Personally, I think it's a mistake to consider a standard English, instead we can only consider standard elements in English. By that I mean that things like the fact that regular verbs in the past simple all finish with the sounds /t/, /d/ or /id/ (in the vast majority of Englishes). Things like tense formation could be considered standard elements to a large degree. Usage and pronunciation on the other hand creates real problems.
In my opinion, I think anyone trying to teach standard English has missed the point. Students need to able to cope with the linguistic diversity of the English language not just communicate with speakers of standard English. Afterall, 2% of the population in the UK speak RP (ie. Queen's English). If I limited my teaching to the prescriptive standard English, then I would produce students capable of communicating with 2% of the population of my country, and I'm sorry to tell all you Aussies, Kiwis, Canadians, South Africans and Yanks completely incapable of communicating with you. However, if you want to learn proper, standard English, then drop me a PM; of course, it won't be cheap.
Regarding those who favour a presricpitve approach (the middle England crowd), I remember reading David Crystal say that the number of people who worried about splitting infinitives was greater than the number that knew what an infinitive was.
Best wishes
Stephen
Standard English is also a dialect
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Standard English
Hi guys,
I also enjoy Pinker's books (for one thing, he writes well) and pretty much agree with his views, especially about the language mavens.
But I'd like to get back to Norm Ryder's question. What I think he is getting at is: "How should we approach 'mistakes' in the classroom?" (Norm, correct me if I am wrong here.)
Teachers so often believe they always know when a student has made a mistake. And they often jump to correct it, believing that is what they should do--that it is in the best interests of the student. Pinker (along with others such as Michael Lewis), I believe, is calling all this into question.
I certainly question it. My observations of both teacher behavior and student behavior regarding 'mistakes' and the ensuing classroom process leave me feeling that there must be a better way. Teachers are often wrong when identifying a mistake, for reasons cited here in this thread and by the authors mentioned. If they then correct the perceived "error", the result is a confused student. Even if the error is genuine, the result from teacher correction too often is nil.
We teachers need, I think, to consider this matter of correction as a serious and legitimate question, with significant implications about our procedures in class.
What do you think?
Larry Latham
I also enjoy Pinker's books (for one thing, he writes well) and pretty much agree with his views, especially about the language mavens.
But I'd like to get back to Norm Ryder's question. What I think he is getting at is: "How should we approach 'mistakes' in the classroom?" (Norm, correct me if I am wrong here.)
Teachers so often believe they always know when a student has made a mistake. And they often jump to correct it, believing that is what they should do--that it is in the best interests of the student. Pinker (along with others such as Michael Lewis), I believe, is calling all this into question.
I certainly question it. My observations of both teacher behavior and student behavior regarding 'mistakes' and the ensuing classroom process leave me feeling that there must be a better way. Teachers are often wrong when identifying a mistake, for reasons cited here in this thread and by the authors mentioned. If they then correct the perceived "error", the result is a confused student. Even if the error is genuine, the result from teacher correction too often is nil.
We teachers need, I think, to consider this matter of correction as a serious and legitimate question, with significant implications about our procedures in class.
What do you think?
Larry Latham
Standard English - The Widening Debate edited by Tony Bex and Richard J. Watts (Routledge; 1999).
It pretty much covers the whole field - where the notion came from (17th century), what it is (British and US definitions vary hugely), and how relevant the notion is (both to native-speaker learners and, although to a much lesser extent, to EFL learners).
It's way too detailed to summarise in a nutshell, and it's not always an easy read, and the conclusion of the EFL chapter is that the whole question is pretty much irrelevant for EFL learners, but it's a very interesting and informative text. Recommended.
PS I ought to say that I disagree with the notion that it's irrelevant to EFL - if they're not teaching Standard English, what are EFL textbooks full of?
It pretty much covers the whole field - where the notion came from (17th century), what it is (British and US definitions vary hugely), and how relevant the notion is (both to native-speaker learners and, although to a much lesser extent, to EFL learners).
It's way too detailed to summarise in a nutshell, and it's not always an easy read, and the conclusion of the EFL chapter is that the whole question is pretty much irrelevant for EFL learners, but it's a very interesting and informative text. Recommended.
PS I ought to say that I disagree with the notion that it's irrelevant to EFL - if they're not teaching Standard English, what are EFL textbooks full of?
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Apart from an implied scatological reference, I meant precisely that the vast majority of EFL/ESL textbooks that I've used are full of language that looks good on paper but bears very little relation to what speakers (native or not) of English actually do.... which is pretty much how I would define "Standard English" (as a Brit)!
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
You're too kind. To my eye, it doesn't even look good on paper 
On the other hand, there's grave danger in making your own teaching materials. Most teachers, sadly
, are not very good at identifying parts of speech, I'm afraid, not to mention more complex morphological or syntactic features. If you do make your own, best do it carefully, and be ready to make revisions.
My advise: use authentic, non-ESL, genuine texts written for other purposes as often as you can. At least supplement with them.
Larry Latham
P.S. I had to look up scatological, as this was my first encounter with it. Maybe you did have it right the first time!
On the other hand, there's grave danger in making your own teaching materials. Most teachers, sadly
, are not very good at identifying parts of speech, I'm afraid, not to mention more complex morphological or syntactic features. If you do make your own, best do it carefully, and be ready to make revisions.My advise: use authentic, non-ESL, genuine texts written for other purposes as often as you can. At least supplement with them.
Larry Latham
P.S. I had to look up scatological, as this was my first encounter with it. Maybe you did have it right the first time!
Hmm, care to expand on this Larry? I've never noticed a "grave danger" in the materials I've written, nor those of my colleagues. Of course, I haven't identified parts of speech in them eitherLarryLatham wrote:On the other hand, there's grave danger in making your own teaching materials. Most teachers, sadly
Larry Latham
.Lorikeet
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Hi there, Lorikeet!
I guess your colleagues are more talented than some of mine were. But I have to admit, I didn't really see very many of their self-produced teaching materials. They saw more of mine. Much of my feeling about this comes from some comments in Michael Lewis' The Lexical Approach, where he mentions that as an editor, many exercises that are submitted to him for publication are faulty.
For example, he cites these:
Practice A
Complete the following sentences with prepositions.
1. He really rubs me ....... the wrong way!
2. It's .......... you, I can't decide.
3. You have to face ....... to the fact that there's nothing you can do.
As he points out, here we have a so-called preposition practice where the examples do not even pass the elementary test of being prepositions.
Or, here is another example:
Here are some expressions using 'out of'. Those marked with * can be made into the opposite meaning by using 'in' or 'within'.
1. *out of order 2. out of date
3. *out of use 4. *out of doors
5. out of control 6. out of stock
7. *out of place 8. out of the question
Lewis asks: "Is indoors really the opposite of out of doors? Is The phone is out of use meaningfully opposed to The phone is in use.?" I wonder, would you say, "The coke machine is in order."?
Even when examples in a practice exercise are not necessarily wrong, they may not be very effective at helping students acquire language.
Compare:
Complete the following with the correct form of the verb.
1. I ........... late every night last week. (work)
2. I ........... to bring your book, but I'll bring it tomorrow. (forget)
with:
1. Oh sorry, I completely ............... . I ............ late, and was tired when I .......... the office. I just ........... . (forget, work, leave)
Isn't the last one much better than the combination of the first two? Is this the kind of example most teachers would write, though? Maybe......
Larry Latham
I guess your colleagues are more talented than some of mine were. But I have to admit, I didn't really see very many of their self-produced teaching materials. They saw more of mine. Much of my feeling about this comes from some comments in Michael Lewis' The Lexical Approach, where he mentions that as an editor, many exercises that are submitted to him for publication are faulty.
For example, he cites these:
Practice A
Complete the following sentences with prepositions.
1. He really rubs me ....... the wrong way!
2. It's .......... you, I can't decide.
3. You have to face ....... to the fact that there's nothing you can do.
As he points out, here we have a so-called preposition practice where the examples do not even pass the elementary test of being prepositions.
Or, here is another example:
Here are some expressions using 'out of'. Those marked with * can be made into the opposite meaning by using 'in' or 'within'.
1. *out of order 2. out of date
3. *out of use 4. *out of doors
5. out of control 6. out of stock
7. *out of place 8. out of the question
Lewis asks: "Is indoors really the opposite of out of doors? Is The phone is out of use meaningfully opposed to The phone is in use.?" I wonder, would you say, "The coke machine is in order."?
Even when examples in a practice exercise are not necessarily wrong, they may not be very effective at helping students acquire language.
Compare:
Complete the following with the correct form of the verb.
1. I ........... late every night last week. (work)
2. I ........... to bring your book, but I'll bring it tomorrow. (forget)
with:
1. Oh sorry, I completely ............... . I ............ late, and was tired when I .......... the office. I just ........... . (forget, work, leave)
Isn't the last one much better than the combination of the first two? Is this the kind of example most teachers would write, though? Maybe......
Larry Latham