The future of English

A month or so there was a heated discussion about which was the legitimate English to teach.  It devolved to a heated rivalry between the classic British and American stances, the former taking the "it's ENGlish because it's from ENGland, so speak it correctly" road, the latter retorting "we have the most English speakers, and we're the orthodox 'business English' so get with the program".

I pointed out that the other English speaking countries had our own way of sprache zie English, and wondered why the first 2 countries never seem to acknowledge the others; then I pointed out that China and perhaps India now have more English speakers in America.  English, becoming the World Language, is now sliding out of the hands of the native countries- well, somewhat anyway.

English as a language has mutated at an amazing pace.  The world grows and changes, and people from every country and linguistic tradition learn it and apply it.  Authorities of our mother tongue such as the Merium-Webster (sp?) people point out that English "is a living language, therefore change is not only inevitable but desirable.

So where is our language going?  What changes are coming down the pipe?  What will become of "the inherent, aesthetic beauty of the language" when confronted with the need for simplicity and utility from new English speakers?  What grammatical and vocabulary additions will we see?

In a nutshell, what English conventions should we fight for?  Which Chinglish/ Hinglish/ Spanglish/ etc. "mistakes" should be allowed to become orthodox?

Big subject!  I'll go first:

Grammar:  My background is in teaching ESL in China, so I think I can be forgiven for addressing Chinglish specifically.

Chinglish: I very like KFC; formal English: I like KFC very much.  The latter forces the syntax sequence to change, pushing the adverb after the verb, so my students slip up on this frequently.  I started to instead teach "I really like Suzhou", which merely replaces one intensifier with another, and the students adapted pretty easily.

To my Chinglish points: 

1. "How to spell 'Saskatchewan?'" Standard English would be "How do you spell Saskatchewan?", "How does one spell Saskatchewan?" or "How is Saskatchewan spelled?".  But personally I prefer the Chinglish structure: sure leaving out the subject makes it technically wrong, but the REAL subject is Saskatchewan, not 'you' or 'one'- this is pointlessly confusing.  And "How is Saskatchewan spelled?" pushes the verb to the very end of the sentence, so the listener has to wait until the sentence is completed before having a proper clue about the meaning.

2. "No why."    I will not truck with this.  "No reason" is at least honest: you can reply "well, if there's no reason, then it's not legit" or accept that something has no reason.  No why?  This implies that I have no right to question the reason for a decision or action.  Them's fightin' words.

3. "I want go Hangzhou."  Why exactly do we need the word "to" here?  Twice?  Chinese uses one word, here "yao" and "qu" for the same effect, what's more using brief terms to describe basic concepts.  I'm logically torn here, since "I want go store" sounds like baby talk.  Is my revulsion purely aesthetic, or is there a logical defense?

The BBC recognises the varieties of English around the world and many of the announcers or program anchors speak using Jamaican, Indian, Pakistani, etc English and local dialects.  This gives a voice to those immigrants and their descendants, but I'm not too certain how many other Brits listen to those programs.  

However, I would go back to my point that what we need to teach is the clearest English, because for the most part our students will be speaking to other NON-native speakers if they are working in tourism, international business etc.  We need to eliminate pronunciation confusions and stick to fairly standard grammar, because that is what the majority of their contacts will be using.  This year I have students either in or preparing to go to Iran, Germany, Sweden, USA, Australia and Scotland.  

Chinglish may sort of work with native speakers because we can generally work out what is meant, but I think for other non-native speakers, with their own Spanglish, Gerglish etc varieties, then in fairness to the students we need to make it as close to standard as possible.  It's not our futures we are playing with, so we have an obligation to keep it straight and encourage the best COMMUNICATION form we can.

For other bits - I teach 'very does NOT go with verbs".  This seems to help.  

You should just be teaching them to sound like me.
You guys seem to keep forgetting...I am The Official Living Avatar of World Standard English^TM. Ask for me by name!


"If you don't sound like me...you talk funny!^TM"

  Here we go again!
Pronunciation is the most important thing to teach in China. Sentence structure is important, but not vital. "I very like English" can be understood by a listener, but given the Chinese propensity to disappear the last consonant of many words, they must be taught proper pronunciation!
My students are being taught that "can" and "carn't" are the correct pronunciations. Because they swallow the last "t" I hear no difference between their ability or lack thereof!
Ask them to tell you "this bird has a sharp beak". They will tell you that "this bird has a silly cunt". Sha bi being the Chinese equivalent of same.
So kindly disregard the Raoulster in matters of pronunciation. Teach your students the proper way! They will thank you one day.

Here we go again!
Pronunciation is the most important thing to teach in China..... Teach your students the proper way! They will thank you one day.

Amen!!!!!!!


Especially if they work in tourism, international companies or study overseas.  If they just want to pass CET 4 or 6 - then the pronunciation is as dodgy as the answers to the grammar questions!!

agree about pronounciation

in the future i can imagine the spelling in english being changed to accomodate 2nd language people. you can't blame students for getting pronounciation wrong when spelling is so illogical sometimes

in terms of grammar i think that the english language doesn't really need to be improved, of course some stuff is quite difficult for students to get the hang of, specially chinese students since their grammar is so different to ours, but really the only thing i would say that could be improved if you were going to 'update' english would be to get rid of some of the idiosyncratic spellings

they did that a bit with american english, but obviously it would be a massive project

the majority of native speakers also have trouble with pronouncing and spelling a lot of english words at an advanced level

A month or so there was a heated discussion about which was the legitimate English to teach.  It devolved to a heated rivalry between the classic British and American stances, the former taking the "it's ENGlish because it's from ENGland, so speak it correctly" road, the latter retorting "we have the most English speakers, and we're the orthodox 'business English' so get with the program".

Now this is why you should be Canadian!

I tell my students that for the most part we speak American English, but we still write predominately British. What I don't tell them is whether or not this is the best or worst from each 

Hmph. Canadians won't even be in the running until they get that "about" thing sorted out.

Anyway. I strongly agree that pronunciation is terribly underweighted in Chinese English education. I always gave it as much attention in class as I could get away with...sadly, both a lot of schools and a lot of students don't show much interest in it.

Of course, what Loathsome Gerge is trying to desperately skirt around is that, as The Official Living Avatar of World Standard English^TM, my own pronunciation is naturally impeccable, and should serve as a model for all.

ESPECIALLY you  lot.

Impeccable, ...and we won't even mention the execrable pronunciation of aluminium, which they don't even spell correctly! So there!!

Uh, Gerge, you know that I deeply tolerate you like a brother (OK, maybe a brother that was stolen at birth by wild dingos, raised in the bush, and whom I have never met or even heard of, but still...), but I fear I have to tell you: You and your quaint regional accent are not exactly in a position to determine what the standards are. I'm sorry to have to tell you this.

Besides, I'm not saying that ALL Americans speak perfect Standard English (although we do at least get "aluminum" right; perhaps this is because we invented it)...only me. Why, plenty of other Americans talk almost as funny as you do!

I sincerely hope this is some small comfort to you.

Sad to relate, but,as usual, the Americans overlook the usual small details, when claiming ownership of everything!
According to Jefferson Lab, "Scientists suspected than an unknown metal existed in alum as early as 1787, but they did not have a way to extract it until 1825. Hans Christian Oersted, a Danish chemist, was the first to produce tiny amounts of aluminum. Two years later, Friedrich Wöhler, a German chemist, developed a different way to obtain the metal. By 1845, he was able to produce samples large enough to determine some of aluminum's basic properties. Wöhler's method was improved in 1854 by Henri Étienne Sainte-Claire Deville, a French chemist. Deville's process allowed for the commercial production of aluminum. As a result, the price of the metal dropped from around $1200 per kilogram in 1852 to around $40 per kilogram in 1859. Unfortunately, the metal remained too expensive to be widely used."

Then on April 2, 1889, Charles Martin Hall patented an inexpensive method for the production of aluminum, which brought the metal into wide commercial use.

See, he merely devised a new way to get the stuff. Because it was an Ohioan University that he graduated from, he wasn't too strong in the spelling department, or in the typing department, either. Even though every other new stuff was a "somethingorotherIUM", this little fellow left out the "I", thus leading all future generations of Americans, down the garden path!

Besides, I'm not saying that ALL Americans speak perfect Standard English  ...only me.

So, your quaint regional accent is not Nationally accepted? Mine is!

Quote

Besides, I'm not saying that ALL Americans speak perfect Standard English  ...only me.

So, your quaint regional accent is not Nationally accepted?    Mine is!

     

So, your quaint regional accent is not Nationally accepted? Mine is!

Silly chicken, I'm sure that braying twang of yours IS "Nationally accepted"...in one Nation.

As The Official Living Avatar of World Standard English^TM, my version of English, unlike yours, is GLOBALLY accepted. I trust that even you can see the difference here.

As for the history of aluminum...keep your petty details. Yes, I'm sure some la-de-da Continental fruit-salads became aware of it long ago, but they couldn't make much of it. Since it was no apparent use to European interests of the time- parlor games, elaborate sauces, or scandalous kinky sex- it remained a mere laboratory curiosity. It took American know-how to make aluminum cheap enough to use for food wrappings, drink cans, and light but strong frames for aircraft capable of carpet-bombing other countries, defending them from the hydra-headed perils of Fascism, Communism, Terrorism, and inefficient spelling/pronunciation errors like "aluminium".

So there.

I cannot agree that pronunciation is the most important aspect of English instruction, as that particular is so variable throughout the world’s speakers. The essential problem of the English learner is to become accustomed to the variety of pronunciations accepted in the world, and learn to understand each of them. There is a growing consensus that vocabulary is, by far, the most important. As practical matter, it is the size of one's vocabulary that most impacts the quality of one's language usage. It is one of the few circumstances where size truly matters.