Ferguson comments:'Linguists ... ha

Ferguson comments:
'Linguists ... have long given a special place to the native speaker as the only true and reliable source of language data' (Ferguson 1983: vii).
He continues:
'much of the world's verbal communication takes place by means of languages which are not the users' mother tongue, but their second, third or nth language, acquired one way or another and used when appropriate. This kind of language use merits the attention of linguists as much as do the more traditional objects of their research'. (ibid.)
This is a plea from sociolinguistics. But is Ferguson right to conclude as follows:
'In fact the whole mystique of native speaker and mother tongue should preferably be quietly dropped from the linguist's set of professional myths about language.' (ibid.). As my discussion shows there is no doubt about the myth-like properties of the native speaker idea. The question remains however of whether it is also a reality. I attempt to answer that question.
Theoretically, as we shall see, the native speaker concept is rich in ambiguity. It raises, quite centrally, the issue of the relation between the particular and the universal. Chomsky, as a protagonist of theuniversalist position, conveys to Paikeday's questioning approach about the status of the native speaker (Paikeday 1985) the strongest possible sense of the genetic determinants of speech acquisition which, as he sees it, must mean that to be human is to be a native speaker.
What Chomsky does is to equate language development with other normal human development, finding no interest in questions about developmental states or stages which he regards as contingent and essentially of no theoretical interest. In the same vein Chomsky finds distinctions between synchronic states of language or languages and dialects uninteresting, 'the question of what are the 'languages' or 'dialects' attained, and what is the difference between 'native' and 'non-native' is just pointless' (Chomsky, quoted in Paikeday 1985: 57). Chomsky's whole argument depends on a rationalist opposition to 'incorrect metaphysical assumptions: in particular the assumption that among the things in the world there are languages or dialects, and that individuals come to acquire them' (op cit:49). This is the argument from psycholinguistics (or cognitive linguistics).

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Ferguson komentar:' Ahli bahasa... telah lama memberikan tempat khusus untuk penutur asli sebagai hanya benar dan dapat diandalkan sumber bahasa data ' (Ferguson 1983: vii).Ia meneruskan:'banyak dunia komunikasi verbal terjadi melalui bahasa yang tidak pengguna' ibu lidah, tetapi kedua, ketiga atau n bahasa, diperoleh satu atau lain cara dan digunakan saat yang tepat. Jenis penggunaan bahasa manfaat perhatian ahli bahasa sebanyak Apakah benda-benda yang lebih tradisional penelitian mereka '. (ibid.)Ini adalah permohonan dari sosiolinguistik. Namun Ferguson hak untuk menyimpulkan sebagai berikut:'Bahkan mistik seluruh pembicara asli dan ibu harus sebaiknya diam-diam dijatuhkan dari set ahli bahasa profesional mitos tentang bahasa.' (ibid.). Sebagai pembahasan saya menunjukkan tidak ada keraguan tentang sifat-sifat seperti mitos ide pembicara asli. Pertanyaan tetap Namun apakah itu adalah juga menjadi kenyataan. Saya mencoba untuk menjawab pertanyaan itu.Secara teoritis, seperti yang akan kita lihat, konsep pembicara asli kaya ambiguitas. Ini menimbulkan, sangat sentral, masalah hubungan antara tertentu dan universal. Chomsky, sebagai protagonis posisi theuniversalist, menyampaikan Paikeday yang mempertanyakan pendekatan tentang status pembicara asli (1985 Paikeday) mungkin rasa terkuat faktor penentu genetik akuisisi pidato yang, ketika ia melihat itu, harus berarti bahwa untuk menjadi manusia yang menjadi pembicara asli. What Chomsky does is to equate language development with other normal human development, finding no interest in questions about developmental states or stages which he regards as contingent and essentially of no theoretical interest. In the same vein Chomsky finds distinctions between synchronic states of language or languages and dialects uninteresting, 'the question of what are the 'languages' or 'dialects' attained, and what is the difference between 'native' and 'non-native' is just pointless' (Chomsky, quoted in Paikeday 1985: 57). Chomsky's whole argument depends on a rationalist opposition to 'incorrect metaphysical assumptions: in particular the assumption that among the things in the world there are languages or dialects, and that individuals come to acquire them' (op cit:49). This is the argument from psycholinguistics (or cognitive linguistics).