What are the respective strengths and weaknesses of native

and non-native speakers as teachers of English as a foreign or

second language? Discuss the differing perspectives on this

question in the literature.

LING 451: ISSUES IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS

STUDENT NUMBER: 220040347
NAME: REBECCA KIRKMAN
WORD COUNT: 2490

1
 Native and non-native speaker teachers often display considerable differences in

their approaches to teaching, as the routes used by the two groups in their paths to

becoming successful teachers are not the same. Native speaker (NS) and non-native

speaker (NNS) teachers use English differently and, therefore, teach differently. But do

these differences carry any value judgement? That is, is it true that, by virtue of having a

better command of the language, native teachers perform better in the classroom?

Conversely, is it true that the more deficient the teacher is in the target language, the less

efficient they will be? (Medgyes 1992: 346).

This essay will examine and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of native and

non-native speaker English teachers by defining these concepts and examining the

perceptions associated therein. After analysing the advantages and disadvantages of both

teaching groups, the essay will then determine whether the differences between native

speaker and non-native English speaker teachers mean that linguists should focus on who

makes the better teacher rather than what makes a better teacher.

In the last few years there has been an ever-growing number of non-native

speakers and learners of English in the world. As a result of these escalating demands in

English instruction, the majority of trained ESL/EFL teachers in the world are NNS

teachers. These teachers are used to provide English instruction exclusively in EFL

contexts, but now are found occupying teaching positions in English-speaking countries

as well. (Canagarajah 2005).

Defining native and non-native teachers is a controversial issue from both

a linguistic and sociolinguistic point of view. Some experts argue that efforts to define

native competence or native-like proficiency have yielded inconclusive results (Stern

2
1983), giving applied linguists another reason to claim not only that native and non-

native speakers have equal rights in using language, but also that there is no use in setting

up two separate categories (Rampton, 1990). Davies (1991) further delved into ‘native

speaker’ identity, and thus formulated the key question of whether a second language

(L2) learner can become a native speaker of the target language and concluded that L2

learners can become native speakers of the target language, and master the intuition,

grammar, spontaneity, creativity, pragmatic control, and interpreting quality of ‘born’

native speakers.

Definitions are further complicated when attempting to define a native English

speaker. What about an Indian for whom English was the language of school instruction

and has been the language of professional communication ever since? He does not fit into

either the native- or the non-native-speaker slot. Indeed, countries where English is a

second language break the homogeneity of the native/non-native division. (Medgyes

1992: 340). Evidence from case studies exists of individuals who could not easily be

categorised as either native speakers or non-native speakers, as they themselves had

problems in stating whether they belonged to one group or another. (Brutt-Griffler &

Samimy 2001). There are several cases of people who, due to the environment where

they acquired a particular language, can hardly be classified as either NSs or NNSs of

that language, as is the case of bilingual speakers, especially those in countries where

English is a non-native variety such as Hong Kong. In such cases, we would have a NS of

a ‘non-native variety’ (Moussu & Llurda 2008: 318). It may be quite difficult to refer to

all non-native speakers as though they belonged to a fairly homogeneous group, given the

many and very diverse geographical, cultural and linguistic backgrounds they may bring

3
with their non-native status.

In the early nineties, Medgyes (1992) compared native and non-native

English-speaking teachers, and stated that:

• the ideal NS teacher is the one who has achieved a high degree of proficiency in

the learners’ mother tongue;

• the ideal NNS teacher is the one who ‘has achieved near-native proficiency’ in

English (Medgyes 1992: 348f.).

In a later discussion about NNS teachers’ advantages and disadvantages, Medgyes (1994)

described six positive characteristics:

1) They provide a good learner model to their students;

2) They can teach language strategies very effectively;

3) They are able to provide more information about

the language to their students;

4) They understand the difficulties and needs of the students;

5) They are able to anticipate and predict language difficulties; and

6) In EFL settings, they can use the students’ native language to their advantage.

(Medgyes 1994).

If language competency were the only variable of teaching skill, a NS teacher

would by definition be superior to their non-native colleague. It would also follow that

any native speaker, with or without EFL qualifications, would be more effective than any

non-native speaker. As this contradicts Medgyes’s findings one must assume that other

variables of teaching skill that have a bearing on teaching practices exist. It is certainly

the case that variables such as experience, age, sex, aptitude, charisma, motivation,

4
training, and so on play a decisive role in the teaching/learning process. As non-

language-specific variables, they can apply to native and non-native teachers in equal

measure (Medgyes 1992:346). Many students appreciate the value of NNSs and do in fact

prefer them to NSs in certain contexts and for certain classroom tasks. This provokes the

need to analyse whether the discrepancies in their teaching behaviour are merely

language related or whether such a distinction reveals further teaching discrepancies

making one group more efficient than the other.

One of the earliest reflections about the differences between native and

non-native speaking EFL/ESL teachers was the importance of providing students with a

‘real’ model. These ‘real’ models speak the language of the students natively and have

learned to speak English well, as opposed to the ‘foreign’ models (NSs), who do not

share the cultural, social, and emotional experiences of the students (Edge 1988). NSs are

better teachers in EFL contexts, because of their unique cultural knowledge, whereas

NNSs are better teachers in ESL contexts, because of their multicultural experience. This

view, however, is not shared by all experts, many of whom believe that NNS teachers are

better teachers only in their own countries. (Llurda 2005).

One unique advantage NNS English teachers have over NS teachers is that they

can empathise very well with their students’ learning difficulties and understand what it

is to be homesick and to experience culture shock in ESL contexts (Arva & Medgyes

2000). In terms of language awareness, NS teachers, in contrast, could easily discourage

their students since they are rarely able to make useful comparisons and contrasts with

the learners’ first language and are often unable to empathise with students going through

the learning process (Barratt & Kontra 2000). Even more importantly, NNS teachers can

5
be greatly admired by their students because they are successful role models and are often

very motivated (Lee 2000). NNS teachers ‘provide models of proficient [L2] users in

action in the classroom [and also] examples of people who have become successful [L2]

users’ (Cook 2005: 57). That is, NNSs demonstrate to their students what it is possible to

do with a second language and their appreciation for that language and its culture.

The principal advantage of a NS teacher is language competency. Perpetual fear

of their students’ judgment can make EFL teachers feel constantly self-conscious of their

mistakes (Reves & Medgyes 1994). This ‘self-discrimination’ often leads to a poorer

self-image, which further deteriorates language performance, which, in turn could lead to

an even stronger feeling of inferiority. This point of view may seem extreme, and yet

other language teachers, new teachers of all languages, or any teacher with poor self-

esteem, might experience similar feelings. It seems acceptable, however, for NS teachers

to make some occasional mistakes while teaching, or not to know all the details about the

English language (Amin 2004). In contrast, when NNS teachers make the same mistakes

or do not know everything about the English language, their teaching abilities and

competencies are often immediately questioned (Canagarajah 2005). This attitude from

the students, NS colleagues, and often even from the NNS teachers themselves, will often

lead to feelings of inadequacy and self-doubts (Braine 2005).

Butler (2007) investigated Japanese elementary school teachers’ attitudes towards

the privileged status of NS English teachers and their self-evaluations of their English

proficiency. First, she found out that approximately 60% of her respondents supported the

notion that native speakers of English were the best ESL/EFL teachers and only 13% did

not. These teachers also believed that ‘standard English’ only (British and American

6
English) should be taught to EFL students. Second, her respondents self-evaluated

themselves as having stronger reading skills than writing and oral (fluency, grammar, and

vocabulary) skills. Interestingly, the teachers who believed they had the lowest English

proficiency were also those who most strongly believed that English was best taught by

NSs.

Both NS and NNS teachers receive positive and negative comments. Native

speakers are praised for their oral skills, large vocabulary, and cultural knowledge, but

criticised for their poor knowledge of grammar, their lack of experience as ESL learners,

their difficulties in answering questions, and their teaching methodology. Non-native

speakers are valued for their experiences as ESL learners, their knowledge of grammar

and their ‘stricter methodology,’ hard work, ability to answer questions, and literacy

skills. Negative responses about NNS teachers included poorer oral skills and lack of

knowledge about the ‘English-speaking’ culture (Moussu 2002). Such perceptions are

also shared by ESL/EFL administrators about how they perceive NS and NNS teachers’

strengths and weaknesses. On the one hand, the respondents readily recognised NNSs’

pedagogical skills and praised them for their ‘[knowledge on] how to use multiple

techniques,’ and ‘curricular flexibility’, as well as their ‘strong collegiality’, ‘dedication’,

‘creativity in the classroom’ and high academic and proficiency standards and

expectations for students (Moussu 2006). On the other hand, administrators identified

three major weaknesses in NNSs: foreign accent, ‘over-dependence on didactic

presentation of grammar’ or ‘focusing too much on grammar’, and lack of self-

confidence. Several administrators noted, however, that few of these weaknesses were

particular to NNSs and that hiring NSs was often a political and money-driven move.

7
 Native and non-native teachers can bring interesting and useful insights about

their perceived differences, strengths, and weaknesses, but cannot always be objective

judges of how their students perceive them. This highlights the importance of ESL

students’ attitudes and beliefs about NS and NNS teachers in different settings.

Language proficiency and fluency, as well as cultural knowledge, are especially

appreciated with NS teachers. In the case of NNS teachers, their ability to empathise with

students, a shared cultural background, and their stricter expectations were seen as

strengths. As with previous studies, students agree that professional skills (such as

knowledge of their subject, preparation, being able to make lessons interesting and fun

and to motivate students, etc.) were more essential than language skills (Cheung 2002).

Positive comments made about NS teaching in foreign cultures included language

authenticity, knowledge of culture, positive and humorous personalities, a more relaxed

attitude toward error correction, and the use of new teaching methodologies. Negative

comments made about these NS teachers included lack of pedagogical and professional

preparation, poor teaching styles, lack of organization and preparation, poor knowledge

of the local culture and educational values, problems with different English accents, and

poor understanding of students’ learning difficulties.

Many experts maintain that the general preferences are for a combination

of native speaker teachers and non-native speaker teachers, but in fact there only seems to

be a stronger preference for native speaker teachers, as one goes higher up through the

educational system and that respondents see native speaker teachers, and non-native

speaker teachers, as each being more suited to different phases in language education

(Lasagabaster & Sierra 2002). From these results, it appears that students do not seem to

8
have a strongly negative attitude towards their ESL/EFL NNS teachers in general and

recognise that experience and professionalism are more important than native language

backgrounds. Most importantly, these studies also show that different contexts and

variables could influence students’ attitudes towards NS and NNS teachers. Accent, for

example, did not negatively affect students’ attitudes toward their NNS teachers. In fact,

students held generally positive attitudes toward the teachers and believed that accent was

not as problematic as expected (Liang 2002). Additionally, personal and professional

features, such as ‘being interesting’, ‘being prepared’, ‘being qualified’, and ‘being

professional’, played a central role in students’ opinions of their teachers, and students

appeared to base their opinions more on the level of professionalism than on the language

background of their teachers.

An overall pattern is apparent, as it becomes clear that if the strengths and

weaknesses of NS and NNS teachers are perceived differently, it is not always clear as to

how and why. One could determine that what can be viewed as a weakness by one party

may be viewed as an asset by another. Depending on the extent to which they are

proficient as users of English, NNS teachers are more or less trustworthy models. In

contrast, though NS teachers can act as perfect language models, they cannot be learner

models since they are not learners of English in the sense that NNS teachers are

(Medgyes 1992).

There are significant differences between NS and NNS teachers in terms of their

teaching practice. These differences can all be attributed to their divergent language

background. However, a teacher's effectiveness does not hinge upon whether they are a

native or non-native speaker of English. Factors such as the age and level of the students,

9
the goals and objectives of the program, and the personality and teaching skills of the

teachers made a significant difference in how successful a teaching/learning experience

could become (Medgyes 1992: 348).

The concept of 'the ideal teacher' is not one reserved for either category.

The ideal NS teacher and the ideal NNS teacher arrive from different directions but

eventually stand quite close to each other. Both groups of teachers serve equally useful

purposes in their own terms. In an ideal school, there should be a good balance of NS and

NNS teachers, who complement each other in their strengths and weaknesses.

The differences between NS and NNS teachers should not be

blurred or ignored. Instead, ELT professionals should strive to highlight those

divergences and place them under close scrutiny by sensitising teachers both to their

limitations and potentials, and suggest ways they could make progress within their own

constraints. In analysing the various contributions, the central message is that it is the

argument for consideration of qualifications, not nativeness, in determining which

teachers are best suited for each teaching context and that the ultimate conclusion is that

most participants identify pros and cons of both native speaker and non-native speaker

teachers and that non-nativeness is not the principal criterion students used to judge a

teacher.

10
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amin, N. 2004, Nativism, the native speaker construct, and minority immigrant women
teachers of English as a second language. In Kamhi-Stein (ed.), 61–90.

Arva, V. & Medgyes, P. 2000, Native and non-native teachers in the classroom. System
vol. 28, pp 355–372.

Barratt, L. & Kontra, E. 2000, Native English-speaking teachers in cultures other than
their own. TESOL Journal, vol. 9, no. 3, pp 19–23.

Bentahila, A. & Davies, E. 1989, Culture and language use: A problem for foreign
language teaching. International Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 17, no. 2, pp 99–
112.

Braine, G. (ed) 1999, Non-native Educators in English Language Teaching. Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.

Braine, G. (ed.) 2005, Teaching English to the world: History, curriculum, and
practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.

Brutt-Griffler, J. & Samimy, K. 2001, Transcending the nativeness paradigm. World

Englishes, vol 20, no. 1, pp 99–106.

Butler, Y. 2007, Factors associated with the notion that native speakers are the ideal
language teachers: An examination of elementary school teachers in Japan. JALT
Journal, vol. 29, no.1, pp 7–39.

Canagarajah, A. S. (ed.) 2005, Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.

Cheung, Y. L. & Braine, G. 2007, The attitudes of university students towards non-
native speakers English teachers in Hong Kong. RELC Journal, vol. 38, no. 3, pp
257–277.

Cook, V. 2005, Basing teaching on the L2 user. In Llurda (ed.) pp 47–61.

Davies, A. 1991, The native speaker in applied linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.

Edge, J. 1988, 'Natives, Speakers, and Models.' JALT Journal, vol. 9, no.2, pp 153-7.

Ellis, E. 2002, Teaching from experience: A new perspective on the non-native teacher
in adult ESL. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 25, no. 1, pp 71–107.

11
Kamhi-Stein, L. (ed.) 2004, Learning and teaching from experience: Perspectives on
nonnative English-speaking professionals. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of
Michigan Press.

Kramsch, C. 1997, The privilege of the non-native speaker. PMLA, vol. 3, pp 359–369.
Lasagabaster, D & Sierra, J.M. 2002, ‘University Students; Perceptions of Native and
Non-native Speaker Teachers of English’, Language Awareness, vol. 11, no. 2, pp 132-
142.

Liang, K. 2002, English as a second language (ESL) students’ attitudes towards

nonnative English speaking teachers’ accentedness. MA thesis, California State
University, Los Angeles.

Llurda, E. & Huguet, A. 2003, Self-awareness in NNS EFL primary and secondary
school teachers. Language Awareness, vol. 13, pp 220–235.

Llurda, E. 2004, ‘Non-native-speaker teachers and English as an International Language’,

International Journal of Applied Linguistics, vol. 14, no. 3, pp 314 – 323.

Llurda, E. (ed) 2005, Non-native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges and

Contributions to the Profession, Springer, New York.

Medgyes, P. 1983, "The schizophrenic teacher'. ELT Journal, vol. 37, no. 1, pp 2-6.

Medgyes, P, 1992, ‘Native or non-native: who's worth more?’, ELT Journal, vol. 46,
no.4, pp 340-349.

Moussu, L. & Braine, G. 2006, The attitudes of ESL students towards nonnative
English language teachers. TESOL Reporter, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 33–47.

Moussu, L & Llurda, E, 2008, ‘Non-native English-speaking English language teachers:

History and research’ Lang. Teach, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 315-348.

Paikeday, T. M. 1985, The Native Speaker Is Dead! Toronto and New York: Paikeday
Publishing Inc.

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

inheritance’. ELT Journal, vol. 45, no. 2, pp.97-101.

Reves, T. & Medgyes, P. 1994, The non-native English speaking EFL/ESL teacher’s self
image: An international survey. System, vol.22, no.3, pp. 353–357.

12