Autonomía

As shown in the previous sections, the image of the native speaker as the ideal teacher has been well established in the world of EFL. However, many scholars have criticised and challenged the idea that the ideal teacher of English is a native speaker of the language. Phillipson (1992: 194), for example, starts by introducing the term “native speaker fallacy”, which deals with taking the native speaker norm for granted in English

40

language teaching. He refers to the 1961 Commonwealth Conference in Uganda on the teaching of English as a second language where it was concluded that the ideal teacher of English is a native speaker. This rather radical conclusion alleges that a native speaker of English has “greater facility in demonstrating fluent, idiomatically

appropriate language, in appreciating the cultural connotations of the language, and ... in being the final arbiter of the acceptability of any given samples of the language.”

Also, Medgyes (1996) challenges this notion of native speaker superiority. He argues that the statement that the more proficient in English, the more efficient in the classroom is a false statement from an educational perspective. He starts by saying that if language competence was the only variable in teaching, a native speaker would of course be a better English teacher than his non-native counterpart. By the same token, any native speaker, whether or not he or she had obtained EFL qualifications, would be a more effective teacher than any non-native speaker. However, Medgyes (1996) asserts that this assumption clearly conflicts with everyday experience, and he therefore argues that a number of other factors or variables are equally (or more) important in the

teaching and learning process. These variables - which include experience, training, age, aptitude, personality and motivation - are independent variables: they are not specific to language and therefore they can apply equally to native and non-native teachers. If these factors are equal for both teacher categories (NESTs and NNESTs), it would seem that the first category does have the advantage of superior language competence.

Although Medgyes (ibid) was challenging the perceived superiority of NESTs, he was doing the NNESTs, most likely unintentionally, a disservice. Indeed, his argument implies that non-native speaker teachers are all one category, a characteristic of which is their language deficiency and inferiority in comparison with their native speaker

counterparts. His argument might have been a swim against the current a decade ago, but the developments in the field - which I have shown throughout this chapter - render this perceived superiority in language competence highly contestable (Davies, 2006; Jenkins, 2009, Seidlhofer, 2009; Braine, 2010).

However, many scholars view the differences between NESTs and NNESTs as being advantageous to the latter. Medgyes (1992: 39) considers the relative weakness of language competence on the part of non-native teachers as “the relative deficit that enables them to compete with native speakers ... What is weakness on one side of the coin is an asset on the other”. He lists six reasons in support of his argument:

1- Only NNESTs can represent imitable models of successful language learners. 2- NNESTs can teach their students learning strategies more effectively.

41

3- They can provide learners with information about the English language. 4- They are able to anticipate language learning difficulties.

5- They can be more empathetic to the learning needs and problems of their students. 6- They can benefit from a shared mother tongue with the students.

Maum (2002) also believes that the differences between NESTs and NNESTs operate as strengths for the latter and that these strengths should be recognised. Similarly,

Phillipson (1992: 194) asserts that NNESTs can acquire many of the perceived advantages that native speakers have by enrolling in teacher training programmes. He also argues that NNESTs can have almost full awareness of the correct forms and appropriate uses of English and that they are able to analyse the language and explain it. He also maintains that the previous language learning experience of the NNESTs may qualify them to become more efficient teachers than those who speak it as a native language. This argument is also supported by Paikeday (1985: 88) who contends that “native speakership should not be used as a criterion for excluding certain categories of people from language teaching”.

Canagarajah (1999: 79) emphasises the importance of being aware that the native speaker fallacy is “linguistically anachronistic”. He justifies this by showing that this fallacy contradicts some basic linguistic concepts that have been developed through empirical research and accepted by contemporary scholars.

it [this fallacy] creates a disjunction between research awareness and professional practice in ELT. For instance, we take for granted that all languages and dialects are of equal status, that there are no linguistic reasons for the superiority of one dialect or language over the other ... However, the native speaker fallacy goes against these basic assumptions. It is based on the view that the language of the native speaker is superior and/or normative irrespective of the diverse contexts of communication.

Another issue associated with the dichotomy between NESTs and NNESTs, which is based on their status as native or non-native speakers, is that it - as Maum (2002) puts it - extends the presumed supremacy of the NESTs in the ELT profession and contributes to discrimination against NNESTs in hiring practices.