In class this evening we discussed how no one dialect is more “correct†than another. However, I find it interesting that when German students learn English in primary school, most of them learn British English rather than American English. The spelling and grammar of British English are considered “superiorâ€. Is this the same in other countries where English is learned as a 2nd language? Like Diana, I believe standardization is important when learning a second language. When I teach German as asecond language, I teach the “standard†German, which is used in newspapers, TV news and university lecturing. By teaching “standard†German rather than a regional dialect, I am ensuring that the students will be able to understand most German that they hear and read.
1.) Being a native speaker of Indonesian, a language that has an extremely huge gap between its written and spoken forms, I could very much relate to Orwell’s point in page 36 par. 2-3. I have always thought that English is a language which to some degree is balanced in written and spoken forms. So, I am honestly surprised to know that English does have the same problem too. Orwell says that the vocabulary of English contains thousands of words used in writing that have ‘no real currency’ in speech. I’m curious if this applies to other languages too. It certainly does to Indonesian.
In the case of the Indonesian language, not only do we have a lot of words that exist only in dictionaries, but our vocabulary of words used in written language and spoken are quite different from each other too, and the gap is getting bigger and bigger over time. There have been efforts done by scholars and the government to standardize the language in the past, but it did not really work. I believe that it is because, as the author of the paper puts it on page 38 par. 3, all languages change and vary despite attempts to fix and standardise them.
2.) “The English spelling system is difficult, and perfect spellers have exceptional memories.” (page 43, par.1) I thought this statement is interesting, since not until I came to the US that I realized that even native speakers of English struggle with spelling a lot. The funny thing is that I know many Indonesian native speakers who speak English as a second language do not have English spelling problems. I wonder if this is perhaps related to the characteristics of second language acquisition. Or, maybe it is more related to the mother tongue, since as far as I know Indonesians do not tend to struggle with Indonesian spelling either.
I found the social aspects of English standardization mentioned here to be very interesting. While reading, I began thinking about the roles of language in the public and private spheres.
When we think about the linguistic environments we grow up in, we first think of our homes: family, friends, those close to us. As we grow, our environment grows; we’re exposed to new forms of language – new grammatical structures, words, or ways of expressing ideas. This new exposure can affect how we use our language but also, more importantly, how we understand it.
Although I agree with the author when he points out that “personal channels of communication are very much more influential than mass media channels†(25), I think that language in the public sphere can have a great influence on how we understand our language and the world around us. I see this evidence of this point in the discussion of George Orwell and his view of English standardization.
Orwell’s focus is on clarity of expression rather than correctness of usage. This is in favor of the “ordinary user†of language, rather than an abstract principle of correctness – and so in favor of spoken rather than English.
But when thinking about second language acquisition, “correctness†is the first concern. How can the subtleties of the language be taught when there must first be such an emphasis on “standard†usage? How can we balance teaching the rules of written language and spoken language?
In our reading on Standard English and the Complaint Tradition I was very interested in learning about standardization in a historical context. The text suggests that the implementation of English language standardization was a response to the need for “effective communication over long distances and periods of time.” However, the majority of the examples of complaint tradition represented here show little interest in this practical aspect of maintaining standardization of the English language. While some authors value standardization and fear its decline for the reasonable purpose that their works as well as others may be understood in future generations of English speakers and readers, the majority of the complaints seen throughout history seem to be concerned with a moralistic and cultural decline which they tie to the degradation of “standard English.” Saintfield’s ‘Have Went’ excerpts are an example of this sort of complaint literature. These fears seem completely unfounded in that the idea of a heirarchical standardization of language is completely subjective and no one form of English can be empirically described as better or worse than another. In addition to this these complainers seem to be making causal judgments on perceived correlations between certain types of behaviors and types of language used by various groups and individuals. There does not seem to be an evidence supporting the idea that “improper” use of language leads to any sort of specified behaviors. I find it much more likely that the relationship between the two is not causal, but rather that both are related to some extra causal factor such as socio-economic status or culture.
The article also demonstrates the absurdity of this fear in giving examples of how arbitrary our set or rules for standardization are as well as how language standardization is constantly in flux and at the mercy of what is fashionable at the time. Grammatical structure in some of Shakespear’s works, universally respected as high literature, reflects what today would be considered low, laymen’s speech. The sort of standardization ideals upheld by Saintfield, Swift, and their ilk sets the precident for an unequal distribution of power and legitimacy in the English speaking world in which only those in the dominant class use the sort of language that is respected. While I see the value in standardization I also feel that an over emphasis of it in all realms can impede social justice.
In class this evening we discussed how no one dialect is more “correct†than another. However, I find it interesting that when German students learn English in primary school, most of them learn British English rather than American English. The spelling and grammar of British English are considered “superiorâ€. Is this the same in other countries where English is learned as a 2nd language? Like Diana, I believe standardization is important when learning a second language. When I teach German as asecond language, I teach the “standard†German, which is used in newspapers, TV news and university lecturing. By teaching “standard†German rather than a regional dialect, I am ensuring that the students will be able to understand most German that they hear and read.
1.) Being a native speaker of Indonesian, a language that has an extremely huge gap between its written and spoken forms, I could very much relate to Orwell’s point in page 36 par. 2-3. I have always thought that English is a language which to some degree is balanced in written and spoken forms. So, I am honestly surprised to know that English does have the same problem too. Orwell says that the vocabulary of English contains thousands of words used in writing that have ‘no real currency’ in speech. I’m curious if this applies to other languages too. It certainly does to Indonesian.
In the case of the Indonesian language, not only do we have a lot of words that exist only in dictionaries, but our vocabulary of words used in written language and spoken are quite different from each other too, and the gap is getting bigger and bigger over time. There have been efforts done by scholars and the government to standardize the language in the past, but it did not really work. I believe that it is because, as the author of the paper puts it on page 38 par. 3, all languages change and vary despite attempts to fix and standardise them.
2.) “The English spelling system is difficult, and perfect spellers have exceptional memories.” (page 43, par.1) I thought this statement is interesting, since not until I came to the US that I realized that even native speakers of English struggle with spelling a lot. The funny thing is that I know many Indonesian native speakers who speak English as a second language do not have English spelling problems. I wonder if this is perhaps related to the characteristics of second language acquisition. Or, maybe it is more related to the mother tongue, since as far as I know Indonesians do not tend to struggle with Indonesian spelling either.
Just my two cents.
I found the social aspects of English standardization mentioned here to be very interesting. While reading, I began thinking about the roles of language in the public and private spheres.
When we think about the linguistic environments we grow up in, we first think of our homes: family, friends, those close to us. As we grow, our environment grows; we’re exposed to new forms of language – new grammatical structures, words, or ways of expressing ideas. This new exposure can affect how we use our language but also, more importantly, how we understand it.
Although I agree with the author when he points out that “personal channels of communication are very much more influential than mass media channels†(25), I think that language in the public sphere can have a great influence on how we understand our language and the world around us. I see this evidence of this point in the discussion of George Orwell and his view of English standardization.
Orwell’s focus is on clarity of expression rather than correctness of usage. This is in favor of the “ordinary user†of language, rather than an abstract principle of correctness – and so in favor of spoken rather than English.
But when thinking about second language acquisition, “correctness†is the first concern. How can the subtleties of the language be taught when there must first be such an emphasis on “standard†usage? How can we balance teaching the rules of written language and spoken language?
In our reading on Standard English and the Complaint Tradition I was very interested in learning about standardization in a historical context. The text suggests that the implementation of English language standardization was a response to the need for “effective communication over long distances and periods of time.” However, the majority of the examples of complaint tradition represented here show little interest in this practical aspect of maintaining standardization of the English language. While some authors value standardization and fear its decline for the reasonable purpose that their works as well as others may be understood in future generations of English speakers and readers, the majority of the complaints seen throughout history seem to be concerned with a moralistic and cultural decline which they tie to the degradation of “standard English.” Saintfield’s ‘Have Went’ excerpts are an example of this sort of complaint literature. These fears seem completely unfounded in that the idea of a heirarchical standardization of language is completely subjective and no one form of English can be empirically described as better or worse than another. In addition to this these complainers seem to be making causal judgments on perceived correlations between certain types of behaviors and types of language used by various groups and individuals. There does not seem to be an evidence supporting the idea that “improper” use of language leads to any sort of specified behaviors. I find it much more likely that the relationship between the two is not causal, but rather that both are related to some extra causal factor such as socio-economic status or culture.
The article also demonstrates the absurdity of this fear in giving examples of how arbitrary our set or rules for standardization are as well as how language standardization is constantly in flux and at the mercy of what is fashionable at the time. Grammatical structure in some of Shakespear’s works, universally respected as high literature, reflects what today would be considered low, laymen’s speech. The sort of standardization ideals upheld by Saintfield, Swift, and their ilk sets the precident for an unequal distribution of power and legitimacy in the English speaking world in which only those in the dominant class use the sort of language that is respected. While I see the value in standardization I also feel that an over emphasis of it in all realms can impede social justice.
My comment is located on the homepage.