This document discusses the conceptualization and treatment of non-native English speaking teachers (NNESTs) in the field of English language teaching (ELT). It notes that NNESTs have traditionally been viewed as defective communicators compared to an idealized native speaker. However, the ownership of English is now understood to be shared among all speakers regardless of nativeness. Nevertheless, NNESTs are often accorded lower professional status than native English speaking teachers (NESTs). The document argues that the ELT field needs to move beyond using the native speaker as the sole benchmark and embrace the strengths of both NESTs and NNESTs to foster more appropriate English learning opportunities.
This document discusses the conceptualization and treatment of non-native English speaking teachers (NNESTs) in the field of English language teaching (ELT). It notes that NNESTs have traditionally been viewed as defective communicators compared to an idealized native speaker. However, the ownership of English is now understood to be shared among all speakers regardless of nativeness. Nevertheless, NNESTs are often accorded lower professional status than native English speaking teachers (NESTs). The document argues that the ELT field needs to move beyond using the native speaker as the sole benchmark and embrace the strengths of both NESTs and NNESTs to foster more appropriate English learning opportunities.
This document discusses the conceptualization and treatment of non-native English speaking teachers (NNESTs) in the field of English language teaching (ELT). It notes that NNESTs have traditionally been viewed as defective communicators compared to an idealized native speaker. However, the ownership of English is now understood to be shared among all speakers regardless of nativeness. Nevertheless, NNESTs are often accorded lower professional status than native English speaking teachers (NESTs). The document argues that the ELT field needs to move beyond using the native speaker as the sole benchmark and embrace the strengths of both NESTs and NNESTs to foster more appropriate English learning opportunities.
This document discusses the conceptualization and treatment of non-native English speaking teachers (NNESTs) in the field of English language teaching (ELT). It notes that NNESTs have traditionally been viewed as defective communicators compared to an idealized native speaker. However, the ownership of English is now understood to be shared among all speakers regardless of nativeness. Nevertheless, NNESTs are often accorded lower professional status than native English speaking teachers (NESTs). The document argues that the ELT field needs to move beyond using the native speaker as the sole benchmark and embrace the strengths of both NESTs and NNESTs to foster more appropriate English learning opportunities.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/65/2/187/528735 by guest on 31 October 2023
‘Non-native English-speaking teachers’ (NNESTs) have tended to be conceptualized within E LT along the same lines as NNS in general. The second language acquisition literature traditionally ‘elevates an idealized ‘‘native’’ speaker above a stereotypicalized ‘‘nonnative’’, while viewing the latter as a defective communicator, limited by an underdeveloped communicative competence’ (Firth and Wagner 1997: 285). The resulting (in)competence dichotomy positions the NNS/NNEST as a deficient or less- than-native speaker (cf. ‘near-native’, Valdes 1998). In an attempt to solve this problem, a number of alternative terms have been suggested, for example ‘proficient user’ (Paikeday 1985), ‘language expert’ (Rampton 1990), ‘English-using speech fellowship’ (Kachru 1992), and ‘multicompetent speaker’ (Cook 1999). However, the field is still a long way from reaching a consensus about whether to adopt any of these labels. Debate about this issue is particularly important in the realm of teaching and learning English as an International Language (Jenkins 2000; McKay 2002). In this context, NNS are estimated to outnumber their ‘NS’ counterparts by three to one (Crystal 2003), the ownership of English is shared by all its speakers, regardless of their ‘nativeness’ (Widdowson 1994), and 80 per cent of English language teachers worldwide are thought to be NNESTs (Canagarajah 2005). Nevertheless, N N E S Ts are often accorded lower professional status than ‘native English-speaking teachers’ (NESTs) (Mahboob 2010). It is widely accepted that the presence of ‘native speakerism’ (Holliday 2005) of this kind in the English language teaching profession leads to ‘unprofessional favouritism in institutions, publishing houses, and government agencies’ (Medgyes 2001: 433), frequently also resulting in unfair employment discrimination (Selvi 2010). Phillipson (1992: 185) refers to such unethical treatment of qualified N N E S Ts as a result of the ‘native speaker fallacy’: a prevalent assumption that ‘the ideal teacher of English is a NS’ (ibid.). Using the NS as a benchmark for teaching employment in this way can cause NNESTs to suffer from the ‘I-am-not-a-native-speaker’ (Suarez 2000) or ‘impostor’ syndrome (Bernat 2009), leading to negative consequences for their teacher persona, self-esteem, and thus their in-class performance as well. Consequently, the global E LT enterprise has been criticized for positioning the NS as the ideal English teacher and thereby creating a false dichotomy between N E S Ts and NNESTs (Moussu and Llurda 2008). The need to go beyond the NS as a benchmark in English language learning and teaching
E LT Journal Volume 65/2 April 2011; doi:10.1093/elt/ccq092 187
ª The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved. has therefore been widely argued for in the field (Braine 1999, 2010 Mahboob op.cit.). Subscribing to the dominant ‘either/or discourse’ (i.e. NEST or N N E S T) in this area has also been seen as problematic because it attempts to establish a direct causal relationship between language proficiency and pedagogical practices (Braine op.cit.). Such discriminatory attitudes have led the US TESOL organization to adopt two ‘position statements’ (TESOL 1992, 2006) opposing such discriminatory practices. As a result of such initiatives, the E LT field is now moving towards a more encompassing ‘both/and discourse’ (i.e. NEST and NN EST) that embraces the strengths and limitations of both teacher populations in various teaching settings
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/65/2/187/528735 by guest on 31 October 2023
(Matsuda and Matsuda 2001). This reconceptualization enables cooperation and collaboration that can foster more educationally, contextually, and socially appropriate English language learning opportunities (Mahboob op.cit.). As a result, on a micro level, learners of English as an international language can gain access to a wider sociolinguistic and intercultural repertoire (McKay op.cit.). On a macro level, it lends further support to the establishment of a professional milieu that ‘welcome[s] ethnic, racial, cultural, religious, and linguistic diversity’ (Selvi 2009: 51).
References Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as an
Bernat, E. 2009. ‘Towards a pedagogy of International Language. Oxford, UK: Oxford empowerment: the case of ‘‘impostor University Press. syndrome’’ among pre-service non-native Kachru, B. 1992. The Other Tongue: English speaker teachers in T ES O L’. English Language across Cultures. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Teacher Education and Development Press. Journal 11: 1–11 Available at http://www.elted.net/ McKay, S. L. 2002. Teaching English as an issues/volume-11/1%20Bernat.pdf Bernat.pdf International Language. Oxford, UK: Oxford (accessed on 4 July 2010). University Press. Braine, G. 1999. Non-native Educators in English Mahboob, A. 2010. The NN EST Lens: Nonnative Language Teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. English Speakers in T E S O L. Newcastle, UK: Braine, G. 2010. Nonnative Speaker English Teachers: Cambridge Scholars Press. Research, Pedagogy, and Professional Growth. Matsuda, A. and P. K. Matsuda. 2001. New York: Routledge. ‘Autonomy and collaboration in teacher education: Canagarajah, A. S. 2005. Reclaiming the Local journal sharing among native and nonnative in Language Policy and Practice. Mahwah, English-speaking teachers’. C AT E S O L Journal NJ: Erlbaum. 13/1: 109–121. Cook, V. 1999. ‘Going beyond the native speaker in Medgyes, P. 2001. ‘When the teacher is a non-native language teaching’. TE S O L Quarterly 33/2: 185–209. speaker’ in M. Celce-Murcia (ed.). Teaching Crystal, D. 2003. The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of the English as a Second or Foreign Language. Boston, English Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge MA: Heinle & Heinle. University Press. Moussu, L. and E. Llurda. 2008. ‘Non-native Firth, A. and J. Wagner. 1997. ‘On discourse, English-speaking English language teachers: communication, and (some) fundamental concepts history and research’. Language Teaching in S L A research’. Modern Language Journal 41/3: 315–48. 81/3: 285–300. Paikeday, T. 1985. The Native Speaker is Dead! Holliday, A. 2005. The Struggle to Teach English as an Toronto, Canada: Paikeday Publishing Inc. International Language. Oxford, UK: Oxford Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford, University Press. UK: Oxford University Press.
188 Ali Fuad Selvi
Rampton, M. B. H. 1990. ‘Displacing the ‘‘native the field of T ES O L’. Available at http:// speaker’’: expertise, affiliation, and inheritance’. www.tesol.org/s_tesol/ ELT Journal 44/2: 97–101. bin.asp?C I D¼1&DID=5962&DOC=FILE.PDF Selvi, A. F. 2009. ‘A call to graduate students to (accessed on 19 October 2010). reshape the field of English language teaching’. Valdes, G. 1998. ‘The construct of the near-native Essential Teacher 6/3–4: 49–51. speaker in the foreign language profession: Selvi, A. F. 2010. ‘All teachers are equal, but some perspectives on ideologies about language’. A DF L teachers are more equal than others: trend analysis Bulletin 29/3: 4–8. of job advertisements in English language teaching’. Widdowson, H. G. 1994. ‘The ownership of English’. W AT E S O L N N ES T Caucus Annual Review 1: 156–81. T E S O L Quarterly 28/2: 377–89. Available at https://sites.google.com/site/ watesolnnestcaucus/caucus-annual-review The author
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article/65/2/187/528735 by guest on 31 October 2023
(accessed on 29 June 2010). Ali Fuad Selvi is a PhD candidate in the Second Suarez, J. 2000. ‘‘‘Native’’ and ‘‘non-native’’: not only Language Education and Culture programme at the a question of terminology’. Humanizing Language University of Maryland, U SA. He is the current Teaching 2/6. Available at http://www.hltmag.co.uk/ President of the Washington Area Teachers of nov00/mart1.htm (accessed on 29 June 2010). English to the Speakers of Other Languages NN EST TE SO L. 1992. ‘A T E S O L statement on non-native Caucus. His research interests include the global speakers of English and hiring practices’. T E S OL spread of English, second language teacher Quarterly 2/4: 23. education, and issues related to non-native English- TE SO L. 2006. ‘Position statement against speaking professionals in E LT. discrimination of nonnative speakers of English in Email: alifuad@umd.edu