Job Discussion Forums

[Sashadroogie]

On this board there are many of us, from different backgrounds and with different types of qualifications and experience, who are living and working abroad. Overall, though the international contexts in which we teach can vary hugely, I think most of us share the same goals: helping learners to communicate in English, for whatever needs they have. Yet, as counter-intuitive as it may seem, there is occasionally some controversy as to what 'English' actually should be taught to non-native speakers.

There are the ever recurring controversies regarding phraseology (lorry/truck, flat/apartment, on/at the weekend, etc) and which 'should' be taught in different situations. However, I have been most surprised to read quite a few times, especially on this forum, that various teachers from different anglophone countries describe their variety of English as having 'different grammar' or, for example, a major 'tense difference'.

While we all have our minor local differences, would other posters here go so far as to say that 'different grammar' is used? Or that the English phraseology of one continent somehow is preferred in any situation over that of another? Both would seem to me to be overstating the case.

From my side, I'm not even happy with the term 'dialect' used to describe varieties of English, certainly not when describing national varieties, such as Australian or North American ones.

[contented]

I tell my students that they should be familiar with British and American English. It doesn't hurt to know more words for something (example: lift vs. elevator, fullstop vs. period). I grew up reading a lot of British classics and watching BBC productions with my family so sometimes I'll use British English words when speaking or spell certain words according to the British English way. I don't think it's a big deal since in the end it's English.

[VikingElvis]

[riverboat]

I definitely don't think that British English grammar is majorly different to American English grammar. When teaching the present perfect, I do sometimes (with upper intermediate+ students) point out the fact that while the British favour using the present perfect with time expressions like recently" "already" etc, Americans often use the past simple. And even more occasionally we might venture into the realm of "gotten" v "got" and "on/at" the weekend. But to my mind, these tiny variations do not consitute a different grammar. Not even close.

However, when it comes to vocabulary I do generally always try to teach British/American variations for common words like gas/petrol,lift/elevator, ground floor/first floor, pants/trousers, as and when they arise. I am British myself, and find that the majority of my (French) students are usually more familiar with British English, but since they all watch American films and TV series, plus are about equally likely to deal with Americans as British people in their work, I think it's important to at least make them aware of differences in vocabulary.

What I really hate is when a student comes out with a nonsensical word or expression, I tell them I've never heard it before and try to work out what they actually mean, but they insist that they are saying it correctly and that I probably just don't know it because I'm British and it's an American word/expression. Grr.

[MotherF]

[Glenski]

Sasha said "different grammar", and MotherF said "major grammatical differences". Let's keep these straight.

Anyone who has taught EFL/ESL should realize that there are differences between N.American and British English. Whether you call them major or not is the key.

Certain spelling differences exist.
The use of prepositions sometimes differs.
Some phrasing is slightly different.
Obviously, there are even different words for the same thing.

Is "different grammar" used? Yes.
Extensively? Depends.

There is more to world Englishes that N. American and British English. Listening to non-native speakers use their country's adopted English shows that there are clearly some differences that are acceptable to them. Whether they are accepted by native speakers may be how we evolve in language learning/teaching.

[choudoufu]

as long as you let them know differences exist, and give them
some examples, they should be able to cope.

always remember to explain:

the britishers invented english...

....the 'mercans perfected it.

[smithrn1983]

Personally, I teach my students both varieties as much as I can. For instance, if I were to teach the word 'flat' I would point out that in America we call it an 'apartment'. I also point out that American English occasionally prefers the past simple where British English tends to use the present perfect. As long as my students are aware of which specific instances this applies to, I don't worry so much if they use the past simple, even if some British people might insist that it's incorrect. By the same token, I suppress my American instincts to tell them they're wrong when they say 'Russia are playing a good football match'. The reason for this approach, though, is that most of my students do not and will not use English with other native speakers apart from myself. The majority of English learners today are learning the language to communicate with other non-native speakers who are just as likely as they are to mix American and British varieties.

[Jbhughes]

Whenever there is a difference that I'm aware of, or that a student brings up, then I will note for the sts that people from the USA say such and such and people from the UK say such and such. I find this approach can be a bit confusing for sts and a little unsatisfying, especially for lower level sts. They just want to know what is 'correct.' I often hear myself saying "they are both correct, you can choose what to say." Followed by something like "I'm from the UK and so is the book, so you will hear and read this" *point to the British version on the board* possibly followed by "<insert name of American teacher> is American, so they will say this."

Also, I won't correct a student if they state something that would be correct in ArE, but not correct in BrE, unless there may be some form of confusion between speakers. This is where I find decisions difficult to make.

The dissatisfaction experienced by learners, coupled with the seeming difficulty/confusion of learning 2(+) versions of English (personally, I see as really quite different - grammatically or not) leads me to believe that sts should simply learn one main version as their goal at the productive level and as they progress they should slowly be fed major differences to be taught at the receptive level. The choice should simply be based on the goals of the students.

The nearest analogy I would imagine available on this site is the difference between Iberian and Mexican Spanish (something I know very little about.) I put it to those that are studying Spanish - do you prefer to learn both at the risk of confusing versions and somehow having some kind of inbetween of neither, or do you prefer to learn one at the conversational level at the other a more receptive level? Obviously the choice of the 'main' version would purely be based on where you (intend to) live.

I'm interested in your answers, as the only analogy I have within my life is learning different versions of the language of the country I live in - Vietnam. I chose to mainly focus on one, as I felt that mixing the two would lead to potential misunderstanding due to inconsistencies in pronunciation (the major differences between them are pronunciation) and to be honest, I just found one to appear more correct and utterances to be more distinct in that version compared to the other.

As I have little knowledge about other forms of English, I can't highlight what differences may occur in them. My post has no intention of somehow reducing the value of other versions, and I would be interested in understanding them more. For the purposes of my position when it comes to this, wherever I have mentioned BrE and AmE, we can include any other major version of English available.

I think we can add some differences related to pronunciation to Glenski's list:

(Not) pronouncing 'r's occurring at end of a syllable. - 'car'
Vowel sounds. - 'yogurt'
Differing ways of pronouncing 't's. 'sitting'
Stressing different parts of words - 'address'
Weak forms and linking seem to be more prevalent in BrE - although I may be wrong.
Reductions such as 'gonna' or 'wanna' etc - of course these are used in BrE too - may it be better to say that AmE doesn't include 'going tɘ' etc ??

I would like to be more aware of American English and also other forms of English, and any internet-based resources posters are able to link would be great.

[jonniboy]

[HLJHLJ]

I've usually found that there are more and greater differences within the the UK than there are between most of the UK and most of the USA. I wouldn't class any of them as being major grammatical differences though.

I do cover differences between BrE, AmE and AusE when they come up, but only if they are likely to matter. For example, if they are going to be talking to BrE speakers then I advise them to avoid gotten and on the weekend, as they sound particular bad to a BrE ear. Also, if they are speaking to someone unfamiliar with AmE they may be taken to be errors, which isn't good if they are trying to make a good impression with their language skills.

I also teach vocabulary that is likely to cause embarrassing or awkward situations, such as pants/trousers, thongs/flipflops, rubber/eraser, fanny/fanny pack/bum bag, fancy dress/smart dress/costume. I find that it makes more sense to them if I can give them clear examples of why the differences are important.

It's probably a little easier here, because there are big differences in Spanish throughout Latin America and between here and Spain. So the students are already very familiar with the idea of a single language having multiple forms.

[Chancellor]

[Chancellor]

[Sashadroogie]

[spiral78]

If we want to assume different grammars, there is certainly something that could be termed 'different grammar' in some parts of the US - though I'd tend to call it 'uneducated' or 'common' English and simply consider it officially unrecognised structures, which should not be used in most contexts.

For example, in the Southeast one can encounter yet another tense structure, the 'fixin' to future.' It's not a corruption of 'going to.' 'Going to' involves plans, which can be at basically any future point. 'Fixin' to' means that I'm just beginning the motions required to accomplish something.

Picture: 'Maw, whur's thet-thar beer you was gonna git me?' 'I'm fixin' t go t the kichen raht now, Paw.' ....as Maw puts her hands on the armrests of the chair and gets ready to rise to her feet and shuffle off refridgerator-wards.

I wouldn't suggest that this should be dignified with the appelation of 'different grammar'. It's clearly just a regional quirk, IMO. If it ever appears in some grammar book, perhaps designed for Asian students planning to study in Birmingham or Atlanta, I'll be sorely disappointed in the ESL coursebook system.