Critical Review of Cook,  V. (1999). Going Beyond the Native Speaker in Language Teaching

Critical fall over 1 Review forge,V. (1999). Going beyond the inborn vocaliser in manner of speaking pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 185. In his word, Cook argues that the vehemence or dependence of homegr pass along loudspeaker system model(NSM) in language teaching is non necessary. It is time to adopt non- indwelling models twain for language learning and teaching, and he provides any(prenominal) possible teaching methods. Firstly, Cook defines the primaeval speaker and L2 substance abusers.Then he discusses the slight solely salient differences between monolinguistic inseparable speakers and multilingual native speakers in legal injury of multicompetence so that there is no changeless NSM. He also argues NSM is implicit and L2 users argon actually using L2 differently instead of deficiently from monolingual bias perspective, which means native-speaker take aim is not a must, even impractical, to just about of L2 users because they do not need to laud their identity through the L2 and nevertheless a couple of(prenominal) L2 users have achieved native-speaker proficiency.After this series of arguments, Cook proposes some(a) practical suggestions of sure-fire L2 user as models and applying L1 for teaching methods. Cook concludes that more emphasis should be added on the skillful L2 users and on using L1, and teaching language is not to imitate native speakers notwithstanding to alleviate learners so that L2 learners are successful in terms of multicompetent. In general this article is refreshing, especially 14 years ago. I absolutely agree with Cook that successful L2 learners are successful multicompetent speakers, not failed native speakers (p. 04). In non- side of meat-speaking countries like China where English is neither an official language nor a lingua franca, a simple English native speaker, without teaching experiences or educational professional background, can be prize as a language specialiser or an English originit y only because he speaks so-called pure English. It is the time, 14 years later subsequently this article has been published, to establish a affirmatory image of nonnative-speaker teachers for the sake of both themselves and their students and for the fanatics of NSM to heat up.While in other places where English is espouse as a lingua franca, the lessening of NSM is more meaningful in the trend of being equal, due to the speakers various lingual preferences and cultural backgrounds. Actually, nine years before this article, Rampton (1990) had called on the professionals to label native speakers as language experts in cabaret to translation the emphasis from who you are to what you know (p. 99). So in this sense, Cook affords L2 users agency on learning to use L2 instead of to interpret their identity into native speakers. However, uncertainties still remain.First, although the pen offers the definition of L2 users and even distinguished it from L2 learners, he does not m ake it specific what agreeable of languages iodin uses can be considered L2s in his statement. For example, languages learned at what age or for what reason can be angiotensin-converting enzymes L2? Or can maven who learns L2 as an adult in order to stay alive in communicative countries be the same as one who simply uses L2 to serve foreigners in his own country? Second, the agent observes that students may determine overwhelmed by native-speaker teachers who have achieved a paragon that is out of the students reach. (p. 00) I think the author slightly overstates the students fear of native speakers. The author himself admits that some L2 users could pass for native speakers, so why should all L2 learners be taken as not extraordinary in the first place? Also, the NS teachers do not only symbolize fluent target-language speakers, and also a bridge that connects cardinal different cultures, which is cherished by students as well. Furthermore, according to Derrida (1998), language itself is essentially heavy, thus both native speaker and L2 users are oppressed by language and nonnative-speaker teachers could also be overwhelming to the students.Third, since seek supports the idea that teachers tend to teach the steering they learn (Stitt-Gohdes, 2001), the nonnative-speaker teachers can be a distinguished example of successful L2 user, because such(prenominal) teachers are not only fallible as Cook states or presents a more achievable model (p. 200) but also they can share or deliver their knowledge, experience and strategies of becoming a successful L2 user. Fourth, the author mentions successful L2 users several(prenominal) times but does not give a definition or cadence of it.Thus it makes me confused because is a successful L2 user one who is infinitely close to the native speakers? 733 words Reference Derrida, J. (1998). Monolingualism of the other or, the prosthesis of origins. Standford, CA Stanford University Press. Rampton,M. (1990). D isplacing the native speaker Expertise, affiliation, and inheritance. ELT Journal, 44(2), 97-101. Stitt-Gohdes,W. (2001). logical argument education students pet learning styles and their teachers preferred instructional styles Do they match? Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 43(3), 137-151.