|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kiwiboy_nz_99
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Location: ...Enlightenment...
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 2:40 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| I wish I knew more Brits in person. On this board at least I'm gravitating to them more and more. Could be something that doesn't translate to real life, dunno. But I feel more affinity with thier culture than with american culture. After all, a mere two hundred years ago kiwis were Brits, so that's definitely the root of our culture. Rugby, football, cricket, drugs and dance music, humour, these things ( off the top of my head ) are things that we understand in common more so than americans. I'm curious as to weather that would translate into actual real life hanging out. Of course, the obvious disclaimer is inserted here, I've enjoyed the majority of north americans I've met here very much too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Swiss James
Joined: 26 Nov 2003
Location: Shanghai
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dogbert wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| The saddest part about this debate is that several posters who are (allegedly) university educated and living in east Asia have demonstrated that the poor girl who complained that some people in London made fun of her accent were quite possibly teachers. Islanders the world over are known for their insularity, which is just another word for provincialism. Travelling out into the great beyond has done very little for some people. They may as well have stayed at home for all the good travelling has done them. |
I'm surprised that one son of the veld in particular has come here, when it means his tongue can no longer remain firmly rooted in the Queen's bum.
"Bum" is another shining example of proper British English, correct? Or is "arse" what the upper classes prefer to say? |
One does not discuss Her Majesty's posterior. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm the only one who has put forward a coherent, linguistically- based argument here as to why the Queens English should be the standard form for the world to communicate and come together in this century and beyond.
Its not good enough to say "I like the sound of the American accent" or whatever...
LETS look at the facts once again:
1) English has evolved in England for centuries. (as opposed to America's recent isolated evolution).
Look at its multitude of historic influences: Firstly it absorbed some celtic words from the resident ancient Britons, Latin from the Roman invasions, early Scandinavian words from the viking invasions, French from the Normans, and of course its root germanic words and gradual streamlining over the centuries from its original form.
2)more recently, the English language came under theinfluence of a multitude of different cultures during the age of the empire.( America has no world wide empire). It drew new vocabulary from all over the world to enhance its global reach and significance.
3) being in close proximity to Europe and the diversity of languages there has likewise added much to it's scope and its easy relation to other nearby languages. (America has only Canada or Mexico to enrich and improve its language). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matthewwoodford
Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Location: Location, location, location.
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Look, you're wrong. Just accept it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| matthewwoodford wrote: |
| Look, you're wrong. Just accept it. |
Prove it. I want to hear a proper reasoning.
There is absolutely no reason that American english is superior and deserves priority as the worlds main medium of communication.
Language is a tool, to do a job in the clearest and most efficient way. It evolves and refines, like any animal, to become better at whatever it does.
If you were shopping for lets say, a vehicle to cover all terrain, would you buy one thats proved itself already in ever country and continent, and is still used most poularly by all of them? Or would you buy a recent, untested model that was made in one place, and never went anywhere else, that most people worldwide do not recognise? Thats the difference between English english and american English. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rapier wrote: |
I'm the only one who has put forward a coherent, linguistically- based argument here as to why the Queens English should be the standard form for the world to communicate and come together in this century and beyond.
Its not good enough to say "I like the sound of the American accent" or whatever...
LETS look at the facts once again:
1) English has evolved in England for centuries. (as opposed to America's recent isolated evolution).
Look at its multitude of historic influences: Firstly it absorbed some celtic words from the resident ancient Britons, Latin from the Roman invasions, early Scandinavian words from the viking invasions, French from the Normans, and of course its root germanic words and gradual streamlining over the centuries from its original form.
2)more recently, the English language came under theinfluence of a multitude of different cultures during the age of the empire.( America has no world wide empire). It drew new vocabulary from all over the world to enhance its global reach and significance.
3) being in close proximity to Europe and the diversity of languages there has likewise added much to it's scope and its easy relation to other nearby languages. (America has only Canada or Mexico to enrich and improve its language). |
| rapier wrote: |
| matthewwoodford wrote: |
| Look, you're wrong. Just accept it. |
Prove it. I want to hear a proper reasoning.
There is absolutely no reason that American english is superior and deserves priority as the worlds main medium of communication.
Language is a tool, to do a job in the clearest and most efficient way. It evolves and refines, like any animal, to become better at whatever it does.
If you were shopping for lets say, a vehicle to cover all terrain, would you buy one thats proved itself already in ever country and continent, and is still used most poularly by all of them? Or would you buy a recent, untested model that was made in one place, and never went anywhere else, that most people worldwide do not recognise? Thats the difference between English english and american English. |
As stated before, you are wrong in many ways. Although I do agree that there is no reason to believe that American English is superior. It's the most pervasive, but just another of the many varieties.
As to your being wrong. . . where to start. . .
1. Well, first, the Celtic languages had almost no impact on English. Where the *beep* did you get that idea?
Latin from the Roman invasions? My white ass. After the Romans pulled out the only Latin left was in a few place names. Latin didn't come back to the British Isles until the monks started arriving there to convert the heathens after the Anglo-Saxon and Viking invasions.
2. The English of the United States was streamlined by immigrants and it doesn't matter that they had no world empire. Indeed, streamlining in the British Isles in the early days of English came about the same way -- the Norse invaders spoke a form of Germanic which was very similar to the Germanic language that the Anglo-Saxons brought to England but the differences in grammar created confusion. The grammar became simplified to accommodate the nuances of meaning. Although American English streamlining is generally considered more of pronunciation than grammar streamlining the analogy holds.
3. I don't know where the hell you get the idea of England's English being enriched by the continent. Even if it was, 99.99% of RP is the same as the mainstream media English of the U.S.
As I said, I agree that American English isn't a superior form but *beep* me, why do you think RP is more pervasive? England only has a population of 60 million and only a small minority of them speak RP. The States has a population in excess of 270 million and the vast majority of them do speak the same way. As well, American movies, sitcoms, novels, advertising, etc are present all over the fucking place and is much more conspicuous than RP in the mass media. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiwiboy_nz_99
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Location: ...Enlightenment...
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| As I said, I agree that American English isn't a superior form but *beep* me, why do you think RP is more pervasive? England only has a population of 60 million and only a small minority of them speak RP. The States has a population in excess of 270 million and the vast majority of them do speak the same way. As well, American movies, sitcoms, novels, advertising, etc are present all over the *beep* place and is much more conspicuous than RP in the mass media. |
Conspicuousness is not a reason to suggest american English should be the standard either. That only comes about because of Americas power.
I don't agree that any one form can claim right to being the standard.
Unlike rapier I wouldn't try to claim academic grounds for RP being better. It just is!  It sounds better, and just feels more proper and more correct. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that my accent is much closer to RP than to american English |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kiwiboy_nz_99 wrote: |
Conspicuousness is not a reason to suggest american English should be the standard either. That only comes about because of Americas power.
I don't agree that any one form can claim right to being the standard. |
Agreed. As long as everything's clear.
| Quote: |
| Unlike rapier I wouldn't try to claim academic grounds for RP being better. It just is! It sounds better, and just feels more proper and more correct. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that my accent is much closer to RP than to american English |
Sounding better and feeling proper and correct are more than just a touch subjective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rapier wrote: |
I'm the only one who has put forward a coherent, linguistically- based argument here as to why the Queens English should be the standard form for the world to communicate and come together in this century and beyond.
Its not good enough to say "I like the sound of the American accent" or whatever...
LETS look at the facts once again:
1) English has evolved in England for centuries. (as opposed to America's recent isolated evolution). |
American English began its own evolution sometime in the 17th Century. Until that time "American English" was the same -- i.e., it shared a claim to the previous "centuries of evolution", inasmuch as it was the same language. Your analysis, which arbitrarily disinherits American English of a past, is false.
English in England also continued to evolve. Due to the continued influx of English to the colonies (then nation), the evolution of both was at times convergent.
However, you have no basis for your argument that the evolution of "English" English as opposed to American English is somehow more valid. Scientifically, linguistically, value statements regarding evolution and language "purity" cannot be made and no reputable linguist has made them.
| rapier wrote: |
| Look at its multitude of historic influences: Firstly it absorbed some celtic words from the resident ancient Britons, Latin from the Roman invasions, early Scandinavian words from the viking invasions, French from the Normans, and of course its root germanic words and gradual streamlining over the centuries from its original form. |
How you cannot see that American English also shares this heritage and has an equal claim to it, I simply cannot fathom.
AMERICAN ENGLISH ALSO HAS THOSE SAME CELTIC, LATIN, FRENCH, &c. WORDS.
| rapier wrote: |
| 2)more recently, the English language came under theinfluence of a multitude of different cultures during the age of the empire.( America has no world wide empire). It drew new vocabulary from all over the world to enhance its global reach and significance. |
Please see above.
Think of the word "ketchup", which comes from Malay (one of the different cultures in the Empire). Can you honestly believe that this word is not also used in American English? In this regard, there is no difference between English English and American English.
However, even taking your argument at its face, America's "empire", from the Philippines to the Caribbean, also drew in vocabulary from Spanish, French, Tagalog, and other languages. Not to mention the words from Native American languages. Regardless of your bias, words such as "rodeo", "lasso", and "teepee" are no less valid than, say, "ketchup".
| rapier wrote: |
| 3) being in close proximity to Europe and the diversity of languages there has likewise added much to it's scope and its easy relation to other nearby languages. (America has only Canada or Mexico to enrich and improve its language). |
First of all, American English does not have "only Canada or Mexico". Of course, it has the world, but again to give you the benefit of the doubt, it has all the Native American tongues, the tongues of the Philippines, the patois of the Caribbean, the Spanish of Cuba, and so on.
But the truth, which I keep hammering, is that these words from other languages have equal currency in England and America. Hence, your point is non-existent.
God grant me the patience of Gord.
Last edited by dogbert on Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:40 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swiss James
Joined: 26 Nov 2003
Location: Shanghai
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| One thing is clear though, the word "Winningest" has no place in any language. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Butterfly
Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Look at these examples of the differences between British and American English.
http://www.onestopenglish.com/english_grammar/british_american.htm#present%20perfect
| Quote: |
American
Jenny feels ill. She ate too much.
British
Jenny feels ill. She's eaten too much.
American
I can't find my keys. Did you see them anywhere?
British
I can't find my keys. Have you seen them anywhere?
American
A: Are they going to the show tonight?
B: No. They already saw it.
British
A: Are they going to the show tonight?
B: No. They've already seen it.
American
A: Is Samantha here?
B: No, she just left.
British
A: Is Samantha here?
B: No, she's just left. |
Now, we don't need a history lesson please, and learners certainly don't. I believe that we shouldn't be talking about one form being adopted as the standard English, we should be talking about forming an international version to be taught in all classrooms. I believe that this international version would be closer to the American version, as we see above in the pain-in-the-arse perfect tenses.
What purpose does it really serve in short term use? (and with so many slight shifts in meaning) None, but the learner of British English still has to learn to the point of being able to produce the language at will, having to remember the past participle etc. This is why even though I'm British I advise use of the American in this case, I explain both, but advise the American because it gets learners using the language, and they will be more easily understood when they are talking on the phone to clients in Riyadh in years to come. Most languages do not have a perfect tense as we do (which also makes it very difficult to teach ~ timeline my arse), and they seem to manage just fine.
I understand that British English is more accurate in these examples, there is an extra meaning that is lost in the American. But in describing Jenny's condition in the first example, does it really matter? I think British English is more accurate, and might be more useful in academic purposes, but by that level, the speaker with a different mother tongue will understand both anyway. At an advanced level, and in written form there is very little between the two versions of the language.
For practical, everyday purposes, the version I would like to see used overall is closer to the American. Balls to history. Function. We want the world speaking to each other in the easiest way possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Circus Monkey
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Location: In my coconut tree
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rapier:
It matters not if the Queen's English should be the world standard by virture of history or other accomplishments. What matters is whch form of English will be accepted by people who want to learn English and the cultural influences exerted by the main English speaking countries. In other words, since America, through its films, television shows, etc...dominate the global markets, it is only natural that many people outside of America will pick up the American standard.
CM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As I've said above, and others have echoed, there is precious little difference between well eductaed US or UK English. However one that always tickles me is when the (US) pilot announces .... "We will be airborne momentarily"
OK, in US this means "in a moment" but a Brit will understand "for a moment" ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davyteacher
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Location: Busan, South Korea.
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think we shouldn`t argue because of the fact that Korea thinks American English is better than British English. Korea doesn`t know anything about the English langauge and it will take them another twenty years before they realise. I think we wouldn`t be having this argument if we were in Japan, who use all of the English langauge.
Look, we`ve had around thirty replies on this thread and we have understood each other`s thread, it really doesn`t matter. It`s like me arguing which accent is the best in England, Scouse, Mancunian, Brummie, Geordie etc...... it really doesn`t matter.
Be happy and make money just speaking English and ignore half of the stupid Korean schools that only want one type of accent.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Butterfly
Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| davyteacher wrote: |
Be happy and make money just speaking English and ignore half of the stupid Korean schools that only want one type of accent.
|
Well perhaps there wouldn't be a prejudice against British-English speaking teachers if so many weren't so bent on telling Koreans that their American pronunciation is 'wrong'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
