Who owns the English language?
Do non-native speakers have the right to change English?
There was an op-ed piece in the English language 'Jakarta Post' yesterday that suggested that, because English is the "world language", everybody owns it and "local Englishes" are just as valid as native speaker versions. He went on to suggest that this should - to some degree - determine how it is taught. He also suggests that native speaker teachers working overseas need to modify their expectations. Finally he asserts that this issue is important in determining how non-native Indonesian teachers of English should approach their work.
Any thoughts on this? (not just in terms of pedagogy)
Here are a few extracts from his article:
* Will the conference inspire us to apply new approaches and methodologies based on the belief that English evolves as it spreads, and so there is no more "English" but rather many localized "Englishes"? Are we going to follow up the conference with agreement on ways to help students become proficient in Indonesian English?
* Many English teachers here base their lessons around strict, unbending ideals of the language, and expect students to conform to these ideals. This can create, whether intentionally or not, a hostile atmosphere that at its heart, threatens the students' Indonesian identity.
* Many teachers try to mold their students into competent English speakers with an ability approaching native English speakers. Some still teach this way, but others are beginning to think critically in light of the different circumstances students now face, and because the use of English in our society has now reached a level that earlier teachers could never have anticipated.
* The need to establish and recognize a local English -- Indonesian English or Indoglish -- is not without basis. Malaysian English and Singaporean English (Singlish) are already taken for granted, and the debate on whether certain nations or communities can claim ownership of their local version of English is considered moot because of the seemingly unstoppable rise of localized English worldwide.
* stop prioritizing the "correctness" of pronunciations and accents even when the message remains intelligible and the meaning is not lost.
* We should also stop limiting students' vocabularies to what is published in ELT books, as long as words that make up the new lexicon are widely accepted by the students.
* English colloquialisms mean little from an Asian perspective, but the ability to construct our own colloquialisms opens up whole new opportunities for us.
* Take for instance the English phrases "Excuse me" and "I am sorry", which in Bahasa Indonesia both translate as maaf. To native English speakers, there is a world of difference between the two expressions, but for non-native speakers there is a distinct advantage in being able to use one expression to mean two different things.
* Many native English speakers feel their language is sufficient for all situations, and hence don't see the benefits of switching to a localized vernacular in cases like this.
* This can happen because very often we regard what our students write or say as mistakes or a failure to properly grasp the grammar. We judge them as such because we've been trained to compare them to accepted forms which we believe will never change.
* Alternatively, we could consider these mistakes part of an emerging localized version of English, a language molded and influenced by the students and their understanding of a foreign language. We should welcome these differences with the hope that our students will eventually speak a similar English to us. The problem is we seldom see these differences for what they really are: the seeds of our very own localized English.
We have the right to change English
Jakarta Post
Hanung Triyoko, Indonesia| Sat, 05/31/2008 12:08 PM | Opinion
Whole article here:
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/05/31/we-have-right-change-english.html
Originally posted by FMFFirst of all...pedagogery is not English. Is it?
Who owns the English language?
Do non-native speakers have the right to change English?
There was an op-ed piece in the English language 'Jakarta Post' yesterday that suggested that, because English is the "world language", everybody owns it and "local Englishes" are just as valid as native speaker versions. He went on to suggest that this should - to some ...[text shortened]... p://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/05/31/we-have-right-change-english.html
GRANNY
Originally posted by FMFInteresting question. There are already subcategories of the English language such as different types of slang, so non-native English speakers adding their own local dialects is not fundamentally different in kind from this. I don't think non-native English speakers have any less right than anyone else to change English, because as you say, it's becoming the dominant world language so it should be flexible on account of that.
Who owns the English language?
Do non-native speakers have the right to change English?
There was an op-ed piece in the English language 'Jakarta Post' yesterday that suggested that, because English is the "world language", everybody owns it and "local Englishes" are just as valid as native speaker versions. He went on to suggest that this should - to some p://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/05/31/we-have-right-change-english.html
If native English speakers had wanted to monopolise changes in the language then we should not have let the language become the dominant world language, just like if the church didn't want same-sex couples to marry then they should never have let marriage become a widely practiced secular custom that's acknowledged by the government. Once a custom or language becomes universalised or practiced on a large scale, it needs to be open to change.
Like most other languages, English speaking tends to primarily involve frequent use of a small proportion of the words that are in the English dictionary. In other words, the same small group of words are used over and over again whereas many dictionary English words are seldom used at all. In light of this, perhaps teaching English should include (but not necessarily be constrained to) teaching the basics of English words that are used frequently.
I'm a native English speaker and I still come across words on the web every once in a while that I don't know the meaning of. When this happens, I open up dictionary.com and look the word up. I think what someone needs to start speaking a new language is enough of the basic words that they will recognise most of a sentence or paragraph, enough to get the sentence structure, after which they can use a dictionary to look up any words they don't understand.
This is my view. I know that people don't agree with me, but nevertheless, here it is:
English is the sum of all Englishes all over the world.
But the we have British English, American English, Indian English, South African English, Jamaican English, et cetera. What of these is the correct English? Is one English worth more than other English?
Sheakspeare English is of high value. Does this mean that we all, all over the world should talk and write like Sheakspere? No, of course not.
And what about dialects within an English? Is these of lesser value? No of course not. Every English has its value of its own.
I say you own your own English. No one can say that your English is wrong, and his language is right. As long an English works, is understood by others and can be used as communication between eachother, it's good enough.
So, bottom line: Every English language is own by the people who speaks it. English is own by all people, Indonesian English is owned by Indonesians.
Originally posted by FMFThe money being paid for using it owns it just as much as any other process. If there is an inherent advantage both social and economic to learn a particular form of English, then the market to the greatest extent will decide. IF people learning English in Indonesia find that in going to the trouble to learn a type of English that actually hinders their progress in social and business activities with English people in other lands then their own mini English revolution would probably be short lived.
Who owns the English language?
But what I think is being missed in all this self absorption, is as the Nike guru says, they should just do it. The sense of needing validation or acknowledgment for their right in a process that tends to be automatic anyway, suggests a level of cultural insecurity. Why would they need permission, and more importantly who should give it? If their determination to teach English their way ends up a useful exercise that empowers people with a useful tool, then no-one could stop the tide of it. If its a lot of hot air, it will fall flat on itself, as quick as you can say soufflé.
Originally posted by FMFThe United States, since we're the epicenter of popular culture and the creator of much of the world's technology. In effect, the United States, over the 20th century, has done as much or more to enrich English as the Norman's Conquest of England did in 1066 A.D.
Who owns the English language?
Do non-native speakers have the right to change English?
There was an op-ed piece in the English language 'Jakarta Post' yesterday that suggested that, because English is the "world language", everybody owns it and "local Englishes" are just as valid as native speaker versions. He went on to suggest that this should - to some ...[text shortened]... p://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/05/31/we-have-right-change-english.html
Originally posted by FabianFnasEnglish? Obsolete. We speak AMERICAN 'round these parts.
This is my view. I know that people don't agree with me, but nevertheless, here it is:
English is the sum of all Englishes all over the world.
But the we have British English, American English, Indian English, South African English, Jamaican English, et cetera. What of these is the correct English? Is one English worth more than other English?
Sh ...[text shortened]... eople who speaks it. English is own by all people, Indonesian English is owned by Indonesians.
Originally posted by FMFBy your definition, whether or not people have the right to change English depends only on whether it's legal or not. Right?
Who owns the English language?
Do non-native speakers have the right to change English?
There was an op-ed piece in the English language 'Jakarta Post' yesterday that suggested that, because English is the "world language", everybody owns it and "local Englishes" are just as valid as native speaker versions. He went on to suggest that this should - to some p://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/05/31/we-have-right-change-english.html
Originally posted by AThousandYoungActually you should feel free to approach the topic of this thread in any way you like. Personally I think the writer of the op-ed piece is getting a little mixed up between 'English as a Foreign Language' and 'English as a Second Language'.
By your definition, whether or not people have the right to change English depends only on whether it's legal or not. Right?
As with many an Indonesian penned op-ed article there's a slight haziness at the heart of the argument. At one point as I read it I was wondering whether one of the reasons he was promoting the (somewhat misconstrued) 'local Englishes' line was to "compensate" for the fact that the English language (and English language teaching) skills of the vast majority of (non-native) Indonesian English teachers are woefully inadequate.
He also seems to deliberately fudge the meaning of 'standards' - on one hand alluding to native speaker pronunciation and idioms - while also playing down the need for 'standards' in terms of effective communication skills. Many Singaporeans speak to each other in English in their everday lives. Same goes for Malaysians. Absolutely no 'native' Indonesians do. English here is a foreign language, not a second language - except in situations like international marriages etc.
I think there is a fundamental flaw in Hanung Triyoko's argument. I think he's running with the wrong ball,
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWow, what arrogance..... if I hadn't read your other posts, I might think you were just being sarcastic. It's a sad state of affairs when some people in the US start acting like the British Empire that the US declared independence from.
The United States, since we're the epicenter of popular culture and the creator of much of the world's technology. In effect, the United States, over the 20th century, has done as much or more to enrich English as the Norman's Conquest of England did in 1066 A.D.
Originally posted by karnachzYou can take the boy out of the empire but you cant take the empire out of the boy....etc......
Wow, what arrogance..... if I hadn't read your other posts, I might think you were just being sarcastic. It's a sad state of affairs when some people in the US start acting like the British Empire that the US declared independence from.