ARTÍCULOS

 

Reflecting on the dichotomy native-non native speakers in an EFL context^*

 

Reflexión sobre la dicotomia entre hablantes nativos y hablantes no nativos en un contexto del EFL

 

 

Claudia Mariño^**

** Licenciada en Lenguas Extranjeras. Profesora de Tiempo Completo, Departamento de Idiomas Universidad de Boyacá. Correo electrónico: clauditacmma@gmail.com.

 

Recibido: 18 de julio,
Aprobado: 17 de noviembre.

 

 

---

Abstract

This article provides a discussion based on constructs about the dichotomy between native and non-native speakers. Several models and examples are displayed about the spreading of the English language with the intention of understanding its development in the whole world and in Colombia, specifically. Then, some possible definitions are given to the term ''native speaker'' and its conceptualization is described as both reality and myth. One of the main reasons for writing this article is grounded on the promotion of the concept of what is native as something based on scientific facts, transcending the analysis from the common sense (Han, 2004). Topics such as language commands and its teaching are tackled in terms of strengths and weaknesses of a native-speaking teacher who teaches his/her mother tongue in a foreign country. Finally, students' points of view are described about the native and non-native teachers. At the end, the article makes emphasis on the need for understanding the dichotomy between native speakers and non-native speakers in order to improve the English language teaching in Colombia.

Key words: Native speaker, non-native speaker, English languages, English as a foreign language, foreign language.

---

Resumen

Este artículo ofrece una discusión sustentada en constructos sobre la dicotomía entre hablantes nativos y no nativos. Se presentan diferentes modelos e ilustraciones sobre la propagación del idioma inglés con la intención de entender su desarrollo en el mundo y en Colombia, particularmente. Luego se ofrecen posibles definiciones sobre el término ''hablante nativo'' y se describe su conceptualización como realidad y mito. Una de las principales motivaciones de este artículo consiste en promover la concepción de lo nativo como algo fundamentado en hechos científicos, trascendiendo el análisis desde el sentido común (Han, 2004). Se abordan asuntos como los comandos del lenguaje y su enseñanza, en términos de las fortalezas y debilidades de un docente hablante nativo que enseña su lengua materna en un país extranjero. Finalmente se describe el punto de vista de estudiantes sobre los profesores nativos y no nativos. El artículo concluye enfatizando en la necesidad de comprender la dicotomía entre los hablantes nativos y no nativos para mejorar la enseñanza del idioma inglés en Colombia.

Palabras clave: Hablante nativo, hablante no nativo, lenguas inglesas, enseñanza del inglés como lengua extranjera, lengua extranjera.

---

 

How would Foreign Language Teachers and Students define the higher language level they would like to achieve? Would they not say something like ''As native-like as possible''? I would say that most of them, would say so. But... why is it? Is it because a great number of EFL students and teachers have been exposed to the ideological conception that native speakers manage the target language perfectly? Are foreign language teachers and students aware of the role of the concept ''native''? Do they know where it came from? Or, how is it defined? Do they know that this kind of beliefs shape their professional and personal lives?

Each of the previous questions may show that although the concept and the dichotomy between native speakers and nonnative speakers play an important role in the field of foreign language teaching and learning, it has neither been widely studied, nor defined, so it is, sometimes, misunderstood. However, I decided to write about this topic because, as Han (2004) would state, the concept is still assumed-based on common sense observation and intuition-instead of being understood from scientific inquiry; I also attempt to reflect on this important issue and to call the attention of Colombian teachers and students on this topic. Besides, getting closer to this concept and all the aspects around it, it may help to see the ''unfairness'' about it (If there is so) and hence, to be critical on this interesting topic. In addition, I would like to be aware of the effect of considering the native as the ''perfect model'' and the similar cultural and identities issues on English language teachers and students.

 

Understanding the dichotomy native-nonnative speaker concept

In order to get a detailed understanding of the dichotomy native-nonnative speaker, I consider necessary to bear in mind that the notion of English as a native language is widely used, due to the spread of English around the world, and to the different ways in which English teaching and learning has been addressed. Different models and illustrations about the spread of English have been designed. Strevens (1980) illustrated the spread of English in an upside-down relationship, showing the influence of American and British Englishes on the other Englishes, as explained in the diagram (figure 1).

Some years later, McArthur (1987) designed another diagram to show the relationship among the World Englishes, having the ''World Standard English'' at the center of a circle, the regional varieties outer and, after them some sub-varieties of English.

Figura 2.

However, one of the better known models is the one proposed by Kachru (1992). Kachru states that the World Englishes may be classified in three different categories or circles. Each circle represents the way in which English had been spread, the way people acquired the language, and the use of English. These circles are named as: The Inner Circle, the Outer circle, and the Expanding circle (figure 3).

 

The author also proposes that the countries where English has traditionally been the native language, would belong to the Inner Circle; hence, they would be the ''norm-providing''. Countries where English has official status (''norm-developing'') would be located in the Outer circle. And, countries where English has no official status would be in the Expanding circle; thus, they would be ''norm-dependent''.

Despite of the acceptance this model has had, it has some weaknesses in terms of uses and users of English, as Jenkins (2003) would state:

The model is designed having in mind geography and genetics, so it does not consider users identification.

An intermediate area may be located between the Inner and the Outer circle, because some people use English just at home, instead of using it for academic, social or political purposes.

Another intermediate area may be located between the Outer Circle and the Expanding circle, because there are many countries in which English is not perceived as a Foreign Language anymore, but as a Second Language.

It is not possible to define people who are bilingual or multilingual in any of the circles proposed by Kachru.

The model does not take into account the speakers' language proficiency.

The model does not consider English used for specific purposes.

The model does not recognize the linguistic diversity in the countries of each circle.

More recently, Modiano (1999) proposed a model, based on the language proficiency, instead of on geographical reasons; in this model, he included Foreign Language Speakers and changed the hierarchical place of American and British English and the Foreign Language Speakers:

 

In the innermost circle Modiano places people who are proficient in English as an International Language (EIL); in the next circle he places places proficient in English as a native and foreign language, he assigns the third circle for English learners, and the last circle for people who do not know English.

Modiano's model disapproves ideas of prestige, cares for the diversity of English and understands the spread of the language from a geopolitical view. Something very interesting in Modiano's model is that he places English as an International Language (EIL) in the center, focusing just on proficiency and giving English, as a globally functioning language, a main position that may not be restricted to a particular country or group.

I consider valuable that Modiano takes into account the foreign language speakers because it touches the Colombian reality, because English has a great influence in our country. Colombian students and teachers of a foreign language usually think on traveling to the target country or having a close contact with a native speaker, because, it is believed that native speakers have a better and a more exact management of the language. So, students want to follow that model.

We are always thinking on native speakers and on the target culture, but we are not completely aware of the role of this issue in our professional and personal lives. ''native'' is always there, but we do not see, feel or live it, we just want to reach a native-like English, without realizing what ''native'' or ''native speaker'' means or how the beliefs around these concepts may shape our lives and our professional and personal goals.

Colombians, as many other people have a number of different reasons to learn English. Cook (2002) made a list of some of the goals English students and teachers usually have for learning the language. She says that students perceive English as a way of self-development, a method of training new cognitive processes, a way-in to the mother tongue, an entry to another culture, a form of religious observance, a means of communicating with those who speak another language and as the promotion of intercultural understanding and peace. But, as it can be perceived, any of the reasons stated by the author relates to the native speakers, although the target language has to do always with them.

In fact, talking about students, one of the objectives to achieve when teaching English is to have them become as native-like as possible; and, one way to measure students' language proficiency it is by examining how close they get to the native speakers. But... Why is it that we have to be compared with native speakers, if our processes, conditions, and reasons to learn the language have been totally different? And, talking about teachers, why do we usually think that the best teacher would be a native speaker, because s/he can represent the target language we are trying to learn?

Trends on preferring native speakers to teach a language can be clearly seen in job requirements and advertisements: ''A language school in London invites to ''Learn the French from the French'', ''A school in Greece proclaims ''all our teachers are native speakers of English'' (Cook, 2007). Taking about our context, Colombia, it is easy to see similar advertising on the news papers and web pages.

The kind of requirements to hire a teacher, the belief in native speakers, the desire of having a language level as native-like as possible, the idea of traveling to the target country and even behaving as Americans, are some of the facts that show how native speakers in Colombia are perceived and how they are given a powerful-beneficial position in our country and, which is for me, more worrying, in our teaching.

In many Latin countries, native speakers are given a high position in the English Teaching field. They are perceived and treated as the ones who have the last word in terms of language, pedagogy, classroom management and even, in professional development. They are preferred when hiring an English teacher, due to the assumption that they are the perfect model to follow and that, because they know the language, they will correctly teach it to the students.

Nevertheless, most, if not all native speakers have not studied a professional career on pedagogy or teaching, they usually teach being engineers, managers or business people and... having in mind that a class is not a space to give students some knowledge and to waitfor them to reproduce it, but a space for human people to interact and share together... What can a business man teach to a student? How can we trust our students' education to American business people? Americans or British with their linguistic imperialism, their economic and political ''power'', teaching us and our students? What kind of education and ideologies are our students learning? Are we aware of all the connotations that this kind of ''education'' may imply? Why and how are we allowing this to happen? Is it worthy enough?

I would say that there are some aspects about native speakers teaching in our country to reflect on. First, the fact that most of them have not any preparation on the field of Language and Teaching. Second, the native speakers cultural background and their education, because of course, they are very different from us and they have a different idea of ''success'', ''good-living'' and ''affective relationships'' that always have an impact on education. And third, their perceptions about developing countries and their ideas about class and economic power, in connection to their beliefs in terms of education, their perception of us as teachers of the language, their subjective points of view of the teaching and learning of English in Colombia and, the way they ''teach'' their language may have a certain influence on our education.

 

The reality and the myth of being a native speaker

It would be essential for a better understanding of native speakers in our country, to inquire about the type of pedagogy they may have, their methodologies, their assessment methods, the reasons why they are teaching, the objectives they have for teaching Colombian students, the reasons for living in our country, the ideas about our people, culture and country, and their personal and professional goals; and, to see how can they match with the requirements of our students and teachers.

Due to all the importance given to native speakers, specially, in our country, it is important to go deeper on the term ''native'' and its implications. Is it only one definition of the term? Or is it another concept, such as ''bilingualism'' difficult to define, but used all abroad and in the field, as a ''must''? How can these kinds of terms be so ''important'' in the field, when they have not a specific definition? Is it possible to come up with a clear definition of the term?

Rampton (1990) shows some arguments that reveal the difficulty of defining a Native Speaker. The author points out that someone may be a Native Speaker of more than one language, especially if that person belongs to more than one social group. This perception is supported by Davies (1991), when he refers to the possibility of a person to change from one group to another, over time; and, to the idea that language is related to one's identity. In addition, Davies (1991) seems to agree on purposing that a native speaker is someone who has a high degree of competence in the language, and linguistic intuition of it.

Davies (2003) attempts to define a native speaker from an Inner Circle as ''One who learns English in childhood and continues to use it as his dominant language, and has reached a certain level of fluency.'' He says that there are three important conditions when labeling a native speaker: ''If a person learns English late in life, he is unlikely to attain native fluency in it; if he learns it as a child, but does not use it as his dominant language in adult life, his native fluency in the language is also questionable; if he is fluent in the language, he is more likely one who has learned it as a child (not necessarily before the age of formal education but soon after, and has continued to use it as his dominant language''.

He has widely studied the native speaker issue; this is why he suggests that psycholinguistic, linguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives are some of the aspects that make it difficult to define the native speaker. He also states that native speakers may be considered as an ideal and as a person, in other words, as a model and as an exemplar of that model. In addition, he has come out with two different points of view about the Native Speaker: as a myth and as a reality.

According to Davies, the reality of the native speaker has to do with its association to ''membership''. He states that ''The native speaker is relied on to know what the score is, how things are done, because s/he carries the tradition, is the repository of ''the language''. The native speaker is also expected to exhibit normal control especially in fluent connected speech (though not of course in writing), and to have command of expected characteristic strategies of performance and of communication. A native speaker is also expected to ''know'' another native speaker, in part because of an intuitive feel, like for like, but also in part because of a characteristic systematic set of indicators, linguistic, pragmatic and paralinguistics, as well as an assumption of shared cultural knowledge'' (p.207)

The native speaker, as a myth, is perceived as an idealized native speaker, a native speaker who must have the following characteristics:

The native speaker acquires the first language of which she or he is a native speaker in childhood.

The native speaker has intuitions (in terms if acceptability and productiveness) about his or her grammar.

The native speaker has intuitions about those features of the grammar of the common (or standard) language which are distinct from his or her idiolectal grammar.

The native speaker has a unique capacity to produce fluent spontaneous discourse, which is facilitated by a huge memory stock of partly or completely lexical units.

The native speaker has a unique creative capacity which enables him or her to write or speak creatively. This includes, of course, literature at all levels from jokes to poetry, metaphor to novels. Speaking creatively probably belongs here too as does linguistic creativity and inventiveness.

The native speaker has a unique capacity to interpret and translate into the L1 of which she or he is a native speaker. (p.210)

Davies expects that the vision of the native speaker as a myth and as a reality would help to define the term more consistently. Probably it does, but ... is it enough to define a term in order to understand the role of native speakers in a foreign country, for instance, in our country? Is it enough to come up with a definition, while native speakers, no matter what they mean, have certain benefits in our education, just because of the fact of being ''native''? Is a definition enough for Colombians and their preparation on education, culture and language to be treated as secondary and not valuable enough for educating our own students?

Is the native speaker a myth in our country? Are we the ones who give life to this myth in our country? What would be a myth for us? Is it true that we idealize native speakers in our setting? Why do we do so? What does it mean idealized for us? Is it because of the idealization of the native speaker that we, teachers, take for granted what they think and say about the way our education ''should be''? Is not an idea something ephemeral? Will we be able to change this image of the native speaker and replace it for a more neutral and reasonable one?

I would dare to say that native speakers are not the only model English learners may follow; of course, they have acquired the language and hence, they are supposed to speak it properly; but it is also true, that talking a language, does not mean managing it to a whole extent. As it is well known, spelling and grammar are some of the weak areas of native speakers; while foreign language speakers are taught, basically, in terms of the grammar and the right writing of a language. This is the way we ''understand'' their language, whereas they just ''hold'' and ''use'' it without knowing special features of its language.

Actually, Davies would say that not every speaker is a perfect speaker of the standard language, even though some are ''exceptional learners''. Some examples that can illustrate what I am saying are: first, when a native speaker is asked about any grammar issue, they are not able to explain this aspect of their language, and second the ''spelling mistakes'' listed by Higgins (2003): ''achieve, critisise (criticism), identifing, learners, nowway (no way), percieved, psychology, questionnaires, scenario, sence (sense), trough (through), unconscious, universitys, usefull, well-payed, etc.''

I think that writing is important, not only because it makes people cultured and literate, but also because languages are better perceived, conserved and cared when they are written. It is by writing that a culture reflects people's thoughts and knowledge; it is by writing that a society perpetuates its development, values and organization. It is writing that we express better our feelings, because we can organize them and making them sound exactly as we want them to sound like. Is it by writing that we, foreign language learners can express our feelings and thoughts of being marginalized for nonnative speakers and show with strong arguments, why we should stop this tendency and claim the place we deserve in our own society, with our own students and working by ourselves to be a better, but especially, an independent society.

Many people would argue that it is not only by grammar and writing that people communicate. In fact, Davis (2003) insists on the need to develop ''an operational definition of minimal native-speaker ability''; this ability involves knowing ''how to form grammatical sentences'' as well as ''knowing the conventions, the ways in which language and culture meet'' (p.98) it means, to develop a linguistic competence, as well as a communicative competence.

I would not deny that communicative competence plays a crucial role when speaking a language, and that, of course, native speakers know their culture and its relationship with language much better that foreign learners may know. I would say that they really know their culture in terms of habits and social conventions; but, I would think some of them do not know about culture, seen as the history of the country, or the historical and touristic places; sometimes foreigners may know better about them because of the interest on ''meeting'' that country and its culture''.

What is then, the role of nonnative speakers in this dychotomy? Cook (2007) defines the Non-Native speakers as ''People who know and use a second language at any level''. She also points out that since SLA research and language teaching have taken into account the native speaker as the starting point, many people treat non-native speakers as deviating from native speaker norms. This perception, in my opinion, clearly reveals some of the reasons why native speakers are having a privileged position in our setting. If we ''conflict the norm'' no one would trust our job as teachers of a language!'' Do we ''conflict'' the norms of the language, just because we were not born with the genetic information of that language? Does it mean, then, that when we talk a second language we conflict the norms of it?

She also explains that the concept of the nonnative speaker must be rooted on the difference, instead of being rooted on the deficit, because nonnative speakers are different from the native speakers and they must be seen as people who speak two languages, instead of inefficient natives. They state that people who talk two languages usually have different skills that reflect the complexity of their mental processes, and that the way they use the resources for real life purposes and for communication reveal the different abilities they may have when talking a second language.

Cook (2007) says that Non-Native speakers have some qualities that could be taken into account in order to explore their reality as users of two languages:

Nonnative speakers have different uses of second languages than native-monolingual speakers.

It is usually the nonnative speaker who must adapt, change and use their language competences in order to communicate with a monolingual native speaker. It is the nonnative speaker who usually needs to translate information around him to be able to properly answer to what it is being asked to him/her. And, despite of the controversy around code-switching, it is the native speaker who is able to use two languages at once. According to Paradis (1997) the monolingual-native uses a restricted form of the language function available for the nonnative speaker. Then, nonnative users are between two languages, having the resources of both languages available when they would need them.

– Nonnative speaker have a different command of the second and first languages. Due to the different levels native and nonnative speaker may have of a language, a nonnative speaker must be compared with another nonnative speaker, who is a member of the same group and then, share the same characteristics; not with a native speaker, who is member of a different group and hence, has different characteristics. For example, Cook (2007) argue that ''the knowledge of the second language of the vast majority of nonnative speaker differs from that of monolingual native speakers''; spelling, writing and grammar are some of the ''skills'' in which nonnative speakers may have a more advanced level of the second language; while native speakers will probably be more fluent in the oral skills. The management of vocabulary also differs from that of native speakers, because nonnative speakers are able to establish connections and relationships between with their first language and the second language.

– Nonnative speakers have different minds from native monolingual Speakers. The author states that Nonnative speakers differ from monolingual-native speakers in terms of interior aspects of mind that go beyond the external uses of language; one of these aspects is the awareness nonnative speakers may acquire when referring to words, sentences structure and oral and cultural aspects of the second language. Nonnative speakers may also have better oral and non oral performancesthan monolingual native-speakers.

If it is true that nonnative speakers may have certain abilities and advantages due to the fact they are managing two languages, how are these skills taken into account in the field of language teaching? Medgyes (1992) shows that nonnative speakers may have greater abilities when teaching students a second language, because they are able to:

– Teach learning strategies more effectively.
– Provide learners with more information about the second language.
– Anticipate students' needs and difficulties when learning the second language.
– Be more concerned to the needs and problems of their students.
– Share the students' mother tongue when necessary and in order to achieve a greater experience and understanding when teaching-learning the language.

Having in mind my own experience, I would agree with Medgyes, in the sense that we, Nonnative teachers, are able to see our students' needs and interests more clearly than native speakers would do. When native speakers come to our classroom, what they usually do, it is just to speak, speak and speak, because they think our students need to listen to a ''good model'' of the language. However, while they speak there are many other situations in the classroom they do not recognize.

I would dare to say, taking into account my teaching experience that children will be soon get bored of the native speaker talk, because they are not seeing pictures, or gestures, or body language that could help them understand what the native speaker is saying. Since students lose their interest, they will not get advantage of the native-speaker talk and then, time will be wasted because students will not learn anything of or from the second or foreign language.

Most native speakers usually have an excellent management of the language, but a very poor classroom management. They get angry very quickly, they are not patient with students, they do not know how to call children's attention, they do not have the right tools and elements to ask children to listen or be quiet or even, to participate in a specific activity; and, the directions they give to students are not clear for them, because the language the native speaker use may be very complex for the level of the students.

Sometimes when native speakers come to our classrooms, they have not prepared their classes, because they know the language and they think this is everything they need to teach students the language. They rarely take activities, games or worksheets to the classroom and when doing so, they do not take the maximum advantage of them. For example, they take a movie and ask students to watch the movie and when the film is over, class is over; nonnative speakers rarely ask students about the movie to check their understanding, or discuss it with them.

As far as I know from my teaching experience, some of the native speakers, working as teachers in our country, do not know about children's ages and their stages of development, neither about the kind of activities children are able to do according to their age, or when they have a kind of knowledge about the suitable activities, they do not know how to use those activities in a class. Usually, nonnative speakers do not know to what extent they can demand things from their students or the level the students are able to achieve according to their specific progresses.

The majority of the native speakers, when teaching, are not able to help students with their difficulties when learning the target language, because, in fact, they did not have any when they acquired the language: So, they would not understand why is it difficult for a student to construct a sentence grammatically right, how to order adjectives and nouns properly, or how to talk about plural adjectives without pluralizing the adjective.

We all, foreign language teachers, have those abilities and we also can have a very good English level, so we are able to teach English to our students with good quality and specially, offering our students the possibility to learn critically and to look from a different perspective English and all the political, economical and cultural implications it may have on our society and on ourselves. Many researchers such as Medgyes (1994), Samimy and Brutt-Griffler (1999), Liang (2002), Mahboob (2004), Moussou and Braine (2006) have conducted studies around the issue of nonnative speakers teaching a second or foreign language and the students' perceptions towards them.

More recently, Ling and Braine (2007) conducted a study in order to find out e the attitudes of university students in Hong Kong towards nonnative speakers teachers of English, and from the students' perspective, wthe strengths and weaknesses of nonnative speaker English Teachers in Hong Kong.

The study revealed that, in general, students had a favorable attitude towards their nonnative speaker English Teachers, because, according to them, these teachers have a strong ability to use the students' mother tongue in their teaching, they use effective pedagogical skills, they have a good command of the language and because they show good personality traits. However, students also indicated some of the nonnative speakers English Teachers shortcomings; students said that their approach is usually examination-oriented, that they over-correct students' work and that they have a limited use of English.

I would dare to say that our students would have a very similar impression of their nonnative speaker English Teachers; but they would perhaps add that we have more interesting, appealing and helpful activities and probably, that they feel more comfortable with us than with the native speakers. Our students would say we have the same or probably different weaknesses, but, for sure, we would use this kind of information to overcome our shortcomings and become better teachers. It would be very interesting to conduct a similar research in our country with children, as well as with teenagers and adults.

Because of the different reasons I mentioned along this writing I would consider that in such controversial topic, full of power and identity relations, we, nonnative speaker English Teachers, must make a decision on the goals we want to achieve in terms of English level and pedagogy. Becoming aware of the different concepts and ideas of the term ''native'' may help us to claim for ''fairness'' when comparing and measuring ourselves, because, after all, it is not about who are the best, but about considering the differences and accepting them as real in a context; taking advantage of the best things a native speaker can offer us and learning together in order to offer better teaching scenarios to our students.

Students' perceptions towards ourselves as English teachers may help us to understand our strengths and weaknesses and hence, challenge the perception of native speakers-teachers as the perfect ones, and the ones we must imitate. Once we have, at least, got closer to this dichotomy, we can get our students think critically about this dichotomy and to invite them to think critically about this topic because, they will also be nonnative speakers and they will probably face the ''unfairness'' and debates around this issue.

 

REFERENCES

Braine, G. (Ed.) (1999). Non-native educators in English language teaching.        [ Links ]

Braine, G. NNS and Invisible Barriers in ELT. Retrieved on August 1, 2009, from http://nnest.moussu.net/history.html.        [ Links ]

Cook, V.J. (2002). Language teaching methodology and the L2 user perspective. In V.J. Cook (ed.), Portraits of the L2 User, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters        [ Links ]

Cook, V.J. (ed.) (2003). Effects of the L2 on the L1. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters        [ Links ]

Cook, V. (2007). The goals of ELT Reproducing native speakers or promoting multi-competence among second language users? Handbook on English Language Teaching.        [ Links ]

Davies, A. (1991). The native speaker in applied linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.        [ Links ]

Davies. A. (2003). The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.        [ Links ]

Han, Z. (2004). To Be A Native Speaker means Not To Be A Nonnative Speaker. Second Language Research 20, 2, 166-187        [ Links ]

Jenkins, J. (2003). World Englishes. A Resource Book for Students. UK: Routledge.        [ Links ]

Higgins, C. (2003). ''Ownership'' of English in the Outer circle: An alternative to the NS-NNS Dichotomy''. TESOL Quarterly 37, 615-644.        [ Links ]

Kachru, B. (1992). The other tongue (2nd Ed). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.        [ Links ]

Lee, J. (2005) The Native Speaker: An Achievable Model? Asian EFL Journal, 7, 9, 2-4.        [ Links ]

Liang, J. (2003, November). Models of NNESTs' teacher development: Rethinking the NS/NSS dichotomy. NNEST Newsletter, 5(2), 1-5. Retrieved September, 2010, from http://nnest.moussu.net/news/news5_2.pdf.        [ Links ]

Ling, C &Braine. G (2007). The Attitudes Of University Students Towards Non-Native Speakers English Teachers In Hong Kong. RELC Journal, 28,3, 257-270.        [ Links ]

McArthur, T. (1987). The English Languages?, English Today, 12, 21-41.        [ Links ]

McArthur, T. (Ed.). (1992). The Oxford companion to the English language. Oxford: OUP        [ Links ]

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

Medgyes, P. (1994 ). The non-native teacher. London: Macmillan Publishers.        [ Links ]

Modiano, M. (1999). International English in the global village. English Today, 15, 2, 22-27.        [ Links ]

Paradis, M. (2007). The Cognitive Neuropsychology of Bilingualism. In A.M.B. de Groot and J. Kroll (eds) Tutorial in bilingualism. Psycholinguistic Perspectives (p.p. 331-354). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.        [ Links ]

Rampton, M (1990). Displacing the ''native speaker'': expertise, affiliation and inheritance. ELT Journal, 44,2, 338-343.        [ Links ]

Streven, P. (1980). Teaching English as an International Language: From Practice to Principle. (1^st Ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press.        [ Links ]

 

 

Notas:

* Este artículo de reflexión hace parte de la indagación del mismo nombre presentada por la autora en el Seminario de Pedagogía y Cultura de la Maestría en Docencia de Idiomas de la Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia (Tunja-Boyacá).