International EnglishWe have consid

International English
We have considered three ways of coping with the sense of losing one's identity as a native speaker, the traditional foreigner, the revisionist foreigner and the other native. There is a fourth way, that of a globalised international language. One approach would be via an artificial language such as Esperanto or Idaho, where everyone gives up their national identity (or adds to it) for the sake of an international ideal of community. The other approach is via an existing lingua franca, such as English, and here we are close to the revisionist foreigner position where we discussed the proposal of Barbara Seidlhofer. The difference between that and what has come to be known as International English is that International English is not just for L2 users but for all. The question which arises for applied linguistics is whether International English (Kachru 1985, Smith 1983, Davies 1989) means a special variety of English with its own norms which are distinct from any national official standard English, or whether it means a use of English in international conferences and settings, for example the United Nations, academic conferences, trade missions, business negotiations. If the latter, then International English becomes like English as a Lingua Franca. My own view is that International English usually means using one or the other Standard English in international settings. Therefore, from an applied linguistic point of view it is more appropriate to designate the activity as English as an International Language rather than as International English. The emphasis is then firmly put on the use of English and not on a separate language.
6. Conclusion
Disputes and differences of opinion about the native speaker arise because the concept is interpreted differently. That is why it has been referred to as both myth and reality (Davies 2003). 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 nativespeaker as the repository and guardian of the true language - this is the linguistic view; the other, the social view, concerns the native speakeras 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, ie the standard language. At bottom thenative speaker is both metaphor and embodiment of the language-parole and of the competence-performance distinctions.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Inggris internasionalWe have considered three ways of coping with the sense of losing one's identity as a native speaker, the traditional foreigner, the revisionist foreigner and the other native. There is a fourth way, that of a globalised international language. One approach would be via an artificial language such as Esperanto or Idaho, where everyone gives up their national identity (or adds to it) for the sake of an international ideal of community. The other approach is via an existing lingua franca, such as English, and here we are close to the revisionist foreigner position where we discussed the proposal of Barbara Seidlhofer. The difference between that and what has come to be known as International English is that International English is not just for L2 users but for all. The question which arises for applied linguistics is whether International English (Kachru 1985, Smith 1983, Davies 1989) means a special variety of English with its own norms which are distinct from any national official standard English, or whether it means a use of English in international conferences and settings, for example the United Nations, academic conferences, trade missions, business negotiations. If the latter, then International English becomes like English as a Lingua Franca. My own view is that International English usually means using one or the other Standard English in international settings. Therefore, from an applied linguistic point of view it is more appropriate to designate the activity as English as an International Language rather than as International English. The emphasis is then firmly put on the use of English and not on a separate language.6. kesimpulanSengketa dan perbedaan pendapat tentang pembicara asli muncul karena konsep ditafsirkan berbeda. Itu sebabnya itu telah dirujuk sebagai mitos dan realitas (Davies 2003). Diskusi konsep pembicara asli terjebak dalam ide-ide yang sangat berbeda dari apa yang sedang dibicarakan tentang. Salah satu jenis utama pendekatan melihat nativespeaker sebagai repositori dan wali bahasa benar - ini adalah pandangan linguistik; yang lain, pandangan sosial, kekhawatiran speakeras asli setter standar. Kedua-dua pandangan terkait dan menggabungkan ke dalam satu sama lain. Tapi apa yang mereka mencerminkan bahwa posisi yang berbeda dapat diambil berdasarkan minat dan perhatian terhadap fenomena yang sama, karena apa yang menjadi masalah adalah pembicara individu yang terkait dengan kelompok / sosial dan norma masyarakat, yaitu bahasa standar. Di bawah thenative pembicara adalah metafora dan perwujudan bahasa-pembebasan bersyarat dan perbedaan kinerja kompetensi.