Non-native English, accents et al!

[dugdig]

It is youse in Liverpool. The thing is if we taught kids 100% proper lardy dah English you'd have a situation like in India where the English is superb......but a tad outdated.

So I personally think in some ways teaching 'slang' or realistic English is kind of okay? I mean if they're going to Oz they need to know what a lolly, ute and arvo are right? Although maybe not what a dag is

I'm looking forward to Mockney ESL by Jamie Oliver to be released soon! Sorted chap! Pukka and dat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree. If you taught kids 100% lardy dah English I think you'd have a situation like in India where the English is superb and where people can communicate excellently with English speakers from anywhere in the world. You would have people who can attract IT jobs away from the USA. Jobs that pay more than teachers in Thailand make!! You may think that their English is 'a tad outdated' but they don't....and don't forget that they outnumber Ozzies and Liverpuddlians combined. If the kids travel to the USA they don't need to know what a lolly, ute, or arve are right?

I'm from the USA and we have meters. I taught physics in English in Nong Khai and I explained to the students about meters and metres. I told them that even though I am american that I would use metres since that is what most of the world uses. I offered them 5 bonus points if I used meters and they caught me doing it. Slang may be fun and it may be useful in creating interest but if it is taught it should be taught as slang and used to teach that even though people from all over the world speak english it does not mean that they leave their own culture behind.

[kenkannif]

I did kind of mean it in a specific context.

And are you sure Indians get all these jobs because their English is SO good? Or more because they speak better English compared (and have a good education all round) to most other 'cheap' labour Asian nationalities?

Yeah I know Indians don't think they're English is outdated, don't mean it ain't though

[Whitey]

I have yet to meet an Indian person who I could hold a decent conversation with in English---and be understood by them or understand what the heck they are saying. I dont know why people harp about the quality of English in India - it sucks. There is no doubt about it.

What they do have is more than a billion people and even if 5% have passable English skills, that is a heck of a lot of people, as many as live in the UK.

Wanna talk about the quality of English in India? They had the Amazing Race in India and for two weeks, viewers got a good sample of Indian English---- the contestants were running around trying to find people who spoke enough English to buy train tickets! They had a much easier time in Thailand!

I might add this also: The ones Americans have to watch out for our the Filipinos, they have enough grasp of American culture and slang that they can steal jobs away by the thousands.

[dugdig]

I did kind of mean it in a specific context.

And are you sure Indians get all these jobs because their English is SO good? Or more because they speak better English compared (and have a good education all round) to most other 'cheap' labour Asian nationalities?

Yeah I know Indians don't think they're English is outdated, don't mean it ain't though

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The English spoken by a large part of the population in India actually is incredibly good...really really good! The truth is I can understand the Indian variety of English better than I can understand Liverpuddlian or Oz-speak. I think it is odd to say that a language spoken everyday by literaly 100's of millions of people is outdated.

[kenkannif]

They speak colonial English mate: Oh yes deary me kind sir (wobble wobble) etc.

So English from years ago (when they were still a colony) thus out dated English (although you could argue it's up to date Indian English, but it ain't English as I and most other 'native' speakers know it....so maybe to you an odd statement, but just 'cos millions of people speak it doesn't make it correct/right!) and I'm not just talking about the accent (if at all), but rather the grammatical structure and the words they use.

[dugdig]

I guess then since the usa was once a colony then american english is colonial english too? Is this right or am I missing something here.

I guess when you say that indian english is outdated you mean that you don't like the style or the vocabulary? Its old fashioned? I'm interested in exactly what you mean when you say it is outdated.

When I think of something being outdated I think that it is no longer effective in performing its function. An example of this is when a language from some indigenous people has such a limited vocabulary that it can not be used to carry on a conversation because the native speakers have lives that are filled with things and ideas which have no referent in their language. This is certainly not true of the English used in India.

AS far as whether if milllions of people speaking a certain way makes it right or not...thats a good question. Who does decide what is proper language and what is not? I guess for me if there is a society which publishes books and establishes schools to teach a language a certain way then I guess that what they speak a proper language. For instance American and British English. I think they are both proper languages, do you?

[Ajarn]

For instance American and British English. I think they are both proper languages, do you?

Now you've opened a can of worms...

In my opinion, both are 'proper' because they are a reflection of the local culture- as most any language is likely to be...

I think American English is more flexible than Brit English because it seems to me that Brit English is also class-based, hence, less flexible than the language in a society that is non class-based, like American English..

I'm sure there would be lots of arguments on that, but that's my personal sense...

By the way, Malaysia has also created their own Official Malaysian English Standard, too. Changes like making uncountable nouns countable without the need for classifiers, and differences in preposition use....

[PeaceBlondie]

Could it be that native speakers of English from North America find it even more difficult to understand speakers from India because, first of all, their vocabulary and syntax may be old-fashioned (although not out-dated)? The employee I had, and an income tax client that I had, spoke very bad English. They were both well educated, and coincidentally from Kerala, in southernmost India. My boss from New Delhi or Calcutta was much worse. Maybe I got the bottom of the barrel, earned degrees and all. Perhaps their writing style was better (Joseph's wasn't).

All those call centers (centres) that are opening up in India - how well do they speak if they're taking calls from North America?

The correctness or rather the effectiveness of any language, in my opinion, should be measured by how well it communicates. If the pronunciation is atrocious, it doesn't communicate.

[kenkannif]

I don't like or dislike anything about 'Indian' English, indeed I find it rather quaint!

But please, dear kind sir, what I'm try to inform you of is the fact that while yes indeed the good Indian people can speak the English of the Queen...it's circa 1950 or so! So outdated in the sense they use words and expressions that are long, long past their sell by date. Old and like I say rather quaint, but nonetheless not English for 'today' in my worthless opinion. Also the rate of speech, pronunciation and head wobbling can be very off putting (are you shaking your head no? Or wobbling it yes?).

Outdated to you it seems is different from me. Outdated to me is wearing flared cords 10 years after they went out of 'fashion', or platform heels. It's like me using Shakespeare 'where for art thou PB' in everyday speech yes kind of correct and you'll generally understand what I'm on about, but not really that good an idea. I think also that English (there's not need to specify it as British English, that's like calling something cheesy cheese, rather you need to specify the non-British countries (and to be fair as an Englishman I'm not too keen on being compared to the Irish, Welsh and Scottish speakers of our language....thanks!), so American English (does that include Brazil et al?), Indian English etc.) is becoming a tad outdated compared to American English, but due to our huge diet of American TV English is (like most things in the world) becoming more and more Americanised (whereas it seems to me Indian English was caught in a rut long long ago and has been perpetuated by Indian teachers teaching English to Indians without moving with the times). So it's probably only a matter of time before American English most likely becomes English....English!

And as you say dugdig there are no formal 'teaching Indian English' books or courses etc. so what does that say to you? It's a pure form of English? Or a bastardised colonial throwback?

Ajarn,

Come on while there all still classes in the UK, I doubt it makes a big difference these days....to be fair I'm sure America has classes as well (so a gang member would speak the same as a stock broker in the States?). Is it a class thing or access to a good education? Willingness to learn? What's on TV? How your friends talk, Etc.? That influences what and how much you learn, and how you use it? I talk common English I'd say, but I'm not really common per se, my parents who would have been classed as common (my Mother was born within the sound of Bow Bells and thus is a Cockney) talk probably posher than I do, and yet they're not at all? Why do a lot of 'rich' Americans (I was talking about this yesterday to an American friend) talk with an almost neutral (and thus English) accent? Class? Education?? Or do they go hand in hand? Although saying that I know people as common as muck that speak delightfully well, never drop an h or miss a t!?

PB,

I've heard some of the call centres even teach the Indian staff to speak with a regional accent and 'know' about the relevant TV shows (so a Brit talking to them about Eastenders, Coronation Street, etc.)? Mental really!

Edited November 22, 2004 by kenkannif

[Ajarn]

talk with an almost neutral (and thus English) accent?

I don't think that an 'English' accent is neutral at all, but maybe to your ears it is. To me, a 'neutral accent' would be closer to Western US English. I've had numerous students comment over the years that they generally understand American English the easiest.... But, when watching some of these new Hollywood movies, or trying to listen to American music, I often understand very little!

And I think such 'accents' in America are more culturally-based than class-based like the UK. But then class structure is a part of your culture, too, so maybe it all still comes around back to same point... Language is a reflection of the local culture

[dugdig]

I talk common English I'd say, but I'm not really common per se, my parents who would have been classed as common (my Mother was born within the sound of Bow Bells and thus is a Cockney) talk probably posher than I do, and yet they're not at all? Why do a lot of 'rich' Americans (I was talking about this yesterday to an American friend) talk with an almost neutral (and thus English) accent? Class? Education?? Or do they go hand in hand? Although saying that I know people as common as muck that speak delightfully well, never drop an h or miss a t!?

PB,

I've heard some of the call centres even teach the Indian staff to speak with a regional accent and 'know' about the relevant TV shows (so a Brit talking to them about Eastenders, Coronation Street, etc.)? Mental really!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The first paragraph above has helped me understand what 'class' means in England. To speak common but not be common or to be as common as muck is a way of looking at things which is not found in the usa. In the usa everyone is viewed as being 'common'. Politicians go to great lengths to portray themselves as just common folk. We see differences in speach as a regional indicator, not as a class indicator. There are two exceptions I know of in this regard; blacks and Harvard graduates but even these are not thought of as different 'classes' by most americans. I'm wondering if most of the difference between your attitude and mine with respect to the English spoken in India stems from our different ideas on class.

In the second paragraph...teaching Indian staff to speak regionally...Is this one of the reasons you like to teach your students slang?

[kenkannif]

Sorry I was referring accents like Higgins used to have in Magnum, Benson had in Benson, Devon Miles in Knight Rider, etc. (American, but with a minimal accent, or shall say a 'posh' accent?).

[kenkannif]

Dugdig,

I don't teach much at all, I'm just saying to me slang can, in certain contexts, have a place in EFL/ESL is all! I think you took my opening comments a bit too seriously, it was really supposed to be a kind of lighthearted look at how quickly and drastically English can change from one generation to the next etc. And how quickly (as Ajarn demonstrates in his comments about TV) the evolution (or not) of the language can overtake our basic understanding of the language.

You can put it down to class if you wish, but to me it's a bit different. Class is more about knowing your place, not speaking against your 'betters' etc. a way of 'life' rather than just how you speak you can be poor and 'posh' nowadays. Common is common and can be rich, poor or inbetween, just the 'normal' way of speaking. Although money and thus a better education can result in a kind of class thing, but I think this more applies to 'older' people. Also whereas class to me is something you're generally born into, nowadays class can be changed so you can be born working class and yet grow up to be upper class, but this might not have any (if at all) effect on how you speak.

I think in the US there might be different levels of commonness (some are more common than others, and while it's easy to say 'hey I'm common just like you' that fact that you might be well loaded, kind of negates this IMO!)! You might think it's not there, but I can assure you (George Dubya excluded, he needs all the empathy he can get from the 'common' man) it is, it's there in most cultures IMO!

But I may well be talking rubbish, 'cor blimey guvnor!

Edited November 22, 2004 by kenkannif

[PeaceBlondie]

Whatever classism exists in America is not usually based on whether your grandparents were old money. It can be money, what part of town you live in, what earned degrees you have - certainly your occupation. How you dress, whether you speak 'standard English.' The Black Americans who wish to become educated refuse to speak ghetto English, and can be very precise in their speech. Likewise, second generation Americans strive to lose their parents' accents.

The mere fact that a language began in a certain locale does not make it superior. Castellano became the predominant dialect of Spanish, and central Thai for 'Siam' not because of linguistic superiority or purity, but by conquest of the sword. The American linguistic sword is economic and media-driven, but that doesn't make American English inherently better. Perhaps it's more easily understood around the world - and isn't that what teaching ESL or EFL is all about?

[dugdig]

Ravisher,

You read slashdot?

[mbkudu]

And did you reailse that the human brian is capbable of undrestanding Engilsh even when it is speleld incoerectly wihtout any probelms so long as the wrods have five letetrs or more... Check that last parargraph agian.

Weird ain't it. 

This's good, really good!

Edited November 23, 2004 by kenkannif