Teacher Discussion Forums

"The true basis of determining usage is to look at what the language itself is doing; that is, at how people are in fact using it. "

http://www.wordfiles.info/word-file-blundersC.html

Who'll begin?

Aw...I thought you found a site that would be more in depth, but it's just lists of words without any discussion. I think it would be very interesting to see the issue in more depth. At what point, for example, do I stop getting exasperated at someone's use of "irregardless"? Is it being used more and more or is it at whatever percentage it always was?

At what point, for example, do I stop getting exasperated at someone's use of "irregardless"? Is it being used more and more or is it at whatever percentage it always was?

Getting irritated at the use of 'irregardless' requires psychiatric, not linguistic, expertise.

Stephen Jones wrote:Getting irritated at the use of 'irregardless' requires psychiatric, not linguistic, expertise.

Does irritation with certain usage belong on an Applied Linguistics forum?

metal56 wrote:

Stephen Jones wrote: Getting irritated at the use of 'irregardless' requires psychiatric, not linguistic, expertise.

Does irritation with certain usage belong on an Applied Linguistics forum?

...

Does irritation with certain usage belong on an Applied Linguistics forum?

Yes, I would say that mentioning personal reactions does belong on this forum if it helps us to compare our ideas and try and work out why we prefer some forms over others.

lolwhites wrote:
Yes, I would say that mentioning personal reactions does belong on this forum if it helps us to compare our ideas and try and work out why we prefer some forms over others.

Personal reactions are one thing, but do linguists normally say that a certain item of usage irritates them?

Personal reactions are one thing, but do linguists normally say that a certain item of usage irritates them?

I guess that depends on whether they're writing articles for publication or chatting with their mates down the pub

I think here it's a bit of both

Linguistics, as a field, looks at usage from a scientific point of view, which doesn't require subjective feelings one way or other about certain words or phrasings. But that doesn't mean that linguists are forbidden to have opinions about usage, just as much as scientists aren't forbidden to be human. Are all scientists cold, unfeeling robots — like Spock on Star Trek — who never exercise personal opinion at all, in order to prove they are authentic, objective scientists? Does having opinions about usage automatically preclude you from looking at it is also from a scientific view? More importantly, isn't it possible for one to look at usage from both a scientific and opinionated view? Might the scientific view be used to support or inform your opinionated view?
Regarding irregardless, I heard that people confuse it with some other word, perhaps irrespective, (which is logically legitimate) and that's why it is common. It is a simple mistake; and when people are made aware of it, they can usually remember to do it the logical way without a lot of ado or great effort. I don't think there's anyone out there that really insist that this must be accepted.

But that doesn't mean that linguists are forbidden to have opinions about usage, just as much as scientists aren't forbidden to be human.

Do you think such subjective opinions, especially when attacking/mocking another person's usage, belong on this forum? Do you think it's OK, as teachers, to entice others to join in one's subjective criticism of another's usage?

One member had a valid question — it wasn't an assertion — about the usage of irregardless. I thought the question was appropriate for a forum for teachers, but another member scolded her up and down and calling her silly for having such a concern, and for even deigning to broach the subject, which subject concerns many teachers. It is this criticism of a certain aspect of usage — which is an immediate concern most teachers have — that I find less appropriate on a forum that is under teacher's forum discussion than the method I used to answer the question. Are you saying that teacher's concerns have no place here, and that only scientific theorists, operating without the concerns of actual teachers, have the only legitimate opinions and classroom concerns? Can a forum not express a variety of opinions? I'm not sure anything I've posted is in any way divorced from the topic of the forum or the interests of teachers, or linguists.
Neither do I think that admitting that every language has a lingua franca pretty much acknowledged by citizens of those countries constitutes mocking other lingua that don't happen to be lingua franca. If there weren't a lingua franca, then there would be two official languages, or five. But there isn't in English.
Moreover, do I mock Spanish because I think children should learn standard English in the USA? I think not. I have learned Spanish, German, French, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese and respect every one of them; but in an American classroom, it is better to teach standard English, even though I may have Spanish-dialect/language speakers in my classroom. This will ensure their maximal success outside the classroom and in the professional world — in the USA. This very act doesn't make me a mocker of their Spanish dialect/language.
In the USA, there isn't a single dialect that is different enough from English that it could serve as a second language. Most of our dialects are different in pronunciation, a few vocabulary, and colorful expressions only. Grammatically, our country is pretty much united. The only mocking would have to be on the other criteria I mentioned. Besides, ungrammaticality has more to do with education than it does dialect.

Are you saying that teacher's concerns have no place here, and that only scientific theorists, operating without the concerns of actual teachers, have the only legitimate opinions and classroom concerns? Can a forum not express a variety of opinions?

If it drops the word "linguistics" from its name, yes.

This will ensure their maximal success outside the classroom and in the professional world---in the USA.

Surely it needs more than just a good command of English to get a good job in the USA if you are, for example, an Arab, Muslim or South Asian American.

In the USA, there isn't a single dialect that is different enough from English that it could serve as a second language.

What do you mean by "English" there? Aren't most of the dialects in the USA English?

Besides, ungrammaticality has more to do with education than it does dialect.

I'd say it also has a hell of a lot to do with power, preference, control, opinion, etc.

But you're focusing on the wrong word. You're only looking at linguistics, which may have played a trick on you. If you had dropped applied, then the forum becomes in line with what you've envisioned for it instead of what everyone else is writing about.
I am in the field of ESL, as I help write materials for English learners. You're going off talking about dialects and how everyone else should learn the southern dialect and every other dialect as well, or they be mockers. That is a linguist concern — not an applied-linguist concern. Most English learners don't want to learn Appalachian dialects — even if they be superior — but rather what most day-to-day English speakers speak and write.

But you're focusing on the wrong word. You're only looking at linguistics, which may have played a trick on you. If you had dropped applied, then the forum becomes in line with what you've envisioned for it instead of what everyone else is writing about.

So you think that Applied Linguistics, unlike other areas of linguistics, is not scientific, do you? Applied linguists are free to mock, ridicule and so on, are they?

You're going off talking about dialects and how everyone else should learn that dialect and every other dialect as well, or they be mockers.

Tell me, in your opinion, is this forum only for discussions on ESL/EFL topics?

That is a linguist concern---not an applied-linguist concern.

Since when?

Most English learners don't want to learn Appalachian dialects, but rather what most day-to-day English speakers speak and write.

I've never spoken about non-Appalachian dialect speakers learning the Appalachian dialect.

The title of this tread is What to teach and what not. Now it strikes me that most, if not all of us here have a genuine interest in language, dialects and so on, but I suspect that this interest is not shared by the majority of our students. Most of our students want to learn English so that they can have some clout in the global economy, find a job and get promoted at work. The answer to the question "what should we teach" will obviously depend on the students, but a general principle would be "something they can use", and the fact remains that certain accents, constructions and registers are more useful than others. Not better, just more useful to the students.

That doesn't preclude discussion of other topics on this forum, of course, but I hope it helps answer the original question of "What should we teach?".