Job Discussion Forums

[bendan]

Rick,

First of all I should apologise for the tone of my previous post, and in particular the comment on Chinese students. It was partly down to my dislike of the loathsome word "hip" and its better-than-you connotation. I would also like to point out that I only claimed to have not met any such students. I didn't say that they didn't exist.

Anyway, I'm surprised you're putting up such a fight over the differences between US and British English. Perhaps, like others who exaggerate the difference, its because you have, or had, a vested interest in such a difference. Could you enlighten us as to which grammatical constructions are acceptable in US English but not acceptable in British English. The Internet hasn't only affected China, you know

On the rise of Chinese English, you said, "... as Chinglish evolves into Chinese English in much the same way as Indian and Singaporean English." The point I disagree with is the comparison with India and Singapore, not the evolution of such a thing as Chinese English. Perhaps you could explain the similarity; I don't recall Crystal drawing this comparison.

You also said:

[rickinbeijing]

bendan,

Well, neither one of us needs to "get down on bendan knee" over this topic or further quibble about it. And it depends on what you believe constitutes a significant linguistic difference, I suppose. Crystal only touches upon the potential for China to develop its own form of English. Obviously, this is a long and unpredictable process. Graddol's study was commissioned by the British Council in an effort to surmise the state of English in the world today. I don't have ready access to it although I cited it in my own dissertation for other purposes.

An example of a construction that differs: "He has got to do it" as opposed to "He has to do it." Another: "You had better do it" as opposed to "You must do it." The former would come across as a threat to an American listener, as in "You had better do it (or else)." I have a book, again not with me, with more than 15 pages of differences, some grammatical, some idiomatic, some culturally informed, some spelling, pronunciation, and vocabulary-related.

Since American English pervades mass media--and a substantial segment of the academic journal market--college students at key universities may alternately regard it as "cool and current" or "more respected." Neither perception is, of course, accurate but there you have it.

As to hip students, many who read and even admire Mian Mian and company would not themselves behave in such a way. To do so would be considered liumang. On the other hand, your inductive approach is anecdotal (and so is mine). Are these students the exception to the rule or the trend? That, I suppose, remains to be seen.

[bendan]

[gregoryfromcali]

This was a good exchange.

Unfortunately the other thread on this quickly downgraded. But then again what fun would the internet be if people weren't taking the Mickey now and again?

[Plan B]

[bendan]

[rickinbeijing]

Plan B,

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: the generic Western content I refer to concerns Western cultural practices other than language usage. What I mean is that these textbook series are not tailored to the specific cultural needs and understandings of MAINLAND Chinese students, especially those outside mega metropolitan areas.

Let me also say that Interchange is far superior to New Concept in my view because of its attention to various kinds of language input and critical thinking skills. Of course, the former is also a much newer series, with a different conception of curriculum development and consequent framework.

The reason so many British textbook series lack cultural relevance is that most of their writers and editors have NEVER LIVED in mainland China for a significant period of time OR have never themselves taught typical Chinese intermediate learners of English in secondary schools. I've met many of these editors myself and most are based in Singapore or Hong Kong or Taipei or London.

Again, check out the New Senior English for China and note the differences I've enumerated on this thread. Incidentally, professional Chinese translators and educational theorists contributed to this new series and substantive input was received from Chinese teachers of secondary EFL. In particular, a unique strength of the NSEC is its consistent integration of task-based learning.

[No Moss]

The major grammatical differences I've noticed between British and American English are 1) the British use of "must" along with "have to" or "have got to", as rickinbeijing pointed out 2) the use of the collective noun in British English with a plural verb, e.g., "Manchester United are playing tonight" and 3) various differences in the past/past participles of verbs (e.g., spoilt vs. spoiled).

There are charming differences in vocabulary, such as the British use of fortnight, barrister, biscuit (not cracker), nappy, trousers (pants are undergarments in Br. English), rubber (not a condom, an eraser!), chips, holiday (you don't get a vacation in Blighty), and queue. There are probably 30-40 others that most of us would recognize immediately as differences.

The great differences between the two are pronunciation--mostly the final "r" thing--and slang. Chinese kids grow up with the British pronunciation symbols, and you even see them in the glossaries of the American "Side by Side" series. I teach using American phonetic symbols, but I don't correct (proper) British pronunciation.

The New Interchange/Passages books are obviously American English. I really like NI, and the series is easy to teach from, which is important in this racket.

The main thing about English is that it's English, and Brits, Aussies, Kiwis, Canucks, Yanks, and others by the hundreds of millions can understand and communicate in the language. No language before it has ever had the universality that modern English has. Now if the British could just teach their children how to speak......