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 toward 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, and 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 also is one way we can co-create a more just and inclusive field.

Historical Linguistics of Sign Languages: Progress and Problems

“…Because these factors likely vary across language communities, the patterns of typical language transmission in these communities may vary as well. Cheng et al (2021) suggest that the terms "native speaker" and "native signer" have sometimes been used by scholars in ways that conflate differing aspects of language acquisition, proficiency, and identity. In light of differences in the demographics of many signing vs. speech communities and, relatedly, in light of differences in the typical pathways of language transmission in these communities, the authors recommend that scholars carefully disentangle the various assumptions that constitute the category of native speaker or native signer.…”

Psycholinguistic Injustice in the Field of Speech/Language Pathology

“…This is a manifestation of the field's reliance on "normal" language development that is tied with Chomsky's problematic idealisation of a native speaker and hence, the marginalisation of multilingual and multimodal languaging. As Cheng et al (2021) argue, the racialised concept of "native speaker" upholds racist perspectives against non-hegemonic paths of language acquisition such as multilingualism. Hence, the current conceptualisation of DLD is undermined by monolingualism, monomodalism, and an oppressive notion of language disorder that facilitate psycholinguistic injustice.…”

Minoritised languages, education, and technology: Current practices and future directions in low- and middle-income countries

“…Native language/ tongue/ speaker No • 'Native', and 'nativeness' in general, is a vague, binary and racialised term which carries significant colonial baggage. This is particularly apt when discussing languages in education in LMICs, where previous colonial languages are often still employed as the language of education (Cheng et al, 2021).…”