I want to write it, but not speak it.

Originally Posted by X Mode

Meanwhile, in certain blue-collar communities on the North Shore, speakers sometimes replace Rs with, of all things, Vs, reports John Lawler, who provides an example: "Tevesah doesn't have any bvains, she's from Veveah."

http://www.bu.edu/mfeldman/Boston/wicked.html

- never heard of that form of pronunciation, and I hope I never do. It seems kind of ridiculous. Not at all useful. This is rather obscure information.

I tend to focus on what I find practical, useful, and interesting. This information doesn't fit the bill.


If you find it interesting, go for it. Do your students find it interesting?


American chop suey Has nothing to do with Chinese food (then again, only in Boston do Chinese restaurants serve French rolls): Macaroni with hamburg, a little tomato sauce and a bit of onion and green pepper

Yep, I know about that one. It's hardly at all useful to my students though.

There are more practical matters and useful language to deal with.

<Meanwhile, in certain blue-collar communities on the North Shore, speakers sometimes replace Rs with, of all things, Vs, reports John Lawler, who provides an example: "Tevesah doesn't have any bvains, she's from Veveah."

http://www.bu.edu/mfeldman/Boston/wicked.html>

Sounds like Monty Python's "Woderwick". LOL!

<I tend to focus on what I find practical, useful, and interesting. This information doesn't fit the bill. >

That's fine up to a point, but - no offense intended here, X - your world is not the whole world, if you get my drift. Right there in Boston, as in any large cosmopolitan English speaking city, ESL students are coming up against all kinds of regionalisms daily. Many need help negotiating such encounters.

Let me cite two posts sent to me from a student on another forum and you can tell me what you think:

"I enjoy studying spoken English and it is very good for me. I go to London three times a year. There, I go out with English friends. Their English is very different to the one I learned in class up until two years ago. I understand them better now from my studies with my new teacher.

Spoken English is very, very important for students."

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum....ag=ab-esl&sr=y

.................

"... For years, my teacher told me that I should not repeat the English of my London friends in class. He said it was common and not good. I told him "My friends are not Cokeney, for goodness sake!!" Their English is good English and like the one speoken by a lot og English people. Even in my own country, teachers tell us that our own way of speaking is bad and common sound. I hate it when they say that!! It does make us feel ashamed.


Now I am more confident though. I try not to listen to those snobs"

<There are more practical matters and useful language to deal with.>

Maybe that would depend on the type of student one has and the reasons for said student studying English. There are all kinds of reasons.

This, for example is a very common request on this, forum - and on many others:

"His sense of her inferiority - of its being a degradation- of the family obstacles which judgment had always opposed to inclination, were dwelt on with a warmth which seemed due to the consequence he was wounding, but was very unlikely to recommend his suit "

I don't understand the "a warmth due to the consequence he was wounding" part. Would someone here be so kind to explain what this archaic English means please. Thanks a lot.

There's much more to language teaching than lessons about "finding a job" and "renting an apartment", right?

[Casiopea]

In many schools, the issue is that to become a speaker of standard English, is to become a speaker of a, clearly marked, socially symbolic dialect.

Sounds elitist, to me, but I'm from North America. It was like that some 50 years ago, though. I'm not sure what percentage of speakers under the age of 40 today still hold on to the belief that the standard "buys" you social status. Then again, a job interview comes to mind.

Many social studies have shown that no matter what the teacher does in the classroom and whatever the overall implications for assessment, children will not learn a dialect associated with a group they do not wish to belong to.

No need for 'studies'. It's a given that adaptation = survival. That goes for speaking the standard, too, right? I know I have your full support on that:

Originally Posted by M56

The resistance seems to come from a very strong understanding of the divisions in social groups and of knowing where one wants to belong.

So, and to borrow your words once again, "the demands made upon [students] by schools and education authorities" stem from adaptation = survival. In the ESL world, students are taught the standard dialect of the region, whereas in the EFL world, students are taught the standard dialect of their choice, be it BrE, AmE, or both, etc. or all. As for native speakers of any language, name a country, any country, that doesn't use the standard in the schools? In any given country, no matter the language, the standard is considered a 'socially symbolic dialect'. The UK Board of Education hasn't cornered the market there. Wouldn't it be more interesting, at least from a social or anthropological or linguistic point of view to discuss why people consider standard dialects socially symbolic?

By contrast, it is clear too that the minority of pupils who are already speakers of standard English as a social dialect, are unfairly advantaged. (As already stated, standard English can be spoken with any regional accent.)

What so unfair about their advantage? Come to think of it, wouldn't said pupils be at a disadvantage, especially if adaptation = survival? They are the 'minority', right?

<Sounds elitist, to me, but I'm from North America. It was like that some 50 years ago, though. I'm not sure what percentage of speakers under the age of 40 today still hold on to the belief that the standard "buys" you social status. Then again, a job interview comes to mind.>

Yes, job interviews... The above view is still quite strong in the world of ESL though. Students are beaten over the head with clichéd warnings against using any other form than the standard in speech.

<It's a given that adaptation = survival.>

In which direction should one adapt? Only one?

<So, and to borrow your words once again, "the demands made upon [students] by schools and education authorities" stem from adaptation = survival.>

Only? I though it was also a case of "if you speak our dialect, i.e. standard English, we won't have to work our a*ses of to understand yours".

<As for native speakers of any language, name a country, any country, that doesn't use the standard in the schools? >

Do you mean the written, or the spoken?

In Britain, not all schools insist on students using only standard spoken English.

<Wouldn't it be more interesting, at least from a social or anthropological or linguistic point of view to discuss why people consider standard dialects socially symbolic?>

Yes, it might. Like to begin a thread on it?


<What so unfair about their advantage? >

Ask yourself if pushing for English to be the main second language in the world gives advantages to native English speakers, for example. Is that fair on the rest? The rest have to make the extra effort to learn another language; kids who do not begin school speaking standard English have also to make the extra effort to learn another dialect. Is that fair?

[edinohio]

Originally Posted by M56

<It's a given that adaptation = survival.>

In which direction should one adapt? Only one?

By NO MEANS. One has to adapt all the time to different situations, and that deffinitely includes how we speak and how we write. You learn to do that in your native language first and I guess it's one of the most difficult skills to master in your second language. I guess that's one of the reasons why standard english is the dialect of choice for ESL/EFL students. SE is supposed to be suitable for most situations, so adaptation is minnimal. Once the students are proficient enough, they might start worrying about adapting to not so "standard" situations. We adapt our speech all the time, I use a much more standard english at work than I do with my friends. When I talk to people from different countries (may they be NES or NNES) I try to use standard words which will be easily understood by everybody. On the other hand, adaptation sometimes happens at a subconcious level. I learned BrE since I was 7 and I have been living in the states for 2 years now. My English has changed so much, my gosh, have I adapted (though still it's not fully AmE).

Originally Posted by M56

Ask yourself if pushing for English to be the main second language in the world gives advantages to native English speakers, for example. Is that fair on the rest? The rest have to make the extra effort to learn another language; kids who do not begin school speaking standard English have also to make the extra effort to learn another dialect. Is that fair?

Is anything in life?

Cheers
Ed

<Is anything in life?>

Only if you want it not to be.

[Tdol]

I wouldn't say 'only if'.

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by M56

Students are beaten over the head with clichéd warnings against using any other form than the standard in speech.

Are they really 'beaten'? By the way, what's wrong with using the regional standard in the schools? You've yet to say. Based on what you've said so far though, you're proposing that ESL schools should hire teachers who speak/have knowledge of every dialect, sub-dialect, and idiolect of English. How feasible is that? It's your argument; care to support it, or would you rather continue with this cat 'n mouse strategy of yours?

Originally Posted by M56

In which direction should one adapt? Only one?

Please go back and check.

Originally Posted by M56

I though it was also a case of "if you speak our dialect, i.e. standard English, we won't have to work our a*ses of to understand yours".

That's your interpretation. But at least now we know where you stand.

Originally Posted by M56

Like to begin a thread on it?

Why? I've yet to gain anything meaningful from this thread.

Originally Posted by M56

Ask yourself if pushing for English to be the main second language in the world gives advantages to native English speakers?

That's a new topic. Our present discussion is about teaching the standard in the schools, whereas your new topic is, English and its various dialects as a lingua franca. I don't see a connection. Care to elaborate?

<Are they really 'beaten'? By the way, what's wrong with using the regional standard in the schools? You've yet to say. Based on what you've said so far though, you're proposing that ESL schools should hire teachers who speak/have knowledge of every dialect, sub-dialect, and idiolect of English. How feasible is that? It's your argument; care to support it, or would you rather continue with this cat 'n mouse strategy of yours?>

With people who speak to me in the way you have just done, my strategy is "ignore".

Originally Posted by tdol

I wouldn't say 'only if'.

Why?