Resource centre - Theory and issues - Real English
Should we make an effort to slow down our speech so that our students can understand? Or should we speak at normal speed to give then exposure to what they will experience in the "real world"? Jon Lewis tells us why he thinks "real English" is the right approach.
In class, do you slow down your speech and try to articulate a little more
precisely than you do when talking to other native speakers? I do, because I
know that otherwise my students will have trouble following me. After all, I
reason, if they don't understand anything, they will have accomplished nothing
as far as learning is concerned.
By doing this, your students are going to have a big shock if eventually they
get to try out their English in real-world situations, that is, outside the
classroom. For English speakers who are not EFL professionals are not so
considerate toward non-native speakers. They will continue at their normal pace
and expect everyone to keep up. So if your students are used to y o u ...s p e a
k i n g ...s l o w l y... a n d ... d e l i b e r a t e l y ... l i k e ... t h
i s...they won't have a cat-in-hell's chance of understanding the New York taxi
driver or the Scottish barman they meet on their travels.
So is it better to babble on in your normal voice? I thought about this when a
student of mine had a fairly typical grammar problem with the "to" infinitive.
She would regularly say, "I want go", forgetting the particle. I decided that
since corrections didn't seem to work, I would show her what it sounds like in
"real" English: "I wanna go". In the real world, native speakers don't pay any
attention to the fact that the little word "to" belongs to the following verb,
and routinely attach it to "want" so it becomes "wanna". If you taught your
students "wanna" first, they would simply add the verb they want and forget
about the grammar rules. The advantage of this is that they will at the same
time be practising spoken English the way natives use it.
I have the advantage as a language teacher to have two small children who are
learning my language, English, and their mother's, French. It is nothing short
of miraculous that my daughter can understand, at the age of three, when I say
"what are you going to do?"; because what actually comes out of my mouth is more
like "watcha gonna do?" Only when she learns to read will she realise that there
are actually six words in the question and not three. But that's of little
importance to her while she's mastering the spoken word, and it should be the
same for your students.
Only rarely do adults say that they need writing skills more than speaking, and
yet we still put too much emphasis on the written word. It’s time for language
teachers to teach English in a way that is best going to serve their students in
life, and not treat language as a purely academic exercise.
Language Learners' Listening Comprehension
ESL resources
Downloadable activities
What do you think of this article? Add a comment »
Mr. Lewis - Please scream
this at all those affected teachers! I am so tired of having to unteach that
language to teach 'real' English. More than half of my time is correcting PC
grammar English so the students can 'talk'. Thanks!
Oh dear! How on earth are
we going to survive if we do not have a benchmark? Imagine my Upper Intermediate
and Advanced classes being exposed to Cockney London and then having to speak at
a job interview! Imagine a foreign speaker paying good money to learn to speak
English when all they are taught are hybrid versions. No! Teach English as it
should be taught and then let students compare with the wannabee versions! Why
on earth must we continue to drop the ideal to accommodate the easiest route
forward? We had fun with two lessons of Cockney English and then reverted to
that which has made the English language a major part of the global village's
communication network.
I find that many adults
have already learnt some English from grammar lessons in school. What I tend to
do is separate my words initially to instigate some conversation and then as
they warm up I speed up.
I can put myself in Mr
Lewis' shoes and understand where he is coming from, as I have learned Italian
and German also as a child. From my own experience, students do benefit more
when we separate the words initially and then speed up.
This is a good discussion
point and in principle I agree with the main point - spoken language is rarely
correct grammatically!! From a different perspective, however, I am a student of
Thai as well as a teacher of English. As a student I need to know the
foundations of the language I am learning if I am going to master it in all
forms - written and spoken. Once I know the basics I am happy to explore the
idiomatic and dialectical differences... I think a balance is needed and not
dogmatics on either side of the discussion!
Here's the scenario: a
student walks into to an interview for a job which requires he deal directly
with other customers/clients in a professional and business like manner. That
same student then goes onto "gonna" and "wanna" his way through the interview,
much to the annoyance of the interviewing board, who would in turn thank the
student for effectively wasting everyone's time with their "affected" - YES,
"AFFECTED" - fake speech patterns and "yankified" intonations. This type of
experience would do nothing more than shatter a student's self-confidence.
Students more often than not travel to different countries to learn and or
practice their English. Who are we then to clutter their minds with Americanised
or rather, bastardised versions of the language, handicapping them as they try
to crawl! What good is "wanna" in the U.K.? What good is "gonna" in Dublin? What
good is an American accent in Scotland, and indeed what good is a Scottish
accent in America. The trick is to encourage students to train their ears, not
to damage their skills with foolish word contractions. You cannot spoon feed an
accent to a student, because, by "Real English", you are in fact just saying
"Regional English".
Very poor advice indeed, Jon.
Mr. Lewis, please give us
the lesson plan of teaching real English, such as the topic is present
progressive, much better if you add the time and give the situation.
I certainly don't say,
'watch ya gonna do,' or, 'I wanna go.' I wouldn't encourage students to speak
like this. I am learning Mandarin and I find native speakers speak too fast -
that is too fast for me. I would like them to slow down, so that I can
understand and respond. Over time I will be able to keep up with the speed at
which the language is spoken. I certainly don't want my teachers to become
slipshod - as this article suggests English teachers should. The English being
suggested here is more like American English: OK if you want to teach American
English. I don't!
I am appalled that somebody
who has been contracted to write teaching materials for the French Ministry of
Education can come up with rubbish like this.
Well, I may be in the
minority by the looks of things, but I agree with Mr Lewis. Very rarely does a
student tell me that he needs to know how to write in English - students need to
be able to speak and listen. I have a number of "advanced" students whose
grammar is almost perfect, and who can hold a conversation effortlessly about
any topic... IF the person they are conversing with is using standard, textbook
English. Put them in front of a listening exercise with a real-world
conversation, (or in front of my American friend who visited the class one day),
and they're lost! Well done Mr Lewis for putting into writing what many teachers
are thinking but do not dare to say!
To those of you who who
feel this article is rubbish think again. There are some teachers, like myself
who EXPOSE students to real life native language, that is, your so-called
'bastardized' English. What's the point in that? It happens to be how the vast
majority speak, in the media, pop-culture, schools, and yes, even the corporate
office. To even call American English a bastardized English is classist and
elitest. What planet are you from? and just who are you serving, your students
or your own narrow-minded views?
I am a British woman and
have lived in the USA for 46 years. I now teach English to immigrants. I do find
the American way of speaking quite appalling, How can immigrants, some of them
not able to speak correctly in their own language, expect to speak English in
this rough shod manner. If they are to be accepted as qualified citizens they
must speak correctly spoken English. That is what I teach my students.
Surely the answer is found
somewhere between the two and also from thinking somewhere other than with your
head stuck up your academic behind. Clearly, initially to establish a good
rapport with the students and to make sure that all is clearly understood the
teacher should speak clearly and then as time goes on, a teacher naturally
speeds up his or her speaking speed and incorporates as much widely spoken
natural language. Clearly realia and naturally spoken english should be used and
utilised as much as possible in class, however if you are in a small school with
limited resources this can be difficult but not impossible.
Teachers can also utilise anyone they know to come in to the class room and for
the students to talk to and strictly tell your friend not to alter their speed
or accent and the students have to utilise their language skills to ask for
repetition or explanation or ask someone to speak slower. You can use this idea
in many, many ways with all levels. That is the real answer because that is what
you do in real life and in class you should always let the students practice and
use their language skills as much as possible in the most realistic way
possible. The student has to learn to think and react in the language. This is
the real way to fluency. None of us know all the words in the English language
but we all speak it fluently just as no French person knows every French word
but speaks it fluently. The reason is because we think in the language. The
students have to learn to use what they know in the best way they can and in the
most realistic, natural setting possible whether that is in class or, here's a a
simple idea, outside the classroom. Take them out into the real world. Ok with
kids this is difficult but 14 year olds upwards it is an obvious and easy to do
idea. If you are teaching in the UK or Australia or the US then you have so many
opportunities to do this that to not do so is basically stupid.
I'm not surprised by any of the comments here on this site. This is old and
boring just like most people's thinking when it comes to teaching. You are all
talking about you and not the students or your percieved, learned, academic ways
of how people learn language. You all talk about what you do not what the
students do or how people learn language. If you learnt a different language
yourself, watched your students and babies and how they learn language you would
learn far more about learning a language and how to help and guide a lot more
than any article or book or course. Ok rant over. I won't be back.
I knew this article would
wind people up! But folks, get off your high horses for a while and re-read the
article. Nowhere did I advocate speaking rapidly to beginners, nor did I
recommend using contractions like "watchagonnado?". I merely highlighted the
fact that this is how young learners pick up language without having a formal
study environment.
I believe that sometimes we should step out of our English teacher shoes and
look at the way children acquire language to see if there are lessons to be
learned.
The comment from the British lady living in America is hilarious. If 300 million
Americans speak in a particular way, then a few Brits living over there don't
have the right to call it "appalling". Students have to learn the language the
way it spoken wherever they are - be it the Queen's English or not.
This kind of snobbery is appalling. It's a scandal that there are so few
teaching materials for American English - the most common English on the planet
and probably the one that most of our students need to understand. Oh, by the
way, I'm British, and like most British people do not speak with an RP accent
that you get on a lot of recorded materials.
I really enjoy it when a
non-American teacher comments on the status of the "everyday" speech of
Americans - the reactions are all-too priceless! The British lady is correct -
it is appalling how far-removed from, dare I say 'normal' English, colloquial
American English has become. The Irish and Scottish accents, as novel as they
may seem to other speakers of the English language, prove to be nearly
impossible for students to understand, Australian regional dialects can often
lead students to speak in an almost comical manner and so on and so on...
But wait: this forum ought not to be a platform for mud-slinging, rather each
teacher ought to be aware that we are all coming from different regions where
the English language is spoken in a different manner. So, while it seems to be
more of a "hip", new-age TEFL teacher thing to slag off anything academic, let's
not forget that students 100% require fundamentals.
Regional dialects only offer a temporary solution. "Real" English is that which
a student develops using his/her own ability to build on what the instructor
provides.
But hey, most TEFL teachers are full of crap anyway. Ours unfortunately is a
profession sullied by a huge majority of awful instructors whose pride and ego
serve only to further damage the already lowly reputation of TEFL teaching in
the education industry.
Actually, Mr. Lewis is
right to make these suggestions. I do, however, strongly recommend teaching
reduction, linking, elision (very important), and other features of connected
speech, because whether teachers realize it or not, that's exactly what is
coming out of their mouths more often than they realize. And that's how almost
all English speakers speak.
It is irresponsible and cruel NOT to expose our EFL learners to all the features
of connected speech. Learners tend to be taught full forms first, but in fact,
we speak in reduced form (watch the BBC, BBC Entertainment, CNN, ABC
(Australia), and American Entertainment Broadcast, for many examples). If we
actually care about our students, here should be no question about this.
A teacher's opinion about what "correct" speech is or isn't is fine, but
imposing them on learners isn't professional at all. Our job is to prepare our
learners for as much "real" or "natural" English speech as we can.
Normal (fast) speech rates must be gradually introduced, of course. Beginners
must perceive and produce on the phonemic level. As Mr. Lewis points out,
depending on the level of the learners, the teacher should be careful not to
overly moderate their speech rate. It can, unfortunately, become a habit that is
damaging to EFL learners.
A teacher isn't a mind reader and should insist that students should either ask
the teacher to slow down or to repeat. That's their job as learners.
I learned English as a
Foreign Language and I understand exactly what you are all trying to say. I am
glad I have learned the correct Queen's English first. It is very difficult to
understand native speakers but only at the beginning. Later, when the ears are
tuned into intonation and rhythm of spoken English, listening skills really
progress. I am sure learners must know grammar (with contractions) before being
exposed to "wachagonnado". I prefer to know what is behind this word before I
can actually hear it. This way I will feel more confident to use it. At the
elementary level teaching English has to be descriptive. Later, when students
know the basics they can cope with the idea of many Englishes. It is easier to
learn spoken English without the strict grammatical rules, you can do it by
yourself based on the correct English learned in the classroom.
I agree with the author on
this one, and so does the English book that the school has me teach the students
with. I work in Vietnam and there are several lessons on "blending" words, so as
to not sound like a cyborg, or idiot, or asshole. By the way, there is nothing
appalling about American English. If American English is appalling, then so is
British English. The butchering of English does not follow any country, it
follows the idiots that do the butchering. These people exist all over the
world, not just America.
I should add that if a student goes in for a job interview and speaks English at
10 words a minute, with all the words being stretched out, they'll probably
think he's got down syndrome. I believe in teaching students proper English;
grammatically correct and not spoken at 10 words a minute. If they can't
understand, maybe they should go to another school that actually cares about
their education, not their money. Either that or go back to learning the
basics... "Cat, dog, boy, girl, hello"
Face it, a lot of these schools are money making schemes. They don't give a shit
if they learn English. They'll keep putting them through all of the levels as
long as they keep paying the money to attend the school.
I have a student who knows
and speaks English well, but she cannot understand anyone who speaks fast, I
don't know how to help her. Any suggestions?
The beauty of English is
that it is the world lingua franca. Different regional variations apply in their
locations and appropriate contexts. Therefore, it is essential for students, and
indeed all of us, to know and be able to speak standard English. Exposure to
regional variations is important but must be subordinate to standard English.
Otherwise a person from India, who has learned British English, and its
associated reduced and liaised forms, would never be able to communicate with a
person from China, who has learned American English and its associated reduced
and liaised forms. Teach standard English first and teach reductions and
liaisons as a bonus.
Many if not most of the
complaints about this article seem to be coming from those with no knowledge of
linguistics. How did they become English teachers, without knowing how languages
change, how they work and how they're acquired as mother tongues and as foreign
languages? In grammar school, English speakers are fed the preposterous idea
that there's a "correct" version of English. We were then led to memorize a
laundry list of modern usages that annoy the grammar teachers. They want us to
say, "to whom," instead of, "to who." They want us to say, "There are some
shoes," instead of, "There is some shoes." What they ignored was that all
languages change, and even the grammarians can't stop the deluge of changes to
English. Furthermore, they ignored the diversity of any language, even within
one regional dialect -- we might have both grown up as neighbors, but your
idiolect is not identical to mine. There's no way to choose one version as
"correct."
Language learners have an incredible decoding machine between their ears. It's
high time we gave them the respect they deserve, and just speak at normal rates
and in one's normal way of speaking. There may be times to simplify your
vocabulary, or even bring in a translator, but most of your time you ought to be
speaking normally, and including a wide variety of idioms and polysyllabic
words. I never simplified my English for my kids, as most parents do, and today
my 11 and 9 year old get compliments for their lexical range (i.e., word
power).
I have a high-intermediate
level student and he has wide array of expressions and his vocabulary is also
good. The only thing that he wants to know is how to make these new words
natural in his conversations. Can anyone help me with this? Thanks!
Wow! I amazed shocked and
deeply troubled by the anger this article seems to have generated. The author
makes an interesting point which at the very least is worth considering.
Furthermore in many respects he is right. Elision, intrusion, assimilation, weak
forms etc are all features of spoken English whatever country you may be from.
Awareness of these features greatly improves students listening skills. Finally,
to those who have complained about others 'bastardising' the language. I am
sorry but you don't own it. If you do genuinely speak RP then I'm afraid you are
but a tiny minority in this world. The students don't learn English to
communicate with you, they learn it in order to be able to communicate with the
whole world which to the rest of us you are not the focus of.
The most sensible comment
here comes from the EFL Student:
"I prefer to know what is behind this
word before I can actually hear it". Of course. Learning a second language
is not like learning your first - unlike very small children, EFL students want
to know what they are saying and why: if they are using a contraction, or
regional speech, they need to understand what they are doing, and the original
structure from which the contraction derives.
Exposing students to regional speech patterns and accents is great, but should
not be confused with teaching basic structures. Encouraging students to say
'wanna' simply because they are having a problem remembering to put the 'to'
with the infinitive is crazy. 'Wanna' and 'gonna' are heard in casual US speech,
which of course is as valid as any other form of spoken English, but educated
Americans don't write 'wanna', and even if your students never intend to write
much English, they should be able to write something as simple as 'I want to see
you tomorrow'. The student who applies for a job in any English-speaking
country, including America, and writes 'I wanna work here. You are gonna like my
approach', is doomed to fail!
Also, 'wanna' sounds very unnatural coming from non-US speakers, even more so if
they already have a strong French/Spanish/Japanese accent. Do them a favour and
teach your students the basic structure of the language first, and let the
regional and colloquial usages develop naturally.
It seems obvious to me that
students need to learn how English is constructed, and how to speak it. It is
simple. "I want to" is written just like that, where in American English, it is
said "I wanna." I would never encourage anyone to write "I wanna" because it is
simply wrong, but if they choose to say "I wanna" I certainly will not correct
them. Like wise, if a student were to say "I want to" there is no problem. Is it
not the goal of the teacher to give the student that most options? Is a language
not learned both by writing and speaking? The author makes a great point, but he
has missed the most important reason that any student takes a class, To learn a
language. Take time to teach your students grammar, speech, and listening. Why
can it not simply be said "It is wrote this way, and sometimes said and heard in
multiple ways" Get off your high horse and teach the students, not what is right
or wrong, but what it is!
I have learned German over the past years
and am surprised to say that I learned more from living in Germany, for the short amount that I
did, than I did studying the language. I could not understand a word when I arrived in Germany,
even after studying for a year. If someone would have taught me the way Germans actually speak in
everyday language, I wouldn't have had to waste a year of studying.
As far as teaching goes, I think it would be more effective to teach how
English works and tell students that this form is correct and formal, then teach them
other informal ways. If the students know the difference then they will not be sitting in an
interview using what they know as informal, but they would obviously use formal.
© 2012 Eslbase. All rights reserved
Follow Eslbase on
