Job Discussion Forums

[leeroy]

1. (Part of my university study materials... I personally typed this out, and am too lazy to check for typos )

2. (If you can't be bothered, just check the paragraph in bold at the end.)

Taken from a lecture at a language teaching conference in Japan, 1988. By Randolph Quirk;

"...the bouyant demand for native speaking English teachers means that on occasionally finds, in Tokyo or Madrid, young men and women teaching English with only a minimal teacher training, indeed with little specialised education: they're employed because, through accident of birth in Leeds or Los Angeles, they are native speakers of English. Not merely may their own English be far from standard but they may have little respect for it and may well have absorbed (at second or third hand) the linguistic ethos that is simplified into the tenet that any English is as good as any other.

One such young Englishman approached me after a lecture I'd given in Madrid a few months ago. Why, he asked, had I distinguished between the nouns "message" and "information "as countable and uncountable? His students often wrote phrases like "several informations" and since he understood what was meant, how could they be wrong? In some wonderment that I was actually talking to a British teacher of English, I gently explained about Standard English being the norm by which we taught and made judgements. He flatly disagreed and went on to claim that he could not bring himself to correct a Spanish pupiil for using a form that had currency in an English dialect - "any" English dialect. 'She catched a cold' is as good as 'She caught a cold', he ended triumphantly and strode away."

Where is the line drawn between English "variety" and English "error"? If a pidgin or Creole speaker of English stated "She catched a cold", I would be inclined to classify it not as a mistake but as an aspect of a dialect differing from mine. Similarly, if a rapper exclaims "Yeah, you know dat sh*t be goin' down right here" I would justify the un-conjugated "be" as a symptom of ebonics, rather than incorrect grammar per se. If my brother (for example) was to use "catched" or "that be happening" though, I feel I would be slightly less forgiving. Thus, whether or not English is "correct" depends very much on the context of the speaker - there is no (and can never be a) global "Standard English" to which Quirk refers to.

But this doesn't mean that we have free reign with our students, and should allow them to say anything as long as they get their meaning across as per the English teacher given in Quirk's example. I am inherently biased when teaching students in London to focus them towards a London-ish dialect of English. Although I won't insist on glottal stops and the "f/v" conversions (brother=bruvva) - for me "fast" is pronounced "farst" - and so will it be with my students. (I will accept "bruvva" from a student, while teachers in the USA may well not.)

I won't accept ebonics or "many informations", as in my linguistic context they are unnacceptable. But if I were teaching in Jamaica could I insist on similar practices? Even in London, there are areas (such as Brixton and Harlesden) where dialects of English are vastly different to mine - sometimes so much so that they inhibit comprehension. This seems inevitable in areas with large immigrant and ethnic populations. What English should students living in these areas learn? My "correct" English or the dialect they are surrounded by?

So it's difficult enough just knowing what to teach in London - what about in areas that have little linguistic, social or cultural connection with English speaking communities at all? Does it matter if Mongolians (for example) speak with USA ebonics ("Wass happ-nin' homie?") or British RP ("Delighted to (once more) make your acquaintance!"). If the majority of Mongolians will be speaking English to other non-native speakers, do they really need all the cultural-linguistic "clutter" that makes (say) C.ockney so distinguishable?

Would it better to let the learners decide which aspects of English they would like to keep and which they would like to change? If Mongolians would prefer to do away with countables and uncountables then perhaps that is their prerogative (sp?). If the Japanese want to trade in "l" and "r" for the same letter than perhaps we should let it go, it rarely (after all) results in a complete break-down in communication.

If the Jamaicans can have their own dialect of English then why can't the Koreans (well, they almost already have!) . I find Jamaican English to be as challenging as c.ockney in terms of comprehension - so why do we accept Jamaican English, but attempt to beat "Konglish" out of them?

Jamaicans are, I suppose, native speakers (as are some Indians, Kenyans, etc..). Thus it is too late for us to impose our linguistic will and bias on them. Chinese people are not, however, so it is not too late to mould their English into whatever we think is the most suitable (or at least try!)

Oh shit I've got to go, but will come back to edit and finish this off later!

(I'm back, but this is after a couple of beers, so I'll keep it short)

If and when countries such as Japan and Korea have a majority/significant popluation who are able to speak English (like, say, India or Kenya) then it is fair to assume that these countries will have their own specific dialect. Just as South Africans speak in their own distinctive way, so too will the Japanese should a major "nation-wide competence in English" occur. How does this affect teachers in EFL environments, in fact should it at all? Is it the teachers' responsibility to encourage the formation of a local dialect of English (if this is at all possible) or is it up to teachers to simply "impose" their dialect of the language (like the British in India) and then wait for a mutation of it to arise?

One day, will "I berry like" be an acceptable form of Konglish in the same way that "I be smoke now" might be acceptable in Creole?

Well, this is a ramble that went on a bit too long - but any answers to the two thousand questions above would be welcome...

[FGT]

Isn't there a difference between language, accent and dialect?
We, as teachers, provide a model, particularly when it comes to accent. Thus a Southern English speaker says /ka:sl/ when a northerner says /kaesl/ (sorry about the phonemes not being quite right). But the students hear a variety of accents, they rarely completely lose their own, and so will acquire the word "castle" with an approximation of an "English" accent, perhaps akin to that of their teacher, perhaps not. That doesn't matter.

If we, as teachers, provide ONLY a model of our dialect (and I include slang), we are doing them a dis-service. How do we expect them to pass written exams, if that is their intention, using forms such as "Am you coming?" (Wolverhampton = are you coming) or "Where's it to?" (West country= where is it) or "Gonna/wanna" (universal but SPOKEN not Written)?

We have a duty to give our students the broadest introduction to English(es) as possible; bearing in mind the individual needs of our students and their location (present or future). I would imagine that a new immigrant to inner London would benefit from a larger proportion of "street English" than would an international businessman who conducts his business in at least four continents.

The businessman, the international student etc. need to learn a universal form of English. It's our job to provide that. Standard English Rules!!!!

[guest of Japan]

Leeroy, your posts always pull me in.

In my opinion it is not a matter of which forms are acceptable or not. It is whether or not I am charged as the teacher. I find the butchering of the l/r by Japanese to be perfectly acceptable, though a bit annoying, in a communication context. However, if I'm am supposed to teach English to that person then the l/r butchering becomes a target of the lesson.

When I was teaching in NY, I taught in one school where the ebonics was stronger than anything I had ever heard or read about. I honestly could not understand 70% of the conversations around me. In that situation I was a history teacher, but I insisted that the students try to speak to me using a more standard form of English. Had I been their English teacher, I'm sure I would have been more severe in my approach.

Since I am an English teacher now, I try to look at variations of English used by my students objectively. Sometimes mistakes are made by the students, but sometimes their usage is perfectly acceptable in a specific area of the globe. When the latter ocurrs I try to point out that fact to the student and tell them of the other variations and move on with them in control of which direction they want their English to move. Mistakes would be corrected. Informations would be corrected.

And of course, sometimes I'm wrong too.

[leeroy]

Yes, we should give our students a wide variety of Englishes - I regularly cover; Coursebook English (something resembling the mythical "Standard English), London English and American English.

Kenyan dialects, I believe, are of less use to the students - and I'm not too familiar with them myself! But I am in London, it is assumed here that students will learn a basic "Standard English" with a British and/or London twist. Most, by intermediate level, will say "fast" /fa:st/ as opposed to the US /faest/.

But as a few of us concluded a while back, part of the issue facing students learning English in a EFL environment (as opposed to ESL like myself) is that the culture behind the language is unfamiliar or intimidating to them. Presumably, some Caribbean islands mutated English as a way of finding and signifying a cultural identity. They didn't want to speak the same dialect as their oppressors - understandably perhaps. Although it's not quite at the same level of extremity, I think students learning English in their home countries may share similar feelings. In order to make English "theirs" (as has been done in Singapore, India, etc...) and culturally distinctive to them, they will inevitably have to create their own accent and dialect. "Chinglish" and "Konglish" could be early signs of this. If these are in fact "fledgling dialects" as opposed to merely "b.astardisations of English" - then should we English teachers become more accepting of "I berry rike Engrishii"?

One day, perhaps, every bugger in the world will speak English - with each country having its own dialect/accent (or range of). Although it will be no piece of cake understanding everyone - at least we will be able to speak the same language without sacrificing cultural identity. If English does ever become the much touted "global language" - I imagine that is the way it'll happen.

Or, I might just be wrong!

[Roger]

Shouldn't foreign speakers of English - i.e. Korans, Chinese etc. - be taught to UNDERSTAND any ENGLISH VARIETY not tainted by non-native English speakers, for instance, understand Aussie, Texan or Scotrtish English?
If yes, then they should understand the STANDARD English; now that's my beef with Koreans and Chinese: they don't!
You can get used to Kenyan English (not so difficult), Pakistani/Indian English (again, not difficult), SInglish (Singaporean English), but it's a lot more demanding on us to understand Chinglish, and for "native Chinglish" speakers to understand plain English.

I can tolerate slurry phonetics (CHinese S/SH, L/N, R/L, S/TH), but I can't understand their English too long if their vowels are all short (sheep as ship, feet as fit, etc.). And, I can't understand English with a maimed structure on top of a maltreated pronunciation.

[Deborann]

What is the (ostensible) reason for this English learning? I don't think it is meant to be studies so that students would be comfortable in a Jamacian street setting. Ny understanding is that the rationalization for learning English to so that China can move more easily into a global economy. If that is the case, then the various dialects and specific constructions are not appropriate to teach - it's back to Standard English, no matter how boring!

[BethMac]

I often hear the term "American English" and I wonder what it means exactly. Someone from Texas speaks very differently from someone from New York (or Ontario or Newfoundland). Perhaps we are talking about Hollywood American English? Certainly there is a Hollywood British accent, a Hollywood Scottish accent, a Hollywood Irish accent, a Hollywood Aussie accent, etc. All of these would fall into the category of a 'standard' English, with only a slight lilt of a national/regional accent and very few local idioms so that understanding is universal. Can't we do the same in the classroom?

Don't get me wrong. I do think that exposure to different accents and dialects is great for L2 students. However, I think it's impossible to teach all or even some of the "World Englishes" in the EFL or ESL classroom. It would be both too time-consuming and too confusing. I would say that teaching a standard version of English, with exposure (through movies, TV, audiotape, etc.) to different "Englishes", is the key to comprehension. Ebonics, C*ockney, and other "Englishes" are very limiting for students outside certain regions, so why teach them? I believe that we do need a global standard. If Hollywood can manage to accomplish it, why can't we?

[dmb]

A Hollywood Scottish accent? I can assume you are referring to Sean. How many people does it take to constitute an accent?

[leeroy]

We can and (evidently) do teach to some kind of global standard - but as I said before; for English to be truly accepted and integrated into cultures such as Korea and China, is Standard English "the one"?

When we look at how English has successfully been imposed on other nations (like Kenya, Singapore, etc...) what has followed the imposition has been a kind of "personalisation", Singlish, Jamaican English, whatever. Will/can a similar thing occur in Japan, Korea, etc...?

[nomadder]

I doubt it since they aren't colonies and English will probably not replace their own languages any time soon or does Bush have plans we haven't heard about yet?

[Snoopy]

In the Gulf states, most students will have had English teachers from Egypt or Sudan. They give good value: all those extra syllables for nothing. But if Egyptian English is actually consistent, I think it should be recognised.

[Ria]

Just an interesting tidbit to throw in here--I read this recently in a Caribbean cookbook (of all things!) and thought of this thread...It states that in Aruba (whose languages include Dutch, English, Spanish and Papiamento), most Arubans speak Papiamento. It is one of the few Caribbean islands where the natives were not wiped out by the Europeans (although there are no 'full-blooded' natives today). Papiamento (according to this cookbook!) is a dialect that combines Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, African and Indian sounds. It is, apparently, unintelligible to "outsiders". It was developed by the slaves to confound their masters. I find these mutations of languages (English or otherwise) fascinating because of their historical development and do not discourage their appearance! It will only make linguistics more interesting for future generations, after all. However, I do agree that teaching some kind of standard English to L2 learners is most appropriate, with the teaching (or self-teaching) of dialects, slang, etc. to come later, as needed, geographically or otherwise. In short, I agree with Roger, but Leeroy made some points that I sometimes wonder about, specifically when he referred to some distant future when "every bugger in the world will speak English". I agree that it will be "no piece of cake understanding everyone--but at least we'll be able to speak the same language"---but I disagree with the idea that it will be without sacrificing cultural identity. For me, I just look at any country that has adopted English as a primary language as an example! But that's just me, I'm sure others will disagree...

[Stephen Jones]

Standard English is what we should be teaching, because it is the only variety of English that is intelligible to all native speakers of English.

English is strange in one respect, in that you not only have a standard English, as you have a modern classical Arabic, but you actually have native speakers of that dialect, which is not true of standard Arabic, where all Arabic speakers have their own regional dialect which they use with friends, saving standard Arabic for use with speakers of other dialects, and for formal situations (this situation is known as disglossia).

Now there is more than one standard English; the American version is generally known as Network English, and I am sure there are Australian and South African and Canadian versions (just as Canada has its own pronunciation and elcectic spelling caused by mixing British and American variants), but the amamzing thing is that it is so "standardized" and homogeneous. I can understand educated American, Canadian, Australian and Scottish speakers of English with no problem at all, but trying to understand a Geordie, or a Cockney, let alone somebody from the slums of Kingston or the swamps of Louisana is much more difficult.

Quirk in this respect is right, and the so-called teachers he is referring to ought to get another job; I may not have enough money to pay for a doctor, but I wouldn't want a paramedic that treated me to claim that he didn't use standard medicine but his own variety of it.

The question of world Englishes is simple. We can accept any variety of English as a legitimate variety of English, but not standard English, as long as English is the native language of the community, or sub-community. However we would be stupid to talk about Japanese English as a sub-variety of English; it's not - it's simply a gamut of deficiencies. As for the latest political invention of "Asian English", dreamt up by politicians, EFL teachers with an inferiority complex, and opportunists who want to disguise low standards by changing the rulebook 'nuff said. The question of Indian Englishes is more debateable. There is a small proportion of sub-continental speakers that have English as their first language (maybe 1% - but many of the hallmarks of "Indian English", such as the complete disappearance of articles, the use of "too" for very, and the use of the present for the past, seem to me to be mistakes or corruption caused by the native languages - any descriptive grammar of Indian English would have to describe the common grammatical traits of the dialect, and I don't think there are any - the best Indian writers use an English that apart from the subject matter and certain items of vocabulary, is indistinguishable from that of an educated speaker from another English speaking country - Madras, Manchester or Minnesota at this level doesn't make a great difference.

It is also worth knocking on the head the idea, "Well I can understand it, so it should be accepted". The reason you can understand it is that language has built in redundancy that allows you to make sense of inaccurate information through context and other clues. If somebody pronunces it perfectly you will understand "I catched the bus", but let the person mispronounce his words, as people who make grammatical errors often also do, and you will be hearing (I cashed the bus? I cached the bus? I cashed the boss? I kissed the boss?). When there are too many mistakes either your eyes glaze over or you understand something entirely different. And as pronunciation and intonation are the hardest things for the foreign learner to master we should insist on correct grammar so that at least there is one less element to be unsure of.

[Wolf]

I never had a strong Maritime accent to begin with. Years of EFL teaching and living outside "my" culture mean that I don't use a lot of slang anymore. And every speaker of English I have ever met has been able to understand me. And I've met and talked to people from all over the world - native and non-native speakers alike. In theory, I ought to be teaching my students to be able to communicate to an equally broad number of people.

Dialects, as a form of culture, are a natural phenomenon. However, langauge is meant for communication. English might not be a universal langauge (yet), but it is used as a medium of communication all over the world. I think it's important that students learn the nuts and bolts of how the language is supposed to be used. At least in EFL settings. In ESL or ESP (English for Specific Purposes) classes, then it could be useful to learn dialects where the student is living, or is about to live, or wants to learn about.

When Japanese and Chinese companies use English to correspond with each other (I've seen this happen), then they ought to be able to understand one another, no? If one group speaks in Ebonics, and the other has a heavy Newfoundland accent, then learning an intermediary language has been a waste of time on both parts.

Also, I can't teach any dialects. The dialect of my region of birth isn't easy to understant, not many people use it, and I've been training myself not to sound like that since childhood. I don't see how I can credibly claim to teach another dialect, either.

In EFL I try to be "neutral" in what I teach. I'm not too fussed over the odd truck/lorry, soccer/football, elevator/lift differences. My students are more likely to know the American versions because of Hollywood movies, and the odd word here or there won't grind a conversation to a screeching halt if both participants have skills in negitiating meaning.

[BethMac]