Identities and their enactments in human life

Davies, A. (2003) The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality. 2nd ed, 237 s. Clevedon: Multilingual matters (Preface, chapters 1, 2, 3 & 4)

In the preface of the book the author starts mentioning an experience he had as a non-Welsh speaking South Walian: he decided in his forties that it was time to test his Welshness by learning the language and he spent a summer taking a language course in a Welsh town. Davies, by telling this story, refers to the experience of the feeling of asserting identity trough language: “we all want to belong, we all want to be native speakers […] I was expected to choose my identity. I had always vaguely assumed that, like masks, identities could be added on” (2003, vii). The aim of the book lies also in its title: The native speaker: myth and reality. Davies’ purpose is to try to give an answer to the question, what does it mean to be a native speaker of a language? Davies attempts to define the native speaker facing the issue from different perspectives: psycholinguist aspects, linguistic aspects and sociolinguistics aspects. Already in the preface Davies provides a possible definition of who a native speaker is:

1. The speaker of a language by virtue of place or country or birth (sociolinguistic attributes)
2. A native speaker of a language does not choose to be or cannot help her/himself being a native speaker (psycholinguistic attributes) (2003, viii)

Davies adds that being a native speaker is not only that: “it is also, and in my view more importantly, about groups and identity” (2003, viii). This means that when we define ourselves as native speakers of one or more languages, we agree on our belonging to that specific group of speakers, including the culture and habits that come along with it. According to Davies, identities and belonging is both something that we did not choose from the beginning, but also something that we can choose to change, joining new groups. Nevertheless, the concept of native speaker is of interest in applied linguistics since it represents both the product and the process to which one appeals in language learning and teaching. It is the product because it is the main goal we want to achieve, to become as near as possible a native speaker in our proficiency of the target language, and it is a process because the native speaker becomes the specimen we want to focus on when we study the process of language learning and native-speaker-like behaviors. (2003, ix)

The complexity of the native speaker

Drawing from Ferguson’s comment about the “whole mystique of native speaker and mother tongue” as something that should be “dropped from the linguistics set of professional myths about language” (2003, 2), Davies argues that the question still remains, of whether the native speaker is also a reality, the concept raising the issue of the relation between the particular and the universal. The author accompanies us in a literature review about the notion of native speaker, starting with Ferguson (the native speaker is a myth), and continuing with Chomsky bearer of the universalist position (everyone is a native speaker). Chomsky’s position affirms the realization of a unitary language competence in the native speaker at a linguistic level. In order words, the individual has the language latent in his or her own mind (competence): the language will then be performed as a result of the unitary language competence in the form of the native speaker. This means that everyone has to be native speaker of the particular language, or rather; there is no difference between native and non-native, since we all have the competence and the potential to develop a native-like language performance. As a theoretical linguistic, Chomsky is not interested in the individual with his/her repertoire of language performance. What Chomsky studies is language, the competence of the idealized native speaker, who is both the arbiter of a grammar (being able to “feel” the correctness or not of the language) and the model of the grammar. This leads is forward to the notion of intuition, also raised but Richards et al. and Davies stating the importance of intuition in defining the native speaker (2003, 5). Halliday refers to language of the native speaker as mother tongue and states that no languages ever completely replace it. It is difficult (but yet not impossible) for an adult to acquire native-like abilities in the target language. Bloomfield’s position is quite more definite in this point: he does not leave much of a hope to the adult language learner stating that native speakers need to get started at their mother’s knee. In order to be able to define the native speaker, we need to define what the learner, or rather to highlight the importance of the connection between the native speaker and the second language learner. It seems to me that the one could not be defined and thus exists without the other. The native speaker is not a learner and vice versa. The question raised by Davies is whether the latter can ever become the former (2003, 6).

The prestige model – an issue of identity

The native speaker, being a person in flesh and blood or an idealized entity, defines the choice of a model, “raising issues of acceptability, of currency and intelligibility […] compelling social consensus in favor of the use of a model type” (2003, 7). Here we have the connection between the flesh and blood and the idealization of the native speaker: a general consensus is achieved by the speech community in the use of a model and an individual native speaker is used as an exemplar of such a model. Davies raised the issue that this is problematic in the perspective of applied linguistics, since this process of sampling native speakers as performers of the “right” model is not without faults if it is at all possible. Who is the native speaker, who defines him or her? Davies argues that “Either you are a native speaker or you are not. It is a matter of self ascription. This implies responsibilities in terms of confidence and identity” (2003, 8). To ascribe oneself as a native speaker brings along the fact that we belong to a certain community and this means that we have to be accepted by the other members. This, according to Davies, “is exactly what is required in acquiring any new ethnicity” (2003, 8). A natural question that raises at this point is, where do the boundaries go? As for any other community, the boundaries are defined both by those who belong to that community and by those who do not. In the same way native speakers and non-native are likely to define each other’s belongings on that matter.

The importance of attitudes

Going back to norm and intelligibility, Davies raises the question on what status do norms have in terms of intelligibility and correctness. Taking stands from Ryan and Giles, Davies affirms the importance of attitudes in informing our reactions to language (2003, 13). Attitudes are here defined in terms of two sociostructural determinants: standardization and vitality. This implies the struggle between native speakers’ notion about norms and the norms themselves. In other words, there is a divide between what we actually say and what we should say. That divide is called correctness and it always depends on the context. This is, in my view, what brings together but also splits competence and performance or langue and parole in Saussurian terms: as native speakers we know how to use our language competence in a way that is “proper” to all different possible contexts. A learner of the language does not yet masters that competence. This is because language is also made of habits, attitudes and it is a bearer of prestige, an image that the learner wants to undertake or to refuse. Again, being a native speaker is a matter of self-ascription. This is also relevant when discussing the existence of a language outside people. Some kind of system, or structure that is pre-programmed in our brains and that lead is back to Chomsky’s notion of Universal Grammar and competence.

Competence

Davies attempts to characterize competence ascribing the following points to it (2003, 34):

1. Competence means performing without thinking
2. Competence is not the level of performance
3. Competence means knowing, being familiar with all structural resources of a code, being able to make judgments about structural realizations

Competence applies, in other words, to the idealized native speaker, not depending on context or different varieties of a language. In that sense, the native speaker is the goal of an “explanatory model, rather than an operable one” (2003, 34). The field of study of linguistics is then the system, the competence, rather than the performance. Davies argues that linguistics is about all systematic language behavior, including grammar. But which grammar is to be considered? The Universal Grammar, as a set of cognitive and innate developmental processes incorporate in our brain and that gradually fail with age, in favor of other processes? Felix argues that there are two different cognitive systems at work:

• The language specific system
• The problem-solving system

The former is active before the onset of puberty and the latter after that moment (2003, 35). Felix argues thus for the existence of the critical period hypothesis since adult learners fail in their attempt to achieve a native-like competence in L2 using the wrong system. The language specific system does not disappear in adulthood, but rather it is overruled by the problem-solving system.

What grammar?

When dealing with linguistics aspects of the native speaker, Davies starts his discussion by providing a definition of different kinds of grammars (2003, 40): Grammar 1: What an individual has in terms of his/her own language Grammar 2: What an individual shares with others Grammar 3: the grammar of the human faculty of language, which is what all speakers have. The question now is what is sampled in SLA research? According to Davies it tends to be on the one hand well-educated native speakers, on the other we have the non-native speakers who tend to be active learners. Davies argues that SLA research is not about native and non-native speakers but about language learning. This means that the focus should not be on whether the learners are different from the native speakers (because they are), but rather if this difference is unique and permanent. Davies focuses on grammar 2 when dealing with sociolinguistics aspects of the native speaker. Going back to the issue of identity, the author claims that “in the case of language it may be more sensible to say that the sense of identity comes from a source of a perceived ethnicity” (2003, 55). The language thus gain a symbolic rather that a communicative value. This symbolic value can be illustrated by the intersection of different factors:

• The speech community
• The standard language
• The stereotypes of language use

Accordingly, sharing a language does not guarantee understanding. Davies attempts to define languages (2003, 54):

• Linguistically
• Sociolinguistically (comprehension, intelligibility)
• Politically (attitude, identity and power)

The politicization of the native speaker is a result of the symbolic value of a language for the speech community. It is a valuable way to differ ‘us’ (native speakers and thus members of the community) from ‘them’ (non-native speaker, non-members). In this perspective, the effort made by the members of the community to define a standard language as opposed to dialects or other less-prestige full varieties makes sense. In its process of self ascription, the speech community defines its own norms, its own perceived ethnicity. It is in this context that expressions like “the language of power” make sense: if there is a language of power mastered by some individuals, it means that there is a language of disempowerment that pushes the speakers lower down on the wrong side of the continuum dialect/variety-standard language.

Issues for further discussion:

• What does it mean to be a native-speaker in these times of high mobility between different speech communities?
• Can native-speakerness be seen as negative when performed by an immigrant, or a person considered as an immigrant by the community?
• Considered the first two questions, is it plausible or wishful to train language learners with the native speaker as the norm? What other “norms” of correctness are possible?
• If language is also a category to define identity, what is the identity of the non-native speakers? Can they choose to belong more or less to the community? Is it necessary for them to master the language as a native speaker first in order to “play” with the language and therefore their identity/ies? This can also be related to the article by Jonsson and Milani “Youth styles in Sweden”.

Jonsson, R. (2007). Blatte betyder kompis: Om maskulinitet och språk i en högstadieskola. Ordfront Förlag

I de första tjugo sidorna av hans avhandling beskriver Jonsson bakgrunden av sitt arbete. Han berättar om omständigheterna, det fösta mötet med informanterna och miljön, och Jonsson delvis beskriver sitt tillvägagångssätt samt om den överenskommelsen som han gör men gruppen: ”På så vis är vi överens: jag får följa dem i skolan och de vill medverka i min studie” (2007, 17). Det är svårt att inte fångas av Jonssons inledande kapitel. Man får lust och intresse att följa med eleverna i den svenska skolan Jonsson befinner sig i. Det finns olika aktörer i Jonssons forskningsfält:

• En svens skola
• Några killar
• Ett klassrum
• En lärare
• En elevassistent
• Forskaren

Det är först på sidan 20 som Jonsson beskriver problematiken med sin forskning och samhällsdebatten om skolan som en förenklat moraliserande. Jonsson vill med sin studie försöka förstå vad som pågår utan moraliserande ögon, och istället titta på hur några killar använder sig av olika språkliga uttryck för att positionera sig i skolvardagen eller ”hur maskulinitet konstrueras i skolvardagen” (2007, 20). Jonsson använder ord som iscensättas, tilltalas och manifesteras vad det gäller killarnas konstituering av en gemenskap. Denna gemenskap kommer till uttryck genom:

• Vänskapliga kroppskontakter
• I samtalen
• Genom att bli inropad i gruppen med ett namn

Det är viktigt att killarna ropar på Jonsson och be honom att slå sig ner. På det sättet blir han en del av den gemenskapen, han får vara en av dem som får slå sig ner i gruppen (och det är inte alla som får det, tillägger Jonsson) (2007, 22). Gruppen definierar sig själv, eller skapar sig själv men blir även skapad av världen utanför den. Ordet ”invandrare” används för att definiera gruppen, trots att de flesta killarna i den är födda i Sverige. Vad betyder då invandrare? Svårt att definiera. Det enda vi vet är att adjektivet svensk är motsatsen. Jonsson kommer in i begreppet etnicitet för att säga att det som killar gör är att definiera sig som en gemenskap vars samhörighet går över etniska gränser. Killarna i studien iscensätter sin identitet utifrån vissa markörer, utan att relatera sig till vad de markörerna betyder från början. En invandrare behöver inte vara en person som kommer från ett annat land, så som en svensk kan vara invandrare från början men agerar utifrån ett ”annat manus”: ”avgörande för medlemskap i gruppen är regel om att vara sig själv i enlighet med de diskurser som definiera vem man är” (2007, 77). Det handlar om en kategorisering genom språket, en indexering som för med sig att man finns för att man talar eller bli inropad. Detta leder mig vidare till begreppet social närvaro i en grupp, där medlemmarna i gruppen bekräfta varandras rätt att finnas genom att inropa varandra, ställa frågor som inte förväntar sig ett svar (t. ex. Är du här? Är du också med! Etc.) . Detta intresserar mig särskilt eftersom det är just aspekten av social närvaro och dess påverkan i gruppen som är svårt att identifiera när gruppen möts i en virtuell kontext som till ex. en videochatt som Skype eller liknande, där en synkron kommunikation är möjlig. Olika forskaren attribuerar en stor vikt till social närvaro och olika sorter bekräftelse när det gäller t.ex. kursen som är online, just för att det har visats att den är oerhört viktig för att minska ”distansen” när kroppen och kanske inte rösten finns. (se även White, Murphy & Collins, Garrison & Anderson and Östlund). Killarna kan kommunicera en gemenskap eftersom (2007, 24):

• De har växt tillsammans i samma område
• Genom att dela gemensamma språkliga uttryck

Jonssons studie riktar sin fokus mot det sistnämnda och förklarar att språket innehåller ”talhandlingar” eller ”performativer”. Studiens perspektiv blir riktat mot killarnas språkande, alltså det de gör men språket snarare än av vad de talar om. Språket är ett verktyg för att skapa ett gemskap och en förståelse om vem ”vi” är eller ”andra” är (2007, 24). Viktigt att komma ihåg här är att killarna kan ingå i många olika gemenskaper, och intressant blir då att se hur de olika gemenskaperna uppstår ”mot olika vardagliga aktiviteter, med språket som utgångspunkt” (2007, 25). Det performativa perspektivet kan bli ett intressant och givande sätt att närma sig de språkliga uttryck och se dem som en iscensättning av sin roll i just den stunden och den kontexten: ”det finns inte någon fast identitet. Dessa positioner (som man eller kvinna) skapas genom språket. Eller det som inte låter sig sägas och de namn eller historier som aldrig blir uttryckta” (2007, 36). Ord som maskulinitet eller etnicitet är inte längre ett adjektiv, utan ett verb. Det den performativa teorin vill göra är att komma bort från indelningar efter biologi (2007, 87).

Syfte med studien (2007, 38)

1. Undersöka hur några killar använder språket som verktyg i arbetet att iscensätta maskulinitet, hur stereotypen ”invandrare” växer fram i vardaglig kommunikation i skolan och vilken mening fylls denna kategori med;
2. Undersöka vad killarna inte kan eller får säga och göra, att studera vad som blir förbjudet språk i skolvardagen, och hur det outtalade och det förbjudna är del i konstruktionen av maskulina positioner

Den dolda läroplanen (2007, 42)

Jonsson tar upp begreppet när han talar om de mekanismer i en skola som är dolda och outtalade i ett evigt skapande av normer och avvikelser. Det gäller för eleverna att lära sig vad den dolda läroplanen står för och därmed lyckas i skolan. Jonsson refererar till Bourdieu som påstår att eleverna måste lära sig bemästra skolans språkliga kapital eller klassrummets språkliga norm om de vill lyckas. På det sättet blir skolan ett instrument som befäster makrelationerna. Detta kan stämma för alla institutionella arenor och det är också ett bevis på det som vi sa i den föregående loggen om språkets makt eller maktens språk: att bemästra ett språk betyder att bemästra den situation och kunna dra den största nytta utav det och viceversa. Men denna process är knappast en process som förmiskar maktens roll: den snarare befäster den. Jonsson påstår att ”jämställdhetsdiskursen upprätthåller samma ordning som den vill förändra” (2007, 47). Ord kan betyda olika saker beroende på vem som uttalar dem, eller snarare vilken position den personen som uttalar orden har. Olika dikotomier blir ännu mer komplexa eftersom genus och etnicitet genomkorsar varandra. Jonsson refererar inte till intersektionalitet men det är det det handlar om när han pratar om komplexiteten i att vara killen, och invandraren (laddad) eller svensk (normen). Men Jonsson påpekar att ”invandrarkillen” är ingen egenskap utan en position som skapas genom språket. Faktum är att genom att använda sig av språket, man kan befästa den normen och stereotyper som skapades av en gemensam historia och kultur. Det är svårt att komma ifrån en stereotypisering. Men en position är inte bara där av självt utan vi måste sätta den i ett sammanhang: vem säger vad? Vem lyssnar på vad? (2007, 50-51)

Metod

Jonssons arbete beskrivs som en etnografisk forskningsansats ”som intresserar sig för vardaglig kommunikation” (2007, 53). I det utförliga fotnotssystemet beskriver Jonsson hans tillvägagångssätt vad det gäller etik och etiska övervägande såväl som val av metod och fältets olika förutsättningar. Fotnoterna följer i övrigt hela avhandlingen och utgör ett viktigt komplement till det som knappast går att undvika. Där hittar man relevanta aspekter som kompletterar och fördjupar Jonssons resonemang i avhandlingens kropp. Enligt Jonsson handlar etnografi om ”att närma sig människor i deras vardag, att undersöka hur de ordnar och skapar mening där" (2007, 53). Syftet med avhandlingen var att undersöka hur killarna använder sig av olika språkliga uttryck i skolvardagen, för att skapa, iscensätta sin maskulinitet. Som deltagande observatör, följer Jonsson eleverna några dagar i veckan under ett läsår, är med dem under rasterna, på lektionerna och använder sig av olika metoder för att skapa sin empiri:

• Fältanteckningar
• Inspelningar (spontana)
• Gruppintervjuer (arrangerade)

Jonsson uttrycker att han ”influeras av etnometodologins sätt att uppmärksamma de kommunikativa resurser som används av deltagarna i ett samtal” (2007, 55). Jonsson studera en skolvardag med en forskare på besök och han har inga ambitioner på att försöka förstå vad eleverna egentligen tycker och tänker under samtalen och intervjuerna: vad som återstår är att reflektera över de diskurser som eleverna och lärarna såväl som forskaren själv använder (2007, 56-57).

Centrala poäng i Jonssons avhandling (att diskutera tillsammans)

• I den här avhandlingen handlar frågorna oftast om hur eleverna agerar, hur de använder sig av språkliga uttryck
• Språket är det verktyget som killarna använder för att iscensätta maskulinitet. Hur växer då den stereotypa fram om invandrarkillen i vardaglig kommunikation?
• Det är ett spel där alla iscensätter sina roller enligt några regler (det är viktigt att känna till reglerna och normerna för att kunna bryta mot dem). Det handlar om en relation mellan de olika uttrycken. En relation mellan stereotypen och den individen i sammanhanget.

Fishman, J & Garcia, O. (2010) Handbook of language and ethnic identity. Disciplinary and regional perspectives. Volume 1/Second edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press (Foundations, Conclusions, chapters 6, 7, 8)

Fishman’s main point in the Foundation is that language, ethnicity and identity do not exist as independent labels but they are contextual. Language is described as covering a set of varieties of codes, attitudes, behaviors, social conventions that typify each of them (2010, xxii). Fishman describes four attributes that characterize language varieties (2010, xxiv):

1. Standardization, the internal uniformation of the language across all educated members of the speech community. It includes a uniformed spelling, an agreed-upon grammar, consensual punctuation and orthoepy systems.
2. Autonomy, the internal within-group evaluation of varieties in relation to the external evaluation of the same varieties
3. Historicity, the view that the variety has a long and distinguished history
4. Vitality, the convinction that the variety has a large numbers of speakers, readers, writers and people who understand it

The different language varieties enumerated by Fishman are the following: Literary standard (LS), Vernacular (V), Dialect (D), Creole (K), Pidgin (P), Classical (C), Artificial (A), and Transformation (T). According to Fishman, all varieties can be politically and ideologically hindered and all varieties are the accidental result of historical fortunes or misfortunes (2010, xxv). Language varieties and their success or dead is not an issue which can be discussed during the course of this “fortune” or “misfortune”. Ethnicity is a term with an interesting history. Fishman describes the different connotations (more or less negative) ascribed to the word. It was not until in the 90-ies that the term ethnicity was considered fully legitimated in the USA, as opposed to the term “race” and therefore gaining a less negative connotation Also identity is a contextualized term (maybe the most contextualized of the three): identity “depends essentially on circumstances and contrast that play upon it, modify it and create or recreate it” (2010, xxviii). What is identity? Is there a “True identity”? Fishman would argue that no, there is not. Identity is contextualized and situational: there are more or less effective identities in a specific context. Fishman describes three different points of view to look at identity (2010, xxix):

• The “insider” point of view (“what is the ethnolinguistics self-view of the Chinese themselves?”)
• The outsiders’ perspectives (on the Chinese view of their own language and ethnicity).
• The “experts’” perspective (most related to theoretically relevant questions and issues in the fields of language and ethnicity).

In the Conclusion Garcia goes back to these fields and the terms that define them: the title of the conclusion is Languaging and Ethnifying. She chooses to name language and ethnicity as verbs instead of nouns. This brings us back to the notion of “performativity” we met when dealing with Jonsson’s text. For Garcia this is important because it brings up the dialogic relationship between languaging and ethnifying as practices. Going from noun to verb the term looses a deal of its abstractness: languaging refers thus to the discursive practice of people. This dialogic relationship defines also the process of cultural change and continuity, the process of how individuals and groups have transformed themselves or remained the same by making languaging practices the focal center of their acts of identity. Garcia and Zakharia mention Herder for whom language was the way to safeguard the authenticity that people had inherited from their ancestors as well as to pass it on to the young and future generation (2010, 521). To Sapir, language, culture and ethnic identity are connected and according to Whorf the language influences the individual’s thoughts and way of understanding the world. To conclude, postmodern identity is no longer about “sameness” but also about “otherness”. Bilinguals engage in practices which are multiple discursive and in which they act to make sense of their world as translanguaging, meaning the fractured and fracturing identities of the postmodern world.

Literature (besides Davies, Jonsson and Fishman & Garcia)

Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. 2003. E–Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge/Falmer.

Murphy, K.L, Collins, M. P. 1997. Communication Conventions in Instructional Electronic Chats. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois, March 24-28, 1997 at http://www.firstmonday.org/org/issues/isseu2_11/murphy/index.html

White, C. 2003. Language Learning in Distance Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Östlund, B. 2008. Vuxnas lärande på nätet – betingelser för distansstudier och interaktivt lärande ur ett studentperspektiv. Umeå: Barn- och ungdomspedagogik, specialpedagogik och vägledning

Giulia Messina Dahlberg 23:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)