Anonymous

“C'mon, Forbes, tell it as it is. ”

Right. I will.

I said: "All native English speakers really ought to be able to speak to each other without too much difficulty." What I meant was that most native speakers of English are to a great or less extent bidialectal, or at least bivarietal. It is be hoped that all native speakers of English receive some education and that education will involve them in learning some variety of Standard English. None of the varieties of Standard English differ from each other by very much at all. This means that, on the whole, native speakers of English can understand each other so long as, if they come from different parts of the world, each of them does not insist on speaking his "home" dialect.

But you seem to worry about students of English who are learning English as a second language. What are we going to teach them if we do not teach them Standard English? It seems to me entirely reasonable that if students of English from Tierra del Fuego meet students of English from Japan that when they meet  each group will expect the other group to speak the same language.

In case there is any misunderstanding here, I believe that all varieties of Englsih are equally valid. That does not mean, talking purely in terms of numbers, that they are all equally useful as a means of communication. If at school I had been taught, say, Aragonese, instead of Standard Spanish, on the grounds that it was as equally valid, I would have been highly annoyed when I got to Spain on my first visit and found that not only could they not understand me in Madrid, but that neither could the majority of the inhabitants of Aragon.

All we get is a constant stream of statements culled from here and there as to what EFL teachers should not be doing, coupled with assertions that they are pedalling some sort of artificial language. Nowhere is there any suggestion as to what EFL teachers ought to be doing or how they are supposed to come to decisions about what they should be doing. All the comments that contributors make are responded to with further questions and we get involved in endless Socratic debates that go nowhere.

Now, I can perfectly understand that there are many in the world who feel threatened by the onward advance of English. It seems as part of this that they feel the need to encourage the fragmentation of English. By all means let local varieties develop, but keeping learners away from Standard English as a matter of policy is nothing short of illiberal. I get very frustrated when language gets too caught up in culture, nationalism, religion or race. Language is above all a means of communication. It is good that as many people of the world as possible should be able to communicate with each other freely. It just happens that at this moment in the world's history English is one of the languages many want to learn. Let's make sure when they do that they can all speak to each other.

Forbes

“What are we going to teach them if we do not teach them Standard English?”

Yes; and to some extent, standard English could be defined as the form of English non-natives learn.

Another consideration is consistency. If a native speaker uses non-standard phrase X, he is likely to use non-standard phrases Y and Z too, and to speak with one of several accents. In other words, his English will be consistent and unremarkable.

In a non-native speaker, on the other hand, the use of non-standard phrases and pronunciations is likely to be inconsistent. This may make his English sound "odd", or less competent than it is.

MrP