Covers a range of languages and different sociolinguistic situations
Represents the first collection of its kind devoted to New Speaker Studies

Access to over 1.5 million titles for a fair monthly price.
Study more efficiently using our study tools.
When answered in the affirmative, these questions point to the various ideological assumptions people may have about language. To paraphrase Ben Rampton (1990, p. 2), much of what is assumed about ânativeâ and ânon-nativeâ speech spuriously emphasises the biological ahead of the social, conflating language as an instrument for communication on the one hand with language as a symbol of social identification on the other. Linguists have long argued that there is no linguistic evidence to support the hierarchical classification of what are considered different languages or of different language varieties and styles (e.g., Trudgill 1975, p. 26). The same logic can be extended to include new speakers and their practices. Although frequently fundamental to social actorsâ engagement with language and society, the concepts of the native speaker and the non-native speaker are merely socially constructed categorisations (Cook 1999, 2015; Eckert 2003), in the same way that concepts such as authenticity (Bucholtz 2003; Coupland 2003; Eckert 2003) and standard language (Coupland 2003; Coupland and Kristiansen 2011; Milroy 2001; Lippi-Green 2012) represent reified abstractions. Dichotomising speakers and ways of using language is unhelpful for linguists who seek to describe different categories of language users (Rampton 1990). As Ferguson (1983, p. vii) suggests, the mystique of the native speaker and the mother tongue should be jettisoned from the linguistâs set of myths about language (cited in Davies 2000, p. 92). In view of this, it is germane to reconsider how we conceive of language and how folk and academic conceptualisations of different types of speakers feed into broader projects that ostensibly seek to promote multilingual societies, as well as social and linguistic cohesion. The term ânew speakerâ has thus been proposed (and accepted by many) as an alternative to the deficit model implicit in more established terms like âsecond languageâ, âL2â, ânon-nativeâ, and âlearnerâ (e.g., OâRourke et al. 2015; Hornsby 2015a, b; Ortega et al. 2015, Walsh et al. 2015b).Does the native speakerâs early acquisition lead to privileged access to the language? Is the linguistic competence of native speakers somehow fundamentally different from that of non-native speakers (who have acquired the language at a later point in their lives)? Is the speech of native speakers for instance less error-prone than that of non-native speakers? Does that capacity make them the sole arbiters of correct usageâŠ?