More and more linguists are stepping away from the distinction of native vs nativised speakers of English. Many practitioners have stated the advantages of non-native teachers as they are, among other things, more sensitive to the existence of English as an International Language.

English is an official language in 68 countries. However, very few countries are considered as ‘native-speakers’ of it. Traditionally, Australian, British, American, Canadian and Irish are the varieties considered native and spoken by native speakers. ‘Nativised varieties’ of English, such as the one spoken in Malaysia, Philippines and Ghana, are those developed in places where English was not originally spoken. They are said to have been influenced by local languages and cultures.

This classification has led some to wonder how long a variety of English needs to have been around to be considered ‘native’ and to what extent they can have been influenced, considering that all languages are influenced by other ones. Andy Kirkpatrick (2007) suggests that the distinction between ‘native’ and ‘nativised’ can be based on prejudice seen as, for a long time, a majority of those considered ‘native’ speakers are white.

‘Native’ varieties of English are taken as a model against which others are compared. They are seen as purer or superior and become the point of reference for learners of English as a foreign language. The countries home to the ‘native’ varieties are allowed to produce dictionaries, teaching materials, export ‘native’ teachers all over the world and receive students who wish to live the full native experience.

In a world in which English and its many varieties have become a lingua franca, ‘native-speakerism’ sets the Western-culture speaker as the ideal teacher. This framework discriminates not only against speakers of ‘nativised’ varieties of English such as Nigerian or Pakistan’s but also against proficient speakers of the language who were born in any other country of the world.

More and more authors are proposing the definition of English as an International Language (EIL) or a common phonological core (Jenkins, 2000) that all speakers should follow when talking to speakers of other varieties to achieve mutual intelligibility. This way of thinking of English as an International Language implies respecting all varieties and putting them all at the same level.

Teacher Brian Tomlison (2007) suggests that non-native teachers who have learned an international variety of English that is intelligible by a majority of speakers make the best teachers of English. He argues that:

• Successful learners of English as an International Language (EIL) would be more sensitive to the learners’ needs (i.e: most difficult words to pronounce for French speakers) than a ‘native’ speaker of English.

• Non-native speakers would focus on teaching features that are common to a majority of world Englishes, or to EIL,

• ‘Native’ speakers might correct aspects of pronunciation that could be correct in EIL, just because they are characteristic of their variety.

• Additionally, as non-native speakers might have a lower knowledge of the pragmatics of a language, they might spend less time teaching idiomatic expressions that are not common to all varieties and pay greater attention to attaining effective communication.

‘Native’ or non- native, Tomlison defends that the best teachers will:

• make effective communication their main objective, 

• will be open-minded and accepting of varieties and 

• will teach learners how to adapt to the different varieties of English.

Thinking of English as an International Language is a step to recognising the value of all of the world varieties of English and the languages and cultures that have influenced them along the years. Changing with time seems the natural way forward for a language that aspires to remain the global lingua franca.