by Ana P. Biazon Rocha
On 23 May 2026, the IATEFL PronSIG webinar with Rias van den Doel, Debating nativeness as a construct in pronunciation teaching, revisited a question that continues to shape, and sometimes unsettle, our field: whose pronunciation norms are we really teaching? The session explored the sociolinguistic tensions surrounding the teaching of English pronunciation in a globalised world, particularly how the traditional dominance of native-speaker norms is being questioned by concepts such as linguistic justice and the rise of diverse World Englishes. It was a valuable opportunity to analyse ‘The Nativeness Principle’ and ‘the Intelligibility Principle’ (Levis, 2018) more critically; the idea that learners/speakers should sound like native speakers vs. the idea that they should focus on being understood. In this post, we will reflect on three key points from the webinar that are especially relevant for English teachers working with pronunciation today.
Image 1. Rias van den Doel’s webinar
1. Reflect on the ethics of the chosen model
According to van den Doel’s argument, due to its status as an international language, no one can claim the ownership of English, neither native speakers nor non-native speakers. This is widely accepted, and difficult to refute. English has become a global communication tool.
Thus, what should be questioned is our continued adherence to pronunciation models such as Standard Southern British English (SSBE) or General American (GA). Do we follow them because of tradition and materials, or because, consciously or unconsciously, we tend to perpetuate the ideology that native speakers are inherently superior models, also known as native-speakerism? In other words, we should consider whether our teaching and/or curriculum constraints might contribute to linguistic injustice or accentism by penalising or ignoring non-standard varieties.
2. Prioritise learner agency and the “Goldilocks Principle”
Another key reflection point in van den Doel’s presentation is the extent to which our students have agency in choosing their own linguistic identity. Learners have different needs, interests and objectives when it comes to pronunciation learning. Whereas some want to be more intelligible and better understand others in international contexts, without necessarily adopting a standard accent, others, while also recognising the importance of intelligibility in successful communication, may still wish to achieve a native-like accent. Therefore, we should consider whether we are imposing native-speaker norms on students who do not want them, or conversely, withholding support from students who legitimately wish to sound more native-like for reasons of social capital or impression management (For more discussion on what students mean when they say ‘they want to sound like a native-speaker’, please check this previous blog post).
In addition, van den Doel suggested applying the Goldilocks Principle: finding a balance that is “not too native” and “not too non-native”, depending on the learner’s own aspirations. To illustrate this, he referred to Codó & Collins’ study (2025) of Spanish students who modulate their accent in English. Participants reported not attempting to sound like native speakers of English, but rather to avoid being perceived as stereotypical Spanish speakers of English. In other words, they are aware of the social and contextual perceptions and implications of their accents, and they experiment with it, performing hybrid identities, or mixing/blending their local identity with their English one.
3. Focus on models, not targets, and on critical awareness
Although van den Doel reinforced the importance of making intelligibility the primary goal of oral communication, he also argued that native-speaker models can still be used as models, rather than targets. Teachers can teach using SSBE and GA, but do not necessarily expect learners to develop or imitate a British or American accent. According to van den Doel, this is neither native-speakerist nor an endorsement of the Nativeness Principle, it is a choice. Treating native-like pronunciation as a target can lead to a sense of failure and is often largely unattainable.
For this reason, it is important to instil critical awareness in students about how language forms are raciolinguistically encoded. In other words, how language may be judged according to the race or ethnicity of the speaker. For example, Standard English is usually coded as ‘white’, which can contribute to the marginalisation of other varieties that are perceived as less legitimate.
One of the points that struck me most in van den Doel’s presentation is the need for us, as teachers, to go beyond the binary distinction between native and non-native, and instead understand language as a continuum and as a tool for social meaning-making and identity performance. Language is dynamic, not fixed, and involves complex processes, so it seems too simplistic to reduce it to an A or B binary. In fact, it can be A, B, C or the whole alphabet!
What does this all mean to pronunciation teaching in English language classrooms?
Taken together, these reflections invite us to rethink certain pronunciation teaching assumptions (e.g., nativeness privilege, the expectation of convergence towards standard targets), and challenge us to see pronunciation not as a matter of reaching a fixed endpoint, but as part of a dynamic process of identity, communication and choice.
So, rather than asking whether learners should sound native-like or not, perhaps a more productive question is: what kinds of pronunciation goals are appropriate, meaningful and empowering for this group of learners in this context?
Practical Ideas
Following that, here are some practical classroom ideas for bringing these reflections into pronunciation teaching:
A. Co-create pronunciation goals with learners: Invite students to explicitly choose between intelligibility, international comprehensibility or native-like approximation, and revisit these goals throughout the course.
B. Use multiple models instead of a single ‘target’: Expose learners to a range of English varieties (e.g. SSBE, GA, Indian English, Singapore English) to normalise variation and reduce native-speaker bias (For more suggestions of pronunciation materials that use different varieties of English, please check this previous post).
C. Introduce reflective accent awareness tasks: Ask students to reflect on how their accent choices affect identity, perception and communication in different contexts (e.g., formal, informal, global).
Finally, van den Doel’s webinar was thought-provoking in its questioning of who gets to decide what counts in pronunciation teaching, and how L2 speakers can simultaneously be perpetrators of accent stereotypes, victims of linguistic discrimination and agents of their own use of English. It provided us with lots of food for thought, so it is totally fine to take your time to process and make your own reflections!
If you missed van den Doel’s webinar, don’t forget to access the recording on the IATEFL members’ resources webpage. If you are not an IATEFL PronSIG member, no time like the present. Join us!
For more discussions, ideas and tips on how to teach pronunciation, our PronSIG blog is here for you! Don’t forget to leave your comments below and follow PronSIG on social media.
References
Codó, E., & Collins, C. (2025). Stigma, self-styling and ‘forced accents’ among English L2 speakers in Spain. World Englishes, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12721
Levis, J. (2018). Intelligibility, Oral Communication, and the Teaching of Pronunciation. Cambridge University Press.
