English as an International Language, Vol.

15, Issue 2

EFL Learners’ Perceptions on Different Accents of English and

(Non)Native English-Speaking Teachers in Pronunciation Teaching: A
Case Study Through the Lens of English as an International Language

Karolin Candan
Cracow International School, Poland
Dilek Inal
Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Turkey
ORCID.org/0000-0002-8645-6329

Abstract

Although Turkey is a country where English is taught as an international

language (EIL), very few research studies have focused specifically on
learners’ attitudes toward different accents and pronunciations. Therefore, this
paper attempts to highlight Turkish university preparatory school students’
perceptions on different English pronunciations and accents and on native and
non-native speakers’ and teachers’ English pronunciation. It also aims to point
out the in-class/learning environment factors that impact pronunciation
learning in English classes. Based on a review of the literature analyzing
attitudes towards different pronunciation and accents, online surveys and focus
group interviews with 10 volunteers were conducted to collect data for this
study. The survey results revealed that a great number of participants believe
that correct pronunciation is crucial in communication. Also, all the in-
class/learning environment factors had significant impact on the participants’
perceived pronunciation. Interview results indicated that most learners agreed
that as long as a pronunciation is intelligible, it can be considered as good. In
addition, despite admitting the positive effect of native English-speaking
teachers (NESTs) on their pronunciation, most participants did not ignore the
positive influence of non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs) on their
pronunciation improvement. Because most participants indicated that they
wanted to receive more pronunciation-focused instruction, this study has some
implications for the institutions and material designers that may reconsider the
weighing and variety of pronunciation practice when compared to other
language skills.

Keywords: English as an International Language, pronunciation, accent,

native English-speaking teachers, non-native English-speaking teachers

Introduction

Around the world, we witness a dramatic increase in the number of people

who speak English as a foreign language, and it is not surprising that this rapid
increase, over the past centuries, has changed the importance given to

119
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

language teaching in countries. Canagarajah (2007) underlined that the

population of non-native English Speakers (NNES) outnumbered the number
of people who use English as their sole communication tool, traditionally
known as native English speakers (NESs). In short, as Widdowson (1994)
points out, English is no longer the property of native speakers, but of
everybody who speaks it.
According to Kachru’s categorization of Three Concentric Circles of
English (see, Kachru, 1985, 1988, 1992), Turkey is in the Expanding Circle
since in Turkey, English has no historical and official status and it is taught to
maintain different functions in different areas in the country and to be able to
communicate on international platforms (Selvi, 2011). Kızıltepe (2000)
illustrated that Turkish learners mostly learn English for instrumental purposes
such as finding a job after university and using the Internet. Regarding the
information given earlier and imaging the same scenario for all the countries
belonging to the Expanding Circle, it is understandable that as the number of
NNESs keeps increasing, the perceptions of the learners toward the language
and its components will not be the same as noticed decades ago.
There is some evidence as to why we do not refer to only one standard,
norm-providing and dominant English. Jenkins (2006) discusses the terms
related to this issue such as World Englishes (WEs) – which she defines as “an
umbrella term covering all varieties of English” (p. 159) or new varieties
appearing in Kachru’s Outer Circle. There is also the notion of English as a
Lingua Franca (ELF) which refers to - “any use of English among speakers of
different first languages for whom English is the communicative medium of
choice, and often the only option” (Seidlhofer, 2011, p. 7). Due to the
prevalence of many terms defining different contexts, it may not be
pedagogically appropriate to support the power of British, American,
Australian or Canadian English (Kachru’s Inner Circle speakers) as the best
English in language classrooms, when we consider meaningful language use.
In other words, in a globalized world, while it is being discussed that we no
longer have Inner Circle countries’ language norms, it may be worth our while
to investigate how learners feel about this shift.
As this is the case for some time, beside all the language skills that
have been discussed for many decades, learners’ perceptions of different
pronunciation and accent has been an area that still requires deeper
investigation. However, there has been less investigation of pronunciation so
far when compared to other skills such as grammar and writing (Bai & Yuan,
2018). Sifakis and Sougari (2005) mention how crucial this area is since
without adequate pronunciation, learners may experience communication
breakdown in oral communication which then results in a decrease of self-
confidence in language learning.
Although some research in different countries and in Turkey has been
carried out on the learners’ perceptions on native and non-native teachers
(Çelik, 2006; Demir, 2011; Koşar, 2018; Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005; Şahin,
2005; Todd & Pojanapunya, 2009), few studies have investigated the Turkish

120
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

learners’ perceptions toward English pronunciation and accent as well as in-

class/learning environment factors influencing their own practice in class.
Therefore, this paper attempts to explore Turkish learners’ attitudes
toward pronunciation and accent of English, the factors influencing their
attitudes as well as perceptions on native and non-native speakers/teacher
through the lens of the status of World Englishes and ELF. More specifically,
this study aims to contribute to this growing area of research by exploring if
changing trends in English that we discussed earlier has had any effect on
learners’ perception of “good” or “bad” English pronunciation. In light of this,
the main research questions addressed in this paper are:

1. How important are pronunciation and accent to Turkish EFL learners?

2. What are their perceptions toward native speakers' and non-native
speakers' pronunciation in English?
3. What are the external factors that impact pronunciation or accent in
learning English?
4. What are their perceptions toward native and non-native teachers in
terms of improving their pronunciation in English?

Review of literature

Importance of Pronunciation and Accent

Pronunciation, which has also been referred to as a “Cinderella area” by Kelly

(1969) due to its complexity, has been ignored in language classrooms for a
long time while it is one of the skills that is required to communicate with
people speaking that foreign language as the language itself needs to be
understandable for the listener. Otherwise, it is quite probable to witness
communication breakdowns with unintelligible and ambiguous expressions.
Moreover, as Morley (1998) points out, limited proficiency in pronunciation
will lead learners to lose their self-confidence, which will definitely affect
them negatively.
Particularly in Turkish contexts, learners experience great difficulties
in acquiring English pronunciation due to their mother tongue effect
(Demirezen, 2010) as in their mother tongue they pronounce each letter as it
is. Among different perspectives of accent, in this study, accent will be
accepted as “various types of speech patterning that all individuals possess
when speaking a language” (p. 124) according to Ballard and Winke’s (2017)
interpretation of accent inspired by Derwing and Munro’s (2009) definition. In
short, pronunciation and accent will be used together and refer to very similar
concepts.
A growing number of scholars (Derwing & Munro, 2009; Jenkins,
2006; Kachru, 1997; Levis, 2005) have underlined the significance of global
intelligibility and have believed that ntelligibility is more valuable than a
particular native accent. More importantly, Jenkins (2000) is of the view that

121
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

NNESs do not need to sound like NESs, and rather than this approach, it is
expected from them to speak the language by reflecting local linguistic and
cultural identities. Levis (2005) links all these expectations to the classroom
implications and underlines that pronunciation teaching should concentrate
more on features that are crucial in understanding and focus less on those
which are relatively “unhelpful” (p.371).

Students’ Perceptions on Different Accents of English

Although there have been relatively few studies on the perception of NNESs
of different accents and pronunciations of English, some studies attempted to
shed light on how EFL learners perceived different accents and pronunciation,
and they have suggested that learners mostly held positive attitudes toward
native-speaker accents and some of those studies have revealed that learners
also had negative stereotypical attitudes toward NNES accents (Cenoz &
Lecumberri, 1999; Hartshorn, 2013; Kim, 2008). In the Iranian context, Sa’d
(2018) investigated perceptions of non-native English speakers toward
accented speech in some part of his study. He found out that the participants
perceived native-speaker accent quite positively, and that they had very clear
negative attitudes as well as negative stereotypes toward non-native English
speakers’ accent. The participants expressed that they wanted to sound similar
to native speakers while speaking English since they considered them as “the
best model of English accent”.
In a similar vein, Buckingham (2014) made an informed observation
that Omani university students perceive pronunciation as an important
component of English language, and that they prefer British and US accents
and accept those as correct pronunciation due to the exposure of coursebooks
presenting listening materials with British or US accents. This study is in
keeping with a study conducted by Butler (2007), revealing that although the
study did not find any significant difference in learners’ performance between
American-accented English and Korean-accented English, it emerged that
there were significant differences in learners’ attitudes toward both accents as
they saw American accents as superior.
The studies of Yook and Lindemann (2013) in a Korean context and
McKenzie (2008) in a Japanese context had similar results in terms of social
attractiveness of the local accent (Korean and Japanese) as learners rated these
local English accents most positively in terms of social attractiveness.
However, in both studies, they demonstrated a clear preference for US and
standard British English in terms of clarity and correctness when compared to
their local English varieties.
Although studies note that EFL learners claim to prefer native speaker
accents, they are not quite successful in differentiating those from non-native
accents (Ladegaard, 1998; Timmis, 2002). In order to explain this contrast,
Timmis (2002) states that learners rejected using the informal samples in the

122
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

study, probably because “those students who aspire to native-speaker spoken

norms have an idealized notion of what these norms are” (p. 248).

Native English-Speaking Teachers (NEST) and Non-native English-

Speaking Teachers (NNEST)

In his paper, Selvi (2011) explains how English has become a powerful tool
used in almost every stage of a child’s education, in higher education and in
people’s professional life. Therefore, it is quite an obvious reason why Turkey
has become an attractive state for English language teachers both native and
non-native.
Before delving into learners’ perceptions towards NESTs and
NNESTs, it is crucial for us to define who the native and non-native-speaking
teachers are. Although, there is an ongoing discussion to differentiate NESTs
and NNESTs (Bonfiglio, 2010; Canagarajah, 1999; Davies, 1991; Medgyes,
1994), there is that one characteristic mentioned by Cook (1999) as
“indisputable” in every definition made for native speakers and that is “the
language learnt first” (p. 187). Saraceni (2015), in keeping with this
differentiation, quotes Davies (2013) calling that characteristic as
“unchangeable” (p. 175). Sharing the same view with him, in his chapter,
Saraceni (2015) underlines that being born in the language and living with it
does not guarantee the acquisition of some other language components such as
fluency, creativity and ability to translate. These components change from
speaker to speaker regardless of the fact that one is a native speaker or not.
Alptekin (2002) supports the ideas mentioned above by stating that in contexts
where we speak of WEs or ELF, language teachers should be successful
“bilinguals with intercultural understanding and knowledge” (p. 63).
After discussing that the only “indisputable” and “unchangeable”
characteristic of a native speaker is the language learnt first, in this study,
NESTs are defined as English speakers who are born in the Inner Circle
(Britain, the US, Australia and Canada) and, as expected, who acquire English
as their L1. However, NNESTs are defined as speakers who are not born in an
English-speaking country, in this context, Turkish teachers. These two
definitions were made clear and carefully explained to the participant learners
before they answered the questionnaire.

Students’ Perceptions Toward NESTs and NNESTs Teaching

Pronunciation

Despite the ongoing discussions on ELF, WEs and the rapid increase of non-
native English speakers especially in the Expanding Circle, this belief in
native-speaker superiority is so much rooted among non-native language
instructors that there are some recent studies that conclude even NNESTs
perceive themselves as inferior in certain areas of English (Bernat, 2008; Ma,
2012; Rajagopalan, 2005; Suarez, 2000). There is no doubt that this feeling of

123
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

inferiority and the comparative evaluations by institutions will take some time
to disappear with more awareness raising studies.
After the shift towards the communicative approach, in terms of
pronunciation, intelligibility and functional communication have gained
particular importance (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Goodwin, 1996).
Considering this shift and recent definitions of NESTs and NNESTs and
World Englishes, attaining a native-like pronunciation has lost its validity in
the Inner and Expanding Circles. This change in learner goals is also pointed
out in one of the fallacies mentioned in Kachru’s (1996) work called World
Englishes: Agony and Ecstasy. With these changes in mind, in order to make a
contribution to the ongoing debate that focuses on strengths and weaknesses of
NESTs and NNESTs, we need to use the lens of learners. More specifically,
regarding accent and pronunciation, there are studies that conclude that
learners prefer NESTs (Boyle, 1997; Coşkun, 2011; Lasagabaster & Sierra,
2002).
Noting some studies that stand in favor of NNESTs, Samimy and
Brutt-Griffler (1999) mention that NNESTs can not only acquire linguistic
competence that NESTs have but also, they can make contributions to a better
learning environment by considering the needs of L2 learners more
realistically. By the same token, Phillipson (1992) claims that NNESTs have
experienced the complex process of learning a foreign language, as a result,
they are aware of how the two languages differ and what the problematic parts
may be during the learning process. In the same vein, Seidlhofer (1999)
contends that having a control over the two languages can be seen as an
advantage, and this should lead to “teacher’s confidence not insecurity” (p.
238). Further to this, Medgyes (1992) proposes a list where NNESTs are more
advantageous: being a good learner model for their students, because of being
once a language learner, teaching the learning strategies effectively, being
aware of the possible learning problems that learners may face and using
learners’ mother tongue as a helping tool. In short, in the literature, both
groups have their strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, it is always better to
see NNESTs as different, not deficit as mentioned in Cook’s (1999) paper
who further asserts as to why this comparison is not healthy by arguing that
“people who speak differently from some arbitrary group are not speaking
better or worse, just differently” (p. 194).

Method

Research Design and Procedure

The current study is an explanatory mixed-method study as it collects data first

from a quantitative research tool (an online survey) and then from a qualitative
research tool (focus group interview) to refine and elaborate the quantitative
findings (Creswell, 2012). In order to keep the variability among the
participants as limited as possible, participants were selected through criterion

124
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

sampling. There was one criterion for them to be included in the study; which
is to be placed in an intermediate level classroom after their performance
during English tests in the first semester as perceptions towards different
accents and pronunciations might differ according to learners’ proficiency
level.
As mentioned before, the data were gathered for this study in two
sessions: First, a 39-item online survey was used with learners of eight
intermediate level classrooms during their lesson time. The items of the
questionnaire were gathered from different studies but the ultimate
categorization regarding the item numbers was as follows: importance of
pronunciation in communication (items 1-13), in-class/learning environment
factors that influence pronunciation (items 14-22) and pronunciation/accent
and (non-)native speakers (items 23-39). Descriptive statistics analyzing the
data of this survey reported means, modes and standard deviations of the
items.
Following the administration of the questionnaire, focus group
interviews were arranged to investigate the data gathered from the survey.
Because the interview was structured, and questions were preset, the themes
were used: definition of good pronunciation, negative or positive effects of
NESTs and NNESTs on learners’ pronunciation and expected attitudes of
English learners toward teaching of pronunciation in lessons. This study
focused mainly on these themes as these were the most common focus areas of
the studies conducted in the field of pronunciations and accents from the
learners’ perspective. The data of this interview sessions were audio-recorded
and transcribed for further analysis.

Participants and Context

This study was conducted in a preparatory school of a foundation university

located in Istanbul, Turkey. Minimum 70% of the course content in the
faculties is implemented in English and learners are required to pass the
courses to graduate from their programs; therefore, language teaching in the
preparatory school of the institution has particular importance.
The participants in the survey were 169 intermediate level EFL
students drawn from eight classrooms of the preparatory school of the
institution described above. The focus group interview, which is the second
phase of the study, targeted 10 voluntary students from the eight classrooms
that took part in the online survey. They received an email asking if they
would volunteer to participate in a follow-up interview for the research. The
volunteers who responded to the email were complete strangers to each other.
They were all placed in intermediate level classes after their performance in
the first semester. All the participants shared Turkish language as their
common mother tongue. The participants had language learning experience
with NESTs and NNESTs in different times and contexts. The study was

125
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

conducted at a language preparatory program and the age of participants

ranged from 18 to 20.
Instrument

Quantitative data were collected by means of a 39-item online survey which

was collated from two different studies. Some of the survey items were
adapted from Feyér (2012) and others from Lefkowitz and Hedgcock (2006).
The categorization of the questionnaire items was done with reference to the
study conducted in the Iranian setting by Sa’d (2018) who additionally
investigated the identity issue in his paper. The questionnaire which was
translated into Turkish was designed by a 5-point Likert scale items (1 -
Strongly disagree, 2 - Disagree, 3 - Neutral, 4 - Agree, 5 - Strongly Agree),
and learners were asked to respond to those items.
For the purpose of collecting qualitative data, we carried out a 40-
minute interview with a focus group (see Appendix A) of 10 participants using
structured interview questions. The interview session was conducted in
learners’ mother tongue in order to send the message that their use of the
English language was not being tested, and that their ideas were valuable. The
whole interview was audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis.

Results

Results of the Questionnaire

Table 1 below provides the summary of descriptive results of the survey as

mean, mode and standard deviation. All the 169 participants responded to all
the items included in the questionnaire. It is apparent from this table that, in
general, participants regarded pronunciation important in communication as
the mode is 5 (strongly agree) and 4 (agree) except for the items 7, 8, 10 and
12 where they could not express their opinions either positive or negative.
Those items are related to understanding different accents of English and
feeling uncomfortable about them.
Notwithstanding the above-stated points, this table presents/notes that
the overall response and tendency with regard to the second part of the
questionnaire which investigated the in-class factors on their pronunciation
were quite high with modes of 4 (agree) and the mean scores of each item.
That means all the factors mentioned in the questionnaire have had a strong
impact on learners’ pronunciation.
The last part of the questionnaire illustrates the highest means and
modes obtained for items 31 and 37. In other words, while participants
strongly agree that it is acceptable to see English uses different accents around
the world, they would like to sound like a person whose native language is
English (inner circle citizens). With the lowest mean and mode, item 36,
confirms to us that the participants do not judge a Turkish speaker speaking

126
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

English with a very strong Turkish accent, and that they do not show negative
attitudes towards those speakers.

Table 1
Descriptive statistics of questionnaire items
Item No N Mean Mode Std. Deviation
Part 1: Importance of pronunciation in communication
Item 1 169 4,23 5,00 0,91
Item 2 169 3,90 4,00 0,85
Item 3 169 3,99 4,00 0,93
Item 4 169 4,57 5,00 0,78
Item 5 169 4,07 4,00 0,86
Item 6 169 3,34 4,00 1,25
Item 7 169 3,11 3,00 0,99
Item 8 169 2,91 3,00 1,18
Item 9 169 3,24 4,00 1,17
Item 10 169 3,32 3,00 1,04
Item 11 169 3,38 4,00 1,04
Item 12 169 3,04 3,00 1,08
Item 13 169 3,79 4,00 1,09
Part 2: In-class/learning environment factors that influence pronunciation
Item 14 169 3,75 4,00 1,06
Item 15 169 3,78 4,00 0,98
Item 16 169 3,98 4,00 0,98
Item 17 169 4,05 4,00 0,91
Item 18 169 3,87 4,00 0,93
Item 19 169 4,00 4,00 0,87
Item 20 169 3,78 4,00 1,03
Item 21 169 3,87 4,00 1,03
Item 22 169 3,77 4,00 1,01
Part 3: Pronunciation/accent and (non-)native speakers
Item 23 169 3,91 4,00 0,95
Item 24 169 3,09 4,00 1,20
Item 25 169 4,08 4,00 0,86
Item 26 169 3,06 2,00 1,14
Item 27 169 2,99 2,00 1,17
Item 28 169 2,72 2,00 1,16
Item 29 169 2,79 2,00 1,15
Item 30 169 2,58 2,00 1,13
Item 31 169 4,28 5,00 0,94
Item 32 169 2,55 2,00 1,23
Item 33 169 2,71 2,00 1,19
Item 34 169 2,38 2,00 1,22
Item 35 169 2,16 2,00 1,12
Item 36 169 2,37 1,00 1,36

127
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

Item 37 169 4,09 5,00 1,09

Item 38 169 3,20 3,00 1,25
Item 39 169 3,33 4,00 1,17
Importance of Pronunciation in Communication

Table 2 below illustrates how important the participants consider

pronunciation in communication in detail with related items and their
percentages.

Table 2
Importance of pronunciation in communication
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Statements Disagree Agree
% % % % %

1. Pronunciation is
important for 0.6 6.5 9.4 36.5 47.1
communication.
2. I look up the
2.4 4.1 15.3 57.6 20.6
pronunciation of words.
3. Good pronunciation
is valued and
2.4 4.7 14.7 47.6 30.6
encouraged in my
English class.
4. If I have good
pronunciation, I will be
0.6 3.5 3.5 22.9 69.4
more confident in
English.
5. I make an effort to
have good English 1.8 2.4 15.9 47.1 32.9
pronunciation.
6. I try to guess where a
speaker is from based 8.2 19.4 24.1 26.5 21.8
on their pronunciation.
7. I can understand
different English
4.1 22.9 38.8 25.9 8.2
accents and
pronunciation.
8. It bothers me if
someone's
pronunciation is
12.4 26.5 28.8 22.4 10.0
different from someone
whose native language
is English.

128
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

9. It is much better that

English language
8.2 20.0 25.3 32.4 14.1
learners learn English
with a native accent.
10.I often hear English
spoken by non-native 3.5 18.2 34.7 29.4 14.1
speakers.
11. It is enough if I
understand the gist of a 4.1 17.1 27.6 38.8 12.4
text.
12. I can guess where a
speaker is from based 8.2 22.9 34.7 25.3 8.8
on their pronunciation.
13. I do not care about
someone's
4.1 8.8 20.6 36.5 30.0
pronunciation as long
as I can understand.

As seen in Table 2, there are two items that have the highest agreement
by the participants: items 1 and 4, which imply that most learners consider
pronunciation important and good pronunciation makes them feel confident
while speaking. In keeping with these two statements, items 2, 3, 5 are
reported to be agreed by most of the participants. These items also reinforce
the results that came out of the previously mentioned two items. Correct
pronunciation of words and in-class encouragement are highly appreciated.
The results appear to suggest that learners do not believe that they can
differentiate different accents and pronunciations easily as they expressed their
uncertainty with items 7, 10 and 12. As regards item 6, although the
percentage is the highest with “agree”, almost the same number of participants
said that they did not try to guess speakers’ nationalities. And finally, in this
part of the questionnaire, item 9 reveals that most participants would like to
learn English with a native accent. However, the total number of participants
who are either neutral or negative to this statement is greater. Additionally,
items 8, 11 and 13 reveal that although the participants believe pronunciation
is very important in communication, they do not regard it superior to the main
idea of the speech. In other words, as long as the message of the speech is
understandable, they do not pay attention to pronunciation.

In-Class / Learning Environment Factors That Influence Pronunciation

In this section of results, Table 3 illustrates whether pronunciation of

participants is particularly influenced by in-class/learning environment factors
such as teachers and peers.

129
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

Table 3
In-class / learning environment factors that influence pronunciation
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly DisagreeNeutralAgree Strongly
Statements Disagree Agree
% % % % %

14. My pronunciation in English

sounds best when
4.1 8.8 20.0 42.4 24.7
I am repeating after the teacher
with the whole class.
15. My pronunciation in English
2.9 8.8 17.6 48.8 21.8
sounds best when I am alone.
16. My pronunciation in English
sounds best in the presence of both 3.5 5.3 12.4 47.6 31.2
my instructor and my peers.
17. My pronunciation in English
sounds best when
2.4 4.1 11.8 49.4 32.4
I am reading from the textbook or
a worksheet.
18. My pronunciation in English
sounds best in the presence of
peers/classmates whose 2.9 4.7 18.8 49.4 24.1
pronunciation and oral skills are
not quite as good as mine.
19. My pronunciation in English
sounds best in the presence of
1.8 4.1 14.7 51.2 28.2
peers/ classmates whom I do not
know very well.
20. My pronunciation in English
sounds best in the presence of
peers/ classmates whom I know 4.7 7.1 17.1 48.2 22.9
very well (i.e., friends and
acquaintances).
21. My pronunciation in English
sounds best in the presence of 2.9 10.6 10.6 48.2 27.6
members of the opposite sex.
22. My pronunciation in English
sounds best in the presence of 2.9 10.6 15.9 47.6 22.9
members of the same sex.

It can be seen from the data in Table 3 that none of the items in this
part illustrates a negative attitude towards the in-class / learning environment
factors. In other words, this table appears to be a relatively stable one when
compared to the other tables.

130
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

The participants strongly agreed on the statements suggesting that their

instructors, peers who they (don’t) know well or classroom members of the
same or opposite sex influence their pronunciation positively since both
“agree” and “strongly agree” responses make up the majority of the participant
group. It may be worth noting that item 14 has the highest percentage with
“neutral” comprising 20%, which means that there is a relatively big number
of learners who question the efficiency of the use of choral repetition in class
to improve pronunciation.

Pronunciation/Accent and (Non)Native Speakers

This section of the questionnaire required respondents to provide information

on their attitudes toward different pronunciations or accents and NESs and
NNESs and Table 4 illustrates the related results.

Table 4
Pronunciation/accent and (non)native speakers
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Statements
Disagree % % % Agree
% %

23. I believe my English instructor’s

production provides me with an
2.4 5.9 18.2 45.3 28.2
excellent model of native/native-like
pronunciation.
24. Sometimes I feel uncomfortable
trying to sound like a native speaker
of English in the presence of
9.4 25.9 24.7 26.5 13.5
peers/classmates whose
pronunciation and oral skills are
better than mine.
25. My pronunciation in English
sounds best in the presence of native 1.2 5.3 10.6 50.6 32.4
speakers of English.
26. Sometimes I feel uncomfortable
trying to sound like a native speaker
7.1 28.2 27.6 25.3 11.8
of English in the presence of
classmates I do not know very well.
27. Sometimes I feel uncomfortable
trying to sound like a native speaker
10.6 27.1 25.3 27.1 10.0
of English in the presence of both my
instructor and my peers.

131
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

28. Sometimes I feel uncomfortable

trying to sound like a native speaker
of English in the presence of peers/
14.7 32.9 25.9 18.8 7.6
classmates whose pronunciation and
oral skills are not quite as good as
mine.
29. Sometimes I feel uncomfortable
trying to sound like a native speaker
12.4 34.1 23.5 22.4 7.6
of English in the presence of
members of the opposite sex.
30. Sometimes I feel uncomfortable
trying to sound like a native speaker
of English in the presence of 18,2 33.5 25.3 17.6 5.3
peers/classmates whom I know very
well (i.e., friends and acquaintances).
31. It is very important for me to
develop excellent pronunciation in
1.8 2.9 14.7 26.5 54.1
English so that I can sound like a
native speaker.
32. I sometimes cringe when my
classmates sound very nonnative-like
when they speak English and/or 24.1 29.4 20.0 20.6 5.9
when they make little effort to sound
English.
33. Occasionally. I deliberately avoid
sounding like 16.5 32.9 21.2 22.4 7.1
a native speaker of English.
34. It bothers me if someone speaks
28.2 32.4 19.4 12.9 7.1
English with a Turkish accent.
35. It bothers me if someone speaks
English with an accent other than 33.5 35.9 14.7 12.9 2.9
Turkish accent.
36. I laugh inside when I hear
somebody speak with a Turkish 34.7 28.2 13.5 12.4 11.2
accent.
37. It is acceptable that learners of
English have different 5.3 4.1 10.6 36.5 43.5
pronunciations.
38. I think native speakers of English
are the best model 10.0 20.6 27.6 22.9 18.8
of the English accent.
39. I think we need to sound like
native speakers of English when we 7.6 17.6 25.3 32.9 16.5
speak English.

132
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

If we try to subcategorize the items in Table 4, we can see that items

24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 investigate how the participants perceive their
own pronunciation next to people with different pronunciations. More
specifically, they demonstrate their preferences of trying to sound like a native
speaker of English under different circumstances with different listeners.
Interestingly, with the exception of item 25, the most dispersed results belong
to this subcategory, and it is quite difficult to say that, although these are the
highest ratings for each item, students have a strong preference of one specific
response since the results are very close to each other.
In regard to item 24, although 26.5% of participants agreed that they
felt uncomfortable trying to sound like a NES while they are with friends
whose pronunciation skills are reportedly better than them, 25.9% of them
disagreed with this statement. In response to item 25, a large number of
respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that their pronunciation sounded
best when they were with NESs. It indicates that learners believed their
pronunciation to be at its best when they are next to a native speaker of
English.
Items 26 and 27 reveal very similar results considering participants’
pronunciation with classmates they do not know very well and with both their
instructors and peers. These are the same and almost the same number of
learners who agreed or disagreed with each of the two statements. When
considering items 28, 29 and 30, most participants disagreed with the items
suggesting that they felt uncomfortable trying to sound like a NES with
classmates with lower pronunciation skills, members of opposite sex and with
classmates they know well.
Another subcategorization relates to accepting different English
accents and pronunciations, which includes items 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37. All
the mentioned items, as we see in Table 4, reveal that learners are not biased
against different pronunciations of English as they mostly “disagree” or
“strongly disagree” with statements that have negative attitudes toward
different accents (item 32, 33, 34, 35,36) while they “agree” or “strongly
agree” with the statement that they appreciate different accents and
pronunciations of English (item 37).
Last but not least, although the results of item 38 and 39 are dispersed,
they point to us that 27,6% of learners were neutral about the statement that
tells NESs are the best model of English accent, but 32,9% of them expressed
the need of sounding like a NES.

Results of the Focus Group Interview

Definition of good pronunciation

When the interviewees were asked to define good pronunciation, two

divergent and often conflicting definitions emerged. The majority of the
interviewees (70%) argued that good pronunciation is intelligible. If they can

133
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

understand what the person is saying, that means good pronunciation. One
participant expressed his opinion as presented below:
I think good pronunciation should reflect a person’s nationality, well,
British or American, etc. I’m Turkish and we were not raised with this
language (English). So being intelligible is the biggest factor.

The rest of the group (30%) indicated that good pronunciation is a

British accent because “we can learn how to pronounce the words ‘better’ and
‘correctly’ from Oxford dictionary” and “English was born in Britain, so
British accent is good and appropriate for learners”. There was one participant
who regarded the British accent superior because it sounded much better when
compared to other accents.

Effects of NESTs and NNESTs on learners’ pronunciation

In response to interview questions 2 and 4, which investigated the role of

NESTs in Turkish learners of English, almost all the focus group participants,
except two, 80% of the interviewees said that NESTs have positive effects on
their pronunciation. Common expressions that came out of the data are “it’s
that teacher’s mother tongue and s/he knows pronunciation better”, “s/he can’t
speak Turkish, we will have to pronounce words correctly so that s/he
understands us” and “NESTs are more relaxed while correcting our mistakes
as they don’t correct our pronunciation mistakes too much”. These utterances
illustrate a common view amongst interviewees which is that NESTs
definitely influence learners’ pronunciation positively. Also, as one
interviewee believed that hearing the language in that (native) accent will
surely influence their pronunciation positively as the learner will sound more
similar to the NESTs.
Conversely, as mentioned before, one of the two participants who said
that NESTs influence them negatively stated that when she pronounces
English imperfectly, a listener who is also Turkish can understand what she
means. According to her, it is acceptable to make pronunciation mistakes with
her Turkish peers and teachers, however; it is not advisable with a native
speaker. Similarly, the other respondent mentioned the negative impact of a
NEST on his pronunciation by adding that a NEST does not know how
difficult it is for us (Turkish learners) to learn pronunciation as s/he did not
pass through the same paths as we do, but a NNEST knows the difficulties we
have and teaches us pronunciation accordingly.
When the interviewees were asked question 3, if NNESTs influence
their pronunciation negatively or positively, a majority agreed that they also
had a positive impact. One common concept, just like mentioned in the
“definition of good pronunciation” part, was uttered by the majority in this
section, which was “intelligibility”. Learners believed that NNESTs affect
their pronunciation positively because they could understand their NNEST
teachers and could follow the lesson easily. The reasons are because they “can

134
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

miss some parts in the lesson when a NEST is speaking although we (they)
listen to him/her very carefully, but with a NNEST, we (they) don’t” and they
“can see that we (they) can also pronounce words correctly when we (they)
see a NNES speaking English correctly, they encourage and motivate us, we
know that we can do it, too”.
On the contrary, 3 participants disagreed with the ideas mentioned
above saying that their NNESTs, in the past, taught some words with incorrect
pronunciation and integrated Turkish words in their speech (although not fully
pronunciation- related) and one of them expressed her opinion as follows:

… I had a teacher who pronounced “wilderness” as /waɪldərnəs /

instead of /ˈwɪldərnəs/ and when I learned the correct pronunciation
from a NEST, it was too late, I had already learned it incorrectly.

Expected attitudes of English learners toward pronunciation teaching in

lessons

The results of interview question 5 revealed that none of the learners believed
that current approaches to teaching pronunciation in a lesson are adequate. All
the participants had different ideas on teaching pronunciation, and they agreed
that teaching pronunciation should be more incorporated in lessons. If we
combine similar responses, we see some common ideas coming from a total
10 participants. One idea is that they do not believe that pronunciation is
practised enough explicitly.
Another idea came from quite a few participants, and it was about
correction and feedback. They stated that they wanted to be corrected and
shown the correct pronunciation immediately when they spoke. One of them
suggested a way to do it by telling that “… Actually, it would be much better
if they took notes while we speak so that they could guide us about the areas
we can improve”. One opinion coming from one participant was about the
poor quality of pronunciation despite very long years spent learning English in
primary and secondary schools.

Discussion

The data in this study were collected in an attempt to shed light on the
significance of pronunciation of Turkish leaners, in-class factors that impact
learners’ pronunciation, their perceptions toward pronunciation of NES and
NNES and their perception toward NESTs and NNESTs regarding
improvement of their pronunciation. In order to investigate these issues, a 39-
item-questionnaire and a focus group interview were designed for learners to
respond.
The first part of the survey investigating the significance of
pronunciation revealed that a great number of participants agree that
pronunciation has a big importance in communication as well as correct

135
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

pronunciation, which is consistent with the results of Sa’d (2018). Although

the learners stated they could not identify different accents and pronunciation,
which lends support to the study conducted by Timmis (2002), almost half of
the participants said they would like to have a native accent while the rest
remained neutral or in disagreement with this statement. This mismatch was
also found in the study conducted by Scales, Wennerstrom, Richard and Wu
(2006).
After analyzing data related to the in-class/learning environment
factors influencing learners’ pronunciation, it could be confirmed that all the
mentioned factors, including peers, teachers, teacher pronunciation teaching
activities, had high impact on the participants’ perceived pronunciation. They
said they were affected by their teachers, same sex / opposite sex-peers, and
peers with different proficiency levels, and while repeating with the class and
reading words from the books and worksheet. Explicit pronunciation received
from the teacher appears to have prompted appreciation and it is seen to be
significant for the learners. This corroborates with previous results mentioned
by Saito (2011) who noted that explicit phonetic instruction and repetitive
practice improved learners’ pronunciation.
When subjects’ perceptions toward pronunciation of NES and NNES
were analyzed, we found that there is no significant result in terms of their
self-perceptions of pronunciations with people who have different proficiency
levels of English as the results are quite dispersed with the exception of only
one instance. They believed their pronunciation was at its the best when they
were with a NES. In their context, a NES is usually a NEST. Thus, this
finding will be referred further in our discussion.
Interestingly, there is a very strong finding that reveals learners are not
biased against different pronunciations and accents, and they accept them as
they are. These findings are promising and encouraging when considering
English as an International Language and the principles World Englishes.
Contrary to numerous studies presenting results where learners show
preference to standard English (Buckingham, 2015; Butler, 2007; McKenzie,
2008), this study demonstrated that in this particular case, native accents were
not the most favored ones.
It is also striking that learners could not decide if NESs are the best
models of English as half of the participants said that they wanted to sound
like a NES. These findings also reflect what literature says regarding accent
identification and preferences.
Taking into consideration the interview results, the majority of
responses received for the first question emphasize the importance of
pronunciation as long as it is intelligible and understandable by either a native
or non-native speaker. These findings concur with what Çakır and Baytar
(2014), Pourhosein Gilakjani (2012) underscored in their studies along with
Morley (1991), who specifically stated that “intelligible pronunciation is an
essential component of communication competence” (p. 488). In particular,
mutual intelligibility has a primary role to play between speakers and listeners

136
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

from the angle of World Englishes (Kang, 2010). As emphasized by two

proponents of World Englishes such as Kachru (1997) and Jenkins (2000,
2006), we believe that this result reflects how significant is intelligibility when
compared to a particular native accent.
Questions investigating how NESTs and NNESTs affect learners’
pronunciation deeper acknowledge that a majority of learners believe NESTs
have a positive impact on their pronunciation. As in seen the literature, it is
also underscored that language learners find NESTs stronger in teaching
pronunciation when compared to NNESTs (Coşkun, 2013; Milambiling, 1999;
Sung & Poole, 2016) because: they can hear correct pronunciation from
NESTs (Dweik & Al-Barghouthi, 2014; Torres, 2004), they have to speak in
English as NESTs cannot use their mother tongue (Andrews, 2007), and they
find NESTs less strict and more relaxed during speaking lessons (Medgyes,
1992; Üstünoğlu, 2007).
While admitting the positive effect of NESTs on their pronunciation,
most learners did not reject the positive influence of NNESTs on their
pronunciation improvement. Although very few criticized NNESTs’
“incorrect” and “non-authentic” English pronunciation just like Chang (2016)
illustrated, they said they appreciate NNESTs as they know how difficult it is
to learn a new language, and this reflects what Dweik and Al-Barghouthi
(2014) and Gurkan and Yuksel (2012) have demonstrated in the results of their
studies
In short, both groups of teachers received positive comments
addressing their different strengths, which tallies with what Moussu (2002)
and Cheung and Braine (2007) have discovered after investigating perceptions
of university students. Just as Medgyes (1994) highlighted different strengths
of both groups of teachers by stating they are just “two different species” (p.
25), it is not quite acceptable to see one group as superior to the other in a
world where native speakerism is not promoted as before. As Tong and Cheng
(2006) conclude, both NNES and NNES groups should be treated and
respected equally.
Last but not least, learners expressed that they wanted to concentrate
on pronunciation more in lessons by suggesting need for different error
correction techniques.

Conclusion

The findings of our study have important implications for language teachers
about their in-class practices. Although this specific group of participants was
not biased against different accents and pronunciations, teachers need to
introduce not only British and American but more pronunciation models so
that learners can hear, compare, and analyze different varieties of English.
This approach will definitely refer to intelligibility and will increase
“communicative flexibility and respect for accent diversity” (Scales et al.,
2006).

137
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

Our study has also some implications for materials designers and
institutional language curriculum. When considering the listening activities in
these learners’ coursebooks, New Language Leader and Pathways are the
most frequently used coursebooks in that institution. Even though the books
use very few listening tracks with different varieties of English such as Indian
or Spanish, learners are mostly exposed to standard English instruction with
British or American English. The in-house listening materials are recorded by
both NESTs and NNESTs, which are in consonance with WEs and ELF
perspectives. However, these efforts may not be enough. As Buckingham
(2014) suggests in her conclusion, we need to expose learners with more
didactic materials that will help them appreciate other accents and
pronunciations by referring to similar implications (Jenkins, 2005; Lindemann
& Subtirelu, 2013).
As all the learners indicated that they wanted to receive more
pronunciation-focused instruction, the institutions may reconsider their
curriculum and weekly syllabus to see how much space is allocated to
pronunciation given that this study suggests that learners are quite eager and
enthusiastic about practising pronunciation. Since learners had different
“ideal” error-correction techniques with some favoring immediate feedback,
while some favoring more relaxed attitude toward correcting pronunciation
errors, further investigation on this issue can be carried out to see how/if the
feedback given to the learners can actually match with what they expect in
reality.
This study, to our knowledge, is the first study investigating two
crucial areas in one study from EIL’s perspective: Learners’ attitudes towards
different accents and pronunciations and towards (non)native English-
speaking teachers in pronunciation teaching with young adults in the language
preparatory school of a foundation university in Turkish context. Although, a
mixed-method approach was used to increase the validity of the findings, there
is a need for further research to be done in a similar context with university
preparatory school learners with intermediate level of English proficiency.
Hopefully, this study will inspire many teachers who want to make their
learners “more aware” of other English accents and pronunciations.

References

Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in

ELT. English Language Teaching Journal, 56 (1), 57-64.
Andrews, S. (2007). Teacher language awareness. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Bai, B., & Yuan, R. (2018). EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices about
pronunciation teaching. ELT Journal, 73(2), 134-143
Ballard, L. & Winke, P. (2017). Students’ attitudes towards English teachers’
accents: The interplay of accent familiarity, comprehensibility,
intelligibility, perceived native speaker status, and acceptability as a

138
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

teacher. In T. Isaacs & P. Trofimovich (Eds.), Second language

pronunciation assessment: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 121-
140). Bristol, UK and Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Multilingual Matters.
Bernat, E. (2008). Towards a pedagogy of empowerment: The case of
“impostor syndrome” among pre-service non-native speaker teachers
in TESOL. English Language Teacher Education and Development,
11, 1-8.
Bonfiglio, T. P. (2010). Mother tongues and nations: The intervention of the
native speaker. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Boyle, J. (1997). Imperialism and the English language in Hong Kong.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 18(3), 169-
181.
Buckingham, L. (2014). Attitudes to English teachers’ accents in the Gulf.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24 (1). 50-73.
Buckingham, L. (2015). Recognising English accents in the community:
Omani students’ accent preferences and perceptions of nativeness.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 36 (2), 182-
197.
Butler, Y. (2007). How are nonnative-English-speaking teachers perceived by
young learners? TESOL Quarterly, 41, 731-755.
Çakır, İ. & Baytar, B. (2014). Foreign language learners’ views on the
importance of learning the target language pronunciation. Journal of
Language and Linguistic Studies, 10(1), 99-110.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English
teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and
language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 923-939.
Celce-Murcia, N., Brinton, M. D., & Goodwin, J. M. (1996). Teaching
Pronunciation: A Reference for Teachers of English to Speakers of
Other Languages. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Çelik, S. (2006). A concise examination of the artificial battle between native
and nonnative speaker teachers of English in Turkey. Journal of
Kastamonu Education Faculty, 14, 371-376.
Cenoz, J. & Lecumberri, M. L. G. (1999). The acquisition of English
pronunciation: Learners’ views. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 9(1), 3-17.
Cheung, Y. L., & Braine, G. (2007). The attitudes of university students
towards non-native speakers’ English teachers in Hong Kong. RELC
Journal, 38, 258-277.
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching.
TESOL Quarterly, 33, 185-209.
Coşkun, A. (2011). Future English teacher’s attitudes towards EIL
pronunciation. Journal of English as an International Language, 6(2),
46-68.

139
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

Coşkun, A. (2013). Native speakers as teachers in Turkey: Non-native pre-

service English teachers’ reactions to a nation-wide project. The
Qualitative Report, 18, Article 57, 1-21.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and
evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Davies, A. (1991). The native speaker in applied linguistics. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Davies, A. (2013). Native speakers and native users. Cambridge University
Press.
Demir, B. (2011). Undergraduate FL learners’ perceptions of native and non-
native language instructors. The International Journal of Research in
Teacher Education, 1(1), 1-29.
Demirezen, M. (2010). The causes of the schwa phoneme as a fossilized
pronunciation problem for Turks. Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 2, 1567-1571.
Derwing, T. M. & Munro, M. J. (2009). Putting accent in its place: Rethinking
obstacles to communication. Language Teaching, 4(4), 476-490.
Dweik, B. & Al-Barghouthi, E. (2014). Attitudes of Jordanian graduate
students towards native and non-native English language teachers.
Journal of Education and Human Development, 3(2), 627-646.
Fey�r, B. (2012). Investigating Hungarian EFL learners’ comprehension of
and attitudes towards speech varieties of English: A two-phase Ssudy.
WoPaLP 6, 17-45.
Gürkan, S. & Yüksel, D. (2012). Evaluating the contributions of native and
non-native teachers to an English Language Teaching Program.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 2951-2958.
Hartshorn, J. (2013). An Analysis of ESL Learner Preferences for Native
Accent Retention and Reduction. The Journal of Language Teaching
and Learning, 2, 1-20.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2005). Misinterpretation, bias and resistance to change: The case
of the Lingua Franca Core. In K. Dzubialska-Kolaczyk & J. Przedlacka
(Eds.), English pronunciation models: A changing scene (pp. 139-154).
Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and
English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 157-181.
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The
English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson
(Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and
literatures (pp. 11-30). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Kachru, B. B. (1988). Teaching World Englishes. ERIC/CLL News Bulletin,
12, 1, 3, 4, 8.

140
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

Kachru, B. B. (1992). Teaching World Englishes. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), The

other tongue. English across cultures (2nd ed., pp. 355-365). Urbana,
IL: University of Illinois Press.
Kachru, B. B. (1996). World Englishes: Agony and ecstasy. The Journal of
Aesthetic Education, 30(2), 135-155.
Kachru, B. B. (1997). World Englishes 2000: Resources for research and
teaching. In L. E. Smith & M. L. Forman (Eds.), World Englishes 2000
(pp. 209-251). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Kang, O. (2010). ESL learners‟ attitudes toward pronunciation instruction and
varieties of English. In J. Levis & K. LeVelle (Eds.), Proceedings of
the 1st Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching
Conference, Iowa State University, Sept. 2009 (pp. 105-118), Ames,
IA: Iowa State University.
Kelly, L. G. (1969). 25 Centuries of language teaching. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Kim, T. (2008). Accentedness, Comprehensibility, intelligibility, and
interpretability of NNESTs. The CATESOL Journal, 20(1), 7-26.
Kiziltepe, Z. (2000). Attitudes and motivation of Turkish EFL students
towards second language learning. ITL Review of Applied Linguistics,
129-130, 141-168.
Koşar, G. (2018). Turkish tertiary level EFL students’ perceptions of native
English-speaking teachers and non-native English-speaking teachers.
European Journal of English Language Teachin, 4(1), 96-119.
Ladegaard, H. J. (1998). National stereotypes and language attitudes: The
perception of British, American and Australian language and culture in
Denmark. Language and Communication, 18, 251-274.
Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra J. M. (2002). University students’ perceptions of
native and non- native speaker teachers of English. Language
Awareness, 11(2), 132-142.
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2005). What do students think about the
pros and cons of having a native speaker teacher? Non-Native
Language Teachers: Perceptions. In E. Llurda (Ed.), Perceptions,
challenges and contributions to the profession (pp. 217-241). Boston
MA: Springer
Lefkowitz, N. & Hedgcock, J. S. (2006). Sound effects: Social pressure and
identity negotiation in the Spanish language classroom. Applied
Language Learning, 16(1), 17-42.
Levis, J. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation
teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 369-377.
Lindemann, S., & Subtirelu, N. (2013). Reliably biased: The role of listener
expectation in the perception of second language speech and its
implications for research and pedagogy. Language Learning 63(3),
567-594.

141
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

Ma, F. L. P. (2012). Advantages and disadvantages of native- and non-native-

English- speaking teachers: Student perceptions in Hong Kong. TESOL
Quarterly, 46(2), 280-305.
McKenzie, R.M. (2008). The role of variety recognition in Japanese university
students’ attitudes towards English speech varieties. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 29(2), 139-153
Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non‐native: Who’s worth more? ELT Journal,
46(4), 340‐349.
Medgyes, P. (1994). The Non-native teacher. London, Macmillan.
Milambiling, J. (1999). Native and non-native speakers: The view from
teacher education. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the
Midwest modern language association, St. Louis, MO.
Morley, J. (1991). The pronunciation component in teaching English to
speakers of other languages. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 481-520.
Morley, J. (1998, January-February). Trippingly on the tongue: Putting serious
speech/pronunciation instruction back in the TESOL equation, ESL
Magazine, 20-23.
Moussu, L. (2002). English as a second language students’ reactions to
nonnative English speaking teachers. (Unpublished master’s
dissertation) Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Pourhosein Gilakjani, A. (2012). A study of factors affecting EFL learners'
English pronunciation learning and the strategies for instruction.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(3), 119-128.
Rajagopalan, K. (2005). Non-native speaker teachers of English and their
anxieties: Ingredients for an experiment in action research. In E. Llurda
(Ed.), Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and
contributions to the profession (pp. 195-216). New York: Springer.
Sa’d, S. H. T. (2018) Learners’ views of (non)native speaker status, accent,
and identity: An English as an international language perspective,
Journal of World Languages, 5(1), 1-22.
Şahin, İ. (2005). The effect of native speaker teachers of English on the
attitudes and achievement of learners. Journal of Language and
Linguistic Studies, 1(1), 29-42
Saito, K. (2011). Re-examining the role of explicit phonetic instruction in
native-like and com- prehensible pronunciation development: An
instructed SLA approach to L2 phonology. Language Awareness,
20(1), 45-59.
Samimy, K. & Brutt-Griffler, J. (1999). To be a native or non-native speaker:
Perceptions of non-native speaking students in a graduate TESOL
program. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language
teaching (pp. 127-144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Saraceni, M. (2015). World Englishes: A critical analysis. London:
Bloomsbury Publishing Company.

142
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

Scales, J., Wennerstrom, A., Richard, D., & Wu, S.H. (2006) Language
learners’ perceptions of accent. TESOL Quarterly, 40(4), 715-738.
Seidlhofer, B. (1999) Double standards: Teacher education in the Expanding
Circle. World Englishes, 18(2), 233-245.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Selvi, A. F. (2011). World Englishes in the Turkish sociolinguistic context.
World Englishes, 30(2), 182-199.
Sifakis, N. C., & Sougari, A. (2005). Pronunciation issues and EIL pedagogy
in the periphery: A survey of Greek state school teachers’ beliefs.
TESOL Quarterly 39(3), 467-488.
Suarez, J. (2000). “Native” and “non-native”: Not only a question of
terminology. Humanizing Language Teaching 2(6), 1-4
Sung, K., & Poole, J. F. (2016). Differences between native and non-native
English-speaking teachers in China from the perspectives of Chinese
EFL students. English as an International Language Journal, 11(2), 1-
18
Timmis, I. (2002). Native-speaker norms and international English: A
classroom view. ELT Journal, 56, 240-249.
Todd, W. R., & Pojanapunya, P. (2009). Implicit attitudes towards native and
non-native speaker teachers. System, 37(1), 23-33.
Tong, C. W., & Cheng, M-Y. (2006). The learning process of teaching beliefs:
A case study. Paper presented in Three Places across Two Shores
Seminar: School reform and cooperation, Hong Kong Chinese
University, Hong Kong.
Torres, J. W. (2004). Speaking up! Adult ESL students’ perceptions of native
and non-native English speaking teachers. (Unpublished M.A. thesis)
University of North Texas. Denton, Texas.
Üstünoğlu, E. (2007). University students’ perceptions of native and non-
native teachers. Teachers and teaching: Theory and practice 13(1), pp.
63-79.
Widdowson, H. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 28(2),
377-389.
Yook, C. & Lindemann S. (2013). The role of speaker identification in Korean
university students’ attitudes towards five varieties of English. Journal
of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 34(3), 279-296.

Note on Contributors

Karolin Candan is an English teacher in Cracow International School in

Poland. Currently she is pursuing her PhD studies in English Language
Teaching at Bahcesehir University. Her current research interests are early
bilingualism, bilingual teaching in monolingual settings and English as an
international language. Email: [email protected]

143
 English as an International Language, Vol. 15, Issue 2

Dilek Inal works as an assistant professor of Applied Linguistics at Istanbul

University-Cerrahpaşa, Department of English Language Teaching. Her
research interests include English as a global language, World Englishes,
English as a lingua franca, teacher education and development, and cultural
and literary studies. Email: [email protected]

144