Jump to content

What Is A Native English Speaker?


garro

Recommended Posts

Native residents of USA, Canada, Oz, NZ, Scotland, Eire, etc., are native speakers for purposes of this discussion.
It is the etc. where the debate occurs :)
Sorry - maybe Jamaica, Belize, South Africa, Sierra Leone, former Rhodesia, Singapore - not Togo, Phillipines. Bhutan, Burkhina Faso, etc.

If you follow a lot of the academic debate on this topic, you will generally find the Philippines bracketed as an 'outer circle' country along with the likes of Singapore, India, Hong Kong and Nigeria (i.e. 2nd language rather than 'expanding circle' or foreign language where I suspect you would find Bhutan and Burkhina Faso and Thailand)

The problem is that the academic debates rely on statistics which are very much under debate as to their reliability. I really don't see the Philippines as being on quite the same level as India (when it comes to fluent speakers) and probably not Singapore either. I could be wrong. The fact is though that for all intents and purposes people from the Philippines are not considered native English speakers, and I can't see this changing anytime soon; this is mostly due to many Filipinos themselves who are not so keen to chuck out their own language and culture in favour of somebody else's . I don't mean this to offend anybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The problem is that the academic debates rely on statistics which are very much under debate as to their reliability.

That's not the case at all, statistics are not the main factor in Kachru's analysis. And if you're referring to the academic debate you at least have to start with Kachru.

Edited by KhaoNiaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that the academic debates rely on statistics which are very much under debate as to their reliability.

That's not the case at all, statistics are not the main factor in Kachru's analysis. And if you're referring to the academic debate you at least have to start with Kachru.

Did Kachru claim that people in the outer circle were 'native English speakers'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if I sounded offended, I didn't mean to. It is always an eye-opener (ear-opener?) to listen to teachers outside my school.

I would say teachers should be judged based on their English, qualifications, experience and attitude to working hard - not only based on a quick look at their passports and skin colour.

Edited by Firelily
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other point I'd like to comment on was about the Filipino who said they did not watch movies in English as they were hard to understand. This explains why on the Dream Filipino TV channels I watch they often have subtitles in English for shows like CSI even though they are talking in English.

I'm a native English speaker and I have difficulty understanding most of the American actors, but that's mainly because they don't open their mouths and mumble.

Listening can be difficult for native speakers..of course!

Think of Johnny Depp doing the gypsy accent in..what was that movie?I remember in Pai meeting a YORKSHIRE hippy ..I could only understand that he thought the Stones were the greatest.

But that still doesn't keep us from understanding 99% of American or British or Aussie or Canadian dialog

in the movies out there.

I got the sense that she had problems with most of these even though in casual conversation you might come

to believe she was fluent.

Edited by BugJackBaron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that the academic debates rely on statistics which are very much under debate as to their reliability.

That's not the case at all, statistics are not the main factor in Kachru's analysis. And if you're referring to the academic debate you at least have to start with Kachru.

Did Kachru claim that people in the outer circle were 'native English speakers'?

Nope, rather that the term 'native speaker' for English is no longer of relevance, hence his 'circle' descriptions.

In 'outer circle' countries. English may be an official 2nd language; there's a body of literature in English; people use English as part of their daily lives in various contexts. Once upon a time the inner circle countries provided the norms of the English but as the native varieties have emerged, they rely less on the inner circle norms and develop their own norms. All of which leads to outer circle countries having their own standard varieties of English, though they may not all be there yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that the academic debates rely on statistics which are very much under debate as to their reliability.

That's not the case at all, statistics are not the main factor in Kachru's analysis. And if you're referring to the academic debate you at least have to start with Kachru.

Did Kachru claim that people in the outer circle were 'native English speakers'?

Nope, rather that the term 'native speaker' for English is no longer of relevance, hence his 'circle' descriptions.

In 'outer circle' countries. English may be an official 2nd language; there's a body of literature in English; people use English as part of their daily lives in various contexts. Once upon a time the inner circle countries provided the norms of the English but as the native varieties have emerged, they rely less on the inner circle norms and develop their own norms. All of which leads to outer circle countries having their own standard varieties of English, though they may not all be there yet.

So not native speakers then.

The term non-native speaker would have no relevance to me either if I was a non-native speaker and made my money through English academia :) .

Edited by garro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if I sounded offended, I didn't mean to. It is always an eye-opener (ear-opener?) to listen to teachers outside my school.

I would say teachers should be judged based on their English, qualifications, experience and attitude to working hard - not only based on a quick look at their passports and skin colour.

Skin colour should never be an issue, but I think that it is reasonable for parents of children (who may be paying quite a chunk of their income) to prefer competent teachers who come from countries where English is the main language. You could reasonably argue, though, that it is unreasonable for them to prefer any white face over a non-native speaker, but I don't think this happens half as much as people claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So not native speakers then.

Well, the point is to get rid of the term 'native speaker'. But if you want to persist with it then, yes, there are native speakers of Indian English, Singaporean English etc. etc. Anywhere that has a standard of variety of English, has its native speakers.

Now there is so much English being used where there are no 'native speakers' involved, so many people expressing themselves through English that I think it's fair to say that the term 'native speaker' is becoming an irrelevance. There's a growing body of world English literature, for example, that does not adhere to the norms of the center. Should we dismiss Rushdie or Achebe because they're not 'native speakers'? People posting in English on websites and blogs all around the world and people commenting on them. It doesn't count because it's not real English? I didn't always go for the 'world Englishes' concept but I think developments in the last ten years or so have convinced me. English is fast becoming a language that belongs to the world rather than its 'native speakers'.

And I've just remembered. Nosing around on this kind of theme recently I came across this PhD dissertation, where a Thai student is staking a claim to English. Lengthy but very well argued.

http://dspace.lib.iup.edu:8080/dspace/bits...i+Corrected.pdf

Edited by KhaoNiaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So not native speakers then.

Well, the point is to get rid of the term 'native speaker'. But if you want to persist with it then, yes, there are native speakers of Indian English, Singaporean English etc. etc. Anywhere that has a standard of variety of English, has its native speakers.

Now there is so much English being used where there are no 'native speakers' involved, so many people expressing themselves through English that I think it's fair to say that the term 'native speaker' is becoming an irrelevance. There's a growing body of world English literature, for example, that does not adhere to the norms of the center. Should we dismiss Rushdie or Achebe because they're not 'native speakers'? People posting in English on websites and blogs all around the world and people commenting on them. It doesn't count because it's not real English? I didn't always go for the 'world Englishes' concept but I think developments in the last ten years or so have convinced me. English is fast becoming a language that belongs to the world rather than its 'native speakers'.

Hey, don't get me wrong. You paint a beautiful picture. Why don't we all just hold hands and share a coke. :)

I think that it is great that English is growing and developing. Maybe a new English will develop and replace the one that the people in the inner-circle cling on to. Then again that could be all just a crazy-theory. One that negates the growing power of Chinese and Spanish as international languages. I seem to come across plenty of blogs and web-sites that are not in English or does that just mean my internet is broken?

Whatever the case there seems to be a large enough contingent of punters willing to pay for the old-boring-English to keep NS ESL teachers in business for a while yet.

Edited by garro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to come across plenty of blogs and web-sites that are not in English or does that just mean my internet is broken?

You miss the point, I think. Just that, at the moment, people who want to communicate internationally and interculturally generally do so in English. I'm all for language variety and am sure that as a proportion of overall web use, English will drop off, and other languages will also come to take on important roles in international communication.

One point about English also is that there isn't 'one' - not like the French who try to officially control their language and standards. You've got your British and Yank, and all the different varieties of those. And then the Aussies, Kiwis and the rest. The versatility of English is its great strength as an international language - it is easily adapted to different contexts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to come across plenty of blogs and web-sites that are not in English or does that just mean my internet is broken?

You miss the point, I think. Just that, at the moment, people who want to communicate internationally and interculturally generally do so in English. I'm all for language variety and am sure that as a proportion of overall web use, English will drop off, and other languages will also come to take on important roles in international communication.

One point about English also is that there isn't 'one' - not like the French who try to officially control their language and standards. You've got your British and Yank, and all the different varieties of those. And then the Aussies, Kiwis and the rest. The versatility of English is its great strength as an international language - it is easily adapted to different contexts.

My point is, though, that many of these people who are using the language are not doing so with any intention of forming a new 'outer circle' form of English, but rather to just be able to communicate with a larger group of people. Or maybe they have seen American films and want to be like their heroes. I don't think many people want to learn English so that they can learn more about Indian culture.

I believe that most people learn English purely to improve their ability to get employment or because their parents want them to learn a useful foreign language, this does not mean that they want to create a new form of English as they probably have no intention of forsaking their own mother tongue - why should they? Deviations in the writing or speech of the English of these people does not necessarily signal the arrival of a new English, but maybe just that they weren't taught very well.

Edited by garro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is, though, that many of these people who are using the language are not doing so with any intention of forming a new 'outer circle' form of English, but rather to just be able to communicate with a larger group of people. I believe that many people learn English purely to improve their ability to get employment or because their parents want them to learn a useful foreign language, this does not mean that they want to create a new form of English as they probably have no intention of forsaking their own mother tongue - why should they? Deviations in the writing or speech of the English of these people does not necessarily signal the arrival of a new English, but maybe just that they weren't taught very well.

'Outer circle' is a description for something that's already happened, not what people are trying to achieve. Differences with other English varieties are identifiable and systematic, just like differences between British and American varieties, not the result of poor teaching. You can find descriptions of the linguistic features of many of the new Englishes. Generally, structure is very close to other standard forms of English, with the main differences being phonological.

You also have to get beyond the idea that everyone grows up with only one language - that maybe the norm for English speakers but it is not the case for most of the world. So, in many outer circle countries, English has had an official role for many years already, including education. The growth of international trade and globalization means that the use of English has expanded even more in those countries. It's not necessarily a case of English being used at the expense of an indigenous language, very often it's alongside other languages. Many people live in societies where different languages take on different roles. And the level of competency in those different languages will also vary with education levels and how people interact within that society.

I don't think many people want to learn English so that they can learn more about Indian culture.

That's very true. But I'm finding that plenty of my graduates, who didn't choose a degree in English to be able to communicate with other Asians, are working for companies where they are using English to communicate with Asians and never come anywhere near a 'native speaker'.

As you put in your title, it is a contentious issue and there will never be a neat conclusion to this one. Very interesting though, innit?

Edited by KhaoNiaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I have found interesting is that most of the non-native english teachers I've met are very well versed in the technicalalities of the English language. By non-natives I refer to those outside of the UK, US, Australia, Canada and South Africa.

For the non-natives the use of grammar, the labels for different tense etc is easy for them to define because that is the way they have been taught - as a second language. When it comes to free form discussions and reading they become somewhat lost. Vocab is also a problem for non-natives.

For native speakers, we know most of what we know instinctively. From reading books, and those around us as we grew up.

To use an anology. It is like the non-natives understand how a car engine works, but they do not know how to really drive that car. If that makes any sense. I think it does. No offence to non-native speakers. Natives drive better.

This leads me to wonder that perhaps non-native speakers can be better in some classroom situations. Classes that do not involve conversational excercises, and free from lessons. Classes based on strict grammar principles. I think Thailand needs both native and non-native speakers.

Joseph conrad was Polish and lived his teens in France before producing some of the best works in English lit. Jack Kerouac didn't speak english until he was seven years old.

It is all down to the skills of the individual teacher at the end of the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry KN, you put up a persuasive argument, but I'm not buying it. When I communicate with people for other English speaking countries it is always possible to have full-conversations despite the differences there might be between our accents and slight deviations in grammar. I do not get this same type of feeling of ease when talking to NNS. The argument that these people are just speaking a different variety of English just sound absurd to me. In that case why teach anyone English. Why not just say that, the English that the Thais speak now is sufficient for them to use as their form of English. As I have said previously, I have seen serious incidents occur because of the inability of NNS to communicate in English despite the arguments that people like you are making about the level of their English. If half of what goes on became known to the public there would be an outcry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KhaoNiaw, thank you for the link to that dissertation. I haven't read academic papers for a million years. It also reminded me of one of my favourite teachers back in the last millennium, who wrote a book on the issue. Sometimes I am very bitter and I wish I was a native speaker, but now I actually realise I don't want to be a native speaker, a passport from one of those countries on the list would be much better. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just say that, the English that the Thais speak now is sufficient for them to use as their form of English.

Because quite obviously it's not. And you would probably find it difficult to make a systematic description of a Thai English. And even if you could (and there are people working on it, I bet), it certainly wouldn't have a standard form that bears much resemblance to other standard varieties of English.

By the way, I'm not trying to say that anyone from an outer circle country should be considered a native speaker or even competent in English. For most of the population it will still be a foreign language and at best they will be familiar with the local vernacular English.

Edited by KhaoNiaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just say that, the English that the Thais speak now is sufficient for them to use as their form of English.

Because quite obviously it's not. And you would probably find it difficult to make a systematic description of a Thai English. And even if you could (and there are people working on it, I bet), it certainly wouldn't have a standard form that bears much resemblance to other standard varieties of English.

By the way, I'm not trying to say that anyone from an outer circle country should be considered a native speaker or even competent in English. For most of the population it will still be a foreign language and at best they will be familiar with the local vernacular English.

So what does this mean for ns teachers?

What should it mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just say that, the English that the Thais speak now is sufficient for them to use as their form of English.

Because quite obviously it's not. And you would probably find it difficult to make a systematic description of a Thai English. And even if you could (and there are people working on it, I bet), it certainly wouldn't have a standard form that bears much resemblance to other standard varieties of English.

By the way, I'm not trying to say that anyone from an outer circle country should be considered a native speaker or even competent in English. For most of the population it will still be a foreign language and at best they will be familiar with the local vernacular English.

So what does this mean for ns teachers?

What should it mean?

Well, business as usual, I think. I'm sure most people here would agree that simply being a native speaker doesn't mean you can teach the language. We've probably all met teachers from the UK, US etc. who can't get very close to a standard form of the English language and shouldn't be teaching. And, I also wouldn't automatically dismiss anyone's competence in a standard form of English simply for geographical reasons or because of minor differences from my standard. How to get most Thais to distinguish between a white face and English language competence is of course a completely different matter.

Edited by KhaoNiaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really what it comes down to is a lot of hand waving and moaning from non-natives.

Well tough titty.

The point of Salman Rushdie is interesting as he is an Indian who was accepted but the point is that his books are all written in elegant standard English.

I believe he was educated in the West. I know that the Indian colleague I work with makes a lot of mistakes both in speaking and in writing.

Joseph Conrad is a writer who was Polish I believe but mastered English and published great works of literature.

He is one of a handful of such people(Arthur Koestler also comes to mind).h

To say that they are examples of "International English" seems stretching it. They wrote in standard English.

The standards of English are either American or British with respect grammar and spelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just say that, the English that the Thais speak now is sufficient for them to use as their form of English.

Because quite obviously it's not. And you would probably find it difficult to make a systematic description of a Thai English. And even if you could (and there are people working on it, I bet), it certainly wouldn't have a standard form that bears much resemblance to other standard varieties of English.

By the way, I'm not trying to say that anyone from an outer circle country should be considered a native speaker or even competent in English. For most of the population it will still be a foreign language and at best they will be familiar with the local vernacular English.

So what does this mean for ns teachers?

What should it mean?

Well, business as usual, I think. I'm sure most people here would agree that simply being a native speaker doesn't mean you can teach the language. We've probably all met teachers from the UK, US etc. who can't get very close to a standard form of the English language and shouldn't be teaching. And, I also wouldn't automatically dismiss anyone's competence in a standard form of English simply for geographical reasons or because of minor differences from my standard. How to get most Thais to distinguish between a white face and English language competence is of course a completely different matter.

I'm still not convinced. I think that there are more than just minor differences between the English language spoken by NS and NNS. There also seems to be a double-standard in your argument. I feel that you are implying that people from countries like India should be respected for speaking their own variety of standard English while people from poor areas in English speaking countries should be treated as just uneducated. Singlish is accepted, but Easter-House-English or Moss-Side-English are viewed as unworthy.

I still feel that you can teach almost any non-native speaker 'good' grammar, but you can't become a native-speaker in a language that you were not at least fully-immersed in as a child before you could speak.

Edited by garro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really what it comes down to is a lot of hand waving and moaning from non-natives.

Well tough titty.

The point of Salman Rushdie is interesting as he is an Indian who was accepted but the point is that his books are all written in elegant standard English.

I believe he was educated in the West. I know that the Indian colleague I work with makes a lot of mistakes both in speaking and in writing.

Joseph Conrad is a writer who was Polish I believe but mastered English and published great works of literature.

He is one of a handful of such people(Arthur Koestler also comes to mind).h

To say that they are examples of "International English" seems stretching it. They wrote in standard English.

The standards of English are either American or British with respect grammar and spelling.

I agree. If I were to learn Japanese and later decided to teach it, I would be given short-shrift if I began moaning because I wasn't being treated like a native-speaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that still doesn't keep us from understanding 99% of American or British or Aussie or Canadian dialog

in the movies out there.

Well I certainly don't understand 99% of some of the Hollywood movies I've seen in recent years (except for animated movies, perhaps). I wonder if there's a generation gap here, too. I can hardly understand my daughters sometimes (because they speak so fast!) Their brother, husbands (as far as I can tell - they don't get to say much) and friends seem to understand OK though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Garro..I'm from Vancouver, and right across most of Canada and the northern central U.S., California even, in general have the same accent.. to me of course we don't have an accent, everyone else does..a common misperception I share..I was helping a Chinese lady a few years ago to pass the IELTS test here...BRUTAL..because the college here in Canada that she attended made them use tapes with the speaker from Australia or New Zealand, with a very hard to understand type English,(talking a mile a minute as well) even for me, and I have been to England ,Scotland and Ireland..actually those are the frickin' official tapes until they get new ones made at U.B.C. (university of british columbia) with the accent used here..incidently I learned to speak Thai better by listening to how THEY speak English..like they speak Thai..no tenses etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..just wanted to add..from my experience helping and tutoring for the IELTS, (out of Australia)..I'm no master of the language..(have a bachelors degree and one in special education)..but in my opinion the IELTS is almost tantamount to a huge scam..it is BIG business and it is not well done.. TOEFL is bad as well..there is a definite HUGE academic void for some NEW material to assist new Canadians (for example) to achieve a certain level of English expertise may it be for education or immigration purposes. IELTS and TOEFEL are not user friendly..in fact they are sub-par..but thats all there is here for standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salman Rushdie's own view, on receiving the James Joyce Award:

"My little contribution has been to create an Indian English to go alongside the Irish English, Caribbean English and Australian English."

Garro, I'm sorry but at no point have I tried to say that there are minor differences in the English used by what we are terming here NS and NNS. All I'm suggesting is that there are now recognized standard varieties of English (and yes the debate is still open), like Indian English and Singapore English, and they have their own speakers. That is a very tiny proportion of the population of those countries, and within those countries often the vast majority of the people have no more than a smattering of English at best. Quite obviously, I wouldn't suggest that they should ever contemplate teaching English.

On the other hand, I would be much happier to have a native speaker of standard Indian English or Singapore English teach my kids English than, for example, the Canadian squaddie I once worked alongside at a language school in Thailand whose competence in any kind of standard English was non-existent (no reflection of Canadian squaddies in general). There's nothing wrong with colloquial forms of English, but if that's all you've got, I don't think you've got what's required to be an English teacher (I'm not including accent here by the way).

Singlish is not standard Singapore English but is the colloquial form. It is the only form of English many Singaporeans have and I wouldn't ask them to consider a career as an English teacher. More educated Singaporeans are likely to be able to switch between Singlish and Standard Singapore English (like I could switch between pub talk at the football and giving an academic presentation at a conference). From those who are speakers of the standard variety, there are also likely to be some who have the aptitude to make English language teachers.

Japanese is not often claimed as an international language. It's interesting to me that while people are eager to stress the importance of English as an international language, the teaching of it appears to have been so poor that only native speakers are thought to be proficient enough to teach it or claim it as their own.

Edited by KhaoNiaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry KN, you put up a persuasive argument, but I'm not buying it. When I communicate with people for other English speaking countries it is always possible to have full-conversations despite the differences there might be between our accents and slight deviations in grammar. I do not get this same type of feeling of ease when talking to NNS. The argument that these people are just speaking a different variety of English just sound absurd to me. In that case why teach anyone English. Why not just say that, the English that the Thais speak now is sufficient for them to use as their form of English. As I have said previously, I have seen serious incidents occur because of the inability of NNS to communicate in English despite the arguments that people like you are making about the level of their English. If half of what goes on became known to the public there would be an outcry.

Garro, perhaps the NNS speakers with whom you've had unsatisfying conversations are people with an incomplete command of English rather than people who are communicating with you in an outer circle variety that is standard within its region.

A Singaporean, for example, may have a perfectly satisfactory conversation with you in International English, but with friends would speak Singapore Standard English, a dialectal variety that would be less familiar, though comprehensible, to a non-native SSE speaker. With some other Singaporeans, he/she may speak Singlish, which would be quite hard for non-Singlish speakers to follow. He or she has a range of language varieties to draw on depending on the context and purpose.

This is a feature of inner and outer circle regions (e.g. Aboriginal students in Australia can switch from Standard Australian English to Aboriginal English [langwij] depending on who they're speaking to), but not of the expanding circle.

There's also interlanguage – language in development – the stage we all go through in learning another language where we mistakenly apply L1 rules to the L2 or we apply general L2 rules to forms where they don't apply (e.g. bad, worse, worser*). Some will argue that interlanguage can be misinterpreted as a regional variety when it is simply a developmental stage and that misattribution could fossilize it (it needs correction, therefore).

(*Incidentally, I have seen worser used by Virginia Woolf, but can't remember where. I think I can find it if anyone doubts this. I have also been picked up by a parent on something I wrote in a notice that sounded fine to me, but could be challenged on strict grammatical grounds. I saw the same construction shortly after in something by Conrad. Woolf and Conrad, despite the latter's NNS origins, are good enough models for me. One could also add that a true native speaker knows when it's OK to make a "mistake" and how to play with the language.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to native speakers with hideous accents, we encounter native speakers who aren't fit to teach at all, yet here they are in classrooms. Or, good native speakers who are untrained in teaching EFL. And, reasonably well-trained native-speaking teachers with bad textbooks, crowded classrooms, and unprepared students.

On the positive side, Thailand has a few fluent Thai teachers of English who are fluent and sentient - maybe 16%. We have maybe 100 decent English programs here. The rest are miserable. Find a good program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...