Forum name change

[metal56]

Should this forum be renamed "Applied Standard English Linguistics"?

[fluffyhamster]

Metal, have you ever considered learning Spanish or some other L2 to the point where you could potentially teach it to (fellow, non-native) learners? Even if you haven't, it would be interesting to ponder what sort of minimum standard you'd then be having to consider setting for yourself if not for them, and I suspect that you'd at times welcome some access to decent data etc.

[metal56]

Metal, have you ever considered learning Spanish or some other L2 to the point where you could potentially teach it to (fellow, non-native) learners? Even if you haven't, it would be interesting to ponder what sort of minimum standard you'd then be having to consider setting for yourself if not for them, and I suspect that you'd at times welcome some access to decent data etc.

There's often a difference between discussing language and teaching it. Here, I see many, including you, who get nervous and all standardist when it comes to discussing anything other than what you personally consider suitable for the non-native students to learn. I think that is often a subjective, narrow/myopic and manipulative approach to language learning.

[Lorikeet]

There's often a difference between discussing language and teaching it. Here, I see many, including you, who get nervous and all standardist when it comes to discussing anything other than what you personally consider suitable for the non-native students to learn. I think that is often a subjective, narrow/myopic and manipulative approach to language learning.

Hmm. I understand your point about there being a difference between discussing language and teaching it. Certainly, all the wonderful different ways we have to say things in different countries and in different registers is interesting--to me at least. I can also see why you might be irritated if you think someone doesn't want to discuss what he/she might consider unsuitable for non-native students. However, I don't understand why you consider it a "subjective, narrow/myopic and manipulative approach to language learning."

I teach what is considered standard American English, and more specifically, my dialect of it. I try to explain what else is acceptable. However, I'm going to try and be consistent while teaching my students. If they wanted to learn British English, I would assume they would go to England. Likewise for Australian English, etc. So while it's interesting and fun for me to discuss the differences between different dialects (or whatever the proper term is these days--my Linguistics degree was 37 years ago) I still think it's appropriate to stick to one while teaching.

[fluffyhamster]

I don't mind reading about or indeed discussing variations in the language, and there are some that are obviously useful (functionally and discoursally) e.g. the 'heads' that Carter and McCarthy are fond of; then, there are some that would probably be quite an effort to get learners using as naturally as native speakers (at least, not until the form's function is clearly established, beyond vague labels like 'informal') e.g. C&McC's 'tails' (I've mentioned these before). The ZSRs (ZS heads?) that you mentioned recently are a sort of in-between category: one can ellipt the pronoun, or keep it in, but the focus of most courses' productive component would probably be that of leaving them in, no?

It's just the kids have grown, you see?

'It's just (that)...'? Or, 'just the kids that...'?

[metal56]

there are some that would probably be quite an effort to get learners using as naturally as native speakers

Time and trial and error is all they have.

The ZSRs (ZS heads?) that you mentioned recently are a sort of in-between category: one can ellipt the pronoun, or keep it in, but the focus of most courses' productive component would probably be that of leaving them in, no?

Would it? How do you know? Most courses normally deal with ellipsis as a "when to keep an item in and when you can leave it out", don't they?

[metal56]

However, I don't understand why you consider it a "subjective, narrow/myopic and manipulative approach to language learning."

It can be, and many times is that way. Go to numerous ESL/EFL fora and check out the myopia of many language teachers there.

If they wanted to learn British English, I would assume they would go to England.

Really? Why would you assume that? British English is used and is useful all over the globe.

So while it's interesting and fun for me to discuss the differences between different dialects (or whatever the proper term is these days--my Linguistics degree was 37 years ago) I still think it's appropriate to stick to one while teaching.

Can you please tell me what the borders of Standard English are? I've spent many years teaching and training teachers and quite a few years on language fora and heard so/too many teachers (and would-be teachers) argue furiously about what is and is not standard usage.

[Lorikeet]

However, I don't understand why you consider it a "subjective, narrow/myopic and manipulative approach to language learning."

It can be, and many times is that way. Go to numerous ESL/EFL fora and check out the myopia of many language teachers there.

If they wanted to learn British English, I would assume they would go to England.

Really? Why would you assume that? British English is used and is useful all over the globe.

So while it's interesting and fun for me to discuss the differences between different dialects (or whatever the proper term is these days--my Linguistics degree was 37 years ago) I still think it's appropriate to stick to one while teaching.

Can you please tell me what the borders of Standard English are? I've spent many years teaching and training teachers and quite a few years on language fora and heard so/too many teachers (and would-be teachers) argue furiously about what is and is not standard usage.

Actually, I suppose I shouldn't have responded, since I don't particular like arguments, and these tend to wind up in that arena. I teach what feels standard to me, because it's what I know. I try to tell the students it's not the only way. I try to be understanding of other varieties of English. I teach in San Francisco, and there try to use what is acceptable here. It could be different if I were overseas--I don't know, but I'm not. My comment about British English was just meant to imply that students would choose what they wanted to learn. If they come to live in my city, they aren't expecting British English, although I don't tell them it's wrong.

[metal56]

I teach what feels standard to me, because it's what I know.

There are many teachers who do that and still insist on "whom", for example, because they or either do not know the situation of contemporary use or they want to hide modern usage facts from learners. Sometimes, it is because the teacher has a socio-political axe to grind. If you want to teach standard usage, you should also make yourself aware of just what is being taught in contemporary ESL/EFL classrooms, IMO.

I teach in San Francisco, and there try to use what is acceptable here.

Is it necessary to prepare such students for global use of English, as much as is possible? Or do ESL students only need the local standard?

I teach what feels standard to me, because it's what I know.

Basic, but pertinent question: Do you teach your students how to split an infinitive? Do you teach the word "hopefully"?

[Lorikeet]

There are many teachers who do that and still insist on "whom", for example, because they or either do not know the situation of contemporary use or they want to hide modern usage facts from learners. Sometimes, it is because the teacher has a socio-political axe to grind. If you want to teach standard usage, you should also make yourself aware of just what is being taught in contemporary ESL/EFL classrooms, IMO.

Well I don't insist on "whom" if it makes you feel any better. I try to teach the living language, not a fossilized version of what my grammar teachers thought was "right" 50 years ago.

Is it necessary to prepare such students for global use of English, as much as is possible? Or do ESL students only need the local standard?

Most of our students are new immigrants, so yes, they need the local standard. I believe the local standard is acceptable in global situations as well.

[metal56]

Well I don't insist on "whom" if it makes you feel any better. I try to teach the living language, not a fossilized version of what my grammar teachers thought was "right" 50 years ago.

That's "the living standard language", right?


As for "whom", what would you say to those who still teach it as the only correct form in standard English? Those who would say that anything else is just not standard.

Most of our students are new immigrants, so yes, they need the local standard. I believe the local standard is acceptable in global situations as well.

I don't just focus upon what is globally acceptable here, I also discuss what will be encountered globally, but obviously your students would not be interested in such unless they were planning to have international communication in English whilst still living in Calif.

What I mean is, there's much too much focus here on what students will need to say or write in their present or future communications in English. Very little discussion takes place on what students will encounter beyond the teacher's view of standard English. I also focus on the latter in my EFL/ESP/EAP classes. Discussing such here normally leads to the few, somewhat hard-headed teachers, ridiculing use that comes from beyond their viewpoint or to sowing doubt to an extreme level as to the usefulness of terms and other such usage that also comes from beyond that which they feel is suitable for their own context/classrooms.

I've seen more and more limitation on discussions here of late. I don't know why that has taken place, but I know the few who have helped it along. At base, they behave as closet prescripitivists and are mostly Eurocentric in their understanding of what is and is not teachable. A sad state of affairs for an Applied Linguistics forum - hence my, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, thread question.


There, piece said. Thanks for discussing this with me, Lorikeet. I hope it didn't seem too much like an argument.

[Lorikeet]

That's "the living standard language", right?

As for "whom", what would you say to those who still teach it as the only correct form in standard English? Those who would say that anything else is just not standard.

I'd say they are teaching what they think the language ought to be instead of what it is. It's not wrong, but it's used very rarely except for formal situations--at least in my dialect.

...There, piece said. Thanks for discussing this with me, Lorikeet. I hope it didn't seem too much like an argument.

It was close!

[fluffyhamster]

there are some that would probably be quite an effort to get learners using as naturally as native speakers

Time and trial and error is all they have.

One can argue either way about what is difficult versus easy in the long run. There are some things e.g. answers to Y/N questions, where producing "full" sentences is unnatural and can even make learners neurotic, but some on these forums seem(ed) to believe that the extra "practice" helps in sentence formation generally, elsewhere (even though a good course will not be lacking such input as a basis for production). 'Tails' are a more complex matter, though, and doubtless the natural accompaniment to ellipsis, informal versus formal lexis etc (that is, we may end up needing to use authentic texts in their original entirety, for the sake of "just" e.g 'tails', lest we risk producing distorted-sounding altered texts - compare the two examples below (from Carter's paper, mentioned at the link)).

A: And I came over Mistham by the reservoirs, nice it was.
B: Oh, by Mistham, over the top, nice run.
A: Colours are pleasant, aren't they.
B: Yeah.
A: Nice run, that.
(original version)

A: And I came over by the village of Mistham. It was nice it was.
B: Oh, you came over the top by Mistham. That's a nice journey.
A: The colours are pleasant, aren't they.
B: Yes.
A: It was a nice journey that.
(Carter's own, "tidier", version)

http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... 0102#30102

The ZSRs (ZS heads?) that you mentioned recently are a sort of in-between category: one can ellipt the pronoun, or keep it in, but the focus of most courses' productive component would probably be that of leaving them in, no?

Would it? How do you know? Most courses normally deal with ellipsis as a "when to keep an item in and when you can leave it out", don't they?

I did say 'one can ellipt the pronoun or leave it in', and believe it or not, I myself generally elect (to teach) to remove more than add (efficiency rules!), but I don't always have a choice over books or methods (especially not when "team-teaching"), and I do sometimes get tired of appearing to want to complicate things (when I'm in fact actually trying to simplify things) when trying to explain about things such as ellipsis to Japanese colleagues or students...these things are of course a given among fellow native-speaker teachers with a modicum of linguistic awareness, but (perhaps not unsurprisingly) all that doesn't make it any easier to "simply" teach such basic things in environments where "clarity" is considered necessary for the students (and seems almost a source of pride among some of the teachers there).

[Lorikeet]

There are some things e.g. answers to Y/N questions, where producing "full" sentences is unnatural and can even make learners neurotic, but some on these forums seem(ed) to believe that the extra "practice" helps in sentence formation generally....

I sometimes give my students an exercise where they can check if something is good English. If I have a "conversation" like,

A: Do you have a pen?
B: Yes.

Some of them will say it's wrong because the answer has to be, "Yes, I do." I explain that both are acceptable and used, but teachers like to use the "yes I do" so students can learn about verbs. I do that too, but I let them know that "yes" (And uh-huh, mm-hmm, or a nod) can mean the same thing in a conversation.

[fluffyhamster]

Hi Lori! I'd consider arguments for using things like 'Do you like...?' > 'Yes, I do' if those in favour of them could, off the top of their heads, provide help with things like the following: Oh, don't you like/eat that (food)?' '___, I do (but I'm saving it for last!)'. I doubt if they've given anything beyond the most basic of misguided basics the thought (language has so many interconnections) it all requires and deserves.

Talking of complex prosody, metal, you didn't answer the question I put to you at the end of my first post on this thread ('It's just (that)...'? Or, 'just the kids that...'?), or address its implications, but not to worry, I'll save you the obvious bother and say a few things myself: not all students are comfortable parroting every last word and mimicking every last nuance of native speakers (even though they may well recognize what native speakers mean when they talk and act a certain way), and do you know what, often they don't need to (to communicate reasonably successfully - not saying I could easily become best friends with some of these people, though).