Job Discussion Forums

[denise]

Moonraven--Keep in mind that there is a difference between planning lessons based solely around what we might label "non-standard English" and simply acknowledging it so that the students can comprehend it. I firmly believe that as long as students know about such things as context and appropriateness, the more knowledge, the better. I'd rather have them be well-rounded so that they can function in schools, at work, on the street, at parties, etc., than only have them be able to function in schools or at work.

d

[moonraven]

Why not focus on making students conscious? And becoming conscious yourself in the process....

[thelmadatter]

Why not?

If by "conscious" you mean making students spend an inordinate amount of time learning about our (Anglo) language, customs and norms, I can give you a couple of reasons.

1) Most, if not all, EFL learners are NOT learning English so that they can be a part of the US,UK, Australian culture etc. They are learning it for practical reasons that has a lot more to do with THEIR wants and THEIR needs.

2) Why drag them into our "culture wars"? I saw a lot of this at the U of Arizona English Dept. Foreign students here to learn something that will be valuable back home being forced to read political texts and debating about things that they had little use for or interest in. All in the interest of "consciousness raising," of course. Or is that just a PC way of saying "shoving "our" moral values down their throats"?

[moonraven]

The obligation of any educational process is to develop critical thinking skills which enable students to function in the now global society in which they are living. That's what I mean by "making students conscious".

In the US that process was sidetracked years ago, when the powers that be decided that a society of the ignorant and uninformed was necessary for them to be able to maintain control. Brainwashing is not education, and neither is piddling with language, customs and norms in the classroom.

[thelmadatter]

[leeroy]

While I might consider one of mainstream education's objectives to be to encourage critical thinking - I don't see that as my role as an adult teaching other adults. It's not in my job description to teach them about right and wrong, the birds and the bees or their place in this ever-globalising world.

It's my job to help them learn to communicate in English, most of my students would agree. They would (rightly) feel patronised if I started lecturing on about the way they should lead their lives and view the world.

[Stephen Jones]

The problem is what we mean by stressed and unstressed. There appear to be nine levels of stress in English, and it is possible to have two stressed syllables follow one another and still have a stressed - unstressed rhythm because one is more strongly stressed than the other.

Compare the noun 'contents' with the adjective 'content'. 'A headache' has an unstressed schwa followed by two stressed vowels.

You could of course argue that my claim is circular. You have to pronounce the other vowels more slowly so their syllables are more stressed.

The point I am trying to make however is that you cannot teach full forms and reduced forms ias options if you want your students to understand the rhythm of natural English speech.

[moonraven]

Thelma,

Glad to see we agree on something. As Paulo Freire said--over and over and over again--the student must be the subject of the educational process, not the object.

Funny you should mention your student's essay on Hitler's leadership. I remember writing an essay exam in high school World History class--we had each chosen a country in Europe to be "responsible" for, and had to answer the exam based on our country. The history teacher asked us to choose the most effective leader of our throughout its history and justify our position--and since my country was Germany, the answer was obvious. I also got the highest grade in the school on that exam....and the teacher's comment was, that in trying to prevent my writing about Nietzche, he had walked right into the door....

[Dr.J]

This is quite a common theme; do we teach what is being said, or what should be said?

Students need one to understand what is going on, and the other to aim for as an ideal. So it's a lame answer, but teach both.

The other point I think is interesting is, to what extent do we (or should we) teach students about non-English language subjects (critical thinking, manners, morality etc). This is the cultural, oh what was it...imperialism debate.

People seem to divide roughly into the 'saint' and 'mercenary' types, one out to teach students everthing about life, and the other concentrating on English as a tool and leaving them to fend for themselves. Personally, I think that you need to aim for the 'saint' type as an ideal, but become a 'mercenary' when it takes too much out of your time or private life.

[Atlas]

What's the malfunction?

I teach my students both ways:

"This is the grammatical way."

"This is what you hear. Don't talk this way, but recognize it when you hear it."

Language learning is reading writing speaking listening.
Acquiring a second language is going to be limited compared with native speakers, who take more liberties with the conventions. Wrting a transcript of what people are saying results in awkward strung-out dialogue, and writers don't transcribe conversations exactly, but often cull mood a little more efficiently than real spoken dialogue.

It must be confusing as hell for students, to be told, "this is the colloquial way, but never writtern, only oral" or " This is how it's written but this is how its reduced in speech." These kinds of subtleties are not for the faint-hearted language learner!

Languge is alive, it is not a static art captured in a book or on canvas. It only has full meaning in its usage. Who is to say, since i am a native speaker, i may say something like:

I gonna get my freak on

but someone from another language may not take such liberty, being an outsider?

As teachers we really should impart the conventional rules as best we can; but teaching some colloquial usage imparts a little more confidence in the learner, who struggles to know why after ten years of lessons she still cant understand what the shimmy shammy people are saying to each other.

Gots no time, gotta get on my freaky.

Now regarding composition, that's a whole other ball of wax. By all means students should be instructed the differences between formal and informal usage. Compositions are not easy, and that's the reason why so many people find any excuse to write them poorly. I agree wholeheartedly that compositions should be taught as formally as possible.

[denise]

Well said, atlas.

d

[Stephen Jones]

[AsiaTraveller]

Well said, Stephen.

[moonraven]

Everything involving speech is "grammatical"--and grammar governs the way different cultures relate to the world around them. I think what the poster was probably trying to say was "grammatically correct" way?

I hear native speakers make horrendous grammatical errors, and it makes me wonder about where they learned to speak the language.

[thelmadatter]

I think what we are talking about here (native speech vs formal English) is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammar. Here's a little theory for ya, Stephen. Descriptive grammar seeks only to figure out the rule(s) that underlie a particular speech pattern irregardless of that speech pattern's social status. Prescriptive grammar is what is most often thought of when the word "grammar" is used. The teaching of rules meant to modify a native speaker's usage of the language to a standard.

Both, I believe, have a function. It is important to know that all speech patterns are governed by rules. So-called "bad English" does not occur because one does not know the "English rule," but rather the speaker simply has a different rule (and rules can vary for reasons of style, effect and social situation - hence my use of "ya" earlier instead of "you").

However, I do believe that prescriptive rules and standards serve valuable functions. English varies immensely and there are a number of dialects that give me trouble. However, most people understand a standard dialect either because of the media, education or both. Knowing a standard simply allows the non-native speaker communicate with the greatest number of people. Isn't that was this is all about?

I learned and speak a generic "Latin American" Spanish - most closest to that of Mexico. It makes sense given Im American and lived in the Southwest US. While I am aware of certain variations, I was never taught to really use them. In particular, I was never really taught to use the 2nd person plural "vosotros" conjugation. Yes, it is an integral part of the Spanish of Spain but it is never used here in Mexico. If I hear it, great, but I don't need to learn it. It is not practical because the Spanish understand me just fine. Similarly, I make no real effort to learn the slang or pronunication of this area (but I've learned some anyway just with exposure) because no one here expects me to use it and Id probably really mess it up anyway. I tell my students that I teach them 'book English' and that I speak "book Spanish." It works just fine. If all I knew was the Spanish spoken in the streets here in Toluca - how would that help me? My reason for learning Spanish was not to be pegged as a native of Toluca, but rather because Spanish is now a part of US culture and I want contact with many, not just people in one small region.

Even with standards, only one should be chosen. Most of our materials are in U.S. English but, for some reason, they decided to buy this one series of British books. Nothing against British English, but my students get confused when the book shows a form different from what they know and a form their teacher does not use. On the other hand, some of my advanced students are doing Powerpoint presentation geared to any non-Spanish speaking country they choose. In these, I have them consider what type of English should be used in that country and how to reflect it in the written form. (Im not, however, going to requiere that they speak it during the oral presentation.)