THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE NATIVE SPEAKER TEACHER Enric Llurda, Universitat de Lleida ellurda@dal.udl.

cat 1) Introduction

The field of applied linguistics has been lately questioning and thus redefining the concepts of native speaker (NS) and non-native speaker (NNS). Initially, a fixed dichotomy involving the two categories was accepted, used and exploited in research on second language acquisition. Studies on interaction between native speakers and non-native speakers (Long, 1983; Pica, 1988) or research on ultimate attainment in SLA, (Coppieters, 1987) exemplify such an approach in which NNS speakers were paired to or compared with NSs. Such a distinction, though convenient, was questioned in the literature. Several researchers (Paikeday, 1985; Rampton, 1990; Davies, 1991, 2003; Cook, 1999; Liu, 1999; Brutt-Griffler & Samimy, 2001; Piller, 2002) have critically looked at the theoretical foundations of the NS/NNS distinction, and pondered whether or not there is any reason to continue establishing a separation between those people who have a given feature (i.e., native speakers) and those who dont (i.e., NNSs). In a more recent discussion, Matsuda (2003) argues that the point is not so much whether NSs have some features that NNSs do not have, and whether it is convenient or not to use a negative (i.e., non-) particle to characterise one group of speakers. He claims that the discussion has typically been based on the overall perception of native as positive, in contrast to non-native, perceived as a negative feature.

Despite strong theoretical arguments advocating for the abandonment of any reference to native speaker or non-native speaker (Paikeday, 1985; Rampton, 1990; Kachhru, 1992), and Davies conclusion that no purely linguistic properties could be exclusively associated to native speakers, the fact is that the terms are still used, even by those who complain of the discrimination suffered by non-native speakers on the grounds of such a distinction. The issue has been repeatedly raised in the electronic list of the TESOL NNEST (Non-Native English Speaking Teacher) Caucus, and the case has been made to substitute the NNEST identifying name for one that does not include the term non-native1. Yet, the Caucus itself and researchers within the area do still pervasively use the term non-native to refer to those teachers whose mother tongue is not the same as the language they are teaching. Davies (2003) acknowledged one single element that could be used to mark a NS and differenciate it from a NNS: acceptance as such by a speech community. So, the outcome of his analysis was that it is not so much linguistic or psycho-linguistic properties but rather group admission and self-adscription that somehow determine whether an individual speaker is ultimately labelled a NS or a NNS. However, we must realise that such selfadscription and admission by the group will eventually have powerful effects on the life of the individual, as it is shown by Lippi-Green (1997) in her study of accent-based discrimination in the US. Other cases of
1

A recent example happened in January 2008, when a de ate t!!" place in the list related t! the

c!nvenience t! m!ve !n and w!r" t!wards ec!min# an $%nterest &ecti!n' within the (E&)L !r#ani*ati!n. &!me mem ers raised their c!ncerns !ver the maintenance !+ the $n!n,native' la el in the name !+ the #r!up.

discrimination based on lack of the NS label have been reported in connection with the difficulties experienced by many NNESTs in finding a good language teaching job. However, as pointed out by Liu (1999), and by Brutt-Griffler and Samimy (2001), a continuum approach is going to more accurately reflect the reality of several people who cannot label themselves as either NSs or NNSs, but can however feel comfortably at some intermediate point due to their diverse individual experiences. Examples of this kind would include the case of a subject in Lius (1999) study who claimed to be a NS of Tagalog but learnt to speak English before he could speak Tagalog. A different approach to overcoming the rigid NS/NNS dichotomy was taken by Piller (2002), who interviewed a group of L2 users and ! served that a !ut !ne third !+ them claimed they c!uld pass as native spea"ers in s!me c!ntexts-

As with #ender and ethnic passin#, passin# +!r a native spea"er .uesti!ns and desta ilises the cate#!ries !+ native and n!n,native spea"ers themselves. $/ative spea"er' is n! l!n#er an identity cate#!ry, and rather than ein# s!methin# that s!me!ne is, it ec!mes s!methin# that s!me!ne d!es. (he +lip side !+ passin# +!r a native spea"er is passin# +!r a n!n,native spea"er. And, indeed, many !+ my participants +ind their !ri#inal native identities challen#ed at times, +!r instance a+ter pr!l!n#ed a sence +r!m their L1 c!mmunities 01iller 2002- 2012.

1iller, thus, re+uses c!nsiderin# native spea"er identity as a ri#id inary cate#!ry t! which spea"ers either d! !r d! n!t el!n#. %nstead, she ch!!ses t! l!!" at native spea"er identity in a dynamic way, y which individuals d! n!t always t!tally +it int! !ne #iven cate#!ry, ut can temp!rarily m!ve +r!m !ne t! an!ther. %n this sense, the idea !+ $passin# +!r native spea"er' devel!ped y 1iller pr!vides a rich new view !n advanced L2 users wh! can temp!rarily ta"e a native spea"er identity, due t!012 the particular type !+ c!mmunicative per+!rmance the spea"er is inv!lved in4 022 the inc!rp!rati!n !+ l!cal speech +eatures in a way that $c!incides with the stere!types !+ the audience'4 032 the medium used +!r the c!mmunicative enc!unters 0!ral, written, and electr!nic24 and 052 the interl!cut!rs.

1iller c!ncludes that $the passin# !+ expert L2 users is c!ntextual rather than identity,related' 02002- 1682, and $while we l!!" +!r a sta le trait !+ $near,native' speech, passin# is a temp!rary per+!rmance. As already p!inted !ut y 1ai"eday 016872 the term $lan#ua#e user' may e m!re ade.uate and less tendenci!us, especially c!nsiderin# the widespread p!sitive c!nn!tati!ns in !ther aspects !+ li+e !+ the term $native' vs. the ne#ative ed#e +re.uently attached t! the term $n!n,native'2. 8!!" 020022 als! str!n#ly adv!cates +!r the term $user' and #!es !ne step +urther y pr!p!sin# the su stituti!n !+ $L2 learner' +!r $L2 user', p!i#nantly claimin# that many $L2 users' can

&ee that in natural sciences, the term n!n,native is typically used as a syn!nym t! $invasive' and

$dama#in#' t! the $native' !r $aut!cht!n!us species, li"e the +!ll!win# .u!te- 9:any weeds have pretty +l!wers, ut they are a #r!win# pain. (hey cr!wd !ur native plants which pr!vide wildli+e with +!!d and shelter. (hese invaders are called aliens !r n!n,natives. (hey are Biological pollutants. 08!pied +r!m an exhi iti!n panel at ;!!se erry <alls &ate 1ar", :innes!ta, U&A. :ay 20012.

n! l!n#er e c!nsidered perennial learners !+ the lan#ua#e, as they have +ull ri#ht t! e c!nsidered le#itimate users !+ an L2 variety !+ the lan#ua#e. <inally, this is in line with current discussi!ns !n the r!le !+ En#lish as a Lin#ua <ranca at internati!nal levels, and the need +!r all users !+ En#lish t! interact in a mutually intelli#i le way, thus renderin# the la ellin# !+ $native' and $n!n,native' useless, and rin#in# a new dimensi!n !+ pr!+iciency at the internati!nal level, as expressed in :!dian!'s 016662 re+!rmulati!n !+ =achru's 016812 c!ncentric circles. )utside applied lin#uistics, the distincti!n etween /& and //& is as pervasive as ever, and the /& en>!ys #reat presti#e. (here is a widespread acceptance !+ the idea that the //& is an imper+ect user !+ the lan#ua#e, and the /& is !+ten valued as the ideal teacher with an innate superi!rity !ver //&s +!r teachin# the lan#ua#e. (his #enerali*ed percepti!n is rather c!nse.uent with an!ther standard percepti!n am!n# n!n,lin#uists, namely that the ideal spea"er is the m!n!lin#ual spea"er and that ilin#ualism is resp!nsi le +!r a certain de#ree !+ c!n+usi!n in the mind !+ the ilin#ual spea"er. &tudies !n ilin#ualism pr!vide a rich s!urce !+ evidence !n the need t!

understand the lin#uistic a ilities !+ lan#ua#e users in their wh!leness, rather than as independent mental a stracti!ns. :!st lan#ua#e users in the w!rld can use m!re than !ne lan#ua#e, that is, they have s!me de#ree !+ ilin#ualism !r multilin#ualism. &uch a state !+ a++airs helps us visualise a w!rld in which m!st $lan#ua#e users' are in +act $multilin#ual lan#ua#e users', and there+!re d! n!t +it int! the descripti!n !+ and $ideal' native spea"er. Acc!rdin# t! 8ummins' Lin#uistic %nterdependence ?yp!thesis 016@6, 16812 the lan#ua#es sp!"en y a ilin#ual spea"er are n!t st!red in separate

c!mpartments. %nstead, they appear t! share !ne i# c!mm!n area which serves as a shared space etween all the lan#ua#es sp!"en y a sin#le pers!n. %t appears !nly

l!#ical that the decline !+ the c!ncept !+ the native spea"er as the ideal spea"er is parallel t! the sur#e !+ the c!ncept !+ the ilin#ual spea"er !r m!re recently !+ the multic!mpetent spea"er 08!!", 200@, this v!lume2. Less than !ne hundred years a#! Jespersen .uesti!ned ilin#ualism !n the #r!unds that a ilin#ual child 9hardly learns either !+ the tw! lan#ua#es as per+ectly as he w!uld have d!ne i+ he had limited himsel+ t! !neA and expressed his w!rry that 9the p!wer re.uired t! master tw! lan#ua#es instead !+ !ne certainly diminishes the child's p!wer !+ learnin# !ther thin#s, which mi#ht and !u#ht t! e learntA 0Jespersen, 1622- 2204 .u!ted in Bavies, 2003- 812. (hat was the pred!minant percepti!n am!n# lin#uists durin# the +irst hal+ !+ the 20 th century 01intner,=eller, 16224 &mith, 16364 Barcy, 16732. ?!wever, th!se supp!sed disadvanta#es !+ ilin#ualism came under attac" +r!m evidence that sh!wed the n!n, detrimental in+luence !+ ilin#ualism !n mental ability/mental development/intelligence 0Arsenian, 163@4 Ceinreich, 16732, and later the existence !+ p!sitive e++ects !+ ilin#ualism !n di++erent c!#nitive a ilites 01eal and Lam ert, 16D24 <eldman E &hen, 16@14 %anc!,C!rrall, 16@24 Fen,Geev, 16@@4 Helland et al., 16654 Lasa#a aster, 16682. Fut un+!rtunately, as :inami 02002- @332 p!ints !ut, $the +!l" elie+ em!anin# the 9lan#ua#e handicapA in 9lan#ua#e assetA'. Academic disc!urse !n ilin#ualism n! l!n#er claims ilin#ual spea"ers are handicapped is,a, is m!n!lin#uals. <urtherm!re multilin#ual appr!aches, such as ilin#uals persists !ver the c!ncept that ilin#ualism is a

8!!"'s 016622 +!rmulati!n !+ multic!mpetence, emphasi*e this dimensi!n !+ the iImulti,lin#ual spea"er as a pers!n wh! has devel!ped a +airly c!mplex mental and s!ci!,c!mmunicative system. (he current c!ncepti!n !+ ilin#ualism is "ey in the

discussi!n !n /& and //& lan#ua#e teachers. %+, paraphrasin# ;r!s>ean 016862, a ilin#ual pers!n is expected t! per+!rm li"e tw! m!n!lin#uals in !ne, the ideal we are

settin# them a#ainst is the /&. %+, !n the c!ntrary,

ilin#uals are re#arded as

multi+aceted individuals wh! p!ssess a di++erent, al eit m!re c!mplex, mental !r#anisati!n, we are !penin# the #r!und +!r a .uesti!nin# !+ /& d!minance and /& idealisati!n. %n a rather c!incidental way, native spea"erism was at its +ull dimensi!n when the 8!mm!nwealth c!n+erence !n the (eachin# !+ En#lish as a &ec!nd Lan#ua#e held at :a"arere 0U#anda2 unam i#u!usly desi#ned the native spea"er as the ideal lan#ua#e teacher. %t t!!" several additi!nal years +!r applied lin#uistics t! start l!!"in# at the n!n,native spea"er !n its !wn ri#ht 01hillips!n, 166D2, rather than the ne#ati!n !+ what i+ was assumed n!t t! e 0i.e., a native spea"er2. Jecently, n!n,native spea"ers wh! dev!te their pr!+essi!nal lives t! the teachin# !+ lan#ua#es wh! are n!t their L1 have en>!yed increasin# rec!#niti!n, as it is sh!wn y the num er !+ !!"s, !!" chapters, >!urnal articles, as well as 1hB and :A thesis that have centred !n the study !+ n!n, native teachers' characteristics, virtues, and s!ci!,cultural c!ncerns. %n the next secti!n, % will pr!vide a review !+ relevant research !n native and n!n,native teachers 3, which will necessarily turn ar!und the +i#ure !+ the n!n,native teacher. /ative teachers have n!t een the ! >ect !+ such a speci+ic +!cus in research, and it mi#ht there+!re e ar#ued that this c!nstitutes a discriminati!n a#ainst /&s, wh! are n!t studied in the academic literature. Fut such a claim w!uld e utterly mis#uided, as m!st research !n lan#ua#e teachin# has traditi!nally ta"en +!r #ranted that the standard de+ault teacher was a native spea"er, and there+!re !n many !ccasi!ns in which /&s were studied, the rep!rts !nly menti!ned $teachers' 0with!ut any m!di+ier2 as the ! >ect !+ study.

2) Researc on non!nati"e s#ea$in% teac ers

3

&ee :!usu and Llurda 020082 +!r a m!re extensive review !+ the literature !n this +airly recent area !+

research.

(he .uesti!n !+ native vs. n!n,native identity !+ lan#ua#e teachers has pr! a ly een l!n# present in the mind !+ lan#ua#e educat!rs, th!u#h it was n!t researched until 1eter :ed#yes dev!ted his attenti!n t! //&s in EL( 0:ed#yes, 1662, 16652. Fe+!re, lan#ua#e teachin# had een carried !ut y native and n!n,native teachers ali"e, with s!me meth!ds stressin# the imp!rtance !+ +!rei#n lan#ua#es ein# tau#ht y native teachers 0e.#., the Birect :eth!d2, while !thers esta lishin# meth!d!l!#ical pr!cedures ased !n the assumpti!n that native teachers were n!t availa le in a #iven c!ntext 0e.#., the Jeadin# Appr!ach in the U&, in the 1620s2. ?!wever, since 8!mmunicative Lan#ua#e (eachin# appeared as the d!minant the!retical +ramew!r" in sec!nd and +!rei#n lan#ua#e teachin#, an implicit rule was that native spea"ers were ideal +!r pr!m!tin# natural and sp!ntane!us c!mmunicati!n, and there+!re when availa le they sh!uld naturally e pre+erred !ver n!n,natives. )nly in c!ntexts were natives were scarce !r n!n,availa le w!uld n!n,native teachers e c!nsidered accepta le. (his was the case !+ EL( in 9expandin# circleA c!untries 0=achru, 16812. (he n!ti!n !+ $the native teacher as the ideal teacher' was e.uivalent t! the n!ti!n !+ $the m!n!lin#ual native spea"er as the ideal spea"er'. %n s!me extreme cases, m!n!lin#ual native spea"ers w!uld e pre+erred !ver native spea"ers with a #!!d "n!wled#e !+ the learners' L1 0see Llurda, +!rthc!min#, +!r evidence !+ the pervasiveness !+ such a m!n!lin#ual ide!l!#y, am!n# current n!n,native teachers2. Eventually, n! !dy th!u#ht it was necessary t! d! any "ind !+ research !nt! the .uesti!n !+ what w!uld n!n,native spea"ers' c!ntri uti!n t! the lan#ua#e class e. %t was clear that native teachers were w!rth m!re than n!n,natives, and !nly n!n,natives with near,native pr!+iciency c!uld entertain s!me le#itimate aspirati!n t! en>!y a certain presti#e in the lan#ua#e teachin# pr!+essi!n. (his was the situati!n when :ed#yes 01662, 16652 chan#ed the parameters !+ the discussi!n and intr!duced the

.uesti!n that challen#ed the a !ve assumpti!ns- wh! is w!rth m!re as a lan#ua#e teacher, the native spea"er !r the n!n,native spea"erK (his p!int had already een raised in an in+luential lan#ua#e teachin# +!rum li"e (E&)L with their #r!und, rea"in# statement !n /!nnative &pea"ers !+ En#lish 0(E&)L, 16612. And n!w, +!r the +irst time, //&s were the ! >ect !+ research and were menti!ned in academic literature. (he s!le menti!nin# !+ //& teachers in an academic c!ntext #ave the wh!le #r!up a visi ility it had never en>!yed e+!re. Fey!nd the particular !utc!mes !+ :ed#yes' research, its +undamental value was the asserti!n !+ the existence !+ //& teachers and their intrinsic value +!r the pr!+essi!n. /amin# //&s and ma"in# them visi le in +r!nt !+ the lan#ua#e teachin# and research c!mmunity was cl!se t! #ivin# them a citi*enship card. %t was, t! put it in a metaph!rical way, the +irst h!le in the wall !+ native spea"erism, the un.uesti!ned ide!l!#y !+ supremacy !+ the m!n!lin#ual /& as the ideal lan#ua#e teacher, and what is m!re, as the de+ault lan#ua#e teacher. %n the last +ew years, visi ility am!n# the research c!mmunity has een #ranted y an increasin# num er !+ papers dealin# with //E&(s, and m!re specially y the pu licati!n !+ a +ew !!"s exclusively centred !n the study !+ //E&(s 0Fraine, 16664 =amhi,&tein, 20054 Llurda, 20072. Jesearch !n native and n!n,native spea"in# teachers has s! +ar c!me up with s!me relevant +indin#s. (hese include very diverse aspects that ran#e +r!m students' #eneral !penness and acceptance !+ n!n,native teachers, especially a+ter havin# had su++icient experiences inv!lvin# //E&(s, t! teachers' sel+,percepti!ns and characteristic de+icit in sel+,c!n+idence. (he latter is a particularly sensitive aspect, as it p!ints t! aspects !+ pr!+essi!nal sel+,esteem, and hints at the existence !+ an in+eri!rity c!mplex. :ed#yes did already menti!n the existence !+ a #eneric in+eri!rity c!mplex a++ectin# //E&(s 01665- 382, and the e++ects !+ ein# a n!n,native teacher !n

pr!+essi!nal sel+,esteem were als! addressed, al eit in a rather mar#inal way, y &amimy and Frutt,;ri++ler 016662, Lar#hese et al. 020072, Ja>a#!palan 020072, and Llurda, et al. 0200D2. Llurda 0+!rthc!min#2 rin#s up a m!re radical ima#e t! this de ate y statin# that many //E&(s su++er +r!m a syndr!me that is s!meh!w res!nant !+ the &yndr!me !+ &t!c"h!lm, inasmuch as //E&(s su++er +r!m discriminati!n y /&s wh! are pre+erred in many pr!+essi!nal situati!ns, ut they still +ind a >usti+icati!n +!r such a discriminat!ry practice and d! in +act a#ree with the ch!ice, as sh!wn y research p!intin# at //E&(s typical pre+erence !+ /& m!dels and /& teachers 0Llurda and ?u#uet, 20034 &i+a"is and &!u#ari, 20074 Jen"ins, 200@2. Lan#ua#e teachers and researchers' lac" !+ p!sitive attitudes t!wards En#lish as a Lin#ua <ranca was revealed y Jen"ins 0200@2, and &i+a"is and &!u#ari 020072 sh!wed that ;ree" teachers t!!" a rather n!rm, !und appr!ach 0i.e., ased !n a /& m!del2 t! the teachin# !+ En#lish pr!nunciati!n. % have ar#ued elsewhere 0Llurda, 20052 +!r the imp!rtance +!r //E&(s t! ad!pt the +!rmulati!n !+ En#lish as an %nternati!nal Lan#ua#e !r En#lish as a Lin#ua <ranca in !rder t! devel!p a p!sitive sel+,ima#e and +eel ri#ht+ully entitled t! teach a lan#ua#e that it is n!t their m!ther t!n#ue. %t appears, th!u#h, that many //E&(s still re+use t! em race such an appr!ach t! EL(.

2.1. %& (?EJE A/H(?%/; CJ)/; C%(? /& (EA8?EJ& %n li#ht !+ the previ!us discussi!n, !ne may thin" that the main purp!se !+ the a !ve research was t! sh!w the $inade.uacy' !+ /&s and an alle#ed $superi!r .uality' !+ //&s as teachers. (his is +ar +r!m ein# true. 8laimin# the need +!r a hi#her r!le and etter appreciati!n !+ the //& c!nditi!n d!es n!t carry with it a d!wn#radin# !+ the /&. Any chan#e !+ perspective that a++irms the .ualities !+ //&s may challen#e th!se /&s wh! are c!nvinced that their s!le /& c!nditi!n ma"es them #!!d teachers.

10

?!wever, the reality is that the ma>!rity !+ /& teachers M th!se wh! w!rry a !ut their pr!+essi!nal trainin# and have a #enuine interest in etter understandin# and empathisin# with the situati!n experienced y lan#ua#e learners M will !nly a#ree with an enhanced status !+ //&s. %n +act, a #reat impulse has een #iven t! the increasin# assertiveness !+ //&s y many /&s wh! have c!ntri uted with their w!r" t! demysti+y the n!ti!n !+ the /& and value the capa ility !+ //&s as teachers 0e.#., 1hillips!n, 16624 8!!", 16664 :!dian!, 20072.

2.2. 1J)FLE:& C%(? (?E :E(?)B)L);H )ne i# pr! lem with existin# research !n //& teachers is the excessive reliance !n a limited set !+ research meth!d!l!#ies. A #reat deal !+ studies are ased !n .uesti!nnaires resp!nded y either teachers !r students, and m!re recently y pr!#ram administrat!rs !r supervis!rs. (he virtues and pr! lems !+ usin# .uesti!nnaires in applied lin#uistics have een th!r!u#hly discussed y BNrnyei 02003, 200@2. :!ussu and Llurda 020082 emphasi*e the imp!rtance !+ this research meth!d at the initial sta#es !+ research !n //E&(s and credit them +!r 9pr!vidin# the +irst empirical acc!unt !n the nature and percepti!ns re#ardin# n!n,native lan#ua#e teachersA. % have een !ne wh! has repeatedly used this meth!d!l!#y in lac" !+ any etter t!!l, ut % realise n!w there is a rather ur#ent need t! m!ve ey!nd this p!int i+ we want t! +urther the //& teacher research a#enda, and appeal t! the lan#ua#e teachin# c!mmunity at +irst, and ultimately s!ciety at lar#e. %n particular, we need t! advance new ways !+ c!m inin# research that pr!vides .uantitative data with .ualitative research that rin#s new insi#hts int! .uesti!ns and aspects that remained ! scure. ?!w t! c!m ine .ualitative and .uantitative meth!ds still remains unclear, and it is n!t #!in# t! e a strai#ht+!rward

11

tas", ut we need t! w!r" in that directi!n in !rder t! +urther !ur "n!wled#e !n native and n!n,native EL( pr!+essi!nals.

2.3. )U(8):E& )< JE&EAJ8? (he arti+icial c!nstructi!n !+ the separati!n etween native spea"ers and n!n, native spea"ers in lan#ua#e teachin# that was discussed at the e#innin# !+ this paper has een recently dealt with y several researchers wh! have used tw! ma>!r ar#uments t! eliminate such a discriminati!n- a2 minimisin# any perceived di++erences etween the tw! #r!ups4 and 2 vindicatin# the r!le !+ the n!n,native spea"er as a ri#ht+ul lan#ua#e teacher.

a2 :inimisin# perceived di++erences etween /&s and //&s (he di++iculty in esta lishin# !undaries that separate /&s and //&s has een the +!cus !+ a +ew studies centred !n spea"ers wh! experience di++iculty in de+inin# themselves either as /&s !r //&s. /ayar 016652 pr!vided an initial discussi!n !n the need t! !verc!me the /&,//& dich!t!my, and Liu 016662 c!nducted a series !+ interviews with seven lan#ua#e teachers t! c!nclude that there was n! c!nsensus re#ardin# the meanin# and implicati!ns !+ the terms /& and //&. Liu expressed the need t! thin" !+ //& pr!+essi!nals as ein# al!n# $a multidimensi!nal and multilayered c!ntinuum' 0p. 1D32. (he +act that three !+ the participants in the study c!uld n!t a++iliate themselves with either the /& !r the //& cate#!ry indicates that in s!me cases such a clear,cut distincti!n may n!t e easy !r even plausi le t! ma"e. Frutt,;ri++ler and &amimy 020012 als! rep!rted +!ur cases that may e c!nsidered di++icult t! cate#!ri*e under the /&I//& distincti!n. Frin#in# up cases that d! n!t c!n+!rm t! a c!mm!nly esta lished

12

cate#!ri*ati!n .uesti!ns the ade.uacy !+ such a cate#!ri*ati!n. (hese studies illustrate the existence !+ intermediate areas etween the stere!typed /& and //&, which

pr!vide evidence +!r the existence !+ a c!ntinuum that ran#es +r!m extreme En#lish nativeness 0e.#., a m!n!lin#ual spea"er !+ standard American !r Fritish En#lish2 t! clear n!n,nativeness 0e.#., a learner !+ En#lish as a +!rei#n lan#ua#e at the e#inner level2. And, in Liu's !wn w!rds- 9i+ we perceive all E&L pr!+essi!nals !n a /&,//& c!ntinuum, then it is their c!mpetence and pr!+essi!nal #r!wth that will de+ine their pr!+essi!nalismA 0Liu, 1666- 1@72. (hin"in# in terms !+ lan#ua#e users rather than lan#ua#e learners 08!!", 20072 stren#thens the a !ve ar#ument, as there is n! l!n#er the need t! +!cus !n native spea"er m!dels in lan#ua#e teachin#. %n this respect, the +!rmulati!n !+ En#lish as an %nternati!nal Lan#ua#e 0&hari+ian, +!rthc!min#2 !r En#lish as a Lin#ua <ranca 0&eidlh!+er, 20052 c!mes in handy. A lan#ua#e that is truly internati!nal is n!t !wned y any #r!up !+ spea"ers 0Cidd!ws!n, 16652 and c!mpetence is ased !n the capacity t! use lan#ua#e +!rms that are intelli#i le +!r the #l! al c!mmunity 0:!dian!, 16662.

2 Lindicatin# the r!le !+ n!n,native spea"ers in lan#ua#e teachin# Lan#ua#e teachin# has never een a strai#ht+!rward activity. Jesearch has

emphasi*ed the c!mplexities !+ lan#ua#e teachin# and lan#ua#e learnin#, and di++erent meth!d!l!#ical appr!aches have s!metimes em raced !pp!site principles, a +urther si#n !+ the di++iculty !+ +indin# a simple answer t! the .uesti!n !+ h!w t! teach a lan#ua#e success+ully. Jecent research !n //E&(s has additi!nally sh!wn that lan#ua#e teachin# can e success+ully per+!rmed y n!n,native teachers, and there+!re has

minimi*ed the imp!rtance !+ an a s!lute "n!wled#e !+ standard and c!ll!.uial

13

lan#ua#e +!rms y stressin# the added value !+ teachers wh! have a shared experience !+ stru##lin# t! learn the lan#ua#e with their students. &!me !+ the advanta#es !+ //E&(s that have een rep!rted in the literature, mainly y :ed#yes 01665 712, (an# 0166@- 7@62 and &eidlh!+er 01666- 237,2522, are +!unded !n the premise that they have wal"ed thr!u#h the same path as their students, sharin# with them their previ!us experience as lan#ua#e learners, , , (hey are a m!del +!r imitati!n (hey can success+ully teach strate#ies +!r lan#ua#e learnin# (hey have a hi#h level !+ awareness !+ the lan#ua#e and can supply in+!rmati!n a !ut it , , , (hey can anticipate the di++iculties that will appear in the learnin# pr!cess (hey can e m!re empathetic !+ the needs and pr! lems !+ students (hey !+ten have the same m!ther t!n#ue as their students, which all!ws them t! use it when necessary, and act as mediat!rs etween di++erent lan#ua#es and cultures. , (hey have m!re +amiliarity with the l!cal c!ntext, and speci+ically with the sylla us and examinati!n pr!cedures

(he a !ve advanta#es pinp!int the added value !+ havin# a n!n,native teacher, s!methin# that had never een c!nsidered in previ!us literature !n lan#ua#e educati!n. <urther research has +!cused !n percepti!ns !+ di++erent a#ents and experiences aimin# at trans+!rmin# ne#ative percepti!ns int! a hi#her appreciati!n !+ their r!le in lan#ua#e teachin#.

2.5 %/(EJ/AL B%LEJ&%(H A:)/; /)/,/A(%LE &1EA=EJ&

15

?avin# reviewed the ar#uments #iven t! minimi*e the di++erences etween /&s and //&s, let us n!w l!!" at an!ther issue that has een !verl!!"ed in the literature, except +!r :!ussu and Llurda 020082 and Ellis 02002, 200D2. (his is the .uesti!n !+ internal diversity within the /& and //& c!nstituencies. (he .uesti!n is pertinent as /&s and //&s are t!! !+ten !pp!sed t! each !ther with!ut c!nsiderati!n !+ internal di++erences. 8haracteristics !+ //&s are !pp!sed t! th!se !+ /&s with n! critical discussi!n !+ the di++erent +act!rs that may alter such a strai#ht+!rward #eneralisati!n. As ?!lliday 020072 p!i#nantly remar"s, //&s have !+ten een reduced t! a sin#le h!m!#ene!us #r!up in many discussi!ns, with the result !+ reducin# their c!mplex reality t! a simple stere!type valid +!r all individual cases. (his is similar t! what has happened in many !ther c!ntexts, in which the $!thers' are denied any internal variati!n and are reduced t! a series !+ +alse stere!types. ?!lliday calls this practice $native spea"erism', which c!nstitutes !ne mani+estati!n !+ the m!re #eneral phen!men!n !+ culturism and, eventually, racism. Ac"n!wled#in# the existence !+ internal diversity within a #r!up is the +irst step t! accept their c!mplexities and understand their particular circumstances. %n the +ield !+ /&s, a asic distincti!n etween well,trained teachers and what Orva and :ed#yes 020002 call $ ac"pac"ers', wh! spend !ne !r tw! years teachin# En#lish in a +!rei#n c!untry with!ut any previ!us trainin#, experience !r "n!wled#e !+ the l!cal lan#ua#e and culture. :!re recently, Ellis 02002, 200D2 has placed #reat emphasis !n the m!n!lin#ualImultilin#ual dich!t!my. )ne !+ her main ar#uments is that !ne "ey dimensi!n in E&L teachers' c!ntent "n!wled#e is 9the teacher's "n!wled#eIexperience !+ the ac.uisiti!n !+ the c!ntent in +!rmal c!ntextsA 0Ellis, 200D32, where y the c!ntent can e $En#lish' 0restricted t! //&s2 !r $a sec!nd lan#ua#e' 0!pen t! ilin#ual /&s2. Acc!rdin# t! Ellis 0200D- 52 m!n!lin#ual /&s' experience !+

17

lan#ua#e learnin# 9is in the a yh!!d and the pr!cess !+ learnin# is n!t accessi le +!r examinati!n y the spea"erA . %n his discussi!n !+ the #!als !+ EL(, 8!!" 0200@- 22D2 p!ints !ut that-

0they2 include ene+its +!r the learner's mind, such as th!se #ained thr!u#h the manipulati!n !+ lan#ua#e4 ene+its +!r the learner's +uture career4 !pp!rtunities t! emi#rate4 and the e++ects !n s!ciety whether thr!u#h the inte#rati!n !+ min!rity #r!ups, the creati!n !+ a s"illed w!r",+!rce, the #r!wth !+ internati!nal trade.

And n!ne !+ th!se #!als inv!lve the need t! appr!ximate native spea"ers 08!!", 200@- 22D2. 8!!" dem!nstrates that what EL( really is c!ncerned with is the devel!pment !+ the L2 user. &!me !dy wh! "n!ws and uses a sec!nd lan#ua#e at any level' 08!!", 200@- 2282. &uch a c!ncept $rec!#ni*es that L2 users are di++erent "inds !+ pe!ple +r!m m!n!lin#ual native spea"ers, and need t! e evaluated as pe!ple wh! spea" tw! lan#ua#es, n!t as ine++icient natives' 08!!", 200@- 2262. 8!!" c!ncept !+ the L2 nicely c!mplements that !+ multic!mpetence 08!!", 16622 and its asic claim that the di++erent lan#ua#es sp!"en y a multilin#ual pers!n c!m ine in their mind in a way that creates a new c!mplex system. )ne in which !th lan#ua#es interact rather than simply !ne ein# added t! the !ther 0;r!s>ean, 16862.

&) Critica' a##roac es to 'an%ua%e teac in%( T e dec'ine and )a'' o) t e NS /ative spea"er teachers have traditi!nally en>!yed the ene+it !+ ein# c!nsidered the de+ault lan#ua#e teacher, the !ne wh! is ri#ht+ully entitled t! carry !ut the tas" !+ teachin# a new lan#ua#e t! spea"ers !+ !ther lan#ua#es. ?undreds !+ years

1D

!+ c!ntact etween lan#ua#es have inv!lved multiple !ccasi!ns +!r lan#ua#e learnin# and lan#ua#e teachin# am!n# their spea"ers. ?!wever, !nly within the last tw! hundred years there has een a seri!us c!ncern a !ut the pr!cess and the meth!d!l!#y used in teachin# a lan#ua#e, includin# what a teacher needs t! e a le t! d! inside the classr!!m. And !nly at the end !+ the twentieth century has the lan#ua#e teachin# pr!+essi!n e#un t! reali*e that the mere "n!wled#e !+ the lan#ua#e is n!t en!u#h +!r lan#ua#e teachin#, and there+!re ein# a native spea"er d!es n!t need t! e a re.uirement +!r the pr!+essi!n. %n !ther w!rds, we have +inally c!me t! #rips with the idea that #!!d lan#ua#e teachin# re.uires a #!!d c!mmand !+ the lan#ua#e plus the ri#ht am!unt !+ trainin# and a ility t! teach a lan#ua#e. &uccess+ul teachin# will c!me !ut !+ the alanced c!m inati!n !+ these tw! +act!rs. (here+!re, neither native n!r n!n, native spea"ers can e aut!matically #ranted the c!nditi!n !+ ideal teachers. &im!n F!r# 0200D2 p!ints t! the native,n!nnative distincti!n as !ne !+ the characteristic elements !+ lan#ua#e teachin#, inexistent in the teachin# !+ any !ther su >ect matter. %t is ! vi!us that there are n! native spea"ers !+, say, physics, !r mathematics. Fut it mi#ht n!netheless e ar#ued that in !rder t! e a #!!d pr!+ess!r !+ &panish hist!ry, !ne needs t! e a &paniard. %nterestin#ly, n! !dy has made such an asserti!n. %t appears, then, that the need t! e native is !nly perceived as reas!na le when we use the w!rd $lan#ua#e', instead !+ $hist!ry', $#e!#raphy' !r any !ther discipline. (he realisati!n !+ such an un+air state !+ a++airs has tri##ered research !n //E&(s and the appraisal !+ such a #r!up !+ teachers, with the c!nse.uence !+ an a and!nment !+ the ideali*ati!n !+ the /& as the de+ault teacher. Fut, sh!uld we re>!ice in the +all !+ the /& as the de+ault teacher in lan#ua#e research and teachin# literatureK % thin" we sh!uld, i+ !nly what we mean is a rec!nsiderati!n !+ the place in the lan#ua#e

1@

teachin# w!rld !+ all "inds !+ pr!+essi!nals, e them /&s !r //&s, white,an#l! sax!ns, !r mem ers !+ any !ther ethnic #r!up. A parallel case that c!mes t! mind in this discussi!n is the stru##le !+ w!men in s!ciety. &!me attac"s !n +eminism have een un+airly #r!unded !n the claim that +eminists are a#ainst men and are +i#htin# a#ainst the !pp!site sex. (his is utterly wr!n#. ?!wever, it is a s!lutely true that current +eminism see"s t! rec!nsider the r!le !+ men in s!ciety in !rder t! rec!#ni*e w!men's ri#ht t! access all s!cial spaces. &imilarly, //&s have n!w +inally #athered the stren#th t! v!ice their c!ncerns and claim their ri#ht t! e heard in the lan#ua#e teachin# and research c!mmunity. As claimed y <l!werdew 02000, 20012, //&s' v!ice has !+ten een silenced in in+luential pr!+essi!nal and research +!ra. And as Jen"ins 0200@2 dem!nstrates, their c!ncerns are still +airly invisi le in many pr!+essi!nal pu licati!ns addressed t! the internati!nal lan#ua#e teachin# c!mmunity. Als!, similar t! the +eminist m!vement, there is widespread reluctance t!wards acceptin# the new disc!urse 0?!lliday, 20072 as well as it is als! li"ely that an excess !+ enthusiasm may have ta"en s!me writers t! express their !pini!ns in a +ar t!! emphatic way. Bespite the increasin# pu licati!n !+ studies centred !n //E&(s 0:!ussu and Llurda, 20082, % pers!nally +eel these are still mar#inalised and perceived as n!n,relevant y the ma>!rity !+ the lan#ua#e teachin# c!mmunity. And, what is m!re, many //E&(s are still c!nvinced that the #!!d teacher is the /& teacher 0Llurda and ?u#uet, 20034 Llurda, +!rthc!min#2.

FINAL RE*ARKS &i+a"is 020052, in his analysis !+ teachers' awareness and visi!n !+ En#lish as an internati!nal lan#ua#e 0E%L2 ma"es a use+ul distincti!n etween three areas in the de ate surr!undin# E%L- $the!ry', $reality' and $applicati!n'. %n his !wn w!rds-

18

(his distincti!n pr!ves very use+ul t! separate the ran#e !+ in+luence !+ recent inn!vative ideas in applied lin#uistics, such as the c!ncept !+ E%L with all its implicati!ns as discussed in the literature, and the !ne that ta"es centre sta#e in this chapter, i.e., the native spea"er I n!n,native spea"er distincti!n. %+ we l!!" at the the!ry d!main, the discussi!n has ta"en us a l!n# way +r!m 8h!ms"y's initial +!rmulati!n !n the ideal native spea"er as the le#itimate ! >ect !+ study in lin#uistics 08h!ms"y, 16D72, t! the current critical views !n $nativeness', $the !wnership !+ a lan#ua#e', $c!mpetence', etc. ?!wever, reality in E%L and !n /&,//& lan#ua#e teachin# per+!rmance remains elusive and sh!rt !+ systematic descripti!ns that +actually acc!unt +!r what actually happens in everyday E%L interacti!ns and lan#ua#e classes inv!lvin# native and n!n,native spea"in# teachers. <inally, when it c!mes t! l!!" at the applicati!n in practical lan#ua#e teachin# !+ ideas esta lished in the the!ry, such as the n!n,!wnership !+ En#lish y native spea"ers 0Cidd!ws!n, 16652, the c!ncept !+ the L2 user as !pp!sed t! the L2 learner 08!!", 2002, 20072, !r the imp!rtance !+ aimin# at a +ully intelli#i le level !+ c!mpetence in the study !+ +!rei#n lan#ua#e rather than an imp!ssi le native m!del, evidence sh!ws that there is a #reat divide etween the!ry and practice, !r etween researchers' ideas and practiti!ners' views 0Jen"ins, 200@4 Llurda, +!rthc!min#2. %t is true that research inn!vati!ns d! n!t advance in a linear way, and they s!metimes ta"e l!n# paths e+!re they are +inally all!wed t! permeate int! the #eneral $c!mm!n sense' !pini!n 0:ar"ee, 166@2. ;ettin# ac" t! the main thread !+ this chapter, % will use a metaph!rical ima#e t! re+er t! the current status !+ native spea"ers in lin#uistics, applied lin#uistics and lan#ua#e teachin#. Usin# lan#ua#e c!mm!n in sp!rts literature 0and military, as well2 the +!undati!ns !+ $native spea"erism' have een hit hard y current critical research !n lan#ua#e teachin#, ut in n! way have they een destr!yed, as there still is a str!n#

16

de+ense c!mp!sed y the th!usands !+ teachers and laype!ple wh! still ass!ciate !ne pers!n with !ne lan#ua#e, and thus re#ard m!n!lin#ual spea"ers as ideal spea"ers, additi!nally disre#ardin# the c!mplexities and internal diversity which exist within any #iven lan#ua#e. (he native spea"er is under attac" ut % w!uld dare say it still is in a pretty #!!d shape. ?!wever, % must c!nclude y maintainin# that there is n! real need +!r a battle etween native and n!n,native spea"ers. Chat we need is an understandin# !+ the c!mplexity !+ !ur w!rld, and an acceptance !+ the +act that humans, lan#ua#es, and s!cial interacti!ns are c!mplex. 8!mplexity and diversity are tw! terms that de+ine !ur c!ntemp!rary w!rld, and we cann!t a++!rd +ailin# t! inc!rp!rate diversity in all aspects !+ !ur lives inv!lvin# lan#ua#e- +r!m lan#ua#e analysis t! lan#ua#e teachin# and lan#ua#e use. 8!ntemplatin# all lan#ua#e users, !th native and n!n,native, as c!lla !rat!rs in a c!ntext !+ increasin# internati!nal c!mmunicati!n, and advancin# +r!m the!ry t! practice in the understandin# !+ the implicati!ns +!r teachin# En#lish as an internati!nal lan#ua#e, are the est way t! c!mprehend the c!mplexity and diversity in !ur pr!+essi!n.

REFERENCES( Arsenian, &. 0163@2 Bilingualism and Mental Development. /ew H!r"- 8!lum ia University 1ress. Orva, L. E 1. :ed#yes 020002. /ative and n!n,native teachers in the classr!!m. System, 28, 032, 377,3@2. Fen,Geev, &. 016@@2 (he in+luence !+ ilin#ualism !n c!#nitive devel!pment and c!#nitive strate#y. Child Development, 58, 1006,1018. F!r#, &. 0200D2 (he distinctive characteristics !+ +!rei#n lan#ua#e teachers Language Teaching Research, 10,012, 3,31. Fraine, ;. 0ed.2 016662. onnative !ducators in !nglish Language Teaching. :ahwah, /J- Lawrence Erl aum. Brutt-Griffler, J. and K. K. Samimy (2001) Transcending the nativeness paradigm. World Englishes, 20, 012, 66,10D. 8h!ms"y, /. 016D72 "spects o# the theory o# synta$. 8am rid#e, :A- :%( 1ress. 8!!", L. J. 016622 Evidence +!r multic!mpetence. Language Learning 52, 77@,761.

20

8!!", L. J. 016662 ;!in# ey!nd the native spea"er in lan#ua#e teachin#, T!S%L &uarterly 33, 022, 187,206. 8!!", L. J. 0Ed.2 020022 'ortraits o# the L( )ser. 8leved!n- :ultilin#ual :atters. 8!!", L.J. 020072. Fasin# teachin# !n the L2 user. %n E. Llurda 0ed.2, on*native Language Teachers+ 'erceptions, Challenges, and Contributions to the 'ro#ession. /ew H!r"- &prin#er. 8!!", L. J. 0200@2 (he #!als !+ EL(. Jepr!ducin# native,spea"ers !r pr!m!tin# multic!mpetence am!n# sec!nd lan#ua#e usersK. %n 8ummins, J. E 8. Bavis!n 0eds.2 ,nternational -andboo. o# !nglish Language Teaching. /ew H!r"- &prin#er. 8!ppieters, J. 0168@2 8!mpetence di++erences etween native and near,native spea"ers. Language D3, 755,7@3. 8ummins, J. 016@62. Lin#uistic interdependence and the educati!nal devel!pment !+ ilin#ual children. Revie/ o# !ducational Research, 56, 022, 222,271. 8ummins, J. 016812. (he J!le !+ 1rimary Lan#ua#e Bevel!pment in 1r!m!tin# Educati!nal &uccess +!r Lan#ua#e :in!rity &tudents. %n Schooling and Language Minority Students+ " Theoretical 0rame/or.. L!s An#eles- Evaluati!n, Bisseminati!n and Assessment 8enter, 8ali+!rnia &tate University Barcy, /. 016732 A review !+ the literature !n the e++ects !+ ilin#ualism up!n the measurement !+ intelli#ence. 1ournal o# 2enetic 'sychology, 82, 21,7@. Bavies, A. 016612. The ative Spea.er in "pplied Linguistics. Edin ur#h- Edin ur#h University 1ress. Davies, A. (2003) The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. BNrnyei, G. 020032. &uestionnaires in Second Language Research. :ahwah, /JLawrence Erl aum Ass!ciates. BNrnyei, G. 0200@2 Research Methods in "pplied Linguistics. )x+!rd- )x+!rd University 1ress. Ellis, E. 020022 (eachin# +r!m experience- A new perspective !n the n!n,native teacher in adult E&L. "ustralian Revie/ o# "pplied Linguistics, 27,012, @1,10@. Ellis, E. 0200D2 Lan#ua#e learnin# experience as a c!ntri ut!r t! E&)L teacher c!#niti!n. T!SL*!1, 10,012, 1,20. <eldman, 8. and &hen, :. 016@12 &!me lan#ua#e,related c!#nitive advanta#es !+ ilin#ual +ive,year,!lds. 1ournal o# 2enetic 'sychology 118, 237,255. <l!werdew, J. 020002 Bisc!urse c!mmunity, le#itimate peripheral participati!n, and the n!nnative,En#lish,spea"in# sch!lar. T!S%L &uarterly, 35,012, 12@,170. <l!werdew, J. 020012 Attitudes !+ >!urnal edit!rs t! n!nnative spea"er c!ntri uti!ns. T!S%L &uarterly, 37, 012, 121,170. ;r!s>ean, <. 016862 /eur!lin#uists, ewareP (he ilin#ual is n!t tw! m!n!lin#uals in !ne pers!n. Brain and Language, 3D, 3,17. ?a"uta, =. E Bia*, J. 016852 (he relati!nship etween de#ree !+ ilin#ualism and c!#nitive a ility- a critical discussi!n and s!me new l!n#itudinal data. %n /els!n, =. E. 0Ed.2 Children3s Language. 4olume 5. ?illsdale, /J- Lawrence Erl aum Ass!ciates. ?!lliday, A. 020072. The Struggle to Teach !nglish as an ,nternational Language. )x+!rd- )x+!rd University 1ress. %anc!,C!rrall, A. 016@22 Filin#ualism a c!#nitive devel!pment. Child Development, 53, 1360,1500. Jen"ins, J. 0200@2 !nglish as a Lingua 0ranca+ "ttitude and ,dentity. )x+!rd- )x+!rd University 1ress.

21

Jespersen, ). 016222 Language, its ature, Development and %rigin. L!nd!n- Allen and Unwin 0.u!ted in Bavies, 20032. =achru, F. F. 016812 (he 1ra#matics !+ /!n,/ative Larieties !+ En#lish. %n Larry E. &mith 0Ed.2 !nglish #or Cross*Cultural Communication. L!nd!n- :acmillan. =achru, F. F. 016622 C!rld En#lishes- Appr!aches, issues and res!urces. Language Teaching, 27, 012, 1,15. =amhi,&tein, L. 0ed.2. 020052. Learning and Teaching #rom !$perience+ 'erspectives on onnative !nglish*Spea.ing 'ro#essionals. Ann Ar !r- University !+ :ichi#an 1ress. Lasa#a aster, B. 016682 Creatividad y conciencia metaling67stica+ ,ncidencia en el aprendi8a9e del ingl:s como L;. Fil !- Universidad del 1aQs Lasc!. Lippi,;reen, J. 0166@2 !nglish /ith an "ccent. /ew H!r"- J!utled#e. Liu, J. 016662. <r!m their !wn perspectives- (he impact !+ n!n,native E&L pr!+essi!nals !n their students. %n ;. Fraine 0Ed.2, onnative !ducators in !nglish Language Teaching. :ahwah, /J- Erl aum. Llurda, E. 020052 /!n,native,spea"er teachers and En#lish as an %nternati!nal Lan#ua#e. ,nternational 1ournal o# "pplied Linguistics, 15, 032, 315,323. Llurda, E. 0Ed.2 020072 on*native Language Teachers. 'erceptions, Challenges, and Contributions to the 'ro#ession. /ew H!r"- &prin#er. Llurda, E. 0+!rthc!min#2 Attitudes t!wards En#lish as an %nternati!nal Lan#ua#e- (he pervasiveness !+ native m!dels am!n# L2 users and teachers. %n <. &hari+ian 0Ed.2 !nglish as an ,nternational Language. 'erspectives and ,ssues. 8leved!n:ultilin#ual :atters. Llurda, E.4 Frady, F.4 de )liveira, L.4 B!#ancay,A"tuna, &.4 %n ar ). 0200D2 Expl!rin# //E&(s' pr!+essi!nal sel+,esteem and c!n+idence. 8!ll!.uium presented at 50th %nternati!nal (E&)L 8!nventi!n. (ampa, <L- 17,16 :arch 200D. Llurda, E., E ?u#uet, A. 020032 &el+,awareness in //& E<L primary and sec!ndary sch!!l teachers. Language "/areness, <;, 220,237. L!n#, :. 016832 /ative spea"erIn!n,native spea"er c!nversati!n and the ne#!tiati!n !+ c!mprehensi le input. "pplied Linguistics, 5, 022, 12D,151. Markee, N. (1997) SLA Research: a resource for changing teachers' professional cultures? Modern Language Journal 81, 012, 80,63. Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Proud to be a nonnative speaker. TESOL Matters 13, 4: 15. Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: whos worth more? ELT Journal, 46,(4). Reprinted in T. Hedge and N. Whitney (Eds.) (1996) Power, Pedagogy & Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
:ed#yes, 1. 016652. The on* ative Teacher. L!nd!n- :acmillan 1u lishers. 016662 2nd editi!n. %smanin#- :ax ?ue er Lerla#.

:inami, :. 020022. Jeview !+ Filin#ualism in devel!pment- Language, literacy, and cognition y Ellen Fialyst!". Bilingual Research 1ournal, 2D, 032, @26,@37. Modiano, M. (1999). International English in the global village. English Today, 15,(2), 22-28. Modiano, M. (2005). Cultural studies, foreign language teaching and learning practices, and the NNS practitioner. In E. Llurda (ed.), Non-Native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges, and Contributions to the Profession. New York: Springer. :!ussu, L. E E. Llurda 020082 /!n,native En#lish,spea"in# En#lish lan#ua#e teachers?ist!ry and research. Language Teaching, 50 0317,3582. /ayar, 1. F. 016652. Ch!se En#lish is itK T!SL*!1, 1,1. 1ai"eday, (. 016872. The ative Spea.er is Dead= (!r!nt!- 1ai"eday 1u lishin#.

22

1eal, E. E Lam ert, C. E. 016D22 (he relati!n !+ ilin#ualism t! intelli#ence. 'sychological Monographs ,@D, 02@, Ch!le /!. 75D2, 1,23. 1hillips!n, J. 016622 Linguistic ,mperialism. )x+!rd- )x+!rd University 1ress. 1hillips!n, J. 0166D2. EL(- (he native spea"er's urden. %n (. ?ed#e E /. Chitney 0Eds.2, 'o/er, 'edagogy > 'ractice . )x+!rd- )x+!rd University 1ress. 1ica, (. 016882 %nterlan#ua#e Ad>ustments as an )utc!me !+ /&,//& /e#!tiated %nteracti!n. Language Learning, 38, 012,57M@3. 1iller, %. 020022 1assin# +!r a native spea"er- %dentity and success in sec!nd lan#ua#e learnin#. 1ournal o# Sociolinguistics, D, 022, 1@6,20D. 1intner, J. E J. =eller 016222, R%ntelli#ence tests +!r +!rei#n childrenR, 1ournal o# !ducational 'sychology, 13, 052, 215,222. Ja>a#!palan, =. 020072 /!n,native spea"er teachers !+ En#lish and their anxieties%n#redients +!r an experiment in acti!n research. %n E. Llurda 0ed.2, on* ative Language Teachers+ 'erceptions, Challenges and Contributions to the 'ro#ession. /ew H!r"- &prin#er. Jampt!n, F. 016602 Bisplacin# the $native spea"er'- expertise, a++iliati!n, and inheritance. !LT 1ournal, 55, 6@,101. &amimy, =. E J. Frutt,;ri++ler 016662 (! e a native !r n!n,native spea"er- 1ercepti!ns !+ $!n,native' students in a #raduate (E&)L pr!#ram. %n ;. Fraine 0ed.2, onnative !ducators in !nglish Language Teaching. :ahwah, /J- Erl aum. &eidlh!+er, F. 016662 B!u le standards- (eacher educati!n in the expandin# circle. ?orld !nglishes, 18,022, 233,257. &eidlh!+er, F. 020052 Jesearch perspectives !n teachin# En#lish as a Lin#ua <ranca. "nnual Revie/ o# "pplied Linguistics, 25, 206,236. &hari+ian, <. 0Ed.2 0+!rthc!min#2 !nglish as an ,nternational Language. 'erspectives and ,ssues. 8leved!n- :ultilin#ual :atters. &i+a"is, /. 8. 020052 (eachin# E%LS(eachin# %nternati!nal !r %ntercultural En#lishK Chat teachers sh!uld "n!w. System, 32, 022, 23@,270. &i+a"is, /. C. & A-M. Sougari (2005) Pronunciation issues and EIL pedagogy in the periphery: A survey of Greek state school teachers beliefs. TESOL Quarterly, 39, (3), 467-488. &mith, :. E. 016362 &!me li#ht !n the pr! lem !+ ilin#ualism as +!und +r!m a study !+ the pr!#ress in the mastery !+ En#lish am!n# pre,sch!!l children !+ n!n,American ancestry in ?awaii. 2enetic 'sychology Monographs, 21, 116,285. (an#, 8. 0166@2 )n the p!wer and status !+ n!n,native E&L teachers. T!S%L &uarterly, 31, 7@@,780. (E&)L 016612 A (E&)L &tatement !n /!nnative &pea"ers !+ En#lish and ?irin# 1ractices. Lar#hese, :.4 F. :!r#an4 F. J!hnst!n4 =. A. J!hns!n 020072 (he!ri*in# Lan#ua#e (eacher %dentity- (hree 1erspectives and Fey!nd. 1ournal o# Language, ,dentity > !ducation, 5, 012, 21,55. Ceinreich, :. 016732 Languages in Contact. :!ut!n, (he ?a#ue. Widdowson, H. G. (1994) (he !wnership !+ En#lish. T!S%L &uarterly, 28, 3@@,386. Yelland, G.; J. Pollard & A. Mercuri (1993) The metalinguistic benefits of limited contact with a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 423-444.

23