terms of the formation of attitudes towards English in Japan. These included education, English for communicative purposes, Japanese cultural factors, and goals. It was concluded that although the paper clearly demonstrates a link between attitudes towards English and ELL success in Japan, further research is needed to fully address a number of the issues raised throughout the paper.
Full-text available
This dissertation investigates the implications of English as a lingua franca (ELF) in teaching and learning criteria. After providing an overall view on the historical development of world varieties of English, the analysis of the use of present-day English highlights that ELF has its own set of lexico-grammatical, phonological and phonetic features, which are mainly shaped by non-native speakers of the language in lingua-franca contexts of use. However, there seems to be a gap between the current use of English and the way English is taught and learned. On the one hand, even if World Englishes (WEs) and ELF-awareness raising are theoretically assessed, textbooks for teachers and learners still seem to frame the language within native-speaking-country sociocultural values, as the analysis of recent course- books shows; as a consequence, even though ELF use privileges intelligibility over native-likeness and promotes the maintenance of non-native speakers’ L1 identities, native-speaker norms imposed on the language still heavily influence ELF users and learners. These results are evident from different surveys on students’ experiences as English learners, such as the one carried out for the purposes of this dissertation. Lingua-franca English is not officially taught in the classroom, nor is it assessed by international examinations of English. Yet, it is being spoken, used, and modeled by non-native speakers, constrained by native-speaker English norms.
The concepts native speaker and mother tongue are often criticized, but they continue in circulation in the absence of alternatives. This article suggests some. The terms language expertise, language inheritance, and language affiliation sort out some of the mystification, and they allow us to place educational questions of language ability and language loyalty alongside a broader view of society.
This study explores the labels native speaker (NS) and nonnative speaker (NNS) from the perspective of seven nonnative-English-speaking professionals in TESOL. Using data from e-mail and face-to-face interviews gathered over a 16-month period, the author delineates a number of dimensions surrounding the terms, such as precedence in learning languages, competence in the learned languages, cultural affiliation, social identities, and language environment. Participants also discussed related professional issues, such as the power relations imposed by the labels, the impact of the labels on the hiring process, and the pedagogical implications of the labels. The study calls for more case studies to thoroughly examine other common professional labels.
This article argues that language teaching would benefit by paying attention to the L2 user rather than concentrating primarily on the native speaker. It suggests ways in which language teaching can apply an L2 user model and exploit the students' L1. Because L2 users differ from monolingual native speakers in their knowledge of their L2s and L1s and in some of their cognitive processes, they should be considered as speakers in their own right, not as approximations to monolingual native speakers. In the classroom, teachers can recognise this status by incorporating goals based on L2 users in the outside world, bringing L2 user situations and roles into the classroom, deliberately using the students' L1 in teaching activities, and looking to descriptions of L2 users or L2 learners rather than descriptions of native speakers as a source of information. The main benefits of recognising that L2 users are speakers in the own right, however, will come from students' and teachers' having a positive image of L2 users rather than seeing them as failed native speakers.