There are so many angles I could comment on this article, and I'm not sure I'll have the time or energy to do it. But I found this link with an interesting take I hadn't thought about, but agree with:
http://themoderatevoice.com/society/edu ... is-a-nerd/
I did think about the fact that the original article and viewpoint implicitly, but necessarily, defines black as being underachieving and substandard. And that's amiss. How does the author define hyperblack? I wouldn't even want to go there — which is why the author should never have broached hyperwhite in the first place. It's a shame that the author associates the pursuit of intelligence and excellence as a white trait. They don't belong to the white race; they belong to the human race.
White skin and black skin are genetic factors. To call behaviors hyperwhite almost seems akin to calling them genetically so. I know the author knows them to be cultural and environmental factors — at least I hope so — but pegging them as hyperwhite let alone white is crossing the line.
Hyperwhites
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
The more I think about it, the more I feel the author, by not being more aware of racial issues and more careful in the selection of wording, has made the research seem less objective, and therefore less likely to be discussed on an intellectual level. In other words, I can't get by the "hyperwhite" and racist discussion to see whether or not there really is anything of socio-linguistic interest.
How would Bill Cosby define that word?How does the author define hyperblack?
Could you please be specific and show us just where those points or statements are in the article?I did think about the fact that the original article and viewpoint implicitly, but necessarily, defines black as being underachieving and substandard.
Last edited by metal56 on Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I've heard that the Hindi word chuddies, meaning underwear, has been adopted by young people in some parts of the UK. It was originally only used by kids from families of Indian origin, but now other kids use it too. I saw an interview on TV with some teenagers from Indian families who said they found it funny that other young people were now saying it.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that not all teenagers were adopting the term because they didn't see it as a word in "their" English. But at what point would it be considered "hyperwhite" to resolutely stick to the word pants (which means "underwear" in British English, not "trousers")?
I wouldn't be surprised to find that not all teenagers were adopting the term because they didn't see it as a word in "their" English. But at what point would it be considered "hyperwhite" to resolutely stick to the word pants (which means "underwear" in British English, not "trousers")?
I'd say Standard English sounds just as artficial on many ESL/EFL students.lolwhites wrote: I agree with what Michael Swan says in Practical English Usage, which is basically that when NNSs deliberately try to use slang and colloquial expressions it nearly always sounds artificial, unless they've spend a lot of time among NSs and picked them up naturally.
I've never heard a Brit heterosexual man say "pants" when meaning underpants.But at what point would it be considered "hyperwhite" to resolutely stick to the word pants (which means "underwear" in British English, not "trousers")?
Can you give us examples?by not being more aware of racial issues and more careful in the selection of wording
Last edited by metal56 on Sun Aug 26, 2007 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
I disagree. How many times have you heard a Brit say that the Dutch or Swedish "speak better English than we do"? It's far more artificial for a foreigner to say "It's raining cats and dogs" or "It's not my cup of tea" than simply "It's raining hard" or "I don't really like it". Far better for NNSs to err on the side of caution.I'd say Standard English sounds just as artificial on many ESL/EFL students.
Don't forget that a lot will depend on other factors too. Standard English with a strong German accent and intonation will sound very artificial.
Really? I have. And I would still encourage students to say pants, underwear, or possibly boxers rather than "keks".I've never heard a Brit heterosexual man say "pants" when meaning underpants.
In all registers and/or language communities?And I would still encourage students to say pants, underwear, or possibly boxers rather than "keks".
Well, you use extreme examples. It would be somewhat odd for anyone in my native-spkeaking community to use those idioms, let alone a nonnative. But why artificial? What the hell does artificial mean in this context?It's far more artificial for a foreigner to say "It's raining cats and dogs" or "It's not my cup of tea" than simply "It's raining hard" or "I don't really like it".
I've only heard that from Brits who hate their own country or love formal, prescriptive Standard English.How many times have you heard a Brit say that the Dutch or Swedish "speak better English than we do"?
I'd caution them that "pants" has different meanings in the US and the UK, but apart from that, yes I would. I'd encourage the use of the most widely understood terms.In all registers and/or language communities?
I only wish they were extreme, but I've known students use precisely these idioms because their teachers or "books of idioms" had encouraged them to believe that they were "real English". That's why I chose them.Well, you use extreme examples. It would be somewhat odd for anyone in my native-speaking community to use those idioms, let alone a nonnative. But why artificial? What the hell does artificial mean in this context?
What I mean by "artificial" is when students make a point of using slang terms because they think it will impress or make them sound like "one of the gang". In reality, it very rarely does; usually they just sound like wannabes. It only sounds natural when a NNS has spent enough time among native speakers to acquire expressions rather than learning them from a book or handout. While I'll teach expressions for recognition purposes, I always warn students to exercise caution when using them. Expressions are like tabasco sauce - to be used sparingly. If in doubt, leave it out.
.I'd encourage the use of the most widely understood terms
Why?
After 25 years in ESL/EFL, I'd say that such teaching of such examples is minimal.I only wish they were extreme, but I've known students use precisely these idioms because their teachers or "books of idioms" had encouraged them to believe that they were "real English".
Do you do that when in the company of those who use "whom", for example?What I mean by "artificial" is when students make a point of using slang terms because they think it will impress or make them sound like "one of the gang".
Nobody has spoken about teaching them in that way. We/they have the Internet, blogs, chat sites, music, TV, films, penfriends, etc to help us/them gain a less "artificial" use of slang, etc.It only sounds natural when a NNS has spent enough time among native speakers to acquire expressions rather than learning them from a book or handout.
Well, I disagree with your generalised/surface approach to expressions. To me, your resistance to teaching such forms to those who wish to know and use them seems more to do with your own language preferences and the controls you may be under from bosses and peers.Expressions are like tabasco sauce - to be used sparingly. If in doubt, leave it out.
So that they will be understood by as many people as possible. Duh! Unless there's a very specific reason to do otherwise with a given group of students, of course.Why?
If I had a fiver for every student who thought such expressions were current, I could have retired a long time ago.After 25 years in ESL/EFL, I'd say that such teaching of such examples is minimal.
I don't make a point of using, or not using whom, I just say what comes naturally. Others have noticed me change my register or accent when I talk to people from different backgrounds, but it's rarely something I do consciously.Do you do that when in the company of those who use "whom", for example?
Here I agree entirely, but note that all these means you mention involve acquisition through exposure and use, so my original point still stands.We/they have the Internet, blogs, chat sites, music, TV, films, penfriends, etc to help us/them gain a less "artificial" use of slang, etc.
With respect, that is bollocks. I resist teaching these forms for the same reason as Michael Swan, and certainly no boss or peer is telling me what to teach. I'm happy to explain them when students ask about them, while encouraging them to exercise caution.To me, your resistance to teaching such forms to those who wish to know and use them seems more to do with your own language preferences and the controls you may be under from bosses and peers.
Do you think that is bad advice?Many slang expressions...are widely used. However, ... nearly all slang is used between people who know each other well or share the same social background. So it is usually a mistake for "outsiders" (including foreigners) to try to deliberately use slang. This can give the impression that they are claiming membership of a group that they do not belong to ... It is best for learners to avoid slang unless they are really sure of its use. If they start becoming accepted as part of an English-speaking community, they will learn to use that community's slang naturally and correctly along with the rest of the language
Practical English Usage, Swan, Section 533.3
So for you, language learning is only about being understood, is it?So that they will be understood by as many people as possible. Duh! Unless there's a very specific reason to do otherwise with a given group of students, of course.
It's how they came to think that which is the question. Many of my students around the world and over the years thought that Britain was still as represented in the TV series Upstairs, Downstairs". They didn't learn that at school.If I had a fiver for every student who thought such expressions were current, I could have retired a long time ago.
But with nonnative speakers/learners such change in register has to be taught and conscious - at least in the first years of learning.Others have noticed me change my register or accent when I talk to people from different backgrounds, but it's rarely something I do consciously.
Here I agree entirely, but note that all these means you mention involve acquisition through exposure and use, so my original point still stands.
No, I'm not talking about automatic exposure. I'm talking about being guided into and during the use of such media. Teachers can help.
This was your original point:
It seems to me that there is just as much chance, or maybe less chance, of picking up Standard English in songs, on the Internet, on chat sites, with penfriends, etc. as there is of picking up so called slang, etc.I agree with what Michael Swan says in Practical English Usage, which is basically that when NNSs deliberately try to use slang and colloquial expressions it nearly always sounds artificial, unless they've spend a lot of time among NSs and picked them up naturally.
If a group of nonnative teenagers ask you to create a course in which they will learn, for example, the language of the American youth culture norm of coolness and you advise them against learning such language and refuse to help them, your motives are suspect, IMO.
And please tell me what you would teach in an ESL setting to a bunch of immigrant teenagers who were afterwards heading for colleges such as Bay City High? Would you teach them to use the superstandard of the Nerds or the "slang" of the youth culture norm of coolness. How would you react if they asked you to evaluate each form of English used at that school?
Last edited by metal56 on Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:46 am, edited 2 times in total.
Pleeaasse! Swan resists discussing or publishing pedagogical material on such things because he wants to make money. The ESL/EFL publishing world has a hold on the English it will allow learners access to. Swan follows suit.I resist teaching these forms for the same reason as Michael Swan, and certainly no boss or peer is telling me what to teach.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
The problem is deciding what is slang and what is simply a non-standard or simply informal usage.
Whatever we need to teach the forms for recognition, but we must be careful to make sure we don't do the mistake of following a written norm that is far from the current one.
This happened to somebody with a French girlfriend. On one particular occasion his girlfriend looked at him and said, "John, you've got to lose the 'nous'." The point of course being that in spoken French the 1st person singular is nearly always 'on'.
Whatever we need to teach the forms for recognition, but we must be careful to make sure we don't do the mistake of following a written norm that is far from the current one.
This happened to somebody with a French girlfriend. On one particular occasion his girlfriend looked at him and said, "John, you've got to lose the 'nous'." The point of course being that in spoken French the 1st person singular is nearly always 'on'.