|
|
 Wed Jun 07, 2006 21:49 pm Accent |
|
|
Jamie,
Jamie's text:
If you pay close enough attention, you'll see that I was making largely the same point you were. The other poster was claiming that there is "prestige" to the accent people refer to as RP, and I have said time and again that native English speakers generally DON'T CARE what accent people have, if it is genuinely their accent.
My comment:
I think that all native speakers appreciate people speaking clearly enough. There is no point whatsoever in a conversation where a foreign person speaks English in his local accent: it would make very little sense to the native listener. And I don't really agree when you say that native speakers of English generally don't care about accents. They do. Research conducted by phoneticians has proven that people in Britain generally consider RP the most prestigious variety of English.
Jamie's text:
This may not be an issue in the UK anymore, but it's an issue in places on the European continent and in other places where foreign teachers still insist that their students learn to speak like the queen. If you've ever taught in a foreign school where kids are brow beaten for saying [eit] instead of "ett",
My comment:
Of course people teaching English should try to teach a widely understood pronunciation. When people learn the basics in English phonetics they shouldn't get to hear too many different accents: this will just mess the whole thing up. Advanced learners, on the other hand, should naturally learn to understand different Englishes, even non-native ones.
Jamie's text:
or where foreign teachers refuse to speak English to Americans, Australians, New Zealanders or South Africans for fear of losing the "British" accent that they don't actually have, you'd be more aware of the dilemma.[/quote]
My comment:
I have never heard of a teacher who'd refuse to speak to non-British speakers of English, and I think many foreign teachers have quite good British accents. It might not be that their accents are exactly like those of native Britons (this is very rare among foreing teachers), but many of them are quite close to natives in their pronunciation. But I do think that teachers in different countries have pronunciation skills at different levels: e.g. in Georgia (country, not state) few people have a near-native pronunciation, but the situation is entirely different in, say, Sweden or Germany. |
|
Englishuser
I'm here quite often ;-)
Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Posts: 806
|
|
| Wed Jun 07, 2006 22:21 pm Accent |
|
|
| Englishuser wrote: | | I think that all native speakers appreciate people speaking clearly enough. |
You don't have to speak RP to speak clearly. There are plenty of people who speak with foreign accents, or non-RP native accents who speak as clearly or even more clearly than trained RP speakers.
| Englishuser wrote: | | There is no point whatsoever in a conversation where a foreign person speaks English in his local accent: it would make very little sense to the native listener. |
I'm sorry, but almost ALL foreigners speak English with their local accents. It is very rare to meet a foreigner who speaks English without his local accent. And, contrary to what you say, we understand most of them and it does make sense to us.
| Englishuser wrote: | | And I don't really agree when you say that native speakers of English generally don't care about accents. They do. Research conducted by phoneticians has proven that people in Britain generally consider RP the most prestigious variety of English. |
In the first place, Britain is only a relatively small part of the English-speaking world, so you can't generalize a study of UK residents to say it applies to "English speakers".
The former president of Ford Motor Company spoke with an Australian accent, and he had plenty of prestige. The founder of CNN has a Georgian accent, and he's got enough prestige. George Soros speaks with a Hungarian accent, and he's got prestige. Henry Kissinger speaks with a German accent so thick you need a chainsaw to cut it, and he has LOTS of prestige, as does Zbigniew Brzinski, who has a Polish accent. Prestige does not come from accents.
As I mentioned in another post, a study was done to find out which accents native English speakers found to be the "most beautiful". The Brits rated RP the "most beautiful" and Cockney almost dead last. The Americans rated RP the "most beautiful" and they rated Cockney SECOND! What do you do with that?
| Englishuser wrote: | | Of course people teaching English should try to teach a videly understood pronunciation. |
I can see from the way you wrote that sentence that you yourself very obviously do not speak with a British accent.
| Englishuser wrote: | | When people learn the basics in English phonetics they shouldn't get to hear too many different accents: this will just mess the whole thing up. Advanced learners, on the other hand, should naturally learn to understand different Englishes, even non-native ones. |
Not true. The very wonderful series "The Cambridge English Course" starts students out hearing four or five accents, and keeps adding them until by the end of the intermediate book, they can understand at least 15 of them. The pronunciation portions are done with at least three accents by the intermediate level. The result is that the students can understand world English. They can choose to pronounce the way they want, which is perfectly okay, as long as it's clear.
| Englishuser wrote: | | I have never heard of a teacher who'd refuse to speak to non-British speakers of English, |
Go to Eastern Europe as an American or an Australian, and you'll run into plenty of them. Many of the British don't know about the problem, because unless they walk around with an American all day, they never see it happen. Sometimes privately run language schools there will refuse to hire an eloquent, well-educated speaker of General American or another national standard, and instead hire someone inarticulate who speaks Cockney or some similar dialect, because he has a "British" accent.
| Englishuser wrote: | | and I think many foreign teachers have quite good British accents. It might not be that their accents are exactly like those of native Britons (this is very rare among foreing teachers), but many of them are quite close to natives in their pronunciation. |
"Close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. If the teacher's accent is merely "quite close", then it's not British.
| Englishuser wrote: | | But I do think that teachers in different countries have pronunciation skills at different levels: e.g. in Georgia (country, not state) few people have a near-native pronunciation, but the situation is entirely different in, say, Sweden or Germany. |
I would say that near-native pronunciation is also relatively rare in Sweden and Germany.
I have a student right now from Germany who speaks with a German accent, pronounces her final [r] as in RP, and pronounces intervocalic /t/ as a tap, the way Americans do. Her speech is a big mix of different accents, and nobody here cares, because she is a sweet girl who speaks crystal clear English. It is very normal to have a foreign accent, or even a mix of several native accents, and still speak completely clear, beautiful English.
Where are you, by the way? |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4466
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
 |
| Wed Jun 07, 2006 23:29 pm Accent |
|
|
Jamie:
You don't have to speak RP to speak clearly. There are plenty of people who speak with foreign accents, or non-RP native accents who speak as clearly or even more clearly than trained RP speakers.
My comment:
I agree. But this doesn't mean that RP wouldn't be considered the most prestigious English accent of accents (see my comments below).
Jamie:
I'm sorry, but almost ALL foreigners speak English with their local accents. It is very rare to meet a foreigner who speaks English without his local accent. And, contrary to what you say, we understand most of them and it does make sense to us.
My comment:
No way. If you take a Hungarian person or a Vietnamese person with no phonological training (or self-studies in English phononlogy) and ask them to read an English text, I'd be very surprised should you understand as much as a few words in a flow of speech. It's true that most foreigners have foreign accents, but they clearly are allophonically closer to English speakers than to native speakers of their first language (when they speak in that language) when speaking English.
Jamie:
In the first place, Britain is only a relatively small part of the English-speaking world, so you can't generalize a study of UK residents to say it applies to "English speakers".
My comment:
Yes. But where did English originate?
Jamie:
The former president of Ford Motor Company spoke with an Australian accent, and he had plenty of prestige. The founder of CNN has a Georgian accent, and he's got enough prestige. George Soros speaks with a Hungarian accent, and he's got prestige. Henry Kissinger speaks with a German accent so thick you need a chainsaw to cut it, and he has LOTS of prestige, as does Zbigniew Brzinski, who has a Polish accent. Prestige does not come from accents.
My comment:
No. But accents may give you prestige. Sociolinguistic research proves that people using RP are treated differently from speakers of Cockney, for instance.
Jamie:
As I mentioned in another post, a study was done to find out which accents native English speakers found to be the "most beautiful". The Brits rated RP the "most beautiful" and Cockney almost dead last. The Americans rated RP the "most beautiful" and they rated Cockney SECOND! What do you do with that?
My comment:
This is my point. They all rated RP the most beautiful accent. When British schoolchildren were asked to rate English accents it turned out that RP was the most prestigious variety, and Indian English ranked higher than the local vernacular (and Cockney which didn't score much at all).
Jamie:
I can see from the way you wrote that sentence that you yourself very obviously do not speak with a British accent.
My comment:
If you're basing your assumption on my spelling error I cannot but argue that we're all humans which means that we all make mistakes. Spelling errors of this kind gives very little information about a person's performance in oral tasks. It's true that the phonemes /v/ and /w/ are very different.
Jamie:
Not true. The very wonderful series "The Cambridge English Course" starts students out hearing four or five accents, and keeps adding them until by the end of the intermediate book, they can understand at least 15 of them. The pronunciation portions are done with at least three accents by the intermediate level. The result is that the students can understand world English. They can choose to pronounce the way they want, which is perfectly okay, as long as it's clear.
My comment:
I do disagree with you. Have you read Professor Dr A. C. Gimson's "An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English?" Professor Gimson, who used to be one of Britain's most talented phoneticans and who learned from Daniel Jones himself probably knew something about learning strategies within the domain of pronunciation. And Dr Gimson's conclusion was that the foreign learner of English should start his studies studying only one accent, namely, RP.
Jamie:
Go to Eastern Europe as an American or an Australian, and you'll run into plenty of them. Many of the British don't know about the problem, because unless they walk around with an American all day, they never see it happen. Sometimes privately run language schools there will refuse to hire an eloquent, well-educated speaker of General American or another national standard, and instead hire someone inarticulate who speaks Cockney or some similar dialect, because he has a "British" accent.
My comment:
I'm sure that some employers discriminate Australian or American applicants because of their accents. This is improper, of course, but also understandible as a particular school might prefer British English speaking teachers. I personally know an Australian teacher who speaks with a quite good imitation of a British accent and such people would probably get the job just like Britons.
Jamie:
"Close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. If the teacher's accent is merely "quite close", then it's not British.
My comment:
At this point we must ask ourselves: what counts as a British accent? Is an accent that Jamie thinks is British a British accent? Or an accent that a British dustman would consider British? Or do we need to use sound spectographs, X-ray, and other apparatus to find out whether an accent is British or not? I'd rather say that many foreign teachers have British accents with an acceptable foreing undertone.
Jamie:
I would say that near-native pronunciation is also relatively rare in Sweden and Germany.
My comment:
Perhaps. But there are such speakers. And try to find people with near-native pronunciations in Georgia, for instance. This is quite natural as Swedish and German are so closely related to English (Old English was very close to Old Norse and had developed from Germanic Anglo-Saxon languages as you surely know).
Jamie:
I have a student right now from Germany who speaks with a German accent, pronounces her final [r] as in RP
My comment:
What final /r/ in RP? RP is a non-rhotic accent and the final /r/ is only pronunced when followed by a vowel sound.
Jamie:
, and pronounces intervocalic /t/ as a tap, the way Americans do. Her speech is a big mix of different accents, and nobody here cares, because she is a sweet girl who speaks crystal clear English. It is very normal to have a foreign accent, or even a mix of several native accents, and still speak completely clear, beautiful English.
My comment:
I'm sure she does. |
|
Englishuser
I'm here quite often ;-)
Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Posts: 806
|
|
| Thu Jun 08, 2006 4:32 am Accent |
|
|
| Englishuser wrote: | | I agree. But this doesn't mean that RP wouldn't be considered the most prestigious English accent of accents (see my comments below). |
The British guy and the American guy are both telling you that prestige doesn't come into the equation. You're very stubborn with this.
| Englishuser wrote: | | No way. If you take a Hungarian person or a Vietnamese person with no phonological training (or self-studies in English phononlogy) and ask them to read an English text, I'd be very surprised should you understand as much as a few words in a flow of speech. |
You're not talking about people with no phonological training, but about people who have never been taught English. Hungarians who have been taught English -- with no phonological training -- are very easy to understand, even if their English teacher had a Hungarian accent. Vietnamese people have special phonotactic problems, so they need special training, but it makes no difference what accent they use as a target. They'll still sound Vietnamese.
| Englishuser wrote: | | It's true that most foreigners have foreign accents, but they clearly are allophonically closer to English speakers than to native speakers of their first language (when they speak in that language) when speaking English. |
This is more or less a tautological statement, so I'm going to ignore it.
| Englishuser wrote: | | Yes. But where did English originate? |
It makes absolutely no difference where English originated, because nobody anywhere in the world speaks the original English. RP is a much newer development than the main accents of the US, Canada and Ireland, so if you were really trying to consider historic precedent, you'd forget about RP and use General American or some Irish accent as your model. Talking about where English originated is just a nonsense argument.
| Englishuser wrote: | | No. But accents may give you prestige. Sociolinguistic research proves that people using RP are treated differently from speakers of Cockney, for instance. |
But that doesn't necessarily mean the RP speaker has prestige.
| Englishuser wrote: | | This is my point. They all rated RP the most beautiful accent. When British schoolchildren were asked to rate English accents it turned out that RP was the most prestigious variety, and Indian English ranked higher than the local vernacular (and Cockney which didn't score much at all). |
That's because people generally underrate their local vernacular. Anyway, what do these studies consist of? The subjects are asked to rate the "beauty" or "prestige" of a disembodied voice on a recording, even though they might never think about its "beauty" or "prestige" in the daily course of their lives. Furthermore, the studies assign this task to people who have already been brainwashed toward a predetermined conclusion, based on social class or broadcasting standards.
| Englishuser wrote: | | If you're basing your assumption on my spelling error I cannot but argue that we're all humans which means that we all make mistakes. Spelling errors of this kind gives very little information about a person's performance in oral tasks. It's true that the phonemes /v/ and /w/ are very different. |
It gives very good evidence of a person's oral performance! W and V are very far from each other on a keyboard, so that wasn't a spelling error. It was accent interference.
I have to do diagnostic testing on Germans who are not present and insist on being tested over the Internet. I devised a pronunciation test that is completely written, and it predicts the German's pronunciation ability as well as I could if he were sitting in the room with me. The person arrives in the US speaking exactly as the test told me he would!
| Englishuser wrote: | | I do disagree with you. Have you read Professor Dr A. C. Gimson's "An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English?" Professor Gimson, who used to be one of Britain's most talented phoneticans and who learned from Daniel Jones himself probably knew something about learning strategies within the domain of pronunciation. And Dr Gimson's conclusion was that the foreign learner of English should start his studies studying only one accent, namely, RP. |
You're going back to sources that are nearly half a century old! There has been enormous progress in phonetics, phonology and pedagogy since 1962, as well as enormous societal change in the English-speaking world. You are forming your opinion based on archaic sources.
Dr. Gimson was simply wrong when it comes to people who need to learn English for practical use as early as possible. Studying only RP leaves the student unequipped to understand world English, which is what people need it for nowadays. It is foolish to teach students today the knowledge of only one accent, because if you can only understand one accent, then you don't understand English.
| Englishuser wrote: | | I'm sure that some employers discriminate Australian or American applicants because of their accents. This is improper, of course, but also understandible as a particular school might prefer British English speaking teachers. I personally know an Australian teacher who speaks with a quite good imitation of a British accent and such people would probably get the job just like Britons. |
In the type of school I'm talking about, he couldn't get the job, because he's Australian. People running this sort of school don't understand English well anyway, so they wouldn't much hear the difference between an RP-speaking Australian and a Brit who can't break out of Cockney. They won't realize either that General American is a more "prestigious" variety than Cockney. They're like the foreign English teacher I saw who told a girl from New Zealand that her New Zealand accent was unintelligible, and didn't realize that the girl had been speaking RP the whole time.
| Englishuser wrote: | | At this point we must ask ourselves: what counts as a British accent? Is an accent that Jamie thinks is British a British accent? Or an accent that a British dustman would consider British? Or do we need to use sound spectographs, X-ray, and other apparatus to find out whether an accent is British or not? I'd rather say that many foreign teachers have British accents with an acceptable foreing undertone. |
If they have a foreign undertone, then they don't have British accents. If a native speaker can tell from the accent that a person is not British, then he doesn't have a British accent. Period. That's all. Why is that so hard to understand? I think a lot of foreign teachers have a lot of ego invested in thinking their accents are British, when they are actually foreign.
Even when I asked you directly, you didn't tell me your native language. From your attitudes and beliefs, however, I already know several things about it, even if I don't know which one it is:
1. Your language probably has a national academy that determines pronunciation, vocabulary, spelling and syntax rules for the whole nation.
2. Your language probably has only one standard, which is based in one city.
3. Your language's standard is probably not the native dialect of most of the population, and may not even be the native dialect of ANYONE in your country.
4. Most people in your country probably walk around being a little embarrassed because they are talking "incorrectly". |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4466
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:29 am Your language |
|
|
Hi,
The investigation is on. What is the first language of Englishuser?
Some selections from what has been written where the English could give some pointers:
| Quote: | | I'd be very surprised should you understand as much as a few words in a flow of speech |
| Quote: | | I cannot but argue |
| Quote: | | This is improper, of course, but also understandible |
| Quote: | | who speaks with a quite good imitation |
| Quote: | | Or an accent that a British dustman would consider British |
The last quote reminds me me of Pygmalion and Professor Higgins.
Any suggestions?
Alan
_________________
English as a Second Language
You can read my ESL story Reflections |
|
Alan
Co-founder
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
Posts: 7653
Location: UK
|
|
| Thu Jun 08, 2006 11:22 am Accent |
|
|
Jamie:
The British guy and the American guy are both telling you that prestige doesn't come into the equation. You're very stubborn with this.
My comment:
The question remains: why are there so many sociolinguists that do not share your opinion?
Jamie:
You're not talking about people with no phonological training, but about people who have never been taught English. Hungarians who have been taught English -- with no phonological training -- are very easy to understand, even if their English teacher had a Hungarian accent. Vietnamese people have special phonotactic problems, so they need special training, but it makes no difference what accent they use as a target. They'll still sound Vietnamese.
My comment:
Yes, but this is again about how we choose to define the term 'phonological training'. In Gimson's sense teaching spoken English and pronunciation is quite synonymous with 'phonological training'.
Jamie:
| Englishuser wrote: | | It's true that most foreigners have foreign accents, but they clearly are allophonically closer to English speakers than to native speakers of their first language (when they speak in that language) when speaking English. |
This is more or less a tautological statement, so I'm going to ignore it.
My comment:
The statement is all but tautological. I think it's fairly obvious that a foreigner speaking English uses allophones closer to those of native speakers of English than to the allophones used in speaking his/her native language.
Jamie:
It makes absolutely no difference where English originated, because nobody anywhere in the world speaks the original English. RP is a much newer development than the main accents of the US, Canada and Ireland, so if you were really trying to consider historic precedent, you'd forget about RP and use General American or some Irish accent as your model. Talking about where English originated is just a nonsense argument.
My comment:
Yes. Many Old and Middle English pronunciations 'survive' in British regional accents. For example 'thou' is used for 'you' in some parts of Scotland. The post-vocalic /r/, which is found in General American, General Canadian, Scottish, and some South-Western British accents is very close to the Elizabethan pronuciation...
Jamie:
But that doesn't necessarily mean the RP speaker has prestige.
My comment:
No. But RP speakers often do have prestige.
Jamie:
That's because people generally underrate their local vernacular. Anyway, what do these studies consist of? The subjects are asked to rate the "beauty" or "prestige" of a disembodied voice on a recording, even though they might never think about its "beauty" or "prestige" in the daily course of their lives. Furthermore, the studies assign this task to people who have already been brainwashed toward a predetermined conclusion, based on social class or broadcasting standards.
My comment:
I'm sure that phoneticans can pick up subjects that are all but brainwashed. That's why children are good subjects in phonological research.
Jamie:
It gives very good evidence of a person's oral performance! W and V are very far from each other on a keyboard, so that wasn't a spelling error. It was accent interference.
My comment:
Not necessarily. My secretary might have made the mistake. My keyboard might not look the same as yours.
Jamie:
I have to do diagnostic testing on Germans who are not present and insist on being tested over the Internet. I devised a pronunciation test that is completely written, and it predicts the German's pronunciation ability as well as I could if he were sitting in the room with me. The person arrives in the US speaking exactly as the test told me he would!
My comment:
That's somewhat untrue. Take words like 'Thames', 'colonel', and 'gaol'. You might spell them correctly, but it does not mean that you know anything whatsoever about the irregular pronunciation.
Jamie:
You're going back to sources that are nearly half a century old! There has been enormous progress in phonetics, phonology and pedagogy since 1962, as well as enormous societal change in the English-speaking world. You are forming your opinion based on archaic sources.
My comment:
Dr Gimson's masterpiece has been edited for a modern audience by modern phoneticians in a brave new world.
Jamie:
It is foolish to teach students today the knowledge of only one accent, because if you can only understand one accent, then you don't understand English.
My comment:
Even though just one accent is taught students will naturally hear other accents on e.g. television as well as in real life. Thus there is no need to teach 'World English' in the classroom from the beginning: it should naturally be dealt with as soon as the student masters the basics in a certain accent.
Jamie:
| Englishuser wrote: | | At this point we must ask ourselves: what counts as a British accent? Is an accent that Jamie thinks is British a British accent? Or an accent that a British dustman would consider British? Or do we need to use sound spectographs, X-ray, and other apparatus to find out whether an accent is British or not? I'd rather say that many foreign teachers have British accents with an acceptable foreing undertone. |
If they have a foreign undertone, then they don't have British accents. If a native speaker can tell from the accent that a person is not British, then he doesn't have a British accent. Period. That's all. Why is that so hard to understand? I think a lot of foreign teachers have a lot of ego invested in thinking their accents are British, when they are actually foreign.
My comment:
But who is to determine whether an accent has a foreign undertone? You, Jamie? Wouldn't it be more scientific to use X-ray and a spectograph? Besides, American people sometimes think that an accent is British even when the speaker has a foreign undertone that a British dialectologist would notice.
Jamie:
Even when I asked you directly, you didn't tell me your native language. From your attitudes and beliefs, however, I already know several things about it, even if I don't know which one it is:
1. Your language probably has a national academy that determines pronunciation, vocabulary, spelling and syntax rules for the whole nation.
2. Your language probably has only one standard, which is based in one city.
3. Your language's standard is probably not the native dialect of most of the population, and may not even be the native dialect of ANYONE in your country.
4. Most people in your country probably walk around being a little embarrassed because they are talking "incorrectly".[/quote]
My comment:
This is all an experiment. What I write does not always correspond with my values or thoughts. Have you ever heard of acting? You have been and continue to be a bonanza for me. With your help I have found out something about how an American University Lecturer reacts when exposed to comments like this. I'm bilingual. |
|
Englishuser
I'm here quite often ;-)
Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Posts: 806
|
|
| Thu Jun 08, 2006 11:33 am Your language |
|
|
Alan:
Hi,
The investigation is on. What is the first language of Englishuser?
Some selections from what has been written where the English could give some pointers:
My comment:
My dearest Alan,
What is this all about? Is the purpose of the forum to analyse individual users' command of written English? And has Alan ever read compositions written by native English students? Are those free from mistakes or accent interference? No, they are not. Very few students manage to write compositions without any lapses, errors, or mistakes. I am very disappointed to note that this forum seems to be a forum where users get unwanted attention like this. It seems very immature and improper that a teacher of English starts an investigation like this. It just proves that even among teachers of English you can find people that cannot behave themselves.
| Quote: | | I'd be very surprised should you understand as much as a few words in a flow of speech |
.
Comment: Too much ellipsis, I agree. But using context clues the sentence is quite intelligible.
| Quote: | | I cannot but argue |
Comment: This makes sense...
| Quote: | | This is improper, of course, but also understandible |
Comment: We all make mistakes.
| Quote: | | who speaks with a quite good imitation |
Comment: See above. This has nothing to do with interference but more with carelessness.
Comment: Colloquial expressio.
| Quote: | | Or an accent that a British dustman would consider British |
The last quote reminds me me of Pygmalion and Professor Higgins.
Comment: What's wrong with Professor Higgins?
Any suggestions?
Comment: Still to come. |
|
Englishuser
I'm here quite often ;-)
Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Posts: 806
|
|
| Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:13 pm Your language |
|
|
| Alan wrote: | | Any suggestions? |
No suggestions, really, though curiosity has gripped me, too. Anyway, if Englishuser prefers not to disclose his/her nationality, I respect his/her decision.
Whether a native or not, Englishuser shows an excellent command of English, I find. As a matter of fact, I am thoroughly enjoying every word of this thread, which touches on a fascinating subject.
In between posts, could someone please tell me what we are now supposed to call Oxford English or the Received Pronunciation: middle-class English, (southern) British English, good British English, standard English accent, formal English, 20th century BBC English, 21st century BBC English, public school English, educated English, academic English, model English for teaching foreigners, accentless English, prestigious English or eybrow raising English?
(Utterly  now!) |
|
Conchita
Language Coach
Joined: 26 Dec 2005
Posts: 2823
Location: Madrid, Spain
|
|
| Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:13 pm Accents |
|
|
Hi Englishuser,
My apologies for the bad taste I have displayed. I would not have committed this lapse of good manners (if you can commit lapses) unless I had known that you were well and truly able to defend yourself. Thanks for your contributions and I promise I will try to be the model of impeccable taste in future. At any rate congratulations on your robust reply.
Alan
_________________
English as a Foreign Language
You can read my EFL story Are you a Persuader? |
|
Alan
Co-founder
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
Posts: 7653
Location: UK
|
|
| Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:21 pm More about /v/ and /w/ interference |
|
|
Jamie,
As you probably know different letters are pronounced differently in different languages. Thus you cannot really claim that a misspelt word has very much to do with oral performance: you would simply need to hear a person speak to be able to claim that the person in question makes certain mistakes. I must say that it'd make the foreign learner's task much easier if writing skills were synonymous with oral skills. Modern English spelling is largely based on Late Middle English speech, so I must say I'm astonished when you say that you use some sort of a pronunciation test that is done over the Net, using the Latin alphabet (forgive me if I err, I cannot remember all details in previous posts)! To type the phonetics is then another story... And when I think closely of the misspelling you remarked on, I can honestly say that I wouldn't pronounce it that way. I never would. I do not claim that I know all pronunciations in the English language, but I very highly doubt that you or even Alan knows them, either. There are too many irregularities in English pronunciation, and you can always find e.g. a foreign proper name that you would find difficult to pronounce without consulting a good pronouncing dictionary.
Best wishes. |
|
Englishuser
I'm here quite often ;-)
Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Posts: 806
|
|
| Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:28 pm Rp? |
|
|
Hi Conchita,
As always we can rely on you to bring the matter into perspective. I do like your definition:
| Quote: | | eyebrow raising English |
Alan
_________________
English as a Second Language
You can read my ESL story Well, Hello! |
|
Alan
Co-founder
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
Posts: 7653
Location: UK
|
|
| Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:32 pm Exchanging recordings |
|
|
If you allow me to tell you that I find this discussion highly valuable. You can read a lot of books about accents, dialects, phonology and variations of English but the current debate is much more direct and topical although it might be less objective.
I suggest at some point we should record samples of our own voices and exchange them here so we can analyze our own accents and dialects. Technically this is rather simple. What are your thoughts on this?
_________________
Test Of English for International Communication
TOEIC Preparation & TOEIC Vocabulary |
|
Torsten
Site Admin
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 8062
Location: EU
|
|
| Thu Jun 08, 2006 13:03 pm Accents |
|
|
Hi Alan,
You wrote:
My apologies for the bad taste I have displayed. I would not have committed this lapse of good manners (if you can commit lapses) unless I had known that you were well and truly able to defend yourself. Thanks for your contributions and I promise I will try to be the model of impeccable taste in future. At any rate congratulations on your robust reply.
Please find my reply below.
Thank you very much for your reply. I definitely trust your judgement, and I never thought you would comment on a person's English unless you were, like you said, aware of the fact that that person would actually be able to defend herself/himself (non-sexist language is sometimes clumsy but hopefully appreciated). I also admit (and many of you have probably noticed) that I sometimes use a provocative tone: I think it gives more to the debate, but this should not be exaggerated, of course. When it comes to the RP-discussion, I definitely must say that I naturally accept all kinds of accents, and we cannot demand people to do anything more than their very best. I would never dream of remarking on a person's accent face-to-face except in a courteous manner. I personally see this discussion as a discussion taking place on a theoretical and general level and that's why I was surprised when Jamie and Alan posted replies concerning me as an individual user of English: I certainly am not here to discuss my idiolect, but am naturally more than pleased to receive comments on my writing (I might even ask for them in one of the forums, who knows).
Best wishes to you all. |
|
Englishuser
I'm here quite often ;-)
Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Posts: 806
|
|
| Thu Jun 08, 2006 13:07 pm Exchanging recordings |
|
|
Tosten:
[quote="Torsten"]If you allow me to tell you that I find this discussion highly valuable. You can read a lot of books about accents, dialects, phonology and variations of English but the current debate is much more direct and topical although it might be less objective.
My comment:
Yes, I have enjoyed this discussion very much. I also agree that it has been less objective at times, but it hasn't bothered me that much (this is pompous of me to say as I've had such a provocative approach over here myself).
Torsten:
I suggest at some point we should record samples of our own voices and exchange them here so we can analyze our own accents and dialects. Technically this is rather simple. What are your thoughts on this?
My comment:
I love your idea, Torsten! It would be very interesting to hear your accents and to find out what others think of mine. I think we should consider this seriously. |
|
Englishuser
I'm here quite often ;-)
Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Posts: 806
|
|
|
| Old English, Middle English and Shakespeare | Edith Wharton's "The Age of Innocence" |
