Globish

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:05 pm

lolwhites wrote:If we ever get an internationally used dialect of English which is distinct enough to warrant being taught in the UK or the USA as something distinct from the local languages , it will surely happen by evolution, not by someone somewhere creating it.

Why would one need it to be taught in the UK or USA? It's not meant as a first dialect for native speakers.

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 6:36 am

Tell that to Nerriere:

"Mr Nerrière says that his globalised version of English is now so common that Britons, Americans and other English-speakers should learn it too."

If you ask me, he's exaggerating, but then he's got a book to sell.

It may well come to a point in the near future where native speakers need to perhaps not exactly "learn" a global English but rather be familiar with its norms.

You might say that they need to do that now. But it could branch away even more, to a point where it's less and less a question of choosing words carefully and using a bit of common sense and more a question of knowing (learning?) what consensus has been reached by the "language"'s users.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:24 am

<"Mr Nerrière says that his globalised version of English is now so common that Britons, Americans and other English-speakers should learn it too." >

I don't know enough about Globish to comment on its suitability as a second dialect for Standard and other dialects of UK/USA English, but I do agree that some NES may need to become multi-dialectal if they wish to do business worldwide.

Ask an NES to "simplify" his language when speaking to a NNES and you may find that he cannot do that easily. You know that students comment on such all the time. One, probably simple, but pertinent example: often, students ask me for the latinate form of a certain phrasal verb, and it can take me up to a minute to come up with the answer. Even teachers can find it hard to "simplify".

Research such as Nerriere's is based on such anecdotes from students and NES alike. We need to listen to commentators like him - even if we do not accept his version of the language as the solution to all ills.

But it could branch away even more, to a point where it's less and less a question of choosing words carefully and using a bit of common sense and more a question of knowing (learning?) what consensus has been reached by the "language"'s users.

Maybe not consensus as yet, but there is a partly-shared NNES understanding of which parts of NES speech NNES do not want to use, or do not have time to learn. In my experience, many NES business people have not yet become aware of the "details" of such a variant/such variants.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:01 am

NES who work internationally, are you ready to adjust your pronuciation? If so, where will you learn how to do that? Teachers, are you prepared to teach "alternative" pronunciation?

"The emergence of so many different kinds (or 'varieties') of international English has caused a number of linguists to question the use of native speaker pronunciation models in the teaching of English. Their argument is that native speaker accents are not necessarily the most intelligible or appropriate accents when a non-native speaker is communicating with another non-native speaker."

http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think ... lish.shtml

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:32 am

I guess that many teachers have like me long since decided what NS pronunciation features are worth investing time and effort in.

"th" is a good example. It's a very uphill struggle and many Spanish speakers, including my nearly bilingual son, don't bother with it. Given that millions of NS don't bother much with it themselves in their varieties, why should I be persuading learners to be sticking their tongues between their teeth and blowing just because I do?

In your link, Jennifer Jenkins says: "Up to now, the goal of pronunciation teaching has been to enable students to acquire an accent that is as close as possible to that of a native speaker"

Is that so? My goal has always been intelligibility.

Besides it would be two faced for me to think on one hand that I will always have an accent when speaking Spanish and would be reluctant in fact to lose it because it's part of what I am (a Brit who lives in Spain) but at the same time insist that my students get as close as they can to a NES accent.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:52 am

In your link, Jennifer Jenkins says: "Up to now, the goal of pronunciation teaching has been to enable students to acquire an accent that is as close as possible to that of a native speaker"

Is that so? My goal has always been intelligibility.

Mine too, but I don't think it's the common approach.

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:59 am

Another point worth looking into is the perfect forms.
When we can manage life with the simple and progressive forms,
why not do away with them.
My students are in a hurry, they come for a 45-day course (2 hours a day). (It is they who are in a hurry, not me.)
So it makes sense to not teach them perfect and perfect continous tenses,
and only focus on what is going to help them live a life in English.
But since they are aware of the existrence of such forms,
thanks to their useless school and college curriculum, some of them
are paranoid when they realise I am omitting them.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:02 am

Anuradha Chepur wrote:Another point worth looking into is the perfect forms.
When we can manage life with the simple and progressive forms,
why not do away with them.
My students are in a hurry, they come for a 45-day course (2 hours a day). (It is they who are in a hurry, not me.)
So it makes sense to not teach them perfect and perfect continous tenses,
and only focus on what is going to help them live a life in English.
quote]
Some would say that we could do away with teaching the simple form in such huuried contexts.

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:06 am

But don't the American mostly use only simple forms.
The perfect forms are sort of archaic, but still insisted by cruel grammarians.

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:10 am

Saying that "Did you see the movie?" is wrong while the movie is still
showing in the multiplexes implies that first you find out if the movie is still showing and then you construct your question.
This is sadism.
One can surely avoid bothering a basic/intemediate level learner
about these silly nuances.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:37 am

Anuradha Chepur wrote:But don't the American mostly use only simple forms.
The perfect forms are sort of archaic, but still insisted by cruel grammarians.

Never heard such. I find there's great use for the present perfect, for example. The AE use of the past simple, where BE would use the perfect, can lead to ambiguity, IMO.

EG

I just had lunch.

I've just had lunch.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:42 am

Anuradha Chepur wrote: One can surely avoid bothering a basic/intemediate level learner
about these silly nuances.

I think I'd want to know.

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:42 am

The AE use of the past simple, where BE would use the perfect, can lead to ambiguity, IMO.

Can you give an example.

I teach a mix of BE and AE. I like the Americans' attitude to tenses and letter-writing.

Okay, let me admit, by "cruel grammarians", I meant the Brits.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:45 am

Saying that "Did you see the movie?" is wrong while the movie is still showing in the multiplexes implies that first you find out if the movie is still showing and then you construct your question.

Surely you must know your reason for asking such a question? If your intention is to get the listener to go and see the film, why would you use the simple form?

How would you explain the "exceptions", i.e. the AE use of the past simple over the present perfect, if students where following these "rules"?

1. We use the Present Perfect to say that an action happened at an unspecified time before now. The exact time is not important.

2. You can use the Present Perfect to describe your experience. It is like saying, "I have the experience of..." You can also use this tense to say that you have never had a certain experience. The Present Perfect is NOT used to describe a specific event.

3. We often use the Present Perfect to talk about change that has happened over a period of time.

4. We often use the Present Perfect to list the accomplishments of individuals and humanity. You cannot mention a specific time.

5. We often use the Present Perfect to say that an action which we expected has not happened. Using the Present Perfect suggests that we are still waiting for the action.

6. We also use the Present Perfect to talk about several different actions which occured in the past at different times. Present Perfect suggests the process is not complete and more actions are possible.

1a. Use the Simple Past to express the idea that an action started and finished at a specific time in the past. Sometimes the speaker may not actually mention the specific time, but they do have one specific time in mind.

2a. We use the Simple Past to list a series of completed actions in the past. These actions happen 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th...

3a. The Simple Past can be used with a duration which starts and stops in the past. A duration is a long action often used with expressions like "for two years," "for five minutes," "all day" or "all year."

4a. The Simple Past can also be used to describe a habit which stopped in the past. It can have the same meaning as "used to". To make it clear that we are talking about a habit we often use expressions such as "always," "often," "usually," "never," "...when I was a child" or "...when I was younger" in the sentence.

Where does the AE "did you see the movie" fit in all that?

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:46 am

EG

I just had lunch.

I've just had lunch.

What is the great ambiguity there?