4. Losing a Native Speaker Identity

4. Losing a Native Speaker Identity
The global expansion of English in the20th century has been widely discussed and analysed (Crystal 1997, Holborow 1999, Graddol 1999 ). It has been seen in both a favourable and in a critical light. Those who regard the expansion favourably (Fishman et al 1975, MacArthur 1999) comment on the empowering role of English, the values of openness it brings, the access it provides both to knowledge and to markets. Those who regard the expansion negatively discuss the hegemonising of the weak by the strong, the ways in which English is used by the powerful west and their allies to dominate through globalisation, much as they dominate through economic and military means. They also point to the loss of choice, first linguistic, and then, inevitably it is suggested, cultural. What the spread of English does, it is argued (Phillipson 1992), is to squeeze other languages into less and less central roles, eroding their functions until eventually they are marginalised to the private and the home and finally lost. That, it is suggested, is what is happening in a society such as Singapore where English is now the only school medium of instruction for all Singaporeans. It is what has already happened in Guyana. And this destruction of the local language(s) is not confined to theThird World, to poor countries which do not have the resources at hand to combat the rise of English. It applies equally to the developed world where it remains for the present possible to operate a language policy of the local language plus English, in countries such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden. Such countries are often held up as models of successful language learning and teaching: successful because they succeed in acquiring the foreign language, English, and becoming proficient in it while at the same time not losing their first language, Danish, Swedish, Dutch and so on. But the picture of easy (and stable) bilingualism in these western countries is queried by observers such as van Els (2000), who take the view that English in these settings could well be the cuckoo in the European nest, meaning that in another couple of generations, these local languages could be in terminal decline. That of course is the problem with the argument from function: if language is primarily a matter of functional distinction and adequacy, then once a world language such as English starts to encroach on the local language functions, there is really nothing to stop it from taking over all functions. Except sentiment of course, except the sense of distinctness, except the concern that it is possible to be truly oneself (a Dane, a Swede, a Singaporean) only in the local language or in one of the local languages (Holborow 1999, Ngugi 1986). At the back of such a sentiment is the two-fold awareness of language in personal and in group identity. On one side there is the central role accorded to language as the transmitter and carrier of the sense of self, both in-group inclusiveness and exclusively through distinction from others who are seen to belong to other ethnicities. On the other side is the meaning attached to the local language(s) itself, meaning that derives from its cognitive and psychological importance in the ontogenetic growth of cognition and other aspects of 'normal' development. The first of these concerns what you do with language, its sociolinguistics, the second with what language does to you, its psycholinguistics.
Both have to do with the sense of self which is, or seems to be, bound up with the language(s) in which one grew up as a child, one's first language, mother tongue. The sense of self, one's personal identity is, on this basis, closely associated with the power that being a native speaker gives. Such power is very hard to attain in any additional acquired language, however successful the acquisition.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

4. kehilangan identitas pembicara asliThe global expansion of English in the20th century has been widely discussed and analysed (Crystal 1997, Holborow 1999, Graddol 1999 ). It has been seen in both a favourable and in a critical light. Those who regard the expansion favourably (Fishman et al 1975, MacArthur 1999) comment on the empowering role of English, the values of openness it brings, the access it provides both to knowledge and to markets. Those who regard the expansion negatively discuss the hegemonising of the weak by the strong, the ways in which English is used by the powerful west and their allies to dominate through globalisation, much as they dominate through economic and military means. They also point to the loss of choice, first linguistic, and then, inevitably it is suggested, cultural. What the spread of English does, it is argued (Phillipson 1992), is to squeeze other languages into less and less central roles, eroding their functions until eventually they are marginalised to the private and the home and finally lost. That, it is suggested, is what is happening in a society such as Singapore where English is now the only school medium of instruction for all Singaporeans. It is what has already happened in Guyana. And this destruction of the local language(s) is not confined to theThird World, to poor countries which do not have the resources at hand to combat the rise of English. It applies equally to the developed world where it remains for the present possible to operate a language policy of the local language plus English, in countries such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden. Such countries are often held up as models of successful language learning and teaching: successful because they succeed in acquiring the foreign language, English, and becoming proficient in it while at the same time not losing their first language, Danish, Swedish, Dutch and so on. But the picture of easy (and stable) bilingualism in these western countries is queried by observers such as van Els (2000), who take the view that English in these settings could well be the cuckoo in the European nest, meaning that in another couple of generations, these local languages could be in terminal decline. That of course is the problem with the argument from function: if language is primarily a matter of functional distinction and adequacy, then once a world language such as English starts to encroach on the local language functions, there is really nothing to stop it from taking over all functions. Except sentiment of course, except the sense of distinctness, except the concern that it is possible to be truly oneself (a Dane, a Swede, a Singaporean) only in the local language or in one of the local languages (Holborow 1999, Ngugi 1986). At the back of such a sentiment is the two-fold awareness of language in personal and in group identity. On one side there is the central role accorded to language as the transmitter and carrier of the sense of self, both in-group inclusiveness and exclusively through distinction from others who are seen to belong to other ethnicities. On the other side is the meaning attached to the local language(s) itself, meaning that derives from its cognitive and psychological importance in the ontogenetic growth of cognition and other aspects of 'normal' development. The first of these concerns what you do with language, its sociolinguistics, the second with what language does to you, its psycholinguistics. Keduanya harus dilakukan dengan kesadaran diri yang, atau tampaknya menjadi, terikat dengan bahasa di mana satu dibesarkan sebagai seorang anak, bahasa pertama, bahasa ibu. Kesadaran diri, identitas pribadi adalah, atas dasar ini, terkait erat dengan kekuatan bahwa menjadi seorang pembicara asli memberikan. Kekuasaan seperti itu sangat sulit untuk mencapai dalam bahasa tambahan diperoleh, namun sukses akuisisi.