Capture 44

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
Â�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

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

Chapter 4
Non-native teachers’ code-switching in L2 classroom discourse 75
Masaki Oda
Chapter 5
Native-Speakerism and the roles of mass media in ELT 99
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
Table of contents vii
Part IV 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 317
David Malinowski
Critical Afterword 337
Notes on contributors 341
Subject index 347

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-na-
tiveness 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 qualifica-
tions, 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. Appli-
cations 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 win-
dow-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. Rep-
licating 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 devel-
opment 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 bene-
fits 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 crea-
tively 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 com-
ments. 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 teach-
ers’ 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.
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 interna-
tional 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 pro-
fessional 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 litera-
ture 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 educa-
tion (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 lan-
guage 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 guar-
antee of successful language teaching, because language competence is essen-
tial 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). Intelligi-
bility has become a key issue in these recent paradigms. Since the issue of native-
ness 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 pro-
fession 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 litera-
ture, 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 advocat-
ing 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 pro-
fession 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 educa-
tion 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 mul-
ticompetent users of multiple languages and, thus, the traditional dichotomy
‘native’ versus ‘non-native speaker’ has to be rejected because of the inherent ide-
ological 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 lan-
guage 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 differ-
ent 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 profes-
sional concerns and challenges. The discussion in this publication mainly aims
to recognize and value the potential and contributions of both NS and NNS teach-
ers 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 illus-
trative 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 edu-
cation are then discussed throughout the book.
The volume is made up of a foreword by Péter Medgyes and a critical after-
word by David Malinowski, followed by 15 chapters organized into four thematic
parts focusing predominantly upon the (non)nativeness issue from different per-
spectives. 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 chal-
lenges 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, Derivry-
Plard 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 sym-
bolic 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-na-
tiveness from a linguistic, a psycholinguistic, a contact linguistics and a peda-
gogical 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 class-
rooms, 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 communi-
cation 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, insecuri-
ties 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 find-
ings revealed the types of strategies NNESTs use to manage or alleviate those anx-
ieties 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 longitudi-
nal 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 perspec-
tive of a teacher educator, the potential of NNS teachers to effectively teach speak-
ing 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-
fully teach speaking in Japanese EFL contexts and explore their potential in col-
laboration 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 Eng-
lish-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 teach-
ers 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 consid-
ered 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 per-
spective. The results suggest that there is considerable variation in sensitivity to
difficulty among both native and non-native speaker teachers, although it is con-
cluded that non-native teachers are more sensitive than native speakers to learn-
ers’ 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 iden-
tity 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 lit-
eracy 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 advan-
tages 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 collabora-
tions. 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-ser-
vice 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
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 generos-
ity 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 limita-
tions 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 lan-
guages 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 teach-
ers (ELTs) is to teach language, it is essential that language teachers have a more
technical understanding of what language and grammar are. And, more specifi-
cally, 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 com-
munication. 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 communi-
cate meaning because language is patterned. As humans, we notice, recognise,
interpret and use a range of patterns to understand, to mean and to communi-
cate. 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 limi-
tation/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 native-
speaker 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 exam-
ples 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 valid-
ity (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 gram-
mars are not always able to predict actual language use.
This issue becomes even more complex when we consider non-native varie-
ties 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 tradi-
tional 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 appropri-
ate 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 situa-
tions 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 pro-
duced 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 schol-
ars (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-phonol-
ogy, 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 (Ameri-
can); we also hear phonological differences between speakers of English from dif-
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 dif-
ferent 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 newspa-
pers 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 monolin-
gual 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 describ-
ing 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 under-
stand 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,
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 com-
munication. 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 lan-
guage in terms of its linguistic characteristics than to written language, e.g. a dia-
logue 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 Family members planning their

Englishes vacation
2 Local, written, Dialectology, World Old school friends exchanging

everyday Englishes e-mails with each other
3 Local, oral, Need more attention Members of an Aboriginal commu-

Â�specialized nity 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, Need more attention Newsletter produced by and for a

Â�specialized rural community of farmers in rural
Australia
5 Global, oral, ELF (English as a Casual conversations amongst people

Â� veryday
e Lingua Franca) from different parts of the world
6 Global, written, Genre studies; tradi- International news agencies report-

everyday tional grammar ing on events
7 Global, oral, ELF; Language for Conference presentations

Â�specialized specific purposes;
genre studies
8 Global, written, Language for specific Academic papers

specialized purposes; genre
studies
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 implica-
tions 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 contextual-
izes 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 Sys-
temic 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 varia-
bles, but all three. So, within a particular domain, e.g. domain 1, actual language
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 success-
fully 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 ori-
ented language (domains 5 and 6). In some cases, for various historical and soci-
olinguistic 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 monolin-
gual 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 pur-
poses 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/technical-
ised 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 lan-
guage 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 knowl-
edge 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.
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 lan-
guage, 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 catego-
ries 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 nego-
tiating, 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 differ-
ent 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 origi-
nal). 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 appropri-
ate 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 lan-
guage 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 per-
formance based; they should feature social negotiation; and they should demon-
strate 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 lan-
guage 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 lin-
guistics programs do not explicitly train teachers in judicious and pedagogically
appropriate uses of local languages (domain 1 & 2) in the classrooms. Mahboob
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 demograph-
ics 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 colo-
nies 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 consid-
ered as a factor in the development of pedagogical material or training of teach-
ers. 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-cir-
cle countries also published key textbooks for preparing English language teach-
ers. 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 standardiza-
tion of linguistic systems culminating in the production of authoritative diction-
aries, 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 repre-
sented 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 translanguag-
ing (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 Multimodal-
ities/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
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 lan-
guage) 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 open-
minded 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 stu-
dents 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 fol-
lowing 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 research-
ers 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 chal-
lenge the monolingual bias in the field and provide ways to move our research
and practice forward in a responsible manner.
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.
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.
Pennycook, Alaister 2002. Turning English inside out. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics
28(2). 25–43.
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
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.
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 under-
line 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 sym-
bolic violence.
1 Introduction
The native/non-native divide in ELT has been well documented as far as teach-
ers 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 teach-
ing 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 situa-
tion. 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 (Fernan-
dez 2005). The institutionalisation of educational systems in 19th century Europe
also meant the recruitment of FL (or Modern Language) teachers following stand-
ardised 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 estab-
lished: 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
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 increas-
ing 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 differ-
ent. 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 physi-
cal violence, does imply symbolic power and violence.
French sociologist Bourdieu extensively worked these two concepts of sym-
bolic 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 sym-
bolic 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
express creativity, singularity and diverse viewpoints without discarding the per-
formative 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 vio-
lence as it is not only symbolic but has to do with the different habitus of speak-
ers – 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 conscious-
ness 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 predis-
posed (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 legit-
imate 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
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 lan-
guage 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 pro-
ficiency 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 nec-
essarily 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 poten-
tially 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 lan-
guage 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
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 institu-
tional/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-na-
tive speaker teachers in others. If the literature for the last decades has particu-
larly 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 teach-
ing1 (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 compe-
tence 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/
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 per-
ceived more as native speakers than as teachers. The natural link they have with
the language even hampers their teaching competence. This essentialist percep-
tion 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 teach-
ers (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 essential-
ist 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.
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 inter-
national 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 sym-
bolic violence within the linguistic teaching field (Derivry 2015).
Deconstructing the ideology of native-speakerism along with essentialist per-
ceptions assigned to NESTs and NNESTs provide a conceptual framework for pro-
fessional 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 peo-
ple’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
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-speak-
ing 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 engen-
dered 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 “tradi-
tional methodologies based on the native speaker usually define language learn-
ers 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 lan-
guage 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 lan-
guages (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).
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 con-
cerned 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 Eng-
lish-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 per-
ceive 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
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 com-
pleted 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 Grif-
fin’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 head-
master said “Oh it’s great that Mandy’s coming along cause obviously she’ll be able to speak
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 pretend-
ing. [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 lan-
guage 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 misun-
derstandings 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
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 Eng-
lish-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 orien-
tation 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 illus-
tration 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
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 con-
fused 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 unsta-
ble, 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 lin-
guistic 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 poten-
tial 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 decon-
struct all this ourselves in order to go beyond what belongs to us and what does
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 under-
standing 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 multi-
lingual 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 teach-
ing realities for NESTs and NNESTs, the symbolic monolingual model still func-
tions 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-na-
tive 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 cate-
gory 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 teach-
ing expertise and qualifications inscribed in plurilingual and pluricultural reper-
toires (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.
This would require a re-conceptualisation of language teacher education and

training within an intercultural-plurilingual/pluricultural perspective (Kumar-
avadivelu 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/
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
Houghton, Stephanie & Damian Rivers. 2013. Native-Speakerism in Japan. Bristol:

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.

– 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 near-
nativeness: 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-Vro-
man 1989) – as well as the Competing Grammars Hypothesis (Kroch 1989), con-
stitute 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 contin-
uum 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 hypoth-
esis’ and ‘input hypothesis’, as well as studies dealing with the strategies exhib-
ited 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 expo-
sure 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 ulti-
mate attainment. This is a controversial issue because even in the case of simul-
taneous 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 mono-
lingual 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-na-
tiveness cannot be achieved. However, since there is agreement among research-
ers 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 bilin-
gual 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 com-
petence 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 Differ-

ence Hypothesis (FDH), both of which, in an implicit and explicit way respec-
tively, 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 rede-
fined by constructs such as ultimate attainment or the age factor, which, in prin-
ciple, 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 frame-
work 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
teacher because it provides him/her with information about the possible devia-
tions 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 dif-
ferentiate 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 indistin-
guishable. 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 lan-
guage 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.
2.2 The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis
Bley-Vroman’s (1989) FDH can be considered the immediate successor of Selink-

er’s ILH. For Bley-Vroman, the main differences between L1A and L2A are as listed
in (1).
(1)
First Language Acquisition Non-primary language
(L1A) Acquisition (L2A)
– Success – Failure
– Uniformity (in process, objectives, – Variation (as far as process, objec-
ultimate attainment…) tives, ultimate attainment…)
--- – Age factor
– Homogenous final attainment – Fossilization
– Determined intuitions – Undetermined intuitions
– No need of instruction – Need of instruction
– Lack of influence of affective – Influence of affective factor
factors
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 mech-
anisms 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 recon-
structed; 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 hypoth-
esis (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
not grow twice (Liceras 1996), so L1A and L2A must be different and so will be rep-
resentation 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 posi-
tion in the examples in (2) taken from Liceras, Díaz and Mongeon (2000).
(2a) a for [Magín 1;8]

(2b) e nene [Magín 1;8]
(2c) a bici [Magín 2;2
(2d) e pie [María 1;7]
(2e) a bota [María 1;8]
(2f) a tambor [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 [María 2;11]

(3b) El – de las vaquitas [María 2;5]
(3c) La – que está en mi cole [María 2;5]
(3d) Otro – amarillo [Magín 1;10]
(3e) El – del pollito [Magín 2;5]
(3f) Unos – que te pican [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 com-
petence.
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
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 com-
petence 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 major-
ity 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 lin-
guistic 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 behav-
iour 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 lan-
guage 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 discrim-
ination task and a grammaticality judgements task. She showed that the earlier
starters scored statistically higher on the phonemic but not on the morpho-syn-
tactic 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).
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 forma-
tion 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 rad-
ically 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 mas-
culine 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-na-
tive language teachers may acquire metalinguistic awareness of these code-mix-
ing 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 Gram-
mars 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 gram-
matical’ 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.
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 representa-
tion 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 fossil-
ization 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 character-
istics 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 accom-
panied 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-Ler-
oux 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 compe-
tition 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 hypoth-
esis was formulated by Bley-Vroman (1989), Slabakova (2009) and the other con-
tributors re-examine Lenneberg’s (1967) CPH, the role of domain specific versus
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 funda-
mentally 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 param-
eters 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
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 accu-
rate 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 dif-
ferent 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.
Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition (1979, 1981, 1982), and spe-
cifically the five hypotheses that he formulated (the Acquisition-Learning hypoth-
esis, 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 mech-
anism, the Monitor, accounts for the relationship between acquisition and learn-
ing 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 learn-
ers 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 mech-
anism 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 oppor-
tunities to use the target language” (Ellis 1984) will systematically access compre-
hensible 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.
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 mis-
matches (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 mis-
matches 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 mis-
matches 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-
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? [(UW6, 7:22), Moreno, 2014]

Do you want something?
(7b) Asina, nos fuimos al rio [(UW5, 4:00), Moreno, 2014]
Thus, we went to the river.
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 communi-
ties, an alternative model of education has been established. This model incor-
porates Uwa’s values and culture to other courses offered within the Colombian
educational system. There are academic projects such as Kajkrasa Ruyina (guardi-
ans 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 encour-
age better attitudes towards this variety.
We would like to propose that in these very special contexts, the good lan-
guage teacher of Spanish is the one who: (i) knows both the specific character-
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 avail-
able; (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 peda-
gogical approaches to the analysis and description of non-native grammars con-
front 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 funda-
mental 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 polit-
ically 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
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 morpho-
syntactic 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 espanÌ…ol 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.
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.
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.
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: guajiro-
español. 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.
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
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.

– 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?
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, rep-
resents 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 particu-
larly 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 codeswitch-
ing (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 alterna-
tion 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 communi-
cation by language teachers when the need arises”.
Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo, University of Extremadura, Spain
DOI 10.1515/9781501504143-005
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 (Lit-
tlewood 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 conse-
quence 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 class-
room CS which have mainly focused on the rationale and functions of classroom
CS practices. Two opposing theoretical approaches or positions have been identi-
fied 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), domi-
nated 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 valu-
able 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 discour-
aged, 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 monolin-
gual approach (or virtual position as proposed by Macaro 2001) or what Auer-
bach (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
Rivers 2011 for a recent discussion). Voices have long questioned the valid-
ity 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 com-
prehensible 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 jus-
tified than in others”. Hence, recourse to L1 is almost entirely a comprehen-
sion 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, Eng-
lish-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 pro-
viding beneficial scaffolding (Swain and Lapkin 2000; Storch and Wiggles-
worth 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) advo-
cate 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 class-
room 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
learning and teaching. But what is the optimal or acceptable level of first lan-
guage 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 organ-
izer, and as a scaffold for language development”. From a sociocultural per-
spective, 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 com-
prehension, 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 Chap-
pell 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
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 Shin-
tani 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 follow-
ing internal factors (teacher-related) that influence the teacher language choice:
professional experience, training, proficiency in the target language, self-confi-
dence, beliefs about and attitudes towards the target language. Based on the con-
tinuum 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 incom-
petence 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 pro-
ficiency 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 frus-
trated when they feel unable to understand the teachers’ L2 input (Macaro 2005),
teachers’ self-perceived communicative inability in L2 makes them feel uncom-
fortable and even guilty when they see themselves overusing or abusing CS in
the classroom discourse (Cook 2001). Research also suggests that non-native Eng-
lish-speaking teachers (NNESTs) suffer incessantly anxiety or “feeling of under-
achievement” (Medgyes 1999: 15) as they compare themselves with native speak-
ers 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 con-
fidence in teaching due to their perceived insufficient language knowledge and
language skills has generated some research that has proposed language-im-
provement strategies for NNESTs (Reves and Medgyes 1994; Llurda 2005; Braine
2010). It must also be added that NNESTs’ perceptions of their language profi-
ciency 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 lan-
guages 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, exclu-
sive 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 necessary-
could 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 eventu-
ally substitute (rather than support) L2 learning. In short, CS is commonly viewed
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 educa-
tion 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 lan-
guage 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 motiva-
tions 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 max-
imise 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 stu-
dents to take advantage of their existing L1 knowledge to facilitate their L2 learn-
ing. 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 acquisi-
tion. However, based on a pedagogy of CS which focuses on the principle of opti-
mality 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
clarification. Researchers such as McMillan and Turnbull (2009) and White

and Storch (2012) suggest an action research approach as a means for develop-
ing teachers’ awareness of their CS practices and, thus, conclude that teachers
should implement personalized approaches to L1 and L2 use that should be ped-
agogically 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), Turn-
bull 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 lan-
guage 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 dis-
course 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 contro-
versy 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 evi-
dence that a prescribed target-language only environment is beneficial to learn-
ers, 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 lon-
gitudinal 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.
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 com-
pulsory Practice Teaching course that is offered in the final semester. During the
practicum experience student teachers observe and experience first-hand teach-
ing 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 semes-
ter of the 2014–2015 academic year. On average, the participating student teach-
ers already accumulated 4 months of teaching experience following another
practicum placement experience during their second year of study.
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 teach-
ers 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 participat-
ing 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.
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 Unsure Agree Strongly Total

Â�disagree agree
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%
Tab. 1 (continued)

Â�disagree agree
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 compli-
cated 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 unfa-
miliar 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 stu-
dents’ 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%
Tab. 1 (continued)

Â�disagree agree
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 moti-
vated, 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 ques-
tions.
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%
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 facil-
itative 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 teach-
ers 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 necessar-
ily 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-
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’ under-
standing in English (item 22: 54.77%). In addition, a high percentage of respond-
ents (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 facil-
itating 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 class-
room 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 open-

ended questions so as to gather more detailed information about their percep-
tions 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.
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 cor-
roborates 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 dif-
ference 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 corrobo-
rates 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 com-
ments 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 misunderstand-
ing 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 estab-
lishing rapport with students”, “for talking about personal matters with indi-
vidual 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
daily routine” and “to announce something important to learners”. In short, all
these considerations corroborate the assumption that the reasons for CS are mul-
tifaceted 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 dis-
courage 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”, “ensur-
ing 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
of L1 in L2 classrooms, the fact is that many researchers and language educa-

tors 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 pedagog-
ical effectiveness and desirability from the perspective of student teachers. In
general, student teachers not only highlight the need and importance of learn-
ers’ 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. Specif-
ically, the results revealed that the surveyed student teachers seem to be uncer-
tain 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 teach-
ing 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 com-
municative 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 strat-
egy 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 sub-
stantially 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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-of-
the-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.

– 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 con-
structed, 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) Japa-
nese 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 learn-
ing.
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 Jap-
anese 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 substan-
tial 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 lan-
guage 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 prob-
lems. 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.
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 dif-
ferent 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 involve-
ments of ELT professionals to overcome the negative impact of mass-media on
teaching and learning English. An example of an attempt by a Japanese univer-
sity 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 kin-
dergarten 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 sur-
prised 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 fol-
lowing message on a weblog owned by a company who sells materials for learn-
ing 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 dis-
courses 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/whitepa-
per/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
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 offi-
cial 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, there-
fore, 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 crit-
icisms 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 (Yamash-
ita 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) Japa-
nese 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 pre-
suppose 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 dis-
courses on ELT prevailed among the Japanese general public. Kress (1985: 6–7),
for example, defines the discourses as “systematically–organised sets of state-
ments 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 pro-
grams at private institutions with which we encounter very frequently in many
major cities all over Japan and newspaper articles.
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 phe-
nomenon 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, bill-
boards), 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 informa-
tion 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 pro-
grams 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) Geo-
semiotics 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 contri-
bution 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., “Com-
pletely 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 knowl-
edge 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
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 mes-
sages 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 (Hol-
liday 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 com-
plicated. 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 con-
tract, 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 them-
selves, 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, conse-
quently, 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 learn-
ers, 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
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 relation-
ship with influence. He stated that the notion of unintended influence or effects
of actions “call attention to the problem of unawareness” and discusses the prob-
lems 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 clear-
cut 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 learn-
ing 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 effec-
tive 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 provid-
ing 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 teach-
ing 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; teach-
ers 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
and/or learning a foreign language beyond intermediate level. While it is possi-

ble 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 Jap-
anese 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 teach-
ing 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, estab-
lished 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 foot-
note 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 involve-
ments 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 univer-
sity 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 pos-
sible 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 learn-
ing to choose from.
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:
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:
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
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.

– 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 emo-
tional 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 lan-
guage 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 litera-
ture by focusing on NNESTs’ emotional experiences.
There is another reason why researchers need to consider language teach-
ers’ affective sides in research. To begin with, considering students’ emotions in
foreign language learning (FLL) is particularly important compared to other sub-
jects, 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 improve-
ment of their child’s language and so forth (Mousavi 2007). As such, these expec-
tations 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-per-
ceptions 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 profi-
ciency (e.g. Brinton 2004; Horwitz 1996; Medgyes 1999; Mousavi 2007; Rajago-
palan 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 major-
ity 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 profi-
ciency, 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 discour-
aging NNESTs and inducing constant stress while teaching English.
Inconsistent with previous findings, Abe (2011) who investigated the self-per-
ceptions of NNESTs teaching English in Thailand presented interesting results.
The participants had positive self-perceptions of themselves, showing high con-
fidence 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, prag-
matic 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’ unex-
pected 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
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 com-
municative 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, speak-
ing, 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 teach-
ing 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?
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 teach-
ing 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 col-
lected 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, experi-
ences 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-per-
ceived 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).
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. Partici-
pants 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 insecu-
rities?
The interviews were transcribed by the first author and used for data anal-
ysis. 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 Eng-
lish-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
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 par-
ticipants. They felt anxieties or nervousness mainly in the following specific sit-
uations:
– 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 appro-
priate words to answer;
– when students ask culture-related questions, some teachers are not confi-
dent in answering them (they think this is because they did not have experi-
ences 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 stu-
dents 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 pro-
ficiency:
…umm…especially, in an advanced class, there were a few students who lived in an Eng-
lish-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 unex-
pected 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…
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 teach-
ing;
– 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
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), stu-
dents who are proficient in English), improving their English proficiency, and
engaging with self-supported groups, in order to cope with their anxieties or feel-
ings 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-confi-
dence. 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.
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 strat-
egy to ask the students who have high English proficiency about some questions
brought by other students, instead of trying to answer all the questions them-
selves. 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 stu-
dents. 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 inferior-
ity feelings. They recommended practicing English with some materials they are
interested in; for example, they can watch English films or dramas on the Internet.
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 rec-
ognized 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 profi-
ciency 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 feel-
ings of insecurities. They have been meeting once a month in a comfortable atmos-
phere. 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
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 stu-
dents, 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; Rajago-
palan 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 coun-
tries 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-
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 admit-
ted 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 stu-
dents’ judgments generated constantly self-conscious feelings about the NNESTs’
mistakes in English. As such, attitudes from students might often impel teach-
ers 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 unex-
pected 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 suc-
cessful 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 sit-
uations where their self-confidence is being challenged while teaching. As one
of the efficient ways to keep their self-efficacy our participants recommended
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 men-
tioned 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 strat-
egy 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 improv-
ing 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 per-
formance, 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 partic-
ipants 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 inse-
curities it was really helpful for them to discuss their anxieties or share their expe-
riences 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). Consider-
ing 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
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 commu-
nicative limitations, and the strategies they use to reduce those anxieties or infe-
riority 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 sup-
plement 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 environ-
ment 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.
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 investi-
gate 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 pro-
fessional 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

– 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 conceptual-
ized as the outcome of interactions taking place between people from different lin-
guistic and cultural backgrounds in multilingual and multicultural contexts with
no common language apart from English. ELF-awareness encompasses intercul-
tural 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 aware-
ness of EFL teachers in terms of their conceptualization of “culture” in their ELT
practice in the Turkish sociocultural context. The key findings of NNESTs’ per-
spectives on the involvement of the cultural and intercultural aspects in English
language classrooms are reported. Finally, implications of this study on ELF/EIL-
aware 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 sig-
nificantly 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 diplo-
macy. 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 train-
ers 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. ELF-
aware 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, Lopri-
ore 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 inter-
cultural communication.
As Baker (2011) states, cultural awareness has become an important compo-
nent 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 inter-
cultural 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 cloth-
ing, 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, ideol-
ogies, 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 relation-
ships, 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-na-
tive 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 con-
structs 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 involve-
ment 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).
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-aware-
ness 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 communica-
tive 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 con-
struct 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’ difficul-
ties 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 research-
ers 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 teach-
ers 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 ELF-
aware pedagogical perspective.
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 involve-
ment 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 ELF-
aware 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 gather-
ing 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 per-
spective?
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-ser-
vice 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, liter-
acy, native/non-native speakers, intelligibility, critical pedagogies and their per-
ceived 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 per-
spective 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 partici-
pants 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 Istan-
bul 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 inter-

views, 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-
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 teach-
ers were asked to answer 118 questions on the portal (See www.teacherdevelop-
ment.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, forth-
coming). 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 the-
matic 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 aes-
thetic, 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 – Common thoughts.

Â�
conceptualization of culture – Common language.
– Common beliefs.
– Common values.
– Common history.
– Traditions.
– A commodity that passes from one generation to another.
Individualistic/self-centered – Behaviours.
conceptualization of culture – 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 lan-
guage, 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.
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 lan-
guage (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…”
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 soci-
ological 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 defi-
nition 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 ELF-
aware 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, par-
ticipant 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 lan-
guage 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 commu-
nication 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 iden-
tity. Elif Safak in her speech says. ‘The commute between Turkish and English gives me the
chance to recreate myself’.
…
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.
This excerpt reflects how learners are given a chance to develop their understand-
ing 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 construc-
tion 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 sociolinguis-
tic 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 expres-
sion 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 insti-
tutions 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 stake-
holders’ (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 owner-
ship 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 (lan-
guage), as someone who owns the language (i.e. English).
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 mis-
takes, 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.”
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. Dif-
ferent 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. Teach-
ers 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 per-
spective 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 lin-
guistically 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 (Wid-
dowson 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 theoreti-
cal 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 Technologi-

cal 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.
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.
University Press.
APPENDIX A
Semi-structured interview questions
1. How do you define the concept of culture?

2. Is there a connection between language and culture? If yes, explain.
3. Is there a connection between the concept of culture and foreign language education?
4. Should the language taught in foreign language classrooms include cultural information?
5. Do you think a foreign language teacher should have familiarity with the culture of the
foreign language s/he teaches?
6. Have you ever encountered cultural concepts that you are not familiar with?
7. 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.
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
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.

– 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 educa-
tion 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 ina-
bility 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-na-
tive 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, pedagog-
ical 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-grow-
ing 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 com-
petent 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 cur-
rently 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 communica-
tive 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 success-
fully 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), com-
pulsory 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 them-
selves 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 edu-
cation 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 instruc-
tional 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-
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-na-
tive 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 conversa-
tion 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 comfort-
able taking responsibility for conducting FLA (Nagamine 2015, January; Matsu-
mura 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 demotiva-
tion 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 advanc-
ing 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 advance-
ment, namely, to foster smooth promotion. When considering promotion and
other personnel attributes, a number of companies have referred to an employ-
ee’s English proficiency, as measured by their Test of English for International
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 responsibil-
ities 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’ com-

prehension 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
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 exer-
cises, and speaking is not systematically taught. Such pedagogical characteristics
or tendencies indicate that non-native teachers face at least two types of dilem-
mas: (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 possi-
bly 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 knowl-
edge of non-native and native teachers.
Due to the top-down imposition of educational reforms, many non-na-
tive 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 con-
fused 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 (All-
wright 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. Teach-
ing 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 particu-
lar 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).
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 effec-
tively in Japanese EFL contexts can be attributed to the differing types of knowl-
edge 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 correspond-
ing words often used in the same context. Procedural or implicit knowledge
does not require a learner’s linguistic analysis when used. Hence, it is perfor-
mance-oriented. For this reason, it is also called unanalyzed knowledge, which
includes exemplar knowledge. On the other hand, declarative or explicit knowl-
edge, 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 men-
tioned, 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 speak-
ing the target language fluently.
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 commu-
nicative 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 knowl-
edge, 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 knowl-
edge 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 knowl-
edge, which is often dealt with in Japanese EFL contexts, comprises prescriptive
grammar. In fact, almost all written tests and even English teacher employment
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 pre-
scriptive 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 over-
emphasized and overassessed in written exams; non-native teachers (and pos-
sibly students and their parents) do not feel comfortable dealing with descrip-
tive 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 instruc-
tion because almost all assessments and evaluations of learners’ progress are
administered using written tests. Some schools have recently begun to incorpo-
rate 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 knowl-
edge 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 indi-
viduals 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 communica-
tion. EIL pedagogy refers to preparing “English learners to become competent
users of English in international contexts” (Matsuda 2012: 7). Although EIL peda-
gogy is currently at an early developmental stage, teaching EIL poses a substan-

tial 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 com-
munication 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 addi-
tion, 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 class-
room. This is particularly relevant because more than 90% of the native teach-
ers (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 Japa-
nese EFL contexts (cf., Nagamine 2014b).
As mentioned earlier, non-native teachers should also change their instruc-
tional 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 demon-
strates, 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
lacking from non-native teachers’ instruction is the latter. Since accuracy is over-
emphasized 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 fol-
lowing 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 comprehensibil-
ity 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-na-
tive 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 refer-
ring 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 stu-
dents 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
once had. Hence, it is important that measures are taken to address this compli-
cating 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 cen-
sored 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 publish-
ers. I have been on the editorial board of the junior high school English text-
books 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 aforemen-
tioned 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
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 text-
book 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. Pub-
lishers 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 text-
book 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 authori-
zation 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
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 educa-
tion 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 strat-
egies 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
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 success-
fully teach speaking in Japanese EFL contexts. There are obviously a variety of
sociocultural, educational, and political factors at play, most of which the major-
ity 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-native-
ness 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 teach-
ers 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 aca-
demic 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 crit-
icized 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 peda-
gogy 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 con-
texts.
5.3 Pedagogical recommendations
Some recommendations can be proposed for non-native teachers seeking con-

text-sensitive, location-specific pedagogy to teach speaking effectively in Japa-
nese 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 com-
bined 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 defi-
nitions among them, teachers can increase their awareness of mostly subcon-
scious 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-na-
tive 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. Perfor-
mance 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 teach-
ing. 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 communica-
tive needs. As the learners’ proficiency rises, non-native teachers can gradually
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 learn-
ers 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 activ-
ities 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 top-
down imposition of these policies, which overemphasize speaking skills, has neg-
atively 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 specifi-
cally, 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 speak-
ing 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-
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/english-
education/
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.
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-toshinobu-
nagamine-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.
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
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.

– 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 fol-
lowing 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, pronuncia-
tion/accent, grammar, and use of colloquial/idiomatic language. As for teaching
behavior, subjects express their viewpoints regarding teachers’ awareness of stu-
dents’ needs, commitment to teaching, confident use of English, focus on accu-
racy vs. fluency, focus on oral skills vs. written skills, use of materials, homework
assignment, attitude to errors, and use of students’ L1. Finally, cultural knowl-
edge is analyzed based on the concept of English as a tool for cross-cultural com-
munication 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 prefer-
ences for native or non-native teachers.
1 Introduction
For some time, the professional aims of non-native teachers (NNTs) were basi-
cally 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 atti-
tudes 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-na-
tive 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 profi-
ciency 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 lan-
guage 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 cul-
tural necessities of their learners. Third, they may have a detailed consciousness
of how mother tongue and target language differ and consequently what is prob-
lematic 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). Further-
more, 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 imper-
ative 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 stu-
dents 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 pro-
nunciation, 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 prefer-
ences 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 vocab-
ulary learning, students were inclined towards NNESTs or both types of teach-
ers. She also found out that the older the students, the more it seemed they were
inclined to appreciate both types of teachers.
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 per-
ceived 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 respond-
ents 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 pro-
nunciation, 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 profi-
ciency, (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, Litera-
tures and Cultures’ and ‘Languages and Literatures’ 1st cycle courses at the Uni-
versity 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) stu-
dents’ perception of differences between NESTs and NNESTs regarding their
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, stu-
dents 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 intelligi-
ble pronunciation, know more vocabulary and use correct grammar. All in all, it
might be inferred that students have clearly recognized the great language profi-
ciency 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. Moreo-
ver, 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 clear-
cut 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 con-
cluded 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 pref-
erence show that students believe it is important to know culture in the follow-
ing 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 TOTAL

Â�important
knowledge of the two main English-speaking 86,67% 10,00% 96,67%

cultures (British and American) 26 3 29
knowledge of other native cultures 43,33% 50,00% 93,33%

13 15 28
knowledge of non-native cultures where English 33,33% 33,33% 66,66%

is a second language 10 10 20
knowledge of cultures where English is a foreign 43,33% 16,67% 60,00%

language 13 5 18
knowledge of the students‘ own culture 56,67% 6,67% 63,34%

(Â�Portuguese) 17 2 19
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 cat-
egorized 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 dif-
ference 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.
Yet, there were other subjects who admitted that NNESTs can become as compe-
tent as NESTs:
If it’s a good teacher, because there are many people who speak English as a second lan-
guage 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 advan-
tages of having NESTs:
Most teachers, every teacher I’ve had, were non-natives. But with natives it must be differ-
ent, 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 inter-
views, this study shows that students manifestly perceived differences between
NESTs and NNESTs. First, they assessed NESTs as having better language pro-
ficiency 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. Further-
more, 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 set-
tings, 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 teach-
ing 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 compe-
tence.
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
‘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 inher-
ently 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 dom-
inated 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 behav-
ior, 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 speak-
ers.
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 inher-
itance 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 accom-
plished 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 continu-
ity 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 cre-
dentials closely, and they insist that we do not assume that nationality and eth-
nicity 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 intercul-
tural 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:
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.
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 fre- some- rarely never don’t Mean

quently times know
competence in 81,25% 18,75% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,19

speaking 26 6 0 0 0 0
competence in 84,38% 15,62% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,16

reading 27 5 0 0 0 0
competence in 87,50% 12,50% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,13

writing 28 4 0 0 0 0
competence in 71,88% 18,75% 6,25% 0,00% 0,00% 3,12% 1,47

listening 23 6 2 0 0 1
knowledge of 78,13% 21,87% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,22

Â�vocabulary 25 7 0 0 0 0
intelligible 78,13% 21,87% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,22

Â�pronunciation 25 7 0 0 0 0
correct grammar 81,25% 12,50% 6,25% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,25

26 4 2 0 0 0
use of colloquial/Â� 62,50% 25,00% 6,25% 0,00% 0,00% 6,25% 1,69

idiomatic 20 8 2 0 0 2
Â�language
198 Luís Guerra
Question 2: How do you assess non-native teachers as far as their competence in English is
concerned?

quently times know
competence in 62,50% 31,25% 6,25% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,44

speaking 20 10 2 0 0 0
competence in 65,23% 34,37% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,34

reading 21 11 0 0 0 0
competence in 68,75% 31,25% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,31

writing 22 10 0 0 0 0
competence in 78,13% 15,62% 6,25% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,28

listening 25 5 2 0 0 0
knowledge of 53,13% 34,37% 12,50% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,59

vocabulary 17 11 4 0 0 0
intelligible pro- 43,75% 40,63% 15,62% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,72

nunciation 14 13 5 0 0 0
correct grammar 59,38% 25,00% 15,62% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,56

19 8 5 0 0 0
use of colloquial/ 50,00% 34,37% 15,62% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,66

idiomatic 16 11 5 0 0 0
Â�language
Question 3: How do you assess native teachers as far as their teaching methods and strategies
are concerned?

quently times know
are aware of 31,25% 28,13% 18,75% 0,00% 0,00% 21,87% 2,75

Â�students’ needs 10 9 6 0 0 7
are committed to 53,13% 34,37% 3,12% 0,00% 0,00% 9,38% 1,88

teaching 17 11 1 0 0 3
use English with 75,00% 6,25% 9,38% 0,00% 0,00% 9,38% 1,63
confidence 24 2 3 0 0 3
focus classes on 56,25% 28,13% 6,25% 0,00% 0,00% 9,38% 1,88

accuracy 18 9 2 0 0 3
Question 3 (continued)

quently times know
focus classes on 62,50% 12,50% 15,62% 0,00% 0,00% 9,38% 1,91

fluency 20 4 5 0 0 3
focus classes on 43,75% 37,50% 6,25% 0,00% 0,00% 12,50% 2,13

oral skils 14 12 2 0 0 4
focus classes on 43,75% 25,00% 15,62% 0,00% 0,00% 15,62% 2,34

written skills 14 8 5 0 0 5
make good use of 50,00% 18,75% 18,75% 0,00% 0,00% 12,50% 2,19
materials in class 16 6 6 0 0 4
assign homework 50,00% 21,87% 6,25% 0,00% 0,00% 21,87% 2,44

16 7 2 0 0 7
are strict about 34,37% 34,37% 12,50% 0,00% 0,00% 18,75% 2,53
students’ errors 11 11 4 0 0 6
and mistakes
make use of 34,37% 18,75% 28,13% 3,12% 0,00% 15,62% 2,63

students’ first 11 6 9 1 0 5
language when
necessary
Question 4: How do you assess non-native teachers as far as their teaching methods and strat-
egies are concerned?

quently times know
are aware of 46,88% 28,13% 18,75% 0,00% 0,00% 6,25% 1,97

Â�students’ needs 15 9 6 0 0 2
are committed to 65,23% 21,87% 9,38% 0,00% 0,00% 3,12% 1,56

teaching 21 7 3 0 0 1
use English with 65,23% 12,50% 15,62% 0,00% 0,00% 6,25% 1,75
confidence 21 4 5 0 0 2
focus classes on 46,88% 37,50% 9,38% 0,00% 0,00% 6,25% 1,88

accuracy 15 12 3 0 0 2
focus classes on 43,75% 34,37% 15,62% 0,00% 0,00% 6,25% 1,97

fluency 14 11 5 0 0 2
200 Luís Guerra
Question 4 (continued)

quently times know
focus classes on 46,88% 40,63% 6,25% 0,00% 0,00% 6,25% 1,84

oral skills 15 13 2 0 0 2
focus classes on 59,38% 25,00% 9,38% 0,00% 0,00% 6,25% 1,75

written skills 19 8 3 0 0 2
make good use of 43,75% 15,62% 25,00% 0,00% 0,00% 15,62% 2,44
materials in class 14 5 8 0 0 5
assign homework 34,37% 37,50% 15,62% 0,00% 0,00% 12,50% 2,31

11 12 5 0 0 4
are strict about 34,37% 40,63% 12,50% 6,25% 0,00% 6,25% 2,16
students‘ errors 11 13 4 2 0 2
and mistakes
make use of 46,88% 15,62% 18,75% 12,50% 0,00% 6,25% 2,22

students‘ first 15 5 6 4 0 2
language when
necessary
Question 5: In your opinion, how important is it to learn about cultures when learning English?
very important neutral less not Mean

important important Â�important
knowledge of the two main 86,67% 10,00% 3,33% 0,00% 0,00% 1,17
English-speaking cultures 26 3 1 0 0
(British and American)
knowledge of other native 43,33% 50,00% 0,00% 6,67% 0,00% 1,70

cultures 13 15 0 2 0
knowledge of non-native 33,33% 33,33% 16,67% 10,00% 6,67% 2,23

cultures where English is a 10 10 5 3 2
second language
knowledge of cultures 43,33% 16,67% 26,67% 10,00% 3,33% 2,13

where English is a foreign 13 5 8 3 1
language
knowledge of the 56,67% 6,67% 20,00% 10,00% 6,67% 2,03

students‘ own culture 17 2 6 3 2
(Portuguese)
Question 6: If you identified any of the options in question 5 as very important (5) and impor-
tant (4), how do you assess native teachers as far as their knowledge of those cultures is
concerned?

quently times know
knowledge of 79,31% 20,69% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,21

the two main 23 6 0 0 0 0
English-speaking
cultures (British
and American)
knowledge of 48,28% 41,38% 10,35% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,62

other native 14 12 3 0 0 0
cultures
knowledge 37,93% 24,14% 24,14% 0,00% 6,90% 6,90% 2,35

of non-native 11 7 7 0 2 2
cultures where
English is a
second language
knowledge of 41,38% 31,04% 24,14% 3,45% 0,00% 0,00% 1,90

cultures where 12 9 7 1 0 0
English is a
foreign language
knowledge of the 51,72% 37,93% 0,00% 10,35% 0,00% 0,00% 1,69

students‘ own 15 11 0 3 0 0
culture (Portu-
guese)
202 Luís Guerra
Question 7: If you identified any of the options in question 5 as very important (5) or impor-
tant (4), how do you assess non-native teachers as far as their knowledge of those cultures is
concerned?

quently times know
knowledge of 75,86% 24,14% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 1,24

the two main 22 7 0 0 0 0
English-speaking
cultures (British
and American)
knowledge of 44,83% 37,93% 6,90% 10,35% 0,00% 0,00% 1,88

other native 13 11 2 3 0 0
cultures
knowledge 24,14% 27,59% 24,14% 0,00% 10,35% 13,70% 2,86

of non-native 7 8 7 0 3 4
cultures where
English is a
second language
knowledge of 27,59% 31,04% 31,04% 0,00% 0,00% 10,35% 2,45

cultures where 8 9 9 0 0 3
English is a
foreign language
knowledge of the 58,62% 24,14% 3,45% 13,80% 0,00% 0,00% 1,72

students’ own 17 7 1 4 0 0
culture (Portu-
guese)
Question 8: What do you think is the best way to learn English?
always with a native teacher 12,50%

4
always with a non-native teacher 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
Recommended reading
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.

– 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’ peda-
gogical 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 pronun-
ciation 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 over-
stated. 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, understand-
ing 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 teach-
ers, 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 attain-
ment (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.
1.1 Non-native English-speaking teachers’ self-perceptions
Some non-native teachers may feel incompetent, insecure, or inefficient in teach-

ing 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 contra-
dictory 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 profi-
ciency 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 lan-
guage 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 regard-
ing pronunciation and speaking, preferring native speakers if pronunciation and
speaking are being taught. Walkinshaw and Duong (2012) investigated Vietnam-
ese learners’ beliefs about the value of native speakerness compared to other
teaching traits (e.g., teaching experience, qualifications, friendliness, enthu-
siasm, 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
L2 learners’ ability to detect native accents. In another study, Kelch and Santa-
na-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 teach-
ers 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’ per-
ceptions 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 Amer-
ican- and Korean-accented English. The same Korean-American female recorded
speech samples in both Korean-accented and American-accented English. Stu-
dents rated the teachers’ foreign-accentedness as well as seven traits related to
ability to use English, English teaching strategies, and general teaching strate-
gies. 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-ac-
cented 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’ percep-
tions. 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
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 address-
ing 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 teach-
ers 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?
2 Methodology
A sequential mixed methods approach (Creswell & Plano Clark 2011) was used to
explore learners’ perceptions towards English language teachers, teachers’ lan-
guage backgrounds, and the way this may affect their own pronunciation learn-
ing. 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 lan-
guage (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).
Table 1: Summary of Interview Participants (N =14).
Age Gender First Field of Self perceived Self rating of

Â�language study proficiency English pro-
level nunciation
(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
ESL Students
Chun 19 Female Chinese Music 5 5
Nora 20 Female Malay Computer 6 5

Science
Yu 19 Female Chinese Engineering 5 4.5
Xiao 20 Female Chinese Statistics 5 4
Raj 22 Male Telugu Engineering 6 7

a
All names are pseudonyms
b
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-
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 pronunci-
ation 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’ percep-
tion 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 accented-
ness 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). Comprehensibil-
ity 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 ques-
tionnaire 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 stu-
dents’ 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.
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 sug-
gested by Richards (2005), were used, namely descriptive, topic, and analytical
coding. For descriptive coding, interviews were labeled based on students’ demo-
graphic 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 dis-
cussed 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 pro-
nunciation 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 comprehensi-
bility?” (RQ5) was examined using the speech perception task. A between sub-
jects 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 vio-
lated, so a t statistic not assuming homogeneity of variance was computed.
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 1 6 5.46 0.78 1 6 4.67 1.34

well
is able to simplify difficult 1 6 5.59 0.77 1 6 4.82 1.22

material so I can under-
stand it
teaches in a manner that 1 6 5.49 0.86 1 6 4.74 1.24

helps me learn
motivates me to do my best 1 6 5.62 0.77 1 6 4.67 1.27

to learn English
is a fluent speaker of 3 6 5.49 0.72 1 6 4.71 1.20

English
looks like a native speaker 1 6 4.28 1.41 1 6 4.06 1.49

of English
knows English grammar 2 6 5.38 0.86 1 6 4.81 1.25

very well
Tab. 2 (continued)
A good English teacher: EFL Students (N = 69) ESL Students (N = 91)
rarely makes grammar mis- 1 6 4.67 1.47 1 6 4.53 1.26

takes when he/she writes
rarely makes grammar mis- 1 6 4.45 1.30 1 6 4.56 1.25

takes when he/she speaks
explains grammar rules 1 6 5.22 1.01 1 6 4.75 1.21

very clearly
is well trained in teaching 3 6 5.50 0.72 1 6 4.76 1.21

English
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 experi-
ence 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 pronuncia-
tion” 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)
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 teach-
ers.” Xiao (ESL student) stated, “I think if a teacher is patient and always be pos-
itive 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
Â�
disagree, 6 = strongly agree).
EFL Students (N = 69) ESL Students (N = 91)
Native English speakers 1 6 3.54 1.28 1 6 3.68 1.33

make the best English
teachers
I can learn English just 2 6 4.54 0.98 1 6 4.25 1.21

as well from a non-native
English teacher as from a
native English teacher
I don’t care where my 1 6 5.00 1.16 1 6 4.44 1.43

teacher is from as long as
he/she is a good teacher
for me
English teachers should all 2 6 4.38 1.13 1 6 4.13 1.24

speak with a perfect native
speaker accent
A non-native teacher can 1 6 4.94 1.16 1 6 4.44 1.17

be an effective teacher for
teaching grammar
Tab. 3 (continued)

teaching writing

teaching reading

teaching vocabulary

teaching speaking

teaching pronunciation
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”.
N % N %
Native 35 51 47 52
Non-native 6 9 7 8
No Preference 28 41 37 41
Total 69 100 91 100

3.3 Attitudes and beliefs toward a pronunciation-focused

classroom and teachers’ accents
When asked about their general perceptions towards native and non-native teach-
ers, a prominent NEST bias did not seem to exist. However, when asked about pro-
nunciation, 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 knowl-
edge. 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
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).
English pronunciation 1 6 4.49 1.27 1 6 3.91 1.28

should be taught by a
native English speaking
teacher
Native English speakers 1 6 4.71 1.14 1 6 4.24 1.08

are better model of English
pronunciation
Non-native English teachers 1 6 3.32 1.35 1 6 3.61 1.37

make me less confident
about learning pronunci-
ation
All native English speakers 1 6 3.38 1.56 1 6 3.76 1.32

are good models of English
pronunciation
Students’ ranking of the most important characteristics of an English pronun-

ciation 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
accent” as the most important characteristic. Dilek commented, “My expecta-

tion 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 pronounc-
ing 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 hes-
itant 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:
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 learn-
ing, 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 pro-
nunciation 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-
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 Accented-
ness (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 com-
prehensibility 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.
Table 8: Independent Samples T-Test for Mean Difference in Ratings of Speech Samples for
Comprehensibility.
t df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence d

(2-tailed) Â�Difference Difference Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Native .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 95% Confidence d

(2-tailed) Â�Difference Difference Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
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).
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 pronuncia-
tion 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
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 exten-
sive 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 pref-
erence, 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 pronunci-
ation. 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 “con-
tagious” 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 pref-
erences. 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 singu-
larly 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 pronunci-
ation and speaking are trustworthy. Other results in this study indicate that stu-
dents 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
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.
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.
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.
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 Ennser-
Kananen (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/d-
36690/7z-docs/1.pdf
Ma, Florence Lai Ping. 2012. Advantages and disadvantages of native- and non-native-English-
speaking 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
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
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.
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 23 31 43 47
20–21 21 28 37 41
22 or older 30 41 11 12
Gender
Female 53 77 40 44
Male 16 23 51 56
First Language
Turkish 69 100 1 1
Mandarin 67 74
Arabic 5 5
Korean 6 7
Otherb 12 13
Academic Status
Undergraduate 67 85 86 95
Graduate 2 2 5 5
(continued)
EFL ESL
N % N %
Field of Study
STEM 0 0 51 56
non-STEM 69c 100 40 44
Length of studying English

1–3 years 4 6 12 13
4–6 years 9 13 26 29
7–10 years 24 35 23 25
11 years or more 32 46 30 33
a
EFL = English as Foreign Language, ESL = English as a Second Language
b
Other languages included Bangla, Hindi, Malay, Singhala, Telugu, Urdu, and Vietnamese
c
Students were English language teaching and English literature majors
Appendix B
Questionnaire Items
Part 1: Demographics and Language Learning Experience

Part 2: Beliefs toward teachers’ general pedagogical practices
Part 3: Experience learning from Native vs. Non-native Teachers

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

Part 5: Accentedness and Comprehensibility Rating Task

Appendix C
Interview Items
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-English-
speaking 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 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 teach-
ing 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 lan-
guage 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 educa-
tion 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 assump-
tion 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 stereo-
types 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 deploy-
ment may be observed, the scale of the entire English teaching enterprise con-
tinues 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’ sen-
sitivity 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 explana-
tion and practice based on their knowledge of students’ prior learning and capa-
bilities. 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 sen-
sitivity 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 pat-
terns, 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 teach-
ers 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 vocab-
ulary 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<.01, Brutten
1981; r=.664, p<.001, McNeill 1992), some important differences emerged in the
patterns of choice between the two groups. Since correlation is a trend analysis,
it is not possible to conclude from high correlations alone that the patterns of
choice of the two groups were the same. In order to determine whether there was
any significant difference between the two groups’ results (i.e. their selections of
242 Arthur McNeill
vocabulary items), Brutten then ran a t-test, the result of which was not signifi-
cant. By contrast, the result of a t-test run on the Hong Kong data was highly sig-
nificant (t=3.75, p<.0001), which suggested that differences existed in the patterns
of choice. The possibility that systematic differences might exist between native
and non-native teachers’ judgments of difficulty merited closer investigation.
The main difference between the two studies lay in the use of native speaker
teachers in the one and non-natives in the other. Did the native English speakers
have some sort of advantage as a result of their native speaker intuitions about
English? In order to explore this line of investigation further, a more elaborate
study was conducted (McNeill 2005). A possible weakness of the two studies
mentioned above is that there was no objective measurement of learners’ vocab-
ulary knowledge. The student subjects simply underlined words in a text to indi-
cate that they required explanation of the meaning. It is possible that some learn-
ers over-estimated their vocabulary knowledge, e.g. by guessing wrongly the
meaning of some words, while others under-estimated their vocabulary knowl-
edge, e.g. by claiming they did not know the meaning of a word when they had
inferred the meaning correctly from the context. The follow-up study introduced
an objective vocabulary assessment. A 40-item vocabulary test was constructed,
consisting of the 40 words which a sample of teachers identified as the most likely
to present difficulty for ESL students reading the text. The vocabulary tests were
administered to 200 upper-intermediate level secondary school students. The
tests were given to each student twice: first as a list of 40 isolated words for which
the student had to provide the Ll (Chinese) equivalent, then in connection with
the reading text from which they were taken, allowing the students to consult
the text and make use of contextual clues. The teachers’ selections of words were
then compared with the results of the two vocabulary tests. The extent to which
teachers identified difficult words in the second (contextualised) vocabulary test
became the main focus of interest, since the ability to identify contexts which
provide learners with clues to the meaning of unknown words can be considered
an essential part of teachers’ sensitivity to learners’ processing of L2. The 2005
study also further divided native and non-native speaker teachers into two groups
based on their teaching experience and qualifications. Those with a master’s
degree, relevant teaching qualification and over five years’ teaching experience
were categorized as expert, while those with only a first degree and less than five
years’ experience were categorized as novice. The results of the correlation analy-
sis are reproduced in Table 1.
Table 1: Correlations between teachers’ selections and actual word difficulty according to stu-
dents’ vocabulary tests (from McNeill, 2005:115).
Group Size Test 1 Test 2

(words tested (words tested
in isolation) in context)
Native Speaker (Novice) 15 .0487 (ns) .0796 (ns)
Native Speaker (Expert) 15 .2002 (ns) .2298 (ns)
Non-Native (Novice) 15 .5889 (p<.001) .5199 (p<.001)
Non-Native (Expert) 20 .5061 (p<.001) .4564 (p<.01)
According to the results, there was no significant relationship between the selec-
tions made by the native speaker teachers, both novice and expert, and the levels
of word difficulty from a learner’s perspective, as determined by the two objec-
tive vocabulary tests (words in isolation and words in context). By contrast, the
selections made by both non-native teacher groups demonstrated significant
correlations with learners’ word difficulty in both conditions. The data were
also subjected to ANOVA and a post-hoc Tukey’s Multiple Range Test, which con-
firmed that significant differences were found between the native and non-native
speaker teachers’ judgements. The results suggest that teachers who share their
students’ L1 have a distinct advantage in identifying vocabulary items that are
challenging for their learners. The English native speaker teachers in the study
had, at best, a basic command of Chinese and were unable to assess semantic
correspondences between the students’ L1 and L2 or whether literal translations
of the target English lexis were possible in Chinese when making their selections
of words for explanation.
However, before rushing to the conclusion that non-native teachers are more
sensitive than native English speakers to learners’ language difficulties, it is
important to point out that large individual differences in teachers’ performance
on the task were observed in all four groups. In most groups, there were a few
teachers who appeared to be particularly sensitive to the sources of lexical diffi-
culty, while others had little clue about where the difficulties lay. So although the
teachers who spoke the learners’ L1 were generally more successful in focusing
on the challenging lexis, a wide range of sensitivity was found within the native
and non-native speaker groups. Further research is obviously required into teach-
ers’ awareness of learners’ language difficulties. The few studies that have been
undertaken tend to conclude that there is large variation in teachers’ judgements
about language difficulties. For example, similar studies conducted with Euro-
pean teachers and their students also conclude that teachers are unlikely to agree
244 Arthur McNeill
with one another about the sources of vocabulary difficulty in pedagogical texts
(Bulteel 1992; Goethals 1994).
3 Is sensitivity to learners’ difficulties part of a

teacher’s language awareness?
During the past two decades, teacher language awareness (TLA) has developed
as a popular subject area within applied linguistics. During this period, our
notions of TLA have broadened and have begun to include teachers’ awareness
of language learning in the classroom in relation to different activities and tasks.
However, the extent to which teachers are able to estimate the challenges for
individual students of particular language items and language skills remains
largely unexplored. TLA as a topic of research and subject of teacher education
programs tends to focus on the interface between what teachers know, or need
to know, about language and their pedagogical practice. As Andrews (2008: 287)
explains, “the conceptualisation of TLA in the literature is constantly evolving: it
has moved on from a rather narrow concentration on knowledge about language
(KAL) to incorporate teachers’ cognitions more broadly, both about language in
general and about the specific language they teach, as well as (in the case of L2
teachers) their awareness of their students’ developing interlanguage.” It is the
latter part of this TLA conceptualization, i.e. the awareness of learners’ develop-
ing interlanguage that is particularly relevant to this chapter. Does awareness of
learners’ interlanguage extend to and include sensitivity to students’ language
learning difficulties?
Understandably, the original preoccupations of TLA were with teachers’
explicit language knowledge and metalinguistic awareness. A question that
drove much of the previous research was whether teachers’ language knowledge
was associated with effective language teaching (Andrews and McNeill 2005).
This interest in investigating possible relationships between language knowledge
and teaching competence within TLA followed the tradition of earlier language
awareness (LA) studies which had sought to establish whether links exist (for
language learners) between knowledge of formal aspects of language and per-
formance when using the language (e.g. Carter 1990; Alderson et al. 1997). The
recent shift towards awareness of learners’ developing interlanguage appears to
recognize that TLA might also embrace awareness of psycholinguistic aspects
of language teaching. In her state-of-the-art article on language awareness and
language learning, Svalberg (2007) discusses the literature on cognitive aspects
of LA, such as awareness, attention and noticing and argues that TLA needs to
be considered within the wider context of second language acquisition (SLA)

research, especially cognitive linguistic notions. I would suggest that rather than
pursuing a research agenda which sets out to identify differences between native
and non-native speaker teachers, it might be more helpful to focus, as Svalberg
suggests, on understanding the cognitive aspects of language learning that are
relevant to all language teachers. The further development of TLA conceptualis-
ations in this direction should be potentially beneficial to teaching effectiveness
of all language teachers regardless of their L1. Some concern has been expressed
in the literature about the lack of language support for non-native teachers
on teacher education programs (Moussu and Llurda 2008: 319). However, this
concern tends to relate to providing trainees with academic English support to
enable them to complete their coursework and examinations through the medium
of English, rather than preparing them for using English in the classroom. While
many teacher education programs for non-native teachers include language
improvement components, these may have a dual function, such as providing
trainees with models of good teaching practice (Berry 1990). However, even the
most cleverly designed language improvement courses cannot be expected to
provide trainees with insights into L2 learners’ language processing. While our
conceptualization of TLA may be broadened, as discussed above, to include
awareness of learners’ developing interlanguage, teacher education programs
probably need to include separate courses in SLA, with a specific focus on L2
processing, in order to sensitize teachers to the difficulties students encounter in
second language learning.
As a number of scholars have also pointed out (e.g. Andrews 2007, 2008;
Svalberg 2007), most studies of TLA focus on teachers’ knowledge and handling
of grammar. If we are to improve teachers’ sensitivity to language difficulties from
a learner’s perspective, a narrow focus on grammar will not be sufficient, since
we need to know more about teachers’ ability to make decisions among the thou-
sands of English lexical words that occur in teaching materials, as well as their
ability to anticipate problems related to different listening, reading, writing and
speaking tasks. The dominance of grammar in TLA studies is understandable,
particularly since it was believed for many years that vocabulary would be picked
up by learners without teachers having to devote much classroom time to it. It is
no coincidence that language curricula have traditionally been determined by
a progression of grammatical structures or, more recently, functions. The place
of lexis used to be peripheral rather than central to language programs. A factor
which has encouraged teachers to accept the importance of vocabulary in lan-
guage teaching is the recognition by linguists that vocabulary occupies a central
place in our notion of language. Older, simplistic distinctions between what
counts as grammar and what counts as vocabulary have gradually been replaced
246 Arthur McNeill
by a more sophisticated view of lexis in language. As Singleton (2000) argues,

we may soon “reach the point where the notions of lexicon and of language will
become interchangeable”. In keeping with the recognition that lexis occupies a
central position within language, the teaching of vocabulary has become a high
priority concern of language education. It is, therefore, reasonable to expect
that studies of TLA will increasingly include vocabulary alongside grammar
when investigating the language awareness of L2 teachers. However, as far as
our present interest in sensitivity to learners’ difficulties is concerned, it makes
sense to ask whether applied linguistics research provides other insights about
language difficulty which might be of more immediate use to language teachers.
4 Implications and challenges for teacher

education
If it were possible to produce objective indicators of the difficulty level of items
of grammar, lexis and phonology for speakers of different languages, we would
have a reasonably straightforward research agenda and a clear idea of the kind
of support materials that could be developed to enable language teachers to
anticipate their students’ difficulties with particular areas of language. In prac-
tice, however, the situation is quite different. The difficulty level of individual
language items cannot be calculated accurately mainly because of the enormous
differences that exist among individual learners. Differences in learning styles,
prior knowledge, motivation and learning context make it almost impossible to
produce reliable lists of language items and their difficulty level.
However, the notion of difficulty has attracted the attention of scholars who
have tried to identify language features that can represent sources of difficulty for
learners. It makes sense for all teachers to be made aware of these. For example,
Laufer (1989 and 1990) investigated lexical features (e.g. transparency and decep-
tive transparency) where both learners and teachers need to pay special atten-
tion. Eckman (1981) and Geirut (2007) highlight phonological features which
can cause problems for some L2 learners, while Yip (1995) identifies potentially
difficult grammatical structures. Teacher education courses should pass on the
benefits of such insights to trainees.
It is argued above that all teachers, whether native or non-native speakers,
will benefit from training programs that introduce them to SLA, particularly
aspects of second language processing. The rationale for such an approach is to
enable teachers to understand the L2 learning processes their students are expe-
riencing and offer appropriate support. Teachers who take a master’s degree in
TESOL or applied linguistics are usually required to complete at least one course
in SLA and even a course in psycholinguistics. However, initial teacher education
programs generally do not include courses in SLA. Courses in the description of
English and language teaching methodology tend to dominate the curriculum.
The introduction of language awareness components into initial training pro-
grams in recent years has been welcomed by a number of scholars (e.g. Borg 1994;
Andrews 2008) because many trainees lacked explicit knowledge of the language
they were preparing to teach. However, what is proposed in this chapter is a step
beyond the formal study of English or even pedagogical grammar. At the same
time, it is worth remembering Alderson’s (1997: 11) warning against inflicting
upon trainee teachers a “… good dose of current linguistics…” in an attempt to
improve their language awareness. Presumably, Alderson was concerned that the
wrong linguistic theory might be of little practical benefit to future teachers. Obvi-
ously, caution needs to be observed when selecting and presenting relevant SLA
content. Fortunately, some recent developments in SLA research would appear to
offer teachers some practical guidance in understanding how L2 learners make
sense of their second language.
Before turning to recent SLA research, it might also be helpful to remind our-
selves of the appeal made by Wright and Bolitho (1993) concerning the scope and
purposes of language awareness training for teachers. They proposed (1993: 292)
that training in language awareness can provide a “missing link” in language
teacher education programs: “A linguistically-aware teacher will be in a strong
and secure position to accomplish various tasks – preparing lessons; evaluat-
ing, adapting and writing materials; understanding, interpreting, and ultimately
designing a syllabus or curriculum; testing and assessing learners’ performance;
and contributing to English language work across the curriculum”. And, of
particular relevance to the topic of this chapter, they add, “These points apply
equally to teachers of native speaker (NS) and non-native speaker (NNS) origin”.
The Wright and Bolitho (1993) paper presents a sequence of activities that can be
used in teacher education programs with the aim of raising teachers’ awareness
of language in relation to particular language-teaching tasks. The authors explain
that their intended outcomes are associated with changes of attitude and deepen-
ing of insights, which will contribute to language teacher competence over time.
The authors are (rightly) critical of teacher education programs which are based
on a “predominance of descriptive and analytical views of language in teacher
education work” (Wright and Bolitho, 1993: 299). By contrast, they advocate LA
tasks which challenge and even destabilize teachers by making them conscious of
their own limitations as well as their potential. According to Wright and Bolitho,
program leaders need to be prepared to support trainee teachers when they expe-
rience doubt, difficulty and conflict.
248 Arthur McNeill
Árva and Medges (2000) also recognize the need for teachers to empathize
with the challenges their L2 students face when confronted with new language.
As one of the native speaker teachers in their study of native and non-native
teacher classroom behavior put it, “Being a native speaker, it is difficult for you to
appreciate what the students are going through when they’re learning English.” A
non-native speaker teacher in the same study commented, “If natives don’t speak
their students’ mother tongue, they cannot really ‘interpret’ the mistakes the stu-
dents make.” (p. 362). An obvious implication of these teachers’ comments is that
native speakers need to know something about their students’ L1, especially lin-
guistic features that are likely to complicate their learners’ acquisition of English.
Turning to SLA, there is a wealth of research related to learners’ experience of
second language learning. While it would be unrealistic to try to include or even
summarize this in a teacher education program, insights based on learners’ L2
processing might promote a greater sense of learner centeredness on the part of
teachers and heighten their awareness of students’ interaction with new L2 mate-
rial. One example is the recent interest in working memory (WM) and SLA. WM
research has shown that there are limits to the amount of information learners
can hold in their working memory before their attentional resources are depleted.
When this happens, they may need to discard information in order to create
memory capacity for new incoming information (VanPatten 2002: 757). Teachers’
awareness of learners’ WM capacity should influence the type and duration of
their classroom activities and tasks.
Teaching approaches that are derived from SLA studies are of particular inter-
est. The most obvious of these is Processing Instruction (VanPatten 2002), which
is informed by studies of Input Processing (IP) on the part of language learners.
As VanPatten reminds us, the specific learning mechanisms that act upon input
or interact with it need to be identified (2002: 757). He proposes that studies of
IP may lead to promising insights in this connection, since IP is concerned with
ways in which intake is derived from input, irrespective of context or the language
being learned. Table 2 reproduces the set of principles that guide IP. Since these
address ways in which learners process L2, they should contribute to teachers’
sensitivity to difficulty from a learner’s perspective. The principles attempt to
explain the relative importance learners attach to form and meaning when pro-
cessing language input and the attention they pay to grammar and lexis.
Table 2: Principles of Input Processing (from VanPatten, 2002:758).
P1. Learners process input for meaning before they process it for form.
P1a. Learners process content words in the input before anything else.
P1b. Learners prefer processing lexical items to grammatical items (e.g. morphology) for
the same semantic information.
P1c. Learners prefer processing “more meaningful” morphology before “less” or
“non-meaningful” morphology.
P2. For learners to process form that is not meaningful, they must be able to process informa-
tional or communicative content at no (or little) cost to attention.
P3. Learners possess a default strategy that assigns the role of agent (or subject) to the first
noun (phrase) they encounter in a sentence/utterance. This is called the first-noun strat-
egy.
P3a. The first-noun strategy may be over-ridden by lexical semantics and event probabili-
ties.
P3b. Learners will adopt other processing strategies for grammatical role assignment only
after their development system has incorporated other cues (e.g., case marking,
acoustic stress).
P4. Learners process elements in sentence/utterance initial position first.
P4a. Learners process elements in final position before elements in medial position.
Since the IP principles explain how learners process L2 input, they provide teach-
ers with valuable information that can guide their classroom practice. However,
although the IP principles try to differentiate between the respective influences of
grammar and lexis in input, it is worth noting that most of the studies of IP have
investigated the acquisition of grammatical structures (e.g. Benati 2010; Lee and
Benati 2013).
5 Conclusion
This chapter has reported some of the literature on native and non-native speaker
teachers’ sensitivity to L2 difficulties from a learner’s perspective. The small
number of empirical investigations suggest that teachers who understand their
students’ L1 are generally more aware of their difficulties, particularly problems
with vocabulary, than teachers who do not. However, there is considerable vari-
ation in sensitivity to difficulty among both native and non-native speaker teach-
ers. It is hoped that further studies will investigate this topic, within what appears
to be a growing interest in understanding more about the classroom behavior of
native and non-native speaker teachers.
250 Arthur McNeill
It was noted that conceptualizations of TLA had broadened to include aware-

ness of learners’ developing interlanguage. The evolution of TLA in this direction
should mean that teacher education programs, which already attach importance
to TLA, will promote a more learner-centered approach to language teaching in
which teachers are encouraged to focus on their students’ experience of process-
ing L2. It goes without saying that such programs need to ensure that trainees are
made aware of the features of their learners’ L1 that make acquisition of the L2
challenging. Teacher education programs should also include insights into lan-
guage difficulty derived from SLA research.
For individual teachers, whether native or non-native speakers, who work
with learners whose L1 they do not know, it is important that they familiarize
themselves with the any L1 grammatical features which might need to be taken
into account when teaching English grammar. While this may seem like an
obvious recommendation, it is clear that many teachers, including those with
advanced teaching qualifications, have not always taken the trouble to under-
stand the grammatical features of their students’ L1. Yet, the extent to which lan-
guage grammars differ from one another is not difficult to ascertain and teachers
can obtain the necessary information easily and adjust their grammar teaching
accordingly.
On the other hand, the implications of learners’ L1 for L2 vocabulary teach-
ing are more complex. Again teachers need to be guided by insights from SLA on
lexical difficulty in general (e.g. transparency, false friends, cognates, metaphor,
etc.) as well as awareness of frequency of occurrence of words within L2, with low
frequency words regarded as the most difficult for learners to acquire.
The emergence of teaching approaches that are derived from SLA studies
may also contribute to raising teachers’ awareness of difficulty from a learner’s
perspective. Recent developments in studies of working memory in SLA and the
emergence of Processing Instruction are particularly welcome because of their
focus on how learners process L2. Input Processing’s concern with ways in which
intake is derived from input and the articulation of IP principles that help all
teachers to understand how students process input are positive contributions
towards sensitizing teachers to the difficulties learners encounter when studying
a second language.
6 References
Alderson, J. Charles. 1997. Models of language? Whose? What for? What use? In Ann Ryan and
Alison Wray (eds.), Evolving models of language, 1–22. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Alderson, J. Charles, Caroline Clapham & David Steele. 1997. Metalinguistic knowledge of
language, language aptitude and language proficiency. Language Teaching Research 1(2).
93–121.
Andrews, Stephen. 2007. Teacher language awareness. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Andrews, Stephen. 2008. Teacher language awareness. In Nancy H. Hornberger (ed.),
Encyclopedia of language and education, 2038–2049. 2nd Edition. New York: Springer.
Andrews, Stephen & Arthur McNeill. 2005. Knowledge about language and the ‘good language
teacher’. In Nat Bartels (ed.), Applied linguistics in language teacher education, 159–178.
Boston, MA: Springer.
Árva, Valeria & Peter Medgyes. 2000. Native and non-native teachers in the classroom. System
28. 355–372.
Benati, Alessandro G. 2010. Grammar instruction and Processing Instruction in SLA. Journal of
Applied Linguistics 26. 43–58.
Berry, Roger. 1990. The role of language improvement in teacher training: Killing two birds with
one stone. System 18. 97–105.
Borg, Simon. 1994. Language awareness as methodology: Implications for teachers and
teacher training. Language Awareness 3(2). 61–74.
Brutten, Sheila R. 1981. An analysis of student and teacher indications of vovabulary difficulty.
RELC Journal 12 (1). 66–71.
Bulteel, J. 1992. Criteria for vocabulary selection for teaching purposes. Principles, lists and
teaching practice. Licenciate thesis, Applied Linguistics, KU Leuven.
Carter, Ronald (ed.). 1990. Knowledge about language and the curriculum: The LINK reader.
London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Eckman, Fred R. 1981. On predicting phonological difficulty in second language acquisition.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 4(1). 18–30.
Gierut, Judith A. 2007. Phonological complexity and language learnability. American Journal of
Speech and Language Pathology 16(1). 6–17.
Goethals, Michael. 1994. Vocabulary management in foreign language teaching and learning.
In Keith Carlon, Kristin Davidse & Brigida Rudzka-Ostyn (eds.), Orbis/Supplementa 2
(Perspectives on English), 484–506. Leuven: Peeters.
Laufer, Batia. 1989. A factor of difficulty in vocabulary learning: Deceptive transparency. AILA
Review 6. 10–20.
Laufer, Batia. 1990. Ease and difficulty in vocabulary learning: Some teaching implications.
Foreign Language Annals 23(2). 147–155.
Lee, James F. & Alessandro G. Benati. 2013. Individual differences and processing instruction.
Sheffield, UK: Equinox Publishing.
McNeill, Arthur. 1992. Helping ESL learners to read: Teacher and student perceptions of
vocabulary difficulties. In Norman Bird & John Harris (eds.), Quilt and quill: Achieving and
maintaining quality in language teaching and learning, 150–165. Hong Kong: Education
Department.
McNeill, Arthur. 2005. Non-native speaker teachers and awareness of difficulty in pedagogical
texts. In Enric Lurda (ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and
contributions to the profession, 107–128. Boston, MA: Springer.
252 Arthur McNeill
Singleton, David. 2000. Language and the lexicon: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Svalberg, Agneta, M-L. 2007. Language awareness and language learning. Language Teaching
40. 287–308.
VanPatten, Bill. 2002. Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning 52(4). 755–803.
Wright, Tony & Rod Bolitho. 1993. Language awareness: A missing link in language teacher
education? ELT Journal 47(4). 292–304.
Yip, Virginia. 1995. Interlanguage and learnability: From Chinese to English. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Recommended reading
Andrews, Stephen. 2007. Teacher language awareness. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
This book provides an accessible introduction to the nature of TLA. It explains how TLA
has emerged as a sub-field of language awareness (LA) and ‘Knowledge about Language’
(KAL). Most of the empirical work reported relates to the teaching of grammar by
non-native ESL teachers.
Svalberg, Angeta M-L. 2007. Language awareness and language learning. Language Teaching
40. 287–308.
This state-of-the-art article reviews LA as a field of research and practice during the period
from 1990 to 2007. Svalberg recognizes that LA’s wide scope and inter-disciplinary nature
could lead to its fragmentation. However, she argues that its sub-fields have sufficient in
common with one another to provide LA with coherence. The review examines how LA may
be regarded as a teaching methodology and its implications for language teachers.
James, Carl & Peter Garrett (eds.) 1991. Language awareness in the classroom. London:
Longman.
This edited volume describes the scope of LA as covering five domains: affective, social,
power, cognitive and performance. The book illustrates how LA research ranges from
cognitive to socio-cultural areas and involves such apparently distinct areas of research
and practice as cognitive linguistics, language teaching, language use and inter-cultural
communication.
Wen, Zhisheng, Mailce Borges Mota & Arthur McNeill (eds.) 2015. Working memory in second
language acquisition and processing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
This recent volume provides a comprehensive discussion of current theoretical and
practical issues related to the special role played by working memory in the acquisition of
a second language and the ways in which language learners process L2. The book opens
with introductory theoretical chapters written by leading scholars in the field. These are
followed by chapters that report original empirical work on different aspects of SLA.

– This chapter recommends that native speaker teachers should know something about the
L1 of their students. In your opinion, what is the minimum knowledge a teacher should
have of their students’ L1? Give reasons.
– It is observed in the chapter that teachers are not mind-readers. So what can teachers do
to understand their students’ language difficulties better?
– Based on your own teaching context and experience, what puzzles you most about the
difficulties students experience when reading L2 texts? How might you find out more about
the students’ difficulties with reading?
– The chapter points out that there are large individual differences among teachers
concerning their sensitivity to learners’ language difficulties. What do you think accounts
for these differences?
– It has been suggested that publishers of language textbooks should include an indication
of the language items that are most difficult for students to understand. Do you support
the suggestion? How easy do you think it would be to indicate the level of difficulty of
individual language items?
Part IV 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
Abstract: The pervasive divide between ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ speakers (and
thereby teacher populations commonly referred to as ‘native’ and ‘non-native
English-speaking teachers’) operationalized at perceptual, theoretical, practical
and professional levels, perpetuates a fixed, rigid, and mutually exclusive con-
struction of professional identities in the field of TESOL. More importantly, this
leaves no room for contextualized and fluidly critical-practical negotiations of
linguistic, cultural, and professional identity. Thus, it oversimplifies and essen-
tializes these categories, defining what a teacher can and should do (i.e., profes-
sional legitimacy) without any consideration of their professional histories and/
or negotiations of their professional identities (Menard-Warwick 2008; Park 2008,
2012; Rudolph 2012). Departing from this premise, the current chapter argues that
in order to facilitate moving beyond the native speaker model in TESOL, teacher
education efforts should be sensitive to teachers’ sociohistorically situated nego-
tiations of identities and lived experiences as translinguistic, transcultural,
transnational and transacademic border crossers. More specifically, it presents a
series of implications for EFL/ESL teacher education, and a set of guidelines for
teacher-learners and teacher educators.
1 Introduction
Who are ‘non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs)’? Who can and/or
should they be or become, first as language learners, and subsequently as users
and teachers of English? Within the dominant worldviews and discourses1 of
1 According to Morgan (2007: 952), discourses, from a postmodern and poststructural perspec-
tive, are, “systems of power/knowledge (Foucault, 1982) that regulate and assign value to all
Ali Fuad Selvi, Middle East Technical University, Northern Cyprus Campus, Turkey
Nathanael Rudolph, Mukogawa Women’s University, Japan
DOI 10.1515/9781501504143-013
258 Ali Fuad Selvi/Nathanael Rudolph
globalized English language education, the term ‘non-native speaker’ (NNS) is

in dichotomic opposition to the ‘idealized native speaker/hearer (NS)’ (Chomsky
1965). The idealized NS, first proposed as an abstract linguistic construct, has
subsequently been constructed as Western, Caucasian, monolingual, and most
often male (e.g., Amin 1997; Braine 1999; Kubota 1998), and actualized as the uni-
versal standard by which linguistic and cultural knowledge, skills, and behav-
iors might be measured (Leung 2005). This NS construct (and thereby ‘native
English-speaking teachers’ or ‘NESTs’), according to Leung (2005: 128), serves
as the conceptual “bedrock of transnationalized ELT (English language teach-
ing),” by elevating NESTs over their NNEST ‘counterparts’,2 and therefore shapes
approaches to theory, inquiry, curriculum and materials development, assess-
ment, instruction and professional development, as well as hiring practices (e.g.,
Jenkins 2006; Kachru 2005; Leung 2005).
More recently, scholars have problematized the NS construct for reasons
fluidly critical and practical, and through a number of different conceptual lenses.
Scholars, for instance, have explored the emergence of postcolonial varieties of
English: hybridized products of the colonial imposition of English, and its owner-
ship and localization by populations around the world (e.g. Kachru 1992; Kachru
2005; Rajadurai, 2005). Scholarship falling under the banners of World Englishes
(WE), English as an International Language (EIL) and English as a Lingua Franca
(ELF), has also documented the function of English in contextualized negotia-
tions of meaning in interaction, in and across linguistic, cultural and national
borders, between individuals from a wide range of linguistic, cultural, ethnic
and national backgrounds (e.g. Canagarajah 2007; Jenkins 2006; Matsuda 2012;
McKay 2000, 2002; McKay & Bokhorst-Heng 2008; Selvi & Yazan 2013; Sharifian
2009). Such work has resulted in a problematization of decontextualized, one-
size-fits-all approaches to ELT, grounded the NS construct as the linguistic and
cultural target for acquisition (e.g., Alptekin 2002; Kramsch 2012). The various
worldviews and ontological and epistemological variety underpinning the way
in which the issues of (in)equity, marginalization, privilege and discrimination is
conceptualized are testament to complex formulations and negotiations of con-
ceptual and descriptive borders within the ‘field’.
The problematization of the NS construct has led to critical attention to the
roles and value assigned to NESTs and NNESTs. Dominant, critically-oriented
forms of activity for instance, oral/written texts, gestures, images, spaces, and their multimodal
integration”. Power establishes the bounds of correct and valuable being and doing in societies,
through the construction and perpetuation of truths (Foucault 1984).
2 The idea that NESTs serve as better teachers, is referred to as the NS fallacy (Phillipson 1992).
Teachers and the negotiation of identity 259
scholarship in the ‘field’ of ELT and its feeder disciplines, has conceptualized
native speakerism – the NS construct as an active discourse– as a universalized
regime of truth, privileging NESTs and marginalizing NNESTs (Holliday, 2005,
2006). Holliday (2006: 385) defines ‘native speakerism’ as “a pervasive ideology
within ELT, characterized by the 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.” More recently, postcolonial, post-
modern and poststructural scholarship, however, has challenged conceptualiza-
tions of and approaches to largely uniform categories of experience, asserting
that such categories, critically-oriented or otherwise, essentialize learner, user
and instructor identity, thereby oversimplifying, overlooking or purposefully
ignoring individuals’ contextualized lived experiences negotiating being and
becoming within ELT and the contexts in which it is constructed and situated
(e.g. Menard-Warwick 2008; Park 2008, 2012). Privilege and marginalization,
from this perspective, is a fluidly dynamic, context-specific product of the inter-
play between discourses of identity within a context and globalized ELT (e.g.
Houghton and Rivers 2012; Rudolph 2012, 2013; Rudolph, Selvi and Yazan 2015).
Drawing upon postcolonial, postmodern and poststructural work, the present
chapter begins by problematizing the apprehension of professional identity via
essentialized categories. In doing so, the chapter challenges essentialized notions
of experience, identity, native speakerism, the NS fallacy and the field of ELT, and
argues for a re-conceptualization of the creation, limitation and elimination of
space for being and becoming in societies and ELT therein, as contextualized and
sociohistorically constructed. The chapter then explores the implications of such
a reconceptualization for teacher education, in terms of approaching learner, user
and instructor identity, introducing inquiry and practice beyond the idealized NS
construct, addressing equity in ELT contexts around the globe, and contextual-
izing the contents of education programs to serve the needs of teachers and their
present and potential students, allowing teacher educators and in-service and
in-training teachers to analyze the local in the global while tailoring education
in a manner where the global might attend to the local. The chapter concludes by
providing a brief set of guidelines for teachers and teacher educators to consider,
when exploring the negotiation and construction of identity and practice.
2 Apprehending and challenging essentialized

approaches to identity and field
In conceptualizing and approaching inequity in English language education,
dominant, critically-oriented scholarship has unpacked teacher identity and
experience through the lens of dichotomic and essentialized categories of expe-
rience (NS/NNS; NEST/NNEST; insider/outsider; local/expatriate, among others)
(e.g., Menard-Warwick 2008). In other words, the lived experiences of individuals
situated within these categories have been constructed as largely uniform, shared
and global in nature, within and across contexts (Rudolph, Selvi and Yazan 2015).
The field of ELT is itself presented as a seemingly stable global construct, in
which the NS-ism embedded therein affords privilege to NESTs, and marginalizes
NNESTs, or vice versa. Such critical scholarship therefore aims to document the
NNEST experience with marginalization to raise awareness, and advocate for the
addressing of inequity.
When addressing the potential deficiency brought about by measuring
English learners, users and instructors either against the hypothetical, Chom-
skyan idealized native speaker/hearer, or the NS as constructed in the field of
ELT, some scholars have argued that NNESTs make better teachers of English,
due to their language learning experiences and multilingualism, in contrast to
their supposed monolingual native-speaking colleagues (e.g. Medgyes 2001).
Others have contended that NESTs and NNESTs complement each other, pos-
iting the strengths and weaknesses each group is purportedly endowed with
knowledge, abilities, and experiences (see Mahboob 2005). Still other scholars
explore teachers’ contextualized negotiations of privilege and marginalization,
and acknowledge diversity within and across borders of identity, yet, as with the
former approaches, retain the NEST/NNEST dichotomy in conceptualizing and
apprehending experience and identity (Moussu and Llurda 2008). Therefore,
whether within a context (e.g., South Korea) or across contexts (e.g., Europe),
‘NNESTs’, regardless of linguistic, cultural, ethnic or national background, are
posited to share similar experiences, as colleagues and as members of the same
‘field’ (Rudolph, Selvi and Yazan 2015).
Postcolonial, postmodern and poststructural scholarship has problema-
tized critically-oriented, essentialized and static categories of identity, positing
they do not and cannot account for movement, exchange and hybridization
within and across linguistic, cultural, ethnic, national, economic, academic,
professional and gender-related borders of being and doing (e.g., Motha, Jain
and Tecle 2012; Rudolph, Selvi and Yazan 2015). Through postcolonial, and in
particular, postmodern and poststructural lenses, essentialized borders of Self-
Other and Inside-Outside relating to community, culture, society, and nation,

which define normal, correct and valuable, and difference, are constructed in the
interplay of glocal (fluidly local-global) discourses of identity (e.g. Bhabha 1994,
1996; Rutherford 1990). These discourses are created, co-opted, and perpetuated
by individuals and groups, in the interest of power (Foucault, 1984). It is at the
interstices of these discourses that all individuals dynamically negotiate identity,
choosing to fluidly engage and/or accept borders. Postcolonial, postmodern and
poststructural scholarship contends that critical approaches to experience predi-
cated upon essentialized categories of identity, may limit and even eliminate dis-
cursive space for what can or should be possible, in terms of lived and articulated
experience (Rudolph, Selvi and Yazan 2015).
Alternately, through the lenses of postcolonial, postmodern and poststruc-
tural theory, privilege and marginalization are fluid and glocally constructed in
each given context. Dominant linguistic, sociocultural, ethnic, national, reli-
gious, economic, academic, professional and gender-related discourses, and the
borders they construct, may limit and/or eliminate space for ‘NESTs’ whose iden-
tities do not correspond with glocal constructions of the idealized NS, and for
non-local, NNESTs whose identities correspond neither with constructions of the
idealized NS nor with that of local/NNEST community member. In addition, space
for innovation and incorporation, in terms of being and becoming, may also be
limited and/or eliminated for individuals located and confined within the catch-
all category of ‘idealized member of the local community/NNEST’ (Rudolph, Selvi
and Yazan 2015). Teachers may, as a result, experience degrees of privilege as a
native speaking member of their local linguistic community, while at the same
time experiencing marginalization as NNEST Others in the same instructional
setting. Individuals located in the category idealized NS, may similarly find them-
selves confined within essentialized roles with their value ascribed accordingly.
Native speakerism may therefore involve the establishment and maintenance of
linguistic and cultural authority pertaining to the ownership, use and instruc-
tion of English, and the bounds of community membership and corresponding
authority in the context in which the ELT resides. The NS construct, native speak-
erism and the NS fallacy are therefore glocally constructed, context-specific and
dynamically negotiated concepts (e.g. Houghton and Rivers 2013; Rudolph 2012,
2013). Though perhaps differing in nature and origin, what links manifestations
of the idealized NS, native speakerism and the NS fallacy, is their shared construc-
tion and negotiation at the interstices of glocal discourses of being and doing.
Postcolonial, postmodern and poststructural scholarship therefore posits that,
in contrast to the conceptualization of ELT as a universal field in which teach-
ers experience privilege and marginalization in uniform ways and for uniform
reasons, there is a critical necessity to attend to teachers’ glocal, sociohistorical,

and context-specific negotiations of identity.
Through a postmodern and poststructural lens, Rudolph, Selvi and Yazan
(2015: 41) further contend that, “addressing inequity and fostering context-sensi-
tive, glocally approaches to practice, are inseparably intertwined” when “seeking
to move beyond decontextualized, NS-centric, approaches to ELT”. While attend-
ing to teachers’ contextualized negotiations of identity, postmodern and post-
structural work is also seeking to apprehend glocal interaction: the product of
complex movement and exchange within and across borders, in an ever-increas-
ingly interconnected world (Selvi and Rudolph, in press). In turn, such work is
contending for contextualized practice that equips learners to interact with indi-
viduals from a variety of linguistic, cultural, ethnic and national backgrounds. In
doing so, scholars are arguing for approaches to teacher education and classroom
practice that draw upon teachers’ ongoing lived experiences negotiating identity
in and across borders of being and doing (e.g. Risager 2007; Motha, Jain, and
Tecle 2012; Canagarajah 2013; Kubota 2013; Menard-Warwick, Heredia-Herrera,
and Soares Palmer 2013).
3 Implications
Postcolonial, postmodern and poststructural approaches to interrogating, recon-
ceptualizing and moving beyond NSism for glocal interaction bring about a
series of implications and directions for various aspects of the ELT enterprise, i.e.
theory, practice, pedagogy, assessment, material design and development, and
teacher education (Selvi and Rudolph, in press). Due to space limitations and
alignment with the overall focus of the current chapter, we limit our discussion
to teacher education.
The broader field of teacher education and more specifically teacher educa-
tion programs have been under attack for quite some time, receiving scathing
criticism from various stakeholders including their own graduates and faculty,
school administrators, parents and policy makers (Darling-Hammond 2006a,
2006b; Korthagen et al. 2006; Cochran-Smith and Zeichner 2009). This nega-
tive attitude is also felt in second language teacher education (SLTE) (Tellez and
Waxman 2006; Burns and Richards 2009; Johnson 2009) which is charged with
the task of preparing workforce who deal with the complexity of second lan-
guage teaching-learning, the range of challenges in and out of the classroom and
the wide array of individual, pedagogical and contextual factors and dynamics
informing their everyday tasks. Our ultimate goal in this section is to neither
add fuel to the ongoing fire in the teacher education literature nor fight the fire
with fire, but rather approach the criticality, possibility and priority of teacher
education through the lens of critical scholarship, in the interest of forging new
pathways towards (second language) teacher education efforts that are sensitive
to teachers’ sociohistorically situated negotiations of identities and lived experi-
ences as translinguistic, transcultural, transnational and transacademic border
crossers.
The definition, role and influence of the idealized NS (and thereby idealized
NEST) in ELT have long been a prime area of controversy, which is often encap-
sulated in recent calls to move beyond the NS as a benchmark informing ELT
as a profession, an area of scholarly inquiry and a professional activity. While,
principally, these calls are built upon sound arguments, practically, there are
two major problems associated with them: First, much of these calls within the
critically-oriented NNEST scholarship have failed to penetrate the specific and
specialized areas of ELT enterprises (e.g. assessment, materials adaptation and
development, and obviously, teacher education). Second, and a related point,
is that the idea of ‘moving beyond the NS’ is often stuck at the argumentative
level with limited transferability into actual practices (in)forming these special-
ized areas, and teacher education is no exception. In fact, moving beyond the
NS needs to conceptualized even more broadly and needs to be seen as a delib-
erate act of moving beyond reductionist categorizations and essentialization,
especially when preparing second language teachers. Deconstructing the NSs/
NNSs dichotomy (and thereby NESTs/NNESTs), vis-à-vis individuals’ sociohistor-
ically situated negotiations of identities and lived experiences, challenges deeply
inherent, value-laden and ideologically infused regimes of truth. Furthermore, it
redistributes such notions like the rights, norms, and standards, and challenges
the essentialization of the Anglo-American users of English as a reference point
(and recognizes proficient speakers in Outer and Expanding circles) (Jenkins,
2009), and acknowledges (and addresses) contextualized, glocally-constructed
manifestations of fluid privilege and marginalization.
Another significant implication of the critically-oriented scholarship to
inform teacher education practices is the recognition and drawing upon of diver-
sity. While this may sound axiomatic if not redundant, given that the traditional
pillars of diversity – racial, ethnic, religious and linguistic are widely discussed in
the literature. However, we argue that in SLTE, the breadth and width of ‘diversity’
needs to be further expanded. More specifically, it is absolutely crucial to attend
to diversity within (diversity of programmatic structures, and teacher-learner
and teacher educator profiles) and diversity beyond (post-programmatic aims of
teacher-learners, diversity of ELT activity) SLTE programs (Selvi and Peercy, 2016)
in developing a knowledge base for ethnolinguistically diverse teacher candi-
dates to work effectively with language learners in diverse teaching contexts. This
approach will not only enable teacher educators to prepare teacher candidates
for a wider variety of contexts in which the ELT activity takes place, but also help
them recognize contexts within these contexts. The latter is particularly impor-
tant since the creation, limitation and elimination of ‘space’ and ‘the classroom’
manifests in glocally-constructed, location-specific ways, that differ depending
on the individuals and discourses involved.
In the quest to prepare ethnolinguistically diverse teacher candidates to work
effectively with language learners in diverse teaching contexts, as well as to facil-
itate their exploration of identity as negotiated at the interstices of glocal dis-
courses of being and becoming, teacher education programs may further benefit
from the notion of ‘omnitemporality’. Selvi (2012: 8–9) explains this phenomenon
as follows:
…programmatic efforts in teacher education programs are unique in the sense that they
are ideally operationalized in an omnitemporal fashion, which is interweaving past teach-
ing-learning experiences of teacher-learners with present programmatic efforts in order to
prepare them for their future teaching tasks and contexts that might be distant in terms
of time and space. Therefore, teacher education programs become as intermediary states
and periods during which past (teaching and learning experiences, and knowledge, beliefs
and predispositions on language learning and teaching) and future (teaching contexts and
activities) are manipulated, merged and coded into the knowledge base of teacher-learners
by means of a range of interconnected and discursive mediational means.
This guiding framework is particularly powerful in deconstructing prevalent

assumptions of fixed identities and uniform experiences both retrospectively and
prospectively. In other words, it is more conducive to imagining teacher learners
and their future students as a heterogeneous population and their future contexts
as diverse constructs. More importantly, it employs this exceptionally complex
picture to (in)form, organize and implement teacher education practices. Thus, it
affords both critical and practical space and structure through which teacher can-
didates’ and their (future) students’ identities as well as their future teaching con-
texts may be explored beyond the discourses of idealization and essentialization.
A balanced discussion of the implications for SLTE programs would never be
complete without any reference to some of the challenges and tensions embedded
in the new agenda. It should be noted that when we challenge the NS construct,
NS-ism and the NS fallacy, we are, in fact, challenging something much bigger
than a construct–an idealized truth embedded in globalized ELT. In other words,
by means of our task of challenging dominant, essentialized discourses of being
and becoming interwoven in our teacher education practices, we are threatening
the linguistic, cultural, economic, national, academic, religious and professional
authority of those that derive their identity and value from their perpetuation and
maintenance.
Second-language teacher education programs, whether at pre-service (pro-
grams that aim for teachers before they formally obtain professional licensure to
prepare them for initial teaching positions) or in-service (programs that prepare
teachers who hold professional licensure and teaching positions often to expand
or refresh their skills) levels, are often conceptualized as a collaborative activ-
ity distributed across various contexts (e.g., university-based teacher education
programs, schools) and stakeholders (e.g., teacher candidates, university super-
visors, practicing teachers, mentor teachers and language learners). However,
through the lens of critically-oriented paradigms, it should not be surprising to
realize that individuals involved in these programs may actually exhibit varying
degrees of commitment, involvement and engagement with these practices. As
Selvi (2016) argued elsewhere, this degrees of commitment, involvement and
engagement may actually be attributed to various plausible scenarios: these
stakeholders may not be informed about critically-oriented paradigms and their
connections to second-language teacher education (i.e. unawareness); these
stakeholders may be in epistemological and conceptual disagreement with the
principles of critically-oriented paradigms (i.e. disagreement, rejection and resist-
ance); and these stakeholders may acknowledge critically-oriented paradigms
and their principles but see no value in them within the scope of second-language
teacher education (i.e. reluctance). Therefore, we contend that by strategic scru-
tiny of institutional affordances, constraints and actors situated in these (pre-/
in-service) teacher education contexts and experiences, the sources, reasons and
consequences of rejection, resistance, reluctance and/or ignorance may be iden-
tified, addressed and revised. This is particularly important in spearheading a
shift from “learning about critically-oriented paradigms in professional training/
practices” to “professional training/practices informed by critically-oriented par-
adigms”.
4 Guidelines and conclusions

Major stakeholders in SLTE activity (e.g. university-based teacher education
programs, teacher-learners, teacher educators, clinical faculty, school-based
mentors, administrators and policy makers) have varied roles, responsibilities
and influences in the establishment of teacher education efforts sensitive to
teachers’ sociohistorically situated negotiations of identities and diverse lived
experiences, as well as their future professional trajectories, contexts and learn-
ers. Therefore, it is imperative to establish an ongoing cycle of recursive and crit-

ical examination focusing on the integral components, processes, features and
actors of/in SLTE programs. Ultimately, this endeavor will shed important light
on (1) socially-sensitive teaching practices in English language classrooms in
diverse teaching settings and (2) constant negotiation of teacher candidates’ (and
educators’) pedagogical practices and professional identity. In order to facilitate
this process, this segment of the chapter raises a number of questions informing
guidelines for SLTE.
How have categories of ‘being’ and ‘doing’ (within and beyond ELT),
in the context which our teacher education takes place, been constructed?
Over the last couple of decades, scholars have argued for the re-conceptualiza-
tion of the Inner Circle-dominated core or default curriculum (Matsuda 2009: 188)
of SLTE programs which have been traditionally characterized by rather narrow
assumptions regarding the cultural, linguistic and pedagogical contexts of teach-
ing English in diverse teaching settings (Doğançay-Aktuna and Hardman 2008).
Therefore, in order to expand and enhance the sociocultural knowledge base
of teacher candidates (Doğançay-Aktuna 2006), they must be afforded space to
explore and apprehend the diverse uses, users and contexts in which English is
used to fulfill a wide range of glocal needs.
Who are the teacher candidates that we work with and why are they
in the program? Who might they work with, in what contexts and for what
reasons? A closer look at SLTE programs reveal that these programs bring together
a combination of ethnolinguistically diverse teacher candidates whose individual
profiles may vary extensively in terms of age, gender, race, previous teaching and
learning experiences, academic background, and individual characteristics. This
notion of diversity is also evident in the complexity of post-programmatic orien-
tations (i.e. teaching goals upon graduation – local, home and other educational
settings). Thanks to various educational partnership and exchange programs,
and increased mobility and greater migration in today’s ever-globalizing world,
the English teaching workforce is comprised of individuals whose backgrounds,
experiences, knowledge, skills and dispositions transcend linguistic, cultural,
national, academic and professional borders. Collectively, these diverse orienta-
tions, in terms of characteristics, pose a pressing challenge for SLTE programs in
terms of adequately and effectively providing teacher preparation practices (Selvi
2012). In other words, if teacher candidates bring a diversity of characteristics
and experience, and a diversity of future-oriented sociolinguistic and educa-
tional and professional contexts, it is absolutely critical to recognize that it neces-
sitates a reconfigured response to our traditional approach, content, mindset,
and model of teacher. More specifically, practices and experiences embedded in
SLTE programs need to afford teacher candidates with opportunities to explore,
reflect upon and appropriate their future teaching contexts where standards of
English are operationalized and enacted in accordance with the glocal needs of
their students.
In re-conceptualizing language learning, use, and instruction, and learner,
user and instructor identity beyond the discourses of essentialism, however,
teacher educators and pre- and in-service teachers must be mindful of the con-
textual parameters placed around ELT in each given context, by stakeholders
therein. This is what Pennycook (1997) refers to as critical pragmatism: “actively
seek[ing] out ways to tailor curricula and practice to the contextualized needs
and goals of learners, while acknowledging the expectations placed upon him
or her and his or her students and how ‘success’ or ‘performance’ might be
defined by such expectations” (Rudolph and Igarashi 2012: 349). Such attention,
for teacher educators, further relates to the program and corresponding context
in which they serve as teachers, colleagues and employees. Teacher educators
must employ critical pragmatism: seeking transformative change, while attend-
ing both to the expectations of stakeholders in the SLTE program, as well as the
diversity of worldviews held by pre- and in-service teachers therein.
Finally, we argue that SLTE programs are charged with a critical role and
importance for preparing an ethnolinguistically diverse teacher workforce for
diverse teaching settings and the future of socially sensitive ELT practices where
English fulfills a wide range of different roles, functions, and status. Building
upon this premise, we contend that SLTE necessitates (1) competent teacher edu-
cators with broader teaching experience in and expertise about glocal contexts
and socially-informed teaching practices, (2) practices, processes and experi-
ences that organically amalgamate the teacher candidates’ past histories, present
realities and future trajectories within the parameters and principles of socially
in, and (3) teacher candidates whose agency is acknowledged, practiced and
developed in respect to their imagined instructional settings (Selvi 2013).
In conclusion, we leave the reader with some final reflections on the vital
role, importance and need of aligning second language teacher education prac-
tices with the present-day sociolinguistic realities of the glocalized world in which
we greatly embrace and appreciate a wide variety of uses, users and functions of
English (and other languages in the local linguistic ecology). Therefore, we hope
that teacher educators who are charged with the task of developing, conducting,
evaluating pre- and in-service teacher education programs through the lens of
critically-oriented paradigms in diverse contexts around the world will find our
discussions of the struggles, tensions, affordances and constraints useful. Thus,
it is our hope that critically-oriented paradigms will make their way into (in)
formal, sustainable, systematic, creative and collaborative practices as well as
the knowledge-base of teachers and teacher candidates in these pre- and in-ser-
vice teacher education settings.
5 References
Alptekin, Cem. 2002. Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT Journal 56(1).
57–64.
Amin, Nuzhat. 1997. Race and the identity of the non-native ESL teacher. TESOL Quarterly 31(3).
580–583.
Bhabha, Homi K. 1994. The location of culture. London, UK: Routledge.
Bhabha, Homi K. 1996. Culture’s in-between. In S. Hall & P. du Gay (eds.), Questions of cultural
identity, 53–60. London, UK: SAGE.
Braine, George. 1999. Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Burns, Anne and Jack C. Richards. 2009. The Cambridge guide to second language teacher
education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Canagarajah, Suresh. 2007. Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language
acquisition. The Modern Language Journal 91(5). 923–939.
Canagarajah, Suresh. 2013. Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cochran-Smith, Marilyn and Kenneth Zeichner. 2009. Studying teacher education: The report of
the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.
Darling-Hammond, Linda. 2006a. Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary
programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, Linda. 2006b. Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education 57(3). 300–314.
Doğançay-Aktuna, Seran and Joel Hardman. 2008. Global English teaching and teacher
education: praxis and possibility. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.
Doğançay-Aktuna, Seran. 2006. Expanding the socio-cultural knowledge base of TESOL teacher
education. Language, Culture and Curriculum 19(3). 278–295.
Foucault, Michel. 1982. The subject and power. In H. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (eds.), Beyond
structuralism, 208–226. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Foucault, Michel. 1984. The Foucault reader. New York, NY: Pantheon.
Holliday, Adrian. 2005. The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford, UK:
Holliday, Adrian. 2006. Native-speakerism. ELT Journal 60(4). 385–387.
Houghton, Stephanie Ann and Damian J. Rivers (eds.). 2013. Native-speakerism in Japan:
Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2006. Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics 16(2). 137–162.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2009. English as a lingua franca: Interpretations and attitudes. World
Englishes 28(2). 200–207.
Johnson, Karen E. 2009. Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New
York: Routledge.
Kachru, Braj B. 1992. Teaching World Englishes. The other tongue. Urbana, IL: University of
Illinois Press.
Kachru, Yamuna. 2005. Teaching and learning of World Englishes. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook
of research in second language learning and teaching, 155–173. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Korthagen, Fred, John Loughran & Tom Russell. 2006. Developing fundamental principles
for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education 22(8).
1020–1041.
Kramsch, Claire. 2012. Theorizing translingual/transcultural competence. In G. S. Levine and
Alison Phipps (eds.), Critical and intercultural theory and language pedagogy, 15–32.
Boston, MA: Heinle.
Kubota, Ryuko. 1998. Ideologies of English in Japan. World Englishes 17(3). 295–306.
Kubota, Ryuko. 2013. “Language is only a tool”: Japanese expatriates working in China and
implications for language teaching. Multilingual Education 3(1). 1–20.
Leung, Constant. 2005. Convivial communication: Recontextualizing communicative
competence. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15(2). 119–144.
Mahboob, Ahmar. 2005. Beyond the native speaker in TESOL. In S. Zafar (ed.), Culture, context,
and communication, 60–93. Abu Dhabi, UAE: Center of Excellence for Applied Research
and Training & The Military Language Institute.
Matsuda, Aya. 2009. Desirable but not necessary? The place of World Englishes and English as
an international language in English teacher preparation programs in Japan. In F. Sharifian
(ed.), English as an international language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues,
169–189. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Matsuda, Aya. (ed.). 2012. Principles and practices of teaching English as an international
language (Vol. 25). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
McKay, Sandra Lee. 2000. Teaching English as an international language: Implications for
cultural materials in the classroom. TESOL Journal, 9(4), 7–11.
McKay, Sandra. 2002. Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and
perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
McKay, Sandra. 2010. English as an international language. In N. Hornberger and S. McKay
(eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education, 89–115. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
McKay, Sandra, & Wendy Bokhorst-Heng. 2008. International English in its sociolinguistic
contexts: Towards a socially sensitive EIL pedagogy. New York, NY: Routledge.
Medgyes, Peter. 2001. When the teacher is a non-native speaker. In M. Celce-Murcia (ed.),
Teaching English as a second or foreign language, 429–442. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Menard-Warwick, Julia, Ana Heredia-Herrera and Dionne Soares Palmer. 2013. Local and global
identities in an EFL internet chat exchange. The Modern Language Journal 97(4). 965–980.
Menard-Warwick, Julia. 2008. The cultural and intercultural identities of transnational English
teachers: Two case studies from the Americas. TESOL Quarterly 42(4). 617–640.
Morgan, Brian. 2007. Poststructuralism and applied linguistics: Complementary approaches to
identity and culture in ELT. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (eds.), International Handbook of
English Language Teaching (Vol. 2), 949–968. Norwell, MA: Springer Publishers.
Motha, Suhantie, 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 and Enric Llurda. 2008. Non-native English-speaking English language teachers:
Park, Gloria. 2008. Lived pedagogies: Becoming a multicompetent ESOL teacher. In J. A.
Carmona (ed.), Perspectives on community college ESL, Vol. 3: Faculty, administration, and
the working environment, 17–30. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Park, Gloria. 2012. “I am never afraid of being recognized as an NNES”: One teacher’s journey
in claiming and embracing her non-native-speaker identity. TESOL Quarterly 46(1).
127–151.
Pennycook, Alastair. 1997. Vulgar pragmatism, critical pragmatism, and EAP. English for Specific
Purposes 16(4). 253–269.
Rajadurai, Joanne. 2005. Revisiting the concentric circles: Conceptual and sociolinguistic
considerations. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly 7(4). 111–130.
Risager, Karen. 2007. Language and culture pedagogy: From a national to a transnational
paradigm. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Rudolph, N. (2013). Beyond binaries: Constructing and negotiating borders of identity
in glocalized ELT. NNEST IS Newsletter, 12. Retrieved from http://newsmanager.
commpartners.com/tesolnnest/issues/2013-08-27/email.html#2
Rudolph, Nathanael and Yuko Igarashi. 2012. Conceptualizing the role of the language teacher
within and beyond the native speaker construct: A focus on Japan. 2012 Proceedings of the
IAFOR Asian Conference on Language Learning, 342–357. Aichi, Japan: IAFOR.
Rudolph, Nathanael, Ali Fuad Selvi and Bedrettin Yazan. 2015. Constructing and confronting
native Speakerism within and beyond the NNEST movement. Critical Inquiry in Language
Studies 12(1). 27–50.
Rutherford, Jonathan. 1990. The third space: Interview with Homi Bhabha. In J. Rutherford (ed.),
Identity, community, culture, difference, 207–221. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Selvi, Ali Fuad. 2012. A quest to prepare all English language teachers for diverse teaching
settings: if not us, who? If not now, when? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University
of Maryland, College Park.
Selvi, Ali Fuad. 2013. Towards EIL teacher education: Exploring challenges and potentials
of MATESOL programs in the United States. In N. T. Zacharias & C. Manara (eds.),
Contextualizing the Pedagogy of English as an International Language: Issues and
Tensions, 42–58. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Selvi, Ali Fuad. 2016. The role of teacher education at a crossroads of tensions and
opportunities. Asian Englishes. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2016.1237010
Selvi, Ali Fuad and Rudolph Nathanael. in press. Conceptual shifts and contextualized practices
in education for glocal interaction: Issues and implications. Springer.
Selvi, Ali Fuad and Megan Madigan Peercy (2016). Diversity within TESOL teacher education. In
J. Crandall and M. A. Christison (eds.), Teacher education and professional development in
TESOL: Global perspectives, 83–97. New York: TIRF/Routledge.
Selvi, A. F., & Bedrettin Yazan. 2013. Teaching English as an international language. Alexandria,
VA: TESOL International Association.
Sharifian, Farzad (ed.). 2009. English as an international language: Perspectives and
pedagogical issues (Vol. 11). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Téllez, Kip and Hersh C. Waxman. 2006. Preparing quality educators for English language
learners: Research, policy, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.
Recommended readings
Canagarajah, Suresh. 2014. In search of a new paradigm for teaching English as an
international language. TESOL Journal 5(4). 767–785.
In this article, Canagarajah recognizes the viability of a paradigm shift underscoring more
socially-constructed and contextually-sensitive English language teaching practices,
and argues that this important understanding should manifest itself in the changes for
pedagogical orientations. More specifically, his argument is based on the shifts from
grammar to pragmatics, cognition to social context, and propositional knowledge to
procedural knowledge in ELT which is now charged with the task of preparing individuals
for diverse uses and users and contexts of Englishes. In conclusion, he offers three
elements critical for developing procedural knowledge, namely language awareness,
rhetorical sensitivity and negotiation strategies.
Doğançay-Aktuna, Seran and Joel Hardman. 2008. Global English teaching and teacher
education: Praxis and possibility. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.
Bringing together personal accounts and recent reflections from multiple contexts (e.g.
Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Korea, Ghana, Germany, Spain and Turkey), this edited volume
offers a critical investigation of the roles of English as a global language phenomenon
in English language teaching and teacher education. The book is organized under three
major categories: (1) resistance to inner-circle and local standards of English language
teaching; (2) changing attitudes toward English; and (3) situated English language
teaching pedagogy. A closer look at the professional beliefs, identity and practices of
teachers in light of their local teaching settings offers a brighter light on the opportunities
and challenges associated with the preparation of teachers.
Kramsch, Claire. 2008. Ecological perspectives on foreign language education. Language
Teaching 41. 389–408.
Parallel to the ecological approaches to language, language learning and language use,
a considerable attention has been devoted to socio-historical parameters of language
learning and the integration of multiple languages and cultures in a symbiotic manner.
Recognizing the increasingly multilingual and multicultural nature of language use
and learning, Kramsch builds ecological perspective on foreign language education
drawing upon from complexity theory. She also re-introduces the concept of ‘symbolic
competence’, defined as “a particularly acute ability to play with various linguistic
codes and with the various spatial and temporal resonances of these codes” (p. 400).
Finally, she offers pedagogic practices based on language ecology fostering relational/
multidimensional, mediated, multiscalar/recursive, emergent, unpredictable and
double-voiced, fractal, subjective, historically contingent, and reflexive accounts of
meaning.
Matsuda, Aya. 2016. Preparing teachers to teach English as an International Language (EIL).
Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
This book offers contemporary, innovative and practical approaches to preparing teachers
of English as an international language (EIL) by delineating a wide range of possibilities
and alternatives available to second language teacher education. The book is organized
under six major categories: (1) theoretical frameworks; (2) teacher education programs;
(3) courses dedicated to teaching EIL offered within a teacher education program; (4)
courses dedicated to another ELT topic in which the idea of teaching EIL is integrated
throughout; (5) independent unit within a course dedicated to another ELT topic; and (6)
activity ideas. Offering accounts of teacher education practices from a wide variety of
geographical, cultural, and institutional contexts, it showcases theoretical challenges,
practical opportunities and future directions for teacher education in/for an increasingly
diverse and glocal world.
Selvi, Ali Fuad and Bedrettin Yazan. 2013. Teaching English as an international language.
Alexandria, VA: TESOL Press.
This book is published as part of the English Language Teacher Development series (TESOL
Press), which includes a set of short practice-oriented resource books written in concise
and accessible manner for ELT practitioners. More specifically, it addresses various
aspects of teaching English as an international language (EIL) in the ELT classroom. The
book is organized under five major sections: (1) the global spread of English and the need
for EIL pedagogy; (2) methods and materials in EIL pedagogy; (3) culture and identity in
EIL pedagogy; (4) assessment in EIL pedagogy; and (5) curriculum development in EIL
pedagogy. Illustrating various aspects of the EIL pedagogy, this book offers a strong
foundation for EIL-oriented teacher education practices.

– How have categories of “being” and “doing” (within and beyond ELT), in the context which
our teacher education takes place, been constructed?
– Who are the teacher candidates that we work with? Why are they in the program? Who
might they work with, in what contexts and for what reasons?
– To what extent are your teacher education practices (a) aligned with the present-day status
of English as an international language, and (b) sensitive to the sociohistorical situated
negotiations of identities and lived experiences?
– To what extent do you feel confident to work with teachers and teacher candidates who
bring a wide variety of identities and lived experiences as translinguistic, transcultural,
transnational and transacademic border crossers? If you do not feel confident, what
should you do as a teacher educator to expand the scope of your knowledge base?
Wolfgang Zydatiß
Chapter 13
Professional challenges faced by non-native
CLIL teachers
Abstract: Basically native and non-native CLIL teachers face similar challenges
when academic literacy is to be dealt with at different stages of the subject-matter
curriculum. The ’language of schooling’ (Schleppegrell) is a different kind of lan-
guage use (namely the academic one), posing specific challenges to CLIL teachers
as well as learners (because content and language converge). Drawing upon the
functional linguistic framework initiated by Halliday in his Systemic Functional
Linguistics in conjunction with certain insights from Vygotsky’s Sociocultural
Theory the article will sketch out some salient features of what this ’language
of schooling’ looks like and how it develops in selected CLIL subjects over the
years of content teaching in a foreign language (ie. English). It will thereby iden-
tify some distinctive linguistic and cognitive challenges of the CLIL classroom,
and it will name the implications and perspectives faced especially by non-native
CLIL teachers. They will have to gain an understanding of how academic literacy
works along and across the curriculum, and how its development can be sup-
ported by instruction: for example, by focusing inferencing and schematic text
patterns to promote reading comprehension, and by scaffolding the productive
use of academic language (particularly with regard to generic writing).
1 The German tradition: bilingual tracks run by

non-native teachers
The use of a foreign language in subject-matter teaching started in Germany in
the late 1960s; in the wake of the German-French treaty of 1963 which brought
reconciliation between the two nations to the fore of the political agenda of that
time. It was teachers (of French or German respectively) on either side of the
River Rhine who looked for practical solutions to fill the spirit of the so-called
Élysée Treaty with life in their professional field as well. The result on the German
side was the curricular concept of the bilingual track (= bilingualer Zweig / Zug:
Wolfgang Zydatiß, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany
DOI 10.1515/9781501504143-014
274 Wolfgang Zydatiß
a translation from the French); ie. teaching subjects like History and Geogra-
phy in French – throughout the lower and upper secondary level of the German
grammar school (= Gymnasium). It was a genuine grassroots movement by prac-
tising teachers who (very often) had personal contacts in or to France and thus
a high level of proficiency in French plus a long-standing experience in teaching
the respective subject. A major reason for the success of the approach – known as
′bilingual teaching′ in Germany (clearly a misnomer nowadays since the subject
teaching is usually monolingual, in the ′vehicular′ language) – is surely the fact
that German secondary school teachers have to study two academic subjects at
university. This also applies to the vocational school system: Germany operates a
dual system here; ie. all apprentices have to attend school for two days per week,
whereas the other days of the week are spent with some company for practical
training on the job. These courses of study quite often result in the combination
of a subject like History or Geography or (in the vocational branches) Economics,
Business Studies or Design & Technology with a foreign language: ie. the large
majority of German teachers (and their educators) implementing the traditional
extensive ′bilingual track′ and – nowadays – the ′bilingual modules′ (see below)
are non-native speakers of the working language. The early, innovative prac-
tioners had no explicit training for the approach, since there was no pedagogic
theory and no evidence-based research around. After the European Union had
been founded in 1992/93 and CLIL (= content and language integrated learning)
had been launched in 1994 for the European countries, both quantitative and
qualitative changes were noticeable. Apart from an increase in the sheer number
of schools making ′bilingual′ offers a functional diversification of the curricular
concept set in in Germany:
– More and more schools opted for English as the vehicular language; other
working languages were, however, also possible (especially in border regions:
eg. Dutch or Polish).
– Biology established itself as a ′bilingual′ subject; induced by the status of
English as the global language of communication in the natural sciences.
– Other, less academic types of secondary school offered ′bilingual streams′,
especially the German middle schools (= Real- or Sekundarschulen).
– Temporally limited enrichment courses (known as ′bilingual modules′ in
Germany) were introduced across the different subjects, stages and types of
the general and (increasingly) the vocational school system.
All in all there is now a remarkable range of curricular, subject and language
variation in Germany with regard to ′bilingual′ school programmes. The typical
German curricular variant of the extensive ′bilingual track′ (a strong version of the
CLIL idea) gets progressively supplemented by weaker CLIL versions; in an attempt
to counterbalance the reservations towards ′bilingual streams′ as being an elitist

concept selecting learners with higher cognitive and/or linguistic dispositions
from privileged backgrounds. Nevertheless, about 1,500 German schools now
offer the curricular concept of the ′bilingual track′ (KMK-Bericht 2013); whereas
no reliable figures are available for the ′bilingual modules′. With the increase of
highly diverse CLIL programmes both a didactic theory has gradually developed
(including a fair amount of empirical research) and a number of schemes for
training CLIL teachers have evolved across Germany. The first concern focuses on
the convergence of content and language learning in these classes to assist learn-
ers in their performance by way of scaffolding techniques (see section 4), which
integrate subject-matter and foreign language use. The second goal is pursued
essentially by way of two formats: Some federal states run regional in-service
courses for CLIL practioners giving them an additional CLIL-certificate at the
end of that course; or the second, more practical phase of teacher training after
the university studies (= Referendariat, which is also obligatory) offers optional
modules plus practical teaching facilities in CLIL classes leading up to the second
state exam (here the training is done by Fachseminarleiter, experienced practis-
ing CLIL teachers of the content-subject). These schemes have never involved the
whole of the CLIL community across the various states of Germany, thus it comes
as no surprise that practising CLIL teachers face a number of professional chal-
lenges (despite the overall success and acceptance of the concept).
2 The network of challenges

These challenges are hard to prioritize, since they form an interdependent
network of socio-political entry conditions and of genuinely pedagogic factors.
2.1 The content-driven tradition of the German ′bilingual

track′
As a result of its history the concept of the ′bilingual track′ has a strong focus
on subject-matter content. Quite a few empirical studies (eg. Zydatiß 2007) con-
centrated on the question, whether the German tradition of teaching selected
subjects for a number of successive years produces comparable outcomes in
content learning to the ones obtained in regular classes (drawing on German as
the working language). The answer was yes; although there is always the possi-
bility that the strong CLIL programme attracts a specific sub-set of learners with
above-average cognitive and motivational characteristics. Rumlich (2013), using

sophisticated statistical analysis of the data available to him, comes up with this
very result; that is, prospective CLIL learners were at an advantage before they
entered the bilingual track. Thus the success may not be due to the strong curric-
ular concept as such but to the CLIL learners who enter or get selected for these
classes. With the diversification of the CLIL concept the selection variable will
lose much of its impact; which underlines the necessity of finding adequate ped-
agogic and methodological answers for the weaker versions of the CLIL approach.
The content-driven history of the German approach makes it difficult to account
for CLIL predominantly in terms of its foreign-language benefits.
2.2 University-led formal linguistics
The overwhelming orientation of university-taught linguistics in German teacher

education is a formal one (= structuralist and/or generative), going often hand
in hand with a largely innatist view of language aquisition. This state of affairs
has a number of implications: On the one hand, a functional approach towards
language use cannot be presupposed with CLIL teachers. This is, however, nec-
essary when subject-matter texts and tasks have to be linguistically analysed and
didactically processed in terms of the distinctive features of academic literacy
involved. There will always be lexical and grammatical realizations, which are
either difficult to understand or pose problems to productive language use. On
the other hand, if language learning is mainly seen as biologically determined, an
interventionist, promoting attitude towards the integrated learning of scholastic
content and foreign language skills may not be very developed in CLIL teachers’
minds. So far it is not a well-established practice in the educational system yet to
boost academic literacy intentionally and cumulatively; although complex com-
municative skills are involved which are both cognitively demanding and lexico-
grammatically sophisticated. Content and language learning are still conceptual-
ized as representing completely different ′entities′, although knowledge-building
in any school subject is tightly associated with language learning. CLIL teachers
need in other words (especially non-native ones) an acute understanding of the
fact that knowledge-creation requires a language-based theory of learning (cf.
Halliday 1993).
2.3 The construct of academic literacy
Concepts similar to academic literacy (cf. the term Bildungssprache in German:

Gogolin 2006) have been pointed out in research on bilingual contexts for quite
some time now:
– Cummins’ well-known notion of CALP or Cognitive-Academic Language Profi-
ciency (focusing on bilingual learners in the school system: 1978, 1979),
– subject-matter literacy or subject-related discourse competencies (Zydatiß
2007 focusing on content learning in ′bilingual tracks′),
– written text competence (Schmölzer-Eibinger 2008 with respect to teaching
learners with German as a second language in Austria) or
– the language of schooling (Schleppegrell 2010 concentrating on the linguistic
demands of the US-American High School).
The common denominator of all these constructs is their opposition to the notion
of everyday, colloquial language; ie. what Cummins calls BICS or Basic Interper-
sonal Communicative Skills. The salient domain of CALP or academic literacy is
the use of text-bound language (especially in its written mode) in instructional
settings pertaining to the construction of subject-matter knowledge, as laid down
in a curriculum for specific groups of learners. One important property of this
language use is its cognitive parameter; that is, curricular content can only be
comprehended, produced, explained or reflected upon if cognitive operations
are carried out. Thinking and learning processes are obviously ′mediated′ by
language: note the 4Cs framework in the European CLIL approach (Coyle et al.
2010: 41 f.), embracing the building blocks of Content, Cognition, Communication
& Culture.
2.4 Content outcomes in weaker CLIL variants
′Bilingual tracks′ in Germany are (as was noted above) decidedly content-driven;
ie. teachers try hard to achieve the same outcomes in subject-matter learning as
in classes using German as the means of communication. The students in these
classes usually get a preparatory bridging support (= Vorlauf) at the early sec-
ondary school level; that is, extra lessons in the foreign language (often two per
week for a period of two years) that initiate them to the linguistic and cognitive
demands of subject-matter teaching done in an additional vehicular language.
Instruction in the foreign language is upheld (parallel to this) for the whole
length of the extensive bilingual stream′. Empirically unsettled so far (for lack of
evidence-based research) is the situation of the ′bilingual modules′; that is, we do
not know yet whether an equivalent level of content knowledge can be attained
(when learners are not selected and no preparatory course is being offered,
which also amounts to less contact time with the working language). It remains
to be seen what possible gains and/or losses the weaker CLIL version may entail.
However, assisted performance has to remain a must of any CLIL approach – par-
ticularly its weaker versions. Decrease in learners’ motivation must be avoided
when content teaching is realized via a foreign language, because this might
create a gap between their intellectual capacity (and topical interests) and the
limited proficiency in the vehicular language. CLIL practitioners and their edu-
cators must also be aware of the potential resistance to CLIL by subject-matter
experts (this can be observed in Germany: esp. in the domain of History), who
might feel that their curricular content gets instrumentalized (for the sake of
authenticity and relevance) to boost the outcomes of foreign language learning.
2.5 In-service CLIL teacher development
There are a number of additional factors which have to be faced and answered
by both the CLIL community and the political-administrative arm of the educa-
tional system: Due to demographic conditions more and more practising teachers
now reach retirement age leading to a noticeable shortage of qualified, trained
teachers in Germany. This process also involves experienced CLIL practioners
(the second grassroots generation, as it were) who increasingly retire too. All this
happens in a pedagogic climate, when the pressures towards internationally ori-
ented school programmes with a strong foreign language component are on the
rise. Presently parents and other stakeholders demand more two-way immersion
schools or ′bilingual tracks′, and head teachers feel tempted to enhance their
school profile with the weaker CLIL variant of the ′bilingual modules′. The local
school management is therefore confronted with the problem of finding adequate
teachers in sufficient numbers to continue existing or open up new CLIL classes.
As a result in-service training will be a huge challenge in the imminent future.
The city-state of Berlin has accepted the challenge in a three-fold way: The
Humboldt-University offers students enrolled in teacher education (with a content
subject plus English as a foreign language) a certified CLIL module, which can
be extended in the second, more practical phase of obligatory teacher training.
On top of this the Berlin universities run an in-service day for the regional CLIL
community presenting both theoretical talks and practical workshops for the dif-
ferent working languages and subjects. The regional Ministry of Education has
installed its own network for CLIL practioners discussing curricular and meth-
odological matters. The superordinate idea behind this set-up is the formation
of a locally based professional community (bringing together practising teach-

ers, teacher instructors, university lecturers, students, administrative gatekeep-
ers and representatives of the educational publishing houses), which is deter-
mined to advance CLIL theory and practice across the educational system. One
of the more recent developments relates, for example, to a university-led project
in videography: video-recording and analyzing CLIL lessons realized by non-na-
tive CLIL teachers using the university video lab with their classes. In the second
one teacher trainers and their trainees presented their ideas concerning generic
writing (see section 4.3) to the regional CLIL community. The writing frames which
were developed for this goal have now been spread among all interested CLIL
teachers in the region by digital technology to be explored, tested and modified
by other practitioners in their specific classrooms. This way, it is hoped, a vibrant,
cooperating and supporting professional CLIL community can be formed; which
closes the gaps between, on the one hand, academics, didactic theory and empir-
ical research and, on the other hand, classroom-based experiences and methodo-
logical expertise – to create, what Coyle et al. call (2010: 164) “theories of practice
developed for practice through practice“.
3 Content learning in a foreign language:

Â�linguistic and psychological aspects
Since subject-matter content is encoded in language and other forms of symbolic
representation (eg. diagrams, graphs, maps, statistics, formulas, cartoons etc.),
CLIL teachers and their educators need a sound understanding of the linguistic
and psychological foundations of knowledge-building in the content classroom
by way of a foreign language. As content knowledge changes over the years,
together with the learners’ thinking skills and intercultural awareness, CLIL
teachers must be pro-active in the gradual development of learners’ academic
proficiency.
3.1 Some principles of Systemic Functional Linguistics
Language as a formal system is essentially conceptualized as an algorithm of

abstract rules; something like an empty container into which any kind of content
can be filled at will. However, in the functional perspective it is the particular use
of language in a specific social context that is important. Michael Halliday’s Sys-
temic Functional Linguistics (= SFL) provides such a comprehensive account: see
Halliday 1978, 1985; Halliday / Martin 1993; Halliday / Matthiessen 1999; Bloor /
Bloor 2013. Basically, SFL shows ′what speakers and writers can mean′; that is,
language is conceptualized as a meaning-making socio-semiotic system, whose
receptive and productive use involves the construal of meanings which are mapped
linguistically into stretches of topically coherent and contextually appropriate
discourse. Language use is a socioculturally embedded discursive process which
is oriented towards a purpose and an addressee; constituting thereby a register
of some kind, ie. variants of language use which are distinctive of certain soci-
ocultural contexts generating specific types of text-bound functional language
called genres. Human experience and knowledge are constructed on two levels:
on the semantic level (ie. the content plane) in configurations of meaning such as
participants, processes, circumstances and logical relations; and on the linguistic
level via lexicogrammatical categories, including nominals, verbs, prepositional
phrases, adverbial adjuncts and connectors such as conjunctions and sentence
adverbs (Halliday also uses the term wordings for the latter).
3.2 An outline of Sociocultural Theory
In our European knowledge societies learners have to pursue the goal of academic
literacy to an ever-increasing high level of proficiency; a development that applies
to mainstream classes but also (at an accelerating speed) to the CLIL classroom
(using a foreign language for content learning). The Sociocultural Theory initiated
by Lev Vygotsky (= SCT) opens the doors to a deliberate and systematic advance-
ment of these literate techniques by way of classroom instruction (see Vygotsky
1962, 1978; Wertsch 1985, 1998). According to SCT’s central claim higher mental
functions (including linguistic behaviour and knowledge-creation) have to be
investigated in relation to their respective sociocultural and institutional context
of use. Intentional human activity is largely mediated by cognitive-cultural tools;
of which language is way above the most important symbolic-semiotic ′instru-
ment′ available to human beings. Tools of this kind enrich human action: They
have enabling effects (= empowerment or affordances) enhancing mental capac-
ities and cognitive dispositions; but they also limit the range of human activity,
because socially determined conventions act as constraints. Cultural tools do not
only have an interpersonal function (cf. Halliday), but also an inwardly directed,
intra-subjective force which increases the potential for self-regulation and volun-
tary control. Children and adolescents become gradually able to induce thought
processes by using private / inner speech (internalizing spoken language), which
can then be verbalized externally – enriching human action with deliberate plan-
ning as well as critical and/or theoretical reasoning. Thus Vygotsky identified
verbal thought as man’s most powerful cultural tool for cognition (mediated by
language, as a symbolic system). These processes work as an upward spiral; ie.
the mental-cognitive operations boost the intellectual and attitudinal develop-
ment of a person (what Bruner 1968 called the amplification of cognitive abilities).
SCT was able to show that there is not much pedagogic sense in the mentality of
′appealing to innateness or genetic endowments and wait for maturation′. Literal
competences (as cognitive tools), especially generic competencies, have to be
taught intentionally and cumulatively. This requires a careful didactic mix of con-
scious learning, scaffolding and discourse-related tasks, building up both a con-
ceptual understanding of genre patterns and linguistic text routines to achieve
adequate wordings (particularly when students represent the whole continuum
of cognitive and linguistic learner characteristics).
Vygotsky’s SCT has given the teaching profession another fundamental
insight, namely that of the Zone of Proximal Development (= ZPD), re-named
the challenge zone by Gibbons (2009). In the often quoted definition (Vygotsky
1978: 86) ZPD is characterized as “the distance between the actual development
level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential
development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or
in collaboration with more capable peers“. Speaking more metaphorically (1978:
86 f.) he uses the image of ′buds of development′. The idea of buds being ready
to burst (if collaborative learning arrangements with heterogeneous small groups
are staged: guidance through interaction) has caught on significantly in soci-
eties having a substantial proportion of immigrants in their classrooms. Since
cooperative work in small-sized mixed groups can produce learner outcomes
whose achievement levels are higher than those attained by the same learn-
ers working on their own, CLIL teachers should not leave group arrangements
of this kind unnoticed. The comparatively wide acceptance of the ZPD-concept
in pedagogic circles has a lot to do with the idea of scaffolding put forward by
Bruner (1986), after he had studied natural L1 acquisition within the framework
of SCT. He observed that parents and other caregivers support the ongoing inter-
action between child and adult by assisting a child’s linguistic performance. The
concept of scaffolding has been incorporated extensively into CLIL teaching (cf.
Zydatiß 2010); by extending it – over and above linguistic scaffolding – to visual
scaffolding (iconic and graphic supports provided by the teacher) and to social
scaffolding (= peer tutoring by means of social interaction in groups). When the
reference is to receptive or productive activities demanded by a task a distinction
between input & output scaffolding is made. Increasingly (when it comes to text-
bound writing in content classrooms), that is when learners have to generate the
specific text form variants of subject-matter teaching (eg. the lab report, a facto-
rial historical explanation or an evaluative comment on an ethical dilemma), the
term generic scaffolding gets applied. Students now have to produce genres of a
particular kind; with a certain schematic text structure, logical coherence and
linguistic cohesion observing the lexicogrammatical conventions required by the
situational constraints of the intended discourse.
4 Promoting the development of academic

literacy in the CLIL classroom
School subjects introduce learners to the knowledge systems and study skills of
a particular curricular domain and thus to the epistemology and discourse prac-
tices of the corresponding scientific disciplines and discourse communities.
4.1 Language-sensitive approaches in primary content

classrooms
CLIL teachers therefore have to be aware of the ′knowledge path′, which underlies
the ontogenesis of academic literacy in their respective subject. To begin with
content teaching at the primary school level (Table 1) I would like to draw on data
taken from the work done by Gibbons (2002: 3 f., 46, 48; 2009: 49, 61) in science
lessons of Australian elementary schools
Table 1: Modelling and supporting academic language use in primary topic work.
Classroom Discourse Context Information
Carrying out an experiment Working in groups the children try to find out
S1: Look, it’s making them move. which objects are magnetic: talking to each
S2: That’s not going. other they use pronouns and body language
S3: Those ones are going fast. (ie. gestures, pointing movements).
Reporting back to the whole class Spoken recount of the experiment by one
S: We found out the pins stuck on the magnet learner: The objects referred to (pins, filings,
and so did the iron filings. Then we tried the pencil) are named with nouns, but the focal
pencil but it didn’t stick. process is still described informally (stick).
Tab. 1 (continued)
Classroom Discourse Context Information
Modelling academic language use The whole class and the teacher now talk
S: But when we turned the other one around about the experiment. Whereas the learners
[= pole], it sticks together. still use everyday spoken language (eg. stick,
T: Like that [demonstrates]. They at-trac-ted push), the teacher employs a more formal
each other. OK, then tell me what you had to language with academic content verbs like
do next, … when you turn the magnet around. attract and repel. The modelling of the liteÂ�
S: Pushing and if we use the other side we rate-conceptual language use is supported via
can’t feel pushing. tonicity, distinct articulation, body language
T: OK, when you turned one of the magnets and everyday paraphrases.
around you felt it re-pel-ling, or pushing
away.
Inferring a generalization The learners are encouraged to find a general

T: Can you see something in common in all rule (or principle). They now use an imper-
these experiments? sonal construction with you (instead of we)
S: The north pole of the magnet sticks … and – with some hesitation – technical terms
attracts the second magnet, the south pole like attract and north pole. The sentence
of the second magnet. If you put the south structure involves hypotaxis, contrast (but)
and north together they will … attract, but if and a conditional conjunction (if). A lexical
you put north and north or south and south modification increases the factual preci-
together they won’t stick … attract. sion (focus on the pole of the magnet). The
learner’s turn represents a more extended,
discursive language use.
Producing a written report The language of this report is more complex

S: Our experiment was to find out what a and explicit, employing hypotaxis as well as
magnet attracted. We discovered that a academic and technical terms like experi-
magnet attracts some kinds of metal. It ment, discover, metal and attract. The aim of
attracted the iron filings and the pins but not the activity is explained, and a focal part of
the pencil. the investigation is singled out leading to a
[S = Student, T = Teacher] conclusion.
with a large proportion of English as a Second Language students (exemplify-

ing a language-sensitive approach). The transcripts in the left-hand column of
Table 1 show very clearly that topic work in primary schools has to build some
important bridges from everyday, informal, situated and activity-based spoken
language to more technical, reporting and written language (ie. a sort of budding
academic language). The teacher not only assists the children in the use of a more
formal and explicit language (by modelling it first), she also helps them to take
part in more extended spoken classroom discourse, building bridges towards the
written mode. Written genres (here a report) have to be more context-independent
in their lexicogrammatical realization; which is to say, they have to be complete

and coherent in their sentence and text structure as well as appropriate in their
vocabulary (wordings difficult to achieve for many learners). Overall the learners’
language changes constantly in the course of this unit, depending on the (cogni-
tive) nature of the task.
4.2 Promoting reading comprehension of subject-matter texts
Looking at the table of contents in English textbooks for secondary schools the
reader will notice that academic language can no longer be realized without nom-
inalizations:
1. Biology: muscle contraction, water movements in plants, seed germination,
uncontrolled cell division, food preservation techniques, genetic engineering
etc.
2. Physical Geography: igneous intrusions, coastal erosion, desertification,
power generation in the UK, deforestation, water management on the River
Rhine etc.
Once he starts reading these texts he will come across constructions such as:
3. Human Geography: On account of dramatic food shortages the Chinese
system of land ownership underwent a major transformation.
4. Physical Geography: High acidity and increased wetness of the soil encour-
ages the build-up of a thick peat layer at the surface.
5. History: The strong currency in the western zone of Germany soon under-
mined the much weaker economy in the east.
Halliday (1985: 321 ff.; cf. also Halliday / Matthiessen 1999: 227 ff.; Schleppegrell
2010: 71) has coined the term grammatical metaphor for this distinctive feature
of academic registers (examples 3–5). It involves changes in the grammatical
sub-systems of the language as well as modifications of the lexical exponents
(affecting especially the semantic verb classes). The construction condenses the
meaning components of the states of affairs referred to, such that at least two
events (which normally have to be expressed by separate sentences) are each
transformed into a nominalization. The sentence-based processes are treated
like a thing, which serves the coherence of the discourse by allowing a tightly
packed progression on the content plane. Their combination in a single sentence
often requires a verb with an in-built causative element (eg. encourage, under-
mine above). This phenomenon is known as conflated meaning, a process highly
typical of English. Grammatical metaphors are syntactically and lexically less
explicit; their meanings are less transparent, because their semantic content
and their wordings are non-congruent. The intended meaning is expressed in a

similar but lexicogrammatically different way from more congruent realizations.
For CLIL learners such texts tend to be rather dense and abstract in terms of their
meaning; which calls for specific methodological interventions by CLIL teachers:
The rather intransparent language use has to be made accessible to learners in
grades 7–10; calling for the following teacher-led strategies:
– fostering reading comprehension of the input materials by focusing inferenc-
ing (ie. by asking cognitively challenging questions),
– processing the content of the (probably densely) written input resources by
having learners transform it into more transparent, congruent paraphrases
of spoken language and
– using functional recasts (Mohan and Beckett 2003) of the spoken, often every-
day learner language; ie. re-phrasing a student’s turn in more literate, aca-
demic language.
This kind of pendulum-strategy as regards content-integrated language work

has to be pursued intentionally, since academic language (as a variant of the
written mode, a second-order cognitive-symbolic abstraction) is not a by-product
of content teaching – or, as Vygotsky stated again and again: Instruction leads
development.
Adopting the classification suggested by Rost (2002: 66 f.) various categories
of inferencing can be distinguished (Table 2).
Table 2: Reading comprehension and inferencing.
Types of Inferences
initiating links: cause & effects, reasons & classification links: B includes / is made of /
consequences has got the parts {x, y, z}
schematic links: A implies / entails enabling links: A makes B possible;

x, y, z A enables B
reference links: C [he / this / the latter] refers sequential links: A precedes B coming before
to X, Y or Z C; C follows B after A had happened
logical links: A + B + C → lead to / result in Z elaboration links: according to source A /
table 1, X must be … / Z presupposes …
This can help the CLIL teacher to realize ′input scaffolding′; ie. learners are
encouraged to ′make inferences′ about the content of the textbook material with
the help of questions that serve as additional verbal prompts to the implied
semantic structure:
6. a) Can you see a link between X and Y? – b) To which category … does A
belong? c) What happened before C? – d) Can you think of a machine which
…? e) What could have happened if they had done z?
′Visual scaffolding′ aiming at the global comprehension of an input text tries
to map a symbolic representation onto the general schematic pattern of the text
(Figure 1; cf. Zydatiß 2007: 455 f. for further diagrams). Graphical representations
are also possible of the basic notions of a school subject (in History eg. ′War′,
′Cause & Effect′: Figure 2).
Topic Topic
Input → {Processes} → Output
Structured Event Line Input-Output System

Overview
Figure 1: Visual scaffolding for global comprehension
1 WAR 2 reasons consequences

conflict goals causes effects
a) ….. a) …..
b) ….. b) ….. A B
c) ….. c) ….. C
{D, E}
{Results}
Going to War Causal and Consequential Explanations
– to provoke / threaten – if / when … then; unless

– to issue an ultimatum – thus, thereby, so that, consequently
– an act of aggression – to cause, to produce, to lead to
– to invade / occupy / annex – on condition that, provided that
– to declare war – because of, due to, since, on account of
– to wage war on / to be at war – as a result, result in, resulting from
Figure 2: Content-related visual input scaffolding and verbal output scaffolding
Additional linguistic scaffolding can support learners’ performance in the subse-

quent classroom discourse based on the input resources (in Figure 2 the emphasis
is on semi-technical topic language and connectors). The anticipation of scaffolds
needed for the execution of tasks can, in other words, reduce significantly the
amount of code-switching in CLIL classroom interaction (due to incomprehen-
sion). In the course of these exchanges CLIL teachers are bound to come across
linguistic output by their students that warrants a so-called functional recast
(Mohan / Beckett 2003). Extract 7 (taken from a History lesson on industrializa-

tion) shows again the oscillation between a congruent and a less congruent lan-
guage use; where the latter (modelled by the teacher) draws again on an extended
nominalization (with post-modification) expressing a causal relationship:
7. S: Yes, because there was a lot of people in the countryside working and they
have no place for everybody, so they went to the cities and they went there.
T: …so that is, ehm, the reason for the rebirth of the cities.
4.3 Promoting generic writing in the various curricular

domains
Since school subjects introduce learners to the discursive practices of the cor-
responding scientific domain, the Australian branch of educational linguistics
has developed the genre approach to writing – also called the Teaching / Learn-
ing Cycle (see Cope & Kalantzis 1993, Coffin 2006: 173). Genres are the essential
cognitive tools a school subject should aim at, because they are transferable to
the world outside school. Generic writing allows CLIL teachers to advance learn-
ers’ discourse-bound academic literacy across the subjects and stages of the cur-
riculum in a systematic and cumulative fashion (Table 4). There are three core
phases in this approach: Starting with a stage of teacher-led deconstruction and
modelling, the distinctive discursive and linguistic features of the ′new′ genre are
collected (including its rhetorical pattern: Table 3). Then (involving negotiation)
heterogeneous small groups of learners jointly produce another text of the same
genre (with support by the teacher). Finally individual learners generate their
own instance of the genre in question (= independent writing), including editing
of the text (either by each student him/herself or in the form of peer-editing).
Table 3: Selected genres and their basic pragmatic pattern
– problem-solution essay
thesis: premises, identification & description of situation
problem / solution: developing and weighing up alternatives, providing evidence & exam-
ples, pros & cons
conclusion: resolution re-stating writer’s position, critical evaluation (possibly: modification
of initial thesis)
Tab. 3 (continued)
– subjective argumentation
thesis: [attention grabber], background information, writer’s position / focus statement
elaboration of arguments: eg. two to four main arguments, including
– main idea / topic sentence & supporting detail
– claim, reasons for acceptance, refuting opposing arguments
conclusion: resolution re-stating writer’s position, critical evaluation
Veel (1997) and Coffin (2006) have described (Table 4) the knowledge paths of
academic literacy for the domains of the natural and the social sciences (here:
History); where the ontogenesis of this proficiency mirrors the development
across the three generic macro-functions of description, explanation & argumen-
tation (see Bowers 2006 for additional visual scaffolding of text structures).
Table 4: Prototypical genres of academic writing at school.
Natural Sciences Social Sciences
– procedures: step-by-step instructions or – biographical recounts (autobiographical &

descriptions biographical): retelling the events of one’s
– procedural recount: record of an experi- own or another person’s life
ment incl. a conclusion (Versuchsbericht) – historical recount: setting past events in time
– science report: description of the prop- and retelling them in a chronological order
erties and/or classification of the parts – historical reports (descriptive or taxo-
of a physical phenomenon; setting up nomic): describing how things were in the
taxonomies (eg. of plants or animals) past or how they were organised structurally
– explication: technical descriptions of how – historical account: explaining why some-
something works (eg. a steam engine) thing happened in a particular sequence
– science explanation: explaining natural (causes & effects)
phenomena & processes (sequential, – historical explanation (factorial or con-
causal, factorial, consequential, theoreti- sequential): explaining the reasons or
cal etc.) factors & the consequences of past events
– expository essay: presentation of a thesis – historical argumentation: putting forward
leading to balanced reasoning and a a specific point of view (analytical exposi-
discussion of pro- & con-arguments with tion): argue for a specific interpretation of
evidence & examples, personal stance past events by way of analysis & evalua-
and a conclusion strengthening the initial tion of differing positions (discussion);
thesis argue against a particular point of view or
position (challenge)
Schematic structures like the ones in Tables 3 + 4 can assist learners’ performance
with generic tasks, particularly when they are linked to maps or diagrams and
supported by content-related verbal scaffolding (= writing frames). Depending on

their pragmatic pattern genres are strung together by (linguistically mediated)
cognitive illocutions (Table 5), which are normally called academic discourse
functions (or: mini-genres: cf. Zydatiß 2005, 2007: 474 ff.). Since they are highly
transferable among school subjects (representing verbally mediated cognitive
operations), they need special attention when teaching academic writing.
Table 5: Selected academic discourse functions.
– definitions: an X is a Y which / who …; X can be defined / is defined by …, by definition; A

stands for / is known as …; Z refers to all …
– changes: change, develop; decline, dip, decrease, fall, trough; rise, increase, peak; steady,
stable; trend (note the use of abstract „academic words“: Coxhead 2000)
– hypothesizing: assuming that, suppose that; I guess / think; if … then; let us imagine;
seem, appear to; maybe, possibly, it is unlikely / doubtful; certainly, definitely, clearly
– generalizations: all, each, every; some, a few, several, many, most; no, none; in general,
almost all; normally, usually, typically, widely, on the whole
– hedging: sort / kind of, something like; perhaps; roughly, fairly, not quite
Over and above these cognitively motivated moves in the discourse the coherence
of the text can be enhanced by using logical connectors such as (Table 6):
Table 6: Semantic links realized by logical connectors.
– time relationships: before / after, during, while; first, then, next, finally
– comparison & contrast: like, as, similarly, equally, in the same way, likewise; but, yet,
however, despite, although, nevertheless, on the one / other hand, compared to
– adding information: and, besides, moreover, in addition to, furthermore
– giving examples: for instance / example, especially, a case in point, specifically
– clarification: that is, ie., in other words, namely, to put it another way
– summary: to sum up, summing up, overall, on balance, on the whole
5 Some open questions

Since language matters in content learning the insights gained will have reper-
cussions on the modes of assessment. This problem will have to be faced in
the imminent future: that is, academic language will have to be described in
linguistic terms, and competence-based schemes of content and language inte-
grated assessment (drawing upon scales and CAN DO-descriptors parallel to
the Common European Framework) will have to be written, tested and validated
(see the final chapter of Llinares et al. 2012). Both the general and the vocational
branches of the educational systems should aim for a general (ie. transferable)
academic proficiency of their learners (cf. Zydatiß 2012 for this construct); espe-
cially because access to university gets increasingly opened to prospective stu-
dents on the basis of qualifications gained in vocational fields. Higher education
institutions in Europe will also have to develop academic literacy in a systematic
fashion. Knowledge societies cannot afford to lose potential talent, particularly
with growing mobility and migration. Advanced literate competencies (regard-
less of the vehicular language) will pay off in amplified cognitive faculties. Let
us accept the professional challenges – keeping in mind Vygotsky’s hortatory
phrase: Development follows instruction!
The second major problem CLIL teachers (both non-native and native ones)
will have to be aware of is (as far as I can see) the question of code-switching in
relation to the intercultural phenomena which are part and parcel of every school
subject. It is particularly the curricular domain of the social science subjects
which are prone to this consideration, but the natural sciences face the problem
too (think of the socio-political, ethical or religious implications of topics like
climate change, genetic engineering, evolution v creationism / intelligent design
etc.). In a subject like History students encounter the technical term “Barbarian
Invasion”, which in German gets rendered as “Völkerwanderung” (= ′migration of
peoples / tribes′); clearly a difference in connotations. Whereas German use terms
like “1. / 2. Weltkrieg” (= ′World War I / II′), British and Russian speakers employ
terms like “The Great War” or “The Great Patriotic War”. Thus there is sufficient
data to warrant pedagogic reflection (and curricular regulation) as to the place
and use of the respective majority language in CLIL classes. Code-switching with
respect to the intercultural dimension of content teaching in a foreign language
is an asset that CLIL classrooms can and must exploit. The same would seem
to apply to sources which were initially produced by speakers of the learners’
mother tongue (= L1) or to topics that embrace different stances and perspectives
(for example, the Cold War or German re-unification).
6 References
Bloor, Thomas and Meriel Bloor. 2013. The functional analysis of English. Oxford & New York:
Routledge.
Bowers, Kristen. 2006. Essay architect. Standards-based writing system grades 7–12. New York:
Secondary Solutions.
Bruner, Jerome S. 1968. Towards a theory of instruction. New York: Norton.
Bruner, Jerome S. 1986. Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University
Press.
Coffin, Caroline. 2006. Historical discourse. London & New York: Continuum.
Cope, Bill & Mary Kalantzis. 1993. The powers of literacy. A genre approach to teaching writing.
London: Falmer Press.
Coyle, Do, Philip Hood & David Marsh. 2010. CLIL content and language integrated learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, James. 1978. The cognitive development of children in immersion programs.
Canadian Modern Language Review 38. 855–883.
Cummins, James. 1979. Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of
bilingual children. Review of Educational Research 49. 222–251.
Gibbons, Pauline. 2002. Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Gibbons, Pauline. 2009. English learners’ academic literacy and thinking. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Gogolin, Ingrid. 2006. Bilingualität und die Bildungssprache der Schule. In Paul Mecheril
and Thomas Quehl (eds.), Die Macht der Sprachen. Englische Perspektiven auf die
mehrsprachige Schule, 79–85. Münster: Waxmann.
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1978. Language as social semiotic. London: Arnold.
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1993. Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and
Education 5. 93–116.
Halliday, Michael A. K. & James R. Martin. 1993. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power.
London: Falmer Press.
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 1999. Construing experience through
meaning. A language-based approach to cognition. London & New York: Continuum.
KMK-Bericht.2013. http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2013
[20.12.2014].
Llinares, Ana, Tom Morton & Rachel Whittaker. 2012. The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mohan, Bernard and Gulbahar H. Beckett. 2003. A functional approach to research on
content-based language learning: Recasts in causal explanations. Modern Language
Learning 87(3). 421–432.
Rost, Michael. 2002. Teaching and researching listening. Harlow: Longman / Pearson.
Rumlich, Dominik. 2013. Students’ general English proficiency prior to CLIL: Empirical evidence
for substantial differences between prospective CLIL and non-CLIL students in Germany. In
Stephan Breidbach and Britta Viebrock (eds.), Content and language integrated learning
(CLIL) in Europe: Research perspectives on policy and practice, 181–201. Frankfurt/M.:
Peter Lang.
Schleppegrell, Mary J. 2010. The language of schooling. A functional linguistics perspective.
New York: Routledge.
Schmölzer-Eibinger, Sabine. 2008. Lernen in der Zweitsprache. Grundlagen und Verfahren der
Förderung von Textkompetenz in mehrsprachigen Klassen. Tübingen: Narr.
Veel, Robert. 1997. Learning how to mean – scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into
scientific discourse in the secondary school. In Frances Christie & James R. Martin (eds.),
Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school, 161–195. London:
Continuum.
Vygotsky, Lev S. 1962. Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, Lev S. 1978. Mind in society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, James V. 1985. Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, Mass.; Harvard
University Press.
Wertsch, James V. 1998. Mind as action. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Zydatiß, Wolfgang. 2005. Diskursfunktionen in einem analytischen curricularen Zugriff auf
Textvarietäten und Aufgaben des bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts. Fremdsprachen Lehren
und Lernen 34. 156–173.
Zydatiß, Wolfgang. 2007. Deutsch-Englische Züge in Berlin (DEZIBEL). Eine Evaluation des
bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts an Gymnasien. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang.
Zydatiß, Wolfgang. 2010. Scaffolding im Bilingualen Unterricht. Der Fremdsprachliche
Unterricht: Englisch 44(106). 2–11.
Zydatiß, Wolfgang. 2012. Assessing transferable academic discourse competencies in CLIL.
In Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo (ed.), Teaching and learning English through bilingual
education, 61–87. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Recommended reading
The four volumes which I would like to recommend for further reading all share one
component: They are based on both Halliday’s and Vygotsky’s writings; ie. the linguistic
approach of ’Systemic Functional Linguistics’ and the psychological insights of the
’Sociocultural Theory’, accounting thereby for the convergence of content and language
learning. All authors argue convincingly for the position that language matters in all types
of scholastic content teaching.
Schleppegrell, Mary J. 2010. The language of schooling. A functional linguistics perspective.
New York & London: Routledge.
In a highly accessible presentation Schleppegrell introduces the reader to the central
assumptions of the two theories mentioned above. This allows her to explain the essential
characteristics of the ‘language of schooling’ (= academic literacy) and its significance in
curricular content instruction; particularly with regard to linguistically diverse students in
US-American high schools. She investigates textbooks and student texts from secondary
school settings, highlighting both the discursive and the lexicogrammatical properties
of academic language use encountered in subjects like the natural sciences, history and
maths. In order to account for the challenges faced by learners she examines the discourse
genres students come across at school; with a special emphasis on the expository essay
and its prominent role in secondary schooling.
Gibbons, Pauline. 2002. Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second
language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gibbons, Pauline. 2009. English learners’ academic literacy and thinking: Learning in the
challenge zone. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
As the two titles suggest Gibbons focuses especially on teaching classrooms with a large
proportion of students who are either non-native or non-standard speakers of English.
In accordance with the views held by Halliday and Vygotsky the author makes a strong
plea for the integration of English language education into the various content areas
of the curriculum; paying special attention (in the 2002 book) to the demands of the
primary school and to those of the middle grades (in the 2009 volume). A strong asset of
her books is the provision of practical techniques and examples on how to scaffold this
kind of convergent content and language learning in classes with many second language
speakers. This way she combines the attainment of knowledge construction, critical
thinking and academic language use across the entire curriculum.
Llinares, Ana, Tom Morton & Rachel Whittaker. 2012. The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
The three authors take a close look at how a foreign language like English is used
for academic purposes in a CLIL context. They examine not only the discourse genres
encountered in different subjects, but also their lexical and grammatical realization;
strengthening thereby their stance that subject-matter content and communicative
language activities must be fully integrated. The monograph draws extensively on corpus
data collected in European CLIL classrooms. Thus the functional linguistic analysis of
textbook passages and learner texts gets supplemented by data pertaining to classroom
discourse, which allows the authors to highlight teacher / student interaction in
instructive settings.

– What is your attitude towards some of the main points put forward above?
a) University studies do not provide a functional linguistic understanding of the nature of
academic literacy and of academic language use needed for subject-matter teaching.
b) Particularly non-native CLIL teachers need a lot of linguistic awareness, because they have
to deal with textbook materials, tasks, learner texts and classroom interaction encoded in
a foreign language.
c) CLIL learners’ comprehension of subject-matter resources can be supported by various
means of verbal and visual ′input scaffolding′. Give convincing examples.
d) CLIL learners’ ′generic writing′. has to be developed intentionally and systematically over
the years of schooling. Or do you consider the ′usual′ written tasks set by the school
system sufficient to promote academic language use?
– Select a coherent stretch of discourse taken from input material for a CLIL unit and put
forward a functional linguistic analysis of the text highlighting its distinctive pragmatic
and lexicogrammatical features.
– Suggest a specific text-bound task for CLIL learners based on material which has to be
dealt with in class. Carry out the task yourself and reflect on the language needed to
realize the task. How would you support your learners to master the task successfully?
– Do you think content and language integrated assessment is a pedagogically valuable and
practically feasible way of assessing learner outcomes in a CLIL classroom? If not, suggest
your own ideas as regards language when grading the work of your learners.
Tintswalo Vivian Manyike
Chapter 14
English language teaching in South African
multicultural schools: Challenges faced by
both native and non-native teachers
Abstract: Language plays a crucial role in education and student academic
success depends largely on their ability to acquire the necessary competency
skills in the language of teaching and learning. Among others, language has a
symbiotic relationship with the dominant culture and politics which in turn influ-
ence the teaching and the acquisition of the outcomes as stated in the educa-
tion policy. Unfortunately, the majority of learners in the world are educated in
the language which is neither their first or second language and as such most of
these students fail to achieve academic success. This chapter aims to discuss the
challenges faced by both native and non-native speakers in the use of English as
a medium of instruction in education. At the heart of this chapter is the assump-
tion that cultural diversity in language teaching should be enhanced in order to
address English language teaching and learning to native and non- native speak-
ers. Recommendations will be made on how teacher education institutions can
assist in improving these English language teaching and learning challenges in
order to improve teaching.
1 Introduction
Educators and researchers agree on the importance of language in education and
the role that education is playing with regard to the process of cultural transmis-
sion. Language therefore plays a major role in the transmission of the culture.
According to Michel (1952), language shapes one’s thinking and emotions,
and determines ones perception of reality. Language as a tool is used to make
meaning, and these meanings are influenced by the social and cultural context
in which they are exchanged and the process of using language is a process of
making meaning by choice. The use of a language which is inaccessible to the
learners is described by Fauna (1989) as sowing the seed on a rocky surface. Lack
Tintswalo Vivian Manyike, University of South Africa, South Africa
DOI 10.1515/9781501504143-015
296 Tintswalo Vivian Manyike
of academic success as experienced by most second language learners is mostly

due to language related problems. Most children around the world are educated
in a language which is not their first language and as such a majority of them
faces academic challenges.
Researchers make a distinction between first language acquisition and
second language learning (Krashen 1989; Macdonald 1990). First language (L1)
is at times referred to as mother tongue, native language or language learned at
birth. It is the language of the home in which customs are transmitted. Learning
through the mother tongue improves learners’ academic success (Cummins 2007;
Brock- Utne, Desai and Qorro 2003 2004; UNESCO 2008; Heugh 2012). Language
learning refers to the process of consciously learning a language and this happens
mostly in schools. In the South African context the majority of the learners learn
English in schools. These leaners can therefore be referred to as the English Lan-
guage Learners (ELLs). Most of these learners learn the English language and also
use it as the medium of instruction from grade 5.
The importance of learning English, an international language cannot be dis-
puted as it opens up access to the economy. People who are proficient in English
are able to get good jobs, they also have access to information which is mostly in
English. As a result people associate proficiency in English with education and
there is an erroneous belief among most parents that an early introduction to the
English language in schools will assist learners to become more proficient in it. It
is for this reason that the majority of the parents do not support home language
education. However, research shows that second language learning becomes easy
and faster if the child’s first language is well developed (Cummins 2012; Manyike
and Lemmer 2012; Manyike 2013). Furthermore, once learners acquire the aca-
demic language proficiency skills in their home languages they will be able to
transfer most of the L1 such as reading, writing and synthesis skills into second
language learning. However, for such transfer to happen learners should have
reached a threshold in their L1. Children who are proficient in two languages are
called balanced bilinguals (Cummins 2012). However very few people are equally
proficient in both languages as most people are only strong in one language.
Bilingual children are said to perform better in schools, such children also have
a strong sense of identity. Schools are therefore encouraged to use learners L1 as
the medium of instruction where possible to facilitate second language learning
(Cummins 2010.). Failure to do so results in the stagnation of learners’ L1 and
their personal and conceptual foundation for learning is undermined (Manyike
TV 2014). The use of English as a medium of instruction which the majority of
learners are not familiar results in learners failing to learn (Myburgh, Poggenpoel
and van Ransburg 2004).
English language teaching in South African multicultural schools 297
Despite this, linguistic globalisation is an important dimension which put

forward a global English hegemony. As a global language, people use English to
communicate with other people around the globe. Widespread knowledge of the
language enables everyone to interact, hence making it part of the cultural dimen-
sion of globalisation. The use of English in economic transactions and in sciences
influences its use in education. As a result, education in the mother tongue loses
grounds to English and this practice alters the use of different indigenous lan-
guages in education in South Africa. English is assumed to have a global currency
and carries connotations of power and opportunities (Sonntag 2003; Holmars-
dottir 2005). However, Phillipson (2014) states that this assumption should not
be accepted uncritically and that minority language speakers should not equate
English proficiency skills with education. Phillipson (2014) argues that such
acceptance result in former colonies failing to educate their masses due to the
use of foreign medium of instruction. The influence of English in education in
South Africa is not only reducing the status of African languages but also that
of Afrikaans. Researchers are also alluding to the fact that multicultural settings
are increasing and as such there is a need to research the dynamics within such
settings.
In a school setting differences in the status of official languages is also visible
through the required fluency in various languages. A trilingual model is promoted
through different language policy documents at provincial levels. However,
the language in education policy allows poor schools to apply a dual language
medium teaching in a manner that reinforces the ideology of English proficiency
as a gateway to upward social mobility and success in life.
Although multiculturalism is a norm in most countries, one dominant lan-
guage is used to educate the world’s majority children and the preferred domi-
nant language is mostly used and understood by the elite few in the various com-
munities. The huge illiteracy rates, high dropout rates, the appalling poverty in
developing countries mainly in Africa and its developmental lag has been linked
with the language of instruction (Nel, Dreyer, & Koper 2007; Parker 2012; Letseka
and Pitsoe 2013). However, there has not been any change on the language policy
to improve the life chances of the majority of ELL learners. To this end, South
Africa is a multilingual society, which uses English as a medium of instruction in
its schooling system. It should be noted that countries such as Russia, Japan and
China use their national languages as medium of instruction throughout their
schooling system. However, English is now introduced in their higher education
institutions in order to attract international students.
South Africa received its independence in 1994 and with this independence
came its break with its apartheid past. The dawn of democracy heralded a new
constitution which gave freedom and equal rights to all South African citizens
(The Constitution of South Africa 1996). The eleven South African languages
now have an official status (RSA, 1996). These languages are Sepedi, Sesotho,
Setswana Tshivenda, isiZulu, siSwati, Xitsonga, isiNdebele, isiXhosa isiNdebele
Afrikaans and English. English and Afrikaans were the two official languages in
South Africa since 1948 when the National Party came into power. Prior to 1948
English was the only official language.
The aim of this chapter is to discuss the teaching of English as a medium of
instruction in multicultural schools and its implication for teacher education in
South Africa. The chapter is mapped out as follows; firstly, a theoretical frame-
work which underpins this study is discussed; a discussion of the South African
education system follows; the impact of the language education in education
policy on education is discussed next; the structure of South African education
system is also discussed, followed by the strength and weakness of native and
non-native speakers; finally the implication of language teaching for higher edu-
cation institutions is discussed.
2 The sociocultural learning theory

In this section the socio-cultural theory is discussed with its relevance to lan-
guage teaching and learning. Lev Vygotsky a Russian psychologist and his col-
laborators are credited as founders of the socio cultural theory. They discovered a
link between the socio cultural process taking place in a society and the process
taking place in the individual. For Vygotsky (1978), development takes place
at two levels, the first level deals with the social interactions between people
whereas, the second level deals with the internalisation of the process in the indi-
vidual’s mind. Language, he claims, plays a pivotal role in realising that such
development takes place (Vygotsky 1978). The socio cultural theory regards the
learner as an apprentice in a culturally defined and socially organised world,
McLaughlin (1998). It is through interactions with adults, peers and significant
others in their environment that children master the use of cultural tools within
their particular environment.
Learning and development can only be understood within a particular cul-
tural context, which in turn shapes the learners thinking. An example can be
gleaned from children growing up in middle class western culture wherein most
parents converse with children in assisting them to acquire a language. In this
culture children learn more from care givers by observing what they are doing
and following suite. Most middle class parents of western culture point at objects
and name them for their babies to create an association between objects and their
names. This is in contrast to the practice of most parents in less industrialised

countries, who say little to their children but apprentice them in adult world, in
these circumstances children learn the values of working together as a commu-
nity and becomes competent members of their communities.
According to Vygotsky (1978), social experiences shape peoples’ way of think-
ing and interpretation of the world. He notes that individual’s cognition occurs
in a social situation and the important role that language plays in these inter-
actions. He sees the importance of social interaction in negotiating meaning.
Through social interaction people are able to develop their own interpretation of
events based on their experiences and they make use of environmental artefacts
in making these interpretations.
Vygotsky (1978) claimed that cognitive and linguistic skills appear twice
on two planes; first on the social plane and second on the psychological plane.
Initially it appears between people as an interpsychological category and then
within the individual as an intrapsychological category. For Vygotsky (1978), the
social is instrumental in understanding and teaching children. The social con-
sists of rules and norms of society that adults and more competent other teach
their younger initiates. Like a rite of passage in the school setting, students learn
both through un educative and educative experiences as to what society deems
as appropriate behaviour. Along with learning what is appropriate, students must
actively participate in the classroom as the rules of engagement in a classroom
environment represents the values and norms deems appropriate by the society.
Education then prepares learners to become active members of their communi-
ties.
The classroom should then be an egalitarian setting rather than teacher
centred setting where authority solely rest with the teacher. The curricula should
represent the interest of both parties so as to facilitate the connection between
the curricula and the student, without this there will be a breakdown in the social
structure because non participants feel disempowered. All participants must feel
they are playing a fair game on a level field where the rules are same for everyone
as it is the case in a democratic society. Rules can only be the same if learners
first languages are recognised as this affirm learners’ identity. For learning to take
place Vygotsky (1978), encourages learner participation in the classroom with the
educator as a rule maker and curricula planner. His emphasis on experiential
learning means that the language of teaching and learning should be familiar to
the learners.
He wrote extensively on learning by doing and notes that meaning is gleaned
from experience. He further claims that not all experiences foster appropriate
learning. There are normative and deviant experiences. Normative experiences
connect with an individual’s growth whereas deviant one does the opposite. He
views the teacher’s role to be that of a facilitator, the nature of the adult’s role is
reflected in his Zone of proximal development. The teacher must foster learning
among students that combines internal and external experiences. This experi-
ence is an interplay of cognitive, emotional and external interactions. The social
nature of learning encompasses the student interaction with other peers and the
instructor.
Continuous learning is facilitated when teachers are teaching children
effectively at any developmental level. This is achieved through modelling and
scaffolding at the level which is parallel to the learners’ zone of proximal devel-
opment. Teachers activate this zone when they teach students concepts that are
just above their current skills and knowledge level which motivate them to excel
beyond their current skill level. This is achieved when learning involves active
participation of all learners. Students learn concepts by manipulating objects in
a realistic and authentic context to construct meaning from their interpretative
experiences.
Interpreting these experiences requires a language and Vygotsky (1978) views
language as a tool that humans use to share social meaning among each other
and to explain how people advance developmentally from natural process to
higher mental processes. Students internalise the language of these interactions
with adults and use it to organise individual endeavours in the same manner.
Language thus plays an essential role in socially shaping the minds of the stu-
dents because it is their major vehicle for communication with one another. It is
also the principal means by which social experiences are represented psycholog-
ically and therefore a necessary tool for communication in every social situation.
In the learning environments the teachers goal is to convey his interpretation of
his pre-existing social world to his students and to enculturate them into their
culture.
Vygotsky (1978) realised the important role played by peers as they construct
meaning in the Zone of Proximal Development. He acknowledges that children
come to learn adult meaning and actions through collaboration with peers.
Teachers should take this into consideration in their curricula planning and in
designing classroom activities for the learners. Researchers such as Ragoff (1989)
have shown how teachers are not only influencing student’s behaviour but that
student’s behaviours also shape their actions. The social context promotes sus-
tained achievement as the more competent student work with the least compe-
tent in order to elevate the latter’s competence
Peers arrive at a common understanding by negotiating meaning via problem
solving activities. At macro level peers interact with each other and adults to
satisfy this need.
The section below discusses the South African education system in order to
clarify how English is taught in South African schools.
3 The South African education system

The South African education system is divided into four education bands namely;
the foundation phase which is grade 1 through grade 5. According to the Depart-
ment of Basic Education DoE, 2006 foundation phase learners should be edu-
cated in their home languages. The South African Schools Act (RSA, 2006) gives
parents the right to choose the preferred medium of instruction for their children.
The Act further states that parent’s rights can only be exercised where it reasonÂ�
ably possible (RSA, 2006). The ambiguity in the Act resulted in most schools
failing to implement the language in education policy (Heugh, 2014). As a result,
most schools have either continued with the past language in education policy
which allows learners to use their L1 during the first Four years of schooling and
transit to English as medium of instruction in grade 5 (Manyike and Lemmer,
2014). Most learners in former black schools use an African indigenous language
as a medium of instruction and English is taught as a subject in the foundation
phase. Afrikaans is introduced as a subject in grade 3. From grade 5 up to tertiary
level either English or Afrikaans is used a medium of instruction. However, the
majority of South African Black learners prefer English to Afrikaans as a medium
of instruction. Researchers (Macdonald, 1990; Heugh, 1999) have highlighted the
difficulties caused by the shift to English as a medium of instruction in grade 5.
The difficulty is mainly caused because these learners’ English language profi-
ciency skills are not yet well developed and different subjects offered have subject
specific vocabulary. Macdonald (1990)’s Threshold Project examined the nature
of language learning and language difficulties that grade 5 black learners were
experiencing when using English as a medium of instruction. The results of her
study indicated that the majority of these learner’s had 800 English words while
the curriculum required them to have 8000 words. A similar study conducted by
DoE (2013) shows that little has changed since the Macdonald study, and that
most grade 5 learners lacked sufficient grasp of the English linguistic structure.
This results in most learners using rote learning instead of understanding the
content. In another study Taylor and Vinjevold (1999) found that most black
English teachers lacked adequate conceptual knowledge, they also failed to inter-
pret the new curriculum.
This situation has not changed much after independence as the majority of
the schools are situated in remote areas and are without basic essentials such as
running water, adequate classrooms, and libraries (Manyike and Lemmer, 2012).
They continue to serve learners from low socio economic backgrounds with
teachers who are either unqualified to teach in the grades they teach or they teach
subjects they have not specialised in because of teacher shortages. Teacher’s low
morale has also been documented as a cause of learners’ academic underachieve-
ment. These schools continue to serve mostly black learners with the exception
of very few farm schools which started accommodating black children after 1994.
In most Former Model C schools which were previously schools for white
children only and schools for Indian children only, the medium of instruction
remains English or Afrikaans. Most of the Former Model C Afrikaans speaking
schools have changed their medium of instruction to English in order to accom-
modate more leaners from previously disadvantaged schools. The same applies
to the Afrikaans medium schools which continue to use Afrikaans as a medium
of instruction although in some schools are dual medium of instruction is used
which is 50% English and 50% Afrikaans. However, the admission of mostly
black and Indian learners into these schools did not result in the change of the
schools language policies nor changes in the school cultures. These schools have
retained their culture and most of them seemed to have failed to recruit teach-
ers from diverse cultural backgrounds to teach indigenous languages in these
schools. It can then be argued that the learners who are admitted in these schools
are assimilated into both the language and the culture of these schools.
It is important to note that despite the changes in the South African educa-
tion system since 1994, schools located in rural remote areas have retained their
poor status. South African rural areas are located in remote areas and are mostly
characterised by high levels of unemployment, poverty as well as a lack of highly
qualified teaching crop. Furthermore, these schools continue to serve poor black
and white learners living within the farming communities.
The second education band is the senior phase which is grades six to grade
seven. Learners in these grade use English as a medium of instruction and also
learn English and Afrikaans as a subjects. The third schooling band is called the
Further Education and Training band. This is from grade nine to tertiary level and
English remain a medium of instruction up to tertiary level. There are very few
schools and universities using Afrikaans as a medium of instruction, however
most former Afrikaans medium universities have also opened their doors to
learners from diverse cultural backgrounds. As a result, these Afrikaans higher
education institutions have now adopted dual language policy wherein students
have an option to study through the medium of English or Afrikaans. These ter-
tiary institutions have been forced to remove the Afrikaans medium until the
introduction of African languages as a medium of instruction at higher education
institutions around South Africa. As a result, Afrikaans as medium of instruction

is halted in all universities in South Africa with effect from January 2016.
4 The impact of the language in education policy

in South African schools
The use of English as a language of teaching and learning (Lolt) in the South
African schools system has resulted in huge financial loss due to the in accessibil-
ity of English to both learners and educators (Janks, 2014). According to Statistics
South Africa (2013) English first language speakers constitute only 14% of the
country’s population. The use of English as a Lolt creates a challenge as most of
the teachers are not proficient in English. Learners are also unable to learn effec-
tively as critical thinking and synthesising information requires language profi-
ciency in a Lolt. The relationship between thinking and language is confirmed by
various researchers (Witgenstein 2014; Heugh, 2013).
In this chapter I argue that there is strong relationship between language and
culture and that the recognition of learners’ different indigenous languages and
the effective teaching of these languages in schools will affirm learner’s iden-
tity and their culture. The use of transitional model of language teaching in most
Black schools and straight for English in most former White and Indian schools
is robbing these learners of their cultural identity. It is for these reasons that most
of the learners from the black speaking and Afrikaans speaking communities in
Former Model C schools can only communicate effectively English. The acqui-
sition of English for these learners has resulted in them losing their culture, an
important aspect in a person’s identity. The South African language in education
policy therefore, benefits only the few elite who are able to send their children to
affluent former White and for profit schools. For profit schools appears to be the
only schools which offer quality education and their school fees can be as high
as eighty thousand to one hundred thousand Rand per year. Although there are
few Former Model C schools which still offer high quality education, most of them
have experienced quality decline as most teachers exit these schools.
In the South African context, Grade 12 and international literacy and numer-
acy standardised test results still follow its apartheid past with private and Former
Model C schools producing better results and black schools in rural and township
performing poorly (DBE, 2011; Howie et al., 2012). Learners’ performance in black
schools can only be improved through the use of African language as medium of
instruction. Rural and urban schools constitute 80% of South African schools
(Statistics South Africa, 2013).
5 Challenges faced by both native and non-native

teachers in English language classrooms
Teachers in South Africa have to deal with the demands of learning the content
subjects in a multilingual context and also the demands of learning English as
a subject. They embrace an additive model of bi/multilingual learning and also
deal with the dominance of English and the demands for English access. At the
same time, teachers are expected to provide learners with access to the content
language discourses such as history and geography and biology and assist lean-
er’s to develop formal written competence in these subjects.
The pedagogical and the political are inextricably interlinked in each of
these classroom practice and can pull in contradictory ways. A progressive policy
environment such as that we currently have in South Africa is a necessary but
insufficient condition for progressive practice. The language in education policy
does not deal explicitly with what might be different in primary and secondary
school context, or across schools with different linguistic infrastructure. It also
does not deal with specific subject learning areas. Teachers use code switching
in their classroom, to deal with language challenges especially when teaching
content subjects. Code switching is used to facilitate learning as both learners
and teachers use it to clarify their understanding. It is a useful tool to facilitate
learners’ understanding in multicultural classrooms if teachers are fluent in the
learners’ languages. Most learners also use their L1s as a resource in the teaching
and learning environment. Teachers varying use of code switching suggest that
language in education policy needs to engage more seriously and explicitly with
multilingual practices. Policy needs to deal with the specific demands of teachers
who work in contexts with limited English language infrastructure.
Native English language teachers experience challenges when teaching
learners from diverse cultural backgrounds as most of them do not understand
African languages. They are therefore, unable to build on their learners’ expe-
riences and the languages they bring to schools. In such environments teachers
use an immersion model which result in learners acquiring a second language
which replaces their first languages. Most of the native English language teachers
appear to be also unaware of the language development process and fail to prop-
erly diagnose these learners reading and writing difficulties. Language research-
ers advise that learners be tested in both their L1 and L2 in order to correctly
diagnose their language related problems. Second language learners develop
communicative competence within six months to a year of being immersed in
a language. However, they need academic language proficiency skills in order
to cope with the school curriculum. According to Cummins (1978, 1979, 1980) it
takes six to eight years of being immersed in a language to develop the cogni-
tive language proficiency skills. Afrikaans speaking learners however, are advan-
taged because even though the medium of instruction is English most English
speaking teachers are bilingual and therefore are able to understand and assist
these learners. Afrikaans is also taught as a subject from grade 3 up to grade 12. As
such the Afrikaans speaking learners are not under pressure to replace their first
languages in these environments because their L1is acknowledged and respected
by the schools.
6 The main strengths and weaknesses of both

native and non-native teachers
This section will focus on the main strengths and weakness of both native and
none native teachers. Non-native English teachers as it has already been alluded
to are in the majority in the South African education system. They know the chal-
lenges experienced by none native English speaking learners. Most of them come
from the same communities with these learners, and as such have knowledge
of their learners’ home environments. As such they are able to bridge the gap
between the home and the school. The majority of English non-native speaking
teachers are multilingual as such they are able to scaffold learners understanding
through the use of code switching and code mixing. Although the use of such
strategies can at times be to the detriment of gaining proficiency, they do serve
a purpose of effective communication in the language learning environments.
The sharing of cultural values and language assisting in easing the tension in the
English language classrooms as learners are allowed for example to ask questions
using their first languages when they do not understand. Teacher’s knowledge of
the learner’s communities assist them in choosing appropriate topics which are
relevant to the learners and as such learners are actively engaged in the learning
process.
The disadvantage of none native English lies in the fact that most of them are
not well qualified to teach the English language because of the past racial divided
education system. Although they might be able to read and write fluently, most of
them do not have adequate knowledge of how language development takes place
as such are unlikely to be in a position to assist learners who might experience
language problems effectively. Furthermore, the fact that they share the same lan-
guages with the learners might result in them having an over reliance on the L1 to
the detriment of English language learning. This might rob learners of the oppor-
tunity to practice communicating in English which is essential for these learners
as they lack opportunities to use the language outside the school environments.
Most non-native teachers are also not proficient English language users as they
also lack the opportunity to use the languages, this is especially true for teachers
in rural and township environments.
They encourage English language learning in their classrooms through the
use of the Total Physical Response (TPR). In this approach verbal rehearsals and
repetitions are used to facilitate language learning (Oxford, 1990). Another strat-
egy used by both native and non-native speaker in English language teaching is
group work. Group work enables learners to interact with each other and to learn
from each other. This provides learners with an opportunity to interact and com-
municate freely. Native English language teachers put a lot of emphases on the
writing proficiency skills of learners and ensure that learners are given enough
homework on a daily basis. This provides learners with an opportunity to read
to at home especially, because all Former Model C schools have libraries. The
availability of books in these schools enables these teachers to provide learners
with different books with different genres. Non-native teachers experience prob-
lems giving learners English homework as 25% of rural communities are illiter-
ate in English and as such are unable to assist their children with homework.
Furthermore, most non-native English teachers are unable to build a reading
culture as they do not have libraries in their schools. Learners are forced to share
a book with at times five other learners. In such circumstances language learning
becomes more challenging. This is in contrast to Former Model C school parents
who are mainly located in affluent suburbs with most of the parents being pro-
fessionals. Most of the learners in these schools start schooling with some knowl-
edge of English and are from language enriched home environments with enough
English reading materials. English language learning becomes easy for these
learners.
Both native and non-native teachers are able to teach learners how to use
English language learning strategies. Language learning strategies attempt to
develop learners’ linguistic competence in a second language through the use
of deliberate acquisition attempts. Language learning strategies determines the
extent in which learners will acquire their target language which is English in this
instance. It however, appears as though non-native teachers are not as successful
in the use of such strategies as most of their learners appear to fail to acquire the
necessary language proficiency skills for academic success. The absence of an
appropriate learning strategy will result in learners failing to acquire the target
language.
Non-native English language teachers also make use of situational context to
teach English. The use of situational context allows learners to understand the
English language better. Overcrowded classroom makes it impossible for most
non-native teachers to create environments for learner autonomy in language

learning. In language learning, self-regulation is important as it increase learner’s
motivation to learn English. Native teachers appear to be able to provide learn-
ers with some autonomy during English language learning period. This practice
allows learners to take ownership of the language tasks they are engaged in.
Teachers should create such opportunities wherever possible in order to improve
learner’s motivation to learn the English language.
Native English language teachers adequately use multimedia during lan-
guage teaching than their non-native counterparts. In most rural and urban
schools, English language teachers hardly use multimedia in their classrooms.
This could be attributed to the lack of infrastructure and learning support mate-
rials in their schools. Multimedia approaches provide interactive knowledge con-
struction through stimulating the learning environments for meaningful social
and strategic learning process.
Both native and none Native teachers have an understanding of the impor-
tance of creating a friendly, non-threatening language learning environments.
These teachers attempt to lower learners’ anxiety levels through storytelling,
songs and riddles. They create warm and friendly classroom environments where
there is mutual respect between the teachers and the learners. Learners have to
feel that they are loved and respected by their teachers and learners are encour-
aged to speak freely. All teachers have rules where ridicule is not accepted. Teach-
ers motivate learners to learn the English language by making them aware of its
importance in providing them with access to further learning. Non-native English
teachers emphasise to their learners that English is not meant to replace their
home languages. This is important because most non-native English speaking
learners do not understand the importance of learning English which is difficult
when they have their L1s which are easily accessible to them.
Both English teachers write positive comments on learner’s books and ver-
bally reinforce good language use as part of instruction. They display learners
work on classroom walls as a way of building learners self-esteem. Putting learn-
ers work on the wall is more prevalent in Former Model C schools than in rural
and township schools. Other rural and township schools encourage learners to
practice using the language by requiring learners to only speak English while at
school including during breaks. This practice forces learners to communicate in
English as they lack the opportunities to practice using the language in their com-
munities. Learning a language requires a lot of practice and without opportuni-
ties to practice learners will never be proficient English language users.
Schools also ensure proficiency through the use of whole school initiatives
such as organising debate competitions and writing competitions and give prices
to the winners.
7 English language teaching in South African

schools
English language teaching in South African schools follows to some extent the
language teaching models used in the USA and elsewhere in developed coun-
tries. However in the South African context it depends largely to where the school
is located, for example rural areas which were previously reserved exclusively
for the black majority of the country based on their language identities as well
as the township areas which are situated in the outskirts of towns and supply
labour to cities and towns throughout the country. These areas were also reserved
exclusively for the black population during the apartheid era. In both rural and
township schools the medium of instruction (LoLT) is the learners L1 for the first
four years of schooling. In grade 5 the medium of instruction changes to either
English or Afrikaans and learners L1 is taught at subjects. Learner diversity in big
cities however, makes L1 instruction impossible and in such schools a straight
for English medium of instruction is used. In this context learning becomes a
challenge as these learners do not get a chance to practice the English language
in their communities.
Teachers in these contexts are forced to find alternative ways of scaffold-
ing their learner’s understanding of the content. According to Setati and Adler
(2000), teachers in these schools use code switching in order to assist their learn-
ers to understand the content they teach. The use of code switching in these envi-
ronments is also reported by Heugh (2000), Holmardottir (2005) and Simango
(2009), to mention a few. Although code switching is an accepted teaching strat-
egy in a multilingual setting, learners may be disadvantaged as they are not
allowed to code switch while writing their examinations. This practice is unfair to
most of these learners who in reality know more than they can produce because
of their low English proficiency levels.
Furthermore the fact that most of learners are introduced to English very early
result in them experiencing difficulties in learning a second language because of
poor language proficiency skills in their L1s. Cummins (2012) claims that learners
learn best when they are educated in a language they know. To further explain his
theory he differentiates between two types of language competence namely the
everyday language that the children brings with them to school and he calls this
the Basic Communication Skills (BICS) and the language of the school which he
calls the Cognitive Academic Language proficiency skills (CUP). This distinction
helps explain why learners who are native speakers are unable to read and write.
This is mainly because the reading and writing skills are much more challenging
and in most cases decontextualized.
Learners who start school using a medium of instruction which is different

from their home languages are taught using a sink or swim language teaching
model. In this model learners are not assisted in any way in learning the lan-
guage. Furthermore, most of these schools have teachers who are not properly
trained to deal with the various challenges that language learners face in these
environments. Most of the classes in both rural and township schools are under
resourced, for example, they are without electricity, libraries and teaching mate-
rials. Rural and township schools are further characterised by overcrowded class-
rooms with more than 60 learners per classroom. Moreover, most of these learn-
ers are from low socio-economic backgrounds and most of their homes do not
have enough books for them to read. There is also a geographic distance between
English and these learners communities as such they do not have a chance to
practice using the language. In these circumstance English is not a second lan-
guage but a foreign language. It is for this reason that the language in education
policy divided English language teaching into three mains streams namely; the
English as Home Language (EHL), the English first additional language (EFAL)
and the English second additional language. Rural and township schools offer
EFAL to their learners with the continuous use of English as a LoLT up to tertiary
education. Although in practice they could choose Afrikaans, the majority of the
black population still associate Afrikaans with segregation hence their reluctance
to choose it.
There are a number of schools of thought as to why black parents choose
English as a medium of instruction instead of indigenous languages medium of
instruction. Most researchers are of the opinion that most black parents and black
learners prefer to be educated in English in order to enhance their chances of
obtaining better jobs. Furthermore, there appears to be a misconception that the
use of indigenous languages will further marginalise black children and as such
prevent them from receiving quality education. In a democratic South Africa the
opening up of former white schools has allowed blacks’ access to well-resourced
schools with better qualified teachers. Most black parents with enough resources
are sending their children to such schools. Unfortunately for these parents admis-
sion of learners in these schools did not result in them changing their language
policy. These are schools also failed to introduce African languages to cater
for their diverse learner population. There are also very few African Â�teachers
employed in these schools, where they are employed they teach soft subjects
such as life orientation.
In these environments black learners are left without choice but to follow
these schools language policy which implies a straight for English or what is
called an immersion program. Research (Manyike and Lemmer, 2015) shows
that learner performance in these schools is better than their peers in both town-
ship and rural areas. Another important aspect in the South African education
system to be taken into consideration with regard to the teaching of English is
the fact that there are very few English L1 speakers. According to Statistics South
Africa (2013) English L1 speakers constitute 14% whereas the Afrikaans speaking
population constitute 9.8%. These percentages indicate that most of the English
language teachers even in suburban environments are not L1 speakers, but are
English second additional language speakers who speak mainly English at work
and use their L1’s in their home environments. The international test results
show that most of these schools are also below their international counterparts
although their performance is better than those of rural and township schools.
In most of these urban public schools and for profit schools with learners
from diverse cultural backgrounds, English is taught as a home language (EHL),
whereas Afrikaans in these schools is learned as a subject, these schools use a
bilingual education program. According to the Department of Education (DoE,
2012) learners should pass two languages in order to be promoted to the next
grade from Grade 9 to 12. Passing all subjects and failing one of the chosen lan-
guages in this case either English or Afrikaans results in learners failing the grade.
There are however, some urban public schools with a trilingual school policy,
although these schools are in a minority. Most of the for profit schools have intro-
duced an African indigenous language as a subject. Learners are given a choice
between learning Afrikaans or an indigenous African language. African learners
in these for profit schools in urban areas are choosing the dominant languages
in their geographic areas, dispelling the myth that it will be difficult to choose an
African language as there are so many.
The use of the two former official languages limit access to tertiary education
for the majority of the population, thus education serves to reproduce existing
power relations in the society. Without government intervention, the majority of
South African population are excluded from higher education institutions.
8 Implications for teacher education

The language difficulties with regard to the acquisition of academic English lan-
guage proficiency skills necessary for academic success continue as the majority
of South African learners enter higher education institutions. The admission of
previously disadvantaged and excluded groups into higher education institu-
tions has created a need for language support for these students. The lack of aca-
demic language proficiency skills has been reported as one of the major causes of
high dropout rates and taking a long time to complete their studies. This is mainly
because texts at university levels are discipline related, more complex and often
new to students which make understanding them difficult.
Academics are therefore expected to ensure that the language used in the
various modules they teach is accessible to the students. They should also
assume a role of not only teaching content knowledge but also language. Aca-
demics need training on how to implement this as it has not been done in the
past. South African universities should also make it compulsory for all students
to learn an African language at the University. This will further boost the status
of African languages and as such further materials will be developed for use in
schools. Despite the multilingual policy declaration by the South African govern-
ment, universities around the country have reduced the number of academics in
African languages. These departments should be revitalised in order to enable
them to function to their maximum capacity.
Furthermore, all teacher education institutions should make multilingual
teaching compulsory. English language teachers should also be English majors
before allowed to register for English language teaching classes.
Recent research study by Taylor (2014) indicates a gap in the teacher educa-
tion English teaching programme. The report indicates that most universities are
failing to teach students teachers on how to teach reading. As a result most teach-
ers in South African schools do not know how this is done. The high illiteracy
rates in schools can partly be explained by this discrepancy.
9 Conclusion
The aim of this chapter was to discuss how English is taught in South African
schools to both native and none native English speakers. This chapter concludes
that because of past division of the South African communities the effective learn-
ing of English which is also the medium of instruction in most schools depends
on the learner’s geographic context as well as the school type. The divide between
rural, township and suburban environments and the different types of schooling
namely private, Former Model C and public school provides one with an idea of
the type of outcome to expect from learners in these different school contexts.
The most unfortunate part is that the majority of the South African learners
which is 80% are attending schools located mainly in rural and township schools
where they are forced to learn through the medium of English with very limited
resources and unqualified English teachers. If the South African government is
serious about improving the life chances of the majority of its learner’s then more
needs to be done to improve their educational success. A new thinking needs to
be developed in the South African context on what it means to be educated. It

appears for now the knowledge of English is equated with being educated. Given
the shortage of proficient teachers in most South African schools, L1 medium of
instruction throughout the schooling system coupled with a strong development
of English as a subject might result in minority language speakers succeeding
academically.
10 References
Brock-Utne, Birgit, Zubeida Desai & Martha Qorro. 2003. Language of instruction in Tanzania
and South Africa. Dar es Salam: E & D Publisher.
Chisholm, Linda. 1992. Policy and critique in South African educational research.
Cummins, Jim, Rania Mirza & Saskia Stille. 2012. English language learners in Canadian School:
Emerging directions for school based policies. TESL Canadian Journal 29 (6). 25–48.
Cummins, Jim. 1979. Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence,
the Optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism 19.
121–129.
Cummins, Jim. 2000. Immersion education for the millennium: What we have learned from 30
years of research on second language immersion. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education of the University of Toronto.
De Klerk, Gerda. 2002. Mother tongue education in South Africa: The weight of history.
International Journal of Sociology of Language 2. 133–140
Department of Basic Education. 2011. Report of the Annual National Assessment for 2012:
Grades 1 to 6 & 9. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.
Gulling, Solvig & Maria Lehoczky. 2009. The hub in the wheel? Standardised tests as the pivot
in the marketization of education. Master’s thesis. University of Oslo.
Heugh, Kathleen & C. H. Prinsloo. 2013. The role of language and literacy in preparing South
African learners for educational success: lessons learnt from a classroom study in Limpopo
province. Pretoria: HSRC Press.
Heugh, Kathleen. 1999. The promise of multilingualism and education in South Africa: Mirage
or reality? In C. Feral (ed.), Proceedings of the international seminar – Language and
Education: Parameters for a Multicultural South Africa, 64–82. University of La Réunion.
Alizés.
Heugh, Kathleen. 2000. Multilingual voices – isolation and the crumbling of bridges. Agenda
46. 21–33.
Heugh, Kathleen. 2002. The case against bilingual and multilingual education in South Africa:
Laying bare the myths. Perspectives in Education 20(1). 171–196.
Heugh, Kathleen. 2003. Can authoritarian separatism give way to language rights? Current
Issues in Language Planning 4(2). 126–145.
Holmarsdottir, Halla. 2005. From policy to practice. A study of the implementation of the
language in education policy (LiEP). In three primary schools. Series of Dissertations
submitted to the Faculty of Education, University of Oslo, Norway.
Howie, Sarah, Surette Van Staden, Moloi Tshele, Cilla Dowse & Lisa Zimmerman. 2012. South
African children are reading literacy achievement: Executive Summary. Pretoria: CEA,
University of Pretoria.
Krashen, Stephen. 1989. We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading. Additional evidence of
the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal 73. 440 –464.
Macdonald, Carol. 1990. Crossing the threshold into standard three black educations: The
consolidated main report of the Threshold Project. Pretoria: HSRC Press.
Manyike, Tintswalo & Eleanor Lemmer. 2012. Far from the city lights: English reading
performance of ESL learners in different types of rural primary schools. Per Linguam 28(1).
14–33.
Manyike, Tintswalo & Eleanor Lemmer. 2014. Research in language education in South Africa:
Problems & prospects. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 6(5). 251–258.
Manyike, Tintswalo. 2014. The writing skills in second language of learners from a rural primary
school in South Africa. Stud Tribes Tribals 12(1). 61–69.
McLaughlin, Barry. 1998. Second language learning revisited. The psychological perspective.
Myburgh, Oerson, Marie Poggenpoel & Wilhelm Van Ransburg. 2004. Learners’ experiences of
teaching and learning in a second and third language. Education 124(3). 573–584.
National Education Evaluation & Development Unit (NEEDU). 2013. The state of literacy teaching
and learning in the foundation phase. Johannesburg: NEEDU.
Nel, Charl, Carisma Dreyer & Mariaan Kopper. 2007. An analysis of reading profiles of first year
students at Potchefstroom University. A cross sectional study and a case study. South
African Journal Education 24. 74–99.
Parker, Faranaaz. 2012. Myth busting the matric pass rate. Available at http//mg.co.za/print
format/single/2012-01-07.
Phillipson, Robert. 2014. Lingua franca or lingua frannkesteinia? English in European
integration and globalisation. World Englishes 27(2). 250–267.
Ragoff, Barbara & Gilda Morelli. 1989. Perspectives on children’s development from cultural
psychology. American Psychologist 44. 343–348.
Republic of South Africa. 1996a. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act No. 108 of
1996. Government Gazette 378, no 17678. Pretoria: President’s office.
Republic of South Africa. 1996b. South African Schools Act No. 84 of 1996. Government Gazette
vol 377, no 17579. Cape Town: Office of the President.
Republic of South Africa. 1996a. Constitution for the Republic of South Africa, Act No 18 of 1996.
Government Gazette vol 378, no 17678. Pretoria: President’s office.
Republic of South Africa. 1996b. South African School’s Act, No 84 of 1996. Government
Gazette vol. 377, no 17579. Cape Town: Office of the President.
Setati, Mamokgethi & Jill Adler. 2000. Between languages and discourses. Language practices
in primary multilingual mathematics classrooms. Education and Mathematics Studies 43.
243- 269.
Simango, Silvester. 2009. Weaning Africa from Europe: Towards a mother tongue education
policy in Southern Africa. In Birgit. Brock-Utne & Ingse Skattnub (eds.), Language in SSA:
A Comparative and Transdisciplinary Analysis, 201–212. United Kingdom: Symposium

Books.
Sonntag, Selma. 2003. The local politics of global English: Case studies in linguistic
globalisation. New York and Oxford: Lexington Books.
Statistics South Africa 2009. Empirical regularities in South African consumptions patterns.
Applied Economics 36(20). 2327–2333.
Taylor, Nick & Penny Vinjevold. 1999. Getting learning right: report of the President’s Education
Initiative research report. South Africa: Joint Education Trust.
The Constitution of South Africa. 1996. Pretoria, South Africa.
Vygotsky, Lev. S. 1978. Mind in society. The development of higher psychological process.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Recommended reading
Alexander, Neville. 2015. Thoughts on the new South Africa. Amazon Com Exclusive Books.
This book consists of three sections and the most relevant section is part two. In this book
Neville Alexander shares his collection of thought about a just society of South Africa.
His ideas are ahead of his time and part two of the book is most important as he deals
with issues of language policy in South Africa. He advocates the development of African
languages for use as medium of instruction through higher education level. He primarily
question the hegemony of English as most of the learners are failing to acquire the
necessary proficiency skills required for academic success
Brock-Utne, Birgit. 2015. Language in education policies and practices in Africa with a special
focus on Tanzania and South Africa. In J. Zajda (ed.), Second international handbook on
globalization, education and policy research, 615–631. Netherlands: Springer.
In this chapter the author argues for the use of African languages in education and claims
that the continual use of English as a medium of instruction benefits mainly the West
who are educational donors in Africa as well as publishing companies. The author further
indicates that most African languages are mutually intelligible and that African learners
will benefit more from learning in an African language than they do in English.
Heugh, Kathleen. 2002. The case against bilingual and multicultural education in South Africa:
Laying bare the myths. Perspective in Education 20(1). 171–196.
In this book Kathleen Heugh discuss the importance of bilingual education in South
Africa and show the advantages of using mother tongue instruction for the benefit of
all the learners from diverse cultural backgrounds. Like Alexander she advocates for
the development of African languages for use as medium of instruction through tertiary
education. She clearly shows in this book that reasons given for not developing these
languages are actually not true and further indicates how a lot of wastage in education can
be curbed through the use of languages that most of the learners are familiar with.
Pluddemann, Peter. 2013. Language policy from below: Bilingual education and heterogeneity
in post-apartheid South Africa. Stockholm University.
The article investigates the status of language policy in education two decades into
democracy, and focus on the national language in education policy that advocates additive
bilingualism. The article argues for the use of speakers multilingual practices to foster
bilingual approaches in schools.

– How can English language skills be taught effectively in multicultural classrooms?
– Is the differentiation between English home language, English first additional language
and English foreign language necessary at high school level or is it furthering segregation
among students?
– Are the language theories used to teach languages in under developed countries effective?
– How can teacher education institutions adequately prepare student teachers to effectively
teach English in multicultural poverty stricken communities?
– What should the English teaching curriculum of the 21 century look like? Is the content
coverage presently used in both developed and developing countries adequately
preparing the learners to be effective members of their respective communities?
Luciana C. de Oliveira/Beth Clark-Gareca
Chapter 15
Collaboration between NESTs and NNESTs
Abstract: In multilingual contexts, most educators recognize the benefits of
working with other colleagues, but many may not be aware of the numerous
advantages that collaboration between native and non-native-English-speak-
ing teachers (NESTs and NNESTs). In this chapter, we explore and complicate
the labels native and non-native, and consider the ways in which collabora-
tions between Native English Speakers (NESs) and Non-native English Speakers
(NNESs) can be configured through relationship or context-dependent models.
Using examples from various aspects of their own practice, the authors discuss
their teacher education experiences in China, Indonesia, Brazil, and the United
States and how engagement with NES-NNES issues have helped them become
better teacher educators. The chapter concludes with recommendations for how
others can establish and maintain lasting collaborative relationships in their pro-
fession as well as identifying areas for future research related to NNEST and NEST
collaboration.
1 Introduction
The advantages of collaboration among teachers have become evident in many
pedagogical contexts (Hargreaves 1994; Little 1990). Collaboration has been
defined in multiple ways, but Brown and Stairs’ (2012) definition suggests that
true collaboration involves “creating a symbiotic relationship among partners
and viewing success as dependent upon shared values, commitments, and activ-
ities.” (p. 28). Many educators have worked collaboratively on research projects,
on books, on curriculum development, and in team teaching. Through such col-
laboration, these educators have not only accomplished more than they would
have achieved alone; they have also expanded their knowledge and honed their
skills through working with others. Much of the research that has been conducted
Note: The authors contributed equally to the development and writing of this chapter.
Luciana C. de Oliveira, University of Miami, USA

Beth Clark-Gareca, State University of New York, New Paltz, USA
DOI 10.1515/9781501504143-016
318 Luciana C. de Oliveira/Beth Clark-Gareca
on educator collaboration focuses on benefits to learners in that they receive the

enrichment of collective decision-making made by more than one educator. In
turn, there are also many benefits that the teachers themselves reap through
further development of held and new practices and expanding their instructional
repertoires with the help of others.
In multilingual contexts, certainly, most educators recognize the benefits
of working with other colleagues, but many may not be aware of the numerous
advantages that collaboration between native and non-native-English-speaking
teachers (NESTs and NNESTs) offers each collaborative partner. In this chapter,
the authors discuss these benefits, using examples from various aspects of their
own practice. They discuss their teacher education experiences in China, Indo-
nesia, Brazil, and the United States and how NES-NNES issues have helped them
be better teacher educators. Lastly, the authors conclude with recommendations
for how others can establish and maintain lasting collaborative relationships in
their profession and beyond.
1.1 The terms “native” and “non-native” English-speaker
Researchers have argued that the labels “native” and “non-native” are problem-
atic at best (e.g. Brutt-Griffler and Samimy 1999; Kamhi-Stein 2000a; Liu 1999) and
fairly useless at worst in their capacity to adequately encompass the myriad lin-
guistic repertoires of those who speak any language as their first language (L1) or
subsequent languages (e.g. Kaplan 1999). Research on non-native English-speak-
ing teachers has focused on these labels and their impact in the hiring process in
the context of the nativeness paradigm (e.g., Brutt-Griffler and Samimy 1999; Duff
and Uchida 1997; Liu 1999; Llurda 2005). The notion that “native” English speak-
ers are better teachers of English because of their fluency, idiomatic knowledge,
and cultural awareness has come under scrutiny (Brutt-Griffler and Samimy 1999;
Phillipson 1992). This tenet is known as “the native speaker fallacy” (Phillipson
1992: 195), and tends to persist in many English teaching contexts, despite the
flawed assumption that being a native speaker of a language gives a person insight
into the intricacies of that language, and therefore, special acumen with which
to teach others. Underlying the rebuttal to the “native speaker fallacy” is the fact
that there is little agreement as to what or whom the term “native speaker” refers
to (Kaplan 1999). However, those that are perceived as speaking another language
as their mother tongue are often labeled as NNES (Pasternak and Bailey 2004),
which may be accompanied by unfounded judgments about English proficiency
levels and by association, the ability to teach English well.
In spite of the problems in agreeing upon a precise definition of these terms,

English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) teach-
ers who are non-native English-speaking educators have become more visible
recently by bringing up their concerns regarding professionalism (Kamhi-Stein
2004). The number of research studies and articles related to NNES teachers in
TESOL has grown recently (e.g. Braine 1999, 2010; Kamhi-Stein 2004; Llurda
2005; Mahboob 2010), though the overall body of research related to NNEST is
still relatively small (Mahboob 2010).
2 Collaboration
Collaboration in academic environments is a mechanism for intervention, con-
versation, and support. Framed as working with another person or group toward
a shared goal (O’Connor and Sharkey 2004: 335), collaboration within educa-
tional settings has taken a new place of prominence as the field’s understandings
of best teaching practices has advanced. Through dialogue with partners and col-
leagues in a variety of school environments, new, creative teaching relationships
can be formed providing insights and mutual understandings between collabora-
tors (Hawkins and Legler 2004). Collegiality and professionalism among partners
can be enhanced as a result of collaboration, and group projects in schools are
gaining greater prominence because of their collective impact on multiple stake-
holders, including students, teachers, and administrators (Short et al. 2012). In
education, collaboration also contributes to partners’ satisfaction with a process
and the ensuing products that are created, largely because of the mutual invest-
ment that develops through partnerships.
There are many different models which reflect collaboration in academic set-
tings, which have been outlined by researchers (e.g., Dove and Honigsfeld 2010;
Honigsfeld and Dove 2012). For the purposes of this chapter, we will outline these
models in terms of the types of relationships that they describe, followed by the
ways context can have an impact and indeed, dictate these collaborations.
2.1 Relationship models of Non-native English Speakers

(NNES) -Native English Speakers (NES) collaboration
Collaborations between NNES-NES professionals utilize different structures

according to the intrinsic relationships between the partners. At times, these
relationships can be hierarchical, due to a basic lack of parity in the partners’
roles. In these cases, amount of expertise in the field is often the cause of these
hierarchies, with teachers with more experience taking on a mentoring role with
novice teachers. Different from hierarchical models, collaborative relationships
can also be configured as partnership models, with each collaborative partner
contributing equitably toward a shared goal. In these cases, the stature of the
partners is often similar without great differences in content knowledge or ability.
Looking through a linguistic lens, at times within NNS-NS relationships, lan-
guage proficiency or the perception of language proficiency can have an effect
on the configuration of these partnerships. Indeed, how the partners position
themselves depends on the individual member’s approach to the value of their
languages, their abilities in the various languages, and how linguistic difference
is negotiated throughout the partnership.
2.1.1 Hierarchical models of collaboration
Collaboration among colleagues within the field of education has become an

integral part of most programs educating pre-service teachers. The relation-
ship between a supervisor and a student teacher (Baecher 2012), and mentor-
ing between an experienced teacher to a novice teacher (Kissau and King 2015)
are both types of collaboration, though hierarchical at their core. This hierarchy
can afford less experienced teachers opportunities to benefit from the expertise
of their more experienced colleagues, and also affirm the value of experience in
educational settings. New teachers, particularly pre-service teachers working
with a supervisor or mentor, often report learning volumes from the guidance
and support they are provided while learning about the specific school context
in which they are working. In other hierarchical relationships, teacher leaders or
mentors can act as institutional agents (Russell 2012) to effect change in instruc-
tion or systems as a result of their higher expertise and status. Occasionally, these
hierarchical relationships can stifle the creativity or enthusiasm of new teach-
ers; however, more often than not, more experienced teachers find value in the
process of mentoring, and through renewal of their practice as they re-examine it
through the eyes of a junior teacher.
In her study, Russell (2012) identified a progression in a K-12 collaborative
hierarchical partnership between two teachers. In the first phase, a more expe-
rienced teacher acted as a coach for the less experienced teacher, reflecting a
large hierarchical difference between collaborative partners. Over time, this rela-
tionship between the teachers progressed to a co-teaching model in which the
partners had more equal roles in planning and instruction. Eventually, the collab-
oration was minimized in that the more experienced teacher provided on-going
consultative support to the less experienced teacher, with the eventual goal of
phasing out the collaborative partnership entirely. In this context, collaboration
was similar to an intervention which over time became increasingly unneces-
sary as the novice teacher became more competent in her role, though meetings
between the two teachers were still held to touch base and share techniques that
they had found to be effective.
2.1.2 Partnership models of collaboration
Other teaching models are based on the unique skills and techniques that each
member of brings to a partnership. Peer mentoring and co-teaching between
teachers in similar positions are examples of these types of partnerships. In peer
mentoring or co-teaching, two teachers share the responsibility for instructional
tasks in a classroom, and positional and hierarchical differences are diffused to
the extent possible to maximize teachers’ abilities to work together. These are the
primary models of collaboration in K-12 contexts.
All collaborative partnerships support what Honigsfeld and Dove (2010)
have called a collaborative inquiry process in which the goals of the partnership
are shared. The relationships between ESL teachers and content teachers in K-12
contexts can be very beneficial to both teachers, provided that each feels suffi-
ciently supported in the assigned role of peer, leader, mentor, or facilitator. These
relationships function best in what Russell (2012) has called a “culture of col-
laboration” (p. 446); where the strength and efficacy of broad, working, profes-
sional relationships result in better practices for students. Co-teaching has also
been found to be successful in K-12 environments with culturally diverse students
in that one teacher can speak to the children in their home language as well as
serve as a mediator between the children and the other teacher or with parents to
support mutual cultural understanding.
2.2 Context-dependent models of NNS-NS collaboration
The nature of collaboration is often influenced by the context in which the col-
laboration takes place. Within the field of TESOL, there are multiple logistical
components which affect partnerships, including geographical proximity of the
partners and instructional mandates which legislate curricular structures. Inter-
national collaborations between faculty members are one such type of partner-
ship, as facilitated by increasingly available technology. Similarly, teacher collab-
orations in the U.S. are on the rise due to new legislation mandating co-teaching
for ELLs in K-12 environments. These structures for collaboration are indicative
of recent developments, and reflect the ways in which collaborative models are
responsive to the advancing field.
2.2.1 International models
International scholarly collaborations in the field of TESOL are becoming more

and more common through technological innovation which permit exchanges of
ideas across great distances. Technological collaborations are becoming increas-
ingly a focus of research in TESOL through the field of Computer Assisted Lan-
guage Learning (CALL). Online platforms including discussion boards, online
conference calling (Mullings 2015), wikis, blackboard (Ouyang 2014) and use of
text messaging (Cosier et al. 2015) now allow for communication where logistical
barriers once impeded such collaboration from taking place.
In international contexts, the collaboration between native and non-native
teachers of English has been a current topic of inquiry, with recent studies in
China and Taiwan (Luo 2014) and Singapore (Said 2014) which have explored the
nature of the relationships between teachers. Luo (2014) investigated the Native
English-Speaking Teacher (NEST) Program which brought NESTs to teach in
primary schools in Taiwan, a common practice in Asia. Part of the program is
collaboration and co-teaching between local Taiwanese teachers of English and
NESTs. The study found that the NEST Program did not result in better instruc-
tion by local teachers, but had a positive impact on students’ learning as NESTs
were considered language model in the classroom and impacted students’ moti-
vation positively at the beginning of the school year. However, Luo found that
local teachers and students had negative opinions of the NESTs in the program
because these teachers often left unexpectedly. Focusing on the experiences of a
novice NNEST, Said (2014) explored the teacher’s identity shifts and how expe-
rience and socialization empowered him to achieve voice and participation in a
new community.
2.2.2 U.S. school models
Collaboration within K-12 environments between different instructional dis-

ciplines has also become a current area of research. In the US context, native
and non-native speaker teacher relationships have often been explored within
the context of bilingual education, as well as between ESL and content teachers
in school environments (Baecher et al. 2014; Baecher and Jewkes 2014; Bell and
Baecher 2012; Brown and Stairs 2012; DelliCarpini 2008; Monteil-Overall 2005).
Co-teaching models of ESL are currently mandated in certain school districts
and states for ELL instruction in the United States. These co-teaching relation-
ships are typically comprised of an ESL teacher and a content teacher, who share
instructional roles in classrooms where ELLs are included. Co-teaching models
of this sort provide greater inclusion for ELLs in classrooms and in schools, and
allow more opportunities for content and ESL teachers to share techniques and
knowledge through collaboration.
Within K-12 environments, collaboration has been found to be advantageous
in numerous ways. Bell and Walker (2012) identified the following shared bene-
fits for schools: 1) building a sense of community, 2) promoting creative teaching
across the curriculum, 3) developing purposeful, meaningful work for both teach-
ers and students, 4) allowing for professional growth for teachers, 5) forwarding
lessons which encourage academic achievement, and 6) sharing an investment in
students (Bell & Walker, 2012).
In K-12 teacher education classrooms, collaboration has also been examined
through a lens where pre-service teachers develop expertise in ESL K-12 methods
through collaborative tasks and assignments (Verplaetse et al. 2012; Short et
al. 2012). In their study, Verplaetse, Ferraro, and Anderberg (2012) look to the
effectiveness of group academic tasks, specifically, interactive research projects,
developing professional learning communities, and group responsibility to dis-
seminate collective knowledge necessary to build partnerships in schools. Simi-
larly, Short et al. (2012) studied a collaborative process in which a comprehensive
ESL curriculum was developed across districts for the purpose of being imple-
mented collectively for the English language learners (ELLs) in those districts.
Co-construction of knowledge was an integral part of the tasks that all these col-
laborators completed, and more broadly, is one of the great benefits of collabora-
tion between professional partners in any sphere.
Interestingly, the benefits of collaboration between NSs and NNSs in terms of
language exchange were not highlighted in any of the cited K-12 studies, which is
likely a reflection of the expectation that most ELL or content teachers in the U.S.
are NESs.
3 Collaboration between native and non-native

English speakers
Very few studies in TESOL have addressed collaboration between NES and NNES
teachers (e.g. de Oliveira and Richardson 2004; Matsuda and Matsuda 2004). In
our experiences, it seems that though educators in general recognize the benefits
of collaboration with other colleagues, many may not be aware of the numerous
professional and linguistic benefits attained by collaboration between native and
non-native-speaking educators. Collaboration is both desirable and unavoida-
ble, given the number of professionals with varied cultural and linguistic back-
grounds in the field (Matsuda and Matsuda 2004). In their study on the bene-
fits of collaboration between NES and NNES teachers, de Oliveira & Richardson
(2004) found NES and NNES teachers’ individual differences and similarities con-
tribute to collaborative relationships and enhance their understanding of their
students, their ability to teach more effectively, and their professional lives. The
collaborative associations benefit both professionals and, similar to mentoring
relationships, have to be two-way to be successful (for a detailed discussion of the
benefits of collaboration between NES and NNES teachers, please see de Oliveira
and Richardson 2004).
De Oliveira and Richardson (2004) recommend the following steps for the
development of collaborative associations: 1. Approach another individual and
express the wish to collaborate; 2. Use the opportunities that present themselves
to find possible collaborators. For example, graduate students taking classes
together in an MA TESOL program or teachers attending the same meetings can
try to find individuals who seem compatible and would like to collaborate; 3.
Remember that successful collaborations are likely to involve a blend of person-
alities; 4. Work at getting along well and respecting one another in what each has
to contribute to the relationship; 5. Each person needs to realize how much they
can gain from the collaboration. A NES teacher can gain just as much as a NNES
teacher in this type of collaboration.
Similarly, Matsuda (1999–2000) discusses a collaborative model of teacher
development based on what has been termed both-and logic, one in which “teach-
ers see themselves as members of a collaborative community in which they share
their special strengths to help each other out” (p. 10). This model emphasizes a
combination of NES and NNES teachers’ strengths. Matsuda and Matsuda (2004)
use this model to describe a journal sharing collaborative project in a teacher
education program. They report that teachers involved in the project learned from
each other through the linguistic diversity of the group and conclude that such
an experience in teacher education programs can lead to further collaborative
associations. Research on teacher collaboration highlights that collaborative

associations have much to contribute to educators’ lives (DiPardo 1999; Sgroi and
Saltiel 1998). Little research has been carried out on collaborative relationships
between NES and NNES educators. The community of TESOL educators would
greatly benefit from further research in this area.
4 Collaborative experiences of NESTs and NNESTs

In our experiences as teachers, both Luciana and Beth have had many opportu-
nities for collaboration with NESs and NNESs internationally and domestically.
Beth, who self-identifies as a native speaker of English, has enjoyed experiences
working with non-native English speaking colleagues in the field of TESOL in uni-
versity English departments in China and Indonesia. In both of these countries,
English was the sole language in which Beth interacted with her colleagues, and
thus, an NES – NNES paradigm was constructed. Because of the ability of her
colleagues, English served as a medium through which all members were able to
shared high levels of knowledge of pedagogy and research. These relationships
allowed for colleagues to engage in collaborative academic projects while they
were in the same country, as well as across the continents once Beth departed
for the US. Through her work in K-12 contexts as well, Beth has also mentored
and supervised NNES teacher candidates in the field of ESL. Toward the goal of
helping them negotiate the reality of public school classrooms, Beth collaborated
with some candidates in more hierarchical relationships related to preparing
them for classrooms and finding a job.
Nonetheless, there were occasional complexities within these collaborations
that presented some difficulty. Some of the NNES university English professors
that collaborated with Beth occasionally felt reticent to speak freely in English.
They monitored their English excessively because of insecurity in their commu-
nicative English ability, which was not a reflection of their proficiency in general.
A subtle hierarchy surfaced in these conversational and email relationships,
which was enacted through NNESs’ positioning. They would lament their lack
of fluency or mastery of English, and even apologize. This linguistic pressure felt
by her colleagues encouraged Beth to alleviate it in a number of different ways.
First, in face-to-face oral interactions, she implemented interlocutor strategies
such as wait time, maintaining eye contact, and clarification strategies in order to
emphasize the meaning of the communication, not its correctness. In those inter-
actions, collaborating in Mandarin or Bahasa was impossible because of Beth’s
lack of proficiency in those languages; thus, her appreciation of the English abil-
ities of her colleagues assuaged their apprehension to some degree. Their insecu-
rities tended to rest in their own adherence to the “native speaker fallacy”, as it
was held prevalently in their workplaces, but to which Beth did not ascribe. Beth
herself felt ill-equipped and apologetic at times with her inability to participate
with her colleagues in their L1s. She clearly recognized that the linguistic efforts
on the part of her colleagues were instrumental for such collaborations to take
place at all.
In Argentina, NES and NNES dynamics through professional collaborations
took a slightly different turn. Beth is a fluent, but non-native speaker of Spanish,
and thus, during her time teaching in the English department at the university,
Beth was able to collaborate with her colleagues by participating in both lan-
guages in faculty meetings, sharing in the design of curriculum, and exchang-
ing ideas about teaching TESOL in a US context compared to a foreign language
context. In conversations with university faculty there, all members were able to
make use of a multitude of linguistic resources through translanguaging (Garcia
2011), a dynamic linguistic process whereby speakers of multiple languages can
move in and out of all their languages for more robust communication. In this
case, because all members were proficient speakers of English and Spanish,
all members could speak in a fluid manner, and make decisions about which
language to use in given situations or to revert to in the case of misunderstand-
ing. This is not to say that there were no misunderstandings in these contexts;
however, any confusion in conversation was usually related to systematic dif-
ferences between university systems rather than cross-cultural or linguistic mis-
understandings. Translanguaging also allowed for greater fluidity of message
expression, and helped to diffuse any power differential held by a native speaker
of either language.
In the case of K-12 teacher education within the disciplines of bilingual edu-
cation and TESOL, NNES and NES supervisors in the field are frequently in the
position of mentoring student teachers whose linguistic repertoires are different
from their own. In these collaborations, language can become an area for negotia-
tion between the partners, especially if the positional hierarchy is in contrast with
linguistic expertise. For example, Beth has supervised a student teacher from
Russia (Tanya) who was pursuing ESL certification. Tanya learned her English
many years ago in Russia, and during an observation, it became clear to Beth
that despite her high level of proficiency in English, some of Tanya’s speech pat-
terns, influenced by both British English study and Russian transference, caused
her elementary ESL students to occasionally misunderstand her. In light of this
realization and drawing on her previous experience teaching EFL, Beth decided
to expand her role as supervisor to give the student teacher additional linguistic
feedback if she was interested. Apart from helping this student teacher under-
stand the typical dynamics of classroom practice, e.g., classroom management,

lesson planning, and the quality of the instruction, Beth cautiously approached
the student teacher to ask if she was interested in entering into a special NNES-
NES collaboration focused on receiving feedback about her English. Tanya had
been aware that intelligibility was a challenge for her, and was very eager to avail
herself of ways in which to become a better English teacher in a U.S. context. Beth
invited her to office hours to talk about her English study, analyze her spoken
English, and determine some easily implementable suggestions for improved
comprehensibility in the classroom. It should be noted that though Beth invited
the student teacher into this linguistic collaboration, the student teacher did not
have to participate; it was approached as a useful facet for Tanya’s education, and
a way for her to better position herself in the professional English teaching world
in the United States.
Luciana, a self-identified non-native English speaker, has engaged in col-
laborative associations with colleagues in Brazil and the United States. Luciana
worked with several other NNES professionals in Brazil on a variety of projects.
Most important in these collaborations were the kinds of relationships estab-
lished and the exchange of experiences based on everyone’s strengths and
knowledge. If communication happened in English, like in Beth’s experiences,
some NNESs occasionally felt reticent to speak freely in English and monitored
their English excessively. Though they knew that Luciana was also a NNES, they
perhaps perceived her to be more proficient than they were, so this caused them
to feel insecure about their English abilities. However, this insecurity sometimes
hindered the collaboration, and oftentimes Luciana had to tell her collaborators
to just feel free to say things in whatever ways they wanted so they could move
the collaboration forward. Sometimes the issue is not whether someone is a NES
or a NNES but lies in NNESs’ positioning with the other people with whom they
are collaborating.
In the United States, Luciana has also worked with many NES and NNES pro-
fessionals and being able to have open conversations about their collaborations,
things that were working or not working and negotiating roles, were all important
characteristics of these professional relationships. There are benefits in collab-
oration for all individuals involved, independent of self-identification as a NES
or NNES. For example, NES can learn about strategies utilized by NNES in their
learning of English and share those strategies with their students (de Oliveira
2011).
5 Components of successful NNEST and NEST

collaborations
We identify several important components for successful NNEST and NEST col-
laborations. These are based on our own experiences as well as the research base
on NNEST and NEST collaboration and co-teaching.
5.1 Patience
Patience is a key aspect of any collaboration and is especially important for

collaboration between NESTs and NNESTs. We noticed that patience involves
two-way understanding and empathy. Understanding relates to mutual agree-
ment and acknowledgement that collaborators may not agree on everything but
have to be patient and understand each other and their positions. Patience also
relates to understanding each other’s areas of expertise and acknowledging what
each collaborator can contribute to the collaborative association. It is important
to ensure that each member is knowledgeable and has something to contribute,
and remain patient as contributions are shared and explored. This component
also involves having empathy as it relates to the affective domain in teaching and
learning.
Empathy refers to affective factors that guide collaborators’ interactions with
each other. In the case of NESTs and NNESTs, empathy would relate to the ways in
which they interpreted and understood the difficulties that accompany cross-cul-
tural communication. By putting oneself in the role of the other, and striving to
understand the other’s challenges both in listening and speaking, patience is
required to arrive upon a mutually intelligible form of the language.
5.2 Communicative negotiation
This component refers to teachers’ skills to discuss issues with each other and
negotiate on aspects that are relevant for the collaboration. Negotiation can refer
to linguistic strategies used between conversation partners, such as asking clar-
ification questions when meaning is obscured because of misunderstanding.
Another example of such negotiation is when one collaborator summarizes the
topics of the other to further the conversation. This negotiation is important for
NES and NNES collaborators to ensure that they are not having parallel conversa-
tions, but are actually negotiating meaning and furthering their communicative
goals. One example of such negotiation is by employing the following techniques,

“if I understood you correctly, you are saying that we need to…”. These strategies
are useful in any collaboration regardless of language, but they are especially
useful when making progress or decisions. All collaborators should strive to have
good skills to maintain ongoing communication and discussion of teaching phi-
losophies as well as other aspects that relate to the collaborative relationship.
5.3 Cultural awareness, understanding and respect
This relates to knowledge about each other’s cultural expectations and informa-
tion. It involves the ability to become aware of our cultural values and beliefs and
perceptions and form a strong foundation for communication between collab-
orators. NESTs and NNESTs have to move beyond awareness, though, to really
understand where the other collaborator is coming from and communicate freely
about expectations and ideas which may or may not relate to each other’s cultural
backgrounds.
Cultural awareness and understanding also relate to the component of
mutual respect whichrefers to NESTs and NNESTs’ attention to each other’s areas
of expertise. Mutual respect is particularly important for NESTs and NNESTs
working together for the first time. Respect helps to develop a more productive
relationship for the future and acknowledges the capacities and knowledge base
of each individual as a key aspect of the collaboration. Occasionally linguistic
proficiency disparities can interfere with the mutual respect that colleagues must
develop to collaborate. In Beth’s case, not speaking the language of her colleagues
could have been a factor which undermined her ability to engage in meaningful
collaborations with them. Certainly, NNESs face challenges to their pedagogical
knowledge and expertise based on unfair judgments of their English abilities. By
demonstrating a stance of mutual respect for the components that all collabora-
tors bring to a project, these relationships tend to be more rewarding for all.
5.4 Flexibility
It is important, in any collaborative relationship, to be flexible and understand

each other’s backgrounds and experiences and be willing to adapt to different
situations, concepts, and ideas. This notion of flexibility is particularly relevant
when collaborators’ working styles may differ dramatically in terms of expecta-
tions of time, partnership, and relationships. For all members of a collaborative
effort, then, flexibility is a critical component for its success. When NNESTs and
NESTs work together as respected colleagues, all collaborators are empowered

by learning from each other and engaging in flexible adaptations that lead to a
better teaching and learning environment.
6 Suggestions for teacher education programs

Teacher education programs should encourage collaboration between individu-
als, independent of whether they self-identify as NES and NNES teachers. What
is important is that both NES and NNES teachers have strengths and areas that
need improvement, and to characterize their practice as simply that of a “native”
or “non-native” speaker is to oversimplify a vast repertoire of communicative and
academic language abilities that every teacher brings to the classroom. All ESL
teachers must be able to draw on their personal experiences to continue to grow
as professionals and continuing to learn about processes of developing language
or teaching techniques is an integral part of that process.
The most important element in establishing collaborative relationships is
that relationships and individual roles evolve. These associations have to begin
somewhere and teacher education programs are a great place to start these rela-
tionships. Programs which prepare teachers draw people from a wide variety
of backgrounds, so focusing on building collaborative learning communities
within our classrooms is essential. ESL teachers can learn from their differences
to build “communities of practice” (Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998) where
they interact, collaborate, and discuss issues of practice. Considering differences
in linguistic, cultural, and educational backgrounds may be a good start when
trying to establish collaborative and mentoring associations. Self-identification
as a NNES or NES does not equate to a definition of absolute characteristics.
Individual differences are an important consideration as they determine the dis-
positions, strengths, and weaknesses that make each teacher unique. Teacher
education programs should offer opportunities for all participants to draw on
and celebrate their different backgrounds to establish the kinds of productive col-
laborative relationships that lead to growth for both teachers and students at all
levels.
We suggest that extensive pre-service preparation focusing on collaboration
be available in teacher education programs. A possible course that focuses on
NNESTs and NESTs should address the needs of both groups of teachers with
the intention of helping them develop effective collaborative co-teaching and
co-planning skills. In addition, a key component could be individual sessions
aiming to improve mutual understanding between NNESTs and NESTs in relation
to the key components presented above: patience, communicative negotiation,

cultural awareness, understanding, and respect, and flexibility. Better under-
standing each other may lead to the development of further awareness about
students’ backgrounds and experiences. Working together enables teachers to
develop new teaching beliefs and practices, including new, creative, and effec-
tive lessons. Teachers lean from each other’s strengths which can be a source of
empowerment for them to make more informed teaching decisions. Focusing on
collaboration in teacher education programs can empower NNESTs to show their
strengths and skills enabling the improvement of their self-esteem (Kamhi-Stein
2000b).
7 Areas for future research

The area of NNEST-NEST collaboration still remains a topic of great interest. We
encourage TESOL professionals to continue to engage in research examining
NNEST-NEST collaboration and co-teaching, including the areas of planning,
teaching, student perceptions, among others. A possible key are of research
would be the nature of collaborative associations among various TESOL pro-
fessionals. In addition, we suggest moving beyond individual case studies to
explore collaboration in various parts of the world. Another unexplored context
is K-12 education where many TESOL professionals who are bilingual or multilin-
gual work alongside monolingual English speakers. This context would provide
opportunities to investigate various types of co-teaching assignments.
Other areas that could be explored include the specific benefits of collab-
oration for both groups of teachers – NNEST and NEST. For instance, research
questions could include: 1. What opportunities do NNESTs and NESTs have to
use their specific skills and abilities and how are they used in the collaborative
relationship? 2. What is the nature of NNEST-NEST collaboration? 3. In what ways
does NNEST and NEST collaborative strengthen their teaching and the learning
of their students? 4. How does NNEST-NEST collaboration lead to better teaching
materials? These are just a few of the questions that could be further investigated.
8 Conclusion
NNEST-NEST collaboration leads to several benefits for teachers and students.
The numerous advantages of this type of collaboration have been explored in
this chapter. Unfortunately, to this day, the native speaker fallacy still remains
powerful in many contexts around the world. We must continue to debunk this
fallacy so more and better opportunities can be given to NNESTs. Bilingualism
is an asset, so the experiences of teachers who are bilingual should be seen as
essential to any teaching situation.
Our exploration of different collaborative models shows some examples of
how collaborative associations can work in various contexts. The essential com-
ponents of successful collaborations could be used as a starting point for those
seeking to develop such associations. We hope this chapter contributes to the
existing literature on collaboration and co-teaching and helps the field move
forward in considering what different groups of teachers bring as strengths to the
profession.
9 References
Baecher, Laura. 2012. Feedback from the field. What novice pre K-12 ESL teachers want to tell
TESOL teacher educators. TESOL Quarterly 46(3). 578–588.
Baecher, Laura, Tim Farnsworth & Anne Ediger. 2014. The challenges of planning language
based objectives in content-based ESL instruction. Language Teaching Research 18(1).
118–136.
Baecher, Laura & Abigail Jewkes. 2014. TESOL and early childhood collaborative inquiry: Joining
forces and crossing boundaries. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 35(1).
39–53.
Bell, Angela & Laura Baecher. 2012. Points on a continuum: ESL teacher reporting on
collaboration. TESOL Journal 3(3). 488–515.
Braine, George. (ed.). 1999. Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Brown, Clara Lee & Andrea Stairs. 2012. Inclusion or Intrusion? Reculturing schools for
collaborative ESL instruction. In A. Honigsfeld & M. Dove (eds.). Coteaching and other
collaborative practices in the EFL/ESL classroom: Rationale, research, reflections, and
recommendations, 27–35. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Brutt-Griffler, Janina & Keiko Samimy. 1999. Revisiting the colonial in the postcolonial: Critical
praxis for non-native-English-speaking teachers in a TESOL program. TESOL Quarterly
33(3). 413–431.
Cosier, Meghan, Audri Gomez, Aja McKee & Kimiya Sohrab Maghzi. 2015. Smart phones
permitted: How teachers use text messaging to collaborate. Education and Information
Technologies 20(2). 347–358.
DelliCarpini, Margo. 2008. Teacher collaboration for ESL/EFL academic success. Retrieved from
http://iteslj.org/Techniques/DelliCarpini-TeacherCollaboration.html
de Oliveira, Luciana C. 2011. Strategies for non-native-English-speaking teachers’ continued
development as professionals. TESOL Journal 2(2). 229–238.
de Oliveira, Luciana C. & Sally Richardson. 2004. Collaboration between native and non-native
English-speaking educators. In Lia Kamhi-Stein (ed.). Learning and teaching from
experience: Perspectives on non-native English-speaking professionals, 294–306. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
DiPardo, Anne. 1999. Teaching in common: Challenges to joint work in classrooms and schools.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Duff, Patricia & Yuko Uchida. 1997. The negotiation of teachers’ sociocultural identities and
practices in postsecondary EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly 31(3). 451–486.
García, Ofelia. 2009. Bilingual education in the 21st Century: A global perspective. Madden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Hargreaves, Andy. 1994. Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the
post-modern age. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hawkins, Margaret & Lynn Legler. 2004. Reflections on the impact of teacher-researcher
collaboration. TESOL Quarterly 38(2). 330–343.
Honigsfeld, Andrea & Maria G. Dove. 2010. Collaboration and co-teaching: Strategies for
English learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Honigsfeld, Andrea & Maria G. Dove. (eds.). 2012. Coteaching and other collaborative practices
in the EFL/ESL classroom: Rationale, research, reflections, and recommendations.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Kamhi-Stein, Lía D. 2000a. Looking to the future of TESOL teacher education: Integrating
Web-based bulletin board discussions into the methods course. TESOL Quarterly 34(3).
423–456.
Kamhi-Stein, Lía D. 2000b. Adapting US-based TESOL teacher education to meet the needs of
non-native English speakers. TESOL Journal 9(3). 10–14.
Kamhi-Stein, Lía D. (ed.). 2004. Learning and teaching from experience: Perspectives on
non-native English-speaking professionals. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Kaplan, Robert. 1999. The ELT: Ho(NEST) or not Ho(NEST)?. NNEST Newsletter: The newsletter of
the non-native English Speakers in TESOL caucus 1(1). 5–6.
Kissau, Scott & Elena King. 2015. Peer mentoring second language teachers: A mutually
beneficial experience? Foreign Language Annals 48(1). 143–160.
Lave, Jean & Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Little, Judith Warren 1990. The mentor phenomenon and the social organization of teaching. In
Courtney B. Cazden (ed.), Review of Research in Education 16, 297–351. Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.
Liu, Jun. 1999. From their own perspectives: The impact of non-native ESL professionals on their
students. In George Braine (ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching,
159–176. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Llurda, Enric. (ed.). 2005. Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and
Luo, Wen-Hsing. 2014. An inquiry into the NEST program in relation to English teaching and
learning in Taiwanese primary schools. English Language Teaching 7(1). 149–159.
Mahboob, Ahmar. (ed.). 2010. The NNEST lens: Non native English speakers in TESOL.
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Matsuda, Aya & Paul Kei Matsuda. 2004. Autonomy and collaboration in teacher education:
Journal sharing among native and non-native English-speaking teachers. In Lia
Kamhi-Stein (ed.), Learning and teaching from experience: Perspectives on non-native

English-speaking professionals, 176–189. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Monteil-Overall, Patricia. 2014. Toward a theory of collaboration for teachers and librarians.
School Libraries Worldwide 11(3). 24–48.
Mullings, Delores. 2015. Bridging the learning gap: Cross-cultural learning and teaching
through distance. World Journal of Education 5(2). 1–9.
Murphy, Colette & Kathryn J. Scantlebury. (eds). 2010. Coteaching in international contexts:
Research and practice. New York: Springer.
Honigsfeld, Andrea & Maria G. Dove. (eds.). 2012. Coteaching and other collaborative practices
in the EFL/ESL classroom: Rationale, research, reflections, and recommendations.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
O’Connor, Arlene & Judy Sharkey. 2004. Defining the process of teacher-researcher
collaboration. TESOL Quarterly 38(2). 335–338.
Ouyang, John. 2015. Research-based review on educational technology related theories and
problem-solving oriented application of Blackboard in TESOL online instruction. In Michael
Searson & Marilyn N. Ochoa (eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology &
Teacher Education International Conference 2014, 1441–1449. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Pasternak, Mindy & Kathleen Bailey. 2004. Preparing non-native and native English speaking
teachers: Issues of professionalism and proficiency. In Lia Kamhi-Stein (ed.), Learning and
teaching from experience: Perspectives on non-native English-speaking professionals,
155–175. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Russell, Felice Atesoglu. 2012. A culture of collaboration: Meeting the instructional needs of
adolescent English Language Learners. TESOL Journal 3(3). 445–468.
Said, Ben. 2014. Teacher identity and narratives: An experiential perspective. International
Journal of Innovation in English Language Teaching and Research 3(1). 37–50.
Sgroi, Angela & Iris Saltiel. 1998. Human connections. In Iris Saltiel, Angela Sgroi & Ralph
Brockett (eds.), The power and potential of collaborative learning partnerships, 87–92.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Short, Deborah, Nancy Cloud, Patricia Morris, & Julie Motta. 2012. Cross district collaboration:
Curriculum and professional development. TESOL Journal 3(3). 402–418.
Verplaetse, Lorrie Stoops, Marisa Ferraro, & Ann Anderberg. 2012. Collaboration cubed:
Isolated mainstream teachers become ESL experts to school systems. TESOL Journal 3(3).
350–372.
Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Recommended reading
Braine, George. (ed.). 1999. Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
This book was the first to compile chapters about non-native English-speakers as
language teachers. This seminal work presents autobiographical narratives in the context
of sociopolitical issues and discusses implications for teacher education. This volume
provides an ideal introduction to the issues faced by NNES.
This book presents the latest research on non-native English-speaking teachers. It
provides a historical overview of the non-native speaker movement which began in the
19902 to counter the discrimination faced by these teachers and to determine their
causes. This is the first single-authored volume on the topic since the beginning of the
movement. The book summarizes the research on NNESs, describes the challenges faced
by NNESs, and encourages NNS teachers’ professional growth.
Kamhi-Stein, Lia. (ed.). 2004. Learning and teaching from experience: Perspectives on
non-native English-speaking professionals. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
This book is a collection of chapters focused on NNNESs, presenting a variety of views on
NNES professionals who teach at various academic levels in ESL and EFL settings-K-12,
adult education, community college, and university. Its sections focus on the theoretical
underpinnings, research, teacher preparation, and classroom applications specific to
issues facing NNES professionals.
Llurda, Enric. (ed.). 2005. Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and
This volume focuses on the identification of non-native teachers’, especially non-native
English speakers, specific contributions and main strengths. What is unique about this
book is its focus on different approaches to the study of non-native teachers: NNS teachers
as seen by students, teachers, graduate supervisors, and by themselves.

– This chapter discussed several issues related to collaboration between NES and NNES
teachers. What do you think are the similarities and differences between collaboration
between NES and NNES teachers versus collaboration among other professionals?
– The chapter also described components of successful collaborations based on the
authors’ experiences. What other components would you add to their list?
– How can collaboration be used in teacher education programs to better prepare all
teachers?
– How can we move beyond the dichotomy “native” and “non-native” to focus more on our
professional preparation in the field?
David Malinowski
Critical Afterword
“The native speaker is dead,” Paikeday famously pronounced over 30 years
ago, asserting that the resurrection of this mythical creature was less likely even
than the rise of the Abominable Snowman (Paikeday 1985: 3). Since that time,
countless others have articulated similar (if less colorfully worded) positions,
attempting to refute popular assumptions about native speaker-ness based upon
Chomsky’s notion of the “ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogene-
ous speech-community, who knows its language perfectly” (Chomsky 1965: 3).
Rampton (1990), for instance, argued that a language learner’s cultural inher-
itance and affiliation with a language community should be removed from the
native speaker concept, leaving just the notion of “linguistic expertise” up for
debate. As if in response, Cook (1999) pointedly asserted that even the linguistic
knowledge of L2 users is incomparable to that of monolingual L1 users; multi-
competent learners, he wrote, “for better or for worse, do not remain unchanged
by their new languages” (p. 194). And, resituating these descriptive assessments
in light of global imbalances of economic and cultural power, many others have
critiqued the monolingual bias and postcolonial régimes of truth that place the
(usually Western) ‘native English speaker’ as unmarked standard, while making
nonnativeness the ‘deficient’, marked case – one that, in fact, refers to the vast
majority of the world’s English speakers (e.g., Braine 2010; Kachru 1994; Kubota
2009).
Of course, as this volume amply demonstrates through its diverse and insight-
ful contributions, the native speaker is far from dead. Paikeday’s pronouncement
occurred at approximately the same time as Péter Medgyes’ own revelation of the
split personality, or “schizophrenia”, experienced by many non-native speaking
teachers of English (Medgyes 1983) and to this very day, the severity of the native/
non-native divide is felt nowhere more acutely than among English teachers
themselves. Certainly there is a need, as Liceras, Méndez, and Moreno (Chapter
3, this volume) indicate, for ongoing inquiry into (and, thereby, recognition and
validation of) ‘near-native varieties’ of English as unique and full systems of
meaning-making potential unto themselves. Yet, the ongoing symbolic violence
experienced by language teachers who find themselves on both sides of systemic
NS/NNS categorization (Derivry and Griffin, Chapter 2), despite students’ own
recognition of the many strengths of their teachers irrespective of ‘nativeness’
David Malinowski, Yale University, USA
DOI 10.1515/9781501504143-017
338 David Malinowski
(e.g., Guerra, Chapter 9; Levis, Sonsaat & Link, Chapter 10), gives ample cause for
Martínez Agudo to call for “a revised definition grounded in respect for human
rights” (Preface).
My own observations and experiences of native speakerism have attested to
Selvi and Rudolph’s (Chapter 12) remark that “teachers may…experience degrees
of privilege as a native speaking member of their local linguistic community,
while at the same time experiencing marginalization as NNEST Others in the same
instructional setting”. From my time in a Master’s program in TESOL at a univer-
sity in the United States, through years of work in both EFL and ESL settings, I
have witnessed (and, no doubt, perpetuated) the unequal distribution and vying
for capital among students in pedagogy trainings, colleagues in faculty meetings,
and teachers in classrooms. As a white, male, English-mother-tongue citizen of
the U.S., I have certainly benefited from this field of power relations more often
than I have lost, while experiencing angst witnessing friends and colleagues with
perhaps superior skills but different identity toolkits being accorded much differ-
ent treatment. As a believer in de Oliveira’s collaboration strategies of commu-
nicative negotiation, cultural awareness and respect (among others; Chapter 15,
this volume), and as a decidedly non-native speaker and teacher of Korean as a
foreign language, I concur with one of the book’s conclusions that “both groups
of teachers [NS and NNS] 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”.
However, as the 30 years since Paikeday’s and Medgyes’ first statements on
the matter amply demonstrate, much more than individual goodwill and cooper-
ative endeavors is needed. What can be done about the fact that, as Doerr (2009:
5) argues, “the hierarchy between ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ speakers is ultimately
not caused by linguistic elements but by social relationships between groups of
people who use these varieties,” undergirded as well by inequitable, diffuse, and
media-saturated flows of capital around the world? Authors within this volume
have suggested many profitable ways forward. Martínez Agudo’s focus on code
switching and appropriate use of learners’ L1 (Chapter 4), Oda’s insistence on
awareness-raising with respect to discourses of native speakerism in mass (and,
I would think, social) media (Chapter 5), Bayyurt’s argument for the importance
of a non-monocultural worldview (Chapter 7), Guerra’s recommendation for
changes in terminology (using the term “language expert” instead of “native
speaker”, for instance; Chapter 9), and Nagamine’s advocacy for a “context-sen-
sitive, location-specific pedagogy” (Chapter 8) are among these.
In particular, this last suggestion, taken in light of Selvi and Rudolph’s
(Chapter 12) poststructuralist focus on the “omnitemporality” of teachers’ iden-
tity negotiations, exposes a productive tension and gap that, I feel, speaks from
Critical Afterword 339
between the chapters of this book. Illustrated in both the intention of the volume
“to help to better understand the potential and professional challenges faced by
those teachers categorized as NSs and NNSs today all over the world” (Introduc-
tion; emphasis added) and most authors’ employment of these very categorical
labels (“native speaker”, “NNS”, “NESTs”, etc.) in their/our writing, the discur-
sive production of non-nativeness is both the problem addressed and, one could
argue, a product of our collective professional practice. In this sense, while I am
reassured by the collective wisdom of these chapters, I am also left hoping for
more situated, longitudinal, and ethnographically-oriented studies that demon-
strate just how non-nativeness is languaged and reproduced in everyday encoun-
ters. “The native speaker” may or may not be dead as an abstract truth; however,
in students’ and teachers’ conversations, in language schools’ advertisements,
in hiring committees’ decisions, and in the production of scholarly knowledge,
we know that native speakers are alive and well. It is up to us to show where they
came from, and help decide where, and how, they go.
References
Braine, George. 2010. Nonnative speaker English teachers: Research, pedagogy, and
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33(2). 185–209.
Doerr, Neriko Musha (Ed.). 2009. The native speaker concept: Ethnographic investigations of
native speaker effects. Walter de Gruyter.
Kachru, Yamuna. 1994. Monolingual bias in SLA research. TESOL Quarterly 28(4). 795–800.
Kubota, Ryuko. 2009. Rethinking the superiority of the native speaker: Toward a relational
understanding of power. In N. M. Doerr (Ed.), The native speaker concept: Ethnographic
investigations of native speaker effects, pp. 233–248. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Medgyes, Péter. 1983. The schizophrenic teacher. ELT Journal 37(1). 2–6.
Paikeday, T. M. 1985. The native speaker is dead! Toronto and New York: Paikeday Publishing
Inc.
Rampton, Ben. 1990. Displacing the “native speaker”: Expertise, affiliation, and inheritance.
ELT Journal 44(2). 97–101.
Notes on contributors
Yasemin Bayyurt is a Professor in the Department of Foreign Language Education at Boğaziçi
University, Istanbul, Turkey. She holds a BA degree in English Language Education from
Boğaziçi University, an MA degree in Language Studies from Lancaster University, UK, and a
PhD degree in Applied Linguistics from Lancaster University, UK. Her research interests include
investigating linguistic and pedagogical aspects of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF), inter-/
cross-cultural communication, ELF-aware teacher education, NESTs/NNESTs. Her publications
include articles in various refereed and indexed journals, and book chapters. She has also
co-edited several volumes published by well-known international publishers like Springer,
Peter Lang, De Gruyter, John Benjamins. Her recent edited volume entitled “Current Perspec-
tives on Pedagogy for ELF” is published in 2015 by De Gruyter, in “Developments in English as a
Lingua Franca Series”.
Beth Clark-Gareca is an Assistant Professor at the State University of New York, New Paltz
(USA). Her research interests include content-based assessment, second language acquisition,
and teacher education in K-12 contexts. Beth has taught ESL and Spanish in a variety of edu-
cational settings including adult literacy programs, community colleges, undergraduate and
graduate academic programs, and K-12 classrooms. She has conducted a variety of in-services
for public school teachers focusing on content-based language learning, cultural sensitivity,
and foreign language skills for the school environment.
Martine Derivry-Plard. As a Professor in English and Applied Linguistics at the University of

Bordeaux – School of Education, I teach pre-service and in-service language teachers and try
to develop learning environments to facilitate the integration of an inter-pluricultural approach
into language learning. My research interests are language teachers, social representations,
beliefs and ideologies on languages, cultures, and language teaching and learning. The design
of a plurilingual/pluricultural pedagogy is also part of my research focus. I am part of LACES EA
7437 a research group in cultures, education and societies.
Claire Griffin teaches English language and literature at the lycée Marguerite Yourcenar in Le
Mans, France. From 2004 to 2012, she worked at the Paris IUFM (La Sorbonne since January
2008) where she taught and tutored both qualified teachers and Masters students. In Novem-
ber 2012, Claire completed a doctorate at the Sorbonne nouvelle Paris 3 on the professional
identity of native English-speaking teachers in France since the Treaty of Maastricht. Her current
research focuses on the concept of transition in the professional lives of foreign-born teachers.
Luis Guerra is an Assistant Professor of English Language and Linguistics and the Director of
the Language Centre of the School of Social Sciences at the University of Evora, Portugal and
has a PhD in English Language Teaching/Applied Linguistics from the University of Warwick,
UK. He has extensive experience in ELT having taught in Brazil, the US, the UK, Spain and Portu-
gal. His research interests are English as a Lingua Franca/an International Language, native and
non-native varieties, the role of English in the Expanding Circle, language learning motivation,
intercultural communication and the use of technology in second language teaching/learning.
342 Notes on contributors
Mikyoung Lee received her PhD in Educational Psychology at University of Munich, Munich,
and MA in TESOL at Sookmyung Women’s University, Seoul. Currently she is working as a guest
researcher in the Department of Psychology at University of Munich as well as a lecturer in
the Department of TESL at Sookmyung Women’s University. She has experiences in teaching
English for eight years in South Korea. Her main areas of research interest are foreign language
acquisition, English education, achievement goals and achievement emotions, and teacher
emotions and emotional regulation.
John Levis is Professor of Applied Linguistics and TESL at Iowa State University, USA. He
teaches introductory linguistics, introduction to world languages, sociolinguistics, and TESL
pronunciation methodology. His articles on pronunciation and intonation have been published
in a variety of professional journals. He was co-editor for the Phonetics and Phonology section
of the Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (Blackwell) and for the new books, Social Dynamics
in Second Language Accent (De Gruyter Mouton) and the Handbook of English Pronunciation
(Wiley). He initiated the annual Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching
Conference and is founding editor of the new Journal of Second Language Pronunciation (John
Benjamins).
Juana M. Liceras is a Professor at the Department of Modern Languages and the Department of
Linguistics of the University of Ottawa and the director of the Language Acquisition Research
Laboratory [http://artsites.uottawa.ca/larlab/]. She is one of the two directors of the Spanish
Journal of Applied Linguistics (RESLA/SJAL) and member of the editorial board of several peri-
odicals, among them Second Language Research, Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism and
Lengua y Migración. Her research interests and publications deal with the relationship between
linguistic theory and language acquisition, comparative grammar, bilingualism, and language
contact. Her recent work is dedicated to the analysis of the relationship between: L1 and L2
acquisition; language acquisition and diachronic change; and non-native grammars and Pidgin
and Creole languages.
Stephanie Link is Assistant Professor of TESL/Applied Linguistics at Oklahoma State Univer-

sity (USA). Her research interests are in the use of complexity theory and systemic functional
approaches to assess students’ writing development. She is also interested in pronunciation,
specifically the distinctions between and attitudes towards native versus nonnative pronun-
ciation instructors. Her work has been presented at a number of international and regional
conferences, and her publications can be seen in TESOL Quartely, System and CALICO Journal.
Ahmar Mahboob teaches linguistics at the University of Sydney, Australia. Ahmar has worked in
the areas of English language learning/teaching, English language teacher education, identity
management, language policy & practice, minority languages, NNEST studies, pidgin and
creole languages, Systemic Functional Linguistics, and World Englishes. Ahmar has published
six authored/edited books, four special editions of journals, and over 50 papers and articles.
He is the Co-Editor of TESOL Quarterly (with Brian Paltridge).
David Malinowski is Language Technology and Research Specialist with the Center for Lan-
guage Study at Yale University. His primary research interest is in the active role of “place”
across online and community-based sites of language learning and teaching. His publications
address such technology-related topics as internet-mediated intercultural language learning
(telecollaboration) and course sharing with videoconferencing, on the one hand, and intersec-
tions between urban sociolinguistics, linguistic landscape and community-based language
learning, on the other. He holds a Ph.D. in Education from UC Berkeley, and is concurrently a
lector in the Korean Language Program at Yale.
Tintswalo Vivian Manyike is Associate Professor at the University of South Africa in the Depart-
ment of Language Education, Arts and Culture. She teaches both undergraduate and post grad-
uate students. Her area of specialisation is in English language teaching, bilingual education
and multicultural education. She has successfully supervised both master and doctoral student
to completion. She holds a doctoral degree in Comparative Education from the University of
South Africa and a Master’s degree in Curriculum and Instruction from the University of Wash-
ington, in Seattle, Washington.
Juan de Dios Martínez is Associate Professor of EFL Teacher Education at the University of
Extremadura (Spain) and Head of the Research Group in English Language Teaching and
Learning (ELTL). His current reÂ�search interests include second language acquisition, L2 class-
room discourse analysis, EFL teacher education, teacher learning and thinking, and cognitive
and affective aspects of L2 learning/education. He has published several books and research
articles on these areas in national and international publications. His most recent edited books
are Teaching and Learning English through Bilingual Education (Cambridge Scholars Publish-
ing, 2012) and English as a Foreign Language Teacher Education. Current Perspectives and
Challenges (Rodopi/Brill, 2014).
Arthur McNeill is Director of the Center for Language Education and Associate Dean of
Humanities and Social Science at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. He is
also adjunct professor at the Northeastern University in China. He was formerly Head of the
Education Department at Asian University, Thailand and Head of TESOL at Edinburgh Univer-
sity’s School of Education. He holds a PhD in applied linguistics from the University of Wales,
UK. His academic interests include second language vocabulary, teacher language awareness
and curriculum development. He has published numerous academic articles, chapters, books
and textbooks. Most recently, he is co-author of the forthcoming English for Academic Studies
(www.epigeum.com).
Péter Medgyes, CBE, is Professor Emeritus of Applied Linguistics and Language Pedagogy at
Eötvös Loránd University Budapest. During his career he was a schoolteacher, teacher trainer,
vice rector, deputy state secretary and ambassador of Hungary. He was a plenary speaker in 45
countries and is the author of numerous articles and books, including The Non-Native Teacher
(Macmillan, 1994, winner of the Duke of Edinburgh Book Competition), The Language Teacher
(Corvina, 1997), Laughing Matters (Cambridge University Press, 2002), Golden Age: Twenty
Years of Foreign Language Education in Hungary (National Textbook Publishing Company, 2011)
and Reflections on Language Education (2015, Eötvös Publishing House). His main professional
interests lie in language policy and teacher education, with a special emphasis on nonnative
English speaking teachers. He can be reached at pmedgy@gmail.com.
Nelson Méndez is a PhD student and a graduate instructor in the Department of Modern
Languages of the University of Ottawa and a member of the Language Acquisition Research
Laboratory [http://artsites.uottawa.ca/larlab/]. He holds an MA degree from the Universidad
344 Notes on contributors
Autónoma de Nuevo León, Monterrey, Mexico, and is presently investigating the variety of
Spanish spoken by Wayuunaiki speakers in La Guajira, Colombia.
Saúl Leonardo Moreno is a PhD student and a graduate instructor in the Department of Modern
Languages of the University of Ottawa and a member of the Language Acquisition Research
Laboratory [http://artsites.uottawa.ca/larlab/]. His research interests are language contact,
sociolinguistics and language acquisition. In his current research he investigates cross-lin-
guistic influence in highly proficient bilinguals with the aim of determining the extent to which
bilingual speakers show similar or dissimilar linguistic behavior as compared to monolingual
speakers.
Toshinobu Nagamine is Associate Professor of English Teacher Education at Kumamoto Uni-

versity, Japan, where he teaches English phonetics, research methodologies, and EFL teacher
education courses. He has also taught in positions in the United States as well as Japan. He
received an MA in TESOL from Murray State University, USA, and a PhD in Composition & TESOL
from Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA. His research interests include foreign language
education policy, teacher cognition and emotion, and EFL teacher education and development.
He has served as an editorial board member of the Asian EFL Journal and the Voices in Asia
Journal.
Masaki Oda is Professor of Applied Linguistics and the Director of Center for English as a Lingua
Franca at Tamagawa University in Tokyo, Japan. He is a frequent presenter at international
conferences whose academic interests include sociopolitical aspects of language teaching,
learner beliefs, and language teacher education. He has a Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics from
Georgetown University. Currently, he is a former chair of NNEST caucus of TESOL (2004–2005)
and currently a vice president of AsiaTEFL.
Luciana C. De Oliveira is Associate Professor of TESOL and Applied Linguistics in the Depart-
ment of Arts and Humanities at Teachers College, Columbia University (USA). Dr. de Oliveira’s
research focuses on issues related to teaching English language learners (ELLs) at the K-12
level, including the role of language in learning the content areas and teacher preparation
for ELLs. Her work has appeared in Teachers College Record, Journal of Teacher Education,
Journal of English for Specific Purposes, English Education, Multicultural Education, The History
Teacher, and other books and journals. She’s a member on the Board of Directors (2013–2016)
of the TESOL International Association.
Nathanael Rudolph is Assistant Professor of TESOL/Applied Linguistics at Mukogawa Women’s

University, in Nishinomiya, Japan. His research interests include postmodern and poststructural
approaches to language, culture and identity, equity in the field of English language teaching,
and the contextualization and teaching of English as an international language.
Paul A. Schutz is currently a Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at the

University of Texas at San Antonio (USA). His research interests include the nature of emotion,
emotional regulation, and teachers’ understandings of emotion in the classroom. He is a past
president for Division 15: Educational Psychology of the American Psychological Association
and a former co-editor of the Educational Researcher: Research News and Comment, a lead
journal for the American Educational Research Association. He recently published two co-edited
books that highlight current research on emotion: Emotion in education (2007) with Reinhard
Pekrun (Academic Press) and Advances in teacher emotion research: The impact on teachers’
lives (2009) with Michalinos Zembylas (Springer Publishing).
Ali Fuad Selvi is an Assistant Professor of TESOL and applied linguistics in the Teaching English
as a Foreign Language program at Middle East Technical University Northern Cyprus Campus,
and the Immediate Past Chair of the NNEST Interest Section in TESOL International Associa-
tion. He is the co-author of Teaching English as an International Language (2013) published
by TESOL Press. His article entitled The Non-native Speaker Teacher is one of the ten most
accessed articles by ELT Journal – Key Concepts in ELT readers (vol. 65/2).
Sinem Sonsaat is a doctoral student in the Applied Linguistics & Technology program at Iowa
State University where she has taught Critical Thinking & Communication Skills to the native
and non-native English speaking undergraduate students, and Academic English to the non-na-
tive English speaking graduate students. Sinem has presented her work at conferences such as
PSLLT, IATEFL, TESOL,and WorldCALL. Her research interests include pronunciation instruction,
CALL, materials evaluation & development, and L2 writing.
Stephen van Vlack is Assistant Professor in the Graduate School of TESOL at Sookmyung
Women’s University in Seoul, South Korea. He received his PhD from Trinity College, Dublin in
Applied Linguistics. He has been teaching language and linguistics for 20 years and has been
working as a teacher trainer for the last 15 years. He has published many textbooks, materials,
and reports on English education, in addition to studies in the field of applied linguistics. His
research focuses on the role of lexis in language and the environment in language learning.
Wolfgang Zydatiß worked as a Professor of TEFL at Berlin’s College of Education and Freie
University for almost 35 years after having studied and taught in both Germany and the UK.
Retired from active service at Berlin’s Freie Universität, he is presently ‘Senior Professor’ at the
Humboldt University in the EFL Department with the focus on CLIL. His main research areas were
(and still are): bilingual learning and teaching / CLIL, immersion, functional linguistics (esp.
academic literacy / proficiency) and foreign language teacher education. He has published
widely on many aspects of English language teaching.
Subject index
academic –â•ficollaborative inquiry process 321
–â•fiacademic language 7, 273, 282–285, 289, –â•ficomponents of successful collaborations 7,
292–293, 296, 304 332
–â•fiacademic language proficiency skills 296, collective decision-making 318
304, 308, 310 common knowledge 102, 107
accentedness 205, 208, 209, 212, 213, Competing Grammars Hypothesis 53, 55, 60
221–223, 225, 234 comprehensibility 171, 209, 212, 213,
age factor 4, 53–55, 57, 58 221–223, 225, 234, 327
anxieties vi, 5, 119–122, 124–134, 137, 174, Content, Cognition, Communication, Culture
180 (4Cs) 277
apprenticeship of observation 168 context-dependent models 317, 321
assistant language teacher (ALT) 162 Critical Period 4, 53, 54, 58, 59
attitudes cross-cultural 154, 183, 188, 326, 328
–â•filearner’s attitudes 6, 108, 131, 183, 185, crosslinguistic influence 4, 53
188, 189, 195, 205, 206, 208–210, 213, culture
214, 216, 218, 220, 221, 225, 236 –â•fiteacher’s cultural knowledge 6, 183,
–â•fiteacher’s attitudes 75, 79, 83, 88, 119, 122, 188–190, 193, 195, 258, 266
130, 157, 190
descriptive grammar 14, 169, 176
Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills dichotomy (NESTs / NNESTs) ix, 3, 47, 64,
(BICS) 176, 277, 308 100, 101, 111, 112, 115, 175, 260, 263, 335
beliefs discourse
–â•filearner’s beliefs vi, 5, 6, 99–102, 107, –â•fidiscourse style 4, 75
108–110, 112, 181, 183, 185, 188, 189, Dynamic Approach to Language Proficiency
205, 207–210, 212–214, 216, 218–221, (DALP) 24
225, 233, 237
–â•fiteacher’s beliefs 75, 79, 83, 124, 137, 168, ELF-awareness 139–143, 151, 153, 163
179, 271, 329, 331 emotional experiences 5, 119, 120, 122, 124,
bilingual approach 77, 314 133
bilingual tracks 273, 277, 278 English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) 2, 20, 110,
borders (of being, becoming and doing) 17, 139, 140, 143, 153, 194, 258
144, 258, 260–262, 266 English as an International Language (EIL)
border-crossing (translinguistic, transcultural, –â•fiEnglish as an International Language (EIL) â•‰
transnational and transacademic) 6, pedagogy 169
257, 263, 272 English language teaching vii, 2, 5, 7, 25, 41,
100, 103, 111, 112, 140, 141, 143–146,
classroom discourse v, 75, 76, 78–82, 93, 151, 153, 154, 158, 205, 210, 258, 259,
282, 283, 286 295, 306, 308, 309, 311
code-switching v, 4, 23, 53, 61, 75, 85, 88, English proficiency 5, 90, 119, 121–125,
286, 290 127–134, 164, 212, 297, 308, 318
collaboration English-only policy 80, 103
–â•ficollaborative experiences 7, 325 entextualization cycle 26–28
–â•ficollaborative relationship 317, 318, 320, essentialization (discourses of) 263, 264
324, 325, 329–331
348 Subject index
Fundamental Difference Hypothesis 53, 55, 57 mass media v, 5, 99–101, 103–105, 109, 112
3D framework 17–20, 28 medium of instruction 7, 161, 162, 295–298,
301–303, 305, 308, 309, 311, 312
gate keeper 100 metalinguistic awareness 4, 55, 60, 62, 239,
generic writing 273, 279, 287, 293 244
mode 17, 19, 20, 21, 26
identity monolingual approach 76, 77, 80
–â•fi(professional, linguistic, cultural) identity moving beyond native speakerism
(negotiation of) vii, 6, 41, 43, 142, (postmodern/poststructural/
143, 149, 151, 207, 255, 257, 259–262, postcolonial approaches to) 257,
264–267, 303, 322, 338 259–262
impossible profession 46, 51 multiculturalism x, 13
individual differences 7, 239, 243, 253, 324, mutual understanding 47, 319, 330
330
input processing 248–250 nativeness v, ix, 1–6, 11, 31, 142, 175, 205,
insecurities vi, 5, 119–122, 124–130, 209, 225, 318, 337
132–134, 137, 326 native-speakerism (ideology of) v, 3, 4, 40,
intelligibility 2, 6, 23, 142, 146, 152, 153, 171, 47, 51, 99, 100, 107, 110, 112, 114, 175
212, 327 near-nativeness v, 4, 53–55, 58, 59, 67, 73
intercultural NNEST lens v, 4, 13, 14, 17, 23, 24, 28
–â•fiintercultural perspective 33, 150 non-native teachers‘ self-awareness 163
interlanguage 53, 55, 56, 61, 74, 170, 174, non-nativeness ix, 2, 5, 142, 161, 175, 337, 339
244, 245, 250
international contexts 141, 144, 169, 322 omnitemporality (of SLTE) 264, 338
optionality 4, 53, 60, 61, 73
knowledge building 276, 279 ownership of English 142, 143, 147, 151, 152,
154
language
–â•filanguage affiliation 195, 203 pedagogy 3, 6, 20, 76, 80–82, 143, 149, 166,
–â•filanguage dominance 54 169, 175, 176, 206, 262, 271, 272, 325,
–â•filanguage expertise 195, 203 338
–â•filanguage inheritance 195, 203 persuation 110
–â•filanguage policy 5, 24, 26, 99, 297, 302, plurilingual/pluricultural paradigm 47
309, 314 prescriptive grammar 14, 15, 165, 168–170,
–â•fi(teacher’s) language proficiency x, 6, 24, 176
26, 37, 79, 80, 121, 122, 131, 133, 136, processing instruction 248, 250
137, 183, 184, 188, 189, 193, 194, 203, professional identities 6, 163, 174, 177, 257
212, 236, 320 professionalism 6, 205, 208, 319
–â•filanguage teaching field 33–35, 37, 47, 53 pronunciation
–â•filanguage variation v, 4, 13, 14, 16–20, 23, –â•fipronunciation teaching 6, 180, 205, 209,
24, 26, 28, 31, 274 213, 225
–â•filanguage-based theory of learning 276
–â•filanguage-sensitive approach to content racism 51, 107, 114
learning 282, 283
legitimacy 34–38, 47, 162, 206, 257 second language acquisition 64, 240, 245
legitimate peripheral participation 45 second language teacher education (SLTE) â•‰
local languages 13, 14, 24–28, 32 81, 92, 257, 262, 263, 265, 267, 272
Subject index 349
self-perception vi, 5, 119–122, 124, 130, 134, teaching behavior 122, 136, 174, 183, 188,
137, 148, 207 189, 193, 195, 203
self-perceived L2 competence 5, 75, 79, 80, textbook authorization 161, 172, 173
84, 85, 88, 90, 92, 119, 121–124, 127, three circles model 144, 157
130, 133, 134 types of knowledge 161, 167, 168, 170
sensitivity to language learning
difficulties vi, 6, 239, 240, 244, 245, ultimate attainment 54, 55, 57, 58, 67
249 users 1–3, 7, 15–20, 22, 23, 40, 78, 102–104,
SNS (Social Network Services) 99, 102, 104, 111, 140, 144, 151, 153, 154, 157, 158, 162,
112, 115 169–171, 173, 194, 195, 257, 260, 263,
Sociocultural Theory (SCT) 7, 273, 280, 292 266, 267, 306, 307, 337
symbols uses 16, 17, 19, 21, 24, 151, 266, 267
–â•fisymbolic power 35, 36, 38
–â•fisymbolic violence v, 4, 33, 35, 36–48, 51, varieties of English 1, 2, 15, 17, 21, 111, 140,
337 151, 153, 154, 157, 208, 258, 337
Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) 20, vocabulary 63, 78, 89, 121, 122, 129, 161,
273, 279, 292 164, 165, 167, 183, 186, 188, 189, 197,
198, 206, 207, 217, 241–246, 249–250,
teacher code-switching (CS) v, 4, 23, 53, 284, 301
75–93, 97
teacher education programmes v, vi, vii, 2, working memory 248, 250, 252
4–7, 13–16, 24, 28, 75, 81, 92, 140, 164, World Englishes 1, 15–17, 19, 20, 153, 157,
240, 244, 245, 247, 250, 262, 264, 265, 258
267, 272, 324, 330, 331, 335
teacher educators (roles of) 259, 264, 265, Yakudoku 165, 166
267
teacher language awareness 6, 239, 240, Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) 78, 281,
244 300

Capture 44

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Capture 44

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo (Ed.

Professional Challenges and Teacher Education

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin

Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo

Part I Overall issues and perspectives on (non)nativeness

Martine Derivry-Plard/Claire Griffin

Juana M. Liceras/Nelson Méndez/Leonardo Moreno Mancipe

Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo

Part II Non-native L2 teachers’ emotions and perceptions

Mikyoung Lee/Paul A. Schutz/Stephen van Vlack

Part III L2 students’ beliefs and expectations of native and

John Levis/Sinem Sonsaat/Stephanie Link

Part IV Construction of professional identity: Professional

Tintswalo Vivian Manyike

Luciana C. de Oliveira/Beth Clark-Gareca

Notes on contributors 341

Subject index 347

Certainly not! Any non-native speaker who engages in genuine communication

Juan de Dios Martínez Agudo, University of Extremadura, Spain

Overview of the volume

The book’s audience

Acknowledgements: First and foremost, I must express my deep gratitude to all

Ahmar Mahboob, University of Sydney, Australia

will consider the implications of the NNEST lens in developing an understanding

2 Understanding language and language

Figure 1: The 3D framework of language variation.

The first dimension of variation in language in the framework relates to who we

this variation is understood as register variation, a concept used extensively in

Table 1: Eight domains of language variation based on the 3D Framework.

Domains Study in linguistics Example

1 Local, oral, everyday Dialectology, World Family members planning their

2 Local, written, Dialectology, World Old school friends exchanging

3 Local, oral, Need more attention Members of an Aboriginal commu-

4 Local, written, Need more attention Newsletter produced by and for a

5 Global, oral, ELF (English as a Casual conversations amongst people

6 Global, written, Genre studies; tradi- International news agencies report-

7 Global, oral, ELF; Language for Conference presentations

8 Global, written, Language for specific Academic papers

3 Using local languages

In addition to being the context of development of some of the major approaches

theorizing languages – as discussed in detail in the previous section. Language,

Questions for reflection and discussion

Martine Derivry-Plard, University of Bordeaux, France

2 Historical background of the language teaching

3 Symbolic violence expanding from the native/

certain speech situations strongly dependent on monolingual norms. However,

3.1 English teachers in France and symbolic violence

Depending on educational contexts, language teaching legitimacies have taken

3.2 Symbolic violence in people’s minds and in words

Based on in-depth interviews of 19 native English speaking teachers (NESTs)

1 Publications by SIHFLES (Société Internationale de l’Histoire du Français Langue Etrangère/

4 Deconstructing native teachers’ competences

the purpose of qualitative triangulation on Nests and native teachers of other

An illusory Pandora’s box

By making an effort to understand the other, Bess manages to distance herself

The only person who can speak English…crunch!

Sometimes, other people’s projections or preconceptions can put NESTs in an

Adele, one of the native Italian-speaking teachers who agreed to be interviewed

Peripheral participation because I’m a “native”?

Turning things around: every rose has its thorn

In this complex profession, or as some might say, impossible profession (Britzman

2 Understanding language and language

3 Using local languages

2 Historical background of the language teaching

3 Symbolic violence expanding from the native/

3.1 English teachers in France and symbolic violence

3.2 Symbolic violence in people’s minds and in words

4 Deconstructing native teachers’ competences

5 Conclusion: Towards intercultural language

2.1 The Interlanguage Hypothesis

2.2 The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis

2.3 Near-nativeness: Ultimate attainment and the age factor

2.4 L2 near-nativeness: the view from the pidgin/creole

2.5 Optionality and the Competing Grammars Hypothesis

2.6 Interlanguages as I-languages: Representation versus

2.7 The good language learner

2.8 Goajiro Spanish and Uwa Spanish: the good language

3.1 Context and participants

3.2 Data collection instrument and procedure

3.3 Results and discussion

2 The discourses of ELT and the general public

3 Mass-media and the discourses of native

4 Learner beliefs and language awareness

5 Overcoming native-speakerism: A challenge of a