Paula wrote:Do people out there think we should be teaching our students some brand of real English as spoken between native speakers: eg Australian, British, American.
Or do you think we should be teaching "international English" as spoken between, Germans, Japanese etc.
Rise wrote:...the term "International English" is a bit ambiguous, because I don't know exactly how the Germans, Spanish or Japanese speak . We have different levels of fluency, we usually make a whole lot of mistakes in our conversations, our pronunciation varies a lot and we even use signs to understand eachother better...
[Recently] I have attended several courses and met different teachers. Sadly most of them could do anything from planning or building a house, selling things in a supermarket, washing cars, etc. but teach English professionally. Most of them were neither qualified in teaching nor did they have knowledge of their own language required when willing to teach. Virtually all questions were answered like – Well, it is absolutely incorrect, but don’t ask me why. That’s the way it is…It made me think that some of the ‘better schools’ hire losers, I mean those who are unable to find any job and think they can teach since they are native speakers.;-( I hope I have not offended anybody here … I think being a teacher is more than just being a native speaker. Cheers.
Nigel wrote:I don't agree with Schetin saying nobody speaks international English.
A state where the majority represent different outer cultures is not a culture ("outer" is the key word here - not local peoples' cultures, but all sorts of adventurists', refugees', criminals', illegals', etc.), and the people isn't a people, nor is a nation, but a horde. This peculiarity distinguished Mongols and other tribal military-political units as compared with nation-states.Nigel wrote:You're also wrong to say that America has no culture! Why is a mix of nationalities not a culture?
schetin wrote:Say, America is a country without history and, therefore, without culture - 200 years of history is too short a term, and immigrants wash out the cultural frames; in this respect, America is rather a horde than a nation; a horde (and a rather aggressive one at that) in the outskirts of the mainstream (however divided) civilizations.
schetin wrote:A state where the majority represent different outer cultures is not a culture ("outer" is the key word here - not local peoples' cultures, but all sorts of adventurists', refugees', criminals', illegals', etc.), and the people isn't a people, nor is a nation, but a horde.
the dictionary wrote:3. a particular form or stage of civilization, as that of a certain nation or period: American culture.
schetin wrote:Are these (native GB speakers) anything special?
Stand up for your rights!
Schetin wrote:Conversely, for the overwhelming majority of the world English isn't native; but international English is (like Latin) a dead, artificial, language in that there's no people speaking it.
young bored jasminade wrote:Latin is a language,
As dead as can be,
It killed all the Romans,
And now it is killing me.
schetin wrote:As I see it, the whole problem of which English to teach has to do with how we see the Future and is contradictory: on the one hand, everybody understands it's a Troyan Horse, and its purpose is globalization (aka colonization) under the rules imposed by the English speaking countries (not all of them); on the other hand, by washing out the frames of their culture through language expansion they are digging their own grave and fertilizing soil to yield new civilizations. This process is cyclic and there are many an example in the world history which show how it happens.
macastrian wrote:Maybe we should all be learning Mandarin instead.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests