Develop a statement of principles on the subject of non-native speakers of English and speakers of nonmainstream dialects of English, based on your understanding of the relevant literature.
The teaching of English to non-native speakers (often referred to as teaching English as a second
language, or ESL for short) has historically been separated as a discipline from the teaching of literature
and writing to native English speakers (commonly referred to simply as composition studies). Theory
and practice from composition studies have contributed greatly to the teaching of English to non-native
speakers, but traditionally, composition scholars have not been open to the potential contributions of
the ESL discipline. ESL scholars from the late 1990s, such as Tony Silva, Paul Kei Matsuda, and John
Edlund, call for a renewed focus and sharing of information across the two fields. Silva in particular
notes that, without understanding the needs and contributions of non-native English speakers,
mainstream composition would have a very limited perspective of language. He notes that drawing
conclusions from any research that focuses only native English speakers would be tentative at best, and
downright invalid, at worst. He urges the field to take a much more global view of language, to learn
from other languages and from the native speakers of those languages.
Edlund provides an insightful overview of some of the dominant theories of second language
acquisition in his article, “Non-Native Speakers of English.” He notes that Stephen Krashen felt that
language could only be acquired through natural, unconscious learning. Edlund then presents some
contrasting opinions. Ellis agrees that knowledge can become automatized through practice, it is
impossible to distinguish between conscious and unconscious acquisition of language, because the
cognitive processes used for each are still not fully understood. Rutherford’s expands upon Krashen’s
ideas to state that, while language can be gained through natural and unconscious learning, conscious
learning of a language can also be valuable. Rutherford explains that second language learners of
English approach their second language with the knowledge they already have of their first language.
They do not approach English with a blank slate. They consciously hypothesize about how English may
or may not be similar to their native language’s patterns, and they test their hypotheses through speech
and writing, noting and learning from their own testing. Rutherford’s theory opens the door for
potentially successful teaching practices, then, while Krashen’s theory seems to imply that there is
nothing teachers can do to improve student-learning.
Edlund describes Silva’s learning theory as a dichotomy of external and internal factors. External
factors include the learner’s culture and environment. Internal factors include cognition, psychology,
and attitudes. For example, Silva believes that many people feel their language is part of their very
identify, and is inseparable from their culture. Second-language English learners may therefore hesitate
to learn English, because they feel that in so doing, they will lose part of their native culture and identity.
Silva uses this as an explanation for the phenomenon called “fossilization” which is when a secondlanguage learner fails to continuing progressing toward proficiency in his or her second language despite
seemingly acquiring knowledge of the basic components of the language’s structure. Silva therefore
stresses the importance of understanding student motivation, the student’s native culture; he calls for
teachers to understand the affective domain as well as the cognitive domain in order to further learning.
Silva’s perspective leads well into the study of the different dialects of English as well, which
shares many similarities with the principles of teaching non-native English speakers. There continues to
be considerable debate on the efficacy of identifying and addressing different dialects of English. How
should these be addressed? How should these be labeled? What terms should we use to address the
language of power, also referred to as standard English? The very practices which are often identified to
help teach students the language of power can also be seen as discriminatory or limiting. Sasha Klein,
for example, coins the term “muse” to refer to what is sometimes called standard American English,
because the term standard American English can be seen as condescending or discriminatory; the term
implies that other dialects are non-standard, and thereby somehow inferior to standard English. Some
people prefer the term, language of power, and yet again, this seems somewhat limiting for those who
know they do not speak the language of power, creating a noticeable separating line between those
with power and those without it. Rosina Lippi-Green presents an interesting idea in her book “English
with an Accent.” In it she proposes that language be considered an inherent characteristic of an
individual, similar to a physical characteristic like eye color, height, or hair color. These physical
characteristics are unchangeable, and in some ways, are respected as off limits for discussion as to what
is good, better, or best. Thinking of language in this neutral light, that there is no one superior or
inferior form, would go a long way toward breaking down barriers and fostering acceptance between
speakers of different dialects.
Moving back to John Edlund, in his article, Non-Native Speakers of English, he also includes
some pedagogical strategies for ESL teachers. For example, he explains the benefits of “Contrastive
Rhetoric” which is the study of the rhetorical patterns and stylistic preferences across cultures. While
he does not expect that composition teachers could possibly be fluent enough in other languages to
develop contrastive rhetorical principles for every language, he does feel that there is important insight
to be gained from a basic understanding of what students are taught in their native culture. He feels, for
example, understanding that most Asian cultures practice a softer argumentative style can help teachers
understand and accept the writing of students from Asian countries. He also outlines the basic
paragraph structure taught to Japanese and Chinese students, again with the hope that this knowledge
will help enlighten teachers about the rhetorical preferences students from these countries might
demonstrate due to their prior education. He explains how writers of Spanish from Mexico are taught
to write longer, more complex sentences, what we might perceive as run-on sentences as native English
speakers; his hope, once again, is that by understanding these examples, teachers of English might be
more accepting of these different styles, and not be too quick to judge the writings of non-native
speakers from an American perspective.
In summary, the basic principles of teaching English to non-native speakers call for teachers to
be understanding and knowledgeable about the cultures and rhetorical preferences of second-language
learners, to understand how these students’ culture may influence their motivation for learning and
their desire to learn English, and to keep an open line of communication between the field of
mainstream composition and the field of teaching English as a second language.