Finding the connections between native-speakerism and authenticity

2.1 Native-speakerism

Native-speakerism, as outlined by Holliday, is defined as “a pervasive ideology within ELT, characterized by the belief that ‘native-speaker’ teachers represent a ‘Western culture’ from which spring the ideals both of the English language and of English language teaching methodology” (2006: 385). This bias is based on the spurious, poorly-defined, and ideologically constructed concepts of ‘native speaker’ and ‘non-native speaker’ (Davies 1995, 2003), and has been seen to produce numerous negative consequences for English language teachers who are defined as ‘non-native speaker teachers’, which we will address later in this paper. The fact that such an ideology is at play, based on spurious and ill-defined terms, is particularly problematic when we consider the fact that such individuals make up the majority of English language teachers worldwide, with conservative estimates at around 80% (Braine 2010; Canagarajah 2005).

Native-speakerism is a development of, and remains deeply connected to, other long-established concerns in the critical study of language learning and teaching. One of the most influential critiques of the political dimensions of language teaching is Phillipson’s (1992) concept of linguistic imperialism, which, borrowing from Galtung’s Structural Theory of Imperialism (1971), put forward the Centre/Periphery dichotomy of power relations in ELT. Phillipson (1992) detailed the ways in which the power centres of the West exercise control over the language learning and language use of developing nations, and particularly noted a number of fallacies which have been responsible for bolstering this neoimperialist agenda. These include the ‘native speaker fallacy’, or the idea that so-called ‘native speakers’ are the ideal teachers of a language, and the ‘monolingual fallacy’, by which we are to believe that English is best taught monolingually.

Phillipson’s (1992) ideas are important for understanding macro level power relations in ELT, but as Pennycook (1994) has argued:

[Phillipson’s] adherence to a version of structural imperialism leaves us at a problematic impasse. The unfortunate conjunction between structuralism and neo-marxism in world order theory has tended to reduce human relations to a reflection of the political economy (…) Phillipson amply demonstrates how and why various governments and organisations have promoted the spread of English, but rarely explores what the effects of that promotion may be apart from maintaining global capitalism.

(Pennycook 1994: 54)

While this statement dates from twenty years ago, and while the global situation may not be the same as it was at that time, as a criticism of the reductionist nature of Phillipson’s (1992) theory it still has weight, especially considering the continued promotion of the idea (Phillipson 2009). Indeed, this is a criticism that has been repeated by other scholars in recent years such as Hyland (2015), who notes that “Philipson’s [sic] account is over-deterministic, underplaying the role of agency and how users exercise choice” (p. 48). Holliday’s (1994) BANA (Britain, Australia, and North America) and TESEP (tertiary, secondary, and primary) dichotomy of educational systems sought to address this gap by exploring some of the issues connected with ‘technology transfer’ from one domain to the other. However, this too was problematic. As Canagarajah (1996) argued, Holliday’s framework was essentially about finding the best ways of importing educational technology into developing nations, almost without the consultation of those to whom the technology is being transferred. This conception, while taking more account of local educational settings and introducing the concept of a ‘market place’ of teaching methods and approaches, still does not capture the full complexity of the situation.

In response to Canagarajah’s critique, Holliday (2003, 2005) coined the term ‘native-speakerism’ which seeks to deal with the issues of culture and politics in ELT in a more overarching way by including discussions of culturism and Orientalism. Said (1978: 3) described Orientalism as “the corporate institution for dealing with the Orient – dealing with it by making statements about it, describing it, by teaching it, settling it, ruling over it: in short Orientalism as a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient.” Of course, the descriptor of the ‘Orient’ is simplistic and overgeneralised, but this is perhaps intentionally so. Said (1978) described orientalism as reductive in the sense that it essentializes complex systems, cultures, and groups and explains them in simplistic ways, lacking in nuance. The ‘Orient’ as a construct reflects this, with the simplicity of the terminology highlighting the reductive nature of the discourse. Susser (1998) provides a clear example of Orientalism at work in ELT through an examination of materials offering advice to foreign teachers entering Japan, and research into cross-cultural learning styles. Susser found that the texts were “grounded in assumptions, stereotypes, platitudes, and errors” (1998: 63), which seemed intended to legitimize the authority of Western teachers over local teachers, students, and educational institutions by ‘othering’ them and attempting to solve problems that have been constructed by the writers from stereotypical images of the Japanese. A clear example of this given by Susser is a statement by Dadour and Robbins (1996) concerning Japanese students, in which they claim that student preferences is “to passively absorb information provided by teachers” (p. 166). This is a common stereotypical depiction of students in Japan, China, and other East Asian nations, and one which has not only been questioned on theoretical grounds (Holliday 2005), but has also been shown to be incorrect in research on student attitudes (Littlewood 2000). The ways in which structures and systems with western-centric biases have used discourses in ELT to dominate the profession has led to a number of undesirable consequences for ‘non-native speaker’ professionals. Examples of these include employment discrimination (Clark and Paran 2007; Kim 2011; Mahboob and Golden 2013; Mahboob et al. 2004; Selvi 2010), student preferences for Western models of English (Matsuda 2003b; Saito 2012; Sasayama 2013), ‘non-native speaker’ teachers having negative self-images (Bernat 2008; Brutt-Griffler and Samimy 1999; Kim 2011) and students having a positive orientation towards ‘native speaker’ over ‘non-native speaker’ teachers (Alseweed 2012; Lasagabaster and Sierra 2002; Wu and Ke 2009). In some cases, this discrimination is coming from ‘native speakers’ and in some cases from ‘non-native speakers’, but the ideological root is the same, and is perpetuated and internalised by both practitioners and students due to the fact that it is a “hegemonic discourse” the “prejudices and politics [of which] are deeply embedded in every aspect of practice” (Holliday 2005: 10). Indeed, Houghton and Rivers have made a persuasive attempt to redefine the term ‘native-speakerism’ to mean “prejudice, stereotyping, and/or discrimination, typically by or against foreign language teachers, on the basis of either being or not being perceived and categorized as a native speaker of a particular language” (2013: 14). Here we see the definition being broadened to include discrimination against ‘native speakers’, and while a convincing case for this is made in the book, we will focus in this article for the most part on the earlier definition of the term as we believe that this is still where the vast majority of the discrimination and prejudice can still be found (see the recent volume by Swan et al. 2015 for more examples of the ways and the extent to which native-speakerism influences the profession).

Native-speakerism is, in short, an important theoretical and descriptive concept which unites many of the different areas of critical thought on the political and cultural dimensions of ELT, and is a key way of examining how and why problematic ‘othering’ in the profession occurs. In other words, whilst the ‘native speaker’ is a spurious social and political construct, the harmful effects of many people’s belief in its existence are very real and we both feel that they have a lot to do with the equally thorny issue of authenticity in language teaching and learning.

2.2 Authenticity

In existential philosophy, authenticity roughly equates to the amount an individual is able to be their true self. Existential philosophers of the twentieth century struggled with the way this true self fits into accepted forms of societal interaction (Golomb 1995; Lindholm 2008). Authenticity, as it relates to the present paper, is conceptualised as the way an individual sees themselves in relation to the various contexts in which they exist and are required to use language for the social production of meaning. We view authenticity as something which has both social and contextual dimensions, and is therefore dynamic in terms of space and time; unique to each individual and as such rather difficult to define (Badger and MacDonald 2010; Pinner 2016). Conversely, authenticity in language teaching often carries either implicit or direct reference to the culture(s) in which the target language is used as a first language, which generally gravitates towards ‘native-speakers’ (Holliday 2005; Pinner 2014). This is evident from the so-called ‘classic’ definition of authenticity, which usually explains that authentic language is ‘real’ language, primarily created for the purpose of communicating some intention or message. For instance, the ‘classic’ example of an authentic material is a newspaper from the target-speaking culture or some other piece of realia “not originally developed for pedagogical purposes” (Richards and Schmidt 2013: 43). Although defining authenticity specifically in relation to ‘native speakers’ is both undesirable and out-dated in English language materials-design, it is nevertheless pervasive, although it now manifests itself more subtly. The ‘classic’ definition of authentic materials does not directly mention ‘native-speakers’, and indeed, some versions of it argue that it is therefore more inclusive (Gilmore 2011; Harmer 2008). However, the ‘native-speaker’ is still very heavily implied in the definition and as such authenticity is implicit in the discourse on native-speakerism. Authenticity is still all too often defined as something absolute, as something which can inherently belong to a text or piece of material by virtue of its origin. This is despite the long-standing conceptual arguments against such an inflexible definition, as proposed by scholars such as Widdowson (1978), Breen (1985) and van Lier (1996). In ELT in particular, the concept of authenticity is extremely problematic because English is the world’s second language in the sense of it being the most taught and learned language globally, and therefore the future of the language will “be determined less by the number and economic power of its native speakers than by the trends in the use of English as a second language” (Graddol 2003: 157). As such, teaching the English language as a Western-centric model which comes pre-loaded with the ideals and beliefs of the West is undesirable to say the least, since the status of English as an international language relies on its flexibility and diversity (Blommaert 2010; Blommaert and Rampton 2012; Holliday 2005). Teaching a variety of English which has at its centre a culturist notion of what English should be will inevitably spell disaster for the future of English as a global language, not only because this seems to contradict the idea of English being a language of empowerment and opportunity, but also because it aligns English education within a predominantly monolingual framework. As languages and cultures come into increasing contact with each other, many large urban areas are now experiencing what Vertovec (2007, 2010) has labelled ‘super-diversity’. Within this climate of cultural amalgamation, languages also get redefined according to the way multilingual people communicate, a phenomena known as translanguaging. Creese and Blackledge (2010), Canagarajah (2011, 2013) and Blommaert and Rampton (2012) among others, have argued that this phenomenon requires a restructuring of approaches to Second Language Acquisition as it does not align well with the idea that there is a ‘standard’ variety of English which is ‘best’ or ‘most desirable’ in terms of learning. Therefore, approaches to English language teaching need to move past culturist perceptions that tend to gravitate towards what is perceived as the centre of the English language. And yet, language and culture are generally seen as inseparable. How is it possible to teach an ‘authentic’ variety of English without having it convey some form of culture? To ostracise the English language from the cultures where it is spoken seems if anything to endanger its future even more, producing what might well be labelled as a ‘disembodied language’, meaning a language that is primarily experienced as a subject to be learned in order to pass exams or as a status marker which either grants or denies access to social mobility. Of course, this only applies to scenarios where the English language is learned as a school subject or purely for transactional purposes, such as to pass an exam or gain a certificate, and not to situations involving immigrants or those who have a genuine ‘investment’ (Norton 2013) in the language. In scenarios where English is learned purely as a subject, what is ‘authentic’ English and how can authenticity be incorporated into language teaching and learning without implicating the problematic notions of native-speakerism?

Pinner (2014, 2016) argues that authenticity should be conceptualised as a continuum, with both social and contextual axes. In this way, authenticity is defined as a dynamic concept which will need to be assessed and evaluated on an individual basis, and is therefore much more concerned with the personalisation of the teaching and learning process. This concept is further derived from Ushioda’s (2009, 2011) persons-in-context relational view of motivation, in which she argues that learners should speak as themselves in order to find a truly sustainable way of engaging with the language acquisition process. In conceptualising authenticity as a personally and socially constructed concept, something inherently linked to context and identity, authenticity becomes a much more sustainable concept and something very central to language learning and teaching. However, this more contextualised and individual view of authenticity could, in some ways, actually exacerbate the embedded dangers of native-speakerism. Rather than being a poorly disguised implicit reference to ‘native-speakers’, as with the pervasive ‘classic’ definition, the issue of the ‘native-speaker’ in authenticity is pushed down into symbolic relationships of power and authority, as we will examine in the next section.

3.1 Connections in theory

Holliday (2005) has examined the way that authenticity is implicit in the discourse around native-speakerism, drawing specifically on the notions of social autonomy and social authenticity. Holliday argues that the way practitioners conceptualise both autonomy and authenticity will need to be reconsidered in order to move away from native-speakerist approaches to pedagogy. He briefly outlined the way that autonomy will need to be reconceptualised as something which pre-exists in the learners, and which they already bring with them as part of their identity and motivation for learning, as opposed to the general conception that autonomy needs to be fostered by the teacher. Similarly, for Holliday, authenticity does not ‘pre-exist’ within a text or sample of language, as it does within the ‘classic’ definition of authenticity that is pervasive throughout the ELT industry. Rather, authenticity is created through a process of interaction and interpretation. This draws on the work of Widdowson (1979) and others (see for example Breen 1985; Hung and Victor Chen 2007; van Lier 1996) who have argued against the view that authenticity is something inherent in a text or piece of language purely by nature of its origin. Clearly native-speakerism and authenticity overlap conceptually in this way, because the pervasive idea held by many practicing English language teachers is that authentic language is an absolute trait rather than a relative construct. Although there are many possible ways that these two important ideas in language learning may relate to one another, we will focus on three conceptual connections which we feel most powerfully represent the argument that we are attempting to put forward: authority, culturism, and cultural capital.

3.2 Connections in practice

There are a number of ways that native-speakerism and authenticity interact and influence each other which have real effects on the lives of teachers, students, and others connected to English language teaching. Here, we will examine the problematic nature of this relationship, specifically as it affects student perceptions of their teachers, issues of professional discrimination, and the resultant negative self-perceptions of ‘non-native speaker’ teachers. We will also examine in detail the way these problems are not only manifested, but also disseminated by the sales-rhetoric of the multi-billion dollar English language teaching and learning industry.

3.2.1 Perceptions and discrimination from students

In order to illustrate some of the ways in which notions of authenticity can lead to native-speakerist practices, we will begin this section with a story. Several years ago, one of our colleagues at a conversation school in Japan was assigned a new student. Our colleague is a British-born Indian woman who speaks English as her first language, grew up in the UK, and considers herself culturally British. However, when she walked into the classroom to greet her new student, he walked straight out, went to the reception desk and requested a ‘real’ English speaker. This was very upsetting for the teacher in question, who despite numerous cultural tensions between herself and others in her hometown about whether or not she was a ‘real’ British person, had never up until this point been exposed to the idea that she was not a ‘real’ English speaker. What did this student mean by a ‘real’ English speaker? On what basis had the student made the assumption that this teacher was not one? It was certainly not on the basis of the teacher’s accent, which was shaped by a childhood on the outskirts of Manchester, and mannered by years of teacher talk, nor was it on the basis of her proficiency, which was clearly no different to any of her co-workers. We must assume that this student had an image of a ‘real’ speaker in his head - someone who was, perhaps ‘visibly’ Western in appearance. This is perhaps because race “gets constructed as a visible attribute of individuals” (Kubota and Lin 2009: 13). In other words, authenticity was not only directly associated in this student’s mind with an ‘native speaker’, it was also a racial distinction, presumably tied up with an image of a Western white person for whom English was their first language (see also Haque and Morgan 2009). In an insightful paper that deals directly with this issue, Amin (1999) talks about research she conducted in Canada in which minority women teachers reported that their students had made it clear that “a non-White teacher could not teach them Canadian English” (p. 94). Amin also details her own experience in which her students “have voiced their assumptions that I am not a native speaker of English and therefore not a ‘real’ ESL teacher” (p. 95). In the same volume, Braine (1999: 23) describes a hurtful incident which occurred when he was teaching in the United States: he learned that some of his students had complained about his (non-standard) accent and had changed class. It seems, from these examples, that assumptions can be made about the authenticity and ‘nativeness’ of pronunciation whether the pronunciation in question is of a standard, inner circle variety or not.

This can be demonstrated with reference to research into student attitudes. Moussu (2002 cited in Braine 2010) conducted research on the attitudes of students studying at a university in the US towards ‘non-native speaker’ teachers over a semester, and found that their views changed substantially over the course of their studies. While the majority of the students held generally positive attitudes towards their ‘non-native speaker’ teachers, at the beginning of the course, only 56% of the students said they would encourage a friend to study with a ‘non-native speaker’. However, by the end of the course, this number had increased to 76%. Clearly, although students held positive attitudes towards their teachers, before experiencing the classes there was something which prevented these students from feeling able to recommend these teachers. This pattern of data can be seen repeatedly in research on this issue, as Braine (2010) notes in his review of several studies into student attitudes. Some of these studies showed that students have generally positive attitudes towards ‘non-native speaker’ teachers (see Ling 2002; Ling and Braine 2007), but many found that students had inbuilt preferences and biases towards ‘native speaker’ teachers. Goto Butler (2007) conducted a study into student perceptions of Korean elementary school teachers, finding that students showed no significant difference in comprehension level between Korean-accented and American-accented English, but still rated the American-accented speaker as having better pronunciation and a higher level of confidence in using the language, and generally expressed a preference for the American-accented teacher. This result is reflected in the work of Kelch and Santana-Williamson (2002), who found that students could not reliably tell whether an accent was ‘native’ or ‘non-native’, with Portuguese English accents being rated as ‘native’ more often than South American accents (40% to 39%), and Japanese English accents being rated as ‘native’ more often than British accents (30% to 27%). However, when the attitudes of these students were surveyed, they found that teachers considered to be ‘native speakers’ were rated as more educated and better trained, and the students showed an overall preference for these teachers. In other words, student preferences in this study bear no relation to the actual intelligibility, or ‘native’ status of their teachers, but rather to something implicit in the idea of ‘nativeness’ itself.

The incidents described in studies of this kind serve to illustrate our point, and demonstrate the extent to which notions of ‘authentic speakers’ can lead to students having negative perceptions of teachers who do not fit into this predetermined mould. These incidents are recorded as being hurtful and upsetting to the teachers concerned, and may lead to the formation of negative self-images by ‘non-native speaker’ teachers.