1

Dissertation: The Nati e Speake of E glish: Pe eptio s a d

As iptio s Withi a Chi ese P i ate La guage S hool

2013-2014

William Simpson

Dissertation

Word Count: 16,325

Dissertation Supervisor: Dr Sian Preece

I confirm that I have read and u de stood the I stitute s Code

on Citing Sources and Avoidance of Plagiarism. I confirm that
this assignment is all my own work and conforms to this Code.

MA in TESOL

Institute of Education, University of London

August 2014
2

Acknowledgements

This dissertation would not have been possible without the help of friends, family and staff at
IOE. I would particularly like to thank Dr. Siân Preece, for her much needed suggestions,
guidance, encouragement and patience throughout. I would also like to thank all of the
lecturing staff at IOE. Without the guidance and encouragement I have received over the past
year from the staff, this modest accomplishment would not have been possible. I would like to
thank my classmates for their suggestions, their support, and most importantly their friendship.
I would like to thank all of the participants for volunteering to take part in this study, and the
school for its support in this research. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the considerable
help I have received from my friend Janey. It is no exaggeration to say that without such
generosity I would not have undertaken this MA.

Dedication

I would like to dedicate this work to my father, who throughout my life has done everything
possible to give me the opportunities that he never had, and has only ever fully supported me
in everything I have done.
3

Abstract

It probably doesn’t need saying that the term ‘Native Speaker’ is one that anyone with any
sort of investment in linguistics, applied or otherwise, will instantly recognise. However in
the widespread use of the term, beyond that of the linguist, the term ‘native speaker’ can carry
a plurality of possible interpretations. This study qualitatively investigates how 11 in-service
ELT teaching staff perceive and ascribe ‘native speaker of English’ identities, the native/non-
native speaker of English distinction in relation to English language teaching. The findings of
this study suggest that there is significant variety with which native speaker of English
identities are perceived and ascribed, and that the native/non-native speaker of English
teacher distinction was paradoxically seen as both meaningful and meaningless.
4

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms…………………………...…………………………...7

Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………...………………………8

1.1 An Autobiography of the Research Questions……………...…………………….9

Chapter 2: Literature Review................................................................................................12

2.1 The ‘Native Speaker’: The abstract and the concrete……………………………12

2.2 The Native Speaker: Definitions in Literature…………………………………...14

2.3 Native Speakers of English as an imagined speech community………………....18

2.4 The Native Speaker Fallacy: The NSE as the ideal teacher…………………..…22

2.5 The NNSE teacher….……………………………………………………………23

2.6 Summary….………………………………………………………………...……25

Chapter 3: Context……………………………………………………………………….....26

3.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………...…….26

3.2 English Language Education in China………………………………………...…26

3.3 Language Training Schools in China…………………………………………….26

3.4 The School……………………………………………………………………….27

Chapter 4: Methodology……………………………………………………………………28

4.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………..…….28

4.2 Approach to Research…………………………………………………………....28

4.3 The Evolution of the Research Questions……………………………………….28

4.4 Research Design………………………………………………………………....29

4.5 The Interviews and Interview Guide…………………………………………….30

4.6 The Participants……………………………………………………………….....31

4.7 Pre-existing Relationships Between the Participants and Myself……………….32

4.8 Transcription……………………………………………………………………..33

Chapter 5: Data Presentation……………………………………………………………....34

5.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………….……...34
5

5.2 NSE Definitions………………………………………………………….………34

5.2.1 Bio-Developmental Definitions…….…………………………………34

5.2.2 NSE Definition by Nationality……………………….…………….....36

5.2.3 NSE Definition by Competence………………………………………39

5.2.4 NSE Definition by Educational/Institutional Qualification…………..40

5.2.5 Sven’s Definition……………………………………………………...40

5.3 NSE Characteristics……………………………………………………………...41

5.3.1 Race…………………………………………………………………...41

5.3.2 NSE Cultural Background…………………………………………….42

5.4 NSE English……………………………………………………………………...43

5.4.1 Accent and Pronunciation …………………………………………….44

5.4.2 Lexis…………………………………………………………………..44

5.4.3 Authenticity…………………………………………………….……..45

5.5 NSE and NNSE teachers…………………………………………………………46

5.5.1 Competence ……………………………………………….……….....46

5.5.2 Accent and Pronunciation…………………………………………......47

5.5.3 Teaching of Grammar…………………………………………………48

5.5.4 NSE/NNSE distinction as meaningless……………………………….48

Chapter 6: Discussion……………………………………………………………………….50

6.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………...…….50

6.2 The ‘Common Sense’ concept of the NSE……………………………………....50

6.3 Non-linguistic Features of the NSE……………………………………………...51

6.4 The NSE as a Pseudo-Linguistic Term…………………………………………..52

6.5 The NSE Paradox……………………………………………………………...…53

Chapter 7: Conclusion……………………………………………………………………....55

7.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………...…….55

7.2 Summary of Findings…………………………………………………………….55

7.3 Limitations…………………………………………………………………….…56
6

7.4 Future Study…………………………………………………………………...…56

7.5 Final thought……………………………………………………………………..57

References…………………………………………………………………………...……….58

Appendices………………………………………………………………...…………………62

Appendix A: Interview Guide……………………………………………………......62

Appendix B: Sample Transcription………………………………………………….63

Appendix C: Coding Map……………………………………………………………67

Appendix D: Dissertation Proposal………………………………………………….68

7

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

NSE Native Speaker(s) of English

NNSE Non-native Speaker(s) of English

ELT English Language teaching

TEFL Teaching English as a Foreign Language

TESOL Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages

EFL English as a Foreign Language

8

Chapter 1: Introduction

Defining the term ‘Native Speaker’ is a complex and problematic task. In my own case,
having been born and raised in Britain, speaking English as my first language and being
identified as ‘British’, go some way as to defining me as a Native Speaker of English
(hereafter NSE). While such ascriptions seem largely uncontroversial, it is my position that in
common usage of the term ‘native speaker’, ascriptions and the criteria upon which
ascriptions are made, are far from universal.

Although definitions of the term ‘Native Speaker’, and the appropriacy of such a concept
governing much of the ELT world, has been widely discussed, it is only relatively recently
that scholars have started to investigate how identities of NSE might be perceived and
ascribed by learners and teachers. In other words, rather than asking who native speakers of
English are, the question is who do people think native speakers of English are?’

Following this, and framing such issues within a context of a private language school in
China, the aims of this study have been to qualitatively explore the following two research
questions:

1) How do the teaching and managerial staff of a private language training school in
China, perceive native and non-native English speaker identities?

2) How are these identities ascribed by teaching and managerial staff within the school?

Following this introduction, an autobiography of the research question will be given, and then
the relevant literature reviewed. Next, an account of the context of this study will be given,
and the methodological approach detailed. Following this, data from the interviews used in
this study will be presented. A discussion of the data will then be given, before being
concluded with a brief summary of the study and its limitations. I will now give a brief
autobiographical account of my encounters with varying concepts of the native speaker, so as
to illustrate my motivation for this study.
9

1.1 An Autobiography of the Research Questions: The Native Speaker of English and Me

My first recollection of coming across the term NSE was during a TEFL course in London
prior to my first English teaching job. All of my fellow teachers-in-training were English first
language speakers. As far as I was concerned ‘we’ were a class of NSE teachers, being
trained to teach ‘our’ language, to ‘them’ - the Non-Native Speakers of English (hereafter
NNSE).

Shortly after completing the course, the job search began. From looking at advertisements for
various ELT jobs in China, it quickly became clear that the vast majority of positions stated 3
prerequisite conditions to be met by the applicant; an undergraduate degree, nationality of the
U.S, U.K, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, and finally that applicants should be NSE.

During several years of teaching English in China, I worked with colleagues from a variety of
cultural and linguistic backgrounds. The fact that the vast majority of my colleagues, be they
NSE or NNSE, were white, suggested to me that the issue of NSE/NNSE identity was
masking judgements based not on linguistic knowledge, but on race. Below is a screenshot
from an e-mail I received, advertising a job opening:

Whilst such overtly racist attitudes are normally hidden or implicit, the explicit racial
prejudice that this e-mail exhibits is not uncommon, and indeed occurs frequently in many
other e-mail job advertisements I have received.

My foremost experience of racial discrimination within ELT, comes from my

recommendation of a black Zimbabwean national for a teaching job. Having read her C.V.,
interviewed her, and observed her teaching, I made a recommendation to hire her. However,
my recommendation was met with great suspicion, not least of all when my assertion that
Zimbabweans were NSE was met with heavy scepticism.
10

Whilst the occurrence of inexperienced, underqualified white British and American applicants
being offered employment by the school was far from rare, it was an uphill struggle for me to
convince the school to hire someone better qualified, and with more teaching experience than
many ‘Native Speaker’ teachers that were hired before and after her. I can only assume that
this was due to a) a refusal to accept a Zimbabwean national as a NSE, and b) the applicant’s
race. I thought at the time, as I do now, that this is profoundly wrong. It is simply intolerable.
At the time, I perceived such injustices to be, to some extent, a characteristic of a ‘localised’
‘Chinese’ phenomenon. My return to the UK to study an MA in TESOL however, has
persuaded me otherwise.

Whilst studying for an MA, it has been my privilege and good fortune to learn from, interact
and befriend students and teachers from a great variety of linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
As one of a minority of NSE on the MA course, I have on occasion, been turned to by many
of my peers as a source of linguistic authority in English. While it’s certainly the thought that
this kind of validation-seeking comes from a recognition of my great intellectual prowess is a
very agreeable one, I cannot be so egotistical. It should be appreciated that these people are
my peers, the vast majority of them ELT professionals, many of whom have experience that is
years, sometimes decades superior to my own. Yet, I couldn’t help but feel, as a white British
man, certain roles, which may include certain linguistic gatekeeping or language owning
privileges, were ascribed to me.

Furthermore, the frequency with which I have heard my peers describe their English as ‘not
good enough’ or ‘horrible’, is a source of great distress to me1. The frustration I have felt,
hearing people that I converse with regularly, MA or even PhD holders, that are intelligent
and wonderfully articulate speakers of English, lamenting that they are unable to ‘lose their
accent’ is beyond words. There is something truly perverse about someone dedicating
significant effort and time to the study of English, and consequently achieving great success,
only to perceive themselves as second rate or as linguistic imposters.

Later that year, I became reacquainted with an old friend from the TEFL course, who had
completed an MA TESOL course the previous year. Naturally, I was very keen to discuss all
things TESOL. In our discussion it became clear that my friend, contrary to my assumptions,
regarded herself as a NNSE. I was dumbfounded. It soon became clear to me that her self-
ascribed identity as a NNSE owed a lot to her race, place of birth and a sense that she
somehow didn’t ‘belong’ in a community of NSE.

1
Of course such protestations of inadequacy might be explained in terms of expressions of modesty, I
am utterly convinced however, that in the case of prolonged relationships with many of my peers,
their self-perceptions as second-rate English speakers is indeed sincere.
11

It is clear that the NSE/NNSE distinction is a very powerful one in the world of language
teaching, with very real consequences for language learners and language users. Pavlenko
concludes that:

“Marginalization within the profession will continue unless those who use the target
language as their first join the process of critical reflection on language ideologies and
linguistic theories that inform our practices.” (2003: 266)

As an English first language professional in the ELT industry, I hope to be, in some small
way, a part of Pavlenko’s proposed solution.
12

Chapter 2: Literature Review

In this chapter, I will review the literature surrounding contrasting definitions of the ‘native
speaker’. This will be done by exploring the ‘native speaker’ as a concept: in common usage,
as an abstract ideal, with reference to real language users as they exist in the world, and also
at a level of a community of ‘native speakers’. In each case I will discuss the grounds,
linguistic and otherwise, on which one may be qualified as a NSE, and how the varying
concepts of the NSE have had a significant impact on ELT in general, and more specifically
on the NSE and NNSE teacher.

2.1 The ‘Native Speaker’: The abstract and the concrete

Naturally, my, or anyone else’s, view of issues surrounding the term ‘native speaker’ is
dependent upon the definition that one subscribes to. Whilst the use of the term in ELT
discourse both written and spoken is common place, definitions are multiple and much
contested. As a prelude to more detailed discussion of definitions of the term ‘native speaker’
in the literature, and the problems therein, I will turn to two contrasting concepts of the native
speaker. Firstly, Davies’ ‘common sense’ definition, and secondly the term as defined in the
work of Noam Chomsky.

A ‘common-sense’ view of the native speaker, how the term manifests in definition and use at
large according to Davies, perceives native speakers as those who:

“have a special control over a language, [and have] insider knowledge about ‘their’
language. They are the models we appeal to for the ‘truth’ about the language, they
know what the language is…They are the stakeholders of the language, they control
its maintenance and shape its direction.” (Davies 2003: 1)

In the work of Chomsky, a grammar is seen as that which:

‘correctly describes the intrinsic competence of the idealised native speaker’

(Chomsky 1965: 24)

Of importance here, is that while the common-sense definition of a native speaker refers to
language users as they exist in the real world, Chomsky’s native speaker is an idealised
abstraction. One is concrete, the other abstract. In response to Paikeday’s challenge, posing
the question ‘Has anyone ever met a native speaker?’ (1985, 1985b), Chomsky’s reply
underlines the concrete-abstract distinction between the two native speaker concepts:

“In my view, questions of this sort arise because they presuppose a somewhat
misleading conception of the nature of language and of knowledge of language.
13

Essentially, they begin with what seem to me incorrect metaphysical assumptions: in

particular, the assumption that among the things in the world there are languages or
dialects, and that individuals come to acquire them...” (Chomsky in Paikeday 1985:
62)

And going on to conclude that:

“So then what is a language and who is a native speaker? Answer, a language is a
system L-s, it is the steady state attained by the language organ. And everyone is a
native speaker of the particular L-s that that person has “grown” in his / her mind /
brain” (Chomsky in Paikeday 1985: 71)

Chomsky’s concerns lay in the treatment of language as an abstract universal concept, rather
than of languages - English, Chinese, Arabic etc., as they exist concretely in the particular
communities that use them. Chomsky’s objection to Paikeday’s (1985, 1985b) challenge, is
based on a misconception of the abstract (language, dialect, the native speaker) as the
concrete (languages, dialects, speech communities, codified grammars, native speakers).

However, such a clear distinction between the abstract idealized native speaker, and of the
concrete native speaker as they exist in the real world, is challenged:

“Noam Chomsky refers to the native speaker as being both the arbiter of grammar
and (when idealised) as somehow being the model of the grammar…Chomsky
thereby neatly compounds one of the central ambiguities of the native-speaker idea,
using it to refer to both a person and an ideal” (Davies 2003: 5)

“The native speaker leads a double life in Chomsky’s work, (1) as a creature of flesh
and blood, that is the linguist himself, (2) an idealisation” (Coulmas 1981:10)

It would seem then, that if such a separation of the abstract from the concrete in the work of
Chomsky, who uses terms such as language, dialect and the native speaker in the abstract
sense, is potentially problematic, then such a separation in the way the term native speaker is
understood and used at large may be very problematic indeed. Such blurred boundaries, have
had very genuine consequences in ELT. One such consequence is discussed in Phillipson’s
(1992) native speaker fallacy, where Chomsky’s abstract concept of the idealised native
speaker as the model and arbiter of grammar, comes to life, and is positioned as the best
possible teacher. Through ELTs upholding of the native speaker as grammatical arbiter and
14

model, whether in textbooks, or in the classroom itself with NSE teachers, the ultimate aim of
instruction becomes to achieve native-like proficiency, and to communicate with NSE2.

Consequently, a failure to distinguish between the concrete and the abstract native speaker
leaves students doomed to judging themselves not in comparison with fallible and imperfect
NSE as real people, but with the ‘perfect’ competence of the idealised native speaker. Taken
to an extreme, an ignorance of the concrete-abstract distinction, might lead to a concept of
real NSE as people that possess a ‘total’ knowledge of the grammar and lexicon of the
English language, and as speakers that may never encounter communication problems
amongst themselves, as they are able to articulate themselves with perfection. Learner
trajectories that aim to achieve such perfection are doomed to failure, and have serious
consequences for learners (Pavlenko 2003).

2.2 The Native Speaker: Definitions in Literature:

Having highlighted the conceptions of the native speaker as abstract (the native speaker of
language), and concrete (native speakers of a/two/many language/s) and the caution with
which one can draw a line between the two, I will now turn to various other definitions of the
term in the literature. In the early use of the term, Bloomfield stresses the importance of
exposure to language from birth in defining one’s ‘native’ language:

“No language is like the native language that one learned at one’s mother’s knee; no-
one is ever perfectly sure in a language afterwards acquired. (Bloomfield 1927: 151)

“The first language a human being learns to speak is his native language; he is a
native speaker of this language” (Bloomfield 1933: 43 cited in Cook 1999: 185-186)

Defining the native speaker in terms of the L1 they learn from birth through early years, is
referred to Davies as the “bio-developmental definition” (1996: 156). While such a definition
does not make explicit where the bilingual language speaker may fit into such a definition,
more recent definitions found in The Dictionary of Applied Linguistics (Richards et al 1985)
and The Dictionary of linguistics (Crystal 1997) portray bilinguals as native speakers of more
than one language (Cook 1999).

2
The validity of which is dependent upon the teaching context and student needs. With regards to
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) education, it is widely acknowledged that NNSE greatly
outnumber NSE in terms of English language usage (Crystal 1997, Graddol 1997, Jenkins 2002) which
raises serious questions of the suitability of native speaker models.
15

At the heart of a bio-developmental definition, lie implications of inheritance, and of a total

irrelevance of individual agency:

“Being a native speaker in this sense is an unalterable historic fact; individuals cannot
change their native language any more than they can change who brought them up.
This definition is echoed in modern sources such as The Oxford Companion to the
English Language (McArthur 1992) and the corpus-based Collins COBUILD English
Dictionary (1995)” (Cook 1999: 186).

During the second half of the twentieth century, the concept of the native speaker becomes
central to the study of language, providing the phenomena, or source data that any theories
must aim to explain:

“The goal of a theory of a particular language must be the explication of the abilities
and skills involved in the linguistic performance of a fluent native speaker” (Katz and
Fodor 1962: 218)

This central positioning in linguistics, acting as it does as the chief determinant of what is or
is not studied, was significantly consolidated by the work of Noam Chomsky who states that:

‘A grammar is…descriptively adequate to the extent that it correctly describes the

intrinsic competence of the idealised native speaker’ (Chomsky 1965: 24)

This definition of the idealised native speaker, as the arbiter of what is linguistically or
communicatively acceptable, from which language models are consequently taken, has since
informed many second language acquisition theories. For example, Selinker’s (1972)
interlanguage theory utilises the native speaker model as a linguistic yardstick against which
the L2 learner’s language is measured. As such any deviation from a native speaker model is
seen as deficient or wrong, rather than as a characteristic of a NNSE variety of English
(Kachru 1990).
16

Cook (1999) lists qualities ascribed to the native speaker by Stern (1983), The Encyclopaedic
Dictionary of Applied Linguistics (Johnson & Johnson 1998) and Davies (1996):

(a) a subconscious knowledge of rules

(b) an intuitive grasp of meanings

(c) the ability to communicate within social settings

(d) a range of language skills

(e) creativity of language use

(f) identification with a language community

(g) the ability to produce fluent discourse

(h) knowledge of differences between their own speech and that of the "standard"
form of the language

(i) the ability to interpret and translate into the L1 of which she or he is a native
speaker

(Cook 1999: 186)

In a discussion of these characteristics Cook notes that while some features, namely (a) and (b)
seem obvious, others are debatable:

“Many native speakers are unaware how their speech differs from the status [standard]
form (h)...Many native speakers are far from fluent in speech (g), some... Some native
speakers function poorly in social settings (c)…Only native speakers who have an
L2-and not necessarily all of them possess the ability to interpret from one language
to another (i). Native speakers, whether Karl Marx in London, James Joyce in Zurich,
or Albert Einstein in Princeton, are free to disassociate themselves completely from
their L1 community politically or socially (f) without giving up their native speaker
status.” (Cook 1999: 186)

This leads Cook to the conclusion that many of these stated conditions need not be met, in
order to qualify someone as a native speaker: “A monk sworn to silence is still a native
speaker.” (Cook 1999: 186). Such an argument is countered, by suggesting that in cases of
being able to produce fluent discourse, or of identification with a language community, the
17

crux of the matter is perhaps not whether a speaker does or does not produce fluent discourse,
or identify with a speech community, but in their ability to do so if they choose. A silent
monk, though silent, still has the ability to produce fluent discourse, just as Karl Marx was
able to identify with a German language community in a way that I, as a NSE, never can. It is
ultimately a question of ‘can or cannot’ rather than ‘does or does not’.

Discussions such as these, return to our uneasy coexistence of an abstract and concrete native
speaker as “a tension exists between the flesh and blood and the idealisation definitions.”
(Davies 2003: 6). Such problematic characteristics and their validity in a working definition
of a native speaker are open to debate, however characteristics that fit in with the earlier bio-
developmental definition seem much more stable:

“The indisputable element in the definition of the native speaker is that a person is a
native speaker of the language learnt first; the other characteristics are incidental,
describing how well an individual uses the language. Someone who did not learn a
language in childhood cannot be a native speaker of the language.” (Cook, 1999: 187)

What is immediately apparent in the last line of this definition, is that not only does it detail
who is included in such a definition, but also who is excluded. It would seem then, that in
Cook’s definition, founded upon the relative stability of bio-developmental factors alone,
people simply are, or are not a native speaker of a language as an unalterable fact, regardless
of L2 proficiency:

“Asserting that ‘adults usually fail to become native speakers’ (Felix, 1987, p. 140) is
like saying that ducks fail to become swans: Adults could never become native
speakers without being reborn” (Cook 1999: 187).

Such a rigidly dichotomous view of native speaker-non-native speaker categorisation

however, is not shared by Halliday (1978):

“No language ever completely re-places the mother tongue3. Certain kinds of ability
seem to be particularly difficult to acquire in a second language…It is not being
suggested that we can never learn to do these things in a second language” (Halliday
1978: 199-200)

3
Hallida he e uses the te othe to gue athe tha ati e la guage . These t o te s appea
to have some overlap in the literature. There may be nuances between the two terms which are not
appreciated here, as it is beyond the scope of this study. For more on the theoretical and socio-
politi al o st u t of the te othe to gue see Skut a -Kangas & Phillipson (1989).
18

Here the two categories of native and non-native speaker are not necessarily mutually
exclusive, and any boundary between the two negotiable in a way that a bio-developmental
definition does not permit. Here the highly proficient language learner can move from non-
native to native speaker categorisation, though Halliday (1978) sees such movement as
relatively rare. While for Cook L1 is synonymous with one’s native language(s), for Halliday,
one’s L2, L3, Lx has the potential to coexist alongside, though not replace, one’s native
language.

The coexistence of a bio-developmental and a proficiency based working definition of a

native speaker, ultimately, cannot be reconciled. A highly proficient, user of a second or other
language may be categorised as both a non-native speaker and a native speaker. While the
question of whether a highly proficient second or other language speaker is or is not
categorised as a native speaker depends on what definition one works from, the validity of
such categorisations are ultimately judged at a societal level.

2.3 Native Speakers of English as an imagined speech community

So far I have reviewed the concept of the native speaker at an individual level, that is to say a
speaker of a language. Languages however, do not exist at an individual level , they exist at a
societal level within the communities that use them. I return to the common sense definition
of the native speaker discussed earlier:

“They have a special control over a language, insider knowledge about ‘their’
language. They are the models we appeal to for the ‘truth’ about the language, they
know what the language is…They are the stakeholders of the language, they control
its maintenance and shape its direction.” [italics added] (Davies 2003: 1)

It may be understood that within this common sense definition, ‘they’ refers to a community
of native speakers. Such a community defined on linguistic grounds, may be regarded as a
speech community, defined as:

“that portion of human society in which language behaviour has some important
shared community meaning…What seems to define membership of a speech
community is that members share common attitudes towards appropriate language
use…and for correctness. Hence they share the same views not just about what it is
appropriate to say…but also about which features are formally correct… defining and
indicating and belonging to and identifying with the group of significant others.”
(Davies 2003: 55)
19

Of particular salience here is the power of the speech community to define and indicate how,
and if, one ‘belongs’ or can legitimately identify with the community. After all, anyone can
choose whichever definition of native speaker suits them best - I could claim to be a native
speaker of Chinese, but it would count for little in validating my identity as a native speaker
of Chinese, unless I am accepted by a Chinese speech community, or other communities that
hold significant weight in such judgements. Indeed, “the native speaker boundary is…one as
much created by non-native speakers as by native speakers themselves.” (Davies 2003: 9).

‘Community’ as a concept itself can exist at an array of conceptual levels. For Anderson, the
nation-state is an ‘imagined community’ in the sense that it “is imagined because the
members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet
them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.”
(1991:6). In this sense, an imagined community of NSE is very likely to transcend borders,
continents and oceans and include hundreds of millions of people.

However, such imagined communities, though potentially concerning hundreds of millions of

people, are still finite. Essentially, membership within any imagined native speaker
community is exclusive. Cook discusses the relationship between accent, and membership
within a language group:

“Consciously or unconsciously, people proclaim their membership in particular

groups through the language they use. However, L2 learners are not supposed to
reveal which part of the world they come from; they are considered failures if they
have foreign accents” (Cook 1999: 195).

Cook’s assertion is that accent, where a NSE accent may be of a prestige or regional variety,
plays a key role in the success with which the L2 user can legitimately claim membership, or
in determining whether membership is granted to the L2 user by the language group. Davies
notes that “There is a sense in which learners may wish to ‘pass’ as native speakers, be
indistinguishable and fail to do so because they do not have, usually, the appropriate
phonology.”(2003: 72).

Ultimately, for Cook, entrance to this community is predicated on the concealment of the
learner’s pre-existing membership to a language group [or imagined community of native
speakers], and ‘faking it’ as a NSE. The concealment of pre-existing language identities
brings us back to the finite – border-bound nature of Anderson’s (1991) imagined
communities. In Cook’s view, one cannot simultaneously claim membership to more than one
native speaker community any more than one can stand with both feet in 2 countries at the
20

same time. Naturally one such exemption to this is the ‘balanced bilingual’ who “can be
recognised as a native speaker in either one of his [sic] languages” (Hamers & Blanc 1989)

So far, membership within an imagined community of NSE has been discussed in terms of the
appropriateness and formal correctness of language, and phonological aspects. But what about
non-linguistic criteria? There is clear evidence that non-linguistic features such as race and
class are influential in perceptions of who is a NSE and who ‘owns’ the language (Lippi-
Green 1997, Widdowson 1994), and of the presence of ethnocentrism in judging linguistic
phenomena (Labov 1969). Pavlenko’s study of NSE communities as imagined by pre-service
and in service ELT professionals from an MA TESOL course illustrates the role of race:

“Fourteen international students revealed that their English instruction led them to see
English exclusively as a language of the White majority: Some were previously
unaware of the African American vernacular and others heard disparaging comments
about it. As a result, they used to see the speech of African Americans as erroneous
and inferior, and not as ‘native speaker’ production.” (Pavlenko 2003: 257)

The relationship between race and imagined communities, in Anderson’s (1991) original use
of the term in defining nationhood, is explored by Gilroy in an analysis of Britain and
‘Britishness’ in the concept of ‘ethnic absolutism’ that “views nations as culturally
homogenous communities of sentiment” (1991: 59-61), where ethnicity alone is the
determiner of social norms and values of a community.

Drawing on this, Leung, Harris & Rampton (1997) propose that “there is an abstracted notion
of an idealised native speaker of English from which ethnic and linguistic minorities are
automatically excluded“ (545), and where “the population of England is for practical purposes
cast as a homogenous community with one language and one culture” (553). The abstracted
notion that Leung et al. suggest is implied, constructs the NSE within not only a monolingual
community, but a mono-cultural and mono-racial one too.

While the language learner may be able to claim membership based on their linguistic
competence, and may successfully make superficial phonological adaptations in terms of
accent, they may still be denied membership into the native speaker community on ‘cultural’
grounds:

“the learner is normally exposed to a limited set of encounters and has little or no
exposure to the cultural beliefs and knowledge which the target language bears…In
communicative competence there is far more information to carry and since for the
most part the learner cannot live out the cultural routines, as native speakers can,
21

learning them through doing, the only success s/he has is through knowledge,
learning like a book.” (Davies 2003: 115)

The importance of one having ‘lived out’ the ‘cultural routines’ becomes apparent if one takes
the view of Barth (1969) where membership ‘comes first’. That even in the face of cultural or
linguistic behaviour that contravenes or perhaps even subverts the norms of the group,
membership is highly unlikely to be revoked. For example, if I were to purposely subvert the
norms of a NSE community by speaking ungrammatical nonsense utterances in English, or to
never speak English again, my membership as a NSE would not be revoked.

Somewhat ironically, we find that race and culture can eclipse any linguistic prerequisites for
membership into what is essentially a language-defined community:

“Many so-called 'non-native speakers' may be considered White and may therefore
pass as 'native speakers'” (Holliday & Aboshiha, 2009: 670)

As shown in Canagarajah’s comparison of the biographies of two scholars:

“I compare the literacy autobiographies of two accomplished non-native scholars,

Ulla Connor, who is White, and Xiaoming Li, who is Chinese...Though both face
common challenges in acquiring the native speaker voice, Connor succeeds in
achieving this identity. Li doesn't...I posit that whereas both are non-native English
speakers, Connor's Finnish identity provides her with possibilities of passing, while
Li's Chinese identity encounters more difficulties.” (Canagarajah in Kubota, Bashir-
Ali, Canagarajah, Kamhi-Stein, Lee, & Shin 2005).

What is seen here is the potential negotiation of membership within an imagined NSE
community based on racial and cultural grounds, not linguistic ones. Connor’s ‘possibilities’
of ‘passing’ are based on a shared cultural and racial identity, a white European imagined
community, which may overlap, with an imagined NSE community in the mind of the
imaginer. Clark & Paran’s study of the employability of NNSE in EFL in the UK found that
“employers seem to be more willing to employ NNESs if they are EU citizens.” (2007: 423),
and while in their discussion Clark & Paran ascribe this to visa regulations and legal issues,
there may be a hidden racial and cultural dimension to such phenomena. Looking back to the
job advertisement e-mail from my autobiography where: “Experienced European teachers
with clear pronunciation are also considered [along with native speakers]” such values are
explicit.

At some level there must inevitably be generalisations of race, culture and language, when an
imagined community as vast as that of NSE is constructed in the imagination of the individual.
22

It would be extremely naive to posit that any individual is capable of doing justice to both the
complexity and fluidity that must exist within such a community. In terms of imagining
identities that one may ‘belong’ to, “Imagination is not just an individual process” (Wenger
1998: 178), and so there are no single ‘true’ imagined communities. After all, even borders of
countries are disputed.

Even though varying constructs of such communities may well contradict one another, there
are common features of imagined communities that are shared in the imagination of
significant numbers of individuals. Any stereotype one cares to imagine exemplify this.
Imagination, as a way of belonging “can be based on stereotypes that simply project onto the
world the assumptions of specific practices” (Wenger 1998: 178). So then, what are the
specific practices that inform these imagined identities and what are their assumptions?

2.4 The Native Speaker Fallacy: The NSE as the ideal teacher

For Phillipson (1992), the second tenet of the Makerere report4, that “the ideal teacher of
English is a native speaker” (1992:193), “played a key role in crystalizing the principles
which were to govern ELT” (1992: 66), both in the African post-colonial context that the
Makerere report intended to address, and far beyond:

“The native speaker serves as the model who can personify the speaker abstracted and
reified in works on standard grammar and vocabulary and in ‘received pronunciation’,
and which teaching materials and sound-recordings seek to reanimate. The teacher
who is a native speaker is the best embodiment of the target and norm for learners.”
(Phillipson 1992: 194).

As arbiter of grammar, pronunciation and as the model for learners, the NSE teacher is
construed not only as the ‘best embodiment of the target language’, but in the case of inner
circle (Kachru 1990) NSE, as the receptacle of ‘real’ English (Widdowson: 1994).

In addition to linguistic concerns, the NSE is also seen as a teacher of culture too:

“The native speaker fallacy dates from a time when language teaching was
indistinguishable from culture teaching, and when all learners of English were

4
The Makerere report is a report of the Commonwealth Conference on the Teaching of English as a Second
Language, held at University College Makerere, Uganda in 1961.
23

assumed to be familiarising themselves with the culture that English originates from
and for contact with that culture.” (Phillipson 1992: 195)

As such the NSE teacher represents not only the linguistic norms of the inner circle,
predominantly of Britain and the United States, but also the dominant cultural norms therein.
Such cultural assumptions foster an ignorance of the complexity and variety of socio-cultural
contexts within which language usage occurs:

“It [the native speaker fallacy]is based on the view that the language of the native
speaker is superior and/or normative irrespective of the diverse contexts of
communication… Thus this fallacy enforces traditionalism in our profession.”
(Canagarajah 1999: 80).

Though the positioning of the NSE as the best teacher is much contested in the literature
(Phillipison 1992, Canagarajah 1999, Cook 1999, Medgyes 1992, 1994, Rampton 1990,
Samimy & Brutt-Griffler 1999), there is an undeniable advantage in ELT that NSE enjoy as
shown in Clark & Paran’s (2007) findings:

“Is being a native speaker important for employers of English language teachers in
the UK? – we can confidently say that it is. Almost three quarters (72.3%) of
respondents consider a job applicant’s being an NES [NSE] either moderately or very
important” (Clark & Paran 2007: 422)

Ultimately even though the positioning of NSE as the ‘best’ teacher by default has been
shown to have no scientific validity (Phillipson 1992), and such a view within scholarly
circles is heavily frowned upon, such views are still alive and kicking in the views of ELT
professionals and learners (Amin 1997, Canagarajah 1999, Cook 1999, Holliday & Aboshiha
2009, Kachru 2005, Kubota et al 2005, Mahboob 2004, Thomas 1999).

2.5 The NNSE teacher:

Samimy & Brutt-Griffler’s study, suggest that in general, teachers and students do not
“necessarily think that native English speaking teachers were superior to their non-native
speaking counterpart” (1999: 136), a conclusion that mirrors that of Reves & Medgyes (1994).
Such conclusions however sit uneasily with narratives of NNSE teachers that detail
challenges to their credibility in terms of hiring practices, student perceptions and a sense of
invisibility within professional TESOL circles (Thomas 1999).
24

Amongst the literature, there is no shortage of discussion regarding advantages that NNSE
teachers might possess that NSE do not. Common among these is the underlying theme of an
empathetic understanding, on the NNSE teacher’s part, of the students’ linguistic and cultural
backgrounds (Medgyes 1994, Nemtchinova 2005, Phillipson 1992 Seidlhofer 1999). Working
on the premise that “Success in learning a foreign language…may correlate highly with
success in teaching (Britten 1985:116), Phillipson argues that it should be a minimal
requirement of the foreign language teacher to have had proven success in foreign language
learning, which is very often lacking in NSE teachers from inner circle countries (Phillipson
1992).

Samimy & Brutt-Griffler’s (1999) investigation into perceptions of NSE and NNSE teachers
suggest that the NSE/NNSE distinction is, for many, a meaningful one with very real
pedagogical consequences:

“participants characterized native speakers as being informal, flexible, self-confident,

fluent and accurate users of English, whereas non-native teachers were characterized
as being more sensitive to their students’ needs, efficient, aware of negative transfer
in learners’ interlanguage, able to use learners’ L1 as a medium, and tending to rely
on textbooks.” ” (Samimy & Brutt-Griffler 1999: 135)

Working on Kramsch’s assumption that “Nonnative teachers and students alike are
intimidated by the native-speaker norm” (1993: 9), Cook suggests that “students may prefer
the fallible non-native-speaker teacher who presents a more achievable model.” (1999: 200).
However positing such a preference on behalf of students, is at odds with a student perception
that is largely a reflection of the pro-NSE position that dominates ELT - student demand for
NSE teachers often functions as employers’ excuse for hiring NSE over NNSE (Braine 2013,
Clark & Paran 2007, Thomas 1999).

Davies suggests that non-native models of English in the classroom may be more appropriate
for the learner on the grounds of avoiding cultural expectations of the NSE. Such an approach
seemingly challenges the positioning of the L2 learner as ‘native-speaker in the making’,
which dooms the learner to inevitable failure (Cook 1999). However the notion of resting at
“some level of approximation” or to “choose fossilisation” (Davies 2003: 72) is, I suspect, a
hard sell for many teachers. Given that students may position themselves within a NSE-
NNSE dichotomy, such linguistic reassessments on the learners part are likely to represent
failure or surrender (Pavlenko 2003).

While the NNSE teacher’s advantages in terms of adopting a cultural-linguistic empathetic

stance, and as an embodiment of successful language learning, is suggested by scholarly
25

voices and in teacher perceptions (Samimy & Brutt-Griffler 1999, Medgyes 1994), what is
lacking in the literature is an acknowledgement of a potential mismatch of teacher – student
backgrounds. What is often tacitly assumed in the literature is that NNSE will teach in their
‘home’ countries, thus guaranteeing, a shared linguistic and cultural background with students.
In the context of this study however, this is an entirely false assumption. NNSE teachers from
a variety of cultural and linguistic backgrounds make up a significant proportion of EFL
teachers in the Chinese private ELT industry. In short, the literature reproduces the archetypal
NSE teacher as having the world at their feet, whereas the NNSE is often assumed to be
confined to a career within their own country. I would suggest that such assumptions, in no
small part, reflect the inequality of opportunity that exists in the ELT industry worldwide.

2.6 Summary:

In summary, I have reviewed the literature on the ‘native speaker’ in terms of its definitions
and consequent implications within the world of ELT. A brief overview of how the term itself
has been defined, and its centrality as a concept in the study of linguistics shown. I have
shown how a community of NSE may be imagined, and how membership within such a
community is granted not only on linguistic grounds, but on cultural and racial grounds too.

The advantages in terms of employment within ELT that NSE enjoy, and the underlying
pedagogic assumptions and values that perpetuate them have been briefly discussed, as has
the literature surrounding the potential advantages the NNSE teacher may have in adopting an
empathetic stance. Having built up a background upon which definitions, uses of, and beliefs
behind the concept of the NSE, can be seen from the literature, I will now give an overview of
the context of the study.
26

Chapter 3: Context

3.1 Introduction

This section will aim to detail the specific context that this study investigates, and to give an
impression of how this context fits into larger more general trends. I will first give a brief
overview of English language education in China as it currently stands, particularly in the
private sector with language training schools, before focussing on the particulars of the school
itself.

3.2 English Language Education in China

The English language is now well established within China as a language of great importance
and value, at both an individual and national level. As a form of symbolic capital (Bourdieu
1991), English is widely recognised as a way to procure greater opportunities in employment
and education (Hu 2005). In general, the Chinese perceive the English language as of great
pragmatic value, from students and internet commentators (Bianco, Orton & Yihong 2009),
up to state policy (Pan & Block 2011), where it is seen as desirable for national development
within a global market by the state:

“In this age of globalization it is held officially by the Chinese state that an adequate
command of English by Chinese individuals is necessary and important for the
sustained development of the country” (Pan 2011: 250)

3.3 Language Training Schools in China

Language training schools typically function in a supplementary role to the education

provided by the state. In a similar way to how the Eikaiwa conversational schools of Japan
use the term native speaker as a marketing tool (Kachru 1998), the school featured in this
study offers a ‘native’ package of: NSE staff, textbooks and materials from the United States,
and ‘English only’ environments. In this sense, the school that features in this study is fairly
typical of language training schools across urban China.
27

3.4 The School

At the time of writing, the school had 3 branches around Beijing, with around 400 students
enrolled. Each class contains a teacher, and a teaching assistant. The teachers come from a
variety of national and linguistic backgrounds. In the case of NSE they are from inner circle
(Kachru 1990) countries, predominantly Britain, America, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and
Australia. In the case of NNSE teachers, they are predominantly from European countries
where English is not a first language. None of the teachers are Chinese nationals. Within the
school, teachers are referred to as ‘foreign teachers’, on account of their non-Chinese
nationality. In contrast, the teaching assistants at the school are exclusively made up of
Chinese nationals.
28

Chapter 4: Methodology

4.1 Introduction

In this section, I will discuss the research approach and research design in this study, and how
these have been informed by literature and other considerations. The design of the research
tools used and the rationale behind their design will then be given, following which I will
detail the participants of this study, and their relation to the context of this study.

4.2 Approach to Research

This study has taken a qualitative approach to research, as its aims are to investigate the social
phenomenon of identity construction and ascription via the “subjective opinions, experiences
and feelings of individuals and thus the explicit goal of research is to explore the participants’
views” (Dornyei 2007: 38). In recognition of the complexity and lack of consensus with
which the term NSE may be perceived, defined, and ascribed, as discussed in the literature
review section, a qualitative approach has been used as a means not to find ‘correct’ and
generalizable interpretations, but ‘possible’ interpretations of human experience (Duff 2008).
In this way, this study will aim to contribute to a broader picture of how the NSE may be
perceived.

The research has been informed by a background knowledge of the relevant literature, and of
the context of the study, as an aid to appreciating the complexities and subtleties that occur as
research is taking place (Miles & Huberman 1994). Whilst this background knowledge has
informed the research design of this study, an emergent element has been retained, so as to
further refine or explore avenues of enquiry as they emerge, as seen in the evolution of the
research questions.

4.3 The Evolution of the Research Questions

The research questions that this study has sought to explore are as follows:

1) How do the teaching and managerial staff of a private language training school in
China, perceive native and non-native English speaker identities?
2) How are these identities ascribed by teaching and managerial staff within the school?
3) Is the NSE/NNSE distinction perceived as a pedagogically meaningful one?
29

The research questions used in this study have deviated somewhat from the two questions set
out in the original proposal (see appendix D). In line with the research questions from the
proposal, this study investigates how language identities are constructed and ascribed.
However, contrary to the proposal, the investigation has not explored identity from within a
Community of Practice framework, where “learners inevitably participate in communities of
practitioners and that the mastery of knowledge and skills requires new comers to move
towards full participation in the sociocultural practices of a community” (Lave & Wenger
1991: 29).

This decision was taken due to the pragmatic constraints of the study. As has been discussed
in the literature review, there is no consensus on whether one is able to ‘become’ a NSE, nor
exactly what qualifies membership. While some conceptions of NSE may view the NNSE
participants in this study as ‘learners’ that may ‘move towards full participation’, there are
others such as a bio-developmental definition that cannot. As such, the considerable task of
viewing participants through a plurality of possible of memberships and non-memberships
within a Community of Practice, some of which may permit a dynamic “evolving form of
membership” (Lave & Wenger 1991: 54), and some of which may not, has been beyond the
scope of this study.

The iterative flexibility that a qualitative approach has permitted, generated the third research
question. During interviews, participants often gave extended answers for questions about
potential advantages and disadvantages of NSE and NNSE teachers (questions 13, 14 of the
interview guide – appendix A). However, despite discussing at length the pedagogical
implications of a teachers’ NSE or NNSE identity, participants nevertheless explicitly stated
that the NSE/NNSE distinction was a pedagogically meaningless one. The consistent
contradiction of NSE/NNSE identity for teachers as meaningful and meaningless in the data,
prompted the third question, though it is a limitation of this study that a third interview that
further explored these contradictions could not take place due to time constraints.

4.4 Research Design

A semi-structured interview was seen as the most appropriate tool, as it catered for both the
exploration of more idiosyncratic views and for unearthing generalities among participants.

Exploration of interesting developments as interviews occurred happened in two main ways.

Firstly, with probing questions (seen in turns 32 – 36 of the sample transcript in Appendix B),
and secondly, through the use of a second interview. A second interview was used, as it
raised the interpretive validity (Maxwell 1992) of the study. This allowed participants to
either validate or amend what they themselves had said in the first interview, or my own (as
30

the interviewer) understanding of their views, and so decreased the risk of misrepresentation.
This was done by short summaries being written after each first interview, for use in the
second interviews. Due to the time constraints of this study, it was not feasible to transcribe in
full first interviews for use as a guide in the second set of interviews.

4.5 The Interviews and Interview Guide

The interview guide consisted of 16 questions which were used to serve as platforms for
discussion in the interviews. The interview guide made use of easily answerable and factual
rapport questions (questions 1 and 2 in the interview guide – Appendix A), so as to “make
them [participants] feel competent…[and] help them relax and consequently encourage them
to open up” (Dornyei 2007: 137). Following this, content questions (questions 3 – 15) aimed
to explore and answer the research questions of the study, before the final closing question
offered the interviewee the last say in the interview and so as to give the participant the
opportunity for a reversal of roles. Questions did not occur systematically in order in each
interview, as some topics came up ‘organically’ pre-empting items from the interview guide,
though all questions were answered in each interview.

Some of the questions in the interview guide were designed to be somewhat vague or ‘open’
(see questions 7,9,10,13,14,15 Appendix A), with a view to allowing the participants to
dictate what was important in defining the NSE and exploring these, rather than to have
‘tighter’ interview questions, that would confine the interview to the discussion of issues
deemed important by myself. As such, while much of the discussion in interviews concerns
nationality, race, competence in a language, and culture, none of the questions on the
interview guide were designed to specifically elicit responses that concern these, and so
participants were not lead onto these topics and others, but raised them themselves.

To maximize the ‘internal generalizability’ (Dornyei 2007: 59), the interview guide included
items that concern the participants’ own judgements on the extent of how generalizable their
answers were. These can be seen in questions 4 and 8 (see appendix A), that ask if the
participants thought other teaching staff within in the school would agree with them or not.

The interview was piloted with a former employee of the school, following which face to face
interviews were conducted with participants and recorded at the school over a 2 week period.
31

4.6 The Participants

There were 11 participants that took part in the study, shown below:

Name Job Title Nationality L1 Approximate length of

(Pseudonym) time working at the
school
Fran Manager of Chinese Chinese 4 years
Teaching
Department
Jade Teaching Assistant Chinese Chinese 1 year
Chloe Teaching Assistant Chinese Chinese 2 years
Heather Teaching Assistant Chinese Chinese 3 years
Jan Teaching Assistant Chinese Chinese 2 years
Lyn Teaching Assistant Chinese Chinese 1 year
Lewis English Teacher British English 2 years
Angela English Teacher British English 2 years
Olivia English Teacher British English 2 years
Carl English Teacher Dutch Dutch 2 years
Sven English Teacher Swedish Swedish 1 year

Participants were selected in line with a maximum variation sampling strategy defined as a
strategy where:

“The researcher selects cases with markedly different forms of experience…This

process will allow us to explore the variation within the respondents and it will also
underscore any commonalities that we find” (Dornyei 2007: 128)

Different forms of experience were sought in terms of participants’ nationalities, NSE or

NNSE status (from a bio-developmental definition), job, and experience within the school.
This was done for two reasons. Firstly, to generate the maximum amount of ‘possible’
interpretations (Duff 2008) of the NSE. Secondly, the maximum variation sampling strategy
compensates somewhat for the small sample size, in that any generalities cannot be said to
have emerged as a result of homogeneity among participants.

Six Chinese participants and five participants of other nationalities were selected as this was
representative of the overall make-up of the teaching staff at the school. One participant in a
managerial position was chosen, as it was thought they might provide significantly rich data
32

with regards to policies of the school. At the time of research, British NSE were the only NSE
regularly available for interviews at the school, and so variation with regards to the NSE
participants is admittedly lacking.

4.7 Pre-existing Relationships Between the Participants and Myself

With three years’ experience of working at the school myself, I had had pre-existing working
relationships with seven of the participants, ranging from a few weeks with Olivia and Angela
up to two years with Heather. My previous working relationship with the school, and with
some of the participants was fully acknowledged by myself to all participants. As such my
pre-existing relationship and the affect it may have had on the data must be acknowledged.

Firstly, a certain amount of shared contextual knowledge may have been assumed by the
participants, leading to the omission of contextual details, as the explaining of such details
may have seemed redundant to the participants. To rectify this, I have attempted to give as
full account of the context of the school as possible, and given further contextual background
in the data presentation where contextual details may have been omitted.

Secondly, my previous working relationship enabled an ‘empathetic stance’ (Fontana and

Frey 2005) to be taken up by the participant. This empathetic stance may have lead
participants to view some questions as redundant or disingenuous. For those that had a pre-
existing working relationship with me, question 1, asking them to state their job, may have
seemed a totally redundant question, while questions 3-5 about who, including the
interviewee, is a NSE or NNSE in the school may not have appeared to be ‘genuine’
questions, as it may well have been assumed that I, as the interviewer, obviously already
knew. This is perhaps shown in the relative trepidation with which these questions were
answered, as in turn 7-20 of the sample transcript (Appendix B). This may, ultimately have
led to a loss of rapport in interviews, though the variety in the data suggests that it ultimately
did not significantly inhibit participants from ‘opening up’ in interviews.

Finally with regard to my own identity as a white British NSE, participants at times defined
themselves in opposition to me. This was particularly true of the Chinese NNSE participants,
some of whom in defining themselves as NNSE, did so in opposition to my own NSE identity.
This can be seen in turn 28 of the sample transcript (Appendix B). This may have had some
impact on participants’ perception and construction of NSE identities within the interview, as
for the most part they were facing and talking to me, a certain kind of NSE – white British. To
prevent perceptions of the NSE being dominated by my own presence in the interview,
participants were asked to ascribe NSE and NNSE identity to themselves and others in the
33

school (questions 3 and 5 in the interview guide Appendix A), before going into more depth
about what the concept of the NSE might mean.

4.8 Transcription

An orthographic transcription of the raw data was made, in preparation for “latent content
analysis” that “concerns a second-level, interpretive analysis of the underlying deeper
meaning of the data” (Dornyei 2007: 246). Transcriptions were made following transcribing
conventions as detailed by DuBois (1991 in Schiffrin 1994: 422 – 424). While turns in the
sample transcript (Appendix B) have been numbered for ease of reference, within the data
presentation turns have not been numbered, as the text is presented in much smaller chunks,
and does not possess the same problems with regards to referencing.

Second interviews were part-transcribed according to two criteria. Firstly, where particularly
idiosyncratic data came out of second interviews, this was transcribed in line with the study’s
aims of presenting a broad scope of possible interpretations from a maximum variation
sample. Secondly, parts of the second interview were transcribed where participants
contradicted what they had said in the first interview, or where they had cleared up
ambiguities or contradictions that came out of the first interview.

Where data concerning particular areas had reached a sufficient point of saturation from the
first interview alone, further data from the second interviews was not transcribed. As such,
simple restating of opinions or confirmations from second interviews, were deemed redundant
and so not transcribed. All recordings of interviews were transcribed into standard English so
as to avoid caricaturing any participant’s use of non-standard English (Cameron 2001: 41).

During the transcription process, generalities or specific items of interest were noted as part of
an initial coding process, which consequently then gave rise to an initial list of codes, which
in turn were used to carried out a content analysis (Dornyei 2007). Items were deemed of
interest according to two criteria. Firstly, if they represented a generality in the data, and
secondly, idiosyncratic items that stood out from or contradicted other participants, and so
added to a broad spectrum of possible interpretations of NSE identity. Following Dornyei
(2007: 252) this second level coding was carried out by original codes being grouped
according to broader concepts, which were themselves used for further coding of the data.
These broader categories of codes and their respective subordinate codes can be seen in the
coding map (appendix C).
34

Chapter 5: Data Presentation

5.1 Introduction

The data collected from the interviews will be presented in the following section according to
the superordinate categories from the coding map. Brief definitions of the categories used will
be given, with data collected from the participants following. Where data presented did not
follow its preceding statement in an interview, this will be shown by ellipses (…). A centred
five dash line (-----) will be used to distinguish between interviews of different participants.

Where participants have used the ambiguous term ‘native speaker’ with reference to NSE,
this has been changed in all instances to ‘NSE’. Where participants have mentioned ‘England’,
this has been supplemented by adding ‘Britain’, so that in the transcript it appears
‘England/Britain’. This decision has been made on account of my own experience of the
widespread colloquial use of ‘England’ as referring to Britain within the school.
Unfortunately, due to the time constraints of the data gathering process in the field, this issue
could not be clarified, and so mentions of ‘England’ in interviews will be presented as
‘England/Britain’ in transcripts.

Particular utterances or words from the data are presented in bold type as a means to highlight
their salience in relation to each coding category, and not as a means to show emphasis in the
speech of the participant from the interviews.

5.2 NSE Definitions

This refers to the ways in which participants either explicitly state, or strongly imply, specific
conditions that one must meet in order to be correctly defined as a NSE. In other words, the
following are the participant’s perceptions of what makes a NSE a NSE. These include ways
of defining the NSE that reflect the literature like a bio-developmental, imagined community,
and competence based definitions, as well as more idiosyncratic ways of defining the NSE
such as by educational qualification or historical association with the language.

5.2.1 Bio-Developmental Definitions

Country of birth was important for many of the participants in defining a NSE. For both
Olivia and Lewis it functioned as a way of defining their identity as NSE:

Will: Would you describe yourself as a NSE?

Olivia: Yes.
35

O: Because I was born in Britain, I think that would class me as a native speaker.

-----

Will: So why would you describe yourself as a NSE.

Lewis: Because, you’re born in the country which you are.

When probed for further information, Lewis added to this, hinting at a bio-developmental
definition, as did Angela.

Lewis : I would say you need to be born in the country…Born and raised, and speak
English as a first language. I would then say that you are a native speaker of English.

-----

Will: Can you describe what the term NSE means as far as you’re concerned.

Angela: The first language that you are brought up to speak.

Jade was the only participant that went further into a bio-developmental definition, discussing
environmental pre-requisites for NSE qualification:

Jade: As a NNSE we need to learn a lot about English, and it’s so hard for us. But it
should be much easier for you ((the interviewer - myself a NSE)), because you have
had the right environment. All of the people around you, they speak English. Yeh, so
I think if you're born in, and if you grow up in an environment, where those people
speak English, I think you’re a NSE.

Though elements of a bio-developmental definition were present in the data, this definition
was relatively weak in the data, with Jade’s data being the only mention of environmental
considerations in any significant detail. A far stronger definition in the data, was that of
defining the NSE not by the environment in which they develop, but somewhat reductively, to
their nationality.
36

5.2.2 NSE Definition by Nationality

The data showed that nationality plays a significant role in all of the participants’ definitions
of a NSE or NNSE. Heather and Jade attribute their NNSE status exclusively to their
nationality:

Will: Are you a NSE?

Heather: No. Because I’m from China

-----

Jade: I’m a Chinese.

Will: Which means?

J: I’m not a NSE.

It was very common for participants to reinterpret questions about NSE and NNSE as
questions about nationality, as shown by Lyn, Olivia and Carl:

Will: Do you think it’s important if a teacher is a NSE or NNSE?

Lyn: I think, no…I think their nationality is maybe not the key point.

-----

Will: What do you think about the school policy of generally preferring to hire NSE.

Olivia: I don’t think it should be based on where you’re from.

-----

Will: How would you identify someone as a NSE or NNSE.

Carl: I would do two things, I would get their passport and check their education. I
would check their nationality.

As participants themselves brought up the issue of nationality in defining the NSE, probing
questions were used to ascertain which countries or parts of the world each participant would
include in their definition. The following table shows the countries mentioned by each
participant, and the order in which they are mentioned.
37

Table of Nationalities Mentioned according to Kachru’s Model:

Participant Countries Mentioned Grouping

Lewis America, England/Britain, Australia

Heather America, England/Britain, Canada, Australia
Chloe America, England/Britain, Australia, Canada
Lyn England/Britain, America, Canada, Australia ‘Inner Circle’
Fran America, England/Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Nationalities
Australia
Jan America, England/Britain, Canada, Australia, and
New Zealand
Jade America, England/Britain, Australia and Canada
(Did not mention specific countries in defining a
NSE, but did refer to specific countries later in the
interview).

Carl Canada, America, Caribbean countries, South Africa ‘Inner Circle’ and ‘Outer
Angela England/Britain, Ireland, America, Canada, Circle’ Nationalities
Singapore, Hong Kong

Sven Britain
Olivia No country mentioned: ‘I wouldn’t even say a Not grouped
country’ later changed to England/Britain, America,
Canada, Australia

With the exceptions of Sven and Olivia, participants have been grouped according to
Kachru’s three circle model of world Englishes (1990), shown below:
38

Circles of English Model (from Crystal 1995: 107)

As the table shows, for most participants inner circle nationalities were those identified as
countries that NSE come from, with Carl and Angela adding outer circle countries too. Britain
and America were not only the most frequently mentioned countries, they were also the first
two countries mentioned by the majority of participants.

NNSE identities were also ascribed according to nationality as shown by Lyn:

Will: What about any of the foreign5 teachers ((who you would describe as a NNSE
in the school))

Lyn: You mean not from England/Britain? Roberto, Sven he’s from Sweden. Carl is
from Holland.

While Carl and Angela mentioned outer circle nationalities as a defining factor for NSE status,
Lewis explicitly rejects many such countries:

Lewis: If we’re looking for a NNSE, and they say they’re from Africa, automatically
you don't ask any more questions.

5
Fo eig he e ithi the o te t of the s hool, that is to sa all people of o -Chinese nationality.
39

5.2.3 NSE Definition by Competence

Some of the participants discussed linguistic and communicative competence as a defining

characteristic of the NSE:

Fran: For NSE... They know the language well.

Will: When you say they know the language well, what is it exactly that they know.

F: The words, the sentences, the way you talk and the way you use it and when and
where you use it.

Some participants, by implication, regarded NSE competence as total, effortless or infallible.

Fran: But the disadvantages ((for NNSE teachers)) are that they are not able to
know everything about this language, that means there will be something they don't
know.

-----

Will: So would you describe yourself as a NSE?

Sven: No. There’s still a lot I don’t know.

Although not explicitly stated, Fran’s and Sven’s statements about NNSE not knowing
everything imply that at least some, if not all, NSE are either able to, or do ‘know everything’,
and enjoy a total or complete competence.

Jade: And as a NSE…you need to use the language very fluently. Without any
hesitation and without any problems.

J: I think we ((NNSE)) don't have to speak English perfectly like NSE.

Jade explicitly suggests that the competence of NSE is both effortless and infallible,
conflating the abstracted idealised Chomskyan native speaker with real NSE as they exist in
the real world.

Having given an account of more general views on defining the NSE, many of which have
their echo in the literature reviewed earlier, I now move on to present the more idiosyncratic
definitions of the NSE from the data.
40

5.2.4 NSE Definition by Educational/Institutional Qualification

Uniquely in the data, the dominant factor in Carl’s definition of the NSE, is based on
specified educational or institutional qualification:

Carl: Actually it’s based solely on the fact that I did my IELTS, and I passed it at a
certain level, like 6, which qualifies you academically as a NSE.

((about how you would identify someone as a NSE/NNSE))

C: If I was the manager I would look at the resume and the qualifications.

W: To determine if someone is a NSE?

C: Yes.

W: So can you give specific examples, what kind of qualifications would you be
looking for.

C: There are only 2, maybe 3 qualifications I would look for. I would look for IELTS
at an academic level, TOEFL at an academic level.

Though in the interview Carl does not see his view on how a NSE is defined as problematic
or controversial amongst others at the school, the educational/institutional qualification
definition of the NSE is very much unique to Carl.

5.2.5 Sven’s Definition

Another idiosyncratic definition given, was Sven’s definition that places a strong emphasis on
national-historical associations of English:

Will: What does that mean, NSE?

S: That’s somebody from England. England, Scotland or Ireland. That’s native for me
when it comes to English.

W: Well, what about Americans?

S: They’ve only been around for 200 years… But the pure English, yeh, I would say
NSE are from the UK.
41

Such emphasis placed on historic association in a working definition naturally rings with
overtones of authenticity and language ownership, or ‘pure English’ as Sven puts it, as will be
discussed later.

5.3 NSE Characteristics

Within the data, in discussions of what the term NSE might mean and how it was ascribed as
an identity, certain characteristics attributed to NSE emerged. In addition to linguistic criteria
such as competence, non-linguistic criteria also played a significant role in defining the NSE,
most prominently of race and cultural background.

5.3.1 Race

For the purposes of this study, an anthropological view of race as a social construct that
discredits “any clearly delimitable relation between human biological morphology, sociality,
and culture” and views “categories such as race, sex, and gender…as locally variable
constructs”(Palmié 2007: 205). This interpretation of ‘race’ has been used in line with a view
of an imagined community of NSE as a socially-culturally determined construct subject to
local variation.

Participants that discussed race did so through describing physical features of the NSE,
predominantly describing physical features typically associated with Caucasians, most
notably ‘white’ skin. Following this however, when probed, participants clearly did not see
the NSE as exclusively ‘white’:

Will: Is there any other way that you could tell if someone is a NSE or a NNSE?

Heather: Like their appearance, the way they look.

W: Can you give me more detail?

H: Yeh, the skin colour, the eye colour. If they’re black, I will think they are a NNSE,
or like Lewis’ colour ((Lewis is mixed race)) I will be curious, I will think that maybe
he’s a NNSE but I will confirm it later...I don’t mean all black people.

-----

Will: What does it mean to be a NNSE.

Jan: NNSE have a different look. Like Chinese people.

42

W: So you’re saying NNSE don’t look like NSE?

J: Yes.

W: In what way. Can you describe the look?

J: Deeper eyes, bigger noses, whiter ((presumably ‘deeper/bigger/whiter’ than the

way ‘Chinese’ people look)).

-----

Will: Are there any other ways you think you could tell if somebody was a NSE or
NNSE?

Lyn: Their face. What they look like. A white person, and maybe a black person.

It is of interest that all three of the participants that discussed race were Chinese. The above
may well be a glimpse into a social construction of NSE race from the ‘local’ view of Urban
China, where first and foremost NSE are defined in opposition to locally existing constructs,
i.e. not – Chinese, and secondly as primarily, though not exclusively, white. At the time of
writing, of these three participants Heather was the only one to have visited an English
speaking country, spending over a year in Australia. This experience however, seems to have
done little to differentiate her ascriptions of race to the NSE from those of her compatriots Jan
and Lyn. This may suggest that the influence of ‘local’ constructions of race that are ascribed
to the NSE may be rigid and resistant to change.

5.3.2 NSE Cultural Background

Many participants mentioned ‘cultural’ knowledge as an intrinsic characteristic of the NSE.

For Carl, a certain level of cultural knowledge was important:

Carl: Yeh, it’s not only about language but also an understanding of the culture of the
country… I think you also need to have an understanding culture where English is
spoken as a native language.

For Fran, culture was an important part of a NSE ‘language background’. The culture she
refers to was later specified as ‘Western’:
43

Will: We talked about culture. I asked you to identify what kind of culture you were
talking about, we talked about an interaction between Chinese and Western
culture…What is Western Culture. What does the term mean for you.

Fran: China is a kind of country that has this kind of policy, communist. Most
countries in the Western world are capitalist. It’s basic. It decides how people think
and how people treat things and people. So that's what I will call Western culture and
Chinese culture.

Jan too specified the culture of NSE as ‘Western’ culture, and went on to give examples of
cultural traits relating to food, drink, holidays, dress and family:

Will: I asked you about what the term NSE means. You talked about culture, Western
holidays, and things like food and dress. I’d like to go a little bit deeper if we can. So
can you give examples of Western holidays?

Jan: Like the holiday we celebrated just 2 days ago, Easter.

W: Anymore?

J: A lot. Christmas.

While Carl’s comments are somewhat ambiguous as referring to the culture of countries
where English is spoken as a native language, the two Chinese participants, Jan and Fran are
more specific. In a similar fashion to ‘local’ constructions of race, here ‘western culture’ –
attributed to the NSE, is constructed as an essentially capitalist Christian culture.

Having given an account of how the NSE has been defined by participants, and characteristics
attributed to the NSE, I now move on to descriptions of the English language as it used by
NSE.

5.4 NSE English

Participants made numerous comments about the usage of English by NSE in general,
detailing their perceptions of Native Speaker English as a language variety. This included
comments and value judgements given to NSE accents and pronunciation, the use and
knowledge of lexis by the NSE, and ascriptions of authenticity to native speaker English as a
language a variety.
44

5.4.1 Accent and Pronunciation

Almost all of the participants mentioned that accent and pronunciation would be one way that
they would distinguish a NSE from a NNSE, typified here by Angela:

Angela: Well me personally I can tell ((that Carl is a NNSE)) by his twang in his
accent. I guess sometimes an accent is a bit of a giveaway.

Value judgements about NSE accents were widely ascribed by participants in the interviews.
Angela describes native speaker accent and pronunciation as ‘proper’, not only of English but
of other languages too:

Angela: For example if I was wanting to learn Spanish, and I went to a training
school that taught Spanish, and I got a French teacher, then there’s going to be a very
different accent. And if I’ve never learnt Spanish before, and if this is the first time
I’ve learnt Spanish, I would pick up on that accent. So my words might not come
across properly, they might not be pronounced properly.

For Angela ‘proper’ accent or pronunciation relates to intelligibility, as shown by her fear that
a NNSE accent may lead to words not ‘coming across properly’. Carl makes the point that for
many people, particularly the parents of students at the school, NSE do not have an accent,
and that NSE speech is automatically the most widely intelligible, or in Angela’s words
‘proper’, a position that Carl does not agree with:

Carl: So parents, what I think, is that parents think that a NSE takes all that
((problems with intelligibility)) away, these are people with no accent. Which isn’t
true…I think parents see NSE as a term that refers to someone that speaks
comprehensible English for their child.

Lyn also perceives NSE as having no accent, explaining the parents’ preference for NSE:

Lyn: There is no accent, at least. So that’s why their parents prefer the NSE as
teachers.

5.4.2 Lexis

Some of the participants identified lexis as an area that would help them identify someone as
a NSE or NNSE. For Sven, testing comprehension of more academic and formal lexis was a
good indicator of NSE status:
45

Sven: The more difficult words they ((NSE)) can explain it better. If they’re a
NNSE they need to go through a few dictionaries to check what this actual word is
supposed to mean, what’s the meaning of this, what’s the meaning of that.

S: So the best thing to do with them is to try something hard. Like ‘adequate’. Define
adequate for me. If they can, then they actually have an understanding of the hard
words….So that’s the one word I choose to test people.

Will: So by hard words do you mean slightly academic words?

S: Yeh, you could say that.

There are two ways to view Sven’s NSE ‘test’. Firstly as a conflation of the idealised abstract
native speaker, and native speakers as they exist in the real world, where real NSE are thought
to possess a ‘total’ competence in a language that, taken to an extreme, assumes a knowledge
of the entire lexicon of the English language. Secondly, Sven may well be conflating a
‘prestige’ kind of NSE, with NSE at large. Such a prestige NSE may have enjoyed a certain
educational background which is by no means representative of all NSE, or indeed of NNSE
who, as Sven demonstrates, themselves possess significant knowledge of academic English
not least of all in lexis.

5.4.3 Authenticity

Many participants described the English used by NSE in ways that suggest authenticity and
originality:

Sven: But the pure English, yeh I would say NSE are from the UK.

-----

Olivia: One, you’re probably guaranteed a slightly higher level of English ((from
NSE teachers)) because it is their natural language, their native language.

------

((About students going to study abroad in inner circle countries))

Lyn: I think that is the best way for them to learn, not only to learn, to know better
about what is English, what is real English.
46

Fran, as the manager of teaching staff at the school, explained the school’s preference for
hiring NSE teachers, and using materials originally designed for ESL students in the United
States, through the concept of a ‘western way’ to teach English, and its inherent unadulterated
‘originality’:

Fran: So books from United States, the original books, also all our learners here are
learning with the foreign ((non-Chinese)) teachers, the English teachers. So I think
the original curriculum books, plus original speakers, the native speakers, then
that will be the whole western way to teach them English.

Will: Can you try to explain what you mean when you use the word ‘original’.

F: Original is something very simple. You just use it every day and you don’t need to
make up something for that, you don’t need to change or adapt that into
something.

For Fran then, NSE as ‘original speakers’ harmonises with earlier ascriptions of purity and
authenticity made by Sven and Lyn, as NSE English is perceived as something that has not
been changed or adapted.

5.5 NSE and NNSE teachers

This refers to participants’ comments on potential pedagogical advantages or disadvantages

the NSE teacher might have.

5.5.1 Competence

As shown earlier, many participants viewed the NSE teacher as having a complete or total
infallible competence, and so this was portrayed by many of the participants as a significant
pedagogical advantage for the NSE.

For Lewis, the NNSE teacher of English is prone to making grammatical mistakes as they
‘don’t know’ the language to the same extent as their NSE counterparts:

Lewis: They’re ((NNSE)) still prone to make mistakes, in how they speak, in how
they write, because it ((English)) is secondary.
47

L: They’re ((NNSE)) teaching a language that they don’t know.

In Fran’s discussion of advantages and disadvantages for the NSE and NNSE teacher, again
the NSE is portrayed as commanding a complete or superior competence.

Fran: the disadvantages ((for NNSE)) are that they are not able to know
everything about this language, that means there will be something they don't know.

Here the NNSE is positioned below that of NSE, and the acknowledgement of limitations to
the NNSE’s knowledge of the English language imply that the NSE’s knowledge is total or
complete.

5.5.2 Accent and Pronunciation

As shown earlier, NSE were seen by many participants to possess the ‘proper’ or ‘correct’
pronunciation and to be more intelligible in general than NNSE. As such, many participants
mentioned pronunciation as an advantage for the NSE and accent as a disadvantage for the
NNSE:

Carl: I also feel that NSE do make better teachers for the kids because they do
pronounce the words better, again that is subjective, I do believe they pronounce the
words better, more clearly which benefits the children.

-----

For some participants ‘accent’ was solely a NNSE teacher issue, as shown by Lyn who in
discussing parent demand, describes NSE as ‘standard’:

Will: Why do you think the parents think that a NSE teacher is better.

Lyn: Because they want to send their kids to these kind of countries ((inner circle
countries)). They definitely want their kids to learn some standard English. Not
from other countries, they have a little bit of an accent maybe.
48

5.5.3 Teaching of Grammar

Some participants thought that the NNSE teacher had an advantage when it came to teaching
grammar, as they themselves had gone through processes of studying and learning English
rather than inductively acquiring it the way that NSE do:

Jade: But, I found out something interesting, according to my experience, I think the
NNSE can teach the kids how to use knowledge better…for example the Russian
teachers, I think they can teach the kids better about grammar and phonics. I
think that’s something very interesting. For example I have a German friend, and I
asked him to teach me German. In the beginning he thought it’s just a piece of cake,
but when I asked him to teach me the grammar, yes it’s easy for him, but it’s hard for
him to speak out.

Will: To speak out?

J: To explain with words. To explain the grammar, how to use the grammar. And I
think there are some advantages for the NNSE to teach us grammar.

-----

Will: So do you think NNSE, do you think they have any advantages?

Jan: Yeh, short term they can teach the kids to get a higher score. They know how to
learn English. They know how to teach.

W: They know how to teach, can you explain a little more about that.

J: Like with grammar…we can use the grammar in the test to get a higher score. But
for the NSE, maybe the kids can learn just to use the grammar but to not
understand why.

5.5.4 NSE/NNSE distinction as meaningless

When asked in interviews if they thought it mattered if a teacher was a NSE or NNSE, the
common response among all participants (with the exception of Jan who stated a preference
for NSE), was no:

Angela: I don’t think it would be NSE are better than NNSE, I think it’s just
experience knowledge and how it’s taught.
49

-----

Will: So do you think it’s important if a teacher in this school is a NSE or NNSE?

Heather: It’s not very important for me. And for the student as well.

-----

Lewis: It’s the same for everything, you can have people for the right jobs in the right
places, you get the qualified people, with the right attitude, that can do the job.

The consensus among participants, was that it simply doesn’t matter whether a teacher is a
NSE or NNSE. This position contradicts prior lengthy and detailed discussions by the
participants, of the numerous advantages and disadvantages ascribed to the NSE and NNSE
teacher. It would seem that across the sample, participants wish to have it both ways, in
seeing the NSE/NNSE as pedagogically meaningful, while uniformly rejecting it as a matter
of no relevance.
50

Chapter 6: Discussion

6.1 Introduction

In this section the emergent themes and issues that arose from the data will be discussed with
reference to a ‘common sense’ concept of the NSE and of the non-linguistic features ascribed
to the NSE. Following this, I will argue that in the common use of the term NSE, the concept
of the NSE can be seen as a pseudo-linguistic one, in that it is based on non-linguistic criteria.
Finally, I will put forward the notion of a NSE paradox, whereby the NSE/NNSE distinction
is simultaneously seen as meaningful and meaningless with regards to teachers in ELT.

6.2 The ‘Common Sense’ concept of the NSE:

With the exception of Carl, identification of colleagues within the school as NSE or NNSE
was a simple and unproblematic task. However when asked to elaborate on what qualifies
someone as a NSE or NNSE, and to explain what the term meant, there was significant
variety and lack of consensus among participants. Questions relating to what the term meant
were far more difficult for all participants, with contradictory definitions occurring within
individual interviews themselves such as Olivia’s. The participants’ familiarity and comfort
with using the term NSE, without a similar clarity in terms of meaning, I would argue, reflects
both the ubiquity of use, and the lack of a clear universal definition or understanding of the
term within ELT circles.

Despite the considerable variation in participants’ definitions of what makes one a NSE, there
were certainly some areas of consensus. These areas of agreement among participants echo
those of a ‘common sense’ concept of the NSE:

“They have a special control over a language, [and have] insider knowledge about
‘their’ language. They are the models we appeal to for the ‘truth’ about the language,
they know what the language is.” (Davies 2003: 1)

Notions of a ‘special control’, and insider knowledge about the ‘truth’ of ‘their’ language,
strike a chord with the participants’ views, that NSE enjoy a complete or perfect competence,
are ‘original’ speakers, and know the ‘real’ language. The authenticity, and value ascribed to
NSE English was best seen in terms of accent with NSE speakers perceived of as accent-less,
and having ‘better’ pronunciation. As such this was seen by most participants as a meaningful
pedagogic advantage, a sentiment which rings true with Phillipson’s description of the Native
Speaker fallacy, where the NSE “is the best embodiment of the target and norm for learners.”
(1992: 194).
51

6.3 Non-linguistic Features of the NSE

While certain features like the competence of NSE, can clearly be traced back to concepts of
the native speaker as they appear in linguistics, there are many that clearly cannot. These
include the attribution of specific nationalities, races, cultures and behaviours to the NSE.
There were significant associations made, particularly by Chinese participants, between
Western culture and ‘real’ English. The data clearly shows that cultural background, and more
specifically a Western cultural background, is not just an important factor, but a pre-requisite
for NSE status. Consequently, Tsuda’s and Kachru’s assertion that Eikaiwa schools in Japan
exploit an “emotional attachment to and obsessive infatuation with Western, especially
American, culture” (Tsuda 1992: 32 in Kachru 1998: 98), has its echo in the context of this
study, and no doubt beyond.

Nationality played a central role for all participants in defining someone as a NSE or NNSE.
The question of who or what a NSE is, was consistently reduced to questions of nationality by
participants, with linguistic considerations a secondary concern. For the majority of
participants, NSE status was synonymous with inner circle nationality, predominantly British
and American.

In a similar way to Leung, Harris & Rampton’s proposition of “an abstracted notion of an
idealised native speaker of English” (1997: 545), where “the population of England is for
practical purposes cast as a homogenous community with one language and one culture”
(1997: 553), the NSE imagined community was constructed, by the participants as a
predominantly white, ‘Western’, inner circle community. It could indeed be argued that rather
than an imagined community of NSE overlapping with an imagined community in its original
sense of nation and nationhood (Anderson 1991), it is in fact superseded by it.

Such was the strength of the nationality based definition, even in interviews where
participants discussed issues unrelated to nationality such as competence, or institutional
qualifications, and even in the face of self-contradiction, the question of who a NSE was and
what that meant, was consistently reduced down to questions of nationality. NSE status as
defined by nationality trumped all other considerations, linguistic or otherwise.
52

6.4 The NSE as a Pseudo-Linguistic Term

In the case of this study, a NSE preference among participants would be something of a
misnomer. It can be argued, with some conviction, that what is meant by ‘NSE’ by
participants is a select group of predominantly inner circle nationalities, and in the case of
Sven’s academic lexis test, a prestige or ‘educated’ kind of NSE, with linguistic
considerations an afterthought if present at all. Studies such as Clark & Paran’s (2007)
investigation into the significance of NSE status in EFL UK hiring practices, show a clear
preference for NSE. However, as no definition of ‘Native Speaker’ was given for respondents
of the study, a limitation which Clark & Paran themselves fully acknowledge (2007: 413), the
conclusion of their study sits uneasily with the findings of this one. An alternate investigation
might ask whether there is a preference for teachers of inner circle nationalities, the centre
(Wallerstein 1974), or of race.

What this study has suggested is that the term NSE, in common usage, contains multiple
meanings, many of which are entirely unrelated to linguistic concerns, which themselves are
often absent or eclipsed by non-linguistic meanings such as nationality, race and culture. In
much common usage, the ‘native speaker’ has become something of a pseudo-linguistic term,
even amongst those active within ELT, as shown by the participants in this study.

Such criticisms of a lack of clarity in the use of the term ‘native speaker’ in studies may
appear pedantic. It is certainly problematic to say the least, to reach any universal consensus
on whether outer-circle speakers are considered NSE or not. If for example, one considers an
Indian, Zimbabwean or Singaporean national as a NSE, then the generally accepted assertion
that ELT worldwide displays a pro-NSE bias crumbles. One might consider a pro-inner circle,
pro-white, or pro-centre bias as a more accurate description of discriminatory issues within
ELT (Amin 1997, Canagarajah 1999, Holliday & Aboshiha 2009, Kubota et al 2005, Thomas
1999).

However, such issues are unlikely to be better understood, while issues of privilege or
discrimination based on nationality, race and cultural background, are masked by questions of
NSE preference. These issues are likely to be of increasing importance for two main reasons.
Firstly, in terms of the continual nativization process of Englishes within outer circle
countries (Kachru 2006), the term NSE, at least from a bio-developmental definition, will
include those that are born and raised in environments with varieties of English considered
‘native’ in their own right. Secondly, in the case of many inner circle nations, ‘super-diversity’
bringing a “diversification of diversity…not just in terms of bringing more ethnicities and
countries of origin, but also…a multiplication of significant variables” (Vertovec 2007: 1025),
will create increasingly diverse racial, cultural and multilingual populations. Consequently the
53

reduction of NSE status to nationality, and ascriptions of culture and race are highly likely to
become more problematic as the 21st century unfurls.

6.5 The NSE Paradox

Many participants constructed the NNSE teacher as empathetic, as discussed in Samimy &
Brutt-Griffler’s (1999) and Medgyes (1994), and as being able to draw upon learning
experience, and in general possessing an ability to empathise with students. In contrast to the
literature however, there was the absence of the NNSE teacher’s use of the learner’s L1 as a
potential advantage in the data. This is perhaps to be expected, as within the school neither
NSE nor NNSE possessed Chinese as an L1. Clearly the assumption in much of the literature
that NNSE is able to draw from a cultural and linguistic pool in common with their students,
does not ring true for the participants of this study. In fact quite the opposite is true. There are
no teachers of Chinese nationality working within the school. The assumption of NNSE
teaching in their ‘home’ countries in line with empathetic advantages, is the very antithesis of
this statement from one of the Chinese participants of this study, who stated that: ‘The
Chinese can teach English, but not in China’ (participant Heather).

Such sentiments presumably leave the Chinese NNSE teacher in limbo, stuck somewhere
between making use of ‘home’ advantages while being marginalised in accordance with
market demand, especially in the private sector. These issues can hardly be unique to China,
and no doubt play out worldwide as cultural, racial, and one’s nationality, in addition to
academic qualification, are traded as symbolic capital (Bourdieu 1991), for higher paying and
more prestigious jobs.

All participants suggested that the NSE/NNSE distinction was not a meaningful one, echoing
the findings of Samimy & Brutt-Griffler’s (1999) and Reves & Medgyes’ (1994) where the
NSE teacher is not perceived of as superior. Despite the various characteristics that
participants ascribed to NSE in terms of culture, accent and competence being seen largely as
pedagogically advantageous, the proposition of NSE/NNSE as a meaningful distinction was
consistently rejected. This creates something of a native speaker paradox, where the
NSE/NSE distinction is simultaneously meaningful and meaningless, accepted and rejected,
and recognised and ignored. Such concepts pose serious questions for inquiries into
perceptions of the NSE/NNSE distinction, especially in the occurrence of apparent rejections
of the construct as meaningless, or in the proposition of the two speakers being constructed as
equals.
54

The results of this study would suggest that there may be a commonly felt stigma attached to
asserting that it does matter if one is a NSE or NNSE, perhaps something that is reflected in
the ELT world at large. This may explain such consistent contradiction and paradox in the
interviews. The bigger question this poses, is that while it is with some trepidation that I
suggest we have reached a point where those that explicitly propagate a view of the NSE as
pedagogically superior, are stigmatized and castigated for voicing such opinions, many of the
assumptions and beliefs behind it are nevertheless alive and kicking.

In summary, this section has discussed how, in conflating abstract idealisations of the native
speaker with real NSE, NSE are ascribed ‘total’ or infallible competences. This, together with
the prevalence of non-linguistic criteria in constructing the NSE, such as race, cultural and
educational background, has given the term NSE something of a pseudo-linguistic quality in
common usage. As I have argued, this is most clearly illustrated by the consistent reduction of
NSE identity to questions of nationality, which when considered in the light of processes of
nativization of Englishes in the outer circle, and increasing super-diversity in the inner circle,
is likely to become increasingly problematic. Finally, I have discussed the paradox within
which the NSE/NNSE distinction is seen as both meaningful and meaningless, mirroring the
persistence of NSE teacher preference in ELT at large, despite a general scholarly consensus
that such discrimination may not be legitimized.
55

Chapter 7: Conclusion

7.1 Introduction

In this section I will return to the research questions, so as to summarise the findings of this
study. Following this I will discuss the limitations of this study and possible implications for
future inquiry, before bringing the study to a close.

7.2 Summary of Findings

The aims of this study have been to answer the following questions:

1) How do the teaching and managerial staff of a private language training school in
China, perceive native and non-native English speaker identities?
2) How are these identities ascribed by teaching and managerial staff within the school?
3) Is the NSE/NNSE distinction perceived as a pedagogically meaningful one?

With reference to the first question, non-linguistic characteristics such as racial or cultural
background were seen as important parts of who the NSE was, particularly by Chinese
participants. Generalities that emerged from the data showed a perception of the NSE
competence as total or perfect, with NSE perceived as more intelligible and accent-less.

By far the most prevalent way in which NSE or NNSE were ascribed, was through
nationality. Although the second question intended to explore how NSE and NNSE were
ascribed within the school, such was consistency of reducing the question of who a NSE was,
to questions of nationality, that this manner of ascription existed not only with regards to
others in the school, but to NSE and NNSE throughout the world. For the majority of
participants, eight out of eleven, NSE nationalities were exclusively of the inner-circle,
predominantly England/Britain, and America. Whilst participants seemed unanimous in their
use of nationality to ascribe NSE or NNSE status, there was simultaneously a high level of
variety with which participants defined and consequently ascribed NSE status. This was seen
in Carl’s self-ascription of NSE status based on educational qualifications, and Sven’s
insistence that only those from the UK are ‘real’ native speakers.

The third question, about if the NSE/NNSE distinction is a pedagogically meaningful one,
seems to have been answered both yes and no. Though participants all detailed specific
advantages and disadvantages the NSE and NNSE teacher may have in the classroom, when it
came to the question of whether it mattered if a teacher was a NSE or NNSE, the unanimous
response was ‘no’.
56

7.3 Limitations

One thing missing from the study is a comprehensive knowledge of the participants’
academic and pedagogic backgrounds. It may be the case that a background that includes
substantial study in the field of linguistics, or in teacher training qualifications, may have
significant implications for one’s understanding and use of the terms ‘native speaker’ and
consequently NSE. More thorough information regarding this is absent from the study, and so
makes investigation into the relationship between teacher training and education, and
perceptions of the NSE impossible.

Due to practical limitations, this study was limited to a methodology consisting of two
relatively short interviews. Many participants’ views were complex and contradictory. Further
or longer interviews that gave more chance for participants to reflect on what they had said,
and explore these contradictions in greater depth would have provided richer data.

7.4 Future Study

The presence of race and cultural background in perceptions of the NSE, was noticeably more
prevalent in the Chinese participants’ construction of the NSE. I would suggest, that this may
lead us to see the construction of the NSE in a similar way to an anthropological view of race,
i.e. as a social construct subject to local variation (Palmié 2007). The findings of this study
have hinted at what the NSE as a social construct might look like as it is imagined within an
urban Chinese locality, something which may be investigated further.

The ubiquity of a NSE by nationality definition amongst participants that this study has
shown brings up two further questions, to what extent is a reduction of NSE identity to
nationality present in ELT at large, and which nationalities are commonly imagined as NSE
ones. Additionally, studies may investigate employer preferences for hiring candidates in
terms of both NSE status and nationality, race and cultural background, so as to investigate
any correlations between the NSE status and nationality, race, or cultural background. Such
an investigation may help to uncover underlying assumptions and beliefs that the term ‘NSE’
may be masking.

Thirdly, as has been discussed, the time constraints of this study have prevented a more
thorough investigation of perceptions of the NSE/NNSE distinction as meaningful or
meaningless for teachers involved in ELT. I have argued that this paradox has its echoes in
ELT at large, where views of the NSE as the superior teacher are largely frowned upon and
rejected, yet a clear preference and ascribed prestige in perceptions of the NSE teacher
remain. It is my opinion that studies that investigate the extent to which such a paradox exists
57

in a variety of contexts, and why, would be of great significance and value, in helping us
better assess where the NSE fits in to ELT today.

7.5 Final thought

At the heart of this study has been the proposition of the term NSE, as one that involves a
plurality of often contradictory and problematic definitions and ascriptions, by those that use
the term with considerable familiarity. It has been the aim of this study to illustrate the
considerable variety with which the NSE identities can be perceived, and ascribed, both on
linguistic and non-linguistic grounds, by those active within ELT. The emergence of a general
consensus that the NSE/NNSE distinction doesn’t matter, masks the numerous ascriptions
made by participants to the NSE about pedagogical advantages and disadvantages. Such a
contradiction reflects the coexistence of a rejection of granting the NSE teacher privilege in
scholarly circles, while hiring practices in many quarters of ELT still undeniably grant an
advantage to the NSE. In a similar fashion to how the ubiquitous truism that ‘racism is bad’
does not prevent it from existing, simply stating that the NSE/NNSE is meaningless, does not
make it so. I would suggest that we would do well to keep such things in mind, in future
enquiries of privilege and discrimination within ELT.
58

References

Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of

Nationalism. Revised Edition. London and New York: Verso.

Amin, N. (1997). Race and the identity of the non-native ESL teacher. TESOL quarterly,
31(3), 580-583.

Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries. The social organization of culture difference.
Boston: Little Brown.

Bianco, J. L., Orton, J., & Yihong, G. (Eds.). (2009). China and English: Globalisation and
the dilemmas of identity. Multilingual Matters.

Bloomfield, L. (1927). Literate and illiterate speech. American speech, 432-439.

Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language history: from Language (1933 ed.). Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard

University Press.

Braine, G. (Ed.). (2013). Non-native educators in English language teaching. Routledge.

Britten, D. (1985). Teacher Training in ELT (part I). Language Teaching, 18(02), 112-128.

Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. Sage.

Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Interrogating the “native speaker fallacy”: Non-linguistic roots,

non-pedagogical results. Non-native educators in English language teaching, 77-92.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (No. 11). MIT press.

Clark, E., & Paran, A. (2007). The employability of non-native-speaker teachers of EFL: A
UK survey. System, 35(4), 407-430.

Collins COBUILD English dictionary. (1995). London: HarperCollins.

Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL quarterly,
33(2), 185-209.

Coulmas (1981). A Fetschrift for native speaker. The Hague: Moulton

Crystal, D. (1995). Encyclopedia of the English language. Cambridge University.

Crystal, D (1997). English as a Global Language. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Davies, A. (1996). Proficiency or the native speaker: What are we trying to achieve in ELT?
In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 145-157).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
59

Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: myth and reality. Multilingual Matters. Bristol, United
Kingdom.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and

mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Du Bois, J. W. (1991). Transcription design principles for spoken discourse research.

Pragmatics, 1(1), 71-106.

Duff, P. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. Taylor & Francis.

Felix, S. W. (1987). Cognition and language growth. Studies on Language Acquisition

(SOLA), (3), 1-199.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2005). The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement.
The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3, 695-727.

Gilroy, P. (1991). There Ain't No Black in the Union Jack: The Cultural Politics of Race and
Nation. Chicago: Univ.

Graddol, D. (1997). The Future of English? The British Council.

Halliday, M. A. (1978). Language as social semiotics. London: Edward Arnold, 1, 978.

Hamers, J. F., & Blanc, M. (1989). Bilingualism and bilinguality. Cambridge University Press.

Holliday, A., & Aboshiha, P. (2009). The Denial of Ideology in Perceptions of ‘Nonnative
Speaker Teachers. Tesol Quarterly, 43(4), 669-689.

Hu, G. (2005). English Language Education in China: Policies, Progress, and Problems. Language
Policy, 4, 5-24.

Jenkins, J. (2002). A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus

for English as an international language. Applied Linguistics. 23(1), 82-103.

Johnson, K., & Johnson, H. (Eds.). (1998). Encyclopaedic dictionary of applied linguistics.
Oxford: Blackwell.

Kachru, B. B. (1990). World Englishes and applied linguistics. World Englishes, 9(1), 3-20.

Kachru, B. B. (1998). English as an Asian language. Links & letters, 5(1998): 89-108.

Kachru, B. B. (2005). Asian Englishes: beyond the canon (Vol. 1). Hong Kong University
Press.

Kachru, B. B. (2006). The English Language in the outer circle. World Englishes. London:
Routledge, 241-255.

Katz, J., & Fodor, J. (1962). What's wrong with the philosophy of Language? 1. Inquiry, 5(1-
4), 197-237.
60

Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford University Press.

Kubota, R., Bashir-Ali, K., Canagarajah, S., Kamhi-Stein, L., Lee, E., & Shin, H. (2005).
Race and (non) nativeness in English language teaching: A brief report. NNest Newsletter,
7(2). Available from http://www.tesol.org/news-landing-page/2011/10/27/nnest-news-
volume-7-2-%28october-2005%29

Labov, W. (1969). The Logic of Non-Standard English. Florida FL Rep.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge university press.

Leung, C., Harris, R., & Rampton, B. (1997). The idealised native speaker, reified ethnicities,
and classroom realities. Tesol Quarterly, 31(3), 543-560.

Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in

the United States. New York/London: Routledge.

Mahboob, A. (2004). Native or non-native: What do students enrolled in an intensive English

program think. Learning and teaching from experience: Perspectives on non-native English-
speaking professionals, 121-147.

Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard

educational review, 62(3), 279-301.

McArthur, T. (Ed.). (1992). The Oxford companion to the English language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: Who's worth more?. ELT journal, 46(4), 340-349.

Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native speaker teacher. London: Macmillan.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded

sourcebook. Sage.

Nemtchinova, E. (2005). Host Teachers' Evaluations of Nonnative‐English‐Speaking Teacher

Trainees—A Perspective from the Classroom. Tesol Quarterly, 39(2), 235-261.

Paikeday, T. M. (1985). The native speaker is dead!: An informal discussion of a linguistic

myth with Noam Chomsky and other linguists, philosophers, psychologists, and
lexicographers. Paikeday Pub.

Paikeday, T. M. (1985b). May I kill the native speaker?. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 390-395.

Palmié, S. (2007). Genomics, divination,“racecraft”. American ethnologist, 34(2), 205-222.

Pan, L. (2011). English language ideologies in the Chinese foreign language education
policies: a world-system perspective. Language Policy, 10(3), 245-263.

Pan, L., & Block, D. (2011). English as a “global language” in China: An investigation into
learners’ and teachers’ language beliefs. System, 39(3), 391-402.
61

Pavlenko, A. (2003). "I Never Knew I Was a Bilingual": Reimagining Teacher Identities in
TESOL, Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 2 (4): 251-268

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rampton, M. B. H. (1990). Displacing the ‘native speaker’: Expertise, affiliation, and

inheritance. ELT journal, 44(2), 97-101.

Reves, T., & Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native English speaking EFL/ESL teacher's self-
image: An international survey. System, 22(3), 353-367.

Richards, J., Platt, J., & Weber, H. (1985). Longman dictionary of applied linguistics.
England: Longman Group Limited.

Samimy, K. K., & Brutt-Griffler, J. (1999). To be a native or non-native speaker: Perceptions

of “non-native” students in a graduate TESOL program. Non-native educators in English
language teaching, 127-144.

Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse (Vol. 8). Oxford: Blackwell.

Seidlhofer, B. (1999). Double standards: Teacher education in the expanding circle. World
Englishes, 18(2), 233-245.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in

Language Teaching, 10(1-4), 209-232.

Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson (1989): mother tongue: the theoretical and socio-political
construction of a concept. Ammon (ed) 450-77

Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Thomas, J. (1999). Voices from the periphery: Non-native teachers and issues of credibility.
Non-native educators in English language teaching, 5-13.

Tsuda, Y. (1992). The dominance of English and linguistic discrimination. Media

Development, 16, 32-34.

Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and racial studies, 30(6),
1024-1054.

Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world-system. London: Academic Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge

university press.

Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL quarterly, 28(2), 377-389.

62

Appendices

Appendix A: Interview Guide:

Rapport Questions:

1) What s your job at the school?

2) How long have you worked at the school?

Content Questions:

3) Can you give examples of people you might see at the school who you would
describe as non-native speakers of English ?
4) Do you think most people would agree with that?
5) Would you describe yourself a native speaker of English ?
6) Why would you/wouldn t you describe yourself as a native speaker of English?
7) Can you describe a native speaker of English is? What qualifies a native speaker of
English ?
8) Do you think most of the teaching staff here would agree with your description?
9) If you wanted to find out if someone was a native speaker of English , how could
you find out?
 What would you ask them?
 Imagine you had a checklist – what kind of things would you have on there?

10) Can you now describe a non-native speaker of English? (What does it mean to be a
non-native speaker of English ?)
11) The school has a policy of preferring to hire native speakers of English teachers.
Why do you think this is?
12) What do you think about this policy?
13) Are there any advantages for the students at this school to learn from native
speakers of English teachers?
14) Are there any advantages that non-native speakers of English teachers would have?
15) Do you think that it matters whether a teacher is a native/non-native speaker of
English ?
16) Do you have any questions you would like to ask me before we finish?
63

Appendix B: Sample Transcription

Jade

1. Will: Ok. Ca ou tell e, hat s ou jo at the S hool.

2. Jade: My job is, the assistant for English teachers.
3. W: Ok. And how long have you been working here.
4. J: ..A little bit more than one year.
5. W: Ok. Cool. I hope ou e e jo i g it.
6. J: Yeh.
7. W: Good. Ok. So I want you to think about people that you might see in the
school, and I want to think of who you would describe as a NNSE.
8. J: (Hmmm), What kind of people?
9. W: Yeh.
10. J: You mean the teachers?
11. W: Yeh sure, it could be.
12. J: Actually, I worked with several NNSE, do I need to say the name?
13. W: You can say the names and I ll change them all later.
14. J: Ok, the teachers from Russia, Maria and Annie. Yeh. The rest are NSE.
15. W: And what about yourself.
16. J: Umm, I m a Chinese.
17. W: Which means.
18. J: I m not a NSE.
19. W: What about students.
20. J: Most of them are Chinese, yeh, but I think there is one person, there is one kid,
whose father is a German or American.
21. W: You ve said you wouldn t call yourself a NSE…Why?
22. J: (Mmm), as you can see, my English, I can t speak English as good as my
Chinese. And, I would say English, English is my second language. Yeah. And
sometimes I can t express myself well with English. Especially the difficult things
I need to think about.
23. W: So can you think of how to describe a NSE
24. J: (Mmm). Okay.
25. W: Do you want to explain what NSE, what that means, what do you think that
means.
26. J: They re born to speak English.
27. W: Ok, can you say a bit more about that.
28. J: For example, I think they don't need to learn as much as NNSE need to learn,
when they need to learn English. (Mmm), for example, as NNSE we need to
learn so many things about English, and we found out, it s so hard for us. But it
should be much easier for you, because you have the very good environment, all
of the people around you they speak English. Yeh so, I think if you're born in, in,
if you grow up in an environment where those people speak English, yeh I think
you re a NSE.
64

29. W: So you re talking about the environment where people grow up, so could you
give me some examples of what environments those might be.
30. J: For example, the environment where you live, and where you study.
31. W: Can you be a bit more specific? Which specific environments are the ones
that make someone a NSE.
32. J: For example, where you live, with your parents, and if your parents speak
E glish all the ti e, the I thi k ou e a ati e speaker. And if you go to a
school, the kids and the teachers they all speak English and you are also a NSE.
33. W: Do you think most others would agree with you?
34. J: I hope so.
35. W: Do you think your view is individual?
36. J: I think they should agree with me.
37. W: I a t ou to i agi e the e s a e pe so o i g i to the oo . You jo is
to find out if they are a NSE or a NNSE. How would you find that out.
38. J: I think, it will be much easier for me to find out if this person is a NSE or not if I
am a NSE.
39. W: Why.
40. J: Be ause I do t k o too u h a out E glish, so o there is a Russian
person [teacher in the school] and she can speak English very well, and maybe
it s a little ha d fo e to tell if she is a NSE o ot. If I as a NSE, a d I talk a out
something like food, so e e detailed thi gs a out…
41. W: Can you give examples of very detailed things?
42. J: So e spe ial o ds like dude so ethi g like that, that NNSE do 't use
normally but NSE use it in their daily life.
43. W: Are there any other things you could do to work out if someone was a NSE or
not? Would you ask them any questions?
44. J: Fo e a ple he I ead a ook, a d I a fi d so e o ds that I do t k o ,
I ask othe people a d the also do t k o , a d the I ask ou if ou k o it.
Ma e that s e ide e that ou e a NSE. I thi k fo o ies a d so gs, the a e
very colourful or random, they sometimes describe daily life, so native speakers
know the phrases, the daily expressions.
45. W: So, I asked you to explain what it means to be a NSE. Can you tell me what it
means to be a NNSE?
46. J: Oh I want to add something to my explanation. Not just that they grew up in
an environment where everyone speaks English, but also they have to have lived
there for a long time, not just one or two years. About NNSE, for example some
people the a t speak E glish, o just people that a e stud i g, to learn, they
try to speak English well, these people are normally non-native speakers.
47. W: No I d like to talk a out the s hool. I thi k it s uite ope that the s hool
prefers NSE. Why do you think that is.
48. J: Of course, for example if you want to learn Chi ese, ou o t ask a Japa ese
to tea h ou Chi ese. It s a u h ette a to lea the la guage. A tuall I
think the best way to learn English, is to go to America, England/Britain,
Australia and Canada, like this, but not everyone can go to these countries, so
65

we stay in China, and it seems the best way for us – to learn English is, for us to
learn from an English person.
49. W: English person?
50. J: English people.
51. W: Do you mean people from England?
52. J: Not just from England, but NSE. But. Can I say more? For example our English
teachers always told us maybe you can watch English movies and listen to
English songs, that's the reason why we want to have NSE. But, I found out
something interesting, according to my experience, I think the NNSE can teach
the kids how to use knowledge better, for example the Russian teachers, I think
the a tea h the kids ette a out g a a a d pho i s. I thi k that s
something very interesting. For example I have a German friend, and I ask him to
tea h e Ge a . I the egi i g he thought it s just a pie e of ake, ut
he I asked hi to tea h e the g a a , es it s eas fo hi , ut it s ha d
for him to speak out.
53. W: To speak out?
54. J: To explain with words. To explain the grammar, how to use the grammar. And
I think there are some advantages for the NNSE to teach us grammar. Because
we are both NNSE.
55. W: So what advantages would there be.
56. J: Because we are both NNSE and we have some things in common about
learning another language. So they have good experience about learning English,
so maybe the NSE might think oh, your methods about learning English are
stupid, but maybe for us, for people who are in another country, we might think
well it s stupid, ut it o ks fo us.
57. W: So for the purposes of this school, thinking about this school, do you think
NSE o NNSE tea he s a e ette ? O do ou thi k that ou a t sa o e is
better than the other.
58. J: I a t sa ho is ette , o ho is ot good. But a tuall , I thi k it ould e
better if both these kinds of teachers could teach the students, so maybe the
student can get all the things he needs.
59. W: So what would they get from the NSE, and what would they get from the
NNSE.
60. J: About the environment, the native speakers can give the kids the environment.
NNSE they can give them something important, something that they need,
e ause NSE the e so eti es ot e effi ie t fo the kids to lea E glish
from.
61. W: Efficient in what way.
62. J: For example you ((the interviewer)) teach the kids, and the parents might say
Jade, kid s eall good at speaki g a d liste i g, ut the a t ite, the
a t put the o ds togethe , the a t spell a d the do t k o the g a a.
But for NNSE, the parent will say my kids know phonics and know grammar, but
the a t speak, o the do t a t to speak. That s the p o le .
63. W: If you were the boss what would you do.
66

64. J: Actually I would like to have the teachers who are NSE, but who also have the
ability to teach all the things, to give the things in a better way to us.
65. W: Ca ou e plai a little it o e..What thi gs
66. J: For example, when you teach the kids, to help the kids learn better, did you
ever imagine that you are Chinese, what if you want to learn English. What do
you need. Did you ever do that?
67. W: Sure.
68. J: Ok so, ut I thi k ost NSE, a e the do t do that. So ou a e a good
teacher, but not everyone is a good teacher.
69. W: Thank you for saying that on the recording!
70. J: Because you have different requirements I think.
71. W: Different requirements?
72. J: Different needs, for language. For example, you start your language from
speaking, but I think for Chinese, we start learning English from ABC, not just
speaking, but writing.
73. W: A e the e a uestio s ou d like to ask e?
74. J: You have taught here for several years.
75. W: Right.
76. J: Have you found anything that you think Chinese students should improve in?
77. W: I do t thi k I ould gi e ou a a s e fo all the students. I think different
students have different strengths and weaknesses. Actually I think most
stude t s spoke E glish is eall good, I uite i p essed ith ost of the
stude ts E glish. That s a e tough uestio . What I ould do is, I would
encourage them to do more reading, as you said, the problem here, is that that
ki d of e i o e t does 't e ist he e outside of the lass oo , so I d
e ou age that… ou ha e a othe uestio ?

((End of Interview))
67

Appendix C: Coding Map

68

Appendix D: Dissertation Proposal

Dissertation Proposal

2013-2014

William Simpson

Dissertation Proposal

Word Count: 2570

Dissertation Supervisor: Dr Sian Preece

I o fi that I ha e ead a d u de stood the I stitute s Code

on Citing Sources and Avoidance of Plagiarism. I confirm that
this assignment is all my own work and conforms to this Code.

MA in TESOL

Institute of Education, University of London

March 2014
69

Native or Non-Native: The Identities on Offer at a Private Language

Training School in Beijing

An Overview of English in China

Since the consolidation of Deng Xiaoping’s Leadership of the Chinese Communist

Party (CCP) in the early 1980’s, English language education has been increasingly
and unquestioningly upheld as of paramount importance at both national and
individual levels (Hu 2005). Over the last 3 decades the English language has been
viewed by the state as an essential tool for modernization and national social
development (Pan 2011), while “On the individual level, proficiency in English can
lead to a host of economic, social and educational opportunities” (Hu 2005: 6). As
such English functions as a substantial form of symbolic capital (Bourdieu 1991) in
the People’s Republic of China (PRC) where “it is a passport to higher education at
home or abroad, lucrative employment in a public or private sector, professional
advancement and social prestige (Hu 2005: 6).

Such a rapid and total swing in the Chinese state’s view of English from the
“language of the enemy” (Hu 2005: 7) during the Cultural Revolution under the
leadership of Mao Zedong, to an explosion of demand for English language teaching
(ELT) in post-Mao modernization reforms, presented significant problems. The
inadequacy of the pre-existing ELT infrastructure was most significantly felt in the
lack of quality and quantity of English teachers. In a State Education Commission
(SEC 1991) study between 1986 and 1987, between 53 – 69% of teachers had had no
formal training of any kind and overall subject and professional competence were
found to be extremely lacking (HERC 1993 in Hu 2005). Whilst more recently the
percentage of teachers with formal training has risen, more traditional teaching
ideologies, entrenched in teachers’ pedagogical practices, often clash with state
promoted approaches to ELT, particularly in the implementation of content based
English instruction (CBEI) (Hu 2005).
70

The short-comings of ELT in China within the last 3 decades, in tandem with the
increasing value of English as a form of symbolic capital (Bourdieu 1991), lead to a
significant trend of supplementary English language education. This can be seen in
the widespread popularity and commercial success of private language training
schools in urban China. These schools often market themselves in such a way as to
distance themselves from the state education system, offering ‘Western’ educational
approaches, methodologies, environments, and very often a teaching staff comprised
exclusively of so called ‘native speakers’.

Native Speaker Identities

The term ‘native speaker’, is used ubiquitously with regards to language by scholars
and laymen alike. Whilst the term and its use are often construed as uncontroversial
and relatively concrete, such a view is ignorant of the complexities that lie within the
term and its multiplicity of interpretations. Characteristics of the native speaker are
often not limited to those of a purely linguistic nature, nor are they necessarily the
primary qualifiers of the term. Further characteristics such as race and class comprise
the identity of the native speaker, often that of Caucasian middle class speakers. Such
non-linguistic features can even trump linguistic characteristics, as shown in
perceptions of African American English as non-native (Lippi-Green 1997).

The importance of non-linguistic features that often dominate the composition of a

native speaker identity, is no better illustrated than in the recruitment of teachers for
private language training schools in China. Over the course of several years in China,
there were many ‘native-speaker’ teachers I worked with that were not native
speakers in the linguistic sense (that is to say that they had learnt the English language
explicitly through study rather than implicitly ‘picking it up’ or inheriting it from their
environment as a child), but were almost exclusively Caucasian. In addition I received
numerous job offers via e-mail, of which many explicitly included information
relating to the desired race of the prospective applicant.
71

Kachru (1998) explores the portrayal and use of the term ‘native speaker’ in the
Japanese conversational ‘Eikawa’ schools. These schools involve “emotional
attachment to and obsessive infatuation with Western, especially American, culture”
(Tsuda 1992: 32 in Kachru 1998: 98), and elevate “a particular type of native
speaker”, where the “use of the term native speaker is exploited by business-oriented
language schools for financial exploitation” (Kachru 1998: 98). In a similar fashion,
in it is not uncommon for private language training schools in urban China to
reinforce and exploit pre-existing widespread native speaker identities, in a
fetishisation of the native speaker.

The problematizing of tacitly accepted native speaker ideologies revolves around a

central question: “Whose language is English anyway?” (Kachru 1998:91). Recent
studies have begun to explore and question the notion and position of the native
speaker in relation to English, highlighting the problems of English language learners’
trajectories, as they aim for native-like English. Here, the predicated assumption is
that the only legitimate form of English is that of the native speaker, consequently
leaving the language learner forever unable to reach their goal and legitimise their
own English (Pavlenko 2009).

Identity Creation in Communities of Practice and Imagination

According to Lave & Wenger (1991: 53) “learning involves…a relation to social
communities – it implies becoming a full participant, a member, a kind of person”. In
this way students within private language training schools in China are involved in a
constant state of identity forming and reforming in relation to the social communities
they participate in. The social communities involved in learners’ identity work include
the more immediate and ‘real’ communities such as the classroom, family and
friendship groups, and those of an imaginary nature.

The term ‘imagined community’ was coined and defined by Anderson (1991: 6): “It is
imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of
their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives
the image of their communion”. Moving away from Anderson’s application of the
72

term to nationalism and nationhood, imagined language communities constructed and

inhabited in, by young English learners in China play a major role in identity
construction.

Wenger (1998: 272-273) extols the virtues imagination, stating that “Students must be
able to explore who they are, who they are not, who they could be” and that the
importance of exploration through imagination as essential “to open new trajectories,
to seek different experiences and to conceive of different futures. In this sense it is
about identity as creation”.

Imagination as Constrictive

Imagination in this sense, is not mere fantasy that exists in total isolation, nor is it an
essentially individual process. Whilst the virtues of exploration through imagination
have been mentioned, imagination is a two way street:

“Imagination, however, can also be disconnected and ineffective. It can be based on

stereotypes that simply project onto the world the assumptions of specific
practices…As a way of belonging, imagination is therefore a delicate act of identity
because it plays with participation and non-participation, inside and outside, the actual
and the possible, the doable and the unreachable, the meaningful and the meaningless”
(Wenger 1998: 178).

As Pavlenko (2003), Lippi-Green (1997) and Kachru (1998), have alluded to, the
imagined communities of ‘native speakers’ that learners can place themselves in can
have serious repercussions. The unbridgeable gap encountered in a learners’
inhabitation of a dichotomous native and non-native imagined community, in
linguistic as well as biological and socio-historical terms, leads to the affore
mentioned questions of participation and positioning, of what is possible and of what
is meaningful.

An imagined community of practice which positions the ‘native speaker’ as the fully
participating old timer centrally, positions students peripherally or marginally, but
never centrally. This is of great significance to young Chinese learners of English:
73

“long-standing members can be kept in a marginal position, and the very maintenance
of that position may have become so integrated in the practice that it closes the
future… forms of non-participation may be so ingrained in the practice that it may
seem impossible to conceive of a different trajectory within the same
community“ (Wenger 1998: 166-167).

The Chinese context, as it suffers from something of a paucity of old timers (as native
speakers) and opportunities for interaction, creates a problem of access (Lave &
Wenger 1991). A lack of interaction with and acknowledgement from old-timers can
deprive learners of a sense of belonging or ownership of the language where “a deeper
sense of the value of participation to the community and the learner lies in becoming
part of the community” (Lave & Wenger 1991: 110). The problem of access then
prevents any increasingly centripetal participation and thus severely limits
constructions of identities of mastery.

Perpetual marginality or peripherality, and the consequent limitations with regards to

participation, have impacts on a learner’s sense of membership and belonging to a
community of practice. Forms of membership within a community of practice
translate “into an identity as a form of competence” (Wenger 1998:153). In the sense
of identity as a form of competence, the non-native English language student is
eternally doomed to a peripheral or marginal position, whose competence is not, and
can never be, equal to or greater than that of the centralised ‘native speaker’.

Identities on Offer

From a poststructural view on identity “individuals do not carve out an identity from
the inside out or from the outside in, as it were; rather, their environments impose
constraints whilst they act on that same environment, continuously altering and
recreating it” (Block 2007: 26). Bourdieu (1977) and Giddens (1991) don't see
identity as exclusively determined by either structure or individual agency. While
appreciating the dynamic 2 way nature of identity construction between agency and
environment, this study will focus on the identities on offer within the environment of
a private language training school in China, and the inherent constraints and
affordances to learner identity construction that lie therein.
74

The School

The School itself is a private language training school that has 3 branches across
Beijing. The school offers classes in English that supplement students’ state education
in the English language, and as such most classes occur in evenings, at weekends and
during school holidays. At present, students number around 400, with a typical class
consisting of around 12–16 students. The school markets itself as providing a
‘Western’ educational environment, and operates an English only policy for students
both in class and at break times. All teachers are native speakers of English, and are
assisted in their classes by Chinese teaching assistants.

The school uses Moving Into English (2002) (hereafter MIE), a course book from the
United States that is designed primarily with English as a second language (ESL)
learners in the United States in mind. In addition to this, the school holds regular
special/seasonal events that have ranged from Halloween, Easter and Christmas, to
History Month, Sci-Fi Month and a Murder Mystery week. It is within this school that
I myself worked for around 3 years, including 2 years as branch manager.

Research Questions

1) What kind of English language identities are constructed in:

a) Teachers’ and Teaching Assistants’ ideologies

b) Managerial staff ideologies and school policy
c) Special Events
d) Teaching Material
e) Student work

2) From a Community of Practice perspective on identity, how do the identities

on offer, act as affordances or constraints in the construction of learner
identities at the school?
75

Methodology for collecting data

Pilot Interviews:

Face to Face Pilot interviews will be conducted with around 3 teachers that have
taught at the school within the last 12 months. The interviews will consist of a number
of questions relating to native speaker identity, ownership of language, purposes for
learning English, and use of and appropriateness of teaching materials (MIE), and the
use of and appropriateness of special/seasonal events. Interviews will last around 10 –
15 minutes, with set open ended questions and some opportunity for further
discussion if needed. All participants will be guaranteed anonymity prior to interview,
and will be given pseudonyms if used in the study. All interviews will be conducted in
English and recorded.

Interviews:

Face to Face interviews will be conducted with around 10 teachers, 10 teaching

assistants, and 3 members of managerial staff. Questions and timing for the interview
will be adapted based on feedback from the pilot interviews. All participants will be
guaranteed anonymity prior to interview, and will be given pseudonyms if used in the
study. All interviews will be conducted in English, recorded, and transcribed if
necessary for the study. Notes will be taken during interview for future reference to
look for general trends, or specific instances of interest that may later be transcribed.

Analysis of Yearly Planner:

A brief analysis of the yearly planner, with discussion of the special/seasonal events
planned for the year 2014 at the school will be included. Focussing on socio-cultural
background of special events (i.e. ‘American’ ‘Western’ ‘Chinese’), and to what
extent these backgrounds reinforce the identities on offer at the school.

Classroom Observation:
76

Passive observation of 5–10 classes. Classes will be chosen when particularly overtly
‘American’ themed material is covered, to observe how students negotiate their
identity in relation to that of the ‘native’ material. Observations will last around 30 –
40 minutes, with notes taken.

Analysis of Students Written Work:

Students will be asked to complete a task in class, which will later be analysed with
regards to how students position themselves, and what identities they create and what
communities they inhabit. Around 30 students will complete this task during class
time, with instructions from their teacher, and in the absence of the researcher.
Permission from the student and a parent/guardian will be sought for inclusion in the
study.

Analysis of Teaching Material:

The teaching material MIE, will be analysed in terms of:

 How it constructs and presents identities of native speakers

 How it constructs and presents identities of English learners
 The socio-cultural background of topics and reading texts covered

Material from MIE will be chosen in line with the material covered from the
classroom observations.

Participants

 3 Former ‘Foreign’ Teachers (the term used by the school) – All have worked
at the school within the last 12 months, currently residing in London. For pilot
interview.
 10 ‘Foreign’ Teachers – these are the lead teachers of the class, exclusively
native speakers.
77

 10 Teaching Assistants – Assist the foreign teacher in planning and in the

classroom. All Chinese L1 speakers with a high proficiency in English.
 3 Managerial Staff – Those in charge of teacher recruitment, curriculum
planning, special/seasonal event planning, evaluation, and school policy. All
with a high proficiency in English.
 Students – 30 that will complete written work, and around 70 – 100 that will
be observed. All Chinese L1 speakers, between the ages of 9 – 14.

Other sources

 The School’s Yearly Planner – with details of term dates and special/seasonal
events.
 Moving Into English (2002) – Teachers guide grades 4 – 5
 Students’ written work

Problems/Ethical Issues

 All participants shall remain anonymous; pseudonyms will be used as

necessary in the study. The school itself will not be named in the study.
 Will I need permission from parents/guardians for those students that I
observe?
 All interviews, observations, and completion of written work reliant on
permission from participants.
 Making copies of the teaching material may be problematic in that it might
contravene school policy. Analysis of teaching materials may have to be done
in China.
 If interviews are one-by-one and face to face, interviewed participants may
discuss the content with those not yet interviewed which may influence
consequent interviews.
 Conducting interviews and observations within the school during office hours
could be distracting, or impact on the day to day running of the school.
78

References

Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities. Reflections on the origin and spread of

nationalism (Rev.ed.). London: Verso.

Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. London: Continuum.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social science

information, 16(6): 645-668.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Harvard University Press.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: self and identity in the late modern
age. Cambridge: Polity.

HERC (1993). Zhongguo waiyu jiaoyu yaoshilu. [Chronicle of foreign language

education in China.] Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Hu, G. (2005). English Language Education in China: Policies, Progress, and Problems.
Language Policy, 4: 5-24.

Kachru, B. B. (1998). English as an Asian language. Links & letters, 5(1998): 89-108.

Lave, J & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and

discrimination in the United States. New York/London: Routledge.

Moving Into English Teacher’s Guide Grades 4 - 5 (2002). Harcourt School

Publishers.
79

Pan, L (2011). English language ideologies in the Chinese foreign language education
policies: a world-system perspective. Language Policy, 10: 245–263.

Pavlenko, A. (2003). "I Never Knew I Was a Bilingual": Reimagining Teacher

Identities in TESOL, Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 2 (4): 251-268

SEC Department of Planning and Construction (1991). Achievement of education in

China 1986–1990. Beijing: People’s Education Press.

TSUDA, Y. (1992). Dominance of English and linguistic discrimination. Media

Development, 39 (1): 32-34.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.