Review of the Literature
“Every time language learners speak, they are not only exchanging information with their interlocutors; they are also constantly organizing and reorganizing a sense of who they are and how they relate to the social world” (Norton, 1997, p. 410). The social worlds that English exists in today are extensive and the number of English speakers has grown exponentially. Within the field of English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) instruction, the continued spread of English has resulted in the power dynamics of the ownership of English as an international language (EIL) to be reconsidered (Choudhury, 2015; Coskun, 2010, 2011; Khazaee, 2011, Matsuura, 2007; Monfared & Safarzadeh, 2014). To account for the individuals, cultures, and countries who are embracing English as their own, researchers are reconceptualizing the term “native-speaker” and redefining what “standard English” truly means (Choudhury, 2015; Coskun, 2010, 2011; Hodgson, 2014; Matsuda & Friedrich, 2011; McKay, 2002). The question is: how does the application of an EIL framework into ESOL classrooms alter students’ speaking goals, thus raising confidence level and strengthening feelings of membership within the global English speaking community?
English as an International Language
Today, English is used for a variety of communication purposes across the globe. The development of English as such a language can be attributed to colonization, migration of English speakers, and the spread of technology (McKay, 2002). The idea of the ownership of English can be traced back to the nations with the most colonial power: Great Britain and the United States. Due to colonization, countries began equating power, prestige, and wealth with English, as this is the language Great Britain and the United States used. It is important to note that in some former colonies English has represented, and still represents, a divide between the privileged and the lower-class usually determined by the amount of access that individuals have to the language. In these cases, English is viewed as a tool attainable for some, and out of reach for others.
The migration of English speakers has also contributed to the spread of English. This began with settlers who traveled from Great Britain in search of new land in the 1700s, the so-called "inner circle countries", like the US, Canada and Australia, and continues today as industries become globalized and workers are dispersed. The global expansion of technology is another factor, leading to the ubiquity of English in media and international business. Thus, in theory, the ownership of English is being spread among the people of the world as English speakers continue to increase in numbers and countries adopt the language for official purposes.
A strong argument in favor of English being taught as an international language is that teaching for intelligibility will support the idea that, “English belongs to the people who speak it, whether native or nonnative, whether ESL or EFL, whether standard or nonstandard” (Norton, 1997, p. 427). In today’s world, English is spoken mostly by individuals who are not from "inner-circle" countries (McKay, 2002). Additionally, with the vast amount of forms of communication, it is only plausible that English is used, viewed, and taught as a worldwide language. Scales, Wennerstrom, Richard, and Wu (2006) suggest, “Instead of a single pronunciation model, English language learners could hear, analyze, and compare key features among a variety of accents. Such an approach would address both intelligibility and listening comprehension, increasing communicative flexibility and respect for accent diversity” (p. 735). If diversity within speech becomes recognized as a positive instead of condemned as a negative, then global production skills can be taught effectively to the benefit of students and educators alike.
Pronunciation Instruction Transformation
Over the past few decades, English language instruction has also been in a state of transformation. Recently pronunciation instruction has moved away from traditional instructional methods and materials that have been modeled around native-like speech goals to a broader idea of acceptance through the intelligibility model (Choudhury, 2015; Coskun, 2010, 2011; Hodgson, 2014; McKay, 2002). In the past, inner-circle countries have been glorified as the models that English language learners have measured their abilities by (McKay, 2002). Rote learning through parroting or mimicking to replicate accents from inner-circle countries was the foundation of pronunciation instruction or the “audio-lingual method” (Savage, 2010, p. 6). As English has evolved and expanded over the years, teaching methodologies changed along with it. Some of these methodologies sought to understand identity in relation to one’s speech and challenged the necessity of nativeness with the realization that accentedness is "nearly inevitable" with non-native English speakers. (Munroe & Derwing, 1995, p. 289). This led to increasing support for implementing EIL using the intelligibility model (Scales, Wennerstrom, Richard & Wu, 2006). This knowledge invokes the question: If it is nearly impossible to attain a native-like accent, why has the demand for this type of instruction been so highly prevalent in the history of second language acquisition?
Recent research suggests that it is in fact the students themselves, not necessarily the educators, who demand instruction that is framed around the notion of native-like speech (Matsuda & Friedrich, 2011; Matsuura, 2007; Monfared & Safarzadeh, 2014; Scales, Wennerstrom, Richard & Wu, 2010; Seyedabadi, Fatemi & Pishghadam, 2014). This resistance to intelligibility can be attributed to sociocultural reasons; specifically, the perceived idea that the achievement of accent nativeness grants membership into the inner-circle. Derwing’s (2003) study stated “listeners judged nonnative speakers to be less educated, poorer, less intelligent, and so on” (p. 549). This statement is an explicit example of the social power dynamics that languages hold over individuals. Reasons for wanting to sound like a native-speaker may not necessarily have to do with need, but instead a desire to shed an identity and assimilate into the more positively viewed group. The next section examines how the difficulty in acquiring a native accent can affect students' sense of language identity.
Language Identity
Norton (1997) describes language identity as “complex, contradictory, and multifaceted” (p. 419). From previous research, it is common knowledge that past the age of six, one cannot attain native-like pronunciation (Derwing, 2003, Golombek & Jordan, 2005, Munro & Derwing, 1995, Scales, Wennerstrom, Richard & Wu, 2006). Thus, unrealistic goals are created for language learners who desire native-like speech as adults and their identity is affected when they are subsequently assigned into the category of nonnative-speakers (Scales, Wennerstrom, Richard & Wu, 2006). If students adopt this identity, that is usually equated with a lack of proficiency, then they are submitting to the belief that they are borrowing a target language that will never be their own and they will never be accepted into the inner-circle. Even with the dissolution of the terms native and nonnative speakers, however, preconceived societal stereotypes attached to accents are difficult to remove. Meeting negative reactions to their accents, many ESL learners often seek "to eliminate their accents" (Derwing, 2003, p. 549) and identify nativeness as their main goal while learning English.
To relinquish this negative sense of identity, educators must identify and address this aspect of language learning. The promotion of positivity and inclusion within ESOL instruction begins with the broad understanding that accentedness is neither attainable nor should it be the main objective. Instead, the focus on feeling understood while speaking a language allows for a sense of membership and individual identity. Fundamental features of EIL are the de-nationalization of the English language, the promotion of Standard English having no standard accent associated with it, and the questioning of the term “native-speaker” (McKay, 2002). If these ideas continue to be considered, then there is a chance that the preconceived notions of accented English will slowly diminish as the acceptance of diverse forms of English rise. Norton (1997) states, “Collaborative relations of power, on the other hand, can serve to empower rather than marginalize” (p. 412). The strengthening of students’ identities within the English language starts in a classroom that emphasizes acceptance and praises differences. As Monfared and Safarzadeh (2014) suggest, “Teachers should try to raise learners’ awareness of different varieties of English and help them to improve their confidence” (p. 212).
Prosodic Features
Another recurring area of study within ESL pronunciation instruction research is on prosodic features: accentedness, comprehensibility, and intelligibility. Accentedness is defined as the extent one’s speech differs to the native-speaker model, comprehensibility is how well the listener can understand what the speaker is saying, and intelligibility refers to how much the listener can process successfully (Derwing, Munro & Wiebe, 1998, Munro & Derwing, 1995). Studies have sought to quantitatively discern whether pronunciation is a subject in English language learning that needs to exist at all. Instead, Derwing, Munro, and Weibe (2000) suggest that instruction is focused on larger units of the language such as stress, intonation, and rhythm to secure intelligibility as compared to a segmented approach that is based around individual sounds and syllables comparable to native-speech.
There are many costs that come with speaking accented English. A common cost is the lack of full comprehension by listeners. However, while this has more to do with the listern's familiarity with that type of accent and less with erroneous speech, the speaker can experience an enormous sense of frustration about not being understood, despite being grammatically correct, and often takes on the responsibility of adjusting to the best of their ability. This can result in communication breakdown and often challenges the speaker's feelings of inclusion within the English speaking community (Choudhury, 2015; Coskun 2010, Coskun, 2011; Matsuura, 2007). Further, accent acceptance is not evenly distributed as some accents are widely accepted and others are deemed unintelligible.
On the other hand, if English was presented as an international language instead of an American or British language, accented English would be more widely embraced. One could imagine a scenario where a woman from England is about to speak with a man from China for business purposes. Knowing that the man from China may speak with a different, yet legitimate variety of accent than her, and accepting this as a different form of English instead of an incorrect form, the woman from England adjusts her expectations of what she is about to hear and searches for meaning within the speech instead of a replicated form of British English. This understanding maintains the personal identities of both speakers and utilizes EIL in the form of beneficial cross-cultural communication. This example is not uncommon in our world: more than eighty percent of communication in English is between users of English whose native language is not English (McKay, 2002).
Statement of the Problem
The debate between nativeness and intelligibility has reemerged with vigor due to the continued rise of English speakers and the shift in status that the language represents (Golombek & Jordan, 2005; Derwing, Munro & Wiebe, 2000; Scales, Wennerstrom & Richards, 2006). However, much of the research appears to have substantial limitations with many studies solely based on a process of trial-and-error (Behrman & Akhund, 2013) leading to inconclusive data. One example is a study conducted by Derwing, Munro, and Weibe (2000) who focused on evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction by “having native English-speakers evaluate the effects of 3 types of instruction on the speech of 3 groups of ESL learners” (p. 393) which concludes that, “although all groups tended to improve in fluency, this might be expected in any type of ESL program” (p. 405). Most significantly, many articles focusing on the effectiveness of pronunciation instruction based on intelligibility used scripted readings, although "Research explicitly states that natural communication usually occurs in discourse" (Behrman & Akhund, 2013, p. 1567).
This suggests that research needs to take place in a natural setting with natural discourse. From this, I have determined that my research will be done in my own classroom where natural academic discourse is expected and encouraged.
Conclusion
The English language will only continue to evolve and spread, making it necessary to see English as an international language with international consequences. Within the ESOL field, individuals are commonly placed into one of two groups, native and non-native speakers, creating an inner-circle of those with an inherent mastery of the English language and an outer-circle who, with an idealized notion, strive to gain membership to the inner-circle. This does not do language learners justice, as a representation of societal status rather than ability. The English language has previously represented, above all else, opportunity within the world we live in. This power dynamic between global speakers of English has significant influence over the relationship between one’s language identity and their speaking goals.
The recent shift in pronunciation instruction within EIL now accepts teaching for intelligibility instead of nativeness, recognizing that, “Native accent is unnecessary for intelligibility” (Scales, et al., 2006, p. 717), since as Munro and Derwing (1995) note, "moderately or heavily accented speakers" are "often perfectly intelligible and highly comprehensible” (p. 291). If we accept that accentedness does not deter listener comprehension, native-like speech is unattainable for adult language learners, and the inability to produce native-like speech is detrimental to an individual’s identity, then the transition toward intelligibility instruction is globally beneficial. Additionally, if implementing EIL education is successful in altering students’ speaking goals, which in turn may raise their confidence and creates a better sense of an English language identity, then this may potentially be the basis for an EIL framework that can be taught to educators globally. Heightening EIL awareness with the focus on denationalization and acculturation for educators may be a major step in the global acceptance of non-standard accents within EIL by students and educators alike. As Coskun (2010) wrote, “Since EIL still seems to be on the theoretical level, it is high time to carry it to our classrooms where English is learned as a tool for intercultural communication mostly with non-native speakers” (p. 77).
English as an International Language
Today, English is used for a variety of communication purposes across the globe. The development of English as such a language can be attributed to colonization, migration of English speakers, and the spread of technology (McKay, 2002). The idea of the ownership of English can be traced back to the nations with the most colonial power: Great Britain and the United States. Due to colonization, countries began equating power, prestige, and wealth with English, as this is the language Great Britain and the United States used. It is important to note that in some former colonies English has represented, and still represents, a divide between the privileged and the lower-class usually determined by the amount of access that individuals have to the language. In these cases, English is viewed as a tool attainable for some, and out of reach for others.
The migration of English speakers has also contributed to the spread of English. This began with settlers who traveled from Great Britain in search of new land in the 1700s, the so-called "inner circle countries", like the US, Canada and Australia, and continues today as industries become globalized and workers are dispersed. The global expansion of technology is another factor, leading to the ubiquity of English in media and international business. Thus, in theory, the ownership of English is being spread among the people of the world as English speakers continue to increase in numbers and countries adopt the language for official purposes.
A strong argument in favor of English being taught as an international language is that teaching for intelligibility will support the idea that, “English belongs to the people who speak it, whether native or nonnative, whether ESL or EFL, whether standard or nonstandard” (Norton, 1997, p. 427). In today’s world, English is spoken mostly by individuals who are not from "inner-circle" countries (McKay, 2002). Additionally, with the vast amount of forms of communication, it is only plausible that English is used, viewed, and taught as a worldwide language. Scales, Wennerstrom, Richard, and Wu (2006) suggest, “Instead of a single pronunciation model, English language learners could hear, analyze, and compare key features among a variety of accents. Such an approach would address both intelligibility and listening comprehension, increasing communicative flexibility and respect for accent diversity” (p. 735). If diversity within speech becomes recognized as a positive instead of condemned as a negative, then global production skills can be taught effectively to the benefit of students and educators alike.
Pronunciation Instruction Transformation
Over the past few decades, English language instruction has also been in a state of transformation. Recently pronunciation instruction has moved away from traditional instructional methods and materials that have been modeled around native-like speech goals to a broader idea of acceptance through the intelligibility model (Choudhury, 2015; Coskun, 2010, 2011; Hodgson, 2014; McKay, 2002). In the past, inner-circle countries have been glorified as the models that English language learners have measured their abilities by (McKay, 2002). Rote learning through parroting or mimicking to replicate accents from inner-circle countries was the foundation of pronunciation instruction or the “audio-lingual method” (Savage, 2010, p. 6). As English has evolved and expanded over the years, teaching methodologies changed along with it. Some of these methodologies sought to understand identity in relation to one’s speech and challenged the necessity of nativeness with the realization that accentedness is "nearly inevitable" with non-native English speakers. (Munroe & Derwing, 1995, p. 289). This led to increasing support for implementing EIL using the intelligibility model (Scales, Wennerstrom, Richard & Wu, 2006). This knowledge invokes the question: If it is nearly impossible to attain a native-like accent, why has the demand for this type of instruction been so highly prevalent in the history of second language acquisition?
Recent research suggests that it is in fact the students themselves, not necessarily the educators, who demand instruction that is framed around the notion of native-like speech (Matsuda & Friedrich, 2011; Matsuura, 2007; Monfared & Safarzadeh, 2014; Scales, Wennerstrom, Richard & Wu, 2010; Seyedabadi, Fatemi & Pishghadam, 2014). This resistance to intelligibility can be attributed to sociocultural reasons; specifically, the perceived idea that the achievement of accent nativeness grants membership into the inner-circle. Derwing’s (2003) study stated “listeners judged nonnative speakers to be less educated, poorer, less intelligent, and so on” (p. 549). This statement is an explicit example of the social power dynamics that languages hold over individuals. Reasons for wanting to sound like a native-speaker may not necessarily have to do with need, but instead a desire to shed an identity and assimilate into the more positively viewed group. The next section examines how the difficulty in acquiring a native accent can affect students' sense of language identity.
Language Identity
Norton (1997) describes language identity as “complex, contradictory, and multifaceted” (p. 419). From previous research, it is common knowledge that past the age of six, one cannot attain native-like pronunciation (Derwing, 2003, Golombek & Jordan, 2005, Munro & Derwing, 1995, Scales, Wennerstrom, Richard & Wu, 2006). Thus, unrealistic goals are created for language learners who desire native-like speech as adults and their identity is affected when they are subsequently assigned into the category of nonnative-speakers (Scales, Wennerstrom, Richard & Wu, 2006). If students adopt this identity, that is usually equated with a lack of proficiency, then they are submitting to the belief that they are borrowing a target language that will never be their own and they will never be accepted into the inner-circle. Even with the dissolution of the terms native and nonnative speakers, however, preconceived societal stereotypes attached to accents are difficult to remove. Meeting negative reactions to their accents, many ESL learners often seek "to eliminate their accents" (Derwing, 2003, p. 549) and identify nativeness as their main goal while learning English.
To relinquish this negative sense of identity, educators must identify and address this aspect of language learning. The promotion of positivity and inclusion within ESOL instruction begins with the broad understanding that accentedness is neither attainable nor should it be the main objective. Instead, the focus on feeling understood while speaking a language allows for a sense of membership and individual identity. Fundamental features of EIL are the de-nationalization of the English language, the promotion of Standard English having no standard accent associated with it, and the questioning of the term “native-speaker” (McKay, 2002). If these ideas continue to be considered, then there is a chance that the preconceived notions of accented English will slowly diminish as the acceptance of diverse forms of English rise. Norton (1997) states, “Collaborative relations of power, on the other hand, can serve to empower rather than marginalize” (p. 412). The strengthening of students’ identities within the English language starts in a classroom that emphasizes acceptance and praises differences. As Monfared and Safarzadeh (2014) suggest, “Teachers should try to raise learners’ awareness of different varieties of English and help them to improve their confidence” (p. 212).
Prosodic Features
Another recurring area of study within ESL pronunciation instruction research is on prosodic features: accentedness, comprehensibility, and intelligibility. Accentedness is defined as the extent one’s speech differs to the native-speaker model, comprehensibility is how well the listener can understand what the speaker is saying, and intelligibility refers to how much the listener can process successfully (Derwing, Munro & Wiebe, 1998, Munro & Derwing, 1995). Studies have sought to quantitatively discern whether pronunciation is a subject in English language learning that needs to exist at all. Instead, Derwing, Munro, and Weibe (2000) suggest that instruction is focused on larger units of the language such as stress, intonation, and rhythm to secure intelligibility as compared to a segmented approach that is based around individual sounds and syllables comparable to native-speech.
There are many costs that come with speaking accented English. A common cost is the lack of full comprehension by listeners. However, while this has more to do with the listern's familiarity with that type of accent and less with erroneous speech, the speaker can experience an enormous sense of frustration about not being understood, despite being grammatically correct, and often takes on the responsibility of adjusting to the best of their ability. This can result in communication breakdown and often challenges the speaker's feelings of inclusion within the English speaking community (Choudhury, 2015; Coskun 2010, Coskun, 2011; Matsuura, 2007). Further, accent acceptance is not evenly distributed as some accents are widely accepted and others are deemed unintelligible.
On the other hand, if English was presented as an international language instead of an American or British language, accented English would be more widely embraced. One could imagine a scenario where a woman from England is about to speak with a man from China for business purposes. Knowing that the man from China may speak with a different, yet legitimate variety of accent than her, and accepting this as a different form of English instead of an incorrect form, the woman from England adjusts her expectations of what she is about to hear and searches for meaning within the speech instead of a replicated form of British English. This understanding maintains the personal identities of both speakers and utilizes EIL in the form of beneficial cross-cultural communication. This example is not uncommon in our world: more than eighty percent of communication in English is between users of English whose native language is not English (McKay, 2002).
Statement of the Problem
The debate between nativeness and intelligibility has reemerged with vigor due to the continued rise of English speakers and the shift in status that the language represents (Golombek & Jordan, 2005; Derwing, Munro & Wiebe, 2000; Scales, Wennerstrom & Richards, 2006). However, much of the research appears to have substantial limitations with many studies solely based on a process of trial-and-error (Behrman & Akhund, 2013) leading to inconclusive data. One example is a study conducted by Derwing, Munro, and Weibe (2000) who focused on evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation instruction by “having native English-speakers evaluate the effects of 3 types of instruction on the speech of 3 groups of ESL learners” (p. 393) which concludes that, “although all groups tended to improve in fluency, this might be expected in any type of ESL program” (p. 405). Most significantly, many articles focusing on the effectiveness of pronunciation instruction based on intelligibility used scripted readings, although "Research explicitly states that natural communication usually occurs in discourse" (Behrman & Akhund, 2013, p. 1567).
This suggests that research needs to take place in a natural setting with natural discourse. From this, I have determined that my research will be done in my own classroom where natural academic discourse is expected and encouraged.
Conclusion
The English language will only continue to evolve and spread, making it necessary to see English as an international language with international consequences. Within the ESOL field, individuals are commonly placed into one of two groups, native and non-native speakers, creating an inner-circle of those with an inherent mastery of the English language and an outer-circle who, with an idealized notion, strive to gain membership to the inner-circle. This does not do language learners justice, as a representation of societal status rather than ability. The English language has previously represented, above all else, opportunity within the world we live in. This power dynamic between global speakers of English has significant influence over the relationship between one’s language identity and their speaking goals.
The recent shift in pronunciation instruction within EIL now accepts teaching for intelligibility instead of nativeness, recognizing that, “Native accent is unnecessary for intelligibility” (Scales, et al., 2006, p. 717), since as Munro and Derwing (1995) note, "moderately or heavily accented speakers" are "often perfectly intelligible and highly comprehensible” (p. 291). If we accept that accentedness does not deter listener comprehension, native-like speech is unattainable for adult language learners, and the inability to produce native-like speech is detrimental to an individual’s identity, then the transition toward intelligibility instruction is globally beneficial. Additionally, if implementing EIL education is successful in altering students’ speaking goals, which in turn may raise their confidence and creates a better sense of an English language identity, then this may potentially be the basis for an EIL framework that can be taught to educators globally. Heightening EIL awareness with the focus on denationalization and acculturation for educators may be a major step in the global acceptance of non-standard accents within EIL by students and educators alike. As Coskun (2010) wrote, “Since EIL still seems to be on the theoretical level, it is high time to carry it to our classrooms where English is learned as a tool for intercultural communication mostly with non-native speakers” (p. 77).