standard English – Educational Sociolinguistics

“Is my English negatively affected by my Chinese Dialect?” The Incorporation of Chinese Dialects into English Learning Process

Yurun Zhang

Dialects are considered to be regional forms of a language and serve the people of specific regions (Guo, 2004), and there are more than 2000 dialects or sub-dialects in China (Li, 2006). However, those dialects do not have a place both in Mandarin and English teaching classrooms. Standard Mandarin is expected to assist English learning because some research proves that accents caused by Chinese dialects are negatively transferred to English speaking (Huang, 2017). Therefore, teachers tend to tell students to practice and imitate standard English ways of speaking and writing to avoid being influenced by Chinese dialects. In addition, before becoming English teachers, people need to pass an exam to grade their Mandarin level. Only people who can reach the first three levels can be qualified for teaching English, so those who only speak dialects or have heavy accents when speaking Mandarin cannot become English teachers.

Here is a video to help you understand Chinese dialects:

I randomly asked five of my friends in China. They all speak English and Mandarin. Four can speak their dialect (Nanjing dialect, Xuzhou dialect, Wu dialect, Chinese Min), and the other can only understand their dialect, but cannot speak (Zhoushan dialect which belongs to Wu dialect). In addition, three of my friends used to be English major students and now work as teachers or translators. Two questions were asked: 1) Do you think Chinese dialects influence English learning? 2) Do you think Chinese dialects hinder people’s English development? Four participants answered that they feel Chinese dialects do affect English pronunciation, and one of the four participants said she sometimes can tell which province people come from when hearing them speak English. And all five participants agree that Chinese dialects do not hinder English development. Two said English should be regarded as a communication tool. As long as others can understand, people do not need to change their pronunciation.

There is much research highlighting the necessity of integrating native languages in EFL classrooms (Martin, 2001; Valencia, 2018) but little research is made on including first language dialects in EFL classrooms. For many students, languages they first learned are dialects. They start with learning and speaking dialects at home and only begin learning Mandarin after 7 years old when going to primary schools. Therefore, Chinese dialects should not be ignored in the English learning process. These ways of pronouncing and writing English affected by Chinese dialects should be differentiated from errors. They are not wrong but just different ways of speaking (Van Herk, 2018). Teachers should be more tolerant and inclusive, leaving room for Chinese dialects in an English class. The integration of students’ first language dialects into the classroom also informs students that it is incorrect to judge others’ pronunciation, grammar or word choice no matter what languages others speak. This can make students more confident even if their ways of speaking and writing English are affected by dialects. Negative attitudes of first language dialects may also result in the intolerance of other languages or cultures, which may leave students with a wrong belief that languages need to be spoken in the standard variety.

Questions

Do you think students’ first language dialects hinder their second language development? Should we include first language dialects into the second language learning process? How can we do that?

References

Guo, L. (2004). The relationship between Putonghua and Chinese dialects. In M. Zhou & H. Sun (Eds.), Language policy in the People’s Republic of China (pp. 45-54). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8039-5_3

Huang, L. (2017). The negative transfer of Chinese dialects on English pronunciation: Case study of Wenzhounese. [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. University of Wisconsin-Platteville.

Li, D. C. S. (2006). Chinese as a lingua franca in Greater China. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 149–176. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190506000080

Martín, J. M. (2001). Nuevas tendencias en el uso de la L1. ELIA, 2, 159-169. http://hdl.handle.net/11441/33967

Valencia, H. G. (2018). The integration of native language in EFL classes. English Language Teaching, 12(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n1p1

Van Herk, Gerard. (2018). What is sociolinguistic? (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.

Sociolinguistics vs. Linguistics: University Marking Practices

Chaoyang Zhang

In a world where there are thousands of languages; it is impossible for all people to have a standard way of speaking a certain language. In fact, there exist many variations within a specific language. A sociolinguistic approach towards language is fairer than a linguistic approach because it is based on the evidence in the real world (Van, 2018). Developing rules and constraints to describe how the ‘ideal’ language should be spoken or what is regarded as competent is not practical in the real world. Considering that speaking a language in a certain way is what is correct creates a homogenous speech community which is unfair for people like non-native students.

With the increasing number of international students in universities, marking practices are a major concern. According to Hudson; students who use dialects in universities face challenges in learning to read (Hudson, 2001). Other varieties of a language should be regarded correct hence nonnative speakers’ way of communication should be correct even for educational purposes. It is difficult for everyone to learn the standard variety of a language which is considered correct. I agree with the argument that certain language features are not wrong as they would be considered in the standard language variety (Van Herk, 2018). Nonstandard language is just a different way of saying the same thing. Language should not be used to gauge the competence of a student or performance. Accepting the different variations of language used by students is beneficial to them (Cheshire, 2005). If students are allowed to express themselves in essays and other evaluations through the variety that they are used to, they could be more successful than when forcing them to use a certain standard language. We should take into consideration that language policies and language teaching and learning policies should comply with the dynamic nature of language and culture, focusing on the collective shifting from monolingualism and monoculturalism to plurilingualism and pluriculturalism.

Reflection Questions:

1. Should the same marking criteria be used for native students and non-native students?

2. Could there be a possibility that many non-native students have failed to score high grades because of language barrier?

References

Cheshire, J.(2005). Sociolinguistics and mother tongue education. InAmmon,U.,Dittmar,N. andTrudgill,P.(Eds). (2005). Sociolinguistics: An introductory handbook of the science of language and society(2^nd) (2341-2350).Berlin: MoutondeGruyter.

Hudson, R.A. (2001). Sociolinguistics (2^nded).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van Herk, G.(2018). What is sociolinguistics? (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.

Standard language ideologies: Attitudes toward language varieties

Elizabeth M.

There is comfort and pleasure in traveling to places where you speak the language. Languages have the power to make one feel right at home. As I entered a coffee shop in France, I smelled the wonderful coffee and baked goods. I made my way near the cash register and ordered an americano. My friend living in France had told me that americano was the equivalence for a black coffee in Québec, so I was confident that I would be able to prevent any confusion. My prediction was unfortunately incorrect. The cashier stared at me, squinted his eyes, and paused for a while. I could not tell if he did not understand my order or if he noticed my unfamiliar accent. I repeated my order, a little louder, with less “Québécois”, and made sure to pronounce each and every syllable in my sentence. I felt pretty confident at this point. He continued staring; no words were uttered. He finally said: “Tu es Québécoise? Je suis sûr! J’adore votre accent, c’est si drôle! The barista was very friendly and meant nothing wrong with this remark. I sounded different, which made him smile. We chatted for a while, exchanged warm smiles, and waved goodbye. Throughout my stay in France, redundant remarks, some not so friendly, related to my Québécois accent made it clear to me that there were deeply-rooted attitudes and ideologies related to French of France (FF) and French of Québec (FQ). Standard language ideologies influence how speakers of a language feel about themselves and how they identify with their language community.

The comparison between FQ and FF has been a significant topic for examination in the sociolinguistics field. Who is “better”? Why is one “better”? What does “better” mean? Why are FQ and FF different? What are others’ perceptions of these variations? The ideologies attached to the French language variations reflect the prestige, correctness, and status that is given or declined to FF or FQ. After the Quiet Revolution, a linguistic Québécois identity emerged. This nationalist identity was detached from the rest of Canada and from France (Puska, Jansen & Chalier, 2019). The distinction of the French language in Québec from FF presents various cultural, identity, and linguistic issues. Historically, the standard, the ideal way to speak French has mostly been attributed to FF. Thus, FF has gained most of the prestige, privilege, and advantages over FQ. This significantly affects the ways in which people approach both varieties. For instance, the majority of allophones in Montréal would prefer learning FF than FQ (Guertin, 2018).

How are these privileges maintained and preserved? Lippi-Green (1997:68) contextualizes the language subordination process.

The FQ is mystified. « Je comprends vraiment rien! Il faut vraiment être Québécois pour vous comprendre. » I don’t understand anything! You have to be a real Quebecer to understand.
The FF claims authority. « Nous sommes les experts, nous parlons « le vrai» français. » We are the experts, we speak « real » French.
FQ is trivialized. « Votre accent est si drôle! Je ne suis pas capable de vous prendre au sérieux. » Your accent is so funny! I am not able to take you seriously.”

The issues related to FQ and FF can relate to the duality of native and non-native speakers of English. The dichotomy of native and non-native speakers, of “good” and “bad” language attitudes are deeply embedded in second language teaching and learning contexts. The identities of non-native English speakers are significantly affected by the negative ideologies that are associated with varieties that do not sound “native”. Learners of English as a second language have this idea that to attain a high level of proficiency and competence, they must sound like a native speaker of English. Language myths, assumptions, and long-established beliefs strengthen the cycle of superiority and privilege of native English speakers. Breaking this cycle is easier said than done. In the classroom, teachers play a significant role in ensuring that L2 learners of English feel confident and satisfied with their language abilities, regardless of sounding like a native or non-native speaker of English. By reinforcing this open and inclusive language ideology, students may focus on their proficiency and competence level without comparing it to native-like language models. Individually and collectively, we can break standard language ideologies and embrace language varieties by resisting myths, assumptions, and stereotypes related to languages.

When traveling, languages give a sense of belonging and not belonging. Languages give us a chance to connect, exchange, and identify with communities all around the world. Not just the language itself, but the people that speak and embody it allow us to understand parts of ourselves. Language ideologies and attitudes shape our (mis)understandings of ourselves and others; hence, the importance of demystifying and bringing to light new, more comprehensive alternatives to seeing languages. The dualities of FF and FQ, and native and non-native speakers of English, require further examination and consideration to mend cultural, linguistic, and social gaps. When, or, how are “we” going to stop the perpetuation of “good” and “bad” language attitudes?

References:

Pustka, E., Jansen, L., & Chalier, M. (2019). “C’est toujours l’autre qui a un accent » : Le prestige méconnu des accents du Sud, des Antilles et du Québec. Glottopol, 31, 27-52.

Guertin, M. (2018). Variation sociophonétique dialectale et stylistique: quelle est la langue cible en français langue seconde à Montréal? Arborescences, 7, 67-89.

Van Herk, G. (2018). What is sociolinguistics? 2e Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

First Nation’s English: A response to Simon’s Post ‘Non-standard French in the Uashat mak Mani-Utenam Reserve’

Posted by Dean Garlick

(This piece was originally a comment to Simon’s post, but I thought it could use greater visibility and could serve as a separate post on its own).

I’ve also noticed a similar stigmatizing effect in English with First Nations speakers as the one Simon describes in his piece on the French used by the Innu in Sept-Îles. There is often a unique cadence, pace, and grammatical structure that is unique to First Nation’s speakers’ English that unfortunately is often perceived as ‘slow’ or ‘stupid’ by speakers of standard varieties of English. This is extremely frustrating, but more of a reflection of how First Nations peoples are generally viewed and in fact becomes yet another ‘justification’ for discriminatory attitudes.

Continue reading “First Nation’s English: A response to Simon’s Post ‘Non-standard French in the Uashat mak Mani-Utenam Reserve’”

What is Standard English?

Ethan Xu

The charm of class discussion is that through brainstorming and collision of thoughts, we are able to quickly make connections with the knowledge and its reference; moreover, when you have time for reflection, it will lead your mind to wander even further from the topic.

The discussion about mutual intelligibility was an interesting one. Linguists use this criterion to determine whether people are speaking the same language. In real life, however, things seem to be much more complicated. When you speak to a Scot, as mentioned by my classmates, it is often not very easy to reach the sort of mutual intelligibility. I’ve made several acquaintances with some Scottish friends and couldn’t agree more. However, there is a fine line between the two terms ‘Scottish accent’ and ‘Scots language’.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/upe54vc7shhd51g/main-qimg-1c52701456c7be4ac3a4dadbfd415de3.png?dl=0

Continue reading “What is Standard English?”