名古屋外国語大学論集第2号

2018年2月

ArticleThe Strengths and Weaknesses of Native andNon-native Speakers as Teachers of English
as a Foreign or Second Language
Jonathan HACON

In order to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of native-speaker teachers
and non-native speaker teachers, we must first analyse the terms ‘native speaker’and ‘non-native speaker’ and look at the common assumptions and perceptions
made about each before analysing how the cultural and linguistic knowledge ofthe teacher influences his or her effectiveness before finally discussing how theneeds of the students come into play.
The earliest definitions of a ‘native speaker’ of a language is someone wholearnt to speak that language before any other, from childhood (Cook 2001,185) and this seems to be the common consensus of the term today despite thecontroversy with regard to the many cases it may not be so easily applied. The
most common assumptions of what it means to be a native speaker, or the speakerof a mother-tongue, according to Rampton (1990, 97), are:
1. A particular language is inherited, either through genetic endowment
or through birth into the social group stereotypically associated with it.
2. Inheriting a language means being able to speak it well.
3. People either are or are not native/mother-tongue speakers.
1774. Being a native speaker involves the comprehensive grasp of a language.
5. Just as people are usually citizens of one country, people are native
speakers of one mother tongue.
However, as she and many others point out (see Medgyes (1992) or Cook (2001)
for examples) there are a number of exceptions that do not fit neatly into thesecriteria or the prior definition. Consider a boy who was born in Italy to an Italianmother and a German father and moved to America at the age of 5 and hence
grew up speaking Italian, German and English. Which language (if any) is hea native speaker of? Where do factors such as ability or the order in which thelanguages that are learnt come into play? As Cook (2001, 187–189) points out,
there are great differences in the linguistic abilities of native speakers (as there
are in non-native speakers). Some are more or less adept at writing or storytelling, or have larger vocabularies than others while some understand certain
dialects or accents better than others or write poetry or songs that others cannot.
One would surely have a hard time disputing that the likes of Joseph Conrad andSamuel Beckett have better English than a typical 7-year-old Australian boy, or
many adults for that matter, yet the latter is a native speaker and the former arenot. Medgyes (1992) makes the point that in order to make sense of the debate, a
non-native speaker must be compared to his native-speaker equivalent, and only
by eliminating factors such as age, experience, intelligence and education can
we make a fair comparison. Medgyes (1992, 341.) also argues that a non-native
speaker can never be as creative and original as his native-speaker counterpart
because he is too reliant on imitating the native speaker. But is imitation not hownative speakers learn as well? And how can we judge accurately what is andis not creative or original, or even ‘good’ English anyway? Whichever view istaken on these terms, the consensus seems to be that they are contentious andcontroversial and have been for some time, yet they remain in regular use. The178

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Native and Non-native Speakers as Teachers of English as a Foreign or Second Language ■aim of this essay in using these terms is not to condone them, but to challenge
the common views and misconceptions brought about by these terms. It is allvery well to say that they are outdated or inapplicable from an academic perspective, but the fact is that the perceptions of students and teachers of ESL orEFL in regard to native-speakerness can have a significant effect on classroomdynamics. In order to avoid confusion and give a critique on these perceptions,this essay shall adopt the common views of what a native speaker is (someone
who learnt English as their first language, still speaks it, and is typically from
Canada, America, The United Kingdom, Australia or New Zealand) and whata non-native speaker is (someone who began learning English as a second or
foreign language, after their first language).
The fact of the matter is that although there is a great deal of controversy
over the terms native speaker and non-native speaker and what it means to beeither, there is a great deal of prejudice in the world of TESOL towards both,least not from employers, students and the teachers themselves. One only needs
to browse through popular ESL job websites to see that native speakers are given
preference to the vast majority of ESL teaching jobs. Many if these jobs require
little or no other qualifications apart from simply being a native speaker andmany schools feel they are able to charge more for tuition fees if they employ
native speakers. (Canagarajah, 2001, 84–85) But is this preference justified?
The feelings of students towards having a native or non-native speaker are more
mixed than this preference might indicate. In a survey on students anxiety in theforeign language classroom conducted by ‘Support Group for Foreign Language
Learning’ at the University of Texas in 1983, students were presented with thestatement “I would feel comfortable around speakers of the foreign language.”to which 52% answered “disagree” or “strongly disagree and 28% answered“agree” or “strongly agree”. In response to a similar statement “I would not feel
nervous speaking the foreign language with native speakers.” 66% answered“disagree” or “strongly disagree” while just 17% answered “agree” or “strongly179

agree” (Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope 1986, 129–130). As these results would
indicate, and as Cook (2001, 200) points out, many students are intimidated by
the prospect of speaking with a native speaker and may “prefer a more falliblemodel” that a non-native speaker teacher provides. This point is supported byresults found in a study conducted between December, 1996 and July, 1997 at“a major Midwestern university in the United States” where non-native ESLteachers and their students were interviewed about their teaching effectiveness.
“Mr. K” a Korean L1 speaker attested:
Students have told me that my being a Korean-American (as opposed to being
an American) helped them in the sense that they thought I could understand theirposition (problems, etc.) better than an American teacher could... To a lesser
extent, I seem to have a similar rapport with Asian students in general, and to a still
lesser extent, with all my students (because of my “non-native-like appearance”).

This was backed up by “Mr. D” a Dutch L1 speaker, who reported:My students knew from day one that I was not a NS. But they did not show any
kind of resentment. On the contrary, I had the feeling that they considered me as
one of them, but with both knowledge and training in the specific field of ELT.
(Liu, 1999, 160-172).

However, it appears that this can go either way, as some students indicated thatthey were intimidated by their teacher “Mr. C”, a Cantonese L1 speaker, becauseof the fact that he was a non-native speaker and he had achieved such a highlevel of English. (Liu, 1999, 169).
Despite these generally positive views, non-native teachers often harbour
great insecurities about their own language abilities, whether these are warrantedor unwarranted, which can have adverse effects on their performance (Medgyes180

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Native and Non-native Speakers as Teachers of English as a Foreign or Second Language ■1992, 348). These negative self-images are often reinforced by the students’preconceptions about their non-native teachers as Amin (1997, 581) explains:
When the students give the message that they consider their teacher to be a nonnative speaker of English and therefore one who cannot teach them the English
they want or feel they need, minority teachers are unable to effectively negotiate
a teacher identity. In such a classroom, minority teachers, no matter how qualified
they are, becomes less effective in facilitating their students’ language learning
than, perhaps, white teachers.

Because of these negative preconceptions, non-native speakers often feel they
have to go through extra lengths to conceal their non-nativeness by focussing on
concealing their accent or other ways to try to sound like a native speaker at thedetriment on focussing on pedagogy and how to be a good teacher. (Canagarajah,1999, 84–85).
So far we have looked at the image of the native and non-native speakerteacher as perceived by their students, themselves and in general, but specificimplications are brought about by the difference in language ability between
the two types of teacher? Generally it can be said that the native speaker hasan advantage in terms of language proficiency over the non-native speaker andthis is generally speaking a positive asset for a language teacher, as a teacher
with little or no language ability will surely be less effective than one who isproficient. However, as Medgyes (1992, 346) points out, there are many hidden
advantages to the non-native speaker teacher’s language “deficiency”:
a. Only non-NESTS can serve as imitable models of the successful learner ofEnglish.
b. Non-NESTS can teach learning strategies more effectively.
c.	Non-NESTS can provide learners with more information about the English181

language.
d. Non-NESTS are more able to anticipate language difficulties.
e. Non-NESTS can be more empathetic to the needs and problems of their learners.
f. Only non-NESTS can benefit from sharing the learners’ mother tongue.

With regard to the last point, there is a view from believers of the communicative teaching method that the students’ L1 should not be used at all in teaching
and all interaction should occur in the language being learnt. However, Cook(2001, 190–191) makes the point that teaching a language involves adding an
L1 to a brain that already contains an L1 and that how a language is processed isbased on the student’s L1 knowledge, and most pertinently that the L1 is always
present in the learning process whether it is visible or not (Cook 2001, 202). To
contrast, speaking from my own experience of learning Japanese and teaching
English, I would add that interacting entirely in the language being learnt creates
momentum and encourages students to think and process information in that
language, especially at higher levels, and therefore L1 processing may be lessimportant at times. Whether the students’ L1 is used or not in the classroom, there
are great benefits in knowing the students’ L1 with regard to understanding their
linguistic problems and needs. As Littlewood (2004) points out, there are many
complications in learning a second language created by L1 interference, which hecategorises with the four terms transfer, generalisation, imitation and imitation.
The teacher who understands these elements and the differences and similarities
between the students’ L1 and the language being taught is better equipped toexploit them and target problematic areas. Therefore we can conclude in thewords of Medgyes (1992, 348) “The ideal NEST is the one who has achieved
a high level of proficiency in the learner’s mother tongue” and “The ideal nonNEST is the one who has achieved near-native proficiency in English.”
However, in comparing native and non-native speaker teachers, equally182

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Native and Non-native Speakers as Teachers of English as a Foreign or Second Language ■important to the strictly linguistic knowledge mentioned is the teacher’s cultural
knowledge. Any given language has its own culture-specific concepts that may
have no equivalent in the language being learnt (Baker 1992, 21–30). TheJapanese use the phrase yoroshiku onegaishimasu which is often translated as
nice to meet you, although directly translated it could be well please and can beused not only to express the good intentions of people meeting for the first time,
but also those of students towards their teacher at the beginning of a class or
between the members of two companies at the beginning of a business meeting.
Likewise there are many words in English that do not have an equivalent in otherlanguages, such as savoury and home (Baker, 1992). A teacher who is not familiar
with the culture of their students may not pay enough attention to these concepts
or find it difficult to understand why their students have problems comprehending them. An important factor of language proficiency as identified by Hymes(1972, 285) is appropriateness. Certain language can evoke different feelings
and intentions of the speaker by conveying politeness, annoyance, uncertainty oradmiration, and this is unique in each culture or language. Also unique to each
culture is what language is appropriate to use in certain situations. In Japanese,
it is customary to say osaki ni shitsurei shimasu (excuse me for leaving beforeyou) when going home from work before another colleague, whereas this would
not normally be deemed necessary in most western countries. More than often
in an ESL / EFL classroom, especially when the teacher is a native speaker ofEnglish or the materials used are designed by native speakers, the culture that islearnt and enforced through the language is that of English speaking countries.
This can be either be motivating or uninteresting and irrelevant depending on theaims of the learner as some learners are willing to adapt to the foreign culture,others learn English for use within their own culture or wish to keep their own
cultural identity (McKay, 2003, 10). Another important culture-related factor in
the classroom is the way the class itself is taught. Most native speaker teachers
who follow the communicative teaching method subscribe to the western view183

that volunteering in class is a sign of showing interest and comprehension in
the classroom and tend to make the classes students focussed with emphasison group discussion and pair-work activities, whereas the Chinese view is thatvolunteering is equated to showing off and preventing valuable teacher talk timeand such discussion activities are a waste of time as they prefer to focus on theteacher (McKay, 2003, 13–15). Hence certain activities may be more or lesseffective in a language classroom and the teacher’s knowledge of these cultural
factors will be beneficial in getting the most out of the students.
Most importantly of all perhaps in comparing the effectiveness in nativeand non-native teachers is the needs of the students and what English is to betaught. Despite the fact that over 80% of TESOL teachers are non-native speakers (Canagarajah, 1999, 91), TESOL pedagogy and the production of materials
used in the classroom is dominated by native speakers (Canagarajah, 1999, 86).
The language taught in these classes is based on the assumption that students
are aiming for native-like proficiency despite the fact that the largest group ofusers of English use it on a daily basis without the presence of native speakers(Seidholfer, 2001, 141). As Seidholfer (2001, 141) points out “The primary concerns for this domain are efficiency, relevance and economy in language learningand language use.” This group of English learners are not concerned with imitating the native speaker, so surely a native speaker teacher is not necessary for
their needs. On the contrary, in many such contexts using native-like English canbe seen as distasteful, snobbish or pedantic (McKay, 2003, 7). While these L2speakers seem content to use their own brand of English pertinent to their own
needs, there seems to be an inferiority complex created by the fact that L2 usersof English are compared to native speakers (Cook 2001, 185). Butcher (2005,21–22) describes the “red pen” view of English where native English is seen ascorrect and all other forms as inferior as a form of imperialism, and he makes thepoint that adapting is what languages do best and they should be allowed to doso. Indeed it seems that many of the problems that face L2 users of English are184

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Native and Non-native Speakers as Teachers of English as a Foreign or Second Language ■created by this ‘English’ is based on native speaker English (Seidholfer, 2001,137–138). So, as to which kind of teacher is more effective depends largely on
the needs of the learner. A native speaker may be more effective in teaching
those who wish to use English in English speaking countries, while non-nativespeakers may be more effective in other cases (Canagarajah, 1999, 89).
To conclude it seems that the effectiveness of the teacher, whether a native
or non-native speaker, is dictated firstly by the needs of the learner and secondly
how the linguistic and cultural knowledge of the target language and the language being learnt match those needs. Also, it can be said that a re-imaginingof English on an international scale and the images of native and non-native
speakers is a key factor in empowering teachers and students of English andhelping them achieve their goals.

ReferencesAmin, Nuzhat. 1997 ‘Race and the Identity of the Nonnative ESL Teacher’ In: TESOL Quarterly
Volume 31, Number 3, Autumn 1997, pp. 580–585.
Baker, Mona. 1992 ‘Equivalence at word level’ In: In other words: a coursebook on translation / Mona
Baker. London; New York: Routledge, 1992. Chapter 2, pp. 10–45.
Butcher, Carmen Acevedo. 2005 ‘The Case Against the ‘Native Speaker’ In: English Today. Vol. 21,No. 2, 2005, pp. 13–24.
Canagarajah, Suresh A. 1999 ‘Interrogating the ‘Native Speaker Fallacy’: Non – Linguistic Roots,Non – Pedagogical Results’ In: Non-native Educators in English Language Teaching / Edited byGeorge Braine. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1999, Chapter 6, pp. 77–92.
Cook, Vivian. 1999. “Going Beyond the Native Speaker in Language Teaching.” In: TESOL Quarterly,
33 (2), pp. 185–210.
Horwitz, Elaine, Horwitz, Michael and Cope, Joann. 1986. “Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety.”
In: The Modern Language Journal 70 (2), pp. 125–132.
Hymes, D.H. 1972 ‘On Communicative Competence’ In: SOCIOLINGUISTICS: SELECTEDREADINGS / EDITED BY J.B. PRIDE AND JANET HOLMES. HARMONDSWORTH:PENGUIN, 1972. Chapter 18, pp. 269–293.
Littlewood, William 2004 ‘Second Language Learning’ In: The handbook of applied linguistics / editedby Alan Davies and Catherine Elder. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. Chapter 20, pp. 510–524.
Liu, Jun. 1999 ‘From Their Own Perspectives: The Impact of Non – Native ESL Professionals on
Their Students’ In: Non – Native Educators in English Language Teaching / Edited by George
Braine. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1999, Chapter 11, pp.159–176.

185

McKay, Sandra. 2003. “Toward and Appropriate EIL Pedagogy: Re-examining Common ELTAssumptions.” In: International Journal of Applied Linguisitics, 13, pp. 1–22.
Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: Who’s worth more? In: ELT Journal, 46, 1992, pp. 340–349.
Rampton, M.B.H. 1990 ‘Displacing the ‘native speaker’: expertise, affiliation, and inheritance’ In:
ELT journal. Vol. 44, 1990, pp. 97–101.
Seidlhofer, Barbara 2001 ‘Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a description of English as a lingua
franca’ In: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2001, pp. 133–158.

186