Global TESOL for the 21st Century. Heath Rose

approach to teaching, learning, and teacher education in TESOL. Practically, it brings together and supports a wide spectrum of threads from the research, teaching, and advocacy realms to promote and institutionalize discourses of multilingualism, multiethnicism, and multiculturalism. (2014: 574–575)

      Thus, the NNEST movement is inextricably linked to the scholarship of EIL, World Englishes, ELF and Global Englishes. It, too, lobbies for more equality and representativeness in TESOL, which can be realised via a paradigm shift of the very ideologies which underpin the field.

      Native-speakerism and centre-periphery

      Related to the NNEST movement, is the broader research area of nativespeakerism, which explores the explicit and implicit creation of inequalities based on a perceived characteristic of nativeness. As Holliday notes:

      Native-speakerism is a pervasive ideology within ELT, characterized by the belief that ‘native-speaker’ teachers represent a ‘Western culture’ from which spring the ideals both of the English language and of English language teaching methodology. (Holliday, 2006: 385)

      Native-speakerism is underpinned by the concept of ‘Othering’, because the ideology creates dichotomous categories. Speakers are categorised according to their differences rather than the characteristics they share. Native-speakerism is seen to uphold unequal power dynamics in TESOL, and is especially prevalent in teacher hiring practices, where many advertisements still explicitly place a teachers’ nativeness as an essential hiring criterion, and thus a barrier to professional opportunities (Selvi, 2010).

      Other scholars in TESOL have explored the othering of NNESTs in terms of centre-periphery theory. In the TESOL industry, various powerful ‘centres of English’ (i.e. native speakers and native speaking countries) have the lion’s share of influence, while others are related to the ‘periphery’. There is an imbalance in power between the centre and periphery, which feeds into all related decisions in language teaching policy and practice. Hilgendorf (2018) states:

      Given how widely English is learned and used in so many communities around the globe, a complex set of dynamics and tensions exists between these centers and perceived peripheries. For both native and non-native English-speaking teachers (NESTs and NNESTs), a critical understanding of these dynamics and tensions is imperative, as they have significant ramifications for curricular design and pedagogical practice. (2018: 1)

      EIL scholars aim to disrupt the power dynamics between the centre and the periphery by emphasising the important role that the peripheral majority have (and will have) in terms of English language learning and use in the 21st century.

      Multilingualism in TESOL

      It is important to note that the field of EIL is further influenced by numerous tangentially related topics within the broader fields of applied linguistics and second language acquisition. These topics include, but are in no way limited to: translanguaging; multilingual turn; and plurilingualism. While each of these fields are not exclusive to TESOL, as they impact all language learning and use, much of the work that has been carried out within these has been within an English language learning context. Each of these are briefly touched upon in this section.

      Translanguaging, translingual practice and plurilingualism

      Developments in translanguaging research have been linked to Global Englishes (see Rose & Galloway, 2019), and thus are also of relevance to teaching EIL. Translanguaging challenges monolingual orientations to language learning and language teaching by viewing languages as part of the interwoven linguistic system of a user, rather than as separate entities. Translanguaging is a term that is growing in importance in applied linguistics, touching on all facets of second language acquisition and linguistic research. Nevertheless, its educational connections remain strong, as illustrated by the following observation by García and Li (2018):

      As a critical sociolinguistic theory, translanguaging has had the most application in language education, especially in the education of language-minoritized students and in bilingual education and increasingly in what are considered foreign language programs. It has been seen to have the capacity and potential to transform the way we see, use, and teach language, literacy, and other subjects… [T]ranslanguaging has impacted language education, transforming how we teach students for bilingualism as well as how bilingual students learn. (2018: 1)

      It is no surprise that translanguaging research has been applied most broadly to education, as the term itself grew out of bilingual education research and practice in Welsh immersion schools (see Baker, 2001; Williams, 1996), before later being repurposed as a broader theory of second language acquisition. From a practical classroom-based perspective translanguaging would involve the encouragement of students to use their other languages in the classroom to support their learning of the second language. These languages can be informally used by learners, or formally integrated into tasks: for example, students could read a text in their L1 to inform them for a project presented in the L2.

      Translanguaging has clear similarities to the term code-switching, which has a longer tradition in second language research. Code-switching refers to the act of switching from one language to the other within speech, usually in the context of bilingual communication. Proponents of translanguaging argue that the two constructs are different: codeswitching adopts an external perspective and reinforces power hierarchies between two named languages, but translanguaging views all languages as part of a user’s entire linguistic repertoire (see Garcia & Li, 2014 for more detail). In terms of a difference in TESOL practices, therefore, code-switching might imply a learner or teachers switches to another language due to perceived deficiencies in the target language, whereas translanguaging is viewed as a positive act, which embraces a learners’ multilingual identity.

      Related to translanguaing is the term translingual practice, which is Canagarajah’s own version of translanguaging. Canagarajah (2016) observes:

      There is now a growing realization that English cannot be separated from other languages. This is true not only of the contemporary global contact zones where languages intermingle, but of all communication, because languages are always in contact. (2016: 16)

      Rose and Galloway (2019) note that ‘Translingual practice showcases linguistic hybridity, and helps to inform our understanding of how speakers of English as a global lingua franca utilise their multilingual, or translingual, repertoires to communicate’ (2019: 9). Thus, the similarities between this term and translanguaging are clear. Both translingual practice and translanguaging similarly challenge the theories that depict languages as separate social, cognitive, psychological or linguistic entities, which underlie many TESOL practices.

      The term plurilingualism ‘refers to the unique aspects of individual repertoires and agency, and multilingual(ism) to refer to broader social language context/contact(s) and the coexistence of several languages in a particular situation’ (Marshall & Moore, 2013: 474). In a similar way that translanguaging contrasts with code-switching, advocates use the term plurilingualism to challenge traditional definitions of multilingualism which view language and language proficiencies, as separate. Marshall and Moore (2013) argue, ‘the focus on plurilingual competence allows researchers to dismantle perceptions of arbitrary boundaries within ­individuals’ linguistic repertoires, and relates to broader issues such as individual agency, knowledge formation, and engagement’ (2013: 474). Plurilingualism research, as it pertains to TESOL, also seeks to create a more multilingual/plurilingual TESOL (Taylor & Snoddon, 2013).

      The multilingual turn

      Movements and interest in emerging neologisms such as translanguaging and plurilingualism (alongside numerous others) have been described as being part of a larger trend in second language acquisition and language education research, which has been termed the ‘multilingual turn’ (see May, 2014b). The multilingual turn has been used as an umbrella term to show the importance now placed on multilingualism, rather than monolingualism, in language research. Rose and Galloway (2019) place Global Englishes (and therefore EIL as part of their conceptualisation of it) within the multilingual turn.

      To some TESOL practitioners and researchers, it may be strange to read that the field of second and foreign language education has been historically underpinned by monolingualism.