|
Post by profebeth on May 31, 2020 23:45:00 GMT
In terms of how sustainable monolithic ideas about English are, I can confidently now say that in our globalized world they are not sustainable. It is unrealistic to expect that in a classroom in which the teacher is a "non-native" speaker and their students are Chinese, Mexican, Saudi Arabian, German, Dutch, French etc. everyone's English will be the same, uniform and "standard". And it would be quite boring if it were, wouldn't it? It is still a struggle in classrooms in the US or the UK for instance, or in South Korea or China as well (some years ago schools in these countries were requiring that English teachers applying to teach there have a passport from an "English-speaking country" like US, UK, Australia etc. They might still be requiring this), because I think that even if one tried to teach a standardized form on English, it would not 'come out' as such in the majority of learners, but it still expected, especially in a highly academic context. And because teachers want their students to get into a US or UK university, they will teach the English needed for them to do so. I suppose one must always adapt to their context. With the ELT industry being so profitable, it is hard to imagine English varieties being totally accepted and taught in schools and universities, but I do hope that with the high number of NNS teachers and also different student needs, that this will change in time. Hard to imagine the big proficiency tests accommodating for local varieties though...thoughts on this? I agree that it will be nice to see more NNS teachers in the future, but I still see the value in learning pronunciation from a native speaker. However I will add that I've often felt that NNSs understand and can teach grammar better than native speakers, so I think both have their strengths! I work with students employed by multinational corporations who need to interact daily with other NNSs of English and they consistently tell me they use a small vocabulary set and often use the same structures when speaking. That serves a functional aspect to language and is very important. However the language of a culture is also a valid use of language - in performing art, poetry, literature, and while I think we're all witnessing international English being formed, I still think there's a place for a more in- depth linguistic diversity for culture's sake too. Regarding the huge English testing industry, I'm not sure how to tackle that. Maybe in the future, we'll see a combination of a machine (capable of marking any of a variety of acceptable structures/ answers) and a person scoring one's acceptable use of English?
|
|
|
Post by andrea scabbia on Jun 1, 2020 20:17:47 GMT
In terms of how sustainable monolithic ideas about English are, I can confidently now say that in our globalized world they are not sustainable. It is unrealistic to expect that in a classroom in which the teacher is a "non-native" speaker and their students are Chinese, Mexican, Saudi Arabian, German, Dutch, French etc. everyone's English will be the same, uniform and "standard". And it would be quite boring if it were, wouldn't it? It is still a struggle in classrooms in the US or the UK for instance, or in South Korea or China as well (some years ago schools in these countries were requiring that English teachers applying to teach there have a passport from an "English-speaking country" like US, UK, Australia etc. They might still be requiring this), because I think that even if one tried to teach a standardized form on English, it would not 'come out' as such in the majority of learners, but it still expected, especially in a highly academic context. And because teachers want their students to get into a US or UK university, they will teach the English needed for them to do so. I suppose one must always adapt to their context. With the ELT industry being so profitable, it is hard to imagine English varieties being totally accepted and taught in schools and universities, but I do hope that with the high number of NNS teachers and also different student needs, that this will change in time. Hard to imagine the big proficiency tests accommodating for local varieties though...thoughts on this? Language is very interesting. When I was a kid, they taught me there is only one English, the Queen's English. 30 years ago. Nowadays, sometimes, my mother in law tries to correct my daughter, aged 5 years old, and she says:" You cannot speak so, it's wrong!" because in that way she learned at school when she was a pupil...monolithic idea of the italian too. But language is something vital. Very interesting!
|
|
|
Post by Monica RP on Jun 2, 2020 11:38:58 GMT
Throughout teaching years, I've learnt to be less prescriptive and more 'flexible' with the language. However, I do believe that there should be some 'starting point' from which the varieties of English can stem.
Languages are communication tools, yes, but also are, more importantly, a way of displaying the culture of a country and the personality of an individual. No two individuals are alike. Similarly, the type English spoken by different people and/or in different countries will be different.
|
|
|
Post by Philip Kruger on Jun 5, 2020 9:01:24 GMT
I agree completely with the concepts of plurilithic English. I come across variations in English on an almost daily basis, and I have no difficulty understanding any of them (they are mostly based on local accents and idioms). My criteria when teaching Business English to adults is based on clarity of communication and fluency first, grammar and spelling will follow. What I do worry about is where do we draw the line between an acceptable variation of English and 'Standard English'? At which point does a local variety of English become a dialect of its own and not understandable to English speakers from other areas? Can it then still be called English? The example of 'Spanglish" comes to mind, it has developed to such an extent that there is serious debate amongst linguists whether it is a language on its own or not (Rachel Bierly, May 2, 2019 - www.panoramas.pitt.edu/opinion-and-interviews/spanglish-validity-spanglish-language). Should 'Standard English' become purely a reference point against which to measure other Englishes for their ability to convey meaning? I suspect that it may go this way and 'Standard English' will be become solely of higher academic concern.
|
|
|
Post by Philip Kruger on Jun 5, 2020 9:12:05 GMT
With the ELT industry being so profitable, it is hard to imagine English varieties being totally accepted and taught in schools and universities, but I do hope that with the high number of NNS teachers and also different student needs, that this will change in time. Hard to imagine the big proficiency tests accommodating for local varieties though...thoughts on this? I think the 'big proficiency tests' (I assume you mean like IELTS) will remain as they are, at least the Academic variety, as they are testing English for a very specific purpose - getting into an English speaking university where a high level of 'Standard English' is used and there would be less inclination from lecturers to accommodate other Englishes.
|
|
|
Post by Philip Kruger on Jun 5, 2020 9:21:06 GMT
In terms of how sustainable monolithic ideas about English are, I can confidently now say that in our globalized world they are not sustainable. It is unrealistic to expect that in a classroom in which the teacher is a "non-native" speaker and their students are Chinese, Mexican, Saudi Arabian, German, Dutch, French etc. everyone's English will be the same, uniform and "standard". And it would be quite boring if it were, wouldn't it? It is still a struggle in classrooms in the US or the UK for instance, or in South Korea or China as well (some years ago schools in these countries were requiring that English teachers applying to teach there have a passport from an "English-speaking country" like US, UK, Australia etc. They might still be requiring this), because I think that even if one tried to teach a standardized form on English, it would not 'come out' as such in the majority of learners, but it still expected, especially in a highly academic context. And because teachers want their students to get into a US or UK university, they will teach the English needed for them to do so. I suppose one must always adapt to their context. With the ELT industry being so profitable, it is hard to imagine English varieties being totally accepted and taught in schools and universities, but I do hope that with the high number of NNS teachers and also different student needs, that this will change in time. Hard to imagine the big proficiency tests accommodating for local varieties though...thoughts on this? I taught in South Korea a few years ago, and at the time the government (and most private schools) would only employ teachers with a 'native' passport (ie UK, US, AUS, NZ, IRE), which included citizens of South Africa. As far as I remember, English is the first language of only about 10% of the South African population, and it is heavily influenced by other languages in the area; my wife is a 'native' English-speaking South African, and a great deal of the vocabulary, expressions and even grammatical differences she uses still throw me after 8 years of marriage! The point is, just before we left Korea, the government was tightening up the 'native speaker' requirements, and South Africans would be required to prove that they were educated almost completely in English.
All of the South Africans I have met have been very proud of their unique form of English, which in many ways reflects the multi-cultural, pluri-linguistic nature of their society; the features of of other local languages used also helps with communicative and social cohesion amongst the speakers of 11 different languages there and a local lingua franca, and helps bridge the imagined boundaries. I imagine this can be the case between 'non-native'speakers of other varieties of English too, where unique constructs can help show the differences between speakers, although I would say that an accepted Standard English (or Standard Englishes) is more likely to remain the basis of proficiency tests; I believe that even if more varieties were catered for, there would still be a hierarchy of prestige afforded to each of them.As a bilingual South African (I grew up 50/50 English and Afrikaans), I can attest to Daniel's statement about local Englishes. Each different language group (Afrikaans, Zulu, Xhosa, Sotho, etc.) speak their own English and this can often lead to problems in the work place, but that is a whole other topic.
|
|
Tom Le Seelleur Lisburn, NI
Guest
|
Post by Tom Le Seelleur Lisburn, NI on Jun 7, 2020 8:56:02 GMT
Where ever I have taught I have come across variations - accepted and not- of English being used in the classroom and the English which is used in the outside world. People learn English because they want to communicate in some form to someone else. Depending on why they want to learn, where they will use this language, and how important it is to them to use English will decide what form of English they will learn. When I worked in the UAE students called me 'teacher' or 'sir'. Personally, I preferred to be called Tom and it sometimes took me a long time for them to call me by my first name because culturally it was not acceptable and they would be considered rude outside of the classroom. Sometimes the classroom is a safe haven for language to be taught and learnt and other times is is a dangerous place because the language taught in the classroom will not help the student outside of these walls. In an ideal world - everyone will have a 'Star Trek translator' where they can speak their own language and it is translated into the language of the native speaker. When we teach in different countries we need to adapt to the local regularities of how English is used. If a student wants to learn EAP then there are acceptable norms of expression because the student is expected to use English in a form that conforms to the norms and conditions that exist. I also teach ESOL and the language I teach is far more flexible because I have to build linguistic bridges and tunnels for students to use in order to survive in Northern Ireland. I don't speak NI English but my students who live here do / will so I have to teach what I know and what I don't.
|
|
|
Post by Reg... on Jun 7, 2020 20:21:50 GMT
I think the regularity / regulation distinction is very helpful, and I'm really enjoying the design of this course - nice work! Particularly that section ; using corpus data etc, really useful as an example of how corpra might be used in the language classroom. I also enjoyed the multi-dimensional approach and embedded multimedia example (dissertation chat and the webusers real examples of english as a galaxy! .
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Jun 7, 2020 20:23:05 GMT
Throughout teaching years, I've learnt to be less prescriptive and more 'flexible' with the language. However, I do believe that there should be some 'starting point' from which the varieties of English can stem. Languages are communication tools, yes, but also are, more importantly, a way of displaying the culture of a country and the personality of an individual. No two individuals are alike. Similarly, the type English spoken by different people and/or in different countries will be different. idiolect
|
|
|
Post by Sally Urquhart on Jun 10, 2020 15:00:26 GMT
I feel now more confident in my opinion that English is more like a galaxy than a planet. The role of globalisation and the presence of English as a Lingua Franca all over the world enables the language to evolve and be a means of communications in so many different varieties. The English spoken by our Chinese student in part 1.4 had errors I would generally flag up in the classroom (e.g. using the present for the past), but as discussed in the feedback and reflection, none of these errors “give rise to misunderstanding or ambiguity”. This really sat with me. So what if she used the present tense? Everyone in that situation, including us as English teachers, know what she meant. The problem is only when it could lead to misunderstanding. I have always been a believer that it comes down to ability to communicate meaning successfully not accurately.
I think that the different strands of English and their use for communication between so many different groups of people in different ways is something to be celebrated and embraced. Safe to say I am not a fan of the Queen’s English Society and its prescriptive views. When choosing materials and resources for lessons, I always seek those that are more descriptive than prescriptive, leaving it up to the learner to use their own ‘speakers voice’, in the way they, as their individual idiolect, would like to use the language and for what purpose/means of communication they require.
A final comment supporting the argument of the fluidity of language. New lexis props up when change happens in the world. One example: I don't know anyone who knew the word 'furlough' before March 2020 and now it's a huge part of our day-to-day vocabulary here in the UK.
|
|
tony
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by tony on Jun 16, 2020 5:39:03 GMT
English is undoubtedly a widely diverse galaxy, and there is not a single variation of it that dominates over others. It is plurilithic, for the language is spoken by nationals of different countries with every individual, being a representative of an ethnic or social group, adding unique flavour to it.
Upon reflection, I have grown to become a sympathizer of this plurilithic approach in ESL teaching, and I am convinced that, as the globalisation necessitates, the more learners are exposed to contrasting Englishes spoken by non-identical groups of native and non-native speakers, the better they will adapt to international environment where people with their distinctive cultural backgrounds speak Englishes that may deviate from the so-called ‘Standard English’.
In the final analysis, monolithic ideas about English with their regulations in an orderly fashion form a structure, or systematic guidelines, upon which learners should be familiarised with the language, and which should serve as a starting point in their odyssey to comprehend such a multifaceted, plurilithic entity as the English language.
|
|
|
Post by evarojo on Jun 18, 2020 18:35:27 GMT
It is so refreshing to read the comments above and see that there are many Englishes around the world and not a superior one. In my teaching I share with my students the love for different accents and varieties of English, from Cockney(I love it!) to Jamaican, Indian, Australian... Actually, I love all of them I was brought up in a Monolithic view of English but, instinctively having a Plurilithic sense of what English really is. I am aware of the difficulties to incorporate this to the English teaching industry and how profitable could be. I am sure Oxford and Cambridge editorials have thought of this.
|
|
|
Post by Amaryllis on Jun 25, 2020 15:21:23 GMT
I would like to share an example from my teaching of how untrue, unfair, unsustainable and unhelpful a monolithic approach to English can be. I am glad that I have had the chance to explore these ideas on the course as I now feel more confident if I need to clarify a point.
I was asked to give private English classes to a native Spanish speaker who was a lecturer and surgeon at a medical faculty in an English-speaking environment. There were 2 varieties of English spoken – a local ‘standard’ variety for lecturing and interacting with students and staff, and a creole variety for interacting with patients. His employer requested private classes for him as staff and students had great difficulty understanding him. He was assessed as A2 on the CEFR scale for writing, listening and reading, but his pronunciation difficulties were greater than any I have ever seen in my teaching career. My initial reaction was ‘Why was he hired in such a critical health area without an IELTS score of 5 or above?” But the reality was that he had been hired and that he needed help fast.
His most pressing problems were articulation and word stress, and after working on these at the outset, by the end of the first week his colleagues congratulated him on how easily they could understand him! The more I could understand his speech, the more I realised that he was a highly intelligent, articulate and experienced professional whose expertise was greatly valued by his peers. When I observed him at his teaching clinic with the medical students I was surprised to note that although I could understand 95% of what he was saying (even though I didn’t know all of the medical terms), the students would look at him blankly and not answer any of the questions he asked them. I believe that because his accent was different (yet perfectly understandable to his colleagues and patients); because he had not perfected certain grammatical structures; and because his educational approach/teaching style was different, the students felt his input was less valuable (untrue). They could not see that they were fortunate to be taught by one of the most brilliant lecturers I have ever observed. His communicative competence was not the issue, their value judgement of his abilities was the problem (unfair).
I felt that the English-speaking students should have met him halfway and made some sort of accommodation to understand his way of speaking and teaching. He was the one who was making diligent and successful efforts to lecture on a highly technical topic in a language that was not his own, but they were making absolutely no effort at all (unhelpful). I raised the issue that the medical students needed to be made aware that a lecturer's communicative competence was the key criteria if the faculty wanted to continue attracting excellent lecturers from around the world, but it was not seen as an important point. I believe that the students at this particular medical faculty stand to lose the most if they are unwilling, in this rapidly changing world, to learn from their non-native English-speaking staff (unsustainable).
|
|
|
Post by Amaryllis on Jun 25, 2020 15:43:32 GMT
In the final analysis, monolithic ideas about English with their regulations in an orderly fashion form a structure, or systematic guidelines, upon which learners should be familiarised with the language, and which should serve as a starting point in their odyssey to comprehend such a multifaceted, plurilithic entity as the English language. I agree that the ‘standard’ variety is an important starting point for helping adult learners understand the plurilithic nature of English. I think that the example of the three bloggers in section 1.4 is a good illustration of this - they used their knowledge of English to negotiate meaning in their own way. I was impressed by the bloggers’ technical knowledge and the fact that they were able to solve a complex problem in a language that was not their native language. It helped me understand that English is a powerful communicative tool that is being adapted by its users to perform new functions: like a sculptor transforming raw clay into something new, be it a mug, a paper weight or a decorative statue.
|
|
jake
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by jake on Jun 30, 2020 11:33:10 GMT
In my experience, students will quite often ask how they can “improve their accents” and learn to speak in a way they consider native sounding. Something I’ve said to them before is: “You probably don’t want to dress exactly like me. You definitely don’t want to sing exactly like me. Why do you need to speak exactly like me?”
I think that learners sometimes believe they won’t be understood unless they speak ‘Standard English’, which isn’t true at all. I think the concept of ‘Standard English’ is sometimes built up too much to the point where learners become fixated on trying to replicate it. For example, while giving a presentation or speaking in class, a student may break up a fluent (and perfectly communicatively effective) piece of speech in order to ‘correct’ themselves, because they have recognised they have used a non-standard form. For me in this respect, I think too much of a focus on Standard English being the correct and best way can have a negative impact. I would like to see students considering themselves more as independent users of their own English, and less as learners consciously trying to match a standard set for them.
I really like the breakdown of rules as regulations and regularities. I would say that all of us, teachers and learners, see things like double negation or “literally” in a non-literal sense on a daily basis, so how can we discourage it as something incorrect? If language examples like these are used in such an international and frequent manner, it is of course a regularity, and in my opinion a valid ‘rule’ to be accepted.
Questioning the sustainability of the monolithic view, I think the socio-economic and professional points are key. The world we live in is already proof enough that plurilithic English varieties are effective in communication worldwide, in industry, in politics, in media, in everything. It is not necessary to use ‘Standard English’, and nor should it be. In terms of ‘English speaker’ as identity, native English speakers rarely communicate with each other in ‘Standard English’, so why must non-native users reach for a separate bar in order to feel they are English users themselves?
|
|