Melanin Within

Friday, June 9, 2017

How Volunteering Overseas Will Change You

Gerrishon Sirere II June 09, 2017 0 Comments

By Gerrishon Sirere

Volunteering overseas is one of the most rewarding things you can do. It will change the way you see the world. Here are just a few ways it can leave its mark…

You realise that progress is only possible by working together

You may find you have skills you never knew you had

...Lots of skills you didn't know you had

You will become more patient. More laid back. Being "on time" may be a bit more subjective.

You will eat some of the most incredible food, but never be able to re-create it

You will also eat some less-than-incredible food, and never want to recreate it

You will realise there is a whole new level of exhaustion. Both physically...

…and mentally

You care less about the labels on your clothes, but care more about who made them and under what conditions

In fact, you will probably care less about your personal appearance entirely and care less about what people think of it

What you do, opposed to what you earn, may become more important

You may become a very adept motorcyclist, and even develop a life-long interest

..and you may reconsider just what a motorbike can be used for

You will start up conversations on public transport

Going to bed and getting up with the sun seems very logical

...especially when you wake up to views like this

You will make life-long friends, who live on the other side of the world, but you may still be able to meet up now and then

Your home may not feel like ‘home’ any longer

You realise that being a volunteer doesn't necessarily end when your placement does. There are endless opportunities to get involved and support others

...and you will spend a lot of your time convincing others to volunteer

"Sharing skills, changing lives"

Voluntary Service Overseas is a company limited by guarantee

Registered in England and Wales registered number 703509

Registered Office 100 London Road, Kingston upon Thames KT2 6QJ

Charity Registration 313757 (England and Wales) SCO39117 (Scotland).

Word of the day: Landslide

Gerrishon Sirere II June 09, 2017 0 Comments

By Gerrishon Sirere

As you’ve probably noticed, France has elected a new president. From my point of view, the French system is quite peculiar in that not only do the people directly elect the President, but there are also are two rounds of voting – unless one candidate wins an outright majority (more than 50%) in the first round, which, while theoretically possible, has never actually happened. Its pretty much like the system used in Kenya though Kenya is screwed up😊.

What happens is that all the different candidates, who usually come from right across the political spectrum, face off in the first round and then the two candidates who get the highest number of votes face each other in the second round, which is held two weeks later. After the first round, the two remaining candidates generally hold a couple of final rallies – and there are tough restrictions on what the French media can and can’t mention in the run-up to the final vote. So, for example, media outlets there were not allowed to mention anything about the content of the hacked emails which were stolen last Friday from mailboxes linked to Emmanuel Macron, and dumped online, along with what are said to be numerous fake emails.

The final round pitted Macron, a former civil servant and investment banker who only founded his centrist political movement En Marche! last year, against Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right Front National party. Many had been predicting a tight contest, with lots of disillusioned voters choosing not to vote for either candidate, but in the end, Macron won by a big majority. He got around 65% of the vote, while Le Pen only got 35%. In other words, he won by a landslide.

People can win an election by a landslide, and political parties can win a landslide victory. Usually, when there’s such a decisive victory, it gives the winners a clear mandate: it gives them the authority to do the things that they promised to do before the election. It strengthens their hand – it gives them more power, so they can push through new reforms or legislation.

Interestingly, the literal meaning of a landslide is a heavy fall of earth and rocks down the side of a mountain. Landslides can prove fatal. It is, though, a brave person who predicts that this election defeat will prove to be fatal to Marine Le Pen’s political ambitions!

How are leaders chosen in your country? Are there any similarities with the French system?
Can you think of any other politicians or political parties who’ve won a landslide victory?
Why do you think many voters these days feel so disillusioned?
Can you think of any scandals that have proved fatal to someone’s political ambitions?
Are there any restrictions on what the media can and can’t report in your country?

Word of the day: Professional 👔

Gerrishon Sirere II June 09, 2017 0 Comments

When I was in Loitokitok in the far South of Kajiado County (a small town in Kenya), I was lucky enough to have a free day. We decided we were going to head off to Lokoro, a town on the slopes of the mighty Mt. Kilimanjaro that serves as the main shopping center for the local Tanzanians. It was about a thirty-minute drive, and the weather was relatively cold for the time of year. Within few minutes we had crossed the Tanzanian border. There were no barriers on the sides of the road, so as the fog swept in from the across the road, visibility was massively reduced. It became hard to see more than a few metres in front and almost impossible to see where the road ended. I nervously asked if it was still safe to drive in such conditions and this led to the following conversation:

Don’t worry. Ali is an excellent driver and he knows the roads very well. Can I say he’s high-end?

> Not really. I guess high-end is usually used to describe the kind of businesses that provide goods or services for really wealthy people, you know, people who want top-quality goods and don’t care how much they cost, so you get high-end stereo equipment and high-end department stores, all targeting high-end consumers. I’m glad we’ve got a good driver, though. WE need one in these conditions.

So how can I best describe him? If he’s really excellent and skillful?

> He’s a professional.

But this is not his job. He’s just doing this as a favour, because he knows the roads so well.

> It doesn’t matter. I’d still say he’s a professional!

If someone does something difficult in an excellent way, we often say they’re a professional, so if you offer me a coffee and then proceed to grind the beans, get the expensive (high-end!) coffee machine going and finally present me with the perfect double espresso, I might say “Wow! And there was me expecting a Nescafé! You’re a real professional, I see!” Professional is often shortened to pro, so for instance, I was round at a friend’s house the other day, watching him change his daughter’s nappy after she’d peed right through it. I commented on the fact that I really didn’t miss this side of parenting, to which he laughed and said “Hey. I’m used to it. I’m a hardened proby now. Can do it in my sleep!”

In the same way, we also use amateur – /ˈæmətə(r)/ – in a jokey way to describe people who don’t do things very well. Imagine you go to get your hair cut💇 somewhere and are shocked by what a terrible job they make of it, you may well tell friends “That’s the last time I ever go there. They’re a total bunch of amateurs!” We might describe ourselves as total amateurs if we’re not very good at something, and not very knowledgeable about it, but still enjoy it anyway, so if challenged to a game of table tennis, I may well reply “Yeah, go on. Why not? I’m a total amateur, but what the hell!”

When was the last time you dealt with someone you’d describe as a real pro?
And have you ever had bed experiences with people you thought were a total bunch of amateurs?
Have you ever had to drive when you couldn’t see more than a few metres in front of you?
Do you know anyone who buys high-end goods or services?
Have you ever had anyone make a terrible job of cutting your hair?

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Singers who despised God and died in a horrible manner

Gerrishon Sirere II June 08, 2017 0 Comments

John Lennon

John Lennon (Singer)

Some years ago, during his interview with an American Magazine, he said:

'Christianity will end, it will disappear.I do not have to argue about that.. I am certain. Jesus was ok, but his subjects were too simple, today we are more famous than Him' (1966). Lennon, after saying that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, was shot six times.

Tancredo Neves

Tancredo Neves (President of Brazil )

During the Presidential campaign, he said if he got 500,000 votes from his party, not even God would remove him from Presidency. Sure he got the votes, but he got sick a day before his inauguration as President and he died.

Cazuza

Cazuza (Bi-sexual Brazilian composer, singer and poet)

During A show in Canecio ( Rio de Janeiro ), while smoking his cigarette, he puffed out some smoke into the air and said:'God, that's for you.' He died at the age of 32 of LUNG CANCER in a horrible manner.

Thomas Andrews

Thomas Andrews (The man who built the Titanic)

After the construction of the Cruise Ship, Titanic, a reporter asked him how safe the Titanic would be. With an ironic tone he said:'Not even God can sink it' The result: I think you all know what happened to the Titanic.

Marilyn Monroe

Marilyn Monroe (Actress)

She was visited by Billy Graham during a presentation of a show.He said the Spirit of God had sent him to preach to her.After hearing what the Preacher had to say, she said:'I don't need your Jesus'. A week later, she was found dead in her apartment.

Bon Scott

Bon Scott (Singer)

The ex-vocalist of the AC/DC. On one of his 1979 songs he sang:'Don't stop me; I'm going down all the way, down the highway to hell'. On the 19th of February 1980, Bon Scott was found dead, he had been choked by his own vomit.😔

Campinas Brazil

Campinas Brazil (In 2005)

In Campinas , Brazil, a group of friends, drunk, went to pick up a friend.....

The mother accompanied her to the car and was so worried about the drunkenness of her friends and she said to the daughter holding her hand, who was already seated in the car:'My Daughter, Go With God And May He Protect You.' She responded:'Only If He (God) Travels In The Trunk, 'Cause Inside Here.....It's Already Full' Hours later, news came that they had been involved in a fatal accident, everyone had died. The car could not be recognized what type of car it had been, but surprisingly, the trunk was intact. The police said there was no way the trunk could have remained intact. To their surprise, inside the trunk was a crate of eggs, none was broken.

Christine Hewitt

Christine Hewitt(Jamaican Journalist and entertainer)

She said the Bible (Word of God) was the worst Book ever written. In June 2006 she was found burnt beyond recognition in her motor vehicle.

Many more important people have forgotten that there is no other Name that was given so much authority as the Name of Jesus Christ.

Many have died, but only Jesus Christ died and rose again, and He is still alive....

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Phrase of the day: go pear-shaped

Gerrishon Sirere II June 07, 2017 0 Comments

Last night I was at our local pub quiz. For anyone who hasn’t experienced this, basically it’s an excuse for people to get together and drink, but at the same time it allows ourselves to feel that we are not drunks or layabouts because we are actually proving our great intelligence and knowledge. Never mind that the questions are largely about trivia such as naming Beyoncé‘s last number one single or how many tennis balls would fit in the Millenium Dome if it was turned upside down!

512px-Millennium_Dome_(zakgollop)_version

We might also ignore the fact that the winner often only wins bar vouchers, which allow them to buy – and drink – more beer! No, pub quizzes are deadly serious, they are intellectual, and they are an opportunity to show off, when the British usually hate such things.

So anyway, there we were at the pub quiz, and basically we were doing very well indeed. We’d been through a couple of rounds where we were convinced we had got all the questions – or almost all of them – right and we had reached a round called food and drink. We were very confident – we all cook, we were all drinking, we all watch MasterChef. What could possibly go wrong? So we played our joker. Playing the joker meant we would get double points for every correct answer.

First question: rigatoni and farfalle are both types of what? Ha! No problem … pasta! What are the ingredients of a Harvey Wallbanger? Tricky, but as I say, we all drink and one of us makes cocktails. Confident. What did Henry II have too much of when he died? Hmmm! Tricky. Not a clue. Next question. What dish is named after a famous victory by Napoleon. What? Next. What’s the national dish of Gibraltar? Oh, for God’s sake!

A teammate turned to me and said ‘Oh dear! It’s all gone a bit pear-shaped.‘

And indeed it had – we came third last in the end!

Basically, if a plan or a strategy or a game goes a bit pear-shaped, then it goes wrong – usually very wrong!. You blow your chances, you choke, you lose your way (often after a fairly successful start!)

So what else has gone pear-shaped of late? Oh yes, Arsenal’s season has gone a bit pear-shaped. There they were, riding high in the table, fifteen matches unbeaten and they’d qualified first in their Champions League group. The players gave interviews about how the hard work was paying off and how the spirit in the team was unbelievable. Two months later and they were thrashed by Bayern Munich – twice, they’d dropped to sixth in the league and were blaming each other as their hopes of a league title had been dashed …. again!

Oh dear.

Can you think of a time when something went pear-shaped for you?
What other examples of things going pear-shaped in sport and politics can you think of?
Are pub quizzes popular in your country? Why? / Why not?
Have you ever been to one? How did you do?
Can you think of any other examples of a sports team getting thrashed?

Saturday, June 3, 2017

Of Native Speakers and other Fantastic Beasts

Gerrishon Sirere II June 03, 2017 0 Comments

We all refer to ‘native’ and ‘non-native speakers’ not just in English Language Teaching (ELT), Second Language Acquisition (SLA) or linguistics, but also in daily life. Consider the following sentences:

She’s a ‘native speaker’ of Spanish.
I don’t know how to say this, to be honest. Let’s ask a ‘native speaker’.
We can’t hire you because you’re a ‘non-native speaker’.
The aim of this research is to study the differences between Chinese bilingual English learners and native monolingual English speakers in expressing motion.

So the term’ native speaker’ seems very familiar to us. After all, we could argue that everyone is a ‘native speaker’ of the language they learned first. And we all have probably seen, met and had a beer with a ‘native speaker’, right?

Why then put inverted commas around the terms as I’m doing now? And stranger still, why say: I no longer review research that compares ‘native’ and ‘non-native speaker’ teachers as though the groups are real and not imagined, as Adrian Holliday recently did on Twitter.

What does Holliday mean when he says that the two groups are not real but imagined? And “when we say:

you’ll have to ask a native speaker, or
don’t ask me, I’m not a native speaker,

what is it we are appealing to? What is it that human native speakers know? What sort of knowledge does the native speaker have?” (Davies, 2012, p.1).

NATIVE SPEAKERS AND LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

Most of us I think would agree that a ‘native speaker’ is proficient. Perhaps not in the idealised sense as someone who lives “in a completely homogeneous speech-community, who knows its (the speech community’s) language perfectly and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors” (Chomsky, 1965, p.3). However, certainly a ‘native speaker’ is proficient in their mother tongue.

But proficient how?

All sorts of people are proficient. I happen to be completely proficient (or at C2 level on the Common European Framework) in three languages. Does this make me a ‘native speaker’ of all three of them?

Possibly, at least if we are discussing the question on purely linguistic grounds. Yet, I’d never call myself one (more on this later).

So how would we characterise ‘native-like’ proficiency that ELT recruiters are so fond of now?

We can’t really talk about this subject without referring to the late prof. Alan Davies. Over the years he proposed six linguistic factors that define ‘native speaker’ proficiency:

1. early childhood acquisition;

2. intuition about grammar (both pertaining to dialect and standard language);

3. capability to generate spontaneous and fluent discourse;

4. capability to write creatively;

5. ability to translate into their L1;

6. and creative communicative range (Davies, 1991, 2003, 2012, 2013).

Are these six characteristics exclusive to ‘native speakers’?

In this post Geoff Jordan confidently asserts that there is a difference between ‘native’ and ‘non-native speakers’, citing studies which seem to confirm that ultimate, or ‘native-like’ attainment of a language is very rare. In addition to the ones he mentions, when Sorace (2003) compared grammaticality judgments of ‘native’ and proficient ‘non-native speakers’, she concluded that there was a fundamental difference between the two groups.

However, there are also other studies which shed serious doubts on Sorace’s findings. For example, Birdsong (1992, 2004), Bialystok (1997) and Davies (2001) also studied judgments of grammaticality and all concluded that statistically there was no significant difference in the judgments made by ‘native’ and proficient ‘non-native speakers’. In other words, both groups have very similar intuitions about the language. And it is important to add that they all focused on adult learners who were well past the critical or sensitive period (see below).

So linguistically speaking, is there a difference between the two groups? There might well be. And the word MIGHT is important here.

It is important because as Davies (1991, 2003, 2013) himself highlights, apart from the first factor, none of the others are exclusive to ‘native speakers’.

We’ve dealt with point 2 (language intuition) above. As points 3, 4 and 6 are concerned, think of people like Joseph Conrad, born and baptised in Poland as Józef Korzeniowski. Or Vladimir Nabokov. But also thousands of other ‘non-native speakers’ who are incredibly proficient in English.

While it is more common for translators and interpreters to translate into their L1, there are also those who translate into L2. Personally, I find it much easier to switch between Spanish and English (or vice versa), rather than any of these two and my L1, Polish. I’m not a professional translator or an interpreter, but your L1 does not make you one either, so I don’t see why you couldn’t learn to translate into your L2 (or L3).

This leaves us with early childhood acquisition. What is it, though, that a child acquires? Well, clearly points 2-6. But then it seems that they don’t seem to be exclusive to ‘native speakers’, which means we’re back to square one.

Geoff Jordan also quotes a review of the research that has been conducted on critical/sensitive period, which seems to suggest that it is incredibly rare for ‘non-native speakers’ to reach ‘native-like’ proficiency, as there are different cut-off points. This might well be true, although we still have the problem of defining ‘native-speaker’ proficiency (or indeed the ‘native speakers’ who took part in those studies). There are also the studies cited above on grammaticality which show that ultimate attainment is possible even for adult learners. And of course there all those ‘non-native speakers’ out there who are virtually indistinguishable from a ‘native speaker’. Finally, to quote Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson (2003, p.580) – whose 2009 paper Geoff quotes to prove there is a fundamental difference between ‘native’ and ‘non-native speakers’ – “the highly successful L2 speakers that we have characterised as having reached ‘only’ near-native proficiency are, in fact, native-like in all contexts except perhaps in the laboratory of the linguist with specific interest in second language learning mechanisms.”

So while Geoff is 100% convinced that there must be a fundamental linguistic difference between the two groups, I think we would do well to hedge this statement: there MIGHT be a difference. One reason is that while SLA researchers have placed nativeness at the centre of its enquiry (i.e. as the benchmark against which learners’ progress should be measured), they have had surprisingly little to say about who this ‘native’ (or ‘non-native’) under scrutiny actually is (Davies, 2013). As Han (2004) points out, SLA researchers – such as Sorace (2003) cited earlier – have taken the ‘native speaker’ for granted, to a large extent ignoring the individual (linguistic) differences between them.

The second reason is that while Geoff authoritatively states that there is a difference between the two groups, other researchers in the field are much more cautious. For example, in a recent publication Hulstijn (2015) observes that while past a certain age it MIGHT be difficult or unlikely for people to acquire ‘native-like’ proficiency, it is possible (see e.g. Birdsong’s studies). Furthermore, he also points out that even though some learners don’t reach full mastery (as measured by an SLA researcher in lab conditions), they can still be functionally bilingual, which brings us back to Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson’s quote from above.

Even more importantly, however, I think we need to look beyond language proficiency as the defining characteristic of a ‘native speaker’. In fact, it is quite ironic that in the opening sentence of his blog post Geoff calls Russ Mayne (Evidence-based EFL) a “cheery cherry-picker of evidence”, when he himself has cheerfully cherry-picked the evidence limiting the discussion to SLA research, completely ignoring wider sociocultural issues that are also at play. I wouldn’t be the first one to say that SLA should adopt a more socially informed approach, though. For a very extensive discussion please see Block (2003).

So I’m not saying the evidence Geoff presented is wrong. However, it is very limited. And thus questionable.

As Block (2003, p.4) says, SLA has for a long time dealt with “essentialized interlocutors, with essentialized identities, who speak essentialized language”. Who the ‘native’ or the ‘non-native speaker’ under study really is has very rarely been problematised in SLA. However, Block’s (and others’) calls for a more socioculturally oriented SLA have largely fallen on deaf ears.

The possible reason for this is exemplified really well by one of Geoff’s Tweets where he referred to what I’m planning to engage in the rest of the post as “sociolinguistic twaddle that obfuscates a simple psychological reality”. But wouldn’t the reverse hold true as well? Namely, that the psycholinguistic twaddle obfuscates a rather complicated, but also incredibly fascinating sociolinguistic reality?

I’ll let you judge for yourself. But let’s look at the evidence first, shall we?

SOCIOLINGUISTICS AND THE ‘NATIVE SPEAKER’

So, putting psycholinguistic differences and the issue of proficiency aside for a minute, there are two other good reasons why I would never call myself a ‘native speaker’ of English, or of any other language that isn’t Polish for that matter. And they have nothing to do with my proficiency in English, or in Polish. The first reason is because I don’t feel affiliated with the language. In other words, I don’t feel I belong in the ‘native speaker’ community (Brutt-Griffler & Samimy, 2001). Even if I did, though, would I be accepted as a ‘native speaker’?

The answer is quite likely no. So affiliating with the speech community and being proficient aren’t enough. The third factor is being accepted as a ‘native speaker’ by the speech community (Inbar-Lourie, 2005). This of course can lead to differences between the self-perceived and externally perceived linguistic identity of a speaker. For example, some people would describe themselves as a ‘native speaker’ and affiliate with the speech community, but wouldn’t be accepted as such, or vice versa.

The reasons for this can be quite varied, but many scholars have pointed out that being a ‘native speaker’ of English is frequently associated with being white and Western-looking (Kubota & Fujimoto, 2013; Romney, 2010). For example, Li and Andres, two ‘native speaker’ teachers of English of Hong Kong and Mexican descent, respectively, who were studied by Javier (2016), report having their ‘nativeness’ questioned on numerous occasions by students, recruiters and colleagues. So while in an SLA researcher’s lab they might be authoritatively proclaimed to be classic ‘native speakers’, they don’t seem to be treated as such in reality.

To illustrate this further, I’d encourage you to watch this short clip.

Another problem is that some multilingual people find it difficult to identify with one or the other group. For example, Faez (2011) studied English teachers in Canada and their feeling of linguistic self-identity. The participants identified with six different categories:

bilingual;
English as a first language speaker;
second-generation English speaker;
English-dominant;
L1-dominant;
English-variety speaker (Faez, 2011, p. 16).

And there is more. Piller (2002), for example, interviewed L2 users of English. A third of them reported they could successfully assume the ‘native speaker’ identity and pass off as one in front of other ‘native speakers’. A curious finding from this study was also that the participants had had their L1 identity, or their ‘nativeness’ questioned at times – corroborating Javier’s (2016) findings. As a result, Piller suggested that being a ‘native speaker’ is something one does, rather than an immutable category bestowed on the individual at birth.

As a proficient speaker of three languages (but possibly a ‘native speaker’ of just one of them), I can completely relate to Piller’s (2002) findings. For example, there are times where I can and in fact do pass for a ‘native speaker’ of Spanish (whether I am one psycholinguistically is a different kettle of fish, but I’m not planning to go to an SLA lab any time soon to find out). In addition, my proficiency in Polish seems to fluctuate a lot too. For example, after prolonged stays abroad some of my relatives or friends have told me I speak in a strange way, and I catch myself translating idioms directly from English or Spanish to Polish.

To sum up, there might be psycholinguistic differences between the two groups. However, they are just the tip of the iceberg. Especially as far as English is concerned, there are important questions of power, prejudice and racism. To give you an analogy, we’d probably all agree that there are certain biological and physiological differences between men and women. However, we’d also agree that there are many individuals who would find it difficult to subscribe to one or the other category, and that we cannot simply ignore the sociocultural reality when talking about these two groups. And being a ‘native speaker’ is far from so biologically or physiologically clear-cut as being a man or a woman.

What I’m trying to say is that while there MIGHT be psycholinguistic differences between ‘native’ and ‘non-native speakers’, we can’t ignore the sociolinguistic aspects. If we do, we are simply – to steal Geoff’s phrase – cheerfully cherry-picking evidence.

Whichever position you subscribe too, though, or even if you’re sitting on the fence; there’s a very important question that remains.

WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE ‘NATIVE SPEAKER’?

Paikeday (1985a) tried killing it over forty years ago (see his article May I kill the native speaker?). Not the flesh-and-blood ‘native speaker’, you see, but the term itself as it is currently and uncritically used in linguistics and SLA. To cut a long story short, Paikeday utterly failed.

But many others followed. This time not trying to kill the ‘native speaker’, but offering more neutral and objective terms to use in SLA and ELT. For example Rampton (1990) suggested expert user. Jenkins (2000, 2007, 2015a) proposed using monolingual, bilingual and non-bilingual English speaker, while Paikeday (1985b) – having failed to kill the ‘native speaker’ – suggested proficient user. The problem with all these attempts is that they have had very little impact, and the terms ‘native’ and ‘non-native speaker’ are still widely used.

The second option is to continue using the two terms and the acronyms NEST, NNEST, NS and NNS. This has certainly helped put the finger down on the problem of discrimination many ‘non-native speakers’ suffer from. It has also led to an establishment of what some have referred to as a NNEST movement, creation of a NNEST Interest Section by TESOL International, as well as countless articles and books on the topic (Kamhi-Stein, 2016; Selvi, 2014, 2016). However, as Kumaravadivelu (2016) points out, what the NNEST movement has utterly failed at is bringing about a more equal professional ELT field, where teachers are judged on their merits rather than a perceived belonging to one or the other group.

In addition, the continuous use of the two terms and their acronyms has led to a situation where they are accepted as well-defined, objective and value-free. Yet, who is perceived as a ‘native speaker’ is anything but an objective matter, but has everything to do with power, prejudice, ideology and even racism. As Holliday (2013, p.25) writes, the two labels are “ideological, chauvinistic and divisive”, and the quasi-mythological status the ‘native speaker’ enjoys in linguistics, SLA and ELT has very little to do with language proficiency, but everything with opinions and biases (Aboshiha, 2015) that are themselves rooted in the ideology of native speakerism (Holliday, 2005, 2015).

I’d argue – as Davies (2011) did – that both being a ‘native speaker’ and the mother tongue are fundamentally social traits, just as culture is. This ties in with Rampton’s (1990) distinction between language expertise, inheritance and affiliation. In other words, you might be a ‘native speaker’ in terms of language proficiency, however, you don’t necessarily need to have inherited the language, nor to feel affiliated with it. All the other permutations are of course also possible.

What I’m trying to say is that who is a ‘native speaker’ (and who isn’t), just like any aspect of our identity is “dynamic, dialogic, multiple, situated, and, more importantly, contextually negotiated” (Faez, 2011, p.5). It can also evolve over time (see e.g. Hansen, 2004). And there are times in ELT when it’s not you who decides whether you are or aren’t a ‘native speaker’, but the recruiter. Or the students. Or your colleagues.

As a result, I think it’s important that we recognise these complexities and stop treating ‘native’ and ‘non-native speakers’ as if they were well-defined and objectives categories of meaning. The two groups might be different, but the difference is much more complex, nuanced, fuzzy and subjective than what Geoff presented in his post.

So I’m not that surprised after all that Adrian Holliday refuses to review research that treats ‘native’ and ‘non-native speakers’ as though the groups are real and not imagined. Perhaps it’s a step in the right direction. Perhaps Block’s (2003) call for a more socioculturally oriented SLA will be finally heard. At the very least, when used in research, the two categories need to be problematised, and their subjective nature needs to be recognised.

Hence the inverted commas (see Holliday 2005, 2013, 2015). To remind the writer and the reader that ‘native’ and ‘non-native speaker’ are very much subjective, ideological and value-laden terms. And to distinguish the flesh and blood ‘native speaker’ (Davies, 2013) from the fantastic beast the NS has become in theoretical linguistics and SLA labs.

If you’re interested in further exploring these issues, you might enjoy the on-line course Going beyond the ‘native speaker’ model in ELT, which I run on TEFL Equity Academy. It’s a 20-hour course where we discuss the issues we touched upon in this blog post in much more detail, and look at the practical implications this discussion has for teachers, trainers and materials writers.

REFERENCES:

Bialystok, E. (1997). The structure of age: in search of barriers to second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 13(2), 116–137. https://doi.org/10.1191/026765897677670241

Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language, 68(4), 706–755. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1992.0035

Birdsong, D. (2004). Second Language Acquisition and Ultimate Attainment. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 82–105). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Block, D. (2003). The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition . Edinburgh University Press.

Brutt-Griffler, J., & Samimy, K. K. (2001). Transcending the nativeness paradigm. World Englishes, 20(1), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00199

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Davies, A. (1991). The native speaker in applied linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Davies, A. (2001). What Second Language Learners Can Tell Us about the Native Speaker: Identifying and Describing Exceptions. In R. L. Cooper, E. Shohamy, & J. Walters (Eds.), New Perspectives and Issues in Educational Language Policy (pp. 91–112). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins.

Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: myth and reality (2nd ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Davies, A. (2012). Native Speaker. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0855/abstract

Davies, A. (2013). Native Speakers and Native Users: Loss and Gain. Cambridge University Press.

Faez, F. (2011). Reconceptualizing the Native/Nonnative Speaker Dichotomy. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 10(4), 231–249.

Han, Z. (2004). To be a native speaker means not to be a nonnative speaker (Book Review). Second Language Research, 20(2), 166–187.

Hulstijn, J. H. (2015). Language proficiency in native and non-native speakers: theory and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Hyltenstaam, K. and N. Abrahamsson. (2003). Maturational constraints in SLA. In C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.539-588). Oxford: Blackwell.

Inbar-Lourie, O. (2005). Mind the Gap: Self and Perceived Native Speaker Identities of EFL Teachers. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-Native Language Teachers (pp. 265–281). New York: Springer US. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/0-387-24565-0_14

Javier, E. (2016). “Almost” native speakers: the experiences of Visible Ethnic-Minority Native English-Speaking Teachers. In F. Copland, S. Garton, & S. Mann (Eds.), LETs and NESTs: Voices, Views and Vignettes. (pp. 227–239). London: British Council.

Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2016). The non-native English speaker teachers in TESOL movement. ELT Journal, 70(2), 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv076

Kubota, R., & Fujimoto, D. (2013). Racialized Native Speakers: Voices of Japanese American English Language Professionals. In S. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan. Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 196–206). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2016). The Decolonial Option in English Teaching: Can the Subaltern Act? TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 66–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.202

Rampton, M. B. H. (1990). Displacing the “native speaker”: expertise, affiliation, and inheritance. ELT Journal, 44(2), 97–101. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.2.97

Romney, M. (2010). The Color of English. In A. Mahboob (Ed.), The NNEST Lens: Non Native English Speakers in TESOL (pp. 18–34). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.

Paikeday, T. M. (1985a). May I Kill the Native Speaker? TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 390–395. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586840

Paikeday, T. M. (1985b). The Native Speaker Is Dead! An Informal Discussion of a Linguistic Myth with Noam Chomsky and Other Linguists, Philosophers, Psychologists, and Lexicographers. Toronto: Paikeday Pub. Inc.

Selvi, A. F. (2014). Myths and Misconceptions about Nonnative English Speakers in the TESOL (NNEST) Movement. TESOL Journal, 5(3), 573–611.

Selvi, A. F. (2016). Native or non-native English-speaking professionals in ELT: “That is the question!” or “Is that the question?” In F. Copland, S. Garton, & S. Mann (Eds.), LETs and NESTs: Voices, Views and Vignettes. (pp. 51–67). London: British Council.

Sorace, A. (2003). ‘Near-nativeness’. In The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition , ed. C. J. Doughty and M. H. Long. Oxford: Blackwell. 130-151.

Follow Us @soratemplates

Friday, June 9, 2017

How Volunteering Overseas Will Change You

Word of the day: Landslide

Word of the day: Professional 👔

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Singers who despised God and died in a horrible manner

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Phrase of the day: go pear-shaped

Saturday, June 3, 2017

Of Native Speakers and other Fantastic Beasts

NATIVE SPEAKERS AND LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

SOCIOLINGUISTICS AND THE ‘NATIVE SPEAKER’

WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE ‘NATIVE SPEAKER’?

REFERENCES:

Search This Blog

Report Abuse

About Me

About Me

Social

Popular

Archive

Labels

About

About

Tags

Popular Posts

Categories