The concept of Native Speaker in English and Russian academic discourse

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

In contrast to the requirements for scientific accuracy, terms, particularly in the humanities, often reflect the specific socio-cultural context of their use and seemingly equivalent terms can have significant conceptual differences within multilingual scholarly and professional communities. One such term is native speaker , which is crucial to the English Language Teaching (ELT) academic discourse. The main objective of this study is to explore the structure and meaning of the concept underlying the term native speaker and its dynamic functioning in discourse to identify differences in their understanding. The material consisted of English and Russian-language research articles on ELT from 1970 to 2020. The study was conducted using a linguosynergetic approach, which considers discourse as a self-developing and self-organizing, nonlinear, open and unstable system. The methodology included three stages. First, the authors conducted an axiomatic analysis of the contexts in which the term native speaker is used. Then, they modeled the concept in different synchronous slices. Finally, they compared the data obtained. The results showed that the differences concern not only the periphery of the concepts, but also their very core. In Russian ELT discourse, the concept retains a relatively stable structure. This reflects the role of the native speaker in the educational process, as a learning model and a preferred teacher. In English ELT discourse, the term native speaker has acquired a negative connotation, and conceptually, it acts as an opponent to the term non-native speaker , forming a dual concept with it. The conclusions сan serve as a basis for further comparative studies on interlanguage terminological systems in the humanities field.

About the authors

Olga N. Gich

Far Eastern Federal University

Email: gich.on@dvfu.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4975-1900

holds a PhD in Philology and is Associate Professor of the Department of Linguistics and Intercultural Communication at the Oriental Institute - School of Regional and International Studies of the Far Eastern Federal University. Her field of research interests includes comparative linguistics, cognitive linguistics, linguodidactics, computational linguistics.

Vladivostok, Russia

Galina N. Lovtsevich

Far Eastern Federal University

Author for correspondence.
Email: lovtsevich.gn@dvfu.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1951-6782

Doctor Habil. in Philology, Head of the Department of Linguistics and Intercultural Communication of the Oriental Institute - School of Regional and International Studies of the Far Eastern Federal University. Her research interests embrace terminology and terminography, intercultural communication, sociolinguistics, linguodidactics.

Vladivostok, Russia

References

  1. Азимов Э.Г., Щукин А.Н. Новый словарь методических терминов и понятий (теория и практикаобучения языкам). М.: Издательство ИКАР, 2009. [Azimov El’khan G. & Anatolij N. Shchukin 2009. Novyi slovar’ metodicheskih terminov i ponyatij (teoriya i praktikaobucheniya yazykam) (A New Dictionary of Methodological Terms and Concepts (Theory and Practice of Language Teaching)). M.: Izdatel’stvo IKAR. (In Russ.)].
  2. Борботько В.Г. Принципы формирования дискурса от психолингвистики к лингвосинергетике. М.: Книжныйдом «Либроком», 2011. [Borbot’ko, Vladimir G. 2011. Principy formirovaniya diskursa ot psiholingvistiki k lingvosinergetike (Principles of Discourse Formation from Psycholinguistics to Linguosynergetics). Moscow: LibrokomPubl. (In Russ.)].
  3. Буданов В.Г. Синергетика: мировоззрение, методология, наука // Экономические стратегии. 2010. Т. 12. № 5. С. 48-57. [Budanov, Vladimir G. 2010. Sinergetika: mirovozzrenie, metodologiya, nauka (Synergetics: Outlook, methodology, science). Ekonomicheskie Strategii 5. 48-57. (In Russ.)].
  4. Жеребило Т.В. Словарь лингвистических терминов и понятий. Изд. 6-е, испр. и доп. Назрань: Пилигрим, 2016. [Zherebilo Tat’yana V. 2016. Slovar’ lingvisticheskih terminov i ponyatii (Dictionary of Linguistic Terms and Concepts). Izd. 6-e, ispr. i dop. Nazran’: Piligrim. (In Russ.)]/
  5. Карасик В.И. О типах дискурса // Языковая личность: институциональный и персональный дискурс: сб. нaуч. тр. / под ред. В.И. Карасика, Г.Г. Слышкина. Волгоград: Перемена, 2000. С. 5-20. [Karasik, Vladimir I. 2000. O tipakh diskursa (About types of discourse). In Vladimir I. Karasik & Gennadij G. Slyshkin (eds.), Yazykovaya lichnost’: institucional’nyi i personal’nyi diskurs (Linguistic Personality: Institutional and Personal Discourse), 5-20. Volgograd: PeremenaPubl. (In Russ.)].
  6. Князева Е.Н., Курдюмов С.П. Законы эволюции и самоорганизации сложных систем: монография. М.: Наука, 1994. [Knyazeva, Elena N. & Sergej P. Kurdyumov. 1994. Zakony evolyucii i samoorganizacii slozhnyh system (Laws of Evolution and Self-Organization of Complex Systems). Moscow: Nauka Publ. (In Russ.)].
  7. Ловцевич Г.Н. Преподавание английского как языка международного общения: время перемен // Социальные и гуманитарные науки на Дальнем Востоке. 2019. Т. 16. № 1. С. 135-142. [Lovtsevich, Galina N. 2019. Teaching English as a Language of International Communication: Time of Change. The Humanities аnd Social Studies in the Far East 1. 135-142. (In Russ.)].
  8. Ловцевич Г.Н. Кросскультурный терминологический словарь как способ репрезентации терминологии гуманитарных наук: монография. Владивосток: Изд-воДальневост. ун-та, 2009. [Lovtsevich, Galina N. 2009. Krosskul’turnii terminologicheskii slovar’ kak sposob reprezentacii terminologii gumanitarnykh nauk (Cross-Cultural Terminological Dictionary as a Way of Representing the Terminology of the Humanities). Vladivostok: Far Eastern State University Publ. (In Russ.)].
  9. Ловцевич Г.Н., Гич О.Н. «Носитель языка» и «native speaker»: иллюзорное соответствие // Russian Journal of Linguistics. 2018. Т. 22. № 2. С. 436-447. [Lovtsevich, Galina N. & Olga N. Gich. 2018. English and Russian terms “Native Speaker”: Illusory equivalents. Russian Journal of Linguistics 2. 436-447. (In Russ.)]. https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2018-22-2-436-447
  10. Мамонова Н.В. Модель древовидного фрактала как средство организации британского сказочного дискурса // Вестник Челябинского государственного университета. 2013. № 24. С. 113-118. [Mamonova, Natal’ya V. 2013.Model’ drevovidnogo fraktala kak sredstvo organizacii britanskogo skazochnogo diskursa (The tree fractal model as a means of organizing British fairy-tale discourse). Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University 24. 113-118. (In Russ.)].
  11. Олизько Н.С. Синергетические принципы организации художественного дискурса постмодернизма //Вестник Челябинского государственного университета. 2009. № 10. С. 84-87. [Oliz’ko, Natal’ya S. 2009. Sinergeticheskie principy organizacii hudozhestvennogo diskursa postmodernizma (Synergetic principles of the organization of the fictional discourse of postmodernism). Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University 10. 84-87. (In Russ.)].
  12. Плотникова С.Н. Фрактальность дискурса как новое лингвистическое понятие // Вестник Иркутского государственного лингвистического университета. 2011. № 3 (15). С. 126-134. [Plotnikova, Svetlana N. 2011. The fractal dimension of Discourse: A new approach. Vestnik Irkutskogo Gosudarstvennogo Lingvisticheskogo Universiteta 3. 126-134. (In Russ.)].
  13. Alba-Juez, Laura. 2016. Discourse Analysis and Pragmatics: Their scope and relation. Russian Journal of Linguistics 4. 43-55. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-15147
  14. Bernstein, Basil. 2009. The structuring of Pedagogic Discourse. In Basil Bernstein (ed.), Class, codes and control, Vol. IV, 246. London and New York, Routledge.
  15. Calafato, Raees. 2019. The non-native speaker teacher as proficient multilingual: A critical review of research from 2009c2018. Lingua. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.06.001
  16. Gration, Elizabeth. 2024. Bilingualism in 2024: US, UK & Global Statistics. (https://preply.com/en/blog/bilingualism-statistics/#:~:text=According%20to%20the% 20U.S.%20Census,1%20in%20every%205%20adults) (accessed 6 March 2024)
  17. Jenkins, Jennifer. 2006. Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca. TESOL Quarterly 1. 157-181. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264515
  18. Kachru, Braj B. 1985. Standards, codifications and sociolinguistic realism. In Randolph Quirk & Henry G. Widowson (eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures, 11-30. Cambrige: Cambrige University Press.
  19. Medgyes, Peter. 1992. Native or non-native: Who’s worth more? ELT Journal 4. 340-349.
  20. Phillipson, Robert. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  21. Ponton, Douglas M. & Tatiana V. Larina. 2017. Discourse Analysis in the 21st Century: Theory and Practice (II). Russian Journal of Linguistics 1. 7-21. https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2017-21-1-7-21
  22. Quirk, Randolph. 1981. International communication and the concept of nuclear English. In Larry E. Smith (ed.), English for Cross-Cultural Communication, 151-165. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-16572-8_10
  23. Richards J. C., Schmidt R. W. 2013. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833835
  24. Rose, Heath, Jim McKinley & Nicola Galloway. 2021. Global Englishes and language teaching: A review of pedagogical research. Language Teaching 2. 157-189. 10.1017/S0261444820000518' target='_blank'>https://doi: 10.1017/S0261444820000518
  25. Smith, Larry E. 1983. English as an international language. No room for linguistic chauvinism. In Larry E. Smith (ed.), Readings in English as an International Language, 7-11. Oxford, New York, Toronto, a.o.: Pergamon Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2015-0002
  26. Tenbrink, Thora. 2015. Cognitive discourse analysis: Accessing cognitive representations and processes through language data. Language and Cognition 1. 98-137. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.19
  27. Thornbury, Scott. 2006. An AZ of ELT: A Dictionary of Terms and Concepts Used in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Macmillan.
  28. Van Dijk, Teun A. 2015. Critical discourse analysis. In Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 466-485. Chichester: JohnWiley&SonsLtd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584194.ch22
  29. Вишневская Г.М. Межкультурная коммуникация, языковая вариативность и современный билингвизм [Электронный ресурс]. // Ярославский педагогический вестник. 2002. № 1. http://vestnik.yspu.org/releases/novye_Issledovaniy/13_1/ (дата обращения: 23.02.2023). [Vishnevskaya, Galina M. 2002. Mezhkul’turnaya kommunikaciya, yazykovaya variativnost’ i sovremennyi bilingvizm (Intercultural communication, linguistic variability and modern bilingualism). Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin 1. http://vestnik.yspu.org/releases/novye_Issledovaniy/13_1/ (accessed 23 February 2023) (In Russ.)].
  30. Готлиб Р.А. Социальная востребованность знания иностранного языка // Социологические исследования. 2009. № 2. С. 122-127. [Gotlib, Roman A. 2009. Social’naya vostrebovannost’ znaniya inostrannogo yazyka (Social demand for knowledge of a foreign language). Sociologicheskie issledovaniya 2. 122-127. (In Russ.)].
  31. Демкин В.П., Гульбинская Е.В. Особенности дистанционного обучения иностранным языкам // Высшее образование в России 2001. № 1. С. 127-129. [Demkin, Vladimir P. & Elena V. Gul’binskaya. 2001. Osobennosti distancionnogo obucheniya inostrannym yazykam (Features of distance learning in foreign languages). Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii 1. 127-129. (In Russ.)].
  32. Прошина З.Г. Легитимность вариантов «неродного» английского языка // Личность. Культура. Общество. 2011. Т. 13. № 4. С. 164-165. [Proshina, Zoya G. 2011. Legitimnost’ variantov «nerodnogo» angliiskogo yazyka (Legitimacy of non-native English variants). Lichnost’. Kul’tura. Obshchestvo 4. 164-165. (In Russ.)].
  33. Чумаков А.Н. Язык как средство коммуникации и решения проблем в глобальном мире // Вопросы философии. 2015. № 12. С. 5-14. [Chumakov, Aleksandr N. 2015. Language as means of communication and solutions of problems in the global world. Voprosy filosofii 12. 5-14.]
  34. Alderson, John C. 1980. Native and nonnative speaker performance on cloze tests. Language Learning 1. 59-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1980.tb00151.x
  35. Alptekin, Cem. 1984. The question of culture: EFL teaching in non-English-speaking countries. ELT Journal 1. 14-20. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/38.1.14
  36. Arthur, Bradford, Richard Weiner, Meral Culver, Yan Lee & David Thomas. 1980. The register of impersonal discourse to foreigners: Verbal adjustments to foreign accent. In Diane Larsen-Freeman (ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research, 111-124. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publications, Inc.
  37. Braine, George. 2012. Non-native-speaker English teachers. In Carol A. Chapelle (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, 1-5. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0871
  38. Chastain, Kenneth. 1980. Native speaker reaction to instructor-identified student second-lLanguage errors. The Modern Language Journal 2. 210-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1980.tb05187.x
  39. Chastain, Kenneth. 1981. Native speaker evaluation of student composition errors. The Modern Language Journal 3. 288-294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1981.tb00987.x
  40. Clark, Elizabeth & Amos Paran. 2007. The employability of non-native-speaker teachers of EFL: A UK durvey. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics 4. 407-430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.05.002
  41. Day, Richard R., N. Ann Chenoweth, Ann Chun & Stuart Luppescu. 1984. Corrective feedback in native-nonnative discourse Language Learning 2. 19-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-1770.1984.TB01002.X
  42. Delisle, Helga H. 1982. Native speaker judgment and the evaluation of errors in German. The Modern Language Journal 1. 39-48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb01020.x
  43. Ellis, Rod. 1984. Communication strategies and the evaluation of communicative performance. ELT Journal 1. 39-44. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/38.1.39
  44. George, H. Victor. 1971. English for Asian Learners: Are we on the right road? ELT Journal 3. 270-277. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/xxv.3.270
  45. Kirkpatrick, Andy. 2006. Which model of English: Native-speaker, Nativized or lingua franca? In Runi Rubdy & Mario Saraceni (eds.), English in the world: Global rules, global roles, 71-83. London: Continuum.
  46. Kramsch, Claire. 2014. Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization: Introduction. The Modern Language Journal 1. 296-311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12057.x
  47. Liu, Jun. 1999. Nonnative-English-speaking professionals in TESOL. Tesol Quarterly 1. 85-102. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588192
  48. Long, Michael H. 1981. Questions in foreigner talk discourse. Language Learning 31. 135-157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1981.tb01376.x
  49. Long, Michael H. 1983. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics 2. 126-141. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.126
  50. Matsuda, Aya. 2003. Incorporating World Englishes in teaching English as an International Language. TESOL Quarterly 4. 719-729. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588220
  51. Scarcella, Robin C. 1983. Discourse accent in second language performance. In Susan Gass & Larry Selinker (eds.), Language Transfer in Language Learning, 306-322. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.5.10sca
  52. Scovel, Tom. 1969. Foreign accents, language acquisition, and cerebral dominance. Language Learning 3-4. 245-253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1969.tb00466.x

Copyright (c) 2024 Gich O.N., Lovtsevich G.N.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies