Applied Linguistics at KMUTT

Find this article interesting: "Being a native English speaker is globally useless if you can’t speak other versions of English."

The author argues that, "Rather than laying the problems of English at the door of those who speak it as a second, third, or fourth language, it would be wise for mother-tongue nations to do more to prepare their professional classes for the language challenges they face abroad".

To what extent do you agree with the article?

http://qz.com/618702/being-a-native-english-speaker-is-globally-useless-if-you-cant-speak-other-versions-of-english/

Is this the same issue as new native speaker teachers having to learn how to simplify their language so that they can be understood in the classroom?

From an ELF perspective, this seems fairly uncontroversial to me, but then, the whole issue of native speakerism raises its ugly head. Do you think that some native speakers would be willing to acknowledge that they need to change their language?

This is an interesting article. With the newly-arrived native English speakers who do the TESOL course with me, there is often a version of the grumble which goes something along the lines of taxi drivers/Starbucks baristas/7-11 attendants not understanding perfectly good English. These teachers also launch into headily long explanations about simple words or concepts in their lessons, leaving the students confused and flustered. To deal with this, we often take these trainees to a local language school and stick them in a beginner -level Thai class for 2 hours. The experience exhausts them, but it is good empathy training, and causes them to reflect on what if feels like to be on the other side in the language learning context. Two hours isn't much, and for the less reflective (or more arrogant) trainees, it is usually not enough to break the habit of expecting English to be a universal given. But then how much is enough? Is it necessary for them to learn the whole language? Is it possibly true that everyone who speaks multiple languages is more sensitive to the linguistic difficulties of others, and monoglots are not?

Nevertheless, going into a foreign language learning environment is, I feel, a good way to undo some of the imperial importance English speaker sometimes have when they arrive. Perhaps once we realize how difficult it is to understand and be understood in another language, we are a lot more sensitive to the difficulties others have in dealing with our language. And with that comes an awareness of the need to modify our language when necessary. One question, though, is whether sensitivity is enough - or do we actually have to 'teach' teachers/businessmen/professionals how to simplify their language?

There are many research studies stating that many non-native varieties are more internationally intelligible than the native varieties. The primary focus of the use of ELF or EIL is communication strategies and accommodation skills. I think native speakers of English do not have to change their language but they have to acquire/be aware of those skills and strategies. I'd say there is not a single model of international intelligibility. It's more about how international English users (either native or nonnative) should adjust themselves/their English in different contexts.

Does this apply when a native english teacher reads or evaluates english written by non english native students?

Woravut wrote:Does this apply when a native english teacher reads or evaluates english written by non english native students?

I'd say it depends on what kind of writing it is.

Moreover, when talking about intelligibility, we focus more on the spoken language (pronunciation) rather than the written language.

Sorry, I'm going to continue to digress by talking about use of English in the academic setting, I will eventually get back to what Sharp had said.

Woravut wrote:Does this apply when a native english teacher reads or evaluates english written by non english native students?

Yesterday, I had the chance of speaking to one of the editors (American) of the Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine... and he mentioned to me the main obstacle that the authors have is their ability to write proficiently. Though the editorial board is emphatic towards the language abilities of these writers, but at the same time, they need to maintain a standard as the journal is an international peer-reviewed one (scopus). Hence, since writing in an academic voice seems to be difficult for SEA authors, the editorial board decided that a major criteria for the assessment of language is whether it is 'readable' or not. However, this, the editor said, does not equate to having an academic voice.

The editor did mention that in terms of research rigour (framework, research problem, methodology), the studies are comparable to leading journals in the area of clinical medicine found in the US or the UK; nonetheless, in order to encourage more publication from scholars in this region, the 'standard' academic language called for in the US or UK is not expected by the editors. But he also mentioned that these writers may encounter difficulty when submitting their work to journals outside of SEA or Asia. For instance, my cousin who is in Kyoto University completing his PhD in endocrinology, is having difficulty getting his research study published (Kyoto Uni has the same requirements as KMUTT where their graduate students need to publish prior to defense and graduation). His article is very readable, even to lay people, but it is not written in an academic tone expected of journals in the US where he had submitted his work.

Considering these and to reflect on what P'Boy had said, perhaps there needs to be a differentiated approach when English teachers are evaluating academic writing. But then this raises another question - is speaking different than writing? Do we accommodate these skills differently based on the context of use? If so, why is writing considered a higher level of scholarly activity?

Back to the initial issue that Sharp brought up, recently Sarah Palin made a comment about immigrants having to speak English in the US. She was arguing that immigrants should learn American as it is a unifying tool, and also because American has been spoken for 'thousands of years' in the US. With oblivious people in high position, I think the perception that native English speakers are more proficient will remain. That said, I think that the awareness that non-native English speakers are as capable is something that is confined within the academic circles, and have yet to penetrate the perceptions of lay people.

Whether you are native or non-native speakers, I think it is unconscious to control or change your natural accent, but you should bear in mind that trying to be familiar with or to understand different accents betters the comprehensibility of communication.

Thanks Daron for sharing with us your talk with one of the editors. Just wondering whether what writing problems native speakers have when sending their articles for publication.

daronloo wrote:Sorry, I'm going to continue to digress by talking about use of English in the academic setting, I will eventually get back to what Sharp had said.

Woravut wrote:Does this apply when a native english teacher reads or evaluates english written by non english native students?

Yesterday, I had the chance of speaking to one of the editors (American) of the Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine... and he mentioned to me the main obstacle that the authors have is their ability to write proficiently. Though the editorial board is emphatic towards the language abilities of these writers, but at the same time, they need to maintain a standard as the journal is an international peer-reviewed one (scopus). Hence, since writing in an academic voice seems to be difficult for SEA authors, the editorial board decided that a major criteria for the assessment of language is whether it is 'readable' or not. However, this, the editor said, does not equate to having an academic voice.

The editor did mention that in terms of research rigour (framework, research problem, methodology), the studies are comparable to leading journals in the area of clinical medicine found in the US or the UK; nonetheless, in order to encourage more publication from scholars in this region, the 'standard' academic language called for in the US or UK is not expected by the editors. But he also mentioned that these writers may encounter difficulty when submitting their work to journals outside of SEA or Asia. For instance, my cousin who is in Kyoto University completing his PhD in endocrinology, is having difficulty getting his research study published (Kyoto Uni has the same requirements as KMUTT where their graduate students need to publish prior to defense and graduation). His article is very readable, even to lay people, but it is not written in an academic tone expected of journals in the US where he had submitted his work.

Considering these and to reflect on what P'Boy had said, perhaps there needs to be a differentiated approach when English teachers are evaluating academic writing. But then this raises another question - is speaking different than writing? Do we accommodate these skills differently based on the context of use? If so, why is writing considered a higher level of scholarly activity?

Back to the initial issue that Sharp brought up, recently Sarah Palin made a comment about immigrants having to speak English in the US. She was arguing that immigrants should learn American as it is a unifying tool, and also because American has been spoken for 'thousands of years' in the US. With oblivious people in high position, I think the perception that native English speakers are more proficient will remain. That said, I think that the awareness that non-native English speakers are as capable is something that is confined within the academic circles, and have yet to penetrate the perceptions of lay people.

I can't agree more with Aj.Wannapa