Status of the Nonnative-English-Speaking Teacher

Status of the Nonnative-English-Speaking Teacher

The term nonnative-English-speaking teachers (NNESTs) has created a division among professionals in the ELT profession. Supporters of the term believe that it is necessary to distinguish between native- and nonnative-English-speaking teachers because their differences are, in fact, their strengths and should be recognized. Those who oppose the dichotomy feel that differentiating among teachers based on their status as native or nonnative speakers perpetuates the dominance of the native speaker in the ELT profession and contributes to discrimination in hiring practices.

Native English speakers without teaching qualifications are more likely to be hired as ESL teachers than qualified and experienced NNESTs, especially outside the United States (Amin, 2000; Braine, 1999; Canagarajah, 1999; Rampton, 1996). But many in the profession argue that teaching credentials should be required of all English teachers, regardless of their native language (Nayar, 1994; Phillipson, 1996). This would shift the emphasis in hiring from who the job candidates are (i.e., native or nonnative speakers of English) to what they are (i.e., qualified English teachers) and allow for more democratic employment practices.

Phillipson (1996) uses the phrase “the native speaker fallacy” to refer to unfair treatment of qualified NNESTs. The term was coined as a reaction to the tenet created at the 1961 Commonwealth Conference on the Teaching of English as a Second Language in Makarere, Uganda, which stated that the ideal teacher of English is a native speaker. There is no doubt that native speakers of a language have a feel for its nuances, are comfortable using its idiomatic expressions, and speak it fluently. However, the Makarere tenet is flawed: People do not become qualified to teach English merely because it is their mother tongue, and much of the knowledge that native speakers bring intrinsically to the ESL classroom can be learned by NNESTs through teacher training. Phillipson (1996), for example, points out that nonnative speakers can learn to use idioms appropriately, to appreciate the cultural connotations of the language, and to determine whether a given language form is correct. In addition, there are many ways in which nonnative teachers are at an advantage in teaching English.

How would you define "native speaker of english"?

How would you define "native speaker of english"? Someone who has been speaking English since the day he was born? Or someone who come from a race which orginally speaks English?

Please see the link at the title.

Native Speaker - Teach English & See the World

This is how the Native Speakers are so many in Asia because:

Teaching English offers an excellent way to finance an international
adventure. Native speakers have the advantage of teaching a language.
When you teach English overseas, in schools or in private classes, you're
respected.

Should I try to pronounce English like a native speaker?

Should I try to pronounce English like a native speaker?

Most teachers of English would agree that good pronunciation is important for students of English. However, many teachers would question the idea that all students should try to sound like native speakers.

First, the goal of native pronunciation is not very realistic. Some students can learn to pronounce English very well, and a few may even become so good that they could pass for native speakers. However, most Chinese students will inevitably have at least some Chinese accent. This is because once students' English pronunciation habits are formed, these habits are not easy to change. Through hard work, students can improve their pronunciation and achieve English pronunciation that is quite clear and accurate. However, no matter how hard they work, most students find it impossible to erase their Chinese accents completely.

Second, it generally isn't a good idea for Chinese students to have perfect pronunciation. This may sound strange, but it is true. In many ways, speaking English with a Chinese accent - even a slight one - is useful for Chinese students because it protects them from misunderstandings. We need to remember that there are many Chinese-Americans (Chinese-Canadians and so forth) who look Chinese but have a native understanding of Western culture. If a Chinese student has a native English accent, Westerners may mistakenly assume the student also has a native understanding of Western culture. The problem is that if the student does or says something that is not acceptable in Western culture, Westerners may assume this person is rude or stupid. On the other hand, if Westerners can tell from a student's accent that he/she is not a native Westerner, they won't expect the student to understand all the rules of Western culture. So a Chinese accent actually helps students by serving as a warning label that says "This person is Chinese, not Western!"

Students should learn to speak English with clear, standard English pronunciation. However, there is nothing wrong with having a bit of a Chinese accent.

No discrimination for TESOL teacher site

NNEST Caucus WebsiteCaucus Goals

The major goals of the caucus are:

to create a nondiscriminatory professional environment for all TESOL members regardless of native language and place of birth,

to encourage the formal and informal gatherings of nonnative speakers at TESOL and affiliate conferences,

to encourage research and publications on the role of nonnative speaker teachers in ESL and EFL contexts, and

to promote the role of nonnative speaker members in TESOL and affiliate leadership positions.

English Only (EO) In The Classroom: Time For a Reality Check?

Asian Efl Teaching Articles:
asian-efl-journal home submission guidelines March 2003 articles privacy policy and legal
information
English Only (EO) In The Classroom: Time For a Reality Check?
by Peter S. Dash
Introduction
The approach of using only English when teaching English as prescribed by the seventh curriculum
has become a major issue in the debate over how to improve Korean students' communicative abilities
in the L2. Discussions have not always been pleasant about the need to shake up the education system
by different means, including using much more classroom English. (Fracas over Education, 2001).
That the EO question, at times, has been framed in "all or nothing" views has appeared to take away
from a common sense approach. There may be a more middle ground area, at least as a point of
departure towards meeting the requirements of the new curriculum.
In Japan, a direct export competitor to Korea, pressures on English teachers are also rising. A Prime
minister's commission on Japan's future suggests that citizens there should have a workable
knowledge of English by the time they become adults. (Moriyama, 2000, p. 1). Here in Korea, a
survey of 100 middle and high school teachers attending in-service training at Kyungpook National
University and the Teachers Training Institute in Kummi, showed that teachers felt they didn't speak
English very well for many classroom purposes (McGrath, 2001, pp. 6, 7). Is it any wonder that the
Korean Education Ministry views drastic approaches as imperatives rather than options. But in view
of a recent departmental survey showing that only a small minority of the country's English teachers
are communicatively competent in English, (Arirang, 2001) is EO a rather premature and blunt
instrument?
This paper will attempt to sum up some of the main arguments for English Only (EO) vs the (BI)
bilingual approach. Through a literature review and an analysis of the author's quasi research, action
research, and observations made over five years of teaching Korean middle school students and
Korean teachers, it will be argued that a more diverse approach is needed than what EO or BI
presents. In addition, some methodological tips will be made partly through a demonstration
following the delivery of this paper to help teachers to better introduce and integrate classroom
English into their lessons.
Through all of this, it is hoped that various teachers, both native (NT) and non-native (NNT) will
have a better perspective on making their teaching yield more results. Nothing less is being demanded
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/decart2002b.htm (1 of 10) [4/4/2003 5:21:25 PM]
Asian Efl Teaching Articles:
by parents, students and education officials.
Literature Review
In summary, some academics and teachers' groups see EO as unrealistic, though a noble idea, (South
Korea to Start English-Only.., 2001, p. 1). Others, including renown educators see it as a necessity to
jump start students into performing better communicatively, (Ahn, 2001, p.1). What are the more
specific findings from supporters of the so called pro EO school of thinking and the detractors?
First, let's look at the literature which seems to advocate a pro EO stance. Professor Ahn, (2000),
Chairman of the English Department at Pusan National University, believes that one of the biggest
drawbacks to successful communicative teaching of English in the schools is the lack of spoken
English used by the teachers. He adds that despite students having spent a thousand hours learning
English in the classroom, they are still unable to communicate in English. To remedy this problem,
Ahn lists a number of recommendations including using English only. Professor In Lee (2001) at
Chonju National University of Education states, "No one can deny the importance of teaching English
through English" and believes that "English should be the medium of instruction" (p. 1).
An EPIK teacher holding a doctorate makes references to the definite benefits students receive from
speaking L2 with a trained and experienced native speaker in ESL or EFL teaching (Robertson,
2001). An authentic sense of communicative competency and improvement can result when such
foreign teachers are fully utilized and deliver their L2 program unhindered, he adds. Roh (2001) in his
lecture remarks reported that students surveyed stated they viewed the "non-ethnic" as an ideal model
from whom to learn English. (A seemingly narrow concept of a native speaker which will be
hopefully corrected ) Would not an EO approach done competently, especially but not entirely by
trained native teachers, give students a better sense of accomplishment from an extension of this
thinking?
As well, other educators point out the sensibility of using English in the classroom. "They (students)
must recognize that if they want to be able to use their English at the end of their course, they must
practice it during the course" (Willis, 1997 , p. xiii ). Jeong (2001) at Chung-ang University states,
"English teachers should aim, not only to teach English in English but to exploit the authentic
situations that arise in the classroom for meaningful interaction (p. 3). He further suggests that by
speaking more English in the classroom, teachers will be fulfilling the adage "practice makes perfect"
in respect to their oral English development (p. 3 ).
What might be some of the experiences outside Korea supportive of EO? In reference to teaching
English as a second language in America, Johns (2001) states that the teacher need not understand the
L1 of minority students and that (younger) children have a way of acquiring another language
naturally without a need for heavy reliance on the grammar method (p. 1). From Hong Kong, one
paper states that "overuse and counter productive use of the native language must be avoided" ( Ho,
1985, p.1). Of course, comparisons between Hong Kong. America and Korea must keep in mind that
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/decart2002b.htm (2 of 10) [4/4/2003 5:21:25 PM]
Asian Efl Teaching Articles:
the former is a second language environment, America is an L1 English environment whereas the
latter is strictly a foreign language one.
A pro EO view might also contend that BI reinforces a co-teaching approach where the NNT prefers
to focus on translation, supplementing instructions and disciplining, all in Korean. This could take
away from creating an English atmosphere to encourage students to speak more frequently and in
culturally relevant English. BI in short, may make it too easy for students and teachers to minimize
both communicative content, practice and thinking in English.
On the other hand, academics such as Professors Su-jung Min at Pusan National University and Kyutae
Jung at Deonso University (2000) argue that at least, within the university establishments, (which
train teachers to be) EO policy is based on false assumptions (p. 57). They add, "Research reports
finding L2 only in the classroom neither conclusive nor pedagogically sound" (page 59). Piasecka
(1988) sees negotiation of the lesson, cross-cultural issues and classroom management at times as
better discussed in L1 (p. 99). Jang (1999) writes, "To teach a foreign language, teachers should have
linguistic knowledge of both an L1 and L2" (p. 124). Taking this argument further, one might
conclude that there is no necessity to use many EPIKs (English Program in Korea) in teacher training
who are neither bilingual nor well versed in Korean culture!
Min and Jung (2000) also view those teachers who are not bilingual and bi-culturally literate as being
limited in their ability to teach English in a most effective manner sensitive to Korean students'
interests, experiences, and Korean language patterns (p. 64). They refer to the lack of success with the
EPIK program due in part to the low number of bilingual and bi-culturally grounded recruits (p. 65).
Hoelker, (1998) formerly at Seoul National University, made somewhat similar statements when she
stated, "cultural education and assimilation of incoming teachers in the EPIK program is a concern"
(p. 1). A former EFL teacher in Korea contends "that having some understanding of Korean culture
enables the teacher to deliver her/ his message to students in a more meaningful way" (Windle, 2000,
p. 6).
In reference to NNTs themselves and cultural integration, Roh (2001) through extensive research of
286 students and 83 teachers at the secondary level in Kyongi province concludes that an EO
approach is not conducive to properly ensuring students understand English in its cultural context (pp.
9-18). He further argues that because the concept of American culture being superior to Korean
culture is dominant in many Korean students' thinking, EO is less effective in support of sociolinguistic
learning, (p. 4 ).
Somewhat surprisingly, a number of papers related to research in Hong Kong appear to also underline
the problems of many students learning English through only English. Ho (1985) states in reference
to questionnaire findings from 28 schools' remedial English classes, "complete avoidance of the
native language (L1) was not possible" (p. 1). Even in Hong Kong- "many pre-service English teacher
trainees find it almost impossible to survive in primary and junior secondary classrooms without
using the mother tongue" (Lai, 1996, p.173 ). More specifically, in relation to when L1 can best be
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/decart2002b.htm (3 of 10) [4/4/2003 5:21:25 PM]
Asian Efl Teaching Articles:
applied, some researchers see it as particularly useful for concept development and the transfer of
cognitive and academic proficiency, (Park and others, 1984, p.1). These conclusions relate to Asian
minority students being observed by a variety of Illinois immersion, bilingual and ESL program
teaching personnel.
Personal Observations and Quasi-research
First it needs to be stated that the limited sampling and crudeness of the surveys employed leads the
researcher to regard this study as being of an exploratory kind. That being said, many of the EO
research findings by the author tend to support quite a few observations made over five years of
teaching. That in itself does not make the findings conclusive, of course. But as a starting point, it
needs to be stated that research and observations by this author through September 1996 to present
tend to show that students and teachers feel much more comfortable with a bilingual approach, (Dash
1999, Dash 2001).
In February and March 2001 respectively, 33 Grade three students and 110 Grade two students at a
Kangwon Province boys' middle school were surveyed on EO, (Dash 2001). Grade three students
stated that they wanted Korean teachers to use English about 50% of the time whereas the second
grades averaged 55-60%. Interestingly, the third grade students had a more limited exposure time to
the native speaker and had no exposure to English in the elementary school system. Contrastingly,
second grade students had been exposed to English at the primary level.
Through informal conversations, many middle school teachers seem to have some reservations about
the EO policy but often are publicly reluctant to express it. In a survey of one Kangwon school, NNTs
indicated a preference for a bilingual approach. Unfortunately, only half the teachers returned the
survey.
But just because many more students and Korean teachers are comfortable with BI, does not
necessarily fully legitimize it. One might argue that this apparent preference for a bilingual approach
is partly because Korean teachers and students feel it is just too much extra work to have to speak and
listen to so much English, but it may be a rather incomplete explanation in light of the reviewed
literature and the author's own research and impressions.
It is also fair to point out that the differences between English and Korean, linguistically and
culturally are so great at times that it is not possible to explain every grammar point or cultural
difference in English from which a particular lesson might give benefit. This would seem to be
supported by various authors, (Min and Jung and Piasecka). Or it might sometimes be possible, but
the inordinate amount of time to do so could take away from the imperative to cover a fairly lengthy
curriculum in preparation for examinations or satisfying the concerns of principals and supervisors.
As well, a majority of students in the Kangwon survey stated they did not speak enough English
because it was too difficult to do and they were worried about making mistakes, (Dash, 2001). On the
shorter term, these problems are unlikely to be solved through policy directives.
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/decart2002b.htm (4 of 10) [4/4/2003 5:21:25 PM]
Asian Efl Teaching Articles:
Ironically, those teachers using EO in the strictest sense might perceive their students as being
penalized in terms of entrance eligibility to better high schools and universities as some middle school
teachers seem to be suggesting. While this is but a hypothesis, the whole examination driven
approach including limited testing of oral English production does not logically benefit from using
more classroom English in many teachers' or students' minds. Ahn (2000) refers to the examination
system in schools as being badly thought out, (p. 1). Robertson (1999) writes how in the Czech
Republic the authorities have established comprehensive High school (Maturita) oral exams in
English, involving fifteen minute oral presentations and follow-up questions by a panel of 5
examiners, (p. 15 ).
With the above in mind, EO policy may need to be more holistically examined in terms of
curriculum, assessment, teacher training and competency. When students in the Kongwon school
survey by the author were asked if they thought their marks would (directly or indirectly) go up if
they spoke more often in class in their L2, approximately 60% responded in the negative, (Dash
2001). Interestingly, most girls surveyed at the Pusan model school provided opposite views, (Dash
1999).
Based on action observations and quasi research by Dash (1999) at two Pusan middle schools in the
Dongbu district, increasing the use of classroom English was seen as viable. But most teachers
struggled to use it at both the model girls' school and a downtown boys' school. At the boys' school,
two of the three teachers who were courageous to try EO incurred substantial problems. Many
students at times became restless or didn't know what to do. Teachers seemed exhausted after the
lesson and unnerved. One NNT who had excellent English speaking ability was able to carry out a
near EO lesson in a level one "tracked" class of grade three middle school students. The lesson plan
titled "Classroom Village," related to learning 'directions', was communicatively oriented and
curriculum friendly. But one might conclude that if the language items had not been more of a review
basis and without many cues and TPR , too many students might have had a rather incomplete
understanding of the lesson.
Further, at the Pusan girls' middle school, most students said they could not understand their NNT's
English and a large majority did not like it when their NNT spoke in L2, (Dash, 1999). At that point,
the targeted teacher, with a few years teaching experience decided it was no longer productive to
carry out additional research in other classes taught by her. Results from Kangwon province showed
the opposite for a class taught by a Korean teacher with a fairly good ability in communicative
English and willingness to use a relatively high amount of classroom English, (Dash 2001). These
surveys, while helpful, can be a rather trying experience when teachers do not get the results they
hoped for. But rather than solely blaming the teacher, EO policy may need to be more holistically
examined in terms of curriculum, assessment, teacher training and the overall social environment.
If Hong Kong remedial classes require the use of L1, how can Korean teachers be expected to
completely avoid it if low learners are to be provided an acceptable education? The net effect of the
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/decart2002b.htm (5 of 10) [4/4/2003 5:21:25 PM]
Asian Efl Teaching Articles:
EO policy, from such a line of thinking might be the need to track students, an approach which much
literature shows can be debilitating to the psychological welfare and learning of many students
labeled as low stream learners, ( Carrick Report, 1989, p.1) (Oakes, 1995, p 5). Personal observations
indicate that tracking for teaching English within the Korean cultural context has been an abysmal
failure especially when three level tracking has been implemented.
More importantly, it appears from observations over four years of training Korean teachers, that some
feel quite limited in their ability to deliver what they feel is acceptable classroom English, both
qualitatively and quantitatively. Part of it may be a confidence problem and not much more. With
others, it may be a need for more direct training in classroom English. The lack of an L2 environment
also hinders student and teacher's motivation to significantly improve their English and entertain a
more aggressive teaching of spoken English.
That there are so few native speakers in Korean schools -about one EPIK per 60,000 students and per
2,500 teachers- underscores further what I coin as a NEMBY (No-native English in my back yard)
effect so characteristic for so many Korean schools and communities, (Ministry of Education, 1999,
p. 1). The more that English is relevant to students' environments, the more they will feel they have
the opportunity to use it and to go along with a near EO approach, (McGrath, 2001, p. 7). For
example, students at the authors' school at first did not speak to the NT. But after a few months of
repetitive exposure within and outside the classroom, the had the confidence to try to communicate.
The better skilled students are fairly relaxed and converse with the NT. Consistent with these
observations, 90% of students in the Kangwon survey, (Dash 2001) said they wanted a native teacher.
Further, the low number of EPIKs and sometimes low priority on this program take away from NNTs'
chances to upgrade their classroom English in a meaningful way. Again, students may feel that
English speaking has even less relevance to their life when a native speaker is not present. In
summary, a reformed EO approach complemented by enlargements of teacher training and a well
managed EPIK could overflow into expanding the use of oral English in the classroom.
A Third Way?
But what does this mean in terms of what can be an effective EO policy and accompanying
methodology in the classroom? Firstly, each district, school and teacher is faced with a particular set
of circumstances for which the seventh curriculum seems to provide further recognition, (i.e.
decentralization of policy and curriculum implementation). Consistent with that fact and the best
education practices of identifying the needs of all students, EO appears to be an overreaching policy
particularly but not exclusively to more remote and rural environments. In such environments, one
could argue that communicative English is even less important in terms of the overall student and
population linguistic needs. A native speaker may help improve English speaking-but to what future
end? However, there is a strong argument that improving tolerance towards foreigners through their
greater presence in such communities be they English speaking or non-English speaking expatriates is
of some important value. In the author's former community, not counting the teachers, the only
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/decart2002b.htm (6 of 10) [4/4/2003 5:21:25 PM]
Asian Efl Teaching Articles:
foreigners who visit in "significant" numbers are from Japan who generally rely on those who can
speak Japanese as opposed to English it would appear. And Japan is the closest country to South
Korea-not America. By taking into account such local conditions, as well as pedagogical realities, it
appears that a near EO as opposed to pure EO policy would be even more relevant on a national basis.
What might be a good model for a near EO approach? For example, Atkinson, (1997) in his paper on
the use of the mother tongue in the classroom, states,"...a ratio of 5 percent native language to 95
percent of the target language may be more profitable, " (p. 242). He refers to how translation can still
be useful in some cases when there is a need for a comprehension check, (p. 243). Trimble (1993)
underscores how translation at times (through an integrated approach of using written work) can
facilitate students to more readily think in English for communicative and other work, (p. 1).
Minzuno (1998) writes of the utility of doing contrastive analysis of sentences in Japanese and
English which have the same or similar meaning to help students internalize (spoken) English, (p. 1).
Additionally, when teachers significantly change methods, materials or tasks for example when never
or little used before, students should have the right to express themselves in some L1 detail as to what
they did not understand, (Atkinson, p. 244). Precluding such possibilities can reduce the effectiveness
of teacher and learner as Atkinson would seem to be suggesting. For teaching professionals, who one
might argue should be doing action research on their own self generated curriculum complementary
to the Korean seventh curriculum, the quality of future findings might benefit from allowing students
to make comments in L1.
As far as the implications for teacher training are concerned, Harbord (1992) points out that many
teachers have tried to create an EO classroom but have found they have failed to get the meaning
across leading to student incomprehension and resentment, (p. 350). Quasi-research by the author in
Pusan and references in the introduction seems to bear this out, (Arirang T.V., 2001) (Dash 1999)
(McGrath, 2001). Adults can also feel that they may appear as less than intelligent and sophisticated
people when only able to use L2 particularly in the presence of native teachers, (Min and Jung, 2000,
p .59). Johnson and Swain (1997) views in reference to immersion add some additional weight when
they state native teachers "...are unaware of the psycholinguistic burdens of studying through a
foreign language," (p. 15) .
Where cultural inequity exists or is felt to exist, such a wholesale monolingual/ mono-cultural
approach in L2 may take away from effective learning - or at worst, create a backlash or sense of
cultural imperialism. This is particularly true for adults who tend to be more politicized and entertain
stronger national sentiments than younger children who have limited political cognition. It may have
further relevance for teacher training when licensed Korean English teachers with considerable pride
about their credentials -but sometimes with limited communicative English- stumble trying to make a
point. If the native teacher is not sufficiently qualified to recognize such problems and cross cultural
issues, the classroom environment can be less conducive to the harmony on which Koreans place
such a premium.
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/decart2002b.htm (7 of 10) [4/4/2003 5:21:25 PM]
Asian Efl Teaching Articles:
Conclusions
With an attempt to balance those views as described in the literature with personal observations and
research, knowing that all teachers need to be challenged to constantly improve, setting some targets
on classroom English can be beneficial. But it can be an exercise fraught with some danger of being
an arbitrary exercise. With all this in mind, Atkinson's (1997) view that a 95% ceiling might be a
more acceptable level may be a better starting point. If flexibility is also allowed for taking into
consideration local conditions and circumstances faced by the districts, schools, teachers and other
school officials, then such a ceiling appears to be more realistic than current policy. But given survey
results, (Dash 2001, Dash 1999) less than 50% classroom English would seem to be below the stated
desired goals of the students, (and the teachers).
With more students experiencing elementary school teaching of English and hopefully, better trained
middle school teachers developing and arriving on the market, it would be hoped that Atkinson's
"maxim" should be more the standard than the exception by the beginning of the eighth curriculum.
But surely, if all the advantages of using more classroom English are to be obtained, (Ahn, 2000,
Jeong 2001) ) then programs like EPIK and other training efforts need to be stepped up. Following
from the evidence of McGrath (2001) and the Ministry of Education (Arirang T.V. 2001) it would
seem that Korean English teachers need to better gain that confidence and level of skills which would
make them use more spoken English.
Under the present educational regime, EO when considered as especially applicable to all English
classes may be but a romanticized ideal rather than a point of arrival sometime in the intermediate
future. A point of immediate departure must be to begin to significantly increase the use of classroom
English universally which leads to authentic learning of real English by fostering better training and
action research. For in the many classes the author observed, there was room to do so without
compromising overall education goals and student needs. In short, we need a more flexible and nearer
to EO goal for today with proper support for a near EO policy of tomorrow.
About the author
Peter Dash is currently working as a foreign expert for the People's Republic of China, but was
formerly a teacher and teacher trainer in the Tongnae District of the Pusan Office of Education He
was an English instructor and Teacher trainer in EPIK for more than five years. He holds a Bachelor's
of Science in Forestry, a Master's in Education in secondary education, and was a former Harvard
university associate in research. He has been printed in a variety of publications.
References
Ahn, J.H. (2000) Problems and Challenges of English Teaching in Korea, (retrieved Feb 19, 200,
www.kotesol.org/pusan/pusankotesol) Kotesol 2000 Conference.
Arrirang (2001) News Broadcast at 6:00 o'clock. May 11, 2001.
Atkinson T. (1987) The Mother Tongue in the classroom: a neglected resource? ELT Journal 41/4
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/decart2002b.htm (8 of 10) [4/4/2003 5:21:25 PM]
Asian Efl Teaching Articles:
241-247.
Carrick Report (1989) In "Mixed Ability Teaching. Jones P and E Tucker (Eds) Claire Press 1990,
London.
Dash, P.S. (1999) Quasi-Research Survey Results on Using English in the Classroom of a Pusan
Girls' Model Middle School. unpublished paper, April 15, 1999.
Dash, P.S. (2001) Quasi-Research Survey Results on Using English in the Classroom of a
Kangwondo Boys Middle School. unpublished paper, April 20, 2001.
"Fracas over education" Korean Herald 3 March 2001 (Editorial).
Jang K.T. (1999) Computer-assisted language learning: Online everyday English learning program.
Journal of English Language Teaching 10/ 119-140.
Jeong, D.B. Teaching and Learning English Through English. Retrieved April 8, 2001 from the Web.
www. com.
Johns K.M. (2001). How Children Learn a Second Language Phi Delta Kappa
Foundation. Retrieved April 7, 2001 from the Web. www. ERIc Doc. no ED389184
Johnson, R.K. and Swain, M. (1997.) Immersion Education: International Perspectives. Cambridge
University Press. 1997. Cambridge, U.K.
Ho, F,W. (1985) A Diary Study of Teaching EFL Through English and Chinese to Early Seconday
School Students in Remedial English Classrooms. Retrieved April 8, 2001 from the Web. ED269984.
Harbord, J. (1992). The use of the mother tongue in the classroom. ELT Journal 46/4 350-356.
Hoelker J. and others. "Pan-Asian Voices: The Classroom Today". Retrieved from the Web April 14,
2001. www. jalt.org/jalt2001/PAC%202001.html.
Korea Ministry of Education. Statistics on Korean Education. Retrieved Feb 19, 2001 from the Web.
www.moe.go.kr/eng-26/.
Lai, M.L. A Reality Shock. Teaching English Through English or Chinese?
Education Journal 24/2, 173-191.
Lee, I (2001). Teaching/Learning English Through English. Retrieved, April 8, 2001 from the Web.
McGrath, S. (2001). Communicative Language Teaching in Korean Public Schools. KOTESOL 5(2),
1-6.
Min, S.J. and Jung K.T. (2000). Communicative Language Teaching and Uses of Korean (L1) in the
English classroom. The Journal of English Language Teaching. 12 (1) 55-68
Mizuno, M. (1998). The Usefulness of Bilingual Sentence Analysis. Retrieved from the Web. www.
ERIC. Doc. No. ED419383.
Moriyama, R. (2000) Our Mission The English Beat. No. 2 (Summer 2000).
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping Track How Schools Structure Inequality. Yale University Press. New
Haven and London.
Piasecka, K. (1988). The bilingual teacher in the ESL classroom. In S. Nicholls and E. Hoadly-
Maidment (Eds.) Current Issues in teaching English as a second language to adults (pp 97-103)
London: Edward Arnold.
Park, W.O. and others (1984). "Critical Issues in the use and Teaching of the Native Language to
Asian Limited English Proficient Students." Retrieved April 8, 2001 from the WEB. www. ERIC
Doc.no. ED263784.
Roh S. B., "Research on Relations between Cultural Inequality, English Only, Linguistic-Oriented
and Unionism and Integration of Culture and Language in the Korean EFL Context (paper presented
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/decart2002b.htm (9 of 10) [4/4/2003 5:21:25 PM]
Asian Efl Teaching Articles:
at the Third Annual Seoul-Kyongi-do KOTESOL Conference TESOL 2001, Educating Global
Citizens, March 18, 2001
Robertson, P.(2001). personal communication. Retrived from e-mail March 20, 2001.
Robertson P. (1999). Cultural Conflicts in Teaching Around the World (P. Guilfoyle ed.) The English
Connection 3/2,.
South Korea to Start English-Only Classes from March. ELT News. 25 Feb 2001.
Trimble, S. (1993). Thinking in English. Retrieved from the Web, April 8, 2001. ERIC Doc. No.
377673.
Willis J, Teaching English through English. 1995. Longman Publishers.
Windle, S. (2000) From Confusing to Confucian: Towards an Understanding. KOTESOL Journal
4(6) 1-8.
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/decart2002b.htm (10 of 10) [4/4/2003 5:21:25 PM]

Hong Kong English

Hong Kong English is sometimes used to refer to the accent and characteristics of English spoken by some of the ethnic Chinese residents of Hong Kong. It is not a mixed, creole or pidgin language, nor a dialect of English. It is only a variant of English with some local influence. In some aspects it may be related to Chinglish. As with many other kinds of local language variants or dialects, Hong Kong English is often thought of as a low standard of English among the local populace. The more educated people in the city tend to speak standard British, sometimes American English, or more commonly some mixture of both.
English is an official language in Hong Kong but for most of the population who are ethnic Chinese, it is a second language acquired from school education. Many Hong Kong Eurasians (mostly of British-Chinese or Macanese origins) or Hong Kong-born South Asians speak it as a first language. It is taught from kindergarten, and depending on the geographical location, English is most likely to be deferred over Chinese. English is the medium of instruction for only a handful of primary schools, some secondary schools (termed EMI (English as Medium of Instruction) schools) and most courses in the local universities. It is widely used in business activities. Its official status is the same as Chinese.
Proficiency in the language depends on the education level and exposure of the speakers and the following only characterizes some common features and mistakes of "Hong Kong English". Such characteristics have usually been found among speakers who have some secondary education. People with higher education or those who have graduated from élite secondary schools basically speak an acquired form of English modelled on British English, with some possible American influences. Local people who are not very well educated are the people with the tendency to speak English with a heavy Hong Kong accent, while those who are better educated tend to have less of an accent. Some school teachers at primary schools may not be able to recognise the differences in pronunciation.
The Cantonese accent of spoken English in Hong Kong, perhaps, originates from the "tung sheng" (通勝), in which it is possible to find one or two pages containing lots of direct transliteration of English into Cantonese words, for example, "dinner" would be transliterated into the Chinese words "甸那", pronounced "din na".

Yes, But Is It English?

Yes, But Is It English?
By David Nunan
Reprinted with permission from TESOL Matters, December/January 1999
English has always been characterized by diversity -- diversity of usage, accent, terminology, and even grammaticality. This diversity hasn't always been seen as a strength. In 1965, Porter, speaking about my own regional variety, had this to say: "Wealth cannot taint it nor education undo it/It is an ineradicable and perverse accent, signal at once of the possible strengths and certifiable weaknesses of the Australian character." Other regional and national varieties have also been subjected to criticisms of one kind or another. This diversity reflects the global spread of English as the language of trade and commerce over several hundred years -- a trend that has been accelerated by globalization, the growth of technology, and the place of English at the heart of popular culture.
Despite an explosion in the growth of English as a global language, and the increasing fragmentation and differentiation of regional and international varieties of the language, some basic distinctions remain -- English as a first language (L1) is clearly different from English as a second language (L2). Or is it?
In his opening plenary at the 1999 TESOL Convention in New York, David Crystal gave an illustration of the growing uncertainty surrounding the terms first language and second language. Imagine a couple who meet and marry in Singapore, the male from a German and the woman from a Malaysian L1 background. The couple subsequently move to France for employment purposes. Eventually, they have children and raise them through the medium of English. In which contexts and for whom is English an L1, an L2, or a foreign language? What or who is a native speaker, and whose English do they use? This situation is neither fanciful nor unusual. In becoming the medium for global communication, English has detached itself from its historical roots. In the course of doing so, it has also become increasingly diversified to the point where it is possible to question the term English. World Englishes has been used for quite a few years now, and it is conceivable that the plural form Englishes will soon replace the singular English.
Another widely accepted distinction in our field is between English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL). The term ESL is used to refer to situations in which English is being taught and learned in countries, contexts, and cultures where English is the predominant language of communication. The teaching of English to immigrants in countries such as Great Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand typifies ESL. In these countries, individuals from non-English-speaking backgrounds may speak their L1 at home, but will be required to use English for communicating at work, in school, and in the community in general. The term is also current in countries where English is widely used as a lingua franca. These include the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong (where its usage reflects the region's recent past as a colony of Great Britain), Singapore, and India (where the populations speak a range of other languages and where English is a therefore a conveniently "neutral" communicative, political, and social medium).

EFL is used in contexts where English is neither widely used for communication nor used as the medium of instruction. Brazil, Japan, Korea, Thailand, and Mexico are all countries where English is taught as a foreign language, either as part of the elementary and high school curriculum, or in private school or other educational settings.

The ESL/EFL distinction has been an important one in language pedagogy for many years because in each case the context in which the teaching takes place is very different, requiring different materials, syllabuses, and pedagogy. In most EFL settings, there is limited exposure to the language outside of the classroom and very limited opportunities to use it. The syllabus therefore needs to be carefully structured, and there needs to be extensive recycling of key target language items. In addition, the burden for providing the cultural dimension to the curriculum very much rests with the teacher. Teaching is also complicated by the fact that the teachers are usually nonnative speakers of English, and many lack opportunities to use the language or lack confidence in using it. In such situations, it is important for the materials to provide the sort of rich and diverse linguistic input that ESL learners encounter in the world beyond the classroom.
For many years, the ESL/EFL distinction has been widely used and generally accepted, and, as I have indicated above, it has provided a useful conceptual framework (although, in some contexts the term English as an additional language [EAL] is preferred). Nonetheless, I find the distinction increasingly problematic, for a number of reasons. In the first place, the contexts in which L2s are taught and used differ considerably, as do EFL settings. Teaching English in Japan, for instance, is a very different experience from teaching it in Brazil. Also impinging on the distinction is the growth of English as a world language (EWL). In fact, with globalization and the rapid expansion of information technologies has come an explosion in the demand for English worldwide. This has led to greater diversification in the contexts and situations in which it is learned and used as well as in the nature of the language itself. It has also provided many more opportunities for learners to use the language for authentic communication. English no longer belongs to Britain or to the United States. It is an increasingly diverse and diversified resource for global communication.
The foregoing may suggest that the uses of English in different contexts and for different purposes are neutral. However, the reality of day-to-day teaching and learning of English brings with it a series of interrelated social and political questions.
The teaching of standard varieties of a language cannot be divorced either from the role of the teacher or from the relationship between the teacher and the learner in this process. For example, is the language best taught by native speakers of one of the standard national varieties? Is their knowledge of their native language superior to that of nonnative speaker teachers? Will they also necessarily possess an insider's understanding of the culture of the target language that renders them superior to nonnative speaker teachers in helping learners toward such understanding? Alternatively, are nonnative speakers better positioned because of their insider's knowledge of the language of the learners and because, given the monolingual background of many native speakers of English, nonnative speakers have understood firsthand the processes involved in the acquisition and uses of English? Additionally, do native speakers bring cultural assumptions about pedagogy that do not fit locally and that nonnative teachers may again be better positioned to mediate? And, as far as language is concerned, is an authentic version of the language preferable to one that is pedagogically judged to be in the interests of learners (many of whom are likely in any case only to interact with other nonnative speakers).
In this piece, I have raised some significant questions that flow from the growth and diversification of English as a medium for global communication. I haven't offered answers, because I don't have any. My purpose is to frame some questions that continue to puzzle and challenge me in the contexts and situations in which I teach. What variety or varieties of English should I present to my students? What standard or standards of performance should I insist upon? In evaluating their performance, whose standards should I invoke? As the English language continues to diversity, these questions become more difficult to answer, and the task of identifying appropriate pedagogies, more challenging.
Acknowledgment
I am indebted to my coauthor, Ron Carter, for allowing me to use in this piece some of the material from a jointly authored chapter in our forthcoming book, The TESOL Handbook (Cambridge University Press).

Reference
Porter, H. (1965). The watcher on the cast-iron balcony. Brisbane, Australia: University of Queensland Press.