The Myth of the Native Speaker

Today, many non-native English teachers are being disqualified from many job opportunities before they even apply. The sole reason for that is that English is not their L1, with total disregard for their experience, skills, and competence.

Native-speakerism not only harms non-native speakers but also affects native speakers negatively by not valuing their teaching ability and only emphasizing their unconscious acquisition of a language when they were children.

I should preface this article by clarifying that I do not intend to insinuate that native speakers of English, or any particular language for that matter, are less qualified or less competent as language teachers. On the contrary, this article actually attempts to appreciate "native-speaker" teachers for their ability to teach rather than their unconscious acquisition of a language by distinguishing between knowing a language and actually being able to teach it.

Simply knowing a language, whether acquired or learned, does not qualify an individual to teach that particular language. In fact, many English language teachers whose L1 is not English do not consider themselves qualified to teach their mother tongue.

What is "native-speakerism"?

Native-speakerism is a prevalent ideology within English Language Teaching (ELT), mainly characterized by the belief that ‘native-speaker’ teachers represent a ‘Western culture’ from which stems the ideals of the English language and teaching methodologies (Holliday 2005).

David Crystal stated that the idea of the native speaker is a myth because you cannot find an English speaker who has not been influenced by any local variation of the language.

Why is it important to discuss this issue?

Native speakerism has become a pervasive issue in relation to ELT as being a non-native speaker of English is considered a liability when searching for an English teaching job. The research found that 75% of all ELT private sector jobs are exclusive to native speakers (Kiczkowiak, Marek 2020). The preference for hiring native speakers exclusively is a widespread policy (Clark & Paran 2007).

Are native speakers inherently better language teachers?

In a survey whose targets are language learners on the topic of who is better: the native English teacher (NEST) or the non-native (none-NEST), the number of votes for NESTs and non-NESTs was almost the same: 54 respondents chose NESTs (25.0%) and 57 favored non-NESTs (26.4%). More surprisingly, 87 respondents went for 'both' (40.3%), an alternative choice that had not been supplied in the questionnaire. Had this option been added, I suspect it would have won even more votes. 18 respondents did not take sides in the debate (8.3%) (Medgyes, P. 1994).

How does it affect native speakers?

Although it might seem like "native speakerism" values "native speaker" teachers, if you really break down the logic behind it, it would appear that they are not valued as good teachers, but rather valued for a language that they picked up as children. A commodity that schools and universities advertise to parents and students their English "authenticity".

Many language schools advertise themselves as employing native English speakers only because NESTs are better public relations items and have a better business draw (Medgyes 2001).

But... But what if parents want native speakers to teach their kids?

I have heard this argument mentioned a few times. Hiring native speakers for the sole reason of their nativeness might seem like a good short-term financial decision. However, it appears to me that providing students with what they "need" is significantly more rewarding for both the students and the institution in the long term than offering what students "want". The level of absurdity in this argument is almost comical. It is similar to a patient going to a doctor and asking for a specific medicine, should the doctor prescribe to the patient their desired medicine or what they actually need?

What are we preparing students for?

I think it is crucial for both the learners and educational institutions to ask this question "What are we trying to prepare students for? Most interactions in English take place between non-native speakers (Crystal, D. 2003). So, students should not only be exposed to the standard form of language but also exposed to different variations of English as that will most likely be prevalent in their interactions.

Then... Why do we need native speakers?

One could argue that in some types of English teaching contexts, especially when relating language to culture, a native speaker might be more useful to students as they would generally be more knowledgeable of certain cultural characteristics that might be required in such a curriculum. (V Árva, P Medgyes 2000) A non-native participant in the study argued that generally, NEST's stock of colloquial expressions, idioms, and phrasal verbs was incomparably richer than the non-NEST.

It is also important to have a standard language to promote intelligibility which helps language learners understand each other. As long as intelligibility is present, minor variations in pronunciation should not be an issue.

Davies (1995) stated, "The native speaker is a fine myth: we need it as a model, a goal, almost an inspiration. But it is useless as a measure” (p.157).