native and non-native dichotomy: distinctive stances of ...10-30)_article02.pdf · native and...

NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE DICHOTOMY: DISTINCTIVESTANCES OF THAI TEACHERS OF ENGLISH

byAsst. Prof. Dr. Sureepong Phothongsunan* and Dr. Kasma Suwanarak**

ABSTRACT

This research examines the critical insights of 24 Thai English teachers (TETs)at tertiary level into themselves and their native English teacher (NET) counter-parts. Their reflections regarding impartiality between native and non-native En-glish teachers were also investigated. The study reveals that there are perceived dif-ferences between NETs and TETs in many principal aspects: earnings, required teach-ing qualifications, administrators’ viewpoints, as well as students’ perspectives. Theinvestigation into the ideal teacher of English, self-perceptions and the proportion-ate balance of hiring native and non-native English teachers (NETs and NNETs) inan organization are also reported. From a questioning position, it is disclosed that ifNETs and TETs were treated uniformly as to reduce such disparities, their synergyand personal, professional rapport would ameliorate. Implications from the studysuggest a shift from a preoccupation of issues about the native and non-native statusto the enhancement of training and expertise in ELT in most cases. This includesseeking and creating opportunities to discuss critical subjects with NET and NNETprofessionals from diverse, multinational backgrounds.

____________________*Asst. Prof. Dr. Sureepong Phothongsunan earned a doctorate in TEFL (Teaching English as

a Foreign Language) from the University of Exeter, U.K. He completed both a Master of Arts in TESLand a TESL Graduate Diploma from Central Missouri State University, U.S.A. He is currently serving inthe Department of Business English, Faculty of Arts, Assumption University, Thailand.

**Dr. Kasma Suwanarak holds a doctoral degree in TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers ofOther Languages) from the University of Exeter, U.K. She obtained her Master’s in Applied Linguisticsfrom Kasetsart University, where she also completed her first degree in English Literature from theFaculty of Humanities. Presently, she is an English lecturer at Kasetsart University, Thailand.

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEX-TUAL BACKGROUND

A great deal of the ESL literature (e.g.,Davies, 1991; Medgyes, 1994, Quirk,1995) claims that in general a native Englishteacher (NET) is not ‘better’ than a non-

10 ABAC Journal Vol. 28, No. 2 (May-August 2008, pp.10-30)

native English teacher (NNET), although insome associated citations (Gill and Rebrova,2001; Medgyes, 1994), the distinction be-tween NETs and NNETs is placed on theirlinguistic competence, teaching, and culturalunderstandings. However divergent they are,the researchers are convinced that the realms

of inequality or injustice between NETs andNNETs in their actual workplace have notbeen sufficiently investigated nor has themassive contribution that NNETs make tothe field of language teaching been credit-ably acknowledged.

According to Phillipson (1992), thereis a given assumption that native speakersrepresent the model teachers of a languageas they have a better command of fluent,correct language forms and are more con-versant with the cultural appropriateness ofa language. Most recently, an increasingnumber of voices have questioned this veryideology. Numerous TESOL professionals(Widdowson, 1994; Phillipson, 1996;Kachru, 1996; Liu, 2001; Lazaraton, 2003)contradict it and claim that such featuresattributed to native speakers are also withinthe reach of non-native speakers, givenample training, profound insights into lan-guage learning and intense exposure to alanguage.

In the area of ELT (English languageteaching), this assumption has undoubtedlyprivileged NETs in that insistence on the useof authentic, natural English for instructionhas made them ‘superior’ to their non-na-tive counterparts. Widdowson (1994: 387)uses the expression ‘custodians and arbi-ters not only of proper English but of properpedagogy as well’.

In an EFL context, the ideology of na-tive English speakers being ideal in ELT hasbeen pervasive (Medgyes, 1996). Formany, it is almost entirely accepted thatNETs are indeed needed, superior, morequalified and better able to teach any ESL

course, simply because they are labeled ‘na-tive speakers of English’. As the research-ers consider this challenged practice, find-ing out the views and stances of TETs re-garding NETs and NNETs in their workunits and offering them a critical view aboutequality have become the main interest. Theresearchers’ specific focus lies in the aspectsof injustice in the relationship between theNETs and NNETs. The rationale for ex-ploring such inequitable realms is that thereis evidence found in various work contextsthat a number of EFL teachers accept theidea that a language stringently belongs tothe native speaker (Medgyes, 1996). There-fore, it is likely that TETs, who believe inthis conception, rarely problematise thepolitical dimension in ELT and hold the no-tion that power relations are common andneutral. It is to be made clear at this stagethat native speakers of English are not toblame in any way. The researchers’ intentsare simply to raise the awareness of TETsregarding inequality between NETs andNNETs, and to address the characteristicsthat reflect on true professionalism in ELT.Teachers’ compensation and privilegesshould be awarded based on teacher’ pro-fessionalism and ESL teaching experience.This in fact must play a greater role in anESL teacher’s success than status as to anative speaker or a non-native speaker. Thespecific research questions are:

1. What are Thai English teachers’(TETs) perceptions of themselves and ofnative English teachers (NETs) in their workcontext?

2. How do TETs perceive the subjectof equality when comparing with NETs?

Native and Non-native Dichotomy: Distinctive Stances of Thai Teachers of English

11

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OFTHE STUDY

The theoretical framework within whichthis research study sits is reshaped from criti-cal approaches to applied linguistics fosteredby those who believe that applied linguis-tics itself lacks such a critical view in ELT(Phillipson, 1992; Pennycook, 1994). Thenotions of critical applied linguistics aremainly influenced by Critical theory, Neo-Marxism, Post-structuralism and Post-mod-ernism. There is a fundamental principlewithin this approach that anything that istaken for granted has to be questioned andproblematised.

Another important composition of criti-cal applied linguistics is an element of trans-formative pedagogy, which is to changethings. However, absolute change is notnecessarily the ultimate goal. Being ‘trans-formative’ has various levels, one of whichcan possibly be a level of awareness.Pennycook (2001) points out that criticalapplied linguistics opens up a new set ofquestions and concerns, issues that have notbeen considered in normative applied lin-guistics such as identity, sexuality, ethics,desire, access, and difference. These areseen in relation to issues of inequality. Bythis, critical applied linguistics helps to pro-mote a particular version of what is meantby critical.

Critical applied linguistics borrows workfrom other critical domains, such as criticalliteracy, critical discourse analysis, criticalpedagogy, critical language awareness, criti-cal sociolinguistics and critical approachesto TESOL. Due to this combining of differ-

ent elements, Pennycook (ibid.) suggests thatit is worth looking at critical applied linguis-tics as a shifting and dynamic approach toquestions of languages in multiple contextsrather than a fixed body of knowledge ormethod.

LITERATURE REVIEW

In relation to one of the principle do-mains of critical applied linguistics, criticalapproaches to TESOL attempt to relate as-pects of language education to a broadercritical analysis of social relations: gender,race, ethnicity, class, power, and identity.In general, the philosophies and frameworkunderlying critical approaches to TESOL aresimilar to those of critical applied linguis-tics. However, these approaches questionthe taken-for-granted assumptions within thearea of TESOL in particular.

Within the critical approaches toTESOL, there exist many domains or areasof interest that are subject to critical ques-tioning. These are seen with regard to is-sues of unfairness. Thus, the main criticalconcerns might fall into areas of teacher edu-cation, materials production, and the con-structs of the native and non-native speaker,to list a few examples. For this research,the emphasis is the issue of power relationsbetween teachers who are native and non-native speakers of English.

Theoretically, as Medgyes (1994)notes, the debate over the question of na-tive non-native dichotomy has generated anumber of contentious issues. Among these,three are considered relevant. First, the na-

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sureepong Phothongsunan and Dr. Kasma Suwanarak

12

tive and non-native issue has been chal-lenged on sociolinguistic grounds from thestandpoint of the socio-historical spread ofEnglish (Kachru and Nelson, 1996). Thenotions of history and language change arethen introduced and it is seen as a norm thata particular language community can de-velop a language variety of its own whilethe notion of innateness in language usage isrejected. Therefore, the sociolinguistic in-novations should not be viewed as a sign oflanguage deficiency as perceived from ahegemonic perspective, regarding English aslegitimately led and approved only by cer-tain groups of speakers.

Second, an approach has been advo-cated that sees the native speaker identityas a sociolinguistic construct that can beovercome within certain circumstances(Davies, 1991). Though focusing on theimportance of early language acquisition andholding that for L2 learners the nativespeaker must represent a model or a goal,Davies explicitly rejects the idea that a na-tive speaker is uniquely and permanentlydifferent from a non-native speaker. Forhim, it is clear that L2 learners can acquirenative linguistic competence of the languageeven if they are outside an L1 environment.

The third position considers the ques-tion of native versus non-native speaker asmore or less maintained regarding its appli-cation to the ELT profession. Medgyes(1992) adopts the native/ non-native con-trast as a clear distinction. He asserts thatthe native speakers’ linguistic competenceconstitutes an ‘advantage...so substantialthat it cannot be outweighed by other fac-tors prevalent in the learning situation’

(Medgyes, ibid: 342). In short, non-nativespeakers, unlike native speakers, are per-manent learners. Even if non-native speak-ers acquire native-like proficiency, Medgyesstill labels them as ‘pseudo-native speak-ers, perhaps due to the phonological or col-loquial variability in their language use’.However, Medgyes does not conclude thatnative speakers are more effective Englishlanguage teachers; it is pointed out that non-native teachers have an equal chance of suc-cess in their own practices.

In recent years, the inequality in the re-lationship between the conceptions of thenative and non-native speaker has been amajor topic of discussion (Singh, 1998; Liu,1999; Pennycook, 1994; Amin, 2001).Many concerns have been directed towardthe ideology that native speakers are theideal teachers of a language (Nayar, 1994;Kamhi-Stein, 2002). According toKramsch (1997), the idealisation of the na-tive speaker is attributed to the importanceof spoken, communicative competence inforeign language teaching since the 1960s.The linguistic authority of the native speakerhas been further supported by Chomsky’snotion of the terms ‘native speaker’ and‘competence’ (1965). According toChomsky, a native speaker is defined as anideal speaker-listener who perfectly knowsthe language and at the same time compe-tence is seen as related to intuitive knowl-edge of what is grammatical or ungrammati-cal in a language. Correspondingly, such abelief results in the assumption that a lan-guage belongs to its native speakers and hasempowered them dramatically over non-native speakers in both ESL and EFL con-texts.


13

However, Phillipson (1992: 194) callsthis ideological assumption ‘native speakerfallacy’ and argues that non-native speak-ers are capable of acquiring such attributesthrough teacher training and exposure to thenative language. Moreover, he claims thatbecause non-native speakers of a languagehave gone through the process of learning alanguage, they are highly qualified to teachthe language.

Despite the critique offered by manyTESOL professionals, the dominance ofbeing a native speaker becomes particularlydistinct when the native speaker constructshapes the perceptions of language learningin different contexts. As Nayar (1994: 4)points out, English native speakers have ‘therights and responsibilities not only of con-trolling the forms and norms of English glo-bally but also of dominating theory and prac-tice of its teaching and research’.

Some recent research studies have beenconducted to investigate NNETs’ percep-tions of themselves as ELT professionals andwhat they think of the native and non-nativeconceptions. For instance, Samimy andBrutt-Griffler (1999) examined the way non-native speaking TESOL graduate studentsstudying in the United States viewed them-selves professionally by using both qualita-tive and qualitative methods. The resultsrevealed that though the participants per-ceived many differences between NETs andNNETs, the question of whether native ornon-native speakers are better languageteachers was not the issue. What is impor-tant was how qualified an ESL teacher isregardless of native or non-native status.

Similarly, Liu (1999)’s study investigatedperceptions of non-native ESL profession-als teaching in the United States through thequalitative method. Regardless of whetherparticipants preferred to be labeled asNNETs, NETs or bilingual teachers, therewas no suggestion of who was the best ESLteacher. In terms of native or non-nativeconstructs, the participants reported diffi-culty in affiliating with either the native orthe non-native category, claiming that sucha taxonomy would not sufficiently representthe true nature of being a speaker of a lan-guage and would then diminish the experi-ences and language skills of ESL profes-sionals.

In Hong Kong, Tang (1997) carried outa study of 47 NNETs on their perceptionsof NETs and NNETs in terms of proficiencyand competency. The results showed thatalthough NETs were believed to be supe-rior to NNETs in speaking, NNETs werefelt to be associated with better accuracy.The respondents, however, did not specifywho was or would make a better languageteacher.

As far as the researchers are concerned,there are yet no reports of studies under-taken to investigate the perceptions of ThaiEnglish teachers regarding NETs and TETs.In particular, the present study has taken avaluable step further to involve the issue ofequality with respect to NETs. Moreover,since it would appear that this issue has notbeen studied in the Thai context before, thepossible contribution and significance of thispresent study may be enhanced.


14

Overall, a different perspective on theissue of equality between NETs and NNETsshould be taken into account (Cook, 1999;Milambiling, 2000). TESOL practitionersshould shift the focus to the importance ofbeing a professional English teacher andshould consider whether an individual hasreceived sufficient vocational training toteach English. In addition, effective collabo-ration between NETs and NNETs shouldbe encouraged. Emphasising professionalmatters would better help reduce inequalitythat the labels ‘native speakers’ and ‘non-native speakers’ currently denote. More-over, the ESL profession should go beyond‘respecting differences’ as suggested byEdge (1996). To value diversity and to ac-knowledge the presence of NNETs as equalare important if that is what is meant by trueprofessionalism.

The researchers hold a position thatthere exist power relations and political in-terests in education as a whole as well as inour own work context. After a pilot studywith a group of Thai teachers of English, itwas found that most of their responses arerelated to the expansion and internationli-sation of English as natural, neutral and ben-eficial (Pennycook, 1994). Therefore, thiseffect may have led them to believe thatthose who are native speakers of Englishown the language and are ideal teachers ofthe language, and so they perpetuate thesebeliefs. Considering this, it is decidedly jus-tifiable to question the working assumptionthat NETs deserve more privileges and arethought to be ‘better’ than non-native coun-terparts just simply because they are ‘na-tive speakers’.

METHODS

Research Rationale

This research was conducted within acritical framework. The aims of this para-digm are social equality and emancipation.In order to liberate or emancipate people,there is a need to consider first that peoplesuffer from inequality and are not free. How-ever, that is not always possible. For thisstudy, the researchers see that some pilotparticipants under study and several actualrespondents are unaware of their rights andsituations in the first place, although somemay be aware of it. Overall, the research-ers attempt to question power relations criti-cally, which is considered the first level ofemancipation. After the first level of eman-cipation, there can be a follow-up actiondepending on the political framework inwhich people work.

The methodology employed within thecritical framework is ideology critique. Ac-cording to Habermas (1976), this approachis a reflective practice which enables par-ticipants to reveal their conscious or uncon-scious interests at work to see whether asystem suppresses a generalisable interest.

The researchers followed Habermas’ssuggested phases to critical ideology as thestages are systematic and clearly explicable.However, some stages were combined to-gether and adapted for suitability. Therefore,three phases remain. Firstly, before the studywas started, the researchers described andinterpreted what has happened in the cur-rent situation in the work context. Secondly,the participants were asked about their per-


15

ceptions of native and non-native speakersin their contexts. Then, the researchers of-fered a critical alternative to the participants,that is, an agenda for altering the situation.Finally, the researchers evaluated and syn-thesized both the first and second phases tosee what changes to the situation in prac-tice could be made, including how the par-ticipants were made aware of the issues ofpower relations.

Participants

Out of all thirty six Thai English lectur-ers of the English Department from five uni-versities in Thailand, twenty four participantstook part in this study based on their avail-ability and willingness. Twenty two hold aMaster’s in either Applied Linguistics, En-glish Literature or Teaching English whiletwo others have a PhD in Applied Linguis-tics. Their ages range from twenty-three toover fifty and they have been teaching En-glish from two years to more than twentyyears. Eight of them have never studied ortaken any course in any English-speakingcountry before. Almost every respondenthas experience working with NETs in theirwork context. When asked about whomthey thought native English speakers were,all except seven referred solely to Ameri-cans, British, Australians and NewZealanders.

Data Collection Methods

Two data collection methods: a ques-tionnaire and a semi-structured interviewwere employed.The questions administeredin both methods were similar in nature. Thequestionnaire was used to collect primary

data from the participants and the semi-structured interview was employed tocrosscheck the questionnaire responses. Bycombining these two methods, it helped toobtain more complete and accurate data.

Data Collection Procedures

The questionnaire consisted of nineitems. These items were a combination ofclosed and open-ended questions, deliber-ately designed to answer the research ques-tions. There were three specific items wherethe respondents were provided with threealternatives: NETs, TETs, and both groupsequally. Also, there was one question itemabout self-perception from which one outof four options was to be selected. The re-spondents were then requested to expandon their choices by providing some justifi-cation.

With regard to the interview questions,they were formulated based on the validatedquestionnaire. Therefore, no pilot interviewwas conducted. There were a total of nineinterview questions, the same number ofitems in the questionnaire. A semi-structuredinterview was used, enabling the research-ers to prompt the interviewees to expandtheir ideas when they provided incompleteanswers or too little information about theareas under investigation (Cohen et al.2000). With this, the researchers were ableto pursue issues that may have been over-looked when the questions were initiallydrawn up. The respondents were also freeto highlight any answers if they wished.

For data analysis, the data were tabu-lated separately according to the data col-


16

lection methods. The responses were firstwritten out in phrases, after which group-ings and overarching constructs were for-mulated. The researchers compared anddiscussed the formed phrases and group-ings until a consensus was reached.

Limitations

There are some limitations. Firstly, thefindings of the study were drawn up fromonly a single facet based on the TETs’ view-points without exploring the perceptions ofNNETs. Secondly, this study takes itsstance from a critical paradigm, which mainlyaims at emancipating people and socialequality; nevertheless, in reality this is notalways possible. As a minimum achieve-ment, the researchers aimed to raise theparticipants’ level of awareness and to ques-tion the power relation issues between NETsand NNETs.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The researchers are in accord that it ishelpful to consider how the construct ofpower relation and inequality between NETsand NNETs has emerged in the Thai con-text. Although it has never been colonisedbefore, Thailand, like other eastern coun-tries in the world, may have accepted thepower and the high status of English for twomain reasons. Firstly, there is dependencyof the less developed countries (the Periph-ery) on powerful Western countries and in-terests (the Center) (Phillipson, 1992). Ac-cording to Galtung (1980), the perpetua-tion of English dominance results in the Pe-riphery being consumers of the expertise,

methodology, and materials of the Center.Secondly, as Pennycook (1994) suggests,the expansion of English globally as inter-national language is normally seen as ben-eficial and ordinary. To read in English inorder to access information, technology andso on has led to discourses that have pro-moted the use of English for ages. The spreadof English and the spread of these discoursesfeed upon each other (Pennycook, 1995).The English ramification undeniably comestogether with the notion that Holliday (2003:19) terms ‘Position 1’ where ‘English is for-eign to everyone but the native speaker, whois the norm to which everyone aspires’. It isin the light of this that in the EFL context inThailand, teachers who are native speakersof English usually seem to be perceived asbetter, more qualified English teachers thannon-native counterparts.

In relation to the findings of this study,the mixed, closed/open ended questionnaireand the interview are used in an attempt toanswer two research questions. The firstresearch question ‘What are Thai Englishteachers’ (TETs) perceptions of themselvesand of native English teachers (NETs) in theirwork context’ can be answered as follows:

Viewing Themselves

How TETs view themselves from fouroptions provided: a) non-native teacher ofEnglish, b) bilingual teacher of English, c)multilingual teacher of English and d) nativespeaker teacher of English was investigated.Twenty out of twenty four selected the item‘non-native teacher of English’. The fourother chose ‘bilingual’ and ‘multilingual’teacher of English proportionately. Out of


17

twenty who perceived themselves asNNETs, fifteen stated that it was becausethey were still Thai nationals who becameEnglish teachers with sufficient English train-ing and skills. ‘Marked by pronunciation’was the other justified response providedby several. However, although a few re-spondents addressed the perceptions of Thaistudents toward Thai teachers as a factorthat influenced their self-perception, theyargued that with good preparation an NNETcould teach better than an NET. One of themsaid:

“We can’t change the norms andvalue of the students. However, as a non-native teacher of English, I might per-form better if I prepare my lesson well”

As for the two respondents viewingthemselves as bilingual, they claimed thatsince they knew two languages well, theywere entitled to this opinion. This claim wasstrengthened when one of the two citedTETs’ awareness of psychological aspectsof learning, the advantage of the use of L1to facilitate L2, and TETs’ sensitivity to theneeds of students. The two other who chose‘multilingual’ attributed this to the fact thatlanguage was endless acquisition and thuslanguage teachers must not ignore an op-portunity to cultivate it. One of them addedthat he can speak more than two languages,and thus perceived himself as such.

The reason why the majority still per-ceive themselves as NNETs is probably be-cause they believe that they are still Thai nomatter how much exposure to English theyhave and that their insights into Thai aresuperior to those of English. The research-

ers’ assumption is that for most of them tobe a ‘bilingual’, one must be equally profi-cient in both languages. To add to this, ac-cording to Medgyes (1994) the terms ‘na-tive speaker’ and ‘non-native speaker’ al-most expressed obvious, universally ac-cepted concepts associated with ‘nativeEnglish speakers’ and ‘those whose firstlanguage is not English’ respectively.

In fact, all participants in this study couldbe considered ‘bilingual’ as they can use atleast two languages fluently (Tang, 1997;Harding & Riley, 2003). In a broader frame-work, to minimise the label of ‘non-native’,NNETs should see themselves as bilingualor multilingual teachers of English. NNETsmay even perceive themselves as a bilin-gual or a multilingual for self-encourage-ment.

Samimy and Brutt-Griffler (1999) ar-gue for a need for more studies in the areaof self-perception or self-image as ELT pro-fessionals due to the fact that there seemsto be a scarcity of such studies. As teach-ers’ beliefs and self-perceptions often influ-ence the way they teach (Richards &Lockhart, 1994), it is therefore importantto investigate how NNETs position them-selves in the ELT profession.

Native English Speakers: Ideal EnglishTeachers?

When asked about the participants’ per-ceptions of the assumption that native speak-ers are ideal teachers of their language, morethan half of the participants stated that theytended to agree with this presupposition onthe condition that native speakers were


18

equipped with certain attributes i.e. teach-ers’ responsibilities, language knowledge,and the understanding of students’ problems.Apparently, they viewed themselves as lesslinguistically competent than native counter-parts. Several participants in this cohortadded that native speakers might be morequalified to teach listening, speaking and pro-nunciation but they must be well groundedin Linguistics and Phonetics. However, whenit came to language structure and rules, non-native speakers could be equally compe-tent and in some cases better. As one re-spondent commented:

“I think native speakers acquire thelanguage rules. They do not learn themas formally as non-native speakers. So, Idon’t think they can explain grammarrules prescriptively unless they havelearned how to do so”.

However, eight participants held thatthis assumption was difficult to generalise.It depended on the teachers’ knowledge andabilities. Therefore, if NNETs are welltrained in ELT, they could be as qualified asNETs. Quite the opposite, two other par-ticipants strongly believed that native speak-ers were ideal teachers as they were bornto the language.

It can be drawn up that the participantshave expressed their perceptions in twovaried ways. One group has taken this as-sumption based on teachers’ training andcapabilities in English teaching regardless ofteachers’ native languages. On the contrary,the other are likely to accept the presuppo-sition as they hold that being ‘native’ hasmore advantages, though many factors are

to be considered.

Overall, the general consensus did notcandidly suggest that NETs are necessarilybetter than the non-native counterparts asthere are other components related. In fact,the notion that the ideal teacher of English isa native speaker of that language is initiallylabelled by Phillipson (1992) as a fallacy.There are hidden economic, ideological, andpolitical motivations that underline this as-sumption (Canagarajah, 1999) as it preventsthe critical development of the TESOL pro-fessional community by denying the partici-pation of NNETs on equal terms. Accord-ing to Medgyes’s (1996) survey of NETsand NNETs in ten countries, the two groupsof teachers have an equal chance of suc-cess as English teachers and both groupsare qualified to serve as models for their stu-dents.

Perceived Differences between NETsand NNETs

All respondents reported various re-sponses to the inquiry. Interestingly, tenagreed that the main difference was accentand pronunciation. Six other perceived thedifferences in terms of confidence and overallproficiency in language use. According tothem, NETs were more confident and pro-ficient simply because they were native En-glish speakers. They would be able to con-verse with students more freely and thusmore classroom dynamics are generated.However, two teachers pointed out thatbeing less confident was advantageous tothe NNET, as learning materials would becarefully selected before teaching tookplace:


19

“Because Thai teachers are less con-fident, they are very careful when teach-ing, which becomes an advantage be-cause materials to be taught would bemeticulously examined before teaching”.

Few other teachers referred to differ-ent teaching styles, a positive value of Thaisociety toward NETs as well as NETs’ in-depth knowledge of linguistic nature of En-glish. Additionally, as reflected by this par-ticular grouping, higher income of NETs andgreater persistence in teaching of TETs werethe perceived differences reported.

Another two teachers commented thatthe best role model for teaching listening andspeaking skills was NETs, while TETs werecapable of teaching reading and writing withnative-like competency. Other responseswere that TETs are very proficient in con-tent teaching regardless of their languageproficiency and that TETs usually hold higherteaching qualifications.

By and large, the participants in thisstudy saw themselves differently from theirnative speaker counterparts. The perceiveddifferences lay not only in English profi-ciency, particularly pronunciation and ac-cent, but also in their language confidence,cultural understandings, teaching styles, andother various issues. The responses weresimilar to those in Reves and Medgyes(1994) and Samimy and Brutt-Griffler(1999) in that the participants in all thesestudies did see the differences betweenNETs and NNETs with regard to their lin-guistic and pedagogical behavior. Tang(1997)’s study shows quite the similar re-sults: NNETs in her study reported specific

differences between NETs and NNETs es-pecially in speaking, pronunciation, listen-ing, vocabulary and reading. What this cur-rent study has found, which seems to bedifferent from other recent studies is the ref-erence to income and teaching qualification.The disparity of income and qualificationbetween NETs and NNETs could then leadto the questions regarding social equality andtraining necessary for one to be a good EFL/ESL teacher.

Remuneration

The responses revealed that all partici-pants believed that NETs received higherpay including extra teaching wages. Six re-spondents reasoned that it was a normalpractice as seen in many teaching institu-tions, without giving any specific explana-tion. Five others claimed that it was a normin Thai society for the NET who was thoughtto be more efficient in ELT to deserve bet-ter pay while four others said that to attractthese NETs to stay and work in Thailand aslong as possible, they must be well remu-nerated apart from being given other addi-tional benefits. In addition, these teacherswere able to choose to work for almost anyschool since they were in great demand.

‘Just being a native speaker of Englishwill get better pay’ was common responsegiven by three participants. Several othersstated that the NET tended to motivate thestudents better and that sometimes teach-ing experiences mattered. Two responseswas directed toward the NET’s monthlypay, which should match what he or sheearned as a standard of living in his or hercountry, which was higher than the regular


20

salary of the TET.

Although it would seem normal for vari-ous justifications to be offered regardingNETs’ receipt of better pay, many respon-dents in this study have specifically regarded‘being native speakers of English’ as the rea-son for which better pay is awarded. View-ing this issue from a critical stance, it can beseen that the power relations imposed bythe label ‘native speakers of English’ arestrong that a clear line between nativespeakers and non-native speakers is drawnregardless of teachers’ experiences, knowl-edge and skills as good ESL teachers. Theresearchers seem to agree with Kachru andNelson (1996: 79) that being labeled as anative speaker is ‘of no particular a priorisignificance, in terms of measuring facilitywith the language’. However, as they (ibid.:79) stress, for a non-native speaker ‘it isalmost unavoidable that anyone would take‘second’ as less worthy’, not to mention‘nonnativeness’.

Teaching Qualifications

In terms of teaching qualifications, morethan half of the respondents acknowledgedTETs as higher degree holders. Out of this,twelve added that for TETs to teach at ter-tiary level, they must have at least a Master’sdegree while it is acceptable for NETs tohold their first degrees and teach in Thai-land because they are native speakers ofEnglish. Some even added that sometimesnative English speakers’ fields of studieswere not related to ESL at all but they werehired to teach since they were native speak-ers of the language. As one said:

“One of the native English speakersthat I know of used to work in jail be-fore. Without any ESL training, he canteach English in university”.

Five others who believed that TETswere more educated provided diverse opin-ions: Thai teachers’ determination to obtaina higher degree to work as English instruc-tors, and the need to study higher to lessena non-native speaker label. The latter illu-minates the issue of obtaining a higher de-gree as an offset for ‘nonnativeness’ in En-glish (Kachru and Nelson, 1996).

“I think because Thai English teach-ers are not native English speakers, itwould then seem necessary to have aMaster’s as a replacement in order to in-crease credibility”.

‘Both groups equally’ was commentedby another seven respondents, three ofwhom indicated that in general, native En-glish speakers are not trained to be ESLteachers while mostly TETs are. Perceivingboth groups as qualifiedly equal, the two oth-ers rationalised that in general highly edu-cated NETs do not like to work abroad asthe remuneration is low and there is no mo-tivation.

Despite the finding in this study thatTETs happen to have superior qualifications,it seems that native English speakers havebeen equipped with privileges in relation tohiring practices merely because they are‘native speakers’. Rampton (1996) andCanagarajah (1999) assert that native En-glish speakers without teaching qualificationsare more likely to be hired as ESL teachers


21

than qualified and experienced NNETs, es-pecially outside the United States or theUnited Kingdom. As far as Thomas (1999)is concerned, notions that native Englishspeakers have sufficient ability to teach ESLowing to a ‘native speakers’ label under-mine the training and required skills for ESLteaching. They are false assumptions thatchallenge the credibility of non-native speak-ers of English. They also challenge the cred-ibility of ‘real’ ESL professionals, both na-tive and non-native, who have years of train-ing and skills.

Ideal Proportion of NETs and NNETsin the Workplace

Based on a hypothetical situation, theparticipants’ perceptions of what ideal pro-portion of NETs versus NNETs should beemployed in their workplace were sought.Three choices were offered: more NETs,an equal number of NETs and NNETs, andmore NNETs.

Almost all acknowledged that to appointan equal number of both groups of teacherswould be most appropriate as to maintainequilibrium. Most of the replies referred tothe advantages and disadvantages that bothgroups possessed and thus suggested find-ing a balance. In addition, some remarkedthat in order to promote diversity, equalityand exchange of ideas, they would employboth group of teachers squarely. Three otherparticipants thought that they would hiremore NETs so as to benefit Thai studentsand to increase the university reputation tomatch international standards. Nonetheless,one in favor of hiring more NETs furtherargued that this was very difficult to do so

in her university since to employ many NETswould require a lot of expenditure.

“In reality, we need more nativespeakers. Still, it is almost impossible tohire a lot of native English teachers forpublic schools due to limited budget.That’s why there are more Thai teachers.For private universities, it might be morelikely because they may be able to affordthat”.

The vast majority of respondents in thisstudy envisaged a fair balance betweenNETs and NNETs in employment, as theywould nicely complement each other. A pro-portionate number of natives and non-na-tives in the staff possessed the additionaladvantage of offering a wide variety of ideasand teaching methods. Although the desir-ability of native/non-native interaction andcooperation would seem to be strength,many schools in EFL contexts like Thailandprefer a greater number of NETs (TEFLAsia, 2001) for some reasons: public rela-tions and native English speakers’ higherlanguage proficiency. Medgyes (1994), ap-proving employing native and non-nativeEnglish teaching staff in moderation, addsthat he would consider the importance oflanguage background as a top selection cri-terion, because of its tremendous effect onteaching practice. Many specific initiativesin particular countries have confirmed theimportance of NETs and NNETs co-op-eration (Gill et al., 1994; Wiseman, 1994;Kamhi-Stein et al., 1999). In addition, re-search conducted by Matsuda and Matsuda(2001) found that by sharing strengths andinsights from various linguistic, cultural, andeducational backgrounds, native and non-


22

native English speakers in their study ben-efited and grew professionally both as indi-viduals and as a group.

Administrator’s Viewpoints

The participants gave quite diverse re-sponses to how TETs were perceived bythe administration in their context as com-pared to NETs. More than half indicatedsimilar responses such as ‘quite similar toNETs’ and ‘fair and respectful to bothgroups to some extent’. However, nine re-spondents arguably remarked that the ad-ministration favoured NETs more. Theirclaims include ‘not giving chances to newThai teachers’, ‘Thai teachers being lessreliable’ and ‘native English teachers beingbetter paid’. Some added that NETs arefavoured and treated with more respect andprivilege than TETs and that the administra-tion would try to satisfy NETs as much aspossible. This is illuminated by some of fol-lowing quotations:

“They will always consider languagecompetency of native English speakersis higher as English is their language”.

“They would assume that native En-glish speakers need more care, so theytend to please those teachers. It’s likethey want to keep those teachers for longfor a good reputation of the university”.

Only one respondent believed that bothgroups of teachers were fairly treated bythe administration considering teaching ex-periences and qualifications.

Given this emergent finding, it is inter-

esting to note that no participants perceivedthemselves to be superior to NETs in theeyes of the administration although manyindicated similar values given to both groupsof teachers. The notions that the adminis-tration attempts to please NETs in order topersuade them to work and stay in schoolor university in the long term can be attrib-uted to some reasons: commercial purpose,demand exceeding supply, language native-ness and authenticity, to name a few. Nomatter what the genuine reasons are, Maum(2002) asserts that when one tries to differ-entiate among teachers based on their sta-tus as NS or NNS, it perpetuates the domi-nance of the NS in the ELT profession andcertainly contributes to discrimination in hir-ing practices.

Although it is obvious that TETs out-number their native counterparts in Thailand,the researchers observe that TETs are attimes regarded as ‘second class’ during thehiring process even in their own context.Avasadanond (2002) states the economiceffect of having NETs on the teaching mar-ket in Thailand on NNETs including Thais;i.e. unemployment or losing job opportuni-ties. He says,

Non-white teachers will have an ex-tremely hard time finding employment inmost schools, even if they speak perfectEnglish and have all the required degreesor certificates and teaching experience.(p.3)

This ongoing practice becomes moreobvious particularly in international schoolsor universities, where English is used asmedium of instruction. One example often


23

noticed is advertising for English teachingpositions placed on websites or in newspa-pers. “Native English speakers required” iswhat is usually written, although in realityThai applicants are allowed to apply.

Students’ Attitudes towards NETs andNNETs

Most respondents noticed that the stu-dents could definitely see the differences.Overall, their responses can be categorisedinto two major groups. One group indicatedthat the students perceived TETs to be moreunderstanding and helpful, and because ofthis they wanted to study with them, eventhough TETs seemed to be more strict aboutrules and discipline. One even claimed thatsome students perceived TETs to be betterwith content and more concerned withgrammar. Another larger group said that thestudents thought that pronunciation was amain difference and that they preferred tostudy with NETs especially for listening andspeaking. NETs were thought of having dif-ferent teaching styles and cultures and offacilitating an easy learning atmosphere.Here are some responses from the lattergroup:

“Absolutely, Thai students take Thaiinstructors for granted for listening andspeaking sessions”.

“I think Thai students feel very com-fortable in farangs’ class (NETs’ class):there is a relaxed atmosphere”.

“Students prefer to study with nativeEnglish teachers considering languageuse and listening practice”.

There are also several voices from therespondents suggesting that it is not neces-sarily true that NETs are considered better,as it depends on individual teachers’ expe-riences and teaching styles and even stu-dents’ own perceptions.

The finding shows that the participantsrealised the students’ perceived differencesbetween NETs and NNETs in many ways.Although TETs may be seen as more atten-tive and thoughtful, many ESL students pre-fer to study with NETs. Amin (1994) con-ducted a study to find out teachers’ per-ceptions of their ESL students’ ideal teach-ers. The teachers believed that some ESLstudents consider only native speakers toknow ‘real’ and ‘proper’ English and onlywhite people as native speakers of English.This is in line with the finding in this study inthat the teachers in both studies perceiveda higher value of the students placed onNETs given English language proficiencyparticularly with pronunciation. Lippi-Green(1997)’s study also indicated that teacherswith non-native accents were perceived bystudents as less qualified and less effectiveand were compared unfavorably with theirnative English speaking colleagues.

A survey conducted in Thailand byWalenciak to ask students if they wouldenroll in classes taught by Thais or othernon-native English speakers in private lan-guage schools found that the majority of thestudents would strongly prefer only non-Asians instructors (Avasadanond, 2002).These students have a preference to studywith NETs as they hope to improve theirEnglish accent. Some expect to gain newlearning experiences apart from being ex-


24

posed to social and cultural differences,things they claim are unavailable from TETs.

However, Braine (1999) asserts thatESL students will initially subscribe to thenative speaker fallacy, that is, NETs are per-fect models in language learning. However,as they become better acquainted withqualified, competent, NNETs, students of-ten enjoy being in their classes, knowing thatNNETs better understand their languageproblems and can help them learn success-ful strategies to become competent learn-ers.

As for the second research question‘How do TETs perceive the subject ofequality when comparing with NETs? Theanswer to the question can be supplied asfollows:

Perceptions of Equality

Offering a critical viewpoint to the par-ticipants by questioning whether it would beappropriate and about what would emergeif TETs and NETs were treated equally bythe administration was intentionally placedtowards the end. This is because the re-searchers intend to see how these partici-pants would react after being asked aboutvarious aspects of the native and non-na-tive English teachers.

Almost every participant said it wouldbe appropriate to reduce discrepancy andpromote fairness since both groups ofteachers would cooperate and work togethereffectively. Some quotations can help illu-minate the findings:

“Equality should be conducted in theworkplace. It is proper and nothing nega-tive will happen but satisfaction”.

“I think it is appropriate; at least,Thai teachers would be more encouragedto work”.

“Very appropriate as it would resultin racial equality”.

“Highly appropriate, but native En-glish teachers may be unhappy”

As seen above, some added that TETswould be more motivated to work while onebelieved that NETs might not be content.However, several participants argued thatnothing would happen as both groups ofteachers were accepted and important forthe university. Interestingly, one warned thatNETs might not accept this, owing to theirbeliefs that they deserved to be paid betterbecause they were native English speakers.Here are some of the interviewees’ quota-tions:

Regarding the potential equality be-tween NETs and TETs by the adminis-tration, it is found that ninety percent ofall participants agreed that it would beappropriate to minimise the differencesand that both groups of teachers wouldcooperate effectively. The attitudestended to be more positive than negative.

There is evidence that many researchstudies have addressed the issue of equalitybetween NETs and NNETs in the ESL pro-fession. However, none to very few mayhave essentially investigated the perceptions


25

of NNETs to understand how they becomeaware of the possibility of equality, specifi-cally within the Thai context through TETs.Therefore, the researchers are convincedthat the present study is unique and its re-sults are worth considering.

As the aims of this research are not onlyto explore the perceptions of TETs of them-selves and of NETs, but also to questionthe issue of power relations between NETsand NNETs, the researchers thus put for-ward the issue of inequality and brought itto the teachers’ attention. On the whole,according to the most participants, they in-dicated that equality should be promoted,which means that to some extent they areaware of the inequalities within their owncontext.

It is interesting to see that after theyviewed themselves as equal, most re-sponses were directed toward betterteacher collaboration and gap reduction. Itis clear that mutual benefits are visible witha mixture of NETs and NNETs. Non-na-tive speakers can supply native speakerswith a lot of support (Gill and Rebrova,2001). For example, NNETs can help withlearning the host language and dipping intothe culture of the host community. On theother way around, Preston (1984) mentionsthat the linguistic judgments and intuitionsof sophisticated, qualified native speakersare worth taking into account. Thus, NNETscan turn to their native colleagues with lin-guistic questions during the planning or con-duct of lessons. Additionally, the existenceof multinational and multicultural staff con-tributes to a better understanding of eachother’s traditions, customs and mentality,

helps us eliminate prejudices and stereo-types, and creates a higher degree of toler-ance towards each other.

Maum (2002) reiterates that NNETsare beginning to see themselves and to beviewed by others as equal partners in theELT profession, both in the institutions wherethey teach and within the professionalorganisations that represent them. Thismovement is supported by TESOL, an as-sociation that represents teachers of Englishto speakers of other languages, which ap-proved the formation of non-native Englishspeakers in TESOL Caucus in 1998. Thisrecognition has given NETs more visibilityin the profession and has helped create aprofessional environment for all TESOLmembers, regardless of native languages andplaces of birth (NNEST Caucus Website,n.d.).

Though a small scale effort, this studyhas at least established some interesting anduseful insights into the related issues of na-tive and non-native speakers of English in-cluding power relations, which could ben-efit other researchers interested in this criti-cal domain. Further, several implications canbe drawn from the study. Firstly, the ideathat ‘the ideal teacher of English is a nativespeaker’ (Phillipson, 1992: 185) needs tobe examined in order to raise the coopera-tive consciousness of both NETs andNNETs and teacher trainees. Secondly, inthe area of TESOL, more emphasis shouldbe placed on the multidimensionality andexpertise than on nativeness and authentic-ity. Finally, there should be more formal dis-cussions on specific issues and concernsrelated to ELT professionals from diverse


26

cultural and linguistic backgrounds, whichwould benefit both NETs and NNETs.

CONCLUSION

The participants have offered variousperceptions with regard to native and non-native English speaker issues mainly by com-paring themselves to native speaker coun-terparts. Moreover, with the methodologyemployed in the study, ideology critique,they were offered a critical standpoint, al-lowing them to see the power structuresbetween NETs and NNETs from a differ-ent angle. Indeed, most of the participantsreported perceived differences betweenNETs and NNETs in many aspects. Moreimportantly, most of them could detectpower relations and inequality within the la-bels ‘native speakers’ and ‘non-nativespeakers’.

Although many participants referred toadvantages native speakers have over non-native counterparts such as the appropriatecontexts of language use and linguistic com-petence, the question of who are better lan-guage teachers appeared to be rather irrel-evant. What is more important to themseems to lie in teachers’ knowledge, train-ing in ELT and expertise. O’Neill (1991)asserts that proficient non-native speakerscan be just as good as native speakers are.It is also interesting to note here that severalparticipants believe that if NETs are well-equipped with pedagogical skills, experi-ences and training in English teaching as wellas the understanding of student problems,then it is hard to deny that NETs can behighly qualified teachers of their language.

In the domain of critical issues inTESOL, the debate over the relative con-cerns of NETs and NNETs will continue.While it is still of interest to ELT profes-sionals, NETs and NNETs should continueto sharpen their expertise and seek oppor-tunities to discuss agendas related to teach-ing professionals to raise their own aware-ness. As a result, they can then better un-derstand the issues related to both non-na-tive and native speakers of English.

REFERENCES

Amin, N. (1994). Minority women teach-ers on ownership of English. Unpub-lished master’s research paper, OntarioInstitute for Studies in Education/ Uni-versity of Toronto, Canada.

Amin, N. (2001). “Nativism, the nativespeaker construct, and minority immi-grant women teachers of English as asecond language”. CATESOL Journal,13, 89-107.

Avasadanond, B. (2002). “The dark sideof English language education in Thai-land”. Bangkok Post. Retrieved on 20January, 2008, from http://www.bangkokpost.net/education/site2002/cvoc0802.htm.

Braine, G. (Ed.) (1999). Non-native edu-cators in English languge teaching.Mahwah, New Jersey: LEA.

Canagarajah, S. (1999). “Interrogating the“Native Speaker Fallacy”: Non-Lin-guistic Roots, Non-Pedagogical Re-sults”. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-nativeeducators in English language teach-ing (pp.77-92). Mahwah, New Jersey:LEA.


27

Canagarajah, S. (1999). Resisting linguis-tic imperialism in English teaching.Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of theTheory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K.(2000). Research Methods in Educa-tion 5th Edition. London: Routledge.

Cook, V. (1999). “Going Beyond the Na-tive Speaker in Language Teaching”.TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 185-209.

Davies, A. (1991). The native speaker inapplied linguistics. Edinburgh, Scot-land: Edinburgh University Press.

Edge, J. (1996). “Cross-cultural paradoxesin a profession of values”. TESOLQuarterly, 30, 9-30.

Galtung, J. (1980). The true worlds: Atransnational perspective. New York:The Free Press.

Gill, S., Rybarova, V. and Kocanova, M.(1994). “A Steamy Summer inSlovakia”. SATE/SAUA Newsletter,4(1).

Gill, S. and Rebrova, A. (2001). “Nativeand non-native: together we’re worthmore”. The ELT Newsletter, 52, 1-11.

Habermas, J. (1976). Legitimation Crisis.London: Heinemann.

Harding, E. and Riley, P. (2003). TheBilingual Family: A handbook forparents (2nd edition). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Holliday, A. (2003). “The struggle against‘us’-‘them’ conceptualizations inTESOL as the ownership of Englishchanges”. In Z. Syed, C. Coombe &S. Troudi (Eds.), Selected Papers fromthe TESOL Arabia 2002 InternationalConference: Vol.7. Critical Reflection

and Practice (pp.16-41). TESOLArabia.

Kachru, B. B. (1996). The paradigms ofmarginality. World Englishes, 15, 241-255.

Kachru, B. B. and Nelson, C. L. (1996).World Englishes. In S. L. McKay & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolin-guistics and language teaching(pp.71-102). Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.

Kamhi-Stein, L., Lee, E. and Lee, C.(1999). “How TESOL programs canenhance the preparation of non-nativeEnglish speakers”. TESOL Matters,9(4), 1, 5.

Kamhi-Stein, L. (2002). NonnativeEnglish-speaking professionals:Bibliography. Retrieved on March 1,2008, from http://www.unh.edu/nnest/bibiography.html.

Kramsch, C. (1997). “The privilege of thenonnative speaker”. PMLA, 112, 359-369.

Lazaraton, A. (2003). “Incidental Displaysof Cultural Knowledge in the Nonna-tive-English-Speaking Teacher’s Class-room”. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 213-245.

Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with anaccent. Language, ideology, anddiscrimination in the United States.New York: Routledge.

Liu, J. (1999). “From Their Own Perspec-tives: The Impact of Non-Native ESL

Professionals on Their Students”. In G.Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators inEnglish language teaching (pp.159-176). Mahwah, New Jersey: LEA.

Liu, J. (1999). “Nonnative-English-Speak-ing Professionals in TESOL”. TESOL


28

Quarterly, 33(1), 85-102.Liu, J. (2001). “Confession of a non-native

English-speaking professional”.CATESOL Journal, 13, 53-67.

Maum, R. (2002). Nonnative-English-Speaking Teachers in the EnglishTeaching Profession. Retrieved onJanuary 15, 2004, from http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/0209maum.html.

Matsuda, A. and Matsuda, P. K. (2001).“Autonomy and collaboration in teacher

education: Journal sharing among nativeand non-native English-speaking teach-ers”. CATESOL Journal, 13(1), 109-121.

Medgyes, P. (1992). “Native or non-native:Who’s worth more?” ELT Journal, 46,340-349.

Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-nativeteacher. London: Macmillan.

Medgyes, P. (1996). “Native or non-native:Who’s worth more?” In T. Hedge &N. Whitney (Eds.), Power, pedagogy& practice (pp.31-42). Oxford: Ox-ford University Press.

Milambiling, J. (2000). “How NonnativeSpeakers as Teachers Fit Into the Equa-tion”. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 324-327.

Nayar, P. B. (1994). Whose English is it?Retrieved on December 12, 2007, fromhttp://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej01/f.1.html.

NNEST Causus Website. (n.d.). CaucusGoals. Retrieved on February 5, 2008,from http:www.unh.edu/nnest/purpose.html.

O’Neill, R. (1991). “The Plausible Myth ofLearner-Centredness; Or the Impor-tance of Doing Ordinary Things Well”.ELT Journal, 45, 293-304.

Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural poli-tics of English as an international lan-guage. London: Longman.

Pennycook, A. (1995). “English in theworld/The world in English”. In J. W.Tollefson (Ed.), Power and inequalityin language education (pp.34-58).Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical appliedlinguistics: A critical introduction.London: LEA.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperial-ism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Phillipson, R. (1996). “ELT: The nativespeaker’s burden”. In T. Hedge & N.Whitney (Eds.), Power, pedagody &practice (pp.23-30). Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Preston, D. R. (1984). “How to Milk aNative Speaker”: An Essay in TESL/TEFL Husbandry. English TeachingForum, 22.

Quirk, R. (1995). Grammatical andlexical variance in English. London:Longman.

Rampton, M. B. H. (1996). “Displacing the“native speaker”: Expertise, affiliation,and inheritance”. In T. Hedge & N.Whitney (Eds.), Power, pedagogy &practice (pp.9-22). Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Reves, T. and Medgyes, P. (1994). “Thenon-native English speaking EFL/ESLteacher’s self-image: An internationalsurvey”. System, 22, 353-367.

Richards, J. C. and Lockhart, C. (1994).Reflective teaching in second lan-guage classrooms. New York: Cam-bridge University Press.

Samimy, K. K. and Brutt-Griffler, J. (1999).


29

“To Be a Native or Non-NativeSpeaker: Perceptions of “Non-Native”Students in a Graduate TESOL Pro-gram”. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-nativeeducators in English language teach-ing (pp.127-144). Mahwah, New Jer-sey: LEA.

Singh, R. (1998) (Ed.). The native speaker:Multilingual perspectives. New Delhi:Sage Publications.

Tang, C. (1997). “The Identity of the Non-native ESL Teacher: on the power andstatus of nonnative ESL teachers”.TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 577-579.

TEFL Asia (2001). Spoken like a true


Anglo-Saxon; Native speakers vs.Non-Native. Retrieved on January 15,2008, from http:www.teflasia.com/in-dex. php?area=2&article23.

Thomas, J. (1999). “Voices from the pe-riphery: Non-native teachers and issuesof credibility”. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English languageteaching (pp.5-13). Mahwah, NewJersey: LEA.

Widdowson, H. G. (1994). “The ownershipof English”. TESOL Quarterly, 28,377-381.

Wiseman, A. (1994). “Evaluating Evalua-tion”. Prodess News, 4, 5-6.

30

native and non-native dichotomy: distinctive stances of ...10-30)_article02.pdf · native and...

Documents