APPLIED LINGUISTICS

DECLINE AND FALL OF THE NATIVE SPEAKER

An article written by Enric Llurda

Presented by:

Yunita Wulansari

(157835465)

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

1. Introduction

2. Research on Non-native Speaking Teachers

2.1. Is There Anything Wrong with NS Teachers?

2.2. Outcomes of Research

2.3. Internal Diversity among Native and Non-native Speakers

3. Critical Approaches to Language Teaching: The Decline and Fall of the NS

4. Final Remarks

1. Introduction• The field of applied linguistics has lately been questioning and thus

redefining the concepts of ‘native speaker’ (NS) and ‘non-native speaker’ (NNS).

• Initially, a fixed dichotomy involving the two categories was accepted, used and exploited in research on second language acquisition.

• Such a distinction has been questioned in the literature. Several researchers (Rampton, 1990; Davies, 1991, 2003; V. Cook, 1999; Liu, 1999; Brutt-Griffl er and Samimy, 2001; Piller, 2002) have critically looked at the theoretical foundations of the NS/NNS distinction, and pondered whether or not there is any reason to continue establishing a separation between native and non-native speaker.

• Davies (2003) acknowledged one single element that could be used to mark a NS and differentiate it from a NNS: acceptance as such by a significant portion of members of a speech community.

• Paikeday (1985) states that the term ‘language user’ may be more adequate and less tendentious.

• V. Cook (2002) also proposes the substitution of ‘L2 user’ for ‘L2 learner’, pointedly claiming that many ‘L2 users’ can no longer be considered perennial learners of the language, as they have full right to be considered legitimate users of an L2 variety of the language.

• This is in line with the role of English as a Lingua Franca at international levels, and the need for all English users to interact in a mutually intelligible way, thus rendering the labelling of ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ useless, and bringing a new dimension of proficiency at the international level.

• However, this new understanding has not been able to change the view of NSs superiority over the NNSs

2. Research on Non-native Speaking Teachers

• The question of native vs. non-native identity of language teachers has probably been long present in the mind of language educators, though it was not researched until Peter Medgyes devoted his attention to NNSs in ELT (Medgyes, 1992, 1994)

• Before the research, native speakers were considered ideal for promoting natural and spontaneous communication, and therefore when available they should naturally be preferred over non-natives. Only in contexts where natives were scarce or non-available would non-native teachers be considered acceptable. This was the case of ELT in ‘expanding circle’ countries

• The notion of ‘the native teacher as the ideal teacher’ was equivalent to the notion of ‘the monolingual native speaker as the ideal speaker’.

• Based on this situation, Medgyes (1992, 1994) introduced the question that challenged the assumptions: who is worth more as a language teacher, the native speaker or the non-native speaker?

• This point had already been raised in an influential language teaching forum like TESOL with their ground-breaking statement on Non-native Speakers of English (TESOL, 1991). This was the first time NNSs were the object of research and were mentioned in academic literature.

• In the last few years, visibility among the research community has been granted by an increasing number of papers dealing with NNESTs, and more specially by the publication of books exclusively centred on the study of NNESTs (Braine, 1999; Kamhi-Stein, 2004;Llurda, 2005).

• The research has so far come up with some relevant findings. These include very diverse aspects that range from students’ general openness and acceptance of non-native teachers, to teachers’ self-perceptions and characteristic lack of self-confidence.

• Jenkins (2007) reveals that language teachers and researchers’ lack of positive attitudes towards English as a Lingua Franca.

• Llurda (2004) has argued for the importance for NNESTs to adopt the formulation of English as an International Language or English as a Lingua Franca in order to develop a positive self-image and feel rightfully entitled to teach a language that is not their mother tongue.

• However, it seems that many NNESTs still refuse to embrace such an approach to ELT.

2.1 Is There Anything Wrong with NS Teachers?• The aim of this research is not to show the ‘inadequacy’ of NSs and

an alleged ‘superior quality’ of NNSs as teachers.

• This research is conducted to prove that the condition of being native speaker solely doesn't make someone a good language teacher.

• What is important here is to accept that all teachers, NS or NNS, need pedagogical training and knowledge of the language being taught (Derwing and Munro, 2005).

2.2 Outcomes of Research

Several researchers who have used two major arguments to eliminate the separation between native speakers and non-native speakers in language teaching, they are:

• minimizing any perceived differences between the two groups

• vindicating the role of the non-native speaker as a rightful language teacher

(a) Minimizing perceived differences between NSs and NNSs

There were several speakers who have difficulty categorizing themselves whether they are native speakers or not.

clear non-nativeness (e.g., a learner of English as a foreign language at the beginner level)

Extreme English nativeness (e.g., a monolingual speaker of standard American or British English)

Intermediate area

• Liu argues: ‘if we perceive all ESL professionals on a NS–NNS continuum, then it is their competence and professional growth that will define their professionalism’ (Liu, 1999: 175).

• Thinking in terms of language users rather than language learners (V. Cook, 2005) strengthens the above argument, as there is no longer the need to focus on native speaker models in language teaching.

• In this respect, the formulation of English as an International Language (Sharifian, 2009) or English as a Lingua Franca (Seidlhofer, 2004) comes in handy.

• A language that is truly international is not owned by any group of speakers (Widdowson, 1994) and competence is based on the capacity to use language forms that are intelligible for the global community (Modiano, 1999).

(b) Vindicating the role of non-native speakers in language teaching• Recent research on NNESTs has additionally shown that language

teaching can be successfully performed by non-native teachers.

• This has minimized the importance of an absolute knowledge of standard and colloquial language forms.

• NNESTs have shared the same experience as language learners with the students.

There are advantages of NNESTs reported mainly by Medgyes (1994: 51), Tang (1997: 579) and Seidlhofer (1999: 235–242), they are:

• They are a model for imitation

• They can successfully teach strategies for language learning

• They have a high level of awareness of the language and can supply information about it

• They can anticipate the difficulties that will appear in the learning process

• They can be more empathetic to the needs and problems of students

• They often have the same mother tongue as their students, which allows them to use it when necessary, and act as mediators between different languages and cultures

• They have more familiarity with the local context, and specifi cally with the syllabus and examination procedures.

2.3 Internal Diversity among Native and Non-native Speakers• NSs and NNSs are too often opposed to each other without

consideration of internal differences.

• Holliday (2005) remarks, NNSs have often been reduced to a single homogeneous group in many discussions, disregarding their complex reality to a simple stereotype.

• Holliday calls this practice ‘native speakerism’, which constitutes one manifestation of the more general phenomenon of culturism and, eventually, racism.

• Acknowledging the existence of internal diversity within a group is the first step to accept their complexities and understand their particular circumstances.

• There are some distinctions that need to be established in the field of the native speakers.

Well trained vs ‘backpackers’

The term ‘backpackers’ refers to those who spend one or two years teaching English in a foreign country without any previous training, experience or knowledge of the local language and culture (Árva and Medgyes ,2000)

Multilingual vs monolingual

Multilingual speakers have knowledge/experience of the acquisition of the content (second language) in formal contexts (Ellis, 2006: 3). Monolingual NSs do not have that experience. According to Ellis (2006: 4) their experience of language learning ‘is in the babyhood and the process of learning is not accessible for examination by the speaker’.

In his discussion of the goals of ELT, V. Cook (2007: 226) points out that:

(they) include benefits for the learner’s mind, such as those gainedthrough the manipulation of language; benefits for the learner’sfuture career; opportunities to emigrate; and the effects on societywhether through the integration of minority groups, the creation ofa skilled work-force, the growth of international trade.

• None of those goals stated by Cook above involve the need to approximate native speakers.

• Cook demonstrates that what ELT is really concerned with is the development of the L2 user

• he different languages spoken by a multilingual person combine in their mind in a way that creates a new complex system in which both languages interact (Grosjean, 1989).

3. Critical Approaches to Language Teaching:The Decline and Fall of the NS• There has been a serious concern about the process and the

methodology used in teaching a language, including what a teacher needs to be able to do inside the classroom. This has often involved a reaction to the traditional grammar-translation method and an appraisal of native speakers as providers of input and capable of naturally using the language in the classroom.

• Unfortunately, this reaction to traditional language teaching did also bring a discredit and a rejection of aspects of language teaching that might prove useful and effective in many classrooms, such as the use of the L1 in the language classroom (V. Cook, 2001; Macaro, 2005), the use of translation as a pedagogical tool (G. Cook, 2007), or the development of learners’ language awareness (Cots, 2008).

• Successful teaching will come out of the balanced combination of the two factors: command of the language as well as training and ability to teach it, so it doesn’t depend on whether the teacher is a native speaker or not.

• However, NNESTs are still facing ‘discrimination’.

• As claimed by Flowerdew (2000,2001), the voice of NNSs’ has often been silenced in influential professional and research forums. And as Jenkins (2007) demonstrates, their concerns are still fairly invisible in many professional publications addressed to the international language teaching community. Also, there is widespread reluctance towards accepting the new discourse (Holliday, 2005).

• Thus, Llurda stated that NNESTs are still marginalized and perceived as non-relevant by the majority of the language teaching community.

4. Final Remarks

Sifakis (2004) makes a useful distinction between three areas in the debate surrounding EIL: ‘theory’, ‘reality’ and ‘application’.

• ‘Theory’ is concerned with the delineating and defining of the EIL paradigm.

• ‘Reality’ is related to observations of actual EIL communication and an understanding of the various cognitive and communicative processes involved.

• ‘Application’ is related to the teaching of EIL and refers to those pedagogical considerations that the EIL teacher should be aware of.

(Sifakis, 2004: 238)

• This distinction is very useful to separate the range of influence of recent innovative ideas in applied linguistics, i.e., the native speaker/non-native speaker distinction.

• The theory domain, has taken us a long way from Chomsky’s reference to ‘the idealized native speaker’ (Chomsky, 1965: 24), to the current critical views on ‘nativeness’, ‘the ownership of a language’, ‘competence’, etc.

• However, reality in EIL and on NS–NNS language teaching performance remains elusive and short of systematic descriptions that factually account for what actually happens in everyday EIL interactions and language classes involving native and non-native speaking teachers.

• In application, there is a great divide between theory and practice, or between researchers’ ideas and practitioners’ views ( Jenkins, 2007; Llurda, 2009) in the terms of the non-ownership of English by native speakers (Widdowson, 1994), the concept of the L2 user as opposed to the L2 learner (V. Cook, 2002, 2005), or the importance of aiming at a fully intelligible level of competence in the study of foreign language rather than an impossible native model.

• Such a divide must be interpreted in line with Markee’s argument regarding research innovations, before they are finally allowed to permeate into the general ‘common sense’ opinion (Markee, 1997).

• The idea of ‘native speakerism’ has been attacked by current critical research on language teaching, because it ignores the diversity and complexity of a language.

• This understanding remains strong because it is supported by thousands of teachers and laypeople who still believe that the monolingual native speaker is ideal speaker.

• Contemplating all language users, both native and non-native, as collaborators in a context of increasing international communication, and advancing from theory to practice in the understanding of the implications for teaching English as an international language, are the best way to comprehend the complexity and diversity in our profession.

References• Árva, V. and P. Medgyes (2000), ‘Native and non-native teachers in the classroom’, System,

28, (3), 355–372.

• Chomsky, N. (1965), Aspects of The Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

• Cook, G. (2007), ‘A thing of the future: Translation in language learning’, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17, (3), 396–401.

• Cook, V. J. (ed.) (2002), Portraits of the L2 User. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

• Cook, V. J. (2005), ‘Basing teaching on the L2 user’, in E. Llurda (ed.), Non-native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges, and Contributions to the Profession. New York: Springer, pp. 47–62.

• Cots, J. M. (2008), ‘Knowledge about language in the mother tongue and foreign language curricula’, in J. Cenoz and N. H. Hornberger (eds), Encyclopedia of Language and Education. 2nd Edition, Volume 6: Knowledge about Language. New York: Springer, pp. 15–30

• Derwing, T. J. and Munro, M. J. (2005), ‘Second Language Accent and Pronunciation Teaching: A Research-Based Approach’, TESOL Quarterly, 39, (3), 489–511.

• Ellis, E. (2006), ‘Language learning experience as a contributor to ESOL teacher cognition’. TESL-EJ, 10, (1), 1–20.

• Flowerdew, J. (2000), ‘Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the non-native-English-speaking scholar’, TESOL Quarterly, 34,(1), 127–150.

• —(2001), ‘Attitudes of journal editors to non-native speaker contributions’, TESOL Quarterly, 35, (1), 121–150.

• Grosjean, F. (1989), ‘Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person’, Brain and Language, 36, 3–15.

• Holliday, A. (2005), The Struggle to Teach English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Jenkins, J. (2007), English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Liu, J. (1999), ‘From their own perspectives: The impact of non-native ESL professionals on their students’, in G. Braine (ed.), Non-native Educators in English Language Teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 159–176.

• Llurda, Enric. "The decline and fall of the native speaker teacher." V. Cook, L. Wei (eds) (2009).

• Macaro, E. (2005), ‘Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy’, in E. Llurda (ed.), Non-native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges, and Contributions to the Profession. New York: Springer, pp. 63–84.

• Markee, N. (1997), ‘SLA Research: A resource for changing teachers’ professional cultures?’, Modern Language Journal, 81, (1), 80–93.

• Medgyes, P. (1992), ‘Native or non-native: Who’s worth more?’, ELT Journal,

46, (4), 340–349. Reprinted in T. Hedge and N. Whitney (eds) (1996), Power,

Pedagogy & Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 31–42.

• —(1994), The Non-native Teacher. London: Macmillan Publishers. (1999) 2nd edition.

Ismaning: Max Hueber Verlag.

• Modiano, M. (1999), ‘International English in the global village’, English

Today, 15, (2), 22–28.

• Seidlhofer, B. (1999), ‘Double standards: Teacher education in the expanding circle’, World Englishes, 18, (2), 233–245.

• —(2004), ‘Research perspectives on teaching English as a Lingua Franca’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209–239.

• Sifakis, N. C. (2004), ‘Teaching EIL - teaching international or intercultural English? What teachers should know’, System, 32, (2), 237–250.

• Sharifian, F. (ed.) (2009), English as an International Language. Perspectives and Issues. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

• Tang, C. (1997), ‘On the power and status of non-native ESL teachers’, TESOL Quarterly, 31, (3), 577–580

• Widdowson, H. G. (1994), ‘The ownership of English’, TESOL Quarterly, 28, (2), 377–389

THANK YOU