O n f e r e n c e

Short paper 
Introduction 
The norms we adopt in discourse very much depend on the specific linguistic situation, 
and the norms we have as a target for language learning are also varied. This paper 
discusses the issue of linguistic norms for language learning using data from textchat to 
show that communities of non-native speakers set their own norms with little influence 
from native speakers.

---

-355- 
2014 CALL Conference 
LINGUAPOLIS
www.antwerpcall.be 
The methodological challenges for CALL research of this kind discussed by Colpaert 
(2013) will also be taken up, but first we give the background to the issue of norms and 
discourse communities. 
Background 
Considering nativeness first, the native speaker has had a somewhat privileged status 
with regard to linguistic norms. When it comes to language acquisition, research over the 
years has very much focused on them as the legitimate target for second language 
learners. Error Analysis (started by Pit Corder 1967/1981) was based on the premise that 
nativeness was the target, and by definition deviations from those norms were 
illegitimate forms, and therefore errors. The debate has moved on to seeing non-native-
like linguistic performance as stages in the learning process (interlanguages) rather than 
defective varieties. These may be caused by the transfer of first language linguistic 
features. 
Discussions on World Englishes have lead to the view that non-native varieties of English 
are legitimate in their own right, and can be legitimate targets for second language 
learners. Kachr
u’s (1985) classic work on English varieties identified three categories, the 
famous three circles: 
[taken from http://m.ztopics.com/World%20Englishes/, accessed 16
th
February, 2014] 
The inner circle corresponds to the native speaker varieties seen as the classic targets of 
second language learning. The outer circle corresponds to the varieties where English is 
used as an official language, such as in Kenya, and can be a native language for many 
speakers. The expanding circle corresponds to countries where English is truly a second 
or foreign language. The outer circle varieties are those where the debate has raged 
most about their status. Japanese English for example has been accepted as a variety 
(Stanlaw 2004), while the status of Chinese English is much more controversial, hence 
the use of the derogatory 
Chinglish
by many (Jiang 1995). However, it is a popular trend 
in current thinking to see second language varieties of English as legitimate norms. 
Finally, we turn to discourse communities, and specifically the incarnation of this notion 
in the theory of 
communities of practice
. This view sees discourse communities as groups 
of individuals engaged in a particular task, with mutual engagement in that task, and 
with discourse practices to discuss that task (Wenger 1998: 73).

---

-356- 
2014 CALL Conference 
LINGUAPOLIS
www.antwerpcall.be 
It is communities that set their own norms and practices internally, although there may 
be outside influence on them. It is the process of setting discourse norms in such 
communities that is of interest here. We move now to a discussion of the research 
methodology used for identifying norms.