Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
Aside:It's interesting that all of them are/were encouraged if not imposed by a government to promote national unity and/or have some kind of academy at their head.
Again, the use of English in many of those ex-colonies have become Englishes, a fact that isn't taken up much in ESL/EFL classrooms or on fora such as this one - hence Nayar's comments above. Most ESL/EFL teachers teach the form/s of the native-speaker without questioning whether that/those forms are applicable, or directly useful, to the individual student in front of them. Most teachers have the view that all non-native variants are weaker/poorer, incorrect in usage, of no use, etc.English and French perhaps have in common their being used in ex-colonies as an official language despite being the language of the ex-colonists.
Ah, this has reminded me somehow of that little "spat" we had over ultimately marginal items (that is, of little interest to users of EIL, not that this seemed to be a concern of yours then on that thread*) like 'John shouted me'. It's not a feature of my speech, but if it were, I doubt if I'd be teaching it in preference to 'John called me/called foe me/called me over (latter distinguishes from 'telephoned')' - eminently usable and used English the world over, I'd imagine (versus 'John shouted me' - most users of English will be familiar with 'shout AT sb', and with good reason: it's useful, fills a "gap", has found its niche etc) .metal56 wrote:Most ESL/EFL teachers teach the form/s of the native-speaker without questioning whether that/those forms are applicable or directly to the individual student in front of them. Most teachers have the view that all non-native variants are weaker/poorer, incorrect in usage, of no use, etc.
There might not actually be that much difference between the two poles of 'accept' and 'reject' in the hearer or reader's mind (we are after all entitled to our private opinions or tastes, hell, habits, at least, aren't we?). The actual difference, I tend to find (teaching as I am now in Japan), is that whereas most Americans would politely tell you "where to go" if you actually tried to change how they had expressed themselves, what seems like many Japanese have such a mania for being "correct(ed)" (like there were always only one "best" way to put things) that they simply won't ever take 'NO! I refuse to pass any judgement at all on your English!' (maybe 'because in this instance, it weren't half bad!') for an answer (and believe me, that's what I'M telling a lot of 'em - I'm more concerned that people get and have a good grasp of things such as determiners, or countability than be focused on trivial matters*).Why is it that BE teachers can readily accept AE speakers' use of the past simple where BE speakers would use the present perfect, but we cannot easily accept, or we totally reject, such usage as:
-I am understanding it. She is knowing the answer.
-pay attention on, discuss about, convey him my greetings
-You're going, isn't it?
-They're late always.
Why do we need to convince all of our students, no matter which nationality or which environment they will later use English in, that native-speaker English is the only valid form and one must learn only that?
Would you (everyone, not just metal56) consider the teaching of this to be (or rather, in the past history of ELT, been) an "imposition"?I wrote:'shout AT sb' (is) useful, fills a "gap", has found its niche etc.
I see you're still upset and touchy after the "spat". I'll go lightly on you, I promise.*In fact, stuff much like the "big, worrying" things that you've listed - is that the best you can come up with after decades of 'high-level teaching and research' (translation: He's been BS-ing for 20 years)? Yes, the enigma that is metal56. Posts truckloads of marginal, usually NS "data", but won't ever deign to tell us if we should actually use any of it (does this guy really have a clue?)...but that of course means that he can then have a juicy frothy go at us later for not "accepting" (for teaching? 'Argh, that word, again!' he cries) the other varieties/users of English that we've all apparently forgotten about or been totally neglecting (like we had much choice, given the racket he'd been making).
You'll wear yourself out trying to wear my patience, Fluff'n'Nonsense.fluffyhamster wrote:Just trying to liven things up a bit, metal - you know me.I'll try not to wear your patience out this time, I promise.
Off the top of my head, I'd say something like a native speaker is someone who acquired the language from an early age, in their local community, without formal instruction (note my tentativeness).metal56 wrote: What would you say is Nayar's definition of a native-speaker? How does it differ from yours?
