The Native Speaker Model

The implementation of the exonormative native speaker model of English instruction in Outer and Expanding Circle countries and its implications for the ESL/EFL learner’s population. Daiver Zambrano 2012 Abstract During the last decades the teaching of Inner Circle Standard English in non-native countries has become the main focus of English language pedagogy. For this reason, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of native-speaking teachers around the world. This paper provides an overview of the native speaker model of English instruction, focusing on its role in ESL/EFL contexts, and its impact on the English language learning community. Additionally, it discusses the role of native and non-native speaker teachers in this model of Instruction. The implementation of the exonormative native speaker model of English instruction in Outer and Expanding Circle countries and its implications for the ESL/EFL learner’s population. The rapid spread of English to other countries around the world has caused this language to merge with other languages and cultures, resulting in the creation of new varieties of English. Such varieties are known as World Englishes. This linguistic diversity of English has become a reason of debate in EIL pedagogy with regard to what form of the language should be taught in English classrooms around the world. There is a strong belief among many governments from Outer and Expanding Circle countries that ESL/EFL teachers must teach British or American Standard English. Therefore, a great number of schools in these linguistic contexts have adopted the native speaker model as a medium of instruction. In my opinion, however, this instructional method might be inappropriate and disadvantageous for the majority of ESL/EFL learners in Outer and Expanding Circle countries. There is a considerable amount of available research in the field of sociolinguistics with regard to the use of the native speaker model in countries where English is spoken as a second or as a foreign language. The goal of this paper is to compile some of the most relevant aspects of the existing research on this model, focusing on its implications for the ELL community in countries where English is not the first language. I will begin with a brief introduction to Kachru’s model of English use contexts, followed by a description of the native speaker approach, focusing on the role of both native and non-native speakers in this model. I will also discuss some of the primary reasons that governments have in choosing this teaching approach. Finally, I will provide the implications of this model for the ELL population in Outer and Expanding circle countries. Kachru (1985) introduced a model that described the variety of uses of the English language within different linguistict and cultural contexts. According to the author, this model can be perceived in “terms of three concentric circles representing the types of spread, the pattern of acquisition and the functional domains in which English is used across cultures and languages” (as cited in McKay, & Bokhorst-Heng, 2008, p. 29). In Kachru’s model, the Inner Circle refers to contexts where English is the primary language. The Outer Circle, on the other hand, represents non-native contexts, where English is used as a second language whereas the expanding circle makes reference to those countries where English is learned as a foreign language. Kachru offered a clear notion of the extreme diffusion of English around the world. This can be reflected on the increasing number of non-native speakers using the language which, according to Crystal (1997), represented almost the 80% of the world’s English-speaking population. (as cited in Smolder, 2009, par. 4). The fact that there are more non-native English speakers than there are native speakers helps to reaffirm the multicultural profile of English as well as the status it has gained as an international language. However, the implications of this internationalization of English have failed to be reflected in the current curricula of teacher training programs as well as in teaching methodology (Kachru, 1992, p. 355). It can be inferred then that the multiple identities of English, along with its multiple functions among international contexts, cannot be overlooked in todays’ English language pedagogy. Instead, these particular aspects of English should serve as a significant resource to reevaluate language policies in Outer and Expanding Circle Countries that promote teaching models that fail to acknowledge the linguistic heterogeneity and diversity of the English language and which are, in effect, inappropriate in most EIL contexts. The native speaker model of English can be described by considering Philipson’s (1992) tenets for EIL pedagogy. Philipson (1992) stated in two of his tenets for English teaching that English should be taught monolingually and that native speakers are by nature the ideal English instructors (as cited in McKay, & Bokhorst-Heng, 2008, p. 5). These two principles can be considered as the premise that the native speaker model relies on. Concerning the use of monolingual instruction, it should be noted that this model advocates the use of Inner Circle Standard English. In other words, ESL/EFL learners in non-native contexts are expected to learn either British or American English. These teaching practices are evident in many schools in non-native contexts where instruction is provided only in Standard English, leaving little or no room for the practice of local varieties of English or the use of students’ L1 in the classroom. With regard to this matter, Ferrell and Martin (2009) pointed out that “insisting on Standard English can devalue other varieties of English that exist around the world” (p. 3). A case that exemplifies this situation is that of Singapore, where the Speak Good English movement “targets all Singaporeans to make Standard English, rather than Singapore’s colloquial form of English (Singlish), as their habitual form of English usage” (Mckay & Bokhorst-Heng, 2008, p.94). As stated above, within a native speaker model, not only should English be the sole language of the classroom, but also it should be taught by a teacher who is monolingual. Therefore, native English speakers have become the target of language learning and in many parts of the world they are being considered the ideal teachers too (Phillipson, 2001, p. 194). During the last decade there has been an enormous demand for native-speaking teachers in Outer and Expanding circle contexts due to their status of legitimate speakers of the language. Additionally, most ELLs view native speakers as experts in proper grammar and vocabulary usage, and therefore feel that they should imitate their instructors in order to achieve English proficiency. In Colombia, for instance, ELLs make great efforts to learn English according to American English Standards. Additionally, some learners prefer native speaker teachers over local language educators. This is mostly common among students who have specific reasons for learning Standard English norms. For instance, those students who are moving to English speaking countries or are planning to pursue their education in an Inner Circle context. It would be hard not to acknowledge the qualities of native-speaking teachers and the benefits they can bring to EFL/ESL classrooms. Their competence, cultural insight and proficiency in the language are indeed valuable resources that have to be considered in language teaching. This does not mean, however, that any person who is a native speaker is necessarily an ideal teacher of English. Unfortunately, according to Kirkpatrick (2007), “Native speakers who have no specialist training in English language are routinely employed by schools, institutions and universities all over the world” (p. 185). In Colombia, as in many other Latin American countries, for instance, not only are native speaker teachers preferred over non-native teachers, but they are also employed, even when untrained, at a higher rate of pay. Unlike native speakers, non-native speaker local teachers can be at a disadvantage by the exonormative native speaker model as it, according to Kirkpatrick (2007), “undermines the value and apparent legitimacy of a local teacher’s own model of English” (p. 186). Additionally, Medgyes (1994) argued that a teacher’s self-assurance can be seriously reduced as they are expected to “teach a model they themselves do not speak” (as cited in Kirkpatrick, 2007, p. 186). It should be noted then that within the native speaker model, local teachers might feel a constraint from exploiting their linguistic repertoire in the classroom as their ability to use the students’ L1, instead of being recognized, is rather perceived as inadequate. This idea is supported by Kirkpatrick (2007) who argued that as local teachers “know the language of their students, they will inevitably resort to it in the classroom” (p. 186). According to this author, this notion conflicts with the first tenet that the native speaker model relies on. The truth is that non-native speaker teachers have certain unique qualities that can help language learners maximize their language acquisition process. Medgyes (1994) argued that non-native teachers are more likely to recognize the potential difficulties that English learners can face during their learning process as they have had the experience of learning a second language (as cited in Kirkpatrick, 2007, p. 187). Additionally, the teachers’ familiarity with the cultural context in which most students are to use the language provides them with a valuable insight that allows them to teach the language based on the real cultural and linguistic needs of the students. Last but not least, Reves and Medgyes (n.d) highlighted that non-native teachers can provide English learners with more accurate information about the language due to the fact that they learned how this language works during their own acquisition process. With regard to this issue, the authors stated that “native English speaking teachers may not be aware of the internal mechanisms operating in the acquisition of a second language, since for them language acquisition was unconscious” (as cited in Garcia, 1997, p. 75). Despite the valuable input that non-native teachers can bring to the classroom, the native speaker remains to be seen as the desired goal in this model of English and the main point of reference in today’s EIL pedagogy. As it was stated above, there has been a strong desire among governments in Outer and Expanding Circle Countries to conform to native speaker norms. With regard to this, Kirkpatrick (2007) stated that “by insisting on a native speaker model, ministries of education can claim to be upholding standards and providing students with an internationally recognized and internationally intelligible variety of English” (p. 185). This can be considered one of the primary reasons that can be attributed to the desire to adopt a native speaker model in non-native contexts. Additionally, native speaker models have already been codified, which facilitates the access of both teachers and learners to a great variety of information such as dictionaries, grammar guides as well as useful tools for the English classroom (Kirkpatrick, 2007, p. 185). This availability of ‘authentic’ materials in English can be considered as another plausible reason why governments have chosen this pedagogical model. “Unfortunately, ‘authentic’ materials are often taken to mean authentic native-speaker materials” (Smolder, 2009, par. 9). In other words, these materials are designed on a British or American native speaker perspective only. One noteworthy aspect of the native speaker model is how it can be inappropriate and disadvantageous for the majority of English learners in Outer and Expanding Circle countries. In these contexts, where English is used either as a second or as a foreign language, English learners are more likely to use the language between bilingual or multilingual people. Therefore, “these users do not need an inner circle native speaker model as much as they need to be able to communicate effectively across linguistic and cultural boundaries” (Kirkpatrick, 2007, p. 189). Additionally, by insisting on a native speaker model, governments are actually setting a goal for learners that might be unattainable as learners are expected to adopt certain linguistic skills that are unique of native speakers. With regard to this matter, Cook (1999) argued that “by definition, non-native English users can never assume the identity of ‘native speaker’ no matter how hard they try; to expect them be able to do so, she says, is like expecting ducks to become swans” (as cited in Smolder, 2009, par. 12). “Despite these objections, the native speaker model remain firmly entrenched in language teaching today” (Cook, 1999, p. 188). As it was stated above, English language learners in Outer and Expanding Circle countries are very likely to be exposed to the different varieties of English that exist in these two linguistic contexts. Therefore, according to Matsuda (2003), “The limited exposure to English varieties in the classroom may lead to confusion or resistance when students are confronted with different types of English users or uses outside of class” (p. 721). In other words, the exposure to other varieties of English in the classroom is paramount for EIL learners around the world. It is worth noting that the native speaker ideal is also reflected in most of the teaching materials that are been currently utilized in EIL classrooms. Such materials present an Anglo-centered cultural view of the world, failing to project the different sociolinguistic, cultural and educational contexts in which English is being currently learned. In a study conducted in Singapore, Toh (1999) analyzed three generations of English teaching textbooks. The results of this study showed “that the language pedagogy of the textbooks has its origins in a western vision of the world and is irredeemably eurocentric, hence incompatible with the contemporary social realities of Singapore and the wider world” (as cited in Phillipson, 2001, p. 194). A similar case is presented in Japan, where English is currently being taught as an Inner-Circle language. In this EFL context, according to Matsuda (2002), the books that have been approved by the Ministry of Education are all based on American English. This means that most of the characters presented in the conversations are from inner-circle countries rather than outer or expanding-circle contexts different from Japan (as cited in Matsuda, 2003, p. 720). Jenkins (2006) stated that only “on a small scale, it does seem that efforts are being made to reduce the "native- speakerist" element in some teaching materials (e.g., by the inclusion of more non-mother tongue speakers)” (p. 169). It could be inferred then that the materials that are being utilized in many English classrooms in non-native contexts do not really meet the local language and cultural needs of the learners. In conclusion, I must say that considering the increasing use of the English language in international contexts, it would be inappropriate for students to conform to the native speaker model as it prioritizes inner circle norms, and ignores the pluricentric nature of the English language. The linguistic heterogeneity and diversity of English call for a more sensitive curriculum in schools in Outer and the Expanding Circle countries. A curriculum that sets forth goals that can be attainable by learners, and that prepare them for intercultural communication. According to Jenkins (2000), “All English language learners need to be prepared for future encounters with speakers of varieties of English that differ from their own” (as cited in Farrell & Martin, 2009, p. 5). With respect to ESL/EFL teachers, I believe that they should not be idealized based on their linguistic status. The ideal EIL teacher, in my opinion, must have knowledge of at least one foreign language. Additionally, it is essential that teachers be professionally trained in language teaching in order to actually offer their students a quality language education. Most importantly, EIL teachers need to be culturally sensitive. Teachers who meet these criteria should be in my opinion the real English language model. On the other hand, while I do recognize the importance of acknowledging and validating the different varieties of English that are spoken in different parts of the world, I also think that the standard rules of grammar usage must be kept in ESL and EFL classrooms to a certain extent. In my opinion, ensuring that language learners learn the grammatical structures that are considered proper by native speakers of English will facilitate their ability to communicate both with native speakers of English and with other non-native speakers in a variety of contexts. Nevertheless, the cultural and social aspects of the learning population should be considered in todays’ EIL language teaching practices. References Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quaterly. Vol 33. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3587717 Farrell, T., & Martin, S. (2009). To teach Standard English or World Englishes: A balanced Approach to instruction. English teaching forum. Vol. 2. Retrieved from http://exchanges.state.gov/englishteaching/forum/archives/docs/09-47-2-b.pdf Garcia, I. (1997). Native English-speaking teachers versus non-native- speaking teachers. Revista Alicantina de estudios ingleses. Vol. 10. Retrieved from http://rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/5996/ Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly. 157-181. Vol. 40. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40264515 Kachru, B. (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures. Second edition. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English language teaching. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Matsuda, A. (2003). Incorporating World Englishes in teaching English as an international language. TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 37. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.darwin.greensboro.edu:2048/ McKay, S., & Bokhorst-Heng, W. (2008). International English and its sociolinguistic contexts: Towards a socially sensitive EIL pedagogy. New York, NY: Routledge Phillipson, R. (2001). English for globalization or for the world’s people?. International review of education. Vol. 47. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.darwin.greensboro.edu:2048/ Smolder, C. (2009). ELT and the Native Speaker Ideal: Some Food For Thought. Ih journal. Vol. 26. Retrieved from http://ihjournal.com/elt-and-the-native-speaker THE NATIVE SPEAKER MODEL OF INSTRUCTION