Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

CALL, Native-Speakerism/Culturism, and Neoliberalism

  • Published:
Interchange Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper discusses the emergence of a new student figure as a result of the Anglophone (We use the term ‘Anglophone’ here with no intention that native-speakerism and native-culturism are exclusively related to the English language, but only to describe the current situation in a context in which English is the dominant language) neoliberal order; that is, the neoliberalized student. Following the work of many who recognised the rise of homo oeconomicus (O’Boyle (2007) provides a brief genealogy of the term “homo economicus”) as opposed to homo politicus as reported by Brown (2015), we suggest that students are undergoing a similar change and turning into economised and overly visual (Greenfield 2009, p. 69) rather than thinking ones. We further suggest that when learning English this new student subject espouses attendant ideologies to neoliberalism such as native-speakerism and native-culturism, particularly when it uses technology [the latter of which has come to be called computer-assisted language learning (CALL)]. We explore the intersections between the three concepts of neoliberalism, native-speakerism/culturism, and CALL in students’ cognitions while using English language learning apps to determine the dominance of such a figure. To do that exploration, we conducted a study of two phases (the first focused on students’ cognitions and the second of which focused on students’ practices) to confirm and further study—when necessary and possible—such cognitions. Results revealed that for the majority of students, neoliberal, native-speakerist/culturist perceptions about CALL prevailed, especially in their practices, a situation that makes it imperative for teachers to more vigorously raise awareness among students and more actively interrogate the existence of such biases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For other formulations of this/these figure/s, see Hall (2011), who proposes that the taxpayer and the customer are the embodiments of these emergent figures. McGuigan (2014) calls it the neoliberal self, which is—according to Gershon (2011)—equipped with “neoliberal agency”.

  2. The affordances of CALL have been streamlined by Reiners and White (2011) into two categories: organizational and pedagogical advantages. From an organizational perspective, CALL is believed to be cost efficient and create wide access to learners, whereas—pedagogically speaking—CALL is thought to offer learners control, authentic materials and interaction, and empowerment.

  3. Even in Block et al.’s recent book Neoliberalism and Applied Linguistics (2012), technology, but not CALL, is referred to briefly (19–22).

References

  • AbuSeileek, A. F., & AbuSa’aleek, A. O. (2012). Computer assisted language learning: Merits and demerits. Language In India,12(4), 23–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amiryousefi, M. (2017). Affordances and limitations of technology: Voices from EFL teachers and learners. English Language Teaching and Learning,9(19), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azizinezhad, M., & Hashemi, M. (2013). A look at the status of computer assisted language learning and its applications. Procedia –Social and Behavioral Sciences,93, 121–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bani Hani, N. A. (2014). Benefits and barriers of computer-assisted language learning and teaching in the Arab world: Jordan as a model. Theory and Practice in Language Studies,4(8), 1609–1615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Başöz, T., & Çubukçu, F. (2014). Pre-service EFL teachers attitudes towards computer-assisted language learning (CALL). Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences,116, 531–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, Z. (2007). Consuming life. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bax, S. (2003). CALL—past, present and future. System,31(1), 13–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blake, R. (2011). Current trends in online language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,31, 19–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, D., Gray, J., & Holborow, M. (2012). Neoliberalism and applied linguistics (pp. 86–113). Routledge: Florence Taylor and Francis Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. New York: Zone Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buendgens-Kosten, J. (2013). Authenticity in CALL: Three domains of ‘realness’. ReCALL,25(2), 272–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canale, G. (2015). Mapping conceptual change: The ideological struggle for the meaning of EFL in Uruguayan education. L2 Journal, 7(3), 15–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chun, C. (2009). Contesting neoliberal discourses in EAP: Critical praxis in an IEP classroom. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,8, 111–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C., & Gruba, P. (2010). The use of social media sites for foreign language learning: An autoethnographic study of Livemocha. In C. H. Steel, M. J. Keppell, P. Gerbic, & S. Housego (Eds.), Curriculum, technology and transformation for an unknown future (pp. 164–173). Sydney: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coniam, D., & Wong, R. (2004). Internet relay chat as a tool in the autonomous development of ESL learners’ English language ability: An exploratory study. System,32(3), 321–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly,33, 185–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couch, J., & Towne, J. (2018). Rewiring education: How technology can unlock every student’s potential. Dallas, TX: BenBella Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darlington, Y., & Scott, D. (2002). Qualitative research in practice. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, G., Otto, S. E. K., & Rüschoff, B. (2013). Historical perspectives on CALL. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders, & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 19–39). London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Lissovoy, N. (2018). Pedagogy of the anxious: Rethinking critical pedagogy in the context of neoliberal autonomy and responsibilization. Journal of Education Policy,33(2), 187–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egbert, J., Paulus, T., & Nakamichi, Y. (2002). The impact of CALL instruction on classroom computer use: A foundation for rethinking technology in teacher education. Language Learn ing and Technology,6(3), 108–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehsani, F., & Knodt, E. (1998). Speech technology in computer-aided language learning: Strengths and limitations of a new CALL paradigm. Language Learning and Technology,2(1), 54–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennser-Kananen, J., Escobar, C. F., & Bigelow, M. (2016). It’s practically a must: Neoliberal reasons for foreign language learning. International Journal of Society, Culture, and Language,5(1), 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Featherstone, M. (1991). Consumer culture and postmodernism. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gershon, Ilana. (2011). Neoliberal agency. Current Anthropology.,52(4), 537–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giroux, H. (1983). Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. (2010). The branding of English and the culture of the new capitalism: Representations of the world of work in English language textbooks. Applied Linguistics,31(5), 714–733.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. (2012). Neoliberalism, celebrity, and ‘aspirational content’ in English language teaching textbooks for the global market. In D. Block, J. Gray, & M. Holborow (Eds.), Neoliberalism and applied linguistics (pp. 86–113). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenfield, P. (2009). Technology and informal education: What is taught, what is learned. Science,323(5910), 69–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grgurovic, M., Chapelle, C. A., & Shelley, M. C. (2013). A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL,25(2), 165–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gündüz, N. (2005). Computer assisted language learning (CALL). Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies,1(2), 193–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines, K. (2015). Learning for the long haul: Developing perceptions of learning affordances in CALL teachers. In A. M. G. Sanz, M. Levy, & F. Blin (Eds.), WorldCALL: Sustainability and computer-assisted language learning (pp. 7–22). New York: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, S. (2011). The neoliberal revolution: Thatcher, Blair, Cameron—the long march of neoliberalism continues. Soundings,48, 9–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, R., & Thomas, M. (2009). Identity in online communities: Social media sites and language learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society,7(2), 109–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegelheimer, V. (2015). When the technology course is required. In A. M. G. Sanz, M. Levy, & F. Blin (Eds.), WorldCALL: Sustainability and computer-assisted language learning (pp. 7–22). New York: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holborow, M. (2012). Neoliberal keywords and the contradiction of an ideology. In D. Block, J. Gray, & M. Holborow (Eds.), Neoliberalism and applied linguistics (pp. 33–55). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holliday, A. (2017). Native-speakerism. In J. Liontas (Ed.), TESOL encyclopedia of english language teaching. Bognor Regis: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenset, G. B. (2011). Student attitudes toward teaching English with technology. Media, Technology, and Life-Long Learning,7(2), 59–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literature (pp. 217–242). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazeroni, A. (2006). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. P. Donaldson & M. A. Haggstrom (Eds.), Changing language education through CALL (pp. 19–30). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumaravadivelu, B. (2012). Individual identity, cultural globalization and teaching English as an international language: The case for an epistemic break. In L. Alsagoff, S. McKay, G. Hu, & W. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for teaching English as an International Language (pp. 9–27). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumaravadivelu, B. (2016). The decolonial option in english teaching: Can the subaltern act? TESOL Quarterly,50(1), 66–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levidow, L. (2012). Neoliberal agendas for higher education. In A. Saad-Filho & D. Johnston (Eds.), Neoliberalism: A critical reader (pp. 152–162). London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuigan, J. (2014). The neoliberal self. Culture Unbound,6, 223–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, C., & Selfe, C. L. (1999). Teaching English across the technology/wealth gap. The English Journal,88(6), 48–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Boyle, E. (2007). Requiem for homo economicus. Mayo Research Institute Journal of Markets & Morality,10(2), 321–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, J. S. (2015). Language as pure potential. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,37(5), 453–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. M., & Son, J. B. (2009). Implementing Computer-assisted language learning in the EFL classroom: Teachers’ perceptions and perspectives. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning,5(2), 80–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillipson, R. (2008). The linguistic imperialism of neoliberal empire. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies.,5(1), 1–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinner, R. S. (2012). Teachers’ attitudes to and motivations for using CALL in and around the language classroom. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences,34, 188–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinders, H., & White, C. (2011). Learner autonomy and new learning environments. Language Learning and Technology,15(3), 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riasati, M. J., Allahyar, N., & Tan, K. E. (2012). Technology in language education: Benefits and barriers. Journal of Education and Practice,3(5), 25–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, J. E. (2002). Visual communication. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, M. K., & Yang, W. (2013). Neoliberalism, globalization, and creative educational destruction in Taiwan. Educational Technology Research and Development,61, 107–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ur, P. (2012). A course in English language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warriner, D. S. (2015). Here, without English, you are dead: Ideologies of language and discourses of neoliberalism in adult English language learning. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,37(5), 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2015.1071827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching,31, 57–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widdowson, H. (1998). Content, community, and authentic language. TESOL Quarterly,32(4), 705–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeng, G. Z., & Takatsuka, S. (2009). Text-based peer-peer collaborative dialogue in a computer-mediated learning environment in the EFL context. System,37(3), 434–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: A literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO Journal,21(1), 7–27.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No fund was received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. American University of Afghanistan, Kabul, Afghanistan

    Emily Clymer

  2. University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan

    Sharif Alghazo, Tasnim Naimi & Mahmoud Zidan

Authors
  1. Emily Clymer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sharif Alghazo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tasnim Naimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mahmoud Zidan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sharif Alghazo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

figure a
figure b
figure c

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Clymer, E., Alghazo, S., Naimi, T. et al. CALL, Native-Speakerism/Culturism, and Neoliberalism. Interchange 51, 209–237 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-019-09379-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-019-09379-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation