Idiolect speakers

Sun Nov 10 08:08:47 UTC 2002

Hi all linguists,

This is a recurring theme in my experience, but it will never get flogged to death.

Without doing violence to theoretical lingustics, I would like to pass on an interesting opinion received from the Ontario Human Rights Commission. In 1985, after The Native Speaker Is Dead! came out and was reviewed in journals worldwide (also published in a Japanese translation), my chief collaborator on the book, the late Prof. Paul Christophersen of Cambridge, England, sent me several clippings of ads for English language teachers, editors, etc. by public agencies that had switched to terms like "first language user" to avoid using "native speaker". Formerly want ads would say "Only native speakers need apply" or words to that effect.

Personally, I consider "native speaker" somewhat exclusionary ("elitist, if not racist" is how one of the participants in the above discussion put it). Since this discussion would be digressive in the paper I am giving at the Atlanta ADS, I add an end note to this exchange.

TOM PAIKEDAY
www.paikeday.net

From: Reema_Khawja/OHRC.ON.CA at OHRC.ON.CA 
To: t.paikeday at sympatico.ca 
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 2:38 PM
Subject: "native speaker"

Dear Mr. Paikeday, 

I am writing in response to your e-mail of October 29, 2002 in which you ask whether it is acceptable to ask if a candidate for an English-language editor position if he/she is a "native speaker". 

Ontario Human Rights Commission staff do not give opinion or advice on any specific situation or its compliance with the law.  However, I can offer the following comment based on the Ontario Human Rights Code (the "Code") and the Commission's Policy on Discrimination and Language (available on our web site: www.ohrc.on.ca). 

As you know, the Code does not include "language" as a prohibited ground of discrimination.  However, the Code does prohibit discrimination on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin and place of origin, all of which can be linked to language. 

The Policy on Discrimination and Language notes that discrimination based on "mother tongue" can be discrimination on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin or place of origin.  A similar argument can be made for discrimination based on whether someone is a "native speaker" which also appears to be directly linked to ancestry, ethnic origin or place of origin.  In other words, while the Commission has not specifically contemplated the term "native speaker", the analysis in the Policy on Discrimination and Language applied to "mother tongue" appears equally applicable. 

Making a distinction on the basis of "mother tongue" or "native speaker" will not likely be permitted unless the requirement can be shown to be a reasonable and bona fide (i.e. genuine) requirement of the job.  This means that the requirement must bear an objective relationship to the essential requirements of the job.  The employer must be able to demonstrate with concrete, and not impressionistic, evidence that this is a genuine job requirement that cannot be fulfilled by those who are not "native speakers".  In addition, individualized assessment should be used.  In other words, in the unlikely circumstance it can be shown that being a "native speaker" is a legitimate requirement, an opportunity should still be provided to someone who does not meet this requirement to demonstrate that he/she nevertheless can perform the job. 

The information I have provided is a policy staff opinion based on the Code and Commission policies.  It should not be viewed as legal advice.  If a complaint is received in relation to this matter, it will be processed in accordance with the Commission's usual procedures. 

Sincerely, 

Reema Khawja 
Senior Policy Analyst 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reema Khawja, Senior Policy Analyst
Ontario Human Rights Commission, Policy and Education Branch
180 Dundas Street West, 8th Floor
Toronto, ON   M7A 2R9
Phone: (416) 314-4551
Fax: (416) 314-4533
reema.khawja at ohrc.on.ca

MY E-MAIL OF OCT. 29:
info at ohrc.ont.ca

If I may ask a question apparently not covered by your Human Rights Guide:

When recruiting English-language editors, is it all right to ask a candidate if he/she is a "native speaker" of English?

Professors of linguistics consider the native speaker as the arbiter or grammaticality and acceptability in language use, as in Noam Chomsky's "Sentences generated will have to be acceptable to the native speaker" (Syntactic Structures). The term is not defined in most dictionaries because the meaning is supposed to be transparent and self-explanatory. But it is really more confusing than "mother tongue," etc. which you find in all dictionaries.

A variant of the question may be "Is your mother tongue English?" which, I am sure, will strike you as discriminatory. That is how someone hiring an editor might rephrase the question if a candidate countered with "What is a native speaker?"

My question, of course, is not about "mother tongue" but about "native speaker" and the concept behind it.

I thought it would be interesting to find out if you have dealt with this issue and whether there has been a ruling on the subject. Personally I consider it an exclusionary term like "outsider," "stranger," "gentile," "foreigner," etc. Compare "No Irish need apply."

I could use your answer in a paper I am giving to the annual meeting of the American Dialect Society.

Many thanks in anticipation.

Sincerely,

T. M. PAIKEDAY

--------------------------------

END NOTE:

When someone claims "I am a native speaker of English," it raises the question, What English? (A language may be thought of as an abstract entity, but it exists in reality as used by people). Surely you cannot speak every dialect of English from Australian to Zimbabweyan? That would be "speaking in tongues" or a refined kind of glossolalia.

A more correct answer might be, OK, I am a native  speaker of American English. But do you natively speak all varieties of American English? No, just the variety I learned to speak in adolescence (The new Oxford dictionaries say, "from earliest childhood" which sounds a bit far-fetched). But if you are a native speaker of a specific variety, say Appalachian English, isn't what you use your own individual vocabulary, pronunciation style, usage, etc. which sets you apart from other speakers of Appalachian English and which you probably leave  behind (like the robe you lounge in) when you speak in public? So let us say you are a native speaker of your idiolect, a customized version of the language you picked up at home.

As Chomsky said in 1985, "So then, what is a language and who is a native speaker? Answer, a language is a system L-s, it is the steady state attained by the language organ. And everyone is a native speaker of the particular L-s that that person has "grown" in his/her mind/brain. In the real world, that is all there is to say." Which in my humble opinion is not saying very much for those who claim they are native speakers of English.