Rethinking Nativeness Toward A Dynamic Paradigm
Rethinking Nativeness Toward A Dynamic Paradigm
Rethinking Nativeness Toward A Dynamic Paradigm
Geeta A. Aneja
To cite this article: Geeta A. Aneja (2016) Rethinking Nativeness: Toward a Dynamic
Paradigm of (Non)Native Speakering, Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 13:4, 351-379, DOI:
10.1080/15427587.2016.1185373
GEETA A. ANEJA
University of Pennsylvania
Introduction
351
352 G. A. Aneja
1
NEST can also stand for “Nonnative English Speaking Teacher” (Braine, 2010; Selvi,
2014). I use “Non-Native English Speakers in TESOL” here to extend the term to
administrators, academics, policy makers, and other professionals who may not necessarily
teach courses themselves, but who nonetheless have a significant impact on the field of
English Language Teaching.
Rethinking Nativeness 353
& Rivers, 2013b; Park, 2012; Tang, 1997). This article responds
to the recent call for “a reconsideration of the origin, nature, and
perpetuation of the NS fallacy” (Rudolph et al., 2015, p. 39).
It contributes a lens, which I term (non)native speakering, that
conceptualizes nativeness and nonnativeness as mutually con-
stitutive subjectivities and sheds light on how and why
dichotomized notions of nativeness and nonnativeness emerged
historically as well as how they are constantly (re)produced
through discourse, perpetuating their place as the dominant
paradigm for framing language users.
To this end, I first provide a brief overview of the NNEST
Movement’s foundational scholarship and ideological under-
pinnings, as well as recent applications of poststructuralist
perspectives of native and nonnative identity construction.
Against this backdrop, I develop (non)native speakering as a
theoretical and methodological lens through which the historical
origins and continuous (re)emergence of native and nonnative
positionalities can be understood. Throughout this discussion,
I provide illustrative “moments” from the experience of a teacher
candidate pursuing a dual certification in English and Mandarin
at a large, private institution. These moments collectively
demonstrate how the discursive invention of (non)native speak-
ered subjectivities are governed by and recursively constitute
systems that collectively privilege attributes and individuals
positioned as native and marginalize those who are not. In the
conclusion, I consider future directions and contributions of this
framework in increasing equity in the field of ELT.
& Medgyes, 1994; Park, 2012; Rudolph, 2012; Tang, 1997). From
this perspective, foundational concepts in language acquisition
such as fossilization (Selinker, 1972), ideal language input (Long,
1981), and target language norms (Ellis, 1994), that form the
“bedrock of transnationalized ELT” (Leung, 2005, p. 128) not
only perpetuate the notion of the existence of an “idealized native
speaker-listener” (Chomsky, 1965, p. 3) and “ideal” or “target”
language features but also risk obscuring the dynamic nature of
language development, assume languages and native speakers are
internally homogeneous, and marginalize those who speak less-
privileged language varieties (Selvi, 2014).
In an attempt to move toward a more equitable field, NNEST
advocates have since pointed out that non-native status can be
a strength rather than a detriment. Peter Medgyes’s (1992) six
strengths of NNESTs is among the most cited, and observes that
NNESTs can:
Researcher Positionality
2
All names and identifying information have been changed to maintain the anonymity
of participants and institutions involved.
3
See Aneja (in press) for an analysis of how preservice teachers from four different
archetypical backgrounds (NNEST, NEST, minoritized American English teacher,
international English teacher) are (non)native speakered over time in a variety of ways.
358 G. A. Aneja
L: Lily is the name I use here [in the United States] . . . since you don’t
have the right sound. For native speakers, it’s more convenient. It’s easier
to just have an English name that’s similar sounding . . . the Chinese name
emotes. It means a lot to me . . . but it only means something to me if you
know how to write it and if you know the meaning of it . . . but if you’re not
a Chinese language learner, you don’t know, that’s just some letters’
combination. It doesn’t make sense. (Interview 1, February 12, 2015)
As with her name, Lily was reluctant to share with me her city
or province of origin, concerned that I may lack the knowledge
to understand her answer, reifying geographical ignorance of
American native English speaker (or non-Chinese learner) as I had
been constructed earlier. In this way, it exemplifies how restricting
access to knowledge can be a mechanism of (non)native
speakering, as it both produces and is produced by a constructed
in-group/out-group dichotomy. This interaction also demonstrates
the fluidity of individual identity (e.g., Norton, 1997, 2000; Wenger,
1998) and how subjects can reappropriate their performance in an
attempt to subvert the reification of (non)native speakered
subjectivities and move towards new subject positions, Specifically,
when I shared that I had worked in Hong Kong and had a level of
familiarity with China, I negotiated an alternative positionality, one
368 G. A. Aneja
4
Explicating and enumerating distinct identities negotiated runs somewhat counter to
the fluidity with which (non)native speakering conceptualizes identity. The label here is
meant to call attention to an aspect of my identity that I mobilized here in order to
encourage Lily to feel more comfortable sharing her background with me.
Rethinking Nativeness 369
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Dr. Nelson Flores for his critical feedback on
multiple incarnations of my work, as well as Lily and others who started
as a participants and quickly became friends. Finally, thank you to my
parents, whose language experiences catalyzed and continue to
motivate a lifelong personal and academic journey.
References
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL
Quarterly, 33, 185 – 209.
Coppieters, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and near-native
speakers. Language, 63(3), 544 – 573.
Crystal, D. (2012). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Curtis, A., & Romney, M. (2006). Color, race, and English language teaching: Shades
of meaning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker in applied linguistics. Edinburgh, UK:
Edinburgh University Press.
Dalal, F. (2002). Race, color and the process of racialization: New perspectives from group
analysis, psychoanalysis, and sociology. Hove, UK: Bruner-Routledge.
Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London, UK:
Sage.
Doerr, N. M. (2009). The native speaker concept: Ethnographic investigations of native
speaker effects. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Duchene, A. (2008). Ideologies across nations: The construction of linguistic minorities
at the United Nations. De Gruyter Mouton.
Duff, P., & Uchida, Y. (1997). The negotiation of teachers’ sociocultural
identities and practices in postsecondary EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly,
31, 451 – 486.
Edwards, R. (2006). What’s in a name? Chinese learners and the practice of
adopting ‘English’ names. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1), 90 –103.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Faez, F. (2011a). Are you a native speaker of English? Moving beyond a simplistic
dichotomy. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 8, 378 – 399.
Faez, F. (2011b). Reconceptualizing the native/nonnative speaker dichotomy.
Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 10, 231 – 249.
Flores, N. (2013). Silencing the subaltern: Nation-state/colonial governmental-
ity and bilingual education in the United States. Critical Inquiry in Language
Studies, 10(4), 263 – 287.
Flores, N. (2014). Undoing truth in language teaching: Toward a paradigm of
linguistic Aesthetics. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 28(2), 1– 17.
Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic
ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review,
85(2), 149 – 171.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972 –
1977. Ed. C. Gordon. London, UK: Harvester Press.
Foucault, M. (1984). Truth and power. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader
(pp. 76 – 100). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller
(Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87 – 104). London, UK:
Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Garcı́a, O. (2009). Emergent bilinguals and TESOL. What’s in a name? TESOL
Quarterly, 43(2), 322 –326.
376 G. A. Aneja