legitimizing

M56   Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:21 am GMT
In the contemporary ESL/EFL classroom, where do learners’ errors stop and legitimate features of a variety begin?
Liz   Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:15 pm GMT
What exactly do you mean by that? Could you elaborate on that?

BTW, errors never stop. Even if you have reached a near native proficiency, it's a foreign language for you, so the odds of making errors (if not errors, mistakes) are still quite high. Of course, the more proficient you are the fewer errors you make.

Besides, it's important to clarify what the difference is between errors and mistakes. Everyone, even native speakers, make mistakes, which are usually slips of the tongue and due to carelessness and/or fatigue. Some people list stigmatised non-standard forms among mistakes, however, I would argue with that.
Errors are more serious and are due to the lack of knowledge of a given rule. Only non-native speakers make errors.

However, sometimes there is only a fine line between mistakes and errors. For instance, if a native speaker of English uses a double negative, it's considered as part of his/her dialect, but if a foreign learner does the same, well, it's seriously condemned as a blatant error...
Calliope   Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:59 pm GMT
"Only non-native speakers make errors. "

"if a native speaker of English uses a double negative, it's considered as part of his/her dialect"

What if his dialect doesn't allow double negatives? Would you say he has a personal dialect that only he uses, just because he is a native speaker, or that he made an error?
15HS   Mon Jan 15, 2007 4:50 pm GMT
"For instance, if a native speaker of English uses a double negative, it's considered as part of his/her dialect, but if a foreign learner does the same, well, it's seriously condemned as a blatant error..."

I disagree. It's my experience that the language Gestapo generally pounces just as quickly on a native speaker who uses a double negative as on a foreign learner.

However, the foreign learner - if learning English formally - generally starts instruction in a "Standard English" boot camp.

After reaching a particular level of fluency, he or she then comes to understand that, not surprisingly, there is much more to English than "Standard English."

For a native speaker, it's the other way around; this speaker learns English through his or her parents, family and social group, then is later made aware that there's a "Standard English" and the double negative (a construction that comes to him or her quite naturally) is now "wrong."
Liz   Mon Jan 15, 2007 4:51 pm GMT
<<What if his dialect doesn't allow double negatives? Would you say he has a personal dialect that only he uses, just because he is a native speaker, or that he made an error?>>

I think those who don't have double negatives in their native dialects won't use these forms. But there might be exceptions, as always. For example, if you want to be "street-credible" or mix with "uneducated" people. However, if you want to do so, you are more likely to adopt other features of that particular regional or social variety as well.
Liz   Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:13 pm GMT
<<I disagree. It's my experience that the language Gestapo generally pounces just as quickly on a native speaker who uses a double negative as on a foreign learner.>>

It's purely a question of stigma and prestige. A native speaker who uses a double negative is immediately pidgeonholed as uneducated and ignorant by many people in certain circles. I don't question that. However, this is just a stigmatised form but technically not an error.

I don't think my ideas are in contradiction to yours. I was just trying to point out the seemingly paradoxical nature of a linguistic and/or social phenomenon. Namely, that the use of a non-standard form, which is prevalent in several English dialects, is often put down to the fact that the given person is certainly a non-native speaker of English. What if the person has picked up this use of language from native speakers (having lived in such a community, read book or seen films using vernacular)?
Liz   Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:37 pm GMT
<<pidgeonholed>> = pigeonholed
Pash   Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:18 pm GMT
<Errors are more serious and are due to the lack of knowledge of a given rule. Only non-native speakers make errors.>

Are you saying that all native speakers have knowledge of every rule?
Liz   Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:21 pm GMT
No, of course not. But there are typically "non-native" errors.
Travis   Tue Jan 16, 2007 1:07 am GMT
>>Are you saying that all native speakers have knowledge of every rule?<<

If they don't, that's because it is not a part of their native lect to begin with - which means that it is not a rule for them altogether; such also goes the other way, as individuals may very well have rules (be they phonological, morphological, syntactic, etc.) which do not exist in any kind of standard or like either.
Travis   Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:20 am GMT
>>"For instance, if a native speaker of English uses a double negative, it's considered as part of his/her dialect, but if a foreign learner does the same, well, it's seriously condemned as a blatant error..."

I disagree. It's my experience that the language Gestapo generally pounces just as quickly on a native speaker who uses a double negative as on a foreign learner.

However, the foreign learner - if learning English formally - generally starts instruction in a "Standard English" boot camp.

After reaching a particular level of fluency, he or she then comes to understand that, not surprisingly, there is much more to English than "Standard English."

For a native speaker, it's the other way around; this speaker learns English through his or her parents, family and social group, then is later made aware that there's a "Standard English" and the double negative (a construction that comes to him or her quite naturally) is now "wrong."<<

When you speak of "Standard English", though, do you mean just the literary language or do you mean both the literary and spoken languages, where in the latter case "Standard English" would mean either General American or RP? For instance, if I for whatever reason became an English teacher for L2 speakers of English, I would be able to teach Standard English as a literary language, but I would not be able to really teach Standard English (in this case General American) as a *spoken* language; my native dialect has quite significant differences between it and General American, especially with respect to phonology, and even my formal speech, while very heavily influenced by the literary language, largely retains much of the phonology of my native dialect.

Of course, I would not plan on changing my speech, as contrary to the idea of "non-standard" speech being "wrong", using my native dialect has worked out just fine in practically all contexts, work included, at most getting the occasional comment from people from without Wisconsin on my accent sounding "foreign" or "cute" or on why I say "ja" (that's [ja:]) so much. I only end up using truly formal speech at meetings at work or for effect, and even then, that's generally still retaining my dialect's phonology (just trying to use actual GA pronunciation just *feels* very weird to me, and some things like [5] and [r\] which is not after a labial or coronal are quite difficult for me...). At the same time, were I to be an English teacher for L2 speakers of English, would I be expected to *speak* in class in General American, and then not just its grammar, usage, and vocabulary but also its phonology? Would I be expected to *change* my speech to be "standard" in phonology, just for the sake of standardization than anything else (as said phonology has worked out just fine for me in practically all environments in Real Life, including in the office at work)?
16AL   Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:37 am GMT
"When you speak of 'Standard English', though, do you mean just the literary language or do you mean both the literary and spoken languages, where in the latter case 'Standard English' would mean either General American or RP?"

Well, by default, I probably mean the literary language. That's because there is, in my view, no such thing as a "Standard English" spoken language. At least, I've never encountered anyone in my life who spoke "Standard English."

To me, "Standard English" is simply a construct, a "useful fiction" if you will. Useful because there needs to be a benchmark for teaching English as a language (particularly to NNES). So I fully accept the need for a set of "rules" to be hammered into the heads of NNES in their developmental stage (what I call "language boot camp"). "Standard English" is also useful as a guide for formal, written English as well, assuring a degree of language uniformity where required.

What I find sad though is that, frequently, even when NNES reach a high level of fluency they fail to shake off the "rules" fetish of their earlier days of instruction. Once you speak a language fluently, the next step is to begin to appreciate its diversity, humanity and character.* Instead, we too often get pedants obsessed with "ain't" or tut-tutting about "double negatives."

Incidentally, I believe that, thanks to the Internet, the written language is finally becoming a language of conversation on a mass scale.

Before chat rooms and forums, all written English beyond the odd Post-It note was a pretty formal business. There was time to review and revise before committing thoughts to a final written product. In most cases, anything that was going to end up for wide dissemination to the reading public had to work its way through a separate proofreading and editing stage first.

Now, anyone with an Internet connection can go directly out to the world - regionalisms, swearwords, spelling mistakes and all. The result, I believe, is that what used to be the important difference between spoken and written communication - the formality of the latter - is falling away. One indicator alone is the increased used of contractions in writing ("isn't," "won't," "I'd" and so forth).

My "two cents"!

* One of many reasons Esperanto is a flop is that it has absolutely no soul as a language. It's just an assemblage of "rules."
16AN   Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:59 am GMT
"Are you saying that all native speakers have knowledge of every rule?"

I agree with Travis.

I would add that, in my opinion, native speakers don't go by language "rules" per se but rather by language "requirements." That is say: what sound combinations are required to communicate effectively with the other members of my dialect group?

It's easy to forget sometimes that, since human languages began, most human beings have spoken their particular native tongues fluently without recourse to a single formal grammar lesson and while utterly and blissfully ignorant of the existence of subjunctives, datives, prepositions, adverbs, ergatives or gerunds.

And, what's more, most speakers have been entirely illiterate too.
Pash   Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:01 am GMT
<I would add that, in my opinion, native speakers don't go by language "rules" per se but rather by language "requirements." That is say: what sound combinations are required to communicate effectively with the other members of my dialect group?>

So, when at school, native speakers are not taught rules and how to apply them, right?
Guest   Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:03 am GMT
"So, when at school, native speakers are not taught rules and how to apply them, right?"

Correct. Did you have to be taught the rules of your native language?