Job Discussion Forums

[James Stunell]

A great deal seems to have been written of late, on discussion boards such as this one, of regional accents and their significance in modern language teaching. And it never ceases to amaze me, just how many people in the profession seem to think the accent one uses in the classroom is of no consequence and that no one accent is better than another.
I�m afraid I must disagree, especially in the case of English. We TEFL teachers are teaching a global language, and a global language really must have a model to copy. That is true of any language that lays claim to large-scale validity and explains the preference of language students for Hanover-German, Parisian-French and Tuscan-Italian. Just as Britons have always attempted to emulate the speech of Oxford and Cambridge dons, rather than that of street-sweepers from Scunthorpe, so are our students learning English in attempt to better themselves (why else learn a language if not to achieve upward social mobility?) and are, no doubt, aware, that there is a standard form of accent that anyone aspiring to the higher social positions really ought to emulate.
Acquiring the wrong accent or, even worse, a dialect, can affect the individual�s chances of finding work, getting on with people or even finding accommodation.
I am not exaggerating.It is ludicrous to claim that accent-consciousness is dead. Some accents, with their unpleasant nasal twangs and coarse vowels, are considered unattractive and grating pretty much across the board. And even those that are considered pretty by many are likely to be considered at job interview as evidence of provincialism, whereas a �well-spoken� accent is likely to be seen as the mark of good upbringing, quality education, sense of communication and global outlook. If we are speaking of the English that we are teaching to our students, then we risk transferring problems of intelligibility. Imagine the disasters that could ensue if those who must, in the course of their work, use seaspeak, airspeak or emergencyspeak find that they are mutually unintelligible. Already it is claimed that 11% of aviation disasters can be put down, in some form, to pilot-controller miscommunication. If the current trend for preserving and encouraging provincial accents continues, this problem is destined to get worse. And what will happen as gadgets and gizmos become ever more reliant on voice-operated software? I say again, a global language needs a global standard.
But what standard? I don�t think that we need choose one only. It would be unreasonable to ask British teachers to speak with American accents and vice versa. But British RP and General American (that is, American without any obvious southern or eastern characteristics) are mutually intelligible, pleasant to the ears of English-speakers from all over the world and would provide a base for further standardisation to take place naturally. (I should point out, here, that I am referring to the unmarked form of RP � not the speech of those who refer to �trousers� as �trizers� and who use expressions such as �wizard show chaps� to voice their approval.) Surveys have repeatedly shown that RP and General American are considered by people from all over the world as the most communicatively effective forms of English. People who speak these varieties are considered more intelligent, ambitious, self-conscious, educated and competent, among other things. It is for this reason that people from the middle classes in the �respectable� professions � lawyers, doctors, diplomats, civil servants, professors, the clergy etc. have always tried to shift their regional accents towards one of these two ideals and have tried to foster them in their children. During the Second World War, some foot soldiers were even promoted from the ranks to officer status on the strength of their accent alone.
Snobbery? It might be, but I believe that everybody is guilty of it to some extent. I�m quite willing to admit to my own set of prejudices:
When I hear Liverpudlian, I naturally seem to assume that the speaker is lazy, lacking in initiative and whinging. In Italy, the country in which I work, Neapolitan, a particularly harsh and brutish dialect that achieves the astonishing feat of making Italian sound ugly, has a similar effect on me.
If a Scot starts talking to me in Glaswegian, my fear is that he is going to beat me up and steal my money. And a woman speaking the same dialect will, no matter how beautiful she is, lose any attraction that she held for me before she opened her mouth.
Brummie, the variety of English spoken in Birmingham, England, depresses me and makes me long for sun. And, although I have a liking for the Newcastle Geordie accent, I am likely to consider a doctor, lawyer etc. far more cultured and competent if his accent is closer to �Brideshead Revisited� than �Gateshead Revisited�.
No, I have to say that I find it difficult to take seriously any professional who speaks to me in common tongue, whether that individual be my intellectual superior or not. Rightly or wrongly, I feel that his industrial accent undermines what he has to say. Is there anyone out there who can, in all honesty, put his hand on his heart and say that he doesn�t feel the same way about certain accents?
There is no reason why these accents and dialects cannot continue to be spoken in the home if people really are so attached to them. They will survive in films and historical records. They can be used for rich comic effect; I am thinking of the use of Neapolitan in the plays of De Felippo and the films of Tot� here in Italy, or Liverpudlian in the work of Carla Lane in the U.K. Sometimes they can be highly poignant � again, Neapolitan in Troisi�s hanky-moistening swan-song �Il Postino�. But they have no place in the language classroom or, for that matter, on a global medium such as the BBC, on which the standard of spoken English has now sunk so low that I can barely switch it on these days, without wanting to throw a brick through the screen and sending the bill to Greg Dyke. We must set standards if we are to prevent English from disintegrating into a global rag-bag of mutually unintelligible dialects. And we TEFL teachers, along with parents, have an enormous responsibility to make sure that this does not happen.
I am fully aware that many who subscribe to the dangerous liberalist theory that all accents are of equal value, will find my views offensive. I am also aware that a great many of these are not speakers of provincial accents themselves but of RP/General American, varieties that will no doubt have been, and will continue to be, of great help to them in securing certain social privileges that speakers of regional dialects can only dream of. They are driven by sentimentality for the past and they will never convince me, as I listen to two vociferous Italians arguing outside my window right now, that Italy would be a poorer country, just because the Neapolitans didn�t speak in dialect.

[shmooj]

So what is the "right pronunciation"? Surely the important thing is intelligibility.

[guest of Japan]

I think the original poster over-estimates the ramifications of our profession.

Maybe we need a new field. How about TSETSOEWSD. Teaching Standard English To Speakers Of English With Substandard Dialects.

If the OP is right then there is certainly a large market for it.

[Glenski]

[ls650]

The original post reads like a wind-up to me...

[Capergirl]

Actually, I will agree that some accents are more easily understood than others, although not necessarily more "pleasant to the ears", as that is a matter of personal preference. For example, a Newfie accent is very difficult to understand, even for a Nova Scotian like myself who is familiar with the accent. I don't find it unpleasant - in fact, it's quite charming. However, no one in his/her right mind is going to teach a Newfie accent to ESL students unless said students were planning to reside forever and ever on "The Rock". Likewise, I personally wouldn't teach a thick Southern U.S. accent or an unintelligible c*ockney English accent in the classroom.

The "standard" English many of us teach is what I also call "Hollywood English"...it's the accent that is barely detectable as being from one region or another (or from one country or another). Have you seen any Hollywood films where the actors were not easily understood? Can you say the same for people you have encountered in various regions of English-speaking countries? I can't. I was at a complete loss in London last spring...I couldn't understand hardly a word anyone said to me...which brings up another point: Do we need to teach students to understand every accent/dialect of English? Impossible, isn't it? All we can do is teach them a standard (however we define it) version of English and then give them some exposure to different accents from popular English-speaking countries.

[thelmadatter]

I support the notion of teaching a standard (English or whatever other language) but not because that somehow the standard is inherently "better" (more beautiful or whatnot). The reason that one emulates RP or SAE (Standard American English - which has more to do with grammar and vocabulary than pronunciation) is that it IS associated with prestige (education and money). This is this reason, I believe, that some believe that "all dialects should be equal."

While the association of a standard with money is unfortunate, the fact of the matter is that a standard is necessary. As a writing teacher, I could see this. Reading student essays where the student never learned Standard Written English made it difficult to impossible to understand the student's message. And even if it was understandable, the impression to me often was that the student either did not care about his/her work or that his/her teachers did not care about theirs.

However, I think that a global English might be a pipe dream. English as a global language was imposed by the British Empire in the 19th century and reinforced by American might in the 20th. Standards are IMPOSED by economic and/or political might. I can't see a democratic way to do so. Who has the ability or will to globalize an English dialect? Who wants to deal with the backlash of such?

While I agree what we made progress but getting away from "bad English"/"good English" -- the fact of the matter is that not all forms of language are appropriate for all situations. There are situations that call for a standard - and denying access to such in the name of "equality" really disenfranchises. I grew up in a working class New Jersey suburb, speaking, shall we say, a rather distinct dialect. I learned standard English and it serves me well. I have no desire or need to use my "ugly" home dialect in class or business just to prove its just as good. On the other hand, I have no desire to use standard English to talk to my family or close friends

[khmerhit]

The advantage of standard English is that its use is mutually comprehensible to strangers from different countries. Yes, it does sound elitist, moneyed, associated with power, privileged education, the dominant culture and blahedeblahdeblahdeblahdeblah.

But it is a fact that its power to alienate is offset by its useful clarity. I'm with the OP and Hollywood English.

(But I'm partial to regional accents, from Scouser to Sri Lanka. By the way, have you ever heard an African politician on TV? Their delivery and use of the language is usually far superior to North American, but if their accent is too strong it can be hard to follow them-- not to mention the Boers.)

Conventionally yours,
khmerhit

[Snoopy]

As a speaker of standard English and being competent in some other languages, I admit that I find Geordie and Glaswegian impenetrable. What worries me is that I have encountered these people neither in Newcastle nor in Glasgow but meeting them as teachers on my TEFL travels.

[Dr.J]

It's a wind up...probably.

Speakers of English can generally understand each other - that's why they are all said to speak ENGLISH. What's the big deal?

[James Stunell]

It's not a wind-up, I can assure you, although obviously the prejudices are very much tongue-in-cheek! There have been some interesting points made here and I am heartened by the number of people who agree with me, even though they consider a standard English to be unworkable. I must admit, I did expect to be accused of linguistic fascism etc. etc.
Just a brief point. Last night on Italian TV, I watched a programme called "Chi l'ha visto", a programme that attempts to locate missing persons. One young man, who has simply disappeared off the face of the Earth came from a place just a few kilometres from where I live. Despite the fact that I've been in Italy for 11 years, I could not understand a word that his friends and family were saying, so thick was their dialect. I found this disheartening until I noticed that the interviews were being subtitled in Italian and that my wife, Neapolitan by birth, could not understand either. This had been part of the young man's problem. With no work in his area and no prospects, he and his contemporaries were all suffering from deep depression. His way of speaking made it practically impossible for him to travel, even a few kilometres away from home, without inviting ridicule. When a dialect or an accent is this strong, it is a deformity, disabling in terms of mobilty (both physical and social). And yet there are still people who insist that this dire form of provincialism is something worth preserving. They might as well just say what they really think. Something patronising along the lines of "I love the way these little people speak their own little language; it really amuses me."

[been_there]

Sorry, Mr. Strunell, THERE IS NO STANDARD ENGLISH.

What exists are "World Englishes" (Kachru & Nelson, 2001).

The model is that there is are three groups, people who speak English as a first (native) language people who speak it as a second or additional language and people who use it as a foreign language (Yano, 2001).

It is the use that creates the language, not the other way around.

From regional dialects to local dialects to individual idiolects, EVERYONE SPEAKS A LANGUAGE DIFFERENTLY. Language is complex and stochastic, not linear (Larsen-Freeman, 1999).

It serves the ESL INDUSTRY (NOT THE STUDENTS) to have a phantom "Standard dialect."

[grahamb]

Language isn't something set in stone; it's a living, changing thing. If everyone spoke the same, we'd sound like those annoying synthesised voices you hear in some kids' toys.
Geordie, Glaswegian and Liverpudlian accents are not incomprehensible; It's a matter of exposure. Everyone in the UK can understand "Cor Blimey" and BBC English because they're beamed into our homes 24 hours a day.
Spend a bit of time with people and you'll begin to understand their accents. You may even come to regard them as your equals, not your social or linguistic inferiors.

[shmooj]

[richard ame]

Hi Struelle
Your last comment on the thick Italian accents reminded me that when "EASTENDERS" is shown to American audiences they need to have subtitles in order to follow what is being said,perhaps you have a point after all . Strange we follow what they say but most of the time they find us incomprehensible . As an RP speaker I think that regional accents deserve exposure in the class room and our students need to recognise those differences because we don't all sound the same and it's highly unlikely we ever will . Nice try though .