Yesterday, some of my students who had travelled to Britain after years of English-language training, with special focus on developing “Native Accent”, returned with a question that was both tickling and challenging: “Sir, which native accent were Pakistani English teachers talking about?” They had discovered that London did not sound like Manchester, Manchester did not sound like Liverpool, Scottish English sounded different again, and Irish English presented yet another variety. Within the same country, and sometimes even within the same city, they encountered people whose English sounded remarkably different from the model they had spent years trying to imitate. Their innocent question exposed a much larger problem in English Language Teaching culture in South Asia, in general, and Pakistan, in particular; this approach to language teaching and learning has its roots in colonisation of this region and the resultant slavish psyche. Otherwise, many nations proudly and comfortably use English language for global communication with their respective regional accents.
Factually speaking, English is no longer merely the language of England, nor is international English communication confined to conversations between British or American native speakers. English is now used by people from India, Pakistan, China, Singapore, Africa, the Arab world, Europe, Japan, Korea and almost every other part of the globe. A Pakistani may speak English with Pakistani linguistic influence; an Indian may speak Indian English; a Singaporean may speak Singapore English; a Nigerian may speak Nigerian English; a Chinese speaker may speak English influenced by Mandarin. Their accents may reveal something about where they come from, but an accent in itself does not establish whether their English is good or bad, effective or ineffective. The more important question is whether they can communicate clearly while maintaining a neutral accent—one that is not negatively affected by mother-tongue influence.
This is where English-language teaching needs to distinguish between accent and pronunciation. They are related, but they are not the same thing. Pronunciation deserves serious attention because unclear pronunciation can cause confusion, ambiguity, misunderstanding and unnecessary effort for the listener. A learner should certainly be helped to pronounce sounds clearly, place stress appropriately, use rhythm and intonation effectively. But that is fundamentally different from forcing the learner to sound as though he or she was born in London, New York or Sydney.
The central principle should therefore be simple: Do not eliminate accent; eliminate communication barriers. If a Pakistani learner speaks English with a recognisably Pakistani accent but communicates clearly with people from different linguistic backgrounds, why should that accent itself be treated as a defect? If a particular feature of Pakistani pronunciation causes another person to misunderstand a word, then that feature deserves attention. The educational target should be the removal of the communication problem, not the removal of the learner’s linguistic identity.
This distinction is not merely a personal preference. It is firmly connected with an important body of research in second-language pronunciation. John M. Levis of Iowa State University has described two competing approaches as the Nativeness Principle and the Intelligibility Principle. The former treats native-like pronunciation as the ultimate goal, whereas the latter prioritises successful communication. In his 2022 review, Levis argues that the native-pronunciation goal is “unlikely to be achieved and unnecessary for effective communication in the L2.” That observation goes to the heart of the matter. If native-like pronunciation is exceptionally difficult for adult foreign-language learners to achieve and is not necessary for effective communication, why should it consume such a disproportionate amount of their educational time and effort?
The work of Murray Munro and Tracey Derwing has also been highly influential in separating the concepts of foreign accent, comprehensibility and intelligibility. Their research showed that foreign-accented speech can sometimes require greater processing time, but importantly, the degree of perceived accent was not itself a reliable measure of processing difficulty; speech that was less comprehensible tended to require more time to process. In other words, the existence of an accent and the existence of a communication problem are not synonymous. A speaker may sound noticeably foreign and still be easy to understand.
Jennifer Jenkins, another major scholar in English as an International Language, took the argument directly into ELT. In her influential 1998 article in the ELT Journal, she wrote that “the acquisition of a native-like accent is no longer the ultimate objective of the majority of learners” of English as an international language. She pointed out that many learners need English primarily to communicate with other non-native speakers from different linguistic backgrounds. Her later work proposed a pronunciation approach for English as an International Language in which intelligibility among non-native speakers is the primary concern rather than conformity to Received Pronunciation or General American.
As mentioned above, the irony is that even native English speakers themselves do not possess a single universal accent. If they live comfortably with such diversity, why should foreign learners be told that their English is incomplete until they have erased the evidence of their own linguistic background?
There is an even more fundamental question: What exactly does “native speaker” mean in an international language? A Pakistani university professor who has never been to England or USA and has taught English for twenty-five years does not become a British native speaker simply because he has trained himself, with much efforts and repeated copying exercise, to reproduce a British accent. So, to be or t teach somebody to be a fake or mock native speaker is highly unethical and absurd in terms of sacred observes of teaching and learning. Accent imitation can alter pronunciation; it cannot rewrite a person’s linguistic history.
Norm Chomsky’s interview is also relevant here. Asked about the notion of a standard language, he said: “The notion of ‘standard language’ is not a linguistic notion.” He associated the concept instead with “structures of power and authority.” That does not mean that every pronunciation standard is meaningless or that pronunciation should not be taught. It does, however, invite us to ask whether some pronunciation models acquire prestige because they are genuinely necessary for communication or because they have become associated with social status and authority.
This question deserves particular attention in South Asian societies, where English has sometimes become much more than a language. It can become a marker of education, class, employment, social mobility and prestige. Consequently, a British or American accent may sometimes be admired not simply because it facilitates communication but because it is perceived as sophisticated or superior. That is where pronunciation teaching can quietly turn into accent worship. A useful educational exercise can become a social performance: the student is no longer being taught merely to communicate in English but to sound like someone from another society.
The world’s major English proficiency examinations also offer an important reality check. IELTS does not require candidates to sound British or American. Its official Speaking assessment evaluates pronunciation as one of four equally weighted criteria, alongside fluency and coherence, lexical resource, and grammatical range and accuracy. IELTS defines pronunciation in terms of producing comprehensible utterances and using pronunciation features to communicate meaning. Its official Band 6 descriptor, for example, says that a candidate can generally be understood throughout without much effort even though individual words or phonemes may sometimes be mispronounced.
Indeed, IELTS itself has addressed the myth directly. An official IELTS article titled “IELTS Speaking Tips: Common myths and how to overcome them” states that candidates do not need a British or American accent and explains that pronunciation includes features such as intonation, sentence stress and individual sounds that help speakers to be clearly understood. Its conclusion is remarkably straightforward: “Any accent is acceptable as long as test takers are intelligible.”
Besides, this raises a serious educational question about the resources devoted to accent training. Students have limited time, limited money and limited energy. Teachers also have limited classroom time. Those hours might instead be used to expand vocabulary, improve grammar, develop listening comprehension, practise spontaneous speech, strengthen academic writing, improve presentation skills, develop critical thinking, learn professional communication and build the confidence required to participate in genuine international conversations.
The issue is therefore not whether pronunciation training is important. It is. The issue is what kind of pronunciation training is educationally justified. If a pronunciation feature repeatedly causes misunderstanding, do teach it. English is an international language and is being taught as an international language, then what does the term “native speaker” have to do with it? The whole global community is using it as a native speaker.
Moreover, research increasingly recognises that listeners adapt to unfamiliar accents. A study involving German, Spanish and Singaporean listeners found that Dutch-accented English was understood as well as standard British and American English in the contexts examined, and the researchers concluded that accent training aimed at achieving an L1 English accent may not always be necessary when learners are expected to interact mainly with other L2 English speakers.
What, then, should the modern ELT classroom aim to produce? Not millions of artificial British or American speakers. It should produce confident, articulate and internationally intelligible users of English. Students should learn pronunciation carefully enough to prevent confusion and misunderstanding, but they should also learn that English can be spoken with many legitimate accents. They should hear different Englishes, communicate with different speakers, develop listening flexibility and learn to accommodate differences in pronunciation.
A Pakistani can speak English and remain Pakistani. His English can be clear, sophisticated, educated, professional and internationally effective without becoming an imitation or a fake copy of another nation’s identity. The purpose of learning an international language should ultimately be to enlarge the learner’s world, not to erase the learner’s identity. English should give people access to knowledge, education, science, literature, employment and international communication. It should enable them to express their ideas and understand the ideas of others.
So perhaps the question we should ask in every ELT classroom is no longer, “Do you sound British?” or “Do you sound American?” The better questions are: “Can we understand you? Can you understand us? Can you express your ideas precisely? Can you participate confidently in an international conversation? Can you communicate without confusion, ambiguity, miscommunication or unnecessary misunderstanding?” If the answer is yes, then the language has achieved its purpose.
