Global TESOL for the 21st Century. Heath Rose

use. Global Englishes research has also helped to challenge widely held perspectives in TESOL that centre on notions that learners aim to use the language with L1 speakers.

      English as an international language

      English as an international language (EIL) as a field of study has largely focused on the implications of the spread of English rather than the language itself. Accordingly, EIL research has been less characterised by a linguistic interest in variation. As such, it stands a little separate in its focus from World Englishes and ELF research, and a little closer to Global Englishes in its universal scope. EIL scholars are particularly interested in the sociolinguistic, political, economic and educational implications for the global spread of English. Under the EIL banner, researchers have explored the implications of global English use for society, and language education, drawing on both World Englishes and ELF scholarship, as well as related fields of study such as native-speakerism (discussed later in this chapter). While EIL as a field has broad similarities to Global Englishes, it has not grown out of movements in critical applied linguistics, and accordingly could be described as embodying a pragmatic perspective, which has made it attractive for the TESOL profession. However, in relation to the practical implications of both fields for English language teaching, it is safe to state that EIL and Global Englishes scholars are on a broadly similar page. EIL scholars of TESOL such as McKay and Brown (2016) and Matsuda (2012, 2017), for example, purport broadly similar messages and ideologies of Global Englishes scholars of TESOL such as Galloway (2017a).

      Teaching English as an International Language

      Due to the pragmatic nature of EIL, it is the term that has mostly been adopted into mainstream of TESOL research and TESOL literature, as evident from a string of authored publications (e.g. McKay & Brown, 2016), edited collections (e.g. Alsagoff et al., 2012; Matsuda, 2012, 2017b) and even an entire volume on Teaching EIL in the recent Encyclopaedia of English Language Teaching. Rose and Galloway (2019) state that EIL ‘has been used a catch-all term for the use of English in general, as a strategy to eliminate traditional distinctions between English as a Native, Second, Foreign and Additional Language (ENL/ESL/EFL/EAL), as these distinctions are seen as increasingly irrelevant in today’s globally integrated world’ (2019: 8).

      As this book is aimed at TESOL professionals and TESOL researchers, we choose to adopt the terms ‘English as an international language’ and ‘Teaching English as an International Language’ to refer to the shared agenda of all of these fields to inform and innovate the English language teaching industry. We see EIL as an easily and widely understood term for this purpose. Nevertheless, throughout this book, we acknowledge that this may not be the preferred term of many of the researchers whose work we draw on, and thus, when directly referring to other authors’ scholarship we try as much as possible to retain their preferred terminology. What is important to understand, however, is that the weight of shared endeavours of all of these interrelated fields outweighs any proclaimed differences. Thus, it is this book’s stance that, when it comes to pedagogical implications in particular, the four fields are more broadly similar in scope than they are different. We have captured our positioning of Teaching EIL in Figure 1.2. It is important to note that Rose and Galloway (2019) adopt a similar Venn diagram strategy to depict their Global Englishes Language Teaching approach (discussed further in Chapter 2). Thus, different terminology are used to communicate broadly similar ideas.

Figure 1.2 The theoretical positioning of Teaching English as an International Language in this book

      Challenges to the ‘Native-Speaker’

      EIL in this book is positioned as both a sociolinguistic and a political ideology. As such, it aims to disrupt the status quo in TESOL, where the native speaker has long been held a prestige position. It is important to note that the continued prevalence of native speaker hegemony in TESOL has been challenged and problematised for decades (see Cook, 1999; Davies, 2003; Holliday, 2005, 2015; Paikeday, 1985; Rampton, 1990). Galloway and Rose (2015) state that the term of native speaker is incredibly difficult to define, and when one picks at the term, it becomes apparent that neither proficiency, nor timing of acquisition are necessary criteria to be labelled as a native speaker. The most accurate definition of a native speaker is that a native only becomes a native speaker if they are identified as such by other native speakers. The native speaker identity, therefore, is like joining an exclusive club, where there are no membership criteria for joining, but rather other members and gatekeepers decide whether you are ‘club material’. Because of the difficulty in defining what a native speaker is, the term has been described as a linguistic ‘figment’ (Paikeday, 1985); a ‘fallacy’ (Phillipson, 1992); and a ‘myth’ (Davies, 2003). Scholars working in this area have called for greater use of alternative terms to the native speaker such as ‘multicompetent’ users (Cook, 1999, 2016), ‘proficient user’ (Paikeday, 1985), or ‘language expert’ (Rampton, 1990). Selvi (2014), however, argues that using different terms in scholarship does not detract from the power of the ‘native speaker’ label due its continued use in society and in TESOL. Thus, the term ‘native speaker’, if used critically to describe this social construct, has purpose for the profession and for research.

      The native-speaker teacher

      Challenges to the idea of the native speaker are arguably of more relevance to TESOL than other modern foreign languages. For many taught languages, the position of the native speaker as future target interlocutor for learners can be somewhat justified on the basis that native speakers are the majority speakers – but the same cannot be said for EIL. For example, learners of the Japanese language in Australia may indeed see that their future target interlocuter of Japanese will be Japanese people they will encounter in Japan or their home countries. For this reason, it may be natural for such learners to desire to learn a variety of Japanese that adheres to the native linguistic and pragmatic norms of the language. Desires for learners of Japanese in Australia to have a native Japanese speaking teacher (or a non-native speaking teacher who has spent considerable time living within Japan) may thus be somewhat justified, as these teachers are positioned as gateways for learners to interact with the target culture. The situation for TESOL, however, is very different, as English has become a global language with global ownership, where L2 speakers are in the majority.

      For most EIL learners, future interlocutors are more likely to be other second-language users of English. Moreover, future contexts of English use may be domestic or international and in non-Anglophone countries (e.g. for the purposes of business, academic study, or even social interaction). For many learners of English, the majority of their English language interactions outside of the classroom might not involve a ‘native’ speaker of English at all. Thus, preference for native English linguistic and pragmatic norms, and native-English speaking teachers as a gateway to their future target culture, soon unravel and become unjustified. In contrast, teachers who are L2 users themselves, and who have different L1s to their students, may be more authentic role models for students in terms of representing their likely future interlocutors and target English-using cultures. This has led some scholars to call for more emphasis on hiring ‘Multilingual English Teachers’ (Kirkpatrick, 2011, 2012). Galloway and Rose (2015) concur with Kirkpatrick’s call, and state that stakeholders in TESOL need to critically engage with the notion that monolingual English teachers, who have never learned a second language themselves, may not necessarily make the best English teachers. There has been large call in recent years for greater global mobility of NNESTs (non-native English-speaking teachers) via more inclusive hiring practices.

      The NNEST movement

      Challenges surrounding the treatment of NNESTs in TESOL have given rise to large amount of scholarship and activism, which has been described as a NNEST movement (Braine, 2010). The NNEST movement emerged in TESOL as a means to counter discriminatory practices, and to promote democracy, justice, equity, participation and professionalism (Braine & Selvi, 2018). Selvi (2014) further describes the movement as such:

      Theoretically, it builds a more inclusive intellectual space defined by a shift