 | International English |
|
I have to first confess that I am not as familiar as I perhaps should be with some of the issues surrounding this, but here goes: I am interested in the opinions expressed by some that models of English should not necessarily be, or perhaps should necessarily NOT be, based on native speakers of the language. It is often noted in this regard that there are more non-native speakers of English than native speakers, and that often the communication in English will be between two non-native speakers. I am especially interested in how this applies to how we treat pronunciation in the classroom. My questions are: *What model of pronunciation do we use if not that of a native speaker? *Is there a workable "international English pronunciation" corpus? *Do we develop such a corpus based on some sort of student needs analysis (Japanese to Singaporean, or Brazilian to German, communication)? *Just what IS something like "Japanese English" or "Singaporean English"? I mean, there are English speakers of all levels in Japan. Is Japanese English the sort of pidgin you hear on the TV commercials, or the English spoken by some employees of an international trading company? *Any other questions welcome! Some of my thoughts on this topic are: *Perhaps the model being used ought to be made clear to the students. For myself, I don't make a big deal about this, but they know I am from the U.S., and I point out during class that my pronunciation is a U.S. pronunciation, occasionally highlighting its differences from, say, England, Australia, or even other parts of the U.S. (I'm from Chicago) *I suppose it depends on the situation. My situation is a Japanese university. English is taught, really, for no specific purpose. I believe students expect a native-speaker English model, and do not necessarily feel their language rights have been violated if this is not used. Thanks in advance for any contributions on this topic! |
 | Re: International English |
|
Hi Don, I've been thinking about your posting for the last few days. I'm not really too sure what you mean by "models of pronunciation". I don't expect you mean the teacher is modelling. I know you use Silent Way, and so I suppose you mean something else. Do you mean what I would call the type or variety of English? That's what I gather from the questions you ask. I'll answer as if that's the question. If it isn't, you can always respond and say so... I'm reminded of a response I gave once to people who couldn't see the reason why I would insist on Japanese students learning to use cursive handwriting. Often when I receive a letter from Japan, I see immediately even before I open it that the writer has never been taught to write as I do or as you do, in cursive style. For me, this is a mistake. I think Japanese students should be exposed to correct occidental writing. They should learn how to write as occidentals do. It's a question of principle. If I were a serious student of Japanese and found my teacher had neglected to introduce me to some aspect of the Japanese writing system which left my writing looking western, I would be furious. So I don't think students should be taught some half-baked version of English, on the grounds that "it's good enough. They'll always be understood." I strongly believe that teachers have to aim for the absolute best possible for their students. Some students may decide not to bother to spend time getting to excellence, but the decision is theirs to make, not the teacher's. The teacher should never make that decision on their behalf. I think this is a moral responsibility for all teachers. I don't have the right to decide that second best will do for my students. For me, Japanese English or Singaporean English may sometimes reflect teachers who didn't really know how to teach English pronunciation. One way round this ignorance is to say that foreigners can make do with whatever level the teacher can manage to teach. Wait a minute! That is quite unacceptable. In my experience, it isn't so difficult to teach several versions of English pronunciation in the one class at the one time. The main difference between American English and British English seems to have more to do with general energy levels of speech production than the pronunciation of specific vowels. To sensitize students to these subtle differences in energy is not difficult, and allows them to select the variety of English they would like to adopt when they feel they can make a choice. Hope this gives you food for thought! Roslyn |
| Re: International English |
|
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Roslyn. You helped clarify this issue for me, and articulated some of the thoughts that have been rolling around inside my head. As for my use of the phrase "models of pronunciation," yes, I did not mean modelling of pronunciation but rather the goal or target model, the direction you lead students as they work. I have been reading a little more about this issue. The person who has begun the discussion, it seems, is Jennifer Jenkins. She has developed something called the "lingua franca core" or LFC. Here is a quote from a paper titled "The Lingua Franca Core: A New Model for Pronunciation?" by Rebecca M. Dauer. It was published, by the way, in a special 2005 issue of TESOL dedicated to research on Pronunciation. "(Jenkins) work derives from the English as an international language movement (EIL), which recognizes that there are more than 300 million nonnative English speakers who may regularly use English to communicate more with each other than with native English speakers. These speakers have no need of a near-native accent and should not be forced to choose between two models or 'brands' of English . . . Jenkins believes that teacher training courses reflect a 'native-speaker bias' in promoting unnecessary and unrealistic pronunciation targets for learners. Her LFC is a scaled down list of supposedly more teachable and learnable pronunciation targets and is based on her own research on intelligibility errors among nonnative speakers" And there follows a list of what should, and what need not be taught. Under consonants, for example, she says the "th" sounds can be replaced by /v/ and /f/. The American type of rhotacized final /r/ should be taught, and not the British version of a final "r." The list is short, but I do not think it is necessary to type it all here. Actually, I am surprised at how little it really differs from a "native speaker model." (although the replacing of the "th" sounds with /v/ and /f/ sounds a little odd). At any rate, having read some of this literature now, I really don't know what the hubbub is all about. I agree with you, Roslyn, that the teacher should not be making these sort of decisions for the student. As for myself, I want to speak Japanese like a native speaker, and I would be furious with any teacher who decided FOR me to work toward the pathetically mediocre goal of "intelligibility," as if that were even something the teacher could define. Even allowing for the facts that Japanese is not English, that there are many more nonnative speakers of English than nonnative speakers of Japanese, and that there may be other considerations unique to the position of English in the world, any decision to lower the bar, or change its position, should be done only by the students. Another related issue--in the 2005 special pronunciation issue of TESOL, many of the writers complain about teachers forcing unrealistic goals upon their students. I am really at a loss to understand this at all. To me, the native-speaker goal/target is like a little flag on a distant green (I am not a golfer, but this image comes to me nonetheless). You need to have something clear to point them toward. How is this DEMANDING something unrealistic? I don't beat them if they don't get a hole-in-one. I am happy for SOME student if they just get on the green. And for others a hole-in-two or a hole-in-three (I told you, I am NOT a golfer). But without that little flag, how do they know how to orient themselves? Okay, this post is already too long. Anyway, thanks for the reply Roslyn. I will continue to read about this issue, but perhaps not with such urgency. I really don't see it as that interesting anymore. |
 | Re: International English |
|
Hello Don, Ros and everybody, For me the problem is not a moral problem but a practical one. It's not that native speakers speak a version of the language that is "excellent" and "correct" and others speak a "half-baked", second-best version. Languages evolve all the time, and in moral terms French is a half-baked, second-best version of Latin, and modern English a degraded version of the language Shakespeare spoke. The practical problem is that languages do evolve in this way into new languages, and in certain circumstances very quickly. There are examples of "Creoles" coming into existence in just two generations. This means that speakers of the new language and the old language no longer understand each other. In the modern world, most people learn English as a "lingua franca" in order to communicate with other people all over the world, and not particularly native speakers. A French person speaking "Franglais" and a Chinese person speaking "Chinglish" are not going to understand each other; if both the Chinese and the French person do their best to attain an International Standard of English they will do so. I'm aware that the version of English I speak is no longer a really up-to-date British version. I don't use as many colloquial expressions, cultural references and contractions as people living in the country do. And as for understanding teenage slang .... I speak a version of International English. When I was in the States not so long ago, people of course recognised me as being British, but not so terribly British: "not like some of those people in movies I can't understand". They understood me and I understood the teachers I was working with. Absolutely no problem. However, I didn't always understand people I met in the street and in shops. Their variety of English was too far from the international standard. English teachers need to be aware of the differences between native varieties of English and the international standard if they are teaching "English as a foreign language" rather than "English as a second language". It's largely a question of common-sense though you still see manuals full of irrelevant references to British, Australian, American, etc. culture being used to teach, for example, Japanese businessmen who want to communicate with Brazilian businessmen. Cheers, Glenys |
| Re: International English |
|
Hi Glenys, I agree with most of what you have said. However, the moral problem I was talking about was not about the relative merits of any particular sort of English. It was about the teacher's right to decide that her students can make do with a version of English which is less than excellent. As we know this is likely to close them off from being able to learn very high quality English if they want to take the time to do so. I think this decision should be made by each student, never by the teacher. Cheers, Roslyn |