Job Discussion Forums

[leeroy]

1. (Part of my university study materials... I personally typed this out, and am too lazy to check for typos )

2. (If you can't be bothered, just check the paragraph in bold at the end.)

Taken from a lecture at a language teaching conference in Japan, 1988. By Randolph Quirk;

"...the bouyant demand for native speaking English teachers means that on occasionally finds, in Tokyo or Madrid, young men and women teaching English with only a minimal teacher training, indeed with little specialised education: they're employed because, through accident of birth in Leeds or Los Angeles, they are native speakers of English. Not merely may their own English be far from standard but they may have little respect for it and may well have absorbed (at second or third hand) the linguistic ethos that is simplified into the tenet that any English is as good as any other.

One such young Englishman approached me after a lecture I'd given in Madrid a few months ago. Why, he asked, had I distinguished between the nouns "message" and "information "as countable and uncountable? His students often wrote phrases like "several informations" and since he understood what was meant, how could they be wrong? In some wonderment that I was actually talking to a British teacher of English, I gently explained about Standard English being the norm by which we taught and made judgements. He flatly disagreed and went on to claim that he could not bring himself to correct a Spanish pupiil for using a form that had currency in an English dialect - "any" English dialect. 'She catched a cold' is as good as 'She caught a cold', he ended triumphantly and strode away."

Where is the line drawn between English "variety" and English "error"? If a pidgin or Creole speaker of English stated "She catched a cold", I would be inclined to classify it not as a mistake but as an aspect of a dialect differing from mine. Similarly, if a rapper exclaims "Yeah, you know dat sh*t be goin' down right here" I would justify the un-conjugated "be" as a symptom of ebonics, rather than incorrect grammar per se. If my brother (for example) was to use "catched" or "that be happening" though, I feel I would be slightly less forgiving. Thus, whether or not English is "correct" depends very much on the context of the speaker - there is no (and can never be a) global "Standard English" to which Quirk refers to.

But this doesn't mean that we have free reign with our students, and should allow them to say anything as long as they get their meaning across as per the English teacher given in Quirk's example. I am inherently biased when teaching students in London to focus them towards a London-ish dialect of English. Although I won't insist on glottal stops and the "f/v" conversions (brother=bruvva) - for me "fast" is pronounced "farst" - and so will it be with my students. (I will accept "bruvva" from a student, while teachers in the USA may well not.)

I won't accept ebonics or "many informations", as in my linguistic context they are unnacceptable. But if I were teaching in Jamaica could I insist on similar practices? Even in London, there are areas (such as Brixton and Harlesden) where dialects of English are vastly different to mine - sometimes so much so that they inhibit comprehension. This seems inevitable in areas with large immigrant and ethnic populations. What English should students living in these areas learn? My "correct" English or the dialect they are surrounded by?

So it's difficult enough just knowing what to teach in London - what about in areas that have little linguistic, social or cultural connection with English speaking communities at all? Does it matter if Mongolians (for example) speak with USA ebonics ("Wass happ-nin' homie?") or British RP ("Delighted to (once more) make your acquaintance!"). If the majority of Mongolians will be speaking English to other non-native speakers, do they really need all the cultural-linguistic "clutter" that makes (say) C.ockney so distinguishable?

Would it better to let the learners decide which aspects of English they would like to keep and which they would like to change? If Mongolians would prefer to do away with countables and uncountables then perhaps that is their prerogative (sp?). If the Japanese want to trade in "l" and "r" for the same letter than perhaps we should let it go, it rarely (after all) results in a complete break-down in communication.

If the Jamaicans can have their own dialect of English then why can't the Koreans (well, they almost already have!) . I find Jamaican English to be as challenging as c.ockney in terms of comprehension - so why do we accept Jamaican English, but attempt to beat "Konglish" out of them?

Jamaicans are, I suppose, native speakers (as are some Indians, Kenyans, etc..). Thus it is too late for us to impose our linguistic will and bias on them. Chinese people are not, however, so it is not too late to mould their English into whatever we think is the most suitable (or at least try!)

Oh shit I've got to go, but will come back to edit and finish this off later!

(I'm back, but this is after a couple of beers, so I'll keep it short)

If and when countries such as Japan and Korea have a majority/significant popluation who are able to speak English (like, say, India or Kenya) then it is fair to assume that these countries will have their own specific dialect. Just as South Africans speak in their own distinctive way, so too will the Japanese should a major "nation-wide competence in English" occur. How does this affect teachers in EFL environments, in fact should it at all? Is it the teachers' responsibility to encourage the formation of a local dialect of English (if this is at all possible) or is it up to teachers to simply "impose" their dialect of the language (like the British in India) and then wait for a mutation of it to arise?

One day, will "I berry like" be an acceptable form of Konglish in the same way that "I be smoke now" might be acceptable in Creole?

Well, this is a ramble that went on a bit too long - but any answers to the two thousand questions above would be welcome...

[FGT]

Isn't there a difference between language, accent and dialect?
We, as teachers, provide a model, particularly when it comes to accent. Thus a Southern English speaker says /ka:sl/ when a northerner says /kaesl/ (sorry about the phonemes not being quite right). But the students hear a variety of accents, they rarely completely lose their own, and so will acquire the word "castle" with an approximation of an "English" accent, perhaps akin to that of their teacher, perhaps not. That doesn't matter.

If we, as teachers, provide ONLY a model of our dialect (and I include slang), we are doing them a dis-service. How do we expect them to pass written exams, if that is their intention, using forms such as "Am you coming?" (Wolverhampton = are you coming) or "Where's it to?" (West country= where is it) or "Gonna/wanna" (universal but SPOKEN not Written)?

We have a duty to give our students the broadest introduction to English(es) as possible; bearing in mind the individual needs of our students and their location (present or future). I would imagine that a new immigrant to inner London would benefit from a larger proportion of "street English" than would an international businessman who conducts his business in at least four continents.

The businessman, the international student etc. need to learn a universal form of English. It's our job to provide that. Standard English Rules!!!!

[guest of Japan]

Leeroy, your posts always pull me in.

In my opinion it is not a matter of which forms are acceptable or not. It is whether or not I am charged as the teacher. I find the butchering of the l/r by Japanese to be perfectly acceptable, though a bit annoying, in a communication context. However, if I'm am supposed to teach English to that person then the l/r butchering becomes a target of the lesson.

When I was teaching in NY, I taught in one school where the ebonics was stronger than anything I had ever heard or read about. I honestly could not understand 70% of the conversations around me. In that situation I was a history teacher, but I insisted that the students try to speak to me using a more standard form of English. Had I been their English teacher, I'm sure I would have been more severe in my approach.

Since I am an English teacher now, I try to look at variations of English used by my students objectively. Sometimes mistakes are made by the students, but sometimes their usage is perfectly acceptable in a specific area of the globe. When the latter ocurrs I try to point out that fact to the student and tell them of the other variations and move on with them in control of which direction they want their English to move. Mistakes would be corrected. Informations would be corrected.

And of course, sometimes I'm wrong too.

[leeroy]

Yes, we should give our students a wide variety of Englishes - I regularly cover; Coursebook English (something resembling the mythical "Standard English), London English and American English.

Kenyan dialects, I believe, are of less use to the students - and I'm not too familiar with them myself! But I am in London, it is assumed here that students will learn a basic "Standard English" with a British and/or London twist. Most, by intermediate level, will say "fast" /fa:st/ as opposed to the US /faest/.

But as a few of us concluded a while back, part of the issue facing students learning English in a EFL environment (as opposed to ESL like myself) is that the culture behind the language is unfamiliar or intimidating to them. Presumably, some Caribbean islands mutated English as a way of finding and signifying a cultural identity. They didn't want to speak the same dialect as their oppressors - understandably perhaps. Although it's not quite at the same level of extremity, I think students learning English in their home countries may share similar feelings. In order to make English "theirs" (as has been done in Singapore, India, etc...) and culturally distinctive to them, they will inevitably have to create their own accent and dialect. "Chinglish" and "Konglish" could be early signs of this. If these are in fact "fledgling dialects" as opposed to merely "b.astardisations of English" - then should we English teachers become more accepting of "I berry rike Engrishii"?

One day, perhaps, every bugger in the world will speak English - with each country having its own dialect/accent (or range of). Although it will be no piece of cake understanding everyone - at least we will be able to speak the same language without sacrificing cultural identity. If English does ever become the much touted "global language" - I imagine that is the way it'll happen.

Or, I might just be wrong!

[Roger]

Shouldn't foreign speakers of English - i.e. Korans, Chinese etc. - be taught to UNDERSTAND any ENGLISH VARIETY not tainted by non-native English speakers, for instance, understand Aussie, Texan or Scotrtish English?
If yes, then they should understand the STANDARD English; now that's my beef with Koreans and Chinese: they don't!
You can get used to Kenyan English (not so difficult), Pakistani/Indian English (again, not difficult), SInglish (Singaporean English), but it's a lot more demanding on us to understand Chinglish, and for "native Chinglish" speakers to understand plain English.

I can tolerate slurry phonetics (CHinese S/SH, L/N, R/L, S/TH), but I can't understand their English too long if their vowels are all short (sheep as ship, feet as fit, etc.). And, I can't understand English with a maimed structure on top of a maltreated pronunciation.

[Deborann]

What is the (ostensible) reason for this English learning? I don't think it is meant to be studies so that students would be comfortable in a Jamacian street setting. Ny understanding is that the rationalization for learning English to so that China can move more easily into a global economy. If that is the case, then the various dialects and specific constructions are not appropriate to teach - it's back to Standard English, no matter how boring!

[BethMac]

I often hear the term "American English" and I wonder what it means exactly. Someone from Texas speaks very differently from someone from New York (or Ontario or Newfoundland). Perhaps we are talking about Hollywood American English? Certainly there is a Hollywood British accent, a Hollywood Scottish accent, a Hollywood Irish accent, a Hollywood Aussie accent, etc. All of these would fall into the category of a 'standard' English, with only a slight lilt of a national/regional accent and very few local idioms so that understanding is universal. Can't we do the same in the classroom?

Don't get me wrong. I do think that exposure to different accents and dialects is great for L2 students. However, I think it's impossible to teach all or even some of the "World Englishes" in the EFL or ESL classroom. It would be both too time-consuming and t