Native and Non-native: A Controversial Idea of English Teacher

Native and Non-native: A Controversial Idea of English Teacher The importance of English as a medium of international communication During the interview in May 2009, Chomsky accepted that English has been perceived as an international language since the Second World War (Chomsky, 2009). English, as it is clearly perceived as the global language, is extensively taught, learned, read, and spoken for different intentions in the world of globalisation. Kachru (1985) divided the spread of English as an international language into three categories: the Inner Circle, the Outer Circle and the Expanding Circle. Such circles have each unique characteristic in terms of “the types of spread, the patterns of acquisition and the functional domains in which English is used across cultures and languages”. To clearly describe, the Inner Circle refers to the traditional bases of English (UK, US, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Canada, South Africa, and (some) Caribbean countries), the Outer Circle are countries where English is important for historical reason (British Empire). It includes India, Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania, Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, etc. For the Expanding Circle, Kachru refers to countries where English does not serve as political or historical roles, but extensively learned and spoken as a foreign language e.g. some European countries, Russia, Egypt, China, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, etc (Kachru, 1985, p.12). He also stated in his book The Alchemy of English (1986) that knowing English is like possessing the fabled Aladdin’s lamp, which permits one to open, as it were, the linguistic gates to international business, technology, science and travel. In short, English provides linguistic power. (as cited in McKay, 2006, p. 117) Consequently, English plays an important role internationally because it is used as the medium of communication, negotiation in both native and non-native English speaking countries (Wiriyachitra, 2010). In summary, people around the world speak different languages. To communicate internationally, one language is accepted as a lingua franca. Such language is unquestionably English (Fromkin et al. 2007, p. 433). As a teacher whose learners come from diverse careers, I have been emphasised the importance of English, for it is considered no longer a required course in college but a vital factor in everyday life. English has become a medium of international communication. Not only fluent English communicative skills at workplace but also the ability to express their feeling and opinion with foreign friends, farang partners, to leisurely chat via instant messaging such as MSN and Yahoo! Messengers, even to improve their self-confidence and personality, is eagerly needed. The importance of English learning in Thailand In Thailand, English is considered a required course at schools from primary to tertiary levels. Kanoksilapadham stated that The Ministry of Education has included it in the Basic Education Curriculum since 1895 (as cited in Siriphotchanakorn, 2005, p. 1). Besides learning the language in ordinary classroom, Thai learners strive constantly to improve their English skills at language institutes which serve their various purposes, for example, English conversation, Business English, Writing, TOEFL, IELTS, TOEIC courses, etc. Moreover, some of them ungrudgingly pay a large amount of money for any private language schools which are renowned. Due to such great demand the business in this field is dramatically increased. Numerous English language institutes can be seen in Bangkok. The overview of learner’s expectation and attitudes toward English teachers A critical factor for ESL/EFL learners when considering English language learning (ELL) is the ones who teach them. Such consideration urges learners to continue questioning whether their teachers are native speakers (NS) or non-native speakers (NNS). Moreover, questions like “which nationalities would be preferable?” will come after. The mentioned perception can be commonly seen on newspapers and the internet; for example, the advertisements containing the texts like “Native English speaker only (UK, USA, AUS, NZ, CAN)” or “English teacher American/British only wanted” obviously shows the so-called requirement (Watson, 2006). Presumably, nationalities (ethnicities) of teachers have always been preliminarily valued the centre of attention in ELT/ELL. In Thailand, EFL learners also seem to pay too much attention on nationalities of teachers (and especially on accents) while teaching and learning efficacy in classroom is beyond caring. Surprisingly, this seems to be a norm among Thai learners. From my experience, students, who first register a particular English course at my language school, often question and worry about nationalities and accent of teachers (it seems like they prefer the American or British). Moreover, students, whose English proficiency is considered very low according to their pretest, still have great expectation in learning with native speaks. In my view, it seems like Thai learners share such a common paradigm which is difficult to change. Phothongsunan et al. (2008) explained that even though numerous research studies in ELT have been conducted, a single perfect teaching model (NS or NNS) is still arguable. There is only a crystal clear point which appears to be vastly accepted that NS teachers are superior in linguistic authenticity and naturalness. In Hong Kong, according to Tang (as cited in Phothongsunan et al., 2008, p. 14), ESL learners also believe that NS teachers are superior to NNS teachers in terms of linguistic authenticity and naturalness, but the learners, did not mention their ideal type of teacher. Similarly, Inbar (2001) found that the superiority in the so-called authenticity and naturalness of the NS teachers’ are also undoubtedly accepted in Israel. In contrast, it is reported that the NNS teachers have better social interaction with the students. In addition, the students feel more confident when being taught with their first language. Liu’s (as cited in Phothongsunan et al., 2008, p. 14) study revealed that both native and non-native participants in the United States did not give value to the notion of being the best ESL teacher because “such a taxonomy would not sufficiently represent the true nature of being a speaker of a language and would then diminish the experiences and language skills of ESL professionals” (p.14). Native speaker characteristics Who are the native speakers? Generally speaking, the native speakers (NS) being discussed in this paper refer to the people whose mother tongue is English. They are indigenous populace of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK), the United States of America (USA), Australia (AUS), New Zealand (NZ), and Canada (CAN). Linguistically, Bloomfield defined that the first language that one acquires in his/her formative years is called his/her native language. The language acquisition after the L1 is not counted as a native language (as cited in Liaw, 2004, p. 34). In their Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics, Richards et al. (as cited in Liaw, 2004, p. 35) identified the definition of the native language as “the language that a person acquired in early childhood. This is usually the first language introduced to the child.” However, Richards et al. argued Bloomfield that “the language learned after some knowledge of another language introduced by other older family members or babysitters can also be considered a “native language” according to their definition. Native language is not limited to the language learned in a strictly defined context and individuals can be native speakers of more than one language (p. 35).” Non-native speaker characteristics Who are the non-native speakers? In contrast to the definition of being an English native teacher, one who is labeled “a non-native speaker” is definitely a teacher whose L1 is not English. He/she can be anyone who speaks English as a second or foreign language. Pedagogically, non-native speaker (NNS) for ESL/EFL can be divided into two varieties: a nativized and a lingua franca (Kirkpatrick, 2006). The nativized one in Kirkpatrick’s idea refers to local teachers in the particular ESL/EFL contexts. For example, the ones who can be called the nativized teachers in Bangkok Christian College in Bangkok are Thai teachers who teach English under Thai circumstances i.e. culture and norms. The lingua franca ones would be, for example, Filipino, Indian, Nigerian, and etc. who own different cultural perspectives. In other words, the lingua franca teachers speak English as a global language (World Englishes). They may not speak Standard English (British and American English). The lingua franca variety can be easily perceived as Filipino teachers in Thailand. Differences between native and non-native teachers According to such dichotomy mentioned above, the differences in each English variety are consequently documented in a contrastive aspect. As partly referred to earlier in the overview of learner’s expectation and attitudes toward English teachers, native (UK, USA, AUS, NZ, CAN) and non-native (nativized and lingua franca) teachers are pedagogically different in two main aspects: linguistic competence and teaching style. Linguistic competence According to Phothongsunan et al. (2008), an extended group of Thai teachers who teach English (TET) also perceived the NS teachers (their colleagues) linguistic superior. Moreover, the so-called NS model is thought to be the best model for speaking and listening class (p. 19). Not only Thai teachers in Thailand but also a group of non-native teacher in UK universities realised such superiority. In Mousavi’s study (2007), for example, one of the NNS participants mentioned that she occasionally considered her linguistic inferiority to that of her NS colleagues, and it caused nervousness when talking with them (Mousavi, 2007, p. 36). Since the native speakers of English perform the use of linguistic authenticity flawlessly, it is accepted that the NS teachers are undoubtedly superior to the NNS ones in linguistic competence. However, the nonnative-speaking teachers are not marginal because they are equipped with preferable pedagogic strategies, and they can professionally decrease language difficulties (Auerbach, 1993; Phillipson, 1992, Medgyes, 1994 as cited in Liaw, 2004). In addition, the NNS model or Thai English teacher (TET) is believed to be the best model for reading and writing classes (Phothongsunan et al., 2008, p. 20). In contrast, some scholars may question the error-free linguistic ability on those NS models. Watson (2006) is one of them who collected the authentic spelling errors from a corpus of NS use of English. The following errors may emphasize the devotees of the superior NS model to reluctantly accept the NS errors which are, for example, given below: … losing it in paridise … … one of the most important facters in regard to time manegement … A comparisson of accents … The song “All ways look on the bright side of life.” … to find out the rules of language for themselfs. Ultimately, being non-native speakers whose linguistic competence is inferior is not the end of the world, since they are still talented in using their L1 for scientific explanation such as the rules of language. In this case, especially in the class that students are not advanced, non-native teachers need to utilize their L1 (e.g. Thai, Chinese, Japanese, etc.). Kirkpatrick (2006) noticeably supported the NS model especially the nativized one by stating: Being also able to speak the languages of their students, these teachers are able to use the linguistic resources of the classroom. Far from feeling guilty about this, they should feel proud of their multilingual prowess. It is really hard to see how a monolingual native speaker can, necessarily, provide a better model and be a better language teacher than a multilingual teacher who understands local cultural and educational norms. (p.76) Not only Kirkpatrick but also Árva and Medgyes (Árva et al. 2000 as cited in Madrid et al. 2004) agreed that being a monolingual teacher (e.g. a native speaker who speaks only English) in Expanding Circle sometimes cause pedagogical obstacle i.e. grammar explanation. The NS teachers might mention: “My students in the beginning level might not understand grammar rules when I explain in English” or “If I could speak their own language, the students might clearly understand”. Similarly, Ling’s (2007) study revealed students’ negative attitude toward their NNS teachers (Chinese) in Hong Kong which partly stated: I studied in a Chinese-medium secondary school. The local English teacher conducted the English lesson in Chinese, and it was easier for us to understand the English lessons. My NNS English teacher from was a good teacher. She explained everything clearly to us. If we had problems, she tried to solve our problems and explained in Cantonese. I believed a good teacher was like this. (p.265) Teaching style As a user and teacher of English, I always realize the differences in one main aspect between the NS and NNS teachers. It is apparently teaching style. Such difference might derive from linguistic competence (Árva et al. 2000 as cited in Madrid et al. 2004). Due to the fact that the NS teachers are linguistically superior, they appear to be flexible by assigning fewer homework and quiz, but classroom activities. On the contrary, the NNS teachers seem to favour the traditional methods like grammar-translation and audiolingualism. Moreover, they mainly focus on grammar rules and language accuracy, and they appear to over-correct students’ works which upsets them sometimes (Ling, 2010). While their native counterparts emphasized on fluency, oral skills or colloquial registers (Liaw, 2004). Pedagogically, one reason why the NNS teachers often depend on teaching material is that they are less confident. However, being less confident surprisingly seems to be profitable as it was stated in Phothongsunan et al. (2008): “Because Thai teachers are less confident, they are very careful when teaching, which becomes an advantage because materials to be taught would be meticulously examined before teaching” (p.20). Such preparation leads to professional pedagogy. Even though the NS teachers might not be well-prepared, their nativeness is still gigantically beneficial for class, i.e. student are highly motivated to speak out in English. Conclusion Through numerous studies mentioned above, it must presumably be adequate for one’s personal judgment for the appropriate variety of English teacher for the particular purpose. In my view, the NNS teacher (local teachers teaching in English classroom) would be favourable, especially the nativized one, but it does not mean that the NS teacher is improper. To highly value such variety, I consider multiplex circumstances. Besides innate linguistic competence, nativized teachers seem to be profitable for their local students since they are considered more sympathetic to the learners. In other words, they have good relations with their students. Inbar (2001) described that the local teacher in Israel are confident to employ local language in English classroom in order to facilitate teaching, and they have better relations with their students than the NS teachers do. Thai students, seemingly, are also well understood by their local English teachers (from primary to tertiary level), for the two groups share culture and social value. Pedagogically, the TET had learned and practised English before, so they are fully experienced in learning and teaching strategies with various approaches. The TET, furthermore, are more qualified since they obtain higher education in linguistic areas, for example, the majority of university lectures have acquired Master’s or Doctoral Degrees in TEFL, TESOL, TEIL, and other related areas while most of the native teachers in Thailand have only Bachelor’s one in unrelated field. Unfortunately, the NS one is sometimes devalued as “a young chap messing about in sneakers” (Madrid, 2004) because of their immaturity and knowledge deficiency. According to the mentioned preference, one would oppose my idea by citing Sobkowiak (as cited in Tomlinson, 2006, p. 134) which stated: This would disadvantage learners when they do have to communicate with native speakers. This does not follow as a logical conclusion from statistics about the limited number of people who actually speak RP and about the intelligibility of non-native phonology. Numerous research projects have demonstrated that learners of English value RP highly. This would lower learner objectives and achievement. (p. 134) In my way of thinking, ultimately, what matters most is not being a native or non-native teacher but the effectiveness in global communication in the world of globalisation. Whatever variety or accent of English that ESL/EFL learners speak, the common goal is absolutely to generate effective communication with their interlocutors. As a consequence, my ideal ESF/EFL teachers, as I mentioned, are nativized ones who equipped with first-hand L2 learning experience, language learning strategies, particular cultural literacy, and sympathy. The innate linguistic competence as well as authentic accents is beyond caring since we live in the interconnected world in which English is considered a lingua franca. Pedagogically, those nativizd teachers can intelligibly provide varieties of World Englishes into the classroom both the so-called Standard English (British and American English) and a lingua franca one way or another. Finally, the issue to be emphasised is lingua franca English presenting linguistic differences from other varieties of English e.g. grammar, vocabulary, discourse and pronunciation. Such a unique variety, in my view, should be presented in not only EIL but also in ESL/EFL classroom. This would help to support the effectiveness in global communication. I agree with the idea “focus on one and learn the others” for learners could widen their intelligibility of English as a global (international) language. In business English class, for example, teachers may present some distinctive characteristics of Chinese English when it comes to conversation unit. In their book, World Englishes in Asian Contexts, Kachru and Nelson (2006) described that: In discourse, greeting and saying goodbye routines are expressed by the following expressions, respectively: Have you eaten already? Walk slowly slowly ho. Slow slow walk aunty. Use of uncle and aunt for people of an older generation is common, as in I fell off my bike and two kind aunts (ladies) helped me to the hospital. (p. 170) In order to be an ideal nativized teacher, one must train (and be trained) him/herself considerably in linguistic competence and performance. Since we are not native speakers of English, it does not mean that teaching ability is privileged to those who were innately born with linguistic competence. ………………………………… References Chomsky, N. (2009, May 19). Interview: Noam Chomsky. Retrieved March 4, 2010, from Noam Chomsky website: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20090519.htm Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. 2nd edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2007). An introduction to language. 8th edition. Boston, MA: Thomson Wadsworth. Inbar, O. (2001). Native and Non-Native English Teachers: Investigation of the Construct and Perceptions (Unpublished dissertation). Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. Kachru, B.B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk and H. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11-36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kachru. Y, & Nelson, L. C. (2006). World Englishes in Asian contexts. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kirkpatrick, A. (2006). Which model of English: Native-speaker, nativized or lingua franca?. In R. Rubdy & M. Saraceni (Eds.), English in the world (pp.71-83). London: Continuum. Liaw, E. C. (2004). “How are they different?” A comparative study of native and nonnative foreign language language teaching assistants regarding selected characteristics: Teacher efficacy, approach to language teaching/learning, teaching strategies and perception of nativeship (Unpublished dissertation). Ohio State University, Ohio. Ling, C. Y. & Braine, G. (2007). The Attitudes of University Students towards Non-native Speakers English Teachers in Hong Kong. RELC Journal, 38(257). doi: 10.1177/0033688207085847 Madrid, D. & Canado, M. L. P. (2004). Teacher and student preferences of native and nonnative foreign language teachers. Porta Linguarum, 2. Retrieved from http://www.ugr.es/~portalin/articulos/PL_numero2/7%20Preferences%20for%20native%20and%20nonnative%20FL%20teachers-D%20Madrid%20&%20M%20L%20P%20Cagnado.pdf McKay, S. L. (2006). EIL curriculum development. In R. Rubdy & M. Saraceni (Eds.), English in the world (pp.147-129). London: Continuum. Mousavi, S.E. (2007). Exploring ‘teacher stress’ in non-native and native teachers of EFL. ELTED 10: 33-41. Phothongsunan, S. & Suwanarak, K. (2008). Native and non-native dichotomy: Distinctive stances of Thai teachers of English. ABAC Journal 28(2): 10-30. Siriphotchanakorn, C. (2005). Students’ opinion toward oral presentations in EFL classroom (Unpublished Master’s Project). Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand. Tomlinson, B. (2006). A multidimensional approach to teaching English for the world. In R. Rubdy & M. Saraceni (Eds.), English in the world (pp.130-150). London: Continuum. Watson, T.R. (2006). The myth of the native speaker as a model of English proficiency. rEFLections 8: 1-7. Wiriyachitra, A. (n.d.). English language teaching and learning in Thailand in this decade. Retrieved March 5, 2010, from The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Human Resources Development Working Group (HRDWG) Knowledge Bank website: http://www.apecknowledgebank.org/resources/downloads/English%20Language%20Teaching%20and%20Learning%20in%20Thailand.pdf 12