Job Discussion Forums

[James Stunell]

Hi Shmooj,
Just for the record, I am a linguist (degree in linguistics + M.Phil - 4 languages spoken, 3 fluently) and professional translator. My point about the Italian was to demonstrate what happens when people speak dialects so thick that they cannot be understood by their own countrymen, let alone foreigners. Those being interviewed were pleading for help in trying to find their loved one. On national television. And yet the Italians I watched the broadcast with a) could not understand them b) displayed total contempt towrads them, of the type: "Poor b*****d! I'm not surprised he disappeared with bumpkins like that as relatives!" or "What a bunch of peasants!" And they were from the same region! God only knows what the Milanese must have made of it. Of course, in their own homes they are free to speak as they like. But wouldn't they have gained much more sympathy had they had a standard, national language to fall back on for a national broadcast?
Richard, I agree that people need some exposure to regional accents as not everyone speaks the same way. But I have been to international congresses at which the only person to experience difficulty in making himself understood was the mother tongue English speaker with a strong regional accent. If this is the case, would you not agree with me that the onus is on the heavily-accented speaker to learn to communicate internationally, rather than on the non-natives to make sure that they can understand any regional variety of English that happens to be thrown up?

[shmooj]

Hmmm... impressive linguistic track record there James.

I would have thought that by now, you would have ceased wearing down whatever iron you sharpened through your experience and qualifications against this monstrous anvil.

I have read a little of linguistics and that was enough to tell me that arguments such as yours are a bit like geysers: they are powerful, repetitive and only the hardiest (and therefore most primitive?) lifeforms can survive them.

As for your Italian "friends," you understood them. Someone provided a translation in the form of subtitles. Quite what the problem is I'm unsure. Perhaps I lost the thread of what you really wanted to say in the torrent you unleashed in your OP. If so, perhaps a rivulet of clarification is necessary.

It would also be good for you to end the lament and start suggesting what those of us who have classes tomorrow should start doing practically in the classroom. I have a class of 15 five-year olds. Any suggestions on how what I do with them will shape the future of communication in the way you yearn for?

Or perhaps it wasn't applied linguistics you studied

[shmooj]

[Atlas]

-If a single accent normalizes, it wont be through agitating for it to happen, it will happen in its own time, like a glacier. It would take a global cultural diffusion of, say, a unified mass media source. It wouldn't work if it relied on conscious effort. People are cognitively lazy sons-a-bucks.

-Grammar and word definitions are the only things standardizabible, but even these can be bent all hell out of dodge, it dont mean you cant figure what the doogamabub is all about. If anything can be truly standard on a global scale, we would currently have to settle for grammatical rules--because no way people are going to agree on the accent of any single culture, no matter how upwardly mobile it is.

-Did you konw you cluod rgcenozie wdors taht are mpislelesd as lnog as the fsirt and lsat ltertes are in the rhgit pcale, unsig cxtenot?

-Take a work of literature, like say, Chekhov's Cherry Orchard, or Tolstoy's Death of Ivan Ilyich. Hell, take Shakespeare. (Please). The characters in these stories are all speaking in complete grammatical and dialectical understanding, agreeing upon what means what, and accent is no barrier to understanding, and moreover, are eloquent and articulate in their speech--and in spite of this ease of communication, nobody really understands what they are trying to say to each other--hence the drama, comedy and tragedy. The message itself--that vital fourth factor in communication--will still be the bane of true international communication, because of the disparity between individuals and cultures, context and meaning.

-If you normalize one accent, people will still make snap judgments based on other factors like the color of your skin, the name on your clothes, your height, your position, or what someone ten years ago said about someone else. If the issue is how to get people not to make a snap judgment about you based on your accent, forget it! Instead, observe your own stereotypes and don't rely too much on them. Even people with thick regional accents have interesting points to make. (BTW I'm saying all of this in a Kentucky accent, ya'll understand? Sheeit, we ain't all got cornpone-for-brains).

-If the issue isn't about stereotype, but simply, an agreed-upon single accent to facilitate global communication, you have to start with that accent, and ask the world to adopt this as the first language they teach their little babies, and forego the dialects and accents of their mother tongues, which just, let's face it, muddy up the creekwater. What's culture anyway?? They're all equal, let's chuck 'em! Yeeha~! No? Then you are always going to have people learning a cultural first language, and English second, and you are never going to eradicate the problem of accent, because only 1% of your students are going to give enough of a sh*t about your agenda to actually attempt some kind of total accent metamorphosis. And then their families will mock them.

-Mass media can influence globalized language, but it can never eradicate the variety. Ergo, problems will persist.

-If you ask me which accent I like best, I'll tell you, but it doesn't mean I think the whole world should speak this way. And I'm the guy trying to create a global language.

THe problem lies between individuals' responsibility to their own interactions, and conventionalizing some solution to relieve the individual's responsibility to understand their fellow human being. A "conventional" accent makes a nifty package to market; it may sell the "rules" but it don't mean it make the rules.

There are no rules.

That's life!

Maybe there's not an economical market forthe accents "Deep-Fried Suthern Drawback" or "@ss-Bitten Noahthun PunchYourFace", but that doesn't negate their existence and validity as human language. Now--if you're just talking about a marketing niche, "Standard English", from a business standpoint you might be better off marketing "British" or "American", so people can recognize if what they want is what you offer.

If you want the world to speak one and only one global language (there are hundreds, not just English), then accomplish that before you address nuances like accent.

I applaud the OP's intention and intellectual effort, but it just doesn't seem feasible to me.

If you must choose a single accent, I call shotgun! Kentucky's got it!

[khmerhit]

......If they have any sense they will stay clear of Crewe.

Shmooj, it seems to me you are grinding the other side of the axe.

Do you know that saying of Santayana's?-- there are two types of young Englishman: the affected and the disaffected.

If you could manage to look past your ancient regional differences for a moment, I think you would agree that James has a decent argument. Mutual intelligibility is a useful goal, despite all the offputting baggage that comes with class and so on. Brummagem blah blah is fine in Brum proper-- everyone understands it. Outside Birmingham, it can be a different matter. Likewise Scunthorpe, Wales, Massachusetts, Kentucky, etc etc, which have strong respective regional accents--- some of them even pleasant to the ear. But are they readily understood, without effort, by a listener even a few miles outside their boundaries?

I know that in Cambodia, if you go a short distance outside the capitol, Phnom Penh, you will find that the word for 'seven', 'pram pee', will be pronounced 'pull', which is short for 'pram pull', a variant. If the King of Cambodia were to use such variants and dialects when he gave a televised speech, would everyone understand him? Perhaps, but not without effort.

Likewise, if Prince Charles delivered a speech in Estuarial English-- and I daresay he could if he wanted to -- not only would he be misheard, it would sound improper, and he would be favouring one region of the kingdom over others.

Colonially yours,
khmerhit

[Teacher in Rome]

If you have a strong regional accent, wouldn't you try to tone it down for the benefit of your students? I don't think that my accent is any "better" than anyone else's, but I don't particularly want to change it (even if I could) and equally, I want to be able to communicate. So I try to say "isn't it" rather than "innt'it" and "aren't you" rather than "encha", at least with lower level students. Along the same lines, I'd try to avoid using too many idioms, or cultural references that are really "English". I could go on at great length about "Enders" or "Brookie" - but if nobody understands, what is the point? (= UK TV shows, for those not in the "know".)

I'm surprised that James's Neapolitans on the TV show didn't also speak standard Italian... Most Italians I've come across seem to speak standard Italian plus their regional 'language'.

[wordgirl]

I find this discussion very interesting, but, at least as far as the TEFL/TESL industry is concerned, isn't it really moot? What drives this business (and it is primarily a business) is what the students will pay for. That tends to be whatever accent they perceive as most helpful to them, and seems to vary by region.

I do think it is important that we make our students aware of the varieties of English, so they are not baffled when they encounter them. I speak and write Standard American English, but I make sure to tell my students about British spelling and grammar differences, and when I can I try to give them the opportunity to hear different accents. They are paying to learn SAE, though, so that is what I teach them.

If there will ever be a Global English (and this does seem to be occurring, to some extent), it will arise through usage. I don't think an attempt by us to impose it would be very successful.

[johnslat]

Dear wordgirl,
I agree - languages evolve from the ground up, rather than from the top down. And personally, I can't envision any kind of "Global English" ever blanketing the earth from, say, Surry to Bombay to East LA to Dorchester, MA.
Regards,
John

[shmooj]

[Atlas]

The OP said:

[khmerhit]

David Crystal wrote a book about this-- no surprise to anyone, I'm sure!

[Dr.J]

Here's a practical angle;

As soon as a student leaves the classroom and enters the real world they begin to adapt to the specialised vocabulary, accent and typical methods of communication used by the social group around them. These will be necessarily different from what they were taught in the classroom, which is quite artificial anyway.

I mean, what's the big deal? They learn the basics in English class and then learn what they have to when they have to. You can standardise the accent but there is always slang, special in-group vocab, modes of speech etc. And if you're thinking about Asian students 'the basics' is hard enough!

[James Stunell]

It seems that this is a popular topic and I have found some of the responses fascinating. I have to say that I agree 100% that a global language will be bottom-up process and not a top down one. Even if some crackpot global dictator were to achieve success in foisting a global language upon one and all, such are the differences in culture, landscape, mentality, religion, flora, fauna, music etc. that we would soon have new varieties growing in different directions, each with their own vocabulary and flavour. It�s already happening � we have Indian writers, African writers, all taking the language of the former imperialists and claiming it as their own. Wonderful. But that does not mean that, sooner or later, there will not have to be a mutually intelligible core as an international language of communication. It may be sterile, antiseptic or what you will. Its rhythm will probably bear little relation to that of either of the two standards I have mentioned � that is, if it is even English. As another poster has pointed out, Latin and French once look set to become the global language of choice. I believe that the language of choice for global communication will probably be a syllable-timed form of English. But such a language will ultimately exist. We need a language that is the linguistic equivalent of �Windows� or, in the past, VHS. (Play with your AppleMacs and Betaxmax at home, if you prefer those systems). The demand for this language will, no doubt, come from business. It already is. Somebody who read my post told me of an article in �Business Week� which speaks of how Call Centers in Bombay are spending money on phonology lessons for their operators to teach them how to say �tomorrow� instead of the Indian �tomodder�. This type of thing is destined to become the norm.
And in helping to create this core language, we TEFL teachers can indeed play a part. In the staffroom at my school, we have Venezuelans, Spanish, Dutch, Belgians as well as the more usual Brits, Canadians, Americans etc., all teaching English. This is a deliberate policy. All speakers are pretty close to native level RP/General American, but all retain a little something of their origins in their accents. The Venezuelan/General American variety is especially pretty. I am very proud of our teaching staff as I believe that it reflects the (relatively) new international status of English. One thing that all our teachers agree on, however, is that the phrase �our house� should, in the classroom, be pronounced in a way that is recognisably �our house� and not Newcastle�s �war hoos�, Marked RP�s �ire hice� or Cockney London�s �are ahhhs� or any one of the American equivalents (pity I can�t get the phonemic alphabet to work on Dave�s � this could be fun). One of the things that I now insist on at interview, is that those with strong regional accents can, at least, modify them while teaching. Some, like the very reasonable poster above, do this as a matter of course or, at least, don�t mind being asked. Some are more aggressive. But they will have to come to their senses sooner or later.
So much for the Global Language. Just a quick word to Shmooj, who seems to be taking all of this rather personally and, who I sense, has taken a bit of a dislike to me, on the subject of snobbery. Yes, I hold up my hands and admit to a certain amount of linguistic snobbery. It comes of caring about what I do and about the future of the language from which I make my living. Most (I would say all) people have areas in which they are snobs. Wine lovers despise the man who demands sweet white wine with steak. Opera lovers go ballistic when they suffer a light entertainment singer butchering Puccini arias on TV. And, I would suggest that you are a form of intellectual snob � you certainly imply that I am intellectually �primitive�. There is even a form of inverse snobbery (�Plonk�s good enough for me�; �He only listens to opera to impress posh birds�) which I can also sense in your messages (�I would not dream of trying to emulate Oxbridge dons�). Anyway, I, too, have never heard any student say, �I�m learning English to improve my social standing.� But I have heard them say, �I�m learning English to get a better job/to improve my personal culture.� Well, people with better jobs make more money, buy better houses, cars etc., learn to ski or to sail, eat in top-class restaurants, make similar-minded friends, leave behind those friends who have not moved on. Hey presto � increased social standing. I�m astonished that you seem to find something abhorrent or, at least, distasteful about this. Wouldn�t we all like to live the high life? Why eat fishfingers if you can have oysters? Even those who have no interest in such things are learning to better themselves intellectually and gain further credibility; even this is a form of social mobility, even if it involves sitting in ivory towers and wearing jumpers with holes in, rather than driving around in a Maserati.

[Laura C]

Well said DrJ. Students will learn the basics and then apply it once they're out in the big bad world.

Totally agree with Shmooj too -- who wants to emulate the Oxbridge accent? In fact, one of the Japanese teachers I worked with had a really exaggerated upper class English accent -- I don't know who had taught the poor sod, but my co-worker (English) and I were literally dumbstruck when he spoke. We were quite horrified, he sounded awful.

Just wanted to add as well about accents -- I was quite shocked to read Glenski's post about the Irish JET who is being told to change her accent. I'm sure everyone will agree that as long as you modify a strong accent, there is no problem. As Teacher in Rome said, you say 'isn't it' rather than 'innit' when you teach. When I talk in English to my friends at home, or to English native speakers here in France, I speak very quickly, and sometimes people who have learnt English as a second language don't understand me (hey, but sometimes native speakers don't either! ). But naturally I slow down and enunciate more when talking to non native speakers, just as I do when teaching.

Btw, I had no problems on JET for my Irish accent. Not from the JTEs anyway, though there were a few snobby JETs (all with standard English accents) who thought it witty to laugh when I spoke! They had the same attitude that a lot of people sadly have -- BBC or American accents are the only 'proper' ones to know. My accent is no less valid just because it is not the dominant one on the 6 o'clock news! My students were fine once they, and I, got used to my teaching -- they got used to my accent, and I understood I had to slow down.

Accents are fine, even needed, in EFL. Personally if I was running an English school I would aim for as diverse a range of accents on the staff as possible. How are students going to get by in Belfast, Liverpool etc if all they have heard is BBC English??

Aaargh, once again I have lost loads of time on Dave's. Right, back to work...

L

[FGT]

We can't TEACH our students an accent - we can model one and they will develop their own accent which will be an amalgamation of everything they hear in English combined with their own speech pattern. There may be some words/sounds that mimic the teacher but overall it will be individual.

Standard English is more to do with fixed grammar and vocabulary. As yet no such English exists (viz the debate about "math" vs "maths"). If it's going to happen, I agree with the previous posters: it'll happen from the bottom up. In the meantime, surely, it is our duty to teach something that will be intelligible to all but also to give our students the widest possible understanding of the variations available, so that they have a reasonable chance of understanding, wherever they may end up.

As far as teachers' own accents are concerned, I believe that anything and everything goes, providing the teacher speaks distinctly and clearly (obviously this is balanced to the level of the class). The greater variety of accents the student is exposed to, the greater their ability to communicate in the real world.

I happen to have RP, my students understand me relatively easily, I'm not doing them any favours unless I provide other accents/styles. They won't only meet RP speakers.