mezbup Wrote:I think it would be better if everyone could communicate with everyone in a proper form. Rather than just communicating with people half-assedly.

Kanjiiz Wrote:Why English is dead?

Making a simple language to increase and ease communication between people with different languages backgrounds is a good idea, but such a language should only be used for that purpose.

All languages has already become simpler, right? And alongside that, people's ability to express their ideas and communicate efficiently has decreased, a quick look at an old text shows that the writer could express his thoughts more specifically using more complex structures and vocabulary, which prevents wrong interpretation from the reader and makes the text better to read. Also expressing a specific thought in modern simpler versions of any language will most likely use more words than the complex one.

In short, when languages become simpler, communication between people ,at least of the same mother language, decreases.

Irixmark Wrote:On grammar etc: The problem for non-native speakers is idiomatic expressions. My guess is that international English as it emerges is still grammatical, but mostly non-idiomatic. Actually idioms are quite localized. The North American "the boiler has given up the ghost" probably wouldn't get the point across to most Japanese speakers of English, but didn't convey any meaning to our plumber in London last week either.

Gingerninja Wrote:

Irixmark Wrote:On grammar etc: The problem for non-native speakers is idiomatic expressions. My guess is that international English as it emerges is still grammatical, but mostly non-idiomatic. Actually idioms are quite localized. The North American "the boiler has given up the ghost" probably wouldn't get the point across to most Japanese speakers of English, but didn't convey any meaning to our plumber in London last week either.

Odd. to say something has given up the ghost is fairly standard to hear in Britain too, maybe a bit old fashioned but you will still occasionally hear it.

Gingerninja Wrote:

Irixmark Wrote:On grammar etc: The problem for non-native speakers is idiomatic expressions. My guess is that international English as it emerges is still grammatical, but mostly non-idiomatic. Actually idioms are quite localized. The North American "the boiler has given up the ghost" probably wouldn't get the point across to most Japanese speakers of English, but didn't convey any meaning to our plumber in London last week either.

Odd. to say something has given up the ghost is fairly standard to hear in Britain too, maybe a bit old fashioned but you will still occasionally hear it.

Irixmark Wrote:(Disclosure: I'm Canadian, but not technically a native speaker in that I learned English as a child, but my parents didn't speak English at home).

On accent: Most learners of English strive for an American accent because that's the global standard. British English as global language went out with the Suez Crisis, if not earlier.

Some de-facto standardization of English is simply a necessity to make yourself understood. So for example many Americans, Canadians, Australians, Kiwis etc have real trouble understanding Brits who don't speak BBC English, which for good reasons is called "received pronunciation." But everybody understands standard American. In fact, studies have found that non-native speakers understand standard American English best, too.

(sorry, nest0r, no literature reference here, but if anyone disputes the point, I'll dig it out)

That aside, what you speak with your friends and family is up to you. Haitian cab drivers in Montreal speak proper French to the passenger (actually much closer to standard Parisian French than the locals ever could), but Creole with their colleagues.

On grammar etc: The problem for non-native speakers is idiomatic expressions. My guess is that international English as it emerges is still grammatical, but mostly non-idiomatic. Actually idioms are quite localized. The North American "the boiler has given up the ghost" probably wouldn't get the point across to most Japanese speakers of English, but didn't convey any meaning to our plumber in London last week either.

nest0r Wrote:I suppose I actually don't have to worry and use words like 'centrifugal' and 'centripetal', the linguists have it covered with 'endo' and 'exo' normative:

"This ties in with the central political question mentioned before, the
choice of a target variety in language education. An exonormative orienta-
tion, favoring native-speaker and usually British English, is opposed to an
endonormative attitude which would accept educated local forms of using
English as the goal for students to strive for. Exonormativity is supported
by history and tradition, and by the assumption that this is the “best,” or
perhaps even the only “correct,” form of the language, which, thus, natu-
rally must be offered to (and expected from) students. And of course it is
also promoted by the availability of books, teaching materials, and so on,
pushed by international publishing houses. But it comes with a price, and a
high one at that, a permanent lie, as it were. The implied goal of “passing for
a native” is bound to produce permanent frustration, while it gives a huge
advantage to British speakers. An undeserved one, though – the only rea-
sonably sounding cause for such a choice has been intelligibility, but, as was
stated before, it has been shown that ESL varieties, typically marked by a
syllable-timed rhythm and more careful articulation, are actually more
intelligible to speakers of other Englishes than natives.

Endonormative teaching targets are much more realistic to achieve, and
also more sensitive to local cultural needs. And they have the additional
advantage of developing and supporting local resources."

Surreal Wrote:

nest0r Wrote:I suppose I actually don't have to worry and use words like 'centrifugal' and 'centripetal', the linguists have it covered with 'endo' and 'exo' normative:

"This ties in with the central political question mentioned before, the
choice of a target variety in language education. An exonormative orienta-
tion, favoring native-speaker and usually British English, is opposed to an
endonormative attitude which would accept educated local forms of using
English as the goal for students to strive for. Exonormativity is supported
by history and tradition, and by the assumption that this is the “best,” or
perhaps even the only “correct,” form of the language, which, thus, natu-
rally must be offered to (and expected from) students. And of course it is
also promoted by the availability of books, teaching materials, and so on,
pushed by international publishing houses. But it comes with a price, and a
high one at that, a permanent lie, as it were. The implied goal of “passing for
a native” is bound to produce permanent frustration, while it gives a huge
advantage to British speakers. An undeserved one, though – the only rea-
sonably sounding cause for such a choice has been intelligibility, but, as was
stated before, it has been shown that ESL varieties, typically marked by a
syllable-timed rhythm and more careful articulation, are actually more
intelligible to speakers of other Englishes than natives.

Endonormative teaching targets are much more realistic to achieve, and
also more sensitive to local cultural needs. And they have the additional
advantage of developing and supporting local resources."

I'm not entirely sure the author would agree that this applies to Japan... In the two pages he devotes to Japan he mostly just says that the Japanese suck at English and it's not really integrated in their culture so there's not what he'd call "Japanese English", only - this is not a direct quote, only what I believe he would call it from the few pages I read - "(sparse) English usage in Japan".

The kind of English, when it is spoken at all, that the average Japanese speaks is hard to understand from what I've heard of Japanese speaking English in general (in series, etc.) and I'm a Swede so that's non-native->non-native. From what little I've seen of learning materials for English the education seems to promote a highly unnatural and convoluted way of speaking (get rid of the katakanizing already! it's not effective as a phonemic system for English sounds) that has little to do with simplifying the language. If there's an English accent that would be easier than British/American English and at the same time work well for communicating with most speakers of the world that's fine. I just really don't think that what's being taught in Japanese schools today is very good and it seems like it would be hard to justify choosing, for example, "Singaporean English" over all other English accents instead of going with one of the most stereotypical accents.

As for "non-native speakers" (isn't there a better term? I've been learning English ever since I was a kid and I'm not from GB/USA, since English is used all over here it seems odd to call myself a non-native) I think it sounds plausible that, overall, English speakers understand standard American English the best save for their own local accent(s) simply because American media is seeping into the majority of the world. That is, when it's recorded and the non-native doesn't need to make itself understood. Most of the studies I've seen referred to stating that non-natives understand other non-natives better than native English speakers talk about face-to-face interaction. American/British English speakers tend to be impatient and not make as much of an effort at understanding other accents because they can't get away from the idea that their own accent is 'correct' English. That's the main explanation I've heard, anyway. Of course, it still would be nice to have some source on that, Irixmark.

nest0r Wrote:

Surreal Wrote:

nest0r Wrote:snip.

snip-snip

Wait, are you saying that American is more easily understood than British, or American is best understood of all Englishes, period? I haven't seen any discussions of the former, and of the latter it's clear it's untrue. Edit: I see you made exception for 'local'.

I think 'Speakers of Others Languages' is a common term, no? i.e. TESOL. Re: non-native. Or bilingual/trilingual. But then wouldn't that (growing up multilingual) be considered 'native'? And often of a different variety of English. And of course we can't forget L1, L2, etc.

As for the relevance of the original quote to Japan.

I think it ties nicely into the OP article which seems more about generating/promoting a Japanese English. We're talking about the same dynamic. The bit about Japan you're referring to also argues:

"And, as Stanlaw also concedes, most Japanese people are unable to communicate fluently in English even after several years of schooling, perhaps because the emphasis
of teaching is on learning grammar rules and vocabulary rather than on speaking."

Related to this, the paragraph just before the one I first quoted:

"CONVERSATION IS AWESOME AND WILL FIX EVERYTHING"

The more I quote this text the less I like some of the assumptions. A bit too fuzzy. In particular, with each quote I can predict little rhetorical flourishes that could be seized on and debated. But provides a nice overview which is why I linked to it in a new post rather than just mentioned endo/exonormative in a minor edit. Perhaps even more I wanted to remind that this is an established topic with plenty to read besides online news articles and comments. ^_-

Surreal Wrote:Older books were often written by people with a big vocabulary for people with a big vocabulary and so it was hard for average citizens to understand them, at least that is the impression I have. The reason for simplifying the language in many modern books is that it makes them more available and easy to get into.

Kanjiiz Wrote:In short, when languages become simpler, communication between people ,at least of the same mother language, decreases.

Surreal Wrote:Saying that the communication between people has decreased I would say is just wrong - if anything, the overall accuracy in (written) communication has decreased. Of course that's a downside but the upside is, again, that the language generally is more available. Besides, if you fancy more expressive/specific words there are plenty of modern literary works, blogs, etc. out there for your perusal.

Surreal Wrote:Well. Unless you care more about having something you can grade on your stupid 100-point tests than about your students actually learning.

Surreal Wrote:Edit: okay that reply was frighteningly quick

Kanjiiz Wrote:

Surreal Wrote:Older books were often written by people with a big vocabulary for people with a big vocabulary and so it was hard for average citizens to understand them, at least that is the impression I have. The reason for simplifying the language in many modern books is that it makes them more available and easy to get into.

I doubt this, it is only your impression.

Kanjiiz Wrote:In short, when languages become simpler, communication between people ,at least of the same mother language, decreases.

Surreal Wrote:Saying that the communication between people has decreased I would say is just wrong - if anything, the overall accuracy in (written) communication has decreased. Of course that's a downside but the upside is, again, that the language generally is more available. Besides, if you fancy more expressive/specific words there are plenty of modern literary works, blogs, etc. out there for your perusal.

What point does this prove?
What do you mean by 'more available'? Before CHILDREN mastered most of their language even though their language was more complex than ours.

Surreal Wrote:Well. Unless you care more about having something you can grade on your stupid 100-point tests than about your students actually learning.

Again no relation to what I was saying.

I agree with you about learning what you need from a FOREIGN language.

I'll state my opinion clearly, maybe it's not a bad idea to simplify a language to make communicating with people with foreign languages easier and wider, but ones native language should be preserved and mastered, because simple forms of languages decreases the ability to express ones thoughts precisely.

Surreal Wrote:Actually, reading about "new literacies" at Wikipedia made me think that the way English is used today is in many ways more complex than it used to be. As I'm typing right now on this keyboard I have to take into account the great cultural differences between us and what concepts you are used to talking about. Many times we also need to take into account what level of English the person we are talking to is at when we communicate on forums, judging only by a few posts from the person her/himself. When we read things on the net they are filled with abbreviations and different input methods, italics at odd places that make us wonder what it's about... And most of us have to learn a lot of lingo that is entirely new today, like microwave oven, or highly area-specific terms like 'proximodistal trajectory'.

Surreal Wrote:At the same time, I understand what you mean and regardless of whether there has really been a decrease in the average L1 English speaker's vocabulary or not I agree that more 'precise' words can be nice and give color to the language once you're used to them. I just like to appreciate all the different levels of language.

Quote:These people should forget trying to make everyone learn English, and should instead focus on making sure their own language does not die out due to the excessive globalism in our world today(something Japan and many other countries have so far failed at doing).