So everyone think I make big delusion about my English quality and actually it is extremely terrible and choc full of ungrammaticality. It seems you think I could not make any more mistakes if I tried...
English is the hardest language to learn
Look, your English isn't bad. Its understandable, its just not what I'd call native speaker level. But theres no shame in that so I wouldn't beat yourself up about it.
It's interesting to see Germans arguing about English being a 'hard' language to learn. I think Germans like this aspect of something classifying as 'hard'. Wake up folks, there are more important issues to discuss. If you use your senses and relax, learning English can be fun.
OK, I won't beat myself up about it. Hopefully all the corrections that people have kindly provided will help others, whose English is just as terrible as mine ;-)
Liz:
I totally agree with you. I am not a linguist, that's why I judge things differently, like the rest of the people.
<<A person from the eastern part of London says the following thing: "I thinks I ain't gonna do nothin'". It's a non-standard way of saying "I think that I am not going to do anything", but is by no means ungrammatical (since native speakers, by nature, do not make grammatical errors). But what if a non-native speaker utters the above statement? Well, that's definitely ungrammatical, as many EFL / ESL teachers say. Touchy, isn't it?
I really want to hear (see) your opinion about it.>>
You can't deny that sounds a bit odd. How is it possible that, the same sentence, said by a native-speaker is grammatically correct... but if said by a non-native it can be wrong?? I mean... It's the same thing afterwards... does that make any sense???
I'd like to see other's opinions
I totally agree with you. I am not a linguist, that's why I judge things differently, like the rest of the people.
<<A person from the eastern part of London says the following thing: "I thinks I ain't gonna do nothin'". It's a non-standard way of saying "I think that I am not going to do anything", but is by no means ungrammatical (since native speakers, by nature, do not make grammatical errors). But what if a non-native speaker utters the above statement? Well, that's definitely ungrammatical, as many EFL / ESL teachers say. Touchy, isn't it?
I really want to hear (see) your opinion about it.>>
You can't deny that sounds a bit odd. How is it possible that, the same sentence, said by a native-speaker is grammatically correct... but if said by a non-native it can be wrong?? I mean... It's the same thing afterwards... does that make any sense???
I'd like to see other's opinions
<<You can't deny that sounds a bit odd. How is it possible that, the same sentence, said by a native-speaker is grammatically correct... but if said by a non-native it can be wrong?? I mean... It's the same thing afterwards... does that make any sense???>>
Exactly. It sounds odd. That's my problem.
I know that EFL / ESL is another thing. Teachers should instil "correct English" into their students. (I know, I know there isn't such a notion, or if there is, it is not restricted to RP/Standard English or to other standard varieties... I'm afraid that Kirk or Travis will kill me for that, but that's the case.) This is not because we are bloody prescriptivists, and we look down on people who speak regional dialects. This is because you can't use non-standard language at language examinations. Besides, it's better to learn the "standard" forms first and then you can learn the non-standard ones, too.
On the other hand, it's better for non-natives to learn a standardised form of English (RP or General American). I know that RP does not sound neutral in Britain at all, and GAE is a rather vague term. BUT:
(1) EFL/ESL materials mainly use Standard English (funnily enough, many times U-RP).
(2) These are the easiest (for many non-native speakers)to learn and to understand. I appreciate the fact that there are many sounds in U-RP which sound totally strange to our ears (as if we were listening to old black and white films). But if we take, say, Estuary English (contemporary standard English is somewhere between Estuary English and RP): heavy glottalisation is one of its main features (being characteristic of other British dialects as well). The speakers of many languages are physiologically incapable of producing glottal stops, or if they are, they are not willing to, because they find it odd. U-RP is glottal stop-free, therefore it's a little easier for them to learn. However, glottal-stop free English English sounds a bit old fashioned these days.
(3) Non-standard dialects have regional and social connotations. It's quite hard to learn them if you haven't lived in those areas of if you don't belong to these communities. Sometimes it sounds odd when you have a thick foreign accent plus a regional dialect. Maybe, this is only my opinion and you don't agree.
I have sort of controversy between my "linguist self" and "EFL teacher" self... :-)) I advocated descriptivism (at least partly) in my previous message... Now, I seem to be an ardent prescriptivist. I hope not.
Exactly. It sounds odd. That's my problem.
I know that EFL / ESL is another thing. Teachers should instil "correct English" into their students. (I know, I know there isn't such a notion, or if there is, it is not restricted to RP/Standard English or to other standard varieties... I'm afraid that Kirk or Travis will kill me for that, but that's the case.) This is not because we are bloody prescriptivists, and we look down on people who speak regional dialects. This is because you can't use non-standard language at language examinations. Besides, it's better to learn the "standard" forms first and then you can learn the non-standard ones, too.
On the other hand, it's better for non-natives to learn a standardised form of English (RP or General American). I know that RP does not sound neutral in Britain at all, and GAE is a rather vague term. BUT:
(1) EFL/ESL materials mainly use Standard English (funnily enough, many times U-RP).
(2) These are the easiest (for many non-native speakers)to learn and to understand. I appreciate the fact that there are many sounds in U-RP which sound totally strange to our ears (as if we were listening to old black and white films). But if we take, say, Estuary English (contemporary standard English is somewhere between Estuary English and RP): heavy glottalisation is one of its main features (being characteristic of other British dialects as well). The speakers of many languages are physiologically incapable of producing glottal stops, or if they are, they are not willing to, because they find it odd. U-RP is glottal stop-free, therefore it's a little easier for them to learn. However, glottal-stop free English English sounds a bit old fashioned these days.
(3) Non-standard dialects have regional and social connotations. It's quite hard to learn them if you haven't lived in those areas of if you don't belong to these communities. Sometimes it sounds odd when you have a thick foreign accent plus a regional dialect. Maybe, this is only my opinion and you don't agree.
I have sort of controversy between my "linguist self" and "EFL teacher" self... :-)) I advocated descriptivism (at least partly) in my previous message... Now, I seem to be an ardent prescriptivist. I hope not.
<<Teachers should instil "correct English" into their students.>>
Oops! It sounds a wee bit Mxsmanic-esque :-) It should be "standard" instead of "correct".
Oops! It sounds a wee bit Mxsmanic-esque :-) It should be "standard" instead of "correct".
I agree very much with Liz. Pragmatically, it is more advantageous for non-native English speakers to learn Received Pronunciation than it is for them to learn, say, Black Country dialect.
Another thing that I'd add to Liz's list is that Received Pronunciation is the dialect which is most widely understood in the British Isles, which is why it is the most common accent on national television and radio. Yesterday, I was watching a programme on which local people from Northern Ireland were speaking — it was quite an effort for me to understand them and I had to listen very carefully. However, I'm sure that they would understand me much more easily than I understand them because I speak RP.
Another thing that I'd add to Liz's list is that Received Pronunciation is the dialect which is most widely understood in the British Isles, which is why it is the most common accent on national television and radio. Yesterday, I was watching a programme on which local people from Northern Ireland were speaking — it was quite an effort for me to understand them and I had to listen very carefully. However, I'm sure that they would understand me much more easily than I understand them because I speak RP.
<<(1) EFL/ESL materials mainly use Standard English (funnily enough, many times U-RP).
(2) These are the easiest (for many non-native speakers)to learn and to understand. I appreciate the fact that there are many sounds in U-RP which sound totally strange to our ears (as if we were listening to old black and white films). But if we take, say, Estuary English (contemporary standard English is somewhere between Estuary English and RP): heavy glottalisation is one of its main features (being characteristic of other British dialects as well). The speakers of many languages are physiologically incapable of producing glottal stops, or if they are, they are not willing to, because they find it odd. U-RP is glottal stop-free, therefore it's a little easier for them to learn. However, glottal-stop free English English sounds a bit old fashioned these days.>>
Then why isn't there any learning material using Estuary English. At least there are a number of people who actually speak that dialect, aren't there?
What do you mean "physiologically incapable". Anyone can learn any language. It's just a matter of practice. And adapting the mouth and throat muscles to produce those sounds. It's also better if they start young, because as they grow older muscles lose flexibility and learning languages and being able to pronounce them well becomes more difficult.
I'd say everyone would be happy if students learnt Estuary English, or Cockney instead of RP. Well... if not happy... at least, amused...
Pete
(2) These are the easiest (for many non-native speakers)to learn and to understand. I appreciate the fact that there are many sounds in U-RP which sound totally strange to our ears (as if we were listening to old black and white films). But if we take, say, Estuary English (contemporary standard English is somewhere between Estuary English and RP): heavy glottalisation is one of its main features (being characteristic of other British dialects as well). The speakers of many languages are physiologically incapable of producing glottal stops, or if they are, they are not willing to, because they find it odd. U-RP is glottal stop-free, therefore it's a little easier for them to learn. However, glottal-stop free English English sounds a bit old fashioned these days.>>
Then why isn't there any learning material using Estuary English. At least there are a number of people who actually speak that dialect, aren't there?
What do you mean "physiologically incapable". Anyone can learn any language. It's just a matter of practice. And adapting the mouth and throat muscles to produce those sounds. It's also better if they start young, because as they grow older muscles lose flexibility and learning languages and being able to pronounce them well becomes more difficult.
I'd say everyone would be happy if students learnt Estuary English, or Cockney instead of RP. Well... if not happy... at least, amused...
Pete
<<What do you mean "physiologically incapable". Anyone can learn any language.>>
You have the answer:
<<It's also better if they start young, because as they grow older muscles lose flexibility and learning languages and being able to pronounce them well becomes more difficult.>>
Definitely. However, many people don't start learning foreign languages at an early age, therefore it isn't easy for them to adapt their speech organs to produce those "strange" sounds. Producing "unusual" sounds might not be problematic for you, but it might not be easy for others. We are different in many ways.
<<I'd say everyone would be happy if students learnt Estuary English, or Cockney instead of RP. Well... if not happy... at least, amused...>>
Estuary English would be quite a good choice. I don't have anything against it, but some older people don't like it. I have a teacher (from the north of England but he is an U-RP speaker) who goes mad every time he hears even the touches of EE in our speech. (I do have touches of EE in my accent.) On each occassion he cries: Jesus! You speak like Jamie Oliver!
As far as Cockney is concerned....I just love it! BUT: As English is a tool of communication (that's why people learn it), it is highly recommended to learn a variety which is widely understood. Unfortunately, this is not the case with Cockney. If you manage to learn native-like Cockney, it's fine. However, not everyone will understand a broad Cockney accent. But if you learn Cockney and you still speak with a thick foreign accent, it will be much more difficult for you to make yourself understood. Besides, Cockney is one of the most heavily stigmatised accents in Britain, and, as I mentioned earlier, most job interviewers are not conversant with linguistics at all...
You have the answer:
<<It's also better if they start young, because as they grow older muscles lose flexibility and learning languages and being able to pronounce them well becomes more difficult.>>
Definitely. However, many people don't start learning foreign languages at an early age, therefore it isn't easy for them to adapt their speech organs to produce those "strange" sounds. Producing "unusual" sounds might not be problematic for you, but it might not be easy for others. We are different in many ways.
<<I'd say everyone would be happy if students learnt Estuary English, or Cockney instead of RP. Well... if not happy... at least, amused...>>
Estuary English would be quite a good choice. I don't have anything against it, but some older people don't like it. I have a teacher (from the north of England but he is an U-RP speaker) who goes mad every time he hears even the touches of EE in our speech. (I do have touches of EE in my accent.) On each occassion he cries: Jesus! You speak like Jamie Oliver!
As far as Cockney is concerned....I just love it! BUT: As English is a tool of communication (that's why people learn it), it is highly recommended to learn a variety which is widely understood. Unfortunately, this is not the case with Cockney. If you manage to learn native-like Cockney, it's fine. However, not everyone will understand a broad Cockney accent. But if you learn Cockney and you still speak with a thick foreign accent, it will be much more difficult for you to make yourself understood. Besides, Cockney is one of the most heavily stigmatised accents in Britain, and, as I mentioned earlier, most job interviewers are not conversant with linguistics at all...
English is easy. it is not difficult to learn it at all! i speak english, italian and spanish fluently. well i gotta admit...sometimes i struggle in those 3 languages...i keep forgetting words in each language and i'm surrounded by people from everywhere specially from the U.S oh and by the way i'm half from everywhere...i was born in peru but i was raised in the U.S. Plus, my mom is italian, my dad is half moroccan and my great grandparents were german so i had to learn more than 2 languages and it was hard for me and i still struggle but at least i try which is good :P i guess it doesn't matter how perfect your english is as long as you're able to communicate. Practice is the key!!
try to learn an asian language, it makes learning english looks like nothing.