Native-speaker norms and International English: a classroom view

Ivor Timmis
The question of whether students should conform to native-speaker norms of English, in an era when English is increasingly used in international contexts, is one which has been keenly debated in recent years, not least in the pages of this Journal. However, it is not a debate in which the voices of students and classroom teachers have been heard, and this article attempts to give a classroom perspective on the issue. It is based largely on two parallel questionnaire surveys, which looked at students and teachers attitudes to the question of conforming to native-speaker norms. Taken together, the surveys drew almost 600 responses from students and teachers in over 45 countries. The article argues that students views may dier from the expectations of teachers and academics, and that it is important for us to be aware of these views.

Background

Before discussing the survey and its results, I would like to describe briey how I became interested in the topic, and why I felt it important to nd out students and teachers views. As a full-time classroom teacher, I am sure I am not alone in nding the process of keeping abreast of issues in the eld at once stimulating and perplexing. As I followed the debate about appropriate norms and models for the classroom, I certainly found it perplexing to be pulled in opposite directions by expert opinion. My interest in this topic was initially engaged by the work of Carter and McCarthy (1997) highlighting the dierences between the English described in ELT reference materials and corpus-attested spoken norms: Written-based grammars exclude features that occur widely in the conversation of native speakers of English, across speakers of dierent ages, sexes, dialect groups and social classes, with a frequency that simply cannot be dismissed as aberration. I had certainly been aware that there were dierences between the English I taught and the English I used, but now it seemed possible to bridge the gap. However, no sooner had I adjusted my classroom approach to take account of these insights than I came across further disquieting news. Prodromou (1997) referred to estimates that up to 80% of communication in English takes place between non-native speakers and questioned the pedagogic relevance of corpus insights: What does the grammar of informal, spoken English mean for the non-native speaker of English, and what is the pedagogic

240

ELT Journal Volume 56/3 July 2002 Oxford University Press

articles

welcome

relevance of this particular variety of English in the context of English as an international language? (Prodromou 1996). My anxiety that I was not giving my students real native-speaker English seemed groundless. This view seemed to be conrmed, from a dierent angle, by Jenkins (1998) argument that we ought to focus on those core aspects of pronunciation that were essential to international communication. Willis (1999) argued in similar vein, but from a grammatical standpoint, that we should place a very low premium on conformity to native-speaker grammatical norms. Just as it seemed safe to abandon native-speaker norms, my eye was caught by a comment by Jenkins (1998): it is important that we should all guard against political correctness in the sense of telling our students what their goals should be: in particular that they should not want to sound like native speakers if they clearly wish to do so. It struck me that it would be interesting to nd out whether and how far students wanted to conform to native-speaker norms, not just in the eld of pronunciation, but also in relation to traditional written-based grammar and the kind of informal grammar highlighted by spoken corpora. I also wanted to nd out whether there was any consensus on this issue among teachers, and whether this consensus was in harmony with students views.

The questionnaires

While there is not sucient space to discuss all of the research methodology in detail, it is worth noting that the Student and the Teacher Questionnaires were extensively piloted before use, and the results subjected to the validity checks suggested by Low (1997). The questionnaire, from which the questions below are taken, drew 400 responses from 14 dierent countries. The questionnaire was supported by 15 interviews. Though I have used a number of comments from these interviews, because they indicate the reasons which might underlie students choices, they cannot be taken as representative of the survey sample as a whole, since they were all conducted in Leeds. This questionnaire, which was closely modelled on the student questionnaire, was distributed to teachers on the IATEFL Dublin 2000 participants list, and drew over 180 responses from some 45 dierent countries. I have quoted liberally (and verbatim) from these questionnaires so that teachers can speak eloquently for themselves without too much spinning from me. Quotations have been chosen to represent strands of opinion which emerged from the responses.

The student questionnaire

The teacher questionnaire

Pronunciation results We can begin by looking at the question relating to pronunciation

because accent, in many ways, seems to go to the heart of the nativespeaker issue. The basic question was:

International English in the classroom

241

articles

welcome

Student A: I can pronounce English just like a native speaker now. Sometimes people think I am a native speaker. Student B: I can pronounce English clearly now. Native speakers and non-native speakers understand me wherever I go, but I still have the accent of my country. 7 Please underline one answer. Would you prefer to be like Student A or Student B? Student A Student B

The quotations were invented to represent native-speaker competence and accented international intelligibility. The teachers were given the same question, but with a no preference option. The results were:
Student A All students Students who currently use English more with non-native speakers Students who predict that they will use English more with non-native speakers Students from South Africa, Pakistan, and India Student A All teachers Non-native speaker teachers Native-speaker teachers 27% 32% 20% 67% 68% 60% 34% Student B 39% 37% 41% Student B 32% 32% 37% 64% No preference 34% 30% 39%

Discussion of student results

It is interesting to note that the gures were very similar for two groups of respondents who were analysed separately: those who estimated that they currently used English more with non-native speakers than native speakers, and those who predicted that they would do so in the next three years. Though the gures as a whole do not accord with Jenkins (1997) assertion that the majority express a desire to retain something of their L1, this was the case with the students from South Africa, Pakistan, and India. It may be, then, that this issue is especially context-sensitive. The purpose of the interviews was, of course, to get at the reasons behind the choices. It was clear that some students saw native-speaker pronunciation as a benchmark of achievement: It would be a sign of a good level of English. If you can speak English very well, other people cant hear your accent. For others, their motivation was more integrative: I live in this country. I want to be natural. If I work in an English company, maybe some nasty client would insult me: Ah, shes non-native.

242

Ivor Timmis

articles

welcome

What was also suggested by the interviews was that some of those who had opted for Student B had done so out of realism rather than preference, despite the wording of the question: Because I was born in China and not born in Britain, so I cannot pronounce English like a native speaker but Student A this is ideal aim, I try my best to achieve that aim. None of the students I interviewed expressed a positive preference for Student B, but of those who opted for Student A (in the survey), 29% said they would also be content to be like Student B.

Discussion of teacher It appears then that there is a greater tendency among teachers than results among students to regard accented intelligibility as the most desirable Accented intelligibility outcome (and slightly more so among native-speaker teachers than
among non-native speaker teachers). Certainly, some teachers were explicit about this: I think an accent is attractive and belongs to their personality. On closer inspection, however, it seems that, despite the wording of the question, many teachers were choosing what they regarded as the more realistic, rather than the more desirable outcome. Many teachers qualied their choice in this sense, and one teacher who had actually opted for Student B wrote: Of course Student A is preferable but in reality it is impossible to achieve so student B can be a good standard.

Native-speaker pronunciation

There is clearly still a feeling among a number of teachers that nativespeaker competence is the benchmark of perfection, and therefore it is axiomatic that this should be the long-term goal: It is an ideal that every teacher dreams of. A small number of teachers did, however, consider native-speaker competence to be potentially empowering: I have/have had a few students like St A and they seem to feel they have the choice to sound like a NS or not with social implications, empowerment. Other respondents, however, pointed out possible disadvantages of attaining native-speaker pronunciation: I myself was taught to be near-native. I found that actually that was a drawback in my contacts with British and other foreign contacts for various reasons, but mostly mistrust.

Let the students decide

Many teachers expressed no preference, explaining that the wishes of the students, and the contexts in which they were going to use English, were paramount: If you live in a country where the target language is spoken, an accent is a distraction If you are interested in international contacts, appearing to come from a dierent area than your real origin may be a distraction.
International English in the classroom 243

articles

welcome

Grammar results

To nd out how far students wanted to conform to native-speaker grammatical norms, I invented the 3 student quotations below. Student C was intended to represent what Willis (1999) terms a stable and consistent interlanguage, Student D was intended to represent control of the written-based grammar traditionally presented in ELT materials, and Student E native-speaker control of both formal and informal grammar. The main question was:
Student C: I can say everything that I want to say. Native speakers and nonnative speakers understand me wherever I go, but I use English my own way and sometimes I say things which native speakers think are grammar mistakes. Student D: I know all the grammar rules I need so that I can say anything I want. I use these rules correctly, but sometimes English people use grammar that isnt in the grammar books and I dont want to learn this. Student E: I use all the grammar rules that native speakers use, even the informal grammar native speakers use when they speak to each other. 11 Please underline one answer. Would you prefer to be like Student C, Student D, or Student E? Student C Student D Student E

Again the teachers were given the same question, but with a no preference option.

Results
All students Students who currently use English more with non-native speakers Students who predict that they will use English more with non-native speakers Students from South Africa, Pakistan, and India Student C All teachers Non-native speaker teachers 22% 19%

Student C 14% 14% 16%

Student D 14% 17% 9%

Student E 68% 67% 72%

15%

32%

40%

Student D 5% 7% 1%

Student E 54% 54% 54%

No preference 18% 19% 18%

Native-speaker teachers 27%

Discussion of student results

The results were quite similar to those for the pronunciation question in terms of majority preference for native-speaker norms. Again, the gures were not signicantly dierent for students who used, or anticipated using English primarily with other non-native speakers. In the interviews an obvious line of questioning was to ask students why they aspired to native-speaker norms when they didnt need to conform

244

Ivor Timmis

articles

welcome

to them. The idea of a benchmark of achievement was once again apparent: Your English level and your hope of your English level, theres sometimes a distance and I really know some students, they just tell me theres no point to say it perfectly, anyway thats not my opinion, I think when you do something you should do something as best you can. Rather conservative views were also expressed: The language was born in England. One student I interviewed opted for Student D: I study English only for business, after my study I will go back to China.

Discussion of teacher Given the results for the pronunciation question, it is perhaps surprising results that so many teachers seem to have opted for native-speaker competence
in both formal and informal grammar. It is interesting that one respondent explicitly distinguished between pronunciation and grammar as acceptable targets for native-speaker conformity: Long-term outcome of language learning should be as native-like competence (NOT ACCENT ).

The native-speaker grammar goal

Many of those who opted for Student E referred to qualities of adaptability, exibility, and openness: reects the exibility of mindaccept the innovations, violation of the rules without ignoring the traditional values. Many respondents noted that students were unlikely to reach the level of Student E, and others expressed more intriguing reservations: St E would be my ideal option, on the condition that s/he would be capable of adjusting his/her speech to the level/register of English his/her interlocutor is using (e.g. not using informal grammar if the other person couldnt understand it).

A stable and consistent interlanguage

The results indicate that more teachers than students regarded Student C as a desirable outcome (once again this tendency was more marked among native-speaker teachers than non-native speaker teachers). As with pronunciation, the idea of retaining ones identity surfaces: People have their own identities. Our job is not to produce little native speakers. My students are Chinese/Taiwanese, not Americans. Others specify informal grammar as being potentially problematic: For my students its important they are understood in many places in the world. Informal grammar is often too local.

Written-based grammar

It is somewhat surprising, given that Student D was intended to represent the written-based grammar which has traditionally held sway in ELT materials, that so few respondents chose this option. Those
International English in the classroom 245

articles

welcome

who did echoed the reservations about informal grammar expressed above: To learn grammar is the right for teaching English. There could be broken spoken language in UK or USA , but my students follow mostly the rules of the grammar.

Let the students decide

Compared to pronunciation, fewer teachers were prepared to leave the choice up to the students in the eld of grammar, but there were some: Each learner should set his/her learning objective. Speaking to a native speaker, non-native variations (ungrammatical or otherwise) are a distraction. Talking to a non-native speaker informal regional variations can be a distraction.

Spoken grammar results

The hardest question to design was the question to nd out how far students want to use the kind of informal, spoken grammar highlighted in the work of Carter and McCarthy (1997). The example I chose to illustrate this kind of grammar (example B, below) was one I took down verbatim from a young English trainee teacher speaking to a preintermediate class. I chose it because it includes a number of features typical of spoken grammarellipsis, dramatic use of present tenses in narrative, and non-canonical reported speech forms. The main questions put to the students were:
12 Please look at the 2 examples below and then underline one answer to the question. Example A I had a disaster last night. I was sitting at home on the sofa watching TV when the phone rang. I wasnt very pleased to nd out that it was my mum, but she was asking me if I wanted to go to the USA with her. (note: disaster = a very bad experience) Example B Disaster last night. Sat at home on the sofa watching TV. The phone rings. Its my mum. Im like Oh no!, shes going Do you want to come to the USA? Which of the examples do you think was spoken by a native speaker? Example A Example B Now check your answer at the bottom of the page please, before doing question 13 13 For each sentence please circle () one number. 1 = strongly agree 2 = agree 3 = unsure 4 = disagree 5 = disagree strongly a It is important for me to be able to use the kind of English in example B 1 2 3 4 5

246

Ivor Timmis

articles

welcome

The main results were:

Example A 34% Example B 63% Strongly Agree 15% Agree 37% Strongly Disagree 6% Unsure 25% Disagree 16%

While it appears that 63% of the students correctly identied the nativespeaker example, given that the correct answer was at the bottom of the page, and given what we know about human nature, the actual gure may be lower. The high number of unsures suggests uncertainty about what informal spoken grammar actually is. This is borne out by the fact that 20% of those who opted for Student E (apparently committing themselves to a command of informal grammar) said they did not want to use the kind of English in Example B; a further 20% were not sure. It is interesting to note that of those who strongly disagreed with any use of that kind of informal spoken grammar, almost all had failed to identify which was the spoken example. Two thirds of those who wanted to use the English in Example B were living and studying in EFL contexts. The interviews threw up some interesting observations and disagreements about the value of spoken grammar. Some students clearly saw it as a valuable tool, but only for interacting with native speakers: When I speak like Raymond Murphy book, nobody understands me. When you speak to native speakers you try to say whole sentences it becomes boring people lose concentration easily. Others, however, saw no value for them in learning this kind of English: For me, I dont want to learn it because I am a foreigner. I just want to learn to speak and use English correctly. Non-native speakers need to go the extra mile to speak correctly.

Teachers

The question put to teachers was slightly dierent, in that they were asked to identify the features which marked Example B as native-speaker English and to say whether they thought students should be exposed to this kind of English.
c I think the materials I use for listening and speaking practice should show the students examples of the features I have noted above. 5 4 3 2 Unsure 22% Disagree 9% 1

Results

13c Strongly Agree 31% Agree 35% Strongly Disagree 2%

The gures indicate that there is a consensus that students should be exposed to the kind of language in the above extract, but the attitudes expressed about this kind of language are perhaps more illuminating than the gures. Indeed, there was considerable disagreement about the grammatical status of the utterance, which one respondent summed up rather neatly:
International English in the classroom 247

articles

welcome

First sentence is grammatically incorrect, but you feel its okay (2nd also). The need for authenticity was the reason most often cited by teachers who felt that students should be exposed to this kind of language: Authenticity of teaching materials demands it. Students should be exposed to a real life language. They should know that the use of the language is culturally inuenced. Many teachers, however, pointed to a need to take into account level and to distinguish between reception and production: Basic, neutral, standard (all dangerous terms here!) English needs to be under control before trying to learn native-speaker variations, if these need to be learnt at all. Of the respondents who considered it unnecessary to expose their students to this kind of language, most cited two reasons: that it is unnecessary for communication between non-native speakers, and/or dicult for non-native speakers to manipulate: This kind of language is too complex for students unless they are living in an English-speaking country. Non-native to non-native speakers dont use this kind of language

Conclusion

It would be absurd to suggest that this survey provides a statistically accurate picture of the state of opinion among students and teachers: the sample is but a tiny fraction of the English language learning and teaching population, and questionnaires are not precision instruments. I think, however, that the survey, given the number of responses and relatively wide geographical coverage, can support the following modest conclusions: 1 There is still some desire among students to conform to nativespeaker norms, and this desire is not necessarily restricted to those students who use, or anticipate using English primarily with native speakers. More tentatively, we can suggest that while the main motivation of the majority of students is the ability to communicate, the rather traditional idea of mastering a language survives, at least among a minority. 2 Student and teacher opinion seems to be quite divided on the value of informal, native- speaker spoken grammar, and there seems to be some uncertainty about what this kind of grammar is. It may be, then, that those students who aspire to native-speaker spoken norms have an idealized notion of what these norms are. 3 Teachers seem to be moving away from native-speaker norms faster than students are. What the survey could not show is how far respondents attitudes are related to their awareness of the sociolinguistic issues involved in the debate about native-speaker norms and international English. It is possible, even likely, that if this survey were replicated in 10 years time, the results might be quite dierent, with increased awareness of the

248

Ivor Timmis

articles

welcome

issues involved. For the present, however, I think that the survey brings into focus two dilemmas for teachers: 1 While it is clearly inappropriate to foist native-speaker norms on students who neither want nor need them, it is scarcely more appropriate to oer students a target which manifestly does not meet their aspirations. 2 Teachers may nd some of the views expressed by the students above to be quaint, reactionary, or ill-informed. In that case, how far is it our right or responsibility to politically re-educate our students? When does awareness-raising become proselytizing? Cook (1998) asked a very simple and challenging question: Why should the attested language use of a native-speaker community be a model for learners of English as an international language? While it is by no means my intention to bang the drum for the native-speaker model, we can oer a tentative and partial answer: there is no reason why it should, but it may be that some students want it to be, even when we least expect it. Revised version received April 2001
References Carter, R. 1998. Orders of Reality: CANCODE , Communication and Culture. ELT Journal 52/1: 4356. Carter, R. and M. McCarthy. 1997. Exploring Spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook, G. 1998. The uses of reality: a reply to Ronald Carter. ELT Journal 52/1: 5763. Jenkins, J. 1997. Changing priorities for successful communication in international contexts. SIG Selections 1997 Special Interests in ELT (IATEFL) : 739. Jenkins, J. 1998. Which pronunciation norms and models for English as an international language? ELT Journal 52/2: 11926. Low, G. 1997. Validating research questionnaires: The value of common sense. SIG Selections 1997. Special Interests in ELT (IATEFL) : 8692. Prodromou, L. 1996. Correspondence. ELT Journal 50/1:889. Prodromou, L. 1997. Global English and the Octopus. IATEFL Newsletter 137:1822. Willis, D. 1999. An international grammar of English? Unpublished paper, IATEFL Conference, Edinburgh. The author Ivor Timmis works at Leeds Metropolitan University, where he teaches on the EFL , CELTA , and MA courses. Most of his 15 years experience has been in England, but he has also worked in France, Germany, and Italy. Currently he is enrolled on a part-time PhD programme at the University of Nottingham. His research topic is: The ndings of spoken corpora and the implications for ELT . Perhaps because of his relatively parochial experience, he has particularly appreciated the contact with the wider ELT world which his recent line of research has brought him. Email: i.timmis@lmu.ac.uk

International English in the classroom

249

articles

welcome