Precise definition of the term, ‘native speaker’, is extremely difficult and therefore usually avoided even though the concept is vital in SLA as in many other domains dealing with language ability. Most researchers rely on the assumption that there is a common understanding of what a native-speaker is. However, the requirements of scientific rigour make a close examination of this ‘common understanding’ an absolute necessity. We argue that reformulating the concept along the lines first suggested by Eleanor Rosch, i.e. using prototype theory, should provide the best way of introducing the necessary precision. This has the consequence that native-speakerhood becomes a gradient term with, respectively, core (prototypical) and peripheral features. This allows researchers to be more precise about what they, or the particular theoretical approach they adopt, claim to be the essential and non-essential features of nativeness and the necessary rigour is thereby achieved.
2019. An Individual‐Differences Framework for Comparing Nonnative With Native Speakers: Perspectives From BLC Theory. Language Learning 69:S1 ► pp. 157 ff.
Hyland, Ken
2019. Participation in Publishing: The Demoralizing Discourse of Disadvantage. In Novice Writers and Scholarly Publication, ► pp. 13 ff.
Liddicoat, Anthony J.
2016. Native and non-native speaker identities in interaction: Trajectories of power
. Applied Linguistics Review 7:4 ► pp. 409 ff.
Mulder, Kimberley & Jan H. Hulstijn
2011. Linguistic Skills of Adult Native Speakers, as a Function of Age and Level of Education. Applied Linguistics 32:5 ► pp. 475 ff.
Simon, Ellen & Miriam Taverniers
2011. Advanced EFL Learners' Beliefs about Language Learning and Teaching: A Comparison Between Grammar, Pronunciation, and Vocabulary. English Studies 92:8 ► pp. 896 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.