The applied linguistics challenge
DIFFERING VIEWS
It may be that we cannot distinguish NSs and NNSs because our premises are inherently flawed, as Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson (2000) point out, since there are different views of what being a native speaker means. They include:
1. native speaker by birth (that is by early childhood exposure)
2. native speaker by virtue of being a native user
3. native speaker (or native speaker-like) by being an exceptional learner
4. native speaker through education in the target language medium
5. native speaker through long residence in the adopted country.
What is at issue is whether claiming to be a native speaker, to ‘own’ the language, requires early childhood exposure.
Disputes and differences of opinion about the native speaker arise because the concept is interpreted differently. That is why is has been referred to as both myth and reality (Davies 2003a). Discussions of the native speaker concept get trapped in the very different ideas of what is being talked about. One main type of approach sees the native speaker as the repository and guardian of the true language – this is the linguistic view. The other, the social view, concerns the native speaker as the standard setter. The two views are related and merge into one another. But what they reflect is that different positions can be taken on the basis of interest in and concern for the same phenomenon, because what is at issue is the individual speaker in relation to his/her social group, and to its community norms, that is the standard language.
World Englishes scholars propose that ‘native user’ should replace ‘native speaker’ (Kandiah 1998). Although theoretically insubstantial, the concept ‘native user’ gains credibility by practical experience on the post-colonial and English-as-a-lingua-franca ground. Evidence for this contradiction is said to be present in the bias against local varieties of English found in international tests of English Language proficiency, such as TOEFL and IELTS. In spite of claims of bias, the argument persists that native-speaker not native-user norms matter, both practically (for language learning) and theoretically (for grammaticality judgement tests). Ongoing research (Davies, Hamp-Lyons and Kemp 2003, Hamp-Lyons and Davies 2006) seeks to clarify the differences and attempt reconciliation between, on the one hand, the cognitive and the sociolinguistic approaches and, on the other, the differing views as to which norms are criterial for new varieties of English.
