Teacher Discussion Forums

How do you present English to your students in class?

I've come across various opinons from various teachers on this, and they tend to follow the following patterns:

1. English is an ethnic language with ethnic standards.
These teachers will usually argue that students learn English to communicate with native speakers in native English-speaking countries (if they want to communicate with others, they're learning the wrong language). These same teachers will tend of course to focus on English ultures (American, British, etc., along with Christmas and Easter, national geography, etc.), and teach the students English as it is used in those countries (e.g. British, American or similar accent, dialect or socialect, and idioms, etc.). Their students generally come to understand that English is just one language among many, and that if they want to learn English, they ought to learn a national standard to ensure that the people of that country can understand them.

2. English is a universal language with ethnic standards.
These teachers will argue that English is already the de facto universal language, and so is being learnt for communication with all peoples worldwide. On the other hand, they will still insist on teaching Anglo-saxon norms as being universal too, along with accent, idioms, holidays, universities in those countries, and even geography with all the focus on the US, Britain, and the usual English countries. Such teachers would still consider universal standards (such as Indian English, or Pakistani English, etc, as incorrect). Their students generally come to understand that Anglo-saxon norms are the universal norms for English worldwide.

3. English is a universal language with universal standards. These teachers will generally argue that English is an international language, and so no national standard can be imposed upon it. As such, these teachers will tend to accept the local accent if it is understandable, and might even be open to accepting local vocabulary that seems to have made it into the standard local English. These teachers might focus more either on teaching the local culture itself via English (nativize the language if you will), or teach world cultures with minimal focus on those of English-speaking countres (they might, for example, spend just as much time teaching about the Brazilian Carnaval or Arabia's 'Id-al-Fitr as they would Christmas, Easter and halloween). While this could lead to misunderstandings between English speakers, it does ensure more equality between them, with the native speakers then having to make an effort to learn other non-native variants of English too (make them meet half-way if you wil, or not even that seeing that the foreigner would already have learnt the language of the native speaker for the most part). Their students will generally come to understand that English is a universal language and that all national dialects are equally valid, with each being responsible to learn the dialect of whichever country he visits around the world.




I personally tend to fall under 1 above. I focus very much on Anglo-Saxon norms on the grounds that students who are learning English are not likely to then attend university in Buenos Aires, now are they. So they're going to have to understand Anglosaxon cultures well, since those are the countries they are most likely going to go to in English. And as for other countries, well then they are certainly free to learn those languages too.

I've had interesting discussions with teachers on this topic before and would be curious to read how you present English to your students.

Even if you have student with very specific needs (e.g. studying EAP for admission to western unis), I think it's very important that the "genius", the creative potential of the language, not be seen to be confined only to its native speakers - there is a lot of very proficient (and by that I mean "internationally-minded or geared") non-native usage around. (More "local" varieties of English, whether native or now non-native, are arguably of less relevance).

I still have in mind a big eventual "averaging out" somehow of all the varieties, into a "unispeak" of sorts.

And what about Jenkins' recommended replacements for the terms 'native' vs 'non-native'? They are: monolingual English speaker (MES), non-bilingual English speaker (NBES), and Bilingual English speaker (BES).

http://www.google.co.jp/search?hl=ja&q= ... peaker&lr=

I thought this thread was going to take off a bit more than it has done so far.

I planned to comment on it as soon as I had time to read it and understand it carefully, which I haven't had yet.

I can see the point of teachers who emphases 1. After all, when I learn Japanese, the texts often talk about events in Japan, festivals, history, customs, and such. That way, learning the language helps me learn the culture as well. It would seem a little strange or out-of-place for me to read about an American's Christmas experience in Japanese — not to mention boring. Although it might have the benefit of helping you predict and follow the Japanese better. It also might help you talk about your own customs and lifestyle in the new language.

I think it is human nature that NS teachers will take the 1/2 positions.

Interesting thread. I'm interested in what everyone else thinks.

Okay, I actually voted. I can't imagine teaching any way except as per #1. English is used internationally, no doubt of it, but that does not make it an international language, per se. If international speakers go around applying their own structures and rules that significantly change the language into something else, that makes it more of a trade language than an English language, doesn't it? For example: I once observed a Malaysian and a Taiwanese conversing in English. There were several English speakers present, not all of whom are NESs, and not one of us had a clue what these two ladies were saying. That did not prevent them from communicating with each other. In this case, their brand of English was not recognizable as English, and served as a form of communication between the two of them alone. I should think that at rock bottom, any form of English should be recognizable by more than a handful of native speakers, whatever their origin, as English, in order to qualify to be called English. What do any of the rest of you think?

Heh, I forgot to vote first time round, but for those who couldn't guess how I('d)'ve cast(ed) it, I fancied the "idealistic" third option.

Hi Lotus!

Just a thought here, but if none of the NES/apparently more competent users listening in on the conversation recognized it as English, was what the two ladies were using actually English, then? Perhaps it was actually mainly Malay instead! (Did the non-native listeners say anything to that effect?).

If so, it would hardly be fair for any NES to judge them too harshly (unless e.g. they honestly expected to communicate without problem with at least those NES who were present and had thought them somewhat lacking).

Anuradha Chepur wrote:I think it is human nature that NS teachers will take the 1/2 positions.

I'm not a native speaker of Englishmyself, but it just seems strange to teach it as a universal language. I once had a student whose company was paying for his English lessons to prepare him for a posting to... France!

It would seem to me that we do our students a disservice when we give them the false impression that everyone on earth can speak English, or even likes it. I've run into so many cases like this. One of my students told me the story of how one day when he was trying to practice his English with a foreigner (i.e. caucasian) on the bus one day, the foreigner replied in perfect Chinese, 'do I look British?'. The student was puzzled when the foreigner insisted that he was Belgian and would accept no other medium but either French or Chinese, and gave the student his pick. The student chose Chinese of course.
I had to explain to the student that you can't run around imposing the language you think ought to be the universal language just because you think it ought to. In the end, you have to learn the local language wherever you go, and by emphasizing English as an ethnic language, the teacher is making it clear to the student that there are other languages out there.

So in fact my support for option 1 stems from my not being a native speaker of English.

I have to say though that it would seem you at least follow a consistent logic. Trhee votes so far, one for 3, two for 1. If it's a native language, it would make sense that it ought to have an ethnic standard. And if it's a universal language, it would make sense for it to have a universal standard or, if that doesn';t exist, then universal standards.

Most teachers I've seen go for option 2, though usually not consciously. And that leads to the greatest misconceptions. The teacher teaches the students that the whole world speaks English, but that only Anglosaxons speak it well. So the students are expected to learn American, British or whater ethnic English so as to communicate with Russians and Japanese?

But why would you do that if the teacher says that their English is not good? And if their English is good, then why onlynative standards? Too many logical inconsistencies.

As for option 3 though, while it is consistent, how do we then maintian a standard so that we can all understand one another? I remember once eating out with a local teacher and met a Pakistani. The local teacher's English was quite good,but once I'd started to chat with the Pakistani, she couldn't understand a word he was saying! So that another reason I still think we need to adopt some kind ofcommon standard, and until we can agree to some kind of universal standard perhaps set by some academy (yeah right), going for some national standard is the next best option, and that will probably be either American or British.

Like this Belgian would have been happier if he'd been approached by a Swahili speaker - probably he was objecting mainly to having to enter into a "conversation" with a stranger i.e. was objecting not so much to the English itself as being expected to help somebody expect to practise it for free. Anyway, not to sound triumphant or anything, English is the international language at present, yet I don't think that a teacher who emphasized its "ethnicity" i.e. pushed a regional native variety (including that regions idioms and colloquialisms etc, all bound up with lashings of its culture) would be helping the cause of "English" ('by emphasizing English as an ethnic language, the teacher is making it clear to the student that there are other languages out there' - obviously there are other languages, and indeed, Englishes out there - that's the point!).

fluffyhamster wrote:Hi Lotus!

Just a thought here, but if none of the NES/apparently more competent users listening in on the conversation recognized it as English, was what the two ladies were using actually English, then? Perhaps it was actually mainly Malay instead! (Did the non-native listeners say anything to that effect?).

If so, it would hardly be fair for any NES to judge them too harshly (unless e.g. they honestly expected to communicate without problem with at least those NES who were present and had thought them somewhat lacking).

Thank you for raising a very interesting point. Sorry that I overlooked it at my first posting. As a matter of fact, both the ladies involved insisted that they had to speak English to each other, because it was the only language they shared. When each one spoke English with others of us, native and non-native, we could understand their point. But when they spoke to each other, it was an entirely different story. I've never experienced anything like it before or since, and I really don't have an explanation for it. But it was a very interesting evening.

Heh, you're welcome, Lotus!

I must say, I really like the turn the AL forum has taken recently - the new blood around here is helping lots! Keep up the good work, guys!

I said 1 or 2 is what an NES teacher is most likely to vote for (exceptions granted), but I didn't say that an NNES teacher will choose 3 or will not choose 1/2. The NNES votes will obviously be divided.
I didn't vote because my preferred pattern and also that of many teachers, which is conspicuous by its not figuring in the poll, is to strike the right balance between ethnics and universals, with a bit more weight on the ethnics side.