Beyond Native-Speakerism

Current Explorations and Future Visions

Stephanie Ann Houghton, Damian J. Rivers, Kayoko Hashimoto

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781317286509
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Bildung
• Subtopic: Forschung im Bildungswesen

Despite unsubstantiated claims of best practice, the division of language-teaching professionals on the basis of their categorization as 'native-speakers' or 'non-native speakers' continues to cascade throughout the academic literature. It has become normative, under the rhetorical guise of acting to correct prejudice and/or discrimination, to see native-speakerism as having a single beneficiary – the 'native-speaker' – and a single victim – the 'non-native' speaker. However, this unidirectional perspective fails to deal with the more veiled systems through which those labeled as native-speakers and non-native speakers are both cast as casualties of this questionable bifurcation. This volume documents such complexities and aims to fill the void currently observable within mainstream academic literature in the teaching of both English, and Japanese, foreign language education. By identifying how the construct of Japanese native-speaker mirrors that of the 'native-speaker' of English, the volume presents a revealing insight into language teaching in Japan. Further, taking a problem-solving approach, this volume explores possible grounds on which language teachers could be employed if native-speakerism is rejected according to experts in the fields of intercultural communicative competence, English as a Lingua Franca and World Englishes, all of which aim to replace the 'native-speaker' model with something new.

Part I

The Native Speaker Criterion

Past Traditions, Current Perspectives and Future Possibilities

1 The Idea of the Native Speaker

Damian J. Rivers

In order to address the idea of the native speaker, and to understand what significance this idea holds in relation to individuals and institutions within contemporary and future communities, it is essential to first piece together the interwoven beliefs, ideologies and developments prevailing in discussions of linguistic theory, language use and the position of the individual. Although a comprehensive chronological analysis demands a stand-alone volume, this chapter commences from the second part of the 18th century. During this period, various debates among scholars were documented concerning English phonology and how best to conceptualize a standard desirable form of English language use. Hickey (2010, p. 6) describes how “phonological changes in English at the time led many authors to publicly campaign for a fixed form of the language in which these changes would no longer disrupt the relationship of spelling and sound”. Moreover, from this period of intense interest in correct pronunciation, parallels can be drawn to discussions observed within contemporary professional discourse related to the domains of sociolinguistics, applied linguistics and English as a foreign language education. Themes, motives and points of controversy spanning the intermittent time period include the concept of language standardization, the connection between language and speaker, the links between desirable use and social class and the assumed connections between language and national character (or identity), in addition to debates addressing language plurality and the legitimacy of deviations from a supposed original authentic base.

In the introduction to the New Dictionary of the English Language (Kenrick, 1773) (later published as A Rhetorical Grammar of the English Language (Kenrick, 1784/1972)) dominant 18th-century discussions concerning pronunciation and the authenticity of language speakers derived exclusively from their native origins came to prominence. Implicating the question of authentic language ownership, Kenrick bemoans the lack of effort among English scholars of England to standardize the pronunciation of their own language compared with the activities of scholars in Scotland and Ireland, who, “are making frequent attempts to ascertain, and fix a standard to, the pronunciation of the English tongue” (Kenrick, 1773, p. i). This observation indicates that the initial interest and attention given to standardizing the English language, at least in terms of pronunciation, came from beyond those who might be considered natives. In contrast, and much to the displeasure of Kenrick, “the natives of England themselves seem to be little anxious either for the honour or improvement of their own language” (Kenrick, 1773, p. i). Referencing the authority from which authentic ownership and status were believed to be bestowed upon a speaker, Kenrick highlights what he describes as a “most ridiculous absurdity in the pretensions of a native of Aberdeen or Tipperary, to teach the natives of London to speak and read”. Kenrick concludes in stating “… that they should not have succeeded is no wonder. Men cannot teach others what they do not know themselves” (Kenrick, 1773, p. i).

Although Kenrick makes reference to individual place names, this might be seen as somewhat misleading. It is understood that scholars in the 18th century were generally disinterested in exploring regional dialects as variations from an assumed standard form of language usage. Indeed, regional dialects were generally seen as vulgarisms. The dominant perspective among 18th-century scholars was that deviation from standard English phonology was a problem that could be corrected through phonetic re-training. Accordingly, “accent became an indicator of one’s relative standardness as a speaker … something which has remains the case to present day” (Hickey, 2010, p. 15) and remains implicated in judgments of status and social class.

It is understood that Kenrick’s statements concerning accent were at least in part intended as a critique of James Buchanan (a native of Scotland) who in 1766 had penned An Essay towards Establishing a Standard for an Elegant and Uniform Pronunciation of the English Language. Within this work, a respelling of English was proposed as a means of making pronunciation from reading easier. In the original preface of Buchanan’s essay in 1764, and demonstrating frictions surrounding language ownership claims (i.e., through use of the inclusive “our” and through exclusion of the self from the category of “foreigner”), Buchanan claims to be the first to endeavour “to make the proper pronunciation of our language of easy acquisition to foreigners, and to introduce a uniform one for the sake of natives; amongst whom it is still so notoriously vague and unstable” (cited in Crowley, 1991, p. 75). Implicating the role of language in the formation and maintenance of a national identity, Buchanan further declares how the establishment of “uniform pronunciation at home is doing an honour to our country: and by making it of easy acquisition to foreigners is … removing more than half the trouble they have in acquiring a competent skill in our language” (cited in Crowley, 1991, p. 78).

Throughout the 18th century there appears to be no documented record of language, as the object of study, being directly linked to individual language users through terms such as “a native speaker”, “a native user”, “a native writer”, “a native reader”, etc. This stands as a significant observation in that it reflects dominant beliefs concerning the relationship between the individual and the language. It further draws attention to the specific research field assumed to have authority over the study of the individual and the study of language. This issue will be revisited further into the chapter as it features heavily in the philosophical discourses of the early 20th century. The fact that the adjective “native” was otherwise so commonly used in reference to language, place and person(s) makes the lack of reference to “a native speaker” a curious omission.

In Thomas Warton’s 1774 History of English Poetry the author talks of children being forbidden from reading in “their native language” (Warton, 1774/2007, p. 3) while poet Robert de Brunne is described as being able to “polish his native tongue” (Warton, 1774/2007, p. 77) through his translation works. In the renowned American Spelling Book of 1783, by Noah Webster, the need for literary improvements among females was outlined and made reference to the idea of “grammatical purity and elegance of our native language” (Webster, 1782, cited in Micklethwait, 2000 p. 21). However, while there exists no documented use of the term “native speaker” during the 18th century, Kenrick (1773, p. viii) makes reference to the “mouth of almost any native” as being a useful source of language practice for foreigners.

The idea that language is best learned through listening to speech, and that the most authentic speech community of a language are its natives, reflects an early conceptualization of linguistic theory as being concerned with “an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogenous speech-community, who knows its language perfectly” (Chomsky, 1965, p. 3). These views reflect the prevailing orientation within many contemporary language teacher recruitment advertisements where formal qualifications play a secondary role to one’s supposed status as a “native speaker” (see Mahboob & Golden, 2013; Rivers, 2016; Selvi, 2010). The underlying principle suggests that the act of speaking in one’s “native language” represents “the sole and sovereign fountain” (O’Reilly, 1909, p. 5) of authenticity, therefore making individual language speakers, and not qualified or knowledgeable teachers, useful to language learning students through the simple production of “native” speech.

The historical record, at least that accessible in English, reveals that the precise term “native speaker” can be first attributed to the inaugural address of English literature professor George P. Marsh (1801–1882), presented at Columbia University in 1858 and subsequently published in 1859. Motivated by a concern that the English language (of England) could be corrupted by the uneducated masses of the U.S., Marsh’s lecture was presented as a plea for the inclusion of English philology as a subject within the American university system. Marsh essentially offers a continuation in regard to previous perspectives on languages, nations and peoples, a viewpoint structured by the idea that distinct categorization and separation was possible given that homogeneity in terms of pronunciation, grammar and general language use stood to be the normative and desired condition. Moreover, through closer reading of the lecture it is apparent that different languages, nations and peoples, so fixed in their homogenous state, could be hierarchically ranked and positioned in direct comparison with each other.

Like the various works produced in the latter parts of the 18th century, the Marsh lecture provides insight into acceptable academic discourses of the period, particularly with reference to the multidimensional construction of otherness. Indeed, many of the more contentious debates heard with contemporary applied linguistics and English language education parallel those raised within the lecture. One can make connections between beliefs concerning language ownership, the maintenance of language standards and the relationship between language nativity and race, in addition to the role of language in national identity, all derived from the position that “languages adhere so tenaciously to their native soil, that, in general, they can be eradicated only by the extirpation of the races that speak them” (Marsh, 1859, p. 88). Throughout the lecture the idea of language as a possession takes several forms and is infused with romanticized imagery of a deep-seated paternal connection between the individual, the language, and the nation.

THE severe Roman bestowed upon the language of his native land the appellation of patrius sermo, the paternal speech; but we, deriving from the domesticity of Saxon life a truer and tenderer appreciation of the best and purest source of linguistic instruction, more happily name our home-born English the mother tongue. The tones of the native language are the medium through which the affections and the intellect are first addressed, and they are to the heart and the head of infancy what the nutriment drawn from the maternal breast is to the physical frame.

(Marsh, 1859, p. 59)

Further pointing toward Marsh’s concern in regard to the corruption of English within the U.S., he further references “the Anglo-Saxon tongue” (p. 69), “the speech of England” (p. 69), “our own tongue” (p. 69), “our national speech” (p. 70), “our ancient tongue” (p. 71), “the Anglican speech” (p. 76), “genuine English” (p. 77), “the language of England” (p. 86) and “our own speech” (p. 91). As documented in previous works, the adjective “native” is used to solidify a plethora of ideas and concepts, including the natives, the native language, native land, native philology, native English inquirers, native scholarship and industry, native insensibility, native tongue and native soil. However, the specific term “native speaker” is used on one occasion and with reference to the German language. Marsh describes how within the German language, “there is enough of grammatical inflection to familiarize the native speaker with syntactical principles imperfectly exemplified in French and English” (Marsh, 1859, p. 72). Given that the term only features once, it is not unreasonable to speculate that this usage was more coincidental rather than directed toward the formal construction of a new idea. Yet, as Marsh was linking grammar and syntax with the term “native speaker”, one could also suggest that this is where many of the attitudes and beliefs related to the native speaker (i.e., Chomsky, 1965) first originated.

Although the term “native speaker” was undoubtedly intended to transmit positive connotations, with reference to the corruption of desired language standards, the native speaker was by no means excused from blame and responsibility. Within such discussions the social stigmatization for the corruption of form was cast not as a matter concerning “natives” and “non-natives”, but instead as a matter reflecting social class, education and status exclusively among the natives. These views were previously documented in the 1836 publication of Walker Remodelled: Smart’s Pronouncing Dictionary of the English Language where the author prefaces the dictionary with a declaration concerning the connection between desirable language use and education (and personality traits) in addition to imposing his own personal authority on matters of language based upon his status as a “native” of London.

I pretend to reflect the oral usage of English such as it is at present among the sensible and well-educated in the British Metropolis … I may not unwarrantably believe, that my opinion may have some value with those, who seek the opinion of another to regulate their pronunciation; and accordingly, I have taken upon myself to decide for one of two ways or more ways, even in cases where a word seemed to hang completely in doubt.

(Smart, 1836, p. v)

Marsh acknowledged that the corruption of the English language was widespread and called for “special precautions” to be taken against an underclass of “depraved beings” to prevent corruption of form and the further vulgarization of the language.

But this very fact of the general use of the whole English vocabulary among us is a dangerous cause of corruption of speech, against which the careful study of our language is an important antidote. Things much used inevitably become much worn, and it is one of the most curious phenomena of language, that words are as subject as coin to defacement and abrasion, by brisk circulation. The majority of those who speak any tongue incline to speak it imperfectly, and where all use the dialect of books, the vehicle of the profoundest thoughts, the loftiest images, the most sacred emotions, that the intellect, the fancy, the heart of man has conceived, there special precautions are necessary, to prevent that medium from becoming debased and vulgarized by corruptions of form, or, at least, by association with depraved beings and unworthy themes.

(Marsh, 1859, pp. 76–77)

Similar observations were made by James Cobbett Jnr. (1866) who documents within an additional chapter to his father’s A Grammar of the English Language how, “faults in speech are of the most ordinary occurrence”. In contrast to Marsh, Cobbett suggested that the corruption of the English language was observable across almost all social demographics except within a small elitist upper class and that “faults in speech”, as they were termed, were “committed by great numbers of persons, and not merely by persons in the humblest ranks of life” (Cobbett, 1866, pp. 241–242). These observations challenge the idea that the native speaker represents a homogenous authority on language use and they encourage scholars to look beyond the more contemporary interest in divisions between native- and non-native speakers. Earlier views such as those outlined above appear to advocate a focus upon more significant variables such as social class, socioeconomic status and education level, facets which within contemporary discussions are typically subsumed by the dominant narrative of native speaker or non-native speaker. One might suggest that the positioning of language groups as homogenous collectives in this way reflects the somewhat taboo position of framing social class as an antecedent to language use behaviours. This trend has only recently been addressed with scholars highlighting “social class erasure in that the construct has tended to receive little or no attention in publications that deal with language and identity and social life” (Block, 2015, p. 1).

Linguists of the late 19th century, although concerned with the maintenance and documentation of standard forms of language, were acutely aware of individual variations in language use as attested to by Whitney (1875 p. 154) who cautions, “we must be careful not to overrate the uniformity of existing languages; it is far enough from being absolute … every individual speaks a language different from every other”. Yet, the attribution of value to idiolect can only be taken...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Introduction
• Part I The Native Speaker Criterion: Past Traditions, Current Perspectives and Future Possibilities
• Part II Japanese Native-Speakerism: Past, Present and Future
• Part III The Post-Native-Speakerist Shift
• Conclusion
• Index