The problematic concept of "native speaker" in Psycholinguistics: Replacing vague and harmful terminology with inclusive and accurate measures

Abstract

Though the term NATIVE SPEAKER/SIGNER is frequently used in language research, it is inconsistently conceptualized. Factors such as age, order, and context of acquisition, in addition to social/cultural identity, are often differentially conflated. While the ambiguity and harmful consequences of the term NATIVE SPEAKER have been problematized across disciplines, much of this literature attempts to repurpose the term in order to include and/or exclude certain populations. This paper problematizes NATIVE SPEAKER within psycholinguistics, arguing that the term is both unhelpful to rigorous theory construction and harmful to marginalized populations by reproducing normative assumptions about behavior, experience, and identity. We propose that language researchers avoid NATIVE SPEAKER altogether, and we suggest alternate ways of characterizing language experience/use.The vagueness of NATIVE SPEAKER can create problems in research design (e.g., through systematically excluding certain populations), recruitment (as participants’ definitions might diverge from researchers’), and analysis (by distilling continuous factors into under-specified binary categories). This can result in barriers to cross-study comparison, which is particularly concerning for theory construction and replicability. From a research ethics perspective, it matters how participants are characterized and included: Excluding participants based on binary/essentialist conceptualizations of nativeness upholds deficit perspectives towards multilingualism and non-hegemonic modes of language acquisition. Finally, by implicitly assuming the existence of a critical period, NATIVE SPEAKER brings with it theoretical baggage which not all researchers may want to carry.Given the issues above and how ‘nativeness’ is racialized (particularly in European and North American contexts), we ask that researchers consider carefully whether exclusion of marginalized/minoritized populations is necessary or justified—particularly when NATIVE SPEAKER is used only as a way to achieve linguistic homogeneity. Instead, we urge psycholinguists to explicitly state the specific axes traditionally implied by NATIVENESS that they wish to target. We outline several of these (e.g., order of acquisition, allegiance, comfort with providing intuitions), and give examples of how to recruit and describe participants while eschewing NATIVE SPEAKER. Shifting away from harmful conventions such as NATIVE SPEAKER will not only improve research design and analysis, but is also one way we can co-create a more just and inclusive field.

Rejecting “nativeness” to produce a more accurate and just Linguistics

“…The term is rarely defined or theorized in studies of language further naturalizing the category (see Cheng et al 2021 for a detailed discussion of how this term has been inconsistently operationalized in psycholinguistics). In a study that examined language dominance assessments, Solis-Barroso & Stefanich (2019) found that the assessments were not comparable due to inconsistent variables.…”

“…Across studies, "native speaker" has referred to many different factors including those who acquired the language before the age of three (invoking the construct of a critical period), those who experienced a particular language learning or educational environment, those who meet a proficiency "standard," or those who self-identify as "native." As Cheng et al (2021) argue, what scholars may have implicitly assumed to be a comparable unit is not actually so. Particularly relevant for researchers who reject the competence-performance divide, this term is theoretically laden such that it may produce assumptions that the researcher may not necessarily intend, such as supporting a strong critical period (see, e.g., Balari & Lorenzo 2015 for discussion).…”

“…Building on the arguments from previous sections, here, we focus on the impacts of centering "nativeness" and treating it as a natural category, as opposed to an ideology, in language research. Because arguments against the use of this concept in psycholinguistics (Cheng et al 2021), English Language Teaching (Holliday 2008, Ramjattan 2019, world Englishes (e.g., Mufwene 1994), applied linguistics (e.g., Davies 2004), second language acquisition (Dewaele et al 2021), and language contact (e.g., Love & Ansaldo 2010), have already been made, we both refer readers to those papers and take a broad approach here, in order to make our arguments relevant for linguistic research conducted in what is constructed as "core" fields as well.…”

Rejecting Competence: Essentialist constructs reproduce ableism and white supremacy in linguistic theory.

“…Ellis 2008, Castro et al 2022. Rather, these are better thought of as language ideologies or languageideological assemblages (Cheng et al 2021, Birkeland et al 2022 which are (re)produced by the sociohistorical contexts in which these terms and associated thinking emerged (Rabbi & Canagarajah 2021, Dewaele et al 2021.…”

Speaking clearly improves speech segmentation by statistical learning under optimal listening conditions

“…Instead of using the term 'native speaker/listener,' we opted to define our participants as those who have acquired English before the age of six, including those who may have acquired another language at the same time. The term 'native speaker' is inconsistently conceptualized across studies, is often imbued with prescriptivist notions and linguistic privilege, and may be connected with discriminatory practices (cf Cheng et al, 2021 andGrammon &Babel, 2021)…”