Response to “Going Beyond the Native Speaker in Language Teaching” by Vivian Cook.

“L2 students cannot be turned into native speakers without altering the core meaning of native speakers (187).” For me, an attempt to define “native speakers” seems just to unnecessarily problematize the conventional or historical meaning and thereby to challenge the notoriously biased views so far developed by many native or nonnative speakers. Unreasonably being critical, many have reasoned logically or, better say, illogically why the preference of native speaker still prevails in L2 learning communities. Frivolous though it seems, this and other such views are so contentious that we need to think over the solution before something transpires against it. Many catchy and convincing definitions have been supplied for this most debatable term “native speaker”; nevertheless, not even a single critical thinker feels contentment with its divergent definitions. We have witnessed that no language is irrevocable and no L2 learners can speak like a native speaker. This nature of language-changeability has complicated the definition of the term further. It is true that language accomplished in childhood dies hard. It is also true that a child can learn L2 much faster than an adult does. None can claim to be a native speaker on the ground that s/he learnt it first or was born with it. There is nothing called nativity or non-nativity. For me, this is rather a language politics or an exercise of power politics over the never winning game which is already lost.

It is time to think whether language is a barricade or a beneficial to our language leaning practice. No two speakers can speak with the same tone and tongue. In most cases, the indisputable definition of “native speaker” is that a native speaker is the one who speaks the language learnt first. But this and other such definitions are never satisfactory in the case of bilinguists who speak L2 more fluently and unobtrusively than L1. However, practically speaking, an adult definitely feels more comfortable to use L1 in conversation or even in ESL classroom. In this case, the question is: who should teach L2: L1 speakers or L2 users? My experience is that L1 users cannot teach L2 learners as effectively as the L2 users can. The reason behind this is that L2 users know the effective techniques or strategies through their L2 learning experience and do apply them practically while teaching L2. I remember the time when I used to teach English to L2 learners back in Nepal. I believe my students would have to struggle more to learn L2 if they had been taught by L1 users. This is because L2 users adopt the same language learning strategies in the ESL classroom which they had applied during their own continuous L2 learning process. In my case too, I had developed some new techniques of my own to use in my classroom. I have seen many L1 users competent in speech but horribly bad at formal writing. The same case applies for me. I feel much comfortable to use L1 in communication but feel sorry when I happen to write something formally in L1. For me, use of the L1 is seen not as desirable but as a necessary evil.