Caracterización de la población con discapacidad.

In language education, one of the major problems that the application of concepts such as ‘native speaker’ and ‘non-native speaker’ can have is professional disadvantage for, or even discrimination against teachers due to what can be an arbitrary or ideologically-rooted assignment of either of these categories to a speaker of a given language (see Brutt-Griffler & Samimy, 2001, for an example of this). This discrimination will be discussed more fully in the following chapter, but at this point it will be useful to review some of the major ways in which the ‘native-’ and ‘non-native’ labels have been discussed in applied linguistics research. These discussions fall into two major categories which, following conceptualizations related to language and gender, I label “deficit” and “difference” (see Talbot, 2010).

2.4.1.  Deficit

The notion of ‘deficit’ is the idea that those classified as ‘non-native speakers’ have a language knowledge and proficiency that is inferior to ‘native speakers’, and that their language use can only ever be, at most, a pale imitation of that of the 'native'. This view has been expressed by a number of scholars, though less frequently in more recent literature. However, it is still very likely to be found among language students and members of the general public (Moussu & Llurda, 2008, p. 232).

The deficit view, as held by scholars, is most clearly described in the work of Quirk (1990), who cites studies into the use of French by 'non-native speakers' in order to argue that even highly proficient 'non-native speakers' are still inferior language users, who, though able to work in

25 professional positions, are unable to act as arbiters or gatekeepers of the language. Using this data, Quirk (1990) argues that “the implications for foreign language education are clear: the need for native teacher support and the need for non-native teachers to be in constant touch with the native language” (p.14). A study by Coppieters (1987) on the intuitions of 'native' and 'non-native' speakers of French came to similar conclusions. However, this conclusion is made with reference to competence as defined by a particular linguistic standard. Quirk is discussing ‘non-native speakers’ operating in a homogenous, monolingual environment, in which proficiency is measured against a particular standardized norm. This is not the case for speakers such as those described in the study by Brutt-Griffler and Samimy (2001) mentioned earlier, who expressed themselves equally well but were categorized as either 'native' or 'non-native' speakers on the basis of other factors than their objective proficiency. This is a problem for Quirk’s argument.

Additionally, Quirk does not discuss the possibility of ‘native speakers’ of different varieties of French (such as Quebecois), which would be far more relevant when considering the application of an ideologically-charged label such as ‘native speaker’ or ‘non-native speaker’, in which national background and language variety spoken are often taken as indicators of linguistic competence. As Canagarajah (1999a) notes, Quirk assumes a standard form of English which by definition labels speakers of other linguistic varieties as deficient. In this sense, Quirk is begging the question by arguing that speakers of one variety are better teachers of that variety than speakers of another variety. He does not, however justify why we should consider one variety more important than another. In fact, studies which have claimed to find measurable differences between L1 and L2 users of languages using grammaticality judgement tests, such as Quirk (1990) and Coppieters (1987), ironically demonstrate the socially constructed nature of the ‘native speaker’, because as Cook (2002) puts it, “the grammaticality judgments technique is bound to reveal differences between monolinguals and L2 users, because the actual measuring instrument is not neutral” (p.22),

26 assuming, as it does, a standard form against which language use should be measured.

Quirk also seems to jump from the question of proficiency level to the question of suitability for teaching, conveniently skipping the rather important question of actual teaching ability. Clearly, not all ‘native speakers’ are going to be as skilled in the classroom as all ‘non-native speakers’, and vice-versa; indeed, Britten (1985) and Phillipson (1992) argue that ‘non-native speakers’ may be more suitable as teachers because they themselves have undergone the process of adult language learning, and so may be more able to empathize with their students and understand the challenges faced by learners, as well as having a deeper level of metalinguistic knowledge.

It is, therefore, difficult to argue that ‘native speakers’ are, by definition, ideal teachers, and that ‘non-native speakers’ are, by definition, inferior teachers. This has led other scholars to adopt a more complementarian view; the idea of ‘difference’.

2.4.2.  Difference

According to this conception of the ‘native speaker teacher’ and ‘non-native speaker teacher’ the two sets of teachers are neither superior nor inferior to each other, but rather serve different roles and purposes in the classroom. As Medgyes (2001) writes, “both groups of teachers serve equally useful purposes in their own ways. In an ideal school, therefore, there should be a good balance of NESTs and non-NESTs, who complement each other’s strengths and weaknesses” (p.441). This view has been promoted by researchers such as Tajino and Tajino (2000) who reviewed team-teaching in Japan between ‘native’ and a ‘non-native’ speakers, concluding that the combination of the teachers’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds can provide optimum opportunities to help learners develop their communicative and cultural competence. Medgyes (2001), referring to earlier studies (Medgyes, 1994; Reves & Medgyes, 1994), provides a list of traits that distinguish ‘native speakers' from 'non-native speakers' according to 325 surveyed

27 teachers. These differences included the beliefs that 'native speakers' “speak better English”, “are more innovative”, “are more casual”, “are less committed”, “are less insightful”, “focus on fluency, meaning, language in use, oral skills, and colloquial registers” and so on. In contrast, 'non-native speakers' “speak poorer English”, “are more cautious”, “are more empathetic”, “are stricter”, “are more committed”, “are more insightful”, “focus on accuracy, form, grammar rules, printed word, and formal registers” and “supply less cultural information” (p.435). This list of differences between ‘native speakers’ and ‘non-native speakers' seems, to put it mildly, rather stereotypical. Each group is painted with an extremely broad brush, which, as we have already discussed is a dangerous thing to do when talking about real people in real situations. While Medgyes (2001) compiled this data from others, his own conclusions in the article fall along the same lines, arguing that ‘non-native speakers’ “provide a better learning model”, “teach language learning strategies more effectively”, “supply more information about the English language”, “better anticipate and prevent language difficulties”, are “more sensitive to their students”, and “benefit from their ability to use their students’ mother tongue” (p.436). Medgyes concludes by stating that these two groups of teachers should be assigned different roles in the classroom in order to capitalize on these traits. This is not to mention the fact that, as discussed earlier in this chapter, the assignment of the labels ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ are often arbitrary and ideologically influenced based on a range of factors outside simple linguistic proficiency. Despite these problems with the difference approach, they still appear in the literature (see Ruecker, 2011) and have currency among teachers and the popular consciousness in ELT.

While the difference approach to the description of teacher attributes was an attempt to praise the positive elements that ‘non-native’ speaker teachers can bring to the classroom - which is surely an improvement on the “deficit” approach described earlier - it is still guilty of playing on stereotypes and using the unclear and poorly-defined labels of ‘native speaker’ and ‘non-native

28 speaker’ to place teachers into two separate categories. As we shall see in later chapters, this has had the unintended effect of causing various forms of employment discrimination. While scholars such as Cook (1999) have noted that it is not necessarily important to use the ‘native speaker’ as an aspirational model, because of the unreasonable expectations it places on students, the problematic stereotypes discussed here still hold major currency with language learners, teachers, and the general public.