05 April 2019

MRT Announcements

I am currently in Singapore, and it is fascinating to listen to the announcements on the MRT (Mass Rapid Transport, the underground train system). The announcer very carefully pronounces the [d] in 'mind the gap' and the final [t] in 'next' in the phrase 'next station', even though it would be normal for native speakers to omit these sounds. If retaining the [d] and [t] helps improve intelligibility, particularly in a noisy train, then such careful articulation is to be applauded.

One other area where the announcer deviates from native speaker pronunciation patterns is for phrasal sounds. For example:

Change here for the Circle LINE. (stressed on 'line')

whereas a native speaker would say:

Change here for the CIRCle line. (stressed on 'circle')

because 'Circle Line' is a phrasal noun that would normally be stressed on the first item.

But does stressing 'line' interfere with intelligibility? In the context of Singapore, where the special pattern of stress for phrasal nouns is not generally found, it probably makes little difference; and stressing 'line' rather than 'circle' helps to mark the end of the utterance, so it may actually play an important communicative role.

02 April 2019

Problem Words

In enabling learners of English to become proficient communicators in international settings, making themselves understood is the key goal, and sometimes close imitation of native-speaker pronunciation is not helpful. In fact, when teaching English, it is valuable to make students aware about which words can be problematic in all styles of pronunciation, and how these issues might be resolved. Here are some issues that learners of English should be aware of:

  • can ~ can't: these two words are difficult to differentiate, especially in American English in which both have /æ/ and the final /t/ of can't is often omitted in fast speech. One solution to this is to avoid saying can't, and always say cannot instead. (This seems to be the solution widely adopted in Singapore.) If one wants to emphasise the ability to do something, under some circumstances saying 'am able to' instead of can would be a useful strategy.
  • fifteen ~ fifty: these two words are hard to differentiate (just like six ~ sixteen and the others). In some circumstances, such as when giving a time like 10:15 or 10:50, speakers might be encouraged to add 'one five' or 'five zero' to clarify things (just like pilots do).
  • oral ~ aural: in British English, these words are both pronounced as /ɔːrəl/, which is rather unfortunate as they are opposites! (The first means 'speaking' while the second means 'listening'.) The best solution here is to avoid using these words and say speaking or listening instead.
  • D ~ T; M ~ N; S ~ F: the names of the letters are a nightmare in English. I find it astounding that we haven't adopted a more sensible system of letter names, like the Greek alpha beta gamma delta etc. The first thing is for students to be aware of the issue, especially that S and F cannot be distinguished over the phone (because of the low-frequency cut-off). The ideal solution would be to learn the International Radiotelephony Spelling Alphabet: alpha bravo charlie delta etc. An alternative is to use place names: Africa Belgium China Denmark etc.

While no single solution is ideal for these issues, students should at least be made aware about them, and they should be encouraged to develop strategies strategies to resolve the problems.

01 April 2019

Standard English

In the modern world, we emphasise that there are many ways of speaking English, and insisting on one external model such as British or American English is not advisable so long as the speaker can make themself understood.

Consistent with this English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) approach, I always tell my students that they should speak clearly and well, but that does not mean imitating me. If you don't come from England, then there's no need to pretend that you do. And there are better ways of speaking.

For example, if you say 'as' and 'of' with a full vowel instead of the schwa ([ə]) that I use, then keep it. Use of a full vowel in these words is probably more intelligible. Furthermore, I do not differentiate 'tour' from 'tore'; if you distinguish these words, then you should continue to do so. And I pronounce 'hours' as [ɑəz], using what is called smoothing; if you pronounce it as [awəz], then keep it.

But what about writing? Should I accept local patterns of writing? Or should I insist on Standard English?

Recently, I have been grading assignments written by my students, and I often encounter patterns such as these:

  • 'One of my sister is a nurse.' (using a singular noun after 'one of')
  • 'At home I speak Malay language.' (omitting 'the')
  • 'Majority of people speak Brunei.' (omitting 'the' before 'majority')
  • 'I am doing researches on language usage.' (plural use of 'researches')
  • 'As for my sister, she goes to secondary school.' (explicit fronting of the topic)

Should I correct these patterns? Or should I accept them as examples of Brunei English that are perfectly valid in the local context?

One analogy may be helpful: if my own children wrote 'Me and my friend went to the shops', I would point out that, in writing, it is usual to say 'my friend and I'. Now, this is unnatural for most people, but we still insist on it. So, maybe written English is an unnatural language for everyone. And if I failed to point out some of its features to my children, I would be failing in my duty to enable them to progress in the world.

So should I correct my students' writing the patterns I have outlined above? When I talk so much about ELF-based teaching, is this being hypocritical?

I don't know the answer to this. My feeling is that I should point out these patterns, but if students want to maintain their own usage, maybe even take pride in it, then so be it. That way, I am raising awareness about local usage and not insisting on native-speaker usage. But I accept that there is a thin line between pointing out local patterns of usage and identifying errors.