Abstract
Terminology has always been wrought with politics. A case in point, the term or concept of native speaker has been disputed for at least two decades in applied linguistics , its definition being grounded more in folk taxonomy than scientifically verifiable parameters according to some scholars. Through research into World Englishes, English Lingua Franca, and intercultural competence, for example, researchers have grappled with alternative approaches to defining teachers, learners, and speakers of one or more languages in light of developments in communicative realities worldwide. Yet, the native speaker as a point of reference has not disappeared, even if some institutions now use labels such as native-like or near-native to be inclusive. In order to shed some light on the different manifestations of this phenomenon and its impact on teachers and students, the chapter examines five teaching institutions where the researcher was affiliated as a teacher, researcher, or administrator while being neither native speaker of the language of the students or host country (China, Spain, the USA) nor of the target language (English, Spanish). The study is based on open-ended questionnaires that were filled out by the respective program directors. It is hoped that this comparative perspective on the various possible scenarios in teaching and administration can contribute to the current discussion of how to challenge and overcome a concept that is no longer beneficial in the task of preparing learners to communicate locally and interact globally in a multicultural plurilingual varilectal world.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ammon, U., Bickel, H., & Ebner, J. (2004). Varietätenwörterbuch des Deutschen. Berlin: DeGruyter.
Anderson, N. (2008). The four scopes of effective leadership development. In C. Coombe et al. (Eds.), Leadership in English language teaching and learning (pp. 17–26). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Aoki, N., & Hamakawa, Y. (2003). Asserting our culture. In D. Palfreyman & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures (pp. 240–253). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. http://www.asale.org. Accessed 23 Dec 2016.
Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R, M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Brown, J. D. (2012). EIL curriculum development. In L. Alsagoff, S. McKay, G. W. Hu, & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for teaching English as an international language (pp. 147–167). London: Routledge.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Christison, M., & Murray, D. (2008). Strategic planning for English language teachers and leaders. In C. Coombe et al. (Eds.), Leadership in English language teaching and learning (pp. 128–140). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Clyne, M. G. (1992). Pluricentric languages: Different norms in different nations. Berlin: DeGruyter.
Commission of the European Communities (1995). White paper on education and training. Teaching and learning towards the learning society. http://europa.eu/documents/comm/white_papers/pdf/com95_590_en.pdf. Accessed 23 Dec 2016.
Commission of the European Communities (2005). A new framework strategy for multilingualism. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2005:0596:FIN:EN:PDF. Accessed 23 Dec 2016.
Confucius Institute. http://www.chinesecio.com. Accessed 23 Dec 2016.
Conrad, H. (2010). From seniority to performance principle: The evolution of pay principles in Japanese firms since the 1990s. Social Science Japan Journal, 13(1), 115–135.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and languge minority students: A theoretical rationale (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles: California State University, Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center.
Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker—myth or reality. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Goethe-Institut. http://www.goethe.de. Accessed 23 Dec 2016.
Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holliday, A. (2008). What happens between people: who we are and what we do. In S. Gieve & I. Miller (Eds.), Understanding the language classroom (pp. 47–63). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Houghton, S. A. (2014). Post-native-speakerist pedagogy. Paper delivered at the 2nd International Symposium on Native-Speakerism, Saga University, Japan, Sept 28–30.
Instituto Cervantes. http://www.cervantes.es. Accessed 23 Dec 2016.
Japan Science and Technology Agency. (2016). Advertisement for a Specially Appointed Teacher of English (University of Yamanashi). https://jrecin.jst.go.jp/seek/SeekJorDetail?fn=3&ln=1&id=D116030439&ln_jor=1. Accessed 18 March 2016.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language: New models, new norms new goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kecskes, I., & Mey, J. L. (2008). Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2002). ASEAN and Asian cultures and models: Implications for ELT curriculum and for teacher selection. In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), Englishes in Asia: Communication, identity, power and curriculum (pp. 213–224). Melbourne: Languages Australia.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: A multilingual model. HK: HKUP.
Kosaka, K. (2014, April 20). To teach to test for communication—or both? The Japan Times. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2014/04/20/issues/to-teach-to-test-or-for-communication-or-both/#.Vi2h-MCmrWE. Accessed 23 Dec 2016.
Lee, C. (1995). Native speaker. New York: Penguin.
Li, H., Zhong, Q., & Suen, H. K. (2012). Students’ perceptions of the impact of the college English test (CET). Language Testing in Asia, 2(3), 77. doi:10.1186/2229-0443-2-3-77.
Mahboob, A., & Golden, R. (2013). Looking for native speakers of English: Discrimination in English language teaching job advertisements. Voices in Asia Journal, 1(1), 72–81.
Matsuda, A. (2012). Principles and practices of teaching English as an international language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology) (2014). Selection for the FY 2014 top global university project. http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/26/09/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/10/07/1352218_02.pdf. Accessed 23 Dec 2016.
Negishi, M. & Tono, Y. (2014). An update on the CEFR-J project and its impact on English language education in Japan. Paper presented at the 5th ALTE conference in Paris, April 10–11, 2014. http://events.cambridgeenglish.org/alte-2014/docs/presentations/alte2014-masashi-negishi.pdf. Accessed 23 Dec 2016.
Pennycook, A. D. (2003). Beyond homogeny and heterogeny. In. C. Mair (ed.), The politics of English as world language (pp. 3–17). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Real Academia Española. http://www.rae.es. Accessed 23 Dec 2016.
Rivers, D. J. (2010). Ideologies of internationalisation and the treatment of diversity within Japanese higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(5), 441–454.
Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE—The Journal of the National Association of Bilingual Education, 8(2), 15–34.
Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 133–158.
Snow, D. (2006). More than a native speaker: An introduction for volunteers teaching English abroad. Alexandria, VI: TESOL.
Snow, D. (2007). From language learner to language teacher. Alexandria, VI: TESOL.
Sonmez, F. (2014, August, 25). China is forcing its biggest Cantonese-speaking region to speak Mandarin. Business Insider. http://www.businessinsider.com/china-is-forcing-its-biggest-cantonese-speaking-region-to-speak-mandarin-2014-8. Accessed 23 Dec 2016.
Steyaert, C., Ostendorp, A., & Gaibrois, C. (2011). Multilingual organizations as ‘linguascapes’: Negotiating the position of English through discursive practices. Journal of World Business, 46(3), 270–278.
Thornbury, S. (2010). N is for native-speakerism. In S. Thornbury (Ed.), An A–Z of ELT. http://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/tag/native-speakerism/. Accessed 23 Dec 2016.
Tsuneyoshi, R. (2013). Communicative English in Japan and ‘native speakers of English’. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 119–131). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Westgate Corporation (2016). Job advertisement. http://www.westgate.co.jp/application/program/university/qualifications.html. Accessed 23 Dec 2016.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Survey Questions
Appendix: Survey Questions
Going beyond native-speakerism: Theory and practice from an international perspective
Thank you for contributing to this research on language policy and practice at tertiary institutions in Asia, Europe, and the USA. Preliminary findings will be presented at the 2nd International Symposium on Native-Speakerism to be held at the University of Saga, Japan, on September 29–30, 2014. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to join the team of researchers for a follow-up comparative case study, please contact Claudia Kunschak at ckr12106@fc.ritsumei.ac.jp
-
1.
What is the mission of your institution/program? (mission statement or in your own words)
-
2.
Who is your student population? (background and goals/estimated future trajectory, in particular related to their language background and perceived future language needs)
-
3.
What are your teacher demographics (languagewise, percentage of *L1/L2/L3 speakers, variety in country/region of origin)? What role does their linguistic/ethnic/national background play in the selection process if any? *L1 = of the country, L2 = language taught, L3 = different from either
-
4.
What learning objectives and/or standards have been set or have you set for your program? (CEFR, ACTFL, TOEIC/TOEFL/IELTS score or other institutional or national levels)
-
5.
What written or unwritten policies about language use in the context of teaching/medium of instruction exist if any? (monolingual–bilingual–multilingual, native–native-like–non-native, prescriptive–descriptive, written–oral…)
-
6.
How would you describe your own personal approach to language policy and practice? What theories or personal experiences inform your practice?
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kunschak, C. (2018). Going Beyond Native-Speakerism: Theory and Practice from an International Perspective. In: Houghton, S., Hashimoto, K. (eds) Towards Post-Native-Speakerism. Intercultural Communication and Language Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7162-1_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7162-1_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-7160-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-7162-1
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)