For the next two weeks we will consider the issues raised by English being considered a global language. What does it mean for us, our students, and the content we teach?
1. First please read Graddol_Why global English may mean the end of English as Foreign Language.
2. Next read Graddol The Native Speaker Problem.
3. Then read Whose English Should We Teach.
4. Finally, read EIL Pronunciation, an argument regarding EIL and pronunciation.
Blog Question 1: How do you define "standard English?" Please justify your response.
Blog Question 2: What do you think about the phonological core?
1. 'Standard English' seems to be the form of English that we would most likely hear when watching the news on TV - or perhaps read in the newspaper or a magazine. As a South African who learned "British English" I would say 'standard English' would be something between The Queen's English and the English that an American President would use. It's what I grew up learning in my grammar textbooks, and consequently what most of us use and possibly teach in our classrooms. Having done the reading, I can agree that it may be the kind of English that is spoken by most people who were educated in formal schools/language classrooms. Possibly - it can also be described as the English of the "Inner Circle" described by Kachru (1985).
ReplyDelete2. As English grows in popularity around the world, it is fast becoming the lingua franca for non-native speakers to use. English is often what brings people together within non-native communities in English speaking countries. For many of these people, speaking English may not require perfect 'near native' pronunciation - and as a result, there is a movement suggesting that English teachers need not focus on teaching pronunciation as strictly as has been done in the past. The Lingua Franca Core (LFC) has been developed with this in mind: it seeks to make teaching and learning pronunciation simpler.
From reading the specifics about what would and wouldn't be taught - I'm not sure I see the benefit of it. Leaving out 'th', 'final consonant clusters' and stress were a few things that seemed to 'raise a red flag' for me. Of course, I can see how teaching this way would be simpler for the learner (in a way) but I feel as though teaching this way may not be helpful in situations where non-native speakers do need to interact with native speakers. I'm wondering how the 'omissions' would affect non-native speakers' ability to understand speech they hear.
I suppose I can't say I'm completely against teaching the LFC - however, I feel more comfortable using the ideas to "broaden pronunciation targets" (as Jenkins suggested). While I don't see native speaker pronunciation as something that should be PUSHED - I would rather give my students "too much than too little" in terms of punctuation, and let them decide how 'native like' they want to be.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHere are my answers to the blog questions.
ReplyDeleteBlog Question 1: How do you define "standard English?" Please justify your response.
In my opinion, “Standard English” is the form of English recognized by the majority as the approved model for use for writing (for personal purposes {for example when one is writing a birthday card for a good friend} as well as for business purposes {for example on legal documents, driving tests, print advertisements, menus, etc.), speaking, and teaching non-native speakers of English in educational institutions. In my definition, writing would refer to spelling, grammar and vocabulary.
I do not believe that there is only one single standard of English. I would say that “Standard English” may be viewed in terms of a region. For example, in Europe, I would say that “Standard English” would be British English, whereas in the Americas, that would be American English. I do not believe that “Standard English” is a language. In my opinion, it is a dialect. This is because it is just one “variety” of English among others. Hence, native speakers of English in the USA are native speakers of one nonstandard “variety” of English language referred to as the American English.
Blog Question 2: What do you think about the phonological core?
After reading the article by Rebecca M. Dauer and reflecting a while on what she says, I have come to the conclusion that I do not have a problem with the phonological core. This is being defined as the features of pronunciation considered important or essential to be understood when one is speaking English as an International Language (EIL).
I agree that what is used in native speaker-to-native speaker communication, the native speaker version if you will, should not be the model used for teaching English pronunciation to individuals speaking EIL. This is because this would be unrealistic when we consider the role of English as the primary lingua franca. Lingua franca is defined by the author as “the language used to communicate among speakers of different native languages throughout the world.” I believe that this calls for a different set of standards. I believe that we can draw parallels between this and how we practice language teaching in our classrooms. We, as language teachers, at times identify (or find ourselves in a position to identify) certain language features as priority and choose to teach these first or solely (if there are time constraints at play) in our classrooms.
Overall, we need to ask ourselves this question: what is the point of setting an unrealistic goal such as native-like accuracy instead of “intelligibility” for those speaking EIL?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1
ReplyDeleteI feel that 'Standard English' is very subjective. Of course where you are from in the world influences your perspective, but it doesn't even have to be on such a large scale to find changes in what is perceived as 'Standard English.' In the US, this standard changes state-to-state, where certain phrases that are standard in one, would be strange in another. Take the discussion we had in class about the phrase, "Do you want a soda/pop/coke?' These all mean the same thing, however the one that would be considered 'standard', depends greatly on the state you are from. To me 'standard English' would be the style of English that I was raised and had the most interaction with.
I loved and completely agreed with Peter Trudgill's definition of 'Standard English' when he said, "Standard English, whatever it is, is less than a language, since it is only one variety of English among many." (1999)
Question 2
I see the perspective from which the phonological core bases its approach on, where trying to acquire the speaking level accuracy of native-to-native speakers is not realistic or appropriate for the "Standard English". Living in Korea I have been fortunate to be able to travel throughout S.E. Asia. While traveling you can definitely see that English has become the lingua franca. Individuals that don't share a common L1 are able to communicate between one another through English. This style of English is great if you want to be a surf bum backpacking around the world chasing waves, however if you want to engage in any type of business discourse I believe that the phonological core approach will not be sufficient. I understand that wave chaser and business executive are from both ends of the spectrum, but depending on the learners' long-term goals I feel that the phonological core falls short.
As we learned in class, because of interference created by the interlanguage, we can never reach have the accuracy of a native speaker in our L2. Should we tell our students that that they will never reach native-like accuracy!? I feel that we require the level of accuracy that we do, knowing what level of output will realistically be acquired.
1. I feel English is evolving and the definition for standard English will continue evolve. Latin was once the dominant language, now it isn’t. However, I feel standard English is English that is typically written in English textbooks or English you hear on the news by native speakers from countries that linguist, Kachru, refers to as “inner circle”. I like Peter Trudgill’s definition of standard English: “…it is the variety associated with the educational system in all the English-speaking countries of the world…” However, as the articles say, there will always be variations of the definition of English and will continue to be subjective.
ReplyDelete2. As I stated above, I believe English is evolving and I think it’s slowly becoming more LFC (lingua franca core) where the rules are changing and people, such as non-native speakers talk with each other and comprehend each other when speaking in a way that is different from “standard English.” As Duaer says in her article, I agree that there are more non-native speakers in the world and more people around the world are learning and speaking English – basically the “outer circle” is growing. However, I do not believe that it is right to change the rules. I believe non-native speakers will never learn the pronunciation that is spoken by native speakers. But I do not believe that you should change the rules and say that it is ok. I do also think that teachers should be aware of this pronunciation issue and focus on areas that the areas that will not impede the student in acquiring a language. If you’re going to learn something, you should learn it the proper way. Cutting corners will only get you in trouble.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that the current "Standard English" definition (as put forward by Trudgill) continues to be useful, and provides a "tie" between all the different shades of English. Talking in terms of "standards" still means favoring one style of English over another. The Anglo-American way is the default for the world, and as a result it is the "standard." This isn't a statement on whether that is right or not, but that is the way it is. In my personal teaching experience, American English is what is in my textbooks. This corresponds with what I have heard from other teachers I have met.
ReplyDeleteBlog Question 2:
I think that the proponents of the Phonological Core have their hearts in the right place. However, trying to "standardize" language is a very prickly thing. There is a great diversity in pronunciation and diction. How to tie all of that together? There is already resentment towards the domination of the Anglo-American way of doing things. From a teaching perspective it would be nice, neat, and very convenient to toss out some stuff and replace it with other things. From a realistic standpoint, I don't see how this would be workable in the complexities of international communication. A Chinese person and a person from Iraq or Ghana will use English differently. So many people have learned under the current system, and while it may be unpalatable to some people, it has provided a general guideline. I think the idea of a Phonological Core is helpful as a guiding principle in trying to understand these differences and complexities, but I don't see it coming together as a system or replacing the status quo.
Question 1:
ReplyDeleteI define standard English as American Midwest English. I was taught that this was the standard many companies go for when hiring someone for speaking English, such as in announcements or recordings. This is probably the most media heavy version as well.
Just because I think it is the closest thing to "standard English" as you can get I would not put it above any other type of English. I believe they all are just region dialects of the same language.
Question 2:
I don't really agree with the Phonological Core. As David stated, they are trying to do the "right" thing as they view it. To make the teaching of the language more uniform and having a "standardized" (Great wording!! ^^) way of doing things would be cost efficient and easier on English teachers of the language, but I don't believe it would be correct.
As Dee Dee has also stated, the goal of ELLs(English Language Learners) to speak in a native to native way is not realistic. Most ELLs will speak English to other ELLs who will not have a native version of pronunciation. As David also stated, the current system in place for learning English is more of a guideline when ELLs speak and less of a direct, "you must speak this way" goal.
Question 1:
ReplyDeleteStandard English is English used by professionals to communicate. By this I mean, no matter the pronunciation or subtle differences in spellings, standard English is used for more formal settings. When you consider the many varieties of English from the surfer/skater of California, to the gangster thug of Chicago, or the lackadaisical teen from London, the one thing they all have in common is they probably would have trouble communicating if they used the English of slang with their friends. On the other hand, they could still conduct business using 'standard English'. Every group will share different accents or use language and acronyms that are foreign to outsiders.
Question 2:
I have wished for a Phonogical Core since I read A Guide to the Hitchhiker's Galaxy. English is used all over the world by people who have spent years learning it. If we could agree on some simplified rules, it would be much easier to communicate. Do I think we can actually do this? Unfortunately, no. There are too many people with their thumbs in the pie demanding that their English is the right one and this or that rule must be observed. Until a simplified English can be agreed upon, ELLs will have to devote years and money to a task that will still tax their abilities once they have 'graduated' to the business world.
Question 1:
ReplyDeleteWhat is standard English?
As a Canadian it is very hard for me to define what standard English is.
Being neither a citizen of the United States or Great Britain I am certainly not going to say it is either British or American English.
In addition, Canadian English has elements of American, British and some of our own. We spell words like colour, and flavour in the British style. The slang in Canada would probably be more similair to American (example: bling bling). However, we have our own words and slang in Canada such as toque, "ce la vie", and canuck.
If I was still living in Canada standard English would be the English spoken around me in my native country.
But since I have lived in Korea for ten years I feel that standard English to me now is more of an international English. Standard English should be a language that allows two people to communicate among themselves with out any major miscommunication. It is most common for me to see two NNSs talking to each other in English or a NNS speaking to a NS. As most of my friends in Korea are Koreans and other Asians I feel that communication that is successful is most important. I never correct my friends' mistakes unless the error would create a serious misunderstanding leading to anger or termination of the conversation if they were speaking to another native speaker of English. In-class I find that I usually only correct the students if they make a serious mistake in the target language. The key is that I understand what my friends and students are saying.
Lastly, is it possible to have a standard English? Is there a standard Korean? In Korea there are different dialects and vocabulary depending on what region you live in. It might just be better to accept the differences and agree that understanding (my goal) is better than one definitive standard of English.
Question 2:
I understand that having an accepted Lingua Franca Core (LFC) for English would certainly make all things related to English more uniform: teaching, tests, textbooks.
The core would be a good start for learning English but I feel that stress and intonation are still important. There are times when a student completely mispronounces a word and I cannot for the life of me understand what they are saying. Why? Their word stress or intonation are incorrect and sometimes way off.
I agree that we should never tell our students that one form of English (British or American) is the correct form but I am not certain that creating the new English Lingua Franca will resolve the problem of what is standard English.
And it seems that the research done by J. Jenkins was exclusively done with high level L2 learners. Is it possible that the research would be different for low level learners? Are the higher level learners already proficient in stress and intonation? I suspect that lower level learners will make more mistakes with stress and intonation thus failure to give feedback or help in this area will lead to miscommunication. Dauer even points out that "a handful of basic rules can account for 85% of polysyllabic words" so stress can be taught. In addition she mentions that students need to be taught what syllable to stress in a word as it affects word stress which is part of the LFC.
Lastly, I think that over time a phonological core will develop that is more natural and organic. The English language has been in constant flux and change for over 1000 years. Can I speak Shakespearean English, or the English of Chaucer? Heck, no! Our language has evolved since that time. The internet itself is also changing the way we use English too (especially written English).