Connected speech problems?

Gwest   Sat Aug 18, 2007 11:16 am GMT
<But non-technical versions often gloss over important details, such as the difference between phones and phonemes, which are critical to really understanding what is going on in many cases. >

Critical for whom? Academics? Are you telling us that your posts better serve the average ESL student?
Guest   Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:21 am GMT
<Are you telling us that your posts better serve the average ESL student?>

A very good question.
Travis   Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:17 am GMT
Mind you that my interests are focused on linguistics, and particularly English dialects. I do not post here as some kind of service to ESL students, you should remember, and I feel no need to specifically cater to them. While I do answer their questions, my answers are necessarily not those that an English teacher would give but rather those that an amateur linguist whose focus is English dialectology would give.

Another reason for such is that people asking questions likely have English teachers, and I prefer to give a descriptive view rooted in English linguistics and present English dialects than the sort of prescriptive view rooted in formal literary English that most English teachers are likely to give. However, to give a descriptive view of such, I must use linguistic ideas and concepts, which in turn need linguistic terminology to be accurately expressed.
Guest   Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:05 am GMT
<I do not post here as some kind of service to ESL students, you should remember, and I feel no need to specifically cater to them.>

So, if you recognise that a question is from a nonnative speaker, better not to answer, right?

<While I do answer their questions, my answers are necessarily not those that an English teacher would give but rather those that an amateur linguist whose focus is English dialectology would give. >

Do you think that a useful action? I see many of your posts as an advert for your self-importance. You seem to need to tell us all that you are soooo clever. We don't need to know.
M56   Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:07 am GMT
<the sort of prescriptive view rooted in formal literary English that most English teachers are likely to give>

In which century? Get real, please! Go visit a modern ESL/EFL classroom.
Travis   Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:44 am GMT
>><the sort of prescriptive view rooted in formal literary English that most English teachers are likely to give>

In which century? Get real, please! Go visit a modern ESL/EFL classroom.<<

I'm sorry, but all the contact I have had with the teaching of foreign languages has been from a purely prescriptive, formal standpoint. For instance, when I took German in college, what I was taught was purely literary and formal spoken Standard German; I was taught absolutely nothing about German dialects, and not a whole lot about even regional variation within Standard German. Of course, the class was an entry-level class (my coursework was focused primarily on Computer Science classes, so I had little time for anything language-related), but I have seen nothing about the teaching of foreign languages here in the US or in Canada which contradicts such. (In the case of Canada, for instance, the French taught outside Quebec is not that of Quebec but rather that of Paris, France.)

Likewise, from what I know about the teaching of English in other countries corroborates the above. For instance, in most European countries pure RP is taught as such, without any reference to other dialects of English English; even General American is not taught much with it being primarily picked up by individuals from media content. Even more extremely, English in Japan is taught in public schools as almost purely a literary language with a heavy emphasis on rote memorization. As a result, most Japanese people today have little knowledge of spoken English despite English being a mandatory subject for all Japanese high school students.

Of course, the teaching of English as a second language to individuals within a natively English-speaking area is likely another story; ESL classrooms today may be what you are referring to by "modern ESL/EFL classroom". However, the teaching of English as a foreign language seems to be purely prescriptive and largely formal from everything I have seen. I myself strongly doubt your average EFL has been taught anything about internal variation within North American English or English English outside of minor regional differences in the standard languages.
Gwest   Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:25 am GMT
< For instance, in most European countries pure RP is taught as such, without any reference to other dialects of English English; even General American is not taught much with it being primarily picked up by individuals from media content.>

Pure nonsense. Is RP a dialect? I think not.
beneficii   Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:31 am GMT
Connected speech? How about disconnected (and disjointed) speech?

The cat walked to the why hello how are my dog was my thinking is that I like teddy roses are for I think little kittens are hi how are you doing Mrs. bye bye talk to you *starts having conversation to self as walks away*.
Travis   Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:32 pm GMT
>>Pure nonsense. Is RP a dialect? I think not.<<

I could have worded that slightly better. What I meant is that in most European countries only pure RP alone is taught, and English dialects (and even other stardards) outside of the RP standard are not taught or even mentioned much; even General American is primarily learned from the media rather than in schools in Europe.
M56   Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:24 am GMT
<I took Greek in high school, and we only studied the standard form>

You seem to assume that just because one teaches the standard form that one is being prescriptivist. There are many teachers who teach the standard form in a descriptive way. And, not all Standard grammars are prescriptive. Take this one, for example:

http://www.cambridge.org/uk/linguistics/cgel/
Guest   Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:26 am GMT
<I could have worded that slightly better. What I meant is that in most European countries only pure RP alone is taught, and English dialects (and even other stardards) outside of the RP standard are not taught or even mentioned much; even General American is primarily learned from the media rather than in schools in Europe. >

I have the same question as the other poster: Is RP a dialect?
Milton   Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:53 am GMT
''even General American is primarily learned from the media rather than in schools in Europe.''

my teacher did not have RP accent but a local version of southern European English with 5 vowels only...she pronounced ICE as EYES [both:ajs] and she didn't give a damn...

most professors don't care about their or students' pronunciation, in Europe...
Travis   Tue Aug 21, 2007 5:43 pm GMT
>><I could have worded that slightly better. What I meant is that in most European countries only pure RP alone is taught, and English dialects (and even other stardards) outside of the RP standard are not taught or even mentioned much; even General American is primarily learned from the media rather than in schools in Europe. >

I have the same question as the other poster: Is RP a dialect?<<

No, RP isn't a dialect, it is a standard.
Travis   Tue Aug 21, 2007 6:52 pm GMT
>><I took Greek in high school, and we only studied the standard form>

You seem to assume that just because one teaches the standard form that one is being prescriptivist. There are many teachers who teach the standard form in a descriptive way. And, not all Standard grammars are prescriptive. Take this one, for example:

http://www.cambridge.org/uk/linguistics/cgel/<<

The matter is that formal standards are inherently prescriptive in nature, and it is generally formal standards which are taught. Formal standards are "correct" a priori as opposed to being simply a general description of the most common features of the most widespread dialects. Furthermore, they generally do not cover variation in forms between dialects except for very major differences within regional variants of said standard (such as variation between /E:/ and /e:/ in Standard German).

However, yes, one can speak of de facto standards, which are not prescribed but which are sets of very widespread dialect features which are commonly associated with each other. For instance, you can speak of a de facto standard colloquial northern/western North American English which, outside pronunciation, does not vary all that much over a wide area. (Note that such is distinct from the idea of General American. For instance, the dialect here differs greatly from General American and yet has morphology, syntax, usage, and lexicon which largely falls within standard colloquial northern/western NAE despite some notable differences from such.)

And yes, you can teach such de facto standards, but the matter is that language classes very often tend towards being focused on formal standards, with only relatively limited reference being made to de facto standard colloquial forms. To use my previous example, French classes invariably teach formal Parisian French rather than the most common features of current French dialects in general. Yes, you could have a French class that taught the latter, but I have yet to really hear of such in practice.
Guest   Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:09 am GMT
<The matter is that formal standards are inherently prescriptive in nature, and it is generally formal standards which are taught.>

Don't be pathetic and amateur. Standard forms have a range of registers, just like many other forms.