Manuscript to be published

Conceptualizing and Confronting Inequity: Approaches Within and New Directions for the “NNEST Movement”

Abstract

This paper examines how inequity has been conceptualized and approached within and through the Non-Native English speakers in TESOL (NNEST) movement1 in the field of English language teaching (ELT). The authors first seek to unpack critically-oriented approaches to the NNEST experience that have been conceptualized via binaries (NS/NNS; NEST/NNEST). They examine how critical conceptualizations of the “native speaker construct,” “native speakerism” and the “native speaker fallacy” underpinning these dichotomies have shaped the nature of activism, awareness, and advocacy (Author, 2009) within the movement. The authors then explore postmodern and post-structural approaches to identity and inequity both within and beyond ELT that problematize the use of dichotomies (critical or otherwise), and argue for a reconsideration of the nature and location of “inside” and “outside,” and “us” and “them” as constructed at the confluence of glocalized discourses of identity in each given context. The authors then discuss how re-conceptualizing identity and inequity from a post-structural approach might shape the purpose and direction of the NNEST movement, both in the manner it addresses inequity and cultivates inclusivity, in globalized ELT.

Keywords: NNEST movement; native speaker construct; native speakerism; native speaker fallacy; identity

Introduction

In the field of English language teaching (ELT), there is an ongoing debate, both critical

and practical in nature, related to how language ownership, use, and instruction are

conceptualized. Critically-oriented scholarship contends that at present, “the Native Speaker

(NS) construct,”2 which places ownership (Widdowson, 1994) of English and default expertise

(Canagarajah, 1999) in the hands of an idealized NS (Chomsky, 1965), continues to serve as the

“bedrock of transnationalized ELT” (Leung, 2005, p. 128) and of second language acquisition

theory and research (e.g., Firth & Wagner, 1997; Jenkins, 2006a). This idealized NS acts as the

1 Within the TESOL International Association, NNEST stands for “Non-native English speakers in TESOL” (NNEST IS, 2014a). The critically-oriented groundswell of scholarship and professional activity addressing inequity and the status of “non-native” English speaking teachers, extending beyond the confines of organizational affiliation, can also be referred to as the NNEST movement, with the acronym referring to "non-native English speaker teacher/s." Though discussing the TESOL-specific institutionalized movement, the authors conceptualize and frame the contents of this paper in a manner that extends beyond organization-specific activities. 2 This “NS construct,” also referred to in other manners, such as the NS-as-target framework (Kachru, 2005), and the “Standard English” (SE) framework (e.g., Davies, 2003).

1

Manuscript to be published

universal linguistic and cultural target for acquisition, use, and instruction regardless of language

teaching and learning context (e.g., Canagarajah, 2007; Medgyes, 1994; Leung, 2005),

influencing approaches to pedagogical theory and research, academic publishing, materials

development and production, assessment tools, teacher training and hiring practices (e.g., Braine,

2010; B. B. Kachru, 1992; Nayar, 1997; Author, 2010). The NS has been conceptualized

(critically and otherwise) within the literature and field of ELT as Caucasian, often male and

Western in nature (e.g., Amin, 1997, 1999; Braine, 2010; Kubota, 1998, 2002, 2011; Kubota &

Lin 2009; Motha, 2006), privileging what Widdowson (2003) calls a “self-selected elite” of

language users and professionals.

In the past few decades, however, researchers drawing upon sociocultural, postcolonial

and postmodern theory, have been pushing for a move beyond the NS construct in ELT, for

reasons concomitantly critical and practical (e.g., Brutt-Griffler & Samimy, 1999; Crystal, 2012;

Firth & Wagner, 1997; Hymes, 1972, 1977; Jenkins, 2005, 2006b; B.B. Kachru, 1985, 1992;

Medgyes, 1983, 1992, 1994; Nelson, 1985; Norton, 1997, 2000, 2010; Norton-Pierce, 1995

Pennycook, 1994, 1999; Phillipson, 1992; Rampton, 1987; Seidlhofer, 2004; Widdowson, 1994,

1998, 2004). Scholarship has pointed to the unprecedented omnipresence of English across the

world, variably referred to in terms such as “the world’s first truly global language” (Crystal,

2004, p. 4), “the common linguistic denominator” (Power, 2005) or “the international language

par excellence” (Phillipson, 1992, p. 6). Reinforcing and reinforced by global flows of people,

finances, technology, ideas, and information (Appadurai, 2000), English has “become the

language on which the sun never sets” (Crystal, 2012, p. 75), as it is used on all seven continents,

is an official or second language in more than 100 countries, and serves as an official language in

more than 85% of international organizations. Today, it is fair to argue that English is employed

2

Manuscript to be published

by nearly two billion speakers in varying degrees of competencies, and that non-native speakers

(NNSs) of English outnumber native speakers (NSs) by a ratio of 3:1 (Crystal, 2012).3

Throughout its diffusion, English has been interacting with other languages and cultures

through its use by a wide variety of people in a host of contexts around the globe (e.g.,

Canagarajah, 2007). This interaction has led to the emergence of localized and nativized varieties

of English (e.g. Singaporean English, Nigerian English, Indian English, etc.), phenomenon

referred to as World Englishes (B. B. Kachru, 1985, 1992; Y. Kachru, 2005; Rajadurai, 2005).

English is being nativized, owned and employed in and across a wide variety of contexts by a

diverse population of users hailing from varying linguistic, cultural, national and ethnic

backgrounds (Canagarajah, 2006a, 2006b, 2007; Jenkins, 2006a, 2006b; McKay, 2005, 2010;

Seidlhofer, 2004), Scholars have, as a result, challenged mainstream conceptualizations of the

ownership and use of English, the prioritization of linguistic and cultural knowledge for

acquisition and how such knowledge might be assessed, and therefore who might be imagined as

a valid speaker and instructor of English (Alptekin, 2002; Canagarajah, 1999, 2007; Firth, 2009;

Lowenberg, 1993, 2000; Norton, 2010; Widdowson, 1994, 2004). As a result, universalized, one-

size-fits-all approaches to English teaching, underpinned by the NS construct, have come under

scrutiny, as such NS-centric instruction neglects the diversified, glocalized uses of English

around the world (Alptekin, 2002; Braine, 2010; Canagarajah, 2006a, 2006b; Leung, 2005;

Leung & Jo Lewkowicz, 2006; Seidlhofer, 2004), and may marginalize the linguistic and cultural

identities of learners and users therein (Alptekin, 2002; Kramsch, 1998; Widdowson, 2004).

3 Scholars seeking to move beyond the NS construct have proposed new vocabulary to describe users of English beyond the native speaker/nonnative speaker dichotomy (e.g., Melchers & Shaw, 2003; Modiano, 1999; Rajadurai, 2005; Rampton, 1990), including ‘multicompetent speaker’ (Cook, 1999), ‘competent language user’ (Lee, 2005), ‘transnational English teacher’ (Menard-Warwick, 2008), and ‘translinguistic/transcultural English teachers’ (Motha, Jain & Tecle, 2012). We have chosen to retain these terms in this paper, however, in the interest of deconstructing (Derrida, 1976) the binary to which they belong.

3

Manuscript to be published

Critical approaches to ELT have furthermore brought attention to the experiences of non-

native English speaker teachers (NNESTs) (e.g., Braine, 1999a, 2010; Kamhi-Stein, 2004;

Llurda, 2005; Mahboob, 2010). As a result, scholarship and professional activities have paid

increasing attention to manifestations of inequity fomented within globalized ELT in and through

the power and perpetuation of the NS construct. Attention to NNESTs’ experiences has evolved

into the NNEST movement: scholarship and professional activities that address such inequity in

the field of ELT, and seek to “create a nondiscriminatory professional environment for all

TESOL members regardless of native language and place of birth” (NNEST IS, 2014b, online).

This paper examines how inequity has been conceptualized and approached within the

NNEST movement. The authors first seek to unpack approaches to the NNEST experience that

have been critically conceptualized via the use of binaries (NS/NNS; NEST/NNEST), and how

activism, awareness, and advocacy (Author, 2009) have been conceptualized as a result. The

authors then explore postmodern and post-structural approaches to identity and inequity both

within and beyond ELT that problematize the use of critically-oriented binaries, and argue for a

reconsideration of the nature and location of “inside” and “outside,” and “us” and “them” as

constructed at the confluence of glocalized discourses of identity in each given context. The

authors then discuss the implications that re-conceptualizing identity and inequity from a post-

structural approach may have for the purpose and direction of the NNEST movement both in the

manner it addresses inequity and inclusivity in globalized ELT.

Origins and Orientations of the NNEST Movement

The Birth and Growth of the NNEST Movement

The formal history of the NNEST movement traces its inception to a 1996 colloquium

organized by George Braine entitled, “In Their Own Voices: Non-Native Speaker Professionals

4

Manuscript to be published

in TESOL” (Braine, 1999b). The colloquium led to a proposal for the formation of an NNEST

Caucus, which transpired two years later (Braine, 1999b). Establishment of an NNEST entity in

the TESOL International Association planted the seeds for local organizations to follow similar

paths and establish smaller scale entities. As a result, CATESOL (California’s TESOL affiliate)

created its Non-Native Language Educators’ Issues Interest Group in 1999, followed by

WATESOL (Washington Area TESOL affiliate) creating the NNEST Caucus in 2004. In the

meantime, the TESOL International Association passed two resolutions: a “TESOL Statement on

Nonnative Speakers of English and Hiring Practices” (TESOL, 1992), and a “Position Statement

against Discrimination of Nonnative Speakers of English in the Field of TESOL”4 (TESOL,

2006. As a result both of interest in better publicizing the NNEST movement, and TESOL’s

termination of the Caucus system, the NNEST Caucus became an Interest Section (IS) in 2008

(Brady, 2008).5

According to Braine (1999c), the NNEST Caucus/IS, open to all speakers of English, has

four overarching goals (generally shared by CATESOL and WATESOL): 1) to create a

nondiscriminatory professional environment for all TESOL members regardless of native

language and place of birth, 2) to encourage the formal and informal gatherings of nonnative

speakers at TESOL and affiliate conferences, 3) to encourage research and publications on the

role of nonnative speaker teachers in ESL and EFL contexts, and 4) to promote the role of

nonnative speaker members in TESOL and affiliate leadership positions. Mahboob (2010) notes

that two of these goals (#2 and #4) sought to address NNEST-related “status and position,” while

the other two (#1 and #3) approach “advocacy” (p. 7). Ultimately, these efforts have contributed

4 Another pertinent reaction to discriminatory practices in language teaching and learning was the “American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL) Resolution against Discrimination on the Basis of Accented Speech,” ratified in February of 2011.5 NNEST-related “Awareness, Advocacy and Activism” (Author, 2009), whether formal or informal, may indeed occur at the grassroots level.

5

Manuscript to be published

to the ongoing conceptualization of an “NNEST lens” through which the NNEST experience

might be approached, for reasons both critical and practical (Mahboob, 2010).

In his article announcing the formation of the NNEST Caucus, Braine (1999b) argued for

the necessity of establishing an institutionalized structure to confront the native speaker fallacy

(Phillipson, 1992), or the belief that native speakers are the most capable, and therefore valuable,

teachers. In addressing the native speaker fallacy, and by proxy the NS construct, the NNEST

movement sought to challenge the discourses of native speakerism (Holliday, 2005, 2006).

Holliday (2006) defines native speakerism as, “a pervasive ideology within ELT, characterized

by the belief that ‘native-speaker’ teachers represent a ‘Western culture’ from which spring the

ideals both of the English language and of English language teaching methodology” (p. 385).

Holliday (2006) conceptualizes this native speakerism as a regime of truth (Foucault, 1984)

embedded within globalized ELT, both appropriated and challenged by stakeholders around the

world in different degrees.

Scholars including Menard-Warwick (2008) and Author (2012) argue that critically-

oriented, NNEST-related scholarship, grounded in the premise that the NS construct is a

universal regime of truth, has sought to apprehend the marginalizing effects of the NS construct

upon NNESTs via a critically oriented set of binaries: NS/NNS and NEST/NNEST. Within such

NNEST literature, marginalization manifests in the “unprofessional favoritism” (Medgyes, 2001)

shown to NESTs around the world, which frequently results in hiring discrimination (Clark &

Paran, 2007; Flynn & Gulikers, 2001; Mahboob et al., 2004; Moussu, 2006; Author, 2010).

Consequently, scholarship has documented the difficulties that NNESTs have faced in terms of

finding jobs both in EFL and ESL settings (Braine, 1999a, 2010; Mahboob, 2010; Mahboob &

Golden, 2013; Mahboob, Uhrig, Newman & Hartford, 2004), and the privileging of NESTs in

6

Manuscript to be published

contexts around the globe (Braine, 1999; Canagarajah, 1999). Furthermore, native speakerism

has led to what scholars have described as “I-am-not-a-native-speaker syndrome” (Suarez, 2000)

or “impostor syndrome” (Bernat, 2009) on the part of many NNESTs. These teachers may view

their own linguistic proficiency in English and professional worth negatively, in accordance with

the NS construct (Braine, 2010). NNESTs’ validity as ELT professionals may be questioned by

themselves, their colleagues, students, supervisors as well as students’ parents (e.g., Amin, 1997;

Canagarajah, 1999; Liu, 1999; Matsuda, 2003). This may lead NNESTs to believe that they are

not “qualified” enough to work as instructors of English (Árva & Medgyes, 2000; Kamhi-Stein,

Lee & Lee, 1999; Liu, 1999; Reves & Medgyes, 1994). In addition, NNESTs may travel to

Western, English-speaking countries to study and gain some semblance of authority (Braine,

2010). Even with such training, NNESTs face difficulties in finding employment, as their

professional standing, as researchers and teachers, is denigrated by nature of their identities and

origins (Canagarajah, 1999). In addition, according to the literature, NNESTs may come to serve

as “gatekeepers” (Widdowson, 1994), acting as mediators between the world of the NS and that

of their students, though as NNESTs they are yet deficient as measured against the yardstick of

the idealized NS (Leung, 2005; Nelson, 1985).

Theoretical Underpinnings of the NNEST Movement

As a response to the well-entrenched misconception that NESTs can make better

teachers, some NNEST scholars have argued that NNESTs are also able to become effective

teachers from whom both ESL and EFL students can benefit, as they possess unique

characteristics or advantages that make them superior over NESTs in certain areas of English

instruction (e.g., Medgyes, 1994, 2001). In other words, they underscore that bearing the bio-

developmental feature of nativeness in English is not a pre-requisite for becoming an effective

7

Manuscript to be published

teacher of English. This has resulted in the often-held belief that each group of teachers has their

own strengths and challenges in certain areas, mostly attributed to their linguistic capacities, and

that neither one is superior over the other (e.g., Mahboob, 2005, 2010). Medgyes (2001) argues,

for example, that “the bright side of being a non-NEST” is that NNESTs can: (1) provide a better

learner model; (2) teach language-learning strategies more effectively; (3) supply more

information about the English language; (4) better anticipate and prevent language difficulties;

(5) be more sensitive to their students; (6) benefit from their ability to use the students’ mother

tongue (p. 436).

In their ‘state of the art’ article examining NNEST-related issues and inquiry, Moussu

and Llurda (2008) note that, “all work based on the study of NNS teachers is implicitly accepting

the separation between NSs and NNSs” (p. 318). Such scholarship is largely confronting a native

speakerism wherein the “native speaker” is subject and “nonnative” speaker is object (Houghton

& Rivers, 2013). From this perspective, the NNEST movement is therefore confronting a native

speakerism that:

is Western in origin;

is ubiquitous and largely uniform in nature, though there is variation in terms of

how it is employed and challenged;

flows from ELT into contexts around the globe;

privileges “native speaker teachers” and marginalizes “non-native speaker

teachers”;

facilitates a common “NNEST experience” as a result of its nature and origin.

Moussu and Llurda (2008) contend that, “a significant body of the literature on non-native

speakers has been devoted to showing the inappropriateness of using a dichotomy approach by

8

Manuscript to be published

which NSs and NNSs are viewed as two opposing and clearly separated constituencies” (p. 317).

Indeed, the movement has both contributed to and drawn from the literature seeking to re-

conceptualize the essentializing categories/loaded terms of “native” and “non-native” (e.g.,

Cook, 1999; Faez 2011a, 2011b; B. B. Kachru, 1992; Lee, 2004; Melchers & Shaw, 2003;

Modiano, 1999; Paikeday, 1985; Rajadurai, 2005; Rampton, 1990; Swales, 1993). Mahboob

states (2010) that NNEST-specific scholarship seeks to re-conceptualize language ownership and

therefore who might be legitimate teacher of English, and to acknowledge varieties of Englishes,

and the necessity of contextualizing views of language ownership, use, and instruction; goals

such scholarship shares in common with World Englishes inquiry (pp. 7-9).6 As such, NNEST

work has also noted that NESTs from countries such as India and Singapore are often perceived

as less credible and competent than their counterparts from the Center, which “legitimize[s] this

dominance of Center professionals/scholars” (Canagarajah, 1999, p. 85). As Braine (1999a)

argues, “ironically, the discrimination is spreading to NSs as well. Some [institutions in Asian

countries] insist on having teachers with British accents at the expense of those with American or

Australian accents” (p. 26). While acknowledging that dichotomies (NS/NNS and

NEST/NNEST) are oversimplified constructions failing “to adequately capture the range and

complexity” of identities individuals negotiate (Faez, 2011a, p. 246), work grounded in the

above conceptualization of native speakerism nevertheless retains these binaries in order to

apprehend the NNEST experience (e.g., Moussu & Llurda, 2008).

Re-conceptualizing “Inside” and “Outside,” “Us” and “Them”

6 Mahboob (2010) also notes the influence of critical approaches to applied linguistics greatly influencing conceptualizations of power and equity within the NNEST movement. He contends that, “the critical turn in applied linguistics research showed how both the creation of knowledge in applied linguistics and the application of that knowledge in classrooms and other contexts privileges native speakers of English” (p. 7).

9

Manuscript to be published

Recently, scholars have arrived at questioning the way in which identity is critically

conceptualized within the field of ELT (e.g., McKay & Wong, 1996; Miller, 2004; Morgan,

2004; Norton, 1997, 2000; 2010; Norton-Pierce, 1995). Scholars including Higgins (2003),

Menard-Warwick (2008), Motha, Jain and Tecle (2012), Park (2008, 2012) and Author (2012,

2013a) contend that the NS/NNS and NEST/NNEST dichotomies fail to allow conceptual and

descriptive space for learner, user and teacher experiences negotiating translinguistic and

transcultural identity, resulting in the obfuscation and/or neglecting of their lived experiences.

Menard-Warwick (2008) contends, for instance, that:

the NNEST/NEST dichotomy remains the most prevalent way of theorizing teacher

identity in TESOL. This scholarship represents a commendable attempt to get away

from the “colonial legacy” of the “native speaker fallacy” (Morgan, 2004, p. 172), but

teachers’ cultural, intercultural, national, and transnational identities remain

undertheorized (p. 620).

Such scholarship alludes to the fact that the agency of individuals, whether “native” or “non-

native,” is stripped away with essentializations of their ongoing, contextualized negotiations of

identity (e.g., Author, 2012). These assertions are largely fueled and driven by post-modern, and

in particular, post-structural theory,7underpinned by ontological and epistemological

commitments including:

A negation of objective reality and universal “truths” (e.g., Bredo, 2006; Lather 1991, 1993);

A belief that language “is not conceived of as a neutral medium of communication, but is understood with reference to its social meaning” (Norton, 2010, p. 350), and that language is situated in dialogue, with meaning negotiated and constructed with others;

7 Agger (1991: 112) articulates the difficulty of cleanly separating ‘postmodernism’ from ‘post-structuralism,’ noting the “substantial overlap” between the two that focuses on “aversion to clean Positivist definitions and categories.” Agger (1991: 112) describes ‘postmodernism’ as a “theory of society, culture and history,” and ‘post-structuralism’ as a “theory of knowledge and language.”

10

Manuscript to be published

words are inscribed with power and values (e.g., Bakhtin, 1981). As with spoken language, written text is inseparable from the sociohistorical context in which it has been produced, and is incomplete (e.g., Bazerman, 2004). This approach to language challenged the structuralist approach to language largely connected to the work of de Saussure (1966; 1983);

A challenging of the positivistic, essentialized, Modern “self” (e.g., Haraway, 1991; Lather, 1991). Experience and reality are, “relational, temporal and continuous” (Clandinin & Rosiek, 2007, p. 44).

A belief that identity is socio-historically negotiated at the interstices of “discourses” (e.g., Bhabha & Appignanesi, 1987; Haraway, 1991; Norton, 2010). Discourses are “systems of power/knowledge (Foucault, 1980) that regulate and assign value to all forms of semiotic activity” (Morgan, 2007, p. 1036). In exploring discourse(s), post-structuralism often draws upon Foucault’s (1984) conceptualization of the relationship between knowledge and power. Power, according to Foucault (1984), shapes societal views of what is “normal” and acceptable, via the construction, maintenance and perpetuation of “regimes of truth” in a society. These “regimes of truth,” constructed by social, cultural and political discourses, seek to define the nature of “truth,” how “truths” are distinguished and scrutinized, and who is empowered to do so (Foucault, 1984).

Post-structural inquiry seeks to “deconstruct” discourse in the interest of examining its origin and

structure in terms of “cultural,” social, and political contexts (Derrida, 1976). Such inquiry

approaches identity with a desire of apprehending “where it comes from and how it functions”

(Peters & Humes, 2003, p. 111). Additionally, post-structuralist scholarship attends to

positionality (Peters & Humes, 2003), valuing the need to “reflect on how one is inserted in grids

of power relations and how that influences methods, interpretations, and knowledge production”

(Sultana, 2007, p. 376).8 Post-structural inquiry also attempts to approach the agency that

individuals employ in their sociohistorically-situated negotiation of identity (e.g., Bhabha, 1996;

Peters, 2004; Author, 2013b).

From a post-structuralist perspective, national, ethnic, cultural and linguistic borders of

“us” and “them,” “inside” and “outside” are established by dominant discourses both local and

global in nature (e.g., Bhabha, 1994). These borders are policed by border patrols (Fine et al.,

8 For the researcher, this is the practice of self-reflexivity (e.g., Hesse-Biber 2007; Lather, 1986; Lenzo, 1995).

11

Manuscript to be published

2007) consisting of individuals, entities, and mechanisms seeking to perpetuate constructed

truths. The negotiation of identity, from a post-structuralist perspective, is dynamically

conducted in the “in-between spaces” (Bhabha, 1996) of localized and globalized discourses of

being and becoming (e.g., Kramsch, 2012; Morgan, 2004, 2007; Motha, Jain & Tecle, 2012;

Norton, 2000, 2010; Author, 2012). In negotiating these discourses and asserting agency,

individuals are constructing borderland spaces of identity (Anzaldua, 1987).

Poststructuralism in Action: A Critical Example from Japan

What does a post-structuralist (world)view mean to us in our quest to

understand/conceptualize the NNEST movement? Attention to English teachers’ ongoing

negotiation of linguistic and cultural identity has brought under scrutiny the nature and origin of

the NS construct and of native speakerism as earlier conceptualized by Holliday (2005, 2006).

One example comes in the form of a post-structuralism-informed narrative inquiry exploring the

lived experiences of four Japanese professors of English negotiating translinguisitic and

transcultural identity and challenging native speakerism in the Japanese context (Author, 2012).

“Native speakerism,” as constructed by the participants in the study (Author, 2012), is not simply

the privileging of a select group of NSs of English and the marginalization of Japanese NNESTs,

but rather:

1. Is a product of the interaction between globalized ELT and local society (Japan);

2. Relates to how local societies define “us” and “them,” and “inside” and “outside,”

involving borders of gender, ethnicity, nationality, professional role, linguistic and

cultural authority, and cultural behavior and expectations;

3. Defines “Japaneseness” and the ownership of the Japanese language and Japanese

culture;

12

Manuscript to be published

4. Defines who Japanese learners, users, and instructors of English can and/or should be or

become;

5. Constructs a category of wherein idealized “native speakers” are located and even

confined;

6. Limits and/or eliminates space for NSs who do not fit the image of the idealized NS as

locally constructed, as well as for non-Japanese, who are neither native speakers of

Japanese nor English.

Author (2012) contends the NS construct is glocal (e.g., Lin et al., 2002) in nature and origin,

involving local and global discourses of identity defining inside and outside (whether in terms of

being a “native speaker” of Japanese or of English). Native speakerism, Author (2012) argues, is

similarly constructed, limiting and eliminating space for those who do not fit constructions of an

idealized native speaker, whether of Japanese or English. Native speakerism is multi-directional

and multi-locational, potentially flowing from (a) Japanese to other Japanese, (b) Japanese to

“other NNESTs,” (c) Japanese to idealized NS, (d) Japanese to NSs who do not fit the image of

the idealized NS, and (e) by NS to NS who does not fit local descriptions of the idealized NS.

Native speakerism can relate as much to Japaneseness and ownership of the Japanese language

and culture as it can to the ownership of English and the nature of the idealized native speaker of

such.

Another example can be found in a volume edited by Houghton and Rivers (2013)

entitled Native Speakerism in Japan. In framing the contents, Houghton and Rivers (2013)

conceptualize native speakerism as one of many “-isms” (e.g., racism or sexism), or discourses

of prejudice, that are chauvinistic in nature (p. 2). These discourses of prejudice intertwine in

context-specific ways to create “Other” in intergroup dynamics in language education (pp. 2-3).

13

Manuscript to be published

In the case of Japan, for instance, discourses of chauvinism within society intersect to place

boundaries around who NSs of English “are” (in terms of race, nationality, gender, etc.), who

these NSs might be or become as English users and instructors, and the roles they might and/or

should play in language education in the Japanese context (Houghton & Rivers, 2013; Rivers &

Ross, 2013). This stands in contrast to Holliday’s (2005, 2006) formulation of native speakerism,

wherein the discourse flows from the West, is situated in global ELT and exclusively privileges

the “native speaker.” In the book, Houghton and Rivers (2013) critique Holliday’s (2005)

formulation of native speakerism and, in doing so, propose revisions to the concept that are

critically-oriented and “grounded in respect for human rights”:

Native-Speakerism is prejudice, stereotyping and/or discrimination, typically

by or against foreign language teachers, on the basis of either being or not

being perceived and categorized as a native speaker of a particular language,

which can form part of a larger complex of interconnected prejudices

including ethnocentrism, racism and sexism. Its endorsement positions

individuals from certain language groups as being innately superior to

individuals from other language groups. Therefore native speakerist policies

and practices represent a fundamental breach of one’s basic human rights (p.

14).

In the same volume, Holliday (2013) himself notably revisits the concept of native speakerism.

In his chapter, Holliday argues for a postmodern approach to approaching and deconstructing the

discourses of native speakerism that perpetuate the NS/NNS and NEST/NNEST dichotomies, in

the interest of creating the potential for a more equitable ELT profession.

14

Manuscript to be published

The ramifications of post-structural approaches to identity necessitate the re-

conceptualization of the NS construct, native speakerism and how the NS fallacy manifests.

Calling attention to the dynamic negotiation of translinguistic and transcultural identity cultivates

the need to attend to the agency teachers employ in their lived experiences, and the

contextualized borders teachers conceptualize and confront. This in turn fosters a need to move

beyond critical constructions of the NS/NNS and NEST/NNEST dichotomies, however well-

intended they are.

Furthermore, post-structural approaches to identity warrant a reconsideration of how the

NS construct is conceptualized. Drawing upon the Japanese context as an example, the above

scholarship notes that the idealized NS of English is glocally constructed concomitantly with the

idealized NS of Japanese. The construction of linguistic and cultural ownership extends beyond

English, both within a given society and the ELT situated therein. In addition, the construction

of “us” in relation to context, may serve to both privilege and marginalize local members of a

society. As borders of “inside” and “outside” are constructed and patrolled in terms of the

idealized NS of English, so too are those of being or becoming “Japanese.” Native speakerism,

as a result, relates to the glocal construction, maintenance, and perpetuation of discourses of

“inside” and “outside,” and “us” and “them.” Privilege and marginalization are fluidly and

contextually constructed. Space for different ways of being and becoming a learner, user and

teacher of English is created and/or eliminated in the interplay of localized and globalized

discourses of identity (e.g., Author, 2012; Park, 2012). A re-conceptualization of the NS

construct and of native speakerism therefore serves as a catalyst for a re-consideration of the

origin, nature and perpetuation of the NS fallacy.

Implications for the NNEST Movement

15

Manuscript to be published

Re-conceptualizations of identity, the NS construct, native speakerism and the NS fallacy

implore those affiliated with the discourses of the NNEST movement to pause and reconsider

approaches to activism, awareness, and advocacy (Author, 2009) in the interest of addressing

inequity in the field of ELT, wherever it may be located. In and through the deconstruction of

binary approaches to teachers’ lived experiences, with new focus on their negotiation of

translinguistic and transcultural identity, we can apprehend accounts of the fluid complexity of

privilege and marginalization, and construction of “us” and “them,” “inside” and “outside,” in

more contextual detail. This stands in contrast to the conceptualizing of the “NNEST experience”

through critically-constructed binaries, which may result in the essentialization and

decontextualization of teachers’ experiences. Essentialization and decontextualization may result

in oversimplifying the issues such teachers face, confounding approaches to addressing such

issues, and ultimately rendering efforts and raising awareness and transforming the field ever

more challenging. Continued accounts of the lived experiences of teachers’ negotiations of

borders and border crossing would serve to provide a finer lens and more inclusive approach to

how dominant discourses of identity create and eliminate space for users and teachers of English.

Attention to the contextualized interaction of global and local discourses of identity, would in

turn equip the movement to address the local in the global (e.g., Block & Cameron, 2002;

Canagarajah, 2005) in terms of approaching inequity.

Around the time of the creation of an NNEST Interest Section, NNEST-IS chair Brock

Brady (2008) posited that NNEST-related outreach, “is less about discrimination (although that

certainly is still as concern) and more about working across specializations and coming to terms

with English as a Lingua Franca” (p. 1).9 We would contend that the NNEST movement is yet

9 In another location on the same topic, Brady (2009) uses the terms English as a lingua franca and English as an international language interchangeably. The difference in meaning poured into these two terms is beyond the scope of this paper.

16

Manuscript to be published

about ‘discrimination,’ and the reconciliation of approaches to ‘discrimination,’ or more

specifically manifestations of privilege and marginalization that cultivate inequity, with post-

colonial, sociocultural, postmodern and post-structural re-conceptualizations of language

ownership, use, and instruction (e.g., Alptekin, 2002; Canagarajah, 2007; Firth, 2009; Firth &

Wagner, 1997; Jenkins, 2005, 2006a; Higgins, 2003; B,B, Kachru, 1985; Y. Kachru, 2005;

Leung, 2005; Norton, 2010; Widdowson, 1994, 2004; Authors, 2013). This involves attention to

learners,’ users’ and teachers’ translinguistic and transcultural negotiations of identity in a

globalizing, postmodernistic world (Canagarajah, 2007). Such attention will also address

practical issues relating to what might be taught in terms of linguistic and sociocultural

knowledge in order to equip students for negotiating interaction (e,g,, Alptekin, 2002;

Canagarajah, 2006a, 2000b, 2006c; Kramsch, 2006, 2008; Kramsch & Whiteside, 2008; Leung,

2005; Widdowson, 1998).

If the NNEST movement attends to re-conceptualized views of the NS construct, native

speakerism and the NS fallacy, we assert that it will in turn face the ongoing issue of learner,

user and teacher nomenclature, and very specifically, with regard to formal professional

activities (e.g., “the NNEST movement”; the NNEST-IS). We contend that in working in the

interest of a vision for creating “a nondiscriminatory professional environment for all TESOL

members regardless of native language and place of birth” (NNEST-IS, 2014), and in doing so,

accounting for contextualized privilege and marginalization in the field of ELT, nomenclature

within the movement would necessarily reflect a shift in worldview. This would not be a shift

away from “NNEST” issues, but rather a further move toward the creation of space for

innovation, incorporation, collaboration, and inclusivity within the field of ELT. Such action

would also involve a conceptual and practical extension beyond organizational affiliation, in the

17

Manuscript to be published

interest of continuing the cultivation of equity-related activism, awareness and advocacy in

scholarship, professional activities and teaching contexts around the globe.

Conclusion

The historical problematization of “inside” and “outside,” “us” and “them” resulting from

the efforts of scholars addressing NNEST issues, has contributed much to apprehending privilege

and marginalization as it relates to the experiences of stakeholders in ELT around the globe. We

believe that as critical approaches to identity, and as a result of the NS construct, native

speakerism and the NS fallacy, continue to evolve, so too must approaches to conceptualizing

inequity within the NNEST movement. This will maximize the ability of critically-oriented

scholarship to better conceptualize and challenge discourses of identity flowing into and out of

the field of ELT that create and/or eliminate space for being and becoming.

References

18

Manuscript to be published

Agger, B. (1991). Critical theory, poststructuralism, postmodernism: Their sociological

relevance. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 105-131.

Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT Journal,

56(1), 57-64.

Amin, N. (1997). Race and the identity of the nonnative ESL teacher. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3),

580-583.

Amin, N. (1999). Minority women teachers of ESL: Negotiating white English. In G. Braine

(Ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching (pp. 93–104). New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Anzaldúa, G. (1987). Borderlands/la frontera: The new Mestiza. San Francisco: Spinsters/Aunt

Lute.

Appadurai, A. (2000). Modernity at large. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.  

Arva, V. & P. Medgyes. (2000). Native and non-native teachers in the classroom. System, 28,

355-372.

Author 2009

Author 2010

Author 2012

Author 2013a

Author 2013b

Authors 2013

Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Austin: University

of Texas Press.

Bazerman, C. (2004). Intertextuality: How texts rely on other texts. In Bazerman, C. and Prior, P.

(Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and

textual practices (pp. 83-96). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bernat, E. (2009). Towards a pedagogy of empowerment: The case of ‘impostor syndrome’

among pre-service non-native speaker teachers (NNSTs) of TESOL. English Language

Teacher Education and Development Journal 11, 1-11.

Bhabha, H. K. (1992). The world and the home. Social Text, 31-32, 141-153.

Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.

19

Manuscript to be published

Bhabha, H. K. (1996). Culture’s in-between. In S. Hall, & P. du Gay (Eds.), Questions of

cultural identity (pp. 53-60). London: SAGE Publications.

Bhabha, H. K., & Appignanesi, L. (1987). Identity: the real me (Vol. 6). London: Institute of

Contemporary Arts.

Block, D. & Cameron, D. (2002). Introduction. In D. Block, & D. Cameron (Eds.),

Globalization and language teaching (pp. 2-10). London: Routledge.

Brady, B. (2008). Growing recognition - The new non native English speaking teaching

Interest Section. Retrieved online January 2, 2014 from:

http://nnest.asu.edu/NewHistory.html

Brady, B. (2009). Message from the outgoing chair. NNEST newsletter 11(1). Retrieved

online January 2, 2014 from: http://www.tesol.org/read-and-publish/newsletters-other-

publications/interest-section-newsletters/nnest-newsletter/2011/10/27/nnest-news-

volume-11-1-(july-2009 )

Braine, G. (1999a). Non-native educators in English language teaching. New Jersey: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Braine, G. (1999b). Nonnative English speakers in TESOL caucus formed. TESOL Matters,

(9)1, 1-2.

Braine, G. (1999c). NNS and invisible barriers in ELT. History of the NNEST Caucus.

TESOL NNEST Caucus on-line newsletter, retrieved December 1, 2013 from:

http://nnest.asu.edu/NewHistory.html#interestsectionformed

Braine, G. (2010). Nonnative speaker English teachers: Research, pedagogy, and professional

growth. New York: Routledge.

Bredo, E. (2006). Philosophies of educational research. In Green, J. L., G. Camilli, & P. B.

Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in educational research (pp. 3-31).

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brutt-Griffler, J., & Samimy, K. (1999). Revisiting the colonial in the postcolonial: Critical

praxis for nonnative-English-speaking teachers in a TESOL program. TESOL Quarterly,

33(3), 413-431.

Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Interrogating the “native speaker fallacy”: Non-linguistic roots, non-

pedagogical results. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language

teaching (pp. 145-158). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

20

Manuscript to be published

Canagarajah, A. S. (2005). Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice. New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2006a). Negotiating the local in English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics, 26, 197-218.  

Canagarajah, A. S. (2006b.) Changing communicative needs, revised assessment objectives:

Testing English as an international language. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(3), 229-

242.  

Canagarajah, A. S. (2006c). TESOL at forty: What are the issues? TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 9-

34.  

Canagarajah, A. S. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language

acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91(5), 923-939.  

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.  

Clandinin, D. J., & Rosiek, J. (2007). Mapping a landscape of narrative inquiry: Borderland

spaces and tensions. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a

methodology (pp. 35-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Clark, E. & Paran, A. (2007). The employability of non-native-speaker teachers of EFL: A UK

survey. System, 35(4), 407-430.

Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly,

33(2), 185-209.

Crystal, D. (2004). The stories of English. New York: Penguin.

Crystal, D. (2012). English as a global language. Cambridge University Press.

De Saussure, F., Bally, C., Sechehaye, A., Riedlinger, A. & Baskin, W. (1966). Course in

General Linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

De Saussure, F., & Riedlinger, A. (1983). Course in general linguistics. Peru, IL: Open Court

Publishing.

Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins

University Press.

Faez, F. (2011a). Are you a native speaker of English? Moving beyond a simplistic dichotomy.

Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 8(4), 378-399.

Faez, F. (2011b). Reconceptualizing the native/nonnative speaker dichotomy. Journal of

Language, Identity and Education, 10(4), 231-249.

21

Manuscript to be published

Fine, M., Jaffe-Walter, R., Pedraza, P., Futch, V. & Stoudt, B. (2007). Swimming: On oxygen,

resistance, and possibility for immigrant youth under siege. Anthropology & Education

Quarterly 38(1), 76–96.

Firth, A. (2009). The lingua franca factor. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), 147-170.

Firth, A. & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts

in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285-300.

Flynn, K., & Gulikers, G. (2001). Issues in hiring nonnative English-speaking professionals

to teach English as a Second Language. CATESOL Journal, 13(1), 151–161.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other Writings, 1972–1977.

New York: Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. (1984). The Foucault reader (P. Rabinow, Ed.). New York: Pantheon.

Haraway, D. J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. London:

Routledge.

Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2007). The practice of feminist in-depth interviewing. In S. N. Hesse-Biber,

& P. L. Leavy (Eds.), Feminist research practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Publications.

Higgins, C. (2003). “Ownership” of English in the outer circle: An alternative to the NS-NNS

dichotomy. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 615-644.

Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), 385–387.

Holliday, A. (2013). Native speaker teachers and cultural belief. In S.A. Houghton, & D. J.

Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language

education (pp. 17-28). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.

Houghton, S. A. & Rivers, D. J. (2013). Introduction: Redefining native speakerism. In S. A.

Houghton, & D. J. Rivers (Eds.): Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in

foreign language education (pp. 1-16). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride, & J. Holmes (Eds.),

Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). New York: Penguin.

Hymes, D. (1977). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. London:

Tavistock Publications.

22

Manuscript to be published

Jenkins, J. (2005). English as a lingua franca: Past empirical, present controversial, future

uncertain. Paper presented at RELC International Seminar, Singapore.

Jenkins, J. (2006a). Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English as a lingua

franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 157-181.  

Jenkins, J. (2006b). Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA. International Journal of

Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 137-162.  

Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language

in the Outer Circle. In R. Quirk, & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world:

Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11-30). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Kachru, B. B. (1992). Teaching world Englishes. The other tongue. Urbana: University of

Illinois Press.

Kachru, Y. (2005). Teaching and learning of World Englishes. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of

research in second language learning and teaching (pp. 155-173). New Jersey: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Kamhi-Stein, L. (2004). Learning and Teaching from Experience: Perspectives on Nonnative

English-speaking Professionals. University of Michigan Press.

Kamhi-Stein, L., Lee, E., & Lee, C. (1999). How TESOL programs can enhance the preparation

of nonnative English speakers. TESOL Matters 9, 4.

Kramsch, C. (1997). The privilege of the nonnative speaker. PMLA, 112, 359-369.

Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Kramsch, C. (2006). From communicative competence to symbolic competence. The Modern

Language Journal, 90(2), 249-252.  

Kramsch, C. (2008). Ecological perspectives on foreign language education. Language

Teaching, 41(3), 389–408.  

Kramsch, C. (2012). Theorizing translingual/transcultural competence. Critical and

intercultural theory and language pedagogy, 15–32.

Kramsch, C., & Whiteside, A. (2008). Language ecology in multilingual settings. Towards a

theory of symbolic competence. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 645-671.

Kubota, R. (1998). Ideologies of English in Japan. World Englishes, 17(3), 295-306.

23

Manuscript to be published

Kubota, R. (2002). The impact of globalization on language teaching in Japan. In D.

Block, & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 13-28).

London: Routledge.

Kubota, R. (2011). Learning a foreign language as leisure and consumption: enjoyment, desire,

and the business of Eikaiwa. International Journal of Bilingual Education and

Bilingualism, 14(4), 473-488.

Kubota, R., & Lin, A. (2009). Race, culture, and identities in second language education:

Exploring critically engaged practice. New York: Routledge.

Lather, P. (1986). Issues of validity in openly ideological research: Between a rock and a soft

place. Interchange, 17(4), 63-84.

Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern.

London: Psychology Press.

Lather, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. Sociological Quarterly,

34(4), 673-693.

Lee, I. (2004). Preparing nonnative English speakers for EFL teaching in Hong Kong. In L.

Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching from experience: Perspectives on nonnative

English-speaking professionals (pp. 230-250). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan

Press.

Lenzo, K. (1995). Validity and self-reflexivity meet poststructuralism: Scientific ethos and the

transgressive self. Educational Researcher, 24(4), 17-45.

Leung, C. (2005). Convivial communication: Recontextualizing communicative competence.

International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 119-144.  

Leung, C., & Lewkowicz, J. (2006). Expanding horizons and unresolved conundrums: Language

testing and assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 211-234.  

Lin, A., Wang, W., Akamatsu, N., & Riazi, A. M. (2002). Appropriating English, expanding

identities, and re-visioning the field: From TESOL to teaching English for glocalized

communication (TEGCOM). Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 1(4), 295–

316.

Liu, D. (1999). Training non-native TESOL students: Challenges for TESOL teacher education

in the West. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching (pp.

197-210). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

24

Manuscript to be published

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

to the Profession. New York: Springer Verlag.

Lowenberg, P. H. (1993). Issues of validity in tests of English as a world language: Whose

standards? World Englishes, 12(1), 95-106.  

Lowenberg, P. H. (2000). Non-native varieties and issues of fairness in testing English as a

world language. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), Fairness and validation in language assessment:

Selected papers from the 19th language testing research colloquium. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Mahboob, A. (2005). Beyond the native speaker in TESOL. In S. Zafar (Ed.), Culture, context,

and communication. Abu Dhabi: Center of Excellence for Applied Research and Training

& The Military Language Institute.

Mahboob, A. (2010). The NNEST lens: Non native English speakers in TESOL. Newcastle Upon

Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.

Mahboob, A., & Golden, R. (2013). Looking for native speakers of English: Discrimination

in English language teaching job advertisements. Voices in Asia Journal, 1(1), 72-81.

Mahboob, A., Uhrig, K., Newman, K. L. & Hartford, B. S. (2004). Children of lesser English:

Status of nonnative English speakers as college-level English as a Second Language

teachers in the United States. In Kamhi-Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching from

experience: Perspectives on nonnative English-speaking professionals (pp. 100-120).

Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Matsuda, A. (2003). The ownership of English in Japanese secondary schools. World Englishes,

22(4), 483-496.  

McKay, S. (2005). Teaching the pragmatics of English as an International Language. Guidelines,

27(1), 3-9.

McKay, S. (2010). English as an International Language. In N. Hornberger, & S. L. McKay

(Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 89-115). Clevedon, UK:

Multilingual Matters.

McKay, S. L. & Wong, S.L. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities: Investment and

agency in second-language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant students.

Harvard Educational Review 66(3), 577-609.  

Medgyes, P. (1983). The schizophrenic teacher. ELT Journal, 37(1), 2-6.

25

Manuscript to be published

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

Medgyes, P. (1994). The Non-native teacher. London: Macmillan.

Medgyes, P. (2001). When the teacher is a non‐native speaker. In M. Celce‐Murcia (Ed.),

Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (pp. 429‐442). Boston: 

Heinle & Heinle. 

Melchers, G. & Shaw, P. (2003). World Englishes: An introduction. London: Arnold.  

Menard-Warwick, J. (2008). The cultural and intercultural identities of transnational English

teachers: Two case studies from the Americas. TESOL Quarterly, 42(4), 617–640.

Miller, J. M. (2004). Identity and language use: The politics of speaking ESL in schools. In A.

Pavlenko, & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Negotiation of identity in multilingual contexts.

Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

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

Morgan, B. (2004). Teacher identity as pedagogy: Towards a field-internal conceptualisation in

bilingual and second language education. International Journal of Bilingual Education

and Bilingualism, 7(2-3), 172-188.

Morgan, B. (2007). Poststructuralism and applied linguistics. In J. Cummins & C. Davison

(Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 1033–1052).

New York: Springer.

Motha, S. (2006). Racializing ESOL teacher identities in US K-12 public schools. TESOL

Quarterly, 40(3), 495-518.

Motha, S., Jain, R. & T. Tecle. (2012). Translinguistic identity-as-pedagogy: Implications for

language teacher education. International Journal of Innovation in English Language

Teaching 1(1). 13-27.

Moussu, L. (2006). Native and non-native English-speaking English as a second language

teachers: Student attitudes, teacher self-perceptions, and intensive English program

administrator beliefs and practices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue

University.

Moussu, L., & Llurda, E. (2008). Non-native English-speaking English language teachers:

History and research. Language Teaching, 41(3), 315–348.

Nayar, P. B. (1997). ESL/EFL dichotomy today: Language politics or pragmatics? TESOL

Quarterly, 31(1), 9-37.

26

Manuscript to be published

Nelson, C. L. (1985). My language, your culture: Whose communicative competence? World

Englishes, 4(2), 243-250.

NNEST Interest Section (2014a). Homepage. Retrieved January 31, 2014 from:

http://nnest.asu.edu/

NNEST Interest Section (2014). Goals of the NNEST Interest Section. Retrieved online

January 2, 2014 from: http://nnest.asu.edu/NewGoals.html#nonnative

Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3),

409-430.

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change.

Harlow: Longman/Pearson Education.

Norton, B. (2010). Language and identity. In N. Hornberger, & S. L. McKay (Eds.),

Sociolinguistics and language education (349–369). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual

Matters.

Norton Pierce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly,

29(1), 9-31.

Paikeday, T. M. (1985). The native speaker is dead! Toronto: Paikeday Pub. Inc.  

Park, G. (2008). Lived pedagogies: Becoming a multicompetent ESOL teacher. In J.A.

Carmona (Ed.), Perspectives on community college ESL, Volume 3: Faculty,

administration, and the working environment (pp. 17-30). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Park, G. (2012). “I am never afraid of being recognized as an NNES”: One teacher’s journey in

claiming and embracing her Nonnative-speaker identity. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 127-

151.

Pavlenko, A. (2002). Poststructuralist approaches to the study of social factors in second

language learning and use. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 277-302).

Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Pennycook, A. (1990). Towards a critical applied linguistics for the 1990s. Issues in Applied

Linguistics, 1(1), 8-28.  

Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London:

Longman.

Pennycook, A. (1999). Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3),

329-348.

27

Manuscript to be published

Peters, M. (2004). Educational research: “Games of truth” and the ethics of subjectivity. Journal

of Educational Enquiry, 5(2), 50-63.

Peters, M. & Humes, W. (2003). The reception of post-structuralism in educational research and

policy. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 109-113.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Power, C. (2005). Not the queen’s English. Newsweek International, 145(10), 40-45. Retrieved

from The Daily Beast: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2005/03/06/not-the-

queen-s-english.html

Rajadurai, J. (2005). Revisiting the concentric circles: Conceptual and sociolinguistic

considerations. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 7(4), 111-130.  

Rampton, B. (1987). Stylistic variability and not speaking ‘normal’ English: Some post-

Labovian approaches and their implications for the study of interlanguage. In R. Ellis

(Ed.), Second language acquisition in context (pp. 47-58). London: Prentice Hall.

Rampton, B. (1990). Displacing the “native speaker”: Expertise, affiliation, and inheritance.

ELT Journal, 44, 97–101.

Reves, T & Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native English speaking EFL/ESL teacher’s self

image: An international survey. System, 22(3), 353-357.

Rivers, D. J., & Ross, A. S. (2013). Idealized English teachers: The implicit influence of race in

Japan. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 12(5), 321–339.

Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual

Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209-239.

Suarez, J. (2000). 'Native' and 'non-native': Not only a question of terminology. Humanizing

Language Teaching, 2(6). http://www.hltmag.co.uk/nov00/mart.htm

Sultana, F. (2007). Reflexivity, positionality and participatory ethics: Negotiating fieldwork

dilemmas in international research. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical

Geographies, 6(3), 374-385.

Swales, J. (1993). The English language and its teachers: Thoughts past, present, and future.

ELT Journal, 47(4), 283–291.

TESOL (1992). A TESOL statement of non-native speakers of English and hiring practices.

TESOL Quarterly, 2(4), 23.

28

Manuscript to be published

TESOL (2006). Position statement against discrimination of nonnative speakers of English in

the field of TESOL. Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org/docs/pdf/5889.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 377-389.

Widdowson, H. G. (1998). Context, community, and authentic language. TESOL Quarterly,

32(4), 705-716.  

Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Widdowson, H. G. (2004). A perspective on recent trends. In A. P. R. Howatt, & H. G.

Widdowson (Eds.), A History of English Language Teaching (pp. 353-372). Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

29