117x 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.