Written by Liam Robinson
We often imagine Western universities as inclusive environments, where students from all walks of life come together to share ideas and work towards common academic and professional goals. This idyllic image is ubiquitous across university websites and promotional materials, establishing it within the dominant discourse of Western academic institutions. Unfortunately, this is a false narrative that does not accurately reflect the deep social divide between students, which has been uncovered by recent research. A major cause of this division is ‘native-speakerism’, an ideology that positions first language speakers of English atop the social hierarchy of English-speaking academic institutions. This ideology creates deeply entrenched social barriers between ‘international’ students who are second language speakers of English (L2) and ‘home’ students who speak English as a first language (L1). These barriers are constructed within institutional discourses and result in social divisions between L1 and L2 students which has become commonplace across English-speaking university campuses.
This blog examines how barriers to intercultural communication are formed by international English Language Teaching (ELT) structures and Scottish academic discourses, affecting relationships between L1 and L2 students. The discussion is based on an empirical study conducted last year at a Glasgow-based Scottish university, revealing these ideologies through student interviews with six international L2 speaking students and a critical analysis of the university website and related texts.
What is ‘native-speakerism’?
Native-speakerism can be defined as ‘…an ideology that upholds the idea that so-called ‘native speakers’ are the best models and teachers of English because they represent a ‘Western culture’…’.
While this definition is related to the linguistic hegemony of L1 speakers in international ELT, it has broader implications beyond this setting. Native-speakerism not only asserts L1 speakers’ superiority based on linguistic heritage, but also conflates ‘non-native speaker’ identities with race, ethnicity, religion, culture, and nationality. These sociocultural features comprise the ‘native speaker’ and ‘non-native speaker’ identities which are in turn attached to individuals by social structures. Essentially, these identities are used within university and ELT institutional discourse to create distinct social categorisations for students which, in turn, leads to the separation of L1 and L2 students at the individual level.
Native-speakerism at the institutional level
Most notably within the university’s official discourse was the clear construction of the ‘international student’ profile which was consistently mentioned in contrast to ‘home’ L1 speaking students, creating an implicit separation between these student groups. Here, native speakerist ideologies are reflected in the way these students’ sociocultural identities are reconstructed and categorised, making it easy to see the association between ‘non-native speaker’ and ‘international student’ labels within the discourse. These categorisations were more than textual; they directly informed institutional policy and practice which implicitly encouraged the social separation of these two socially constructed student groups. To give one example, the university actively used these categorisations to create separate email chains for ‘international’ and ‘home’ students. Consequently, ‘international student social events’ were only advertised to international students, with ‘home’ students being entirely left out of this email chain, and vice versa. The study participants confirmed the impact of this practice, admitting their lack of awareness of any social events that encouraged intercultural exchange between L1 and L2 students. This demonstrates the impact of native speakerism at the institutional level in establishing policies and practices that separate L1 ‘home’ and L2 international students via divisive sociocultural categorisations.
Native speakerism internalised by L2 students
The participants’ universal recognition of the social divide between international and home students was striking and confirmed the extent to which native-speakerism at the institutional level impacted student relations. The participants noted that their past experiences with native speakerist practices in their home academic contexts were a significant factor in their social and communicative behaviours during their studies in Scotland. Participants felt that native speakerist teaching practices had negatively impacted their communicative confidence and overall attitude towards L1 speakers. More concerningly, many students explained how they felt inferior to L1 speakers, not just linguistically but academically and culturally.
This quote from Rojin, a student from Iran, demonstrates the internalised inferiority complex that many L2 students possess due to the inculcation of native speakerist ideologies:
“Every time that we speak about UK and America in my country. We said we imagined them like a very big and ideal place. Everybody is smart, intelligent. …That is something that maybe culturally it’s in our nature that we think we are lower than for example Europe, we are lower than America…”
It was clear that the ‘non-native speaker’ identity had been accepted by L2 students at a psychological level and this was being reinforced by the Scottish university discourse which reconstructed these identities within the broader ‘international student’ social profile. By separating L1 and L2 students into two distinct groups within institutional discourse, the students themselves internalised these divisive categories and enacted this social division through their own communicative behaviours. This illustrates how academic institutions implicitly restrict intercultural communication between students and reinforce negative ideologies based on native speakerist conceptualisations of sociocultural identities.
What could be changed?
To foster intercultural relations between L1 and L2 students, Scottish higher education institutions could implement key changes:
1. Revision of the university website to provide support and information based on specific needs rather than divisive student categorisations which implicitly separate students into sociocultural groups.
2. Improving social event awareness through more equitable correspondence practices to increase opportunities for intercultural exchange.
3. Provision of intercultural communication awareness training workshops staff to increase staff understanding of these issues.
Conclusion
Ultimately, native-speakerism is not limited to language teaching settings; it is a pervasive ideology that affects L2 speakers for the entirety of their academic journeys across social contexts and geographical boundaries. English-speaking academic institutions must be more aware of the psychosocial impact of reinforcing these ideologies within their own doctrines. By reassessing their policies and practices, universities can help deconstruct negative self-identities linked to native-speakerism and create an inclusive social environment that promotes intercultural exchange.
Author biography
Liam Robinson has recently completed his Master of Science in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages and Intercultural Communication and is interested in pursuing further academic study at the doctoral level. His academic interests include language, culture, and society, with a particular focus on structural inequality and social justice. The content of this post is based on his recent thesis which was conducted last year with supervision from Dr Tomasz John.
You can contact Liam at: liamrobinson42@yahoo.com