How to establish standards?

[Machjo]

One problem I've often faced is the lack of any official English standard. When I look at descriptive grammars, they are mostly the same (after all, they are scientifically based on the same corpus or a similar one), but tend to allow for much ambiguity, the attitude being that anything in common use is acceptable.

If we want to teach students how to use English more clearly so as to avoid misunderstandings especially in technical translation, we need a more clearly defined standard than what is given in descriptive grammars.

On the other hand, if we look at prescriptive grammars, they all disagree with one another.

In some languages, it's not much of a problem since we can just teach according to the rules set by an official academy (cf. the Academie Francaise, the Akademio de Esperanto, the Goethe Institute, The Spanish Academy, etc.).

Though from what I understand the usefulness of the academy is also dependent on loyalty to it. Many South Americans ignore the Spanish Academy, while many French speakers outside of France still choose to follow the French Academy, though that is crumbling in Quebec too to some extent. Arabia has the Cairo Academy and the Baghdad Academy (or does it still?), two academies defeating its purpose of establishing a universal standard. The Akademio de Esperanto has had more success, so it might be a model to learn from. But its circumstances are radically different too, with few mother-tongue speakers, the vast majority being second language speakers comprising a diaspora community, and a culture appreciative of univrsal standards in an auxiliary language.

Honestly, even if an English Academy were created, I doubt mother-tongue speakers would be very loyal to it, for cultural reasons, again undermining its value. Non-native speakers might appreciate it though. But this could also result in tensions; imagine a non-native speaker who should have mastered the English of the Academy telling a mother-tongue speaker who has chosen to follow an alternative standard that his standard is wrong. Sparks would fly.

Having said that, though, i would still be in favour of an academy on the simple grounds that it would make learning much easier for students always exposed to conflicting standards.

As for the closest things to universal standards in English, I know UN and ISO bodies have officially adopted Oxford spelling for its internal style guides. But that is intended for internal use only and is not intended to suggest that Oxford spelling is the only correct one. So this still leaves us with no official standard. Abd even if it did, that just deals with spelling, and does imply British English. But even that has wide variations.

Then we have the Basic English Academy, but it's intended as a standard for Basic English and not 'full' English, Basic English considered as a separate artificially simplified subset of English.

So from where exactly does a teacher get official sanction to decide what is right and what is not unless the local school, or local or naitonal government, should have adopted a standard? Without that, the teacher is free to adopt his own standard, which leads to a mess when another teacher comes in.

So where do official standardscome from without an academy of English?

[fluffyhamster]

The problem is that whilst an academy could tell us all what to say (use this word rather than that, spell it like this etc), it couldn't really ever tell us what to say; that is, spur-of-the-moment needs and thus usage will soon reassemble even the most cumbersome building blocks into unforseen patterns. It's enough to make a prescriptivist pull their (his or her?!) hair(s) out.

[Machjo]

The problem is that whilst an academy could tell us all what to say (use this word rather than that, spell it like this etc), it couldn't really ever tell us what to say; that is, spur-of-the-moment needs and thus usage will soon reassemble even the most cumbersome building blocks into unforseen patterns. It's enough to make a prescriptivist pull their (his or her?!) hair(s) out.

Of course I'm not suggesting too much prescriptivism, but at least enough to ensure that students don't always have to relearn spelling, pronunciation, and grammar rules every time they see a new teacher. We acknowledge that even with an academy, native speakers will speak as they do. But non-native speakers could then focus on a common standard in the classroom to teach. Outside the classroom, students would be free to do what they want. This would ensure consistency throughout the system though.

[Machjo]

To take an example, let's say the Concise Oxford Dictionary became the standard for spelling and word definitions, and some usage notes, for technical writing. RP as the standard pronunciation, some British Grammar as the standard grammar. Now replace any of these with your own favourite dictionary, spelling, phonetics, pronunciation, grammar, etc. since I'm just taking examples here.

Whatever standards would be adopted would be the standard adopted for all pedagogical materials. Now I realise politics would be involved here. Quebec would still teach Canadian English, and Mexico will probably continue to learn American, just as France might continue to learn British regarless what some academy says. But countries further away such as China and Japan would probably appreciate such a standard and wouldn't care too much what form it's based on. Since it would be based on the formal language, we needn't waste time learning slang, 'cool expressions', etc. Those things they could learn on their own. It would help to streamline the EFL curriculum and ensure common vocabulary and grammar across the board for many countries. They might not know slang, but at least they would all share that in common, so none would use it anyway at least among non-native speakers. In this way to understand one another they could just resort to this formal standard whenever necessary.

English is difficult enough without al the coloquialisms anyway.

[jotham]

I am a prescriptivist, but I don't see the need for one academy calling all the shots. I'm not sure I see the problem you mention of prescriptivists disagreeing with each other in major ways. They may squabble on issues here and there, but I think that's healthy and as they get discussed, people's minds change and more likely, the best solution will be embraced by the most people. An academy would stifle such a trend.
We have a variety of style sheets for different purposes. The AP for newspapers is written with brevity in mind. The Chicago Manual Style is for more leisure reading. The APA is written for more scientific texts, where numbers are prominent. This is on the American side; most American editors are prescriptive, but seem to work well even within this variety of styles.
I also think writing skills is a personal endeavor that must be desired. I don't think an academy will make people better writers automatically or somehow make us better educated — just as it doesn't make us more logical or thinking.
We used to have the closest thing to an academy before 1961. It was Webster's dictionary. It was prescriptive, and considered an authority in American spelling and usage. It settled arguments rather than engender them. The opposite happened when the third edition, which was descriptive, came out in 1961 and all the others followed suit: the language wars erupted and haven't abated to this day.
And were you suggesting an academy to unify British and American English? I think Webster made his dictionary on purpose to create that difference. I'm content with the difference.

[fluffyhamster]

Machjo, I'd say that the ELT industry's publications - especially the dictionaries and grammars from British publishers - have sort of created (or rather, 'set') a standard (for learners at least), for those who care to refer to them; that is, if you look through them, the points of contention are not numerous or serious enough to warrant too much worry on the learner's part (I am not however saying that learning English, indeed, any language to a high enough level to appreciate whatever differences is ever an easy task).

When it comes to textbooks, obviously things will get a little muddier, unless you seriously would want everyone talking about the exact same topics using the exact same phrases (or rather, phrasing)...but 'lexical syllabuses' can help ensure some sort of conformity/'concordance' with current usage (in terms of the underlying grammar/'correctness conditions' operating among a community of users).

Anyway, add a tendency to ellipt, paraphrase etc and it is only natural that people will start to diverge in their usage no matter how close their linguistic upbringing (then, there is the effect of the current environment - which native or otherwise, may not be conducive to supporting a standard imposed from "afar").

To turn your argument on its head somewhat, there are foreign learners of oriental languages who manage to master both Chinese and Japanese (spoken as well as written), despite the numerous differences between the scripts, and you don't often hear cries from them of 'Why is there Wu dialect or Kansai-ben when Beijinghua and NHK Japanese would be perfectly adequate for communication'. Perhaps ELT as a whole is just more tolerant (encouraging, even) of "protest"?

Generally I'd say that if a student can get over the 'Why isn't English like my own language' question, they should also be able to get over the 'Why is British English, or this specific example of whatever English that I've dredged up and am now obsessing over, different from...' type of questions; there is language, and then there are languages (and then usages - I wouldn't say 'and then languages again', because probably the differences do not ever outweigh the similarities between any two varieties. You don't have to be a Chomsky to be on the lookout for cores, "universals").

[JuanTwoThree]

This is a very abstract notion for the nuts and bolts of actually teaching ESL/EFL/ESOL or whatever it is.

I doubt that until a fairly advanced level there can be even half-a-dozen issues for even the most observant of students:

shall/will

may have done/might have done

was/were in past subjunctive.

Can't think of anymore right now. What else is there that isn't a BrE or AmE thing? Sillinesses like "different to/from?

To the plaintive question "Which is correct?" I say "Both" or "This one. The other is BAD English" It depends on how I feel and nobody notices.

[fluffyhamster]

To add to JTT's list, what about S-V agreement/concord ( and notional ~)? And is that really a transatlantic thing, or are Brits at least so subconsciously influenced by the other variety that they slip in and out of varying usages?

Then there's the whole bag of pedagogical 'rules of thumb' which are a poor substitute for actually looking at/encountering a wider range of examples (and lots of 'em), over time - 'Take a deep breath and don't panic, because the problem/question may well soon pass'.

Ultimately, it's up to each student to arrive at their own standard, however provisional and fossilized that may be at any given moment in time (not that anyone will really notice enough to say, unless they're inflicting e.g. excruciating rising tags upon sensitive native ears).

[Machjo]

I am a prescriptivist, but I don't see the need for one academy calling all the shots.

So how exactly do you prescribe without an official standard? For example, some say 'I just lost my keys' is incorrect and must be turned into 'I've just lost my keys'. So does a prescriptivist accept both or the one of his choice.

Imaginge if I teach that 'I just lost my keys' is wrong (which I do in fact think is wrong at least in formal contexts), but another prescriptivist teacher next year states that they are both OK, and that I was wrong. And a year later another prescriptivist teacher comes and says the second teacher was wrong, but I am right.

By the third year, students exposed to prescriptivism will start protesting 'down with English!'.

Many Canadians consider 'color' a misspelling by the way.So you could see how prescriptivism without a common prescriptive standard leads to chaos. And I'm guessing that's why many teachers shy away from it, so as to avoid problems for other teachers later on, and to not tick the students off. Honestly, even I shy away from it. If there is no offically agreed-upon standard, then who am I to tell students that the prescriptive grammar another teacher tought them is wrong just because it is according to my standard?

But then if we turn to descriptivism, we find ourselves with all kinds of confusion.

For example, elevator: wingtip, grain or in a highrise?
Corn: the local grain or maize specifically?
billion: two disticnt umbers again.

In Canadian English, if you spell 'program', some will understand it to refer specifically to a computer programme, whereas 'programme' is the spelling for the general term. In American, 'program' is the general term, the attributive 'computer' being absolutely essential in both the spoken and writin language to make the distinction. In Canadian, the attributive is not so necessary in the written language due to the spelling, though still used at times to avoid confusion with American spelling.

Sometimes we can distinguish from context. But what about Northern China's corn industry? What is meant by corn here? Or the Japanese elevator industry? Grain elevators? Farmers being the major clientelle? Or for the cities, or aircraft manufacturers? For aircraft it's the same confusion, and we need the attributive 'wingtip', but for grain and city, an academy could reduce at least some confusion. And don't forget corn on the feet, which again is a problem in many varieties of English.

'*beep*' can also have various meanings, some of which have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuals.

So I don't see how I can be a prescriptivist without an official standard to prescribe? You can't prescribe what you don't have.

'Who did you see?' vs. 'Whom did you see?' Some would now argue that 'Who did you see?' is perfectly acceptable, and that 'Whom did you see OUGHT to be reserved for formal contexts. Others would insist that while 'whom' must be used in formal contexts, it is preferable to use it in all but the most informal contexts. So which of these two prescriptivists is right?

You could see how a few prescrtiptivist teachers later, some students would want to kill us.

[Machjo]

'f a g' was censored, I doticed. Obviously an American prescriptivist website . In Britain, some use if for 'cigarette'.

Oh, and is it preferable to use kilometres (or is that kilometers?) or miles? Or ought the students learn both?

Seeing as how English is already difficult enough as is, we definitely need prescriptivism, but how do we go about it without all the teachers always contradicting one another?

Especially in the spoken, language, there are more differences than one could imagine.

Perhaps I ought to buy myself an ass to get around town. I wonder if that word is prescriptively censored too? In Canada, while not commonly used, it can be on rare occasion without its being considered vulgar if genuinely referring to a donkey?

[Machjo]

Whadda ya know, 'ass' isn't censored.

[jotham]

So how exactly do you prescribe without an official standard? For example, some say 'I just lost my keys' is incorrect and must be turned into 'I've just lost my keys'. So does a prescriptivist accept both or the one of his choice.

Imaginge if I teach that 'I just lost my keys' is wrong (which I do in fact think is wrong at least in formal contexts), but another prescriptivist teacher next year states that they are both OK, and that I was wrong. And a year later another prescriptivist teacher comes and says the second teacher was wrong, but I am right.

I wouldn't conflate American-British differences with prescriptivist disagreements. Nor would I ever say that British is wrong, or American right. I eagerly seek to know these differences so I can avoid telling people that a certain usage is wrong, when it's just a British usage unfamiliar to me. Then I can inform them that it's neither right nor wrong, but American and British. There may be difference in opinion between American and British prescriptivists, but there really aren't that many on the British side. Also, various cram schools will choose a dialect. In Taiwan, American English is preferred. I'm told that in Singapore and Hong Kong, however, British English rules. There needn't be conflict in such situations.
Also, many teachers may teach grammar rules out of ignorance, such as not ending sentences with prepositions, etc., which they were probably taught from another clueless teacher. I avoid calling these individuals prescriptivists. They may be well-intending individuals doing the best job they can and their contribution is mostly good, but I would make a distinction between well-trained expert prescriptivist and your average language teacher unthinkingly touting all kind of grammar rules.

[Anuradha Chepur]

You don't have to be a Chomsky to be on the lookout for cores, "universals").

Yeah, you can do that even if you are a Chomsky-basher.

[Anuradha Chepur]

A person learning English is aware of the existence of varieties and variations in his own language and will/should anticipate this of English.
How to cope with trivial variations is a non-issue.

[fluffyhamster]

You don't have to be a Chomsky to be on the lookout for cores, "universals").

Yeah, you can do that even if you are a Chomsky-basher.

Or indeed if you are a Greenberg(ian?)!