+0
I'm intrigued. On another forum, Mr P mentioned of the term "standard spoken English". He hasn't yet given a clear definition of what he means by that term, but he has excluded the use of "if I have/get chance..." over "if I have/get the/a chance..." from his view of what is standard spoken English.

I wonder, what do you all think the term "standard spoken English" means and would you, as Mr P did, exclude the above? And these, would you exclude from spoken standard English's borders?

-Things going well, are they?
-He won't be late I don't think.
-She about six foot tall.
-wanna/gonna
-Jamie, he's got a new hat.
-He's got a new hat, Jamie.
-There's a hairy thing on the green stuff.
-Dave coffee?
-He got killed.
-I was worried I was going to lose it and I did almost.
-You know which one I mean probably.
-A friend of mine, his uncle had the taxi firm when we had the wedding.
-Do you know erm you know where the erm go over to er go over erm where the fire station is not the one that white white...
1 2 3 4
Comments  (Page 4) 
AnonymousThat may well be true, Koyeen, but what about this part?

<<<nor were they (the British and Americans), as subjects, found to be the most able to understand the different varieties of English" (Smith, 1992).'>>>

If that is actually true... maybe non-native speakers are more likely to be "flexible", since they had to learn a new language, new structures, new ways of expressing their thoughts, and some also learned a new set of sounds. So they might focus more on "making themselves understood in some way" and might have tried to get used to different dialects more than native speakers, who often are only used their own variety and few others.
But that's just an explanation I made up... It is a actually a pretty subjective thing. Some native speakers understand several varieties pretty easily, while others have trouble understanding very different dialects. It depends.
Kooyeen Some native speakers understand several varieties pretty easily, while others have trouble understanding very different dialects. It depends.
Yes; the most that Smith (1992) could reasonably conclude was that, interestingly, the native speakers (from Britain and the US) he had selected were not found to be the most easily understood, nor were they, the native speakers he had selected, as subjects, found to be the most able to understand the different varieties of English that he presented them with.

MrP
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
<If that is actually true...>

Why would it be false?

<So they might focus more on "making themselves understood in some way" and might have tried to get used to different dialects more than native speakers, who often are only used their own variety and few others. >

So, looking towards an truly international lingua franca, many native speakers would be poorly equipped to deal with such, right?
AnonymousWhy would it be false?
Because I can't be sure. First, I am not a native speaker. Second, I don't understand English the way I'd like to, not yet. Therefore, I can't know how a native speaker perceives English in general. It's something I've always wanted to know though. I wanted to post a video of a guy talking in the strongest southern accent I've ever heard, to see how natives speakers understood him, but there is too much inappropriate language in it, so I doubt I'll ever post it here. Then I remember seeing another video, Scottish accent this time. I basically didn't understand anything the first time I watched it, but later on, the second time, I was able to understand more. And what about songs? It's often impossible for me to understand, and I usually mishear a lot of things... especially in rock songs.

So my understanding is still limited, and I can't know how a native feels about their own language, and what they actually understand. I've never liked statistics very much, especially when they involve such subjective issues, so I usually never want to believe everything someone says, without at least a reasonable explanation. I would expect native speakers who travel a lot to be able to understand different accents better than those who have always lived in the same place, work in a field eight hours a day, and rarely watch TV... just as a sensible thought. But what could I say in general? Nothing...
AnonymousSo, looking towards an truly international lingua franca, many native speakers would be poorly equipped to deal with such, right?
I would say maybe native speakers will have to get used to Indian accents, and Chinglish. Emotion: big smile
, so I usually never want to believe everything someone says, without at least a reasonable explanation.

So now you understand how I felt when Mr P mentined "standard spoken English", but did not go on to explain, in detail, his thinking.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Getting into the guts of so called "standard spoken British English dialect" would these examples fit the bill?

I'm going to have a glass of Merlot 82, me.
I'm having pie and chips, I am.
He complains all the time, he does.
It's not actually very good is it this play?
We're always getting it wrong, us?
She must be quite a good writer, you know.
Finally, a voice of reason. Having read through the forum it seems that many people have forgotten the history of the English language and how it has evolved over time to what we now know as, "standard english. Is it right to dwell on the typos of another when there is no clear indication of their background or education. The true escence, afterall, of the English language is the development of spoken english throughout history, to what it now used today in formal situations as the standard, but is this right? It was, don't forget, never standardized until we introduced printing press, so what is different today? Why must people speak in what is percieved as the correct way to talk, when the actuall reason standard english has been formed is due to evolution from previous ways of speaking?