What to teach and what not.
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
What to teach and what not.
"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?
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?
-
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
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.
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.
Last edited by jotham on Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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?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.
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.
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.
Last edited by jotham on Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If it drops the word "linguistics" from its name, yes.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?
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.This will ensure their maximal success outside the classroom and in the professional world---in the USA.
What do you mean by "English" there? Aren't most of the dialects in the USA English?In the USA, there isn't a single dialect that is different enough from English that it could serve as a second language.
I'd say it also has a hell of a lot to do with power, preference, control, opinion, etc.Besides, ungrammaticality has more to do with education than it does dialect.
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.
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.
Last edited by jotham on Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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?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.
Tell me, in your opinion, is this forum only for discussions on ESL/EFL topics?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.
Since when?That is a linguist concern---not an applied-linguist concern.
I've never spoken about non-Appalachian dialect speakers learning the Appalachian dialect.Most English learners don't want to learn Appalachian dialects, but rather what most day-to-day English speakers speak and write.
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?".
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?".