"Problematizing the Native Speaker" Blogpost

What is the problem?

Individual linguists/researchers interpret and assume different ideas of what criteria defines a 'native speaker’. The concept critical period, as an often relied upon determiner for native proficiency and projected language ability, is not an uncontroversial topic and is often implicitly evoked when we use 'native speaker’. 

Why is it important?

Current research on brain matter, particularly within the last decade, has emerged to problematize aspects of the critical period. Recent developments on critical period include introducing a new framework that takes into account developmental/maturational effects present in language acquisition, which can help inform researchers to avoid using the term 'native speaker'. The term 'native speaker’ is problematic because it is often universally used by researchers without a full understanding how it is laden with assumptions of speakers that implicitly further notions of critical period, whether intended by individual researcher or not. Age cut-offs, such as the 3-year old age marker, cannot be generalized (as many researchers do) to all language users given that they are arbitrarily determined. Researchers such as Balari and Lorenzo have found that - mainly in the form of acquisition data - “behavioral/psychological categories like ‘language’, based on idealized adult models, tend to be much too coarse-grained to be applicable at all stages of the developmental process” (Balari and Lorenzo, 2015). Therefore, a need for a field-wide shift in understanding language as a ‘faculty’ to understanding language as a 'gradient’ has developed, so that using critical period and the possibility of unintentionally proliferating assumptions about speakers can be avoided altogether (Balari and Lorenzo, 2015). 

What is the solution and why is it better? 

A better practice than using 'native speaker' as an all-encompassing term to describe proficiency or make generalizations about speakers in research is to avoid using it altogether. Instead, explicitly identifying specific aspect(s) of language that reflect the goals and chosen methods of the individual researcher will yield more productive linguistic inquiry and allow them to draw more accurate conclusions.  A researcher’s conceptualization of who and what a ‘native speaker’ is must reflect the target purpose of their study, so being specific and clear about the criteria of what a 'native speaker' entails to you as the researcher will help prevent vagueness and therefore notions of critical period - whether intentional or not. A ‘best practices’ approach is detailed in the paper “The Problematic Concept of Native Speaker in Psycholinguistics: Replacing Vague and Harmful Terminology With Inclusive and Accurate Measures” by Cheng et.al (2021).

References

Balari, S. & Lorenzo, G. (2015). Should It Stay or Should It Go? A Critical Reflection on the Critical Period for Language. Biolinguistics. 9. 8-42. https://doi.org/10.5964/bioling.9027

Cheng, L. S., Burgess, D., Vernooij, N., Solís-Barroso, C., McDermott, A., & Namboodiripad, S. (2021). The Problematic Concept of Native Speaker in Psycholinguistics: Replacing Vague and Harmful Terminology With Inclusive and Accurate Measures. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.715843

Further Readings

• Rothman J. & Treffers-Daller J. (2014), A Prolegomenon* to the Construct of the Native Speaker: Heritage Speaker Bilinguals are Natives, Too!

Contributors

• Keri Zhang

What is the problem?

The term ‘native speaker’ carries implicit beliefs of language ability (or more accurately, a lack of language ability), given that current linguistic research ideology is still heavily grounded in monolingualism and attachments to notions of language purity. This language attitude is problematic and discriminatory when deficit models, ideas of language loss (attrition), and ideas of languagelessness are applied to entire linguistic, often multilingual, communities. Oftentimes, this 'deficiency' is wrongfully extended as far as the belief that certain individuals or entire linguistic communities lack any language, which is very harmful and unproductive to not only language users, but also to us as linguistic researchers.

Why is it important?

Continued promotion of cultures of monoglot standardization further allows ideologies of monolingualism, languagelessness, and the ‘native speaker’. This is harmful because they are “...characterized not simply by the promotion of a single language, but rather by an investment in the value associated with particular standardized varieties of a given language” (Rosa & Flores, 2017). Specifically in the world of linguistic research, excluding important language experiences and communities, such as so-called ‘heritage speakers’, prevents inclusive study of valuable and enriching areas of linguistic study and phenomena  (ie. multidialectalism, linguistic purity, high contact languages, etc. ). The issue of languagelessness for heritage speakers is about how they get denied any  ‘native’ language (Rothman & Tredders-Daller, 2014). In reality, heritage speakers are a group that is especially valuable in linguistic theory construction, as they can bring deeper insight into an individual contact phenomena and inform almost every field in linguistics that has a strong theoretical tradition (Benmamoun et al., 2013). Not only would we be denying further research in a multitude of rich linguistic areas, it is wrong to deny and invalidate the unique and diverse linguistic abilities and, as a result, the livelihoods of individuals that come from an equally diverse world.

What is the solution and why is it better? 

It is imperative that we move away from viewing language, especially when it comes to multilingualism and minoritized linguistic communities, through deficit models and attrition. Focusing on how language is learned is much more informative to us as researchers, and pushing the field towards viewing languages as a continuum would be a start to accommodate for the fact that not everyone uses one dialect for all domains of life. This also means recognizing the linguistic diversity that exists across the world and being mindful about where most of our research comes from (and appropriately applying generalized notions of language) as North American researchers. This necessitates linguistic research that continues to expand to ethical and thoughtful study of non-standard varieties (African American languages, Creoles, etc. to name a few). 

References

Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S. & Polinsky, M. (2013). Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39(3-4), 129-181. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2013-0009

Rosa, J., & Flores, N. (2017). Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Language in Society, 46(5), 621-647. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404517000562

Rothman, J. & Treffers-Daller, J. (2014). A Prolegomenon to the Construct of the Native Speaker: Heritage Speaker Bilinguals are Natives Too! Applied Linguistics. 35(1), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt049 

Further Readings

• Sorace (2004), Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax-discourse interface: Data, interpretations and methods

Contributors

• Carrie Ann Morgan

• Keri Zhang

What is the problem?

‘Native speaker’ and ‘non-native speaker’ are not neutral terms -- especially within the realms of ELT (English Language Teaching), ELL (English Language Learning), and SLA (Second Language Acquisition). In fact, ‘native-speakerism’ is divisive -- it places those who are perceived to be 'native speakers’ as superior to those who are perceived to be ‘non-native speakers’. Using and evoking this idea has significant real world consequences. For example in ELT, “their everyday use reveals how the profession thinks about itself”, meaning that ‘native-speakerism’ upholds harmful views on who is the ideal teacher and who embodies the culture attached to a language (Holliday, 2006). 

Why is it important?

Our perceptions of who is considered a 'native speaker' is heavily influenced by the race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, and other identities of the teacher. In a classroom setting, this sets the ‘native speaker’ teacher as the standard that ‘non-native speaker’ students should aspire to. Using such terms allows for “the ‘othering’ of students and colleagues from outside the English-speaking West according to essentialist regional or religious cultural stereotypes” (Holliday, 2006). Ramjattan’s 2019 paper observed how white native speakers are perceived as the best English teachers and nonwhite speakers are marginalized within the teaching system. Other linguists have found similar observations and make a point to clarify that a 'native speaker’ really means a ‘native passing speaker’. What this means is that, even if a speaker identifies as a ‘native speaker’, if they are not white, there is a tendency for others to not perceive them as a ‘true’ native speaker. This impacts how these teachers are treated in a multitude of ways: advertising for positions, hiring, interactions with students and administration, etc.

What is the solution and why is it better? 

It is important to ‘un-do’ native-speakerism and the harm that comes from using stereotypes as a basis to judge language learners’ abilities and teaching ability. ‘Un-doing’ this harm “requires a type of thinking that promotes new relationships evident in discussions concerning the ownership of English and…”, particularly within the U.S., “...the reassessment of who we are after 9/11” within ELT and ELL (Holliday, 2006).

References

Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal. 60(4), 385–387. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccl030

Ramjattan, V. A. (2019). The white native speaker and inequality regimes in the private English language school. Intercultural Education, 30(2), 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2018.1538043

Further Readings

• Au et al. (2002), Overhearing a Language During Childhood

• Balari & Lorenzo (2015), Should It Stay or Should It Go? A Critical Reflection on the Critical Period for Language

• Costello, Fernández & Landa (2008), The non-(existent) native signer: sign language research in a small deaf population

• Lowe & Pinner (2016), Finding the connections between native-speakerism and authenticity

• Nero (1997),  English Is My Native Language... or So I Believe

Contributors

• Natasha Vernooij

• Yourdanis Sedarous

• Keri Zhang

What is the problem?

Creole exceptionalism is pervasive in the study of Creole languages and other high contact languages. As described by DeGraff (2005), Creole exceptionalism relies on the assumption that Creole languages are linguistically distinct from and emerge from different processes than all other languages. This ideology developed during periods of colonization and slavery, and reflects a worldview that positions Creole languages – and more importantly, the people who speak them – as inferior. In exceptionalist views, “Creole languages are effectively devalued as (e.g.) ‘beginning’ languages, ‘less advanced’ languages, ‘simplest’ languages, ‘abnormal’ languages, ‘broken’ languages, ‘corrupted’ languages, and so on” (DeGraff, 2005). This in turn devalues the speakers of these languages in these same ways.

Why is it important?

When a language is positioned as inferior or not a language in its own right, the people who speak that language predominantly find themselves in a position where they are not considered to speak any language, much less to be a 'native speaker' of any language. In other words, if what they speak is not a language at all, then they are labeled as languageless (Rosa 2016). Furthermore, in some contexts, including in the Caribbean, there is no sharp boundary between a Creole and its lexifier, because of constant contact between the two languages due to colonization. In such a context, who is considered (or self-identified as) a speaker or 'native speaker' of which language relies on extralinguistic factors, such as race, social context, and prestige. Thus, the term 'native speaker' in relation to Creole languages can exclude Creole speakers in ways that have roots in the racist ideologies that were used to justify slavery and colonization. Finally, essentialist ideas about language learning ability, such as the idea that language learning after a certain age is "imperfect" (see "critical period") underpin racist assumptions about what language learning and attainment could have possibly looked like in these language emergence contexts. 

What is the solution and why is it better? 

Taking theoretical approaches which 

References 

DeGraff, M. (2005). Linguists' most dangerous myth: The fallacy of Creole Exceptionalism. Language in Society, 34, 533 - 591. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404505050207

Nero, S. (1997). English Is My Native Language... or So I Believe. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 585-593. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587842

Further readings:

• DeGraff (2005), Against Creole Exceptionalism

• Nero (1997), English is my native language … or so I believe

• Namboodiripad (2020), Non-Dravidian elements and (non)diasystematic change in Malayalam

• Meakins et al. (2019), Birth of a contact language did not favour simplification

• Rosa (2016), Standardization, racialization, languagelessness: Raciolinguistic ideologies across communicative contexts

Contributors

• Olivia Sedlacek

• Keri Zhang

What is the problem?

Indigenous languages have been oppressed as part of genocide committed against indigenous populations, and much of the research surrounding the topic has been undertaken through language documentation and language revitalization. These motions are often done with the intent of bringing attention to so-called endangered languages in order to receive funding for language revitalization projects. A common way to do so is by classifying the least number of people as (native) speakers of an indigenous language as possible in order to make the language seem more endangered. This focus creates incentives for researchers to produce outcomes that may or may not align with the goals of the communities who speak these languages. For any work with indigenous languages, we must remember that the fundamental goal is not language revitalization but agency and sovereignty for indigenous peoples. (This can of course include language reclamation or revitalization.)  

Why is it important?

The incentive for researchers to classify the least number of people as (native) speakers of an indigenous language, thereby allowing for the perception and allotment of endangered status, is the possibility of receiving more funding or having a greater ability to raise more awareness. However, in practice, stressing the endangered status of a language can actually have the opposite effect than what was intended. Languages with the most ongoing revitalization or reclamation projects – rather than languages with quantitatively the fewest speakers – tend to receive the most funding (Meek, 2016). In addition, speakers of the language may be discouraged by its classification as severely endangered; the classification can imply that the situation is hopeless and is a waste of time to either learn or teach the language.

Categorizing only a narrow set of people in the community as (native) speakers of the indigenous language excludes people who identify as speakers and have knowledge of the language. It can remove agency from the community to determine for themselves what it means to be a speaker of their language, creating a feeling of hopelessness in its community members and barring the teaching and learning of a language. It is also less accurate, because it fails “to account for the heterogeneous ways that people may use and identify with the heritage language of their community” (Boltokova, 2017).

What is the solution and why is it better? 

Instead of top-down research (or a “view from above”) on indigenous languages, a better approach would be a “view from within.” This could include a focus on a language’s future, rather than its decline or endangerment (Meek, 2016). One example of how this might be done is reframing levels of proficiency in the language as potential and possibility for improvement – for example, “good to excellent” speakers considered “potential instructors” of the language, or passive speakers considered 'potential fluent speakers', as has been done in the case of Kaska (Meek, 2016).

References

Boltokova, D. (2017). “Will the Real Semi-Speaker Please Stand Up?” Language Vitality, Semi-Speakers, and Problems of Enumeration in the Canadian North. Anthropologica. 59. 12-27. https://doi.org/10.3138/anth.591.T03

Meek, B. (2016). SHRINKING INDIGENOUS LANGUAGE IN THE YUKON. In E. S. Carr & M. Lempert (Eds.), Scale: Discourse and Dimensions of Social Life (pp. 70-88). University of California Press. 

Further Readings

???

Contributors

• Olivia Sedlacek

• Keri Zhang

What is the problem?

‘Native speaker’ is a term that prioritizes monolingual speakers of language, often in a racialized way. Our current proficiency testing and language learning systems in the assessment of multilingual backgrounds reflect structural problems that restrict multilinguals from expressing their full linguistic repertoire (Otheguy et al., 2015). For instance, language dominance is a factor often used to account for variation in bilingual speakers and is a generally accepted construct, but researchers have no unified methodology to assess it and have produced contradictory results(Otheguy et al., 2015). The large variety of assessment types likely stems from contesting opinions on how to define dominance itself and how it should be operationalized (Cecilia Solís-Barroso & Sara Stefanich investigate this dilemma in proficiency testing with great detail in their paper Measuring language dominance in Spanish/English bilinguals ). It is misguided to continue to apply the tools and theories developed within a field based on monolingualism to the study of multilingualism insofar as current linguistic research and language theory formation continue to treat speakers with such backgrounds as an anomaly when, in reality, the majority of speakers in the world are in some capacity multilingual (Grosjean, 2008). 

Why is it important?

We have fallen short in developing a robust methodology and understanding of how to conduct research explicitly with and about multilinguals; multilingualism deserves to be properly studied in its own right. It is a valuable area of linguistics since such language backgrounds can provide a deeper and unique insight into language learning, mixing, and production. It is imperative that issues in how we as researchers treat multilinguals be addressed, since the consequence of using the term ‘native speaker’ is to subscribe to the perpetuation of languagelessness. The prioritization of the monolingual ‘native speaker’ delegitimizes the unique linguistic capacity and competency of multilinguals, which in turn devalues and stigmatizes multilingualism as a whole by treating such diverse and unique language backgrounds as a deficiency.

What is the solution and why is it better? 

Reform in language proficiency testing and in language learning systems is necessary to make this change. This change extends to other types of testing, surveys, and research lab attitudes/practices, given that there are often discrepancies between how researchers assess and define competency in a language compared to how the individuals they recruit assess themselves and their language ability (ie. self-proclaimed ‘native speakers’ vs. ascriptions of the title ‘native speaker" based on arbitrary criteria/definitions depending on the researcher). Even more so, rather than viewing multilingualism as a deficiency in one or any language, it is more productive to view the competencies of individuals with multiple language backgrounds as different, unique, and worthy of study on its own. Encouraging translanguaging and multilinguals' use of languages in these ways would be a start. 

References

Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Otheguy, R., García, O. & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics: . Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281-307. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2015-0014

Further Readings

• Solís-Barroso & Stefanich (2019), Measuring language dominance in Spanish/English bilinguals 

• Benmamoun, Montrul, & Polinsky (2013), Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics

• Rothman & Treffers-Daller (2014), A Prolegomenon* to the construct of native speaker: Heritage speaker bilinguals are native speakers, too! 

• Sorace (2004), Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax-discourse interface: Data, interpretations and methods

Contributors

• Cecilia Solis-Barroso

• Keri Zhang

What is the problem?

Ramjattan (2019) explains how important it is to dismantle inequality regimes, given that they allow stereotypes and problematic ideas of who a ‘'native speaker’ is and/or looks like to be perpetuated. Within linguistics, language is racialized in a way that commodifies certain identities to be the ideal teacher and language speaker: white 'native speakers are perceived as “naturally qualified” to teach English, and this translates to nonwhite speakers being perceived as ‘subpar’ or not qualified to teach English. This power dynamic is best illuminated in private English language schools with ELT - language learning is treated as a business wherein students are viewed as customers and a hostile environment for nonwhite teachers can be created (Ramjattan, 2019). 

Why is it important?

This perception is reflected in advertising for teaching positions and further manifests as microaggressions against nonwhite teachers inside the classroom, which are upheld and enabled by institutional processes. Rosa & Flores detail how the relationship between race and language also has a different implication based on their own research: how the notion that embracing standardized English allows certain (minoritized) groups to believe that they have “readymade access to mainstream societal inclusion and upward socioeconomic mobility”, a “perspective [that] interprets structural inequality as a linguistic problem requiring linguistic solutions, rather than as a politico-economic problem requiring politico-economic solutions” (Rosa & Flores, 2017). The authors draw upon the experiences of African Americans and the stigmatization of stereotypical linguistic forms tied to their identity as an example of the interplay of language and race in the marginalization of their communities. Nonetheless, these issues of race and language also affect numerous other communities and areas of linguistics, such as Creole languages, indigenous languages, etc. 

What is the solution and why is it better? 

Incorporating the raciolinguistic perspective into our everyday linguistic study will only benefit us as researchers. The raciolinguistic perspective encourages the production of mindful and accurate research, and challenges researchers to “[refuse] to take racialized assessments of linguistic deficiency at face value as claims that can be disproved if we provide sufficient scientific evidence” (Rosa & Flores, 2017). Our field will be pushed in the right direction if we make the choice to refocus our theory of social change away from modification of linguistic behaviors of racialized populations towards the bigger issue of the dismantling of white supremacy that permeates mainstream institutions as a product of colonialism (such as the commodification of language learning and teaching). 

Diversity training about microaggressions and systemic racism are a start, but they are not enough. Broader social movements to challenge these biases (ie. that white male teachers are the ‘best’ English teachers) are probably more effective and students (ie. ‘customers’ in many ELT/ELL contexts) have a lot of leverage at the local level to start these broader movements. Exposing students to diverse English speakers with diverse accents and backgrounds and preparing students to interact with non-native English speakers, rather than just lecturing about the benefits of having a nonwhite teacher, are just some concrete ways to make effective change.

References

Ramjattan, V. A. (2019). The white native speaker and inequality regimes in the private English language school. Intercultural Education, 30(2), 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2018.1538043 

Rosa, J., & Flores, N. (2017). Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Language in Society, 46(5), 621-647. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404517000562

Further Readings

• Degraff (2005), Linguists’ Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Creole Exceptionalism

• Rosa (2016), Standardization, Racialization, Languagelessness: Raciolinguistic Ideologies across Communicative Contexts

Contributors

• Justin Craft

• Natasha Vernooij

• Keri Zhang

What is the problem?

Within sign language research, the term ‘native signer’ carries ambiguous and harmful notions of language ability. These problems arise because sign languages are still heavily understudied within the field of linguistics. The way we conduct sign language research is also a major factor; our understanding of sign languages is carried out through spoken language beliefs and ideologies. This leads to misconceptions about signers’ unique and diverse modality in communicating language compared to dominant linguistic study and theory with spoken languages. 

Why is it important?

Misconceptions arise when we make generalizations about what it means to be a ‘native signer’. One way that using the term is harmful is the implication of using age of acquisition as a proxy for proficiency. Linguists tend to apply cutoffs, such as the 3-year age mark, to measure potential native fluency and have cited these cutoffs across many academic sources (Costello et al., 2008). This is problematic because many signers do not fit the idealistic (monolinguistic) model of a 'native speaker’, a belief that dominates and stems from spoken language research. Proximity to the hearing community, access to other sign language users and environments, and family are just some factors that affect signers and how and when they learn sign language. Due to a lack of access, many Deaf people may not acquire a signed language very early on - or at least as their earliest language. Therefore, applying normalized notions of proficiency (such as L1 vs. L2) based on age of acquisition or similarly assumed measures that are pervasive in spoken language research onto sign language research leads to inconsistencies and harmful perceptions and assessments of signers’ language ability in general. Because we do not have a universally agreed upon definition and conceptualization of who is and is not a native signer as researchers, a task that is difficult and improbable, we will continue to prevent productive sign language research if there is no change.

What is the solution and why is it better? 

It is necessary to reexamine the valuableness and ethicalness of our research practices, given that we, as a field, lack a nuanced and accurate understanding of the variability and diversity of signers and their communities. Expanding the scope of research will be beneficial since linguists have historically shown a lack of interest in sign languages outside of the centers of academic wealth and power, or ‘the Global North’, and their diversity (Braithwaite, 2020). They can provide novel perspectives and insight into signing and language theories as a whole. Advocating for community-based research and more inclusiveness is one concrete way to move forward, since it reminds us to critically question our motivations behind producing research in the first place. Other concrete actions include pushing for more teams and labs led by and composed of Deaf/signing linguists, since Deaf people have embodied knowledge - and that should be valued. Ultimately, it is more important that we produce research that is useful, prioritizes the needs and wellbeing of the communities we study, and ultimately works to better serve those communities for the future rather than pursuing research that only benefits and interests us as researchers. 

References

Braithwaite, B. (2020). Ideologies of linguistic research on small sign languages in the global SOUTH: A Caribbean perspective. Language & Communication, 74, 182–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2020.06.009

Costello, B., Fernández, J. & Landa, A.. (2008). The non- (existent) native signer: sign language research in a small deaf population.  

Further Readings

• Morford & Carlson (2011), Sign Perception and Recognition in Non-Native Signers of ASL

Contributors

• Addie Block

• Keri Zhang

What is the problem?

Terms like "native speaker" are problematic when applied to language revitalization efforts and so-called 'endangered languages' because of the way speakers of affected language communities are categorized. It is important to not only recognize that marginalized language communities are marginalized and/or 'endangered', but to also understand why  they are viewed as ‘endangered’. While the notions of 'revitalizing' a language and 'saving' a language from endangerment is laden with its own terminological issues, the use of "native speaker" by linguists as a way to categorize and impart their authority onto these affected communities undergoing oppression and colonization is concerning. We should be asking  what a "native speaker" means to members of these communities and whether they are even necessary, not to linguists on the outside. 

Why is it important?

Colonization and oppression have a historical and continuous role in allowing many problematic assumptions to be born from existing research, and it is still reflected in the way we describe languages and perceive such communities today. For instance, the topic of ‘endangered languages’ does not exclusively pertain to indigenous languages or sign languages. To this day, there still exists the tendency to label languages of the Global North as “mature” and the Global South as “immature”, which is harmful and racist. Groups like semi-speakers also play a particularly crucial role in the efforts in reversing the effect of colonialism and oppression, given that they play are a vital group to language revitalization efforts; yet, they have historically been excluded in linguistic study. 

What is the solution and why is it better? 

Adopting “refusal research” - refusing to take part in research where it can be harmful - is one way that individual researchers can take a stand. Turning off the recorder, not airing 'dirty laundry', and not positioning a community in need of saving are some other methodological practices that prevent more harm to participants in research (Braithwaite, 2020). It is important recognize that these solutions work at the individual level. However, the effect of colonization and oppression on language is also a structural issue. Researchers like Boltokova have been pushing for an ideological shift in how we think about and categorize language users, such as the examining the four common scales for assessing language vitality (ethnologue, UNESCO, GIDS, EGIDS). It is within the responsibility of each research to have a useful role when engaging with local communities, consider the risks and benefits in how they affect such communities and present the local languages. More generally, adopting a reflexive, critical, and intentional way of thinking across the field to understand the implications and existence of the so-called ‘native speaker’ is also necessary to making steps towards reversing the harm caused by colonialism and oppression. 

References

Boltokova, D. (2017). “Will the Real Semi-Speaker Please Stand Up?” Language Vitality, Semi-Speakers, and Problems of Enumeration in the Canadian North. Anthropologica. 59. 12-27. https://doi.org/10.3138/anth.591.T03

Braithwaite, B. (2020). Ideologies of linguistic research on small sign languages in the global SOUTH: A Caribbean perspective. Language & Communication, 74, 182–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2020.06.009

Further Readings

• Meakins et al. (2019), Birth of a contact language did not favour simplification

• Meek (2016), Shrinking Indigenous Language in the Yukon

Contributors

• Addie Block

• Annie Birkeland

• Keri Zhang