Search results for 'tag:Speak english tag:Dialects' matching tags 'Speak english' and 'Dialects'

Re: If I'm used only to Standard English, might I have trouble understanding dialects?

edwinhihi — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:50:08 GMT

We cannot speak English as a native speaker if we don't live in an english spoken country or don't put all effort on doing that.

Re: If I'm used only to Standard English, might I have trouble understanding dialects?

Tanit — Fri, 30 May 2008 14:48:26 GMT

Mr Wordy
Welsh people speak English with a distinctive lilting accent that is often described as "sing-song".

Hi,

I had never heard of that expression, and it's just perfect! I've known some people from South Wales (Swansea and Cardiff, especially) and they really seemed to sing while speaking, because of their usage of intonation. It took me some time to get used to it, but it was not difficult after all.
I also met some people from the Valleys, but never became accustomed to their accent - really hard for me.

Re: If I'm used only to Standard English, might I have trouble understanding dialects?

Mr Wordy — Thu, 29 May 2008 19:23:04 GMT

bear2008
How's the Welsh accent? Do Welsh people use Welsh words when speaking in English?

Welsh people speak English with a distinctive lilting accent that is often described as "sing-song". The Welsh accent is not uniform across the whole of Wales though; for example, in north-east Wales the accent sounds to me quite like a Liverpool accent.

I'm not an expert on this topic, but in my personal experience Welsh people rarely if ever use Welsh words when speaking in English to non-Welsh speakers. When talking informally amongst themselves, people who are Welsh/English bilingual may sometimes use a sort of hybrid language that mixes up English and Welsh words, sentences and sentence fragments.

Re: Two question about "where"

Velimir — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:27:21 GMT

Hello Ant 222,

I wouldn't say that the answer on your question is so clearcut,that's all.What I'm saying is that grammar speed up the process of the acquisition of the language.And it is beyond doubt.One reason I often come across in discussion on this issue is that a native learner may never learn grammar and still you will never have his/her grasp of language,and you can learn grammar as much as you want.Such comparison is ridiculous.Put somebody in the situation to live the language,to make for living surrounded with that language,to ask for a glass of water,or a piece of bread,and I bet he'll learn the hardest chinese dialect in no time,along with the whole trillion symbols of alphabet if needed.But people like to make things complicated when they are not. I've read an interesting sentence in one post on the forum nearby:

"Chomsky suggested that children have a built-in mechanism, which he called the Language Acquisition Device, or LAD, which pre-programs them to develop grammar based on the linguistic input they receive."

Although I don't know the context of this sentence,I understand that children have a knack for languages and all other mankind doesn't.That is,children have one device for automatic learning and when they grow up that LAD gadget break down and they are not able to automatically learn anymore,and they have to fetch grammar if they want to learn a language.
Here goes a few trillions of smiling smilies.That would make learning of language very much similar to "Star Wars" or so.I would say that people enjoy making miracles out of everything.Let me be allowed to advise you not to fall for that kind of reasoning.I mean "Look at me,I'm a miracle,I speak english gorgeuously and I don't have to learn grammar",that kind of reasoning.

As to the learning of a second language,I believe that circumstances in which the learner lives make a difference.First of all,the need to use the language daily,how much you read,how much you listen the language,which depends on his/her place of living,job, his/her affinities i.e personality,lifestyle etc.So,your learning situation and my learning situation are two different situations.More or less different.An immigrant who lives in the USA and is exposed to the english language daily,will need less grammar stuff to learn,and I need more to know about it.It is simple as that.And although,the learning of a language is pretty specific,still it doesn't mean that you don't need grammar at all.I mean you may not need a spade to dig a hole,you can dig it with your fingers,but you'll certainly find a spade helpful.If you know what I mean.Grammar gives the basis i.e the logic for learning.What grammar does is the analysis of the mechanics of a language(i.e cutting into pieces)and then put it together in the way which will make it easier to you to learn.By the way,I remember it from high school that analysis and synthesis are scientific methods in acquiring (any) knowledge.If you give proofs that it is just a useless entertainment for idle men then you'll make a scientific breakthrough,and not only in the field of language.Here goes one smiling smiley.

I think that if an ESL learner avoided confusion caused by different terminology for the same concepts (which is a major problem)and occasionaly manage to find some help when he is baffled(as it is possible from this forum for example) he'll find grammar helpful,and will not shy of it.And there is no reason for that since in essence it is not difficult,so you can read it even if you don't see its real value,and don't worry about your health,it will not put some special strain on your brain.Only when you read it and understand it you will know whether it is worth reading.
I think that Quirk gave neatly arranged structure for a correct acquisition of a language i.e its vocabulary. One can learn the bulk of the english language with the help of his grammar,of course paralelly with learning the vocabulary.Let's say 90% of it,and if somebody want to split hairs he may freely turn linguist,or if he want to learn some expression of Texas shepherds which he didn't understand and it gave him a headache,or solve logical puzzles in your leisure time,he can post a question on some forum.Or something.

Best regards

Velimir

Re: Two question about "where"

Velimir — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:27:00 GMT

Hello Ant 222,

I wouldn't say that the answer on your question is so clearcut,that's all.What I'm saying is that by using grammar you speed up the process of the acquisition of the language.And it is beyond doubt.One reason I often come across in discussion on this issue is that a native learner may never learn grammar and still you will never have his/her grasp of language.Such comparison is ridiculous.Put somebody in the situation to live the language,to make for his/her living surrounded with that language,to ask for a glass of water,or a piece of bread,and I bet he'll learn the hardest chinese dialect in no time,along with the whole trillion symbols of alphabet if needed.But people like to make things complicated when they are not. I've read an interesting sentence in one post on the forum nearby:

"Chomsky suggested that children have a built-in mechanism, which he called the Language Acquisition Device, or LAD, which pre-programs them to develop grammar based on the linguistic input they receive."

Although I don't know the context of this sentence,I understand that children have a knack for languages and all other mankind doesn't.That is,children have one device for automatic learning and when they grow up that LAD gadget break down and they are not able to automatically learn anymore,and they have to fetch grammar if they want to learn a language.
Here goes a few trillions of smiling smilies.That would make learning of language very much similar to "Star Wars" or so.I would say that people enjoy making miracles out of everything.Let me be allowed to advise you not to fall for that kind of reasoning.I mean "Look at me,I'm a miracle,I speak english gorgeuously and I don't have to learn grammar",that kind of reasoning.

As to the learning of a second language,I believe that circumstances in which the learner lives make a difference.First of all,the need to use the language daily,how much you read,how much you listen the language,which depends on his/her place of living,job, his/her affinities i.e personality,lifestyle etc.So,your learning situation and my learning situation are two different situations.More or less different.An immigrant who lives in the USA and is exposed to the english language daily,will need less grammar stuff to learn,and I need more to know about it.It is simple as that.And although,the learning of a language is pretty specific,still it doesn't mean that you don't need grammar at all(as an ESL learner)since it gives the basis i.e the logic for learning.What grammar do is analysis of the mechanics of a language(i.e cutting into pieces)and then put it together in the way which will make it easier to you to learn.By the way,I remember it from high school that analysis and synthesis are scientific methods in acquiring (any) knowledge.If you give proofs that it is just a useless entertainment for idle men then you'll make a scientific breakthrough,and not only in the field of language.Here goes one smiling smiley.

I think that if an ESL learner avoided confusion caused by different terminology for the same concepts (which is a major problem)and occasionaly manage to find some help when he is baffled(as it is possible from this forum for example) he'll find grammar helpful,and will not shy of it.And there is no reason for that since in essence it is not difficult,so you can read it even you don't see its real value,and don't worry about your health,it will not put some special strain on your brain.Only when you read it and understand it you will know whether it is worth reading.
I think that Quirk gave neatly arranged structure for a correct acquisition of a language i.e its vocabulary. One can learn the bulk of the english language with the help of his grammar along with learning the vocabulary.Let's say 90% of it,and if somebody want to split hairs he may freely turn linguist,or if he want to learn some expression of Texas shepherds which he didn't understand and it gave him a headache,or solve logical puzzles in your leisure time,he can post a question on some forum.Or something.

Best regards

Velimir

If you

Charlotte_T — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:49:47 GMT

If you...

Are 16-19 years old

Are working hard to speak English (proper one, not the one full of dialects)

Are a Harry Potter/ Daniel Radcliffe/ Rupert Grint/ Emma Watson fan

Live in UK / or would love to go to UK/ Studying there

Dislike those who smoke

Dislike people who criticise for the sake of criticising

Despise those who take drugs

Are interested in the field of Science (Biology/Medicine)

I hope we can be e-friends Please contact me via autumn_scent@hotmail.com or leave a message at http://scentofsecrets.blogspot.com

Re: He, she ,we

Kooyeen — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:57:53 GMT

Marvin A. wrote:
Then I guess it is the tense-lax neutralization thing that occurs in my dialect. I honestly can't hear the difference. To me, they sound exactly identical (the vowel in beer and bit), and if I were to write it fauxnetically, I would probably write bir. I think it is because we are native speakers of different languages, we actually have different distinctions that we can naturally hear.

Yeah, you are probably right. It's no use keeping on discussing this... our languages are different. There are a lot of variations and accents in English, and my accent is still very variable because I don't practice much and I live in Italy (where I don't speak English). Another problem is the way we write transcriptions. We write /e/ or /E/, but the truth is that many people produce vowels that are around those sounds, or in between. We would need to mark a certain area in the IPA chart of vowels every time we discuss a sound. And it would still be difficult to describe certain vowels, because, as you say, the way you pronounce certain sounds might affect the way you perceive other similar sounds.

Re: Beginning to define the difference.

Kooyeen — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:18:25 GMT

Hi,
I wanted to say it would probably be considered wrong because it is not a structure that is part of English, considering English as a first language.
It's like the bit-beet merger (both pronounced "beet"). Is there a dialect that merge those? No, you would say. But I could tell you that's the way Italian speak English, so it's actually Italian English. So, now, would you say that merger should be considered, from a descriptive point of view? I wouldn't take it into account, because English is not the first language in Italy, it is not an official language, and it is not a second language either.

That's why I said that "Are you live in China" instead of "Do you live in China" is wrong, because it is not part of English, when you consider English as a first language, second language, or official language.

But if you want to consider all of those variations... then it's a mess! You would have to write a desctiptive grammar that takes account of the way Italians, Germans, etc. speak English.

Re: Who's learning Indian English?

milky — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 10:09:14 GMT

When were native speakers exported to the US? The US became the US at what date?

Was France ruled by Britain for a few hundred years?

<Now, we could certainly call this a "dialect", and even a "standardized dialect" of English-->

As is Standard American English.

May Americans would not eveb know that Denmark is a country. So, time to educate yourselves?

How many people would that be?

<Remember, that we have a different mentality over here, since we are not often exposed to people with a strong accent. >

Not even Spanish speakers? I think what is really happening here is that you and your mates don't have much contact with "foreigners" who live in your country.

I've been teaching EFL for 26 years all over the globe. Most of the studtent complaints I get about understandability are related to the way white Americans speak.

Re: Who's learning Indian English?

Marvin A. — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 16:52:16 GMT

Sorry to contradict you, but that is exactly what is happening in the USA today. Speakers of other Standard variants and indeed taking classes in using Standard American English. The question is, why don't Standard American English speakers, want to do the same when they plan to have long-term contact with certain speakers of other standard dialects?

I think the difference, is that English originated in England, and some of the native speakers were exported to the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. They spoke the original dialects, which slowly went their separate ways over the years. This is a totally difference case, then when non-native speakers learn English. The situation in India is about the same as that in France. The French learn English at school, and/or from their parents. Their parents are *not* native speakers of English. Now, we could certainly call this a "dialect", and even a "standardized dialect" of English--because they would all make the same mistakes, etc., and have very similar pronunciation and grammar. Even if they learned it as a second or third generation person--e.g. their grandparents passed down their knowledge of English to their children, who then passed it on to their children. Ok, this is all well and good, but if they decided to go to an English speaking country, they would not be regarded as being native speakers of English (whether or not they technically were). I have a feeling that when it comes to Indian-English, it is more common to hear it Britain than it is in North America (excluding our larger cities). I know that over there, there are many Indians--so it is more likely that they would consider it to be a proper dialect of English and grant it recognition as a valid form of English. Over here, I'd say that the majority of people don't even know that many people speak English in India, and even if they did, it would be regarded rather the same as how French people, or how Koreans speak English. To add to the problems, since it is not a form of English that we are used to, from what I've heard, it is considered to be one of the *most* difficult accent on English to understand--most people I've talked to have rated it far below say a strong Chinese, or Vietnamese accent in comprehension. Remember, that we have a different mentality over here, since we are not often exposed to people with a strong accent. That is why they would have to learn a recognized dialect of English. Ironically enough, though, if they learned a nearly perfect British accent of English, they would be more likely to be considered to be native speakers of English on this side of the pond, than if they learned a near perfect North American dialect.