I notice that more and more Europeans are starting to have rhotic accents. I also notice many of them use /æ/ for the BATH vowel. This is interesting because they are supposed to have been taught British pronunciation at school. Those two are notable features of American English. Not only I notice this among Europeans, even some Singaporeans and Malaysians are starting to manifest those features. Singaporean/Malaysian Englishes are traditionally non-rhotic, because they are British-based.
In sociolinguistics, many specialists hold that unmarked features prevail and marked ones eventually phased out when different dialects come in contact with each other. They also posit that regular features will win over irregular ones. Of course, this presupposes that all other things being equal.
So, it is understandable that why those two features mentioned above are prevailing. It makes more sense to pronounce the /r/ whenever there's an R in the spelling. Also, non-rhotic accents have complex rules on exceptions. This includes: the /r/ should be pronounced if the next word starts with a vowel; an /r/ should be inserted even if there is no R in the spelling, if a word ends with a vowel and the next word starts with another vowel, etc. It's too complicated for learners. In the same way, using /æ/ both for TRAP and BATH vowel seems more straightforward, since both are spelled with the letter A.
There is even less reason to stick to the RP-type pronunciation, since almost half the people in the UK itself share those two features. For example, people in the north of England, Scotland and Ireland are mostly rhotic and have /æ/ for BATH.
If this is the case, why did non-rhotic and /ɑː/ came to be considered the prestige British pronunciation to be taught to foreigners, then? I think this is to do with prestige by dissociation. Groups set up linguistic rules that are difficult to master, unless you have spent a long time within this group. That's why in-group jargons are difficult for outsiders. In the same way, upper-class society in the southeast of England used those hard-to-master features as a "shibboleth" to distinguish themselves from the masses. Indeed, it's hard for an outsider to figure out why we should say pass with /ɑː/ and mass (Catholic liturgy) with /æ/!
But just because London happened to be the capital of the Empire, and people with power had such kind of accent, it was promoted as the standard, both within Britain and overseas. Later on, along with the social transformation, RP lost its prestige in Britain itself, but it was continued to be taught to foreigners because textbook writers and teachers needed an established standard.
The situation is somewhat similar to that of erhua rhoticization (兒化) in Beijing Mandarin. When to erhua and when not to erhua is quite arbitrary and difficult to learn unless you have grown up in Beijing. This is why people from Xi'an erhua practically everything, while in southern China, people omit erhua altogether.
By the way, the fact that English people are so conscious about the /ɑː/ - /æ/ issue proves that this difference does not affect intelligibility at all. All the more reason for us "foreigners" to adopt the one that is more regular!
In the international media, RP-type accent has become marked, too. So if it's true that marked accents won't prevail, RP will likely not. Many foreigners and even Americans have positive attitude toward RP-like accents, because they associate them with imagined high-class British aristocracy and sexy men/women. Paradoxically, many sinister characters in Hollywood movies also tend to have a British accent. This shows exactly how "marked" RP has become in the American-dominated world of the media. It is used for a special effect, just because it is special. It is not plain and ordinary like the genetic American accent. So this means that few people will be putting on an RP-like accent if they are in serious or formal ELF situations, such as job interviews. On the other hand, those who can put on an RP-like accent may still be in demand for taping commercial messages that need to promote a posh image.
Friday, May 16, 2014
Friday, May 9, 2014
Is "English only" really unhelpful for Taiwan's learners?
A mass of evidence supports that using learners' first language is helpful for their learning of a second language. That's why a bilingual local teacher is much superior than a monolingual foreign one. Education experts in Hong Kong are now advising teachers to use Cantonese effectively in English classes. In the past, only English was to be used. A bit of common sense is enough to understand why it is much more efficient to use students' first language when teaching some abstract concepts or tongue positions in pronunciation, etc. Why, then, is it that monolingual foreign teachers are still so valued in Taiwan?
Aside from strong parental support for white teachers, hence the need for white faces on prospectuses, I think "supposedly" monolingual teachers are valued precisely because they are considered "English-only" teachers. I say "supposedly" because I know most of the foreign teachers are multilingual and can speak Mandarin very well, but Taiwanese people "presuppose" that only English is to be used upon seeing a white face. Learners will feel obliged to speak English, which they won't in the case of a local teacher. They feel awkward to be speaking in English to a teacher whom they know they can communicate much more efficiently with in Mandarin. Thus, they accomplish the goal of practicing spoken English better with "monolingual" white teachers than with bilingual local teachers.
On the other hand, some Taiwanese people seem to presuppose that people with East Asian faces necessarily speak Mandarin, and therefore it is awkward to be speaking English to them. I'm Japanese and I'm in a classroom where the medium of instruction is supposed to be English. So it should be natural that they should be talking to me in English. But when I try to talk to them in English, they tend to insist on using Mandarin in response. It's sometimes REALLY hard to get them to say any English word, even just "yes". They would insist on saying "對" instead! What a contrast with a Caucasian colleague of mine, who speaks better Mandarin than I do! I often overhear students doing their very best to answer him in English, even though the question was just asked in Mandarin?
Is it just me? Is it because I don't look at all like a non-Mandarin-speaker? Would they try to speak to me in English if I looked more stereotypical Japanese, with an anime hairdo and really tight clothing? (Thank you, Lauren, for your advice!) What about ethnically Chinese teachers who grew up overseas? Since their surnames sound Chinese, wouldn't people expect them to speak Mandarin all the more?
Aside from strong parental support for white teachers, hence the need for white faces on prospectuses, I think "supposedly" monolingual teachers are valued precisely because they are considered "English-only" teachers. I say "supposedly" because I know most of the foreign teachers are multilingual and can speak Mandarin very well, but Taiwanese people "presuppose" that only English is to be used upon seeing a white face. Learners will feel obliged to speak English, which they won't in the case of a local teacher. They feel awkward to be speaking in English to a teacher whom they know they can communicate much more efficiently with in Mandarin. Thus, they accomplish the goal of practicing spoken English better with "monolingual" white teachers than with bilingual local teachers.
On the other hand, some Taiwanese people seem to presuppose that people with East Asian faces necessarily speak Mandarin, and therefore it is awkward to be speaking English to them. I'm Japanese and I'm in a classroom where the medium of instruction is supposed to be English. So it should be natural that they should be talking to me in English. But when I try to talk to them in English, they tend to insist on using Mandarin in response. It's sometimes REALLY hard to get them to say any English word, even just "yes". They would insist on saying "對" instead! What a contrast with a Caucasian colleague of mine, who speaks better Mandarin than I do! I often overhear students doing their very best to answer him in English, even though the question was just asked in Mandarin?
Is it just me? Is it because I don't look at all like a non-Mandarin-speaker? Would they try to speak to me in English if I looked more stereotypical Japanese, with an anime hairdo and really tight clothing? (Thank you, Lauren, for your advice!) What about ethnically Chinese teachers who grew up overseas? Since their surnames sound Chinese, wouldn't people expect them to speak Mandarin all the more?
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Is it always better for children to be taught in their "mother tongue"?
Under normal circumstances, yes. But it seems to me that the medium of instruction is not always the sole problem. There are other factors like school infrastructure, teaching materials and teacher training.
English-medium (or French, for that matter) is often blamed for poor achievements in many countries. But there are countries where the medium of instruction from Elementary 1 is not necessarily the L1 of the students, and yet have very high academic achievements. Singapore and Taiwan are good examples. Enough support existed for lower-achieving students in those countries, compared to their poorer counterparts.
Of course, the ideal is that everybody gets to study in their own language. But in societies where there are many languages, it is not easy to prepare teaching materials in all of them. As those countries often happen to be poorer ones, a lot of money that goes into developing materials in many smaller languages may actually reduce the money that can go to improving school facilities and teacher salaries.
In the meantime, students who come from richer families will always do better, regardless of what language they are taught in. They have the means to avail themselves of better support. So even if a country changes the medium into a local language, they might be disappointed to find that the economically privileged kids still do better all the same.
English-medium (or French, for that matter) is often blamed for poor achievements in many countries. But there are countries where the medium of instruction from Elementary 1 is not necessarily the L1 of the students, and yet have very high academic achievements. Singapore and Taiwan are good examples. Enough support existed for lower-achieving students in those countries, compared to their poorer counterparts.
Of course, the ideal is that everybody gets to study in their own language. But in societies where there are many languages, it is not easy to prepare teaching materials in all of them. As those countries often happen to be poorer ones, a lot of money that goes into developing materials in many smaller languages may actually reduce the money that can go to improving school facilities and teacher salaries.
In the meantime, students who come from richer families will always do better, regardless of what language they are taught in. They have the means to avail themselves of better support. So even if a country changes the medium into a local language, they might be disappointed to find that the economically privileged kids still do better all the same.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Is not promoting a language the best way to promote it? Examples from Hong Kong and Taiwan
I used to laugh at my mother who said in her blog posts almost everyday that she had spent the whole night writing a long post, and then it got deleted. Now the same thing has happened to me. Two lessons: First, you should not laugh at others, especially your own mother; Second, when you have written a post, publish it quickly. To do this, don't write posts that are so long that it needs to be reviewed before publishing.
Is not promoting a language the best way for the authorities to promote a language? I sometimes think it is. I'll show you two examples: Hong Kong and Taiwan.
The British authorities had a so-called laissez-faire approach toward languages in Hong Kong. But I have already written that this was a hidden way of promoting Cantonese, so that Hong Kong will have a different dominant language from mainland China. Although Cantonese-speaking people made up only half of the total population, it was possible to foresee that Cantonese would win out, given its influence in commercial and cultural spheres. In fact, Cantonese was so successful that it almost supplanted the local language of Hong Kong, Hakka, as well as other Chinese "dialects" originally spoken. Today, you could argue that Hong Kong is a pseudo-monolingual society in Cantonese. It is a symbol of Hong Kong identity, which is separate from that of mainland China. What a successful way of promoting Cantonese? And this was achieved by not promoting it.
Taiwan's example is somewhat reverse. Both the Japanese and KMT administration had very high-handed policy of trying to eradicate local languages and promoting Japanese and Mandarin respectively. They both did it by forcing those schoolchildren who transgressed the no-local-language policy to wear a dog tag that said something like "I am stupid". Intimidating local people succeeded in promoting the official language only superficially. Many Taiwanese people who grew up in that era, consciously or unconsciously, try to speak Mandarin with a very strong Taiwanese accent. Some even try to avoid the use of Mandarin altogether, sticking to Hokkien whenever they can. On the other hand, look at the younger generation who grew up after the democratic reform. The aggressive promotion of Mandarin was replaced by so-called "Mother Tongues" made a school subject. And yet, those people have now become native-speakers of Mandarin, fully comfortable with expressing their Taiwanese identity in this tongue that originated from Beijing! Recently, I often notice that some students even use the word "Taiwanese" to mean Mandarin, not Hokkien!
And what has happened to Hokkien, which is now "officially promoted" as a school subject? I'm sorry to say, but it seems that it is going the way of Irish in Ireland. Very soon, Taiwanese people will only be able to say some peculiar phrases and swear words in Hokkien, or hum some Hokkien tunes like "TiN-o'-o'" which they have learned at school, but not being able to convey any substantial message in Hokkien.
(But this will not mean the death of Hokkien; more than half of its speakers are outside of Taiwan; in China, Southeast Asia and Taiwanese communities in the U.S. and Japan. They will probably keep alive the language which will no longer be understood in Taiwan!)
Is not promoting a language the best way for the authorities to promote a language? I sometimes think it is. I'll show you two examples: Hong Kong and Taiwan.
The British authorities had a so-called laissez-faire approach toward languages in Hong Kong. But I have already written that this was a hidden way of promoting Cantonese, so that Hong Kong will have a different dominant language from mainland China. Although Cantonese-speaking people made up only half of the total population, it was possible to foresee that Cantonese would win out, given its influence in commercial and cultural spheres. In fact, Cantonese was so successful that it almost supplanted the local language of Hong Kong, Hakka, as well as other Chinese "dialects" originally spoken. Today, you could argue that Hong Kong is a pseudo-monolingual society in Cantonese. It is a symbol of Hong Kong identity, which is separate from that of mainland China. What a successful way of promoting Cantonese? And this was achieved by not promoting it.
Taiwan's example is somewhat reverse. Both the Japanese and KMT administration had very high-handed policy of trying to eradicate local languages and promoting Japanese and Mandarin respectively. They both did it by forcing those schoolchildren who transgressed the no-local-language policy to wear a dog tag that said something like "I am stupid". Intimidating local people succeeded in promoting the official language only superficially. Many Taiwanese people who grew up in that era, consciously or unconsciously, try to speak Mandarin with a very strong Taiwanese accent. Some even try to avoid the use of Mandarin altogether, sticking to Hokkien whenever they can. On the other hand, look at the younger generation who grew up after the democratic reform. The aggressive promotion of Mandarin was replaced by so-called "Mother Tongues" made a school subject. And yet, those people have now become native-speakers of Mandarin, fully comfortable with expressing their Taiwanese identity in this tongue that originated from Beijing! Recently, I often notice that some students even use the word "Taiwanese" to mean Mandarin, not Hokkien!
And what has happened to Hokkien, which is now "officially promoted" as a school subject? I'm sorry to say, but it seems that it is going the way of Irish in Ireland. Very soon, Taiwanese people will only be able to say some peculiar phrases and swear words in Hokkien, or hum some Hokkien tunes like "TiN-o'-o'" which they have learned at school, but not being able to convey any substantial message in Hokkien.
(But this will not mean the death of Hokkien; more than half of its speakers are outside of Taiwan; in China, Southeast Asia and Taiwanese communities in the U.S. and Japan. They will probably keep alive the language which will no longer be understood in Taiwan!)
Friday, May 2, 2014
Is a well-estabished community language an obstacle to second language learning?
I have heard some people say that the people in Japan, Korea and Taiwan are not as good in English as those in Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, etc. because the national languages of the former are too well-established and don't allow room for English. It's obvious this theory doesn't stand. What about Sweden, the Netherlands, etc. where the "national" languages are well-established and standardized, but people are phenomenal in English? What about Thailand? I think Thai people are as proud of their wonderful language as the Taiwanese are about Mandarin, and as insistent in using it to communicate with any foreigner who even has a tiniest bit knowledge of it, and yet do quite well in English? Conversely, what about Malaysia, which had once succeeded in codifying its national languages and even made it the sole medium of instruction in tertiary education in the 1980s, but then turned back to English afterwards?
But it is useful to know that for the majorities of people around the world, their "mother tongue" is not the same as the one that's taught in schools. Cases like Japan and Korea, where most people speak the same language at home and school and work and everywhere else, are really rare. It is a highly artificial situation, influenced by the nation-state ideology originated from Europe, i.e. France. It took many years and much effort on the part of the government of Japan, for example, to eliminate all "dialects" to arrive at the perceived "monolingual" state of today. In many countries, there are many languages that are spoken but not standardized enough to be used as a medium of instruction at school. It is expensive to develop those languages and compile textbooks in them. And most of those countries are poor. So the teaching has to be continued in their former colonial language, usually English, French or Portuguese, because materials are more readily available. (The situation in most former Spanish colonies is a bit different, because Spanish has already become the native language of the majority of people.) This creates many problems, of course. One is that it unfairly advantages rich people in urban areas, who have more access to English. (Or French for that matter.) And studies overwhelmingly show that people learn better when they are taught in the language they speak at home, or the one that's widely spoken in the community.
That leaves us with the discussion of the countries that have chosen one of the local languages as the national language. These countries can be classified into two types, I think. The type one are those which have already successfully developed and propagated that language, so much so that other languages originally used are dying out. The other are those which have taken more laissez-faire approach. Thailand is one example of the former. The government has standardized the language and developed enough vocabulary, so almost everything can be done in midland Thai. Many non-Thai speaking peoples first became bilingual in their own language and Thai, and then the young generation grew up knowing only Thai. Politically, Thai was propagated as the symbol national unity. So people started to feel very proud about this language. Minority languages became more marginalized, or even died out.
An example of the latter is the Philippines. Even though the constitution says English and Filipino are official languages, and bilingual elementary education in a local language and Filipino are propagated, it's largely up to each individual to choose which language to do what. As a result, a child from a upper middle-class Manila family may grow up speaking English or "Taglish" as his home, school and community language, all at the same time. On the other hand, another child from a remote area might speak his mother tongue at home, a regional lingua franca like Cebuano to be his community language, Filipino and English as his school languages. Obviously, under normal circumstances, it is so much harder for the second child to do well at school. Nowadays, because of the influence of the electronic media, Tagalog seems to be the winner in this laissez-faire competition. Even people from very remote places can now speak at least some Tagalog. Overseas Filipino Workers who have different first languages also seem to use Tagalog as the lingua franca once away from home.
Now which one is Taiwan, anyway? I think Taiwan was on the way to Type 1, then turned Type 2, but it's too late. During the authoritarian era, the government tried to eliminate "dialects" and promote Mandarin. The high-handed method of giving "dog tags" for those who didn't conform to this rule is notorious. When Taiwan was democratized, it moved on to a more laissez-faire style, with a renaissance of non-Mandarin languages, especially Hokkien and Hakka. But I think it's a bit too late. Very few of my students can converse fluently in Hokkien. Quite a few of them don't understand any at all, even if they are ethnically Hokkien. It's paradoxical, because those are the guys who went to elementary schools when "Mother Tongue" was already a compulsory subject. Hokkien might go down the way of the Irish language in Ireland. Significant things can be said only in English there.
I want to talk more about medium of instruction issue. I hope I'll get to doing it soon.
But it is useful to know that for the majorities of people around the world, their "mother tongue" is not the same as the one that's taught in schools. Cases like Japan and Korea, where most people speak the same language at home and school and work and everywhere else, are really rare. It is a highly artificial situation, influenced by the nation-state ideology originated from Europe, i.e. France. It took many years and much effort on the part of the government of Japan, for example, to eliminate all "dialects" to arrive at the perceived "monolingual" state of today. In many countries, there are many languages that are spoken but not standardized enough to be used as a medium of instruction at school. It is expensive to develop those languages and compile textbooks in them. And most of those countries are poor. So the teaching has to be continued in their former colonial language, usually English, French or Portuguese, because materials are more readily available. (The situation in most former Spanish colonies is a bit different, because Spanish has already become the native language of the majority of people.) This creates many problems, of course. One is that it unfairly advantages rich people in urban areas, who have more access to English. (Or French for that matter.) And studies overwhelmingly show that people learn better when they are taught in the language they speak at home, or the one that's widely spoken in the community.
That leaves us with the discussion of the countries that have chosen one of the local languages as the national language. These countries can be classified into two types, I think. The type one are those which have already successfully developed and propagated that language, so much so that other languages originally used are dying out. The other are those which have taken more laissez-faire approach. Thailand is one example of the former. The government has standardized the language and developed enough vocabulary, so almost everything can be done in midland Thai. Many non-Thai speaking peoples first became bilingual in their own language and Thai, and then the young generation grew up knowing only Thai. Politically, Thai was propagated as the symbol national unity. So people started to feel very proud about this language. Minority languages became more marginalized, or even died out.
An example of the latter is the Philippines. Even though the constitution says English and Filipino are official languages, and bilingual elementary education in a local language and Filipino are propagated, it's largely up to each individual to choose which language to do what. As a result, a child from a upper middle-class Manila family may grow up speaking English or "Taglish" as his home, school and community language, all at the same time. On the other hand, another child from a remote area might speak his mother tongue at home, a regional lingua franca like Cebuano to be his community language, Filipino and English as his school languages. Obviously, under normal circumstances, it is so much harder for the second child to do well at school. Nowadays, because of the influence of the electronic media, Tagalog seems to be the winner in this laissez-faire competition. Even people from very remote places can now speak at least some Tagalog. Overseas Filipino Workers who have different first languages also seem to use Tagalog as the lingua franca once away from home.
Now which one is Taiwan, anyway? I think Taiwan was on the way to Type 1, then turned Type 2, but it's too late. During the authoritarian era, the government tried to eliminate "dialects" and promote Mandarin. The high-handed method of giving "dog tags" for those who didn't conform to this rule is notorious. When Taiwan was democratized, it moved on to a more laissez-faire style, with a renaissance of non-Mandarin languages, especially Hokkien and Hakka. But I think it's a bit too late. Very few of my students can converse fluently in Hokkien. Quite a few of them don't understand any at all, even if they are ethnically Hokkien. It's paradoxical, because those are the guys who went to elementary schools when "Mother Tongue" was already a compulsory subject. Hokkien might go down the way of the Irish language in Ireland. Significant things can be said only in English there.
I want to talk more about medium of instruction issue. I hope I'll get to doing it soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)