The Role of Native Speakers in LADO: Are We Missing a More Important Question?

Abstract

The role of native speakers has been a topic of contention among scholars of LADO (Language Analysis for the Determination of Origin) for nearly a decade now (Cambier-Langeveld, International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 21(2):371–381, 2014; Patrick, Language analysis for determination of origin: objective evidence for refugee status determination. In: Tiersma PM, Solan LM (eds) The Oxford handbook of language and law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 533–546, 2012; Patrick, What is the role of expertise in Language Analysis for Determination of Origin (LADO)? A rejoinder to Cambier-Langeveld. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 23(1):133–139, 2016a; Zwaan, Muysken and Verrips, Language and origin: the role of language in European asylum procedures: A linguistic and legal survey. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen, 2010), and has rightly been called ‘the most prominent debate in the field’ (Wilson and Foulkes, Borders, variation and identity: Language analysis for the determination of origin (LADO). In: Watt D, Llamas C (eds), Language, borders and identity. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 218–229, 2014). However, while individual contributions have been valuable in clarifying a range of important issues, it is fair to say the protracted debate has brought about little practical progress. The present chapter aims not to argue for one side or the other, but to consider the structure of the arguments. It seeks a path through the contention to more productive questions by taking further the suggestion of framing specific issues of debate within the broad, open-ended formulation: Under what conditions (if any) can LADO judgements be produced which are reliable enough for the human rights and national security issues at stake? (Fraser, The role of linguists and native speakers in language analysis for the determination of speaker origin: A response to Tina Cambier-Langeveld. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 18(1):121–130, 2011). After briefly outlining the background to the debate about native speakers, it sets out several key issues that are agreed by all linguists involved, though generally not well understood outside linguistics. It then briefly reviews some of the questions that have been discussed about the role of the non-expert native speaker (NENS) in LADO, and explains why addressing these has not resolved the contention. Doing this uncovers a question which, though evidently at least as important as the role of the NENS in LADO, has received remarkably little attention from the scholarly community, namely, the role of the linguist in LADO. Discussion moves on to consider the role of the linguist in the two contending approaches to LADO (the team approach and the single-expert approach), showing how these demonstrate more similarities than differences. It then broadens out to recommend a larger role for linguists in developing policy, standards and protocols for LADO, and suggests a series of research questions, showing how addressing them has the potential to ensure governments have access to reliable and practical assistance with LADO, as well as producing findings that will advance general knowledge within the language sciences.