An Introduction to Applied Linguistics

2 T WO NATIVE SPEAKERS
The novel 
Native Speaker 
by Chang-Rae Lee (1995) has the classic theme of the
02 pages 001-202:Layout 1 31/5/07 09:31 Page 149

---

individual caught between two worlds, the immigrant insider-outsider. Lee himself
was born in Korea in 1965 and emigrated to the USA at age three. Like him the
protagonist of the novel, Henry Park, is a Korean American, equally proficient in
English and Korean. When Park first meets the American woman who becomes his
wife, he tells her:
‘People like me are always thinking about still having an accent.’
‘I can tell’ she said.
I asked her how.
‘You speak perfectly, of course. I mean if we were talking on the phone I wouldn’t
think twice.’
‘You mean it’s my face.’
‘No, it’s not that’ she answered … ‘Your face is part of the equation, but not
in the way you’re talking. You look like someone listening to himself. You pay
attention to what you’re doing. If I had to guess, you’re not a native speaker. Say
something.
‘What should I say?’
‘Say my name.’
‘Lelia’ I said, ‘Lelia.’
‘See? You said Leel-ya so deliberately. You tried not to but you were taking in the
sound of the syllables. You’re very careful.’
(Lee 1995: 11)
Let’s assume that Henry Park is a native speaker of English. He is also, it appears, a
native speaker of Korean. As such he inhabits this in-between world, interpreting the
one to the other and spying on both. No wonder, then, that he works in his day-job
as a spy:
We casually spoke of ourselves as business people [but] in a phrase we were spies
… each of us engaged our own kind, more or less. Foreign workers, immigrants,
first generationals, neo-Americans. I worked with Koreans … there were no other
firms with any ethnic coverage to speak of. The same reason the CIA had such
shoddy intelligence in non-white countries … typically, the subject was a well-to-
do immigrant supporting some political insurgency in his old land … we worked
by continuing intricate and open-ended emotional conspiracies. We became
acquaintances, casual friends. Sometimes lovers … Then we wrote the tract of
their lives, remote unauthorised biographies.
(ibid: 15, 16)
Henry Park, then, is a bilingual native speaker: while the saliency of his appearance
may cause some initial doubts as to his being a native speaker of English, on the
telephone there is no such uncertainty. Remember what his wife says: ‘if we were
talking on the phone, I wouldn’t think twice’ (ibid 11).
John Banville, the Irish novelist, is a different kind of native speaker, marked by
absence rather than presence. When he spoke in 2005 at the Edinburgh Book
Festival, he made reference to the language used by Irish writers. ‘Of course,’ he said,
150
An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
02 pages 001-202:Layout 1 31/5/07 09:31 Page 150

---

‘we are not writing in our own language.’ What he meant was that the true language
of the Irish is Irish Gaelic and when Irish writers write in English (even though they
may have no Gaelic themselves) somehow what they are doing is writing a Gaelicised
English where the thought patterns are not English but ‘really’ Irish. Now while I
accept that the English of Ireland is marked and no doubt influenced by features
of Irish Gaelic, the idea that English is not the language of the Irish seems to me
perverse. Indeed, I asked Banville whether he would make a similar claim for
Americans, Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, South Africans, the Scots, the
Welsh, not to mention Indians, Singaporeans etc. He prevaricated. Of course he had
not meant to be taken so literally and indeed part of his prevarication was the Irish
delight in their English use of ambiguity. He meant that the English of Ireland (and
especially the spoken English) has been influenced by Irish Gaelic. That seems to me
indisputable. He could also be interpreted as alluding to the question of what is
meant by English and would, had he been engaged in more than an aside, perhaps
have reminded himself and us that variation within England has, at its extremes, lects
as different as Irish – but different from what? For that indeed is the subject I address.
Alternatively what Banville could very properly have meant was that there is
a Standard Written Irish English which is different from Standard Written British
English, different in the sense that Standard Australian, Standard American etc.
English are different. Again, this seems to me incontestable. But if he meant that,
then he could not possibly have also meant that English is not Irish; that Irish
English is not British English is true, but that Irish English is Irish is also true.