Filetype PDF | Posted on 23 Sep 2022 | 4 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
237x Filetype PDF File size 0.44 MB Source: www.cogg.ie
Educators’ Target Language Varieties
for Language Learners: Orientation
Toward ‘Native’ and ‘Nonnative’
Norms in a Minority Language
Context
NOEL Ó MURCHADHA1 and COLIN J. FLYNN2
1Trinity College Dublin, School of Education, Arts Building, Dublin, D2, Ireland Email: noel.omurchadha@tcd.ie
2Dublin City University, Fiontar agus Scoil na Gaeilge, All Hallows Campus, DCU, Dublin, D9, Ireland
Email: colin.flynn@dcu.ie
Target varieties for language learning are contentious in applied linguistics and sociolinguistics. Debates
centre on the nature and utility of alternative norms. Approximation to ‘native speaker’ practices is the
hallmark of language education. Thus, policy and pedagogy frequently orient toward achieving native-
like production. While many language learning stakeholders are committed to this model, it is also
contested. Opponents point to the ideological assumptions about ‘native’ and ‘nonnative’ speech inher-
ent in the model, and to the unrealistic aims it presents to teachers and learners. While much research
focuses on learner preferences, little work exists on teacher attitudes. This article aims to address this
dearth in the target variety debate. By focusing on Irish as a minority language, the article supplements
the literature on classroom targets for English and other major languages. A thematic analysis of inter-
views with Irish language pedagogues is presented and reveals their engagement with target varieties for
the language.
Keywords: language teachers; Irish language; native speech; nonnative speech; target language variety
THE ‘NATIVE SPEAKER’1 HOLDS A language curricula and by many language pro-
privileged position in various branches of lin- fessionals that approximation to native speaker
guistics (Ó Murchadha et al., 2018). Sociolin- norms represents best practice for students seek-
ing to develop proficiency in a language (Cook,
guistics has ‘the vernacular’ and ‘the standard.’
Chomsky (1965) has his ideal speaker–listener in 1999, 2016; Jenkins, 2016). Curriculum policy
a completely homogeneous speech community, and agents engaged in language teaching and
who knows its language perfectly. Each in their learning are committed to the native-speech- as-
own way reify the concept of the native speaker. target-variety model. Students engaged in
Subsequently, native speech is often seen as the language learning have likewise been demon-
only true source of language data (Ferguson, strated to covet native norms (Butler, 2007;
1983). Within applied linguistics, native speech Flynn, 2014; McKenzie, 2008; Subtirelu, 2013).
has been the benchmark against which language This paradigm does not go uncontested, how- ever.
proficiency is measured (García & Wei, 2014; The literature is replete with criticisms of the
Subtirelu, 2013). It is often taken for granted in native speaker ideal. Among the criticisms, it is
pointed out that the concept is an ideological con-
The Modern Language Journal, 102, 4, (2018) struct (Eckert, 2003), a myth (Ferguson, 1983),
DOI: 10.1111/modl.12514 whose status results more from sociopolitical
0026-7902/18/797–813 $1.50/0 arrangements than from linguistic facts (García,
ⓍC National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Johnson, & Seltzer, 2017; Kramsch, 1997; Piller,
Associations 2001). In a practical sense, the merit of native
798 The Modern Language Journal 102 (2018)
speech as a target for all language learners is also markets of the target language. The native
challenged (Cook, 1999, 2016; Piller, 2001). speaker approach outlines the terms of engage-
This article reviews the debate on target lan- ment for learners. It illustrates to learners that,
guage varieties for language teaching and learn- rightly or wrongly, some language varieties carry
ing and presents new data on teacher attitudes to a certain cachet and that orienting toward more
target models in a minority language. The origins prestigious varieties may be advantageous to lan-
of the native speaker model in language teach- guage users. It can be argued that the approach
ing education are outlined, as are applications is designed to allow learners to negotiate the so-
and criticisms of the model. Research on target cial reality of their ‘new’ language, rather than to
varieties for minority languages, and on the role equip them to debunk that reality. Because learn-
of educators in establishing targets for learners, ers often pine for native speech models, they may
is reviewed. In the second half of the article we also expect that their language learning experi-
present results from an interview-based inquiry ences will expose them to ‘authentic’ native forms
into these issues, carried out with student teach- of language. As language becomes increasingly
ers of the Irish language. The teachers’ engage- commodified in late modern society (Brennan,
ment with variation in Irish and the perceived 2017; Heller, 2010), the demands of consumers
classroom applications of different speech mod- (in this case learners) hold sway. Of course, the
els are discussed. target variety ambitions of learners also matter
from the language learning motivation perspec-
ON THE ORIGINS OF THE NATIVE SPEAKER tive (Ushioda, 2013; cf. Flynn, 2013; Flynn & Har-
MODEL ris, 2016; Murphy & Flynn, 2013). The promi-
nence of the native speaker approach thus, in
The prestige of the native speaker model for many ways, stems more from pragmatic consider-
language learning emanates in part from an ideo- ations than from sinister attempts to perpetuate
logical belief in the existence of correct, standard the myth and prestige of the native speaker. Nev-
forms of language (Ó Murchadha, 2016). By ertheless, the model is not unproblematic.
virtue of their linguistic profile and experiences,
native speakers (particularly those practising CRITICISMS OF THE NATIVE SPEAKER
prestige ‘standard’ varieties) are considered MODEL
purveyors of proper language usage. Expertise
in language is defined and dominated by native Critics of the native speaker concept have de-
speakers (Canagarajah, 1999) and native speech scribed it as a myth, an ideological construct, and
is often regarded by learners as a model to a socially reified entity (e.g., Davies, 2003; Eckert,
emulate (Flynn, 2014; Timmis, 2002). 2003; Graddol, 1999; Rajagopalan, 1997). Al-
Because languages, and also particular vari- though the native speaker has been characterised
eties of languages, are seen as unique cultural using a number of criteria (age of acquisition, in-
vehicles of distinct peoples (Ó Murchadha & tuitions about standard and ideolectal grammar,
Ó hIfearnáin, 2018), ‘going native’ is seen as a ability to produce fluent spontaneous discourse,
means to fully participate in the social, cultural, ability to use language creatively, and to interpret
political, and economic realities of native speaker and translate into L1), most of these character-
populations. This is perhaps especially salient in istics are, in principle, attainable by language
powerful global languages where economic bene- users who are not considered native speakers
fits abound for native-like language users (Bijvoet (Cook, 2002; Davies, 2004). Childhood acquisi-
& Fraurud, 2016). Even in smaller languages, tion is the only criterion that cannot be attained
though, native speech varieties can be attractive by those who were not raised with a language.
to learners as they are seen to represent a unique On this view, it is essentially a nonscientific,
way of being (Ó Murchadha et al., 2018). For lan- linguistically unsound categorisation (Mesthrie,
guage learning stakeholders, therefore, the pur- 2000) that is based on ideological assumptions
suit of native-like language production is not of- about language and identity. Certain cohorts
ten called into question, no matter the language of users are assumed to possess expertise in a
involved (Cook, 1999; Kramsch, 1997). language by virtue of their birth and upbringing.
The alignment of language teachers with native Other users of the same language are assumed
norms is therefore underpinned by a motivation to lack language expertise based on the same
to equip learners with the type of linguistic pro- criteria. Rampton (1990), therefore, highlights
ficiency that will allow them to successfully parti- that much of what is assumed about native speech
cipate in the social, cultural, and economic (and by extension nonnative speech) spuriously
Noel Ó Murchadha and Colin J. Flynn 799
emphasises the biological ahead of the social which to measure language proficiency. Descrip-
and the linguistic, conflating language as an tions and norms that are based on linguistic
instrument for communication on the one hand expertise (Leung, Lewkowicz, & Jenkins, 2009;
with language as a symbol of social identification Rampton, 1990), and on the linguistic mul-
on the other. Piller (2001), likewise, questions ticompetence (Cook & Wei, 2016) developed
the native speaker target and asks to what extent through language learning, are suggested. This
the native speaker’s early acquisition leads to competence-based approach is accompanied by
(a) privileged access to the language, (b) a funda- new terminology that researchers contend is
mentally different type of linguistic competence preferable to ideologically laden, linguistically
from that of nonnative speakers, and (c) the nondescript terms. The most common of these
development of a less ‘error’-prone form of new terms being used in the Irish context as
language than that of nonnative users. Even if well as that of other minority languages is ‘new
early acquisition does achieve the above, Piller speaker’ (O’Rourke & Ramallo, 2013; O’Rourke
(2001) questions whether this makes native & Walsh, 2015; Robert, 2009; Smith–Christmas et
speakers the sole arbiters of correct language al., 2018). O’Rourke, Pujolar, and Ramallo (2015)
usage. define new speakers as “individuals with little or
In sociocultural terms, the model designates no home or community exposure to a minority
that assimilation to the norms of native speak- language but who instead acquire it through im-
ers is necessary to achieve expert language sta- mersion or bilingual educational programs, revi-
tus (Kramsch, 2002). It encourages L2 users talization projects or as adult language learners”
of all profiles to imitate social actors who are (p.1). They argue that the notion of ‘new speaker-
likely to have very different sociolinguistic iden- ness’ is an explicit attempt to move beyond older
tities, and who operate in spheres that may lie labels which compare second language users to
beyond the socioeconomic needs and interests native speakers and measure their language com-
of learners. Yet, this achievement is still insuffi- petency against the native-speaker benchmark. By
cient to become recognised as a native speaker using this new label, it is argued that we take into
owing to the ideological underpinnings of the account “the new communicative order of the
model. modern era which is characterized by new types of
From a pragmatic and educational perspective, speakers, new forms of language and new modes
the native speaker model presents learners with of communication” (p. 2). In Ireland there are
an impractically nebulous ideal (Canagarajah, now more habitual speakers of Irish outside the
2014). As native speakers display wide variation Gaeltacht (i.e., the traditional heartland of the
in their language usage, in line with regional, language located primarily along the western and
generational, occupational, and class-related southern coasts) than there are within these areas
correlates, the notion of the single native speaker (O’Rourke & Walsh, 2015). According to the def-
ideal is rendered artificial (Kramsch, 1997). In inition provided above, many of these users of the
reality, learners encounter a fluid and potentially language are new speakers of Irish.
infinitely variable target variety. Even if the native In line with criticisms of the native speaker
target were a unitary norm, the extent to which it model outlined above, measures of proficiency
is an attainable and a realistic pedagogical norm such as the Common European Framework of
would remain questionable, especially in contexts Reference for Languages are based on com-
where access to communities who routinely use petence criteria. It is argued that by concep-
the target language may be limited (as is the case tualising social actors who have proficiency in
for many language learners, especially learners more than one language in this way, frame-
of minority languages). Furthermore, the extent works move beyond a model that presents non-
to which the native target aligns with learners’ native speakers as deficient forms of native
interests and communicative needs has been users. In doing so, the linguistic multicompe-
challenged (e.g., Firth & Wagner, 1997). Native tence that is not within the purview of mono-
speech forms may be of little use to learners and linguals is more fully acknowledged and re-
L2 users who have no significant engagement searchers can avoid reinforcing the comparative
with native speakers and who do not intend to fallacy (Bley–Vroman, 1983). Despite these ideo-
participate in markets where native speech has logical and terminological shifts, however, ques-
currency. tions remain in relation to the pedagogical norms
In light of these shortcomings, many re- with which to present learners. Teachers have
searchers in applied linguistics and sociolin- a key role here, especially in minority language
guistics call for more objective criteria against contexts.
800 The Modern Language Journal 102 (2018)
EDUCATORS AS LINGUISTIC ROLE MODELS how people perceive language variation has been
It is well documented that formal language viewed through different theoretical lenses in re-
learning, either through subject only or immer- lated research areas, including the ethnography
sion education, does not on its own lead to wide- of language; language anthropology; and, indeed,
spread active bilingualism (e.g., Edwards, 2017). applied linguistics. A significant amount of work
However, much of the literature on bilingualism has been carried out on how attitudes to variation
in linguistics, sociology, psychology, and edu- reveal broader sociocultural dynamics (Bishop,
cation identifies formal language learning as a Coupland, & Garrett, 2005; Niedzielski, 1999)
transformative experience that can trigger life- and on the link between regard for language
long active use of a second or additional language varieties and language variation and change
(e.g., Woolard, 2011). This phenomenon is docu- (Kristiansen, 2014; Labov, 1966). Researchers
mented in the case of minority and majority lan- in applied linguistics who are interested in atti-
guages alike (Ó Murchadha & Migge, 2017). In tudes to variation are primarily concerned with
outlining the trajectories of Catalan users who de- implications for language educational policy
velop proficiency outside the home, Pujolar and and practice. Specifically, attention focuses on
Puidgevall (2015) describe education as a linguis- the target variety debate and the pedagogical
tically transformative life juncture that opens av- applications of so-called native and nonnative
enues for social actors to become competent and speaker models (Cook, 2002; Davies, 2004;
active multilingual subjects. The influence of edu- Jenkins, 2007).
cation and educators on the linguistic pathways of In addition to language ideological debates re-
bilinguals who develop competence in a language lating to alternative norms, researchers in applied
outside the home is similarly described in other linguistics have empirically assessed perceptions
minority languages (Aguilera & Lecompte, 2007; of variation in order to inform the target variety
Carty, 2014; Cenoz, 2008; Vila i Moreno, 2008), debate. Much of the applied linguistics research
on regard for language variation focuses on va-
including Irish (Harris, 2008; Walsh, O’Rourke, rieties of English (e.g., Butler, 2007; McKenzie,
& Rowland, 2015). However, educators are also 2015; Subtirelu, 2013). The findings from these
purveyors of linguistic models. Because genuine studies, albeit far from straightforward, are impor-
opportunities to interact in the target language tant for two reasons in the context of the present
outside the classroom can be rare for many article. First, they provide empirical data which
language learners (especially learners of minority demonstrate a generally positive orientation to-
languages), educators may represent learners’ ward native speaker models among English lan-
only meaningful source of contact with the lan- guage learners. Second, they provide compara-
guage. As a result, the type of language that ped- tive data for other language contexts which have
agogues espouse in the classroom can influence not received such attention in the research liter-
learners’ targets and ambitions. Nevertheless, ature, for example, regional and national minor-
although a body of literature exists on the role of ity languages. In relation to the first point, it has
education and pedagogues in promoting bilin- been shown that in many cases second language
gualism, the academic literature on educators learners evaluate speakers of native/standard va-
as linguistic agents who embody and prescribe rieties of the target language more positively
target varieties for language learners is not as than speakers of nonnative/nonstandard ones
extensive. Assessing language regard among ped- on traits pertaining to status and social at-
agogues is important in establishing how target tractiveness (e.g., Dalton–Puffer, Kaltenboeck,
language varieties are negotiated in education. & Smit 1997; Ladegaard & Sachdev, 2006;
McKenzie, 2008).
REGARD FOR LINGUISTIC VARIATION However, McKenzie (2008) also uncov-
ered a multidimensional aspect to L2 learn-
A vast body of literature is available on social ers’/speakers’ attitudes toward target language
actors’ regard for linguistic variation in various varieties. Learners in that study rated mainstream
fields of language research. Part of that literature U.S. varieties of English highest in terms of
is comprised of experimental work on the per- status, followed by regional UK varieties. ‘Ac-
ception of variation in minority languages (Flynn, cented’ L2 speech models were rated lowest on
2014; Hoare, 2001; Jones, 1998; Ó Murchadha, this dimension. Conversely, accented L2 speech
2013). From its origins in studies on the social was rated highest in terms of social attractive-
psychology of language (Lambert et al., 1960) ness (i.e., solidarity), followed by regional UK
and in sociolinguistics (Labov, 1966), the study of varieties and U.S. varieties were rated lowest
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
