VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES ĐỖ THỊ MINH NGỌC NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE APPROACHES TO TEACHING ENGLISH AS
A GLOBAL LINGUA FRANCA AS PERCEIVED BY TEACHERS AND
STUDENTS AT THE FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER
EDUCATION, ULIS, VNU QUAN ĐIỂM CỦA GIÁO VIÊN VÀ SINH VIÊN KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG
ANH, ĐHNN-ĐHQGHN VỀ ĐỊNH HƯỚNG BẢN NGỮ VÀ PHI BẢN NGỮ
TRONG GIẢNG DẠY TIẾNG ANH NHƯ MỘT NGÔN NGỮ TRUNG GIAN
TOÀN CẦU
M.A. Combined Program Thesis Field: English Language Teaching Methodology
Code: 60.14.10
Supervisor: Dr. Ngo Huu Hoang HANOI – 2012

v
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Figures
Figure
Content
Page
Figure 1
Kachru‟s categorization of countries in which English is used
11
Figure 2
Selinker‟s interlanguage continuum
29
Figure 3
Medgyes‟s version of interlanguage continuum
29

Tables
Table
Content
Page
Table 1
Perceived differences in Teaching Behavior between NESTs
and NNESTs (Medgyes, 1994)
33

Students‟ perceptions of NS spoken grammar
67
Table 12
Students‟ preference of Culture
68
Table 13
Teachers‟ preference of Native and Non-native Pronunciation
69
Table 14
Teachers‟ preference of Grammar
70
Table 15
Teachers‟ preferred grammar model
71
Table 16
Teachers‟ perceptions of spoken grammar
72
Table 17
Teachers‟ perceptions of Students‟ Cultural Preference
73
Table 18
Teachers‟ preference of Culture
74
Table 19
Teachers‟ views on the current situation
76
Table 20
Teachers‟ views about the future
77


and NNESTs 29
1. 2. 3. 2. Attitudes towards NESTs and NNESTs 36 vii
Chapter 2: Research Methodology 41
2. 1. Participants 41
2. 2. Research approach 42
2. 3. Research method 43
2. 3. 1. Data collection method 43
2. 3. 1. 1. Open-ended questionnaire 43
2. 3. 1. 2. Interviews 44
2. 3. 2. Data analysis method 45
Chapter 3: Findings Analysis and Discussion 46
3. 1. Perceptions of Native and Non-Native English Speaking Teachers 46
3. 1. 1. Preference over Native and Non-Native English Speaking Teachers 46
3. 1. 1. 1. Discussion of the student results 46
3. 1. 1. 2. Discussion of teacher results 48
3. 1. 1. 3. Comparing the student results and the teacher results 52
3. 1. 2. Perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of NESTs and NNESTs 53
3. 1. 2. 1. Discussion of student results 53
3. 1. 2. 2. Discussion of teacher results 55
3. 1. 2. 3. Comparing the student results and the teacher results 59
3. 2. Perceptions of Native Speaker Model in language teaching/ learning 60
3. 2. 1. Teaching/ learning goal 60
3. 2. 1. 1. Discussion of student results 60
3. 2. 1. 2. Discussion of teacher results 61
3. 2. 1. 3. Comparing the student results and the teacher results 62
3. 2. 2. Preferred varieties of English 63
3. 2. 2. 1. Discussion of student results 63

“for the world” (Ngo, 2012).
The globalization of English is not all merits in itself, though. One foreseeable
effect is that English is being dragged drastically away from the hands of its
originators, being modified and hybridized in various aspects. The puzzling
questions of the ownership of English are thus emerging as a bothersome issue to
researchers: Who actually owns English? Whose English should be adopted as the
model for international communication? Do language learners need to rigidly adhere
to the native speaker norms to guarantee their communicative competence?
Although recommendations have been made for teachers, learners, and all
users of English to move beyond the native-speaker model as the sole target in
English language instruction (Jenkins, 2000, 2006; McKay, 2002: Brutt-Griffler,
2002; Seidlhofer, 2001), there exists a fact that the native-speaker model is still
mythically “worshipped” in many countries, including Vietnam. Obsessed with the
native-speaker language competence, learners rush en masse to English language
centers which advertise opportunities to work with “native English teachers” and
promise the capability of “using English as a native speaker” in the shortest time.
These catchy phrases are also repeatedly found in a wide range of recruitment
advertisements, “Native English Instructors wanted”, “Native speakers, over 22, with
university degree only”, to name just a few (cited in Fukumura, 1993). Another

2
example on this issue is the recent recruitment of 100 Philippine
1
teachers of English
by the Department of Education and Training (DOET) in Ho Chi Minh City,
Vietnam. This decision provoked two different waves of responses: one is from
parents who questioned the recruitment of such teachers whose language competence
was thought not to be any better than Vietnamese teachers of English; and the other
is from Vietnamese teachers who felt being discriminated against by their foreign
counterparts


3
American and British, and so on). Fortunately, due to the country‟s endeavor to
further its integration into international and regional communities, a part of
Vietnamese people are becoming more aware of the necessity of a linguistic
repertoire which can cater to the communicative needs with not only Americans or
Britons or Australians, but also with people from neighboring countries such as
Singapore and the Philippines. In this way, the pluralistic standard approach, albeit
still dim and weak, has started to make inroads into the ELT stream.
All the aforementioned features reflect the intersection between two main
approaches to Vietnamese language education, that can be termed shortly Native
Approach and Non-native Approach. While the former clings to the traditional
loyalty to Inner Circle countries‟ norms, the latter presents an effort to curtail the
native- speaker dominance and to encourage the incorporation of more varieties, or
New Englishes, into practice. The issue of accepting and adapting New Englishes has
been raised in Vietnam, but whether this proposal can offer a plausible alternative to
the traditional version still generates a heated debate. What we need now is serious
research on both theoretical and practical feasibility of each approach within the
Vietnamese current context. Nevertheless, seemingly up to date not much has been
done except for quite few related studies like Do‟s research (2010), Pham‟s review
(2001), and Ton & Pham‟s investigation (2010). This research gap sparks the
researcher‟s special interest and serves as the first and foremost impetus for the
implementation of this research on “Native and Non-native approaches to teaching
English as a global lingua franca as perceived by teachers and students at FELTE,
ULIS, VNU.” Hopefully, this attempt can narrow the gap and bring new perspectives
to the field.
2. Previous Studies
There is a growing body of publications and research concerning the global
status of English. Back in the late 19
th

(1998), Bolton (2002) and Groves (2009) on Hong Kong English; Bolton (2003) and
Adamson (2004) on China English; Stanlaw (2004) on Japanese English; Pakir
(1992), Brown, Deterding, and Ee Ling (2000), and Deterding, Brown, and Ee Ling
(2005) on Singapore English; and the most groundbreaking Kachru‟s research (2005)
on “the Asianess in Asian Englihes” and a number of edited collections (e.g. Ho &
Ward, 2000; Kirkpatrick, 2002) cover a range of Asian Englishes along with
implications for their teaching and learning.

5
The dramatic increase in the number of publications concerning the rising role
of WEs and ELF provide evidence for the conclusion that the “WEs seeds sown by
Kachru and others in the 1980s have blossomed and flourished…, and that ELF, too,
has more recently become a vibrant area of study” (Jenkins, 2004). It is critical to
highlight that the advocates of ELF perspectives are not only those coming from the
Outer and Expanding Circle, the non-Anglo Saxons (e.g. Kachru, David Nunan,
Canaharajah, Parakrama, etc.) but also those with Anglo-Saxon origins (McArthur,
McKay, David Crystal, Larry Smith, Kirkpatrick, etc.). It indicates that ELF is not a
desperate desire of a group of non-native speakers aspiring to a equal status with the
native; rather, it is a natural trend realized by the whole world in the demand for
successful international or intercultural communication.
Under this perspective, many studies have been conducted, providing a
comparison between Native Speaker Model and Non-Native Speaker Model (e.g.
The Native Speaker is Dead! of Paikeday, 1985; Native and Non-native: who’s worth
more of Peter Medgyes, 1992; Native English - Speaking Teachers versus Non-
Native English-Speaking Teachers of Merino, 1997; Native and Non-native: What
can they offer? of Tajino & Tajino, 2000; Insights towards Native and Non-Native
ELT Educators of Ulate, 2011; etc.). Many of these reject the native speaker fallacy
and attach great importance to the role of Non-native English-speaking Teachers in
the instruction of ELF (Cook, 1999; Braine, 1999; Medgyes, 1999, 2001; Moussu &
Llurda, 2008). In the same vein, many studies are dedicated to investigating the

Indian, and South African settings, found out that the majority of students and
teachers still showed a strong favor of native speaker model in terms of both
pronunciation and grammar use and considered it as “a benchmark of perfection and
achievement” and “as the long term goal”.
In Vietnamese context, studies on ELF teaching approaches also make some
significant contributions to the issue (Do, H. T, 2000; Pham, H.H., 2001; Tran, L.,
2002; Ton, N.N.H & Pham, H.H., 2010; Ngo, H.H., 2012). The significance of
incorporating World Englishes has been seriously considered and voices have been
collected towards the introduction of various varieties of English into ELT. Do
(2000) and Ton & Pham (2010), for example, conducted survey studies to discover
the preferred varieties of English from the Vietnamese teachers‟ and learner‟s point
of view. Pham (2001) and Ngo (2012) step further from these findings by asserting
that English used as a global language needs to be diversified and to become “a truly
international language which people around the globe can use equally to serve their
own varying purposes” (Pham, 2001). In this sense, different varieties of English

7
must be accepted and the approach of following the native speaker model should be
proven “outdated and unreasonable” as well as “too hard to succeed” (Ngo, 2012).
Overall, to date, Vietnamese studies focus much on what particular varieties should
be adopted, and less on the the role of language teachers in providing an appropriate
language model, and thus leaving a research gap for further exploration.
3. Scope of the study
The issues of English as a Global Lingua Franca has sparked the interest of
many researchers for over three decades. As Kachru (2005:157) pointed out,
“researchers […] are interested in all aspects of the emergence, grammars,
sociolinguistics, ideological issues, creative literature, and teaching and learning.” In
pedagogical respect only, there are also a lot to be taken into consideration. TESOL
practitioners have enthusiastically discussed over the “competitive edge” of native
teachers and non-native teachers, over what community‟s norms should be adopted,

3. To what extent do FELTE teachers‟ and learners‟ perceptions influence their
real teaching/learning practice?
5. Significance of the Study
Once the research has been completed, it will significantly contribute to the
development of English language teaching in FELTE, ULIS - VNU both
theoretically and practically.
In terms of theoretical contribution, the research will hopefully provide an
insight into FELTE teachers‟ and learners‟ beliefs in the new role of a language
teacher when English is being globalized. Their opinions about their strengths and
weaknesses in comparison with Native English Speaking Teachers will also be
examined to reveal their readiness to teach and learn English as a Global Lingua
Franca. Added to this, voices from FELTE teachers and learners will also be
collected in relation to the significance of conformity to Native Speakers model and
norms as a standard or the backbone of the teaching and learning process. The role of
Native Speaker Model and its influence on every dimension of language teaching in
a country where English is taught as a foreign language will be then reconsidered and
probably redefined with the aim of bringing out positive changes in attitudes and
perceptions toward ELT pedagogy.

9
In terms of practical benefit, the research findings will hopefully help FELTE
teachers realize the pitfalls in their instruction (if any), which will then lay the
foundation for adequate adjustments. They will also set a reference framework for
the development of new teaching approaches, new teaching goals, new teaching
methods, and a more appropriate selection of teaching materials so that English
language teaching in FELTE in particular and across Vietnam in general can fit into
the global trend, being able to fulfill the mission challenged by the globalization era.
6. Design of the study
The paper is developed into three main parts:
PART I is Introduction. This part includes general details that serve as the

kinds of casual contacts and entertainment. The demand for the acquisition of
English in a wide range of social and professional domains has elevated its
significance to such a level that the learning or not learning the language can
determine who is capable or incapable of keeping pace with the “international
movement” (Modiano, 2003). In other words, those who do not want to lag behind
the world have no other option but, naturally, pick up the language. Take
Singaporean case as a typical example. Singaporeans view the acquisition of English
as the key to their economic survival or gateway to better future. Singaporean parents
maintain that:

“A lack of a command in English would mean the continued marginalization of their
children in a world that would continue to use the language to a greater degree. It
would also deny them access to the extensive resources available in English –
resources which have developed as a consequence of globalization.” (Chew, 1999)

Hence, it is easy to realize that postmodern citizens‟ current interest in
English learning is not a consequence of coercion as it used to be in the colonization
era. Rather, it is “being fueled by a belief in the power of English” (McKay, 2003).
That means, English learning is “a conscious choice” of all the individuals “who
believe it is to their benefit to acquire English as an additional language” (McKay,
2003). As the number of these individuals sours drastically, the world sees a
tremendous growth in the use of English. This entire process of English

11
“macroacquisition” (a term coined by Brutt-Griffler, 2002), “has gained so much
momentum that at the moment nothing seems to be able to stop it in the foreseeable
future,” argued Schneider (2011).
1. 1. 2. Kachru’s Three Circles Model and English varieties
So far, it has been made clear that the spread of English today does not base
its root either in the increase in the native speaker‟s population or in speaker

million
Outer Circle
e.g. India, the
Philippines, Singapore
150-300 million
Expanding Circle
e.g. China, Japan, Germany
100-1000 million

12
(c) The Expanding Circle: where English is widely studied as a foreign
language;

On proposing this model, Kachru should be credited for his attempt to
demonstrate the diversity and pluralistic reality of English. The most noticeable
drawback of the model, however, is that there remains the connotation of linguistic
superiority in the model‟s core. The Inner Circle communities are regarded by
Kachru as norm-providing, possessing their own well-established varieties of
English; the Outer Circles communities, by contrast, are still in the process of
developing their own varieties, the „New Englishes‟, and thus are seen as norm-
developing. Finally, the Expanding Circle communities are deemed as norm-
dependent, void of the right to their own variety-development. This distinction
“locates the native speakers and native-speaking countries at the centre of the global
use of English, and, by implication, the sources of models of correctness” (Graddol,
1997). The standard-orientation perspective and the treatment of Inner Circle English
as the “model of correctness” is seemingly no longer rational, especially when
English use in Outer and Expanding Circles is developing at a rocketing speed:

“Based solely on expected population changes, the number of people using English as
their second language will grow from 235 million to around 462 million during the

with their local forms, which leads to the codification of many new versions. The co-
existence of a number of world varieties of English (British, American, Australian,
Indian, East African, South-east Asian, to name just a few) with all of their
distinctive features of pronunciation and usage demands a re-conceptualization of the
relationship between them (Canagarajah, 2006). In order to fulfill that demand,
Canagarajah and Said (2009) suggest we move closer towards the notion of English
as “a heterogeneous language with multiple norms and diverse grammars”, as well as
towards Crystal (2004) notion of English as „a family of languages‟ or McArthur‟s
(1987) egalitarian model where the different varieties relate to each other on a single
level (and not hierarchically as in Kachru‟s).” The adoption of this new perspective,
on the one hand, brings in a much more tolerant view of regional varieties, but on the
other hand, complicates our notions of forms and proficiency which are so important
in pedagogical contexts.

14
1. 1. 3. World Englishes, Word Standard English and New Englishes
As Seidlhofer (2004) pointed out, “wherever English is referred to as the
preferred option for communication among people from different first language
background, the denomination English tends to get modified by the addition as a(n)
x”. A plethora of terminology, including „English as an international language‟ (EIL)
(e.g. Jenkins, 2000; McKay, 2002), „English as a lingua franca‟ (ELF) (e.g.
Gnutzmann, 2000; Seidlhofer, 2001), „English as a global language‟ (e.g. Crystal,
1997; Gnutzmann, 1999), „English as a world language‟ (e.g. Mair, 2003), „English
as a medium of intercultural communication‟ (e.g. Meierkord, 1996), etc. is currently
in circulation. They are even used interchangeably to indicate the same phenomenon
that English today is used internationally as a means of wider communication for a
variety of purposes and in a variety of contexts.
No matter what terms are selected, then, it is obvious that the uses of English
internationally are not restricted to the native language with all of its dialects in the
Inner Circle, but also associated with the New Englishes, or indigenized varieties

associated with the Inner Circle‟s (especially American and British) print
and electronic media (Bolton, 2003).
 New Englishes generally refers to the recently emerging and increasing
autonomous, localized and/or nativized varieties of English found in a
non-western setting such as the Caribbean, West and East of Africa, and
parts of Asia (Bolton, 2002a; Bolton 2003 ; McArthur, 1992)

Another term which also attracts a lot of attention is World Standard English.
If World Englishes approach takes all varieties of English into account, then World
Standard English is a “hypothetical, monolithic form of English” (Jenkin, 2004). The
contrast between World English and World Standard English is the contrast between
a common core of international “English”, and geographically dispersed and
distinctive Englishes. This form recalls Quirk‟s (1985) “single monochrome standard
form” that is based on the native speaker English advocated for non-native speakers
of English regardless of their communicative context. This concept of English is
crucially different from the concept of English as a lingua franca, which is the focus
of this paper. Thus, it will not be subject to further analysis.
1. 1. 4. International English and English as a Lingua Franca
In recent years, the term „English as a lingua franca‟ (ELF) has emerged as a
preferred way of referring to communication in English between speakers with
different first languages. EFL is said to be a part of a more general phenomenon of

16
„English as an international language‟ (EIL) or International English as its shortened
name. These terms are often used interchangeably as general cover terms for uses of
English spanning Inner Circle, Outer Circle, and Expanding Circle contexts (Kachru,
1992).
In fact, international language, in this case English, is a complex concept to
define. To some people, it must be a language with a large number of speakers.
Viewed in this sense, English can hardly gain its position as a dominant international

language” (Samarin, 1987). A lingua franca, as shown by this definition, has no
native speakers. This feature is carried over into the definition of English as a lingua
franca, as the following:

[ELF is] a “contact language” between persons who share neither a common native
tongue nor a common (national) culture, and for whom English is the chosen foreign
language of communication. (Firth, 1996)

[ELF is] a vehicular language spoken by people who do not share a native language.
(Mauranen, 2003)

ELF interactions are defined as interactions between members of two or more different
linguacultures in English, for none of whom English is the mother tongue. (House,
1999)

Defined in this way, ELF is seemingly interpreted in “its purest form”
(Seidlhofer, 2004:211). However, both Maurenen (2003) and Seidlhofer (2004)
pointed out that ELF is unlike other contact languages. It is not, as many
misunderstand, a reduced version to allow more straightforward exchange of
information, “the end result of the gradual abandonment, avoidance or alteration of
non-native speakers” (Sowden, 2011). It is also not an artificial language with a
monolithic construct and a uniform set of norm. Instead, it should be seen as “a set of
linguistic resources which, while sharing common ground, is typically more variable
than other language varieties” (Dewey, 2007).
Although more ELF interactions take place among non-native speakers of
English, it is necessary to remember that they also “often include interlocutors from
the Inner and Outer Circles” (Seidlhofer, 2004). However, what makes ELF
interactions distinguishable from any other kind of interactions (such as those
between native speakers or between native and non-native speakers) is that the use of
language is directed towards practical purposes among those people varied in their

subjected to a great variety of interpretations. Some people argue that the essential
feature of a native speaker is that English must be the first language learned. “The
first language a human being learns to speak is his native language; he is a native
speaker of this language” (Bloomfield, 1933). However, this definition seems to be
too restricting. In fact, the first learned language can be replaced by a language that

19
is acquired later (although may not be completely forgotten) through the more
frequent and fluent use of the later-acquired language where the first language is “no
longer useful, no longer generative or creative and therefore no longer „first‟”
(Davies, 1991:16). Some others contend that “to be a native speaker involves the
continued use of English in that person‟s life”. For some still others, being a native
speaker assumes a high level of competence in English. The native speaker is the
authority of the grammar of his or her native language (Chomsky, 1965) who “knows
what the language is […] and what the language isn‟t […]” (Davies, 1991:1).
According to this logic, a native speaker is an individual who is infallible and has
perfect command of his or her language.
Arriving at a clear definition of a native speaker is a challenging and irritating
task to do. Thus, for a quick understanding of the term and in order to get a clearer
picture of what a native speaker is, the researcher would like to list out six defining
features of a native speaker that numerous scholars in the field of Second Language
Acquisition and language teaching support and agree upon. These features are:
(1) The individual acquired the language in early childhood (Davies, 1991;
McArthur, 1992; Phillipson, 1992) and maintains the use of the language
(Kubota, 2002; McArthur, 1992),
(2) The individual has intuitive knowledge of the language (Davies, 1991;
Stern, 1983),
(3) The individual is able to produce fluent, spontaneous discourse (Davies,
1991; Maum, 2002; Medgyes, 1992),
(4) The individual is communicatively competent (Davies, 1991; Liu, 1999;