Native and Non-Native Teachers in English Language Classrooms: Professional Challenges and Teacher Education 9781501504143, 9781501512117

Citation preview

Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo (Ed.) Native and Non-Native Teachers in English Language Classrooms

Trends in Applied Linguistics

Edited by Ulrike Jessner Claire Kramsch

Volume 26

Native and Non-Native Teachers in English Language Classrooms Professional Challenges and Teacher Education Edited by Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo

ISBN 978-1-5015-1211-7 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-1-5015-0414-3 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-1-5015-0411-2 ISSN 1868-6362 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen ­Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. © 2017 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin Typesetting: fidus Publikations-Service GmbH, Nördlingen Druck und Bindung: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Table of contents Péter Medgyes Foreword   ix Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo Introduction   1

Part I

Overall issues and perspectives on (non)nativeness in second language teaching

Ahmar Mahboob Chapter 1 Understanding language variation: Implications of the NNEST lens for TESOL teacher education programs   13 Martine Derivry-Plard/Claire Griffin Chapter 2 Beyond symbolic violence in ELT in France 

 33

Juana M. Liceras/Nelson Méndez/Leonardo Moreno Mancipe Chapter 3 Perspectives on L2 teacher’s near-nativeness: Linguistic, psycholinguistic, contact linguistics and pedagogical approaches   53 Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo Chapter 4 Non-native teachers’ code-switching in L2 classroom discourse  Masaki Oda Chapter 5 Native-Speakerism and the roles of mass media in ELT 

 99

 75

vi 

 Table of contents

Part II

Non-native L2 teachers’ emotions and perceptions and implications for teacher education

Mikyoung Lee/Paul A. Schutz/Stephen van Vlack Chapter 6 Non-native English-speaking teachers’ anxieties and insecurities: Self-perceptions of their communicative limitations   119 Yasemin Bayyurt Chapter 7 Non-native English language teachers’ perceptions of culture in English language classrooms in a post-EFL era   139 Toshinobu Nagamine Chapter 8 The potential for non-native teachers to effectively teach speaking in a Japanese EFL context   161

Part III

L2 students’ beliefs and expectations of native and non-native teachers

Luís Guerra Chapter 9 Students’ perceptions and expectations of native and non-native speaking teachers   183 John Levis/Sinem Sonsaat/Stephanie Link Chapter 10 Students’ beliefs about native vs. non-native pronunciation teachers 

 205

Arthur McNeill Chapter 11 Native and non-native teachers’ sensitivity to language learning difficulties from a learner’s perspective: Implications and challenges for teacher education   239



Part IV

Table of contents 

 vii

Construction of professional identity: Professional challenges faced by both native and non-native speaker teachers

Ali Fuad Selvi/Nathanael Rudolph Chapter 12 Teachers and the negotiation of identity: Implications and challenges for second language teacher education   257 Wolfgang Zydatiß Chapter 13 Professional challenges faced by non-native CLIL teachers 

 273

Tintswalo Vivian Manyike Chapter 14 English language teaching in South African multicultural schools: Challenges faced by both native and non-native teachers   295 Luciana C. de Oliveira/Beth Clark-Gareca Chapter 15 Collaboration between NESTs and NNESTs  David Malinowski Critical Afterword 

 337

Notes on contributors  Subject index 

 347

 341

 317

Péter Medgyes

Foreword

Let me begin on a somewhat congratulatory note. More than twenty years ago, I had a paper published in the ELT Journal (Medgyes 1992), followed by a full-length book (Medgyes 1994). In those two studies I investigated differences between native and non-native speaking teachers of English (NESTs versus NNESTs). As I was working on these two studies, I had the gut feeling that I was opening a can of worms. However, not in my wildest dream did I imagine that there were going to be so many worms in that can. No sooner had my studies been published than I came under fierce attack from all sides. Linguists rejected the division, arguing that nativeness and non-nativeness cannot be defined with any degree of precision. Although I readily admit that the dichotomy does not stand up to close scrutiny, the majority of us still fall into either the native or non-native category, don’t we? Up rose the stalwarts of the P. C. movement, too. They objected to the prefix non in the term non-native, stressing that it had a pejorative ring to it. ‘No human being is inferior to another. We’re all equal,’ they quibbled. But who said NNESTs aren’t as good as NESTs? Different doesn’t imply better or worse – different simply means different, with no value judgment attached to it. Teacher educators were similarly upset by the separation of NESTs and NNESTs. They asserted that NNESTs are more than capable of making up for their linguistic shortcomings by dint of other attributes, such as teaching qualifications, length of experience, individual traits, level of motivation, love of students, and many more. Sure enough, but all I claimed in my studies was that, all other things being equal, the better a NNEST speaks English, the better teacher he or she is likely to be. However, my most vociferous opponents were NNEST advocacy groups. They fumed that this division fuelled discriminatory practices against NNESTs. Applications from even highly qualified and experienced NNESTs often get turned down in favour of NESTs with no comparable credentials, they argued. While this is certainly true, I assert that removing the label NNEST is no more than window-dressing and it would not change the sorry state of affairs. For all the backlash, my attempts at calling a spade a spade seem to have paid off, because they set off an avalanche of research into this contentious field. Replicating my studies, many researchers confirmed or fine-tuned the conclusions Péter Medgyes, Professor Emeritus of Applied Linguistics and Language Pedagogy (Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest) DOI 10.1515/9781501504143-203

x 

 Péter Medgyes

I had arrived at. Others, following different research agendas, presented new perspectives and generated novel ideas. In addition to scores of research papers published in professional journals, about a dozen full-length books discussing this topic have been published in the past 20 years. To all intents and purposes, the study of the NEST/NNEST issue has come into its own. An even more encouraging sign is that non-native experts, who had seldom made their voices heard in the past, volunteered to contribute to this line of research. This turned out to be a niche which offered non-natives opportunities to gain recognition in the academic world. Braine is right in noting that this development is “an indication of the empowerment of [non-native] researchers who are no longer hesitant to acknowledge themselves as [non-native speakers], and venture into uncharted territory” (2010: 29). The book you are about to read is a welcome addition to the ever-growing list of publications by non-native researchers. The bio-data supplied at the end of the volume indicates that the authors are based in 14 different countries extending to all five continents. However, if their birthplace were also marked, the number of countries would probably be even higher. The range of topics being dealt with covers a similarly wide spectrum. What all the studies have in common is that everything is examined through the lens of the NNEST, which Mahboob in this volume defines as “a lens of multilingualism, multinationalism, and multiculturalism”. Diversity may also be identified in the research methods employed by the contributors: the alternation of conceptual, descriptive and empirical studies strikes a healthy balance. It goes without saying that non-native researchers can offer enormous benefits for the research community. The question is whether they are able to deliver similar benefits for their colleagues at the chalkface. Before I venture to answer this question, let me take a glance at NNESTs. How did they fare in the past? From time immemorial, native speakers were regarded as models of the proper use of English that every learner was expected to imitate. Needless to say, non-native teachers were the worst off; after all, for them an excellent command of English was – and still is – a good predictor of professional success. Since there’s no way they can emulate NESTs in terms of language proficiency, many NNESTs developed a more or less serious form of inferiority complex. However, with English becoming the lingua franca of the world, the picture has changed irrevocably. Today non-native speakers of English outnumber native speakers: according to rough estimates, only one in four speakers of English is a native speaker! This being the case, the question of ownership inevitably arises: Can a minority group, that of native speakers of English, retain their hegemony and continue to arbitrate over what is right and what is wrong in language usage?

Foreword 

 xi

Certainly not! Any non-native speaker who engages in genuine communication in English with a native or non-native partner is entitled to use the language creatively and mould until it becomes an adequate tool for self-expression. Nevertheless, even today NNESTs often consider themselves second-class citizens in the ELT world. Not long ago, I attended a teachers’ conference where at the end of his talk the lecturer – a native speaker of English – asked for comments. The awkward silence was eventually broken by an elderly colleague, who proposed that NNESTs had better not contaminate the air still resonant with the voice of a real NEST. Apparently, this colleague acquiesced in playing second fiddle. Several studies in this volume demonstrate that NNESTs need an ego-boost. And who could perform this job more effectively than us, non-native researchers? The trouble is that publishing books and articles is not enough, because NNESTs do not generally have easy access to them and to the research findings that they report. Therefore, we ought to move out of our comfort zone and attend teachers’ conferences, workshops and inservice training programmes. Face-to-face encounters with practising NNESTs seem to be the best way to convince them that they deserve just as much credit as their NEST colleagues. This task appears to be even more daunting than putting this rich volume together.

References Braine, George. 2010. Non-native speaker English teachers: Research, pedagogy, and professional growth. New York / London: Routledge. Medgyes, Péter. 1992. Native or non-native: Who’s worth more? ELT Journal 46. 340–349. Medgyes, Péter. 1994. The non-native teacher. Basingstoke: Macmillan Educational.

Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo

Introduction

Today our world is undeniably characterized by the diversity and complexity of its constantly changing reality. Thanks to, or because of, globalization, the unprecedented expansion of English as the most influential language of international communication around the world has led to the emergence of new varieties of English (World Englishes). What is true, as Widdowson (1994) claimed, is that a language which is truly international such as English is not owned exclusively by any group of people but belongs to all its potential users or speakers. However, in the eyes of many people, native speaker supremacy still enjoys a great professional reputation, both within and outside the language teaching profession (Llurda 2009). In this respect, Davies (2003, 2004) concludes that the native speaker concept, besides being problematic as well as potentially racist, remains ambiguous, since it is both myth and reality and, thus, the concept is interpreted differently, in view of the existing disputes and differences of opinion. Over the last decades, the native speaker (NS)  / non-native speaker (NNS) distinction has been intensely discussed in applied linguistics and SLA literature and, by extension, in L2 teaching literature. It was not until the 1990s that the controversial issue of the professional role and status of NNS teachers was reported for the first time in the academic literature on second language education (Medgyes 1992). Despite the fact that teachers have always been the centre of attention in the classroom, it is true that their emotions, concerns and needs have never before been addressed in the same way. For a long time, the idealized notion of native speaker competence involved standard language, the perfect language model, the guardian of the true language. Having NS teachers in second language classrooms in fact implied a guarantee of quality education in terms of language competence and cultural awareness. So far, nobody, even including NNSs, seems to question such superiority or supremacy of NSs. However, recent voices have advocated the idea that nativeness is not always a synonym or guarantee of successful language teaching, because language competence is essential but that is not all since there are other aspects besides language competence such as professional competence and experience that should also be valued and emphasized in a similar way (Medgyes 1992). Recent perspectives and innovative ideas in applied linguistics such as the paradigms of World Englishes and English as an International Language or

Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo, University of Extremadura, Spain DOI 10.1515/9781501504143-001

2 

 Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo

English as a Lingua Franca (EIL/ELF) (Crystal 1997; McKay 2002, 2003), which provide an alternative lens to the nativeness paradigm, have contributed to accept and legitimize multiple non-native varieties of English (Mahboob 2010). Intelligibility has become a key issue in these recent paradigms. Since the issue of nativeness or non-nativeness seems no longer to be relevant, at least theoretically, it is time to move beyond the nativeness paradigm (Brutt-Griffler & Samimy 2001). In addition, the relatively recent so-called NNEST movement has questioned the professional role and status of the idealized monolingual NS model, which is deeply seated in applied linguistics and TESOL literature, legitimizing the NNSs as language professionals in their own right and, thus, emphasizing their well-deserved recognition and contribution to the English language teaching profession in the world (Medgyes 1994; Braine 1999; Cook 1999; Mahboob 2010). In light of the recent perspectives and paradigms, such as Cook’s (1999) notion of multicompetence (L2 users), widely reported and discussed in the research literature, it is time to abandon the myth of the monolingual native speaker as the ideal language teacher (Brutt-Griffler and Samimy 2001). The great variation among L2 users is another key issue in this discussion (Cook 2005), which also strengthens the argument of NNSs as legitimate language educators. Despite the on-going generalized perception of the monolingual NS as the ideal language teacher, recent efforts have echoed the long-silenced voices of NNS teachers articulating their professional concerns and challenges, thus advocating their right to be heard in the language teaching profession (Llurda 2009). In today’s world, where prejudices are so deeply rooted, being a NS or NNS of English should not really matter but rather what should be actually valued are teachers’ professional competence and experience. What is true, however, is that it might take some time to become aware that NNSs are as competent as NSs in the English language teaching profession (Moussu and Llurda 2008; Llurda 2009). In view of the current discussion, one might even think that the recent greater recognition and appreciation of the role of the NNS would involve a certain downgrading of the NS, which is far from being true (Llurda 2009). The fact that NNS teachers are today shaping the future of English (Hughes 2007) does not necessarily mean that NS teachers’ days are already numbered. The debate should be approached from a different angle: towards a more collaborative teaching between NSs and NNSs, which would substantially improve the quality of language instruction (Medgyes 1994; Carless 2006). In short, what is true is that all language educators, whether NSs or NNSs, deserve their place and recognition in the language teaching profession because both have much to say and offer. As Medgyes (1992) reminds us, NNS teachers are not by definition less efficient. Needless to say, teacher education programmes play an essential role in this respect because student teachers should have the opportunity to reflect on their own weaknesses and strengths

Introduction 

 3

as NNS teachers, to overcome such weaknesses and to make the most of their strengths, and all these issues should be fully discussed (Matsuda 2003). Since the monolingual native speaker is an abstraction as argued by Cook and Singleton (2014), Dewaele (2017) concludes that all individuals can be multicompetent users of multiple languages and, thus, the traditional dichotomy ‘native’ versus ‘non-native speaker’ has to be rejected because of the inherent ideological assumptions about the superiority of the former and the inferiority of the latter (p.4). Perhaps the so-called ideology of native-speakerism in second language pedagogy (Holliday 2005), which in turn derives from Phillipson’s (1992) well-known linguistic imperialism thesis, requires, as Houghton and Rivers (2013) rightly proposed, a revised definition grounded in respect for human rights given the unfair treatment faced by NNS teachers over time.

Overview of the volume Despite being highly debated in applied linguistics and L2 teaching literature, the controversial topic of (non)nativeness still remains unresolved and, thus, there is still a long way to go (Moussu and Llurda 2008). Written by internationally renowned researchers and teacher educators, both NSs and NNSs, from different L2 learning settings all around the world, the selected contributions of this volume cover a great variety of aspects related to the professional role and status of both NS and NNS teachers in terms of perceived differences and main professional concerns and challenges. The discussion in this publication mainly aims to recognize and value the potential and contributions of both NS and NNS teachers and show how both groups of teachers should actively collaborate together, learning from each other, so as to take advantage of their respective strengths and, accordingly, offer the best of their capabilities. It is precisely this international perspective which makes this volume illustrative of different realities with a similar objective in mind: the improvement of both L2 teaching and teacher education. This publication explores wide-ranging issues related to (non)nativeness and thus provides a forum of reflection and discussion mainly for language educators but also for teacher educators since this research area, undoubtedly, has long been neglected and unexplored in L2 teacher education. Since applied linguistics has a lot to offer language teachers and, accordingly, plays a prominent role in any discussion of language teacher education (Bartels 2004), numerous implications and challenges for teacher education are then discussed throughout the book. The volume is made up of a foreword by Péter Medgyes and a critical afterword by David Malinowski, followed by 15 chapters organized into four thematic

4 

 Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo

parts focusing predominantly upon the (non)nativeness issue from different perspectives. The overall intention of the volume is to help to better understand the potential and professional challenges faced by those teachers categorized as NSs and NNSs today all over the world. Part I, which is the most heterogeneous, provides a set of introductory works focusing on overall issues and perspectives on the (non)nativeness issue in second language education. The opening chapter by Mahboob examines some of the implications of the NNEST lens for TESOL teacher education programs. Since the NNEST lens challenges the monolingual bias, the author describes the three-dimensional model of language variation in detail and considers the implications of the NNEST lens in developing a multilingual perspective on understanding language and language variation in teaching. A discussion of some of the directions that TESOL teacher education programs can develop if they use the NNEST lens is also provided. Since the monolingual paradigm is still deeply rooted in our minds, DerivryPlard and Griffin (Chapter 2) draw attention to the symbolic violence (Bourdieu 2001) expressed from the pervasive ideology of native-speakerism (Holliday 2006) within ELT which can prevent all language teachers and their learners from feeling comfortable with language learning and teaching. Data collected from in-depth interviews of NESTs and NNESTs in France then suggest the need of a multilingual paradigm shift to go beyond the multiple and confined forms of symbolic violence affecting all FL teachers. Drawing on the premise that non-native grammars are natural languages, the next chapter by Liceras, Méndez and Moreno (Chapter 3) examines L2 near-nativeness from a linguistic, a psycholinguistic, a contact linguistics and a pedagogical perspective. What the authors discuss is whether it is possible to achieve native-like competence in an L2 and who can really become native-like in an L2. They argue that even though non-native L2 teachers may not reach native-like competence, they can nonetheless acquire a native-like degree of metalinguistic awareness about the native grammar. Key concepts such as the critical period and the age factor, optionality or crosslinguistic influence underlie the different levels of discussion. Since perhaps the most distinctive feature marking a difference between the discourse styles of NS and NNS teachers is their use of code-switching in L2 classrooms, the next chapter (Chapter 4 by Martínez) examines the widely observed phenomenon of language alternation or code-switching from the perspective of student teachers. The role and pedagogical value of teacher codeswitching in general as well as the functions and underlying reasons behind this communication strategy in particular are examined. Based on his experience observing

Introduction 

 5

student teachers in the practicum, the idea that the reasons for codeswitching are multifaceted and of situational, contextual and personal nature is emphasized. Special attention is given to the impact of mass media discourse in chapter 5 by Oda who examines the interplay among learners’ beliefs, public discourse, and the formulation of language policy in education. The author discusses the roles of mass media in the formation of the discourse of native-speakerism in ELT in Japan through an analysis of advertisements of language programmes so as to illustrate the discourse of native speakers and non-native speakers. In this respect, more active involvement of ELT professionals to overcome the negative aspect of mass-media on learning English is suggested. Non-native L2 teachers’ self-perceptions, which probably constitutes the most explored area in NNS teacher research (Llurda 2005), are considered in Part II. The discussion focuses not only on language teachers’ self-perceptions and emotions but also on teacher educators’ views. Since little research has been actually conducted so far as to how non-native language teachers perceive the affective experiences in the classroom, Chapter 6 by Lee, Schutz and van Vlack examines NNESTs’ self-perceived English proficiency levels, anxieties, insecurities or inferiority feelings derived from their self-perceptions of communicative limitations. By means of a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews aimed to find out more about their self-perceptions and emotional experiences, the findings revealed the types of strategies NNESTs use to manage or alleviate those anxieties or insecurities. In Chapter 7, Bayyurt focuses mainly on non-native teachers’ perceptions of culture in English language classrooms in a post-EFL era. The author insists on the necessity of training both NESTs and NNESTs with an awareness towards the significance of teaching English as an international language/ lingua franca (EIL/ ELF) in EFL and ESL settings. The role and importance of the concept of culture in English language teaching is also examined and discussed. In this longitudinal study, research questions are related to the connection of culture with the language drawing on the perceptions of NNESTs. Implications for ELF/EIL-aware teacher education programmes are also discussed. The influence of contextual factors also deserves special emphasis here. Taking Japan as an example, Nagamine (Chapter 8) discusses, from the perspective of a teacher educator, the potential of NNS teachers to effectively teach speaking in a Japanese EFL context by analyzing various contextual (sociocultural, educational and political) factors which have affected and shaped the creation of non-nativeness or the differences between non-native and native teachers. Based on this discussion, some helpful pedagogical recommendations are proposed to help non-native teachers change their teaching practices to be able to success-

6 

 Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo

fully teach speaking in Japanese EFL contexts and explore their potential in collaboration with native teachers. L2 students’ perceptions and expectations of native and non-native teachers receive special emphasis in Part III of the volume. In Chapter 9, Guerra explores Portuguese students’ perceptions and expectations of native and non-native English-speaking teachers in terms of language proficiency, teaching behaviour and cultural knowledge. Students’ perceived differences and similarities between NESTs and NNESTs were identified and their preferences for both types of teachers were also expressed. The author suggests a change of learners’ and teachers’ perspectives on the concept of native speaker given that what needs to be considered is their intercultural competence, their teaching skills, and their language competence, no matter where they were born and brought up. Since variability in foreign-accented speech intelligibility, the chapter by Levis, Sonsaat and Link (Chapter 10) explores EFL versus ESL students’ beliefs and attitudes towards the pronunciation of native and non-native teachers and the way that teachers’ accents may affect their pronunciation learning. The authors support the idea that nativeness is not essential for excellent language teaching in general and for excellent pronunciation teaching in particular, whereas knowledge of and skill in the language, understanding of pedagogy, and ability to understand and meet students’ needs are. It is also highlighted that learners’ beliefs can be modified by emphasizing professionalism as the key to effective pronunciation teaching. Given that an aspect of teacher language awareness is teachers’ sensitivity to the language learning difficulties experienced by L2 learners, McNeill (Chapter 11) analyses the extent to which both native and non-native teachers are able to predict and identify learners’ language learning difficulties from a learner’s perspective. The results suggest that there is considerable variation in sensitivity to difficulty among both native and non-native speaker teachers, although it is concluded that non-native teachers are more sensitive than native speakers to learners’ language difficulties. This chapter also considers how teacher education programmes might help to sensitize candidate teachers to aspects of L2 learning derived from SLA research. The last part of the book is devoted to the construction of professional identity and the different professional challenges faced by both NS and NNS teachers. Part IV of this volume features four chapters focusing on such themes. Chapter 12 by Selvi and Rudolph mainly focuses on the fixed, rigid and mutually exclusive construction of professional identities in the field of TESOL. In order to be able to move beyond the native speaker model, the authors argue that teacher education efforts should be sensitive to teachers’ sociohistorically situated negotiations of identities and diverse lived experiences as translinguistic, transcultural, trans-

Introduction 

 7

national and transacademic border crossers. This chapter also presents a series of implications for EFL/ESL teacher education and a set of guidelines for both teacher candidates and teacher educators. Chapter 13 by Zydatiß examines the main professional challenges faced by non-native CLIL teachers in general and the distinctive features of academic literacy in particular. Drawing upon the functional linguistics framework initiated by Halliday and Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory, the nature and development of academic language use or language of schooling (=Cummin’s CALP or academic literacy) needed for the construction of subject-matter knowledge are examined. Some distinctive linguistic and cognitive challenges of the CLIL classroom are also reported. Chapter 14 by Manyike examines English language teaching policy in the South African education system and discusses the main professional challenges faced by both native and non-native speakers in the use of English as a medium of instruction in multicultural schools in South Africa. At the heart of this chapter, as the author recognises, is the assumption that cultural diversity in language teaching should be enhanced in order to address English language teaching and learning. Additionally, recommendations for teacher education are also offered. In line with the idea of contemplating all language users, both native and non-native, as collaborators in a context of international communication (Llurda 2009), the final chapter of the book (de Oliveira and Clark) discusses the advantages of collaborative experiences and/or relationships between NESTs and NNESTs, recognising that many educators may not be aware of the numerous benefits attained by such collaboration. Using examples from their own practice, the authors discuss their teacher education experiences in Indonesia, Brazil and the United States. Individual differences receive special emphasis in this chapter. Patience, communicative negotiation, cultural awareness and understanding, mutual respect and flexibility are essential components of successful collaborations. Helpful suggestions for teacher education programmes are also offered.

The book’s audience The contents of this publication will be helpful not only for those researchers interested in a deeper understanding of the professional role and potential of both native and non-native L2 teachers but also for both pre-service and in-service language teachers from all over the world who need to be aware of how much they, as non-native teachers, might offer to their future students. This publication is also intended for all those L2 teacher educators involved both in pre-service and in-service education of L2/FL teachers. Policymakers and graduate students

8 

 Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo

in applied linguistics and English language education will also find it helpful. I sincerely hope that all issues raised in the various chapters will be of value and interest to all of them. Acknowledgements: First and foremost, I must express my deep gratitude to all the contributors who made this book possible for their enthusiastic dedication and support of this publication. I greatly appreciate their collaboration. Special thanks also to Professors Péter Medgyes and David Malinowski for their generosity in writing, respectively, the Foreword and Afterword to this volume. I would also like to thank the Trends in Applied Linguistics series editors for their support and guidance during the review process and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive feedback which greatly contributed to improving the quality of the manuscript. I am also grateful to Lara Wysong of the De Gruyter publisher for guiding me through the process of manuscript preparation. Above all, my deepest appreciation is to my beloved wife, Paqui, and my sons, Juan de Dios and Pablo, for their patience, understanding and continuous support. Finally, special thanks to my dear father, Juan, who passed away twenty years ago now, for his unconditional love, trust, understanding, encouragement and endless support.

References Bartels, Nat. 2004. Applied Linguistics and Language Teacher Education. Boston: Springer. Braine, George (ed.). 1999. Non-Native Educators in English Language Teaching. Mahwah, New Jersey: LEA. Brutt-Griffler, Janina & Keiko K. Samimy. 2001. Transcending the nativeness paradigm. World Englishes 20(1). 99–106. Carless, David. 2006. Collaborative EFL teaching in primary schools. ELT Journal 60(4). 328–335. Cook, Vivian & David Singleton. 2014. Key Topics in Second Language Acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Cook, Vivian. 1999. Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33(2). 185–209. Cook, Vivian. 2005. Basing teaching on the L2 user. In Enric Llurda (ed.), Non-native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges and Contributions to the Profession, 47–61. New York, NY: Springer. Crystal, David. 1997. English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davies, Alan. 2003. The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Davies, Alan. 2004. The native speaker in applied linguistics. In Alan Davies & Catherine Elder (eds.), The Handbook of Applied Linguistics, 431–450. Oxford: Blackwell.

Introduction 

 9

Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 2017. Why the dichotomy ‘L1 versus LX user’ is better than ‘Native versus Non-native speaker’. Applied Linguistics. 1–6. Holliday, Adrian. 2005. The Struggle to Teach English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Houghton, Stephanie Ann & Damian J. Rivers (eds.). 2013. Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup Dynamics in Foreign Language Education. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hughes, John. 2007. Fall of the native speaker. The Guardian. Llurda, Enric. (ed.). 2005. Non-native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges, and Contributions to the Profession. New York: Springer. Llurda, Enric. 2009. The decline and fall of the native speaker. In Li Wei & Vivian Cook (eds.), Contemporary Applied Linguistics: Volume 1 Language Teaching and Learning, 37–53. London: Continuum. Mahboob, Ahmar. 2010. The NNEST lens. In Ahmar Mahboob (ed.), The NNEST lens:Non native English speakers in TESOL, 1–12. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Matsuda, Aya. 2003. The ownership of English in Japanese secondary schools. World Englishes 22(4), 483–496. McKay, Sandra Lee. 2002. Teaching English as an International Language: Rethinking Goals and Perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. McKay, Sandra Lee. 2003. Teaching English as an International Language. ELT Journal 57(2). 139–148. Medgyes, Péter. 1992. Native or non-native. Who’s worth more? ELT Journal 46(4). 340–349. Medgyes, Péter. 1994. The Non-native Teacher. Basingstoke: Macmillan Educational. Moussu, Lucie & Enric Llurda. 2008. Non-native English-speaking English language teachers: History and research. Language Teaching 41(3). 315–348. Phillipson, Robert. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, Henry. 1994. The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 28(2). 377–389.

Part I Overall issues and perspectives on (non) nativeness in second language teaching

Ahmar Mahboob

Chapter 1 Understanding language variation: Implications of the NNEST lens for TESOL teacher education programs Abstract: This chapter discusses the implications of the NNEST lens in the context of teacher education programs in TESOL. In particular, it focuses on a discussion of two key issues: avoiding the monolingual bias in describing languages and language variation; and, avoiding a monolingual bias in developing teaching methods. In discussing the first issue, the chapter identifies some of the limitations in how language and grammar are often described in limited ways and how this can be expanded by using an NNEST lens. The chapter describes the three dimensional framework of language variation in some detail and discusses its implications for language teaching. The chapter then discusses why local languages are not included in much of the theorisation and practice of TESOL and argues that there are historical as well as theoretical reasons why local languages have been excluded in TESOL. The chapter describes one way in which teachers can consider integrating local languages in their classrooms.

1 Introduction All NNESTs share one aspect about their linguistic repertoire: they all speak at least one other language in addition to English. This shared feature of the NNESTs has a number of implications and is the main argument for what Mahboob (2010) calls The NNEST Lens. The NNEST lens is defined as “a lens of multilingualism, multinationalism, and multiculturalism through which NNESTs – as classroom practitioners, researchers, and teacher educators  – take diversity as a starting point, rather than as a result” (Mahboob 2010: 1). The NNEST lens challenges the monolingual bias (Kachru 1994) in TESOL theory and practice and suggests that having a multilingual orientation in TESOL would be much better aligned with the needs and context of NNESTs. In this chapter, we will examine some of the implications of the NNEST lens for teacher education programs. In particular, we Ahmar Mahboob, University of Sydney, Australia DOI 10.1515/9781501504143-002

14 

 Ahmar Mahboob

will consider the implications of the NNEST lens in developing an understanding of language and about the use of local languages in teaching.

2 Understanding language and language variation In numerous casual surveys  – at conferences and in classes  – I ask in-service and pre-service teachers how they would define the following terms: language and grammar. The responses that I get are almost always the same: language is a form of communication; and, grammar is a set of rules that tell us how language works. Both of these are common-sense understanding of the terms and are quite limited for language educators. Given that the key role of English language teachers (ELTs) is to teach language, it is essential that language teachers have a more technical understanding of what language and grammar are. And, more specifically, since NNESTs are teachers of English, teacher education programs need to help pre- and in-service teachers develop an understanding of ‘English’ in today’s world. While it is true that language is used for communication, language is not communication. Language, as defined by Halliday (2009), is a semogenic system: a system that creates meaning. Language is not the only semogenic system – there are others such as music, colours, etc. – but language is arguably one of the most important ones and it plays a key role in how we learn to create, contest and represent meaning. We are able to use language to create, contest and communicate meaning because language is patterned. As humans, we notice, recognise, interpret and use a range of patterns to understand, to mean and to communicate. The study of these patterns of language is grammar. Grammar is not a set of rules; grammar is a way of understanding how language works. Language, we can say, is data and grammar is the way in which we make sense of the data. Thus, it is possible for us to have different grammars: each influenced by the limitation/extent of data and the purpose of explaining the data. Thus, depending on the corpus and our purpose, we can have different grammars. If we take nativespeaker language and describe it in terms of structural rules that can be taught to students, then we will develop traditional prescriptive grammars. If we take native-speaker language and describe it in terms of its structural features, then we develop a traditional descriptive grammar. If we take native-speaker language and describe it in terms of how the human mind transforms the deep structure of the language into surface structures, then we are developing a transformative grammar. If we take native-speaker language and describe it in terms of what



Understanding language variation 

 15

choices speakers have available and how they make specific choices in particular contexts, then we are moving towards a functional grammar. In each of the examples here, the end grammar that we develop is a response to the data that we have and the purpose of developing the grammar. Grammar itself, broadly speaking, is a theory of language – a theory that helps us organise, make sense of, describe, explain and predict language. The last element here, prediction, is a key aspect and worth some more discussion. If we think of grammar as a theory of language, then, as a theory, a grammar should be able to predict language use. This means that a strong grammar should not only describe how language works in the corpus that it is based on, but it should be able to predict – with some level of certainty – how language can/will be used in instances not included in the corpus. This is an important test for a grammar and one that shows that most of the grammars that we learn and teach in teacher education programs are not strong grammars (in that they are unable to predict language use). Traditional descriptive/prescriptive grammars are perhaps the most common type of grammars that teachers and students of English are familiar with in most parts of the world. These grammars have evolved out of earlier grammars of English (which, some argue, were not based on English data but modelled on Latin) and are based on written samples of English by monolingual speakers of the language. Most ELTs are familiar with such grammars and the rules associated with such grammars, even if they may not agree with some of them. For example, while rules such as do not split infinitives etc. are now considered myths, they were included in grammar books and taught as rules. These rules lost their validity (in some contexts) because they were not predictive: there were/are hundreds of examples that demonstrate that even monolingual speakers of English split infinitives (e.g. the introductory text from Star Trek, to boldly go where no man has gone before). However, there are many other rules that are not questioned and continue to be taught. For example, one of the key rules taught about English is that an English sentence must minimally have a subject and a verb. While this rule is valid in many contexts, it does not always apply to procedural texts where the subject is often elided and clauses start with a verb. Thus, traditional grammars are not always able to predict actual language use. This issue becomes even more complex when we consider non-native varieties of English, also known as World Englishes, and contexts where English is not used as a local/community language. One reason for this is because these traditional grammars do not draw on data from non-native users of the language when abstracting grammatical principles. Thus, traditional grammars are not drawn on or explain non-native use of language. While this may not be an issue in itself, problems arise when the native-user based grammars are seen as correct or stand-

16 

 Ahmar Mahboob

ard language and other uses of the language are measured against them (and found lacking). One might ask the question: if traditional grammars can’t even always predict language use within other native contexts, how valid or appropriate is it to use them for non-native contexts? The problem of documenting and using native-user based grammar books as reference points becomes a bigger issue in contexts where English is not used as a community/local language. In such contexts, people don’t always have access to samples of language use that they can draw on or learn from. In these contexts, people depend on grammar books as a source of information about appropriate use of language. In many contexts, the books readily available are traditional grammar books. As we have noted above, these grammars have limitations. But, since there are no other recognised sources available locally, people (including local ELTs) use these reference books as authority and prescribe the traditional descriptions of language in these books. Things can get even worse in situations where local publishers/authors republish or plagiarise a selection of the grammar rules found in primary sources without fully realizing how the whole grammar works or the implications of picking-and-choosing some of the rules from one book and combining them with those found in others. These locally produced books have considerable impact on learners who buy and use their books. Among other things, this creates problems in terms of peoples’ understanding of grammar – as a set of rules – and perpetuates myths about language. These myths need to be challenged in TESOL teacher education programs through focussed and informed discussions about the nature of language, grammar, and language variation (see Mahboob 2014). Descriptions of language need to be based on data that reflects its use by both native and non-native users of the language (note that I’m not saying learners of the language – whether native or non-native – but users). Research on World Englishes, which studies the spread of English worldwide, has challenged monolingual descriptions of English. World Englishes scholars (see, for example, Jenkins 2015; Kirkpatrick 2010; and contributions to the journals such as World Englishes, English Worldwide and English Today) look at how English is used (and how it changes) in different contexts – including those where English is not a native-language. These scholars have demonstrated that the English language is not a monolithic entity and that it varies greatly based on who is using it, how, where, and for what purpose. These scholars have also shown that these variations exist across all strata of language: grapho-phonology, lexico-grammar, and discourse-semantics. For example, at grapho-phonological strata, we notice differences between spellings in British and American English, as in colour (British) and color (American); we also hear phonological differences between speakers of English from dif-



Understanding language variation 

 17

fering parts of the world, as in the word bar: ‘/ba:/’ (British) ‘/ba:r/’ (American). At the lexico-grammatical strata, we observe how certain things are called by different names in different parts of the world, as in boot of a car (British), trunk of a car (American), and dickie of a car (Pakistani); and how sentences and clauses are put together in different ways, as in What time is it? (British) and What is the time? (Pakistani). Finally, the way that information is put together and how and what things are said in different contexts can also be different across varieties of English; for example, letters to editors published in Pakistani English newspapers sometimes include a note of thanks to the editors as well as a praise of the newspaper – moves which are absent from editorials published in other parts of the world (Hartford and Mahboob, 2004). The World Englishes examples shared above show how Englishes can diverge in many contexts and how an NNEST lens, one that is not limited to monolingual native speaker data, can expand our gaze and show us other possibilities of explaining and describing language use. However, as has been discussed in Krishnaswamy and Burde (1998), Pennycook (2002), Bruthiaux (2003), Mahboob and Szenes (2010) and Mahboob and Liang (2014) using national labels in describing languages and Englishes is quite problematic. As pointed out in Mahboob and Szenes (2010), this is problematic because it leads World Englishes researchers into describing discrete linguistic features that are used to contrast one national variety with another that do not necessarily contribute to a theory of language or of how meaning is construed or communicated in and across these varieties. In such cases, these researchers argue, linguistics becomes a tool for nationalistic agendas and loses focus on understanding language and how it works (without consideration to national borders). While it is important for ELTs to understand language variation, using national or ethnic labels to name languages is not necessarily productive (see also Saraceni 2010; Seargeant, 2010). Instead, we need to think of language variation across a range of continua (or dimensions). In previous work (Mahboob 2014), I have identified four continua: users, uses, mode, and time that help us understand how language varies based on who is using it, for what purposes, with what resources, and when. In this work, I have mapped three dimensions (users, uses, and mode) to develop a three dimensional (3D) framework of language variation (see Figure 1 below). Below, I have included some of the relevant points from my previous work (Mahboob 2014, 2015) to explain the three dimensions.

18 

 Ahmar Mahboob

Figure 1: The 3D framework of language variation.

The first dimension of variation in language in the framework relates to who we are as users of the language and with whom we are interacting. The user cline of language variation can be based on low vs. high social distance. People who have low social distance (i.e. they have many shared social factors, e.g., age, gender, origin, location, socio-economic status, ethnicity, religion, family, school, etc.) may have unique ways of using language that reflect their relationship and this language may not always be transparent to others (see, for example, Wolfram 2014). The indicator low social distance helps us understand why people use local forms of language, with their local denotations and connotations. On the other hand, when interacting with people with whom one has a higher social distance, one tends to use a more standard or global language – one that minimizes local idioms, forms, and features and is thus less prone to miscommunication. The indicator high social distance helps us explain why people use global forms of language, minimizing local forms and features, and facilitating communication with people who speak a different local variety of the language. The second dimension of variation in language is related to the purpose or ‘use’ of the language. To understand this dimension of language variation, we consider whether the language being used is about everyday/casual discourses or about specialised/technical discourses. For example, one could talk about music using specialised/technical language; or one could talk about music in everyday/ casual language. In both cases, the topic remains the same; however, the specific linguistic choices vary based on the purpose of the exchange. In linguistic terms,



Understanding language variation 

 19

this variation is understood as register variation, a concept used extensively in literature in genre and ESP studies. The third dimension of language variation is mode (Martin 1985; Derewianka 2015). Modes of communication include aural, visual, and mixed channels of communication. The way we use language varies based on whether we are speaking, writing, or – as is becoming common today – combining these two modalities (for example, in online chats, blogs, etc.). Note that the framework uses written-like and oral-like as the two end points. These labels acknowledge that language may be transcribed through a writing system, but may be more similar to oral language in terms of its linguistic characteristics than to written language, e.g. a dialogue included in a textbook or a novel, or a personal travel blog that includes images and texts. Similarly, language can be more written-like even when it is spoken, e.g. a plenary talk at a conference. It also needs to be noted that texts can be multimodal, i.e., they can draw on various modalities simultaneously (e.g. a talk which uses a PowerPoint that includes images and text). These three dimensions are plotted together in Figure 1 to provide the basic framework of language variation. The framework helps identify eight domains (Table 1 below), with each domain including a range of variations, based on varying combinations of users, uses, and mode. Table 1 below lists the eight domains1, identifies areas of linguistic study that focus their research on that domain, and examples of where one might find such language. Table 1: Eight domains of language variation based on the 3D Framework. Domains

Study in linguistics

Example

1

Local, oral, everyday

Dialectology, World Englishes

Family members planning their vacation

2

Local, written, everyday

Dialectology, World Englishes

Old school friends exchanging e-mails with each other

3

Local, oral, ­specialized

Need more attention

Members of an Aboriginal community talking about the local weather system

1 The ordering of the domains here is different than in earlier publications on this framework (Mahboob 2014, 2015). The mode dimension has been reversed here to reflect the primacy of oral language over written language.

20 

 Ahmar Mahboob

Tab. 1 (continued) 4

Local, written, ­specialized

Need more attention

Newsletter produced by and for a rural community of farmers in rural Australia

5

Global, oral, ­everyday

ELF (English as a Lingua Franca)

Casual conversations amongst people from different parts of the world

6

Global, written, everyday

Genre studies; traditional grammar

International news agencies reporting on events

7

Global, oral, ­specialized

ELF; Language for specific purposes; genre studies

Conference presentations

8

Global, written, specialized

Language for specific purposes; genre studies

Academic papers

The fourth dimension, time, is not plotted in Figure 1 above nor represented in Table 1. This is because time relates to each of the other three dimensions and every one of eight domains that emerge from the framework. Thus, for example, language varies across time on the user dimension: language in all communities shifts and changes over time. While the impact of time is acknowledged in this model, we will not focus on it in this chapter. The model of language variation presented above has a number of implications for educational contexts. It shows us how language varies based on who the participants are, what the purpose of language use is, and what modality(/ies) is(/are) being used. Thus, it predicts what type of language we might find in what context and also puts into perspective the various areas of studies that prioritize different types of variations in language (e.g. use based for genre pedagogy; user based for dialect studies and World Englishes). The framework also contextualizes language in terms of how we may use it in our everyday lives and how it relates to educational dimensions. The 3D framework draws significantly on Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004) in that it uses the three register variables to develop the three dimensions of language variation. Thus, field is projected as use; tenor as users and mode as mode. However, this is where the similarity ends. The fourth dimension, time, while it is not mapped onto the framework (Figure 1) is also very relevant in understanding language variation but is not a register variable in SFL. Furthermore, the actual language within each domain does not vary only in terms of any one of the three field variables, but all three. So, within a particular domain, e.g. domain 1, actual language



Understanding language variation 

 21

samples would still be analysed based on the three register variables: how they realise field, tenor, and mode through a metafunctional analysis. As individuals – whether we are native speakers of a language or non-native speakers – our use of language for everyday purposes typically falls in domains 1 and 2 – we use language orally or in writing with people that we are familiar with and about every day topics. The local language that we use in such contexts reflects the norms of our local communities. When we shift our context and use language with people that we don’t know well or about things that are technical/ specialized then our language shifts too. While most of us develop the language that we use in domains 1 and 2 naturally in our contexts, the language we need to communicate successfully in domains 5 & 6, or 7 & 8 does not come naturally. We need to learn this language – and, typically, we do this at schools and other educational institutions/programs. Thus, the job of (English language) teachers is to help students develop an ability to understand and use language which can be used in globally oriented and/or specialized contexts. This is an important observation and has implications for ELTs. As ELTs, we need to help our students use language that allows them mobility and an ability to use language successfully beyond their immediate surroundings, with people that they do not know, and for specialized and technicalised purposes. The language that students bring to school from their home  – language in domains 1 (and, perhaps, 2) – may or may not share features with globally oriented language (domains 5 and 6). In some cases, for various historical and sociolinguistic reasons, students who come from urban middle-class Anglo families, have a higher chance that the local language that they speak and write shares features with the language in domains 5 and 6 (note that they may have a higher chance, but that it is not a given). For all other students  – including monolingual speakers of other dialects/varieties of English – access to domains 5 and 6 is through education and training. This is true for whether the local dialect spoken by a child is Aboriginal English, Afro-American English, Anglo-American English from a working class or regional background, Chicano English, Jamaican English, or Pakistani English, etc. In all such cases, kids have to be taught global ways of using language (domains 5 & 6). When teachers are aware and attuned to the differences between 1 & 2 and 5 & 6 (see, for example, Martin and Mathhiesen 2015; Derewianka 2015), they are better able to help students understand these differences and give them resources that will enable them to develop proficiency in using language in new domains. If the teachers (or the curriculum) are not aware of or recognize these differences, or if teachers do not succeed in teaching the students globalized ways of using language (for everyday as well as technical/ specialized uses), then the students are left on their own devices to learn about and use appropriate language. In such cases, while a few students may be able to

22 

 Ahmar Mahboob

understand and learn appropriate ways of using the language of domains 5 & 6 (and even fewer the language of domains 7 & 8), a large number fail to do so and are thus unable to succeed in and through education. While domains 5 & 6 allow us to use language for a range of everyday purposes with people who come from all parts of the world, the language of domains 7 & 8 is highly specialized and/or technicalised and is something that needs to be learnt by everyone. One can perhaps even argue that the global orientation of the language of domains 7 & 8 come through their specialization/technicalisation. No one is a ‘native-speaker’ of domains 7 & 8. The language of domains 7 & 8 evolves as people come together to focus on a particular specialised/technicalised issues; the backgrounds of the people who come together is not important here, but rather the focus is on what needs to be done through language. The language of domains 7 & 8 is first introduced to children in schools (most commonly in subject areas, such as science, math, etc.) and then expanded and developed in college (through specialized degrees in subject areas). As teachers – whether NESTs or NNESTs – we need to note that none of us are ‘native speaker’ of the language in domains 7 & 8 and that we need to learn (about) it ourselves before we are able to teach (about) it. Access to knowledge production typically happens through language in domains 7 & 8 and this knowledge is then recontextualised for the wider audience through domains 5 & 6 and/or 1 & 2. To understand this better, let us consider the following example. Expert knowledge in medicine is published in highly technical medical journals (domain 8) or presented at professional conferences (domain 7). This knowledge, even though it is in English, is not accessible to an average user of the English language (regardless of whether they are native or non-native users of English). Medical practitioners (who may be native or non-native users of English), who specialize and understand medical discourse, make sense of this expert knowledge and use it to communicate with other medical practitioners (domain 7 & 8). However, when doctors talk to patients, they avoid this highly technical language and explain things in ways that are accessible to their patients. Typically doctors translate the technical work into language of domains 1 or 5, depending on where and with whom they are interacting. When doctors translate from domain 7/8 to domain 1 or 5, a lot of the technicality is lost. This is a compromise that has to be made for the doctors to communicate successfully with their patients; however, when communicating with other doctors, they maintain domain 7 & 8. This shows how important these variations/domains are and how they work across the society. For most ELTs, again, regardless of whether they are NESTs or NNESTs, their goal is to help students develop language that is more appropriate for domains 5 & 6; and then, if they are teaching specialized courses, then help students develop language that they will need to participate in domains 7 & 8.



Understanding language variation 

 23

Being a native speaker does not help in any of this; but knowing how language works makes a big difference. Before proceeding, it is useful to look at the nature of language in domain 1, the domain that children develop naturally at home (if they do not have any learning disabilities). Children, as they develop language, do not develop a particular language, i.e., they don’t develop what adults see and categorize as languages, such as Arabic, English, French, or Urdu, etc. These languages/labels are adult categories and separated out in complex ways (such as location, group identity, mutual intelligibility, nationalism etc.). For children developing language, language labels do not matter. Matthiessen (2009: 214) points out that “language has evolved as a learnable system: its adaptiveness and inherent variability make it easier to learn because we do not have to learn it in one fell swoop; we learn it in a cumulative way, building up the complexity gradually from texts instantiating different registers”. As children develop language, they are not concerned by variations etc., but by learning how to mean. As Halliday (1975/2004: 55) describes it, once a child “learns how to mean”, they continue to develop language by making meanings in, or negotiating, more and different contexts over time. Importantly, this process happens for all users of languages; children do not differentiate between languages, they learn how to mean. Garcia (2009) refers to the use of multiple languages in different contexts as translanguaging. According to Garcia (2009: 45), translanguaging goes beyond code-switching to include the range of “…discursive practices in which bilinguals engage in order to make sense of their bilingual worlds” (emphasis original). Translanguaging is an important aspect of language (specially in domain 1 & 2) and will be discussed again in the section on using local language later. The 3D model of language variation presented above uses the NNEST lens to develop a multilingual perspective on understanding language and language variation. This work relates to, draws from, and contributes to a growing body of research in this area. For example, the 3D model relates strongly with work on complex adaptive dynamic system which points out: “(1) The system consists of multiple agents (the speakers in the speech community) interacting with one another. (2) The system is adaptive, that is, speakers’ behavior is based on their past interactions, and current and past interactions together feed forward into future behavior. (3) A speaker’s behavior is the consequence of competing factors ranging from perceptual mechanics to social motivations. (4) The structures of language emerge from interrelated patterns of experience, social interaction, and cognitive processes” (Beckner et al. 2009: 2) (see also, Larsen-Freeman and Cameron 2008; Matthiessen 2009; Hensley 2010). This model, as discussed earlier, also closely aligns with research on translaguaging (see, for example, Garcia and Wei 2013; Cangarajah 2014) and transculturalism (see, for example, Motha, Jain, and Tecle 2012) that questions

24 

 Ahmar Mahboob

the traditional static models of and boundaries between languages. These works have also led to the questioning of the notion of language proficiency in recent years; for example, Mahboob and Dutcher (2014) argue that models of language proficiency need to respond to criticisms of the static nature of language and engage with dynamic models. Presenting their Dynamic Approach to Language Proficiency (DALP), they posit that “being proficient in a language implies that we are sensitive to the setting of the communicative event, and have the ability to select, adapt, negotiate, and use a range of linguistic resources that are appropriate in the context” (p. 117). This discussion of language has numerous implications for applied linguistics and TESOL research and practice in general. For example, rethinking the nature of language and language policy has implications for work in the area of language assessment, identity research, and second language development studies. Canagarajah (2006: 240) argues that static models of language proficiency are anachronistic and that we need a new generation of tests which “should be performance based; they should feature social negotiation; and they should demonstrate pragmatic competence. We need tests that are interactive, collaborative, and performative”. Extending this work, Mahboob and Dutcher (2014) discuss the implications of DALP on language assessment. They suggest that tests of language proficiency should investigate an individual’s (both native and non-native speakers) ability to negotiate meaning in diverse context rather than responding to discrete test items based on a static model of language. All these aspects of language, language variation, and grammar along with the implications of this work in different aspects of research and theory in TESOL and applied linguistics need to be integrated in teacher education programs. This work, which adopts an NNEST lens, avoids a monolingual orientation and is therefore more reflective of the needs and practices of teachers (both NESTs and NNESTs). Below, we will look at one particular area where this work can help classroom teaching practices.

3 Using local languages One of the most consistent findings in the NNEST literature is that students and teachers find proficiency in the students’ local language as a positive and useful resource (see, for example, Mahboob et al. 2004; Moussu and Llurda 2008; Braine 2010; Selvi 2014). Given these findings, it is striking that TESOL and applied linguistics programs do not explicitly train teachers in judicious and pedagogically appropriate uses of local languages (domain 1 & 2) in the classrooms. Mahboob



Understanding language variation 

 25

and Lin (2016 & in press) discuss a number of issues that has led to the current situation. They point out that one of the key reasons that led to a development of negative attitudes towards the use of local languages in English language classes is related to the history of English language teaching and teacher education. English language teaching evolved from practices in foreign language teaching. In early days, the dominant approach to language teaching was the grammar translation approach. This approach gave primary position to a (dominant) local language and used it extensively in building knowledge of and about the target language. Many of the teachers of languages in these contexts were non-native speakers of the target language and shared the dominant local language with the students. The grammar-translation approach was used to teach not only English but also a range of other foreign languages. However, over time, the demographics of who was involved in teaching and learning of English (and where) changed and these changes had a major effect on the development of theory and practice in TESOL and applied linguistics in the 20th century. During the British colonial period, a large number of people from the colonies moved to the UK. In this context, the ESL student population came from a number of different countries and language backgrounds, and the teachers as well as teacher educators/researchers did not share languages with students. Given these contextual factors, the role of local languages was not really considered as a factor in the development of pedagogical material or training of teachers. Howatt and Smith (2014: 84) in reviewing the history of ELT, state: … translation into the language being learnt was, in general, firmly rejected within the Reform Movement as well as by Berlitz. With hindsight, it is a pity that this distinction between L2 to L1 and L1 to L2 translation did not survive the adoption of ‘Direct Method’ as a blanket term and that the many techniques and procedures developed by non-native speaker school teachers (‘Reform Methods’) have remained under-acknowledged. The Direct Method – in all its forms – was set, however, to strongly influence the subsequent era.

In addition to being the context of development of some of the major approaches to language teaching in the 20th century, academics and researchers in inner-circle countries also published key textbooks for preparing English language teachers. These textbooks, which excluded and/or critiqued the use of local languages in English language teaching, were not only used in the inner-circle countries, but also in outer and expanding circle countries. Thus, methods and approaches that were designed for particular contexts were marketed as being ‘global’ and used to train teachers around the world. One result of this has been a negative attitude towards the use of local languages in schooling. Another major factor that has resulted in the non-use and non-recognition of local languages in ELT is the monolingual bias associated with describing and

26 

 Ahmar Mahboob

theorizing languages – as discussed in detail in the previous section. Language, as was pointed out earlier, has traditionally been taught as a set of rules that are abstracted from monolingual native speaker intuitions about language. In doing this, language is seen as a discrete entity and separated from other languages and meaning making systems and modalities. Recent literature (Canagarajah 2007) has critiqued the essentialist views of language as discrete systems that are pervasive in the language policy and TESOL methodology discourses. The official discourses of language-in-education policy makers in many postcolonial societies, however, still tend to project and assert the view of languages as stable, monolithic (uniform), reified (concrete) entities with clear-cut boundaries. The job of the language planner is seen as lying in the prescription and standardization of linguistic systems culminating in the production of authoritative dictionaries, grammars, and teaching manuals of the national and official languages to be spread among the population. These standard languages are put forward as educational targets, and the state’s acquisition planning aiming at designing the most effective approaches for achieving these targets usually results in the recommendation of monolingual immersion approaches: total use of the target language is supposed to be the best way to achieve target language proficiency. However, such thinking and theorisation of language has been questioned in recent times – as discussed in the previous section. Recent work on language has questioned the limitation of studies based on their focus on a single semiotic (meaning-making) mode and ignoring how meanings are construed and represented multimodally (using more than one mode, e.g., by using images and text together, as in children’s story books) (see Canagarajah 2005; Bezemer and Kress 2014) in different contexts. The 3D model of language variation described in the previous section is also a response to this gap. Similarly, work on translanguaging (Garcia 2009) and language as a complex adaptive dynamic system (Beckner et al. 2009) also looks into this issue. This body of work can help us theorise and develop ways that can be used by classroom teachers to help their students develop the language of domains 5 & 6 and eventually 7 & 8. Mahboob and Lin (in press) drawing from Lin (2010) discuss the Multimodalities/Entextualization Cycle as one way in which classroom teachers can draw on and use students’ existing language knowledge (domains 1 and 2) and help them to develop domains 5 & 6. Mahboob and Lin (in press) identify three stages in the Multimodalities/Entextualization Cycle: – Stage 1: Create a rich experiential context to arouse students’ interest, and immerse the students in the topic field (e.g., festivals in the students’ country) using multimodalities such as visuals, images, Youtube videos, diagrams, demonstrations, actions, inquiry/discovery activities, etc. In this stage, the familiar local languages of students (e.g., domains 1 and 2 as well as everyday



Understanding language variation 

 27

language from domains 5 & 6) can be used to help the students to grasp the main gist of the experience. – Stage 2: Engage students in reading a coherent piece of TL (target language) text on the topic introduced in Stage 1, and then engage students in note-making or mind-mapping tasks that require some systematic sorting out or re-/presentation of the target language textual meaning using different kinds/combinations of everyday local/target language spoken/written genres and multimodalities (e.g., bilingual notes, graphic organizers, mind maps, visuals, diagrams, pictures, oral description, story-boards, comics); these activities help students to unpack the target language academic text using local/target everyday language and multimodalities. – Stage 3: Engage students in entextualizing (putting experience in text) the experience using target language spoken/written genres (e.g., poems, short stories, descriptive reports) with language scaffolds provided (e.g., key vocab, sentence frames, writing / speaking prompts, etc.) These three stages form a curriculum genre, which Lin (2010; forthcoming) calls the Multimodalities/Entextualization Cycle (MEC). The MEC (see Figure 1 below) can be reiterated until the target language learning goals have been achieved. The key principle is to use students’ local languages (domains 1 and 2) to scaffold students into TL everyday languages (domains 5 & 6) and genres together with multimodalities.

Figure 2: The Multimodalities/Entextualization Cycle (MEC). Adapted from Lin (2010) (Key: Ss = students; LL = local language; TL = target language).

28 

 Ahmar Mahboob

Mahboob and Lin (in press) argue that when we adopt a balanced and openminded stance towards the potential role of local languages in English language classrooms, there is a lot of systematic planning and research that we can do to figure out how and when we can use language of domains 1 & 2 to help students develop the language needed to successfully participate in domains 5 & 6 and then eventually domains 7 & 8. We need additional research to explore these areas and to provide us with guidelines that can be used to train and empower teachers and students in the future.

4 Conclusions This chapter aimed to discuss the implications of the NNEST lens in the context of teacher education programs in TESOL by looking at two issues: avoiding the monolingual bias in describing languages and language variation; and, avoiding a monolingual bias in developing teaching methods. In discussing the first issue, the chapter identified some of the limitations in how many ELTs (and others) see language and grammar in limited ways and how this can be expanded by using an NNEST lens. The chapter described the 3D framework of language variation in some detail and discussed its implications for language teaching. In the following section, the chapter discussed why local languages are not included in much of the theorisation and practice of TESOL. The chapter argued that there are historical as well as theoretical reasons why local languages have been excluded in TESOL. The chapter then shared Lin’s (2010) Multimodalities/Entextualization Cycle as one way in which teachers can consider integrating local languages in their classrooms. The section ended with suggesting that teachers and researchers need to experiment and try out different ways in which they can integrate local languages in their classrooms and share notes on what combinations work best. In concluding, this chapter provides a discussion of some of the directions that TESOL teacher education programs can develop in if they use the NNEST lens in developing their programs. Programs that draw on the NNEST lens will challenge the monolingual bias in the field and provide ways to move our research and practice forward in a responsible manner.



Understanding language variation 

 29

5 References Beckner, Clay, Richard Blythe, Joan Bybee, Morten H. Christiansen, William Croft, Nick C. Ellis, John Holland, Jinyun Ke, Diane Larsen-Freeman, & Tom Schoenemann. 2009. Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning 59 (Suppl. 1). 1–26. Bezemer, Jeff & Gunther Kress. 2014. Touch: A resource for making meaning. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 37(2). 78–85. Braine, George. 2010. Non-native speaker English teachers: Research, pedagogy, and professional growth. New York: Routledge. Canagarajah, Suresh. 2005. Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Canagarajah, Suresh. 2006. Changing communicative needs, revised assessment objectives: Testing English as an International Language. Language Assessment Quarterly 3(3). 229–242. Canagarajah, Suresh. 2014. In search of a new paradigm for teaching English asan International Language. TESOL Journal 5(4). 767–785. Canagarajah, Suresh. 2007. Lingua Franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal 91(5). 923–939. Derewianka, Beverly. 2015. Supporting students in the move from spoken to written language. In Ahmar Mahboob & Leslie Barrat (eds.), Englishes in Multilingual Contexts-Language Variation and Education. Netherlands: Springer. Garcia, Ofelia & Wei Li. 2013. Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. García, Ofelia. 2009. Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In Ajit Mohanty, Minati Panda, Robert Phillipson & Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (eds.), Multilingual education for social justice: Globalising the local, 128–145. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan. Halliday, Michael A .K. 2009. Language and society. London: Continuum. Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian M Matthiessen. 2004. Introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edition. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, Michael A. K. 1975/2004. Learning how to mean. In Jonathan Webster (ed.), The language of early childhood. Vol. 4 in the collected works of M.A.K. Halliday (28–59). London: Continuum. (Reprinted from Eric Lenneberg and Elizabeth Lenneberg (eds.), Foundations of language development. A multidisciplinary perspective, 239–265. [1975]. London: Academic Press.) Hartford, B. & Mahboob, A. (2004). Models of discourse in the letter of complaint. World Englishes 23(4). Hensley, Joel. 2010. A brief introduction and overview of complex systems in applied linguistics. Journal of the Faculty of Global Communication 11. 83–96. Howatt, Anthony P. R. & Richard Smith. 2014. The history of Teaching English as a Foreign Language, from a British and European perspective. Language and History 57(1). 75–95. Jenkins Jennifer. 2015. Global Englishes. A resource book for students 3rd edition. London: Routledge. Kachru, Yamuna. 1994. Monolingual bias in SLA research. TESOL Quarterly 28(4). 795–800. Kirkpatrick, Andy. 2010. Routledge handbook of world Englishes. London: Routledge. Krishnaswamy, N. & Archana Burde. The politics of Indians’ English: Linguistic colonialism and the expanding English empire. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

30 

 Ahmar Mahboob

Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Lynne Cameron. 2008. Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lin, Angel M. Y. 2010. How to teach academic science language. Keynote speech given at the Symposium on Language & Literacy in Science Learning, organized by Hong Kong Education Bureau (Curriculum Development Institute – Science Education Section), 24 June 2010. Hong Kong. Mahboob, Ahmar & Angel Lin. (in press). Local languages as a resource in (language) education. In Ali Fuad Selvi & Nathanael Rudolph (eds.) Contextualizing education for glocal interaction: Issues and implications. New York: Springer Mahboob, Ahmar & Angel Lin. (2016). Using local languages in English language classrooms. In Handoyo Widodo & Willy Renandya (eds.), English language teaching today: Building a closer link between theory and practice. New York: Springer International. Mahboob, Ahmar & Eszter Szenes. 2010. Construing meaning in world Englishes. In Andy Kirkpatrick (ed.), Routledge handbook of world Englishes, 580–598. London: Routledge. Mahboob, Ahmar & Jiawei Liang. 2014. Researching and critiquing World Englishes. Asian Englishes 16(2). 125–140. Mahboob, Ahmar & Lydia Dutcher. 2014. Dynamic approach to language proficiency: A model. In Ahmar Mahboob & Leslie Barratt (eds.), Englishes in multilingual contexts: Language variation and education, 117–136. London: Springer. Mahboob, Ahmar. 2010. English as an Islamic language. World Englishes 28(2). 175–189. Mahboob, Ahmar. 2014. Understanding language variation: Implications for EIL pedagogy. In Roby Marlina & Ram Giri (eds.), The pedagogy of English as an international language: Theoretical and practical perspectives from the Asia-Pacific, 257–265. Switzerland: Springer. Mahboob, Ahmar. 2015. identity management, language variation, and English language textbooks. In Dwi Djenar, Ahmar Mahboob & Ken Cruickshank (eds.), Language and identity across modes of communication, 153–177. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Mahboob, Ahmar, Karl Uhrig, Karen L. Newman & Beverly S. Hartford. 2004. Children of lesser English: Status of non-native English speakers as college-level English as a second language teachers in the United States. In Lia Kamhi-Stein (ed.), Learning and teaching from experience: Perspectives on non-native English-speaking professionals, 100–120. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Martin, James R. & Chrsitian M. I. M. Mathhiesen. 2015. Modelling and mentoring: Teaching and learning from home through school. In Ahmar Mahboob & Leslie Barrat (eds.), Englishes in multilingual contexts: Language variation and education, 137–163. Netherlands: Springer. Martin, James R. 1985. Language, register and genre. In Frances Christie (ed.), Children writing course reader, 21–30. Geelong: Deakin University Press. Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2009. Meaning in the making: meaning potential emerging from acts of meaning. Language Learning 59 (Suppl. 1). 206–229. Motha, Suhanthie, Rashi Jain, & Tsegga Tecle. 2012. Translinguistic identity-as pedagogy: Implications for language teacher education. International Journal of Innovation in English Language Teaching 1(1). 13–27. Moussu, Lucie & Enric Llurda. 2008. Non-native English-speaking English language teachers: History and research. Language Teaching 41(3). 315–348. Pennycook, Alaister 2002. Turning English inside out. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics 28(2). 25–43.



Understanding language variation 

 31

Saraceni, Mario. 2010. The relocation of English: Shifting paradigms in a global era. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Seargeant, Philip. 2010. Naming and defining in World Englishes. World Englishes 29(1). 97–113. Selvi, Ali Fuad. 2014. Myths and misconceptions about non-native English speakers in the TESOL (NNEST) movement. TESOL Journal 5(3). 573–611. Wolfram, Walt. 2014. Integrating language variation into TESOL: Challenges from English globalization. In Ahmar Mahboob & Leslie Barratt (eds.), Englishes in multilingual contexts: Language variation and education, 15–31. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Recommended reading Braine, George. 2010. Non-native speaker English teachers: Research, pedagogy, and professional growth. New York: Routledge. This book traces the origins and growth of the NNEST movement and summarizes the research that has been conducted on the issue. It highlights challenges faced by NNESTs as well as promote NNESTs professional development. Mahboob, Ahmar. 2015. Identity management, language variation, and English language textbooks. In Dwi Djenar, Ahmar Mahboob & Ken Cruickshank (eds.), Language and identity across modes of communication, 153–177. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. This paper introduces the Identity Management framework and discusses how using inappropriate models of local language in educational context can impact students’ semiotic development and their identities. Mahboob, Ahmar & Leslie Barratt (eds.). 2014. Englishes in multilingual contexts: Language variation and education. London: Springer. This contribution to this edited volume first look at the importance of studying English language variation in the context of education and then identify pedagogical possibilities that respect language variation and empower English language learners in diverse contexts. Selvi, Ali Fuad. 2014. Myths and misconceptions about non-native English speakers in the TESOL (NNEST) movement. TESOL Journal 5(3). 573–611. This paper provides a concise review of myths and misconceptions about NNTESs and discusses some of the key purposes and achievements of the NNEST movement.

Questions for reflection and discussion –

–

How does the definition of grammar presented in this paper differ from common sense understandings of the term? How is an understanding of grammar, as discussed in this paper, relevant to your context of language learning/teaching? The 3D model presented in this paper argues that both native and non-native speakers develop their language in domains 1 and 2. How does this view differ from or is similar to traditional approaches about nativeness? What are some of the implications of this in the context of education?

32  – –

 Ahmar Mahboob

The paper states, “No one is a ‘native-speaker’ of domains 7 & 8.” What are some of the reasons behind this claim? The paper argues that there is a role for local languages (domain 1 and 2) in language teaching/learning. Do you agree with this suggestion? Provide evidence/arguments to support your position?

Martine Derivry-Plard/Claire Griffin

Chapter 2 Beyond symbolic violence in ELT in France Abstract: From data collected in France (Derivry-Plard 2003; Griffin 2012), we will present and illustrate the symbolic violence (Bourdieu 2001) that characterises the structure of the field. Based on competing social beliefs and representations embedded through time and space, the symbolic violence that language teachers undergo – either native or non-native – can prevent them and their learners from feeling comfortable with language learning and teaching as an intercultural-pluri endeavour. Personal development and intercultural learning are therefore constrained and we will explore ways of going beyond these limitations. First, we will underline the challenges that such a posture of an intercultural perspective put on educational language policies and language education. Going beyond symbolic violence needs to take into account these two levels before starting to be effective at any classroom level. Combining data from English language teachers in France allows us to assert the need of a multilingual paradigm shift to go beyond symbolic violence.

1 Introduction The native/non-native divide in ELT has been well documented as far as teachers are concerned for the last 20 years (Meydges 1994; Braine 1999, 2010; Dervin and Badrinathan 2011; Houghton and Rivers 2013). However, other contexts and languages are needed to better grasp this key dimension of the language teaching field (Moussu and Llurda 2008). From data collected in France (Derivry-Plard 2003; Griffin 2012), we will present and illustrate the symbolic violence (Bourdieu 2001) that characterises the structure of the language teaching field.

Martine Derivry-Plard, University of Bordeaux, France Claire Griffin, Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3, France DOI 10.1515/9781501504143-003

34 

 Martine Derivry-Plard/Claire Griffin

2 Historical background of the language teaching field What is meant by the structure of the language teaching field is the specific organisational space that characterises FL (Foreign Language) teachers, and which emerged in the 19th century when European countries granted more or less primary education to all girls and boys regardless of their economic situation. National educational systems were funded by the powerful nation-states to support their national policies. Secondary education was also developed to meet the needs of the flourishing bourgeoisie who benefited from the growing industrial revolution. Languages and modern languages were introduced into the curricula to support commerce and new perspectives on humanities, which were no longer the sole territory for Latin and Greek. The category modern languages vs dead languages started to be used in educational contexts. At that time, foreign language teaching (better known as modern languages in institutional education) progressively occupied two distinct spaces, that of secondary education and that of the private language schools like Berlitz. Along with these changes, the terms of language masters, governesses, private tutors were to be replaced by language professors and teachers (Fernandez 2005). The institutionalisation of educational systems in 19th century Europe also meant the recruitment of FL (or Modern Language) teachers following standardised and strict procedures. Being a native of the country was an undeclared prerequisite (only nationals could instruct within the schooling system). On the other hand, language schools were not submitted to the strict procedures of the state and could employ native speaker teachers. When European educational systems emerged under the powerful supervision of the nation-states (Baggioni 1987; Thiesse 1999), two distinct foreign language teaching spaces were established: institutional with non-native teachers and non-institutional with native teachers. Consequently, two professional legitimacies developed at the same time, taking into consideration the different positions of the language teachers (Derivry-Plard 2003, 2013): – The professional legitimacy of non-native teachers in institutional spaces was based on the assumption that they were the best teachers as they went through the same learning process as their pupils, so they would be better able to explain the target language to learners sharing the same mother tongue. This is the legitimacy of the FL teacher as a learning model. – The professional legitimacy of native teachers in non institutional spaces was based on the opposite assumption that they were the best teachers because



Beyond symbolic violence in ELT in France 

 35

they taught their own mother tongue and that they knew more about it. This is the legitimacy of the FL teachers as a language-culture model. These two FL teaching legitimacies functioned within each teaching space and were not challenged for years. However, these two spaces have been steadily eroded with the breakthrough of economic globalisation and the marketing of educational systems worldwide. This overall political trend accounts for increasing tensions between native and non-native FL teachers as strict educational boundaries between institutional and non-institutional contexts have collapsed, and consequently, the symbolic violence against native and non-native teachers alike has never been so rampant.

3 Symbolic violence expanding from the native/ non-native category Power relations take different modes and cannot be reduced to physical power and physical violence but have to take into account all kinds of discriminatory ways against people either based on race, nationality or gender. In the language teaching field, the category native/non-native has always been a powerful divide to discriminate against language teachers and their supposed profiles as far as one type of teacher was considered better than the other, instead of being just different. A female teacher is no better than a male teacher: they are just different. A native language teacher is no better than a non-native language teacher: they just differ in so far as they have been socialised in a different country with a different language. However, society as a whole through mainstream media or through job advertisements keeps perceiving language teachers as native language speakers or non-native language speakers assigning them with different roles, different courses, and different wages or tuition rates (Derivry-Plard 2008, 2013). Language teachers themselves have been lured to believe in the supremacy of the native speaker and this very subtle means of domination that does not entail any physical violence, does imply symbolic power and violence. French sociologist Bourdieu extensively worked these two concepts of symbolic power and symbolic violence. In his book Language & Symbolic Power, there is a clear distinction to be underlined about the two concepts in regard to symbolic power, which is twofold. Symbolic power can either constrain or empower people as language is basically constrained by structures, common usage, social capital and status that speakers have and display but it has also the ability to

36 

 Martine Derivry-Plard/Claire Griffin

express creativity, singularity and diverse viewpoints without discarding the performative power of language itself (Austin 1975). In other words, symbolic power can be considered as either positive or negative whereas symbolic violence is inherent violence, and is rather ‘negative’ as such. This first approach of what symbolic violence means, can be better explored by Bourdieu’s own writing relating symbolic violence as something which is usually not perceived either by the producers or the receivers of this kind of violence as it is not only symbolic but has to do with the different habitus of speakers – a not conscious part of who they are: The distinctiveness of symbolic domination lies precisely in the fact that it assumes, of those who submit to it, an attitude which challenges the usual dichotomy of freedom and constraint. The ‘choices’ of the habitus (for example, using the ‘received’ uvular ‘r’ instead of the rolled ‘r’ in the presence of legitimate speakers) are accomplished without consciousness or constraint, by virtue of the disposition which, although they are unquestionably the product of social determinisms, are also constituted outside the sphere of consciousness and constraint (Bourdieu 1991: 51).

The linguistic habitus of legitimate speakers and of other speakers allows for this symbolic violence, for which no responsibilities can be pointed out: The propensity to reduce the search for causes to a search for responsibilities makes it impossible to see that ‘intimidation’, a symbolic violence which is not aware of what it is (to the extent that it implies no ‘act of intimidation’) can only be exerted on a person predisposed (in his habitus) to feel it, whereas others will ignore it. It is already partly true to say that the cause of the timidity lies in the relation between the situation or the intimidating person (who may deny any intimidating intention) and the person intimidated, or rather, between the social conditions of production of each of them (Bourdieu 1991: 51).

In other words, language teachers having a different habitus as they have been socialised in different countries and in different languages will have to tackle the inherent symbolic violence of the legitimate speaker of the language they teach. This legitimate speaker has usually been understood as a native speaker in language teaching and learning while the two notions are different. A native speaker can be a legitimate speaker of the language but not necessary in so far as legitimacy is based on standards and social norms – a variety of language – characterising the ‘good, legitimate’ speaker, which is always linked to social background, social values and its arbitrary dimension (Bourdieu 1991; Hackert 2012). Therefore, the challenge resides in learned and educated speakers that language teachers are, and who display a more or less good variety of the legitimate language of their L1 or L2. In that sense, the educated and fluent speaker of L2 might sometimes be at a loss with the educated and fluent speaker of L1 in



Beyond symbolic violence in ELT in France 

 37

certain speech situations strongly dependent on monolingual norms. However, competition in the language teaching field is not only about speakers but about teachers of second or foreign languages and in that situation the non-native language speaker teacher has the privilege and the advantage of being bi/plurilingual (Kramsh 1997, 2009). These situations of the speakers (L1 vs L2) and the teachers (native/non-native) are no longer so clear cut as we know now that language proficiency and fluency is better grasped within a continuum just like the concept of language legitimacy, which varies according to communicative situations and linguistic markets (Kramsch 2009; Zarate et al. 2011; Alao et al. 2012; Liddicoat and Scarino 2013; Derivry-Plard et al. 2014a, 2014b). In fact, native language teachers can also be bi/plurilingual, which is, indeed, a very relevant competence in the FL and SL fields. Therefore, once FL teachers have a good command of at least 2 languages, what is really important is no longer the language per se but how they teach it, where, to which learners and for what purposes and objectives. Symbolic violence pervades all social relations though language and can be found potentially in very diverse situations. Thus, symbolic violence is not necessarily at stake within an interaction between a legitimate speaker of English, for example and a learned, educated non-native speaker of English as it is potentially there but not necessarily performed. Conversely, if the legitimate speaker of English is also an EFL teacher and has no command of the language of the learners or even if he has excellent mastery of the language, he may face the same potential symbolic violence from the French colleagues or from the learners about the learned language just as these teachers and learners may have faced linguistic symbolic violence from the native teacher about their English. Moreover, this symbolic violence may also work, in some cases, from the learners towards a non-native English teacher for what they perceive as not legitimate English when a French accent is too recognisable, for example (Derivry-Plard 2006). In other words, the symbolic violence that may accompany the legitimate language of speakers, can also be played again and even be reinforced in language teaching educational contexts of bi/plurilingual situations that the EFL class exemplifies.

3.1 English teachers in France and symbolic violence Depending on educational contexts, language teaching legitimacies have taken opposite stances. Basically, the advantage is for the native speaker teacher in the non-institutional context of the language school like Berlitz and for the non-native speaker teacher in the institutional context of secondary schooling

38 

 Martine Derivry-Plard/Claire Griffin

systems (Derivry-Plard 2003, 2013; Griffin 2012). However, as the state and private sectors are no longer separated with the growing deregulation of social systems, the traditional legitimacies of the two types of teachers related to the institutional/non-institutional educational spaces meet and conflict. Competition has become visible as two opposed sets of representations characterise each profile of language teachers entailing discriminatory practices against them, which are not only symbolic but the results of real power relations in favour of the native speaker teachers in certain contexts and situations and in favour of the non-native speaker teachers in others. If the literature for the last decades has particularly informed the discrimination against non-native speaker teachers (Braine 1999, 2010; Llurda 2005, 2009; Moussu and Llurda 2008; Clark and Paran 2007), more recent studies have investigated on the discriminatory practices against ‘native’ speaker teachers (Houghton and Rivers 2013; Pietri 2013; Griffin 2012). These studies are important to deconstruct the native/non-native divide as part and parcel of a monolingual paradigm – a whole set of schema deeply ingrained in social representations from the early records of language learning and teaching1 (Germain 1993; Howatt 2004). So, symbolic power coupled with symbolic violence can have a devastating impact on language teachers and professionals as they tend to undermine either their competence as speakers or their competence as teachers, splitting the two dimensions as incompatible, which is a kind of schizophrenic paradox!

3.2 Symbolic violence in people’s minds and in words Based on in-depth interviews of 19 native English speaking teachers (NESTs) and 19 non-native English speaking teachers (NNESTs) in France (Derivry-Plard 2003), conflicting views and oppositions reflect the positions of these teachers within the French educational system, and the threat that Nests represent as soon as they were able to sit for the very selective concours (entry exam) to become qualified teachers in France after the Maastricht treaty in 1992. The traditional legitimacy of the French teachers of English was challenged by the newcomers who represented the authentic, true, legitimate language and culture to which NNESTS could not compare once NESTSs were accepted into the traditional setting of institutional systems, and due to the prevailing legitimacy of the native speaker. The content analysis of these interviews showed that on the whole

1 Publications by SIHFLES (Société Internationale de l’Histoire du Français Langue Etrangère/ Seconde) are worth mentioning in this respect: http://fle.asso.free.fr/sihfles/



Beyond symbolic violence in ELT in France 

 39

these language teachers took much more time to speak about the native speaker teacher whereas the questions asked to them were balanced and concerned the two teachers equally. This probably meant that the dominant representations still resided in the Chomskyan stance of the ideal native speaker. As for the value judgments expressed by these teachers, they were reversed. NNESTs mainly criticise the teaching competencies of their native colleagues: some had not the project of teaching English …I have seen native English-speaking teachers who did not do the job … but, it is just because they are not teachers, they turned up in a classroom … they delivered what they could, they thought that speaking English for two hours is enough! … but this is not having a conversation, speaking about this or that for an hour ? …And some do not know French enough, which is a problem .. Some do not teach!

With the above extract, we can see that native English speaker teachers are perceived more as native speakers than as teachers. The natural link they have with the language even hampers their teaching competence. This essentialist perception categorises the native speaker by a natural link to the language, implying a natural approach to language teaching, and clearly expresses the full range of symbolic violence at work in the minds of the NNESTs and directed towards NESTs2: in a nutshell, NESTs are speakers but no teachers. Conversely, for native English-speaking teachers, their main criticisms were about the insufficient linguistic competence of non-native English speaker teachers (either for spoken or written English), which was sometimes so visible in schoolbooks designed by NNESTs: well, it’s second language, it’s second-hand! … in this schoolbook written by French, there are a few mistakes … they make mistakes, with English vowels, their accent is not as good … Sometimes, her accent was awful and there were English teachers I could barely understand …She made so many mistakes .. and some pupils were as good as she was in English! …She could not give a precise meaning of a word with all the connotations… even if the dictionary gives that meaning, it has no longer that meaning…at a certain point, a non native teacher will be embarrassed, this is for sure because, at one point, he/she will apply a grammar rule that we no longer use …they will never get all the shades of meaning …

Thus, native English speaking teachers are mainly critical about the linguistic and cultural competence of their French colleagues. They also comply with essentialist perception categorising the non-native speaker as lacking any natural link to the language and culture as some kind of inherent impossibility to get authentic,

2 Thanks to the confidentiality of the interviews, these representations and perceptions could be explicitly expressed.

40 

 Martine Derivry-Plard/Claire Griffin

genuine, creative speech in the language. This expresses the full range of symbolic violence at work in the minds of the NESTs and directed towards the NNESTs: in a nutshell, NNESTs are not speakers, therefore poor language teachers. The data revealed strong and fierce oppositions between English language teachers, trapped in not into the limitations of a binary category, forcing them to see advantages in themselves and disadvantages in others or at best as seeing complementary roles, which are nonetheless and all the same, participating in the essentialist frame of mind and the ideology of native-speakerism (Holliday 2006; Holliday and Aboshiha 2009). The data illustrates the symbolic violence at play among English language teachers in France, which is in line with the international literature about the confinement that such a taken-for-granted category imposes either on NESTs and NNESTs. The little warfare traditionally mentioned between foreign language teachers in France is rather an international warfare of representations among language teachers constraining and exacerbating symbolic violence within the linguistic teaching field (Derivry 2015). Deconstructing the ideology of native-speakerism along with essentialist perceptions assigned to NESTs and NNESTs provide a conceptual framework for professional language teachers facing a more global and conflicting kind of world, in which their traditional legitimacies have to be reset.

4 Deconstructing native teachers’ competences Research on the non-native teacher, as Llurda (2006) quite rightly points out, is relatively recent in the field of applied linguistics. It was inevitable that the supremacy of the native speaker would be debunked at some point, and by the time the emerging question of the non-native teacher had begun to attract people’s attention in the nineties, things had already started to shift away from the ‘ideal model’ put forward at the 1961 Commonwealth conference on Teaching of English as a Second Language (Makerere, Uganda) (see Phillipson 1992; Llurda op. cit.). With the opening up of the debate, the non-native speaking teacher has increasingly been the object of research, which has led to numerous studies about perceptions, assets and difficulties of NNESTs. This can only be a good thing for the English teachers, who, like the vast majority of French English teachers, are non-native speakers of the language that they teach. Indeed, the very structure of the French education system, which is based on highly selective examinations geared to recruiting English teachers who are not only proficient L2-users but who also have an excellent command of French and an understanding of how English is taught in the French system, means that only



Beyond symbolic violence in ELT in France 

 41

a small minority of English teachers are native speakers3. The latter have elected to teach their first language in France and therefore become native English-speaking teachers working in a different social and cultural environment from the one in which they were initially socialised (Griffin 2012). This has a direct impact on native English-speaking teachers’ professional identity and also means that they are exposed to the symbolic violence of the field (Bourdieu 2001; Derivry-Plard 2003). As we have seen, NNESTS have to deal with the symbolic violence engendered by the dominant paradigm of the native speaker. But let us now take a look at the other side of the coin. NESTS cristallise, often unbeknown to them, certain tensions and conflicts which arise due to the ghostlike presence of the native speaker (Cook 1999: 190) in English language teaching and learning. Claire Kramsch reminds us that “traditional methodologies based on the native speaker usually define language learners in terms of what they are not, or at least not yet” (Kramsch 1998: 28). Cook goes further still by adding that one cannot become what one is not, and, one might ask in the context of our multilingual, hyperglobalised world, why would one wish to? The NS norm can be intimidating both for L2 learners and teachers alike. French students in particular, seem very self-conscious about not sounding like a native speaker, or at least about sounding ‘too French’, and it often prevents them from speaking in front of their peers or trying to find their own voice in L2. If NESTs embody the unattainable, how do they cope with the consequences of what they stand for? How does symbolic violence operate for Nests in the French system and what can they do to overcome its effects and thereby move beyond it? Analysis of the data collected for a doctoral enquiry into the professional identity of native English-speaking teachers who teach English within the French national education system (Griffin 2012) provides us with an idea of how symbolic violence tends to operate regarding NESTs themselves. The inquiry was based on a questionnaire and a series of interviews of foreign-born teachers who teach (or have taught) their native language in French secondary schools. The research project was designed from a Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Charmaz 2006; Corbin and Strauss 2008) and interpretative perspective (Kaufmann 2007) using mixed methods. The Australian qualitative data analysis software NVivo was used to analyze the data. The researcher interviewed 24 foreign-born language teachers, 21 of whom were native English speakers from the UK and the Republic of Ireland and 3 of whom were native speakers of other European languages (Italian, Greek and German). These final interviews were conducted for

3 Figures from February 2011 indicate that roughly 2.7% of secondary school English teachers were British or Irish (Griffin, 2012: 72).

42 

 Martine Derivry-Plard/Claire Griffin

the purpose of qualitative triangulation on Nests and native teachers of other European languages within the same school system.

An illusory Pandora’s box In the early 1990s, when the national French teaching examinations were made accessible to candidates from other European member states, people were concerned that there would be a massive influx of foreign-born teachers who would be competing directly against French candidates for teaching jobs. Although there was an increase in the number of EU candidates in the years following Maastricht, what was seen as a serious threat or potential Pandora’s box – which, once opened, would let thousands of teachers from other European countries out of the box and into the system – never actually materialised because of the distinctive features of the French system (Griffin 2012: 46). However, native English-speaking candidates were perceived as a potential threat. There are traces of this in one of our interviews. The teacher being interviewed – Bess, a British-born secondary school English teacher – refers to the hostility which she could perceive when she sat the CAPES in the late nineties: BE60: they [i.e. French English teachers] are very hostile about native speakers taking the exams because it’s too easy for them and so it’s cheating. Mm. So there’s not a question of quality. Because it seems to me if you’ve got a native speaker, most of the reactions from everybody here is how lucky they are to have a NS because obviously their English is going to be better, because obviously your English is going to be better, obviously your model, your language model is going to be better and the reaction when I took the CAPES was “nasty, horrible English speakers taking all our French jobs.”

This candidate states that she could understand such reactions, and when she became a member of the selective jury herself and started to see things from the other side, she could appreciate fully why NESTs whose French was not adequate should not qualify: BE62: I must admit as a member of the jury, I was one of these people saying we need to make sure that these people can actually teach and that they can speak French because some of them weren’t and couldn’t and I thought that they shouldn’t be given a job for life if they could either not teach or speak French.

By making an effort to understand the other, Bess manages to distance herself from the symbolic violence sparked off by the fact that she sat the selective exam



Beyond symbolic violence in ELT in France 

 43

to teach English in French state schools. This, in turn, helps her to cope with the symbolic violence which is directed at her.

Not a vocation Some people might think that NESTs teach English in France merely because they are native speakers of the language and not because they were either previously qualified in their “home” country or because they studied it at university and actually chose to enter the profession for reasons other than convenience. This preconception made one of the participants furious: It’s a rite of passage, everybody has to do it, it’s a really big deal but doubly for us because we’re English and sometimes people assume that you’re only an English teacher because you’re English. “Well what else is she going to do, she’s married? What else is she going to do? She’s got children. What else can she do? She can speak English. (Karen on being inspected)

In fact, 49% of the 105 NESTs working in the French education system who completed a questionnaire about their professional identity in 2009, had an English degree. 73% said that they could also speak another language besides English and French (Griffin 2012). 41% had been English assistants in France, which indicates that NESTs do not enter the profession merely by default. This tends to confirm Derivry’s study that in institutional settings like the French education state system, NESTs can even be more qualified than NNESTs, which conflicts with traditional views of the NEST with no qualifications or fewer than their NNEST colleagues. Just under 10% of the 105 teachers who answered Claire Griffin’s 2009 questionnaire had a doctorate and at least 30% had a master’s degree or equivalent diploma.

The only person who can speak English…crunch! Sometimes, other people’s projections or preconceptions can put NESTs in an embarrassing position. An anecdote shared by one of the participants in the 2012 doctoral enquiry sheds light on how symbolic violence operates on different levels: MY84: […] I was working in the university and I had some free time in May, I went on the school trip that my colleague, my ex-colleague in N. had organized to Britain. And the headmaster said “Oh it’s great that Mandy’s coming along cause obviously she’ll be able to speak

44 

 Martine Derivry-Plard/Claire Griffin

English” I mean he didn’t come out and say it that way but it was as if I was the one that could speak English and no other English teachers can, you know like they’re just pretending. [CG laughs]. CG85: And that would make anyone furious though wouldn’t it? It’s not very diplomatic is it? MY85: [laughs] Yeah. But I don’t even know that headmaster – he wasn’t there when I was but I suppose it gives the image of the way they see me or someone in my position – not something that I would think of every day, but it’s in their heads, clearly. CG86: No, that’s interesting for me because it gives me access to other people’s perceptions of the NS so… MY86: It’s not something the headmasters would bring up with me necessarily but they obviously thought it. Because you don’t have daily contacts with your headmaster, so they don’t realize that you’re just like everyone else.

What Mandy found embarrassing was the symbolic violence directed at her French co-workers through her, be it unintentionally and in a very clumsy way. This goes to show that NESTs can be on the receiving end of deflected symbolic violence, which in turn becomes a form of symbolic violence for them as well because it doesn’t contribute to building appeased, balanced relationships in the workplace and can complicate matters further.

Not one of us Adele, one of the native Italian-speaking teachers who agreed to be interviewed for the purpose of data triangulation, highlights different friction points between native Italian teachers and non-native Italian teachers. Adele explains that she doesn’t find it hard to admit when she doesn’t understand something about language policies or other issues to do with language teaching and learning. On one occasion, she was asked to attend a meeting (in French) along with 10 other Italian teachers in her region. One of her non-native colleagues, who never converses in Italian with her and who hadn’t been paying attention during the meeting, assumed that Adele had not understood what was being said. Adele felt ruffled by her colleague’s remark, which she interpreted as a symbolic way of stating that she somehow didn’t belong to the group, that they were in competition. Adele’s colleague uses the verb understand in its first sense (see or perceive the meaning of) when Adele meant something different, more like grasp the significance or importance of. The insidious influence of the NS paradigm can lead to misunderstandings which lead to friction between NESTs and NNESTs: here, the NEST owns up to what can be perceived as a weakness – not understanding absolutely everything about language policies, etc. – perhaps in a subconscious attempt to compensate for what she represents, while her NNEST co-worker misses the point



Beyond symbolic violence in ELT in France 

 45

and assumes that she didn’t understand the French, which Adele found hard to swallow.

Peripheral participation because I’m a “native”? And yet, the data collected for the central enquiry about NESTs in France points to a need for heightened awareness of the issues at stake for native English-speaking teachers embarking on a career in France and who, because they were not socialised there, often find it challenging to decipher how the system works or appreciate what exactly is expected of them both as English teachers and members of the wider education community (Griffin 2012). Due to the lasting effects of the NS model whose death was proclaimed by Paikeday 30 years ago now, together with the complexities of the French system and its specific orientation and requirements in the field of languages, some newly-qualified native teachers don’t feel that they can air their difficulties or weak points. An illustration of this is the avoidance strategies devised by Jenny so as not to reveal her poor written French to her headteacher who had entrusted her with the task of writing a detailed report about European issues (Griffin 2012: 257). Another participant, Clara, a retired Irish-born NEST, recognises that although she threw herself into her work as an English teacher and thoroughly enjoyed it, she always tended to be on the edge of things as soon as she stepped outside of the classroom and into the wider school environment. These forms of what we have identified as legitimate peripheral participation (Lave and Wenger 1991) enable some NESTs to continue to function as teachers. For Lave and Wenger (1991: 304), “learning is not merely situated in practice  – as if it were some independently reifiable process that just happened to be located somewhere; learning is an integral part of generative social practice in the lived-in-world”. Peripheral participation is a legitimate way of belonging to a community of practice when you are learning the ropes. Their concept of peripherality is both positive and dynamic, since it refers to increased participation, yet it can also mean that the learner’s position may be disempowering at times. NESTS working inside the French education system can be considered to be permanent learners in so far as they are forever discovering things about the system which they didn’t know about or fully grasp because they never went through it themselves. This type of participation in professional life fluctuates and greatly depends on how competent an individual teacher feels about a given mission or duty at a given time. Peripheral participation can therefore be a way of coping with the confusion triggered by the foreignness of the French system, and, if it enables NESTs to strike a balance which makes it possible for them to

46 

 Martine Derivry-Plard/Claire Griffin

do their job and remain within a sort of fluctuating comfort zone, then it can be seen as positive. Nothing can be taken for granted by a newly-qualified NEST because they can’t rely on their own personal schoolgirl capital and need to crack the codes all the time (Griffin 2012: 314 and 348) in order to fully ascertain what is going in and what the implications of things might be. And, in many respects, NESTs will never be like NNESTs for that reason, just as NNESTs will never quite be native speakers either.

Turning things around: every rose has its thorn In this complex profession, or as some might say, impossible profession (Britzman 2009), deconstructing the competences of NESTs can give us an insight into the complex nature, not only of what they do, but of how they are sometimes wrongly perceived, because even if they represent the language, they are not to be confused with the dominant paradigm for the reasons we shall now put forward. Firstly, the NS paradigm puts pressure on NESTs to live up to the expectations that other people have of them as teachers and language models. Furthermore, our research suggests that NESTs’ initial linguistic and cultural assets are unstable, since they can change through time and be affected to varying degrees by the daily contact with L2, depending, of course, on the individual’s journey and family situation (Griffin 2012: 95; Derivry-Plard 2003). This initial capital cannot suffice to make someone an efficient, acclimatised secondary school English teacher in a ‘foreign’ country. Secondly, if NESTs may well enter the French education system with a linguistic advantage, it may take them a while to take stock of what is in fact a handicap of sorts: they do not share the same references as their students and co-workers when it comes to the school system, national history and identity, the whole fabric of what makes someone feel that they belong. And what’s more, it is difficult for French students to imagine that a native English teacher might find some aspects of the profession challenging because they are a ‘native’ (or more specifically, because they aren’t French). In order to obtain sound professional credibility, NESTs need to look further than their NS assets by making the effort to understand what it means to be a ‘non-native’, L2 (French-speaking) learner. This is a long process and takes time, observation and a certain degree of empathy. Taking stock of these differences and being able to acknowledge them may help NESTS to find ways of moving beyond the NS aura, thereby assuaging potential symbolic violence in the classroom of the following sort: but you never had to learn English like us, you just have to open your mouth… We NESTs need to deconstruct all this ourselves in order to go beyond what belongs to us and what does



Beyond symbolic violence in ELT in France 

 47

not. Becoming aware of our own limits and appreciating the fact that, despite being a native speaker, our competences are not a given for life and that our culture can gradually slip away or become fuzzy, could enable NESTs to accept their sometimes uncomfortable position, thus paving the way for mutual understanding and exchange in the workplace.

5 Conclusion: Towards intercultural language teachers As we have seen, English teachers, whether they be native or non-native speakers, are all confronted with the limits of teaching, and English teaching has become a particularly complex undertaking in a hyper-globalised, hyper-connected multilingual world (Derivry-Plard 2015). And although the old cliché of the backpacker NEST has largely been replaced by a more sensitive approach to contexts and people, symbolic violence is still an issue in our profession. In fact, even though non-native FL teachers outnumber native FL teachers worldwide, the model of the ‘ideal monolingual native speaker’ is still extremely powerful within societies, whereas communication in all languages is expanding at the same time through the Internet and ICT. Denying the complexities of teaching realities for NESTs and NNESTs, the symbolic monolingual model still functions as a very powerful doxa or ideology of native-speakerism (Holliday 2006; Canagarajah 1999, 2012). This ideology exacerbates symbolic violence among FL teachers, not only EFL or ELF teachers but all FL teachers as the native/non-native dichotomy is trans-cultural and trans-language. In order to find ways of going beyond the multiple and confined forms of symbolic violence affecting all FL teachers, we need to get rid of the monolingual paradigm that is still deeply rooted in our minds, and fully accept the plurilingual/pluricultural paradigm, suggesting a renewed conceptualisation of the language teaching field. This re-thinking of concepts calls for casting aside the native/non-native binary category for embracing continua and for defining what the intercultural-plurilingual/ pluricultural teacher is in a more multilingual/multicultural kind of world, we all live in (Derivry-Plard 2015). Developing a professional legitimacy based on teaching expertise and qualifications inscribed in plurilingual and pluricultural repertoires (Zarate et al. 2008; Kramsch 2009; Alao et al. 2012; Ahearn 2012; Liddicoat and Scarino 2013; Derivry-Plard et al. 2014a, 2014b), whatever the gender, race, religion or native language, should help counterbalance the excessive limitations of binary categories as native/ non-native language teachers and the symbolic violence expressed from the roots of ‘native-speakerism’ that goes with them.

48 

 Martine Derivry-Plard/Claire Griffin

This would require a re-conceptualisation of language teacher education and training within an intercultural-plurilingual/pluricultural perspective (Kumaravadivelu 2007; Byram 2008). This would also mean the development of joint courses in language teacher training of different countries, so that language teachers will learn common languages and cultural teaching practices within the third spaces that these joint courses might offer, and help them to tackle, in a more appeased mind-set, the third places they will work in (Kramsch 1994). In that way, they would no longer be alienated to the native/non-native divide of infinite spirals of exclusion/inclusion as they would learn how to work together, which will help them to be empowered as language professional teachers and go beyond the symbolic violence perverting relations among themselves and among their language learners.

6 References Ahearn, Laura. 2012. Living language. An introduction to linguistic anthropology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Alao, George, Martine Derivry-Plard, Elli Suzuki & Soyoung Yun-Roger. 2012. Didactique plurilingue et pluriculturelle : l’acteur en contexte mondialisé. Paris: EAC. Austin John Langshaw. 1975. How to do Things with words. J.O. Urmson and M. Sbisà (eds.). Oxford: Clevendon Press. Baggioni, Daniel. 1987. Langues et nations en Europe. Paris: Payot. Bourdieu, Pierre, 2001. Langage et pouvoir symbolique. Paris: Seuil. Braine, George (ed.). 1999. Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ: LEA. Braine, George (ed.). 2010. Non-native speaker English teachers: Research, pedagogy, and professional growth. New York, NY: Routledge. Britzman, Deborah. 2009. The very thought of education: Psychoanalysis and the impossible professions. Albany, NY: State University of Albany Press. Byram, Mike. S. 2008. From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship. Essays and reflection. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Canagarajah, Suresh. 1999. Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Canagarajah, Suresh. 2012. Teacher development in a global profession: An autoethnography. TESOL Quaterly 46(2). 258–279. Clark, Elizabeth & Amos Paran. 2007. The employability of non-native speaker teachers of EFL: A UK survey. System 35. 407–430. Cook, Vivian. 1999. Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quaterly 33(2).185–209. Derivry-Plard, Martine. 2003. Les enseignants d’anglais « natifs » et « non-natifs ». Concurrence ou complémentarité de deux légitimités. In G. Zarate (ed.), Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris 3, Lille, ANRT : http://www.anrtheses.com.fr/



Beyond symbolic violence in ELT in France 

 49

Derivry-Plard, Martine. 2008. Students’ representations on native speaker teachers of FL. In M. Pawlak (ed.), Investigating English language learning and teaching, 281–293. Poznan-Kalisz. Derivry-Plard, Martine. 2011a. Native and non-native teachers: Two types of professional competing on the language market. In Geneviève Zarate, Danielle Lévy et Claire Kramsch (eds.), Handbook of multilingualism and multiculturalism, 183–185. Paris: E.A.C. Derivry-Plard, Martine. 2011b. Enseignants de langue étrangère et internationalisation des marchés éducatifs et linguistiques. In Fred Dervin & Vasumathi Badrinathan (eds.), L’enseignant non natif: Identités et légitimité dans l’enseignement-apprentissage des langues étrangères, 75–101. Bruxelles, E.M. E. Proximités/Didactique. Derivry-Plard, Martine. 2011c. Enseignants « natifs/non natifs »: vers une professionnalité des enseignants de langue(s). In Elli Suzuki, Miao Lin-Zucker & Nozomi Takahashi (eds.), Profils et parcours d’apprenant, compétence d’enseignant : quelles méthodologies ?, 34–46. Paris, E.A.C. Derivry-Plard, Martine. 2013. The native speaker language teacher: Through time and space. In Stephanie Houghton & Damian Rivers (eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan, 249–261. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Derivry-Plard, Martine. 2015. Les enseignants de langues dans la mondialisation. La guerre des représentations dans le champ linguistique de l’enseignement. Paris, E.A.C. Derivry-Plard, Martine, George Alao, Soyoung Yun-Roger & Ell Suzuki. 2014a. Dispositifs éducatifs en contexte mondialisé et didactique plurilingue et pluriculturelle. Berne: Peter Lang. Derivry-Plard, Martine, George Alao, Soyoung Yun-Roger & Elli Suzuki. 2014b. La didactique plurilingue et pluriculturelle à l’épreuve du terrain éducatif. Contraintes, résistances, tensions. Paris: EAC. Dervin, Fred & Vasumathi Badrinathan (eds.), 2011. L’enseignant non natif: Identités et légitimité dans l’enseignement-apprentissage des langues étrangères. Bruxelles, E.M. E. Proximités/Didactique. Fernandez, Maria Eugenia. 2005. Du maître de langues au professeur : parcours sémantique d’une évolution sociale et professionnelle. SIHFLES 33/34. 110–120. Germain, Claude. 1993. Évolution de l’enseignement des langues:5000 ans d’histoire, Paris, Nathan/CLE international. Griffin, Claire. 2012. L’identité professionnelle des professeurs d’anglais “locuteurs natifs” exerçant en France depuis le traité de Maastricht. Entre conservation ontologique et acculturation : les limites du capital natif. Thèse pour le doctorat. Paris : Université de la Sorbonne nouvelle – Paris 3. Dir. C. Tardieu. Hackert, Stephanie. 2012. The emergence of the English native speaker. A chapter in nineteenth-century linguistic thought. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Holliday, Adrian. 2006. Native-speakerism. ELT 60(4). 385–387. Holliday, Adrian. & Pamela Aboshiha. 2009. The denial of ideology in perceptions of ‘non-native speaker’ teachers. TESOL Quaterly 43(4). 669–689. Houghton, Stephanie A. & Damian J. Rivers. 2013. Native-Speakerism in Japan. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Howatt, Anthony 2004. A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, Claire. 1994. Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, Claire. 1997. The privilege of the non-native speaker. PMLA 112. 359–369.

50 

 Martine Derivry-Plard/Claire Griffin

Kramsch, Claire. 1998. Language and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, Claire. 2009. The multilingual subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kumaravadivelu, B. 2007. Cultural globalization and language education. New Haven: Yale University Press. Lave, Jean & Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Liddicoat, Anthony & Angela Scarino. 2013. Intercultural language teaching and learning. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Llurda, Enric. 2005. Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession. New York: Springer. Llurda, Enric. 2006. The decline and fall of the native speaker. In Vivian Cook & Li Wei (eds.), Contemporary applied linguistics. Vol 1. London/New York: Continuum. Medgyes, Peter. 1983. The schizophrenic teacher. ELT Journal 37(1). 2–6. Medgyes, Peter. 1994. The non-native teacher. London: Macmillan. Miller, Jennifer, Alex Kostogriz & Margaret Gearon. 2009. Culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms, new perspectives on language & education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Moussu, Lucie & Enric Llurda. 2008. Non-native English-speaking English language teachers: History and research. Language Teaching 41(3). 315–348. Paikeday, Thomas. 1985. The native speaker is dead. Toronto and New York: Paikeday. Petrie, David. 2013. (Dis)Integration of mother tongue teachers in Italian universities: human rights abuses and the quest for equal treatment in the European single market. In Stephanie Houghton & Damian Rivers (eds.), Native-Speakerism in Japan, 29–41. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Phillipson, Robert. 1992. Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Report of the Commonwealth Conference on the Teaching of English as a Second Language held at Makerere College, Uganda, from 1st to 13th January, 1961. Printed on behalf of the Commonwealth Education Liaison Committee by the Government Printer, Uganda. Samimy, Keiko & Janina Brutt-Griffler. 1999. To be a native or non-native speaker: Perceptions of “non-native” students in a graduate TESOL program. In George Braine (ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching, 127–144. Lawrence Erbaum. Thiesse, Anne-Marie. 1999. La création des identités nationales, Europe XVIIIè-XXè siècle. Paris: Seuil. Zarate, Geneviève, Danielle Lévy & Claire Kramsch. 2011. Handbook of multilingualism and multiculturalism, Paris: E.A.C.

Recommended reading Zarate, Geneviève, Danielle Lévy & Claire Kramsch. 2011. Handbook of multilingualism and multiculturalism, Paris: E.A.C. This book presents a reconceptualization of language teaching and learning as a work in progress. Researchers from a wide variety of languages and from all over the world, have contributed to this very original publication. Each entry word and concept is followed by the presentation of a corpus, which is analysed and discussed to refresh the notion or entry word.



Beyond symbolic violence in ELT in France 

 51

Houghton, Stephanie & Damian Rivers. 2013. Native-Speakerism in Japan. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. This book presents an overview of preconceived ideas about English native-speaking teachers, particularly in Japan, showing how these teachers can be discriminated against particularly in institutional educational spaces that Japanese universities and secondary schools are. Native-speakerism is “racism” against “native” or “non-native” speaker teachers alike. Hackert, Stephanie. 2012. The emergence of the English native speaker. A chapter in nineteenth-century linguistic thought. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Hackert’s book presents an invaluable analysis of political discourses that have surrounded the English native speaker from the 19th Century onwards. The national ideologies that accompanied the nation-states have been particularly powerful in endorsing English and the English native speaker with a political, hegemonic agenda, based on the culturalist ideology of “Anglo-saxons conquering the world.” Britzman, Deborah. 2009. The very thought of education: Psychoanalysis and the impossible professions. Albany: State University of Albany Press. In her book, Deborah Britzman explores the emotional dimension of education. She focuses on what it means to have an impossible profession (education, government and medicine), drawing on psychoanalysis and psychology to provide us with a commentary on some of the current issues in education and learning.

Questions for reflection and discussion –

–

–

– –

The chapter argues for a distinction between a ‘monolingual’ paradigm and a ‘plurilingual’ paradigm, in language learning and teaching. To what extent do you find this distinction useful in your own context? Give reasons for your answer. The chapter argues that language teachers, either ‘native’ or ‘non-native’ of the language they teach, should develop professional skills and competences that go beyond symbolic violence. Do you think this statement is valid in your own context or not? Give reasons for your answer. The chapter argues that the deconstruction of preconceived ideas about English language teachers has been so far more focussed on ‘non-native’ teachers and that preconceived ideas about English native-speaking teachers should get equal attention. To what extent do you agree with the argument? Give reasons for your answer. In this chapter, teaching is labelled an ‘impossible profession’. Do you think that this is the case? Give reasons for your answer. In this chapter, we saw that the proportion of native-speaking English teachers is low in the French national education system. In your opinion, does the ratio of NESTs to NNESTs have an impact on symbolic violence in the workplace? Discuss.

Juana M. Liceras/Nelson Méndez/ Leonardo Moreno Mancipe

Chapter 3 Perspectives on L2 teacher’s nearnativeness: Linguistic, psycholinguistic, contact linguistics and pedagogical approaches Abstract: Taking as a point of departure the premise that non-native grammars are I-Languages in the Chomskian sense, we approach them from a linguistic, a psycholinguistic, a contact linguistics and a pedagogical perspective in order to argue that a refined version of the Interlanguage Hypothesis (Selinker 1972) – and its most immediate successor, the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (Bley-Vroman 1989) – as well as the Competing Grammars Hypothesis (Kroch 1989), constitute a suitable framework for defining near-nativeness in general and teacher’s near-nativeness in particular. From the point of view of linguistics, we rely on constructs such as formal features to compare native and near-native grammars. When it comes to the psycholinguistic basis of near-native grammars, we discuss their potential idiosyncrasies in relation to the cognitive mechanisms involved in the representation and processing of native grammars. The pidgin-creole continuum and the code-switching patterns that emerge in language contact situations serve as the basis for discussing native and non-native sensibility to features. We finally discuss language learning proposals that have had a strong impact in the second language teaching field such as Krashen’s (1979, 1982) ‘monitor hypothesis’ and ‘input hypothesis’, as well as studies dealing with the strategies exhibited by ‘the good language learner’. Key concepts such as the critical period and the age factor, optionality or crosslinguistic influence underlie the different levels of discussion undertaken here.

Juana M. Liceras, University of Ottawa, Canada and Universidad Nebrija, Spain. Nelson Méndez and Leonardo Moreno Mancipe, University of Ottawa, Canada DOI 10.1515/9781501504143-004

54 

 Juana M. Liceras/Nelson Méndez/Leonardo Moreno Mancipe

1 Introduction The issue of near-nativeness cannot be approached from a categorical point of view because it may be next to impossible to provide a single definition for this concept. For instance, it may be defined a priori in terms of the age of first exposure to a second language (L2), and in this respect, we have to agree on the age limit that leads to the acquisition of an L2 in exactly the same way as the primary language (L1), both in terms of the processes involved and in terms of actual ultimate attainment. This is a controversial issue because even in the case of simultaneous acquisition (or sequential acquisition which takes place before the age of 3), the process of acquisition and ultimate attainment may differ since many bilinguals are far from being balanced bilinguals (Grosjean 1982; Romaine 1995; Bialystok 2001) and the issue of language dominance is central when comparing the bilinguals’ competence in their two languages (Yip & Mathews 2007; among many others). Although there was never clear-cut consensus (DeKayser 2000; Singleton 2005) as to whether puberty was the fixed age range for Lenneberg’s (1967) Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH), there seems to be consensus nowadays in that around the age of 4 learning a language has to be considered L2A (Long 1990; Montrul 2008, among others), regardless of the fact that native competence in that L2 may not be different from the native competence achieved by a monolingual speaker. Thus if we adopt the biological basis of Lenneberg’s (1967) CPH, namely the fact that there seems to be a maturational stage for all organisms during which they are sensitive to relevant input needed (appropriate stimuli) to develop, we have to admit that native-like acquisition only takes place at very early age. This does not mean that for a teacher, as a language learner, near-nativeness cannot be achieved. However, since there is agreement among researchers concerning what we can refer to as the age factor (Johnson and Newport 1991; DeKayser and Larson-Hall 2005), which can be seen as a continuum, we can also assume that near-nativeness can be also conceptualized as a continuum. Based on this assumption, we will not discuss the very initial stage of this continuum, namely the differences between simultaneous and sequential bilingualism nor will we discuss the fact that language dominance can lead to defining the bilingual as having near-native rather than native competence in one of his/her two languages. What we discuss is whether it is possible to achieve native-like competence in the L2. In other words, we discuss whether a non-native teacher whose first contact with the classroom language takes place after puberty, can achieve native-like competence. Our discussion is rooted in the biological, the psychological and the linguistic foundation of the Chomskian view of language acquisition, which is the thread that ties the topics that this chapter comprises. We first discuss Selinker’s (1972)



Perspectives on L2 teacher’s near-nativeness 

 55

Interlanguage Hypothesis (ILH) and Bley-Vroman’s (1989) Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (FDH), both of which, in an implicit and explicit way respectively, appeal to Universal Grammar (UG) to establish a clear-cut differentiation between L1A and adult L2A. This we will argue implies that non-native teachers who are L2 learners cannot become native-like in their L2. Secondly, we link this assertion to Lenneberg’s (1967) CPH and the way in which it is shaped and redefined by constructs such as ultimate attainment or the age factor, which, in principle, open up the possibility of taking near-nativeness very close to native-like, though their raison d’être itself challenges the view that teachers who learned the target language as adult L2 learners can acquire L2 native-like competence. In the third place we use Chomksy’s (1986) I-language metaphor and Kroch’s (1989, 1994) Competing Grammars Hypothesis (CGH) to illustrate how linguistic theory, and specifically the so-called Principles and Parameters Theory (Chomsky 1981, 1986) and the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995), provide an adequate framework for defining native and near-native grammars, namely for differentiating a native from a near-native language teacher. We specifically argue that even though non-native L2 language teachers may not reach native-like competence, they can nonetheless acquire a native-like degree of metalinguistic awareness about the native grammar. Such an awareness should go beyond grammatical options and address not only processing preferences but also structures that seem to reflect the existence of native unstable intuitions and structures for which input seems to be elusive (Liceras 2015).

2 L2 near-nativeness While the view of near-native competence as a continuum makes it difficult to differentiate near-native from native-like at the highest point of the scale, what is important for our purposes is to determine whether there is a biological and a psychological foundation for differentiating language acquisition that takes place during the first 3 or 4 years of age from language acquisition that takes place in adulthood. We also need a universal linguistic model that allows us to provide a refined linguistic analysis of the learnability issues that a non-native teacher (and a native teacher for that matter) have to be made aware of with respect to their L2 or their L1 in the case of the native teacher. In fact, while the native L2 language teacher may feel secure about his/her intuitions, metalinguistic awareness based on a universal model which makes the non-native L2 teacher aware of what native speaker’s intuitions are about the target grammar is also relevant for the native

56 

 Juana M. Liceras/Nelson Méndez/Leonardo Moreno Mancipe

teacher because it provides him/her with information about the possible deviations from the target grammar which learners from different L1s may produce.

2.1 The Interlanguage Hypothesis According to Selinker (1972), interlanguages (ILs) are natural languages, albeit it is Adjémian (1976) who will make this point clear when he revisits Selinker’s ILH. As we have argued elsewhere (Liceras 2014a), Selinker’s emphasis on the need to differentiate language learning from language teaching might have been due to his determination to ensure not only that the study of ILs was carried out as the study of native languages but was also considered as important and relevant as L1A for the psycholinguistic enterprise. That both systems receive equal treatment when it comes to their status as cognitive systems, does not imply that they are indistinguishable. In fact, Selinker (1972) makes it clear that they are different, since he proposes that the native system, that he refers to as latent linguistic structure, has (i) a genetic calendar; (ii) is realized as a natural language – an I-language if we use Chomsky’s (1986) terminology; and (iii) is autonomous with respect to other cognitive systems. On the other hand, the non-native system (the interlanguage), that he names latent psychological structure, does not have a genetic calendar, there is no guarantee that it will be realized as a natural (I-language), and can overlap with other cognitive systems. Thus, for Selinker (1972) there is a radical difference between the acquisition and the mental representation of a native language and a non-native language or interlanguage (IL). In other words, there are two different Language Acquisition Devices (LAD), a LAD-1 and a LAD-2, since it is not only the biological foundation but also the psychological mechanisms that interact with input and with other cognitive systems that are different. The ILH constitutes a radical defense of Lenneberg’s (1967) CPH since, according to Selinker, after puberty only 5% of the adult population can acquire an L2 as they acquired their L1, something that he considers pathological because the biological mechanisms of normal adults are not receptive to input in the same way as children’s biological mechanisms are. This implies that unless a given L2 teacher belongs to that exclusive 5% group of adults, he/she cannot acquire native-like competence in the L2 after puberty.



Perspectives on L2 teacher’s near-nativeness 

 57

2.2 The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis Bley-Vroman’s (1989) FDH can be considered the immediate successor of Selinker’s ILH. For Bley-Vroman, the main differences between L1A and L2A are as listed in (1). (1) First Language Acquisition (L1A) – Success – Uniformity (in process, objectives, ultimate attainment…) --– Homogenous final attainment – Determined intuitions – No need of instruction – Lack of influence of affective factors

Non-primary language Acquisition (L2A) – Failure – Variation (as far as process, objectives, ultimate attainment…) – Age factor – Fossilization – Undetermined intuitions – Need of instruction – Influence of affective factor

These differences are said to be rooted, as in the case of Selinker’s ILH, in the initial stage of L1A (UG) versus L2A (the L1) and the learner’s interaction with input, a domain specific processor in L1A versus general problem-solving mechanisms in L2A. The fact that non-native systems display similar characteristics to native systems is due, according to Bley-Vroman (1989) to the fact that UG can be reconstructed; namely, in order to accommodate the L2 input, the L2 learner can make what looks like a ‘copy’ of the initial program he/she used to learn the L1. While researchers such as Meisel (1997) side with Bley-Vroman in their view of L2A as radically different from L1A, Epstein et al.’s (1996) Total Access hypothesis (TAH) defends the opposite view in that for these authors L1A and L2A are fundamentally similar. Other researchers such as Schwartz and Sprouse (1996) or White (1989, 1996) maintain that adult L2 learners have access to UG but also rely on the L1 when learning an L2. In fact, some researchers who agree with the TAH in that in both L1A and adult L2A there is access to principles of UG, make specific adjustments to the TAH pointing to the fact that: (i) it is not possible to differentiate the principles of UG and their realization in a given L1 (Hale 1996) (ii) pidgins and creoles evidence that adults do not create language (Bickerton 1996; Hudson Kam & Newport 2005), which implies that there are fundamental differences between L1A and L2A; or (iii) if language is a mental organ, organs do

58 

 Juana M. Liceras/Nelson Méndez/Leonardo Moreno Mancipe

not grow twice (Liceras 1996), so L1A and L2A must be different and so will be representation of the target language in native and non-native L2 language teachers. Liceras (2003) argues that evidence that L1A and L2A are different comes from the fact that only in L1A is there a stage where children produce so-called monosyllabic placeholders such as the vowels that occur in the Determiner position in the examples in (2) taken from Liceras, Díaz and Mongeon (2000). (2a) a for (2b) e nene (2c) a bici (2d) e pie (2e) a bota (2f) a tambor

[Magín 1;8] [Magín 1;8] [Magín 2;2 [María 1;7] [María 1;8] [María 2;5]

These vowels, that appear in the initial stages of L1A, occur in positions occupied by functional categories (determiners or clitic pronouns) and there is evidence that they are not proto-determiners understood as deficient phonological forms but rather elements that show that children had already projected that functional position. Adults do not produce those monosyllabic placeholders and children stop producing them when they begin to produce null Nouns as in (3). (3a) La – azul (3b) El – de las vaquitas (3c) La – que está en mi cole (3d) Otro – amarillo (3e) El – del pollito (3f) Unos – que te pican

[María 2;11] [María 2;5] [María 2;5] [Magín 1;10] [Magín 2;5] [Magín 2;1]

In other words, children do not produce these null Nouns until they project the word marker vowel that is available in Spanish (Harris 1991; Bernstein 1993) but not in English or French. This bottom-up unconscious learning strategy which characterizes L1A but not adult L2A is one of the reasons why the latter do not reach native-like competence.

2.3 Near-nativeness: Ultimate attainment and the age factor Both the issue of ultimate attainment and the so-called age factor have received a great deal of attention in L2A research. The critical period in L2A is usually at



Perspectives on L2 teacher’s near-nativeness 

 59

the center of the discussion (Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson 2003). Because it is impossible to summarize the large body of work dedicated to these topics, we will discuss them making specific reference to recent research. Evidence for the existence of a critical period for attaining native-like competence in L2A is provide by Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam’s (2009) work. These authors conducted a large-scale study of 195 Spanish/Swedish bilinguals with ages of onset of acquisition which oscillated between 1 and 47 years and who identified themselves as potentially native-like in their L2. However, when these bilinguals’ speech was judged by native speakers, only a small minority of those who had started their L2 acquisition after age 12 were perceived as native speakers of Swedish. In the case of the bilinguals with an age of onset below 12, a majority were perceived as native speakers of Swedish. But this apparent clear-cut evidence for a critical period effect did not show when the speech of 41 of the bilinguals who had been classified as native-like was submitted to a battery of 10 highly complex, cognitively demanding tasks and detailed measurements of linguistic performance, representation, and processing. What they found was that none of the late learners performed within the native-speaker range and that only a few of the early learners exhibited actual native-like competence and behaviour on all measures of L2 proficiency employed. The authors conclude that adult learners never attain L2 native-like competence and that even in the case of child learners achievement of L2 native-like competence is much less common than previously assumed. If this is correct, it is something that the non-native L2 language teacher has to live with. Larson-Hall (2008) investigated how 16 Japanese college students who started studying English between ages three and twelve compared to 139 peers who began to study English in junior high at age twelve or thirteen in a phonemic discrimination task and a grammaticality judgements task. She showed that the earlier starters scored statistically higher on the phonemic but not on the morpho-syntactic measure. This may imply that even though non-native L2 teachers who were not exposed to the target language before puberty may never display a native-like accent they may nonetheless achieve native-like competence when it comes to judge the grammaticality of morpho-syntactic structures in the target language.

2.4 L2 near-nativeness: the view from the pidgin/creole continuum As Liceras (2010) states, the comparison of L1A with 2L1, whether it was meant to argue for or against the similarity of the two processes, has been carried out in a rather systematic way (e.g., Bley-Vroman 1989; Ellis 1994; Unsworth 2005).

60 

 Juana M. Liceras/Nelson Méndez/Leonardo Moreno Mancipe

In the case of L2A and creole formation, the comparison reached a peak when the process of L2 acquisition was conceptualized as a pidginization (Schumann 1978) or a nativization (Andersen 1983) process, in sharp contrast with the last two decades of the 20th century, a period during which pidgin and creole formation was almost a non-issue for the field of L2 studies. However, this century has seen a revival of the dialogue between acquisitionists and creolists (e.g., Becker and Veenstra 2003; Lefebvre, White and Jourdan 2006). The activation of features in the type of language contact that manifests itself as code-mixing has served as grounds for investigating possible commonalities and differences between the L2A and the pidginization-creolization processes (Liceras et al. 2006). These authors show that native and non-native speakers radically differ with respect to the native speakers’ preference for code-switched DPs which abide by the so-called analogical criterion: the Spanish Determiner agrees with the Spanish translation equivalent of the English word so that la house (la and casa are marked as feminine) is preferred over el house (el is marked as masculine and casa as feminine). In other words, native Spanish speakers classify English Nouns according to their inherent gender in Spanish, which implies that the L1 would play a fundamental role in pidgin formation. This leads Liceras et al. (2006) to maintain, in the spirit of Bickerton (1984, 1996, 1999), that adults use the L1 to filter L2 input but do not create language, a view that is also shared, albeit taking a different approach, by Hudson and Newport (2005). Thus, non-native language teachers may acquire metalinguistic awareness of these code-mixing native preferences but they will not have clear-cut implicit intuitions as native language teachers will have. The interaction between two grammars is at the core of the Competing Grammars Hypothesis (CGH), which was formulated to explain why, in the process of diachronic change, individual speakers’ grammars displayed two options of a given parameter.

2.5 Optionality and the Competing Grammars Hypothesis For Sorace (2000), “optionality is the coexistence within an individual grammar of two or more variants of a given construction, in which one form is ‘more grammatical’ than others”. This author gives as an example of optionality sentences such as in (4) and (5) which express the same meaning and contain the same lexical items but display a different word order. (4) Mary speaks very well German. (5) Mary speaks German very well.



Perspectives on L2 teacher’s near-nativeness 

 61

It has been shown that optionality exists at all levels of L2A, even in the end-state grammars of non-native speakers, which leads authors such as Beck (1998) to maintain that optionality is a permanent deficit in the grammatical representation of L2 learners. However, Liceras (1986) or Zobl and Liceras (2005, 2006) take a different approach to the optionality of non-native grammars. Liceras (1986) defines fossilization as permanent optionality between two options of a given parameter. This implies that even if the end-state non-native grammar diverges from the native grammar, optionality is not considered a permanent deficit but the co-existence of two grammars. Zobl and Liceras (2005, 2006) argue that the CGH, originated in the context of work on historical language change (Kroch 1989, 1994), offers a framework which can successfully account for a significant number of characteristics of L2 development such as the occurrence of optionality. The CGH proposes that when input becomes ambiguous, speakers project more than one grammar to analyze the primary data. These grammars compete against one another in usage, often for generations, until one displaces the other, perhaps for reasons of processing efficiency (cf. Sprouse and Vance 1999). Work done in the CGH framework on parametric changes in the history of English, e.g., the loss of verb-second, indicates that shifting is slow, protracted, and accompanied by optionality; that is, the writings of one and the same scribe or author will evidence both parametric values. The fact that two analyses are available for the same data and that a speaker switches back and forth between them in performance creates the appearance of optionality, although it should be seen as an instance of hidden code-switching between parametric options (Perez-Leroux and Liceras 2002). Views compatible with the CGH have also appeared in the L1A literature (Roeper 1999; Yang 2002); in L2A research, there are studies which either anticipate it explicitly or implicitly (Montrul 1997; Robertson and Sorace 1999, among others). This is a very important issue because non-native language teachers are to be made aware of the relevant aspects of the target language where there is competition between two parametric options, besides being made aware of the fact that their L1 option may always be a source of influence.

2.6 Interlanguages as I-languages: Representation versus processing In a volume dedicated to the FDH which was published 20 years after this hypothesis was formulated by Bley-Vroman (1989), Slabakova (2009) and the other contributors re-examine Lenneberg’s (1967) CPH, the role of domain specific versus

62 

 Juana M. Liceras/Nelson Méndez/Leonardo Moreno Mancipe

general acquisition processes (implicit versus explicit learning) as well as the role of the L1 in L2A. They arrive at the conclusion that L1A and L2A are fundamentally different in some respects and fundamentally similar in others, which implies that what is needed is to determine which aspects belong to which of the two categories. Bley-Vroman (2009) argues that while both L1 and L2 learners use processes that do not belong to the language specific domain when dealing with language input, the difference lies in the degree of efficiency (i.e. higher in the case of L1A). He also argues that another relevant difference between L1A and L2A pertains to online processing of language which, in the case of L2A displays a higher reliance on superficial processing mechanisms. Processing and representation are also differentiated in Liceras’ (1996, 2003) view of IL grammars, since it is argued that non-native languages are different from native languages in that parameters are not set in a similar way. In fact, if one follows Chomky’s (1986) direct relationship between the properties of parameters and I-language, ILs may not be instances of I-languages because they may not implement all the properties of a given parameter. However, Liceras (2007) re-examines the I-language status of ILs in light of the feature approach which is central to the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995 and subsequent work) and argues that since the functional categories of IL grammars are made up of natural language features, be it L2 or L1 features or a combination of both or of features in any natural language, they are to be considered I-languages. Thus, for Liceras (2010), in minimalist terms, if it is the operations of the computational system (merge, agree, and move) and the implementation of features that result in an I-language, ILs are instances of I-languages. In other words, the requirement is not that features be activated (or organized) as in child L1A but that the grammar of the output system be made up of bundles of features which form functional categories in a given natural language. This implies that when compared to a target, there may be I-languages where none or only some specific properties of a parametric option may be set in a target-like way or that functional categories may be underspecified. In other words, the FDH holds in relation to the subjects’ sensitivity to the triggers of the E-language (primary linguistic data is processed differently in L1A and adult SLA) but does not hold in relation to the I-language (the structure of L1 and L2 systems and the representation of those systems in the respective speakers’ minds is not qualitatively different). Thus, the challenging task the non-native language teacher is confronted with is to lead herself/himself as well as the learner to process L2 input via the triggers that guide L1A. This may be facilitated by acquiring metalinguistic awareness on the part of the non-native teacher as well as via manipulation of the L2 input and sharing some degree of metalinguistic awareness with the learners. In fact, the non-native teacher may



Perspectives on L2 teacher’s near-nativeness 

 63

rely on language-specific ‘repair’ strategies which, together with non-linguistic strategies may be employed by the so-called ‘good language learner’.

2.7 The good language learner Rubin’s (1975) and Stern’s (1975) studies are the first where an attempt is made to define the so-called good language learner. This concept is specially relevant when it comes to defining the profile of a non-native L2 teacher since he or she should ideally have been and continue to be a good language learner of the target language. According to Rubin, this type of learner is a willing and accurate guesser, has a strong drive to communicate, is uninhibited, attends to form, practices by seeking out conversation, monitors his or her own speech and the speech of others and attends to meaning (Rubin 1975: 45–48). For Stern, the good language learner has a personal learning style or positive learning strategies, an active approach to the learning task, a tolerant and outgoing approach to the target language and empathy with its speakers, technical know-how about how to tackle a language, strategies of experimentation and planning with the object of developing the new language into an ordered system and of revising this system progressively, as well as self-monitoring ability and critical sensitivity to language use (Stern 1975: 304–318). Ellis (1984), a decade later, puts some of these characteristics within the classroom context but also beyond. For this author, the good language learner will: (i) be able to avoid developing negative anxiety and inhibitions in response to the group dynamics of the learning context; (ii) be capable of adapting to different learning conditions; (iii) make maximum use of the opportunities afforded to practice listening to and responding to speech in L2 addressed to him or her or to others, attending to meaning rather than form; (iv) supplement learning derived from direct contact with speakers of the L2 with learning derived from study techniques (such as making vocabulary lists) and involving attention to form; (v) possess sufficient analytic skills to perceive, categorize, and store the linguistic features of the L2, and also to monitor errors; (vi) develop a strong ‘task motivation’, responding positively to the learning tasks chosen or provided; (vii) be prepared to experiment by taking risks, even if they make him or her appear foolish; and (viii) seek out all opportunities to use the target language. Thus, the combination of aptitude and attitude towards learning as well as personality traits are at the core of the proposals intended to describe who can achieve success in language learning, although this does not imply that the good language learner will achieve native-like competence.

64 

 Juana M. Liceras/Nelson Méndez/Leonardo Moreno Mancipe

Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition (1979, 1981, 1982), and specifically the five hypotheses that he formulated (the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis, the Monitor hypothesis, the Natural Order hypothesis, the Input hypothesis and the Affective Filter hypothesis) address the various characteristics of the ‘good language learner’. While Krashen’s depiction of a theory of L2A made up of those five hypotheses has been criticized as not being a coherent theory (Gregg 1984), its intuitive appeal as being a reflection of the observable characteristics (or lack there of) of the good language leaner cannot be denied. Krashen (1982) argues that in L2 performance there are two independent systems: acquisition, which is implicit, subconscious and similar to L1A, and learning, which is explicit and conscious and usually the product of formal instruction or metalinguistic reflection. He also proposes that a conscious mechanism, the Monitor, accounts for the relationship between acquisition and learning and that the latter influences the former. Thus, for Krashen the acquisition system is more important than the learning system, which implies that all the characteristics of the good language learner that favour unconscious learning should be favoured. However, the individual characteristics of the different learners may lead to a need to use the Monitor in a systematic way. This dichotomy is useful and appealing but, as Liceras (1992) points out, it doesn’t provide a mechanism for explaining whether and how learning can become acquisition. Krashen’s Input hypothesis, which is only meant to account for acquisition and not for learning, states that the learner improves and progresses when he/ she receives L2 input that is one step beyond his/her current stage of linguistic competence, namely input that she/he is not able to produce but can understand (so-called comprehensible input). It is obvious that learners who “have a strong drive to communicate” (Rubin 1975), “practice by seeking out conversation” and “have an active approach to the learning task” (Stern 1975) or “seek out all opportunities to use the target language” (Ellis 1984) will systematically access comprehensible input. Krashen’s Affective Filter hypothesis relates to many of the characteristics of the good language learner, since it states that high motivation, a good self-image, self-confidence, or a low level of anxiety are fundamental for achieving success in L2A. There is a caveat though, and it is that this filter may not always be on, and it is only when it is ‘active’ that comprehensible input is accessed. It is obvious that it would be ideal to find in the non-native L2 teacher all the positive strategies listed as being used by a good language learner as well as all the characteristics attributed to him/her.



Perspectives on L2 teacher’s near-nativeness 

 65

2.8 Goajiro Spanish and Uwa Spanish: the good language teacher? A challenging and special situation that we would like to highlight is that of teachers of Spanish who are bilingual speakers of an aboriginal language in contact with Spanish and who, in many instances, are not Spanish dominant. These teachers speak a variety of Spanish that is different from the regional standard, as is the case of the Goajiro Spanish speakers (Méndez, forthcoming) in the Guajira region of Venezuela and Colombia or the Uwa Spanish speakers (Moreno, forthcoming) of the Boyacá region of Colombia. Both Goajiro Spanish and Uwa-Spanish differ from the standard Spanish of their respective regions not only with respect to some specific phonetic traits and lexical items but also with respect to morphosyntax. Goajiro Spanish, a variety of Spanish spoken in La Guajira, a region shared by Venezuela and Colombia, differs from the standard variety of Spanish in the suspension or overuse of number agreement (Atencio 2014, 2009), gender mismatches (Oquendo 2003) and the presence of verbal agreement mismatches (Pimienta 2008; Méndez, forthcoming). These characteristics are said to be due to the influence of Goajiro, the native indigenous language of the speakers of Goajiro Spanish, who are Goajiro dominant with different degrees of competence in Spanish. Goajiro Spanish speakers produce sentences with agreement mismatches as illustrated in (6). (6a) yo vive3rd. p.s. [vivo1st. p.s.] aquí en el pueblo [(Nar). Méndez, forthcoming] I lives here in the village ‘I live here in the village’ (6b) yo habla3rd. p.s. [hablo1st. p.s.] de todo así [(Ner). Méndez, forthcoming] I speaks [speak] of everything this way ‘I speak about everything in this way’ (6c) Nosotros son3r. p.p [tenemos1st. p.p.] 55 años [(Mai). Méndez, forthcoming] We are have 55 years ‘We are 55 years old’ This feature of Goajiro Spanish is very salient. Álvarez (2000) explains these mismatches as a result of the nature of Goajiro conjugations as well as its number and gender suffixes. Pimienta (2008) argues that cases where there is a reduction in the conjugation as shown in examples (6a) and (6b) evidence that the speaker is trying to express the marker of gender available for third person singular in Goajiro. In both cases, the situation could be explained from an interference per-

66 

 Juana M. Liceras/Nelson Méndez/Leonardo Moreno Mancipe

spective. It is also possible that these speakers might (Mendez, forthcoming) be using an avoidance strategy to surpass the complexity of the Spanish grammar. Uwa Spanish is a variety of Spanish spoken in the department of Boyacá, Colombia, specifically in the town of Cubará, Sarabena, Chiscas and Güicán. This idiosyncratic variety is enriched by the contact of Uwa, an indigenous language, offspring of the Chibcha family. In the past, any form that did not correspond to standard Spanish was stigmatized and even banned in academic settings. For instance, as shown in (7), Uwa-Spanish speakers use pronoun usted as busté and the adverb así as asina: (7a) ¿Busté quiere algo? Do you want something? (7b) Asina, nos fuimos al rio Thus, we went to the river.

[(UW6, 7:22), Moreno, 2014] [(UW5, 4:00), Moreno, 2014]

This population also tends to omit verbal afixes such as –ba in (8a) or the 3rd. person plural agreement affix –n in (8b). (8a) Yo miraba pa arriba y me acosta [acostaba] en la cama [(UW3, 10:00), Moreno, 2014] (8b) Las cosas va [van] a cambiar [(UW2, 18:07), Moreno, 2014] ‘Things are going to change’ While for the linguist these forms reflect the influence of the Uwa’s verbal system, which does not convey grammatical person (an instance of competition between the two grammars), when Uwa Spanish speakers produce this type of sentences, a common reaction among non-indigenous people is laughing or even judging Uwas as less intelligent people. This situation may soon be overcome because as part of agreements between the Colombian government and the Uwa communities, an alternative model of education has been established. This model incorporates Uwa’s values and culture to other courses offered within the Colombian educational system. There are academic projects such as Kajkrasa Ruyina (guardians of mother earth), created as an attempt to facilitate the acquisition of Uwa and Spanish by the Uwa people. In addition to being bilinguals and ethnoeducators (Uwas’term to refer to teachers trained to teach Uwa’s language and culture to Uwa students), teachers are required to respect and recognize the idiosyncrasies of Uwa Spanish as an element that enriches education. These initiatives encourage better attitudes towards this variety. We would like to propose that in these very special contexts, the good language teacher of Spanish is the one who: (i) knows both the specific character-



Perspectives on L2 teacher’s near-nativeness 

 67

istics of the contact grammar (the Goajiro Spanish grammar or the Uwa Spanish grammar) as well as the grammar of the Standard Spanish of the respective regions; (ii) has a similar degree of respect for all varieties of the language; (iii) communicates this respect to his/her students; (iv) finds ways (internet, books…) of training himself/herself as a language teacher since this training is not available; (v) helps the students to achieve the command of the Standard variety that will facilitate their professional objectives; (vi) acquires – if he/she doesn’t have it – a good command of the aboriginal language (Goajiro or Uwa) and offers to share this knowledge with those students who are willing to compare the systems of the aboriginal language and that of the contact variety and/or Spanish.

3 Conclusions We have discussed how linguistic, psycholinguistic, language contact and pedagogical approaches to the analysis and description of non-native grammars confront issues such as whether it is possible to achieve native-like competence in an L2, who can really become native-like in an L2 given hypotheses such as the CPH and evidence concerning how the age of first contact with the L1 shapes ultimate attainment. We have argued that non-native (IL) systems that are not native-like are not only natural languages but I-languages, namely, they abide by the same principles and are made up of the same formal features as any natural language which is spoken by any community with high-standing social and political status. We have also argued that there are fundamental differences as well as fundamental similarities in L1A and adult L2A and that the fundamental differences are mostly related to how the target input is processed. While we do not think that there are recipes for teaching how to overcome near-nativeness, we would like to suggest that teacher education that seeks to make teachers and learners aware of where the genius of the language lies and how this genius determines the intuitions that native speakers have about the grammatical representation of their native language (Liceras 2013, 2014a, 2014b) can lead non-native teachers to overcome near-nativeness. We would like to conclude, in relation to how to approach near-nativeness in radical language contact situations, that overcoming the restrictions imposed by near-nativeness can and should go beyond the well-defined socially and politically well-established languages and into the more difficult situations where decisions on how to teach an L2 and even on how to differentiate non-native from native input may not only be difficult but also problematic at the social, political

68 

 Juana M. Liceras/Nelson Méndez/Leonardo Moreno Mancipe

and educational level, as in the case of the Spanish Goajiro and the Spanish Uwa contact languages.

4 References Abrahamsson, Niclas. 2012. Age of onset and nativelike L2 ultimate attainment of morphosyntactic and phonetic intuition. In Niclas. Abrahamsson & Kenneth Hyltenstam (eds.), High-level L2 acquisition, learning and use, 187–214. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, special issue). Abrahamsson, Niclas & Kenneth Hyltenstam. 2009. Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning 59. 249–306. Adjemian, Christian. 1976. On the nature of interlanguage systems. Language Learning 26(2). 297–320. Álvarez, Patricia. 2000. Aspectos lingüísticos de la escritura del español por estudiantes guajiros. Unpublished master’s dissertation. Universidad del Zulia, Venezuela. Anderson, Roger. 1983. Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Atencio, Maria. 2014. Rasgos distintivos del español en contacto con el wayuunaiki en la parroquia Andrés Bello del Municipio La Cañada de Urdaneta del estado Zulia, Venezuela. University of Amsterdam master’s dissertation. Beck, Maria-Luise. 1998. L2 acquisition and obligatory head movement: English-speaking learners of German and the Local Impairment Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20. 311–348. Becker, Angelika & Tonjes Veenstra. 2003. Creole prototypes as basic varieties and inflectional morphology. In Christine Dimroth & Marianne Starren (eds.), Information structure and the dynamics of language acquisition, 235–264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bernstein, Judith. 1993. The syntactic role of word markers in null nominal constructions. Probus 5. 5–38. Bialystok, Ellen. 2001. Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bickerton, Derek. 1984. The Language Bioprogram Hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7. 173– 188. Bickerton, Derek. 1996. A dim monocular view of Universal Grammar access. Commentary on Samuel Epstein, Suzanne Flynn and Gita Martohardjono. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19. 716–717. Bickerton, Derek. 1999. How to acquire language without positive evidence: What acquisitionists can learn from creoles. In Michael DeGraff (ed.), Language creation and language change: Creolization, diachrony and development, 49–74. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Bley-Vroman, Robert. 2009. The evolving context of the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31(2). 175–198. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.



Perspectives on L2 teacher’s near-nativeness 

 69

DeKeyser, Robert. 2000. The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22. 499–533. DeKeyser, Robert & Jenifer Larsen-Hall. 2005. What does the Critical Period really mean? In Judith F. Kroll & Annette de Groot (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: psycholinguistic approaches, 88–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, Rod. 1994. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Epstein, Samuel D., Susan Flynn & Gita Martohardjono. 1996. Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19(4). 677–758. Gregg, Kevin R. 1984. Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics 5(2). 79–100. Grosjean, François. 1982. Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hale, Kenneth. 1996. Can UG and the L1 be distinguished in L2 acquisition? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19. 728–730. Harris, John W. 1991. The exponence of gender in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 27–62. Hudson, K. Carla L. & Melisa Newport. 2005. Regularizing unpredictable variation: The roles of adult and child learners in language variation and change. Language Learning and Development 1. 151–195. Hyltenstam, Kenneth & Niclas Abrahamsson. 2003. Maturational Constraints in SLA. In Catherine J. Doughty & Michael H. Long (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition, 539–588. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Johnson, Jacqueline & Elisa L. Newport. 1991. Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of a second language. Cognition 39. 215–258. Krashen, Stephen. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, Stephen. D. 1979. The monitor model for second language acquisition. In Rosario Gingras (ed.), Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching, 51–67. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics. Krashen, Stephen D. 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Function and grammar in the history of English: Periphrastic do. In Ralph W. Fasold & Deborah Schiffrin (eds.), Language change and variation, 133–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kroch, Anthony. 1994. Morphosyntactic variation. In Katharine Beals et al. (eds.), Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on Variation and Linguistic Theory, 180–201. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. Lardiere, Donna. 2006. Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: A case study. Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Larson-Hall, Jenefer. 2008. Weighing the benefits of studying a foreign language at a younger starting age in a minimal input situation. Second Language Research 24(1). 35–63. Lefebvre, Claire. 1998. Creole genesis and the acquisition of grammar: The case of Haitian Creole. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lefebvre, Claire, Lydia White & Christine Jourdan. 2006. Introduction. In Claire Lefebvre, Lydia White, & Christine Jourdan (eds.), L2 acquisition and creole genesis, 1–14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lenneberg, Eric H. 1967. Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.

70 

 Juana M. Liceras/Nelson Méndez/Leonardo Moreno Mancipe

Liceras, Juana M. 1992. La adquisición de lenguas extranjeras: Hacia un modelo de análisis de la interlengua. Madrid: Visor. Liceras, Juana M. 1996. To ‘grow’ and ‘what to grow,’ that is one question. Commentary on Epstein, Flynn and Martohardjono. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19. 734. Liceras, Juana M. 2003. Monosyllabic place-holders in early child language and the L1L2 Fundamental Difference Hypothesis. In Paula Kempchinsky & Carlos Piñeros (eds.), Hispanic Linguistics and the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese, 258–283. Sommerville: Cascadilla Press. Liceras, Juana M. 2007. La adquisición de lenguas segundas y la encrucijada Lengua-I(interna) / Lengua-E(xterna) en la adquisición, el cambio diacrónico y la formación de criollos. In Ricardo Mairal et al. (eds.), Actas del XXIV Congreso Internacional de AESLA. Aprendizaje de lenguas, uso del lenguaje y modelación cognitiva: perspectivas aplicadas entre disciplinas, 67–90. Madrid: UNED. Liceras, Juana M. 2010. Second language acquisition and syntactic theory in the 21st century. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 30. 248–269. Liceras, Juana M. 2013. El saber ocupa, ¿qué lugar?: El acceso indirecto a las intuiciones del nativo. Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada. Actas del I Congreso International Nebrija en Lingüística aplicada a la Enseñanza de Lenguas, 643–668. Liceras, Juana. M. 2014a. La adquisición de las lenguas segundas aquí y ahora o… cómo abordar la hipótesis de la interlengua en el siglo XXI. In Javier Santiago & Yeray González (eds.), El español global, 124–148. Valladolid: Fundación Siglo para el Turismo y las Artes de Castilla y León. Liceras, Juana M. 2014b. Teaching Spanish as a non-primary language in the 21st century: insights from linguistic theory, psycholinguistic theory and empirical research on language acquisition. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 1(1). 86–100. Liceras, Juana M. 2015. Is there a place for elusive input and unstable intuitions in teacher education? Paper presented at the LASLAB Workshop on Language Acquisition and the Second Language Classroom, University of the Basque Country (UPV-EHU), Vitoria-Gasteiz, November 6, 2015. Liceras, Juana M., Lourdes Díaz & Caroline Mongeon. 2000. N-drop and determiners in native and non-native Spanish: More on the role of morphology in the acquisition of syntactic knowledge. In Ronald P. Leow & Cristina Sanz (eds.), Current research on the acquisition of spanish, 67–96. Somerville. MA: Cascadilla Press. Liceras, Juana M., Cristina Martínez, Rocio Pérez-Tattam, Susana Perales & Raquel Fernández. 2006. L2 Acquisition as a process of creolization: Insights from child and adult code-mixing. In Claire Lefebvre, Lydia White & Christine Jourdan (eds.), L2 acquisition and creole genesis: Dialogues, 113–144. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Liceras, Juana M., Helmut Zobl & Helen Goodluck. 2008. The role of formal features in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Long, Michael. 1990. Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12. 51–85. Meisel, Jürgen M. 1997. The acquisition of the syntax of negation in French and German: Contrasting first and second language development. Second Language Research 13(3). 227–263. Méndez, Nelson. (forthcoming). Linguistic outcomes of the Goajiro (Wayuunaiki)/Spanish Language contact situation. University of Ottawa PhD dissertation.



Perspectives on L2 teacher’s near-nativeness 

 71

Montrul, Silvina. 1997. On the paralells between diachronic change and interlanguage grammars: The L2 acquisition of the Spanish dative case system. Spanish Applied Linguistics 1. 87–113. Montrul, Silvina. 2008. Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism. Re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Moreno, Leonardo. (forthcoming). Subject personal pronoun expression in proficient bilinguals. Unveiling Uwa-Spanish. PhD dissertation. University of Ottawa. Oquendo, Luis. 2003. Algunas variaciones lingüísticas en las lenguas en contacto: guajiroespañol. Letras 67. 143–160 Pimienta, P. Maria. 2008. El bilingüismo entre los wayuunaikihablantes y la interferencia como producto del contacto de lenguas. Entretextos, 2. Pintzuk, Susan. 1999. Phrase structures in competition. Variation and change in Old English. New York: Garland. Ramírez, Hector. 2009. La inconcordancia de género y número en el contacto de lenguas. Forma y Función 22(2). 165–195. Robertson, Dan & Antonella Sorace. 1999. Loosing the verb-second constraint. In Elain Klein & Gita Martohardjono (eds.), The development of second language grammars. A generative approach, 317–362. Amsterdam: John Beanjamins. Romaine, Suzanne. 1995. Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. Rubin, J. 1975. What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly 9(1). 41–51. Santorini, Beatrice. 1992. Variation and change in Yiddish subordinate clause word order. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10(4). 595–640. Schumann, John H. 1978. The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Schwartz, Bonnie D. & Rex Sprouse. 1996. L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research 12. 40–72. Selinker, Larry. 1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10. 209–241. Singleton, David. 2005. The critical period hypothesis: A coat of many colours. International Review of Applied Linguistics 43. 269–286. Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Syntactic optionality in non-native grammars. Second Language Research 16. 93–102. Sorace, Antonella. 2003. Near-nativeness. In Catherine Doughty & Michael Long (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, 130–152. Oxford: Blackwell. Stern, David H. 1975. What can we learn from the good language learner. Canadian Modern Language Review 31. 304–318. Unsworth, Shraon. 2005. Child L2, Adult L2, Child L1: Differences and similarities. A study on the acquisition of direct object scrambling in Dutch. Utrecht University PhD dissertation. White, Lydia. 1989. Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. White, Lydia. 1996. Universal grammar and second language acquisition: current trends and new directions. In William C. Ritchie & Tej K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of language acquisition, 85–120. New York: Academic Press. Yip, Virginia & Stephen Matthews. 2006. Assessing language dominance in bilingual acquisition: A case for mean length utterance differentials. Language Assessment Quarterly 3(2). 97–116. Zobl, Helmut & Juana M. Liceras. 2005. Accounting for optionality in non-native grammars: Parametric change in diachrony and L2 development as instances of internalized diglossia.

72 

 Juana M. Liceras/Nelson Méndez/Leonardo Moreno Mancipe

In Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2004), ed. Laurent Dekydtspotter et al., 283- 291. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Zobl, Helmut & Juana M. Liceras. 2006. Competing grammars and parametric shifts in second language acquisition and the history of English and Spanish. In David Bamman, Tatiana Magnitskaia & Colleen Zaller (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD), 713–724. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Recommended reading Hudson Kam, Carla & Elisa Newport. 2005. Regularizing unpredictable variation: the roles of adult and child learners in language formation and change. Language Learning and Language Development 1(2). 151–195. The main objective of this article is to investigate whether learners – which of course refers to those who may eventually become L2 language teachers – confronted with variable input, specifically inconsistent grammatical morphemes, acquire variability as such or change it, making the language more regular as they learn it. To answer this question the authors conducted two experiments. In the first one, they taught adult participants an artificial language containing unpredictable variation in the position and production versus omission of determiners. The amount of inconsistency and the meaning of the inconsistent item were manipulated. Testing after exposure showed that participants learned the language, including the variable item, and their use of variable items reflected the degree of consistency of the input. In the second experiment a similar artificial language was taught to adult participants and to children (5- to 7-year-old). In this case, testing after exposure showed that while, as in experiment one, the adults did not regularize the language, many children did regularize the language, imposing patterns that were not the same as their input. Based on these results, the authors conclude that children and adults do not learn from variable input in the same way. Since the type of variable input encountered in pidgins and emergent creoles is an attested characteristic of pidgins and emergent creoles, the authors suggest that children may play a unique and important role in creole formation by regularizing grammatical patterns. Lardiere, Donna. 2007. Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: A case study. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. This book is a longitudinal case study of one adult immigrant learner of English, Patty, a Chinese American, who has acquired English in adulthood. By carrying out a careful and detailed analysis of Patty’s English, Lardiere shows that, in spite of the fact that Patty has assimilated to the U.S. culture, neither her speech nor her unedited, informal writing are native-like. From a normative view, it appears that Patty’s grammar has fossilized in ways which seem to indicate that it is deficient. However, Lardiere provides not only many examples but also convincing arguments to demonstrate that production errors may not represent underlying abstract grammatical knowledge. This implies that in the characterization of the critical period, it is not only phonetics and grammar that have to be differentiated but also morphology and syntax. In fact, there are many L2 non-native English teachers in China whose English compares to Patty’s. Consequently, it will be very



Perspectives on L2 teacher’s near-nativeness 

 73

imporant for teacher training purposes to take into consideration the description of this non-native variety of English. Liceras, Juana M. 2010. Second language acquisition and syntactic theory in the 21st century. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 30. 248–269. Liceras states that in this century, with the Minimalist Program as background, the syntactic analyses of non-native grammars have diverted more and more from looking at those syntactic properties that argued for or against the various versions of the UG-access / non UG-access debate and have more recently delved into the status of non-native grammars in the cognitive science field. Thus, using features (i.e., gender, case, verb, and determiner) as the basic units of analysis and paying special attention to the quality of input as well as to processing principles and constraints, non-native grammars have been compared to the language contact paradigms which underlie subsequent bilingualism, child second language acquisition, creole formation and diachronic change. Taking Chomsky’s I-language/ E-language construct as a framework, the author specifically argues that even though adult L2 learners may interpret input triggers differently from child L2 learners or L1 learners, they will nonetheless create an I-language and may also, provided a language community is created (the generation which creates a pidgin or the immigrant community where heritage speakers acquire their language), contribute to language change. The description of this type of bilingual constitutes a clear depiction of L2 non-native language teachers who learn the target language as adults. Sorace, Antonella. 2003. Near-nativeness. In Catherine Doughty and Michael Long (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, 130–152. Oxford: Blackwell. After defining optionality as “the use of two or more variants that are identical in meaning and a have clear correspondence in form”, Sorace argues that optionality is one of the distinctive characteristics of non-native grammars because, even though the majority of non-native speakers develop competence, it differs, sometimes in subtle ways, from native competence. In fact, the author maintains that truly successful adult L2 learners are the minority and that residual optionality, which is selective in that it affects interpretive interface aspects of grammar or interface conditions on syntax, characterizes non-native grammars at the ultimate stage. Sorace’s description of near-nativeness should be taken into consideration for L2 teacher training purposes in programs dedicated specifically to the training of L2 non-native teachers. Zobl, Helmut & Juana M. Liceras. 2006. Competing grammars and parametric shifts in second language acquisition and the history of English and Spanish. In David Bamman, Tatiana Magnitskaia & Colleen Zaller (eds.), BUCLD 30: Proceedings of the 30th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 713–724 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. In this article it is argued that in second language acquisition the ambiguity of the input created by the learner’s L1 leads to the projection of more than one grammar as it is the case in period of historical change where it has been shown that two grammatical options not only co-exist but compete until one wins over (The Competing Grammars Hypothesis). This leads the authors to propose that basic constructs of L2 Acquisition theory such as transfer, optionality or restructuring should be reinterpreted as effects of competition between grammars. To illustrate the framework they use data from the acquisition of English word order by Dutch and German speakers and from the acquisition of Spanish by Chinese, English, French speakers.

74 

 Juana M. Liceras/Nelson Méndez/Leonardo Moreno Mancipe

Questions for reflection and discussion – –

–

–

–

In 1967, Lenneberg situated the critical period for acquiring a second language with the same ease as the L1 at puberty. Is this proposal still widely accepted in the 21st century? How does the Interlanguage Hypothesis differentiate between L1 and adult L2 acquisition? In order words, what are the specific characteristics that Selinker, attributes to the acquisition of a non-native language? Could you provide counterparts to the characteristics of the so-called ‘good language learner’? In other words, and taking the profile of the ‘good language learner’ provided by Ellis as the point of comparison, what would be the characteristics of a ‘bad language learner’? Could a ‘bad language learner’ become an L2 near-native teacher? Does Patty’s idiolect of English provide evidence for arguing that the process of creole formation and the process of adult L2A are similar? Can you provide examples of L2 non-native teachers whose L2 resembles Patty’s? What evidence do Hudson Kam and Newport (2005) provide to show that children and adults do not acquire a second language in the same way?

Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo

Chapter 4 Non-native teachers’ code-switching in L2 classroom discourse Abstract: Since the widely observed phenomenon of language alternation or code-switching (CS), which happens all the time in most L2 classrooms, represents a common but undesirable practice among non-native teachers, this chapter aims to shed some light on this controversial issue in order to be able to better understand the role of CS in language classes. Perhaps the most distinctive feature marking a difference between the discourse styles of NESTs and NNESTs is their use of CS in the classrooms. This research paper reports non-native EFL student teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards the role and pedagogical value of CS in the EFL classroom context which is mainly viewed as a communication resource or strategy and, more specifically, a compensation strategy for a lack of linguistic proficiency (Macaro 2005). The idea that the reasons for codeswitching are multifaceted and of situational, contextual and personal nature is particularly emphasized. Perhaps one of the main reasons for teachers’ code-switching might be attributed to their self-perceived limited communicative ability. The chapter also offers suggestions on how to address this issue in language teacher education programmes and contributes to an understanding of the functions and underlying reasons behind teacher code-switching in L2 classrooms.

1 Literature review The common, observable and unavoidable linguistic phenomenon of codeswitching (henceforth, CS) or recourse to L1 in L2 educational settings, which is mostly Note: In principle, we all seem to know what classroom code-switching (CS) or language alternation means – when teachers and learners of a second language employ or include elements of their mother tongue in their classroom discourse-. Cook (2001: 83) argued that CS involves the process of “going from one language to the other in mid-speech when both speakers know the same languages”. According to Jingxia (2010: 10), “In the context of foreign language classroom, it refers to the alternate use of the first language and the target language, a means of communication by language teachers when the need arises”. Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo, University of Extremadura, Spain DOI 10.1515/9781501504143-005

76 

 Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo

viewed as the alternate use of two languages (L1-L2) within the same classroom discourse between people who share the same native language, occurs frequently in the present day bilingual and multilingual classrooms around the world (Littlewood and Yu 2011). Since “two languages are permanently present” in L2 classrooms (Cook 2001: 418), CS, which is evident in the teachers’ and students’ discourse and is generally performed subconsciously and/or automatically (Sert 2005), undoubtedly becomes a direct, unavoidable, natural and logical consequence of communication as a result of language contact (Jingxia 2010). A major theoretical issue that for decades has dominated SLA research and L2 pedagogy is the role of L1 in second or foreign language classrooms. This has generated, and still continues to do so today, considerable debate and controversy (Swain and Lapkin 2000; Rinvolucri 2001; Turnbull 2001; Cook 2001; Macaro 2001, 2005; Crawford 2004; Üstünel and Seedhouse 2005; Turnbull and Dailey-O’Cain 2009; Jingxia 2010; Littlewood and Yu 2011; Hall and Cook 2012; Lin 2013; Kim 2015). Lin (2013) in fact provides a comprehensive review of the historical development of the different research paradigms and approaches adopted in studies on classroom CS which have mainly focused on the rationale and functions of classroom CS practices. Two opposing theoretical approaches or positions have been identified concerning the value of CS in L2 classrooms (Song 2009): – The prescriptive monolingual approach (or L2 exclusivity), which evolved due more to political than pedagogical reasons in nature (Auerbach 1993) as a result of the widespread hegemony of English (Phillipson 1992), dominated L2 teaching until the 1990s and, in fact, still continues to do so today to some extent. This theoretical position in fact advocates the need for an immersion approach (L2-only input) (Krashen 1982; Macdonald 1993), which suggests that CS would seriously affect L2 acquisition (Ellis 1994; Turnbull 2001). Thus, there is no room for students’ native language (L1) which is seen as unnecessary as well as counterproductive in depriving learners of valuable exposure to L2 input (Crawford 2004; Ellis and Shintani 2013). From a SLA theoretical perspective, White and Storch (2012: 183) claimed that “the use of L1 represents missed opportunities for SLA”. Since L1 was considered to have no pedagogical or communicative value, it should be fully discouraged, avoided and even forbidden in L2 classrooms under any circumstances. Perhaps Krashen’s (1985) comprehensible input theory, which sustains that comprehensible L2 input is a necessary condition for SLA, provides the strongest rationale for L2-only principle (Cheng 2013). However, the monolingual approach (or virtual position as proposed by Macaro 2001) or what Auerbach (1993) described as the English only movement is being challenged over the last two decades, receiving criticism on the grounds that L2-only policy is mainly seen as a mere unfounded ideological perspective (see McMillan and



Non-native teachers’ code-switching in L2 classroom discourse 

 77

Rivers 2011 for a recent discussion). Voices have long questioned the validity of the predominating rigid monolingual approach in L2 education from diverse theoretical perspectives (see Turnbull and Arnett 2002 for a review of research). Since an English-only classroom cannot always ensure comprehensible input (Hisham 2009) and thus may not work in every classroom (Ellis 1994; Cook 2001; Widdowson 2003), White and Storch (2012: 201) made it clear that “It may be that in certain contexts, the use of the L1 is more justified than in others”. Hence, recourse to L1 is almost entirely a comprehension issue not an acquisition issue as suggested by Macaro (2005). Perhaps what really matters is not so much the quantity but the quality of L2 input. At the start of the twenty-first century, what is true is that English-only, English-through-English or Full-English language policies still continue to be the dominant official pedagogical prescription in ELT (McMillan and Turnbull 2009; Wang and Kirkpatrick 2012). – The bilingual approach (or L1 inclusivity), which is mainly supported by both cognitive and sociolinguistic arguments, in contrast, sustains that L1 deserves a place in L2 classrooms in playing a supportive or facilitative role in L2 teaching and learning. For example, cognitive processing theory argues that L1 can serve as a useful strategy that supports L2 learning, thus providing beneficial scaffolding (Swain and Lapkin 2000; Storch and Wigglesworth 2003; Rabbidge and Chappell 2014). Although CS in L2 classrooms has been traditionally criticized and/or discouraged by many language educators around the world by considering it as a bad, inappropriate, unacceptable and undesirable practice, a considerable amount of literature recently suggests that CS may be considered a pedagogically useful communicative resource or strategy at learners’ and teachers’ disposal to achieve their desired goals, thus stressing its positive role and value in L2 classrooms. Numerous researchers such as Auerbach (1993), Canagarajah (1999), Macaro (2001, 2005), Swain and Lapkin (2000), Cook (2001), Rinvolucri (2001), Turnbull (2001), Storch and Wigglesworth (2003), Sert (2005), Turnbull and Dailey-O’Cain (2009), Jingxia (2010), McMillan and Rivers (2011), Wang and Kirkpatrick (2012), Hall and Cook (2012), Cheng (2013), Bhooth et al. (2014) and Kim (2015) advocate a careful, selective and limited use of L1, concluding that L1 represents a powerful strategy or technique that can be used to facilitate L2 learning and teaching, only if it is used in appropriate ways, that is, in a judicious and/or principled way so as to avoid the negative implications of L1 overuse, as will be explained later on. Drawing on cognitive processing perspectives and experimental approaches, Macaro (2005, 2009) suggests that CS in classroom contexts should operate on the principle of ‘optimality in L1 use’ which argues that CS deserves a place or rather has some pedagogical value in L2

78 

 Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo

learning and teaching. But what is the optimal or acceptable level of first language use? Bhooth et al. (2014) recommended L1 use only if there is a need. In this respect, Turnbull and Dailey-O’Cain (2009: 193) conceived optimal first language use as “a cognitive and meta-cognitive tool, as a strategic organizer, and as a scaffold for language development”. From a sociocultural perspective, research shows that the use of L1 allows learners to work effectively within their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky 1978), thus creating a more facilitating learning environment. Additionally, the multicompetence theory proposed by Cook (2001), which suggests that the L1 is always present in the L2 users’ minds, also argued for the positive involvement of the L1 in L2 learning. Since L2 users are multi-competent because their minds house two grammars, as Cook (2001) suggests, they have a right to use their L1 in the L2 learning process. Despite the official pedagogical prescription or dogmatic insistence on L1 exclusion in L2 classrooms, researchers such as Swain and Lapkin (2000), Levine (2011) and Wang and Kirkpatrick (2012) stressed the cognitive, communicative and social functions of the multilingual approach (crosslingual strategy or use of both L1-L2) in L2 classrooms. In short, Hall and Cook (2012) suggest that the way is open for a major ‘paradigm shift’ in language teaching and learning regarding classroom CS. Research literature has shown that teachers’ CS serves a variety of pedagogical functions in classroom discourse such as explaining unfamiliar vocabulary and complex grammar aspects, ensuring student understanding and checking comprehension, facilitating student participation, giving and clarifying procedural instructions, organizing classroom tasks, giving feedback to students, building up relationships with students and maintaining discipline (Canagarajah 1995; Cook 2001; Macaro 2001, 2005; Ustunel and Seedhouse 2005; Sert 2005; Macaro 2005, 2009; Jingxia 2010; Algarin-Ruiz 2014; Kim 2015). Sert (2005) reported that another purpose of CS is affective. In this respect, Canagarajah (1999: 131) claimed that the teachers in his study used the L1 to “break the ice and establish rapport with students”. Since exclusive L2 use might even act as a demotivator (Edstrom 2006), recent studies have in fact shown that L1 should be employed strategically to create a less stressful and more comfortable and supportive L2 classroom environment (Macaro 2001; Makulloluwa 2013; Rabbidge and Chappell 2014; Kim 2015). Put differently, L1 use can be seen as a helpful strategy for reducing students’ affective barriers like language anxiety, thus increasing their self-esteem and confidence in their language ability (Auerbach 1993; Cook 2001). When L2 is the only medium of communication in classrooms, many students usually remain silent due to their nervousness and lack of English competence. In this respect, Kin (2015: 36) argued that “strict adherence to an English-only



Non-native teachers’ code-switching in L2 classroom discourse 

 79

policy can cause emotional and psychological stress on the instructors and the students”. Accordingly, L1 use may help reduce emotional barriers as a result of their self-perceived limited language competence. Since teachers often justify their use of CS as a “response to the exigencies in the classroom” (Ellis and Shintani 2013: 229), the reasons behind L1 use, which seem to be a subjective and personal matter for most teachers (Edstrom 2006; Rabbidge and Chappell 2014), call for further research. In the discussion of CS, emotional aspects associated with self-perceived L2 competence, which determine the amount of L1 used, deserve special emphasis. Perhaps most of the problems attributed to CS are related to language proficiency, although this claim might overlook the numerous factors that may contribute to language choice (Kim 2015). Nagy and Robertson (2009) identified the following internal factors (teacher-related) that influence the teacher language choice: professional experience, training, proficiency in the target language, self-confidence, beliefs about and attitudes towards the target language. Based on the continuum of perspectives proposed by Macaro (2001, 2005), the maximal position -which suggests that although the exclusive use of the L2 would be ideal, this choice is not always possible and, thus, L1 use is inevitable- argues that CS is also associated with teacher competence and confidence. In SLA literature, CS has been traditionally viewed as a symptom or evidence of linguistic deficit or incompetence on the part of both students and teachers (Auerbach 1993; Zagura 2012). According to Macaro (2005), CS can also be seen as a compensation strategy used by poor language learners and teachers who employ their native language to compensate for or conceal the real deficiencies or limitations in their command of L2 (Turnbull and Arnett, 2002). Sert (2005) also suggested that CS employed by teachers can be seen as a defense mechanism due to their self-perceived limited communicative ability. In the same vein, researchers such as Turnbull and Arnett (2002) and Yao (2011) argued that CS may indicate inability in teachers’ language proficiency. According to Brew-Daniels (2011: 50), teachers resort to L1 “to cover up for their inability to express themselves comprehensively in one language”. Similarly, Hamidi and Najafi (2012) in fact found that most of the EFL teachers in Iran used CS from time to time, particularly in emotional situations, when they cannot make themselves understood. Nagy and Robertson (2009) also found that teachers who are confident in their use of the target language will be more inclined to use it. On the other hand, teachers’ perceptions of students’ low proficiency level may also influence their language choice (Crawford 2004; White and Storch 2012), thus adjusting or accommodating their classroom discourse to the students’ language ability (Jingxia 2010). As many learners really get frustrated when they feel unable to understand the teachers’ L2 input (Macaro 2005), teachers’ self-perceived communicative inability in L2 makes them feel uncom-

80 

 Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo

fortable and even guilty when they see themselves overusing or abusing CS in the classroom discourse (Cook 2001). Research also suggests that non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs) suffer incessantly anxiety or “feeling of underachievement” (Medgyes 1999: 15) as they compare themselves with native speakers because of their self-perceived inadequate language ability which seriously affects their confidence and security to teach. It seems that the sense of inferiority to native speakers (NESTs) in terms of language proficiency discourages NNESTs and puts them under constant stress when teaching English. Such a crisis of confidence in teaching due to their perceived insufficient language knowledge and language skills has generated some research that has proposed language-improvement strategies for NNESTs (Reves and Medgyes 1994; Llurda 2005; Braine 2010). It must also be added that NNESTs’ perceptions of their language proficiency seem to affect not only pre-service but also experienced teachers. On the contrary, other researchers such as Hisham (2009), Hamidi and Najafi (2012) and Algarin-Ruiz (2014) concluded that in general CS should not be considered as a weakness or defect associated with limited language proficiency but rather a helpful learning and teaching strategy in classroom discourse. Despite the official recommendations to follow an English-only policy, what is true is that many EFL teachers still overuse or abuse the L1 in L2 classrooms. Put differently, although the monolingual approach to L2 teaching is, in theory, still dominant in L2 education, the fact is that, as Song (2009) reminds us, it seems to be only partially implemented in L2 teaching practice because it does not really reflect what L2 teachers actually do in classrooms. Learners’ native languages have continued to be used in many language classrooms around the world (Cook, 2008). As a matter of fact, the use of L1 is more common than is generally believed, being used extensively in L2 classroom discourse. Although the use of L2 in classrooms is always desired, the fact is that our native language is always there at our disposal and, accordingly, learning a new language without making some or at least minimal use of one’s own L1 is unavoidable. Generally, exclusive L2 use is not always achievable in classes, with a few exceptions, at least in the Spanish context, because the vast majority of teachers use the L1 to varying degrees. Despite the paradigm shift in SLA pedagogy, however, many researchers and language educators have expressed their reservations and concerns about the devastating consequences or effects of L1 overuse on L2 learning (Swain and Lapkin 2000; Cook 2001; Ellis 2008). According to Wang and Kirkpatrick (2012), many teachers argue that a cautious and sensible use of L1 –only if necessarycould play an important role in L2 classrooms, although, as Song (2009) reminds us, most teachers also believe that L1 is seen as a serious threat to L2 classrooms. In this respect, Swain and Lapkin (2000) even suggested that L1 use may eventually substitute (rather than support) L2 learning. In short, CS is commonly viewed



Non-native teachers’ code-switching in L2 classroom discourse 

 81

with caution and suspicion in L2 classrooms as it may be counter-productive (Yao, 2011). Such skepticism about the negative implications of this common practice seems to be reasonable and still prevails among language educators and education policy makers since Turnbull and Dailey-O’Cain (2009: 2) made it clear that, we do not equate the use of the first language in the second or foreign language classroom with passing out a license to overuse of the first language, that is, to become so dependent on the first language that teachers and learners cannot function in a second or foreign language classroom without it. Whatever benefits first language use may bring, it is clear that the ultimate goal of a second or foreign language classroom remains the learning of the target language; practices that undermine this ultimate goal must be avoided.

CS should be incorporated into second language teacher education programmes. Undoubtedly the quality of language teaching can be substantially improved through the improvement of the quality of teacher education (Macaro 2005). One of the most controversial issues which greatly concerns both language teachers and teacher educators is the common practice of CS in L2 classrooms. At the present time, the discussion is essentially centered upon the reasons or motivations behind teacher CS and, above all, on how the L1 can be better integrated into L2 teaching. Since own-language use is an inevitable and natural part of classroom life, Widdowson (2003) argued that own-language use should and can be turned to pedagogic advantage. The use of CS in the classroom should be viewed as a teachable pedagogic resource at teachers’ disposal in the sense that L2 teachers should be introduced to the strategic use of CS in the classroom (Macaro 2001). In the same vein, Makulloluwa (2013) recommends that teachers should be educated on the potential of L1 and how it should be utilized to maximise language acquisition. Both pre-service and in-service teachers should be more aware of the value of this strategy or resource in terms of functions and underlying pedagogical reasons so as to have a heightened awareness of its use in classroom discourse (Sert 2005). Additionally, L2 teachers should help their students to take advantage of their existing L1 knowledge to facilitate their L2 learning. What is known about this topic so far strongly advocates a more controlled, limited and selective CS in L2 classrooms since overuse or overreliance on L1, which is a reality itself in many supposedly communicative classrooms -at least in the case of the Spanish educational context-, would seriously affect L2 acquisition. However, based on a pedagogy of CS which focuses on the principle of optimality in L1 use, Macaro (2005: 81) made it clear that “phrases such as ‘use of the L2 as much as possible’ or ‘judicious use of L1’ are not sufficiently informative, especially for novice teachers”. In the same vein, White and Storch (2012) also agreed that what constitutes judicious use is not well defined. Hence, the term judicious sounds in fact rather imprecise and/or vague and thus requires further

82 

 Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo

clarification. Researchers such as McMillan and Turnbull (2009) and White and Storch (2012) suggest an action research approach as a means for developing teachers’ awareness of their CS practices and, thus, conclude that teachers should implement personalized approaches to L1 and L2 use that should be pedagogically and theoretically principled through discussions and decision-making about what is the optimal level of L1 use. Since many teachers neither know how to use CS to their advantage or benefit nor have they received adequate formal training which allows them to understand this process (Algarin-Ruiz 2014), Turnbull and Dailey-O’Cain (2009) suggested more open discussions about the use of CS in teacher education that will lead to more reflexive and enlightened language professionals. Such an open dialogue ‘can lead to greater understanding of what optimal first language use looks like in a variety of classroom contexts’ (Dailey-O’Cain 2009: 184). In the same vein, White and Storch (2012: 200–201) suggested that “the use of L1 use in FL classes needs to be discussed openly in teacher forums, so that agreed upon guidelines about acceptable levels of L1 use can be developed (…) It may be that in certain contexts, the use of the L1 is more justified than in others”. Since it is not easy to decide when and how to employ CS appropriately because it depends on the classroom situation (Bhooth et al. 2014), teachers should be explicitly trained to be more conscious of their classroom discourse strategies (Makulloluwa 2013) so as to be able to develop an alternative pedagogy which ensures comprehensible input. In short, CS has generated (and still does) a great deal of debate and controversy with multiple convincing supporting and opposing arguments, although most current studies, as Lin (2013) claimed, offer little consensus or conclusive evidence as to whether or not L1 use should be allowed in educational settings and, more importantly, how the L1 should be best strategically or pedagogically employed in communicative L2 classes. Hence research does not seem to advance or move beyond what has already been known in the existing academic literature so far. However, as Turnbull and Dailey-O’Cain (2009: 186) made it clear, “there is one point of agreement on which there remains no doubt: there is simply no evidence that a prescribed target-language only environment is beneficial to learners, and there is ample evidence that it may be detrimental”. On the whole, SLA research supports the facilitative and supportive role of L1 in L2 classrooms in order to be able to address the communicative and comprehension problems that normally arise in classroom situations. Finally, further research, particularly longitudinal studies (White and Storch 2012), is actually needed in this area to shed more light on what actually transpires in L2 classroom discourse in general and what influences the language choice of teachers in particular. Several theoretical questions, namely how much L1 and L2 should be employed in the classroom, still remain unanswered.



Non-native teachers’ code-switching in L2 classroom discourse 

 83

2 Research questions Since most research studies on CS conducted so far have mainly focused on the views of in-service teachers, this quantitative and qualitative study, in contrast, seeks to find out how Spanish EFL student teachers actually perceive CS in an EFL classroom setting during their teaching practicum experience in primary schools. Bearing in mind that teachers’ beliefs and attitudes influence their teaching actions and decisions to code-switch, a better understanding of the role of CS in language classes would make student teachers more aware of the value of this strategy. In consideration of the above mentioned literature review, the present study aims at addressing the following research questions: 1. How do Spanish EFL student teachers perceive the practice of classroom CS during their teaching practices in schools? 2. What are the main reasons or motivations behind such classroom practices?

3 Method 3.1 Context and participants The participants who took part in the current study were 42 (17 male and 25 female) Spanish EFL student teachers who were all undergraduates on the TEFL programme at the Faculty of Education of the University of Extremadura (Spain), a four-year EFL teacher-training programme for students who wish to teach English as a foreign language in primary schools. The sample also included two bilingual speakers: one English native speaker from UK living in Spain and another student from South-America who lived in USA for several years. Their age range is between 20 and 29, with the average age being 21. The current four-year EFL teacher education programme includes a compulsory Practice Teaching course that is offered in the final semester. During the practicum experience student teachers observe and experience first-hand teaching practice in real classrooms under the guidance of a school mentor teacher during at least 13 weeks in primary schools (the participating student teachers were in 23 public schools and 12 state-subsidized private schools). All final year student teachers were taking the teaching practicum course in the second semester of the 2014–2015 academic year. On average, the participating student teachers already accumulated 4 months of teaching experience following another practicum placement experience during their second year of study.

84 

 Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo

Regarding their self-perceived level of proficiency in English, 61.90% felt that they had an intermediate level, while 28.57% were upper-intermediate and finally 9.52% advanced. With respect to whether they were satisfied with their overall proficiency in English, only a third of participants (33.33%) were satisfied, while more than half (namely, 57.14%) were unsatisfied and 9.52% were undecided on this issue. As regards their anxiety due to self-perceived language competence, 11.90% recognised that they felt anxiety when teaching English, while 50.00%, in contrast, did not feel anxiety and 38.09% were undecided on this issue. Concerning the amount of L1 use, the participating student teachers were asked about how effective CS would be for L2 classrooms. In this respect, 30.95% felt that it would be effective if used for less than 20% of the class time, 35.71% (20%–40%), 26.19% (40%–60%), 2.38% (60%–80%) and 4.76% (80%–100%). Unlike Macaro’s (2001) study in which the amount of L1 use by participating teachers was very little, in the present study we can see that two thirds of respondents (66.66%) suggested that CS would be effective when used up to 40 percent of the class time, which confirms the varied results in the diverse studies conducted so far. In this respect, Macaro (2005) in fact suggested that beyond 10%–15% L1 use in the foreign language class is not recommended. In relation to the time devoted to the CS practice, 42.85% recognised that they made use of it sometimes, 30.95% often resorted to its use, 21.42% rarely employed it and 4.76% acknowledged that they always used it in classes. Finally, in response to the question of how they would rate in general their attitude towards the CS practice employed by teachers, 60.30% of the participating student teachers had a relatively positive attitude on this matter, however, half of respondents (50.00%) viewed students’ CS negatively.

3.2 Data collection instrument and procedure The questionnaire employed was mainly inspired by Yao (2011), El Mamoun and Hamid (2013), Mohebbi and Alavi (2014) and Bhooth et al. (2014). The method used to analyse participants’ responses and comments was theory-based content analysis. The most frequently mentioned responses from the participants were categorized and reported so as to determine the common themes concerning the teacher CS practice. Written comments from respondents were transcribed, and a thematic analysis was undertaken. Open-ended questions in questionnaires as a qualitative data collection method provide in-depth information and a great variety of responses. Generally, open-ended questions are exploratory in nature.



Non-native teachers’ code-switching in L2 classroom discourse 

 85

3.3 Results and discussion The findings are discussed in relation to the research questions that motivated the present study: to analyse what student teachers think about CS and the main reasons or motivations behind such classroom practices. Statistical analysis of the quantitative data was conducted using SPSS 19. The calculated percentages of participating student teachers’ responses are reported in Table 1. Table 1: Descriptive statistics. Strongly ­disagree

Disagree

Unsure

Agree

Strongly agree

Total

Statement 1. Teachers’ code-switching is necessary and helpful for a successful EFL learning and teaching. 4.76% 21.43% 38.10% 26.19% 9.52% 100.00% Statement 2. Teachers’ code-switching facilitates EFL learning and teaching. 4.76% 9.52% 40.48% 38.10% 7.14%

100.00%

Statement 3. I think that teachers should speak English only in classes. 0.00% 9.52% 16.67% 47.62% 26.19%

100.00%

Statement 4. I think that students’ L1 should be excluded from English classes. 9.52% 40.48% 19.05% 21.43% 9.52%

100.00%

Statement 5. Using English only in classes helps students learn much better. 0.00% 7.14% 11.90% 45.24% 35.71%

100.00%

Statement 6. Using both languages (English and Spanish) makes students learn quicker and more easily. 7.14% 16.67% 38.10% 30.95% 7.14% 100.00% Statement 7. Teachers who switch code from English to Spanish or from Spanish to English pollute both languages. 11.90% 40.48% 23.81% 21.43% 2.38% 100.00% Statement 8. Teachers who switch code from English to Spanish are deficient in English. 26.19% 30.95% 21.43% 16.67% 4.76% 100.00% Statement 9. Teachers who switch code from English to Spanish are proficient in English. 14.29% 33.33% 38.10% 11.90% 2.38% 100.00% Statement 10. I feel anxious when I have to communicate with my students in English because of my self-perceived inadequate language ability. 23.81% 23.81% 28.57% 23.81% 0.00% 100.00% Statement 11. I feel more comfortable when I communicate with my students in Spanish. 7.14% 2.38% 19.05% 35.71% 35.71% 100.00%

86 

 Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo

Tab. 1 (continued) Strongly ­disagree

Disagree

Unsure

Agree

Strongly agree

Total

Statement 12. I think my students understand the lesson much better when I use Spanish in class. 4.76% 19.05% 23.81% 38.10% 14.29% 100.00% Statement 13. I think my students’ English level affects the amount of Spanish used in the classroom. 4.76% 14.29% 9.52% 54.76% 16.67% 100.00% Statement 14. Using students’ L1 is helpful for explaining complex grammar points and rules. 2.38% 14.29% 28.57% 33.33% 21.43% 100.00% Statement 15. Using students’ L1 helps the students to understand the difficult and complicated topics easily. 0.00% 16.67% 28.57% 42.86% 11.90% 100.00% Statement 16. Using students’ L1 is helpful for explaining and helping them understand unfamiliar words and/or expressions. 7.14% 23.81% 16.67% 45.24% 7.14% 100.00% Statement 17. Using students’ L1 is useful to explain and help students understand complex instructions. 0.00% 23.81% 16.67% 47.62% 11.90% 100.00% Statement 18. Using students’ L1 is helpful for putting emphasis on the message. 9.52% 47.62% 28.57% 11.90% 2.38%

100.00%

Statement 19. Using students’ L1 is helpful for saving time in lengthy task explanations. 21.43% 45.24% 16.67% 14.29% 2.38% 100.00% Statement 20. Using students’ L1 is helpful for clarifying the lesson content taught when they do not understand in L2. 0.00% 9.52% 35.71% 38.10% 16.67% 100.00% Statement 21. Using students’ L1 is a useful tool for checking and/or ensuring understanding. 7.14% 40.48% 23.81% 26.19% 2.38% 100.00% Statement 22. Using students’ L1 may affect or cause difficulty in students’ understanding of English. 2.38% 16.67% 26.19% 40.48% 14.29% 100.00% Statement 23. Using students’ L1 is useful to provide feedback and/or comments on the students’ responses and explain their errors. 4.76% 38.10% 21.43% 30.95% 4.76% 100.00% Statement 24. Using students’ L1 is helpful in topic shift. 14.29% 59.52% 14.29% 9.52%

2.38%

100.00%



Non-native teachers’ code-switching in L2 classroom discourse 

 87

Tab. 1 (continued) Strongly ­disagree

Disagree

Unsure

Agree

Strongly agree

Total

Statement 25. Using students’ L1 is helpful for presenting information about the English culture. 14.29% 57.14% 16.67% 7.14% 4.76% 100.00% Statement 26. Using students’ L1 is helpful for organizing classes. 11.90% 52.38% 26.19% 7.14%

2.38%

100.00%

Statement 27. Using students’ L1 is helpful for building and maintaining personal relationships with students (reduce formal distance). 4.76% 38.10% 30.95% 23.81% 2.38% 100.00% Statement 28. Using students’ L1 is helpful for encouraging and making them feel more motivated, comfortable and confident through humorous and positive comments so as to create a relaxing atmosphere in class (praising their efforts). 11.90% 40.48% 19.05% 23.81% 4.76% 100.00% Statement 29. Using students’ L1 is helpful for attracting students’ attention. 16.67% 45.24% 23.81% 11.90% 2.38%

100.00%

Statement 30. Using students’ L1 is helpful for better eliciting responses from students. 16.67% 47.62% 23.81% 9.52% 2.38% 100.00% Statement 31. Using students’ L1 may encourage students’ participation in the classroom. 14.29% 52.38% 9.52% 21.43% 2.38% 100.00% Statement 32. Using students’ L1 may encourage classroom interaction. 11.90% 52.38% 19.05% 14.29% 2.38%

100.00%

Statement 33. Using students’ L1 is necessary to maintain discipline and control the class. 11.90% 38.10% 30.95% 11.90% 7.14% 100.00% Statement 34. Using students’ L1 is helpful in giving individual help to learners. 2.38% 28.57% 38.10% 28.57% 2.38%

100.00%

Statement 35. Using students’ L1 is helpful for supervising and guiding students when working collaboratively. 11.90% 40.48% 35.71% 9.52% 2.38% 100.00% Statement 36. Using students’ L1 is helpful at the end of the class to answer possible questions. 2.38% 28.57% 42.86% 21.43% 4.76% 100.00% Statement 37. Using students’ L1 is helpful for making contrast between L1 and L2. 4.76% 26.19% 23.81% 38.10% 7.14%

100.00%

Statement 38. Using students’ L1 is helpful for administrative issues like exam announcement. 9.52% 23.81% 35.71% 26.19% 4.76% 100.00%

88 

 Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo

Table 1 displays the data obtained from learners’ responses with percentages of students selecting each alternative. The results obtained are consistent enough to draw overall conclusions. After the data-gathering process, the next step was to synthesize and analyze the results.

Figure 1: Student teachers’ perceptions and attitudes towards teachers’ code-switching.

Quantitative results In general the student teachers did not seem to have a clear opinion on the facilitative role of teachers’ CS in L2 classrooms since similar percentages were found in the ‘unsure’ and ‘agreement’ categories. Namely, the resulting data revealed similar levels of uncertainty about their opinions in items 1, 2 & 6 (around 40%, respectively). However, while a high percentage of respondents agreed that teachers should speak only English in classes (item 3: 73.81%) which helps students learn much better (item 5: 80.95%), half of the respondents (specifically, 50%), in contrast, expressed their disagreement with the idea that students’ L1 should be excluded from English classes (item 4), which suggests in some way that they also recognise the value of L1 in L2 teaching and learning. About half of the respondents also disagreed with the idea that teachers who practise CS necessarily pollute both languages (item 7: 52.38%). On the other hand, the participating student teachers believed that teachers who switch code are neither deficient in English (item 8: 57.14%) nor proficient, either (item 9: 47.62%). Regarding the emotional aspects associated with teacher CS, it is worthy of note that nearly half of the respondents (47.62%) recognised that they did not feel anxious when they had to communicate with their students in English because of their self-perceived inadequate language ability (item 10), although 71.43% of the participants acknowledged that they felt more comfortable when they communi-



Non-native teachers’ code-switching in L2 classroom discourse 

 89

cated in Spanish (item 11), even their students understood the lesson much better when their native language was mainly used in class (item 12: 52.38%). However, they also agreed that using students’ L1 may negatively affect students’ understanding in English (item 22: 54.77%). In addition, a high percentage of respondents (71.43%) believed that their students’ English level influences their language choice in terms of the amount of Spanish used in the classroom (item 13), which corroborates the findings from White and Storch (2012). Concerning research question 2 (the main reasons or motivations behind classroom CS), we can see that teachers’ CS seems to be helpful for explaining complex grammar points and rules (item 14: 54.76%), for explaining and facilitating students’ understanding of difficult topics (item 15: 54.76%), unfamiliar vocabulary and expressions (item 16: 52.38%) and complex instructions (item 17: 59.52%) and in clarifying the content taught in case of misunderstanding in L2 (item 20: 54.77%). On the contrary, using students’ L1 does not seem to receive so much emphasis in terms of disagreement among the surveyed participating student teachers, for example, for putting emphasis on the message (item 18: 57.14%), for saving time in lengthy task explanations (item 19: 66.67%), for topic shift (item 24: 73.81%), for presenting information about the English culture (item 25: 71.43%), for organizing classes (item 26: 64.28%), for encouraging and making students feel more motivated (item 28: 52.38%), for attracting students’ attention (item 29: 61.91%), for better eliciting responses from students (item 30: 64.29%), for encouraging students’ participation (item 31: 66.67%), for promoting classroom interaction (item 32: 64.28%), for maintaining discipline and controlling the class (item 33: 50.00%) and for supervising and guiding students when working collaboratively (item 35: 52.38%). Finally, it is also pointed out that there was some uncertainty among respondents regarding the importance of using the L1 for giving individual help to learners (item 34), or for answering possible questions at the end of the class (item 36) or for administrative issues like exam announcement (item 38).

Qualitative results In addition to the quantitative results, respondents were given several openended questions so as to gather more detailed information about their perceptions and opinions as to the main reasons for encouraging and discouraging CS in EFL classrooms. In fact, the numerous responses given through the open-ended questions provided valuable data. In this respect, several points need to be made. For reasons of space here, we focus in detail only on those significant aspects of teacher CS.

90 

 Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo

Concerning the question Please name the main reasons –at least 3- that encourage you to use Spanish in English classes, numerous responses were also given in this respect. We can argue that the most common theme that emerged from their responses, which was voiced by almost two-thirds of respondents, was the need for improvement of students’ attention and understanding, which corroborates the idea that CS is almost entirely a comprehension issue as Macaro (2005) suggested. Several illustrative overall comments that expressed this idea were in fact as follows: “for those unresolved remaining doubts that have been repeatedly explained in English”, “for those spontaneous classroom situations that require their immediate attention and understanding”, “when I realise that they get distracted, bored and even lost and, accordingly, they lose the pace of the class when I only use English in classes or mainly due to the complexity of the topic”, “when I realise that they feel unable to understand something due to their limited grasp of English” and “when nothing you say and do is enough because they are still unable to understand you”. In relation to this, but with a slight difference in emphasis, there were also comments which referred specifically to the emphatic function of CS “when something important or extremely complex needs to be explained properly”, “for ensuring their understanding of key ideas initially assimilated in English” and “when I want to emphasize something, I resort to the students’ native language immediately”. Another theme that emerged from their responses made reference in some way to students’ and teachers’ language command, through comments such as “depending on particular factors such as students’ heterogeneous levels of English competence, their age, motivation, behaviour, the class group…” and “depending on students’ English proficiency and even mine”, which corroborates the idea that self-perceived L2 competence determines or influences their language choice in terms of the amount of L1 used in the classroom. Other possible reasons for CS were also mentioned, as evidenced in comments such as “when dealing with students with special educational needs”, “solving difficult doubts”, “supporting the explanations given in English to ensure student understanding”, “ensuring that they do not get lost”, “helping them follow the lesson”, “for convenience reasons”, “in case of misunderstanding after having explained it repeatedly in English”, “as a way of introduction to the topic at the beginning of the lesson”, “as support to the instructions and explanations given in English”, “for making contrasts between the L1 and L2 to see the differences”, “for getting low-proficient learners to advance and improve in their linguistic command”, “for improving classroom interaction”, “for establishing rapport with students”, “for talking about personal matters with individual learners”, “in case of misbehaviour to put the class in order”, “in case of stress and mental fatigue –teacher burnout”, “to disconnect from the classroom



Non-native teachers’ code-switching in L2 classroom discourse 

 91

daily routine” and “to announce something important to learners”. In short, all these considerations corroborate the assumption that the reasons for CS are multifaceted and of situational, contextual and personal nature (Garza and Nava, 2007). Put differently, the reasons for CS vary with particular situations and from teacher to teacher. Regarding the question Please name the main reasons –at least 3- that discourage you from using Spanish in English classes, numerous responses were also given in this respect. The main theme that emerged from their responses was in fact the need and importance of learners’ maximum exposure to L2 input. This was reflected through several illustrative comments such as “providing them with maximum input in English so as to accustom them to listening only in English. In this way, unconscious learning will likely occur”, “they should make every effort to understand and speak only in English, although they do not really understand everything”, “it is unnecessary for them to understand every word but the overall message”, “they should get used to following the whole lesson in English which will become increasingly easier for them to understand”, “ensuring that they do not get used to using Spanish and, accordingly, the English class ends up turning into a Spanish class”, “making them get used to English because sooner or later they will be able to understand it”, “if they listen a lot in English, they will have the initiative to speak it later on as well” and “students will speak English only if the teacher also speaks English”. In relation to this, the participating student teachers, who see themselves as prospective teachers, also highlighted the importance of making the most of class time, as evidenced in the following comment “we must make careful use of the time available to us due to the few hours devoted to English lessons every week in order not to waste time”. Finally, one candidate teacher provided the following concluding comment “teachers should not overuse L1 because if they make use of it all the time it can be totally counterproductive, though sometimes it helps learners understand explanations better and more easily”. In short, all these comments from the open-ended questions were the source of the most valuable data in the present study.

4 Conclusions The main purpose of this study was to analyse what student teachers think about CS and the main reasons or motivations behind such classroom practice. As has been discussed above, classroom CS has been both criticized and praised for various reasons. While SLA research supports the facilitative and supportive role

92 

 Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo

of L1 in L2 classrooms, the fact is that many researchers and language educators have also expressed their reservations and concerns about the devastating consequences or effects of L1 overuse on L2 learning (Swain and Lapkin 2000; Cook 2001; Ellis 2008). What is true, however, is that there are some convincing pedagogical reasons in favour of the strategic use of CS in L2 classrooms. In order to better understand the functions and underlying reasons behind teacher CS in L2 classrooms, the present study aims to contribute to the existing discussion on the controversial role of teacher CS in L2 classrooms in terms of its pedagogical effectiveness and desirability from the perspective of student teachers. In general, student teachers not only highlight the need and importance of learners’ maximum exposure to L2 input but also recognise the negative consequences of L1 overuse in L2 classrooms. In fact, the pervasive use or abuse of CS in L2 classrooms is a reality itself, at least in the Spanish educational context. Specifically, the results revealed that the surveyed student teachers seem to be uncertain about the facilitative role of teachers’ CS in L2 classrooms as evidenced by the high percentage of undecided responses, although what is true is that the use of L2 in classes is inevitably emphasised and desired by most respondents who also recognise in some way the strategic pedagogical use of L1 in L2 teaching and learning but at the same time also its negative influence on students’ L2 learning. All the comments gathered from the qualitative analysis provide strong evidence to support the convincing assumption or argument that the reasons for CS are multifaceted and of situational, contextual and personal nature (Garza and Nava, 2007). Put differently, the amount of L1 use and reasons for CS vary with particular situations and from teacher to teacher. Perhaps one of the main reasons for teachers’ CS might be attributed to their self-perceived limited communicative ability. Regarding the emotional aspects associated with teacher CS, most respondents in fact felt more comfortable when communicating in their L1, maybe due to their self-perceived limited language ability. Accordingly, emotional aspects associated with self-perceived L2 competence, which seem to determine not only the language choice but also the amount of L1 used, received special emphasis in this study. In this respect, the research literature in fact suggests that NNESTs sometimes suffer stress and anxiety due to their self-perceived low language competence. Teacher CS may be then viewed as a compensation strategy for a lack of linguistic proficiency, as suggested by Macaro (2005). Likewise, it has been found that teachers’ perceptions of students’ language level may also determine their language choice. Taking into consideration that the quality of language teaching can be substantially improved through the improvement of the quality of teacher education, CS should be incorporated into second language teacher education programmes so that student teachers are explicitly trained on the strategic use of CS in L2



Non-native teachers’ code-switching in L2 classroom discourse 

 93

classroom discourse and, more specifically, on classroom discourse strategies. Priority needs to be given to consciousness-raising as a means of developing a better understanding of the role of CS as an interactional resource, as suggested by Adendorff (1993). Finally, it needs to be added that the findings of the present study have to be interpreted with caution within the limitations of the sample size and the research context. More longitudinal qualitative studies would be ideal to be able to deepen our understanding of CS from the perspective of candidate teachers. Acknowledgements: I thank the student teachers who participated in this study for their valuable cooperation.

5 References Adendorff, Ralph. 1993. Codeswitching amongst Zulu-speaking teachers and their pupils: Its functions and implications for teacher education. Language and Education 7 (3).141–162. Algarin-Ruiz, Karen Marie. 2014. Code switching: A tool in the classroom. Education and Human Development Master’s Theses. Paper 393. http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/ ehd_theses/393. Auerbach, Elsa Roberts. 1993. Re-examining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 27(1). 9–32. Bhooth, Abdullah, Hazita Azman & Kemboja Ismail. 2014. The role of the L1 as a scaffolding tool in the EFL reading classroom. Procedia. Social and Behavioral Sciences 118. 76–84. Braine, George. 2010. Non-native speaker English teachers: Research, pedagogy, and professional growth. New York: Routledge. Brew-Daniels, Josephine. 2011. Twi-English code switching in the classroom: A case study of some selected colleges of education in the Ashanti region. University of Ghana, Legon, Department of English, MPhil thesis. Canagarajah, Suresh. 1995. Functions of code-switching in ESL classrooms: Socializing bilingualism in Jaffna. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 16(3). 173–195. Canagarajah, Suresh. 1999. Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cheng, Xiaoli. 2013. Research on Chinese college English teachers’ classroom code-switching: Beliefs and attitudes. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 4(6). 1277–1284. Cook, Vivian. 2001. Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review 57(3). 403–423. Cook, Vivian. 2008. Second language learning and language teaching (4th edn). London: Hodder Education. Crawford, James. 2004. Language choices in the foreign language classroom: target language or the learners’ first language? RELC 35(1). 5–20.

94 

 Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo

Edstrom, Anne. 2006. L1 use in the L2 classroom: One teacher’s self-evaluation. The Canadian Modern Language Review 63(2). 275–292. Ellis, Rod. 2008. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, Rod & Natsuko Shintani. 2013. Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. London: Routledge. Garza, Emma Alicia & Guadalupe Nancy Nava. 2007. An exploratory investigation into social variables related to the use of codeswitching among bilingual children in elementary schools in a south Texas border area. Journal of Border Educational Research 6(1). 69–80. Hall, Graham & Guy Cook. 2012. Own-language use in language teaching and learning: state of the art. Language Teaching 45(3). 271–308. Hamidi, Hadi & Saeid Najafi. 2012. A closer look at some reasons behind code-switching. A case of Iranian EFL classrooms. International Electronic Journal for the Teachers of English 2(5). 90–102. Hisham, Badrul & Kamaruzaman Jusoff. 2009. Teachers’ code-switching in classroom instructions for low English proficient learners. English Language Teaching 2(2). 49–54. Jingxia, Liu. 2010. Teachers’ code-switching to the L1 in EFL classrooms. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal 3. 10–23. Kim, Hyun-Ju. 2015. The use and perception of codeswitching among teachers and students. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning 1. 34–51. Krashen, Stephen. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, Stephen. 1985. The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman. Levine, Glenn. 2011. Code choice in the language classroom. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Lin, Angel. 2013. Classroom code-switching: Three decades of research. Applied Linguistics Review 4(1). 195–218. Littlewood, William Thomas & Baohua Yu. 2011. First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teacher 44. 64–77. Llurda, Enric. (ed.). 2005. Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession. New York: Springer. Macaro, Ernesto. 2001. Analyzing student teachers’ code-switching in foreign language classroom: Theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal 85. 531–548. Macaro, Ernesto. 2005. Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy. In Enric Llurda (ed.). Non-native language teachers. Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession, 63–84. New York: Springer. Macaro, Ernesto. 2009. Teacher use of codeswitching in the second language classroom: Exploring ‘optimal’ use. In Miles Turnbull & Jennifer Dailey-O’Cain (eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning, 35–49. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Macdonald, Carol. 1993. Using the target language. Cheltenham, Cheltenham: Mary Glasgow Publications. Makulloluwa, Enoka. 2013. Code-switching by teachers in the second language classroom. International Journal of Arts & Sciences 6(3). 581–598. McMillan, Brian A. & Damian J. Rivers. 2011. The practice of policy: Teacher attitudes toward ‘English only’. System 39(2). 251–263. McMillan, Brian & Miles Turnbull. (2009). Teachers’ use of the first language in French immersion: Revisiting a core principle. In Miles Turnbull & Jennifer Dailey-O’Cain (eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning, 15–34. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.



Non-native teachers’ code-switching in L2 classroom discourse 

 95

Medgyes, Péter. 1999. The non-native teacher. Ismaning, Germany: Hueber Verlag. Mohebbi, Hassan & Sayed Alavi. 2014. An investigation into teachers’ first language use in a second language learning classroom context: A questionnaire-based study. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature 7(4). 57–73. Nagy, Krisztina & Daniel Robertson. 2009. Target language use in English classes in Hungarian primary schools. In Miles Turnbull & Jennifer Dailey-O’Cain (eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning, 66–87. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Phillipson, Robert. 1992. Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rabbidge, Michael & Philip Chappell. 2014. Exploring non-native English speaker teachers’ classroom language use in South Korean elementary schools. TESL-EJ 17(4). Reves, Thea & Péter Medgyes. 1994. The non-native English speaking ESL/EFL teacher’s self-image: An international survey. System 22(3). 353–367. Rinvolucri, Mario. 2001. Mother tongue in the foreign language classroom: why and how. Modern Language Teacher 10(2). 41–44. Sert, Olcay. 2005. The functions of code switching in ELT classroom. The Internet TESL Journal 10(8), available at http://iteslj.org/Articles/Sert-CodeSwitching.html Song, Yanan. 2009. An investigation into L2 teacher beliefs about L1 in China. Prospect: An Australian Journal of TESOL 24(1). 30–39. Storch, Neomy & Gillian Wigglesworth. 2003. Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting? TESOL Quarterly 37. 760–770. Swain, Merrill & Sharon Lapkin. 2000. Task-based second language learning: the uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research 4(3). 251–274. Turnbull, Miles & Katy Arnett. 2002. Teachers’ uses of the target and first languages in second and foreign language classrooms. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22. 204–218. Turnbull, Miles & Jennifer Dailey-O’Cain (eds.). 2009. First language use in second and foreign language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Turnbull, Miles. 2001. There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching, but… The Canadian Modern Language Review 57(4). 531–540. Ustunel, Eda & Paul Seedhouse. 2005. Why that, in that language, right now? Code-switching and pedagogical focus. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15(3). 302–324. Vygotsky, Lev. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wang, Danping & Andy Kirkpatrick. 2012. Code choice in the Chinese as a foreign language classroom. Multilingual Education 2(3). 1–18. White, Erin & Neomy Storch. 2012. En francais s’il vous plait: a longitudinal study of the use of the first language (L1) in French foreign language (FL) classes. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 35(2). 183–202. Widdowson, Henry. 2003. Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yao, Mingfa. 2011. On attitudes to teachers’ code-switching in EFL classes. World Journal of English Language 1(1). 19–28.

96 

 Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo

Recommended reading Cook, Vivian. 2001. Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review 57(3). 403–423. Cook suggests that it is time to open a door that has been firmly shut in language teaching for over a century, namely the systematic use of the first language in the L2 classroom. This paper explores how L1 is used in the EFL context and examines possible justifications for its use. It also describes some of the different ways in which the L1 as a classroom resource might be used more positively by both teachers and students. Additionally, it also outlines teaching methods that actively and deliberately employ the L1 within the classroom. Turnbull, Miles & Jennifer Dailey-O’Cain (eds.). 2009. First language use in second and foreign language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Drawing on sociolinguistic, pedagogical and critical theories, this well-written, readable, comprehensive and thought-provoking volume offers new and fresh perspectives on this controversial issue in applied linguistics and language teaching by providing a state-ofthe-art overview of where research in the field currently stands. This edited publication, which describes diverse empirical studies related to first language use in a variety of second and foreign language contexts, aims to examine the optimal level of L1 use in communicative and immersion classroom settings. Hall, Graham & Guy Cook. 2012. Own-language use in language teaching and learning: state of the art. Language Teaching 45(3). 271–308. This article provides a broad state-of-the-art review of recent and current literature on the role of students’ own-language in L2 classrooms, examining numerous empirical studies conducted so far which describe the extent and functions of own-language use within L2 classrooms. Both theoretical arguments and research findings provide substantial arguments in support of learners’ own-language use in English language teaching, based upon current psycholinguistic and cognitive perspectives, general learning theory and sociocultural approaches. Lin, Angel. 2013. Classroom code-switching: Three decades of research. Applied Linguistics Review 4(1). 195–218. This article provides a detailed review of the historical development of different research paradigms and approaches adopted in studies on classroom code-switching, discussing the major difficulties and problems faced by this particular area of study. A timely discussion of the results of the numerous research studies conducted so far on classroom code-switching is offered. In view of the current limitations in existing studies so far, future directions for research are also suggested so as to achieve new insights into classroom code-switching.



Non-native teachers’ code-switching in L2 classroom discourse 

 97

Questions for reflection and discussion – – – – –

Why is it so important to understand what student teachers actually think about CS? To what extent do you agree with the views expressed by the participating student teachers during their practicum experience? What is your opinion about teacher CS on the basis of the above mentioned considerations? What do you understand by ‘a principled and judicious L1 use’? Do you think experienced teachers think and respond in a different way to inexperienced teachers regarding the CS practice?

Masaki Oda

Chapter 5 Native-Speakerism and the roles of mass media in ELT Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to discuss the interplay among learners’ beliefs, public discourse, and the formulation of language policy in education, with a special attention to the roles of mass media. Studies in media discourse (e.g. Shimizu et al. 2002) suggest that a personal belief often becomes that of a group when it has been agreed and thus shared by others. As this process is repeated, it would become a public opinion, and serve as a de-facto view of the issue. Many policy makers cite public opinions in order to legitimate the policy they are making. This study focuses on the discourses of ‘native-speakerism in ELT’ which has been prominent in the profession in Japan for many years (see Houghton and Rivers 2013). The author will report cases in which the discourses of ELT are constructed, and how the notion of ‘native speakers’ is represented in the discourses, through an analyses of how ELT is talked about by the Japanese general public, by looking at messages on SNS, advertisements of language programs, with which we encounter very frequently in our daily life. From the series of analysis, it was found that the discourses that 1) Japanese teachers of English cannot speak English, and 2) Native speakers can teach English better, are prevailed in the general public with the help of mass media, which gives a great influence on learners’ beliefs, consequently, affect their learning. Finally, the author discusses the roles of ELT professionals suggesting that they should involve in the process more activity, and presents an attempt by a Japanese university which has developed an innovative English language program to overcome the negative influence of ‘native-speakerism’.

Note: The studies presented in this chapter were funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), Kakenhi Grants-in-Aid Scientific Research (C) 21520596 and 25370730. Masaki Oda, Tamagawa University, Tokyo, Japan DOI 10.1515/9781501504143-006

100 

 Masaki Oda

1 Introduction This chapter will discuss the roles of mass media in the formulation of beliefs about English language teaching (ELT). I will particularly focus on the discourses of native speakers and non-native speakers prevailed in the profession of ELT and their impact on the learner beliefs. More specifically, I will attempt to illustrate various cases in which mass media contribute the formation of the discourses of ELT in Japan and subsequently affect the one’s attitudes towards learning English. English Language Teaching (ELT) is one of the areas which receives substantial public attention. Needless to say, the discourses of ELT have been formulated in general public over the periods of time, with the help of mass media. Studies in media discourse (e.g. Shimizu et al. 2002) suggest that a personal belief often becomes that of a group when it has been agreed and thus shared by others. As this process is repeated, it would become a public opinion, and serve as a de-facto view of the issue. However, it is often the case that such discourses are formulated rather deliberately in accordance with an agenda set by those with power (see van Dijk 1996). In other words, the learners themselves are given a very limited piece of information to make their decisions about learning English which has already been filtered by gate keepers (see Watson 1996). The notion of native-speakers is often used as a point of reference when we discuss various issues in ELT. In many cases, native speakers are regarded as the ones whose proficiency is often seen as the goal the learners are expected to achieve, but very few, if any, can achieve it. The label native-speaker itself is also problematic in many ways. Holliday (2005: 6) defines native-speakerism as “an established belief that ‘native-speaker’ teachers represent a ‘Western culture’ from which spring the ideals both of the English language and of English language teaching methodology”. The label native-speaker is often used in contrast to non-native speaker, as the latter is considered a counterpart of the former in ELT profession. This native vs. non-native dichotomy also creates further problems. Non in the term non-native speaker is often perceived as something negative as opposed to the default, standard, native-speaker (see Rampton 1990; Jenkins 2000; Holliday 2005). It is still within a framework of Western ELT discussed above (Holliday 2005) or the world in English (Oda 2007) and thus prevents us from reaching a point where we can start discussing more fundamental issues in learning English. This is what I am interested in exploring in this chapter. The chapter will be divided into four main parts. After the introduction, I will discuss how native-speakerism appears in the general public by presenting a few examples of the contexts in which we encounter the discourses of ELT in our daily life.



Native-Speakerism and the roles of mass media in ELT 

 101

Second, I will present my analysis of advertisements as well as an article from a Japanese newspaper to illustrate the discourses of native (and non-native) speakers as well as other related issues prevailed in mass-media. Next, I will review my previous study on the developments of learner beliefs and their relationship with the discourses of ELT they have encountered at different stages of their lives (Oda 2014). Findings from the interviews conducted to university students in Japan on their learning of English will be discussed with a special attention to the impacts of media discourses on the formulation of their beliefs about learning English. Following the two previous sections, I will argue for more active involvements of ELT professionals to overcome the negative impact of mass-media on teaching and learning English. An example of an attempt by a Japanese university which has developed an innovative English language program to overcome the negative influence of the dichotomy based arguments of native speakerism will be presented to illustrate the areas the ELT professionals can contribute for the improvements without much difficulty.

2 The discourses of ELT and the general public ELT is one of the issues which frequently appear in mass-media. No matter how much each individual is familiar with the details, we can say that many people in Japan are, at least, interested in the issue. In addition, the term native speaker and its negative counterpart, i.e., non-native speaker often appeared in dialogues among the Japanese general public, regardless of whether people know what they actually mean. In order to illustrate the points I will be making in this section, I will present an anecdote which took place at a coffee shop near a well-known private kindergarten in the suburb of Tokyo in an afternoon in spring of 2010. I was writing something on my computer, when two ladies (A and B below) who seemed to have been waiting for their children to finish a day at the kindergarten sat at a table beside mine, and began talking about the figure skating final match at the winter Olympic games in Vancouver, BC, Canada which had finished just a few days ago. In the figure skating final, Yun-na Kim of South Korea won the gold and Mao Asada of Japan won the silver. They were talking about the final match, which was a popular topic in Japan that time. The conversation was in Japanese, but I reconstructed it and translated into English to present the contexts in which the term ‘native speaker’ was used.

102 

 Masaki Oda

A: …So what’s the difference between Gold and Silver? B: You know, what. Mao always responds to the press in Japanese, and she has a translator, but Yun-na responds in English even though she sometimes has accents. A: I agree with you, and I know why. Yunna’s has a Canadian coach, and he is ‘neitibu’ (native speaker of English), but Mao has a Russian coach. B: Now I understand why…

The two ladies were totally strangers to me. They happened to have sat at the table next to mine, so that I could not help ignoring their conversation. I was surprised that their conversation was becoming heated with the presupposition that 1) English is ‘the’ most powerful language in the international arena and 2) Ideal teachers of English are native speakers. However, the big question is how they originally came to believe the ideas. A few days later, I accidently found the following message on a weblog owned by a company who sells materials for learning English for children originally posted in Japanese. …what was the difference between the two genius skaters, Yun-na and Mao. It was English. While Yun-na always responds to interviews in English, Mao does in Japanese most of the time…this is the difference between gold and silver…[as a Japanese] I am embarrassed. Excuse me, but I would say that we Japanese needs to learn English more seriously (“Kim Yun-na to Asada Mao no sa” [The difference between Mao Asada and Yun-na Kim]) The Mommy Talk English Village, blog entry February 27, 2010, trans. from Japanese by MO: http://mommy-talk.jugem.jp/?eid=4502).

While the statement above is nothing but an individual blogger’s opinion and I do not know if there is any direct connection between the two ladies and the blogger, it is possible to say that the ladies and the blogger share the same discourse of native speakers as a ‘common knowledge’ (Neuman et al. 2008). Perhaps, the ladies had encountered the discourses at some point in the past, and such discourses became a part of their beliefs, particularly because they did not even know that if there were other alternatives available. Social Network Services (SNS) which have become popular among the general public in the recent years. Twitter is a popular online SNS in which users can send and read text messages within 140 characters called tweets. The messages are transmitted rapidly and are able to reach different parts of the world in a few seconds. According to the statistics provided by the Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication (MIC), there are approximately 14 million users in Japan alone, in March 2012 (http://www.soumu.go.jp/johotsusintokei/whitepaper/ja/h24/ html/ nc123220.html). One of the unique features of Twitter is that, some celebrities have their own accounts, and thus their ‘tweets’ can be reached directly to their followers, many of whom are people in the general public. While



Native-Speakerism and the roles of mass media in ELT 

 103

some users consider their tweets informal and/or private, it is often the case that many followers take the tweets by celebrities as the most reliable message coming directly from the source. In other words, the influence of the tweets is significant. The next example is taken from a series of the tweets by Mr. Hiroshi Mikitani, CEO of a Japanese e-commerce company who declared to make English as the official language of his company Rakuten (see Mikitani 2012 for details). Mikitani’s twitter account has more than 700,000 followers at the time of writing, therefore, he must have already had a few hundred thousand followers beck in 2010. The series of his tweets below in early, July 2010, had received attention by mass media while some followers had replied him directly on twitter, before Rakuten announced on July 31st, 2010 (The Mainichi Shimbun, July 31, 2010) their plan to make English as the official language of the company and their executive meetings as well as internal documents would become English-only by 2012. Mr. Mikitani’s first tweet on this issue appeared at 1:07 am Japan Standard Time (JST) on July 1, 2010. After 3,000 hours of study, why can’t they speak English ? Why we allow those teachers who cannot speak English to teach ? Let’s look at the world. The Japanese are diligent people.” (https://twitter.com/hmikitani/ retrieved on October 10, 2010, trans. By MO).

Two points were made by Mikitani with this initial tweet on the topic. First he criticizes English teaching in Japan as ineffective, and second, he attacks English teachers who cannot speak with an assumption that many Japanese teachers of English are not good at speaking English themselves. However, he failed to present any evidence to back up his arguments. As a matter of fact these criticisms correspond with what Osanai (1992) pointed out as typical complaints on English language teaching at schools. Mikitani’s tweet above has received a considerable amount of responses, most of which praised his plan. While some praised Mikitani directly that his plan was very important for internationalization of Japan without giving him any specific reasons, others expressed their critiques about ELT in Japan and suggested that the current grammar-based ELT would have to be changed to more communicative one. A few days later, Mikitani tweeted again on his company’s English-only policy in relation to ELT in Japan. The series of three tweets initially appeared at 2:07 am (JST) on July 8, 2010. “Those English teachers who cannot speak English must quit.” (July 8, 2:07) “Hire native speakers”. (July 8, 2:09) “Those English teachers who cannot speak English must be fired. They have to work hard to keep the job”. (July 8, 2:18) (https://twitter.com/hmikitani/ retrieved on October 10, 2010, trans. By MO).

104 

 Masaki Oda

Messages on SNS such as Twitter themselves are not always influential on the general public. However, some users strategically use SNS to exhibit their views directly to the public as an artist who exhibits his/her work in a museum (Yamashita et al. 2005). In the case of Mikitani above, the impacts of his original posting was strong enough to attract his audience’ attention when he announced his plan to make English an official language of his company, Rakuten, a few weeks later. I would also like to point out that Mikitani’s tweets presuppose that 1) Japanese teachers of English cannot speak English, and 2) Native speakers can teach English better, without providing sufficient evidence to the followers. This may be because of the fact that you can only use 140 characters for each tweet, or many users do not even expect to elicit academic discussions through their tweets. For many of the followers, on the other hand, the fact that they have received the information directly through tweets by the source (Mikitani in the above case) makes them believe that it is more reliable. The tweets, rapidly spread in a short time as the followers keep retweeting the messages. An interesting observation can be made from the two sets of examples; a conversation between the two ladies at a coffee shop and Mr. Mikitani’s tweets. Neither the two ladies nor Mr. Mikitani is an expert in ELT, nevertheless, they presuppose that 1) Japanese teachers of English cannot speak English, and 2) Native speakers can teach English better, are shared in both examples. These are the discourses on ELT prevailed among the Japanese general public. Kress (1985: 6–7), for example, defines the discourses as “systematically–organised sets of statements which give expression to the meanings and values of an institution”. When people in general public encounter the discourses of ELT through mass-media without having sufficient backgrounds themselves, it is often the case that the discourses are accepted without any criticism.

3 Mass-media and the discourses of native speaker Reflecting on what we have seen in the two sets of examples presented above, we now need to look at how the discourses on native speakers themselves are disseminated to the Japanese general public through mass-media. There are several different modes of messages concerning ELT to which the general public is exposed. I will particularly focus on advertisements of English language programs at private institutions with which we encounter very frequently in many major cities all over Japan and newspaper articles.



Native-Speakerism and the roles of mass media in ELT 

 105

In the suburbs of large cities in Japan, we were able to observe a major change in landscape in the past few years. At almost all the suburban train stations, we find one or two advertisements of English language classes. We saw a similar phenomenon in the late 1980s during the bubble era, when there were many private English language schools, targeted primarily at adults. The difference between the boom in the 80s and what is happening at present is that we see more and more advertisements targeted at parents who have small children. Now we can also see them online. These advertisements, whether they are online or offline (e.g. posters, billboards), contain both visual and textual messages. Consequently, people are exposed to the combination of both visual and textual messages. Because of the multimodal nature of information presented on the advertisements, the information is more likely to be retained in people’s minds are they are constantly exposed to the same set of messages over and over again. If one uses a train station to commute somewhere, s/he has a constant exposure to the same billboard at the station every day and subsequently, there is more chance for the information to be retained in his/her minds. I have discussed earlier that we are able to observe the prevailing discourses of ELT, including presuppositions that 1) Japanese teachers of English cannot speak English, and 2) Native speakers can teach English better, constantly appear in the general public. Looking at the advertisements of English language programs as well as the newspaper articles on ELT may give as a clue for possible reasons why these discourses are formulated. Scollon and Scollon’s (2005) Geosemiotics provides a framework for analyzing the discourses disseminated widely through mass-media. According to Scollon and Scollon (2005: 108), they were interested in the work on visual semiotics by Kress and van Leeuwen (1996, 2001), particularly the following four general aspects. They are, 1) How are social relationship in the world represented in images?, 2) How are social relationship between the world and the image constructed?, 3) What are the concrete relationship between image representations and textual representations? and 4) How do social actions in the world make use of pictures (images and texts) in taking social actions? (Scollon and Scollon 2005: 108). However, they also admit that their interest in images and texts is “somewhat more narrowly defined than” Kress and van Leeuwen’s (1996, 2001) interest, as Scollon and Scollon focus on more static images. While I recognize that there are some forms of advertisements that are dynamic, for example those on TV, and thus require further consideration for additional variables, the advertisements discussed here are static ones in which messages are represented in combination of visual and textual images.

106 

 Masaki Oda

In order to present some examples for discussion, I would like to refer to my previous study on advertisements of English language programs for children which was presented elsewhere (Oda 2011). In the study, I have looked at about 175 websites of English language programs for children in April 2011. The websites were selected by simply typed a keyword 「児童会話」 (‘Conversation English for children’) or 「児童英語教室」 (’English language classes for children’) for a search on Google. After eliminating duplications, I have looked at the top page of each of the 175 sites. The main purpose was to find out the extent of the contribution of visual images (and a combination of visual and textual images) to the formulation of the discourses concerning ELT, particularly for children. The summary of the study is as follows; First of all, I was able to find out some regularity in the types of messages appeared on the advertisements. In many cases, there are three obligatory areas; 1) Pictures used as symbols, i.e., “Completely arbitrary or conventional sign that do not resemble their meaning and do not point it” (Scollon and Scollon 2005: 27). In other words, people look at these symbols and associate them with something, in most cases, their previous knowledge or experience. 2) Main textual message which serves as a title, or functions to get attention from the audience, and 3) Supporting textual message which serves as supporting information to legitimate the claims made in the advertisements. I will discuss the three components one by one. The first component, the pictures, often transmits a strong message. The pictures used in the advertisements are usually those of adults, many of whom are White young men. There were some women and/or those who are colored, however, there were very few instances in which East-Asian figures appeared in the section. The second component, the main textual message is usually phrases to attract attention from the audience. These ‘attention getters’ are normally targeted at parents as children are too young to decide if they wanted to learn English. The phrases include “Give something valuable to your children” which suggests the parents as if having their children learn English from childhood is always a great asset, or “3 years old: It is not too late to begin”, a more aggressive option which would make parents more anxious. The latter, in combination with visual images would be able to transmit a message strong enough to modify the parents’ beliefs about their children learning English. Such visual images often include a picture of a Japanese child is happily playing with a white young male instructor, which would make the parents believe as if it were the ultimate choice of the children. The third component, the supporting textual message, may not always be apparent at first sight. Unlike the two components above, it plays a supplement role to support the other two. It is often a paragraph in which an expert testifies an advantage of the language program. The expert, who are not necessarily and



Native-Speakerism and the roles of mass media in ELT 

 107

expert of language teaching, can be anyone who is well known among the general public, who are affiliated with an well-known institution, who is in particular professions and/or who is available to talk. (van Ginneken 1998). As a matter of fact, academics are often cited (van Dijk 1993) despite the fact that they are not necessarily influential to the general public directly. From the foregoing, it is possible for me to say that the advertisements can potentially play a major role in forming the beliefs of the learners and/or the teachers. As the advertisers tactically design their advertisements to elicit a better result from their perspectives, it is important for us, the audience, to filter the messages from the advertisements carefully. It is especially true as their messages are often loaded with over-generalizations and/or over-simplifications, if not deliberately manipulated. As far as native-speakerism is concerned, the discourses created through these advertisements may often be misleading. One of the examples is the issues of racism. As Holliday (2005) points out, the definition of the term native speaker itself is problematic. He states that in ELT, racism “is revealed increasingly where the discrimination against ‘non-native speakers’ is connected to skin color (Holliday 2013: 20). He continues that “non-White teachers are taken for ‘non-native speakers’ even if they were born and brought up with English as a first and only language; and White teachers who do not have this background can pass easily as ‘native speakers’” (Holliday 2013: 20, also see Haque and Morgan 2009, Grant and Lee 2009, Lin and Kubota, eds. 2009). This makes the situation more complicated. Although there is no firm reason, many people in the Japanese general public seem to believe that native speakers are better teachers, and for them, native speakers are synonym to White. Consequently, it becomes their common knowledge, even though the neither “native speakers are always better teachers” nor “native speakers are always White” is confirmed as valid. The following article on a major Japanese newspaper, The Nihon Keizai Shimbun (known as Nikkei) also illustrates several problems addressed so far in this section. It is a story about Japanese parents who filed a law suit against an agent how had arranged a paid home-stay program at an American family in Japan (Yamada 2015). The law suit was filed for two reasons; first the parents accused the host mother for her negligence because their son broke his left arm while he was staying. Second, the parents sued the agent for a breach of contract, not because of her son’s injury but because the agent had failed to provide neitibu English only environment. The parents argued that the host mother asked a Japanese girl (who was the host family’s acquaintance) for help at the time the boy was staying, and thus her use of Japanese took away the neitibu English only environment the parents had paid for. The verdict was that the parents lost both

108 

 Masaki Oda

cases. What I was interested in was, however, the fact that some parents accept the discourses prevailed blindly. It is apparent that the influence of the discourses of native speaker on the general public is significant. Yet, it is difficult to trace how the discourses have been formulated and what the origin of the discourses was. In order to deal with the negative influences of the prevailing discourses of ELT and the discourses of native speaker in particular, it would be better if we educate learners themselves, and to some extent, parents and teachers so that they will be aware of how English is really used. In the next section, I will give a brief report on my study on learner beliefs. I believe that it would serve as a starting point for planning a strategy to raise the learners’ awareness of the issues of native speakerism, consequently, it would help the learners, especially in this globalized era.

4 Learner beliefs and language awareness In this section, I will present my study conducted in 2012 on how much language learners’ beliefs and their attitudes towards learning English are influenced by the prevailed discourses of ELT by the Japanese general public to start with. A special attention was paid to 1) the learner’s perceived goal of learning English at different stages of their life, and 2) the learners’ attitudes towards the model of English provided in their classrooms. It was hoped that reflection on their foreign language learning would give opportunities for the learners to give them more reasons for positively engaged in foreign language learning. A motivation for this study was to reveal how native speakerism has been prevailed among the learners, and consequently how it affected their learning of English further. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to seven Japanese third or fourth year undergraduate students majoring in applied linguistics in order to elicit their history of learning foreign languages at the time of the study. I have asked the participants to talk about their beliefs about learning the languages they had at each of the stages of their learning. All the participants were very cooperative and were willing to talk during the interviews. While they had only been instructed to talk about 1) their first encounter with language; 2) their first encounter with a second/foreign language; and anything they remember about learning the language(s). The interviews were recorded and transcribed. The data obtained from the interviews contained valuable pieces of information which I originally had not even thought about. Richards (2009) talks about the importance of data reduction in qualitative studies. While full transcript may be necessary until we understand the data, “a few will find it useful” if the full transcript of all the



Native-Speakerism and the roles of mass media in ELT 

 109

interviews is presented (58–60). Considering the scope of this paper as well as the availability of space, therefore, I will first present the summary of the interviews to contextualize the readers. The outcomes of the interviews can be summarized as follows: 1) Belief about foreign language learning may shift if learners were exposed to additional information related to their language learning at later stages. 2) Their first encounter with English plays an important role in their beliefs about foreign language learning. 3) In the earlier stages, parents’ beliefs (derived from their experience) affect the learners. 4) In schools, teachers play significant roles in formulating one’s beliefs. 5) Mass media play significant roles in later stages. 6) The more diverse the learner’s experience in language learning is, the more options are available to him/her (and thus less chance to give up). The learners’ beliefs about foreign language learning shift constantly over the periods of time. However the shifts can take place only if the learners were exposed to enough alternatives. In other words, they need to legitimate reasons to convince themselves to modify their own beliefs about learning the languages. From the summary above, we can track how native speakerism is integrated in the learners’ beliefs about learning foreign languages as follows. In early years when a learner cannot make decisions of whether or not to learn a language and/or which language to learn, the beliefs of his/her parents play significant roles. The parents’ own beliefs have been formed and modified over times with a strong influence of their parents, teachers, and mass-media. Unless they have some constant exposure to the latest developments of ELT and sufficient backgrounds to make sounds judgments, they end up simply transfer their beliefs to their children. In other words, this is why we often see the cases of the two ladies talking about the relationship between figure skating and English and/or their assumptions about the difference in proficiency in English between those who are taught by a native speaker teacher and those who are not discussed earlier. We do not know if the discourses have been constructed deliberately by someone, or been formulated without anyone’s intention as Dyrberg (1997), a political scientist, stated in his review of the notions of power and their relationship with influence. He stated that the notion of unintended influence or effects of actions “call attention to the problem of unawareness” and discusses the problems involved “when agents can influence each other and be influenced without knowing it” (39). Dyrberg (1997) said so because it is difficult to establish a casual relation between those who influence and those who are influenced. Further-

110 

 Masaki Oda

more, Dyrberg (1997: 39) continued that it “becomes impossible to make a clearcut separation between ‘rational’ and ‘manipulative’ persuasion, since agents are not necessarily aware of what influences their opinions”. As I have discussed so far, the discourses of native-speakers have appeared from somewhere, and have been accumulated and modified over a period of time. At the same time, a personal belief often becomes that of a group when it has been agreed and thus shared by others. As this process is repeated, it would become a public opinion, and serve as a de-facto view of the issue, as studies in media discourse (e.g. Shimizu et al. 2002: 71–73) suggest. One way to overcome the negative consequence of native speakerism in learning English, therefore, is to focus on the item 6) “the more diverse the learner’s experience in language learning is, the more options are available to him/her. (And thus less chance to give up)” above. In other words, we need to find an effective way to expose the learners to more alternatives than 1) Japanese teachers of English cannot speak English, and 2) Native speakers can teach English better, so that they can rely more on their own experience to decide what to do. In the final section of the chapter, I will present an example of an attempt by a university English program in Japan which has overcome various negative impacts of native speakerism by focusing on the learners’ beliefs about learning foreign languages and encourage them to make more reliable decisions on their learning by providing them with various alternatives.

5 Overcoming native-speakerism: A challenge of a university English language program In April 2014, Tamagawa University in Tokyo, Japan established the Center of English as a Lingua Franca. It was perhaps the first university language teaching unit in Asia with ELF in its name. After two years’ pilot programs including trials and errors, the center began to offer English for General Academic Purposes (EGAP) courses to five of the eight colleges in the university. The total enrollment in 2014 was around 1,800. The program was further expanded in 2015 with 2,500 enrollments from all eight colleges (with an exception of two departments). In 2015 academic year, there are 13 full time instructors (including three who are co-appointed with other colleges) and nearly 30 part-time instructors. What is noteworthy about the teaching staff is that it is truly a multicultural team; teachers are from different parts of the world and have 14 different first languages. About 50% of them are native speakers of English, all of whom have substantial experience in living in the regions in which English is not a dominant language



Native-Speakerism and the roles of mass media in ELT 

 111

and/or learning a foreign language beyond intermediate level. While it is possible for us to say that our students enjoy being exposed to different varieties of English, we do not want them to distinguish among the varieties based solely on geography, for example, American English or Indian English. We would like them to be exposed to different types of English as it is the case in the real world, and find out what is important for them when they communicate with someone in English as a ‘lingua franca’. In the 2014 academic year, a majority of the students who enrolled in the program indicated that they were satisfied with the program (see Okada et al. 2015 for details). Several new attempts have been made in connection with the establishment of the center, however, the most significant one was its employment policy. The hiring committee aggressively challenged native speakerism prevailed in the Japanese general public by explicitly eliminating the native vs. non-native speaker dichotomy from its hiring criteria. The university has its general requirements for hiring academic staff, e.g. a post-graduate degree and a substantial number of publications and conference presentations. In addition, each academic discipline has to specify additional requirements. Many Japanese universities recruit their academic staff on JREC-IN portal (https://jrecin.jst.go.jp/) administrated by Japan Science Technology Agency. It lists hundreds of university teaching positions including those of ELT. While the term ‘native speakers’ are banned from job advertisements in many places (e.g. TESOL International) internationally, we still see lots of English language teaching positions which require ‘native speakers’ or ‘native speaker competence’ on this site as though they are equivalent to academic credentials like MA or Ph.D.. There is nothing wrong for an applicant of an ELT position is a native speaker. However, it is important for all of us to be aware of the fact that being a native speaker does not necessarily qualify one as a good teacher. We, therefore, established a clear hiring policy of instructors replacing native speaker – non-native speaker distinction. After several revisions, we came up with a description expert users of English as requirement, following Rampton (1990). This move, however, was not enough. While native speakers continued to apply for the positions, we often received inquiries requesting us to clarify if non-native speakers were really eligible to apply. Therefore, we had to add a footnote saying that “whether or not the applicant is a native speaker is not important at all”. Although this should be a common sense in the profession, we faced the reality that a majority in the ELT profession in Japan did not think so by default. The most remarkable change in population of applicants, however, was the increase in those who are neither native speakers nor Japanese nationals. No matter how highly qualified they were, their value as resources had often been

112 

 Masaki Oda

overlooked because of the fact that they were not ‘native speakers’. Fortunately, it turned out that the teachers from this group have helped us shape the new ELF program.

6 Conclusion In this chapter, I have talked about the roles of mass media in the formulation of beliefs about English language teaching (ELT). A special attention was paid to the discourses of native speakers and non-native speakers prevailed in the profession of ELT with a special reference to Japan and their impact on the learner beliefs. I have first discussed how native-speakerism appears in the general public, by presenting a few examples in which we encounter the discourses of ELT in our daily life including small talks and SNS. Second, I have presented my analysis of advertisements as well as an article from a Japanese newspaper to illustrate the discourses of native (and non-native) speakers as well as other related issues prevailed in mass-media. Next, I have presented my previous study on the developments of learner beliefs and their relationship with the discourses of ELT they have encountered at different stages of their lives (Oda 2014). Findings from the interviews conducted to university students in Japan on their learning of English were discussed. A special attention was paid to the impacts of media discourses on the formulation of their beliefs about learning English. Following the two previous sections, I have argued for more active involvements of ELT professionals to overcome the negative impact of mass-media on learning and teaching of English. An example of an attempt by a Japanese university which has developed an innovative English language program to overcome the negative impact of the dichotomy based arguments of native speakerism was presented to illustrate the areas in which the ELT professionals can contribute for the improvements without much difficulty. There are still various challenges we have to face in years to come. However, as this chapter has suggested, the most effective way to overcome the negative impact of native-speakerism through mass-media is not only to find the source of the discourses and modify them, but also to make the learners aware of the possible negative consequences of accepting the prevailing discourses uncritically. ELT professionals should make their best effort to always provide the learners (parents and teachers if necessary) with various options available for their learning to choose from.



Native-Speakerism and the roles of mass media in ELT 

 113

7 References Dyrberg, Torben Bech. 1997. The circular structure of power: Politics, identity, community. London: Verso. Grant, Rachel. A. & Incho Lee. 2009. The ideal English speaker: A juxtaposition of globalization and language policy in South Korea and racialized language attitudes in the United States. In Ryuko Kubota & Angel Lin (eds.), Race, culture, and identities in second language education: Exploring critically engaged practice, 44–63. London: Routledge. Haque, Eve & Brian Morgan. 2009. Un/marked pedagogies: A dialogue on race in EFL and ESL settings. In Ryuko Kubota & Angel Lin (eds.), Race, culture, and identities in second language education: Exploring critically engaged practice, 271–285. London: Routledge. Holliday, Adrian. 2005. The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holliday, Adrian. 2013. ‘Native speaker’ teachers and cultural beliefs. In Stephanie Ann Houghton & Damian J. Rivers (eds.), Native-Speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education, 17–26. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Houghton, Stephanie Ann & Damian J. Rivers (eds.). 2013. Native-Speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Jenkins, Jennifer. 2000. The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kim Yun-na to Asada Mao no sa” [The difference between Mao Asada and Yun-na Kim] The mommy talk English village, blog entry February 27, 2010, http://mommy-talk.jugem. jp/?eid=4502) Retreived on March 10, 2010. Kress, Gunther. 1985. Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice. Melbourne: Deakin University Press. Kress, Gunther & Theo van Leeuwen. 1996. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge. Kress, Gunther & Theo van Leeuwen. 2001. Multimodality. London: Routledge. Kubota, Ryuko & Angel Lin (eds.). 2009. Race, culture, and identities in second language education: Exploring critically engaged practice. London: Routledge. Mikitani, Hiroshi. [hmikitani] (2010, July 1 and 8) https://twitter.com/hmikitani/ retrieved on October 10, 2010. Mikitani, Hiroshi. 2012. Takaga eigo. [Englishization]. Tokyo: Kodansha. Neuman, W. Russel, Just. Marion R. & Ann N. Crigler. 2008. Nyusu wa donoyouni rikai sareruka [Common knowledge: News and the construction of political meaning]. Translated by Miki Kawabata & Kazunari Yamada., Tokyo: Keio University Press. (Original work published 1992). Oda, Masaki. 2007. Globalization or the world in English: Is Japan ready to face the waves? International Multicultural Research Journal 1(2). 119–192. Oda, Masaki. 2011. The discourse of foreign language activities at Japanese primary schools: A geo-semiotic approach. Paper presented at 2011 International Society of Language Studies Conference. Aruba, Netherlands Antilles, June 23, 2011. Oda, Masaki. 2014. Reconditioning the conditions for second language learning: Social conditions and learner motivation. In Kiwan Sung & Bernard Spolsky (eds.), Conditions for English language teaching and learning in Asia, 105–125. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

114 

 Masaki Oda

Okada, Tricia, Brett Milliner, Ethel Ogane, Andrew Leichsenring, Mitsuko Imai, Travis Cote & Paul McBride. 2015. A report of the center for English as a Lingua Franca (CELF) for Academic Year 2014–2015. The Center for ELF Journal 1. 9–24. Osanai, Takeshi. 1992. Gakko Eigo Kyoiku Masukomi Taisakuron. [How should schools deal with criticism of ELT by mass-media] Gandai Eigo Kyoiku. [Modern English Teaching] 29(6). 38–40. Rampton, M. B. H. 1990. Displacing the ‘native speaker’: expertise, affiliation, and inheritance. ELT Journal 44(2). 97–101. Richards, Lyn. 2009. Handling qualitative Dara. 2nd Ed. London: Sage Press. Scollon, Ron & Suzie Wong Scollon. 2003. Discourses in place: Language in the material world. London: Routledge. Shimizu, Hideo, Nobuo Hayashi, Hideo Takeichi & Kenta Yamada. 2002. Masu Komyunikesyon Gairon. [Introduction to Mass Communication] 5th ed. Tokyo: Gakuyo Shobo. van Dijk, Teun A. 1993. Elite discourse and racism. London: Sage Press. van Dijk, Teun A. 1996. Discourse, power and access. In Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis, 84–104. London: Routledge. van Ginneken, Jaap. 1998. Understanding global news. London: Sage Press. Watson, James. 1998. Media communication: An introduction to theory and process. First edition. London: Palgrave McMillan. Yamada, K. (2015, May 27) ‘Kokunai Rygaku’ suteisaki ni Nihonjin: Keiyaku ihan ni toeruka. [A Japanese speaking person in the host family in English immersion program: Can we file a law suit?] The Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Retrieved fron http://www.nikkei.com/article/ on July 31, 2015.

Recommended reading Houghton, Stephanie Ann & Damian J. Rivers (eds.). 2013. Native-Speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. One of the best available thematic anthologies focusing on native-speakerism. 18 chapters include cases of native-speakerism in schools, employment policies and practice, as well as the discussions of native-speakerism from the perspectives of discourse and ideology. While cases are mostly those from Japan, this is certainly a good volume to grasp the wide range of the issues of ‘native-speakerism’ particularly in ELT. Holliday, Adrian. 2005. The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. A critical account for ELT world-wide including a through discussion on ‘native-speakerism’ across the volume. The author argues against uncritical acceptance of Western TESOL and thus questions Native speaker – non-native speaker dichotomy. The volume can serve as additional sources to help learners (teachers, parents) to make decisions about their learning of English. Kubota, Ryuko & Angel Lin (eds.). 2009. Race, culture, and identities in second language education: Exploring critically engaged practice. London: Routledge. A valuable collection of chapters dealing with the relationship between race and language education. The volume addresses how racism affects, both overtly and covertly, various



Native-Speakerism and the roles of mass media in ELT 

 115

issues of language education including learner identity, materials, curriculum as well as teacher education. Rampton, M. B. H. 1990. Displacing the ‘native speaker’: expertise, affiliation, and inheritance. ELT Journal 44(2). 97–101. One of the classic articles which addresses the issues presented in this volume, providing an alternative framework to native vs. non-native speaker dichotomy. Scollon, Ron & Suzie Wong Scollon. 2003. Discourses in place: Language in the material world. London: Routledge. Although this book does neither address native speakers nor language teaching in particular, it is a good introduction to social semiotics. Recommended for those who want to explore the issues of visual messages in this chapter further, but have little background.

Questions for reflection and discussion – –

–

–

–

Observe advertisements of foreign language programs in your community (either online or in print). Discuss how visual messages are used in relation to textual messages. Search a hashtag #native speaker (or equivalent in other languages) on SNS such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and find out what kind of messages are associated with it. Then discuss their influence on the general public’s understanding of foreign language teaching. Reflect on your experience in learning a foreign language. Discuss what the most influential factor when you made a decision on the choice of a language to learn and/or the goal of learning the language was. Collect job advertisements for teaching positions for foreign language programs. Discuss advantages and disadvantages for including Native vs. Non-native speaker dichotomy as a qualification. Go to the website of foreign language programs at institutions in your region. Then, find out five keywords including ‘native speaker’ which appear in their descriptions frequently. Discuss the appropriateness of those words and suggest possible revisions if necessary.

Part II Non-native L2 teachers’ emotions and perceptions and implications for teacher education

Mikyoung Lee/Paul A. Schutz/Stephen van Vlack

Chapter 6 Non-native English-speaking teachers’ anxieties and insecurities: Self-perceptions of their communicative limitations Abstract: In recent years, empirical research on non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs) has increased; however, there has been little attention to their affective experiences in the classroom. In this chapter, we present research designed to investigate NNESTs’ self-perceived English proficiency and their emotional experiences, in particular, their anxieties and insecurities stemmed from their self-perceived lack of communication abilities. Twenty NNESTs in South Korea completed a self-perceived English proficiency questionnaire and were interviewed regarding their anxieties, insecurities, or inferiority feelings as well as strategies they used to reduce those emotional experiences. The findings and discussion are presented in detail.

1 Introduction Research on teachers’ emotions is important in order to promote teachers’ lives as well as to guide teachers’ instruction in class, which might directly affect student learning and overall teaching quality (Frenzel et al. 2009). Although empirical research on teacher emotions is increasing (e.g., Schutz and Zembylas 2009), most researchers have conducted studies in general educational contexts. As such, there has been little research investigating how language teachers approach or perceive the affective domain in the classroom (Cowie 2011). It is crucial to explore the affective domain focusing on language teachers’ perspectives, because this insight may provide language teachers with understanding about their attitudes toward students and may influence how they teach to promote more effective language learning and teaching environments (Schutz and Lee 2014).

Mikyoung Lee, University of Munich, Germany Paul A. Schutz, University of Texas at San Antonio, USA Stephen van Vlack, Sookmyung Women’s University, South Korea DOI 10.1515/9781501504143-007

120 

 Mikyoung Lee/Paul A. Schutz/Stephen van Vlack

As a result of globalization, the proportion of non-native English speakers to natives has been steadily increasing with the rapid expansion of English use as a lingua franca (Graddol 1999; Arva and Medgyes 2000; Crystal 2003), and non-native speakers have become the majority of English language teachers in the world (Canagarajah 2005; Moussu and Llurda 2008). Braine (2010) further mentioned that 80% of the English teachers consisted of non-native speakers worldwide. This trend has encouraged researchers to approach issues associated with non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs) (Selvi 2014). However, there is still a gap in the research on NNESTs’ affective experiences such as anxieties and insecurities that derive from their lack of communicative confidence. Thus, the research presented in this chapter fills an important gap in the current literature by focusing on NNESTs’ emotional experiences. There is another reason why researchers need to consider language teachers’ affective sides in research. To begin with, considering students’ emotions in foreign language learning (FLL) is particularly important compared to other subjects, because students’ self-image becomes vulnerable if they do not possess the language skills necessary to express themselves (Arnold 2011). Since teachers’ emotions are transferrable to students (Frenzel et al. 2009), paying attention to teachers’ emotions is also critical to understand students’ emotions in FLL. In order to facilitate students’ language learning, language teachers are supposed to empathize with students’ learning difficulties and motivate students more actively compared to other subjects’ teachers (Mousavi 2007). They are not only knowledge transferors but also communicators with students or caregivers for students (Arnold 1999). In addition, these teachers are asked to deal with other tasks such as student evaluations, class preparation, administrative work, and regular meetings with parents who show considerable interest in the improvement of their child’s language and so forth (Mousavi 2007). As such, these expectations have the potential to affect language teachers not only physically but also psychologically as well. Moreover, Cowie (2011) claimed that the emotional aspect in language teaching is a key aspect of becoming a successful teacher. Therefore, it is very important to pay more attention to English language teachers’ emotional experiences in addition to other subjects’ teachers. In particular, teachers’ self-perceptions about themselves tend to affect the ways they teach; so, it is significant to examine how they perceive themselves as professionals (Richards and Lockhart 1994). In terms of research on self-perceptions of NNESTs, most existing studies have been conducted with over 1,200 NNESTs from various countries (Braine 2010). However, little empirical attention was given to NNESTs in South Korea. In this chapter we will discuss NNESTs’ affective experiences, in particular, their anxieties and insecurities due to their self-perceptions of their communicative limitations through the results from



Non-native English-speaking teachers’ anxieties and insecurities 

 121

interviewing 20 NNESTs in South Korea. We also offer some strategies in order to alleviate self-perceptions of anxieties, insecurities, or inferiority feelings among NNESTs.

2 NNESTs’ self-perception Reflecting on previous studies of the self-perceptions of NNESTs, a number of researchers have suggested that NNESTs experience anxieties, insecurities, or a sense of inferiority because of their self-perceived inadequate language proficiency (e.g. Brinton 2004; Horwitz 1996; Medgyes 1999; Mousavi 2007; Rajagopalan 2005; Reves and Medgyes 1994; Samimy and Brutt-Griffler 1999; Takahashi 2014). As Takahashi (2014) discussed, for example, Brinton (2004) found that pre-service NNESTs were not confident in class due to their perceived insufficient language skills. Rajagopalan (2005) revealed that NNESTs’ self-perception of English proficiency, rather than their actual English abilities, plays a key role in establishing their confidence in teaching. Horwitz (1996) reported that the majority of NNESTs experienced considerable levels of anxiety or feelings of insecurity in terms of self-perceived language proficiency. This was related to their lack of confidence about their language ability rather than their actual language proficiency, in line with Rajagopalan’s (2005) finding. Medgyes (1999: 15) also argued that NNESTs constantly suffer from the “feeling of underachievement”, when they compare themselves with native English teachers. He pointed out that the sense of inferiority in relation to native speakers is a significant element discouraging NNESTs and inducing constant stress while teaching English. Inconsistent with previous findings, Abe (2011) who investigated the self-perceptions of NNESTs teaching English in Thailand presented interesting results. The participants had positive self-perceptions of themselves, showing high confidence in their teaching. They also evaluated their language proficiency levels as high and felt comfortable while teaching English, although they realized some limitations in English language skills such as pronunciation, vocabulary, pragmatic knowledge, and accuracy in grammar. Unlike the NNESTs in other studies, the participants in Abe’s (2011) study believed that they had the ability to teach English just as well as NNESTs and did not suffer from answering students’ unexpected questions. They believed that language teachers who speak more than one language could understand learners’ difficulties better than those who speak only one language. Since they themselves went through a difficult time while learning another language, they were able to empathize with their students about their learning hardships by sharing their experiences and strategies in learning

122 

 Mikyoung Lee/Paul A. Schutz/Stephen van Vlack

another language with students. As such, they appreciated NNESTs’ strengths well, which might be the main reason why they had positive self-perceptions of themselves as English teachers. As Reves and Medgyes (1994) claimed, a constant realization of their communicative limitations seems to be the strongest factor influencing NNESTs’ self-perceptions and teaching behaviors or attitudes. In other words, their low self-confidence in using English may cause a poor self-image, which might further aggravate their language proficiency. This might in turn cause NNESTs to experience stronger feelings of inferiority. The NNESTs participants in Reves and Medgyes’s (1994) study reported that they felt linguistic deficiencies and experienced difficulties in all aspects of English use such as listening, speaking, reading, writing, vocabulary, pronunciation and so on. However, in general the higher the NNESTs’ English proficiency level was, the less self-conscious and insecure they were. Other researchers also suggested that teachers’ lack of English proficiency was related to their lack of confidence in teaching English, which in turn leads to ineffective teaching (Butler 2004; Mirsanjari, Karbalaei, and Afraz 2013; Nunan 2003). In particular, NNESTs’ self-perceptions about their English language were significantly associated with their confidence when teaching English (e.g., Samimy 2000; Shim 2003).

3 Research questions Taking previous research into consideration, the present research investigated NNESTs’ self-perceived English proficiency levels and their affective experiences, in particular, their anxieties and insecurities stemmed from their self-perceived lack of communication skills in English among twenty NNESTs in Korea. Given that the relationship between lack of communication skills and affective or emotional experiences such as anxieties, insecurities, or inferiority feelings has not been thoroughly investigated in the previous studies, the present research attempted to address the following research questions: 1. What are the levels of self-perceived English proficiency of NNESTs in Korea? 2. What are the anxieties or insecurities issues that NNESTs experience? 3. What kind of strategies do NNESTs use to alleviate anxieties or feelings of insecurities?



Non-native English-speaking teachers’ anxieties and insecurities 

 123

4 Method 4.1 Participants A total of N = 20 NNESTs (age M = 33.75, SD = 5.99, 100% female) participated in this research. Sixteen participants were master’s students in the department of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) at one university in Seoul, South Korea, and four participants were graduates from the same TESOL master’s course. The participants had an average of 7.30 years (SD = 5.86) of teaching experience, with a range of 1 to 21 years. Twelve of them had studied English or lived in an English-speaking country for 6.42 years (SD = 7.48) on average, with a range of 1 to 26 years, and eight participants had no experiences of staying in an English-speaking country. They were teaching English in various places such as elementary school, secondary school, university, and private institutes.

4.2 Measures The present research employs both quantitative and qualitative research methods, consisting of a questionnaire for the quantitative method and an interview for the qualitative data. Considering the need for additional data-driven research methods in NNESTs studies (Moussu and Llurda 2008), the present research collected both quantitative and qualitative data to complement previous research. Background questionnaire. A background questionnaire was used to obtain the following information: gender, age, educational background, experiences of studying English or living in an English-speaking country and length of time spent there, teaching experiences, and workplaces. Self-perceived English proficiency level. The questionnaire of self-perceived English proficiency level was slightly modified based on Butler (2004) and Chacon (2005). It consisted of twelve questions in order to assess the participants’ self-perceived English proficiency levels in terms of speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Each scale included three items (speaking, e.g., I can express and support my opinions in English when speaking about general topics; listening, e.g., I can understand when two English-speakers talk at a normal speed; reading, e.g., I can understand English magazines, newspapers, and popular novels; writing, e.g., I can easily write business and personal letters in English and can always find the right words that I want to say). Participants responded on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

124 

 Mikyoung Lee/Paul A. Schutz/Stephen van Vlack

Interview. The main purpose of this research was to explore participants’ self-perceptions and emotional experiences, in particular, their anxieties and insecurities as NNESTs. Thus, we collected interview data to find out more about participants’ perception of their emotions, thoughts, and beliefs (Denzin 1989; Patton 2002). In addition, the interviews were used to supplement previous research methods (Moussu and Llurda 2008). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each participant. Participants were assured of the confidentiality of their responses. The interviews were conducted in a university office and recorded under participants’ permission. The interview lasted 15 ~ 30 minutes and contained three core questions: (1) It is common for NNESTs to experience anxieties or insecurities while teaching English. What might be the main reasons for that? (2) As an NNEST, tell me about the situations that you have felt anxieties, insecurities, or inferiority feelings. (3) What kinds of strategies have you tried to reduce anxieties or feelings of insecurities? The interviews were transcribed by the first author and used for data analysis. Each interview script was read thoroughly and all answers relevant to our research interests were categorized.

5 Results 5.1 Self-perceived English proficiency levels The participants rated their proficiency levels as high overall, with an average of 4.03(SD =.57)/3.85 (SD =.70)/3.98(SD =.72)/4.00 (SD =.74) out of 5.00 in speaking/ listening/reading/writing respectively. Among all the variables such as gender, age, educational background, experiences of studying English or living in an English-speaking country and length of time spent there, teaching experiences, and workplaces, only the length of time spent in an English-speaking country was positively related to the participants’ self-perceived English proficiency levels (r = .66, p < .01, r2 = .44).

5.2 Anxieties or insecurities issues for NNESTs due to their self-perceived lack of communication skills In the interviews the participants identified their anxieties or feelings of insecurity due to their communicative limitations, although they evaluated their proficiency



Non-native English-speaking teachers’ anxieties and insecurities 

 125

level as high in the questionnaire. We categorized their responses based on the specific origins of anxieties or feelings of insecurities. Their anxieties originated largely from their students and colleagues as well as other potential reasons.

From students Twelve participants out of 20 talked about their experiences of anxieties because of their students in class who are more fluent in speaking English than the participants. They felt anxieties or nervousness mainly in the following specific situations: – when they teach a high advanced class where most of the students had lived in an English-speaking country; – when one or two students who are more fluent in English than teachers are in their class and these students criticize teachers’ communication mistakes in front of whole class; – when they feel they are being judged by the students especially in an advanced level class; – when students ask unexpected questions and teachers cannot think of appropriate words to answer; – when students ask culture-related questions, some teachers are not confident in answering them (they think this is because they did not have experiences in living abroad); – when they are not sure the right spelling of the words and have to write them on the board; – when adults students have more background knowledge in certain content areas than teachers, so sometimes teachers do not know the words the students know Here are some of the participants’ comments when asked about what situations caused their anxieties or the sense of insecurities due to their lack of English proficiency: …umm…especially, in an advanced class, there were a few students who lived in an English-speaking country for a long time and had high proficiency in speaking English. I felt so anxious and nervous, when I couldn’t think of appropriate words to answer their unexpected questions, although I thought I had prepared the class well…when I made mistakes, for example, when I made a mistake in pronunciation, some students were picking me on, saying “Teacher, you are wrong in pronouncing that word…Then I got so embarrassed… I felt like I was being judged by my students, and worried what if my students looked down on me because of this situation…

126 

 Mikyoung Lee/Paul A. Schutz/Stephen van Vlack

From colleagues Five participants among 20 have experienced the emotion of anxieties and felt insecurities from their coworkers in the following situations: – when they have to communicate in English in front of other NNESTs who possess higher proficiency levels than themselves; – in conversations with native English teachers, they are worried if they look kind of stupid because of their lack of communication skills although the contents might be good; – when native English teachers criticize the NNESTs’ English mistakes Here are some of the participants’ comments: …Once, I had a colleague who was more fluent in speaking than me, also she had a higher degree from a famous university abroad…when I had to talk with her in English in front of other colleagues, I was not confident …and I felt insecure…I become self-conscious and kind of… nervous, when I have a conversation with a native English teacher…umm…maybe my contents about what I’m going to say might be good, but I think my proficiency level is not high enough to completely explain the contents. I’m anxious, thinking what if I look stupid to native English teachers…

Other potential reasons In addition to the situations above derived from their lack of communication skills, the participants in this research experienced anxieties in other situations such as; – when they are not sure whether they are doing a good job in class or not; – when students look bored with their class; – when the class is going differently than teachers expected; – when students do not follow what teachers prepared; – when they are not sure if their students understand what teachers are teaching; – when they did not prepare for the class completely; – when they think about how parents’ feedback about their class will be Here are some of the participants’ comments: …when I can see my students are being bored with the class…well, you can see they are not smiling, they look unhappy…Then I become worried because in this situation I become unsure if I’m doing a good job in teaching my students…one day I went to class without



Non-native English-speaking teachers’ anxieties and insecurities 

 127

a thorough preparation due to my personal situation, I was so nervous during the whole class…I couldn’t stop thinking what if my students ask something that I didn’t prepare…

5.3 Strategies to manage anxieties or feelings of insecurities Regardless of their proficiency levels, the participants have tried to apply five main strategies such as keeping self-confidence, preparing classes thoroughly, utilizing other resources (e.g., native English-speaking teachers (NESTs), students who are proficient in English), improving their English proficiency, and engaging with self-supported groups, in order to cope with their anxieties or feelings of insecurity derived from lack of communication skills.

Keeping self-confidence More than half of the participants emphasized that being self-confident is very important to cope with their anxieties or insecurities. They acknowledged their strengths as well as limitations as NNESTs. They thought they could understand students well and empathize with difficulties in learning a foreign language because they share linguistic and cultural aspects with their students. They also thought that it is natural for them not to be as fluent as native speakers because English is their second language, although they reported experiencing anxieties or insecurities because of their self-perceived lack of English proficiency. For them it is understandable that they cannot answer all the questions raised by students and they can make mistakes in English. They stated that if they cannot answer on the spot or they make a mistake, they can admit it to students honestly and tell them they would check after class and let them know in the next class. They can also tell students that students can learn from teachers’ mistakes. Thus, they did not think that they have to feel inferior only because they are not perfect in English like native speakers, which encourages themselves to keep self-confidence. They also mentioned that they are professionally trained English teachers, so it is important to try to be confident as teachers and not to be intimidated, even though there might be some students who are more fluent in speaking English than teachers and they could be a challenge to teachers. Here is an example comment of the participants: …I think it is very important for us, NNESTs, to keep self-confidence in our teaching. I don’t think we could be exactly the same as NESTs, for example, in speaking but we do have other assets that NESTs don’t possess. So, if we are confident in ourselves as an English teacher, we would not be so anxious or nervous just because of our lack of communication skills.

128 

 Mikyoung Lee/Paul A. Schutz/Stephen van Vlack

Class preparation Twelve participants out of 20 highlighted the importance of thorough preparation for lessons in order to reduce their anxieties or insecurities in class. They spent more preparation time particularly for the more advanced level class than other classes. Furthermore, they made a lot of effort to select topics or contents so that they can lead a class more effectively and smoothly. Here is an example comment of the participants: …For me, I spend more than enough time on preparing my lesson plans. Then I think I can cover even unexpected questions by my students. Also, I pay a special attention to choose topics so that my students would not become bored in my class. If I see my students having fun in my class, I wouldn’t feel anxious even though, let’s say, I can’t answer some of their questions clearly.

Utilizing other sources Seven teachers among 20 have asked for help to NESTs to manage the situation that they encountered some unknown words or they cannot answer students’ questions in co-teaching class. They also thought that it could be a good strategy to ask the students who have high English proficiency about some questions brought by other students, instead of trying to answer all the questions themselves. Moreover, they thought that it is important to have a thought that they can also learn English from native colleagues or even from students, to alleviate their anxieties. Here is an example comment of the participants: To be honest, sometimes we could be intimidated by certain students who are more fluent in speaking than us, but I think…on the other hand, they could be a really useful resource for us. I mean…for some questions from students we can ask the advanced level students to answer them instead of us answering. This could be very encouraging all the students to learn English together and also promote good rapport between the teacher and the students. I think, this kind of atmosphere could alleviate our potential anxieties in class.

Improving English proficiency Seven participants out of 20 reported that NNESTs should make a constant effort to improve their language abilities in order to cope with their anxieties or inferiority feelings. They recommended practicing English with some materials they are interested in; for example, they can watch English films or dramas on the Internet.



Non-native English-speaking teachers’ anxieties and insecurities 

 129

They also mentioned that taking English courses or making native foreign friends could be good ways to improve their English proficiency. If they were wrong in the use of some vocabulary items or pronunciation in class, they could correct themselves after class perhaps by asking native teachers and practice so that they would not make the same mistakes in the future. More importantly, teachers recognized the significance of continuous learning and practicing English in their free time. Here is an example comment of the participants: I think…we are also students who should still keep learning English. We have to put an extra effort to learn English for our life on top of teaching itself. If we recognize our weakness in some English skills, I think we have to try to learn continuously. If we improve our proficiency this way, we won’t be that anxious because of our lack of English proficiency.

Self-supported group Four participants were engaged in a self-supported group in their schools and found out that this group has been really helpful to reduce their anxieties or feelings of insecurities. They have been meeting once a month in a comfortable atmosphere. They talk about things that happened in class, share some tips or strategies to deal with unexpected situations causing their anxieties, and exchange their opinions after reading some English books. Besides, some teachers mentioned that simply talking with other teachers before or after class was very effective to cope with their insecurities in class by gathering information about certain classes or students. Here is an example comment of the participants: I think I’m lucky because we have a self-supported group in our school. We meet once a month. When we meet, we simply talk about some situations, like…some problems or some students in our classes. Also we discuss how to manage some difficult situations…we listen to others’ experiences or advice. Based on my experience, this kind of self-supported group is very helpful to cope with anxieties or worries as NNESTs.

Other strategies The participants also presented some other strategies which are not categorized above. They tried to think first before answering questions, and speak slowly and clearly, which allowed them to stay calm and reduce anxieties stemming from lack of communication skills. They can give students more opportunities to think and talk rather than use teacher talk a lot by providing particular activities. They also thought that sometimes it would be even better for them to say only really

130 

 Mikyoung Lee/Paul A. Schutz/Stephen van Vlack

necessary things to handle their anxious situations in class. Particularly, they thought that it would be meaningful for them to let students know “We teachers are also trying to learn English all the time”. According to them, teachers’ positive attitudes about learning English constantly can produce good rapport with students, which would reduce teachers’ anxieties or inferiority feelings as NNESTs.

6 Discussion The participants possessed positive self-perceptions about themselves unlike the NNESTs in previous studies, which reported negative perceptions of themselves (Brinton 2004; Butler 2007; Jenkins 2005; Medgyes 1999; Mousavi 2007; Rajagopalan 2005; Tang 1997). The majority of the participants described that they had a high English proficiency level, although their proficiency levels varied among four different language skills. They also perceived their strengths and weaknesses as being NNESTs, and had the belief that they could teach English as efficiently as NESTs. Moreover, as Reves and Medgyes (1994) asserted, the NNESTs with higher qualifications might be confronted with fewer communication difficulties in English. Considering our participants who were master’s students in TESOL or English teachers with a master’s degree in TESOL, we can assume that the better trained NNESTs are, the more self-confident they would be in class (Reves and Medgyes 1994). It is very important for them to have the positive attitude about themselves, because positive self-perception is necessary for teachers, given that the way they perceive themselves greatly impacts teachers’ behaviors while teaching (Richards and Lockhart 1994). Additionally we found a positive correlation between the period of staying in an English-speaking country and the self-perceived proficiency level among the participants. This indicates that length of time spent in English-speaking countries was a significant factor in influencing NNESTs’ self-perceptions, supporting the previous studies (Dalton-Puffer, Kaltenboeck, and Smit 1997; Llurda 2008). Another study by Reves and Medgyes (1994) also evidenced that among NNESTs those who had spent longer periods in English-speaking countries, assuming they had more frequent contact with native English speakers, had obtained more fluent expressions and more authentic communicative competence. In terms of anxieties or insecurities issues for NNESTs, we realized from the interviews that the participants experienced anxieties or feelings of insecurities because of their lack of communication abilities, although they evaluated their proficiency level as high in the questionnaire. Interestingly the NNESTs in the present research reported that they felt more anxious about their communica-



Non-native English-speaking teachers’ anxieties and insecurities 

 131

tion abilities in English not because of comparison with native English teachers, which was common in previous studies (e.g., Medgyes 1999; Maum 2003; Butler 2007), but because of students who have lived in an English-speaking country and were more fluent in English than the NNESTs. This finding is a new trend in the literature in this field, in accordance with the increasing number of students who have studied English abroad recently in Korea. The participants did not really experience inferiority feelings compared with NESTs, because they admitted that NNESTs could not be the same as NESTs in English proficiency level, particularly in terms of pronunciation. Rather, they believed that they might have more advantages over NESTs regarding English teaching. Among anxiety-inducing situations in the present research, the majority of the participants admitted that answering students’ unexpected questions could generate a great deal of anxiety or sense of insecurity over their own language ability. To illustrate, the situation of answering students’ questions could test teachers’ language skills, thus teachers might feel they are being judged by students, possibly causing them to feel insecure (Takahashi 2014). Reves and Medgyes (1994) also demonstrated that the permanent anxiety from their students’ judgments generated constantly self-conscious feelings about the NNESTs’ mistakes in English. As such, attitudes from students might often impel teachers to feel inadequacy and self-doubt as language teachers (Braine 2004; Morita 2004). In addition, answering questions might induce teachers’ anxieties since it is impossible to predict all the possible questions and prepare the answers for unexpected questions. If teachers realize their lack of communication skills in English, most unexpected questions by students could become a potential threat to them and a challenge to their language proficiency (Mousavi 2007). Particularly some participants in this research pointed out answering culture-related questions as one of the causes of their anxieties, which was also presented by the NNESTs in Takahashi (2014). They were not confident in answering questions about other cultures, since they had not lived in English-speaking countries. In order to effectively cope with their anxieties derived from perceived lack of communication skills in English, one of the most helpful strategies mentioned by the participants was keeping self-confidence in their English teaching. This is understandable, given that self-confidence is an essential component for successful teaching and the NNESTs’ perception of inadequate communication skills could lead to lower communication efficacy and inefficient teaching strategies (Reves and Medgyes 1994). The present findings indicate that it is crucial for the NNESTs to try to sustain self-confidence, even though there might be certain situations where their self-confidence is being challenged while teaching. As one of the efficient ways to keep their self-efficacy our participants recommended

132 

 Mikyoung Lee/Paul A. Schutz/Stephen van Vlack

acknowledging both the advantages and disadvantages as NNESTs, which is called strategies of acknowledgement by the NNESTs in Takahashi (2014). More specifically, they suggested admitting that that it is acceptable for them not to demonstrate the same proficiency as NESTs’ because English is not their mother tongue, and also believing that they are professionally educated English teachers. Preparing lessons thoroughly before class was also an effective strategy mentioned by the NNESTs to reduce their anxieties in class. If the NNESTs prepare their lessons more thoroughly, they will have fewer discipline problems (Reves and Medgyes 1994), which can help them lead a class more smoothly in general without so much suffering from feelings of insecurity. Of the 20 participants, more participants (N = 12) stated well-preparedness for classes as a coping strategy than those who commented improvement of English proficiency (N = 7). From this result, we can assume that the participants might focus more on coping with anxieties about teaching particular groups of students than improving their English proficiency in general, also argued by Takahashi (2014). This is supported by the present finding that the participants spent more preparation time for the advanced level class than other classes, making a lot of effort to select topics or contents, since they experience anxieties or insecurities about teaching a high advanced class where most of the students are proficient English speakers. The participants recognized that it is very important for them to improve their English proficiency continuously, in order to lessen their anxieties or securities. They believed that their diligent self-effort plays a key role to success in improving their English proficiency. This is in line with the finding that the higher the NNESTs’ English proficiency level was, the less insecure and anxious they would be (Reves and Medgyes 1994). Reves and Medgyes (1994) further claimed that a constant awareness of the NNESTs’ limitations in communicative skills in English might cause a poor self-image and possibly aggravate the NNESTs’ language performance, which in turn might produce a stronger inferiority complex. Therefore, improving their English proficiency would be a useful way to reduce anxieties or feelings of inferiority for the NNESTs. To develop their proficiency the participants in this research were frequently engaged with watching English films or dramas on TV or the Internet, like the participants in other studies (e.g. Arva and Medgyes 2000). The participants acknowledged that in order to reduce their anxieties or insecurities it was really helpful for them to discuss their anxieties or share their experiences in an organized self-supported group or simply talk with their colleagues before or after class, as is also supported by Arva and Medgyes (2000). Considering this point, it would be beneficial for schools to promote some self-supported groups or colleague/mentor consultation in order to assist NNESTs who seek advice as well as those who are willing to help NNESTs. For example, through the



Non-native English-speaking teachers’ anxieties and insecurities 

 133

self-supported group teachers can discuss what they could do or how they could react when their students ask something unfamiliar with them or when they are confronted with unpredictable situations in class. Most of all, they could become more aware of what other abilities except only language knowledge they need to be more effective teachers through discussion with colleagues or mentors, as is also shown by the participants in another study (Takahashi 2014).

7 Conclusions We presented research conducted to examine the NNESTs’ self-perceived English proficiency levels, anxieties or insecurities due to their perceptions of communicative limitations, and the strategies they use to reduce those anxieties or inferiority feelings. It is one of the first investigations exploring these aspects with a Korean NNEST sample, which is important, given the paucity of prior research on language teachers’ emotional experiences. Furthermore, we attempted to supplement previous research by collecting both quantitative and qualitative data related to emotional issues faced by NNESTs (Moussu and Llurda 2008). Given that teachers’ English proficiency was regarded as one of the significant factors affecting teachers’ efficacy for teaching English (Mirsanjari et al. 2013), teachers’ self-confidence in English teaching could be enhanced by improving English proficiency. To improve the NNESTs’ English proficiency, one of the solutions would be for schools to promote an authentic native language environment by offering proficiency-oriented training activities. The NNESTs, who want to improve their language proficiency to alleviate their anxieties or insecurities derived from lack of communicative confidence, could take advantage of these exclusive language courses. Most of all, it is essential for the NNESTs to be aware of this relation and encourage themselves to actively participate in the training courses offered. The findings imply that it would be beneficial for NNESTs to acknowledge their own advantages as language teachers, in order to help them possess a more positive perception about themselves. This would ultimately guide the NNESTs to alleviate their anxieties or feelings of insecurities. In addition, reflecting on the finding that the participants were getting advice from their colleagues in a self-supported group to lower their anxieties or feelings of insecurities, it might be necessary for school authorities to be aware of this issue and promote these kinds of groups. Finally, we found that the NNESTs’ self-perceived English proficiency levels were positively related to the period of staying in an English-speaking country.

134 

 Mikyoung Lee/Paul A. Schutz/Stephen van Vlack

However, since this result is based on only 20 NNESTs in Korea, more research with more participants is needed to explore what other factors could influence the NNESTs’ positive self-perceived English proficiency levels. It is also difficult to generalize the results considering the limited participants in this research, who are being trained in a TESOL master’s program or have already graduated from this master’s course. In order to more accurately and comprehensively investigate NNESTs’ self-perceptions about their English proficiency, and anxieties or insecurities issues arising from self-perceived lack of communication abilities, we suggest conducting more studies with more NNESTs who possess various professional backgrounds.

8 References Abe, Yoko. 2011. Perceptions of bilingual English teachers by teachers and students. Second Language Studies 29(2). 61–106. Arnold, Jane. (ed.). 1999. Affect in language learning. Ernst Klett Sprachen. Arnold, Jane. 2011. Attention to affect in Language Learning. Anglistik. International Journal of English Studies 22. 11–22. Arva, Valeria & Peter Medgyes. 2000. Native and non-native teachers in the classroom. System 28(3). 355–372. Braine, George. 2004. The non-native English-speaking professionals’ movement and its research foundations. In Lia Kamhi-Stein (ed.), Learning and teaching from experience: Perspectives on non-native English speaking professionals, 9–24. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Braine, George. 2010. Non-native speaker English teachers. New York: Routledge. Brinton, Donna. 2004. Non-native English-speaking student teachers: Insights from dialogue journals. In Lia Kanhi-Stein (ed.), Learning and teaching from experience: perspectives on non-native English-speaking professionals, 190–205. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Butler, Yuko Goto. 2004. What level of English proficiency do elementary school teachers need to attain to teach EFL? Case studies from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. TESOL Quarterly 38(2). 245–278. Butler, Yuko Goto. 2007. How are non-native English speaking teachers perceived by young learners? TESOL Quarterly 41. 731–755. Canagarajah, Suresh. 2005. Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Chacon, Carmen Teresa. 2005. Teachers’ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language teachers in middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education 21(3). 257–272. Cowie, Neil. 2011. Emotions that experienced English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers feel about their students, their colleagues and their work. Teaching and Teacher Education 27(1). 235–242.



Non-native English-speaking teachers’ anxieties and insecurities 

 135

Crystal, David. 2003. English as a global language (2nd Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Gunther Kaltenboeck & Ute Smit. 1997. Learner attitudes and L2 pronunciation in Austria. World Englishes 16(1). 115–128. Denzin, Norman. 1989. The research act. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall. Frenzel, Anne, Thomas Goetz, Oliver Lüdtke, Reinhard Pekrun & Rosemary Sutton. 2009. Emotional transmission in the classroom: Exploring the relationship between teacher and student enjoyment. Journal of Educational Psychology 101(3). 705–716. Frenzel, Anne, Thomas Goetz, Elizabeth Stephens & Barbara Jacob. 2009. Antecedents and effects of teachers’ emotional experiences: An integrated perspective and empirical test. In Paul Schutz & Michalinos Zembylas (eds.), Advances in teacher emotion research: The impact on teachers’ lives, 129–152. New York: Springer. Graddol, David. 1999. The decline of the native speaker. In David Graddol & Ulrike Meinhof (eds.), English in a changing world (AILA Review 13), 57–68. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Horwitz, Elaine. 1996. Even teachers get the blues: recognizing and alleviating language teachers’ feelings of foreign language anxiety. Foreign Language Annals 29(3). 365–372. Jenkins, Jennifer. 2005. Implementing an international approach to English pronunciation: The role of teacher attitudes and identity. TESOL Quarterly 39. 535–543. Llurda, Enric. 2008. The effects of stays abroad on self-perceptions of non-native EFL teachers. In Seran Dogancay-Aktuna & Joel Hardman (eds.), Global English language teacher education: Praxis and possibility, 99–111. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Maum, Rosemaria. 2003. A comparison of native and non-native English-speaking teachers’ beliefs about teaching English as a second language to adult English language learners. University of Louisville.Ph.D. dissertation. Medgyes, Peter. 1999. Language training: A neglected area in teacher education. In George Braine (ed.), Non-native educators in English Language Teaching, 177–196. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mirsanjari, Zahra, Alireza Karbalaei & Shahram Afraz. 2013. Teachers’ sense of efficacy in teaching English among Iranian EFL teachers. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences 3. 3. Morita, Naoko. 2004. Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly 38(4). 573–603. Mousavi, Elham Sadat. 2007. Exploring ‘teacher stress’ in non-native and native teachers of EFL. English Language Teacher Education & Development 10. 33–41. Moussu, Lucie & Enric Llurda. 2008. Non-native English-speaking English language teachers: History and research. Language Teaching 41(3). 315–348. Nunan, David. 2003. The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly 37(4). 589–613. Patton, Michael Quinn. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rajagopalan, Kanavillil. 2005. Non-native speaker teachers of English and their anxieties: Ingredients for an experiment in action research. In Enric Llurda (ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession, 283–303. New York: Springer. Reves, Thea & Peter Medgyes. 1994. The non-native English speaking EFL/ESL teacher’s self-image: An international survey. System 22. 353–367.

136 

 Mikyoung Lee/Paul A. Schutz/Stephen van Vlack

Richards, Jack & Charles Lockhart. 1994. Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Samimy, Keiko. 2000. A seminar on non-native speaker professionals: An exploration. NNEST Newsletter 1. 5–7. Samimy, Keiko & Janina Britt-Griffler. 1999. To be a native or non-native speaker: Perceptions of “non-native” students in a graduate TESOL program. In George Braine (ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching, 127–144. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schutz, Paul & Mikyoung Lee. 2014. Teacher emotion, emotional labor and teacher identity. In Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo (ed.), English as a foreign language teacher education: Current perspectives and challenges, 169–186. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi/Brill. Schutz, Paul & Michalinos Zembylas (eds.). 2009. Advances in teacher emotion research: The impact on teachers’ lives. New York: Springer. Selvi, Ali Fuad. 2014. Myths and misconceptions about non-native English speakers in the TESOL (NNEST) movement. TESOL Journal 5(3). 573–611. Shim, Jae–Woo. 2003. Teacher efficacy beliefs and language skills of pre-service elementary teachers of English. Studies on English Language and Literature 29. 231–244. Takahashi, Hiromi. 2014. Non-native English-speaking teachers’ self-perceived language proficiency levels, anxieties, and learning strategies. International Journal of Christianity and English Language Teaching 1. 22–44. Tang, Cecilia. 1997. The identity of the non-native ESL teacher. TESOL Quarterly 31. 577–580.

Recommended reading Frenzel, Anne, Thomas Goetz, Elizabeth Stephens & Barbara Jacob. 2009. Antecedents and effects of teachers’ emotional experiences: An integrated perspective and empirical test. In Paul Schutz & Michalinos Zembylas (eds.), Advances in teacher emotion research: The impact on teachers’ lives, 129–152. New York: Springer. The authors provide strong theoretical assumptions and empirical evidence for the emotional lives of teachers. Moussu, Lucie & Enric Llurda. 2008. Non-native English-speaking English language teachers: History and research. Language Teaching 41(3). 315–348. This paper attempts to compile, classify, and examine existing literature in linguistic, pedagogical, and educational issues related to NNESTs, particularly including NNESTs’ perceptions of their own identity. Reves, Thea & Peter Medgyes. 1994. The non-native English speaking EFL/ESL teacher’s self-image: An international survey. System 22. 353–367. The authors describe differences between NESTs’ and NNESTs’ teaching behaviors using data from EFL/ESL teachers in ten countries. They further discuss how NNESTs’ self-perception of differences in language proficiency influences their teaching attitudes. Takahashi, Hiromi. 2014. Non-native English-speaking teachers’ self-perceived language proficiency levels, anxieties, and learning strategies. International Journal of Christianity and English Language Teaching 1. 22–44.



Non-native English-speaking teachers’ anxieties and insecurities 

 137

This paper investigates the relationship between NNESTs’ self-perceived language proficiency levels and their anxieties about teaching English. The author provides NNESTs’ anxiety management strategies, learning strategies, and language learning beliefs.

Questions for reflection and discussion – – – –

–

How do you perceive yourself as a NNEST? Think about your own identities as an English teacher. Have you experienced anxieties, insecurities, or feelings of inferiority as a NNEST? If so, can you explain the situations in detail? What were the main reasons for those feelings? What kind of strategies have you tried to reduce your anxieties or feelings of insecurity in teaching English? Did they work? If not, why didn’t they work? Can you recommend some other strategies, except the ones described in this chapter, to lower NNESTs’ anxieties or insecurities due to their self-perceived lack of communication skills? What can NNESTs do in general in order to improve self-perceptions about themselves? Do you have any suggestions?

Yasemin Bayyurt

Chapter 7 Non-native English language teachers’ perceptions of culture in English language classrooms in a post-EFL era Abstract: At present, the number of non-native speakers of English outnumbers the native speakers of English. Therefore, it is necessary to train both native (NESTs) and non-native English language teachers (NNESTs) with an awareness towards English as a lingua franca (ELF) – i.e. EIL/ELF-aware English language teacher education (Bayyurt and Sifakis, 2017). In this chapter, ELF is conceptualized as the outcome of interactions taking place between people from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds in multilingual and multicultural contexts with no common language apart from English. ELF-awareness encompasses intercultural language awareness (Baker 2016), awareness of instructional practice and language learning (Sifakis and Bayyurt forthcoming). In this respect, focusing on intercultural communication in instructional practice becomes a significant component of pre-/in-service teacher training. In this chapter, ELF-awareness is investigated in the context of a study on intercultural English language awareness of EFL teachers in terms of their conceptualization of “culture” in their ELT practice in the Turkish sociocultural context. The key findings of NNESTs’ perspectives on the involvement of the cultural and intercultural aspects in English language classrooms are reported. Finally, implications of this study on ELF/EILaware teacher education are conferred in relation to the practice of ELT in Turkey.

1 Introduction In today’s rapidly changing and developing world, the position of English is significantly different when compared to other world languages. With the global rise of its popularity after 1950s, English has gained an international status in all kinds of areas in life, ranging from technology to art; and from economy to diplomacy. As mentioned by leading researchers in the field, the number of non-native

Yasemin Bayyurt, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey DOI 10.1515/9781501504143-008

140 

 Yasemin Bayyurt

speakers of English or speakers of English as a foreign or second language is on the increase (e.g., Alptekin 2002; Crystal 2003; Graddol 2006). Sifakis (2014) indicates that we now live in the post-EFL era that necessitates teacher education programs to shift from a traditional EFL/ESL perspective to a more open, critical and reflective one. In these changing times, teacher trainers and academics propose various English language teacher education models reflecting global spread of English for training future English language teachers (Hamid, Zhu and Baldauf 2014; Kumaravadivelu 2012; Sifakis 2009, 2014; Sridhar and Sridhar 1986). Hence, these innovative teacher education models (e.g. ELFaware teacher education model) include elements reflecting global spread of English as well as elements of one of the standard varieties of English, such as, British English or General American. The aim is to raise teachers’ awareness towards these issues, and to give them a chance to question and/or challenge already established norms and principles of standard varieties of English – i.e. ELF-aware teacher education model (see Sifakis and Bayyurt, 2015). In other words, this situation necessitates the promotion of the idea that “teachers should teach English with an awareness towards English as an international language (EIL)/English as a lingua franca (ELF)”; and it also encourages inclusion of this novel ELF-aware perspective into their materials and activities (Bayyurt, Lopriore and Vettorel, 2016; Bayyurt and Sifakis 2015a, b; Sifakis 2014; Siquera 2015; Lopriore and Vettorel 2015). Hence, the aim of English language teaching should be dealing with the international quality of English and providing effective intercultural communication. As Baker (2011) states, cultural awareness has become an important component of foreign language teaching in recent years. Therefore, it is necessary for English language users to understand and situate themselves in a context where other people’s cultural conceptualizations are in effect when they use L2. In this study, the importance of the concept of culture is questioned and determined in relation to the fact that the culture is a fluid and dynamic concept which needs to be carefully handled in English as an International Language/English as a Lingua Franca (EIL/ELF) contexts as ELF contexts require them to conceptualize intercultural awareness towards using English for communicative purposes. In other words, in EIL/ELF settings the people coming from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, therefore, sticking to native speaker norms becomes redundant for those speakers. In sum, it can be stated that ELF-awareness is an important component of intercultural awareness (e.g., Baker 2011, 2015, Kural and Bayyurt 2016). In this chapter, the focus will be on NNESTs’ perspectives on “culture” and how to integrate “culture” in English language classrooms in the post-EFL era. In addition, NNESTs’ views on the integration of “culture” in their English language



Non-native English language teachers’ perceptions of culture 

 141

classrooms will be discussed in relation to ELF-aware teacher education model developed by Bayyurt and Sifakis (2015a, 2015b) since such a model enables teachers and learners to understand dynamic nature of “culture” emerging in national/international contexts of communication.

2 Definition of Culture In general terms, culture is a concept that is hard to define. What is obtained when a superficial look is taken upon the concept differs from the one that can be acquired when it is scrutinized deeply. In other words, culture is seen as clothing, language or habits on the surface, but when examined further, it becomes obvious that it is in fact a combination of the way of communication, values, norms, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. Baker (2015: 12) defines culture as “… a shared, but constantly changing and negotiated, set of beliefs, values, ideologies, discourses, and practices”. Investigation of ‘culture’ in multicultural and multilingual contexts enables researchers to understand how people negotiate meaning in these contexts not only via linguistic means but also via culture and other environmental factors that are present during the act of communication. This rich perspective of the concept of “culture” is investigated and theorized by ELF researchers whose work focuses on intercultural communication (e.g., Baker 2009, 2011, 2015; Meierkord 2002; Pötzl and Seidlhofer 2006). In this chapter, the emergence of the dynamic and fluid nature of culture will be discussed in relation to NNESTs’ ELF-awareness in ELT (See section 7).

3 Research on culture in English language teaching The cultural component of English language teaching has always been there. The earlier definitions of culture in ELT include various categorization (e.g., Adaskou, Britten and Fahsi 1990; Loveday 1981). Loveday (1981: 34) states that culture is a collection of symbols and experiences that are transferred from one generation to the next. It includes the social values and traditions. Ethnographically, culture is defined with uppercase C and lowercase c. (Adaskou et al. 1990; Kramsch 1991). Uppercase C includes high level culture, classical literature and other artistic works (Kramsch 1991: 218). According to Adaskou et al. (1990: 3) uppercase C is defined as media, movies and music in

142 

 Yasemin Bayyurt

the aesthetic sense. When defined with the lowercase c, it is seen that culture includes the nature, the structure and the rules of the family, social relationships, corporal and leisure activities, social traditions; in short, the institutional structure of the society. Kramsch (1991: 218) states that cuisine, sociology and the statistical values of these are included in the ‘culture’ as well. In brief, culture defined with a lowercase ‘c’ is a concept that has the traditions and the lifestyle, which helps the society to form a social identity, within itself. Adaskou, Britten and Fahsi’s (1990: 3–4) define the four-dimensions of ‘culture’ as: (I) aesthetic sense: movies, music, theater, literature, etc. (ii) sociological sense: family, education, profession, traditions; (iii) semantic sense: concrete and abstract notions and thoughts; (iv) the pragmatic or sociolinguistic sense: the connection and harmony of the language use with the content. These earlier definitions of culture ignore the intercultural aspect of communication and how much they were related to the teaching of a foreign/second language. These definitions tried to account for the concept of ‘culture’ from a monolingual and mono-cultural perspective that necessitated learners to learn the target language culture to be able to communicate with native speakers only. Today, as there are more non-native speakers (NNESs) of English than native speakers (NESs), English language teachers should be more sensitive towards teaching culture in English language classrooms. In other words, while training English language teachers, the constructs of ELF-awareness and intercultural communicative competence should be emphasized in relation to their ELT practice and development of learners’ intercultural communicative competence (Alptekin 2002; Baker 2009, 2011, 2015; Bayyurt 2006, 2012; Kural and Bayyurt 2016). In an earlier study, Bayyurt (2006) adopts Adaskou et al.’s four-dimensional culture model in problematizing the multi-dimensional emergence of the concept of culture in their ELT practice. The results of Bayyurt’s study revealed that the teachers and students in the classrooms in relation to ELT materials and involvement of the local culture in ELT conceptualized these dimensions of culture. Moreover, Bayyurt and Sifakis (2015a, 2015b, 2017) highlighted the significance of ELF-aware teacher training and stated that teachers should reflect on ELF, EIL and WE literature (e.g., the role of Standard English, nativeness/non-nativeness, ownership of English, intelligibility in spoken interactions, etc.) and comment on their applicability in their own teaching context in a critical-reflective way. Therefore, the inclusion of culture in foreign language classrooms needs to be revisited in the light EIL/ELF aware pedagogical approach. This approach will inform learners, school administrators and other stakeholders about the benefits of ELF-aware ELT for successful intercultural and international communication (Bayyurt 2006, 2012; Bayyurt and Sifakis 2015a, 2015b; Sifakis 2009).



Non-native English language teachers’ perceptions of culture 

 143

4 ELF-awareness in English language teaching The view adopted in this study is putting forward the theories and studies that will be done on this issue taking this quality of English into consideration, since English is a world language. Moreover, experimental and observational studies to be conducted have to be handled in this respect. When English is accepted and valued as an international language or a lingua franca, it becomes important to be aware of the fact that appropriate pedagogy should be developed to teach it in language classrooms. The teachers’ and students’ awareness should be raised towards the fact that an international language does not belong to one country or a culture; the number of non-native speakers of English is larger than native speakers of English in the world; non-native speakers of English can claim the ownership of English and similar. In relation to this point, McKay (2003a) puts forward 3 important ideas that can be conceptualized in relation to ELF-awareness in ELT. First, the cultural content of English should not be restricted to the societies whose mother tongue is English. Students should be aware of the fact that English is used as a medium of communication among non-native speakers as well as native and non-native speakers. In other words, English can be used to communicate with people from all over the world. Therefore, local culture of the students can be a facilitator in developing students’ intercultural communicative competence. Secondly, local expectations that include the role definitions of teachers and students should also be taken into consideration when ELF-aware pedagogical approach is adopted in ELT. In other worlds, teachers should construct their pedagogical identity in relation to their understanding of how they can integrate ELF-awareness into their ELT practice (e.g. via ELF-aware language teaching materials). The third idea is that ELF-aware NNESTs would have better control over local and international culture in ELT. Since they have also learned English as a foreign language, they can sympathize with their students’ difficulties and design their materials accordingly to facilitate their learners’ language learning process. In the context of English as a lingua franca, there may not be a straightforward correlation between English language and its culture, therefore, a critical point of view is needed to understand this complex relationship. Baker (2009) indicates that “… Critical approaches are needed which incorporate the fluid and dynamic nature of intercultural communication, and the manner in which languages and cultural forms and references function in them” (p. 18). As English has become a world language, it is important for English language teachers to be aware of the diversity of the contexts and cultures where English is spoken as a first/second/ foreign language. This kind of perspective may help English language teachers to

144 

 Yasemin Bayyurt

have a critical stance towards preparing their learners to become successful users of English in both national and international contexts in the future. Although there have been ongoing debates and research on how to teach English as an International language (EIL), which cultural norms to adopt, and so on, there is not much research on how to train teachers of English with an awareness towards the fact that English is an international language or lingua franca. They are still trained as if they will be teaching English to their students in reference to a monolingual and monocultural view of English that is spoken in certain parts of the world as a local language. Nayar (1997) examines and questions the conceptual confusion in English teaching, mentions the unclear borders in the issue. In addition, it is important to note that people living in outer and expanding circle countries have moved to the “inner circle” and living there for various reasons, such as, professional appointments, personal interest, retirement (Canagarajah 2005). Dominantly monolingual inner circle countries have started to hear different Englishes thanks to their neighbors, colleagues and social workers coming from the outer and expanding circle countries and they are trying to understand these groups for a successful communication. It no longer matters to whom English belongs; English is now a world language and this is a fact recognized in both national and international arena, by researchers coming from inner, outer and expanding circle countries (Canagarajah 1999, 2005; Widdowson 2003). In this respect, Kachru (2005) indicates that the three circles model needs to be revised in the light of the current political and economic developments in the world (See also Kachru 1992 for the original model). In the revised version of the Kachru’s three circles model (2005), countries like China and India placed in the inner besides countries like Australia and South Africa. In line with these developments in the field of WEs, Berns (2005) indicates that less research is conducted in contexts where English is taught as a foreign language. In order to increase the number of the studies, research in these areas should be encouraged. In this respect, a recent study focusing on training ELF-aware teachers of English proved that such an approach might be an opportunity for NNESTs to explore their value and contribution to the field of ELT (Bayyurt and Sifakis 2015a, 2015b, 2017; Canagarajah 2014; Llurda 2004, 2014; Sifakis 2014). In this paper, the extent to which NNESTs are aware of the current trends in the involvement of culture in English language classrooms and their place as NNESTs in English language teaching profession will be discussed from an ELFaware pedagogical perspective.



Non-native English language teachers’ perceptions of culture 

 145

5 Aim of the study This study investigates the conceptualization of culture and its involvement in ELT by NNESTs at three different levels: a) NNESTs’ understanding of the involvement of culture in ELF-aware language teaching; b) NNESTs’ perspectives on the involvement of culture in ELF-aware language teaching materials; c) NNESTs’ perceptions of their place in English language teaching profession from an ELFaware pedagogical perspective.

5.1 Research questions This study has been going on since 2012–2013 academic year. The content of the research questions have been reconsidered during the focusing and data gathering stages of the study and the questions have been revised. The research questions, arranged in accordance with the original questions and revised during the different stages of the project are as follows: – How do NNESTs working in Turkish schools conceptualize “culture”? – How do NNESTs working in Turkish schools relate the concept of “culture” to their ELT practice from an ELF-aware pedagogical perspective? What are their opinions on the inclusion of an ELF perspective in ELT materials and classroom activities? – How do NNESTs working in primary schools, secondary (lower and upper) schools, and higher education institutions position themselves within English language teaching profession from an ELF-aware pedagogical perspective?

6 Method In this study, the first set of data is collected by means of interviews (individual and focus group), and an electronic portal. The electronic portal was originally developed to train ELF-aware in-service teachers in the 2012–2013 academic year by Bayyurt and Sifakis (2015a, 2015b). The ELF-aware teacher education model consisted of three phases: theoretical, application and evaluation (Sifakis and Bayyurt, 2015). In the theoretical phase, the aim was to raise participant in-service teachers’ awareness towards ELF-related issues as well as issues concerning intercultural aspects of current English language use, the impact of globalization on English language spread, and taking a critical perspective in ELT classrooms –

146 

 Yasemin Bayyurt

i.e., application of a critical pedagogical approach. The aim of these sections was to challenge in-service teachers’ deeply rooted ideas on communication, literacy, native/non-native speakers, intelligibility, critical pedagogies and their perceived role as NNESTs acting as “custodians of Standard English” (Bayyurt and Sifakis 2015a; Sifakis 2009). The second phase  – i.e., the application phase of the ELFTED project, involved participants’ practice of applying what they have learned in the first phase of the project. In this phase, the participants prepared ELF-aware activities and lessons, and implemented them in their classes. In the third phase of the project  – i.e., evaluation phase  – the participants discussed the issues that came up during their implementation of the ELF-aware lessons as well as their theoretical concerns about the applicability of an ELF-aware perspective in their language teaching contexts (Bayyurt and Sifakis 2015a, b; Sifakis and Bayyurt 2015). In this chapter, examples from interviews, lesson plans and teacher’s evaluations of how they conceptualized the applicability of culture in their ELT practice will be presented and discussed.

6.1 Participants Participants of the study were 12 (all female) NNESTs working in primary schools, lower/upper secondary schools and higher education institutions in Istanbul. They were selected through convenience sampling method. The teachers were all Turkish L1 speakers with no ethnic background. The age range of the participants was between 25 to 45. Seven teachers had BA degrees from the departments of English Language Teaching and the others had BA degrees in departments related to English such as English Language and Literature, and Interpretation and Translation. The NNESTs’ job experience ranged from 5 to 20 years. They were working in primary (4 participants) and lower/upper secondary schools (5 participants) and universities (3 participants) located in various districts of Istanbul at the time of the study.

6.2 Data collection tools In this study, data were collected via semi-structured face-to-face/e-mail interviews, focus group interviews, and an online moodle platform designed as a MOOC to train ELF-aware teachers (www.teacherdevelopment.boun.edu.tr). In this chapter, the results of the study will be discussed in the light of excerpts from e-mail interviews and focus group interviews. The interview questions concern-



Non-native English language teachers’ perceptions of culture 

 147

ing the “definition of culture” and “involvement of culture in ELT” were adopted from Bayyurt’s (2006) study (See Appendix A). The ELF-aware aspects of the data were collected via portal entries. The portal was part of ELF-aware teacher education model developed by Bayyurt and Sifakis (2015a, 2015b). Based on readings from ELF and WE literature, the teachers were asked to answer 118 questions on the portal (See www.teacherdevelopment.boun.edu.tr). In addition, focus group interviews were carried out with the teachers every two weeks to discuss the issues that came up during their journey in becoming ELF-aware teachers. In this chapter, the focus will be on discussion among teachers on those questions that are related to “culture” in the portal and its involvement in ELT. Since it is beyond the scope of this chapter, the portal entries and related data will not be presented in this chapter (For further readings on ELFTED project and its results please see Bayyurt and Sifakis 2015a, 2015b; Kaçar and Bayyurt, forthcoming). Rather, data from e-mail interviews and focus group interviews will be coded and analyzed.

6.3 Data analysis The interview data recorded during the interviews were transcribed by the researcher. All data and categories of analysis were member checked. After the transcription, the interview codification key based on the interview questions was prepared in the light of the answers given by the participants (Lemke, 1998). Codification key prepared in this study is seen on Table 1. Analysis of the data acquired through the e-mail interviews and focus group interviews were carried out through descriptive analysis technique. Descriptive analysis has 4 steps: (a) Forming a thematic framework; (b) Embedding data in accordance with the thematic framework; (c) Defining findings; (d) Interpreting findings. Table 1: Themes prepared for the analysis of the interviews. Themes 1. The concept of culture as defined by the participant teachers: 2. Information of culture covered in English classes from an ELF-aware perspective in a. Textbooks and supporting materials (e.g., handouts) b. Classroom activities (e.g., songs, games, storytelling activities) 3. Role of the NNESTs in covering the concept of culture from an ELF-aware perspective a. Opinions on standard English, WE and ELF b. Opinions on ownership of English

148 

 Yasemin Bayyurt

7 Findings and discussion In this section, the findings will be presented and discussed in relation to research questions. The analysis of the first research question “How do NNESTs conceptualize culture?” showed first of all that participants were not aware of the international characteristics of the English language. In their definitions they referred to aesthetic, sociological, semantic and sociolinguistic/pragmatic senses of culture. Participant teachers’ responses to this question are summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Definitions of culture. Definition of Culture Societal/collectivistic ­conceptualization of culture

– Common thoughts. – Common language. – Common beliefs. – Common values. – Common history. – Traditions. – A commodity that passes from one generation to another.

Individualistic/self-centered conceptualization of culture

– Behaviours. – Self-perception. – Self-expression. – World view. – Lifestyle. – Value and belief system.

In general the definitions of teachers can be grouped as societal/collectivist and individualistic/self-centered (See Table 2). Although similar aspects of culture are mentioned in both categorizations, the individualistic conceptualization of culture encompasses how teachers view themselves within the society. In the societal/collectivistic view of culture, common thought systems, common language, common belief and value systems, common traditions and a common history ensure sustainability of culture from one generation to another. As can be seen in Table 2, aspects of Adaskou et al.’s definition of culture and its sub-categories can be observed in teachers’ definitions of culture. In addition, these sub-categories overlap with one another signalling the dynamic nature of culture as a fluid and dynamic concept which is constructed and re-constructed in different socio-cultural contexts. In this respect, in excerpt 1, the participant teacher’s definition covers both semantic and sociolinguistic aspects of culture.



Non-native English language teachers’ perceptions of culture 

 149

Excerpt 1: … all of the features of the culture are reflected on my self-expression in language, orally or in the written way (semantic and sociolinguistic senses). (E-mail interview, Participant 1, 16 March 2013)

In this excerpt, self-expression is part of the identity of the teacher which can be attributed to the sociolinguistic aspect of culture while self-expression in language (written or spoken) refers to both sociolinguistics and semantic aspects of culture, as defined by Adaskou et al. In another excerpt, the participant defines culture as follows: Excerpt 2: (Culture is) … lifestyle, food, music, thinking manners (aesthetic, sociological and semantic)…They are all culture…” (E-mail interview, Participant 6, 16 March 2013)

In the definition above, the participant mentions all senses of culture except the sociolinguistic sense. However, there is not a clear-cut boundary between semantic sense and sociolinguistic sense, therefore, it can be said that although Adaskou et al.’s definition works for an all-inclusive conceptualization of culture among participant teachers’ definition, some categories may have overlaps (See Appendix B for more definitions of culture given by the participants). In sum, in these excerpts, participants 1 and 6 seemed to value the concept of culture in different ways. While participant 1 appreciates the semantic and sociological aspects of culture, participant 6 gives importance to aesthetic sense of culture as well as sociological and semantic senses. These definitions also imply the dynamic and fluid nature of “culture” as defined by Baker (2009). This definition of culture is a more realistic view of culture changing from one individual to another. The analysis of the second research question “How do NNESTs working in Turkish schools relate the concept of “culture” to their ELT practice from an ELFaware pedagogical perspective? What are their opinions on the inclusion of an ELF perspective in ELT materials and classroom activities?” showed that participant teachers included culture related issues in their language teaching. First, participant teachers’ perspectives on culture in relation to their classroom practice are exemplified via examples from actual lesson plans. Then, teachers’ views on culture in relation to their application of an ELF-aware pedagogy in their own language-teaching context are discussed. The analysis of teachers’ reflections on the involvement of culture in language teaching materials and classrooms activities revealed that teachers give significance to developing their students’ intercultural awareness through class-

150 

 Yasemin Bayyurt

room activities although their language teaching materials do not support this kind of a perspective. In Excerpt 3, the participant-teacher applies an ELF-aware pedagogical approach in her lesson plan and implements it in her class. She bases her activities on an intercultural exchange between her students and the international students from their partner school. During the e-mail interview, the teacher explains how she managed to integrate an intercultural perspective in her lesson plan as follows: Excerpt 3: I have a class, …, at a state school, a (upper) secondary school, I have 23 students, 12 of them are girls, may be I mentioned before we have a partner school in Poland, we have penpals from Poland. It is a vocational high school, and one of the students sent a presentation about Poland, about Easter, so I thought it is a good idea to use a presentation for this project. My overall aim is to establish cross-cultural understanding between my students and Polish students. I want to compare and contrast the Easter in Poland and bayrams in Turkey. We have similarities and differences. … I want to use another presentation about Turkish bayrams, so we will have two different presentations one for Easter and one for Bayrams. (Focus group interview, Participant 5, 4 February 2013)

In this excerpt the teacher bases her activity on exchanging information about national festivals. They have a partner school from Poland, she sets up an activity to exchange cultural information about festivals between partner schools. She says that together with the English teacher in Poland, they asked the students to prepare PowerPoint presentations about festivals in Poland and Turkey. In her opinion, these kinds of activities promote opportunities for successful communication among people from different cultural backgrounds. In this activity, the sociological aspects of both cultures are emphasized in Adaskou et al.’s (1990) terms. The focus is on similarities and differences between the two cultures. In excerpt 4, the teacher chooses an activity that supports the idea that the students can use English to express themselves literally to the whole world. In doing so, she chooses a TED Talk video in which Turkish writer talks about her experience of becoming a successful writer. The video is in English. The following excerpt is from an e-mail interview with the teacher on her experience about this activity. Excerpt 4: In my class there are 31 teenagers at the age of 16. They are ninth graders (upper secondary). … I believe that stories help people especially teenagers understand real life. I would also like my students to learn the importance of using both languages by keeping the identity. Elif Safak in her speech says. ‘The commute between Turkish and English gives me the chance to recreate myself’.



Non-native English language teachers’ perceptions of culture 

 151

… so I would like them to watch the talk (Elif Şafak’s TED talk) and take some notes about the ideas they can get through the Turkish author’s speech. … After watching the video I realised that my students are curious about people in their own cultures and from cultures other than English speaking countries. They are interested in how they are connected their life and English. They may feel that they are on the same boat with them. (E-mail interview, Participant 3, 16 March 2013)

This excerpt reflects how learners are given a chance to develop their understanding of English via expressing themselves in their own culture without losing their local identity. This excerpt represents the sociological and semantic senses of culture in Adaskou et al.’s (1990) terms. In addition, in this excerpt, the construction of learners’ identities is hinted in relation to culture, as a sense of belonging to more than one group via linguistic means. This is a reflection of sociolinguistic sense of culture. In this excerpt, the teacher promotes ELF-awareness of her learners by raising their attention to the fact that they can express themselves successfully without losing their cultural values and identity as a Turkish citizen. Instead, this approach helps them to reflect on their understanding and expression of Turkish culture via examples from Turkish people who are successful users of English in expressing Turkish culture and values via use of English. This finding supports the idea that any successful user of English will constitute a good model for language learners. The analysis of the third research question, “How do NNESTs working in primary schools, secondary (lower and upper) schools and higher education institutions position themselves within English language teaching profession from an ELF-aware pedagogical perspective?”, revealed that participants supported the presentation of non-standard forms of English in their language classrooms to raise students’ awareness towards realistic uses of English all over the world. However, some of these teachers, especially those working with young learners in primary schools, felt that they had to teach Standard English to satisfy stakeholders’ (e.g., students, parents, schools administration, curriculum planners) expectations. All of the teachers questioned the concepts of “standard English” and “ownership of English”. They all stated that they were happy to be informed about WE and ELF. ELF-awareness enabled them to understand their language context in a more comprehensive way. In excerpt 5, the participant emphasizes the fact that adopting an ELF-aware approach and familiarizing the students with varieties of English (Bayyurt and Altınmakas 2012) in the language classroom enabled her to be more patient and tolerant to different accents of English. In addition, she feels the ownership of

152 

 Yasemin Bayyurt

English should be questioned and she feels self confident in terms of her ownership of English (Bayyurt and Sifakis 2015b). Once teachers feel self-confident in terms of teaching English, then this is reflected on students too. In other words, the students also become ELF-aware and self-confident. Excerpt 5: For me an ELF-aware teacher is someone who presents English with its all varieties in the classroom, and someone who welcomes all different accents and small grammar mistakes from her students and other non-native speakers of English. As an ELF-aware teacher I feel more knowledged and self-confident. … As a non-native English speaking teacher I feel a bit more authority on English (language), as someone who owns the language (i.e. English). (E-mail interview, Participant 5, 16 March 2013)

The teachers seemed to value the existence of Standard English (SE), however, they supported the idea that “intelligibility” was more important than sounding like native speakers of English – i.e. British English or American English (Bayyurt and Sifakis 2015a). In Excerpt 6, the teacher commented on the significance of meaningful communication between people from other countries and cultures. Excerpt 6: Since Standard English (SE) can be spoken in any language (i.e. people from different L1 backgrounds can speak SE, my explanation), I don’t have to imitate a nativelike accent. But I have to be intelligible by pronouncing words clearly. …. Intelligibility is so important in ELF context since it is the major key for people from countries and cultures to understand each other in a right way. (Focus group interview, Participant 9, 4 February 2013)

During the e-mail interviews, participant 9 adds to the following points to her comments above: “I teach at a high school, and I have been observing what is happening in my classroom since the beginning of the year and I believe an ELF-aware classroom contributes to the development of students’ communicative skills. Furthermore, in addition to the materials I use in the classroom, the students bring more examples concerning varieties of English into the classroom films and songs in Indian. They started to talk in the classroom. They are more engaged with learning English. They are no longer afraid to make pronunciation mistakes, however, they still have to pay attention to use English appropriately in the case of exams. I can say that they improved their spoken English language skills since they became ELF-aware.” (E-mail interview, Participant 9, 16 March 2013)



Non-native English language teachers’ perceptions of culture 

 153

This quotation summarizes how significant it is to teach English in a meaningful context by raising both teachers’ and students’ awareness towards current trends in ELT – i.e. ELF-awareness in English language teaching and learning (Bayyurt and Sifakis, 2017). In this section, culture involvement revealed that participant teachers valued the involvement of both international and local cultures with successful examples of English language users (e.g. Elif Şafak from Turkey) to encourage their students to use English creatively and successfully in the class and in their future encounters in English. They raised their students’ awareness towards the fact that English is not only the language of British or Americans but also the language of the people who speak and use it in various domains for different communicative purposes – i.e. business, higher education, media and so on. Participants moved from a very general description of “culture” to a more dynamic, fluid and complex understanding of culture in the study (see excerpts 1 and 2 as compared to excerpts 5 and 6).

8 Conclusion In today’s world, English has become a common language connecting people all over the world through the Internet, social media, and similar outlets. Different varieties of English spoken in different geographical regions of the world with or without any history with English are accepted as legitimate varieties of English within the paradigms of World Englishes (e.g. Russian English, Chinese English), English as an International Language and English as a Lingua Franca. In these contexts, intelligibility is a major issue that needs attention because it includes intelligibility of both native and non-native varieties of English. Teachers are given a choice to teach either a standard variety of English (e.g., British or American English) or a non-standard variety depending on the English language teaching policy of their institutions. Hence, NNESTs prefer to teach a particular standard variety of English as it gives them ready-made information about English language and English language culture from a normative point of view. This perspective is criticized in circles where English is considered to be a global language and a lingua franca between people from different first language backgrounds. New pedagogical and teacher education models are devised to teach English with an awareness towards English as a global language or a lingua franca (Bayyurt and Sifakis 2015a, 2015b; Llurda 2004, 2014; Sifakis 2014; Sifakis and Sougari 2005). Since English is a global language and there are more non-native speakers of English than native speakers (about a ratio of 1 to 3). Hence, English language teachers should give significance to raising their learners’ awareness

154 

 Yasemin Bayyurt

towards the fact that more and more they will be living in a culturally and linguistically diverse world; therefore, they should be able to use English both with native and non-native speakers of English. ELF-aware English language teachers should also emphasize the fact that native and non-native speakers of English are equally legitimate users of English. In other words, non-native speakers of English can claim the ownership of English just like its native speakers (Widdowson 2003). In this respect, the concept of “culture” needs to be reconsidered within the context of English language teaching as a fluid and dynamic construct (Baker 2009). It should be evaluated in relation to the geographical location of the country; the socio-historical significance of English in that country; and the motivation of the learners in learning English as a foreign/second language. In other words, adopting an ELF-aware pedagogical approach in ELT will help teachers, learners and stakeholders to see the communicative value of English language connecting people from all over the world. In explaining the theoretical basis and aim of their original ELF-aware teacher education model, Bayyurt and Sifakis (2015a, 2015b) claim that it is necessary for teachers of English to go through a major transformation of mind to realize that NNEST are successful in teaching both standard and non-standard varieties of English depending on the needs of the students and the educational context. Further studies need to be carried out to see how teachers and learners of English develop their intercultural and cross-cultural understanding of English in a rapidly globalizing world. Acknowledgements: This study was supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK), project number 104K085 and Boğaziçi University Research Fund-project number 8000. I would like to thank all the teachers who participated in this study.

9 References Adaskou, K., D. Britten & B. Fahsi. 1990. Design decisions on cultural content of a secondary course for Morocco. ELT Journal 44(1). 3–10. Alptekin, Cem. 2002. Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT Journal 56. 57–64. Baker, Will. 2009. Language, culture and identity through English as a Lingua Franca in Asia: Notes from the field. The Linguistics Journal (special edition). 8–35. Baker, Will. 2011. Intercultural awareness: modeling an understanding of cultures in intercultural communication through English as a lingua franca. Language and Intercultural Communication 11(3). 197–214. Baker, Will. 2015. Culture and complexity through English as a lingua franca: rethinking competences and pedagogy in ELT. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4(1). 9–30.



Non-native English language teachers’ perceptions of culture 

 155

Baker, Will. 2016. English as an academic lingua franca and intercultural awareness: student mobility in the transcultural university. Language and Intercultural Communication 16(3). 437–451. Bayyurt, Yasemin. 2006. Non-native English language teachers’ perspective on culture in English as a Foreign Language classrooms. Teacher Development 10(2). 233–247. Bayyurt, Yasemin. 2012. Proposing a model for English language education in the Turkish socio-cultural context. In Yasemin Bayyurt & Yeşim Bektaş-Çetinkaya (eds.), Research Perspectives on Teaching and Learning English in Turkey: Policies and Practices, 301–312. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Bayyurt, Yasemin & Derya Altınmakas. 2012. A World Englishes course at a foundation university in Turkey. In Aya Matsuda (ed.), Teaching English as an international language: Principles and practices, 169–182. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bayyurt, Yasemin & Nicos Sifakis. 2015a. Developing an ELF-aware pedagogy: Insights from a self-education programme. In Paola Vettorel (ed.), New frontiers in teaching and learning English, 55–76. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Bayyurt, Yasemin & Nicos Sifakis. 2015b. ELF-aware in-service teacher education: a transformative perspective. In Hugo Bowles & Alessia Cogo (eds.), International perspectives on teaching English as a Lingua Franca, 117–135. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bayyurt, Yasemin & Nicos Sifakis. 2017. Foundations of an EIL-aware teacher education. In Aya Matsuda (ed.), Preparing teachers to teach English as an international language, 3–18. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bayyurt, Yasemin, Vettorel, Paola & Lucilla Lopriore. 2016. Raising English language teachers’ awareness towards WE/ELF-aware materials evaluation. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF9), Lleida, Catalonia, June 27–29. Berns, Margie. 2005. Expanding on the expanding circle: where do we go from here? World Englishes 24. 85–93. Canagarajah, Suresh. 1999. Interrogating the native speaker fallacy: non-linguistic roots, non-pedagogical results. In George Braine (ed.), Non-native educators in ELT, 77–92. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Canagarajah, Suresh (ed.). 2005. Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers. Canagarajah, Suresh. 2014. In search of a new paradigm for teaching English as an international language. TESOL Journal 5(4). 767–785. Crystal, David. 2003. English as a global language (2nd Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Graddol, David. 2006. English Next. London: British Council. Kachru, Braj B. 1992. The other tongue: English across cultures. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Kachru, Braj B. 2005. Asian Englishes: Beyond the canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kaçar, Işıl G. & Yasemin Bayyurt. Forthcoming. ELF-aware pre-service teacher education to promote glocal interactions: A case study in Turkey. In Ali Fuad Selvi & Nathanael Rudolph (eds.), Contextualizing education for glocal interaction: issues and implications. Singapore: Springer.

156 

 Yasemin Bayyurt

Kramsch, Claire. 1991. Culture in language learning: a view from the United States. In Kees de Bot, Ralph B. Gingsberg & Claire Kramsch (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective, 217–240. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kumaravadivelu, B. 2012. Language teacher education for a global society: a modular model for knowing, analyzing, recognizing, doing and seeing. New York, NY: Routledge. Kural, Faruk & Yasemin Bayyurt (2016). The implementation of an intercultural competence syllabus to prepare study-abroad students for global communication. Educational Studies 42(4). 378–393. Llurda, Enric. 2004. Non-native-speaker teachers and English as an international language. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14(3). 314–323. Llurda, Enric. 2014. Native and non-native teachers of English. In C. A. Chapelle (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics, 1–5. Oxford: Blackwell. Lopriore, Lucilla & Paola Vettorel (2015). Promoting awareness of Englishes and ELF in the english language classroom. In Hugo Bowles & Alessia Cogo (eds.), International Perspectives on Teaching English as a Lingua Franca, 13–34. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Loveday, Leo. 1981. The sociolinguistics of learning and using a non-native language. Oxford: Pergamon. McKay, Sandra Lee. 2003a. Teaching English as an international language. ELT Journal 57(2). 139–148. McKay, Sandra Lee. 2003b. Towards an appropriate EIL pedagogy: re-examining common ELT assumptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 13(1). 1–22. Meierkord, Christiane. 2002. Language ‘stripped bare’ or ‘linguistic masala’? Culture in lingua franca conversation. In Karlfried Knapp and Christiane Meierkord (eds.), Lingua Franca communication, 109–133. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Nayar, P. Bhaskaran. 1997. ESL/EFL dichotomy today: language politics and pragmatics. TESOL Quarterly 31(1). 9–37. Pötzl, Ulrike & Barbara Seidlhofer. 2006. In and on their own terms: the ‘habitat’ factor in English as a lingua franca interactions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177. 151–176. Sifakis, Nicos & Areti-Maria Sougari. 2005. Pronunciation issues and EIL pedagogy in the periphery: A survey of Greek state school teachers’ beliefs. TESOL Quarterly 39(3). 467–88. Sifakis, Nicos & Yasemin Bayyurt. 2015. Insights from ELF and WE in teacher training in Greece and Turkey. World Englishes 34(3). 471–484. Sifakis, Nicos & Yasemin Bayyurt. Forthcoming. ELF-aware teaching, learning and teacher development. In Jennifer Jenkins, Martin Dewey & Will Baker (eds.), The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua franca. London: Routledge. Sifakis, Nicos. 2009. Challenges in teaching ELF in the periphery: the Greek context. ELT Journal 63(3). 230–237. Sifakis, Nicos. 2014. ELF awareness as an opportunity for change: a transformative perspective for ESOL teacher education. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(2). 317–335. Siqueira, Domingos Sávio Pimentel. 2015. English as a lingua franca and ELT materials: Is the plastic world reality melting? In Yasemin Bayyurt & Sumru Akcan (eds.), Current perspectives on pedagogy for English as a lingua franca, 239–257. Berlin: De Gruyter. Widdowson, Henry. 2003. Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Non-native English language teachers’ perceptions of culture 



 157

APPENDIX A Semi-structured interview questions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

How do you define the concept of culture? Is there a connection between language and culture? If yes, explain. Is there a connection between the concept of culture and foreign language education? Should the language taught in foreign language classrooms include cultural information? Do you think a foreign language teacher should have familiarity with the culture of the foreign language s/he teaches? Have you ever encountered cultural concepts that you are not familiar with? What kind of cultural elements do you encounter in foreign language textbooks?

APPENDIX B Theme 1: Opinions of the NNESTs on “culture”. Excerpts from the Data: Participant 1: Culture makes me think of the outlook on life (sociological sense). It definitely brings language to mind. Because language and culture are inseparable (sociolinguistic and semantic senses). Because all of the features of the culture are reflected on my self-expression in language, orally or in the written way (semantic and sociolinguistic senses). I think culture is important for me in the sense of living and outlooks of individuals on life (sociological sense). Participant 4: It is the lifestyle, in a way (sociological sense). In fact, I don’t know to what extent culture matters in the changing world but now that everybody says I’m a citizen of the world (sociological), we all have things we can’t give up on; we all have some sort of habits (sociological sense). Still, I think it is a part of ours. Participant 6: Difficult question. Culture concept, it brings everything to mind. Lifestyles, food, music, thinking manners (aesthetic, sociological and semantic)…They are all culture. Participant 5: Lots of different associations. Culture in terms of art (aesthetic sense), culture in terms of people upbringing and their backgrounds (sociological sense), Culture in terms of what things we are used to doing, what things we can be devout to understand and start doing (sociological sense). Those really. Participant 7: Uhmm. I think … the beliefs, the value systems (sociological sense)… the stories etc. of a particular people.

Recommended reading Braine, George (ed.). 1999. Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. This book gives a comprehensive overview of the perspectives of teacher educators from all over the world on non-native English language teachers. Each author in the book gives an autobiographical account of their experience with English and discuss the sociopolitical issues in relation to non-native English language users and discuss implications of this for teacher education. All the authors in the book are non-native English language users. This book is suitable for those who are interested in working on

158 

 Yasemin Bayyurt

the role of non-native speakers in English language teaching academically as well as for pre- and in-service teacher education. Kachru, Braj B. 2005. Asian Englishes: Beyond the canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. It is a major reference book for those who are interested in developing an understanding of Kachru’s ideas on emerging varieties of English, ownership of English and English in Asian contexts. The main body of the book consists of revised and extended versions of Kachru’s earlier articles on Asian Englishes and his three circles model. Those who are interested in the study of World Englishes and Kachru’s three circles model should read this book. As Kachru is one of the leading scholars in World Englishes paradigm from a sociolinguistic perspective it is worth starting to read this book to develop an understanding of the field and its connection to English language teaching in your context. Kumaravadivelu, B. 2012. Language teacher education for a global society: a modular model for knowing, analyzing, recognizing, doing and seeing. New York, NY: Routledge. In this book, Kumaravadivelu presents an innovative comprehensive model for second/ foreign language pre- and in-service teacher education. The book invites pre- and in-service teachers to develop into strategic thinkers, exploratory researchers and transformative teachers. The five modules that the model is based on are as follows: Knowing, Analyzing, Recognizing, Doing, and Seeing (KARDS). It aims at providing teachers with a holistic understanding of what happens in their language classrooms. Moreover, teachers are expected to theorize from what they are doing in the classroom and apply what they theorize into their language classroom. With such a firm academic basis the book can be used by trainee teachers, practicing teachers, teacher educators and educational researchers for exploring the complicated nature of language teacher education. It also opens the grounds for discussion on more realistic and more up-to-date (e.g., technological, and similar) teacher education models taking into consideration current state of English as an international language. Llurda, Enric (ed.). 2005. Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession. New York, NY: Springer. In this book, Enric Llurda brings together 17 different scholars from different parts of the world together. This book is one of the important contributions to a growing area of research in the field of English language education/teacher education in non-native English speaking contexts. The chapters in the book focus on non-native English language teachers’ practice, reflections, attitudes and perspectives on English and English language teaching. Graduate students specializing in non-native English language teachers, researchers in the field of non-native English language teachers can use this book as a useful resource in developing an understanding of their own language teaching context and practice from the eyes of their other colleagues, their students, graduate supervisors and themselves. In addition, there are some chapters in the book referring to classroom discourse analysis, social-psychological perspectives on the concept of non-native English speaking teachers. Widdowson, Henry. 2003. Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. In this book, Henry Widdowson compiles his state-of-the-art articles in one volume which is not only a compilation of his work but also a serious evidence of what has happened in the profession of English language teaching over the last 3 to 4 decades. In other words, he brings up the issues related to questioning “English” language and its current



Non-native English language teachers’ perceptions of culture 

 159

state with its users and uses from a critical perspective. He presents “English” as a subject and describes the ways in which learning objectives are set and activities and language are selected in English language teaching practice. He further raises teachers’ attention towards constructs like “ownership of English” and similar. This is again another important volume which all non-native English language teacher or teacher educator should read to seek for their value in the teaching profession. Seeing one of the important scholars from the field of English language teaching who is a native speaker of English to criticize current state of the English as a lingua franca/international language is an important sign for teachers, teacher educators and educational researchers to take into account in devising new models for English language teacher education and carrying out studies on non-native English language teachers and their English language teaching practice.

Questions for reflection and discussion –

–

–

–

How do you define culture? Is it different from the definitions you have read in this chapter? How is your definition of culture related to English language teaching? Please explain by giving examples. How does different conceptualizations of culture in different disciplines influence the way culture is conceptualized in the language classrooms. What kind of problems do teachers face in their language teaching practice as far as culture is concerned in their context? Please comment on this point and explain your ideas for or against it by giving examples. The chapter argues that raising non-native English language teachers’ awareness towards the involvement of culture in English language classrooms is important given the fact that English is an international language. Do you agree or disagree with this perspective. Please explain and give reasons for your answer. Do you think training pre-/in-service teachers to become EIL/ELF-aware will solve the problems that the teachers face in their classrooms as far as the concept of culture is concerned? If so, what will change in teachers’ teaching practice when they become EIL/ ELF aware teachers? Do you see that it would help the learners to learn better English? How? Please give examples while explaining your perspective of the issues presented in this chapter.

Toshinobu Nagamine

Chapter 8 The potential for non-native teachers to effectively teach speaking in a Japanese EFL context Abstract: Until recently, developing linguistic competence was a major focus of English teaching in EFL contexts, particularly in the case of classes taught by non-native teachers. In this regard, Japan has been no exception. For many years, prioritizing instruction on vocabulary and grammar and the use of Japanese as a medium of instruction have been regarded as legitimate practices. Hence, speaking has not been systematically taught. The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) has been implementing English education reforms to change the status quo. Because the teaching of speaking holds the key to the success or failure of these reforms, the difficulties faced by non-native teachers seem to be perceived by the general public as a reflection of their inability to teach speaking. Thus, this chapter discusses the potential of non-native teachers by analyzing various contextual factors and clarifying how such factors have affected the creation of non-nativeness or the differences between non-native and native teachers. A primary focus is placed on the types of knowledge that regularly come into play in teaching speaking, and some issues regarding textbook authorization system are examined. Based on this discussion, pedagogical recommendations are proposed for non-native teachers to effectively teach speaking.

1 Introduction The role of English as an international language has engendered an ever-growing need for effective pedagogical approaches to develop learners’ fluency and practical skills. Until quite recently, developing grammatical competence was the major focus of English teaching in EFL contexts, particularly in the case of classes taught by non-native teachers and in this regard, Japan is no exception. For many years, prioritizing instruction on vocabulary and grammar patterns and the use Toshinobu Nagamine, Kumamoto University, Japan DOI 10.1515/9781501504143-009

162 

 Toshinobu Nagamine

of Japanese as a medium of instruction were regarded as legitimate practices, solely based on the presupposition that learners would eventually consolidate the explicit teachings and begin to communicate spontaneously. At an international conference in Hong Kong approximately 10 years ago, I was conversing with a colleague who had been teaching in an ESL program in Canada. He also had experience teaching in Japan as an Assistant Language Teacher (ALT; a native teacher employed by the government-sponsored Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) program) in public junior high and senior high schools. While casually exchanging opinions about ESL/EFL related issues, he pointed out that many English learners in Japan have received at least six years of English education in school, but that this education has failed to produce competent English users. On my flight back to Japan, his remarks echoed in my head, causing me to ponder what he meant by the term English users. It did not take me long to find out that what he had meant was fluent English speakers. It is indeed widely believed that the overwhelming majority of Japanese EFL learners are poor at speaking English, and that they need to be equipped with “better communicative skills in English” (Butler and Iino 2005: 25). Thus, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) has been implementing a series of educational reforms to change the status quo. For instance, in 2013, they enacted a policy mandating that senior high school English teachers should teach all English classes through the medium of English. The decision to extend this policy to junior high school English teachers is currently under consideration. In addition, English education in elementary school currently starts from the fifth grade, but this starting grade will have been lowered to the third grade by the end of the 2020 academic year. The imposition of such top-down policies stems from policymakers’ beliefs that, for example, the more exposure the better and the younger the better. While such drastic educational reforms might sound quite appealing to the general public, non-native teachers do not necessarily perceive the policies in a positive light. Since the legitimacy of traditional pedagogical approaches is called into question, most non-native teachers are at a loss, trying to figure out their new roles and responsibilities (Nagamine 2014b). Public awareness of the importance of practical skills in society has increased, and there has been a corresponding growth in the demand for more communicative classes where English is used as an instructional language. These trends are now putting pressure on both learners and teachers. Non-native teachers have been forced to change their teaching practices to a more communicative style (Nagamine 2014b; Nishino 2011). The goals of their English classes are expected to change from developing skillful test-takers who can enter prestigious senior high schools or universities to developing competent English users. Learners are



The potential for non-native teachers to effectively teach speaking 

 163

also required to reconsider their motivation for studying English and shift this motivation from an extrinsic career- or academic-oriented motivation to a more intrinsic integration-oriented motivation (Nagamine 2014a). Such changes have begun to affect non-native teachers’ self-awareness (i.e., professional identities), specifically, their roles and responsibilities (Glasgow 2014). The issues surrounding the teaching of practical skills, in particular the teaching of speaking, have lingered for a long time, particularly at the back of policy-makers’ minds. Non-native teachers are now struggling to figure out how and what to teach to help learners develop English speaking skills. It would not be overstating the case to say that the teaching of speaking holds the key to the success or failure of educational reforms. In this regard, the following relevant questions can be raised: Why have non-native teachers not been able to successfully teach speaking in Japanese EFL contexts? Can non-native teachers teach speaking? If so, how? These are the questions to be addressed in this chapter.

2 Japanese EFL contexts To begin, a brief description of Japanese EFL contexts is necessary. The Japanese education system consists of pre-school education (up until the age of six), compulsory elementary school education (six years), compulsory junior high school education (three years), and senior high school (three years). Since 2008, English education has started in fifth grade of elementary school, and it has become a mandatory field of study in the school curriculum since 2011. Nevertheless, this is not a subject (hence called “a field of study” in which no formal assessment is administered to grade students); the learners are expected to familiarize themselves with the target culture and language and to develop their willingness to communicate (WTC) in English by engaging in in-class communicative activities. These activities are officially called Foreign Language Activities (FLA), but in most cases, English is the only foreign language taught by means of FLA. English education is hence the de facto foreign language education in Japan (Floris 2013). In 2020, the FLA component of the school curriculum will start for third and fourth graders, and English education for fifth and sixth graders will become a separate subject. The instructional language used in FLA is predominantly the learners’ mother tongue (i.e., Japanese). When an ALT is present in class, however, the instructional language becomes English. When this occurs, non-native teachers often adopt an interpreter’s role to translate the native teacher’s English into Japanese for the learners. Typical FLA includes singing English songs, playing games, pic-

164 

 Toshinobu Nagamine

ture-book reading, and role-plays. English literacy skills are not taught in FLA; however, some elementary schools in each prefecture introduce the alphabet and allow learners to practice simple writing and reading at the vocabulary level. All in all, what the learners experience (and, therefore, what the teacher does) in FLA varies greatly from school to school. The major problem regarding FLA is said to be the qualifications of non-native teachers. In a nutshell, because FLA is not a school subject, there are no formal teacher education programs to train teachers. Thus, almost none of the non-native teachers have sufficient professional knowledge or skills to teach English in elementary school. There is anecdotal evidence that many schools used to ask proficient Japanese people (e.g., instructors working in private English conversation schools) to teach FLA voluntarily. However, one requisite qualification that MEXT has clarified is that instructors must be the homeroom teachers of fifth and/ or sixth graders. Consequently, many elementary school teachers avoid becoming fifth or sixth grade homeroom teachers simply because they do not feel comfortable taking responsibility for conducting FLA (Nagamine 2015, January; Matsumura and Nagamine 2014, June). However, such crucial issues as the required level of English proficiency or past teaching experience in English have not been clarified by MEXT at this point in time. Moreover, it has been reported that the qualifications and/or readiness of native teachers (including ALTs) might not be rigidly assessed prior to their employment (e.g., Aoki 2014). Instruction in English literacy skills begins in junior high school. Due to the steep learning curve between the content of English education in elementary school and that in junior high school, some serious cases of learner demotivation have been observed during junior high school English education. It has been reported by Benesse Educational Research and Development Center (BERDC) that the most influential demotivating factor is the teaching of grammar (2009: 8). Grammar is usually taught deductively because deductive grammar instruction is considered time-saving and effective to fulfill learners’ needs. Although some features of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) can be found in English classes in junior high schools, it is difficult to find truly communicative English classes in senior high schools due to the influence of rigid university entrance examinations. It can be said that almost all learners study English for the purpose of advancing to higher-level education (preparation for entrance examination for senior high school, junior college, university) (see BERDC 2009). In addition, there has been an increasing tendency to study English for the purpose of career advancement, namely, to foster smooth promotion. When considering promotion and other personnel attributes, a number of companies have referred to an employee’s English proficiency, as measured by their Test of English for International



The potential for non-native teachers to effectively teach speaking 

 165

Communication (TOEIC) score. Hence, it can be said that the majority of learners study English for the purpose of either career advancement and/or educational advancement. At the K-12 level in particular, it is rare for anyone to study English with the aim of using it as a communication tool in everyday life (BERDC 2009; Floris 2013).

3 Pedagogical approaches and non-native teachers’ dilemmas The typical pedagogical approach used in school settings (senior high schools in particular) has been Yakudoku (an equivalent to the grammar-translation method). Although Yakudoku has been criticized by many academicians in the past (e.g., Hino 1988) for its deficiency in developing learners’ communicative competence (Nagamine 2008), it is still widely employed by non-native teachers. The primary reasons can be summarized as follows: (a) Most entrance examinations (particularly university entrance exams) focus predominantly on translation and reading comprehension; (b) Non-native teachers have a perception that limits their roles and responsibilities to “a specific area of instruction, such as grammar and entrance-exam preparation” and/or to “classroom management and disciplining learners” (Nagamine 2014b: 106); (c) It is believed that learners will eventually consolidate the explicit grammar teachings and spontaneously begin to communicate; (d) Non-native teachers lack readiness (e.g., individual/collective self-efficacy, knowledge, and skills) to drastically change their teaching practice. Because of the predominant use of Yakudoku, the accuracy of students’ comprehension and translation of written texts is overemphasized. Moreover, the grammar of the written form (i.e., prescriptive grammar) is always the focus of teaching and learning. EFL teaching in Japanese formal education, apart from teaching in elementary school, is generally known to be a teacher-centered and textbook-based practice, which emphasizes decontextualized rote-learning as well as memorization of vocabulary and grammar rules (Nagamine 2008). Non-native teachers tend to teach about the English language, often referring to American English native speaker norms, although there may be some in-class communicative activities in which the learners can use English to interact with one another. In fact, the number of such activities has increased, particularly in junior high schools, over the last decade. Nonetheless, this interaction usually

166 

 Toshinobu Nagamine

comprises mechanical recitation of a textbook passage or pattern/drill practice, and the prime focus is placed on reading skills. Writing, meanwhile, is usually practiced through controlled writing exercises as opposed to free writing exercises, and speaking is not systematically taught. Such pedagogical characteristics or tendencies indicate that non-native teachers face at least two types of dilemmas: (a) they have difficulty in filling the gaps between Yakudoku and the more communicative skill-based approaches to the teaching of English, in general, and the teaching of speaking, in particular, and (b) they might not know how and what to teach while teaching speaking. Both types of dilemmas are possibly related to the past experiences of non-native teachers as students in English classrooms (Lortie 1975). This issue is addressed in our discussion on the knowledge of non-native and native teachers. Due to the top-down imposition of educational reforms, many non-native teachers are currently seeking effective methods (i.e., the prescribed ways of teaching) to teach speaking. Such reactive responses of non-native teachers remind us of the times when many practitioners were bombarded with and confused by the proliferation of teaching methods (e.g., the Audio-Lingual Method, the Silent Way, and Desuggestopedia) (Larsen-Freeman and Anderson 2011). Such methods were “decontextualized ways of teaching” that were prescribed by the intellectuals of the day, who held more power than the practitioners (Allwright 1991; Kumaravadivelu 2006). The practical knowledge of practitioners was considered scientifically unreliable and inferior to the theoretical knowledge of intellectuals; however, this condition has changed over time. Under the so-called post-method condition (Kumaravadivelu 1994) of today, method-based pedagogy is considered obsolete, and practitioners’ autonomy is emphasized so that they can generate particularized theories of teaching through the integration and appropriation of theoretical knowledge, practical knowledge, desire, and action. There is no one best method in any given context; moreover, it is virtually impossible for us to identify the best method, even for a given context. Teaching is deeply situated in the context in which the teacher and students interact with each other, and this situatedness involves “not just the matching of particular pedagogies with particular settings, but seeing good pedagogy as emergent from those settings” (Dogancay-Aktuna and Hardman 2012: 113). Therefore, what non-native teachers must seek is “context-sensitive, location-specific pedagogy” (Kumaravadivelu 2006: 69), which integrates the teaching of speaking with the teaching of other skills (cf., Hughes 2013; Oxford 2001).



The potential for non-native teachers to effectively teach speaking 

 167

4 Differences between non-native and native teachers 4.1 Types of knowledge One of the reasons why non-native teachers have failed to teach speaking effectively in Japanese EFL contexts can be attributed to the differing types of knowledge that the learners need to acquire so as to become fluent English speakers. To help learners effectively develop speaking skills, the differing types of knowledge should be taken into account and appropriately covered through both implicit and explicit instruction. Figure 1 shows a schematic representation of the major types of knowledge that frequently appear in SLA literature. Each arrow connects the corresponding words often used in the same context. Procedural or implicit knowledge does not require a learner’s linguistic analysis when used. Hence, it is performance-oriented. For this reason, it is also called unanalyzed knowledge, which includes exemplar knowledge. On the other hand, declarative or explicit knowledge, when used, requires a learner’s linguistic analysis unless it is automatized and turned into procedural or implicit knowledge. Accordingly, it is often called analyzed knowledge, which includes rule-based knowledge. As previously mentioned, non-native teachers tend to provide explicit instruction on vocabulary and grammar patterns, focusing their attention only on such knowledge types as rule-based knowledge. Learners can acquire analyzed knowledge through such explicit instructions, but unless it is fully automatized through communicative usage- or performance-based activities, they are likely to have difficulty in speaking the target language fluently.

168 

 Toshinobu Nagamine

Figure 1: Schematic Representation of Major Types of Knowledge.

Teachers tend to teach in the same manner that they were taught as students in the past (Nagamine 2014b: 109). Lortie (1975) claims that a teacher’s past learning experiences while schooling as a student, rather than as a teacher, determine his or her teaching beliefs and practices in the future (i.e., the apprenticeship of observation). Most non-native teachers in Japan did not experience communicative usage- or performance-based activities in English classes when they were students in junior high and senior high schools. They were not given ample opportunities to acquire implicit procedural knowledge. Although some teachers succeeded in automatizing explicit knowledge and turning it into implicit knowledge, it is noted that they did so outside the classroom by means of individual endeavors (e.g., by studying or traveling abroad). The inability of non-native teachers to shift their pedagogical focus to more performance-oriented knowledge stems from the lack of authentic in-class experiences. Hence, it is certainly understandable that most non-native teachers do not know how to help learners transform explicit knowledge into implicit knowledge through teaching.

4.2 Types of grammar It may be said that non-native teachers possess sufficient explicit or declarative knowledge to transmit rule-based knowledge to learners, but this type of knowledge, which is often dealt with in Japanese EFL contexts, comprises prescriptive grammar. In fact, almost all written tests and even English teacher employment



The potential for non-native teachers to effectively teach speaking 

 169

exams mainly assess this particular type of knowledge with much less or no focus on unanalyzed knowledge. Furthermore, learners are assessed in written tests or entrance exams in terms of the memorization of prescriptive grammar rules. It is generally known in the fields of applied linguistics and TESOL that there are two kinds of grammar: prescriptive grammar and descriptive grammar. Prescriptive grammar is that which prescribes how speakers should use the language, and descriptive grammar is that which describes how a language is actually used by its speakers. When native teachers teach speaking with a focus on meaning and fluency, they tend to place descriptive grammar at the center of their instruction. Non-native teachers, on the other hand, tend to focus on prescriptive grammar. Therefore, there are many non-native teachers who make their students write down what they want to say before practicing English speaking, which usually results in the students merely reading out loud their written texts. This is understandable because the explicit type of knowledge has been overemphasized and overassessed in written exams; non-native teachers (and possibly students and their parents) do not feel comfortable dealing with descriptive grammar in class. Nevertheless, it is an urgent requirement for non-native teachers to become aware of the differences between the two types of grammar and to incorporate some elements of descriptive grammar into their instruction to effectively teach speaking. In formal education, it is nonetheless difficult for non-native teachers to decide to what extent descriptive grammar can be integrated into their instruction because almost all assessments and evaluations of learners’ progress are administered using written tests. Some schools have recently begun to incorporate performance assessment in addition to written tests, but the number of such schools remains very limited. It might, therefore, be premature to discuss this issue at this point in time; however, it should be made clear that the problem regarding grammar types is lack of non-native teachers’ awareness and knowledge of descriptive grammar. In addition, it should be noted that the idea of integrating descriptive grammar in instruction necessitates critical examinations of native speaker norms and models, as well as assessments/evaluations of learning outcomes. In the field of English as an International Language (EIL) pedagogy, debate has been ongoing regarding the variety of English that should be chosen as the instructional model, culture that should be touched upon as an English-speaking culture, and individuals who should be presented as model English speakers (Matsuda 2012). The term EIL does not refer to teaching one specific variety of English; it signifies a function performed by this language in the context of international communication. EIL pedagogy refers to preparing “English learners to become competent users of English in international contexts” (Matsuda 2012: 7). Although EIL peda-

170 

 Toshinobu Nagamine

gogy is currently at an early developmental stage, teaching EIL poses a substantial challenge for both non-native and native teachers, especially when they are situated in a context requiring drastic changes to produce English users. As mentioned earlier, Japan has been struggling to produce English users who can fluently communicate with people in the context of international communication where interaction “often takes place exclusively among non-native speakers of English” (Matsuda 2012: 4). To this end, the American English norms that are currently emphasized in Japan must be called into question. Non-native teachers should free themselves from prescriptive grammar and the norms of native speakers if they really want to teach English speaking effectively. In addition, as mentioned by Cook (1999), the students should be exposed to differing styles of English speaking including various types of advanced/skilled users. In this respect, non-native teachers can play an important role as model providers, which may become one of their new functions and responsibilities in the classroom. This is particularly relevant because more than 90% of the native teachers (ALTs) recruited by the government-sponsored JET program are from Inner Circle countries (English-speaking countries, e.g., the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada) (Council of Local Authorities for International Relations 2016). In terms of standards, Inner Circle countries are thought to be norm-providing counties (Kachru 1992). While native teachers possess implicit or procedural knowledge, in the case of ALTs working in Japan, they do not necessarily have this same type of explicit or declarative knowledge. This gap can cause various problems when they attempt to teach speaking. Non-native teachers tend to emphasize accuracy in terms of prescriptive grammar rules, while native teachers tend to focus on fluency or what is called the threshold level of communication. As a result, learners can easily become confused. To solve this problem, native and non-native teachers must fully negotiate with one another, discuss and share their perspectives on grammar, and spend sufficient time engaged in collaborative lesson planning. Unfortunately, such collaborative lesson planning is rarely conducted in Japanese EFL contexts (cf., Nagamine 2014b). As mentioned earlier, non-native teachers should also change their instructional focus on explicit or declarative knowledge to effectively help learners develop speaking skills. This is not to say, however, that their instruction that deals with analyzed knowledge is meaningless. As recent SLA research demonstrates, explicit instruction should be provided to enable learners to observe the gaps between their interlanguage and the target language in communication situations (Benati 2013). Instruction dealing with explicit types of knowledge is accuracy-focused and form-oriented. On the other hand, instruction dealing with implicit types of knowledge is fluency-focused and meaning-oriented. What is



The potential for non-native teachers to effectively teach speaking 

 171

lacking from non-native teachers’ instruction is the latter. Since accuracy is overemphasized to the detriment of fluency, learners become anxious about making mistakes or errors. Accordingly, they may become hesitant to express themselves freely in class. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for non-native teachers to evaluate or assess learners’ intelligibility and comprehensibility, particularly in terms of pronunciation. It is assumed that in terms of pronunciation, native teachers have greater advantages than non-native teachers. However, Jenkins (1999) points out the following advantages of non-native teachers: (a) Non-native teachers are likely to have extensive explicit knowledge of English phonology, while many native teachers have very limited training in this area. Hence, non-native teachers are able to provide explicit instruction and effectively help students in increasing the intelligibility and comprehensibility of speech. (b) Non-native teachers are likely to have greater empathy with their students regarding the problems encountered by the latter in the process of learning pronunciation. (c) Non-native teachers gain firsthand experience in learning what is (and what is not) intelligible to other English users (including both native and non-native speakers). Hence, it is likely that non-native teachers are better able to judge the threshold level of communication in terms of intelligibility than native teachers. (d) Non-native teachers can be excellent models of advanced/skilled English users. Those who have mastered the nuances of pronunciation are better equipped to instruct students than native teachers. Non-native teachers have yet another advantage. This can be exemplified by referring to one sociocultural factor, that is, the culture of shame, which is particular to Japan (cf., Benedict 2006). This shame culture engenders students to believe that their spoken English has to be completely correct, which is a troublesome tendency. This psychology or attitude becomes a stumbling block to students’ active participation in class. The effect of this shame culture, which inhibits students who are less confident in their speaking ability, is further enhanced by “the nail that sticks up gets hammered down” mentality, due to which even students who are confident in both their grammar and pronunciation may be misled. I have met several returnees from English-speaking countries who deliberately spoke in broken Japanese English in class and recited English from textbooks in the same manner for long periods. They claimed that they did this due to a fear of standing out in class and being made fun of by their friends. As a result, today, many of them lament that they have lost the correct English pronunciation they

172 

 Toshinobu Nagamine

once had. Hence, it is important that measures are taken to address this complicating psychological factor, in which both the cognition and emotional state of students are intertwined. It will be easier to overcome such barriers and engender solidarity in a class by implementing activities that encourage students to put themselves in another person’s position and understand each other’s emotions in the form of speakers and listeners (Nagamine 2014a). Non-native teachers who share the same culture with students may have greater advantages than native teachers in this sociocultural and sociopsychological domain. This is in line with the perspective of Boyle (1997), who claims that cultural affinity with students favors non-native teachers in EFL contexts.

4.3 Textbooks and non-native teachers’ content knowledge Japan’s School Education Law mandates that non-native teachers should use textbooks authorized by MEXT. Regardless of the subject, all textbooks developed for formal education (from elementary to upper secondary school level) are censored by MEXT’s textbook screening committee. These textbooks are not written by MEXT, but are developed and published by private companies. This textbook authorization system was established after World War II to avoid the government holding direct authority over the content of textbooks. With regard to English textbooks, there are six English textbook publishers. I have been on the editorial board of the junior high school English textbooks New Horizon English Course 1, 2, and 3 published by Tokyo Shoseki. When I was selected as an editorial board member by the company, I thought that I had obtained a great opportunity to change the textbook content. The English textbooks used in junior high and senior high schools are based on a structural syllabus. Although the number of speaking exercises included in textbooks has increased, they remain much fewer in number than decontextualized grammar exercises. As a result, non-native teachers tend to focus on grammar points and mechanical exercises. Contrary to my expectation, I soon realized that there were many restrictions affecting all editorial board members, and that what I was allowed to change was quite limited. One of these restrictions was the aforementioned authorization system. When a publisher develops a textbook draft, the draft is first sent to MEXT. The Textbook Authorization and Research Council, an official council of MEXT (which consists of university professors and junior high and senior high school teachers), then assesses the draft with reference to The Courses of Study (the national curriculum guidelines). If errors or problematic content are found in the draft, the publisher will be notified and given an opportunity to revise it. Unless



The potential for non-native teachers to effectively teach speaking 

 173

such revisions are thoroughly conducted, the publisher will not receive MEXT approval. In addition, the textbook selection is conducted by each municipal and prefectural board of education using the lists of censored textbooks. This textbook authorization is usually conducted every four years, which corresponds to the periodical revision of The Courses of Study. However eager and passionate editorial members are to change or improve the content, publishers are generally very conservative and highly reluctant to implement drastic change. Every publisher wants their textbooks to be selected by as many municipal and prefectural boards of education as possible. Publishers are aware of the fact that non-native teachers, particularly those elderly teachers working in the boards of education, want to use the same textbooks they having been using for a long time. Accordingly, even if drastic changes are suggested by the editorial board members, it is highly unlikely that they will be reflected in the content. Even if they are reflected in the content, such a textbook will stand out, which, in turn, causes a detrimental situation whereby the textbook is not selected by many boards of education. It is natural that all publishers are driven by profits; however, it should be noted here that the textbook authorization system, including the publishers’ profit-driven attitude, is one of the major reasons why the textbook content has not been dramatically changed over a long period of time. Non-native teachers’ content knowledge is highly affected and shaped by the content of textbooks. When they were students, they were taught using almost the same or similar textbooks in terms of the content, and they are now required to use these textbooks to teach English classes. This is why non-native teachers have such difficulty in changing their perspective, with regard to what and how to teach, from the English learners’ point of view to the English users’ point of view. It is thus difficult, if not impossible, to teach “with” a textbook rather than “about” the textbook.

5 Can non-native teachers teach speaking? If so, how? 5.1 Native teachers’ limitations As discussed earlier, a series of drastic reforms have been pressuring non-native, as well as native, teachers to change their teaching practices. In a qualitative study that I conducted to investigate non-native teachers’ perceptions regarding

174 

 Toshinobu Nagamine

a new policy that mandates the use of English as an instructional language (in all English classes of senior high schools), the participants (two in-service and two pre-service teachers) demonstrated different levels of anxieties about the uncertainty that they were facing regarding the policy (Nagamine 2014b). One research finding that is worth mentioning here is that the participants started viewing their position as a disadvantaged one and as being inferior to that of native teachers. One of the participants stated as follows in an interview: “I don’t think it’s possible to become like a native speaker. No matter how hard I study … If there are native speakers who have learned very well about English education in Japan, we [referring to a prefectural board of education] should employ them as senior high school English teachers. I think it’s for the best.” Hence, we may speculate that drastic reforms can become a “critical incident” (Farrell 2008) that triggers non-native teachers’ awareness of professional identities and causes them to become concerned about who they are as persons and teachers. Those participants should not have considered their position inferior; however, their perspective was founded on the image of a native teacher being the ideal teacher in the given context. Nevertheless, as far as ALTs working in Japan are concerned, most native teachers have the following limitations in teaching English speaking: (a) Native teachers are either unable to use or less able than non-native teachers to communicate in the students’ mother tongue (i.e., Japanese), due to which the purposes and functions of code switching are neglected. (b) They are less empathetic with students manifesting interlanguage-related problems in speech and having concerns regarding learning styles and strategies to improve speaking. (c) They are less sensitive to the sociocultural and sociopsychological factors affecting the students’ learning processes and in-class behaviors. (d) They possess insufficient explicit/formal knowledge to provide explanations on lexico-grammar or phonological features in such a way that students can clearly understand. Many researchers in this field, such as Cook (1999), Medgyes (1994), and Ma (2012), point out similar or the same limitations of native teachers. It is noted here that the knowledge base and teaching behaviors of native teachers as implied in the earlier list are most likely influenced and moderated by circumstances that are beyond their control. For instance, the eligibility criteria of the JET program (Council of Local Authorities for International Relations 2016) do not require one to have received specialized training in education, applied linguistics, or TESOL prior to applying for the program. An applicant needs to have only a bachelor’s degree in any discipline. Furthermore, the demonstration of Japanese language



The potential for non-native teachers to effectively teach speaking 

 175

proficiency is not required; however, it is stated as a criterion that applicants must have an interest in studying the Japanese language and culture.

5.2 Nativeness and non-nativeness We have so far discussed why non-native teachers have not been able to successfully teach speaking in Japanese EFL contexts. There are obviously a variety of sociocultural, educational, and political factors at play, most of which the majority of non-native teachers do not hold the power to control. These contextual factors have affected and shaped the non-nativeness of non-native teachers. It can also be said that those factors have contributed to forming our perceptions of nativeness. In other words, the dichotomy between nativeness and non-nativeness is constructed by those contextual factors. Hence, (non-)nativeness should not be used as a point of reference or valid reason to criticize the inability of teachers to teach English speaking. Moreover, although non-native and native teachers differ in terms of various aspects, this difference “does not imply better or worse” (Medgyes 1994: 76). There is equal chance for both non-native and native teachers to become effective teachers. The awareness of contextual factors is crucial for the following reasons. First, when people talk about non-nativeness, particularly in EFL contexts, the focal point of the discussion usually revolves around what non-native teachers cannot do. Whether or not this issue really rests on the inability of non-native teachers or why and how such a negatively-colored issue is generated is not often discussed. The shallow analysis of non-nativeness might cause or reinforce the formation and spread of native-speakerism amongst the general public as well as in academic discourse. Unfortunately, this is what we have been witnessing in Japan. Without carefully examining non-native teachers’ knowledge and skills situated in contexts and associated contextual factors, non-native teachers have been criticized for their inability to teach speaking or any other practical skills. Second, the awareness of contextual factors may enable non-native teachers, as well as native teachers, to develop a context-sensitive, location-specific pedagogy that they can apply to the teaching of speaking. This pedagogy or approach is called context-sensitive; if the context changes, the approach also changes. It is also location-specific; if the location changes, the approach also changes form. This pedagogy is insubstantial unless an individual teacher substantializes it. One way for non-native teachers to substantialize the pedagogy is to examine what they can do under the constraints and restrictions that exist in given contexts.

176 

 Toshinobu Nagamine

5.3 Pedagogical recommendations Some recommendations can be proposed for non-native teachers seeking context-sensitive, location-specific pedagogy to teach speaking effectively in Japanese EFL contexts. Speaking includes a multitude of tasks that are carried out simultaneously. Hughes (2013: 78) summarizes the complexity of speaking as follows: It is not simply a matter of developing accurate mastery of structure and vocabulary combined with effective handling of phonetic detail. The spoken form, unlike the written, calls for the learner to draw on oral/aural, cognitive, processing, pragmatic, inter-personal, cultural and motor skills simultaneously. This dynamic and complex set of achievements comes as naturally to the first language user …

As Farrell (2012) mentions, it may be crucial for non-native, as well as native, teachers to reflect on the process of speaking their first language and attempt to define what speaking means to them. By sharing and comparing these definitions among them, teachers can increase their awareness of mostly subconscious actions, which, in turn, enables them to clarify what and how to teach when teaching speaking. Since none of the English textbooks used in school settings include content regarding the strategies learners can use in communication situations, most non-native teachers are not aware of such strategy-based instruction. Non-native teachers can therefore learn about and apply some aspects of strategy-based instruction. Strategies, unlike prescriptive grammar rules, can be integrated into instruction or even school curricula in collaboration with native teachers. Performance assessment can also be conducted based on rubrics specifically designed to assess learners’ use of speaking strategies. With regard to the integration of prescriptive and descriptive grammars, non-native teachers can take into account the differences between BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills) and CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency). In an earlier stage of English teaching, to help learners acquire BICS should be the goal of instruction, but this is not so in current EFL teaching. Non-native teachers can target the development of sufficient repertoires of formulaic expressions, teaching speaking with particular attention to descriptive grammar. By doing so, the collaboration with ALTs shall become an inevitable aspect of lesson planning (particularly, designing tasks and developing teaching materials with much focus on discourse and pragmatic features/functions) and actual in-class teaching. Drill or pattern practice should be contextualized with clear communication purposes to motivate learners to realize their communicative needs. As the learners’ proficiency rises, non-native teachers can gradually



The potential for non-native teachers to effectively teach speaking 

 177

shift their pedagogical focus to CALP, which requires learners to simultaneously develop higher-order thinking. The teaching of speaking can then include more academic elements (e.g., presentation, group discussion, debate) and more academic speaking strategies. All of the above can be conducted in addition to non-native teachers’ teaching about the textbook. In addition, non-native teachers can add concept-based instruction, which deals mainly with linguistic concepts or meanings. Non-native teachers, however hard they may try to make their teaching communicative, tend to end up merely instructing in grammar structures (i.e., forms). For instance, there are currently many non-native teachers who teach the differences between Do you have any idea? and Do you have any ideas? in terms of structure only. They explain to learners that the final word in the former is singular and in the latter plural without referring to the subtle differences in meaning. There are also many non-native teachers who do not perceive the strangeness when learners utter My company is in Tokyo. They would simply note that this statement is grammatically correct without pointing out that the word choice company is incorrect and should be replaced with office. As previously mentioned, because almost all in-class activities and exercises are decontextualized, such a conceptual difference between company and office is not perceived as an important topic to deal with in class. To make matters worse, I have seen many non-native teachers use the expression Do you have any idea? when eliciting learners’ opinions in class. To help non-native teachers, and in the long run to help learners, concept-based instruction should be incorporated as an additional component of what to teach with the textbook.

6 Conclusion Current English teaching in Japan has undergone a series of reforms. The topdown imposition of these policies, which overemphasize speaking skills, has negatively affected non-native teachers’ professional identities. One crucial problem is that their roles and responsibilities have become unclear in formal educational settings. In this chapter, therefore, I have discussed the teaching of speaking as it relates to non-native teachers in the context of formal education. More specifically, I have examined the major sociocultural, educational, and political factors over which non-native teachers have no control. By so doing, I have explained the reasons why non-native teachers have not been able to successfully teach speaking skills. The difficulties of non-native teachers should not be perceived as the same as their inability to teach speaking effectively. With many constraints and restrictions in context, non-native teachers can still find ways or develop ped-

178 

 Toshinobu Nagamine

agogical approaches. Finally, I have proposed some recommendations to help non-native teachers change their teaching practices and explore their potential in collaboration with native teachers.

7 References Aoki, Mizuho. 2014. Schools fret about assistant teachers ahead of proposed 2020 reforms. The Japan Times: English Education. Retrieved from http://www.japantimes.co.jp/tag/englisheducation/ Allwright, Dick. 1991. The death of the method. Working Paper 10. The Exploratory Practice Centre. The University of Lancaster: England. Benati, Alessandro G. 2013. Issues in second language teaching. Sheffield: Equinox. Benedict, Ruth. 2006. The chrysanthemum and the sword: Patterns of Japanese culture. New York: Mariner. Benesse Educational Research and Development Center. 2009. Preliminary research of english education in junior high schools: Results of questionnaire surveys. http://berd.benesse. jp/up_images/research/data_00_%283%29.pdf Boyle, Joseph. 1997. Native-speaker teachers of English in Hong Kong. Language and Education 11. 163–181. Butler, Yuko G. & Masakazu Iino. 2005. Current Japanese reforms in English language education: The 2003 “Action Plan.” Language Policy 4. 25–45. Cook, Vivian. 1999. Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33(2). 185–209. Council of Local Authorities for International Relations. 2016. Countries participating in the Jet Programme. Retrieved from http://jetprogramme.org/en/countries/ Dogancay-Aktuna, Seran & Joel Hardman. 2012. Teacher education for EIL: Working toward a situated meta-praxis. In Aya Matsuda (ed.), Principles and practices of teaching English as an international language, 103–118. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Farrell, Thomas S.C. 2012. Reflecting on teaching the four skills: 60 strategies for professional development. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Floris, Flora Debora. 2013. English language teaching in Japan issues and challenges: An interview with Toshinobu Nagamine and Masaki Oda. English language teaching world online: Voices from the classroom (ELTWO). http://blog.nus.edu.sg/eltwo/2013/06/23/ english-language-teaching-in-japan-issues-and-challenges-an-interview-with-toshinobunagamine-and-masaki-oda/ Glasgow, Gregory P. 2014. Teaching English in English, ‘in principle’: The national foreign language curriculum for Japanese senior high schools. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning 9(2). 152–161. Hino, Nobuyuki. 1988. Yakudoku: Japan’s dominant tradition in foreign language learning. JALT Journal 10. 45–55. Hughes, Rebecca. 2013. Teaching and researching speaking. New York: Routledge. Jenkins, Jennifer. 1999. Pronunciation in teacher education for English as an international language. Speak Out! (IATEFL Pronunciation Special Interest Group Newsletter) 24. 45–48.



The potential for non-native teachers to effectively teach speaking 

 179

Kachru, Braj B. (ed.) 1992. The other tongue: English across cultures. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Kumaravadivelu, B. 2006. TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly 40(1). 59–81. Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Marti Anderson. 2011. Techniques and principles in language teaching. New York: Oxford University Press. Lortie, Dan C. 1975. Schoolteacher: A sociological study. London: University of Chicago Press. Ma, Lai P.F. 2012. Advantages and disadvantages of native- and non-native-English-speaking teachers: Student perceptions in Hong Kong. TESOL Quarterly 46(2). 280–305. Matsuda, Aya. (ed.) 2012. Principles and practices of teaching English as an international language. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Matsumura, Shoichi & Toshinobu Nagamine. 2014. Critical review of foreign language education policy and practice in Japan. Paper presented at the International Network for Language Education Policy Studies Conference, Taiwan. Medgyes, Peter. 1994. The non-native teacher. London: Macmillan. Nagamine, Toshinobu. 2008. Exploring preservice teachers’ beliefs: What does it mean to become an English teacher in Japan. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag. Nagamine, Toshinobu. 2014a. Emotionality and language learning: Forging bonds by sharing emotions. English Language Teaching World Online: Voices from the Classroom. Retrieved from http://blog.nus.edu.sg/eltwo/ Nagamine, Toshinobu. 2014b. Preservice and inservice English as a foreign language teachers’ perceptions of the new language education policy regarding the teaching of classes in English at Japanese senior high schools. In Kosuke Shimizu & William S. Bradley (eds.), Multiculturalism and conflict reconciliation in the Asia-Pacific: Migration, language, and politics, 99–117. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Nagamine, Toshinobu. 2015. Why have English education reforms been unsuccessfully implemented in Japan? Paper presented at the 8th meeting of the JACET SIG Language Teacher Cognition Research. Tokyo, Japan. Nishino, Takako. 2011. Japanese high school teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding communicative language teaching: An exploratory survey. JALT Journal 33(2). 131–155. Oxford, Rebecca. 2001. Integrated skills in the ESL/EFL Classroom. ERIC Digest. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED456670).

Recommended reading Folse, Keith S. 2006. The art of teaching speaking: Research and pedagogy in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. This book presents a concise yet adequate overview of pertinent research findings and practical tips for teaching speaking. What is unique about this book is the author’s emphasis on cultural awareness. Successful and unsuccessful examples of both ESL and EFL teaching practices are provided. Farrell, Thomas S. C. 2012. Reflecting on teaching the four skills: 60 strategies for professional development. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. This book offers ESL/EFL teachers teaching tips (strategies) to reflect on and explore various ways to transform their teaching beliefs and practices. The book treats the four

180 

 Toshinobu Nagamine

macro skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) in separate chapters. Thus, readers can deepen their understanding of the teaching of each skill and clearly see how to make their own informed decisions. Segalowitz, Norman. 2010. Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge. This book presents a dynamic framework with which readers can systematically examine second language fluency. Different aspects of fluency are discussed in each chapter: units of analysis for measuring fluency, social and motivational contributors to fluency, etc. This book may be a great help to scholars trying to conceptualize “L2 fluency” and to formulate appropriate research questions. Sanz, Cristina & Ronald P. Leow. (eds.) 2011. Implicit and explicit language learning: Conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. The relationship between implicit and explicit learning is a central issue in SLA research. This book contains 16 articles (five theoretical papers and 11 reports of empirical studies) which were first presented at the 2009 Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics. Some pedagogical implications are discussed.

Questions for reflection and discussion – – –

– –

Non-native teachers in Japanese EFL contexts often note that speaking English is an anxiety-provoking activity for many learners. Explain the possible reasons for this. Native speakers may experience a range of anxieties at the thought of public speaking. Are the anxieties they experience the same or different? Why? It is argued that Japanese non-native teachers’ content knowledge is highly influenced by the content of textbooks. To what extent is this applicable to you as a teacher or to a teacher(s) who taught you in the past? In what ways do you think non-native and native teachers can collaborate with each other in the pre-lesson phase, lesson phase, and post-lesson phase of teaching speaking? In what ways can grammar and pronunciation teaching be incorporated into the teaching of speaking? What are the roles and responsibilities of non-native and native teachers in this respect?

Part III L2 students’ beliefs and expectations of native and non-native teachers

Luís Guerra

Chapter 9 Students’ perceptions and expectations of native and non-native speaking teachers Abstract: This chapter aims at identifying students’ attitudes and beliefs towards learning English with native and non-native English speaking teachers (NESTs and NNESTs). Attitudes are measured through quantitative and qualitative strategies of inquiry (questionnaires and interviews) which assess students’ perceived differences between native and non-native teachers regarding the following aspects: (1) language proficiency; (2) teaching behavior; and (3) cultural knowledge. Language proficiency is identified through the students’ view of the teachers’ speaking, reading, writing and listening skills, vocabulary, pronunciation/accent, grammar, and use of colloquial/idiomatic language. As for teaching behavior, subjects express their viewpoints regarding teachers’ awareness of students’ needs, commitment to teaching, confident use of English, focus on accuracy vs. fluency, focus on oral skills vs. written skills, use of materials, homework assignment, attitude to errors, and use of students’ L1. Finally, cultural knowledge is analyzed based on the concept of English as a tool for cross-cultural communication which involves interactions among nationals of different countries, native and non-native speakers alike, as opposed to an approach to culture which emphasizes the native speaker context. To conclude, students state their preferences for native or non-native teachers.

1 Introduction For some time, the professional aims of non-native teachers (NNTs) were basically hoping to become like native speakers. However, in Gnutzmann’s (1999: 160) opinion this might not be true of today’s NNTs as he believes that “most language teachers have become aware themselves, or have been made aware by others that native speaker competence is an unrealistic, and for that reason perhaps even counterproductive, goal for non-native speakers”. But have NNESTs’ aims really changed?

Luís Guerra, University of Evora, Portugal DOI 10.1515/9781501504143-010

184 

 Luís Guerra

According to many researchers, it seems that NNESTs do consider achieving native-like competence so as to become better professionals. For example, Llurda (2009: 119) states that “NNESTs have accepted formulations, proposals, and attitudes that relegate them to mere spectators and at times executioners of native speaker (NS) norms”. However, what does being a native speaker really mean? What is it that non-native speakers (NNS) lack that prevents them from being considered native speakers of the language? In other words, what is the difference between non-native and native teachers? Medgyes (1999: 36) points out one of these differences as he sees the NNT as having a less reliable knowledge of English than native teachers (NTs) and “likely to have relatively scanty information about the culture, or rather cultures, of English-speaking countries”. Moreover, Medgyes (1999: 37) puts the NNT at a ‘junction’ where “by birth we [non-native teachers] represent our native language and culture, but by profession we are obliged to represent a foreign language with its cultural load”. Furthermore, Medgyes (1999: 38) reinforces the idea that NNESTs should strive to become native-like as he believes that most NNESTs struggle “to acquire a bit more Englishness”, consequently suffering from an inferiority complex caused by flaws in their knowledge of the language, and that as far as language proficiency and familiarity with at least one English-speaking culture are concerned, NTs “are better off – and usually immeasurably better off!”. Likewise, Phillipson (1992) thinks that the NS may be better qualified than the NNS because the NT can demonstrate fluent and appropriate language, appreciate the cultural connotations of the language, and assess whether a language form is correct or not. However, Phillipson stresses that while on the one hand, these are not fundamental qualities in teacher training, on the other hand, well trained NNTs can attain these skills. In these circumstances, Phillipson refers to the fact that NNESTs may be better qualified than NESTs for a number of reasons. First, they have gone through the complex process of acquiring English as a second or foreign language. Second, they are aware of the linguistic and cultural necessities of their learners. Third, they may have a detailed consciousness of how mother tongue and target language differ and consequently what is problematic for L2 learners. Finally, they have first-hand experience of using a second or foreign language. Seidlhofer (1999: 235) also refers to some advantages of NNTs. She calls them double agents as “they are at home with the language(s) and culture(s) they share with the students, but they also know the relevant terrain inhabited by the target language”. In Seidlhofer’s opinion, what is frequently observed as a weakness can be used as an important resource. The experience of learning a language shared by non-native students and teachers should set up “the basis for non-na-

Students’ perceptions and expectations of native and non-native speaking teachers 

 185

tive teachers’ confidence, not for their insecurity” (Seidlhofer 1999: 238). Furthermore, Seidlhofer believes that NNTs are more able to use materials and methods in the classroom which are meaningful thus enhancing learning. In an attempt to empower the NNEST, Medgyes (1992, 1999) lists some positive aspects of being a non-native English teacher. According to him, NNESTs can: provide a good learner model for imitation; teach language learning strategies more effectively; supply learners with more information about the English language; anticipate and prevent language difficulties better; be more empathetic to the needs and problems of learners; and finally, make use of the learners’ mother tongue. In line with this idea, Kershaw (1996) comments that the NNT’s lack of formal knowledge of English and experience in learning a foreign language make the ‘good’ NNTs have a more prominent role. According to Kershaw (1996: 9), the native speaker may not be the one who best understands the native culture in the sense that he/she may not be “able to present a broader and simpler view of the culture appropriate for the learner”. Most importantly, Medgyes (1992) affirms that while non-language-specific variables which can be equally applied to both native and non-native teachers such as experience, age, sex, aptitude, charisma, motivation, and training can have a vital role in the teaching/learning process, one variable that plays in favour of NTs is their command of the language. However, Medgyes (1992: 346) assumes that it is the non-natives’ deficient English language competence that “enables them to compete with native speakers, particularly in monolingual ELT settings”. In these contexts, “The more proficient in English, the more efficient in the classroom is a valid statement” (Medgyes, 1992: 347). Medgyes (1992: 347) then argues that both NTs and NNTs can be equally effective “because in the final analysis their respective strengths and weaknesses balance each other out”. For Medgyes (1992), there can only be an ideal native teacher, “one who has achieved a high degree of proficiency in the learners’ mother tongue” (348), and an ideal non-native teacher, “one who has achieved near-native proficiency in English” (349).

2 Research on students’ perceptions of NESTs and NNESTs The debate on the strengths and weaknesses of NESTs and NNESTs has been intensely encouraged. However, in order to contribute to this debate it is imperative to assess the students’ attitudes and beliefs towards learning English with NESTs and NNESTs. Many times some of the central topics in this debate such as the advantages and disadvantages of NESTs and NNESTs are somehow

186 

 Luís Guerra

approached differently by learners. In other words, some linguistic or pedagogic features teachers may see as a handicap, students might undoubtedly embrace as positive and constructive characteristics. So as to observe learners’ perception of the differences between NESTs and NNESTs, Ali (2009) interviewed 31 university students in the Gulf Corporation Council countries. One of the main findings of her study was that “students cannot always differentiate clearly between a ‘native’ and a ‘non-native’ teacher” (Ali 2009: 34). Moreover, Ali concluded that, “when discussing which qualities students desire in an English teacher, none of the surveyed students identified (…) ‘native speaker’ as a desirable quality” (34). Remarkably, the teachers who were interviewed in the same study “think that in many cases students are not even aware of the ‘native’/’non-native’ divide” (45). In an attempt to describe the features of native and non-native teachers, some students defined “‘native’ speakers as those with ‘very strong’ and incomprehensible accents” (46) and non-native teachers as “strict with language rules” (47). In a similar study, Benke and Medgyes (2005) had 422 learners of English in Hungary reply to a questionnaire with five-point Likert scale questions with statements about NSs and NNSs based on Medgyes’ (1999) list of features of NNS and NS teachers. The main finding was that subjects regarded NNTs as more able to teach and explain grammar while NSTs were considered perfect models for imitation, fully able to teach conversation classes and “more capable of getting their learners to speak” (Benke and Medgyes 2005: 207). Lasagabaster and Sierra (2005) carried out a study with 76 university students of English regarding their perceptions of NESTs and NNESTs in an EFL context through closed and open questionnaires. Results showed that students tended to prefer NESTs over NNESTs, especially when it comes to learning pronunciation, culture and speaking, although they were aware of some advantages of NNESTs as well; however, most students would like to have a combination of both teachers. Another study conducted by Madrid and Pérez (2004) found out that Spanish EFL students identified relevant differences in the pedagogical behavior of NESTs and NNESTs and preferred NESTs as the academic level increased. A similar study was carried out by Díaz (2015) which analyzed the preferences of 78 French university students for NESTs or NNESTs. Díaz concluded that although students preferred NESTs in some items, generally in subjects related to oral production, in other items such as grammar, culture, strategies and vocabulary learning, students were inclined towards NNESTs or both types of teachers. She also found out that the older the students, the more it seemed they were inclined to appreciate both types of teachers.

Students’ perceptions and expectations of native and non-native speaking teachers 

 187

In a study which focused on the role of English as an international language in ELT in Portugal, how it manifested in policy and materials, and how it was perceived by students and teachers, Guerra (2009) hoped to identify 247 Portuguese university students’ opinion regarding which way they thought was best to learn English. In a questionnaire, subjects were given the following choices: (a) always with a native teacher; (b) always with a non-native teacher; (c) it doesn’t matter if it’s a native or non-native teacher; and (d) with native and non-native teachers (it depends on the teaching level/stage). In addition, subjects could also express their opinion about this issue in an open-ended question. Results showed that most students did not see any type of teacher as the best way of learning English: 39.3% thought it was better to have both NTs and NNTs while 37.2% said it does not matter if the teacher is native or non-native. Moreover, 19.0% of the respondents preferred to have a NT and only 4.5% stated that they always wanted a NNT. In the open ended question, students pointed out some advantages of both types of teachers. Regarding NTs, subjects referred that they have deeper knowledge of the language and that they are necessary to acquire native accent/correct pronunciation, to learn about native culture, and to improve/practice the language, among other reasons. As for NNTs, students pointed out that they can teach/ explain in Portuguese and because they understand/know students’ difficulties, among other advantages. Subjects who showed no preference for either type of teacher said that what matters is that the teacher should know how to teach/be competent, the teacher should know the English language, and that the teacher motivates students. On the other hand, students who preferred to have always a NT and those who preferred NNTs showed similar reasons to those above (both types of teachers or it does not matter) such as to acquire native accent/correct pronunciation, to learn about native culture and to be able to speak/use in class, in the case of NTs while for NNTs because they can teach/explain in Portuguese and because they understand students’ difficulties. Although subjects who identified advantages in both NTs and NNTs and the ones who preferred either NTs or NNTs pointed out similar reasons, the difference between these two groups of subjects was that while some hope to benefit from both types of teachers, others only consider it beneficial when they only have NNTs or NTs. At last, students who chose to have NNTs and NTs in different learning levels/ stages recognized three different situations in which a specific type of teacher would be more appropriate: NNTs for beginning levels, NTs for intermediate and advanced levels/higher education.

188 

 Luís Guerra

3 The study Based on the studies mentioned above, the aim of this research is to point out learners’ attitudes and beliefs towards learning English with NESTs and NNESTs. Attitudes are measured through an online survey questionnaire and e-mail interviews which assess students’ perception of differences between NESTs and NNESTs and students’ preferences for NTs or NNTs. More specifically, students’ perception of differences and similarities among NESTs and NNESTs is based on the following characteristics: (1) language proficiency, (2) teaching behavior, and (3) cultural knowledge: (1) Language proficiency: identified through the students’ view of the teachers’ speaking skills, reading skills, writing skills, listening skills, knowledge of vocabulary, pronunciation/accent, grammar, use of colloquial/idiomatic language; (2) Teaching behavior: subjects express their viewpoints regarding teachers’ awareness of students’ needs, commitment to teaching, confident use of English, focus on accuracy vs. fluency, focus on oral skills vs. written skills, use of classroom materials, homework assignment, attitude to errors, use of students’ L1; (3) Cultural knowledge: analyzed based on the concept of English as a tool for cross-cultural communication which involves interactions among nationals of different countries, native and non-native speakers alike, as opposed to an approach to culture which emphasizes the native speaker context. Students’ perception of differences and similarities between NESTs and NNESTs was identified through 8 six-point Likert-scale questions and their preferences for native or non-native teachers were expressed in an open-ended question and e-mail interviews. The participants (N=32) in this study are students at the ‘Languages, Literatures and Cultures’ and ‘Languages and Literatures’ 1st cycle courses at the University of Evora, Portugal, who took English language as a subject in their area of specialization (Languages and Tourism, Literatures and Arts, or Portuguese/ English Studies) whether as a 1st year, 2nd year or 3rd year subject.

4 Results The findings will be presented based on the four sections of the study: (1) students’ perception of differences between NESTs and NNESTs regarding their

Students’ perceptions and expectations of native and non-native speaking teachers 

 189

language proficiency, (2) their teaching behavior, (3) their cultural knowledge; and (4) students’ preference for NESTs or NNESTs. Quantitative data analysis was based on the means of each possible response (see Appendix for the percentages, number of responses and means of answers to questions 1 to 7) and percentages of responses (question 8; see Appendix), whereas qualitative data (question 9 and interviews) categorized and highlighted participants’ prevailing attitudes and beliefs.

Language proficiency As far as the participants’ opinions regarding teachers’ language proficiency (questions 1 and 2), and considering the mean of each response, results pointed out that subjects assess NESTs as more competent than NNESTs regarding their speaking skills, reading skills, writing skills, knowledge of vocabulary and grammar, and having a more intelligible pronunciation/accent. In contrast, students have a more positive attitude towards NNESTs’ listening skills and use of colloquial/idiomatic language (although in this area with just a slight difference between the two groups of teachers). Significantly, the most distinctive feature between NESTs and NNESTs where there is a noteworthy difference in the means of the answers for the two types of teachers is that NESTs have a more intelligible pronunciation, know more vocabulary and use correct grammar. All in all, it might be inferred that students have clearly recognized the great language proficiency of NESTs when compared to NNESTs.

Teaching behavior Regarding students’ attitudes towards teachers’ practices and performance (questions 3 and 4), they believe NNESTs are better than NESTs concerning their awareness of students’ needs and their commitment to teaching. Moreover, NNESTs focus classes on oral skills and written skills. NNESTs also have a stricter attitude towards students’ errors and mistakes, assign more homework, and make more use of students’ first language when it becomes necessary. On the other hand, students feel that NESTs use English more confidently, give more emphasis to fluency and make better use of classroom materials. Remarkably, subjects made no distinction between the two types of teachers as far as their attention to accuracy is concerned. Finally, five features displayed a more clearcut distinction between NESTs and NNESTs, all of them pointing out a marked preference for NNESTs: awareness of students’ needs, classes focusing on oral

190 

 Luís Guerra

and written skills, use of students’ first language, strictness regarding students’ errors and mistakes, and commitment to teaching. On the whole, it may be concluded that students noticeably assessed NNESTs differently than NESTs as far as their teaching strategies and methods are concerned and many times NNESTs are perceived more positively than NESTs.

Cultural knowledge In order to perceive any different attitudes towards learning culture from NESTs or NNESTs, students were first asked how important it is to learn about cultures when learning English (question 5). Results expressed in the mean for each preference show that students believe it is important to know culture in the following order: 1st, knowledge of the two main English-speaking cultures -- British and American; 2nd, knowledge of other native cultures; 3rd, knowledge of the students’ own culture (Portuguese); 4th, knowledge of cultures where English is a foreign language, and 5th, knowledge of non-native cultures where English is a second language. The following questions (6 and 7) requested students to assess NESTs and NNESTs as far as their knowledge of the cultures they identified as very important or important in the previous question (5) is concerned. Table 1 shows the percentage and frequency in the very important and important responses. Table 1: Percentage and frequency in the very important and important responses (question 5). very ­important

important

TOTAL

knowledge of the two main English-speaking cultures (British and American)

86,67% 26

10,00% 3

96,67% 29

knowledge of other native cultures

43,33% 13

50,00% 15

93,33% 28

knowledge of non-native cultures where English is a second language

33,33% 10

33,33% 10

66,66% 20

knowledge of cultures where English is a foreign language

43,33% 13

16,67% 5

60,00% 18

knowledge of the students‘ own culture (­Portuguese)

56,67% 17

6,67% 2

63,34% 19

Students’ perceptions and expectations of native and non-native speaking teachers 

 191

Overall, comparing the responses provided for each type of teacher, subjects clearly opted for NESTs as having more knowledge of all cultures. Interestingly, the most marked distinction between the two types of teachers was found in their knowledge of EFL and ESL cultures. However, it is worth noting that students hardly made any distinction between NNESTs’ and NESTs’ knowledge of British and American cultures as well as Portuguese culture.

Students’ preference for NESTs or NNESTs This study also attempted to recognize the students’ view of the best type of teacher to learn English (question 8). The vast majority of subjects (84,37%, N=27) did not choose any of the types of teachers, NESTs or NNESTs. Indeed, 50% (N=16) stated that it does not matter if the teacher is a native or a non-native speaker, while 34,37% (N=11) said that they would like to have both NESTs and NNESTs. Put simply, there is a strong tendency towards valuing both types of teachers. The qualitative data (question 9 and interviews) supplemented the data from question 8 of the questionnaire exploring students’ answers in greater detail and depth. In essence, students’ comments in the open-ended question can be categorized in three different clusters: (1) those who preferred to have NESTs and NNESTs; (2) those who did not express any preference; and (3) those who chose to have NESTs. Students who favored having the two types of teachers remarked about the use of both first and second languages by the NNEST and NEST, respectively: It is important to have a native teacher because he/she will eventually know the language in a deeper level. But it is also important to have a non-native teacher so he/she can help you when you are having a hard time understanding something by making use of the student’s first language.

Conversely, subjects who demonstrated no preference for either NESTs or NNESTs provided several reasons for doing so, stating their concern with the teacher’s language skills, motivation to teach, and teaching methodology: It doesn’t matter if it’s a native teacher or a non-native teacher as long as teachers have good English skills and also are aware of how to teach their students how to learn English efficiently. Having a huge interest [in learning] is what really matters. In my opinion, the teaching method is the most important in general. So, it does not matter if we have a native or a non-native teacher.

192 

 Luís Guerra

Interestingly, one student seemed to summarize the reasons expressed by other subjects, referring to some positive aspects of both NESTs and NNESTs: I think that being a native speaker or non-native speaker doesn’t make a difference. The difference may be in what type of teacher it is. A native speaker has to be careful when teaching English because being a native speaker sometimes makes you speak faster and say things that students might not be accustomed to hearing. Non-native speakers most of the times speak the language of their students fluently and are able to teach in that language if need be. Native speakers might learn that language but it might not be the same. But learning from a native speaker will have privileges because, well, the teacher is a native speaker and the learning experience will be different and will allow the students to speak to other native speakers. All in all, I think English can be taught perfectly well with either a native speaker or a non-native speaker.

In the interviews, students were able to put forward some explanations for their choice of teachers. In essence, many referred to the advantages of having both NNESTs and NESTs. One student pointed out to some benefits of having these teachers: I must admit that at first I had that biased idea that “No, the best teacher is the native speaker, he knows everything, and so on.” (…) I had very good native teachers but I also had other native teachers who couldn’t understand why the Portuguese students make this or that mistake. On the other hand, the Portuguese teacher, maybe because he had to go through the same experience, he can understand why the student makes a mistake, and the way the student can correct it. I even think the quality, the language competence, may be similar.

However, one student declared that the good NNEST is one who does not have a foreign accent: I’ve always been lucky with the English teachers I’ve had, because in the language school I always had English-born teachers and in school my teachers had an English accent. That’s why I never noticed any difference. Many of them even had a Master’s degree in England. I never had any contact with non-native teachers who spoke English with a Portuguese accent.

Alternatively, another student accepted the fact that a NNEST may not have a ‘good’ pronunciation but he/she will be close to and well acquainted with the students’ problems and experiences: I believe non-native teachers are closer [to us]. I think it’s easier for him to teach (…) than a native English teacher. His pronunciation will be more correct but he won’t be as close to us.

Students’ perceptions and expectations of native and non-native speaking teachers 

 193

Yet, there were other subjects who admitted that NNESTs can become as competent as NESTs: If it’s a good teacher, because there are many people who speak English as a second language and speak it as well as someone who has English as a first language, I mean, I don’t think it matters. Even non-native teachers can speak English correctly.

Some students also called attention to the importance of having different types of teachers depending on the level of learning: It’s good to have a non-native teacher who can speak our language at first and then when we are fluent, [it is good to have] a native teacher. In my opinion, to date I’ve only had classes with non-native teachers (…) I believe that for a more successful learning (…) when the student is beginning to learn English (…) [it’s better to have] a Portuguese teacher who is fluent in English.

Finally, it is important to point out that some subjects mentioned some advantages of having NESTs: Most teachers, every teacher I’ve had, were non-natives. But with natives it must be different, because they have a more personal knowledge of the language. I just don’t know if they can teach it to their students. So, it depends on the person. I think we can just gain from that (…) Perhaps he [the NEST] is teaching something and we’re learning about other things, which a speaker of English as a foreign language is not able to do. If the teacher is a native speaker, this contact starts from the very beginning (…) I think the native teacher can help, and I think it’s important for students to have this contact, to have the opportunity to deal with natives at least for some time. If the native speaker is the teacher, it’s much better.

5 Discussion and conclusions Based on quantitative and qualitative data using a questionnaire and interviews, this study shows that students manifestly perceived differences between NESTs and NNESTs. First, they assessed NESTs as having better language proficiency and cultural knowledge. Second, students distinguished the teaching behavior of both types of teachers. Sometimes they identified positive features of NNESTs such as awareness of students’ needs and commitment to teaching. Moreover, students also pointed out some positive characteristics of NESTs such as a more confident use of English and better use of classroom materials. As far as the teachers’ knowledge of cultures is concerned, students see no difference

194 

 Luís Guerra

between NNESTs and NESTs concerning their knowledge of British, American and Portuguese cultures. This result might indicate that students believe it is vital for NESTs to have a thorough knowledge of the learners’ native culture. Furthermore, although students regarded ESL and EFL cultures as the least important in ELT, they also assessed NESTs as having more knowledge of these cultures than NNESTs. Finally, this study indicates that students tend to appreciate both types of teachers when considering the best way to learn English. These results seem to confirm the findings in other studies which pointed out that students tend to view both types of teachers as having complementary strong points (Mahboob & Lipovsky 2010; Mahboob 2004). Mahboob (2004: 23) stresses that due to the students’ perception of the complementary distribution of skills for the two types of teachers, “collaboration between the two will provide a better teaching-learning setting for ESL students.” However, it is important to note that not all teaching environments can afford to do so. In many EFL classroom settings, it is very likely that the NNEST will be the only available source of language so in these contexts there is very little room for collaborative teaching. Although the results of this study reveal that learners perceive NNESTs as competent teachers, a large number of students and teachers might still prefer a native speaker model. However, NESTs are often linguistically restricted to their own dialect and may not be aware of international practices of English whereas many NNESTs may be fully competent speakers. This competent NNEST might then become an appropriate role model whose language proficiency is realistic and attainable. Such deficiency or limitation of some NESTs in using and teaching a less regionally marked accent and lexis and a more international variety of English becomes more evident if we approach ELT through the English as a Lingua Franca/English as an International Language (ELF/EIL) paradigm. Llurda (2004) has called attention to the relevance of the NNS in general and the NNEST in particular, with the increasing awareness of English as the world lingua franca and the resulting pedagogical changes in the ELT classroom. As speakers of ELF/ EIL themselves, NNESTs are better equipped to direct learners in the process of using the language in a multicultural and multilingual environment. NESTs, on the other hand, may lack the experience, and sometimes the will, to adapt their language to meet the needs of communicative contexts which involve native as well as non-native speakers of English with varying degrees of language competence. Moreover, within the ELF/EIL perspective, the teacher’s expected knowledge of a specific English-speaking culture decreases as learners should be able to develop intercultural skills which will allow them to become competent users of the language in international communicative exchanges. In other words, NNESTs may choose to get rid of the ‘Englishness’ they were expected to acquire and the

Students’ perceptions and expectations of native and non-native speaking teachers 

 195

‘cultural load’ of the foreign language they represent, as pointed out by Medgyes (1999). So, according to Llurda (2004: 318), NNESTs “are the ones who are inherently endowed with better expertise in guiding this process.” Finally, the ELF/EIL paradigm might also help NNESTs abandon their feeling of language deficiency as this approach challenges “the old native-speaker dominated framework in which British or American norms have to be followed and native speakers are considered the ideal teachers” (Llurda, 2004: 319). Likewise, learners’ attitudes towards NESTS and NNESTs might change significantly if they embrace the ELF/EIL perspective. Although they may appreciate both types of teachers, as is the case with the subjects in this study, they might modify their perceptions of language competence, cultural knowledge and teaching behavior, aiming at becoming competent users of English and expecting teachers to be capable of providing them with the necessary linguistic and cultural means to achieve that competence. But perhaps, a major contribution to the NEST/NNEST debate would be a change of learners’ and teachers’ perspectives on the concept of ‘native speaker’. Paikeday (2003) argues that the notion of ‘native speaker’ is a vague one and, consequently, from an ELT perspective, there are no native or non-native speakers. In Rampton’s (1990) opinion, it is imperative to separate the biological and social levels as well as the idea of language as an instrument of communication and as a symbol of social identification. In essence, this distinction identifies, on the one hand, English as the cultural expression of a society and, on the other hand, English as the language of international communication. Based on this, Rampton proposes new terms to be used: language expertise, language inheritance and language affiliation. The term language expert should be used instead of native speaker when the communicative aspects of language are considered: “When educationalists have the communicative aspects of language in mind, they should speak of accomplished users as expert rather than as native speakers” (Rampton, 1990: 98). For Rampton, the notion of expertise is fairer to learners and teachers because it “shifts the emphasis from ‘who you are’ to ‘what you know’” (99). The term affiliation “refers to a connection between people and groups that are considered to be separate or different, whereas inheritance is concerned with the continuity between people and groups who are felt to be closely linked” (99). Moreover, while the term inheritance carries “a sense of the permanent, ancient, or historic”, the term affiliation involves a sense of attachment (100). Basically, the concepts expertise, inheritance, and affiliation “tell us to inspect each native speaker’s credentials closely, and they insist that we do not assume that nationality and ethnicity are the same as language ability and language allegiance” (100).

196 

 Luís Guerra

In conclusion, the argument about whether NESTs or NNESTs are better teachers is becoming irrelevant. What needs to be considered is their intercultural competence, their teaching skills, and their language competence, no matter where they were born and brought up.

6 References Ali, Sadia. 2009. Teaching English as an international language (EIL) in the Gulf Corporation Council (GCC) countries. The brown man’s burden. In Farzad Sharifian (ed.), English as an international language. Perspectives and pedagogical issues, 34–57. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Benke, Eszter & Peter Medgyes. 2005. Differences in teaching behaviour between native and non-native speaker teachers. As seen by the learners. In Enric Llurda (ed.), Non-native language teachers. Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession, 195–215. New York: Springer. Díaz, Noemi Rámila. 2015. Students’ preferences regarding native and non-native teachers of English at a university in the French Brittany. In Nieves Jiménez Carra, Elisa Calvo, Núria Fernández-Quesada, Alicia María López Márquez & Alice Stender (eds.), Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 173. 93–97. Gnutzmann, Claus. 1999. English as a global language. Perspectives for English language teaching and for teacher education in Germany. In Claus Gnutzmann (ed.), Teaching and learning English as a global language. Native and non-native perspectives, 157–169. Tübingen: Stauffenburg-Verlag. Guerra, Luís. 2009. Teaching and Learning English as an international language in Portugal. Policy, practice and perceptions. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag. Kershaw, George. 1996. The developing roles of native-speaker and non-native-speaker teachers. Modern English Teacher 5(3). 7–11. Lasagabaster, David & Juan Manuel Sierra. 2005. What do students think about the pros and cons of having a native speaker teacher? In Enric Llurda (ed.), Non-native language teachers. Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession, 217–241. New York: Springer. Llurda, Enric. 2004. Non-native-speaker teachers and English as an International Language. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14(3). 314–323. Llurda, Enric. 2009. Attitudes towards English as an international language. The pervasiveness of native models among L2 users and teachers. In Farzad Sharifian (ed.), English as an international language. Perspectives and pedagogical issues, 119–134. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Madrid, Daniel & María Luisa Pérez. 2004. Teacher and student preferences of native and non-native foreign language teachers. Porta Linguarum 2. 125–138. Mahboob, Ahmar. 2004. Native or non-native. What do students think? In Lía D. Kamhi-Stein (ed.), Learning and teaching from experience, 121–147. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

Students’ perceptions and expectations of native and non-native speaking teachers 

 197

Mahboob, Ahmar & Caroline Lipovsky. 2010. Appraisal of native and non-native English speaking teachers. In Ahmar Mahboob (ed.), The NNEST lens: Non-native English speakers in TESOL, 154–179. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Medgyes, Péter. 1992. Native or non-native. Who’s worth more? ELT Journal 46(4). 340–349. Medgyes, Péter. 1999. The non-native teacher. Ismaning: Hueber. Paikeday, Thomas. 2003. The native speaker is dead! New York: Lexicography, Inc. Phillipson, Robert. 1992. ELT. The native speaker’s burden. ELT Journal 46(1). 12–18. Rampton, Ben. 1990. Displacing the ‘native speaker’. Expertise, affiliation, and inheritance. ELT Journal 44(2). 97–101. Seidlhofer, Barbara. 1999. Double standards. Teacher education in the expanding circle. World Englishes 18(2). 233–245.

Appendix Question 1: How do you assess native teachers as far as their competence in English is concerned? always

frequently

sometimes

rarely

never

don’t know

Mean

competence in speaking

81,25% 26

18,75% 6

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

1,19

competence in reading

84,38% 27

15,62% 5

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

1,16

competence in writing

87,50% 28

12,50% 4

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

1,13

competence in listening

71,88% 23

18,75% 6

6,25% 2

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

3,12% 1

1,47

knowledge of ­vocabulary

78,13% 25

21,87% 7

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

1,22

intelligible ­pronunciation

78,13% 25

21,87% 7

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

1,22

correct grammar

81,25% 26

12,50% 4

6,25% 2

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

1,25

use of colloquial/­ 62,50% idiomatic 20 ­language

25,00% 8

6,25% 2

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

6,25% 2

1,69

198 

 Luís Guerra

Question 2: How do you assess non-native teachers as far as their competence in English is concerned? always

frequently

sometimes

rarely

never

don’t know

Mean

competence in speaking

62,50% 20

31,25% 10

6,25% 2

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

1,44

competence in reading

65,23% 21

34,37% 11

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

1,34

competence in writing

68,75% 22

31,25% 10

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

1,31

competence in listening

78,13% 25

15,62% 5

6,25% 2

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

1,28

knowledge of vocabulary

53,13% 17

34,37% 11

12,50% 4

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

1,59

intelligible pronunciation

43,75% 14

40,63% 13

15,62% 5

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

1,72

correct grammar

59,38% 19

25,00% 8

15,62% 5

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

1,56

use of colloquial/ idiomatic ­language

50,00% 16

34,37% 11

15,62% 5

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

1,66

Question 3: How do you assess native teachers as far as their teaching methods and strategies are concerned? always

frequently

sometimes

rarely

never

don’t know

Mean

are aware of ­students’ needs

31,25% 10

28,13% 9

18,75% 6

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

21,87% 7

2,75

are committed to teaching

53,13% 17

34,37% 11

3,12% 1

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

9,38% 3

1,88

use English with confidence

75,00% 24

6,25% 2

9,38% 3

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

9,38% 3

1,63

focus classes on accuracy

56,25% 18

28,13% 9

6,25% 2

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

9,38% 3

1,88

Students’ perceptions and expectations of native and non-native speaking teachers 

 199

Question 3 (continued) always

frequently

sometimes

rarely

never

don’t know

Mean

focus classes on fluency

62,50% 20

12,50% 4

15,62% 5

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

9,38% 3

1,91

focus classes on oral skils

43,75% 14

37,50% 12

6,25% 2

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

12,50% 4

2,13

focus classes on written skills

43,75% 14

25,00% 8

15,62% 5

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

15,62% 5

2,34

make good use of materials in class

50,00% 16

18,75% 6

18,75% 6

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

12,50% 4

2,19

assign homework 50,00% 16

21,87% 7

6,25% 2

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

21,87% 7

2,44

are strict about students’ errors and mistakes

34,37% 11

34,37% 11

12,50% 4

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

18,75% 6

2,53

make use of students’ first language when necessary

34,37% 11

18,75% 6

28,13% 9

3,12% 1

0,00% 0

15,62% 5

2,63

Question 4: How do you assess non-native teachers as far as their teaching methods and strategies are concerned? always

frequently

sometimes

rarely

never

don’t know

Mean

are aware of ­students’ needs

46,88% 15

28,13% 9

18,75% 6

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

6,25% 2

1,97

are committed to teaching

65,23% 21

21,87% 7

9,38% 3

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

3,12% 1

1,56

use English with confidence

65,23% 21

12,50% 4

15,62% 5

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

6,25% 2

1,75

focus classes on accuracy

46,88% 15

37,50% 12

9,38% 3

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

6,25% 2

1,88

focus classes on fluency

43,75% 14

34,37% 11

15,62% 5

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

6,25% 2

1,97

200 

 Luís Guerra

Question 4 (continued) always

frequently

sometimes

rarely

never

don’t know

Mean

focus classes on oral skills

46,88% 15

40,63% 13

6,25% 2

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

6,25% 2

1,84

focus classes on written skills

59,38% 19

25,00% 8

9,38% 3

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

6,25% 2

1,75

make good use of materials in class

43,75% 14

15,62% 5

25,00% 8

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

15,62% 5

2,44

assign homework 34,37% 11

37,50% 12

15,62% 5

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

12,50% 4

2,31

are strict about students‘ errors and mistakes

34,37% 11

40,63% 13

12,50% 4

6,25% 2

0,00% 0

6,25% 2

2,16

make use of students‘ first language when necessary

46,88% 15

15,62% 5

18,75% 6

12,50% 4

0,00% 0

6,25% 2

2,22

Question 5: In your opinion, how important is it to learn about cultures when learning English? very important important

neutral

less not important ­important

Mean

knowledge of the two main English-speaking cultures (British and American)

86,67% 26

10,00% 3

3,33% 1

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

1,17

knowledge of other native cultures

43,33% 13

50,00% 15

0,00% 0

6,67% 2

0,00% 0

1,70

knowledge of non-native cultures where English is a second language

33,33% 10

33,33% 10

16,67% 5

10,00% 3

6,67% 2

2,23

knowledge of cultures where English is a foreign language

43,33% 13

16,67% 5

26,67% 8

10,00% 3

3,33% 1

2,13

knowledge of the students‘ own culture (Portuguese)

56,67% 17

6,67% 2

20,00% 6

10,00% 3

6,67% 2

2,03

Students’ perceptions and expectations of native and non-native speaking teachers 

 201

Question 6: If you identified any of the options in question 5 as very important (5) and important (4), how do you assess native teachers as far as their knowledge of those cultures is concerned? always

frequently

sometimes

rarely

never

don’t know

Mean

knowledge of the two main English-speaking cultures (British and American)

79,31% 23

20,69% 6

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

1,21

knowledge of other native cultures

48,28% 14

41,38% 12

10,35% 3

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

1,62

knowledge of non-native cultures where English is a second language

37,93% 11

24,14% 7

24,14% 7

0,00% 0

6,90% 2

6,90% 2

2,35

knowledge of cultures where English is a foreign language

41,38% 12

31,04% 9

24,14% 7

3,45% 1

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

1,90

knowledge of the students‘ own culture (Portuguese)

51,72% 15

37,93% 11

0,00% 0

10,35% 3

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

1,69

202 

 Luís Guerra

Question 7: If you identified any of the options in question 5 as very important (5) or important (4), how do you assess non-native teachers as far as their knowledge of those cultures is concerned? always

frequently

sometimes

rarely

never

don’t know

Mean

knowledge of the two main English-speaking cultures (British and American)

75,86% 22

24,14% 7

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

1,24

knowledge of other native cultures

44,83% 13

37,93% 11

6,90% 2

10,35% 3

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

1,88

knowledge of non-native cultures where English is a second language

24,14% 7

27,59% 8

24,14% 7

0,00% 0

10,35% 3

13,70% 4

2,86

knowledge of cultures where English is a foreign language

27,59% 8

31,04% 9

31,04% 9

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

10,35% 3

2,45

knowledge of the students’ own culture (Portuguese)

58,62% 17

24,14% 7

3,45% 1

13,80% 4

0,00% 0

0,00% 0

1,72

Question 8: What do you think is the best way to learn English? always with a native teacher always with a non-native teacher

12,50% 4 3,12% 1

it doesn‘t matter if it‘s a native or a non-native teacher

50,00% 16

with both native and non-native teachers

34,37% 11

Total

32

Students’ perceptions and expectations of native and non-native speaking teachers 

 203

Recommended reading Braine, George. 2010. Non-native speaker English teachers: Research, pedagogy, and professional growth. New York: Routledge. This book deals thoroughly with the key issues of the NS/NNS debate based on research and personal narratives of teachers. Braine provides a comprehensive account of the NNS movement, comments on the statuses of NSs and NNSs, introduces research on NNS teachers’ perceptions of themselves and students’ perceptions of NNESTs, presents narratives of two NNESTs, and recommends suggestions for professional developments in ELT. Davies, Alan. 2003. The native speaker: Myth and reality. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. This book analyzes the native speaker from different viewpoints (the psycholinguistic aspects, the linguistics aspects, the sociolinguistic aspects, the communicative competence aspects, among others) claiming that the native speaker concept is both myth and reality. Davies concludes that the ultimate distinction between the NS and the NNS is concerned with power and the NNS’s commitment to build up confidence and create a sense of identity. Llurda, Enric. 2006. Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession. New York: Springer. Llurda brought together 15 articles by applied linguists who have undertaken research on the roles of NNESTs which allowed for diverse approaches to this subject. This book offers an international perspective through a wide diversity of topics connected with the NS/NNS teachers’ questions from students, teachers and supervisors around the world. Medgyes, Péter. 1999. The non-native teacher. Ismaning: Hueber. This book links classroom-based research to the discussion of the role of the NNEST. It aims at helping the NNEST by considering the major problems, weaknesses and strengths of the NEST/NNEST divide.

Questions for reflection and discussion – –

–

–

If the study presented in this chapter could be carried out in your ELT context, how similar or different would the results be? Besides the three areas of perceived similarities and/or differences between NESTs and NNESTs – language proficiency, teaching behavior, and cultural knowledge – can you identify any other area? Do you agree with Rampton’s proposal of new terms to be used in ELT – language expertise, language inheritance and language affiliation? Can they ever substitute the commonly used terms ‘native speaker’ and ‘non-native speaker’? Provide your reasons. Do you agree with Medgyes’ suggestion that the ideal NT should be proficient in the students’ mother tongue and the ideal NNT should achieve near-native proficiency in English? Provide your reasons.

John Levis/Sinem Sonsaat/Stephanie Link

Chapter 10 Students’ beliefs about native vs. non-native pronunciation teachers Abstract: In English language teaching, the qualities of native English-speaking teachers (NEST) versus non-native English-speaking teachers (NNEST) have long been discussed (e.g., Braine, 1999, 2010; Canagarajah, 1999; Cook, 1999, 2005). A common assumption is that students prefer nativeness in a language teacher due largely to their beliefs about innateness (Medgyes, 1994) and accentedness (Gürkan & Yuksel, 2012). Few studies, however, have investigated student beliefs about who should teach pronunciation. This paper examines EFL versus ESL students’ beliefs about teachers’ pedagogical practices and their accents in relation to what students think this means for pronunciation learning. Our study utilizes a sequential mixed methods approach where quantitative survey data were collected, followed by qualitative interview data (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). The survey analyzed students’ attitudes and beliefs towards English language teachers in general and pronunciation teachers in particular. A speech perception task in the survey examined students’ abilities to distinguish between native and non-native speech. Interview data were used to validate and support quantitative findings. Students included English language learners in Turkey (N = 69) and the United States (N = 91). Both groups favored teachers who were knowledgeable about pedagogical practices and had teaching experience. While beliefs about NESTs and pronunciation were relatively consistent for both groups, students opted for NESTs for pronunciation-focused classrooms. However, EFL and ESL students could not distinguish native from non-native speech. We suggest that learners’ beliefs can be modified by emphasizing professionalism as key to effective pronunciation teaching.

John Levis and Sinem Sonsaat, Iowa State University, USA Stephanie Link, Oklahoma State University, USA DOI 10.1515/9781501504143-011

206 

 John Levis/Sinem Sonsaat/Stephanie Link

1 Introduction Most English language learners in ESL and EFL contexts learn from non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs). The importance of NNESTs cannot be overstated. With over a billion learners of English in the world (Crystal 2012), there could never be sufficient native English-speaking teachers (NESTs) to teach everyone. Nor should this be desirable. Native-speaker status is not a criterion for language teaching, whereas knowledge of and skill in the language, understanding of pedagogy, and ability to understand and meet students’ needs are. And in these areas, NNESTs and NESTs are, all other things being equal, on level ground. However, native speakers are sometimes perceived to have an advantage over non-native speakers in teaching speaking and pronunciation, but especially in regard to pronunciation. This perception is widespread among language teachers, those who hire teachers, and students. NNESTs may also feel themselves less able to teach pronunciation because they do not consider themselves as good pronunciation models (Ma 2012) even though they may be confident teaching other areas of language. Such beliefs are illustrated by a pre-service NNEST (Yan 2010) who regularly felt uncertain about pronouncing new vocabulary in the classroom. However, she expressed strong confidence in her ability to explain grammar rules. Similarly, two Taiwanese teachers in Golombek and Jordan (2005) questioned their legitimacy as English teachers because “[they] are incompetent to speak English fluently” (p. 519) or because they feel “stupid or clumsy because of the way [they] pronounce English” (p. 524). Such native-speaker oriented attitudes are also evident in the ways that teachers are hired around the world. Hiring practices show a preference for NESTs (Kirkpatrick 2006; Clark & Paran 2007; Shin 2008; Mahboob 2010). Mahboob and Golden (2013) examined job advertisements from the Middle East and East Asia. They found that hiring of English language teachers was often influenced by native language. Students prefer NESTs for pronunciation (Boyle 1997; Lasagabaster & Sierra 2002; Jin 2005; Moussu 2006; Rubrecht 2006; Watson Todd & Pojanapunya 2009) because NESTs are considered the best models of how to speak the target language (Lasagabaster & Sierra 2002; Chen 2008; Gürkan & Yüksel 2012) and because students believe that native input is dominant in pronunciation attainment (Levis 2015). However, there is no evidence that having NESTs leads to better pronunciation nor that having NNESTs as pronunciation teachers results in worse pronunciation.



Students’ beliefs about native vs. non-native pronunciation teachers 

 207

1.1 Non-native English-speaking teachers’ self-perceptions Some non-native teachers may feel incompetent, insecure, or inefficient in teaching English (Bernat 2008). These negative feelings may become greater when teaching pronunciation. Medgyes’s (1983) pioneering work called attention to teachers’ self-perceptions of their identity and teaching practices. He noted that NNESTs had “schizophrenia” (p. 2) of wearing both the hat of a teacher and a learner. As a result, they were concerned about losing students’ respect once they heard English from a native speaker. Nearly two decades later, Bernat (2008) asserted that in regard to their identities as teachers, NNESTs might face contradictory thoughts in regard to “language standards, ‘correct’ pronunciation, and role modelling” (p. 2), leading to negative self-evaluations. A number of other studies have examined teachers’ self-perceptions (Suarez 2000; Llurda & Huguet 2003; Brinton 2004; Inbar-Lourie 2005; Moussu 2006; Llurda 2015). In Hong Kong (Tang 1997), NNESTs reported that native speaker colleagues were better in speaking, pronunciation, listening, vocabulary, and reading. NNESTs have also expressed concerns about their own level of proficiency and pronunciation (Ma 2012) and nervousness in speaking when native speakers were present (Rajagopalan 2005).

1.2 Students’ perceptions towards English teachers’ language background Both NESTs and NNESTs have strengths (e.g., Luksha & Solovova 2006; Ma 2012). NNESTs’ strengths include understanding the difficulties students have as language learners (Kelch & Santana-Williamson 2002; Chen 2008), experience as ESL learners and skill at teaching learning strategies (Medgyes 1994), skill at teaching grammar and writing (Chen 2008; Alseweed & Daif-Allah 2012), understanding the local educational setting (Ma 2012), and speaking the learners’ L1 (Ma 2012). Students may express concerns with teachers’ language backgrounds regarding pronunciation and speaking, preferring native speakers if pronunciation and speaking are being taught. Walkinshaw and Duong (2012) investigated Vietnamese learners’ beliefs about the value of native speakerness compared to other teaching traits (e.g., teaching experience, qualifications, friendliness, enthusiasm, the ability to deliver interesting and informative classes, understanding of students’ local culture, and advanced English competence). They found that native speakerness was rated low compared to other traits, but was highly valued for pronunciation since native speakers were perceived to be the “ideal models of accurate pronunciation” (p. 12). However, the authors expressed concerns about

208 

 John Levis/Sinem Sonsaat/Stephanie Link

L2 learners’ ability to detect native accents. In another study, Kelch and Santana-Williamson (2002) examined students’ attitudes towards NEST and NNEST accents and the effect of perceived accent in students’ beliefs about the teachers. ESL students listened to six audiotaped passages recorded by three native teachers of different English varieties and three non-native teachers. ESL students were not successful at identifying the language background of the speakers. The authors also found that there was a positive correlation between students’ perceptions of the speakers as NS or NNS and their attitudes towards the teachers. Thus, perceived rather than the real language status of the teachers influenced students’ attitudes. Perceived language status has been the focus of other studies. Butler (2007) employed a matched-guise technique to explore students’ attitudes towards American- and Korean-accented English. The same Korean-American female recorded speech samples in both Korean-accented and American-accented English. Students rated the teachers’ foreign-accentedness as well as seven traits related to ability to use English, English teaching strategies, and general teaching strategies. Butler found that students’ attitudes changed significantly based on teacher accent. Students thought the American-accented guise had better pronunciation and higher confidence. They also preferred the American-accented voice to the Korean-accented voice. Similarly, Dalton-Puffer, Kaltenboeck, and Smit (1997) had 132 Austrian learners of English rate the speech samples of two Austrian-accented English (AA), one General American (GA), and two British speakers (RP & a local accent close to RP) to evaluate the learners’ attitudes towards different varieties of English. Austrian learners rated the British accent most favorably and liked their own non-native accent least. The students with no experience in an English-speaking country had stricter attitudes toward accents. In Liang (2002), 20 ESL students rated the audio-recorded speech of six NNESTs for accentedness. Unlike Kelch and Santana-Williamson (2002), students did not express negative attitudes towards the teachers although they found pronunciation and accent very important. Other factors such as being prepared, interesting, qualified and professional were also influential in students’ perceptions. The author concluded that professionalism should be a determining factor rather than the ethnic and language background of the teachers, a finding echoed by Braine (2005). In Benke and Medgyes (2005), secondary- and university-level Hungarian students recognized differing strengths of both groups of teachers; however, incorrect use of pronunciation was named as a weakness of NNESTs. Attitudes towards NNEST’s pronunciation seem to be strongest in students’ preferences for NESTs vs. NNESTs. Studies have shown that although students may not have a preference for NESTs over NNESTs (Lipovsky & Mahboob 2010; Liu & Zhang 2007), many report students’ preference for NESTs for the teaching



Students’ beliefs about native vs. non-native pronunciation teachers 

 209

of specific skills (Cheung 2002; Park 2009; Gürkan & Yuksel 2012). For example, Alseweed and Daif-Allah (2012) found Saudi pre-university and university level students preferred NESTs for listening, speaking, and pronunciation skills while students in Filho (2002), Lasagabaster and Sierra (2002), and Mahboob (2003) preferred NESTs for pronunciation.

1.3 Qualifications for pronunciation teaching Although students and teachers mostly report speaking-related issues such as fluency and pronunciation as disadvantages for NNESTs, no studies have shown that learners taking speaking or pronunciation classes with a NEST perform better or worse in speaking or pronunciation. A recent study by the authors reported no significant difference between ESL students’ accentedness or comprehensibility ratings after one group was taught by a NEST and the other by a NNEST (Levis, Link, Sonsaat & Barriuso 2016). Pronunciation teaching does not require nativeness but does require a “teacher’s knowledge base” (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, Goodwin, and Griner 2010: 43), including knowledge of the English sound system and its prosody, the ability to identify difficulties students experience, and the ability to decide which errors are most important. Finally, teachers must be able to plan what and how much to teach, and in what order.

1.4 Research questions Many studies have focused on students’ overall beliefs and attitudes towards NESTs and NNESTs. None that we know of has specifically focused on beliefs and attitudes towards NEST and NNEST pronunciation teachers although attitudes about pronunciation may deviate from overall beliefs. We fill this gap by addressing the following questions. 1. How do EFL versus ESL students describe a ‘good’ English teacher? 2. What are EFL versus ESL students’ attitudes and beliefs towards native and non-native English teachers? 3. What are students’ attitudes and beliefs about native and non-native teachers regarding pronunciation teaching? 4. What are students’ attitudes and beliefs towards the way their teachers’ accents may affect their pronunciation learning? 5. How well do students distinguish between native and non-native speech using standard scales of accentedness and comprehensibility?

210 

 John Levis/Sinem Sonsaat/Stephanie Link

2 Methodology A sequential mixed methods approach (Creswell & Plano Clark 2011) was used to explore learners’ perceptions towards English language teachers, teachers’ language backgrounds, and the way this may affect their own pronunciation learning. We collected quantitative survey data to determine students’ beliefs and attitudes. A speech perception task evaluated students’ abilities to distinguish between native and non-native speech. Interview data were collected after the survey to validate and support quantitative findings.

2.1 Contexts and participants Undergraduate and graduate EFL and ESL students were recruited from large public universities in the Midwestern United States and Turkey. The participants from Turkey were recruited from English departments and were majors in English language teaching and/or English literature. Students in the ESL setting were recruited from courses in the university’s ESL curriculum. Students were placed into the courses based on results from an in-house English placement test. English teachers in both contexts distributed an e-mail to their students asking for participation. The e-mail summarized the study and linked to the informed consent form and the survey. Of 322 total respondents, 160 remained in the study after participants were excluded for being under the age of 18 or for failing to complete the survey. The final number included 69 EFL and 91 ESL students. EFL students were an average of 21.7 years old (Min = 18, Max = 37), with 53 females (77%). ESL students were an average of 19.8 years old (Min = 18, Max = 26), with 40 females (44%). The majority spoke Chinese as their first language (74%), which is representative of the international student population at the university. A summary is shown in Appendix A. Involvement in the study was voluntary and no compensation for participation was offered. At the end of the questionnaire, students were asked to participate in an interview. Fifty-nine agreed to participate but only 14 were interviewed because many failed to respond to follow-up e-mails. The interview participants included nine EFL (five females) and five ESL (four females) students (Table 1).



Students’ beliefs about native vs. non-native pronunciation teachers 

 211

Table 1: Summary of Interview Participants (N =14). Age

Gender

First ­language

Field of study

Self perceived proficiency level

Self rating of English pronunciation

(1 = very good, 9 = very poor) EFL Students Canan

21

Female

Turkish

ELTb

1

1

Ahu

18

Female

Turkish

ELT

4

6

Aliye

19

Female

Turkish

ELT

3.5

5

Berna

Female

Turkish

ELT

6

6.5

Dilek

Female

Turkish

EL

5

5.5

Abbas

20

Male

Turkish

ELT

7

5

Emre

23

Male

Turkish

ELT

2.5

2

Halim

25

Male

Turkish

ELT

1

4

Adem

20

Male

Turkish

EL

7

5

Chun

19

Female

Chinese

Music

5

5

Nora

20

Female

Malay

Computer Science

6

5

Yu

19

Female

Chinese

Engineering

5

4.5

Xiao

20

Female

Chinese

Statistics

5

4

Raj

22

Male

Telugu

Engineering

6

7

ESL Students

a b

All names are pseudonyms ELT = English language teaching, EL = English literature

2.2 Materials and procedure 2.2.1 Questionnaire A five-part questionnaire was administered through Qualtrics, an online survey tool (Appendix B). Questionnaire items were developed based on previous research (Alseweed & Daif-Allah 2012; Ballard 2013; Foote, Holtby, & Derwing 2011; Moussu 2006). Part 1 of the questionnaire elicited information about the stu-

212 

 John Levis/Sinem Sonsaat/Stephanie Link

dents, their English language learning experiences, and their perceived English proficiency. Part 2 contained 13 Likert-scale items eliciting students’ beliefs toward teachers’ pedagogical practices. Part 3 contained 10 Likert-scale items and two multiple choice questions about students’ experiences learning from native and non-native teachers. Part 4 included 9 items (2 multiple choice items, 6 Likert-scale items, and 1 ranking item) on students’ beliefs towards pronunciation and teachers’ accents. Cronbach’s alpha of Likert-scale items was between .79 to .95. The final part included a speech perception rating task with audio files of native and non-native speech, Likert-scale items to gauge students’ perception towards accented speech, and two multiple choice questions. Students were asked to listen to five audios from one native speaker (American Midwesterner from Minnesota) and four non-native speakers (two Chinese and two Turkish of differing English language proficiency). One Chinese and one Turkish speaker (Chinese 1 and Turkish 1) were chosen because the authors judged their accentedness and comprehensibility as near-native. The other two non-natives (Chinese 2 and Turkish 2) were judged as more accented and less comprehensible than the other two non-natives. The audio content was a free speech sample on the topic of “favorite holiday.” The average length of the samples was 21.6 seconds. Each sample was normalized at 0.0 dB to ensure comparable relative volume. After each audio, the students rated the speakers’ comprehensibility, or the amount of work it takes listeners to process speech, and accentedness, defined as the amount of difference from the accent in a given locale. Ratings were based on a 9-point Likert scale adapted from Munro and Derwing (1995)1. Accentedness was rated from having “no accent” (1) to having a “very strong accent” (9). Comprehensibility was rated as “very easy to understand” (1) to “very difficult to understand” (9). Students judged each speaker as native or non-native and stated whether they would be interested in taking a pronunciation class from each speaker. The questionnaire was peer reviewed, piloted, and then revised for clarity.

2.2.2 Interviews Interview data were collected to validate and support the quantitative findings. The interviews were semi-structured and consisted of five sections, mirroring the questionnaire (see Appendix C). They lasted about 40 minutes, during which students’ questionnaire responses were consulted to validate responses and elicit

1 Intelligibility is a third measure commonly used in evaluations of a speaker’s pronunciation, but this measure was excluded from the study.



Students’ beliefs about native vs. non-native pronunciation teachers 

 213

further explanation. ESL students were interviewed face-to-face. EFL students were interviewed on Skype and could speak in English or Turkish; four chose Turkish, and five English. Turkish interviews were translated into English, and all were transcribed verbatim.

2.3 Data analysis The first research question, “How do EFL versus ESL students describe a ‘good’ English teacher?” was answered using descriptive statistics and interview data from Part 2 of the questionnaire and interviews. Three levels of coding, as suggested by Richards (2005), were used, namely descriptive, topic, and analytical coding. For descriptive coding, interviews were labeled based on students’ demographic information to describe each participant. The content of the interviews was organized topically and labeled according to pre-determined themes from the questionnaire. The most rigorous coding was at the analytical level where data were coded based on interpretation and meaning of responses. Member checks were conducted, and a second coder analyzed two of 14 transcripts to enhance the interpretive validity of the findings. Findings were thoroughly discussed during two hour-long peer-debriefing sessions. The second research question, “What are EFL versus ESL students’ attitudes and beliefs towards native and non-native English teachers?” was analyzed in the same manner using data from Part 3 of the questionnaire and interviews. “What are their attitudes and beliefs about native and non-native teachers regarding pronunciation teaching?” (RQ3) was analyzed using Part 4. “What are students’ attitudes and beliefs towards the way their teachers’ accents may affect their pronunciation learning?” (RQ4) was analyzed using one Likert-scale item and the final section of the interview. “How well do students distinguish between native and non-native speech using standard scales of accentedness and comprehensibility?” (RQ5) was examined using the speech perception task. A between subjects t-test was employed to determine whether there was a difference between the judgments of the two groups. Levene’s test for equality of variances was violated, so a t statistic not assuming homogeneity of variance was computed.

214 

 John Levis/Sinem Sonsaat/Stephanie Link

3 Results 3.1 Attitudes toward teachers’ general pedagogical practices This section reports students’ beliefs and attitudes towards English teachers. Table 2 shows that EFL and ESL students agreed on the characteristics of a ‘good’ English teacher. For the EFL students, the item rated highest was, “A good English teacher motivates me to do my best to learn English” (M = 5.62, SD = 0.77). Ahu stated, “I think motivation is very important because you know the more you like your teacher or the more he/she has the students become interactive, the more motivated we are. So it’s important for the teacher to motivate us. I’d strongly agree with that.” ESL students rated “A good English teacher is able to simplify difficult material so I can understand it” the highest (M = 4.82, SD = .077). Four of the five interview participants strongly agreed with this statement, remarking on the importance of delivering the message so that students can understand. Table 2: Students’ beliefs about what makes a good English teacher (1= strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). A good English teacher:

EFL Students (N = 69)

ESL Students (N = 91)

Min

Max

Mean

SD

Min

Max

Mean

SD

explains difficult concepts well

1

6

5.46

0.78

1

6

4.67

1.34

is able to simplify difficult material so I can understand it

1

6

5.59

0.77

1

6

4.82

1.22

teaches in a manner that helps me learn

1

6

5.49

0.86

1

6

4.74

1.24

motivates me to do my best to learn English

1

6

5.62

0.77

1

6

4.67

1.27

is a fluent speaker of English

3

6

5.49

0.72

1

6

4.71

1.20

looks like a native speaker of English

1

6

4.28

1.41

1

6

4.06

1.49

knows English grammar very well

2

6

5.38

0.86

1

6

4.81

1.25



Students’ beliefs about native vs. non-native pronunciation teachers 

 215

Tab. 2 (continued) A good English teacher:

EFL Students (N = 69)

ESL Students (N = 91)

Min

Max

Mean

SD

Min

Max

Mean

SD

rarely makes grammar mistakes when he/she writes

1

6

4.67

1.47

1

6

4.53

1.26

rarely makes grammar mistakes when he/she speaks

1

6

4.45

1.30

1

6

4.56

1.25

explains grammar rules very clearly

1

6

5.22

1.01

1

6

4.75

1.21

is well trained in teaching English

3

6

5.50

0.72

1

6

4.76

1.21

is a native English speaker

1

6

3.42

1.42

1

6

3.74

1.51

has good pronunciation

3

6

5.57

0.65

1

6

4.76

1.24

Both groups disagreed most with the statement, “A good English teacher is a native English speaker.” Canan (EFL student) commented, “You don’t have to be a native, totally native, to be a good teacher of a language.” According to Raj (ESL student), even native speakers may be difficult to understand due to their accent. “I mean, someone like from Britain, they may also teach well but sometimes it makes difficulties due to the accent.” Another student spoke of her own experience as a future English language teacher. She said, “Actually while I was filling out the survey, I was thinking about the teacher’s having the similar experience with us, so I thought it is not necessary to be a native English speaker” (Ahu, EFL student). All ESL and EFL student responses for “A good English teacher is a fluent speaker of English, is well trained in teaching English, and has good pronunciation” were similar and had small variances from .65 to .72, suggesting agreement on these items. Although EFL students generally disagreed that a good teacher is native, they agreed that a good teacher is fluent and has good pronunciation. For training, one EFL student remarked: Yes, because someone’s having training in teaching English means he/she can teach me more easily and correctly. He/she learns the way to teach to be a good English teacher, so it’s easier for a trained person to teach me. But I’ve also seen cases that native speakers come to Izmit and Istanbul […] They sometimes struggle with teaching since they haven’t learned how to teach […] These teachers may not know the areas students experience difficulties because they haven’t practiced it before. (Dilek)

216 

 John Levis/Sinem Sonsaat/Stephanie Link

3.2 Attitudes and beliefs towards native and non-native English teachers When asked further about NESTs and NNESTs, questionnaire results remained the same (Table 3). Students in both contexts were neutral when asked if they agreed or disagreed with, “Native English speakers make the best English teachers.” Xiao (ESL student) stated, “I think if a teacher is patient and always be positive and is willing to share his knowledge to students he/she’s a good teacher.” Similarly, Emre (EFL student) stated: I just don’t believe it. Native speakers sometimes may not able to teach, but I mean in young learners it might be because children are in developing stages that’s why it can be but while teaching adults. For instance I’ve adult learners. I’m teaching English. Sometimes they say we cannot create a sentence, we cannot pronounce this word, I forget it. I don’t think native speakers will be helpful. Table 3: Students’ experience learning from Native vs. Non-native Teachers (1 = strongly ­disagree, 6 = strongly agree). EFL Students (N = 69)

ESL Students (N = 91)

Min

Max

Mean

SD

Min

Max

Mean

SD

Native English speakers make the best English teachers

1

6

3.54

1.28

1

6

3.68

1.33

I can learn English just as well from a non-native English teacher as from a native English teacher

2

6

4.54

0.98

1

6

4.25

1.21

I don’t care where my teacher is from as long as he/she is a good teacher for me

1

6

5.00

1.16

1

6

4.44

1.43

English teachers should all speak with a perfect native speaker accent

2

6

4.38

1.13

1

6

4.13

1.24

A non-native teacher can be an effective teacher for teaching grammar

1

6

4.94

1.16

1

6

4.44

1.17



Students’ beliefs about native vs. non-native pronunciation teachers 

 217

Tab. 3 (continued) EFL Students (N = 69)

ESL Students (N = 91)

Min

Max

Mean

SD

Min

Max

Mean

SD

A non-native teacher can be an effective teacher for teaching writing

1

6

4.81

1.02

1

6

4.40

1.16

A non-native teacher can be an effective teacher for teaching reading

1

6

4.75

1.18

1

6

4.45

1.27

A non-native teacher can be an effective teacher for teaching vocabulary

1

6

4.75

1.18

1

6

4.51

1.18

A non-native teacher can be an effective teacher for teaching speaking

1

6

4.34

1.40

1

6

4.19

1.20

A non-native teacher can be an effective teacher for teaching pronunciation

1

6

4.33

1.28

1

6

4.21

1.20

Students in both contexts also generally agreed that a non-native teacher can be an effective teacher for all the skills, even speaking and pronunciation, but when asked if they prefer a NEST or NNEST (see Table 4), very few EFL (9%) and ESL (8%) students preferred a NNEST. The majority preferred a NEST or had no preference. Table 4: Students’ preference for native vs non-native English teachers in response to the item, “In general, I prefer a (NATIVE / NON-NATIVE) English teacher”. EFL Students (N = 69)

ESL Students (N = 91)

N

%

N

%

35

51

47

52

6

9

7

8

No Preference

28

41

37

41

Total

69

100

91

100

Native Non-native

218 

 John Levis/Sinem Sonsaat/Stephanie Link

3.3 Attitudes and beliefs toward a pronunciation-focused classroom and teachers’ accents When asked about their general perceptions towards native and non-native teachers, a prominent NEST bias did not seem to exist. However, when asked about pronunciation, findings diverged. EFL students, mostly pre-service English teachers who placed a high regard on teacher training, were more willing to set aside the importance of training and elect a NEST with little training over a NNEST with teacher training as the preferred teacher for a pronunciation class (Figure 1). ESL students, though not majoring in English, showed a similar pattern.

Figure 1: EFL vs ESL Students’ teacher preference for an English pronunciation class.

In the interviews, eight of the nine EFL students preferred the NEST with little training. They made comments such as: – When you start learning a new language, you’re not able to pronounce, you’re not able to catch all the nuances. That’s why [NESTs] can help more. (Halim) – Because since a NEST has been using the language since he was born, he could know how to teach us better even though he might have little knowledge. He already knows how a sound is produced. (Berna) For the ESL students, two preferred the NEST and two the NNEST. Nora, for example, talked about the importance of training. “Because with the training they will teach that the teacher how to teach the good pronunciation and maybe



Students’ beliefs about native vs. non-native pronunciation teachers 

 219

they trained how to pronounce it.” Xiao, however, preferred the NEST with little training, stating: Though sometimes I think NNESTs will be a good teacher, in pronunciation I believe in NESTs more. They cannot have accent; they know some very little difference pronunciation between two words like some words they’re the same but when they’re noun they’ve one kind of pronunciation, but when they’re verb they will have another pronunciation, so little differences, so I think NESTs will be more better.

Questionnaire items revealed the same NEST bias. Table 5 shows student’s beliefs towards a pronunciation-focused classroom and teachers’ accents. In response to “English pronunciation should be taught by a native English speaking teacher,” EFL students (M = 4.49, SD = 1.27) agreed more than ESL students did (M = 3.91, SD = 1.28) with similar variance. Table 5: EFL vs. ESL Students’ Beliefs Toward a Pronunciation-focused Classroom and Teachers’ Accents (1= strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). EFL Students (N = 69)

ESL Students (N = 91)

Min

Max

Mean

SD

Min

Max

Mean

SD

English pronunciation should be taught by a native English speaking teacher

1

6

4.49

1.27

1

6

3.91

1.28

Native English speakers are better model of English pronunciation

1

6

4.71

1.14

1

6

4.24

1.08

Non-native English teachers make me less confident about learning pronunciation

1

6

3.32

1.35

1

6

3.61

1.37

All native English speakers are good models of English pronunciation

1

6

3.38

1.56

1

6

3.76

1.32

Students’ ranking of the most important characteristics of an English pronunciation teacher showed that EFL students ranked living in an English speaking country and having a native accent highest. ESL students were more concerned about training in teaching pronunciation and general teaching experience. Four EFL interview participants ranked “The pronunciation teacher has a native

220 

 John Levis/Sinem Sonsaat/Stephanie Link

accent” as the most important characteristic. Dilek commented, “My expectation in a pronunciation class is to speak in the original way, I mean the most correct way, and to learn how I can pronounce a word most correctly. So, I think the teacher must be a native English speaking teacher.” Corroborating with this comment is Halim’s remark. He stated, “…because in pronunciation related courses, it’s not only you’re pronouncing also you’re doing listening practice as well. Even though you’re not able to pronounce perfectly you can get exposed to native like accent more.” Three of the four ESL students interviewed ranked, “The pronunciation teacher has a lot of general teaching experience” as most important. Chun stated: I think experience is the most important because there are different kind of students. Sometimes… [students] cannot do something not because they didn’t have that ability, just because they didn’t understand one thing, […] so I think the teacher with a lot of experience will know what the students need to help.

3.4 Attitudes and beliefs toward effect of teachers’ accents on pronunciation learning Results from the previous section suggest that both EFL and ESL students prefer native English speakers as pronunciation teachers although ESL students expressed more accepting views of NNESTs as pronunciation teachers. For an added dimension into the native/non-native teacher debate, students were asked about the possible effect of teachers’ accents on pronunciation learning. One EFL student was quite confident there would be a negative effect with NNESTs. She stated, “I’m learning from him/her, and I’d pick up that word as she’s pronouncing it, so if it’s wrong or if it’s in the way she’s talking, it wouldn’t be good for me; I’d not learning correctly” (Canan). The remaining EFL students were more hesitant to label the effects as negative. The EFL pre-service teachers weighed their options more carefully. Ahu commented, “In fact, if I were just listening to one single teacher, maybe it would, but it wouldn’t be the case now since we’re taking courses from several different instructors. Other students seemed to think that there were disadvantages to being a non-native pronunciation teacher but that these deficiencies could be improved so that there would not be a negative effect. Abbas responded, “Actually [NNESTs] are not aware of their mistakes, but they can look up a dictionary, and all the words maybe, and learn how to pronounce.” Similarly, Halim said:



Students’ beliefs about native vs. non-native pronunciation teachers 

 221

As long as it’s good enough to communicate, I don’t see it as a problem, but you know we’re non-native speakers, so there’re some things we need to accept, and we need to try to use language, use English in the way we can communicate, so that’s my priority.

Berna’s response mirrored previous findings. She did not perceive a negative effect of a teachers’ accent on learning in general, but for pronunciation learning, she did. Interviewer: Do you think the accent of a non-native teacher would have a negative effect on your own pronunciation? Why or why not? Berna: No, it wouldn’t. If I could understand what he/she says and respond to him/her, then it wouldn’t affect me much. As long as I can communicate with him/her to some extent. I don’t think I’d be affected. Interviewer: Even in the case that the teacher is teaching pronunciation? Berna: Oh no. Then it might affect my pronunciation. For instance, if I’d have difficulty in learning something, if I don’t understand it, then the things teacher taught would be effective.

When asked, “Do you think that the accent of the native English-speaking teacher would have a positive effect on your own pronunciation? Why or why not?,” the responses were overwhelmingly, yes. – Yes, you might catch the accent without being aware of it. (Ahu, EFL student) – Sure, because I admire pronunciation of their native speech, and their pronunciation affects me, and I want to speak correctly. (Abbas, EFL student) – Yeah, the native speakers, they will affect people because their speaking is better, so people will learn better. That is their advantage. (Yu, ESL student) Only one EFL student noted that there may be a negative effect. He stated, “No matter how hard I try I can never be like that teacher; I can never be perfect user of English as my teacher is, so it might have a negative impact on me” (Halim).

3.5 Accentedness and comprehensibility ratings of native and non-native speech Students’ attitudes and beliefs towards NNESTs and NESTs raise the question of whether they can accurately perceive native and non-native speech, especially since previous research has shown that students struggle to accurately identify native speakers. Thus, after students completed the sections related to beliefs and perceptions, they completed the speech perception task. Findings showed that EFL and ESL students were not able to differentiate between native and non-na-

222 

 John Levis/Sinem Sonsaat/Stephanie Link

tive speech in terms of both comprehensibility (Table 6) and accentedness (Table 7). Table 6: EFL vs ESL Students’ Ratings of Native and Non-native Speakers’ Comprehensibility (1= very easy to understand, 9 = very difficult to understand). EFL

ESL

N

Min

Max

Mean

SD

N

Min

Max

Mean

SD

Native

61

1

9

2.97

2.61

77

1

9

3.09

1.79

Chinese 1

61

1

9

2.56

2.23

87

1

9

3.25

1.79

Turkish 1

58

1

7

1.74

1.41

82

1

9

3.23

1.82

Chinese 2

67

1

7

2.27

1.46

85

1

6

3.29

1.67

Turkish 2

60

1

8

2.52

2.07

91

1

9

4.65

1.92

Table 7: EFL vs ESL Students’ Ratings of Native and Non-native Speakers’ Ratings of Accentedness (1= no accent, 9 = very strong accent). EFL

ESL

N

Min

Max

Mean

SD

N

Min

Max

Mean

SD

Native

66

1

9

5.65

3.08

76

1

9

3.80

2.07

Chinese 1

66

1

9

5.15

2.64

89

1

9

4.13

1.74

Turkish 1

67

1

9

4.55

2.65

84

1

9

3.98

2.02

Chinese 2

68

1

9

4.85

2.13

90

1

9

4.72

1.68

Turkish 2

57

1

9

3.35

2.47

91

1

9

5.52

2.02

To determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in how the two groups rated the speakers, independent samples t-tests were performed. Both ESL and EFL students agreed on the ratings given to the native speaker for comprehensibility but not accentedness, in which the ESL students rated the native speaker significantly more positively (Tables 8 and 9). However, they diverged in their ratings for Turkish and Chinese speakers. This may be because the two largest groups of subjects were Turkish (EFL) and Chinese (ESL) and rated samples from their L1s more favorably than they rated unfamiliar L1 speakers.



Students’ beliefs about native vs. non-native pronunciation teachers 

 223

Table 8: Independent Samples T-Test for Mean Difference in Ratings of Speech Samples for Comprehensibility. t

Native

df

Sig. Mean Std. Error (2-tailed) ­Difference Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower

Upper

d

.32

101.90

.753

.12

0.39

-0.65

0.90

.05

Chinese 1

2.02

110.43

.046

.70

0.34

0.01

1.38

.34

Turkish 1

5.45

136.84

.000

1.49

0.27

0.95

2.03

.92

Chinese 2

4.03

148.26

.000

1.03

0.25

0.52

1.53

.65

Turkish 2

6.37

119.78

.000

2.13

0.33

1.47

2.79

1.07

Table 9: Independent Samples T-Test for Mean Difference in Ratings of Speech Samples for Accentedness. t

df

Sig. Mean Std. Error (2-tailed) ­Difference Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower

Upper

d

Native

-4.13

111.00

0.00

-1.85

0.45

-2.73

-0.96

.71

Chinese 1

-2.72

105.57

0.01

-1.02

0.37

-1.76

-0.28

.46

Turkish 1

-1.47

120.73

0.14

-0.58

0.39

-1.35

0.20

.24

Chinese 2

-0.42

123.86

0.68

-0.13

0.31

-0.75

0.49

.07

Turkish 2

5.55

101.44

0.00

2.17

0.39

1.39

2.94

.96

Students were more accurate in identifying native and non-native speakers at a global level, with a tendency to more accurately identify speakers of their own L1s (Figure 2).

224 

 John Levis/Sinem Sonsaat/Stephanie Link

Figure 2: EFL vs ESL student’s perception of speakers’ language background. Students responses to the multiple choice item, “I think this person is a: __________.”

Although students did not discriminate between native and non-native speech in the rating task, when asked if they would take a pronunciation class from the speaker, they rated native and near-native speakers more favorably (Figure 3).

Figure 3: EFL vs ESL student’s preferences for those who would be desirable pronunciation teachers. Students responses to the statement, “I would be interested in taking a pronunciation class from this teacher.”

4 Discussion The first question asked how ESL and EFL students describe a “good” English teacher. ‘Good’ is a deliberately imprecise term, but it was nonetheless a term that



Students’ beliefs about native vs. non-native pronunciation teachers 

 225

all students felt able to respond to. The question does not ask about the language background of the teacher. In general, both ESL and EFL students agreed on what they thought made a good teacher and ranked native-speaker status low. When asked about teachers’ language backgrounds, ESL and EFL students believed that both NNESTs and NESTs could be good teachers and that nativeness was never a sufficient qualification for teaching. All the students have had extensive experience with NNESTS, and less experience with NESTs, and their answers suggest they see that teachers, whether NEST or NNEST, can be better or worse. The central question asked about ESL and EFL students’ attitudes and beliefs about native and non-native teachers regarding pronunciation teaching. Unlike their more general attitudes, both ESL and EFL students in this study showed a significant preference for NESTs for both speaking and pronunciation. This preference, however, was not overwhelming. This suggests that, while both groups expressed preferences for NESTs, such attitudes were not unusually strong. EFL students seemed to show a stronger preference for NESTs for pronunciation. In a context in which they are relatively rare, NESTs represent an ideal. In contrast, the ESL students, with greater access to NESTs in general, seem more willing to accept NNESTs as pronunciation teachers. It appears that they express a desire for NESTs out of a belief that pronunciation and speaking are more “contagious” than other language skills. In other words, listening to a good model (a native speaker) will result in good pronunciation, and listening to a bad model (a non-native speaker) will result in worse pronunciation. This attitude has been reported in other research. Levis (2015) interviewed advanced proficiency ESL students who showed a strong preference for NESTs in learning pronunciation, who thought that listening to NNESTs was the root of poor pronunciation skills. However, students’ mixed success in distinguishing native, near-native and more obviously non-native accents suggests caution in trusting their stated preferences. We asked listeners to evaluate accentedness and comprehensibility using a standard task in this type of research (Munro & Derwing, 1995). Typically, raters in these tasks are naïve native speakers (with little exposure to non-native accents) and demonstrate a high degree of consistency in distinguishing more and less native and more and less comprehensible speech samples. In this study, the ESL and EFL learners, despite a high level of overall proficiency, were singularly unsuccessful at discriminating accentedness or comprehensibility for the speech samples. Overall, their stated preference for NEST pronunciation teachers may be not so much a preference for NESTs as it is a preference for teachers whose pronunciation and speaking are trustworthy. Other results in this study indicate that students do not believe native-speakers are necessarily good because of this quality alone, but because of their ability to use spoken language well. In evaluating who

226 

 John Levis/Sinem Sonsaat/Stephanie Link

they would like to take a pronunciation class from, they ranked more proficient speakers/pronouncers above those who were less proficient. This suggests an ability to rank speakers in terms of desirability as a model. It may also indicate that while they express preferences for NESTs for pronunciation and speaking, they are accepting of a wider range of speakers than just native speakers. The widely reported native-speaker bias for the teaching of pronunciation finds mixed support in this study. While both ESL and EFL students expressed preferences for NESTs for pronunciation and speaking, their preferences were not wildly different from those they expressed for other skills. In addition, both groups seemed to recognize that native-speaker status is not enough for good teaching, and that NESTs and NNESTs can both be effective teachers. In addition, the inability of the ESL and EFL students to consistently distinguish between native and non-native voices suggests that their stated preference for NESTs as pronunciation teachers may be based on deep-seated bias.

5 References Alseweed, Mohammad & Ayman Sabry Daif-Allah. 2012. University students’ perceptions of the teaching effectiveness of native and non-native teachers of English in the Saudi context. Language in India 12(7). 35–60. Ballard, Laura. 2013. Student attitudes toward accentedness of native and non-native speaking English teachers. MSU Working Papers in SLS 4. 47–73. Benke, Eszter & Péter Medgyes. 2005. Differences in teaching behavior between native and non-native speaker teachers: As seen by the learners. In Enric Llurda (ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession, 195–216. New York,: Springer. Bernat, Eva. 2008. Towards a pedagogy of empowerment: The case of ‘impostor syndrome’ among pre-service non-native speaker teachers in TESOL. ELTED 11: 1–8. Boyle, Joseph. 1997. Imperialism and the English language in Hong Kong. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 18(3). 169–181. Braine, George. 1999. Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Braine, George. 2005. A history of research on non-native speaker English teachers. In Enric Llurda (ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession, 13–23. New York: Springer. Brinton, Donna. 2004. Non-native English-speaking student teachers: Insights from dialogue journals. In Lîa D. Kamhi-Stein (ed.), Learning and teaching from experience: Perspectives on non-native English-speaking professionals, 190–205. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Butler, Yuko Goto. 2007. How are non-native-English-speaking teachers perceived by young learners? TESOL Quarterly 41(4). 731–755.



Students’ beliefs about native vs. non-native pronunciation teachers 

 227

Canagarajah, Suresh. 1999. Interrogating the “native speaker fallacy”: Non-linguistic roots, non-pedagogical results. In George Braine (ed.), Non-native educators in English Language Teaching, 145–158. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Celce-Murcia, Marianne, Donna Brinton, Janet M. Goodwin & Barry Griner. 2010. Teaching pronunciation: A course book and reference guide. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chen, Xiaoru. 2008. A survey: Chinese college students’ perceptions of non-native English teachers. CELEA Journal 31(3). 75–82. Cheung, Yin Ling. 2002. The attitude of university students in Hong Kong towards native and non-native teachers of English. Unpublished M.A. thesis, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Clark, Elizabeth & Amos Paran. 2007. The employability of non-native speaker teachers of EFL: A UK survey. System 35. 407–430. Cook, Vivian. 1999. Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33(2). 185–209. Cook, Vivian. 2005. Basing teaching on the L2 user. In Enric Llurda (ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession, 47–61. New York: Springer. Creswell, John W. & Vicki Plano Clark. 2007. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Crystal, David. 2012. English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Gunther Kaltenboeck & Ute Smit. 1997. Learner attitudes and L2 pronunciation in Austria. World Englishes 16(1). 115–128. Filho, Etelvo Ramos. 2002. Students’ perceptions of non-native ESL teachers. Unpublished M.A. thesis. West Virginia University. Morgantown, West Virginia. Foote, Jennifer, Amy K. Holtby & Tracey Derwing. 2011. Survey of the teaching of pronunciation in adult ESL programs in Canada, 2010. TESL Canada Journal 29(1). 1–22. Golombek, Paula & Stafanie Rehn Jordan. 2005. Becoming “black lambs” not “parrots”: A poststructuralist orientation to intelligibility and identity. TESOL Quarterly 39(3). 513–533. Gürkan, Serkan & Dogan Yüksel. 2012. Evaluating the contributions of native and non-native teachers to an English Language Teaching Program. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 46. 2951–2958. Inbar-Lourie, Ofra. 2005. Mind the gap: Self and perceived native speaker identities of EFL teachers. In Enric Llurda (ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession, 265–282. New York: Springer. Jin, Jong. 2005. Which is better in China, a local or a native English-speaking teacher? English Today 21(3). 39–46. Kelch, Ken. & Eliana Santana-Williamson. 2002. ESL students’ attitudes toward native- and non-native-speaking instructors’ accents. The CATESOL Journal 14(1). 57–72. Kirkpatrick, Andy. 2006. Blatant racism in the teaching of English. South China Morning Post, Education Post, January 21, E4. Lasagabaster, David & Juan Manuel Sierra. 2002. University students’ perceptions of native and non-native speaker teachers of English. Language Awareness 11(2). 132–142. Levis, John. 2015. Learners’ views of social issues in pronunciation learning. Journal of Academic Language and Learning 9(1). 42–55. Levis, John, Stephanie Link, Sinem Sonsaat & Taylor Barriuso (2016). Native and non-native teachers of L2 pronunciation: Effects on learner performance. TESOL Quarterly, 50(4). 894–931.

228 

 John Levis/Sinem Sonsaat/Stephanie Link

Liang, Kristy. 2002. English as a second language (ESL) students’ attitudes towards non-native English-speaking teachers’ accentedness. Unpublished M.A. thesis. California State University, Los Angeles, CA. Lipovsky, Caroline & Ahmar Mahboob. 2010. Appraisal of native and non-native English speaking teachers. In Ahmar Mahboob (ed.), The NNEST lens: Non native English speakers in TESOL, 154–179. New Castle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Liu, Mingxu & Limei Zhang. 2007. Student perceptions of native and non-native English teachers’ attitudes, teaching skills, assessment and performance. Asian EFL Journal 9(4). 157–166. Llurda, Enric. 2015. Non-native teachers and advocacy. In Martha Bigelow & Johanne EnnserKananen (eds.), The Routledge handbook of educational linguistics, 105–116. New York, NY: Routledge. Llurda, Enric & Angel Huguet. 2003. Self-awareness in NNS EFL primary and secondary school teachers. Language Awareness 12 (3&4). 220–233. Luksha, I. & Elena Solovova. 2006. Pros and cons for using non-native English speaking teachers. Retrieved from http://fs.nashaucheba.ru/tw_files2/urls_23/37/d36690/7z-docs/1.pdf Ma, Florence Lai Ping. 2012. Advantages and disadvantages of native- and non-native-Englishspeaking teachers: Student perceptions in Hong Kong. TESOL Quarterly 46(2). 280–305. Mahboob, Ahmar. 2003. Status of non-native English speaking teachers in the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University, Bloomington. Mahboob, Ahmar. 2010. The NNEST lens. In Ahmar Mahboob (ed.), The NNEST lens: Non-native English speakers in TESOL, 1–12. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Mahboob, Ahmar & Ruth Golden. 2013. Looking for native speakers of English: Discrimination in English language teaching job advertisements. Voices in Asia Journal 1. 72–81. Medgyes, Péter. 1983. The schizophrenic teacher. ELT Journal 37(1). 2–6. Medgyes, Péter. 1994. The non-native teacher. London: Macmillan. Moussu, Lucie M. 2006. Native and non-native English-speaking as second language teachers: Student attitudes, teacher self-perceptions, and intensive English program administrator beliefs and practices. Purdue University PhD dissertation. Munro, Murray & Tracey Derwing. 1995. Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning 45(1). 73–97. Pacek, Dorota. 2005. ‘Personality not nationality’: Foreign students’ perceptions of a non-native speaker lecturer of English at a British university. In Enric Llurda (ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession, 195–216. New York: Springer. Park, Eun-Soo. 2009. The Korean university students’ preferences toward native English teachers. Modern English Education 10(3). 114–130. Rajagopalan, Kanavillil. 2005. Non-native speaker teachers of English and their anxieties: Ingredients for an experiment in action research. In Enric Llurda (ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession, 195–216. New York: Springer. Richards, Lyn. 2005. Handling qualitative data: A Practical Guide. London: Sage Publications. Rubrecht, Brian G. 2006. Expanding the Gardnerian model of motivation. In Kim Bradford-Watts (ed.), JALT2006 Conference Proceedings, 72–79. Tokyo: JALT. Selvi, Ali Fuad. 2014. Myths and misconceptions about non-native English speakers in the TESOL (NNEST) movement. TESOL Journal 5(3). 573–611.



Students’ beliefs about native vs. non-native pronunciation teachers 

 229

Shin, Sarah J. 2008. Preparing non-native English-speaking ESL teachers. Teacher Development 12(1). 57–65. Suarez, Jorge. 2000. “Native” and “non-native”: Not only a question of terminology. Humanizing Language Teaching 2(6): 1. Tang, Cecilia. 1997. On the power and status of non-native ESL teachers. TESOL Quarterly 31(3). 577–580. Torres, Julie West. 2004. Speaking up! Adult ESL students’ perceptions of native and non-native English speaking teachers. Unpublished M.A. thesis. University of North Texas. Denton, Texas. Walkinshaw, Ian & Oanh Thi Hoang Duong. 2012. Native-and non-native speaking English teachers in Vietnam: Weighing the benefits. TESL-EJ 16 (3). 3. Watson, Richard & Punjaporn Pojanapunya. 2009. Implicit attitudes towards native and non-native speakers teachers. System 37. 23–33. Yan, Huijin. 2010. Teaching as a native (Chinese) speaker and a non-native (English) speaker: Different identities, similar needs. WATESOL NNEST Caucus Annual Review 1. 70–98.

Appendixes Appendix A Summary of EFLa (N = 69) and ESL (N = 91) Participants’ Demographics Information EFL

ESL

N

%

N

%

Age 18–19 20–21 22 or older

23 21 30

31 28 41

43 37 11

47 41 12

Gender Female Male

53 16

77 23

40 51

44 56

69

100

1 67 5 6 12

1 74 5 7 13

67 2

85 2

86 5

95 5

First Language Turkish Mandarin Arabic Korean Otherb Academic Status Undergraduate Graduate

230 

 John Levis/Sinem Sonsaat/Stephanie Link

(continued) EFL

ESL

N

%

N

%

Field of Study STEM non-STEM

0 69c

0 100

51 40

56 44

Length of studying English 1–3 years 4–6 years 7–10 years 11 years or more

4 9 24 32

6 13 35 46

12 26 23 30

13 29 25 33

EFL = English as Foreign Language, ESL = English as a Second Language Other languages included Bangla, Hindi, Malay, Singhala, Telugu, Urdu, and Vietnamese c Students were English language teaching and English literature majors a

b

Appendix B Questionnaire Items Part 1: Demographics and Language Learning Experience



Students’ beliefs about native vs. non-native pronunciation teachers 

 231

232 

 John Levis/Sinem Sonsaat/Stephanie Link

Part 2: Beliefs toward teachers’ general pedagogical practices

Part 3: Experience learning from Native vs. Non-native Teachers



Students’ beliefs about native vs. non-native pronunciation teachers 

Part 4: Beliefs toward a pronunciation-focused classroom and teachers’ accents

 233

234 

 John Levis/Sinem Sonsaat/Stephanie Link

Part 5: Accentedness and Comprehensibility Rating Task



Students’ beliefs about native vs. non-native pronunciation teachers 

Appendix C Interview Items

 235

236 

 John Levis/Sinem Sonsaat/Stephanie Link

Recommended reading Kelch, Ken & Eliana Santana-Williamson. 2002. ESL students’ attitudes toward native- and non-native-speaking instructors’ accents. The CATESOL Journal 14(1). 57–72. This study investigated ESL learners’ attitudes towards three native and three non-native English speakers. Listening to the recorded speech samples of these speakers, learners filled out an attitude survey, told which language skills they would like to learn from these teachers, and decided whether each of these teachers was a native or non-native-English speaker. This study reported ESL learners were not successful at identifying the language background of a given speaker; and learners’ attitudes towards their teachers were related to the teachers’ perceived accent rather than their having an actual native or non-native accent. Ma, Florence Lai Ping. 2012. Advantages and disadvantages of native- and non-native-Englishspeaking teachers: Student perceptions in Hong Kong. TESOL Quarterly 46(2). 280–305. This study addresses the perceived pros and cons of learning English from NESTs and NNESTs, local teachers. The study employed a qualitative research design, and the data were collected through group interviews with 30 EFL students in Hong Kong. Findings of the study were similar to the other related studies. Local English teachers were perceived to have advantages since they share the same L1 as the students and can anticipate students’ difficulties, while NESTs are perceived to have advantages because of their language proficiency. The study showed that EFL learners still have similar perceptions towards NESTs and NNESTs as shown in the literature to date. Walkinshaw, Ian & Oanh Thi Hoang Duong. 2012. Native- and non-native speaking English teachers in Vietnam: Weighing the benefits. TESL-EJ 16(3). 2–3. This study examined the belief that learners want to learn English from NESTs rather than NNESTs. 50 EFL learners completed a survey in which they rated the importance of seven teacher traits compared to the value of native speakerness. Learners answered open-ended survey questions regarding the perceived benefits and drawbacks of NESTs and NNESTs. The noteworthy finding of this study is that learners valued most of the teaching traits more than being a native speaker. Learners valued native speakerness more when it comes to pronunciation. Their answers to the open-ended questions indicate that learners perceived pronunciation to be an advantage for NESTs whereas it is a drawback for NNESTs. Watson-Todd, Richard & Punjaporn Pojanapunya. 2009. Implicit attitudes towards native and non-native speaker teachers. System 37. 23–33. Watson-Todd and Pojanapunya noted that students’ attitudes towards their NESTs and NNESTs are usually measured through surveys. However, since students’ explicit attitudes might be biased, it is necessary to measure their implicit attitudes as well. To serve this purpose the researchers employed the Implicit Association Test and evaluated the implicit attitudes of 261 Thai learners of English. The results were compared with the results of the survey measuring learners’ explicit attitudes towards NESTs and NNESTs. Findings showed no relationship between explicit and implicit attitudes. Although students expressed a preference for NESTs explicitly, there was no difference in their implicit attitudes towards NESTs and NNESTs.



Students’ beliefs about native vs. non-native pronunciation teachers 

 237

Questions for reflection and discussion –

–

–

–

Students in this study show a strong preference for well-trained teachers above all other characteristics. Why then do students also show a consistent preference for untrained native speaking teachers for both speaking and pronunciation? What would it take to help them reconsider their preferences? Students in this study were not able to distinguish native and non-native accents of English, but they were able to evaluate which voices would be better suited as pronunciation models. How could these findings be used to help students be more accepting of NNESTs as pronunciation teachers? What do matched-guise experiments tell us about how our beliefs affect how we hear accents? If a speaker doesn’t “look” native, but is, or if a teacher “looks” native, but is not, would their physical appearance affect students’ confidence in the teacher for pronunciation? What does a “native speaker” look like? In general, Turkish students rated Turkish voices as more comprehensible and less accented than Chinese voices. Chinese students, likewise, found Chinese voices more comprehensible and less accented than Turkish voices (see Tables 6 and 7). Explain what this suggests for familiarity in how we rate speech?

Arthur McNeill

Chapter 11 Native and non-native teachers’ sensitivity to language learning difficulties from a learner’s perspective: Implications and challenges for teacher education Abstract: When native and non-native teachers are compared in terms of teaching performance, the focus of comparison tends to be preferred teaching styles, pedagogical content knowledge, metalinguistic awareness and the ability to use the target language in the classroom. An aspect of teacher language awareness that has received relatively little attention in the literature is sensitivity to the language difficulties experienced by L2 learners. Ideally, a language teacher should be able to identify and focus attention on language their students find difficult. Yet students often complain that teachers waste time by explaining language they already understand and ignoring language they do not. This chapter reports some of the empirical work undertaken with native and non-native teachers and their success in identifying language that students find difficult. The results suggest that teachers who know their students’ L1 are more likely to be aware of sources of difficulty in reading materials. However, large individual differences exist among both native and non-native speaker teachers. The chapter also considers whether awareness of difficult language should be regarded as part of Teacher Language Awareness (TLA) and how teacher education might help to sensitize trainee teachers to sources of language difficulty from a learner’s perspective.

1 Introduction Much of the literature on native and non-native teachers of English is concerned with the assumption that students believe that native speaker teachers are more effective at teaching English. Yet, in education systems that employ both native and local non-native teachers to do the same job, there is a popular assumption that local teachers are better at teaching advanced-level and examination Arthur McNeill, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong SAR, China DOI 10.1515/9781501504143-012

240 

 Arthur McNeill

classes, since they are more familiar with the formal curriculum. While stereotypes such as the above can be helpful for polarizing opinion and stimulating debate, over-reliance on them can detract from attempts to understand whether teachers’ language backgrounds and language awareness (TLA) are associated with particular teaching behaviours and insights. At the same time, it is also important to recognize that globalization and the rapid spread of global English have brought about changes in the ways in which native and non-native speaker teachers are deployed nowadays. For example, the emergence of well-qualified non-native teachers who undertake the bulk of English teaching in their own countries, with a corresponding reduction in the numbers of native-speaker teachers imported from overseas, has meant that native and non-native teachers may have clearly-defined complementary roles within the same education system, with the native-speaker teachers often regarded as temporary – even exotic and ephemeral – members of the local teaching force. Nevertheless, although new patterns of native/non-native teacher deployment may be observed, the scale of the entire English teaching enterprise continues to grow and English teachers, both native and non-native, will remain key elements whose strengths and weaknesses need to be understood. This chapter begins with a brief review of the studies which have investigated teachers’ sensitivity to learner difficulties and then discusses emerging models of teacher language awareness (TLA) and their emphases. The second part of the chapter considers how teacher education programs might help to sensitize teachers to aspects of second language learning derived from insights from studies of second language acquisition (SLA).

2 Sensitivity to learners’ difficulties In most language-teaching contexts, the content of English lessons is determined by the institution’s curriculum and typically follows the material in a prescribed textbook. However, neither a curriculum nor a textbook can inform a teacher of their students’ understanding of the language that has been covered in class. In practice, teachers need to make decisions about the selection of items for explanation and practice based on their knowledge of students’ prior learning and capabilities. But teachers are not mind-readers, so how can they know which items constitute a source of difficulty for their students? To what extent can teachers be expected to know what their students have already learned or can deduce for themselves without the need for the teacher’s intervention? A number of studies have investigated the extent to which teachers are able to focus their attention



Native and non-native teachers’ sensitivity to language learning difficulties 

 241

on students’ actual language needs. Of particular interest to the present chapter is the extent to which native and non-native speaker teachers are able to predict and identify language difficulties from a student’s perspective. For example, are native speaker teachers less sensitive to their students’ language needs because they lack access to their L1 and, by extension, to the ways in which their students process L2? Or do native speakers’ intuitions about their language extend to sensitivity to difficult language? While it would be beneficial for language education to have authoritative answers to the above questions, they are difficult to research in practical terms. In fact, investigations of teachers’ ability to identify difficulties from a language learner’s perspective are beset by technical and methodological challenges. As Moussu and Lurda (2008: 336) point out, few studies have even investigated what happens in non-native teachers’ classrooms: “The shortage of studies using a classroom observation method points to an urgent need for more studies into NNS teachers’ classroom performance, as we need to know more about their use of teacher talk, grammar explanations, promotion of varied interactional patterns, use of the textbooks, and all the many specific NNS ‘characteristics’ that have been mentioned in the literature.” The following section reports some of the studies that attempt to investigate teachers’ sensitivity to vocabulary difficulty. One of the earliest investigations was undertaken by Brutten (1981), whose subjects were native ESL teachers working in US. Brutten asked groups of teachers and ESL learners to preview the same text and try to identify the most difficult words. A comparison of the teacher and student selections appeared to reveal a high level of communality between the two groups, which led the author to claim that most native-speaker teachers appear to be good at identifying vocabulary difficulties from a learner’s perspective. The study required the teachers to underline the words in the text they believed would be most difficult for ESL learners at a particular proficiency level. It also required ESL learners from the same proficiency level to underline the words they would expect their teacher to explain to them if they read the same text in class. The results revealed that the words identified by the teachers were largely the same as those selected by the students. When the Brutten study was replicated in Hong Kong with a group of local non-native teachers and students (McNeill, 1992), it was found that while the correlation between the teachers’ and students’ selections was high and indeed close to the correlation coefficient obtained by Brutten (r=.674, p