The applied linguistics challenge
PROTOTYPE THEORY
On the face of it, these two extreme views, the Lee and the Banville, of what it means to be a native speaker, support the prototype theory which the psychologist Eleanor Rosch developed. Escudero and Sharwood Smith (2001) consider that her theory has relevance for second language acquisition (SLA); they suggest it is ‘the best way of introducing the necessary precision’ to the concept of native speaker. ‘We argue,’ they write:
that reformulating the concept along the lines first suggested by Eleanor Rosch, that is using prototype theory, should provide the best way of introducing the necessary precision. This has the consequence that native-speakerhood becomes a gradient term with, respectively, core (prototypical) and peripheral features. This allows researchers to be more precise about what they, or the particular theoretical approach they adopt, claim to be the essential and non-essential feautures of nativeness and the necessary rigour is thereby achieved.
(Escudero and Sharwood Smith 2001: 275)
Prototype theory, then, is an approach to categorization. Instead of saying of a phenomenon: ‘Yes, this is an instance of category X’ or ‘No, this is not an instance’ we can say: ‘This instance does satisfy criteria a, b and c for membership but it does not satisfy criteria d and e.’ The canonical example for the theory is, apparently, the category ‘bird’. So when shown an instance of something bird-like, you run through the criteria for ‘bird’ and you say: ‘it’s small, has feathers, two legs, two wings and a beak/bill, lays eggs.’ But if the instance in view cannot fly (for example a barnyard fowl) then you compute: ‘less bird-like’ than, say, a sparrow, while an ostrich is even less bird-like because it is not small and it cannot fly. This sounds like a neat idea. But hold on! While it may work for birds, will it work for native speakers? After all, Escudero and Sharwood-Smith have themselves recognized the problem they face in achieving ‘the best way of introducing the necessary precision’. It is, as they say, that ‘precise definition of the term “native speaker” is extremely difficult and therefore usually avoided even though the concept is vital in SLA as in many other domains dealing with language ability’. Most researchers they continue, ‘rely on the assumption that there is a common understanding of what a native speaker is’ (2001: 275). Precisely, there is their problem. The assumption Escudero and Sharwood Smith seem to be making is that we already know what is meant by core features of native speaker. But we don’t. No doubt what they are proposing is reaching towards some consensus as to what the criteria for the core might be. But native speakers are not birds – we could offer the headline: Words Not Birds. The term ‘native speaker’ is used in different ways which may in part explain why definition is difficult.
