The white native speaker and inequality regimes in the private English language school

Ramjattan, Vijay A.

doi:10.1080/14675986.2018.1538043

Cited by 64 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When researchers use NATIVE SPEAKER in their work, and when participants are excluded from research because they do not fit researcher expectations of a NATIVE SPEAKER, they perpetuate deficit perspectives toward multilingualism and non-hegemonic modes of language acquisition. This can (perhaps, inadvertently) frame these individuals and their practices as deviating from the norm, thus contributing to racialized conceptions of "nativeness" and feelings of LANGUAGELESSNESS among those whose speech is positioned as abnormal, in which individuals might be categorized (either by themselves or others) as not speaking any language at all (Rosa, 2016;Ramjattan, 2019). The linguistic experience of most of humanity does not conform to these assumptions, making the term both widely inapplicable and harmful, as it leads to the systematic exclusion of marginalized populations and perpetuation of deficit perspectives.…”

Section: Harmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scholars who have expanded upon this work have shown that who is seen as a NATIVE SPEAKER of English is racialized, and prizing the speech and labor of perceived NATIVE SPEAKERS of English also ends up prizing whiteness (Gerald, 2020). In the context of Canada, Ramjattan (2019) shows how White 'native speakers' are perceived as being better teachers and more qualified, and, even beyond the context of North America, White speakers of English are more likely to be perceived as "native" (Sung, 2011;Lee and Jenks, 2019).…”

Section: Harmmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Problematic Concept of Native Speaker in Psycholinguistics: Replacing Vague and Harmful Terminology With Inclusive and Accurate Measures

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Though the term NATIVE SPEAKER/SIGNER is frequently used in language research, it is inconsistently conceptualized. Factors, such as age, order, and context of acquisition, in addition to social/cultural identity, are often differentially conflated. While the ambiguity and harmful consequences of the term NATIVE SPEAKER have been problematized across disciplines, much of this literature attempts to repurpose the term in order to include and/or exclude certain populations. This paper problematizes NATIVE SPEAKER within psycholinguistics, arguing that the term is both unhelpful to rigorous theory construction and harmful to marginalized populations by reproducing normative assumptions about behavior, experience, and identity. We propose that language researchers avoid NATIVE SPEAKER altogether, and we suggest alternate ways of characterizing language experience/use. The vagueness of NATIVE SPEAKER can create problems in research design (e.g., through systematically excluding certain populations), recruitment (as participants’ definitions might diverge from researchers’), and analysis (by distilling continuous factors into under-specified binary categories). This can result in barriers to cross-study comparison, which is particularly concerning for theory construction and replicability. From a research ethics perspective, it matters how participants are characterized and included: Excluding participants based on binary/essentialist conceptualizations of nativeness upholds deficit perspectives toward multilingualism and non-hegemonic modes of language acquisition. Finally, by implicitly assuming the existence of a critical period, NATIVE SPEAKER brings with it theoretical baggage which not all researchers may want to carry. Given the issues above and how ‘nativeness’ is racialized (particularly in European and North American contexts), we ask that researchers consider carefully whether exclusion of marginalized/minoritized populations is necessary or justified—particularly when NATIVE SPEAKER is used only as a way to achieve linguistic homogeneity. Instead, we urge psycholinguists to explicitly state the specific axes traditionally implied by NATIVENESS that they wish to target. We outline several of these (e.g., order of acquisition, allegiance, and comfort with providing intuitions) and give examples of how to recruit and describe participants while eschewing NATIVE SPEAKER. Shifting away from harmful conventions, such as NATIVE SPEAKER, will not only improve research design and analysis, but also is one way we can co-create a more just and inclusive field.

show abstract

Section: Harmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Harmmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Problematic Concept of Native Speaker in Psycholinguistics: Replacing Vague and Harmful Terminology With Inclusive and Accurate Measures

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These normative assumptions of NATIVE SPEAKER reinforce hegemonic conceptions of language use, ability, acquisition, and linguistic identity. When researchers use NATIVE SPEAKER in their work, and when participants are excluded from research because they do not fit researcher expectations of a NATIVE SPEAKER, they perpetuate deficit perspectives towards multilingualism and non-hegemonic modes of language acquisition, inadvertently framing these as a deviation from the norm and thus contributing to racialized conceptions of "nativeness" and feelings of LANGUAGELESSNESS among those who speech is positioned as abnormal (Rosa 2016;Ramjattan 2019). The linguistic experience of most of humanity does not conform to these assumptions, making the term both widely inapplicable and harmful, as it leads to the systematic exclusion of marginalized populations and perpetuation of deficit perspectives.…”

Section: Harmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scholars who have expanded upon this work have shown that who is seen as a NATIVE SPEAKER of English is racialized, and prizing the speech and labor of perceived NATIVE SPEAKERS of English also ends up prizing whiteness (Gerald 2020). In the context of Canada, Ramjattan (2019) shows how White 'native speakers' are perceived as being better teachers and more qualified, and, even beyond the context of North America, White speakers of English are more likely to be perceived as 'native' (Lee and Jenks 2019;Sung 2011).…”

Section: Box 3: An Example Profile Of a Mobile Deaf Signermentioning

confidence: 99%

The problematic concept of "native speaker" in Psycholinguistics: Replacing vague and harmful terminology with inclusive and accurate measures

Cheng¹,

Burgess²,

Vernooij³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Though the term NATIVE SPEAKER/SIGNER is frequently used in language research, it is inconsistently conceptualized. Factors such as age, order, and context of acquisition, in addition to social/cultural identity, are often differentially conflated. While the ambiguity and harmful consequences of the term NATIVE SPEAKER have been problematized across disciplines, much of this literature attempts to repurpose the term in order to include and/or exclude certain populations. This paper problematizes NATIVE SPEAKER within psycholinguistics, arguing that the term is both unhelpful to rigorous theory construction and harmful to marginalized populations by reproducing normative assumptions about behavior, experience, and identity. We propose that language researchers avoid NATIVE SPEAKER altogether, and we suggest alternate ways of characterizing language experience/use.The vagueness of NATIVE SPEAKER can create problems in research design (e.g., through systematically excluding certain populations), recruitment (as participants’ definitions might diverge from researchers’), and analysis (by distilling continuous factors into under-specified binary categories). This can result in barriers to cross-study comparison, which is particularly concerning for theory construction and replicability. From a research ethics perspective, it matters how participants are characterized and included: Excluding participants based on binary/essentialist conceptualizations of nativeness upholds deficit perspectives towards multilingualism and non-hegemonic modes of language acquisition. Finally, by implicitly assuming the existence of a critical period, NATIVE SPEAKER brings with it theoretical baggage which not all researchers may want to carry.Given the issues above and how ‘nativeness’ is racialized (particularly in European and North American contexts), we ask that researchers consider carefully whether exclusion of marginalized/minoritized populations is necessary or justified—particularly when NATIVE SPEAKER is used only as a way to achieve linguistic homogeneity. Instead, we urge psycholinguists to explicitly state the specific axes traditionally implied by NATIVENESS that they wish to target. We outline several of these (e.g., order of acquisition, allegiance, comfort with providing intuitions), and give examples of how to recruit and describe participants while eschewing NATIVE SPEAKER. Shifting away from harmful conventions such as NATIVE SPEAKER will not only improve research design and analysis, but is also one way we can co-create a more just and inclusive field.

show abstract

“…This relationship is further consolidated through the conventional inequality in remuneration paid and workload allocated to ELT practitioners in reference to their L1, racial and national backgrounds (e.g., Methitham, 2012;Ramjattan, 2019). The endorsement for NESTs is also observable from a finding shared by a great number of studies on the atitudes of EFL students toward NESTs and NNESTs (e.g., Benke & Medgyes, 2005;Ma, 2012;Sung, 2014), namely, NESTs are perceived as being linguaculturally more competent in English than NNESTs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

NESTs Versus NNESTs Politics: From the Perspective of English-major Students in China

Jun-shuan¹

2020

JLAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports on the findings of a study that explores the mentality of Chinese English-major students on the politics of native English speaker teachers (NESTs) versus nonnative English speaker teachers (NNESTs) through a questionnaire survey of 95 undergraduate English majoring in English at a Chinese university. Data analysis reveals that the vast majority of the participants viewed Inner Circle NESTs as being linguistically more competent in English than Outer Circle English teachers and local Chinese English teachers (LCETs), deemed it natural to prioritize Inner Circle NESTs in the hiring of foreign English teachers and considered it reasonable to offer higher payment to NESTs. Although Inner Circle NESTs are also deemed pedagogically more capable than the other two categories of English teachers, this positioning is less salient than that concerning the linguistic competence that NESTs and NNESTs are assumed to possess. All these findings suggests the continuity of native speakerism in China. Nevertheless, that many students maintained a neutral stance on the superiority of NESTs over LCETs in adopting diverse teaching methods and learner-centered principle as well on the intelligibility of Inner Circle NESTs versus Outer Circle English teachers deserves further exploration.

show abstract

The white native speaker and inequality regimes in the private English language school

Cited by 64 publications

References 16 publications

The Problematic Concept of Native Speaker in Psycholinguistics: Replacing Vague and Harmful Terminology With Inclusive and Accurate Measures

The Problematic Concept of Native Speaker in Psycholinguistics: Replacing Vague and Harmful Terminology With Inclusive and Accurate Measures

The problematic concept of "native speaker" in Psycholinguistics: Replacing vague and harmful terminology with inclusive and accurate measures

NESTs Versus NNESTs Politics: From the Perspective of English-major Students in China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About