母语和非母语教师的二分法:术语、竞争力和就业歧视

Mersad Dervić, Senad Bećirović
{"title":"母语和非母语教师的二分法:术语、竞争力和就业歧视","authors":"Mersad Dervić, Senad Bećirović","doi":"10.17323/jle.2019.9746","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The application of ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ labels to EFL professionals has been influenced by the argument over their discriminatory nature. L1 proponents claim that natives are innate with linguistic competence while non-natives are referred to as second-best. A review of studies investigating the coherence of these terms supported the validity of this phenomenon. However, competing theories emphasise the importance and impact of discriminatory terminology not addressed by natives This paper looks at this debate in some detail and aims to balance the need for accurate descriptive labelling against the damaging effects of pejorative categories. It also discusses teaching and linguistic competence in light of both “native” and “non-native” categories. The discourse focuses on the advantages and disadvantages attributed to the native versus non-native EFL teacher and employment discrimination issues faced by non-native EFL teachers in institutions, job advertisements, and in the administration of institutions themselves today. It was concluded that a more refined approach to describing different types of EFL professionals is required, which does not negatively disadvantage either L1 or L2 teachers of English.","PeriodicalId":395403,"journal":{"name":"Applied Communication eJournal","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Native and Non-Native EFL Teachers Dichotomy: Terminological, Competitiveness and Employment Discrimination\",\"authors\":\"Mersad Dervić, Senad Bećirović\",\"doi\":\"10.17323/jle.2019.9746\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The application of ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ labels to EFL professionals has been influenced by the argument over their discriminatory nature. L1 proponents claim that natives are innate with linguistic competence while non-natives are referred to as second-best. A review of studies investigating the coherence of these terms supported the validity of this phenomenon. However, competing theories emphasise the importance and impact of discriminatory terminology not addressed by natives This paper looks at this debate in some detail and aims to balance the need for accurate descriptive labelling against the damaging effects of pejorative categories. It also discusses teaching and linguistic competence in light of both “native” and “non-native” categories. The discourse focuses on the advantages and disadvantages attributed to the native versus non-native EFL teacher and employment discrimination issues faced by non-native EFL teachers in institutions, job advertisements, and in the administration of institutions themselves today. It was concluded that a more refined approach to describing different types of EFL professionals is required, which does not negatively disadvantage either L1 or L2 teachers of English.\",\"PeriodicalId\":395403,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Communication eJournal\",\"volume\":\"54 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Communication eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2019.9746\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Communication eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2019.9746","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

“母语”和“非母语”标签对英语专业人士的应用受到了有关其歧视性的争论的影响。母语支持者声称母语者天生具有语言能力,而非母语者则被认为是次等的。一项调查这些术语连贯性的研究综述支持了这一现象的有效性。然而,竞争理论强调了当地人没有解决的歧视性术语的重要性和影响。本文对这一争论进行了一些详细的研究,旨在平衡对准确描述性标签的需求和贬义类别的破坏性影响。本文还从“母语”和“非母语”两方面讨论了教学和语言能力。本文主要讨论了母语教师与非母语教师的优势和劣势,以及当今非母语教师在院校、招聘广告和院校管理中面临的就业歧视问题。结论是,需要一种更精细的方法来描述不同类型的英语专业人员,这不会对第一语言或第二语言英语教师造成负面影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Native and Non-Native EFL Teachers Dichotomy: Terminological, Competitiveness and Employment Discrimination
The application of ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ labels to EFL professionals has been influenced by the argument over their discriminatory nature. L1 proponents claim that natives are innate with linguistic competence while non-natives are referred to as second-best. A review of studies investigating the coherence of these terms supported the validity of this phenomenon. However, competing theories emphasise the importance and impact of discriminatory terminology not addressed by natives This paper looks at this debate in some detail and aims to balance the need for accurate descriptive labelling against the damaging effects of pejorative categories. It also discusses teaching and linguistic competence in light of both “native” and “non-native” categories. The discourse focuses on the advantages and disadvantages attributed to the native versus non-native EFL teacher and employment discrimination issues faced by non-native EFL teachers in institutions, job advertisements, and in the administration of institutions themselves today. It was concluded that a more refined approach to describing different types of EFL professionals is required, which does not negatively disadvantage either L1 or L2 teachers of English.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信