competent communicator
Do you agree with this statement?
“A person’s being born in a native-English-speaking country does not make for a more competent communicator in any other context. Instead, wide exposure to varieties of English makes one more amenable to being flexible in one’s use of the language…”
From: World Englishes in Asian Contexts By Yamuna Kachru, Cecil L. Nelson.
Absolutely. And a lot of teachers who regard themselves as rightful owners of 'English' would do well to bear this in mind.
<And a lot of teachers who regard themselves as rightful owners of 'English' would do well to bear this in mind. >
I agree. One cannot own a langauge.
Who says? One can own a language. One can own many abstract things. One is not restricted in their ownership by anything other one's lack of entrepreneurial nature. One must not feel that one may not own a language, for one can own a language. Therefore, one must not listen to the previous posters or one will be deceiving oneself.
<<Who says? One can own a language. One can own many abstract things.>>
One can THINK one owns a language, but let him/her try to take a person to court, for example, for using and abusing that language in any way that person feels necessary. Go try it!
<Who says? One can own a language. One can own many abstract things. One is not restricted in their ownership by anything other one's lack of entrepreneurial nature. One must not feel that one may not own a language, for one can own a language. Therefore, one must not listen to the previous posters or one will be deceiving oneself. >
Can you give me proof of ownership?
<<Can you give me proof of ownership?>>
One cannot own one's language in the legal sense, but one may own it none the less. One may compare this with one's government, to which one belongs. If one denies the government one is labelled a misfit and is spurned by society. If one does not obey the institutions of linguistic power, one is labelled lacking in intellect and thus unworthy of esteem in this our modern age.
What I meant by "owning a language" is the attitude that many native speakers of English have - unfortunately some teachers too - is the sense of that it belongs to 'them' and have exclusive rights regarding its use. This kind of attitude leads to people talking about other people's Englishes being imperfect versions of their own. It also leads to the very damaging sense of superiority that some smug people wallow in when speaking to 'foreigners'.
!!If one denies the government one is labelled a misfit and is spurned by society. If one does not obey the institutions of linguistic power, one is labelled lacking in intellect and thus unworthy of esteem in this our modern age. !!
Does English have "institutions of linguistic power"? If so, what are they and who gave them permission to set up those institutions.
This kind of attitude leads to people talking about other people's Englishes being imperfect versions of their own.
A social, and not scientific (linguistics), view. Not much use to anyone really.
Molly! You're a tough one, aren't you? Social linguistics not much use to anyone? Don't be so ruthless; I'm sure you didn't mean it anyway.
Social linguistics not much use to anyone?
No, I meant that a solely social view is no use to anyone. Socio-linguistics (science) is fine by me.
<<Does English have "institutions of linguistic power"? If so, what are they and who gave them permission to set up those institutions.>>
Sure it does. How about public schools, usually established by state legislatures in the US. They used to have spelling tests (and I suppose they still do). If you don't spell the words on the test in the officially sanctioned way, you can fail.
<<What I meant by "owning a language" is the attitude that many native speakers of English have - unfortunately some teachers too - is the sense of that it belongs to 'them' and have exclusive rights regarding its use. This kind of attitude leads to people talking about other people's Englishes being imperfect versions of their own. It also leads to the very damaging sense of superiority that some smug people wallow in when speaking to 'foreigners'.>>
I think your wrong. English speakers are by far the most tolerant of mistakes because they are so used to dealing with foreigners they hardly even notice.