University teaching shows why Thais' command of English is so abysmal!

[Shawn0000]

7 hours ago, Bule gila said:

You are quite incredible and yet again wrong.

noun

1.

Linguistics. a variety of a language that is distinguished from other varieties of the same language by features of phonology, grammar, and vocabulary, and by its use by a group of speakers who are set off from others geographically or socially.

2.

a provincial, rural, or socially distinct variety of a language that differs from the standard language, especially when considered as substandard.

3.

a special variety of a language:

The literary dialect is usually taken as the standard language.

4.

a language considered as one of a group that have a common ancestor:

 

Nope, there are several versions of  "standard English", otherwise known as standard dialects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_English

[Shawn0000]

7 hours ago, Bule gila said:

Considering the number of English 'teachers' in Thailand, I'm amazed at many of the responses here and can only conclude that most of them don't have a clue what they are talking about [apart from Shawn0000 who is the sage, nay font of all knowledge]. This assertion is supported by the fact [see that Shawn? A fact] that salaries here have not increased for a decade. Standards have diminished - look at the tables - and Shawn is here.

Japan used to be the worst, due to the high grammar content in schools and lack of speaking practice. Thailand, however, has carried the mantle and is now in the relegation zone because ... I can't be bothered.

Ask Shawn he's always right.

 

Still shaming...

 

I wasn't wrong when I stated a fact about standard English, see the above evidence to that fact, so I really wouldn't embarrass yourself further.

[gemguy]

It is never going to change folks...never

In 1979, the first time I came to Thailand I remember reading articles posted in the newspapers about the Thai governments efforts to make English widespread throughout Thailand.

Here we are, all theses years later and very little has changed while the percentage of Thai people who can speak English is still very low relative to over 30 years of supposedly teaching English to the Nation.

 

I believe that learning English is too much "Brain Strain" for most of them.

 

Although I do meet more than enough Thai people that do speak English well enough, while I often praise them for their well spoken English and their communication skills,  I have come to believe those that speak English well or well enough are the small percent of Thai people that seriously want to learn to speak English,  for what ever reasons....rather than have another language more or less forced upon them.

They can learn if they want to...but most do not want to and fight the whole affair and always questioning as to why they have to learn English and when they do try to learn they give up too easily and do not want to think too much about it......and why should they..as they are Thai and they speak Thai...not English.

 

Cheers

 

[Damrongsak]

My little niece isn't doing too bad. 1, 5, 2, 3, 4, 5 and something about chicken.

 

https://www.facebook.com/peggy.pim/videos/1189671407781845/

[Johnniey]

4 hours ago, TerrylSky said:

It's unfortunate that it is so difficult for many qualified native English teachers to teach here, yet so many unqualified Thais are allowed to teach - if you can call it that. 

Difficult? It's the easiest thing in the world to get a teaching job here,  unless you are of colour/odour.

[sahibji]

you reap what you sow. if the defect is in the basics then then result cannot be satisfactory. Send the professors for a training to start off or get native English teachers to conduct the programme.

[Loeilad]

Some of the comments here reveal how profoundly ignorant most English speakers are of their ow language - they make assumptions about the language largely based on what they THOUGHT they learned at school - and that appears to be over 40 years ago for most!

 

the truth is that there is no such thing as "proper English" or rules - there are no rules in English only conventions - and if you think their is no such "word" then think again as the language changes with new words practically on a daily basis and how we use those words changes too.

 

Of course this means that as  "native English speakers" they aren't actually in a position firstly to debate on such things as grammar, pronunciation etc and secondly it highlights how they are not in a position to comment on how it is learned or taught.

 

People think that because they speak a language they must be experts on the language and that "experts" are the ones to teach - total fallacy.

 

the fact is that the sources for  teaching English in Thailand come from native English speakers - over the centuries - and it is how successive Thai authorities have tried to interpret and impart this is the root of the problem

 

 

 

[soalbundy]

To speak colloquial English correctly they would have to be taught to use the F word frequently as an adjective interspersed with 'you know' or 'errh' or 'innit'

[Tchooptip]

14 hours ago, possum1931 said:

I can understand cockneys very well.

As strange as it sound I can hardly but I love it.  

[CaptHaddock]

8 minutes ago, Loeilad said:

Some of the comments here reveal how profoundly ignorant most English speakers are of their ow language - they make assumptions about the language largely based on what they THOUGHT they learned at school - and that appears to be over 40 years ago for most!

 

the truth is that there is no such thing as "proper English" or rules - there are no rules in English only conventions - and if you think their is no such "word" then think again as the language changes with new words practically on a daily basis and how we use those words changes too.

 

Of course this means that as  "native English speakers" they aren't actually in a position firstly to debate on such things as grammar, pronunciation etc and secondly it highlights how they are not in a position to comment on how it is learned or taught.

 

 

There is a school of thought that holds that there is no "correct" version of any language.  However, many of us do not believe it, so you are mistaken to imply that this is now the mainstream view.  There is such a thing as correct grammar, usage, spelling, etc. The better foreigner learners of English master those skills the better their communication in English will be.

[soalbundy]

6 minutes ago, Tchooptip said:

As strange as it sound I can hardly but I love it.  

I worked hard to get rid of my London accent many years ago, it's one of the worst accents going, it has no charm it is brutish in the extreme unfortunately it has spread far beyond London.

[Shawn0000]

6 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

To speak colloquial English correctly they would have to be taught to use the F word frequently as an adjective interspersed with 'you know' or 'errh' or 'innit'

 

Not only as an adjective but, also as both transitive and intransitive verbs, as an adverb, part of an adverb, as an adverb enhancing an adjective, as a noun, as an action verb, passive verb, an interjection and a conjunction, it is possibly the most difficult word to fully master.

[Stargeezr]

I will fault England  for some of this problem.  My Thai wife and 2 of her sisters have their Last names spelled

differently on their Thai ID cards, so when they got Canadian Passports  the names are all different, and this

was a Thai Government error.  If the Government cannot even get  their international departments to be

accurate, I can understand some  of  the professors to have some errors.

  My wife says there is the one universities in Bangkok that has higher standards  than most of the others

It was more expensive  for  her to get through her  courses,  but  at least when she came to Canada

she  had  a better believed certificate.

Geezer

[soalbundy]

1 minute ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Not only as an adjective but, also as both transitive and intransitive verbs, as an adverb, part of an adverb, as an adverb enhancing an adjective, as a noun, as an action verb, passive verb, an interjection and a conjunction, it is possibly the most difficult word to fully master.

and yet it is readily picked up by foreigners. My Thai/British son (9) speaks fluent English due to me,he likes to watch 'slogoman' and 'minecraft' in English on the internet,the F word abounds on these sites and he finds it amusing, he has tried to use it himself but found that if i heard him he gets hot ears so he is now satisfied  by saying 'what the....' and leaves it up to my imagination.

[diehard60]

21 hours ago, jpinx said:

There are so many versions of English (Spanish also) that it is hard to know where to set the standard, but there is no doubt that most Thai "English Teachers" are hard pressed to have a conversation in English with a native UK English speaker.

Why does it have to be jusy a UK dude. American English is just as good.

[soalbundy]

1 minute ago, diehard60 said:

Why does it have to be jusy a UK dude. American English is just as good.

American English is without charm, it sounds crude and harsh, especially when spoken by a woman.

[diehard60]

I see so many of you people here saying the the only English is great UK and only shoul be taught by UK teachers. WELL that is a crock of poo. American English is easier to learn because of the accent.

[soalbundy]

13 minutes ago, diehard60 said:

I see so many of you people here saying the the only English is great UK and only shoul be taught by UK teachers. WELL that is a crock of poo. American English is easier to learn because of the accent.

but not necessarily easier to understand. There are many regional accents in both America and England, some charming, some not so. The London accent i find awful as i do the deep southern accents of America. The New York accent although somewhat harsh, is amusing. For beautifully spoken English i would choose to listen to Richard Burton. 

[jpinx]

24 minutes ago, diehard60 said:

I see so many of you people here saying the the only English is great UK and only shoul be taught by UK teachers. WELL that is a crock of poo. American English is easier to learn because of the accent.

If you are teaching English with an accent - you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[David Walden]

16 hours ago, rabas said:

 

They transliterate written Thai, not what people pronounce, and R is a common consonant. Most Thai can pronounce a trilled R when challenged and in good health, otherwise they just say 'L', and the letter L is tossed out completely.

 

You might be interested to know that Thai is a perfect phonetic language, words are pronounced (well, can be) exactly as written with tones and long/short syllables. English is a bastard language and impossible to pronounce from spelling. This confuses everyone, including Thai.

In Chiang Mai recently having a eye test when the lovely lady optometrist she said "I think you are getting catack"   "catack" I said "what's that".  wondering if she said I was going to be attacked, but not so.

 It soon dawned on me that she was telling that I was in the early stages of getting a cataract in my left eye.  I tried to coach her into putting an "R" in the word.  After about 20 laughing attempts with this well educated lady she still could not say her "R's"

I just loved the whole episode.  I don't think I really wanted her to change.

[jpinx]

1 hour ago, Loeilad said:

Some of the comments here reveal how profoundly ignorant most English speakers are of their ow language - they make assumptions about the language largely based on what they THOUGHT they learned at school - and that appears to be over 40 years ago for most!

 

the truth is that there is no such thing as "proper English" or rules - there are no rules in English only conventions - and if you think their is no such "word" then think again as the language changes with new words practically on a daily basis and how we use those words changes too.

 

Of course this means that as  "native English speakers" they aren't actually in a position firstly to debate on such things as grammar, pronunciation etc and secondly it highlights how they are not in a position to comment on how it is learned or taught.

 

People think that because they speak a language they must be experts on the language and that "experts" are the ones to teach - total fallacy.

 

the fact is that the sources for  teaching English in Thailand come from native English speakers - over the centuries - and it is how successive Thai authorities have tried to interpret and impart this is the root of the problem

 

 

 

More mis-conceptions.  From the way you refer to English as "their" language, it appears that you are not a native English speaker.  Try telling a German that there is no "standard" German language.  Along with Autobahns, it was one of the successes of Hitler's regime.

[pookiki]

2 hours ago, Johnniey said:

This is somewhat debatable. You could say the same about Thai not having a "J" sound but for most intent and purposes it is best, IMHO to write G,J. 

How would you transcribe "gaw gai", using the international phonetic system?

The basic issue is understanding the nature of the language and alphabet which is common to all countries that have alphabets based on Pali/Sanskrit.  Burmese, Thai, Cambodian, Lao all have the same basic alphabets with minor exceptions.   You must first understand the nature of aspirated and unaspirated consonants as well voiced and unvoiced consonants.  One example that comes readily to mind is the Thai word for 'together'.    Most people would transcribe it as 'duaykan'. Not 'duaygan' (alternatively 'ruamkan').  In most Thai transliterations, they distinguish between unaspirated consonants and aspirated consonants with an 'h' -- k/kh, c/ch, p/ph, t/th, etc. I studied Thai, Burmese, and Cambodian at the University of Hawaii.  I still have problems distinguishing aspirated and unaspirated consonants. These are not sounds (phonemes) that distinguish meaning in English. Along with my hearing loss over the years, it becomes even more difficult for me.  When you use a 'g' to transliterate a 'k' sound, the westerner will invariably say a 'voiced' consonant. Thais will understand but it is still the wrong pronunciation. Cambodia doe a bit better by distinguishing unaspirated and aspirated consonants and are transliterated as follows: ch/chh, th/thh, and so on.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet#Consonants

[GAZZPA]

18 hours ago, pookiki said:

What does your passport say?

It says exactly what I just quoted,, United Kingdom of Great Britain and northern Ireland.

 

The United Kingdom therefore comprises of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland,,, All of these countries are reigned by the Queen, it's really not that difficult to understand.

 

 

[soalbundy]

8 minutes ago, David Walden said:

In Chiang Mai recently having a eye test when the lovely lady optometrist she said "I think you are getting catack"   "catack" I said "what's that".  wondering if she said I was going to be attacked, but not so.

 It soon dawned on me that she was telling that I was in the early stages of getting a cataract in my left eye.  I tried to coach her into putting an "R" in the word.  After about 20 laughing attempts with this well educated lady she still could not say her "R's"

I just loved the whole episode.  I don't think I really wanted her to change.

It can be cute when a foreigner miss pronounces English, or embarrassing, In Munich i witnessed a German woman giving up her British husbands passport at the British embassy because he was diseased, ''He is what''   ''Diseased, he died last week'',  ''Oh deceased''  ''Yes diseased'' 

[pookiki]

5 minutes ago, GAZZPA said:

It says exactly what I just quoted,, United Kingdom of Great Britain and northern Ireland.

 

The United Kingdom therefore comprises of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland,,, All of these countries are reigned by the Queen, it's really not that difficult to understand.

 

 

You have to be careful when you type.  I think you may be slipping into a 'comma'.  ;-) You already answered the question.  Hope saw my replies. I think your 'first' reply said you were a 'British citizen'. No big deal,,,,,,

[GAZZPA]

18 hours ago, Seismic said:

British Citizen, But if anyone asks my nationality i invariable answer English, as does everyone I know who was born in England.

 

18 hours ago, pookiki said:

Look, I am trying to explain the limitation of the question as it would apply to the UK.  Thais often refer to a person's nationality by using the same as the language spoken in the country.  In this instance, the question is ambiguous because 'English' is spoken throughout the United Kingdom.  I teach migrant workers from Myanmar. Invariably when I ask them what their 'nationality' is they will answer with 'Mon', 'Karen', Shan, etc.  If you want to refer to yourself as 'English', all well and good.  Just not something I haven't heard.  I think most of us understand the term 'British' to be someone is from England.

You may think that British means you are English but you are wrong, a little more education is required.

 

Great Britian (as I have already explained) are the 3 countries England, Scotland and Wales, Northern Ireland came later and the United Kingdom was formed (which is why it says United kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on passports). However, all countries very much have their own identity and each person is identified by the country they were born in. 

 

If you say you are British it is simply a respectful way to say you are part of the 3 countries that are reigned by the Queen. However, you can never call a Englishman an Irishman or Scotsman or any variation of.

 

I hope that's clear.

[pookiki]

3 minutes ago, GAZZPA said:

 

You may think that British means you are English but you are wrong, a little more education is required.

 

Great Britian (as I have already explained) are the 3 countries England, Scotland and Wales, Northern Ireland came later and the United Kingdom was formed (which is why it says United kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on passports). However, all countries very much have their own identity and each person is identified by the country they were born in. 

 

If you say you are British it is simply a respectful way to say you are part of the 3 countries that are reigned by the Queen. However, you can never call a Englishman an Irishman or Scotsman or any variation of.

 

I hope that's clear.

It was clear a long time ago, mate.  English is also an 'ethnicity', right?  That is the distinction that I was trying to make all along. Just trying to make a distinction between nationality and ethnicity.  Lost in translation! 

[rabas]

13 minutes ago, pookiki said:

The basic issue is understanding the nature of the language and alphabet which is common to all countries that have alphabets based on Pali/Sanskrit.  Burmese, Thai, Cambodian, Lao all have the same basic alphabets with minor exceptions.   You must first understand the nature of aspirated and unaspirated consonants as well voiced and unvoiced consonants.  One example that comes readily to mind is the Thai word for 'together'.    Most people would transcribe it as 'duaykan'. Not 'duaygan' (alternatively 'ruamkan').  In most Thai transliterations, they distinguish between unaspirated consonants and aspirated consonants with an 'h' -- k/kh, c/ch, p/ph, t/th, etc. I studied Thai, Burmese, and Cambodian at the University of Hawaii.  I still have problems distinguishing aspirated and unaspirated consonants. These are not sounds (phonemes) that distinguish meaning in English. Along with my hearing loss over the years, it becomes even more difficult for me.  When you use a 'g' to transliterate a 'k' sound, the westerner will invariably say a 'voiced' consonant. Thais will understand but it is still the wrong pronunciation. Cambodia doe a bit better by distinguishing unaspirated and aspirated consonants and are transliterated as follows: ch/chh, th/thh, and so on.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet#Consonants

 

I learned most of the Thai sounds correctly in the beginning but never heard about kaw kai as an unaspirated kh.

Just now, I tried to carefully say go (English) and kin (Thai) meaning 'go eat' and surely they are not the same. So we can pick these things up without knowing it.

 

I have heard that the Thai ear focuses more on vowels and tones to  decipher meaning compared to Westerners who focus more on the initial and final consonants,

 

[pookiki]

3 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

I learned most of the Thai sounds correctly in the beginning but never heard about kaw kai as an unaspirated kh.

Just now, I tried to carefully say go (English) and kin (Thai) meaning 'go eat' and surely they are not the same. So we can pick these things up without knowing it.

 

I have heard that the Thai ear focuses more on vowels and tones to  decipher meaning compared to Westerners who focus more on the initial and final consonants,

 

'Aspirated' and 'unaspirated' were the terms used when I learned linguisitics - some 40 years ago. I have heard others refer to 'hard' and 'soft' consonants.  The basic theory is that an 'aspirated' consonant has a puff of air when it is pronounced and an 'unaspirated' consonant does not. Your example of 'kin khaaw' is spot on for distinguishing the difference. 

[GAZZPA]

8 minutes ago, pookiki said:

It was clear a long time ago, mate.  English is also an 'ethnicity', right?  That is the distinction that I was trying to make all along. Just trying to make a distinction between nationality and ethnicity.  Lost in translation! 

No, England is not ethnicity,, ethnicity refers to someones ancestry.

 

For example a person with Indian parents but born in England has an English Nationality but Indian ethnicity. (ethnic origin is Indian by both parents).

 

England is a country, simple as that, the same as any other country. It is also part of the United Kingdom which comes under the Monarchy.