The emergence of digital platforms provides new opportunities to make sense of, and confront, issues central to language teaching and learning. In recent years, for example, technological advancements have allowed learners to receive automated, AI-generated feedback on their spoken language. Such technologies offer exciting opportunities to transform the ways in which learners understand and develop language proficiency. However, AI programming may rely on outdated or problematic understandings of the “native speaker,” which is an empirical issue that deserves further attention. To this end, the current study examines how learners respond to the language evaluations provided by ELSA, which is a popular app that offers automated pronunciation feedback. The results, which are based on a topic modeling examination of 51,143 user reviews alongside diary entries, suggest that AI disempowers learners by providing numerical scores based on region-specific accents and pronunciation features, and thus oversimplifying the challenges of developing language proficiency. These findings demonstrate that despite widespread claims of AI objectivity, ELSA's evaluations (re)produce native speakerism and racialized language ideologies as understood by its users. ELSA's evaluations illustrate just one example of a broader phenomenon of for-profit digital platforms using AI to provide a veneer of objectivity and legitimacy to outdated understandings of language proficiency.
AraujoTHelbergerNKruikemeierS, et al. (2020) In AI we trust? Perceptions about automated decision-making by artificial intelligence. AI and Society35(3): 611–623.
2.
BraineG (1999) Non-native educators in English language teaching. Routledge.
3.
BraineG (2010) Nonnative speaker English teachers: Research, pedagogy, and professional growth. Routledge.
4.
CanagarajahS (2013) Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. Routledge.
5.
CastelvecchiD (2016) Can we open the black box of AI?Nature News538(7623): 20–23.
6.
ChapelleCAChungYR (2010) The promise of NLP and speech processing technologies in language assessment. Language Testing27(3): 301–315. .
7.
ChenAZhangYJiaJ, et al. (2024) A systematic review and meta analysis of AI-enabled assessment in language learning: Design, implementation, and effectiveness. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning41(1): e13064.
8.
ChoiLJ (2016) Revisiting the issue of native speakerism: ‘I don’t want to speak like a native speaker of English’. Language and Education30(1): 72–85.
9.
ChoiLJ (2022) Interrogating structural bias in language technology: Focusing on the case of voice chatbots in South Korea. Sustainability14(20): 13177.
10.
CookV (1999) Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly33(2): 185–209.
11.
CurranNM (2023) “More like a friend than a teacher”: ideal teachers and the gig economy for online language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning36(7): 1288–1308.
12.
DaviesA (2011) Does language testing need the native speaker?Language Assessment Quarterly8(3): 291–308.
13.
FleisigESmithGBossiM, et al. (2024) Linguistic bias in ChatGPT: Language models reinforce dialect discrimination. arXiv preprint arXiv2406: 08818.
14.
Genc-NayebiNAbranA (2017) A systematic literature review: Opinion mining studies from mobile app store user reviews. Journal of Systems and Software125: 207–219.
15.
HackertS (2012) The Emergence of the English Native Speaker: A Chapter in Nineteenth-Century Linguistic Thought. Walter de Gruyter.
16.
HollidayA (2005) The Struggle to Teach English as an International Language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
HuangWHewKFFryerLK (2022) Chatbots for language learning—Are they really useful? A systematic review of chatbot-supported language learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning38(1): 237–257.
19.
JenksCJ (2024) Introducing practical discourse analysisCambridge University Press.
20.
JenksCJ (2025) Communicating the cultural other: Trust and bias in generative AI and large language models. Applied Linguistics Review16(2): 787–795.
21.
JeonJLeeSChoiS (2024a) A systematic review of research on speech-recognition chatbots for language learning: Implications for future directions in the era of large language models. Interactive Learning Environments32(8): 4613–4631.
22.
JeonJLeeSCoronel-MolinaSM (2024b) Rethinking AI: Bias in speech-recognition chatbots for ELT. ELT Journal78(4): 435–445.
23.
JiHHanIKoY (2023) A systematic review of conversational AI in language education: Focusing on the collaboration with human teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education55(1): 48–63.
24.
KangBOJeonHBLeeYK (2024) AI-based language tutoring systems with end-to-end automatic speech recognition and proficiency evaluation. ETRI Journal46(1): 48–58.
25.
KongMLKangHI (2022) Identity and accents: Do students really want to speak like native speakers of English?RELC Journal53(3): 505–518.
26.
KudaibergenovM (2025) Becoming an EFL teacher abroad: The identity work of international pre-service teachers in Korea. Asian Englishes: 1–20.
27.
LeeJW (2017) The Politics of Translingualism: After Englishes. Routledge.
28.
LightBBurgessJDuguayS (2018) The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media and Society20(3): 881–900.
29.
LitmanR (2022) “Neutral” vs. “pure” accents: The racialization of Filipino and EuroAmerican teachers in China’s online education industry during the COVID-19 pandemic. Asian Anthropology21(3): 224–237.
30.
LitmanDStrikHLimGS (2018) Speech technologies and the assessment of second language speaking: Approaches, challenges, and opportunities. Language Assessment Quarterly15(3): 294–309.
31.
LoggJMMinsonJAMooreDA (2019) Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes151: 90–103.
32.
MizumotoAEguchiM (2023) Exploring the potential of using an AI language model for automated essay scoring. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics2(2): 100050.
PinnerRS (2016) Reconceptualising Authenticity for English as a Global Language. Multilingual Matters.
35.
RichardsonMCleshamR (2021) Rise of the machines? The evolving role of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in high stakes assessment. London Review of Education19(1): 1–13.
36.
RosaJFloresN (2017) Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Language in Society46(5): 621–647.
37.
RubinDL (1992) Nonlanguage factors affecting undergraduates' judgments of nonnative English-speaking teaching assistants. Research in Higher Education33(4): 511–531.
38.
SeargeantP (2005) “More English than England itself”: The simulation of authenticity in foreign language practice in Japan. International Journal of Applied Linguistics15(3): 326–345.
39.
SeedhousePWalshSJenksC (eds) (2010) Conceptualizing ‘Learning’ in Applied Linguistics. Palgrave Macmillan.
40.
SegalHP (2005) Technological Utopianism in American Culture. 2nd Edition. Syracuse University Press.
41.
SelviAF (forthcoming) Meet your new AI teacher: Hypes, promises, and realities in AI-powered language education platforms.
42.
SelviAFYazanBMahboobA (2024) Research on “native” and “non-native” English speaking teachers: Past developments, current status, and future directions. Language Teaching57(1): 1–41.
VayanskyIKumarSA (2020) A review of topic modeling methods. Information Systems94: 101582.
45.
WarschauerM (1998) Researching technology in TESOL: Determinist, instrumental, and critical approaches. TESOL Quarterly32(4): 757–761.
46.
XuJJonesELaxtonV, et al. (2021) Assessing L2 English speaking using automated scoring technology: Examining automarker reliability. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice28(4): 411–436.
47.
ZouBDuYWangZ, et al. (2023) An investigation into artificial intelligence speech evaluation programs with automatic feedback for developing EFL learners’ speaking skills. Sage Open13(3): 9.
48.
ZouBLivieroSMaQ, et al. (2024) Exploring EFL learners’ perceived promise and limitations of using an artificial intelligence speech evaluation system for speaking practice. System126: 103497.
