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

[maewang99]

look at all the nonsense the experts in this keep yapping about!!!!!!! 

have fun!  until you accept the following simple concept you will be stuck forever and ever:

 

spelling is for writing and reading.  not talking.  or thinking.

unless it is Thai.

 

and if there is no talking (by ****students**** in the classroom and outside it as well... it don't matter how good your spelling is or ain't [sic]).

in fact, that there are such discussions at all is a pretty darn good sign post of what is the problem here. eh? with university level reading and writing skills.... look to English L1... we first learn how to talk and think.. grammar and spelling is not something worth spending countless hours "studying" and discussing endlessly...... let alone for years.. let alone for millions of students who need to do a lot more in the new working world that is unfolding very quickly.  

 

 

[Richard W]

18 minutes ago, maewang99 said:

to acquire S&L for which, for English but not the Thai dialects, receives hardly any synergy at all from written English (unless you write with Thai graphemes or the IPA or Webster Guide graphemes).

Actually, the input from the written final consonants is useful.  That is an area where Thais are likely to long be deficient.  A parallel is the RTGS of transcription.  It may not tell one the tones or vowel length (or quality, sometimes), but it does give the syllabification, which is the greatest area of doubt.  Similarly, the spelling of an English word usually limits the possibilities as to what the vowels are.  There are a few notorious counter-examples, but there aren't many,

[EnlightenedAtheist]

14 hours ago, Richard W said:

You're doing these peoples an injustice.

 

Though, there is increasing evidence that the Western Semites (not sure it was actually the Phoenicians) couldn't really grasp Egyptian writing and resorted to the idea of no more than one different letter per sound.  To do them full credit, they did use 22 letters for 26 sounds, both before and after a 'reform' that changed which letters used the same letter, and they left vowels and gemination to the imagination.

 

As to the Mesopotamians, well, it seems that the Sumerians got overwhelmed by uncontrolled immigration. That allowed people to start using symbols for their sounds in fractions of words, especially Semitic words.  You are aware that phonetic symbols were CV, VC, or CVC with unspecified vowel, aren't you?  They kept things interesting in various ways - different symbols for the same sounds, and alternative sound sequences, frequently unrelated, for the same symbol.  However, they eventually relapsed in one respect, and started distinguishing voiced and voiceless initial consonants.  There is a concept of spelling, in that words have typical selections of symbols.

 

While the Egyptians did experiment with an abjad, they gave it up as a bad, Asiatic idea and kept to their system where a hieroglyph represented an idea or possibly its consonants.  Possibly you're confused because they often wrote out one of the consonants so that you would know which value was being used for a hieroglyph.  The Egyptians only started using an alphabet with vowels after the Macedonian conquest, when they started using the Greek alphabet to ensure the accurate pronunciation of spells.

 

It was the Greeks who invented the alphabet, and equipped it with a full set of features.  Accent type and vowel length were omitted (vowels eta and omega came later, and accents much later), digraphs with eta (sometimes transcribed as heta) were commonly used for the aspirated consonants, and of course the principle of using one letter to represent a sequence of phonemes (psi, ksi) was included.  Gamma seems to have been ambiguous from an early time.

 

Interesting.  I didn't think it was particularly spelling that caused EFL learners the major problems.  I thought it was the ill-documented rules on what words go together that caused the biggest problems.  Of course, Thais suffer from being at almost the opposite end of the landmass.

 

In response to:

 

  21 hours ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

On the other hand, there is also the incredible stupid idea of making speakers pronounce letters as the alphabet and the rules of the basic spelling system indicate. What were the Phoenicians, Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and the Canaanites thinking about? Backward, primitive people! Surely! LOL

 

I was referring OBVIOUSLY to the principle of phonemicity that would make learning English an easy task and allow the uneducated, the poor, and the foreigner to challenge pretentiousness and superficiality, power and control, stupidity and coercion. Read between the lines.

 

Your argument about vowels is a lot of huffing and puffing. Akkadians had vowels and ...

 

Phoenician being a Semitic language, words were based on consonantal roots that permitted extensive removal of vowels without loss of meaning, a feature absent in the Indo-European Greek. (Or perhaps, the Phoenicians were simply following the lead of the Egyptians, who never wrote vowels. After all, Akkadian cuneiform, which wrote a related Semitic language, always indicated vowels.) 

 

The Proto-Canaanite script, later known as the Phoenician alphabet, is the first fully phonemic script. Thus the Phoenician alphabet is considered to be the first alphabet. The Phoenician alphabet is the ancestor of most modern alphabets, including Arabic, Greek, Latin, Cyrillic, Hebrew, and possibly Brahmic.^[1][2] According to terminology introduced by Peter T. Daniels, an "alphabet" is a script that represents both vowels and consonants as letters equally. In this narrow sense of the word the first "true" alphabet was the Greek alphabet,^[3][4] which was developed on the basis of the earlier Phoenician alphabet. In other alphabetic scripts such as the original Phoenician, Hebrew or Arabic, letters predominantly or exclusively represent consonants; such a script is also called an abjad. A third type, called abugida or alphasyllabary, is one where vowels are shown by diacritics or modifications of consonantal base letters, as in Devanagari and other South Asian scripts.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet#Letter_names

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadian_language#Writing

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

 

Where are your references? LOL

 

May I suggest you read up on it, because it states repeatedly that the Greeks were inspired by the Phoenicians, who were inspired by the Egyptians, ... as mentioned.

 

As to this comment of yours (Interesting. I didn't think it was particularly spelling that caused EFL learners the major problems.  I thought it was the ill-documented rules on what words go together that caused the biggest problems.  Of course, Thais suffer from being at almost the opposite end of the landmass.),  are you actually learning anything from these exchanges or are you happy to pose? (Do you know anything about active listening. That is what most functional people do when they want to value each other's point of view as an exchange of equals. I am not getting this feeling, Richard. So, one speaks and the other listens, who actually ask questions to show interest and respect.Then, they exchange roles. Repeat ad nauseam. Follow this and you will have many friends. I do. I know! I know! It is hard to believe! LOL) You mean you don't know! You think! You really think it is interesting or you are just filling the page to sound as if you are. It was clearly explained (and at the risk of having to repeat myself, which is --apparently-- a no-no, for people who don't like arguments that clash with their beliefs), may I re-iterate that if one masters spelling. it is likely to lead to having pronunciation issues, as one will lean too heavily on spelling to generate a pronunciation, rather than rely on auditory sequences of phonemes attached to a particular concept or, in the case of the best teaching as alluded to earlier, an image or a Thai phonetic equivalent. Yes, Thai scrabble players seem to be very adept at committing to memory English spelling. However, it is not  exactly rocket science that people will naturally ASSUME that a language that use an alphabet will use the alphabetic principle, especially if the language seems to have this popularity, especially of this language is spoken by people  driving nice cars and wearing fancy clothes (and Thai women). LOL In fact, English spelling does not adhere to the alphabetic principle fully. It does, in a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde fashion, as consonants, by and large do follow the principle, and the vowel phoneme, by and large, don't. You think that your morphological argument holds any water. It doesn't. It is like giving a cane to a cancer patient, at best. Are "can" and "cancer" related morphologically? Invest is about a vest that’s in a coat? Numb and numbers are related? Legal is about leg? Assertive about ass? Acting and actual are related? Heaven and heavy? Man and many? Add and address? Earl and early? Pet and petty? Is ready about reading? Arch and archive? Country is about counting? Lead (the metal) is about leading? Bus and business? Cancel is about cans and cells? Have and haven are related? Ache and achieved? Reinvent and rein (vent)? All and allow? Inventories and invent are linked? Reached and ache? Resent is about sent/sending? Please! Spare me! The magic cure does not solve a Thai or any one learning English! 

 

Now, remember the active listening part. Have you learned anything? SAY: "Oh! I did not know ..." Repeat. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[George Graham]

16 hours ago, Richard W said:

You're doing these peoples an injustice.

 

Though, there is increasing evidence that the Western Semites (not sure it was actually the Phoenicians) couldn't really grasp Egyptian writing and resorted to the idea of no more than one different letter per sound.  To do them full credit, they did use 22 letters for 26 sounds, both before and after a 'reform' that changed which letters used the same letter, and they left vowels and gemination to the imagination.

 

As to the Mesopotamians, well, it seems that the Sumerians got overwhelmed by uncontrolled immigration. That allowed people to start using symbols for their sounds in fractions of words, especially Semitic words.  You are aware that phonetic symbols were CV, VC, or CVC with unspecified vowel, aren't you?  They kept things interesting in various ways - different symbols for the same sounds, and alternative sound sequences, frequently unrelated, for the same symbol.  However, they eventually relapsed in one respect, and started distinguishing voiced and voiceless initial consonants.  There is a concept of spelling, in that words have typical selections of symbols.

 

While the Egyptians did experiment with an abjad, they gave it up as a bad, Asiatic idea and kept to their system where a hieroglyph represented an idea or possibly its consonants.  Possibly you're confused because they often wrote out one of the consonants so that you would know which value was being used for a hieroglyph.  The Egyptians only started using an alphabet with vowels after the Macedonian conquest, when they started using the Greek alphabet to ensure the accurate pronunciation of spells.

 

It was the Greeks who invented the alphabet, and equipped it with a full set of features.  Accent type and vowel length were omitted (vowels eta and omega came later, and accents much later), digraphs with eta (sometimes transcribed as heta) were commonly used for the aspirated consonants, and of course the principle of using one letter to represent a sequence of phonemes (psi, ksi) was included.  Gamma seems to have been ambiguous from an early time.

 

Interesting.  I didn't think it was particularly spelling that caused EFL learners the major problems.  I thought it was the ill-documented rules on what words go together that caused the biggest problems.  Of course, Thais suffer from being at almost the opposite end of the landmass.

The Greeks did not invent the alphabet. Try again.

[EnlightenedAtheist]

 

16 hours ago, Richard W said:

So are you asserting that English spelling is the EFL learner's major problem?  Now, it is an issue for ESOL learners, who acquire words through conversation and are in the same boat as native speakers.

 

There is also the group for whom reading (and possibly writing) is the relevant English skill.  They would be ill-served by needing a command of the stress rules, or more likely having to learn two forms of each Latinate word.  Possibly writing will be rescued by spell-checkers.

 

You got it!

 

Now, can we reform it!

[George Graham]

With all these wannabe Stephen Pinkers in Thailand one wonders why Thai people's English is (still) in the crapper.

[EnlightenedAtheist]

18 hours ago, maewang99 said:

Thailand needs to teach a minimum of ****two**** subjects in English. And spelling isn't one of either of them. Speaking and listening to English, and reading and writing English have very little synergy with each other, unlike Thai.  In addition, original work which involves thinking, analysis and discovery skills, needs to be absolutely paramount over memorization, copying and "having the correct answer".  Contributing to class discussions, asking questions and answering question of others needs to be paramount over obedience and respect for the "teacher".  The teacher's role is to manage and encourage a classroom experience in which the students are actively thinking and discovering a love of learning.

For speaking and listening, students need to (i) listen (ii) think (iii) speak.  Originality and effort should be immediately rewarded. "Correct" pronunciation and "correct" responses are to be the lowest priority. 

For reading and writing, just like speaking and listening.  But it cannot be taught with any expectation that acquiring those skills are transferable to speaking and listening skills in English, notwithstanding that (1) this is not true for the Thai dialects such as Central Thai and (2) that this will require quite a lot of teacher resources (time and energy and effort on the part of the teaching staff)... and therefore if you cannot afford the added resources... stop teaching core subjects in the Thai dialect. 

This is what is required because English is two languages.  The written system has evolved for reading and writing, not for learning the spoken system.  As an aid to acquiring the speaking and listening skills, Thai graphemes should be considered more applicable (for study and even assessment in the classroom perhaps), or the IPA system.... but not English alphabet... and not spelling in English.

Being able to win a spelling bee contest, or correctly pick grammatically correct English sentences is not at all useful nor indicative of an acquisition of a love of learning and discovery.  And it is the latter by which Thailand can be competitive and increase the quality of life as well for it's people.

The best sign of progress for Thailand would be to come in last place at regional spelling bees..... last place.  Being good at English spelling is a side skill acquired by using English... it should not be specifically aimed for... notwithstanding that doing so makes the ajarns job much easier in teaching and assessments (because spelling and grammar is easy to score as well as present)... and so Thailand has a supply of the top memorizers to become medical doctors [which is one of the next fields in which AI will replace humans.. but not nurses who talk to and take care of patients.. I thought I'd add that little rumination into this, just for fun].

And I am not just suggesting a different approach, it is actually all but the opposite of how the Thai education system currently works. So much so that personally I now cringe whenever I hear any of the following English words: teacher, ajarn, student and education.  

Copying someone else's work is not merely "bad behavior"... it is a process of pissing on originality, creativity and discovery.  It is wonderful for "teaching" obedience only (the English word is inculcating, by the way, not "teaching".... and the word for "teacher" as used in Thailand... indoctrinator sounds pretty darn apropro to me).  

In the very near future you will be able to use your smartphone to convert Central Thai (or any of the main Thai dialects) into any other spoken or written language... grammatically perfect and spelling as well.... without ever going to school... but a smartphone cannot change someone's cognitive and interpersonal skills nor their love of learning including a love of reading new and wider perspectives on life that is very difficult to achieve by travel alone... books are power packed at this.  And always will be. In fact, those will be the ONLY important skills in the very near future.... unlike in the past. MS already has an AI system that beats the best transcriptionists now.... they accomplished this just this year..... in 2016 .

Factory jobs and clerical jobs will be gone.  What will "teaching" obedience be good for? so people can obey.... like a computer or robot does? Guess what... the real ones won't need to eat, take breaks or even take a nap or daily sleep period.  And their spelling will be perfect as well as their pronunciation of any language.

 

 

I have and continue to agree with your thesis, but if you believe --as I do-- that reading confuses learners and delays learning and speaking, at best (if this is indeed your thesis), a teacher would need to mitigate this. It is not impossible to teach without showing any text or asking students to do any reading, but it severely limits the pedagogy, unless one were to translate all texts in Thai, provide/teach vocabulary orally,... Yes, AI and computers do offer this way out. Still, this does not solve the problem of the English-learners back at home taking years to master reading and writing. It also means that it delays the learning of writing and reading for foreign students. Wouldn't it be simpler to regularize the English spelling system, once and for all, as I have suggested we do, with respect to people like you and I?

[Richard W]

14 minutes ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

Your argument about vowels is a lot of huffing and puffing. Akkadians had vowels and ...
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadian_language#Writing

Did you even read that link?  Even at the syllable level (semisyllable to be pedantic), there isn't a 1-1 correspondence between symbol and sound.  If you look at the table at  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuneiform_script#Syllabary, you will see that the vowels /e/ and /i/ are poorly distinguished.  The marking of long vowels is also somewhat variable.  In short, it's a mess.  There's a strong element of the 'alphabetic principle', as there is indeed in English.

 

The Proto-Canaanite script, later known as the Phoenician alphabet, is the first fully phonemic script.

Remember not to fully trust Wikipedia.  The Ugaritic script distinguished at least 27 Semitic consonants; Phoenician has only 22, and it's doubtful that they provide a full phonemic contrast.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin_(letter) for evidence of some of the lack of resolution.  Unfortunately, I couldn't find an on-line account of the doubling up in Aramaic, which is recorded in Peter Daniels' book.  We know of the doubling up because what doubled up changed.

 

You may be aware that some of the subtleties of Semitic languages can get lost in the writing system through the non-recording of vowels, aren't you?  I'm sure you've seen examples of the readability of English with vowels left out.  Perhaps English is fully phonemic by your revised definition.

[EnlightenedAtheist]

15 hours ago, Richard W said:

Why do spelling reformers utter untruths so often?  Is it uncontrolled hyperbole leading to lying, or is it ignorance?  The English system is not unique; it is shared with German, and for pretty much the same historical reason, a parallel development in English and German.

 

The account seemed unaware of two old rules that are increasingly ignored in new words:

 

1) Do not double 'v'.

2) A native word does not end in 'u' , 'v' or 'i' unless it means 'you' or 'I'.

 

The other rule is that one only tampers with the Latin spelling at the end of a word.  That is a rule that causes great difficulty for palatable spelling reform.

 

I'm reluctant to cite antepenultimate shortening, as its precise limits are unclear.

 

I do agree with you on this point that this is not a unique system as most Germanic languages do have this device.

 

But, you must agree with me (and Masha Bell) that it breaks down often. If you are going to criticize people's argument, you should --ethically-- balance your analysis with telling the parts that are true. Please do.

 

I wish you could write complete paragraphs. They do teach this is Grade 4. One should always offer examples, supporting details,...

 

But, again, you either did not read or did not comprehend the last message I sent you about a new proposal I made. New learners will be able encourage to be bilingual (keeping their dialect, allowing them to speak with the old learners). The new learners will of course learn a new spelling code using the diaphonemes or some other form that could be modified by organizations of diffferent Commonwealth countries should they wish to participate. This is not an unreasonable proposal, unless one wants to keep the status quo just because others don't matter. 

 

More rules? We have enough rules in our society. ENOUGH!

[EnlightenedAtheist]

14 minutes ago, Richard W said:

Did you even read that link?  Even at the syllable level (semisyllable to be pedantic), there isn't a 1-1 correspondence between symbol and sound.  If you look at the table at  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuneiform_script#Syllabary, you will see that the vowels /e/ and /i/ are poorly distinguished.  The marking of long vowels is also somewhat variable.  In short, it's a mess.  There's a strong element of the 'alphabetic principle', as there is indeed in English.

 

Remember not to fully trust Wikipedia.  The Ugaritic script distinguished at least 27 Semitic consonants; Phoenician has only 22, and it's doubtful that they provide a full phonemic contrast.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin_(letter) for evidence of some of the lack of resolution.  Unfortunately, I couldn't find an on-line account of the doubling up in Aramaic, which is recorded in Peter Daniels' book.  We know of the doubling up because what doubled up changed.

 

You may be aware that some of the subtleties of Semitic languages can get lost in the writing system through the non-recording of vowels, aren't you?  I'm sure you've seen examples of the readability of English with vowels left out.  Perhaps English is fully phonemic by your revised definition.

 

Remember to fully trust Richard W. instead! LOL

 

What a trustworthy source at that. Never biased and wrong at that! LOL

 

I am university educated and frankly this advice of yours is scary for any alumnus to adhere to. Psychologically, it is also problematic. While I do not believe everything I read, ... they --at least-- reference some of their work! YOU? NOT! 

 

[EnlightenedAtheist]

1 hour ago, George Graham said:

With all these wannabe Stephen Pinkers in Thailand one wonders why Thai people's English is (still) in the crapper.

 

Mr. Pinker will need to explain then how he would teach, expect learners to understand, and know the hundreds of thousands of speech sounds that are not coded in regular strings of letters. Masha Bell's analysis demonstrates clearly that exceptions are the rules in at least 1/3 of 7000 common English words. My analysis (if you allow a person with a lousy linguistics degree to do so) shows that since most English words have a schwa (a phoneme that has 13 "spelling"), a learner  would fail to decoded it  accurately and possibly the word. Apart from relying on very contrived word stress rules, one would not know (certainly not a Thai) where the word stress would be placed, which COULD represent in some situation miscommunication to occur.

 

Do you need examples or the link to Masha Bell provided earlier in the thread ?

 

From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker#Human_cognition_and_natural_language)

 

Pinker has also been a critic of "whole language" reading instruction techniques, stating in How the Mind Works, "... Etc. Go to the link since it is "verbotten" to link more than 3 sentences. 

[...]  Like most psycholinguists (but apparently unlike many school boards), I think it's essential for children to be taught to become aware of speech sounds and how they are coded in strings of letters.^[46] 

Whole language instruction does include phonics instruction, from I have read about it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_language#Contrasts_with_phonics)

 

It is my contention that the whole debate shows, however, how contrived these approaches are. They are --at best-- mitigating the underlying issue(s).  How many other approaches are we going to see before we realize that none of them are miraculous. The underlying system is unsystematic. 

 

It is explained here:

 

 

Is he wrong too?

 

[EnlightenedAtheist]

16 hours ago, Richard W said:

As you appear to have been given permission to promote your website by referencing it, all the more reason to refer to pages (though I'd prefer 'fragments') on it rather than just cut and paste from it.

 

Let's admit you were wrong in your wild assertion that it was not my work.

 

I will use whatever I wish to use, though I am sure you would like to me to follow the rules. I think you love rules, except perhaps the most important most basic types in English orthography. If one has a messed up language, it follows that one general logic would be.

 

As to the superficial rule of not using fragments, let me remind of the Grade 4 rule of substantiating your thesis with supporting details. Tit for tat. Yes! I probably do use "fragments", as a literary device as used by many great writers.  Some of us are writers and some of us are sheep. Do you have a problem with that and them? Are you trying to make a loose inference that because I use fragments I am illiterate and, ergo, my thesis is false? How lame! Oh! Is that a fragment? I do not follow rigid rules that are superficial, but I wish you did. Come on! Have some .... It is Xmas. LOL  Say it. Be honest instead of hiding  behind loose innuendos. Richard, let me bring you up to speed on the latest research. Fragments do not invalidate someone thesis. Einstein theories would have been dismissed, if that were so. Some people do like to use the code, the rules to define themselves as being better than others. The more obscure the better as it validates in their own little mind their ego. 

 

I eat sheep for Xmas. Bah! Bah!

 

[EnlightenedAtheist]

10 hours ago, Loeilad said:

Correct...it is a bit long to read but I think my gist is clear 

 

"there, it is because the English Empire spread to many countries whose population had to adopt it or so an interest in doing so (financial)."

 

this shows a fundamentally flawed understanding of why EL is used on a world scale 

 

So, since some idiot wanted to invoke some idiotic rules, let me reply. Enjoy the clicking! LOL

 

As to your claim that it is the teaching that is the issue and that teachers (and students) are not familiar with the magic-e rule, for instance, here is the research:

 

Several thousand English words conform to this system, and schoolchildren spend much time learning to apply it when adding suffixes to short words:  cut + er = cutter,   prefer + ed = preferred,  but  cute + er = cuter,  enter + ed = entered.

Unfortunately, there are also at least 1,250 words (out of 7000) which break the ‘closed /short' and 'open / long’ vowel spelling method in one, or more, of  five ways. http://improvingenglishspelling.blogspot.com/2010/06/long-and-short-vowels.html

 

Of course, there are many other rules that are broken in the 7000 (words for Richard) she analyses. There are many rules that are actually exceptions to the rules and each contain many exceptions. Isn't this fun, kids?

 

 

NOTE: The following does not follow the Iezy Ignglish principle. This is, however, what many kids of adults who impose flawed and crazy systems of erratic rules and conventions on people think. If anything is allowed to happen, then it follows that some of you should face the music. Let's hope that rud traffic lights really means rad tonight as you drive.  You see, if we are allowed to write "bury" and say something else for the "u" and write "any" and say something else for the "a", then it follows. Rules that are not ... rules! Enjoy conformity or NOT!

 

[George Graham]

1 hour ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

 

Mr. Pinker will need to explain then how he would teach, expect learners to understand, and know the hundreds of thousands of speech sounds that are not coded in regular strings of letters. Masha Bell's analysis demonstrates clearly that exceptions are the rules in at least 1/3 of 7000 common English words. My analysis (if you allow a person with a lousy linguistics degree to do so) shows that since most English words have a schwa (a phoneme that has 13 "spelling"), a learner  would fail to decoded it  accurately and possibly the word. Apart from relying on very contrived word stress rules, one would not know (certainly not a Thai) where the word stress would be placed, which COULD represent in some situation miscommunication to occur.

 

Do you need examples or the link to Masha Bell provided earlier in the thread ?

 

From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker#Human_cognition_and_natural_language)

 

Pinker has also been a critic of "whole language" reading instruction techniques, stating in How the Mind Works, "... Etc. Go to the link since it is "verbotten" to link more than 3 sentences. 

[...]  Like most psycholinguists (but apparently unlike many school boards), I think it's essential for children to be taught to become aware of speech sounds and how they are coded in strings of letters.^[46] 

Whole language instruction does include phonics instruction, from I have read about it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_language#Contrasts_with_phonics)

 

It is my contention that the whole debate shows, however, how contrived these approaches are. They are --at best-- mitigating the underlying issue(s).  How many other approaches are we going to see before we realize that none of them are miraculous. The underlying system is unsystematic. 

 

It is explained here:

 

 

Is he wrong too?

 

There are not hundreds of thousands of phonemes in all the languages of the world combined.

I'd be interested to see your 13 spellings of the schwa.

Finally, a wee point of order. Citing your credentials is absolutely not done in scientific discourse - even if it is only on TVF. Also I see from another post that you have mentioned a "website." Could you be one of the many wannabe Stephen Pinkers I was refering to?

[EnlightenedAtheist]

1 hour ago, George Graham said:

There are not hundreds of thousands of phonemes in all the languages of the world combined.

I'd be interested to see your 13 spellings of the schwa.

Finally, a wee point of order. Citing your credentials is absolutely not done in scientific discourse - even if it is only on TVF. Also I see from another post that you have mentioned a "website." Could you be one of the many wannabe Stephen Pinkers I was refering to?

 

Could you please do me a favour and not transform what I write into words that are not mine? This is what I stated: " Mr. Pinker will need to explain then how he would teach, expect learners to understand, and know the hundreds of thousands of speech sounds that are not coded in regular strings of letters."

 

Yes, readers do read/decode billions of letters in a day or week. I could have used billions. It is probably much, much higher, in that respect, but there is some debate whether or not we eventually decode words as logographs/grams. Grahams? LOL Since it is my contention that many letters in a given word are misscoded, misspelled, this is a legitimate statement to make, I think.

 

As to your request, as there was not a please attached to it, I would urge you to seek the information on the website. However, given a more polite formulation, I will gladly comply. Fair?

 

Ah! Citing sources is not obligatory in scientific discourse. I could argue that linguistics is part of the humanities and citing sources is required when submitting papers and such in the humanities.  But, do we really want to go to the lowest denominator here? It might have an effect of cutting the crap from the crappers that you mentioned, unless you have an MO that I am not yet aware of. No?

 

As to your oblique innuendo of me being a wannabe linguist, be careful! I am familiar with Spitzer as part of my double majors in linguistics and literature. The repetition and more direct use clarifies matters in my mind. Be careful, though, I am very adept at turning the table, as I shall prove later in this paragraph. But, is a pi**ing match really what you want out of this? It does not look like you do. It seems that you are interested in the truth. I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I will give you credit for that. A priori, that is commendable. However, 2D communication is problematic and I apologize if I am reacting, but the label "wannabe" is not really that positive.  Anyway, you can try to peg me as a "wannabe" to --I presume-- appraise the validity of my proposals, but if you like to judge people by their credentials, but do not insist that these* be provided (see your comment), should you not --at least-- be consistent in your discourse? Also, by accepting the terms , wouldn't it not allow "wannabe critics to write as they wish with no reference, no citation, .... and look on the surface to be more credible than they really are  It would also confirm in your mind  (and others), if I were to comply, that I am a wannabe linguist. (not citing my sources and such) I can play chess too. But, for sure, there are wannabes and far worse do exist. Now, you can size me up all you want (if that is what you were doing), wannabe me all you want,  not all people are going to fall for it. But, if you are allowed. Surely I am too. No? So, what are your credentials? Are you a wannabe critic with a BA in criticism? I do not write lone-liners. YOU do. I can form complex sentences. YOU don't. I urge you and them to analyse, not only the form, but the content of the writers though. I feel content is more important than form, but then I appear to be a maverick in that respect. LOL Again, is a BA in linguistics a piece of crap? Lastly, I am writing on TV trying to advance a movement that I believe would improve matters for all. I am not getting a penny for this. Tutoring agencies are. Schools are. Some psycho-linguists are, too, if you think about it. I would not be surprised if some of the critics have  not --in fact-- a vested interest in keeping the status quo. It is, after all, very lucrative, I am sure. They want me to go away. Are there no people interested in making things better for children, teachers, parents, taxpayers? Up to the people to decide I suppose. If most want to listen, support famous singers, famous movie stars, and famous psycho-linguists, then they should not be critics of the system! I am.

 

Regards,

 

* Was it sources?

 

[George Graham]

1 hour ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

 

Could you please do me a favour and not transform what I write into words that are not mine? This is what I stated: " Mr. Pinker will need to explain then how he would teach, expect learners to understand, and know the hundreds of thousands of speech sounds that are not coded in regular strings of letters."

 

Yes, readers do read/decode billions of letters in a day or week. I could have used billions. It is probably much, much higher, in that respect, but there is some debate whether or not we eventually decode words as logographs/grams. Grahams? LOL Since it is my contention that many letters in a given word are misscoded, misspelled, this is a legitimate statement to make, I think.

 

As to your request, as there was not a please attached to it, I would urge you to seek the information on the website. However, given a more polite formulation, I will gladly comply. Fair?

 

Ah! Citing sources is not obligatory in scientific discourse. I could argue that linguistics is part of the humanities and citing sources is required when submitting papers and such in the humanities.  But, do we really want to go to the lowest denominator here? It might have an effect of cutting the crap from the crappers that you mentioned, unless you have an MO that I am not yet aware of. No?

 

As to your oblique innuendo of me being a wannabe linguist, be careful! I am familiar with Spitzer as part of my double majors in linguistics and literature. The repetition and more direct use clarifies matters in my mind. Be careful, though, I am very adept at turning the table, as I shall prove later in this paragraph. But, is a pi**ing match really what you want out of this? It does not look like you do. It seems that you are interested in the truth. I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I will give you credit for that. A priori, that is commendable. However, 2D communication is problematic and I apologize if I am reacting, but the label "wannabe" is not really that positive.  Anyway, you can try to peg me as a "wannabe" to --I presume-- appraise the validity of my proposals, but if you like to judge people by their credentials, but do not insist that these* be provided (see your comment), should you not --at least-- be consistent in your discourse? Also, by accepting the terms , wouldn't it not allow "wannabe critics to write as they wish with no reference, no citation, .... and look on the surface to be more credible than they really are  It would also confirm in your mind  (and others), if I were to comply, that I am a wannabe linguist. (not citing my sources and such) I can play chess too. But, for sure, there are wannabes and far worse do exist. Now, you can size me up all you want (if that is what you were doing), wannabe me all you want,  not all people are going to fall for it. But, if you are allowed. Surely I am too. No? So, what are your credentials? Are you a wannabe critic with a BA in criticism? I do not write lone-liners. YOU do. I can form complex sentences. YOU don't. I urge you and them to analyse, not only the form, but the content of the writers though. I feel content is more important than form, but then I appear to be a maverick in that respect. LOL Again, is a BA in linguistics a piece of crap? Lastly, I am writing on TV trying to advance a movement that I believe would improve matters for all. I am not getting a penny for this. Tutoring agencies are. Schools are. Some psycho-linguists are, too, if you think about it. I would not be surprised if some of the critics have  not --in fact-- a vested interest in keeping the status quo. It is, after all, very lucrative, I am sure. They want me to go away. Are there no people interested in making things better for children, teachers, parents, taxpayers? Up to the people to decide I suppose. If most want to listen, support famous singers, famous movie stars, and famous psycho-linguists, then they should not be critics of the system! I am.

 

Regards,

 

* Was it sources?

 

Mentioning/citing your own credentials is not making the argument. There is as a corollary of this an assumed ad hominem.You have also rather started to filibuster somewhat. I need to be careful? Why? Because you are familiar with Spitzer. Is he a big guy? 

However you wish to define them - phonemes or speech sounds, there are not hundreds of thousands.

Please list the 13 spellings of the shwa.

Finally I do not judge people at all. You are however judged by the scientific community by the number of times you mention your OWN credentials. See Resa Aslan for comparison. He, ironically,  uses the word "douchebag."

[EnlightenedAtheist]

16 minutes ago, George Graham said:

Mentioning/citing your own credentials is not making the argument. There is as a corollary of this an assumed ad hominem.You have also rather started to filibuster somewhat. I need to be careful? Why? Because you are familiar with Spitzer. Is he a big guy? 

However you wish to define them - phonemes or speech sounds, there are not hundreds of thousands.

Please list the 13 spellings of the shwa.

Finally I do not judge people at all. You are however judged by the scientific community by the number of times you mention your OWN credentials. See Resa Aslan for comparison. He, ironically,  uses the word "douchebag."

 

1)  I thought you could infer that I was talking about occurrences, as in hundreds of thousands of letters that you read every day. I thought that was clear, but I am always wrong apparently! LOL

 

2) You are not familiar with other forms of threats? Emotional, social, ...  Spitzer's analysis would likely prove whether or  not the reputation you give (of being an expert in linguistics) is legitimate.  You don't know the 13 representation of schwas and you were confused by my 100,000 phonemes. 

 

3) http://reforming-english.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_4.html Thanks for the please. 

 

4) Not sure why you are keeping using the idea that my research is scientific, even after I explained that most linguistics topics belong in the humanities. This would classify as one. I did not use scientific equipment or even procedures to create a new spelling system. No scientific methods here.  Sorry for the fragment, for the sheep out there!

 

5) Considering I am not being paid for this,  so far I can claim at least 3 innovations and some out-of-the-box disambiguation You could guess at 2. The 3rd is more in the area of implementation and might be challenged as non-original. The disambiguations are more in relation to my ability to debunk BS from facts. Not bad for someone who is not getting paid, but we are all idiots on TV. LOL That is how it is! With so many old farts on TV,  it is bound to happen! 

 

6) What are your credentials, if I may ask? Have you published anything or you are just interested in languages?

 

[docshock13]

Mrs. Shock has a Thai friend with a Master's in English (Literature? ESL? I don't know) as well as an M.Ed. in Teaching English (?) and Ph.D. in Education (all from Thai unis). This woman is headmaster of a relatively famous Thai school in BKK with a separate English programme. She cannot hold a basic conversation let alone discuss literature or even basics of education/pedagogical theory. Granted, the Doc would not be able to do the same in Thai language or literature, but I am not flaunting degrees or a top job that I am clearly not qualified to have. However her parents were huge donors to the school where she is working (I am guessing her alma mater) and that pretty much says it all. 

[EnlightenedAtheist]

13 minutes ago, docshock13 said:

Mrs. Shock has a Thai friend with a Master's in English (Literature? ESL? I don't know) as well as an M.Ed. in Teaching English (?) and Ph.D. in Education (all from Thai unis). This woman is headmaster of a relatively famous Thai school in BKK with a separate English programme. She cannot hold a basic conversation let alone discuss literature or even basics of education/pedagogical theory. Granted, the Doc would not be able to do the same in Thai language or literature, but I am not flaunting degrees or a top job that I am clearly not qualified to have. However her parents were huge donors to the school where she is working (I am guessing her alma mater) and that pretty much says it all. 

 

Interesting! Thanks!

 

This would on the surface look/sound appalling, of course. Every of these degrees do not require oral proficiency I bet. Still, as discussed here, speaking and reading/writing are two different beasts with English, as demonstrated in past posts and explained thoroughly on my website. Add the incredible pressure not to lose face when one mispronounces the easiest of phoneme (and being lynched everywhere as a result), one would be cautious to jump ... to conclusion. English spelling being so unhelpful in guiding learners on how to pronounce words is the cause of many problems and the reluctance of English-speakers to ease that process is appalling ... too.

[George Graham]

1 hour ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

 

1)  I thought you could infer that I was talking about occurrences, as in hundreds of thousands of letters that you read every day. I thought that was clear, but I am always wrong apparently! LOL

 

2) You are not familiar with other forms of threats? Emotional, social, ...  Spitzer's analysis would likely prove whether or  not the reputation you give (of being an expert in linguistics) is legitimate.  You don't know the 13 representation of schwas and you were confused by my 100,000 phonemes. 

 

3) http://reforming-english.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_4.html Thanks for the please. 

 

4) Not sure why you are keeping using the idea that my research is scientific, even after I explained that most linguistics topics belong in the humanities. This would classify as one. I did not use scientific equipment or even procedures to create a new spelling system. No scientific methods here.  Sorry for the fragment, for the sheep out there!

 

5) Considering I am not being paid for this,  so far I can claim at least 3 innovations and some out-of-the-box disambiguation You could guess at 2. The 3rd is more in the area of implementation and might be challenged as non-original. The disambiguations are more in relation to my ability to debunk BS from facts. Not bad for someone who is not getting paid, but we are all idiots on TV. LOL That is how it is! With so many old farts on TV,  it is bound to happen! 

 

6) What are your credentials, if I may ask? Have you published anything or you are just interested in languages?

 

The spellings, all 13, of the shwa please. I think this is the third time I've asked.

Also you really are starting to ramble.

The humanities are not sciences. Really? And now you are using the term "phonemes." Did you learn something tonight. The 13 shwa spellings - don't forget now.

[Richard W]

3 hours ago, George Graham said:

The spellings, all 13, of the shwa please. I think this is the third time I've asked.

Also you really are starting to ramble.

The humanities are not sciences. Really? And now you are using the term "phonemes." Did you learn something tonight. The 13 shwa spellings - don't forget now.

You'll find them at http://reforming-english.blogspot.co.uk/p/blog-page_4.html . - the diagram with the big ellipse.  You may need to scroll down - the page has grown since I first looked at it!  I believe there are also some copies in this thread, but I don't know how to make a stable link to them, so I haven't searched.   I think a couple of the claimed spellings are due to misanalysis - I believe the 'io' in question has been claimed as representing schwa.  On the other hand, he hasn't claimed the 'eou' of the deprecated tetrasyllabic pronunciation of homogeneous.

 

EA's been using the term phoneme for quite some time, though some of his usages verge on abuse.  He can probably find precedent for such stretches of the term.

[Richard W]

9 hours ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

 

Let's admit you were wrong in your wild assertion that it was not my work.

 

As to the superficial rule of not using fragments, let me remind of the Grade 4 rule of substantiating your thesis with supporting details. Tit for tat. Yes! I probably do use "fragments", as a literary device as used by many great writers.

I wonder if we'll ever find an effective but civil method for communication, as natural language isn't working too well on this thread.

 

I did not accuse you of plagiarism: I merely explained why someone else accused you of plagiarism.

 

A fragment is, roughly speaking, a URI with '#' in it.  Their normal (sole?) use is to direct someone to a particular part of a resource.

[Richard W]

5 hours ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

4) Not sure why you are keeping using the idea that my research is scientific, even after I explained that most linguistics topics belong in the humanities. This would classify as one. I did not use scientific equipment or even procedures to create a new spelling system. No scientific methods here.

It's arguable that such a job should be engineering.

[Richard W]

8 hours ago, EnlightenedAtheist said:

Yes, readers do read/decode billions of letters in a day or week. I could have used billions. It is probably much, much higher, in that respect, but there is some debate whether or not we eventually decode words as logographs/grams. Grahams? LOL Since it is my contention that many letters in a given word are misscoded, misspelled, this is a legitimate statement to make, I think.

Interesting.  I thought it had already been demonstrated that fluent readers decode words rather than letters.  That's why I care about morphemic spelling.  I want microcephaly and microcephalic to be instantly associated; I don't want the reader to have to recall or, worse, have to deduce, that  /ˈsefəl/ and /səˈfæl/ are allomorphs.

[George Graham]

5 hours ago, Richard W said:

You'll find them at http://reforming-english.blogspot.co.uk/p/blog-page_4.html . - the diagram with the big ellipse.  You may need to scroll down - the page has grown since I first looked at it!  I believe there are also some copies in this thread, but I don't know how to make a stable link to them, so I haven't searched.   I think a couple of the claimed spellings are due to misanalysis - I believe the 'io' in question has been claimed as representing schwa.  On the other hand, he hasn't claimed the 'eou' of the deprecated tetrasyllabic pronunciation of homogeneous.

 

EA's been using the term phoneme for quite some time, though some of his usages verge on abuse.  He can probably find precedent for such stretches of the term.

That's the vowel chart.

[Rhys]

Well.... you have administrators that have good intentions but are out of touch with the realities of teaching English with many " I don't give a hoot, thank you Bernard"  Students.  Why should they study English they are Thai?

 

Administrators that concern themselves with CEFR... oh please...  and pad the lining from contributions from the Screen Teachers of English complex.   By next year all student will reach the B1 levels... oh that is rich...

[Richard W]

2 hours ago, George Graham said:

That's the vowel chart.

Which contains no big ellipse.  You should have scrolled down further.  However, today, just searching for the words "some examples" will find the following rather clear start of a paragraph:

 

"A schwa in English dialects can be represented by different letters: a, e, i, o, u, y, iou, io, oo, ou, oe, ough, and ia! Here are some examples for these spellings: about, children, pencil, renovate, supply, syringe, luscious, mission, blood, does, cousin, thorough, and especially. (Even “one” or o_e could be included as it is pronounced “wun”.) So, even 14!"

 

Now just before the paragraph is an image of part of the chart entitled "English vowels and diphthongs" in the Wikipedia page International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects.  The first row omitted from that image shows that the STRUT vowel is not schwa, which promptly removes the examples for 3 of the 13 (blood, does and cousin) and the candidate 14th spelling (one).  It also eliminates the first vowel of thorough.  I think syrup is a nicer example than supply, which can be taken to be the verb rather than the adverb from supple.  In another 3 examples has has included part of the consonant symbol, which I show in red (luscious, mission, and especially), though that does restore another digraph, as in famous.  That reduces the number of ways to about 8 - the six single letter vowels, 'ou', and the dodgy 'ough'.  Perhaps the latter should be split into a double writing 'ou' and 'gh', with the latter as in Edinburgh! Of course, that ceases to be a vowel before one reaches the Scottish border.

[Richard W]

20 hours ago, George Graham said:

The Greeks did not invent the alphabet. Try again.

Peter Daniels claims that the Greeks invented the alphabet by misunderstanding the Phoenician abjad.  So, if the Greeks didn't invent the alphabet, who did?  Note that 'the Phoenicians' is very much the wrong answer - their invention would be 'the abjad', and the abjad's first attested flowering seems to have been at Ugarit, with an abjad that was fuller, probably satisfying the alphabetic principle for consonants.  It even started down the road to being an alphabet for words starting with glottal stops.  I've being trying to find more about the use of the Ugaritic script for Hurrian - I'm finding contradictory accounts as to the handling of Hurrian vowels.

[EnlightenedAtheist]

12 hours ago, George Graham said:

The spellings, all 13, of the shwa please. I think this is the third time I've asked.

Also you really are starting to ramble.

The humanities are not sciences. Really? And now you are using the term "phonemes." Did you learn something tonight. The 13 shwa spellings - don't forget now.

 

I sent it to you the second time,. It is even copied in the message I am replying to. Are you on something? The first time I did not get a please. Get the story straight!

 

Rambling? Really? Next!

 

No, I am saying that linguisitcs is usually not considered a science subject or as part of the humanities. You keep talking about scientific this and that. 

 

 

[EnlightenedAtheist]

3 hours ago, George Graham said:

That's the vowel chart.

 

So, if you scroll down in the text it will list all of the 13, but you have to read EVERYTHING. Don't come back until you have.  And don't forget to say thank you. LOL