The other nativeThe 'other native'

The other native
The 'other native' view is very well represented in both the Braine (1999) volume and in the Rajendra Singh (1998). A number of the contributors to the Braine volume are involved in teaching English in North America where they have met with prejudice about their lack of native speaker status. And so the prevailing theme of the book is critical, protesting at not being accorded the same status as native speakers. This was, it will be remembered, the complaint of Thomas Paikeday (1985), pointing to his experience of job discrimination. But it is worth noting that such discrimination is typically found in mother tongue English settings. In the great majority of situations where English (or any language) is taught, the teachers are not native speakers but members of the local community who themselves have acquired the language they teach as a foreign language. What the argument is really about whether language use in a NVE setting which involves English and no doubt other languages as well provides participants with sufficient exposure to English to make them native users and furthermore in so doing to give them everything that the traditional native speaker has acquired in absorbing the language from childhood. Such native users - this is agreed - speak a different variety of English, a NVE, but this is, it is argued, in no way inferior to the variety spoken by those brought up in the UK or in any other setting Kachru (1982) has called the inner circle. And it therefore follows, so the argument runs, that there should be no discrimination (in teaching or in any other occupation) on the grounds of group membership of such NVEs.
This is the argument that R. Singh (1998) puts forward. It is the post colonial argument. It is the argument that says that American English is different from British English and yet is not regarded as being full of errors. Therefore, Indian English (etc) should be considered different not inferior. It is an argument that appeals to social justice. So much is clear. But is it an argument that convinces in applied linguistic terms?
Singh (1998) is not comfortable with the term'native speaker', preferring to speak of 'native user'. In this his approach is similar to that of Ikome (1998) and Kandiah (1998). For Ikome, 'native speaker' is a political designation for social empowerment or for peer recognition (1998: 37).
Kandiah attacks: 'the mainstream discourse on the native speaker (which) can be seen to be a strongly normative discourse that is heavily invested ideologically against considerable numbers of people on our globe.' (1998: 92). He insists that 'it ought not to be necessary to repeat here the demonstration that these varieties of English (the NVEs) are the equal of any other variety of the language, being not mere hodge-podges of errors, mere deviations from the norms of the 'mother' language, but viable rule-governed systems in their own right which sustain and are sustained by speech communities of their native users.' (ibid: 93).
He admits that the argument is not fundamentally about what distinguishes one variety from another, nor about whether a variety of native users (rather than native speakers), maintained by a speech community largely made up of non-monolingual speakers of English whose English has not necessarily been acquired as their first childhood language, should be regarded as 'the equal of any other variety'. What the argument is about is whether the boundary between the NVE and the OVE is seen to be a real boundary by the NVE native users.
This is the appeal to the Barth social boundary theory (Barth 1970) and ultimately is about the attitudes of native users to their own NVE. 'The critical feature of the group then becomes self-ascription and ascription by others on the basis of features, signs, signals, value orientations and standards which the actors themselves regard as significant and by which they judge themselves and expect others to judge them.'(1970:96).
Barth's model of ethnicity is helpful here since what it does is to emphasise, as Kandiah realises, membership before content. This is the conclusion that Medgyes comes to, quoting Davies (1991):
'I believe that (native speaker) membership is largely a matter of self ascription, not of something being "given"' (Davies 1991: 8). And he continues: 'We should bear in mind, however, that such a choice carries responsibilities in terms of confidence and identity'. (ibid: 16)
Medgyes is concerned with the status of an individual near-native speaker, unlike Kandiah whose concern is for group membership. The confidence Medgyes refers to applies equally to both. But while the Medgyes individual near-native needs to identify with the norms of English, both in a linguistic and a cultural sense, which in his case means the norms of OVEs, the identity Kandiah is concerned with is identity with the NVE group; and confidence for him means asserting that the English variety which his NVE members speak relates to the norms of their own NVE. This is the post-colonial imperative, that just as the Australian native speaker of English no longer admits allegiance to the norms of British English, similarly the NVE native user (say of Singapore English) no longer takes account of the norms of British English.
How far the norms differ is an empirical question, but it seems likely that as far as the written language is concerned, the differences are minimal. I am still of the opinion I expressed in 1991, that:
'on linguistic grounds Singaporean English does not exist, but nor of course does British English ...what does exist is the individual speaker. If a speaker identifies him/herself as a native speaker of Singaporean English then that is a sociolinguistic decision.' (Davies 1991: 67). Which means, of course that it is a decision about identity.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Pribumi lainnyaThe 'other native' view is very well represented in both the Braine (1999) volume and in the Rajendra Singh (1998). A number of the contributors to the Braine volume are involved in teaching English in North America where they have met with prejudice about their lack of native speaker status. And so the prevailing theme of the book is critical, protesting at not being accorded the same status as native speakers. This was, it will be remembered, the complaint of Thomas Paikeday (1985), pointing to his experience of job discrimination. But it is worth noting that such discrimination is typically found in mother tongue English settings. In the great majority of situations where English (or any language) is taught, the teachers are not native speakers but members of the local community who themselves have acquired the language they teach as a foreign language. What the argument is really about whether language use in a NVE setting which involves English and no doubt other languages as well provides participants with sufficient exposure to English to make them native users and furthermore in so doing to give them everything that the traditional native speaker has acquired in absorbing the language from childhood. Such native users - this is agreed - speak a different variety of English, a NVE, but this is, it is argued, in no way inferior to the variety spoken by those brought up in the UK or in any other setting Kachru (1982) has called the inner circle. And it therefore follows, so the argument runs, that there should be no discrimination (in teaching or in any other occupation) on the grounds of group membership of such NVEs.Ini adalah argumen bahwa R. Singh (1998) mengemukakan. Ini adalah argumen post kolonial. Ini adalah argumen bahwa mengatakan bahwa bahasa Inggris Amerika berbeda dari Inggris dan namun tidak dianggap sebagai penuh dengan kesalahan. Oleh karena itu, India Inggris (dll) harus dipertimbangkan berbeda tidak kalah. Ini merupakan argumen yang menarik bagi keadilan sosial. Begitu banyak jelas. Tetapi apakah itu sebuah argumen yang meyakinkan secara Linguistik terapan?Singh (1998) tidak nyaman dengan term'native speaker', dia memilih untuk berbicara tentang 'asli pengguna'. Dalam pendekatannya ini mirip dengan Ikome (1998) dan Kandiah (1998). Untuk Ikome, 'pembicara asli' adalah sebutan politik untuk pemberdayaan sosial atau pengakuan rekan (1998:37).Serangan Kandiah: 'wacana utama pembicara asli (yang) dapat dilihat untuk menjadi wacana sangat normatif yang sangat berinvestasi ideologis terhadap cukup jumlah orang di dunia kami.' (1998: 92). Ia bersikeras bahwa 'itu seharusnya tidak perlu untuk mengulang di sini demonstrasi ini varietas bahasa Inggris (NVEs) yang sederajat dengan varietas lain dari bahasa, yang tidak hanya hodge-podges kesalahan, hanya penyimpangan dari norma-norma bahasa 'ibu', tapi suatu sistem yang layak dalam hak mereka sendiri yang mempertahankan dan ditopang oleh pidato masyarakat pengguna asli mereka.' (ibid: 93).Ia mengakui bahwa argumen tidak mendasar tentang apa yang membedakan berbagai satu sama lain, atau tentang apakah berbagai pengguna asli (bukan penutur asli), dikelola oleh komunitas pidato yang sebagian besar terdiri dari non-monolingual penutur bahasa Inggris Inggris yang tidak tentu telah diakuisisi sebagai bahasa pertama mereka masa kanak-kanak, harus dianggap sebagai 'sederajat dengan varietas lain'. Apa argumen adalah tentang adalah apakah batas antara NVE dan OVE dilihat sebagai batas nyata oleh pengguna asli NVE. Ini adalah daya tarik untuk teori sosial batas Barth (Barth 1970) dan pada akhirnya adalah tentang sikap asli pengguna untuk NVE sendiri. 'Fitur penting dari kelompok kemudian menjadi anggapan diri dan anggapan oleh orang lain berdasarkan fitur, tanda-tanda, sinyal, orientasi nilai dan standar yang para pelaku sendiri menganggap signifikan dan yang mereka menilai diri dan mengharapkan orang lain untuk menghakimi mereka.' (1970:96).Model Barth etnisitas berguna di sini karena apa yang dilakukannya adalah untuk menekankan, seperti Kandiah menyadari, keanggotaan sebelum konten. Ini adalah kesimpulan yang datang Medgyes, Penawaran Davies (1991):'Aku percaya bahwa keanggotaan (native speaker) adalah sebagian besar masalah anggapan diri, bukan dari sesuatu yang "diberikan" ' (Davies 1991:8). Dan ia terus: 'kita harus diingat, bagaimanapun, bahwa pilihan tersebut membawa tanggung jawab dalam hal keyakinan dan identitas'. (ibid: 16)Medgyes is concerned with the status of an individual near-native speaker, unlike Kandiah whose concern is for group membership. The confidence Medgyes refers to applies equally to both. But while the Medgyes individual near-native needs to identify with the norms of English, both in a linguistic and a cultural sense, which in his case means the norms of OVEs, the identity Kandiah is concerned with is identity with the NVE group; and confidence for him means asserting that the English variety which his NVE members speak relates to the norms of their own NVE. This is the post-colonial imperative, that just as the Australian native speaker of English no longer admits allegiance to the norms of British English, similarly the NVE native user (say of Singapore English) no longer takes account of the norms of British English.How far the norms differ is an empirical question, but it seems likely that as far as the written language is concerned, the differences are minimal. I am still of the opinion I expressed in 1991, that:'on linguistic grounds Singaporean English does not exist, but nor of course does British English ...what does exist is the individual speaker. If a speaker identifies him/herself as a native speaker of Singaporean English then that is a sociolinguistic decision.' (Davies 1991: 67). Which means, of course that it is a decision about identity.