Erika Sertic

In response to Holliday’s article, the distinction between “native” and “non-native” is

purely ideological because there are speakers who, because of colonialization, have used only
English all their lives; but are considered outsiders by the English speaking-west for their
country of origin. This power imbalance between English-speaking west and countries that were
forced to learn English as a result of colonization show why “native” and “non-native” speakers
is purely ideological. Native speakerism is manifested in Korea with the preference towards
American teachers to teach in class. As mentioned in discussion: the Korean co-teachers often
major in English, with some going to study in America. With this in mind, it makes me wonder
why they still want American or British teachers here to teach English. Another example from
the Park “English Fever in Korea” article, was the extreme lengths Korean parents will go to
make sure their children speak “proper” English. This can be seen in either surgeries to the
tongue in order to improve pronunciation, and even moving to America or another English-
speaking majority country in order to improve their English. Having already spoke to a few
students at Kyunghwa, I know that some of them have spent a year abroad, one of the students
having been to Australia to study. So, this attempt to rapidly improve English is evident in
Kyunghwa as well. I think that teaching English as an international language is the best way to
teach English. This is especially prevalent to countries, as previously mentioned. like Singapore
or Kenya, where English is the language that everyone uses. That’s not to say that English is the
only language there, but English is the lingua franca in both countries. However, if we don’t
teach English as an international language, people from these countries are neglected as “native
speakers” because they do not appear like the perceived native speaker that most people expect
from either the United States or the United Kingdom. In the context of Kyunghwa or Korea, I
think that if they thought that learning English as an international language would help improve
their English acquisition or speaking, then they would make a better attempt to make it an
international language. I think a critical perspective of TESOL is to realize the usefulness of
teaching English as the world becomes more globalized while still realizing the inherent power
structure surrounding the profession. At Kyunghwa, it would be best used for interacting with the
co-teachers. In the high school, the co-teachers don’t do much other than to help the girls if they
really can’t think of words or questions for the KU teachers. It will also be helpful for interacting
with Greg.
For the English fever article, my takeaways where the extreme lengths that Korean
parents go to ensure their child can speak English well. They will move to an English-speaking
majority country at an early age in order to learn native like English. This has become an area of
concern for the country as more parents want to improve their child’s chances at English
education in a globalizing world. In order for us to be effective English teachers, we have to do
our best to only use English in class, unless it’s clear that the students don’t understand.
However, I feel like in order to make an effort to promote cultural diversity you have to make it
clear how English relates to Korean culture.