|
Post by beckicrossley on May 17, 2013 8:25:54 GMT -5
While I understand that there are many disadvantages of Standard English, I also believe it to be crucial to English language teaching. Obviously, the learner's needs must take a priority. Therefore if a person is simply learning English for social purposes, a focus on form would not be essential. However: - Would learners choose to learn an inferior version of the language (a non-standard of English)?
- Who would decide what forms of English are less essential/effective than others? This would have to be a judgement made by the teacher, but one person's correct is another's wrong.
- How would you teach a non-standard variety of English? How would you test this?
These are all concerns that stem from people's prejudices against different dialects and manners of speaking. If people were not so judgemental about non-standard varieties of English then the role of Standard English would not be in dispute.
|
|
|
Post by kasparforrest on May 26, 2013 9:00:51 GMT -5
Hello. I would just like to make a few comments regarding your post.
I agree that a lot of the issues surrounding non standard English arise from certain prejudices. However I feel that you have misinterpreted some of the aims of the Changing Englishes course. Changing Englishes is not trying to promote non standard varieties of English to be taught, but challenge those prejudices you discuss. You ask 'would learners choose to learn an inferior version of the language' and this is just one example of the negative beliefs towards non standard English, as there are no 'inferior' forms of language. At present the demographic of English users is in a state of transition and beliefs on 'correct' English need to adjust accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by pippachan25 on Jun 26, 2013 10:52:07 GMT -5
Coming from a Sociolinguistics background, I've always been a little uncomfortable with the notion of teaching a single, monolithic Standard English, and I have at times challenged colleagues in the staffroom over it.
Yes, a Standard English is a useful guideline to have - a benchmark as it were, providing the basic rules to follow - which students like. A benchmark, to a large extent, imposed by the two ELT Superpowers – British and American – with their financial and marketing grip on publishing.
But as a British teacher working mainly in Asia, my students may come to me having already spent time learning a variety other than British English. And they will inevitably come with different preoccupations, different needs and uses for their English, and most importantly, different interlocutors with whom they need to communicate in English. I recently taught a Business English class who told me that their only contact with an Inner Circle native speaker was me. In their working lives they used English with other Asians.
In such situations, there is no simple solution to the questions of which variety should be taught, how and by whom. However, I have always found that students are, in fact, fascinated by different varieties and accents of English, and happily draw parallels with such variations in their own L1s.
Surely the point of a course like this is to raise awareness that no language is static or singular, but all languages grow and evolve and, above all, belong to all their speakers, not just the privileged few.
|
|
|
Post by neenaz on Jun 30, 2013 5:27:29 GMT -5
One thing on the course struck me powerfully, and I suspect it rings true for hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of English teachers around the world. Firstly, I wouldn't say that I agree with all the discussion points/feedback offered on this course. Although leaning toward a more pluralistic/plurilithic view, I do feel that Standard English has some role to play in the classroom. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater!
However, by virtue of its very diffusion across boundaries of nationality and class, English cannot be regarded as a monolith/planet (as opposed to a galaxy). As a teacher, the most striking disadvantage is that it can lead to the exclusion of those 'intergalactic hitchhikers' who may not be considered ‘native speakers’ by standards of nationality, but who are native speakers by the definition provided below (http://www.yorksj.ac.uk/changing-englishes/changing-englishes/glossary.aspx):
Native user: A person who began the process of acquiring the language at a very early age outside of (but perhaps also in) the classroom. 'Nativeness' is not the same thing as nationality (because language borders are not consistent with linguistic ones) and, in addition to the 'inheritance' factor already mentioned, it also includes elements of expertise (the ability to achieve specific tasks in specific contexts) and affiliation (level of comfort in using a language and feelings of belonging to a community of language users).
As a teacher who doesn't come from the 'native speaker' countries - of the USA, UK, Canada and New Zealand - but who considers herself a native speaker all the same, this is a very empowering evaluation of who is a native speaker and who is not. It is also less discriminatory, more realistic and practical.
|
|
|
Post by rossana on Jul 2, 2013 12:28:22 GMT -5
What worries me the most is the power that examination boards (E.g. "Cambridge English") have in my context, namely, Southamerica. I'm not sure to what extent this view of teaching English, which I agree with, is likely to develop in a context that's been agressively marketed by them.
|
|
|
Post by tetrafarmakon on Jul 4, 2013 16:04:52 GMT -5
Hello everyone! I would like to add an idea to your interesting discussion.
Although I agree with the content and aim of this course (OK, I've only finished module one so far!), I would like to point out that communicating with a native speaker (or more of them!) is by far the most difficult thing to do-at least it has been for me.
So, although, quite rightly, an English as a LF course should strive to prepare students for communication with weird-sounding non-natives, it should also prepare them to deal with equally weird sounding natives who use a lot of cultural knowledge (pop culture personas, etc) and idioms. The key word, however, is prepare; courses should make students aware of the differences and difficulties expected in real communication rather than teach any localized version of the language. So, although the core curriculum should be a stripped down English, i.e. a plain English without many idioms, etc, a significant component of the course should consist of intercultural training...
|
|
|
Post by danayulya on Jul 6, 2013 9:46:00 GMT -5
Without standard English, we could not have access to learning English, so I got the felling after this English information course race, that I have to assume and make known plurilithic English. So, yes English is a lingua franca, but it is so just because it is easier to learn than Chinese, for instance (or 'likesae', as I have just read). We must encourage different ways of communicating English to and with our students. We can improve communication using English as a lingua franca, but paying attention to the standards rules, otherwise, we will confuse them (students) even more. I love English language and I am an English teacher in Romania and love it. I am sorry for my any kind of mistakes, hope to improve my English, 'standardly', but not only...
|
|
|
Post by danayulya on Jul 6, 2013 9:49:55 GMT -5
Me again...I learnt that 'informations' is incorrect, so you are on the verge of telling me that I can model my knowledge according to my unconscious memory learning? no way!!!!!! standard is standard, which might be improved, I can agree to that!!!!! or even 'drinked', pleaseeee...if you learn the wrong way, in a wrong way you will communicate!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by steveolevi on Jul 7, 2013 8:51:41 GMT -5
I have just begun the course and it strikes me that it is an attemp topersuade us into accepoting that English should be morpheded into a convenient language for all. NO, NO, NO! English should be preserved and not corrupted into a mishmash with inumerable additions to learn and try to understand what the new additions mean when clearly these new "terms and meanings" come from cultural origins. Another point made is that Native speakers means nothing. Anyone learnign english from primary school can be called a Native speaker. Again, no, no, no. NAtive speajkers are those that are raised with English as primary language used in the home and used by generations. Historical allegories, stories, fables etc are meaningful to the learners to import histopry of the changing language. What is put forth in the course is akin to re-implementing "whole language" speak however you want because it is just a svalid and anything else. Rubbish I say!
|
|
jirob
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by jirob on Jul 7, 2013 9:40:29 GMT -5
Standard English? Aye there's the rub. I learnt my English in NZ and modified it at law school. I have a different understanding of some words to Australians, English, Irish and certainly Americans. I also use grammar in a legalistic way often. Then I write poetry and use it very differently. Whilst there are some common concepts across countries, fields, ages and genders the concept of standard English is varied as its speakers. George Bernard Shaw's reference to England and the USA as, "Two countries divided by a common language" sums it up nicely. That said I will continue to correct my students' work. I do look forward to some lively, polite, debate.
|
|
|
Post by mosquito on Jul 8, 2013 2:30:15 GMT -5
From the very start I was inveterate supporter of monolithic opinion, but my views have been changed throughout the first unit and I’ve partly become a plurilithic follower. I’ve realized that the language is not a printed text or a manuscript or any other static and unchangeable form of existence, it’s a live means of communication among nations, so all the changes and transformations in the language is inevitable part of its own existence and development.
I'd go along with the idea of Standard English as a guideline to follow, however not the only one; and I would like to compare teaching a language with teaching painting or any other skill. I mean, to create masterpieces we need basic knowledge to acquire new skills. So, basic knowledge of English is essential and should be presented in Standard English with its rules and classical structures. At the same time I insist on extensive exposure to different variants of English (native and non-native), via internet as well, from the very beginning of learning or teaching.
|
|
hrox
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by hrox on Jul 31, 2013 9:24:39 GMT -5
I do follow the plurilithic approach; and the course has only reinforced it in my mind.But what I tend to observe in my language-teaching and continuous language-learning reality is native speakers' eagerness to speak purely Standard English to their non-native interlocutors; thus Americans are carefully choosing words and style and the British are correcting our choice of vocabulary and structure with reference to those means that are commonly used in their native language environment. I sincerely value their help and advice as they teach us a lot but as I suppose it deviates a bit from the above-mentioned approach.
|
|
hrox
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by hrox on Jul 31, 2013 10:03:06 GMT -5
Oh,I see now-it's variation and native speakers' accommodation to us.
|
|
|
Post by sapphira79 on Aug 21, 2013 15:16:25 GMT -5
After finishing the first unit I can say that my teaching style is much more plurilithich than monolithic. Like many others here, I continue using Standard English as a guideline. It is really useful. It has to be given its value. However, I do believe we must be more flexible. I always reflect on my students needs, their previous knowledge and context. Due the fact I teach English to Brazilian students (I am myself a Brazilian), my students bring me different accents and regionalism, different intonations and influences from a variety of cultures because we have our own "Portugueses". It´s a challenge teaching them and keep updated with the different Portugueses and Englishes. We are daily exposed to many different native and non-native English speakers. How to follow the rules strictly?
|
|
|
Post by robbo on Dec 18, 2015 17:24:33 GMT -5
I'm not sure how the concept of standard applies to Ancwe (Ancillary World English). When non-English speakers communicate with one another, they negotiate a means of communication using elements of "English" as they understand it.
|
|