Click here to play

The "Oh" debate and whether native speakers can misuse language

1 2
   Share on Facebook  
Marvin A.  #310442  Thu, 04 Jan 07 04:56 PM
 Eng_teach_in_germany wrote:
That does not mean it is correct. English speakers commonly use incorrect terms or grammar.


No, we don't.  Who do you think sets the rules in the first place?  "O" for zero is perfect correct, and is commonly used for phone numbers.  When it comes to telephone numbers there is no real possibility of confusion.


The reason why it is better to use the correct word can be demonstrated here: How do you pronounce/say the following code: OST5067 ? or this: 906-ROA ?


If there are a combination of letters and numbers, we would *never* say "o" for zero.  "o" is simply used when reading off telephone numbers or mathematical numbers ("O" is almost never used as a variable in English).
  
Top 150 Contributor
Joined on Fri, Dec 8 2006
Regular Member (638)
Eng_teach_in_germany  #310459  Thu, 04 Jan 07 05:39 PM
English speakers DO commonly use incorrect terms or grammar, whether it be verb tenses or whatever.

It doesn't bother me if many or most people say 'Oh' instead of 'zero' in phone numbers. I do too sometimes, depending on who I am speaking with. I went to a school in Australia that taught a high standard of British English, and tended to teach what is more 'correct' - in other words, what is technically correct. 0 is not the letter O. I explained in a post above why many or most people say 'oh' in phone numbers (ie. it's easier). I use it sometimes too. I'm not some dogmatist looking to prove a point for the hell of it. I am a teacher who tells his students the full story.

Have a Happy New Year and all the best to forum participants.
  
Top 500 Contributor
Joined on Sat, May 20 2006
Germany
Junior Member (84)
Regards, English teacher from Australia.
Grammar Geek  #310558  Thu, 04 Jan 07 11:41 PM

Well, this didn't work like I thought it would. This seemed a better place to carry on the debate, since it has moved away from any actual pronunciation issue. But apparently I did this incorrectly, so I'm going to copy over the dialogue so far:

 Marvin A. wrote:
 Eng_teach_in_germany wrote:
English speakers DO commonly use incorrect terms or grammar, whether it be verb tenses or whatever.


Do realize that while you are free to believe such things they have absolutely no relevance and are against all linguistic fact.  There is simply no linguistic basis to hold that any native speakers of any language can make mistakes or misuse their language (other than the occasion performance error).  While having a preference for one form over another is quite reasonable, that's quite different from insisting that other forms are incorrect/sloppy/misused just because they don't always conform to your favoured variety of how English should be spoken.  There is no "technically correct" here.  I routinely use "o" to refer to zero, as do you, as do many other native speakers.  Therefore it is correct.  When there is possible confusion, use "zero", or explicity state whether you mean the letter "o", or the number "zero".

and then:

 Eng_teach_in_germany wrote:
My 'favoured variety of how English should be spoken' when I'm talking with Australian friends is quite 'sloppy' and 'creative' and filled with vernacular expressions. My 'favoured variety of how English should be spoken' when I'm teaching students who expect a high standard and who pay to learn 'correct' English, resembles as closely as possible the English described in modern textbooks and manuals.

and then:

 Marvin A. wrote:
 Eng_teach_in_germany wrote:
when I'm teaching students who expect a high standard and who pay to learn 'correct' English, resembles as closely as possible the English described in modern textbooks and manuals.


Then you ought to teach them that zero is often called "o" by native speakers.  Otherwise they might be rather confused...

and finally:

 Englishuser wrote:

Hi Marvin,

There is simply no linguistic basis to hold that any native speakers of any language can make mistakes or misuse their language

Why doesn't this extend to non-native speakers?

Englishuser

Soooo, carry on, folks.

  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Tue, Jan 10 2006
Pennsylvania, USA
Veteran Member (15,567)
ModeratorProficient Speaker
Barbara, who answers in American English.
MrPedantic  #310580  Fri, 05 Jan 07 12:29 AM

Oh.

 Tongue Tied [:S]

MrP

  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Tue, Oct 12 2004
Veteran Member (12,052)
Proficient SpeakerSystemAdministrator
...opella forensis / adducit febris...
Grammar Geek  #310593  Fri, 05 Jan 07 12:54 AM

Yeah, sorry about the way it came over.* But the debate is captured in order and in its entirety, so folks can continue to express their thoughts on the subject. But once it moved on to "whether native speakers can linguistically be said to make mistakes" and pretty far away from "Oh," it seemed a better place for it.

* I'll practice this with a test thread so I don't make the same mistake again.

  
Eng_teach_in_germany  #310867  Fri, 05 Jan 07 06:04 PM
ok.. I would just like to clarify something - I do in fact make my students aware that zero is commonly pronounced as the letter 'O'. I teach to German people, most of whom are already aware of this due to years of English courses in school, etc..

In German, the word for 'zero' is 'Null' and it's always used for phone numbers. SO, 'Null'='zero'. That is the unamiguous, technically correct and exact translation. I teach the students that it is more correct to say 'zero' because it is literally not the letter 'O', no matter how post-modern you wish to be. I don't make a fuss over it, I'm fully aware that many/most people use 'Oh', and I don't care if my students use 'Oh'. I even use it sometimes myself. It's just not a big deal. As I stated in a previous post, I just tell the students 'the full story'. They are never confused about it afterwards and very little time is required to be spent on it. Similarly, I've spent enough time on it here as well. The End.

In regards to the related topic - whether or not there is actually such a thing as 'correct' English, my response is simply that in practice, 'on the ground' so to speak, an 'anything goes' approach is inappropriate. In a philosophy class it might be fine to discuss how everything's relative and so on, but in real world ESL teaching it's advisable to 'stick to the rules' of English grammar as much as possible. Of course language changes over time. Of course there's no perfect, absolute, master version of English set in stone forever. There are very cohesive standards and rules however(which change gradually over time) which make it possible for us to communicate clearly with each other, and to pass on the knowledge of our language to non-native speakers.

Take for example this (now online) book written 90 years ago, entitled 'How to Speak and Write Correctly':
<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/hwswc10h.htm" target="_blank" title="http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/hwswc10h.htm">http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/hwswc10h.htm</a>
While the author's writing style may seem slightly antiquated, it's still fine and 99% of his description of English grammar still applies today, nearly 100 years later. The other 1% consists of the sort of changes and developents that are often discussed on this forum.

The problem of what is correct or not of course often comes up in TESL when British and American English use different words or spelling. At the end of the day you have to teach either one or the other, or teach both. Usually it depends on which one the client/student is most likely to need.
  
Eng_teach_in_germany  #310870  Fri, 05 Jan 07 06:09 PM
In case the link in the post above didn't appear properly, here it is again:

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/hwswc10h.htm

Cheers.
  
Alienvoord  #310908  Fri, 05 Jan 07 08:32 PM
 Marvin A. wrote:
There is simply no linguistic basis to hold that any native speakers of any language can make mistakes or misuse their language


I wouldn't go that far. Language is in part socially constructed. It is possible to make mistakes, or if you like, to produce utterances that violate linguistic norms.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001843.html
  
Top 200 Contributor
Joined on Tue, Jul 25 2006
Toronto
Full Member (315)
I'm a Canadian English speaker
MrPedantic  #310966  Sat, 06 Jan 07 12:03 AM
 Grammar Geek wrote:

Yeah, sorry about the way it came over.

Sorry, it was a metathreadistic "Oh!" on my part, not a comment on the "spliting" (as we've learned to call it).

MrP

  
1 2
AddThis Feed Button RSS Feed: ESL Linguistics Discussion Forum
© 2008 MediaCET Ltd.
Terms and Conditions & Terms of Service