Site Search:
 
Get TEFL Certified & Start Your Adventure Today!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Park That Rig! You Need Some English Lessons ASAP!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
rusmeister



Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 867
Location: Russia

PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stephen Jones wrote:
I've said this on another forum. In the EU the majority of truck drivers on the road at any one time don't speak the language of the country they are in. The highways of France are cluttered with Spanish, German, British and Italian truckers, none of whom speak French. Nobody has ever suggested this might be a problem.


Granted. But the germaine question is, "Would France have a right to insist that they should?"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SueH



Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 1022
Location: Northern Italy

PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The germane answer is that, within the EU, no, they couldn't.

Syephen Jones was making the point I'd made earlier in the thread but which was conveniently ignored. To use an old cliche' - don't make a mountain out of a molehill.

If you want to look at it from another perspective, should US citizens who are employed by US subsidiaries abroad be obliged to speak the language of the country they are going to, and to what level? There would be a lot of postings home I can assure you, and a frantic surge in language learning in the US.

I've been frustrated with the level of English of some of my ESOL students in the UK, but mainly because of the way it excluded them from society, particularly decent employment. This guy was employed and holding down a job.

Of course a certain level of English is _desirable_, but sanctions are a disturbing way to go, IMO. Pity the poor tourist who comes across an Alabama trooper like the one involved, although higher authorities in the US seem to be doing a good job in cutting back foreign tourism.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marcoregano



Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 872
Location: Hong Kong

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 2:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Russ. We have some common ground, though I still can't agree with many of your points.

"I say welcome to people that want to become American!"
Like the truck driver in the OP? Or doesn't he cut the mustard? It seems you have a very personal take on this.

"America developed specifically from English colonies, in which other languages (primarily German) were distinctly minority. The founders were speakers of English, not "a huge mixture of peoples who spoke different languages"."
This either glosses over a host of "unpleasant truths", or maybe you need a history lesson. For starters, before English or any other European language invaded there was Cherokee, Navajo, Dakota, Apache, Choctaw and many other native languages, now steamrollered out of existence. How can you - a descendant of immigrants - speak for the soul of the continent? The US you are talking about is a recent creation.

And you are wrong in asserting that "America developed specifically from English colonies". Dutch, French and Spanish colonies were in place well before the English arrived, and Germans also made up significant numbers along with many other early European imports. There were indeed a huge number of "founding" languages, but English won the 'language war'.

"You speak of the end of the nation-state as a certain unavoidable future event"
I think the end of the nation state is inevitable only if mankind continues to exist along present lines for a few millenia more. The fact is, (and here perhaps we agree!) that we will probably destroy ourselves before we reach that state. But I didn't say I like the idea of 'one world, one language' - just that it's the likely result of evolution, given enough time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rusmeister



Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 867
Location: Russia

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marcoregano wrote:
Hi Russ. We have some common ground, though I still can't agree with many of your points.

"I say welcome to people that want to become American!"
Like the truck driver in the OP? Or doesn't he cut the mustard? It seems you have a very personal take on this.

"America developed specifically from English colonies, in which other languages (primarily German) were distinctly minority. The founders were speakers of English, not "a huge mixture of peoples who spoke different languages"."
This either glosses over a host of "unpleasant truths", or maybe you need a history lesson. For starters, before English or any other European language invaded there was Cherokee, Navajo, Dakota, Apache, Choctaw and many other native languages, now steamrollered out of existence. How can you - a descendant of immigrants - speak for the soul of the continent? The US you are talking about is a recent creation.

And you are wrong in asserting that "America developed specifically from English colonies". Dutch, French and Spanish colonies were in place well before the English arrived, and Germans also made up significant numbers along with many other early European imports. There were indeed a huge number of "founding" languages, but English won the 'language war'.

"You speak of the end of the nation-state as a certain unavoidable future event"
I think the end of the nation state is inevitable only if mankind continues to exist along present lines for a few millenia more. The fact is, (and here perhaps we agree!) that we will probably destroy ourselves before we reach that state. But I didn't say I like the idea of 'one world, one language' - just that it's the likely result of evolution, given enough time.

Hey Marco - obviously, I can't make a judgment on the driver in the OP. If he is not simply swooping in for a few months to offer cheap labor and pump cash out to Mexico, but actually wants to live in the US, learn English, and become American, I say let him apply through the legal channels, but in my book he is welcome. I went through the hell of legalization in Russia, and so think I have every right to say that. If they specifically do not want to learn English and just want to create ever larger enclaves of their own language and culture, then I would slam the door on them (OK- politely and firmly close it).

Your "history lessons" (which seem to assume that I am not familiar with the history) miss the point that for the thousand or so years (that we can confirm) before the arrival of Europeans, the native Indian cultures did NOT develop a nation. The closest thing was the Iroquois nation but that did not go anywhere toward growing and developing the nation many of us today come from. For that matter, all Indians were the descendants of immigrants. No one was truly indigenous to the continent - by consensus our best understanding still has them having crossed the Bering Strait. Thus, the term"native American" is unreasonably applied to them and just as unreasonably denied me. They may have been the first Americans, but I am just as native as they are. How many generations qualifies for indigenous status - to get to claim a part of the "soul" of America?

Of course English won that language war. But that's my point. The other colonies were swallowed up, taken over, forced to become English, live under English law using the English language. They were assimilated. So yes, a new nation developed and immigrants were a big part of it. But it developed under English language and law that was based largely on English law.

Not meaning to seem offensive. I'd just really like to show that traditional attitudes, which modern people have been taught by modern schools to be bigoted, ignorant and unreasoning, are not so - that it is the modern schools which teach a new kind of bigotry and unreasoning.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marcoregano



Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 872
Location: Hong Kong

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Admittedly this is getting a bit off topic, but...

rusmeister wrote:
... the native Indian cultures did NOT develop a nation...


So what? Who decreed that humanity should set up national boundaries? (lines on maps!). IMO - and there are plenty of historians who see it the same way -the modern nation state is the root cause of most of the bloodshed and misery in the world. Nation states are no more than an advanced form of tribalism, a basis for jingoism, thuggery and myopia, to name just a few.

It's a given that English-speaking people have become the dominant group in North America - and ditto Russians in Siberia - but that does not confer the right to make unreasonable demands of other members of our species.

Returning to the OP, it appears on the evidence given, that the Alabama trooper was - at best - unreasonable, and that such rules of language use are discriminatory and unnecessary.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rusmeister



Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 867
Location: Russia

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marcoregano wrote:
Admittedly this is getting a bit off topic, but...

rusmeister wrote:
... the native Indian cultures did NOT develop a nation...


So what? Who decreed that humanity should set up national boundaries? (lines on maps!). IMO - and there are plenty of historians who see it the same way -the modern nation state is the root cause of most of the bloodshed and misery in the world. Nation states are no more than an advanced form of tribalism, a basis for jingoism, thuggery and myopia, to name just a few.

It's a given that English-speaking people have become the dominant group in North America - and ditto Russians in Siberia - but that does not confer the right to make unreasonable demands of other members of our species.


C'mon, you know it wasn't a decree, and you ought to know that it was the logical way to band together, defend your own people, your own blood, etc against others who would take, kill, enslave...
Certainly I would agree that a pre-industrial village level existence would be ideal for humanity, except for that part of human nature that religious folk call sin, the preference for self at the expense of others (insert your own intellectual sounding term to replace it).
The nation state is the thing that keeps you from being hauled off as a slave, or killed for your women and wealth, by someone stronger than you and your village.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
parrothead



Joined: 02 Nov 2003
Posts: 342
Location: Japan

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
you ought to know that it was the logical way to band together, defend your own people, your own blood, etc against others who would take, kill, enslave...


Wow, we're really off topic now fellas.
Surely, our Mexican friend passing through Alabama was up to nothing quite as sinister...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marcoregano



Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 872
Location: Hong Kong

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rusmeister wrote:
The nation state is the thing that keeps you from being hauled off as a slave, or killed for your women and wealth, by someone stronger than you and your village.


Heh heh! C'mon Russ. It does no such thing - look at the crime stats in the US. Or Russia - or most countries. Or the nation versus nation wars that have killed untold millions. The nation state offers poor defence against attack - whether from without or within.

And all our truck driver was doing was hauling onions!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thelmadatter



Joined: 31 Mar 2003
Posts: 1212
Location: in el Distrito Federal x fin!

PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:00 pm    Post subject: back on topic Reply with quote

I agree that the US has a right to impose language requirements on those who perform certain jobs. The trucker in question had to pass a test to get his CDL license... that is a federal requirement to indicate that he had certain skills to drive a rig on US roads.

Something similar should be done for the English language requirement. A trucker's English ability should be determined when s/he gets (or renews) his/her license. This way, whether or not a driver is proficient or not under the law is not up to the individual officer's judgement, and not subject to abuse.

My guess as to why this is NOT done is that the feds dont want the expense of verbal/aural language testing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
parrothead



Joined: 02 Nov 2003
Posts: 342
Location: Japan

PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's just not practical. A. The U.S. has NO OFFICIAL language. B. Who determines the requisit level of English? How is it determined? What are you going to do, set a paper test in front of a truck driver to test his reading comprehension (more important if you are driving a truck IMO). You better do the same for the rest of the populace. I'd love to see how many native speakers fail an English test. By the way, in the U.S. the deaf can drive as well. I wonder if the Alabama trooper would have had a problem with that.

Different English is spoken all over the U.S. It is a darn big country. In the past, when I visited the deep south of the U.S., I occasionally had to ask for clarification when speaking to people there. I totally feel for the Spanish speaking truck driver that this thread refers to. He did nothing wrong, was randomly pulled over, and then ticketed for having sub-par English - as determined by a state trooper, not a certified tester of English.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marcoregano



Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 872
Location: Hong Kong

PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A fine summation parrothead and I think that just about wraps it up. BTW, where's your avitar pic from? Let me guess...Croatia? (That is a wild guess). Wink

Last edited by Marcoregano on Wed Jul 30, 2008 3:15 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jillford64



Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Posts: 397
Location: Sin City

PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 3:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
BTW, where's your avitar pic from?


I have been wondering the same thing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
parrothead



Joined: 02 Nov 2003
Posts: 342
Location: Japan

PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
BTW, where's your avitar pic from? Let me guess...Croatia? (That is a wild guess)

Actually, it is old Spanish turret in Puerto Rico.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prof.Gringo



Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2236
Location: Dang Cong San Viet Nam Quang Vinh Muon Nam!

PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have been reading all of the replies and comments. I think that any country has a right to impose it's laws and to a lesser extent, language upon people who are living there for any amount of time. Here in Mexico, the immigration officials at the main office can't even speak English. Now I think that's going too far.

I don't really care if immigrants to the US can or can't speak English after 5 or even 20 years. I mean, why should they? They can do almost everything in Spanish (or whatever language). The US bends over backwards to help people learn English with free ESL classes. When they don't the US goes out of it's way to accommodate their refusal or inability to learn English. What other countries do that? If you don't need English for your job and most of your contact is with fellow Spanish speakers why even bother to try?

English is the international language of transportation. It is used in maritime and aviation all over the world. Ship's crews and commercial aviation crews must be able to communicate in English. That's an international requirement.

The easiest way to fix this problem would is to evaluate potential commercial drivers English ability during the license testing process and eliminate the need to have the police act as language enforcers. It is ridiculous to have the police writing $500 tickets to truckers based on what each cop thinks is a sufficient level of English.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rusmeister



Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 867
Location: Russia

PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prof.Gringo wrote:
I have been reading all of the replies and comments. I think that any country has a right to impose it's laws and to a lesser extent, language upon people who are living there for any amount of time. Here in Mexico, the immigration officials at the main office can't even speak English. Now I think that's going too far.

I don't really care if immigrants to the US can or can't speak English after 5 or even 20 years. I mean, why should they? They can do almost everything in Spanish (or whatever language). The US bends over backwards to help people learn English with free ESL classes. When they don't the US goes out of it's way to accommodate their refusal or inability to learn English. What other countries do that? If you don't need English for your job and most of your contact is with fellow Spanish speakers why even bother to try?

English is the international language of transportation. It is used in maritime and aviation all over the world. Ship's crews and commercial aviation crews must be able to communicate in English. That's an international requirement.

The easiest way to fix this problem would is to evaluate potential commercial drivers English ability during the license testing process and eliminate the need to have the police act as language enforcers. It is ridiculous to have the police writing $500 tickets to truckers based on what each cop thinks is a sufficient level of English.

And THAT about wraps it up. (Thanks, PG)
This bears repeating:
Quote:
The US bends over backwards to help people learn English with free ESL classes. When they don't the US goes out of it's way to accommodate their refusal or inability to learn English. What other countries do that?


The attitude that supports Mexican arrogance (on the part of some, not all, of course) in the US equally supports American arrogance abroad - demanding and expecting that other countries support and understand my language - completely forgetting who the foreigner is.

It is a good point - pilots ARE required to communicate in English - I was astounded once, on a Lufthansa plane landing in Germany to be able to listen on an open channel (the company offered this channel) to German pilots speaking to German controllers in English. That freaked me out a little.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Teaching Jobs in China
Teaching Jobs in China