Hi,
Some thoughts on the different types of English:
Short story: ‘Englishes’?
[size=75]http://www.english-test.net/stories/53/index.html[/size]
Regards,
Alan
What is more, as far as I know, a reform like that started by printing out a newspaper in phonetic English. It was supposed to be easier for the people to read because, for example “a table” would be spelt “teibal” (the way it is pronounced). Many people, whose native language is phonetic (mine is one of them), would be really happy because this would have saved them a lot of hard work studying the English spelling. But when this newspaper came out, it turned out that people couldn’t even recognize the words, they looked weird to them and not only was the reform not welcomed, but they wanted back their old and difficult spelling. They just felt comfortable with it. So that reform, or rather the vague beginning of it, was a complete failure.
Although English spelling is not easy, I think that it’s at least not boring because it keeps you alert.
As far as the British/ American differences in spelling are concerned, for a couple of years now both spellings are acceptable in my country, even when you have to sit for a university exam. Years ago only the British spelling was recognized as the correct one. One did have to spell “colour, travelled” etc. Now, it’s fine if you spell “color, traveled”, etc. Focus is put not so much on spelling mistakes but on other writing skills, such as style, cohesion, coherence and the like. The same goes for vocabulary. As long as the text conveys an idea and is in good language, it doesn’t matter if you use, let’s say, at the weekend or on the weekend (to use some of the phrases discussed in this forum).
When I first read guidelines for taking the Cambridge First Certificate exam years ago, I saw that they advised people to stay consistent with the spelling they choose, whether British or American. My immediate thought was, “What would happen to someone who learned English in Canada?” Canadians write centre and colour like the British, but like the Americans they write tire instead of tyre, and they frequently write -ize like the Americans where the British would write -ise. In other cases, they can choose, as between defence and defense. Are the Cambridge testers generally aware of this? How do they handle it?
In addition to that, some “British” spellings are acceptable alternatives in the US. We are permitted to write traveled or travelled, for example.
Having been on teams grading high school entrance exams in Eastern Europe, and having been a grader on the SPEAK test, I can say I’ve had the disturbing experience of watching sausage being made. It’s easy for me to imagine that, with the wrong tester, one of these acceptable variant spellings would act as a trigger and lower the person’s score. I imagine the Cambridge testers are better trained than that, but I can see it happening in the staff room of a school in some non-English-speaking country.
As for coming up with a phonetic spelling system that works for the whole English-speaking world, I doubt it’s possible. Look at all the different possible regional pronunciations of a simple word like car: There are [ka:], [kar], [kor], [k?], [kua], and many others. No matter what phonetic spelling system you choose, it’s going to have a “foreign” accent for almost everybody. Our difficult spelling is part of what unifies us.
Unaccustomed as we are to reading you in this corner of the forum, it came as a nice surprise to have you present an issue for debate here. And one that has already given us more than a few headaches, at that! Although it’s a favourite subject of mine, being as I am interested in all the different aspects of a language, I have become quite reluctant to air my views on the matter here. But, at the risk of getting bitterly scolded again, I’ll jump in headfirst (no, wait, foot first is more my style) and say what I think again.
For all that has been said on other threads, it is more than evident that there are numerous, interesting, enriching and intercomplementary (does the word exist at all?) differences between the many ‘Englishes’ spoken throughout the world, even if it is only one language officially. I greatly enjoy comparing and learning about the numerous variants, dialects, spellings, slangs, idioms and accents there are according to the corner of the world where English is spoken, with all their colourful regional influences, be they geographic, climatic, cultural, social, economic or of another nature. The local characteristics of the language, together with all these factors, are the reflection of a community and can only add to the world’s cultural diversity.
A reform of English spelling and grammar rules? If a bunch of people are set on doing that and have nothing better to do with their time, just let them. At the very least, it will produce jobs and money. But the thankfully inevitable differences will always exist in other spheres of the language. Different differences as time goes by, but differences all the same.
Time to revive this thread? Come back, Conchita. :o
Isn’t that what happened to American English when it “split” from its roots?
The way WHO pronounces it?
I used to think that native speakers of languages with phonemic spelling systems could spell better than Americans could. It just makes sense, right? Then, recently, I had to translate thousands of consumer survey responses from native speakers of just such a phonemically spelled language. I was shocked to find that they didn’t spell their own language any better than English speakers do, and some of them spelled really terribly.
A phonemic spelling system would probably not help foreigners that much, because so many of them have trouble hearing the difference between [ʌ] and [a], for example, or between [e] and [æ]. Many of them can’t hear the difference between [b] and [p] at the end of a word, etc.
Yes, we all spend a lot of time wondering how people talk on the island of Anguilla. This is important knowledge. Thank you.
My family is from the Caribbean, and I understand how this article may prove your point. The fact is, though this is may be the common talk around the Island, it is slang, and not proper English. Government officials, when dealing with other heads of state, do not use these local dialects, not if they want to be taken seriously. Yes, it is enriching and nice, but it is not correct.
And, you want to say " No reason not to know about other English dialects"
I agree with you, to aid communication, one should always try to understand other people, and see where they are coming from. But, there is such a thing as correct, and incorrect. It is essential to know the basics, to know what is right, and then one can feel free to play with the language, and twist it as one pleases. Some of the most successful rap artists, rock lyricists are ones who have studied language and poetry at school. Sure, every artists wants to create their own sound, make something new, but one must learn a little bit of the fundamentals before moving on. A major chord is a major chord, and a minor chord is a minor chord, these things can’t be changed.
I’m merely sharing my ideas, and if my replies appear to be condescending or plain snotty, I apologize. I am a fan of the written word, and I can get carried away at times. I don’t however, think it is at all constructive to write nasty responses to one another. Its immature, cowardly and just plain stupid.
Anguilla has a population of less than 14.000. If they come up with some slang expressions of their own, it doesn’t mean that they have created a new language. I would compare those Anguilla words to Aussie Lingo. It’s common knowledge that every region creates its own set of phrases and terms but these few expressions aren’t described as “other Englishes” but rather as “regional slang”.[YSaerTTEW443543]
TOEIC short conversations: A business executive gives a financial report at a meeting[YSaerTTEW443543]
Torsten, those speakers use an English which is other than your own, which, as said earlier, is quite Germanic. When I’m on home ground, in my Nigerian context, my English is not your English, Torsten. My English is other.
BTW, what’s the difference between “regional slang” and “dialect” in your use of those words?
Still not sure what you mean by “proper English”, nomisyar.
I guess government officials use the dialect/sociolect of Standard English, right?
Why do you assume the Anguillans don’t already know the basics, or what is “right”, before they start creating their own variations of the language?
Has anyone here read this book?
The English Languages
Tom McArthur
Cambridge University Press 1998
Extract from a review:
“Understanding the complexity and diversity of English worldwide is becoming increasingly important. Native speakers publishing on the Internet, to take one obvious example, must realise that we are writing for readers whose Englishes may be far from our standard Australian or standard American.”
Go here for more on it: The English Languages (Tom McArthur) - book review
How about this journal? Can anyone here recommend it?
World Englishes
Edited by:
Margie Berns and Daniel R. Davis
Molly,
I don’t think there is much else to say, you are well entrenched in your position, and I wish you luck with it. Everyone is free to their opinion. I will only say one more time, that the point of language is to communicate ideas, and if your goal is to have someone truly understand what your are thinking, where you are coming from, and what you are feeling, I think that it would easier to do so by using accepted and yes, standard language forms.
I did not assume that the Anguillans do not now the standard English, but, now that you bring up that point, most of the people from the Caribbean that I have met, from over a dozen Islands, did not know proper grammar usages. Personally I think it began in part as an attempt to distance themselves from colonial powers, who forced them to speak the sovereign language. Also, due to slave trade, a small population of native islanders, and Indian immigrants, a hodgepodge of languages and cultures were intermingled and the only place where one could hear and learn the proper English was from the plantation owners, the oppressors. And tell me, who wants to speak like the people who are whipping you and stealing your resources. Even after the countries reached (semi) independence, this “new” language, became the lingua franca of the peoples. When I go back and visit family, it takes a day or two for me to understand, and get used to all the verbal and grammatical shortcuts.
Yes, I use words, like proper and right, and correct. There is a proper way, and original, a template, and anything else is a derivation, it is not the standard. It is not passing judgment to say that it is not correct, because it isn’t. I’m not saying it’s morally evil, or ignorant, or even stupid, just that it is not the correct form of the usage.
I enjoy writing, and part of that pleasure is derived from finding ways to express my ideas within the parameters of the language. Using a common medium to express new and uncommon ideas in hopes that others will understand, that is the fun of it. Its challenging, and its takes a bit of work, and it makes it all that more enjoyable. To throw words crudely on paper without care for grammar or spelling is an affront to my sense of the potential beauty of the written word. Poetry and other forms of creative writing are better avenues to push the envelope of a written language. But web site offering important information to its citizens should be clear, concise and correct.
OK, I suppose I got carried away again.
I will say again, as not to incite the wrath of some readers, that I do not write these statements with any animosity or intent to damage. If my comments appear as much, please let me know, rather than responding with verbal sallies of your own.
That said, I do find it amusing, that the journal you cite in your argument is published by Blackwell. I use to work for John Wiley and Sons, Inc. The publisher that acquired Blackwell last year, Blackwell’s journals are now called "Wiley-Blackwell. Blackwell is a thoroughly “British” company. I will allow anyone to draw any inferences, generalizations, or stereotypes from that, if they desire.
You guys are assuming that language variation and change occur at the conscious level and that social or national groups one day say, “Let’s distance ourselves from the colonial powers,” or, “Let’s create our own national form of English.” It doesn’t happen that way. Most of that stuff happens at the subconscious level, and people are relatively unaware of it, just as people everywhere are quite unaware of how they really talk. It’s very easy, for example, to find a person who speaks a heavy local dialect, is completely unaware of it, who swears he doesn’t. Even if you point out some specific dialect sentence he said, he’ll swear he didn’t say it and get very upset at the assertion. If you don’t believe me, I can give you some experiments to try.
In the Caribbean and the American south, the people whipping the slaves usually did not speak standard English, but more likely some Scots-Irish dialect, and the fact that the slaves did imitate their speech can be found in many features of Caribbean English and what (this week) is called “African-American Vernacular English” have in common with those dialects. (And lest you think that relations between slaves and their owners were always brutal, read the accounts of Booker T. Washington about the various types of relationships former slaves had with their former masters after emancipation. If you need people to work, it makes no management sense to keep them all in constant pain and terror, horrible as the mere status of being a slave was.)
Molly’s problem is not that she’s entrenched in her position, but that she thinks that people who don’t believe in her entrenched position must be uninformed. She thinks that if she bangs away at it, and keeps referencing various published articles, that people will suddenly say, “Gosh! You’re right!” The error of this approach is her not realizing that some of the people who are arguing with her have many years or even decades of exposure to her idea, are probably better-read about it than she is, but simply do not find the arguments convincing and for honest, informed reasons do not accept them. (I used to be this way in matters of art and politics when I was younger.)
Can you show us where that assumption took place?
Wrong, on all counts, but that’s you, isn’t it? It seems your mission is to keep banging away at attacking me and my views until others say “How foolish Molly is and how clever Jamie is, even through his trolling”. Then again, I may be wrong about you. I at least admit that.
If they don’t find the arguments convincing or honest, they have the chance to talk about it here. They have the chance to offer counter-arguments, views, additions, corrections, etc. You have that chance, Jamie, but you seem to waste it in silly trolling and personal attacks. Why do you do that? Why do you need to bring inordinate attention to individual members?
Let’s see if you can stop the personal attacks and offer a bit of valuable argument here. Ready?
Nomisyar said:
And you have made more than one statement about people creating their own variety of English and expressed it in a way that implies that the process was conscious. I’m too busy to go through the threads and dig those out, but they are there. You like to ping-pong, though, so you may deny it.
Also, it’s fallacious to assume that slaves were forced to speak the standard variety of the sovereign language. Their owners were more interested in their work than in refined use of language.
Implies, implies. Ah, Jamie. Stop whinging and offer a decent argument, please.
Here’s a start: Do you think the use of “Did you eat yet?”, in AmE, was/is accidental or conscious?
It was a subconscious development, but it probably comes from some older variety of English imported from the British Isles, as most of those variants do.