Teacher Discussion Forums

'Linguists ... have long given a special place to the native speaker as the only true and reliable source of language data' (Ferguson 1983: vii).

Ferguson concludes as follows:

'In fact the whole mystique of native speaker and mother tongue should preferably be quietly dropped from the linguist's set of professional myths about language.' (ibid.).

But is Fergie right?

As I said elsewhere the whole concept of NS is getting a bit out-moded.

Perhaps the stereotypical middle-class, educated, maybe home counties, probably male BrE NS is a true and reliable source of data for English from about twenty years ago.

Having said that, to borrow an analogy from Victorian political theory, the opinions of this archetype NS represent the ballast. Uncontrolled change, the wind that drives the sails, is slang, loan words, fads, changes in use, everything that brings about change.

The ballast can't be too heavy. The ship is allowed to move. But not too fast.

Perhaps the stereotypical middle-class, educated, maybe home counties, probably male BrE NS is a true and reliable source of data for English from about twenty years ago.

Do you advertise yourself as a native English teacher when looking for work?

I don't do anything so vulgar as look for work.

But seriously, the English really needed by learners is the standardised one that has stood the test of a bit of time. So teaching English that is

"middle-class, educated, home counties, BrE NS" ish

which comes to me naturally because that's what I am, is not such a bad thing. I try to be fair and say things like "non-standard" or "most people don't say that", a la Swan, when I remember to. And other Englishes get more than a look in songs , "authentic listenings" and so on. But I am what I am. And it's what the punters want.

I'm Vanilla. Safe, a bit boring, reliable, the same as it was 30 years ago barring a few details. And not likely to disappear from the shelves suddenly. There are other flavours. Some are a lot more fun, too. But which is almost everybody likely to accept? If you had to make and sell one flavour, which would it be?

I'm not going to teach something like "big it up" or "it's pants" because:

I don't say it myself.

It's almost certainly passé by the time it's got to my ears.

Even if anybody is still using it, you can bet they won't be soon.

(plus I don't know what it means!)

However it would be anachronistic, blinkered and silly, like some letter writing red-faced colonel in Cheltenham, not to go along with a word like "gay" in its now not very new meaning. Or muck about with "shall will will, shall will will" versus "will shall shall, willl shall shall". One thing is being in the rearguard, battles can be won by the rearguard. Another is fighting a lost battle. Not that I really see linguistic change as a battle. More a symbiosis, or a dialectic between too much change and not nearly enough.

I seem to be full of not very original analogies at the moment.

<But seriously, the English really needed by learners is the standardised one that has stood the test of a bit of time. >

Not sure what that "really needed" means. I would have thought that the best English for students to learn would be that for international use (EIL) and not ESL/EFL - if they are intending communicate internationally that is.

<If you had to make and sell one flavour, which would it be? >

Definitely Jamaican English. LOL! But seriously, why would one have to be in a situation of marketing only one variant of English?

------

Consider the highlighted part of this:

Models, Norms and Goals for English as an International Language Pedagogy and Task Based Language Teaching and Learning.

Author

Ahmet Acar

Extract:

At the present time, non-native speakers outnumber native speakers and these non-native speakers use English for a variety of purposes, including, very often, intercultural communication. One significant feature of such communication is that it mostly occurs among non-native speakers in international contexts. Such being the case, native speaker norms, in such interactions, may not only be unnecessary but also inappropriate.

Yes but there are greater leaps than the one from Southern English Educated (me) to EIL (what's really needed). So if I chose to teach exactly my variant of English, it wouldn't be too far removed. As it is, the adaptations that I make can't be called far-reaching.

Maybe not one variant but neither would one want too much divergence between them. Types of vanilla?

A group of my students are going to S.Korea to buy a bit of heavy machinery. Their heads are not full of "I'm afraid I must disagree" or "I'd rather we didn't" I can tell you. The bare-bones negotation that we've prepared, negotiated, role played and argued about would sound pretty rough to NS ears, but there won't be any there. I just hope they stuff the Koreans on the price and terms. Forget the niceties.

Yes but there are greater leaps than the one from Southern English Educated (me) to EIL (what's really needed). So if I chose to teach exactly my variant of English, it wouldn't be too far removed. As it is, the adaptations that I make can't be called far-reaching.

By the same token, it would not be a great leap from other British variants of English to EIL.

<I just hope they stuff the Koreans on the price and terms. Forget the niceties.>

Well, I guess the Americans, Brits and Japanese stuffed the Koreans for years until the tide began to turn. So, why not let the Spaniards have a go, eh?

Plenty of other BrE and AmE variants don't need much adaptation. But speakers of those that habitually drop 3rd person -s or use "be" in a nonstandard way or use double negatives may have to try harder when it comes to teaching a standard form.

Nowadays not everybody in the UK can code switch from highly localised forms into something more standard. I get the feeling that more people used to be able to. What I don't know is if that's a "good thing" or a "bad thing".

I think the Spaniards are going to find it tough going extracting the deal we planned!

What I don't know is if that's a "good thing" or a "bad thing".

Good or bad for whom? And, are you sure you are teaching BrEng and not British EFLese?

Good or bad for whom? Well quite. That's what I meant. I thought you might answer it for me. Silly me.

I suppose it was generally assumed to be "good" that somebody had the ability to switch into a standard English/non regional English ( I don't really know what to call it): lots of older people from the Caribbean can. Thomas Hardy could apparently. So could my Gran. She was a primary school teacher on Tyneside. At home she spoke the regional form and at school or shopping (though it depended where) something more standard.

Another thing though is whether they are all proud of this ability. Unfortunately I think many feel prouder of their ability to speak a more standard English than of in fact having two strings to their bow. Or they are even downright ashamed of their variant ("I know it's wrong but that's how we say it round here").

Someone, I don't remember who but ought to, used the analogy of casual and formal clothes with Afro-American kids to help them rather than go on correcting and undermining them (It a) didn't work and b) told them that they and their families spoke "badly"). You don't wear jeans to a wedding and there are rules about how to dress for a wedding. You don't wear a suit to hang around with your friends plus there are rules about how to dress for hanging around with your friends. So they learnt both "Why you saying them things?" and "Why are you saying those things?" alongside and decided when each was appropriate. The students ended up knowing two forms. Well. Which is important because who wants to seem foolish in either situation?

But the fact remains: Would you give my brother-in-law a job teaching English, because he says "Didst tha spake wimi Da?"?. Not because he says it like that (long may he continue, if you ask me) but because he doesn't know the other way of doing it, as far as I can see. Would you even give the job to someone who seemed incapable of judging a situation well enough to know when one or the other form is appropriate, even if they were proficient in both their regional variant and something more "standard"? It'd be no different from doubting the abilities of someone to teach formal letter writing.

As for your other question. I suppose I must teach BrEng pronunciation though I do things like pronounce the R sound more in class than I do out (it's unhelpful to use that Southern Aaa I've discovered, so I switch). I think I aim for for the EIL you describe in terms of vocabulary. Not always successfully.

No doubt it all lapses into Eflish far too often. Are you sure about the English you teach? Does self-doubt nag at your metal brain?

Can we get out of this tutorial dynamic where you ask short questions and I write long answers? I want answers. 300 words. By tomorrow.

In fact the whole mystique of native speaker and mother tongue should preferably be quietly dropped from the linguist's set of professional myths about language.' (ibid.).

But is Fergie right?

No

Stephen Jones wrote:

In fact the whole mystique of native speaker and mother tongue should preferably be quietly dropped from the linguist's set of professional myths about language.' (ibid.).

But is Fergie right?

No

Why?

Because there are a vast number of monolingual native speakers of a language, L1 acquisition is very different from L2 learning, and there must be some limit on the language community sample whose correctness conditions we accept.