|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MORE than two years ago, Guadalupe Valdés and I participated in a meeting of the task force writing the Spanish and Portuguese Standards for the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese. The group decided that it was imperative that we address the issue of those who have some familiarity with the language through family relationships. As we reviewed our positions on the constructs of "native speaker," "heritage speaker," and "bilingual speaker," we also began talking about the construct of the "near-native speaker" for example, is a heritage speaker of Spanish a near-native speaker? Is such a person a nonnative speaker?
The task force spent the better part of the first day of deliberations pondering the subject of definitions and linguistic domains. The topic seemed fascinating to me, a literature professor for more than a quarter of a century. What intrigued me was not that we were discussing these issues but that none of us could come up with a definition of any of the constructs to the others' satisfaction. Thus began my journey through a year of surveys, unfamiliar though very elementary number crunching, and quite a bit of self-reflection.
Around that time, my department, along with the entire university system of Georgia, changed from a quarter system to a semester system. In our department, this meant a revision of the curriculum from the beginning language courses through the most advanced doctoral-level seminars. Each of us in Spanish set out to prepare a new course for the required sequence--my assignment was literary theory, a course to be taught to all MA and PhD students in Spanish. This course, like all others we teach, was to be conducted entirely in Spanish. Moreover, we were searching for two positions in Spanish--both in literature--and I chaired one of the committees. Along with practically every other department in the country searching for future colleagues, we knew that we wanted at the very least a "near-native" speaker of Spanish.
I began my task by trying to define the construct through consultation with colleagues. Valdés's answer was less than satisfying, and I quote: "What interests me about the entire construct of near-native proficiency is that it is imprecise. This is why the notion can be so dangerous in our field. Different people mean different things when they advertise for a near-native speaker" (personal correspondence). I then asked my colleagues in linguistics at the University of Georgia how they defined the construct. None would even engage me in conversation; instead they mentioned words such as controversial, racist, classist, and not definable. Recall that I was preparing a course in literary theory while these events were taking place. This fact is important because, among other points, I wanted to make salient to students the "colonized" way in which those of us who teach literary theory in the context of literature written in the Spanish language deal with French, German, and Russian theorists. My theory class was to begin with "a view from the periphery" in an effort to lead students toward an embracing of all cultural contexts--their own included--in their reading and application of theoretical texts.
Claire Kramsch's PMLA Guest Column, "The Privilege of the Nonnative Speaker," provided me with the framework for integrating all the tasks at hand. I particularly accepted Kramsch's conclusion that, "seen from the perspective of linguistic travel and migration rather than from that of the traditional sedentary, bounded opposition native/nonnative, the notion of native speakership loses its power and significance. Far more interesting are the multiple possibilities for self-expression in language. In that regard, everyone is potentially, to a greater or lesser extent, a nonnative speaker, and that position is a privilege" (368).
My reading in preparation for this paper led me through some rather daunting labyrinths that would probably have made even Borges pause. I began to learn a new language and a new culture--that of linguists and linguistics. My work on the Standards task force of the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese and the many positive and constructive bits of advice that we received from colleagues led me to internalize some issues that need to be made clear in this discussion. The famous "curricular weave" of the Standards focuses on interpersonal, interpretive, and presentational communication, along with cultural practices, connections, and the acquisition of new information. Although I have internalized these terms, I had not thought about them in relation to the nonnative-speaking literary scholar.
For the purposes of choosing a colleague, I am particularly concerned with the communication goal. My future colleague must be able to carry out interpersonal communication in Spanish (or Portuguese); he or she must be able to interpret cultural artifacts and practices--whether these be literary texts or ideological stances dealing with issues of race, class, gender, and their interaction in daily routines. Finally, my future colleague must be able to present his or her ideas at different levels and know the difference between the domains of language use.
Specifically, I pondered the issue of the "near-native construct" in developing the announcement for the position that we were advertising in 1997: the area was Golden Age literature. In Spanish literary studies, this area covers two centuries that encompass many canonical writers, such as Cervantes and Lope de Vega. Coded in the term is also the idea that the Golden Age refers to peninsular, not Latin American, literature, although Sor Juana, also canonical by now, wrote during the period. Traditionally in Spanish literary studies we have specialized in one or the other side of the Atlantic and its literature and culture (peninsular or Latin American) with little if any transatlantic crossover. In my department's newly revised curriculum, however, faculty members will have to broaden their views and present literary topics that are not geographically bound but rather representive of areas of genre development. They will need to ask such questions as, How did drama as a literary form develop? How did oral tradition develop into the modern poetic or novelistic forms?
As we developed the ad that eventually appeared in the MLA Job Information List and in the Chronicle of Higher Education, we inserted the requisite "near-native proficiency in Spanish." By the time the committee met, I realized that "near-native" is also code in our profession for the nonnative speaker who could meet our expectations for the position. Since I had both the advantage of having thought about this particular construct and since I suspected that each of us defines this "other" according to preconceived ideas, I questioned my colleagues on the search committee about the construct. I got conflicting answers. "Perfect grammatical usage, of course," said one. "Pronunciation is more important," said another, adding "Students will model what they hear, and in quoting literary passages it is imperative that the pronunciation be as near to that of the native speaker as possible, so it will be authentic." As I heard this last comment, my mind drifted to the warnings of both Kramsch ("Privilege")and Valdés ("Minority") among others, that this ideal "native speaker" is a representation of a white, middle-class, educated speaker. I wondered if my colleague thought that Castilian Spanish "near-nativeness" would make reading the Argentinian gaucho poem Martin Fierro more "authentic."
Another member of the committee stated that for our purposes the importance of being near-native was one's ability to discuss the latest literary theories in Spanish, since our courses are taught in Spanish. As I heard this definition, I was amused that my colleague did not question the fact that we would be reading translations--into Spanish, to be sure--of texts originally written in other languages, including English.
Finally, one of my colleagues said, "For me, the most important thing about being near-native is that the person seem at ease with the language. Fluency means imitating the native pace, tone, speed, et cetera. Grammar, pronunciation, quoting of literary passages, literary theory, all of that will be done more authoritatively, and therefore the faculty member will be more respected by our graduate students, especially those who are native speakers." Embedded in this last definition, more than in the others, was an unspoken challenge to win respect by being like the other. My colleagues, all literary scholars, were the members of a search committee that would eventually decide from among almost one hundred applicants who would be interviewed at the MLA convention and which three finalists would garner a campus interview.
I began refining my own definition of near-nativeness by self-reflection and self-reference--not an unusual activity for those of us who delight in the study of theory. Our experiences and views are as valid as published research, especially in a domain where experts tend to disagree and where no consensus is apparent from the field. Thus, by making salient my own otherness, I may finally understand and more clearly articulate how I personally define the terms. I am a native speaker of Brazilian Portuguese; I have been told that I am a near-native speaker of Spanish and English. Culturally I live on the periphery of the languages that I speak--not quite belonging to any one of the cultures represented.
As I pondered the issues at hand, I realized that my linguistic capacity in these three languages had nothing (or very little) to do with what I myself expected of a literature professor. This linguistic domain requires more than ease with the language, with pronunciation, grammar, or quoting passages. It requires a knowledge of literary texts, of how to read them on a literary level. Here I am referring to the implied construct in Claire Kramsch's statement that "[t]he pedagogical question may not be whether language teachers should teach literature or not, but, rather: how can language teachers help learners read texts at a variety of levels of meaning?" (Context 8).
What I wanted from my new colleague (or from any other colleague in literature) in terms of language skill was the ability to discuss literary topics with me and other department members (not to mention teach classes at all levels) in Spanish without breaking into English for ease of expression. I myself am more comfortable discussing literary topics in Spanish when they refer to literature written in Spanish and in Portuguese when they refer to literature written in Portuguese. As I continued to think about these issues, I came up with my own simplistic definition of the construct, involving two phrases, comfort level and text sensitivity. By comfort level I mean specifically finding the correct words in the language in question to express what one wishes to express without translation into English. Text sensitivity is a term we have used in the past, particularly to describe students who are well-versed in the language and have also shown a particular interest in and talent for reading texts for literary meaning.
Shortly after the mythical October day when the MLA Job Information List appeared, applications began to arrive. Most if not all applicants now rate their language ability according to the ACTFL scale, and all rated themselves Superior. I wondered as I read applicants' credentials whether these were self-evaluations or whether they had indeed been tested through an OPI. Interestingly enough, even "native speakers," people born and educated in a Spanish-speaking part of the world, rate themselves Superior on the ACTFL scale.
Armed with the Job Information List, I decided to survey colleagues throughout the country about their views on the issue of the near-native speaker (appendix A). The questions I asked dealt specifically with the issues that I had faced. The first question asked for a ranking of definitions that best fit the near-native speaker teaching literature classes. The question included as options all the definitions that I had heard from my colleagues.
Talking to Judith Liskin-Gasparro at the Pedagogical Summit sponsored by the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese in August 1997 inspired question 2. We discussed whether we train our doctoral students--and future colleagues--to speak the language at all times or whether we merely provide them with classroom models of speaking. Questions 3 and 4 dealt with the separation of language and literature. They emerged from faculty discussions in my department. One colleague tried unsuccessfully to get the other department members to agree that a certain graduate seminar should be taught in English, because that would be "the only way that a really meaningful discussion" could take place. The professors of a student who appealed her rejection for the PhD program on the grounds that she had a straight-A average in our MA program explained that in literature courses people dealt not with language ability, only with ideas in general. Yet the professors maintained that, while her ideas were sound for the MA level, her language ability was not appropriate for the PhD level. Question 5, although flawed, was inspired by the revised curriculum in my department, which includes language, literature, and culture at every level of instruction, the term culture having been debated at length (see Tesser).
I sent the survey to 125 departments advertising literature positions in the Job Information List. My criteria for inclusion were that the department must have listed in the ad the phrase near-native ability and that it must have said either in the title of the position or in the description of the ad that the applicant would have to teach literature. I received ninety-seven completed questionnaires. Responses came from twenty-four different states, as well as from Puerto Rico and Canada. Seventeen of the respondents represented PhD-granting departments, fifty-three represented MA-granting departments, twenty-five represented BA-only institutions, and two represented community colleges. Thirty-two of the institutions were PhD-granting, thirty-eight were comprehensive universities, twenty-five were liberal arts colleges, and two were community colleges.
The results provided quite a bit of food for thought. A total of 87.6% of the respondents ranked "has no trouble discussing literary theories in the language" as the number-one criterion for a "'near-native speaker' teaching literature classes," 82.4% ranked "is at ease in the language (rate, pace, fluidity)" as the number-two criterion, 32% ranked pronunciation third, and 21% ranked grammar fourth. Ability to quote literary passages did not loom large in the minds of our colleagues (85.5% ranked it lowest), but neither did grammatical expertise (42.2% ranked it next to the lowest). I believe that this issue deserves some pondering. Have we finally let go of the all-powerful supremacy of grammar? Are those of us in literature saying that we should train students to be able to negotiate meaning with ease and not worry so much about grammatical perfection?
Questions 3 and 4 also yielded interesting results. I should mention here that of the ninety-seven respondents, six did not know the phrase ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Of those who did, however, 81.4% thought that "language as well as the presentation of ideas" should apply in literature classes, but only 18.5% believed that this criterion did apply in their department. In fact, 82.5% of the respondents believed that only ideas, not language, were being evaluated in literature classes. I am not sure who responded to the questionnaire, since it was sent to either the chair of the search committee or the chair of the department. What these data indicate, however, is that although there seems to be a perception among literature colleagues that language ought to be important, the reality still points to the dichotomy of ideas versus language.
Another telling bit of news is found in the responses to items 6 and 7 on the use of English in literature and language classes. A total of 60.7% of the respondents admitted to using English "part of the time" in literature classes (I excluded from this sample those who stated that they were in comparative literature departments where all courses were taught in English). Not too surprising perhaps is that fact that 13% of the respondents use English "all of the time" in beginning language courses. I suppose these respondents include the twelve who did not understand the phrase ACTFL proficiency guidelines.
The only item in the survey that required some writing was the first part of question 6. Seventy-nine of the respondents completed the item. Forty-eight simply put "ACTFL Superior" or some variation of the phrase; the other thirty-one wrote the answers shown in appendix B. It was interesting to note the variability in definitions as well as the different criteria. Response 30, my favorite, clearly indicates that this person is at least aware of the generic standards for language learning: "I know one when I see one. Knows what to say, when, why, and to whom within a literary context." This survey gave me some insight into the complexity of the issue; it did not provide me with the answers that I expected.
If we return to Kramsch's notion of native speakership as losing its power and significance when "seen from the perspective of linguistic travel and migration, rather than from the traditional [. . .] opposition native/nonnative," how do we establish near-nativeness for the purposes of instruction, scholarship, and translation within the context of literary studies? For my own thinking on the subject, I have deconstructed the term near-native speaker.
"How near?" From my survey I believe that those of us in literature would answer that we mean near enough to be comfortable discussing literary topics. Although grammar and pronunciation are no longer salient in our minds, I wonder if we do not secretly believe that if the person has mastered the linguistic domain of literary theory, the other domains should follow "logically."
The question "Near what?" seems more clearly answered by the survey. We want to approximate the level of expertise in the literary field. In other words, our "native" of the "near-native" category is a literature professor who has studied the literature and the theory behind the literature of his or her native language. Moreover, this "native" speaker is completely fluent in the cultural context of the literary production.
My last question was, "What literary proficiency?" Most of the colleagues with whom I have spoken want the near-native speaker to be current in the latest literary movements and theoretical frameworks. It seems clear from some of the answers that, although we were discussing a literature position, "literary proficiency" now carries with it the need for cultural proficiency as well as for proficient understanding of folklore, customs, and traditions.
I hope that I have raised more questions than I have answered. I know that I am as confused now as I was when I began this journey. It seems to me that through grappling with this construct from at least two different perspectives--that of the literature professor and that of the linguistics professor--we may begin to approximate a more comfortable, text-sensitive definition.
I end with a postscript. Our search for the Golden Age position went on through the fall of 1997. We decided to interview fifteen finalists at the MLA convention in Toronto, although we had come to consensus on one of the finalists who seemed perfect on paper. At the convention, we conducted all interviews in Spanish. Our perfect candidate proved unable to sustain conversation in Spanish for the thirty-minute interview and was eliminated from consideration. Other candidates caused us some concern when they asked if they could discuss their current research efforts in English, so as to give us "more in-depth information." Campus interviews were conducted in Spanish and in English since some of our colleagues are not Spanish speakers. The successful candidate who joined our faculty in the fall of 1998 is not a native speaker of Spanish but a "near-native speaker"--according to our expectations of the meaning of the term.
The author is Professor of Portuguese and Spanish at the University of Georgia, Athens. This article is based on her presentation at the 1998 MLA convention in San Francisco, California.
Kramsch, Claire. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. New York: Oxford UP, 1993.
------. "The Privilege of the Nonnative Speaker." PMLA 112 (1997): 359-69.
Tesser, Carmen C. "Back to the Future: Curricular Change and the Culture Wars." ADFL Bulletin 26.3 (1995): 16-20. [Show Article]
Valdés, Guadalupe. "Minority and Majority Members in Foreign Language Departments: Toward the Examination of Established Attitudes and Values." ADFL Bulletin 22.2 (1991): 10-14. [Show Article]
"Near-Native Ability" and Literary Studies
You are currently advertising a position in the MLA Job Information List. In the description of qualifications, you state that the person should have near-native ability in the language. Please answer the following questions keeping in mind your own definition of near-native ability in the language other than English.
1. A near-native speaker (NNS) teaching literature classes (please rank--1 is highest priority)
a. has excellent pronunciation _____
b. has no trouble discussing literary theories in the language _____
c. is at ease in the language (rate, pace, fluidity) _____
d. has excellent grammatical knowledge _____
e. is able to quote passages from texts _____
2. A NNS uses the language other than English (LOTE) when communicating with students (check the one that most appropriately fits your definitions of NNS)
a. only in the classroom setting _____
b. only when reading a passage of literary text _____
c. always, whether in class or not _____
d. only in casual conversations (greetings, etc.) _____
3. A NNS evaluating literature students (check all that should apply in your department--see number 4 below)
a. knows the ACTFL proficiency guidelines and applies them in evaluation _____
b. evaluates the use of language as well as the presentation of ideas _____
c. evaluates the presentation of ideas only (even if in English) _____
d. encourages cooperative learning techniques _____
4. A NNS evaluating literature students (check all that do apply in your department)
a. knows the ACTFL proficiency guidelines and applies them in evaluation _____
b. evaluates the use of language as well as the presentation of ideas _____
c. evaluates the presentation of ideas only (even if in English) _____
d. encourages cooperative learning techniques _____
5. A NNS is familiar with the culture of those who speak the LOTE (check all that apply in your opinion)
a. NNS knows religious practices _____
b. NNS knows gender issues _____
c. NNS knows everyday practices--foods, daily routines, etc. _____
d. NNS knows issues of respect, power, tradition _____
6. Please describe in a sentence or short paragraph what you mean by near-native ability.
The next questions apply to your department and its practices:
6a. Literature classes are conducted in English
a. all of the time _____
b. part of the time _____
c. never _____
7. Beginning language classes are conducted in English
a. all of the time _____
b. part of the time _____
c. never _____
8. My department participates in language-across-the-curriculum programs
a. often _____
b. sometimes _____
c. never _____
9. A LOTE is an entrance requirement at my institution
Yes _____ No _____
(If yes, how many years? _____)
10. A LOTE is an exit requirement at my institution
Yes _____ No _____
(If yes, how many quarter/semester hours? _____ OPI? _____)
11. My institution is a
a. community college _____
b. four-year liberal arts college _____
c. comprehensive university _____
d. PhD-granting institution _____
12. My department offers the following degrees
a. associate _____
b. BA _____
c. MA _____
d. PhD _____
Responses to Item 6: Please describe in a sentence or short paragraph what you mean by near-native ability.
Seventy-nine respondents completed the item. Forty-eight of them simply put "ACTFL Superior." The responses of the others follow.
1. Our city/university is one of the most multicultural in the world. Students are likely to know very little English or Spanish. It is important that the instructor be a native speaker of either Spanish or English and be totally conversant with the other of the pair (at ease, excellent grammatical knowledge, because they often end up helping students with both ease and excellent pronunciation). Because tenure-track position will eventually--for the successful candidate--produce departmental citizens who will participate in university-wide committees, we must be sure they can communicate in English . . . With candidates from Spain, this has not always been the case, although we have had better luck with our Latin American applicants. So, near-native fluency cuts both ways in our ad.
2. Speaks in a way that has interlocutors concentrate on content rather than form. Advanced competence in four skills. At ease in discussing course content and general academic matters. Sensitive to stylistic issues. Serves as a model to imitate. Able to analyze and correct errors of grammar and style. Excellent lexical competence.
3. Able to be perceived by native speakers as almost similar to them in terms of linguistic/culture performance/competence. Not imposing on native speakers significant constraints on their own performance in terms of language/culture contact and interaction.
4. Ability to perform all skills in the language with nearly the sophistication of an educated native speaker, that is, with only minor, infrequent, and inconsequential errors. Awareness of cultures of target-language speakers at a similar high level.
5. Out of a department of 10, another colleague and I are the NNS professors. The others are native speakers from Spain, Venezuela, Chile, Mexico, USA. The 2 NNS, we must deal in Spanish in the classroom, conferences, dept. meetings--99.99% of the time. From literary criticism to administrative issues, to social interaction, we operate at a 4+ ACTFL scale. It's a way of life. I almost wrote this en español.
6. Someone who culturally as well as linguistically can approximate the instinctive, semiautomatic reactions of natives to a given situation. Someone who, when dealing among native speakers, does not draw attention to her/his nonnative qualities. S/he blends in. Of the knowledge and skills required to accomplish this, I would judge accent the least important.
7. Bilingual and bicultural (excluding childhood experience).
8. Near-native proficiency or more superior on ACTFL scale. The person can function in the target language in work, travel, and social situations, can defend opinion, hypothesize as well as perform the functions of advanced and intermediate levels.
9. Fluent in the target language; active, up-to-date knowledge of target culture.
10. The NNS is very proficient in the language and knowledgeable about the culture and customs of the countries studied. Mistakes in grammar and pronunciation are seldom made.
12. One whose foreign language might be spotted by a native as not being native; one whose language is more than sufficient for all academic situations but who would probably have difficulty in register shifting. E.g., one who could handle an academic lecture with ease but would have problems interacting with a native speaker in the 3-10 age level.
13. Comfort and fluency in use of language. Grammatical accuracy and accuracy in pronunciation. Superior ACTFL rating. If teaching a graduate-level class made up entirely of native speakers, students would respect linguistic ability of instructor.
17. A NNS is one who, by not being native, is hindered neither by language nor cultural misunderstanding in the presentation and discussion of material.
18. A person who has traveled overseas--lived for an extensive time in the country-countries. Excellent pronunciation. Able to communicate on all levels, all topics.
19. La capacidad de entender y expresarse con fluidez en una lengua extranjera, conociendo la otra cultura y expresando das, emociones, conceptos abstractos y de orden prático teneindo plena conciencia del campo semántico que envuelven sus palabras.
20. Speaks without hesitation about literary topics.
21. Linguistic competence, ability to conduct class and conversation in the language with minimal (or without) error. Comfortable speaking, reading, etc. (Sounds simplistic, but we have seen candidates with very poor language skills.)
22. Speaking the language like a native, fluently and correctly; being a role model for the learner.
23. A person whose proficiency in the language includes some mistakes in all areas--pronunciation and grammar-sociolinguistic applications, etc., but whose language does not contain systematic patterns of errors. It doesn't have much to do with teaching methodology or the ACTFL guidelines. This person would score Superior but wouldn't necessarily know why.
24. Someone who, although s/he may not have done totally work [sic] in the language, has spent sufficient time in the culture to be taken, on occasion, as a native speaker. To be distinguished from a heritage speaker.
25. The ability to produce the language at proper discourse level for the circumstances with no grammatical errors. Approximation of native pronunciation, without hesitation and breath groupings.
26. Able to teach all levels comfortably and accurately in the LOTE.
27. A person who has a competence in the language similar to that of a native; understands literary works in a way similar to an educated native's; makes minor mistakes in the spoken language.
28. A person with near-native ability can perform all the language skills and has cultural knowledge sufficient to engage in all personal and professional tasks with natives and nonnatives at a high level of proficiency. Natives will recognize the near-native speaker as such. Nonnatives may not.
29. Near-native ability indicates that the person is almost indistinguishable from a native speaker in writing, speaking, reading, and listening. The person understands the linguistic and cultural nuances of the second language. This includes understanding the structure and protocols of language in a variety of contexts spanning informal and scholarly contexts.
30. I know one when I see one. Knows what to say, when, why, and to whom within a literary context.
31. Is extremely comfortable using target language, has wide vocabulary range, virtually no hesitation in speaking target language, could be confused with native speaker because of natural pronunciation.
© 1999 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
