Sociolinguistic Aspects
This chapter explores sociolinguistics in terms of native speakers' place in society. Davies notes that it is important to first define languages linguistically through their structures and shared histories . They can then be defined sociolinguistically by examining the cultures the languages belong to and determining whether they are mutually intelligible due to split evolution or purposefully split because of historical events. Finally, languages must be defined politically through national languages that unify a people and establish the paradigms for acceptable society within a community. These speech communities are groups of people who accept similar definitions as to what proper high-class languages are and also define the standards for all languages, despite the community itself potentially being multilingual. In society, the native speaker has a communicative advantage which leads to a societal advantage, while the non-native speaker is always one step behind. He states, however, that non-native speakers often embrace this, choosing the distinguish themselves from the native speakers. In cases where the non-native speaker is truly fluent, being seen as a native speaker is a disadvantage when they are expected to understand cultural references or idioms.
From this chapter, we can draw some very useful conclusions about the native speaker in society. When the speech community defines what is proper within the language, they also set limits on what is unacceptable in their high society (56). Often by accepting a language as high culture, they will condemn their own dialect as lower value. Ethnic groups who have never spoken the high class language accept its speakers as being of a higher value, regardless of their value to the ethnic society. This is truly interesting as it seems that Davies is arguing that being a native speaker of a language is not the only motivator of your place in society. What places you in society is what language you are a native speaker of(56). It would perhaps then be illogical to think of one's native language as being the only influence on social class. While the Sedaris narrative spoke to the fear of being ostracized due to failure to speak like a native, one could conclude that he would also be ostracized if he spoke perfect Provencal or another less common French dialect to his teacher. The bottom line is that we are all native speakers of something. Therefore, the divide between native speakers of a dominant language and those of a non-dominant language are purely situational. A native Mandarin speaker would be just as out of place in New York as I was in Shanghai.
A truly interesting discussion can also come from the discussion of the advantages of being a native speaker. In chapter 6, which I will discuss later, Davies mentions that there are specific things that only a native speaker can truly do, such as have a grasp of context (110). Davies discusses that while non-native speakers often try their hardest to pass as native speakers, it is important to note that it more often than not suits them to be seen as a non-native speaker. It helps to explain the occasional linguistic gaffe as well as helps them to maintain their separate cultural identity (72). While this may be the case for some, it seems odd to assume that it is a conscious choice for a non-native speaker to deliberately set themselves apart from the dominant class of society.