The Native Speaker
By: Joaquin Amaro
Course: Honors Multilingualism 400
Affiliates: Honors College University of Arizona, Tucson,
Spring 2012
April 23, 2012
Introduction:
Whether it be in the business world, at home, or in classroom’s at school, multilingualism
often serves as a common ground among individuals across the world. Today, as opposed to in the
medieval period, both multi-linguals and monolinguals are often categorized as either native or
non-native speakers. But what exactly defines these categories and what are the parameters? Can
an individual from a foreign country become native in any other language aside from the language
of his/her birth country?
The title of native speaker has its benefits of numerous settings. Terms such as “mother
tongue” and “fluency” are often associated with the “native speaker” and are of prime importance
in sociolinguistics. In language teaching professions across the country, individuals deemed as a
native speaker receive praise, higher pay, and far greater job opportunities. The vagueness
surrounding the native speaker also has cultural and political implications, as English more now
than ever appears to be the “international language.” The purpose of this paper will be to explore
just what exactly constitutes a native speaker as well as their role in various multi/mono-lingual
instances.
In order to grasp the concept that is the native speaker, we must understand modern
common sense presumptions regarding what “language” is and does. Language is defined in the
Oxford dictionary as: 1. the method of human communication, either spoken or written 2. a
system of communication used by a particular country or community. Most of us would
agree, language is the way in which we as humans communicate any and all of our thoughts
and ideas. Interestingly enough, according to the above definition, language is a system of
communication “used” by a country or some other community. Upon inspection, it seems that
the definition defines language as either spoken or written. More importantly, we can already
begin to see the nativity of language emerge in its definition. “A system of communication used
by a particular country or community.” An interesting question here is, where does music fall
in this discussion? Although “written”, music is certainly not spoken and does not belong to a
single community. With its numerous genres, music similarly to language, is often localized.
The question here is, does this localization define music and in the case of language, does
localization automatically deem nativity and nothing more/less.
According to Vivian Cook, the present definition of a native speaker is “a person who has
spoken a certain language since early childhood.” Describing the native speaker as having
attributes such as “subconscious knowledge of rules, intuitive fraps of meanings, ability to
communicate within social settings, range of language skills, creativity of language use,
identification with a language community, the ability to produce fluent discourse and knowing
difference between their own speech and that of the standard for of the language.” In her paper
entitled the “Native Speaker” Cook does well to describe the different flavors which are the
native speakers, and the difficulty in selecting one of them as a model. This ambiguity and
inability to establish a working representation of the native speaker raises several questions.
More importantly, it questions the faith in the native speaker as the only true possessor of a
language.
At birth, several factors contribute to language development, some of which include the
language of the parents and environment the child is in. It seems almost illogical to deem an
individual a native speaker of a certain language simply because the country in they were born
in born speaks a certain language. During development, as mentioned, parents and the
environment in in which the child is growing up in general plays a tremendous role in the
language the child learns. If parents from Spain chose to speak to their child solely in English,
the child will grow up knowing English. The language, which is spoken at home, is not
something distinctive either. Code switching, the use of multiple languages during speech, is
more prevalent at home as much as anywhere else. Are those individuals who grow up code
switching considered fortunate and thus designate as native to more than one language? If a
given individual is able to be native to several languages, this begs the question, can this idea of
a native speaker be obtained?
If birth does not deem a native speaker, does inhabiting a country or community provide
the label of a native speaker? For many, life often takes them to different corners of the world,
whether it be for work, family, or even education. It is fair to say that in a time prior to our
own, someone born in a particular location was most likely certain to be member of said
community and as a result, would speak only that language, making them “native”. Today,
however community doesn’t not necessarily equal territory and language certainly does not
equal either of these. If an individual inhabits a place for enough time, is it not probable that
the individual will go from being an outsider and become like the definition, part of the
“community?” One would think that the insertion of a non-native speaker into a community of
native speakers would promote the transformation or development of a native speaker.
Thomas Bonfiglio, in The Invention of the Native Speaker, strives to show that
nonsensical perceptions of modes of speaking only fuel the construction of the native speaker.
According to Bonfiglio, modes of speaking deemed as proper, pleasant cultivated, etc., in
reality, have nothing to do with the linguistic function that is the native speaker. Rather, these
criteria or regulated conversations are simply displacements of ideological values. Here in the
United States, a country full of Hillbillies, Southerners, African Americans, Mexican
Americans, and Asians, where could one possibly expect to find nativity. Bonfiglio mentions
this idea that countries and communities will arbitrarily select and canonize certain linguistic
features as either being standard or prestigious. But for what reason would a group of
individuals try to idealize themselves by means of separation. Perhaps these communities feel
obligated to do so in order to preserve their language, to retain its purity and allow it to standalone. Ironically, they are merely standing among other communities and or countries in an
effort to belong. Could it be that these communities deem certain criteria prestigious in their
own languages as some kind of last resort to avoid consumption of their language by a
neighboring one. Regardless, the notions and motives behind these groups of individuals throw
in question this presupposed idea of a native speaker.
Society has merely stood by and watched as the illusion that is the native speaker has
evolved into a being, which upon hearing its voice, demands certain luxuries and perks. It has
become common practice for individual applying for a job to write down “fluent” or “native” in
a certain language. Here, the employer wishes to pick out the employee who will be best
equipped to handle various situations in which fluency is a must. However, what is the
outcome if an individual deems him/her self as native to a certain mother country. Does this
indicate that the individual is automatically fluent in the language? As most of us will agree,
this is most likely not the case. There is no reason in which an individual, simply because
he/she is native to some location should be deemed in any shape or form, superior to an
individual who might simply be fluent or mediocre for that matter.
For those individuals who grew up learning multiple languages simultaneously, with
parents of different backgrounds, where does loyalty fall in the conversation? What about those
individuals who grow up knowing one language but find themselves in love with another
language. Where does there loyalty fall? With their native language or with the language they
physically choose. A parallel to these questions can be drawn with those regarding
immigration. Here in the United States, an individual native to another country overtime, may
become a citizen or native of the United States. Interestingly enough, doing so does not
necessarily relinquish your nativity to your previous country rather; you are now theoretically
native to both. The logic behind this is simple. Given the resources and ample time, an
individual may grasp the ideas and concepts of becoming a citizen of the United States all while
still originating from another country. This begs the question, why can’t nativity be something
handed out or earned rather than kept for the prestige and elite.
Whether or not the native speaker continues its prevalence, we must ask ourselves, what
do we individuals benefit from by deeming certain individuals as fluent? Is there genuinely
some sort of benefit or is it simply a title.