N
often as colonies (e.g., INDIA, Uganda, Singapore);
Native speaker
Native speakers can serve as a model for language
learners only if their distinguishing features have
been identified. Who, then, is a native speaker? A
native speaker is traditionally defined as someone
who speaks a language as their native language,
also called `MOTHER TONGUE' or `first language'.
The trouble is that all the criteria for determining
`native speakerness' are fuzzy and controversial,
including birth, the most oft-cited prerequisite
(Davies, 1991; Medgyes, 1994; Stern, 1983). While
it is generally true that a person who was born in
an English-speaking country is a native speaker of
English, this is not always the case. What about the
girl, for example, who was born in the USA but at
the age of one moved to Switzerland after she had
been adopted by Swiss parents? Anyway, which
countries belong to the English-speaking world?
Can Pakistan or South Africa make that claim?
The linguistic and sociolinguistic perspective
The case of ENGLISH is one of the most complex
but also best-researched, and can be used here to
identify the issues. Similar points could be made
about other international and former colonial
languages, particularly FRENCH. Recognising the
difficulty of setting up a division line between
English- and non-English-speaking countries, Ka-
chru (1985) arranged countries into three con-
centric circles. The `inner circle' includes nations
where English is the primary language (e.g., UK,
USA, AUSTRALIA). The countries in the `outer circle'
were historically affected by the spread of English,
in these multilingual settings English is the second
language, the major intranational means of com-
munication. The `expanding circle' involves na-
tions which have accepted English as the most
important international language of communica-
tion (e.g., JAPAN, Hungary, Argentina), and teach it
as a foreign language. However, in Kachru's visual
representation `the distinctions are not watertight'
(Crystal, 1995), and countries in each circle exhibit
a great deal of variation and internal mobility.
It is on the basis of the three-circle model that
Kachru (1985) went on to classify countries
according to norms of English usage. The countries
in the `inner circle' use `norm-providing' varieties.
In the `outer circle' are the `norm-developing'
varieties, which are not deficient but merely
different or deviant from standard norms (Davies,
1989). The varieties in the `expanding circle',
however, are `norm-dependent', in the sense that
learners follow some norm-providing variety; they
are, to use Kachru's metaphor, `linguistic orphans
in search of their parents' (1982: 50). These
categories should not be viewed as closed sets,
because under suitable conditions nor m-
developing countries can become norm-providing
ones, and norm-dependent countries can turn into
norm-developing ones.
Since the 1980s, the concept of a STANDARD
LANGUAGE norm has come under repeated attack.
The linguistic argument against it is that, as Ward
succinctly put it, `No one can define [Standard
English], because such a thing does not exist' (cited
in Kachru, 1982: 34). Standard English, British or
any other, is an idealisation, an amalgam of

assumptions about rules and norms to which
learners attempt to adhere with varying degrees
of success.
The educational perspective
The native speaker model is not only the concern
of linguists and sociolinguists but an issue which
has fuelled debate among language educators as
well. In countries where English is spoken as a first
or second language, those who still favour the
teaching of Standard British or American English
for instruction have often been accused of LIN-
GUISTIC IMPERIALISM (Phillipson, 1992), implying
that the acceptance of any exclusive model would
engender discrimination against those who come
from non-standard backgrounds. In EFL contexts,
on the other hand, the suggestion that Standard
British and American should be superseded by
English as an International Language (Smith,
1983) can be heard with increasing frequency.
One argument for this suggestion is that the
number of non-native speakers of English will soon
exceed the number of native speakers (Graddol,
1997). In our age of globalisation, Fishman's
remark that `the sun never sets on the English
language' (1982: 18) rings more true than ever:
English is the unrivalled LINGUA FRANCA (Crystal,
1997), and as such its use is no longer the privilege
of native speakers (Widdowson, 1994).
The controversy in ELT circles has become
particularly acrimonious over the distinction be-
tween the native and the non-native speaker. As it
was considered to be a useless binomial, new terms
were recommended to replace it. For example,
Edge (1988) offered `accomplished users of Eng-
lish', Rampton (1990) coined `expert speakers and
affiliation', while Jenkins (1996) extended the
traditional use of `bilingual speakers' to include
both natives fluent in another language and non-
natives fluent in English (BILINGUALISM). In similar
fashion, Kachru (1992) spoke of `English-using
speech fellowships' to stress `WE-ness' instead of
the `us and them' division. The rancour of the
polemic is well rendered by the title of Paikeday's
(1985) book, `The native speaker is dead!'
Native speaker 437
Although there are a number of persuasive
arguments against the native/non-native separa-
tion, none of these alternative terms have stood the
test of time. `Native speaker' as opposed to `non-
native speaker' is as widely used in the jargon of
both teachers and researchers today as ever. But
why is this distinction so impervious? The handy,
and somewhat cynical, answer is that the native
speaker is a useful term, precisely because it cannot
be closely defined (HALLIDAY, cited in Paikeday,
1985). Davies added: `The native speaker is a fine
myth: we need it as a model, a goal, almost an
inspiration. But it is useless as a measure; it will not
help us define our goals' (1995: 157).
Indeed, what are these goals? For the over-
whelming majority of language learners the
ultimate aim is an effective use of the target
language. But can any learner hope to achieve full
mastery of a language, with all its linguistic
subtleties and cultural allusions? This is a question
offering no easy solutions, as confirmed by all three
full-length treatments of the native/non-native
issue (Coulmas, 1981; Paikeday, 1985; Davies,
1991). Davies (1991) pointed out, with a degree
of stoicism perhaps, that membership of one or the
other category is not so much a privilege of birth or
education as a matter of self-ascription. Kramsch, a
non-native educator, agreed that anyone who
claimed to be a native speaker was one, with the
proviso that they were accepted `by the group that
created the distinction between native and non-
native speakers . . . More often than not, insiders
do not want outsiders to become one of them, and
even if given the choice, most language learners
would not want to become one of them' (1997:
363f) ± an argument echoed by Coulmas when he
writes: `The price of becoming ``a facsimile of a
native'' is a change of one's personality. Everyone
may not be ready to pay this price' (1981: 365). As
a matter of fact, very few learners want and
manage to metamorphose into native speakers of
the language they are learning. After all, `everyone
is potentially, to a greater or lesser extent, a non-
native speaker, and that position is a privilege'
(Kramsch, 1997: 368).
See also: Cultural awareness; Intercultural
438 Needs analysis
competence; Mother tongue; Non-native speaker
teacher; Objectives in language teaching and
learning; Reference works; Standard language
References
Coulmas, F. (1981) `Spies and native speakers', in
F. Coulmas (ed.), A festschrift for the native speaker,
The Hague/Paris: Mouton.
Crystal, D. (1995) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the
English Language, Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Crystal, D. (1997) English as a global language,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, A. (1989) `Is international English an
interlanguage?', TESOL Quarterly 23, 3: 447±67.
Davies, A. (1991) The native speaker in applied
linguistics, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Davies, A. (1995) `Proficiency of the native speaker:
what are we trying to achieve in ELT?', in G.
Cook and B. Seidlhofer (eds), Principle and practice
in applied linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Edge, J. (1988) `Natives, speakers, and models',
JALT Journal 9, 2: 153±7.
Fishman, J.A. (1982) `The sociology of English as
an additional language', in B.B. Kachru (ed.),
The other tongue: English across cultures, Oxford:
Pergamon.
Graddol, D. (1997) The future of English?, London:
The British Council.
Jenkins, J. (1996) `Native speaker, non-native
speaker and English as a foreign language: time
for a change', IATEFL Newsletter 131: 10±11.
Kachru, B.B. (ed.) (1982) The other tongue: English
across cultures, Oxford: Pergamon.
Kachru, B.B. (1985) `Standards, codification and
sociolinguistic realism: the English language in
the outer circle', in R. Quirk and H.G. Widdow-
son (eds), English in the world ± teaching and learning
the language and literature, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press/The British Council.
Kachru, B.B. (1992) `World Englishes: approaches,
issues and resources', Language Teaching 25, 1: 1±14.
Kramsch, C. (1997) `The privilege of the nonnative
speaker', Publications of the Modern Language
Association of America 112, 3: 359±69.
Medgyes, P. (1994) The non-native teacher, London:
Macmillan.
Paikeday, T.M. (1985) The native speaker is dead!,
Toronto: Paikeday Publishing Inc.
Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic imperialism, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Rampton, M.B.H. (1990) `Displacing the `native
speaker': expertise, affiliation, and inheritance',
English Language Teaching Journal 45, 2: 97±101.
Smith, L.E. (1983) `English as an international
language: no room for linguistic chauvinism', in
L.E. Smith (ed.), Readings in English as an
international language, Oxford: Pergamon.
Stern, H.H. (1983) Fundamental concepts of language
teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, H.G. (1994) `The ownership of
English', TESOL Quarterly 28, 2: 377±89.
Further reading
Corder, S.P. (1973) Introducing applied linguistics,
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Davies, A. (1991) The native speaker in applied
linguistics, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Graddol, D. (1997) The future of English?, London:
The British Council.
Kramsch, C. (1993) Context and culture in language
teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
PEÂ TER MEDGYES
Needs analysis
Needs analysis is the process of gathering and
interpreting information on the uses to which
language learners will put the target language (TL)
following instruction; and what the learners will
need to do in the learning situation in order to
learn the TL. The results of needs analyses are
used in language programme planning to make
decisions about appropriate learning OBJECTIVES,
SYLLABUS content, teaching and ASSESSMENT
methods, learning MATERIALS and resources.