Speech Therapy for foreigners
Pakman
I am thinking about taking speech therapy. I have a foreign accent,
which if not all the times, but at time is hard to understand, or often
misunderstood. The therapist I talked to, said that everyone who has
taken such therapy has improved, but she would not say how much. Only
putting it as "it's upto you, and your hard work". The thing is gonna
run me around a thousand dollars. The thing is not about money, but
time. If I can reduce my accent and sound a lot like speaking American
English, than it would be worth every penny. Has anyone had any
experiences with such therapy, or know people who have significantly
improved? Also, I am 21, and been living in the States for about 5
years. So I am thinking that since I am not to old, I can teach myself
to speak proper American English with therapy. Any advice would be
appreciated. By the way, I already tried doing different things like
reading aloud and trying tongue twisters on my own.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
mike_l...@my-deja.com
of time and money. Speech therapy is a profession connected with
medicine, not for the healthy.
There's nothing at all wrong with having a foreign accent. Your English
just isn't perfect yet, that's all. You might even sound strange if
your accent was much better than your "grammar".
Why not go to evening classes in moderately advanced English for
foreign students? Then you could work on the whole problem, not just a
part of it.
Enjoy it.
Mike.
Pakman
writer for my schools paper, and often wrote editorials. So I really
have no problem with that part of English. But thanks for your opinion.
In article <941pn0$p5j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Arcadian Rises
>I am thinking about taking speech therapy. I have a foreign accent,
>which if not all the times, but at time is hard to understand, or often
>misunderstood. The therapist I talked to, said that everyone who has
>taken such therapy has improved, but she would not say how much. Only
>putting it as "it's upto you, and your hard work". The thing is gonna
>run me around a thousand dollars. The thing is not about money, but
>time. If I can reduce my accent and sound a lot like speaking American
>English, than it would be worth every penny. Has anyone had any
>experiences with such therapy, or know people who have significantly
>improved?
Once I had a very bad experience with a speech therapist. She charged me $250
for an evaluation. Next session, she told me to buy a book which was about
phonemics, and then we chatted on various subjects. The only advice I got for
the $100 session of 30 minutes was to lower the pace of my speech. On the third
session, when I came with the book, she admitted frankly that she was not very
familiar with those symbols in the book and I believed her, mainly because she
hid my book on her desk and tried to divert my attention when I was about to
leave so that I would forget to take my book. Now, in retrospect, I'm sorry I
didn't give her a piece of my mind.
This is a horror story.I hope someone will tell you about a successful
experience.
I knew that every profession has such quacks, but, unfortunately for me, my
bad experience had deterred me to seek professional advice on a matter that is
extremely important to me.
One thing my therapist was right about: you need at least 3 sessions a week,
plus a lot of practice in order to get some effective results. So, it's not
only money, but also a lot of time involved, not to mention peace of mind, to
be able to _unlearn_ some pronunciation habits and build new ones.
My advice is to look for a good speech therapist, with a good reputation. Then
you need to take time off from whatever you're doing in order to go through an
intensive training, the only one that's really effective. During this time,
you're not supposed to utter any other words but those allowed by your
therapist, preferably go into seclusion. This is how you can unlearn forever
all the words you pronounce with your accent.
The duration of the intensive training depends upon many factors, including
your age and the time you've been speaking English with your accent.
>I am 21, and been living in the States for about 5
>years.
Lucky you! Up until the age of 25, (when the bone system settles) it's a lot
easier to unlearn old habits and learn new ones, than later on in life.
>So I am thinking that since I am not to old, I can teach myself
>to speak proper American English with therapy. Any advice would be
>appreciated. By the way, I already tried doing different things like
>reading aloud and trying tongue twisters on my own.
Also, look up the dictionary for the pronunciation of every word, especially
the ones you use frequently.
Good luck, and if you hear of a good speech therapist, please let me know.
Arcadian Rises
>Speech therapy is a profession connected with
>medicine, not for the healthy.
>
You're right. The correct name is probably "voice coach" or something similar.
>There's nothing at all wrong with having a foreign accent.
In many occasions I find this extremely patronizing. I'm sure, in this case it
was not your intention, but please, excuse me for using this opportunity to get
something out of my chest.
Do you have any idea how does it feel like, in a casual conversation, when
you've just opened your mouth to say something very impersonal, and people ask
you right away "where are you from?", then commedn you on your "great English"
diverting the conversation to your personal history?
In many respects I feel that I'm more American than an apple pie, but my
ethnicity _always_ comes up in any conversation with new people. Not that I'm
ashamed of my ethnic background, on the contrary, but in many conversations it
is absolutely irrelevant.
R Fontana
> Do you have any idea how does it feel like, in a casual conversation, when
> you've just opened your mouth to say something very impersonal, and people ask
> you right away "where are you from?", then commedn you on your "great English"
> diverting the conversation to your personal history?
>
> In many respects I feel that I'm more American than an apple pie, but my
> ethnicity _always_ comes up in any conversation with new people. Not that I'm
> ashamed of my ethnic background, on the contrary, but in many conversations it
> is absolutely irrelevant.
In the United States, this doesn't just happen to non-native speakers
(except maybe for the "great English" remark[1]), and it isn't only native
speakers who ask these sorts of questions. (One non-native speaker once
got quite angry at me for claiming that I was a native American speaker;
he thought my accent indicated otherwise.) Whether such remarks should be
regarded as rude or as friendly, or a combination thereof, varies greatly
with context.
[1]Actually I now remember that more than one native-speaker Asian
American has told me that non-Asian Americans have said things to them
like "Hmm, how odd that you speak English so well", etc.
R Fontana
> Also, I am 21, and been living in the States for about 5
> years. So I am thinking that since I am not to old, I can teach myself
> to speak proper American English with therapy. Any advice would be
> appreciated. By the way, I already tried doing different things like
> reading aloud and trying tongue twisters on my own.
I would suggest listening carefully to news broadcasters (except for Peter
Jennings, who sounds too Canadian, and Dan Rather, who sounds too
Texan[1], and Tom Brokaw, who sounds too strange) and trying to emulate
their pronunciation. In general, be sure to watch a lot of
(English-language) TV, but do not watch too many comedies. Don't watch
C-SPAN. Radio is good too, maybe better.
Also, and probably much more important, you should be actively conversing
with bona fide native speakers as much as possible. Obviously a lot of
native speakers are arrogant fools, but there are some nice ones.
Finally, remember that you can speak "proper American English" and
distinguish "cot" from "caught". Don't let any accent reduction coach
tell you otherwise.
[1]Probably sound advice even if you live in Texas.
Fabian
is qualified to help people who cannot speak properly because of a
congenital defect or an accident, wouldn't it be better to consult a
qualified EFL teacher and take some intensive lessons on pronunciation?
Personally, I'm a fan of the "Tree or Three" series, but you might not
want that, as it is very definitely British RP pronunciation.
--
Fabian
R Fontana
> Rather than consult a speech therapist, who, as I understand the term,
> is qualified to help people who cannot speak properly because of a
> congenital defect or an accident, wouldn't it be better to consult a
> qualified EFL teacher and take some intensive lessons on pronunciation?
>
> Personally, I'm a fan of the "Tree or Three" series, but you might not
> want that, as it is very definitely British RP pronunciation.
I imagine it wouldn't go over too well in Jamaica either.
Richard Crowley
> I am thinking about taking speech therapy.
> I have a foreign accent, which if not all the
> times, but at time is hard to understand, or
We have many engineers at work (Intel) from non-English speaking countries
around the world. There is a informal arrangement with several speech
therapists/coaches for helping those with more difficult-to-understand
accents. As a native speaker, I don't know much more than that, but if you
wish, I can post your inquiry on our internal newsgroup.
I have observed that those who work regularly with people with heavy accents
develop more acute listening skills for decoding what is being said.
RC in OR
Pakman
university!
In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.10101161152110.1359-
100...@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu>,
Arcadian Rises
>I would suggest listening carefully to news broadcasters (except for Peter
>Jennings, who sounds too Canadian, and Dan Rather, who sounds too
>Texan[1], and Tom Brokaw, who sounds too strange) and trying to emulate
>their pronunciation
I try (unsuccessfully) to emulate Diane Sawyer.
Arcadian Rises
>Rather than consult a speech therapist, who, as I understand the term,
>is qualified to help people who cannot speak properly because of a
>congenital defect or an accident, wouldn't it be better to consult a
>qualified EFL teacher and take some intensive lessons on pronunciation?
>
An EFL teacher may try to correct bad pronunciation, but it's not qualify to
teach how to _unlearn_ bad pronunciation habits.
Let's face it, an accent is a handicap, so whoever wants to get rid of a
foreign accent needs professional help.
mike_l...@my-deja.com
arcadi...@aol.com (Arcadian Rises) wrote:
> >From: mike_l...@my-deja.com
>
> >Speech therapy is a profession connected with
> >medicine, not for the healthy.
> >
>
> You're right. The correct name is probably "voice coach" or something
similar.
>
> >There's nothing at all wrong with having a foreign accent.
>
> In many occasions I find this extremely patronizing.
>I'm sure, in this case it
> was not your intention, but please, excuse me for using this
opportunity to get
> something out of my chest.
>
>
> Do you have any idea how does it feel like, in a casual conversation,
when
> you've just opened your mouth to say something very impersonal, and
people ask
> you right away "where are you from?", then commedn you on your "great
English"
> diverting the conversation to your personal history?
>
like. I had most of my education in the UK, and have an almost-
perfect "posh-English" accent. When I tell people here I'm Australian,
some of them feel free to tell me how _pleased_ they are I haven't got
an Australian accent; others merely mention - perfectly reasonably -
that they wouldn't have known, but look surprised when I say "Yes, it's
a pity, isn't it?" thus revealing that they thought they had being
saying something nice, rather than merely factual. It makes me want to
get off me bike.
This kind of thing exists in varying degrees: I'd always thought the
British and French were the worst offenders, but I suppose they're just
depressingly normal!
>
> In many respects I feel that I'm more American than an apple pie, but
my
> ethnicity _always_ comes up in any conversation with new people. Not
that I'm
> ashamed of my ethnic background, on the contrary, but in many
conversations it
> is absolutely irrelevant.
>
Hang loose,
hil...@e-com3.com
Speech therapy is really for correcting medical problems. I would
suggest elocution lessons if you were really concerned about your
pronounciation.
Pakman
native speakers.
In article <wI%86.38049$kC2.1...@e420r-sjo2.usenetserver.com>,
Pakman
wanna do? Is that speech therapy?
In article <941nr0$ne6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Pakman <ahm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Simon R. Hughes
> >From: mike_l...@my-deja.com
>
> >Speech therapy is a profession connected with
> >medicine, not for the healthy.
> >
>
> You're right. The correct name is probably "voice coach" or something similar.
>
> >There's nothing at all wrong with having a foreign accent.
>
> In many occasions I find this extremely patronizing. I'm sure, in this case it
> was not your intention, but please, excuse me for using this opportunity to get
> something out of my chest.
>
> Do you have any idea how does it feel like, in a casual conversation, when
> you've just opened your mouth to say something very impersonal, and people ask
> you right away "where are you from?", then commedn you on your "great English"
> diverting the conversation to your personal history?
There is one more step to the ritual if you happen to be a
native-speaker of English in a foreign country: the other person shows
you how much they like speaking English, and how good (or bad) they
are at it.
I took my son to the doctor for a routine check-up once, and the
doctor would not stop speaking to us in English. I was patient (no pun
intended), but my son, who is naturally bilingual (a native-speaker of
Norwegian as well as English), was at least confused -- perhaps he
felt insulted -- and refused to allow the doctor to examine him at
all. And who can blame a six-year old?
My wife talks to that doctor about our kids these days.
> In many respects I feel that I'm more American than an apple pie, but my
> ethnicity _always_ comes up in any conversation with new people. Not that I'm
> ashamed of my ethnic background, on the contrary, but in many conversations it
> is absolutely irrelevant.
Patience. I have found that to be the only solution. That and a
patronising smile that lasts until the other person has run out of
steam, at which point, you can resume your conversation.
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://www.geocities.com/a57998/subconscious/
Quoting Usenet postings in follow-ups --
http://www.geocities.com/a57998/quote.html
John Lawler
>mike_l...@my-deja.com writes:
>> Speech therapy is a profession connected with
>> medicine, not for the healthy.
> You're right. The correct name is probably "voice coach" or something
> similar.
More important, speech therapists are trained to recognize clinical
dysfunction, and to correct it. But if there's nothing clinically wrong,
they're not the professional of choice. It's like going to see a dentist
because your kid's baby teeth are falling out. You may not like it, but
it's natural, and the dentist isn't going to help much in most
circumstances. What you need is a phonetics teacher, who can show
you precisely how to form the sounds in context and drill you on them.
>>There's nothing at all wrong with having a foreign accent.
> In many occasions I find this extremely patronizing. I'm sure, in this
> case it was not your intention, but please, excuse me for using this
> opportunity to get something out of my chest.
> Do you have any idea how does it feel like, in a casual conversation,
> when you've just opened your mouth to say something very impersonal, and
> people ask you right away "where are you from?", then commedn you on
> your "great English" diverting the conversation to your personal
> history?
Well, as a matter of fact, I do know exactly what that feels like, though
I must say it's been a while since I've experienced it. I don't have the
same take on it as you do, since I'm a linguist and professionally
interested in language, and also damned proud to receive compliments from
native speakers on my mastery of any language I'm trying to speak. In my
case, they function as validations for a lot of hard work.
That said, I must also say that my countrymen are more than usually
naive about language, and envious of any certified polyglots. Even if
your accent were diminished almost to the vanishing point, your ethnicity
would still come up as a topic because most Americans believe they're
complimenting you by commenting on it; they really do envy you.
> In many respects I feel that I'm more American than an apple pie, but my
> ethnicity _always_ comes up in any conversation with new people. Not
> that I'm ashamed of my ethnic background, on the contrary, but in many
> conversations it is absolutely irrelevant.
Well, I'm afraid that's just a fact about America and Americans, which we
might as well get used to, since we're not about to change it. I have no
idea what ethnicity you are -- it doesn't show in your Usenet posts -- but
consider that there are worse things than having a Lithuanian accent.
You could be African-American, for instance, and recognizable as such by
your appearance, as well as your speech; you'd find the treatment meted
out considerably worse than "patronizing".
Getting back to the original question, about how to lose an accent,
I'd suggest an ESL course, or a tutoring session with an experienced
ESL teacher. There are textbooks on teaching pronunciation to non-native
speakers; my colleague Prof. Joan Morley of the Michigan Linguistics
Department and English Language Institute is a world authority on the
subject. A Google search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=joan+morley+english+pronunciation
yields lots of references. And, while Joan started her career as a
speech therapist, I'm sure she'd agree that accent reduction shouldn't
be treated as a clinical problem, but rather as an educational one.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler U of Michigan Linguistics Dept
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have traveled more than anyone else, and I have noticed that even the
angels speak English with an accent." - Mark Twain, 'Following the Equator'
Linz
> What was the technique used in "My Fair Lady"? That is the thing I
> wanna do? Is that speech therapy?
No, that's elocution.
By the way, it would be helpful if you posted under the material
you're responding to, as I've done, as that makes it easier to follow
the conversation.
--
It's a little souvenir of a terrible year
Richard Fontana
Radio news people might be a lot better. But for heaven's sake, don't try
to sound like the people on NPR.
Richard Fontana
On 16 Jan 2001, Arcadian Rises wrote:
>
> Let's face it, an accent is a handicap, so whoever wants to get rid of a
> foreign accent needs professional help.
I think whether it's a handicap depends greatly on what sort of accent it
is and how well the speaker speaks English apart from accent
considerations. Also, perhaps, what sort of handicap-free social
interactions are desired by the speaker.
Alec "Skitt" P.
"Richard Fontana" <rfon...@wesleyan.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.101011...@mail.wesleyan.edu...
Maybe it is just my perception of things, but I believe accents are
overlooked more nowadays than they were, say, in 1949, when I arrived in the
USA. Then recent immigrants were pretty much a rarity and attracted much
attention, some of which was not particularly welcome.
Now it is more an issue of understandability. Myself, I have difficulty
understanding people with strong Vietnamese accents.
Back in 1950, in high school, I thought that the Puerto Ricans kids there
were talking their own language, when in fact they were speaking English
with a Puerto Rican rhythm. I could not understand a word they were saying,
because my English was still very poor at that time.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://i.am/skitt/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
Simon R. Hughes
> What was the technique used in "My Fair Lady"? That is the thing I
> wanna do? Is that speech therapy?
No; that is (based on) a fictitious play.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Thus Spake Pakman:
> > What was the technique used in "My Fair Lady"? That is the thing
> > I wanna do? Is that speech therapy?
>
> No; that is (based on) a fictitious play.
It's a real play. I've seen it. _Nothing On_ is a fictitious play.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |"What is your pet peeve?" is *not*
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |a frequently asked question in
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |alt.usage.english, although we
|frequently get unsolicited answers
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |to it.
(650)857-7572 | Donna Richoux
John Lawler
>Simon R. Hughes <shu...@tromso.online.no> writes:
>> Thus Spake Pakman:
>>> What was the technique used in "My Fair Lady"? That is the thing
>>> I wanna do? Is that speech therapy?
>> No; that is (based on) a fictitious play.
>It's a real play. I've seen it. _Nothing On_ is a fictitious play.
Not only is it a real play, it's based on a real science, phonetics, and a
real phonetician, Daniel Jones. Phonetics (not to be confused with
"phonics") is taught at most colleges. In the rest of the world it's
taught in secondary school, but America is a little backward in its
language education.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler U of Michigan Linguistics Dept
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Language is the most massive and inclusive art we know, a - Edward Sapir
mountainous and anonymous work of unconscious generations." Language (1921)
Andy Averill
"Pakman" <ahm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:941nr0$ne6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Hi,
>
> I am thinking about taking speech therapy. I have a foreign accent,
> which if not all the times, but at time is hard to understand, or often
> misunderstood. The therapist I talked to, said that everyone who has
> taken such therapy has improved, but she would not say how much. Only
> putting it as "it's upto you, and your hard work". The thing is gonna
> run me around a thousand dollars. The thing is not about money, but
> time. If I can reduce my accent and sound a lot like speaking American
> English, than it would be worth every penny. Has anyone had any
> experiences with such therapy, or know people who have significantly
> improved? Also, I am 21, and been living in the States for about 5
> years. So I am thinking that since I am not to old, I can teach myself
> to speak proper American English with therapy. Any advice would be
> appreciated. By the way, I already tried doing different things like
> reading aloud and trying tongue twisters on my own.
I heard a report on NPR a few years back about speech therapists who
specialize in foreign accents. They use different techniques depending on
what country you're from. The idea is that people from each country have
trouble with specific English sounds. For example, French people might have
trouble with "th", so they work on just that one sound for a few minutes a
day until it sounds right. Apparently the therapists get very quick results
this way. I'm sorry I can't give you any information about how to find one
of these therapists, but it struck me as a very sensible approach.
Whether you want to do it is strictly up to you. I'm pretty sure that if I
relocated to another country, I'd be only to glad to get lessons on how to
reduce my American accent. Any comments from ex-pat Americans?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Charles Riggs
<shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
>Thus Spake Pakman:
>> What was the technique used in "My Fair Lady"? That is the thing I
>> wanna do? Is that speech therapy?
>
>No; that is (based on) a fictitious play.
Now if it'd been based on a non-fictitious play, we might better
believe it.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
Unless you want to learn the art of begging money.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>>From: mike_l...@my-deja.com
>
>>Speech therapy is a profession connected with
>>medicine, not for the healthy.
>>
>
>You're right. The correct name is probably "voice coach" or something similar.
>
>>There's nothing at all wrong with having a foreign accent.
>
>In many occasions I find this extremely patronizing. I'm sure, in this case it
>was not your intention, but please, excuse me for using this opportunity to get
>something out of my chest.
<snip>
I found what you had to say interesting. As a minor aside, the
expression is "off my chest".
Charles Riggs
Richard Cavell
> I am thinking about taking speech therapy. I have a foreign accent,
You mean voice coaching. Speech therapy is really for stroke victims and
the like (ie a health care specialty).
I just want to disagree with those who say that the coaching is
unnecessary. Without a doubt, I subconsciously characterise people by
their command of the English language. There are many people who have a
huge vocabulary and write grammatically perfect English, but have thick
accents. They are 'foreign', and will always seem so. A person who speaks
with a fluent accent will seem more intelligent to a person unfamiliar with
their accent. It's unfair but it's true. It'll hurt you in job interviews
and the like.
I can understand most foreign accents because I'm used to them, but I know
many people of an older generation who certainly can't.
I have always thought that mastering the accent is fundamental to mastering
a foreign language. The accent is as much a part of the language as the
lettering, the words, and the grammar.
Richard Cavell
Brian J Goggin
<richar...@mail.com> wrote:
[...]
>I have always thought that mastering the accent is fundamental to mastering
>a foreign language. The accent is as much a part of the language as the
>lettering, the words, and the grammar.
"The" accent?
bjg
Arcadian Rises
>I just want to disagree with those who say that the coaching is
>unnecessary.
I cannot agree with you more.
>Without a doubt, I subconsciously characterise people by
>their command of the English language. There are many people who have a
>huge vocabulary and write grammatically perfect English, but have thick
>accents. They are 'foreign', and will always seem so. A person who speaks
>with a fluent accent will seem more intelligent to a person unfamiliar with
>their accent. It's unfair but it's true.
Ironically, although I speak with an accent, I have exactly the attitude you
mentioned above towards those who speak with an accent, until I know them
better.
This is not prejudice or bias. As you mentioned, it's a subconscious attitude,
and it's anthropologically rooted towards those who are not part of the tribe,
therefore less, or not at all familiar, with the local customs.
>It'll hurt you in job interviews
>and the like.
Especially when you lose your temper driving on the highway and have some words
with a nasty driver.
>
>I have always thought that mastering the accent is fundamental to mastering
>a foreign language. The accent is as much a part of the language as the
>lettering, the words, and the grammar.
It only requires different skills to master it.
And your message is an incentive to sharpen up those particular skills.
You hit the nail right on its head.
Arcadian Rises
>I found what you had to say interesting. As a minor aside, the
>expression is "off my chest".
>
I appreciate your (and anyone else's) kindness to correct my English.
In this particular case it was just a typo. But you can safely assume, in most
cases it ain't typos.
Shahin Malekpour
"R Fontana" <re...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.101011...@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu...
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Pakman wrote:
>
> > years. So I am thinking that since I am not to old, I can teach myself
> > to speak proper American English with therapy. Any advice would be
> > appreciated. By the way, I already tried doing different things like
> > reading aloud and trying tongue twisters on my own.
>
> Jennings, who sounds too Canadian, and Dan Rather, who sounds too
> Texan[1], and Tom Brokaw, who sounds too strange) and trying to emulate
> (English-language) TV, but do not watch too many comedies. Don't watch
> C-SPAN. Radio is good too, maybe better.
> Also, and probably much more important, you should be actively conversing
> with bona fide native speakers as much as possible. Obviously a lot of
> native speakers are arrogant fools, but there are some nice ones.
>
> Finally, remember that you can speak "proper American English" and
> distinguish "cot" from "caught". Don't let any accent reduction coach
> tell you otherwise.
>
> [1]Probably sound advice even if you live in Texas.
Fascinating! Here is my tuppence:
The standard English accent, once upon a time, was the so-called
BBC pronunciation. This mode of articulating English however,
has been subject to gradual change since the spread of mass
communication. Earlier "BBC English" pronunciation was based
on the infamous stiff upper lip and plumy voice affected by the
public school (meaning private and exclusive) educated upperclasses.
Because that mode of speech was perceived to indicate
breeding and sophistication, thus the path to social success,
a growing demand by aspirant social climbers gave rise to the
proliferation of "Elocution Schools" early in the last century.
I have a feeling that the original poster must have been intuitively
thinking of similar consultants, as opposed to "Speech Therapist".
The latter being a specialist trained in remedying impairment in
oral communication, rather than enhancing accent and style.
Contemporary British media's treatment of the English language
has undergone radical changes. Amongst prominent and rising
British broadcasters of late, there are people of Welsh, Scottish,
Afro-Caribbean and Asian origins. They speak with discernable
dialectical tones associated with their culture. They hardly exert
contrived efforts at concealing the origin, colouration, rhythm
or modulation of their voice and speech.
It is forgone conclusion that the English language is the lingua
franca of the global communication. But it is unreasonable, if
not an impediment in itself, to promote linguistic inbreeding by
prescriptive standardisation, or harbouring disdain for diversity.
As the English language increasingly permeates the global
culture, it equally becomes infused with and impregnated by
the productivity of other cultures.
If there is one quality that could be distinguished as the key
to the English language's success in growing into the global
medium of communication, it is its embracing and incorporation
of fresh shades of expression from around the world, irrespective
of the stern custodians frowning on each side. It is that freedom
which makes the English language the most creative and vital
force for communication in the history of mankind. The scope
for the growth of such a lively language is limitless, and its
ownership universal, since it liberates creativity AND diversity.
To have an accent therefore is hardly an impediment. It is a
distinction to be cherished, for it is the sign of rich cultures.
To try and camouflage one's origin by _undue_ mimicking
of a host's speech and mannerism deserves as much scorn,
as shrinking from heaping ridicule on advocates of Puritanism.
Communicating _clearly_ is a different matter:
A change of perspective from seeking _cure_ from unwanted
accent, into viewing language as an Art to be mastered, may
prove a healthier goal in the long run.
Language is a composite craft. It benefits from as much social
sciences as from applied arts. Drama is one amongst them.
Drama develops expressiveness, meaningfulness and clarity
of purpose; the cornerstones of successful communication.
Drama is the enactment of human life, with language amongst
its tools in aiding to make sense of an essentially meaningless
existence by using a mysterious quality known as IMAGINATION.
A short course in drama in a local community centre would
probably confer more benefits in building all round personal
expressiveness in above case, than attending costly sessions
with "Speech Therapists" to bestow average American accent!
Regards,
Shahin Malekpour
---
Neil Coffey
> what country you're from. The idea is that people from each country have
> trouble with specific English sounds. For example, French people might have
> trouble with "th", so they work on just that one sound for a few minutes a
> day until it sounds right. Apparently the therapists get very quick results
> this way. I'm sorry I can't give you any information about how to find one
> of these therapists, but it struck me as a very sensible approach.
As I understand it, the original poster was wanting to work towards
"loosing his foreign accent" or "sounding like a native speaker". This
really requires something far less trivial than what you're suggesting.
For starters, why assume that the 'th' sound you practice beautifully
in one context is going to sound native-like in other contexts --
speakers
do very very subtle context-driven things with the precise timing and
positioning of the articulators which listeners can perceive and which
almost certainly go towards making up what people perceive as 'accent'.
If you're [the original poster] insistant on 'learning' to loose your
foreign
accent, then maybe it might be best to try and find somebody who's
studied the phonetics of English in depth (or study it yourself?) rather
than any old EFL teacher?
Neil
R Fontana
I thought these foreign speakers were concerned that loosing their accents
might have bad consequences, which is why they want to get rid of them.
Pakman
if a person is rich and powerful, than it might not be, but I am none
of that. My accent leads people to think of me as not knowledgeable
about America and Americans. Something like "We Americans .. " or
"In the US..", is very hard to swallow. People utter such ignorant
remarks all time, and they only do so because they see me as a
foreigner. Foreigners with proper american accents do not get these
remarks. They are also more accepted and adjusted to by other people.
And I don't think that having this accent is really a representative of
my rich culture. It is rather comic and unpleasant.
RJ Valentine
[RF] On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Neil Coffey wrote:
...
>> If you're [the original poster] insistant on 'learning' to loose your
>> foreign
>> accent, then maybe it might be best to try and find somebody who's
>> studied the phonetics of English in depth (or study it yourself?) rather
>> than any old EFL teacher?
[RF] I thought these foreign speakers were concerned that loosing their accents
[RF] might have bad consequences, which is why they want to get rid of them.
But not every foreign speaker has the luxury of choosing which accent to
unleash.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net?subject=%3Cnews:alt.usage.english%3E%20>
Brian J Goggin
>Having an accent, specially a Sub-Continental one is a handicap. Maybe
>if a person is rich and powerful, than it might not be, but I am none
>of that. My accent leads people to think of me as not knowledgeable
>about America and Americans.
That gives you an immediate advantage in any negotiations.
>Something like "We Americans .. " or
>"In the US..", is very hard to swallow. People utter such ignorant
>remarks all time, and they only do so because they see me as a
>foreigner.
It's quite likely that many of them *are* extremely ignorant and have
never been beyond Coon Rapids in their lives, apart from occasional
trips to Disneyland.
>Foreigners with proper american accents do not get these
>remarks. They are also more accepted and adjusted to by other people.
>And I don't think that having this accent is really a representative of
>my rich culture. It is rather comic and unpleasant.
My dear chap or chapess, a representative of one of the world's oldest
and richest cultures should not worry about what the brash and
relatively undereducated young folk of a rich but raw country think
about things.
But if you must worry, then turn the whole thing to your advantage.
Remember that many of these folk are searching for meaning in their
meaningless lives and that half-baked mysticism, spiced with touches
of the exotic, is all the rage: look at all that feng shui nonsense
or, before our time, at Madame Blavatsky. Emphasise the accent.
Suggest arcane knowledge. Practise looking wise, saying little and
listening a lot. Hint at mysterious powers. Burn incense. Mention the
Kama Sutra.
You'll know it's all nonsense, but you can have fun with your
companions' ignorance --- until they grow up enough to take you for
what you're really worth.
bjg
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Not only is it a real play, it's based on a real science, phonetics,
> and a real phonetician, Daniel Jones. Phonetics (not to be confused
> with "phonics") is taught at most colleges. In the rest of the
> world it's taught in secondary school, but America is a little
> backward in its language education.
I'd say so if the rest of the world gets the contents of the Phonetics
course I took at Stanford in (their equivalent of) high school. I
find the claim a bit hard to believe, though. Do people really learn
about formants and coarticulations and cardinals and such at that
level? Do they sprain their tongues trying to produce velar
implosives?[1]
And, I guess, more to the point, if people get this in high school,
why do there appear to be so many non-Americans around here who don't
know the first thing about the subject?
[1] My (then) roommate and now wife (two different people) tell
stories the noises I made when trying to wrap my tongue around
implosives. I got to where I could do them -- well enough to
impress one person by correctly pronouncing his name -- but I
still have trouble turning around and producing the following
vowel.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The vast majority of humans have
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |more than the average number of
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |legs.
John Lawler
>jla...@umich.edu (John Lawler) writes:
>> Not only is it a real play, it's based on a real science, phonetics,
>> and a real phonetician, Daniel Jones. Phonetics (not to be confused
>> with "phonics") is taught at most colleges. In the rest of the
>> world it's taught in secondary school, but America is a little
>> backward in its language education.
>I'd say so if the rest of the world gets the contents of the Phonetics
>course I took at Stanford in (their equivalent of) high school. I
>find the claim a bit hard to believe, though. Do people really learn
>about formants and coarticulations and cardinals and such at that
>level? Do they sprain their tongues trying to produce velar
>implosives?
Probably not. High School isn't college, even in Europe. Most high
school students worldwide don't take a full course in phonetics; but
equally, most high school students worldwide take foreign languages (and
frequently learn them, which is not normally the case in the US), and all
such are at least exposed to, and learn to use, the International Phonetic
Alphabet, if only to be able to use their dictionaries, which all use IPA
(except, of course, English dictionaries published in the USA).
Americans, by contrast, think "IPA" means "India Pale Ale".
Neil Coffey
> I'd say so if the rest of the world gets the contents of the Phonetics
> course I took at Stanford in (their equivalent of) high school. I
> find the claim a bit hard to believe, though.
In the UK, there is the opportunity for students to study phonetics
at high school level if they take the English Language A-Level and
carry out a project which involves pronunciation. We're typically
talking fairly simple stuff -- introduction to the cardinal vowel
chart, common symbols and basic transcription which students might
use in transcribing pronunciations for projects. Nothing instrumental
usually. If students carry out projects which ideally demand some use
of phonetic transcription, then there's no *compulsion* to use such
transcription, but it's "highly favoured" by examiners.
> Do people really learn
> about formants and coarticulations and cardinals and such at that
> level?
You have to bear in mind that a considerable limiting factor will
simply be the knowledge of the teacher. It is probably still the
case that the majority of English teachers did literature degrees,
and even those that did some linguistics at university just did so
to avoid doing another subsidiary subject. Luckily this is starting
to change I think, with British universities offering quite
compact yet comprehensive introductory courses, not to mention the
number of comprehensive introductory texts that are now available.
> And, I guess, more to the point, if people get this in high school,
> why do there appear to be so many non-Americans around here who don't
> know the first thing about the subject?
I think the point is that they get this *now* at high school, but
this hasn't been the case for so long (nor has it at university).
Teaching a subject at high school requires (ideally...) teachers
who have trained in that subject. It's only relatively recently I
think that linguistics components of everyday university language
courses have become commonplace, and it takes a little while
for things to filter through... Give it time.
Neil
R Fontana
> Having an accent, specially a Sub-Continental one is a handicap. Maybe
> if a person is rich and powerful, than it might not be, but I am none
> of that. My accent leads people to think of me as not knowledgeable
> about America and Americans. Something like "We Americans .. " or
> "In the US..", is very hard to swallow. People utter such ignorant
> remarks all time, and they only do so because they see me as a
> foreigner. Foreigners with proper american accents do not get these
> remarks. They are also more accepted and adjusted to by other people.
I'm not really sure what you mean here. It's rare for adult immigrants to
lose their "foreign" accents so much that their accent is no longer
identifiably "foreign". It's probably quite natural for the strength of
the accent to be reduced over time. I suppose that such a reduced accent
results in an overall increase in comprehensibility. What's a foreigner
with a "proper American accent"? What's a "proper American accent"?
The US is in general a fairly xenophobic country and so anyone with any
sort of perceived "foreign" accent will face some obstacles if he or she
attempts to interact with members of the larger public, many of whom will
be xenophobic or worse to a greater or lesser degree. Some geographical
and social subsets of the US are more tolerant of outward signs of
diversity, "foreign"ness, etc., than others, and it's possible that you're
currently living in a relatively non-cosmopolitan part of the US.
I think what you're experiencing may be not entirely dissimilar to what so
many human beings experience, including native-speaker Americans within
America, in some way or other. Obviously some people are more likely to
experience more harmful forms of prejudice than others, and indeed you
will probably never face the sorts of obstacles encountered, say, by
native-speaker African-Americans. But unless you close yourself off
entirely from the larger society, as many people do, you will sooner or
later feel uncomfortably different. Certainly some minimal conformity is
probably desirable but at a certain point you just have to decide that
enough is enough. You mentioned that you're in Texas. Do you have any
idea how a strong Texan accent is viewed in many parts of the country? Is
that a "proper American accent"? I recently moved to a semi-rural part
of Connecticut. I feel sort of peculiar wearing my wool overcoat around
here; I notice (when I go shopping) that local members of the community
seem all to wear these rather ridiculous-looking parkas and down jackets
and such. Do you think I should throw out my trusty wool overcoat[1]?
Should I consult a semi-rural American fashion expert?
And as for accent, I'm one of the few Americans who distinguishes among
"Mary", "marry" and "merry". Do you see me consulting an elocution coach?
Never! But am I tolerant of people who pronounce "marry" and "merry" as
"mairy"? You bet! Sure, I want my fellow countrymen to "accept" me and
"adjust" to me, but one must set limits. A celebration of individualism
is, after all, an important component of the national American cultural
identity.
Hope this helps.
[1]Actually it's not *that* trusty, and it probably could have been
designed in a way that would be more conducive to providing warmth, and I
find it's a bit awkward driving a car while wearing a normal-length
overcoat, but still.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> writes:
> >jla...@umich.edu (John Lawler) writes:
>
> >> Not only is it a real play, it's based on a real science,
> >> phonetics, and a real phonetician, Daniel Jones. Phonetics (not
> >> to be confused with "phonics") is taught at most colleges. In
> >> the rest of the world it's taught in secondary school, but
> >> America is a little backward in its language education.
>
> >I'd say so if the rest of the world gets the contents of the
> >Phonetics course I took at Stanford in (their equivalent of) high
> >school. I find the claim a bit hard to believe, though. Do people
> >really learn about formants and coarticulations and cardinals and
> >such at that level? Do they sprain their tongues trying to produce
> >velar implosives?
>
> Probably not. High School isn't college, even in Europe. Most high
> school students worldwide don't take a full course in phonetics; but
> equally, most high school students worldwide take foreign languages
> (and frequently learn them, which is not normally the case in the
> US),
My feeling has always been that this is skewed by the fact that in the
US, English is both the regional and current global lingua franca. I
would guess that when most people around the world learn a foreign
language, they either learn the current international language of
science and/or trade, a language which is locally important or
high-status, or a language which is important religiously. The last
is constitutionally difficult to force here, and the first two impose
no pressure on English-speaking Americans, who already speak both.
(Although when I was growing up in Chicago in the mid-1970s, Spanish
was required in the public schools seventh and eighth grade, largely
because it *was* locally important.)
The other difference between the US and Europe is that in Europe one
can (and often does for vacation) easily drive to a country in which
the dominant language is not your own, so there is both a reason to
become fluent and an easy way to immerse yourself. In the US, the
only languages that have this property are English and French, and
only for a portion of the population. (Growing up in Chicago, we
didn't think of driving either to Mexico or Québec for vacation.)
So given the lower pressure, I'm not sure we do all that badly.
Certainly most of my high school class took at least one year of a
language, and most took more. (We had French, German, and Spanish
available.) After five years (including seventh grade in Chicago) of
Spanish I was probably about as fluent as you can get without actually
immersing yourself (including occasionally dreaming in Spanish), but
it's pretty much gone, at least the productive aspect of it.
But in any case, what *is* the situation in other countries?
Especially other English speaking countries that have the same
local/global lingua franca situation that we do. Do kids in the UK
and Ireland learn foreign languages other than those of nearby
European countries (or "domestic" languages like Welsh and Gaelic)?
What about kids in Australia and New Zealand? Do native-English
speaking kids in Singapore learn languages other than Chinese?
> and all such are at least exposed to, and learn to use, the
> International Phonetic Alphabet, if only to be able to use their
> dictionaries, which all use IPA (except, of course, English
> dictionaries published in the USA). Americans, by contrast, think
> "IPA" means "India Pale Ale".
This I'll grant you. Although given that Pullum and Ladusaw have
sections for each symbol on "IPA Usage" and "American Usage", I'm not
sure that you can completely blame the educational establishment. The
American linguistic community as a whole seems to have lagged behind
in adopting IPA.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |This isn't good. I've seen good,
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |and it didn't look anything like
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |this.
| MST3K
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Evan Kirshenbaum
> The other difference between the US and Europe is that in Europe one
> can (and often does for vacation) easily drive to a country in which
> the dominant language is not your own, so there is both a reason to
> become fluent and an easy way to immerse yourself. In the US, the
> only languages that have this property are English and French, and
Spanish and French, obviously.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |A specification which calls for
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |network-wide use of encryption, but
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |invokes the Tooth Fairy to handle
|key distribution, is a useless
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |farce.
(650)857-7572 | Henry Spencer
Brian J Goggin
<ev...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>The other difference between the US and Europe is that in Europe one
>can (and often does for vacation) easily drive to a country in which
>the dominant language is not your own,
Not from Ireland.
Sorry. Forget I spoke.
[...]
>But in any case, what *is* the situation in other countries?
>Especially other English speaking countries that have the same
>local/global lingua franca situation that we do. Do kids in the UK
>and Ireland learn foreign languages other than those of nearby
>European countries (or "domestic" languages like Welsh and Gaelic)?
Irish children are taught (I do not say "learn") Irish every year for
(in most cases) fourteen years. English is taught too.
I think that most second-level schools offer, and most kids take, at
least one continental language (most often French), certainly for
three years and often for five or six. Some offer a second cntinental
language, to be taken as well as or instead of the first. My daughter
has spent three years learning French; she could have taken German as
well, but chose something else. She has taken a break from French this
year and is learning Spanish and Latin instead, but will return to
French next year and the year after that.
The state examinations at the end of second-level schooling, known as
the Leaving Certificate, include papers in Irish, English, Greek,
Latin, French, German, Spanish, Italian, "Hebrew Studies" (I don't
know how significant the "Studies" bit is) and Arabic. The numbers
taking most of these subjects, apart from French, are fairly small:
see http://www.irlgov.ie/educ/Exams/res99.htm for the 1999 results.
bjg
Evan Kirshenbaum
> I think that most second-level schools offer, and most kids take, at
> least one continental language (most often French), certainly for
> three years and often for five or six. Some offer a second
> cntinental language, to be taken as well as or instead of the first.
This may be a difference between the US and other countries. Here,
I'd guess that it's unusual for any reasonably sized high school to
offer fewer than three foreign languages (typically Spanish, German,
and French). The result is that since different kids take different
languages, there's less common ground and so less perceived emphasis
to stick with it.
> My daughter has spent three years learning French; she could have
> taken German as well, but chose something else. She has taken a
> break from French this year and is learning Spanish and Latin
> instead, but will return to French next year and the year after
> that.
My high school offered French, German, and Spanish. If you wanted to
take Latin or Italian you had to take a bus to our sister school. I
knew one or two kids who did that, but it was a hassle. Looking at
the web site for the high school Josh would wind up in, they offer
five years each of German, Spanish, Latin, and French. The main high
school in Palo Alto has the same and adds five years of Japanese.
> The state examinations at the end of second-level schooling, known
> as the Leaving Certificate, include papers in Irish, English, Greek,
> Latin, French, German, Spanish, Italian, "Hebrew Studies" (I don't
> know how significant the "Studies" bit is) and Arabic. The numbers
> taking most of these subjects, apart from French, are fairly small:
> see http://www.irlgov.ie/educ/Exams/res99.htm for the 1999 results.
It's always hard to tell how to compare such things. Since this seems
to be optional, it probably corresponds to our "Advanced Placement
Exams". If so, then tests are offered here in English, French,
German, Latin, and Spanish. (I took English and Spanish, along with
U.S. History, European History, Calculus, Biology, and Physics.) Then
again, it may not be the same, as they are entirely optional (being
used mainly to "place out of" introductory college courses, and most
students don't take any.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Feeling good about government is like
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |looking on the bright side of any
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |catastrophe. When you quit looking
|on the bright side, the catastrophe
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |is still there.
(650)857-7572 | P.J. O'Rourke
Brian J Goggin
<ev...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>This may be a difference between the US and other countries. Here,
>I'd guess that it's unusual for any reasonably sized high school to
>offer fewer than three foreign languages (typically Spanish, German,
>and French). The result is that since different kids take different
>languages, there's less common ground and so less perceived emphasis
>to stick with it.
What is "reasonably sized"? My daughter's school has a total of about
300 "scholars" [sic] (boarding and day), but I think it's one of the
smaller schools around. On the other hand, I don't know of many
second-level schools with more than 1,500 students.
It has been argued that the presence of Irish as a (more or less)
compulsory subject on the curriculum means that there is less time for
other languages. I don't know that that argument stands up terribly
well, but I suppose there is some effect.
[...]
>> The state examinations at the end of second-level schooling, known
>> as the Leaving Certificate, include papers in Irish, English, Greek,
>> Latin, French, German, Spanish, Italian, "Hebrew Studies" (I don't
>> know how significant the "Studies" bit is) and Arabic. The numbers
>> taking most of these subjects, apart from French, are fairly small:
>> see http://www.irlgov.ie/educ/Exams/res99.htm for the 1999 results.
>
>It's always hard to tell how to compare such things. Since this seems
>to be optional, it probably corresponds to our "Advanced Placement
>Exams". If so, then tests are offered here in English, French,
>German, Latin, and Spanish. (I took English and Spanish, along with
>U.S. History, European History, Calculus, Biology, and Physics.) Then
>again, it may not be the same, as they are entirely optional (being
>used mainly to "place out of" introductory college courses, and most
>students don't take any.
I don't quite follow your description of the American system.
In Ireland, almost all second-level students take the state Leaving
Certificate exam, which is offered in various flavours. However, with
the principal flavour most students (these days) take six subjects;
those subjects are offered at two or more levels. Those wishing to
attend universities will probably take all six subjects at the higher
level. Their six will almost certainly include English, Irish, Maths
and one continental language.
There is no second-level course that would allow students to skip a
third-level course.
bjg
Padraig Breathnach
>On 18 Jan 2001 14:37:48 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum
><ev...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
>>This may be a difference between the US and other countries. Here,
>>I'd guess that it's unusual for any reasonably sized high school to
>>offer fewer than three foreign languages (typically Spanish, German,
>>and French). The result is that since different kids take different
>>languages, there's less common ground and so less perceived emphasis
>>to stick with it.
>
>What is "reasonably sized"? My daughter's school has a total of about
>300 "scholars" [sic] (boarding and day), but I think it's one of the
>smaller schools around. On the other hand, I don't know of many
>second-level schools with more than 1,500 students.
>
of Education plans on the basis of a preference for schools with between 400
and 800 students. The normal duration of second level schooling is five or
six years (one year is taken for a programme which is optional in many
schools).
>It has been argued that the presence of Irish as a (more or less)
>compulsory subject on the curriculum means that there is less time for
>other languages. I don't know that that argument stands up terribly
>well, but I suppose there is some effect.
>
Irish is compulsory, although some students manage to avoid taking it;
others take it, but learn little of the language. I am sure, as Brian
suggests, that it affects the takeup of other languages. This is partly
counterbalanced by the fact that most of our universities require that
students have Irish, English, and a third language. A sizeable minority of
students take two languages in addition to Irish and English.
>[...]
>
>>> The state examinations at the end of second-level schooling, known
>>> as the Leaving Certificate, include papers in Irish, English, Greek,
>>> Latin, French, German, Spanish, Italian, "Hebrew Studies" (I don't
>>> know how significant the "Studies" bit is) and Arabic. The numbers
>>> taking most of these subjects, apart from French, are fairly small:
>>> see http://www.irlgov.ie/educ/Exams/res99.htm for the 1999 results.
>>
There is also provision for students to be examined in other EU languages,
and results are frequently declared for Dutch, although there is no syllabus
prescribed. All the candidates for Hebrew attend one school. I am sure that
you can guess the denomininational character of that school.
>>It's always hard to tell how to compare such things. Since this seems
>>to be optional, it probably corresponds to our "Advanced Placement
>>Exams". If so, then tests are offered here in English, French,
>>German, Latin, and Spanish. (I took English and Spanish, along with
>>U.S. History, European History, Calculus, Biology, and Physics.) Then
>>again, it may not be the same, as they are entirely optional (being
>>used mainly to "place out of" introductory college courses, and most
>>students don't take any.
>
>I don't quite follow your description of the American system.
>
>In Ireland, almost all second-level students take the state Leaving
>Certificate exam, which is offered in various flavours. However, with
>the principal flavour most students (these days) take six subjects;
>those subjects are offered at two or more levels. Those wishing to
>attend universities will probably take all six subjects at the higher
>level. Their six will almost certainly include English, Irish, Maths
>and one continental language.
>
It is more normal for students to take seven subjects. Some take eight. A
very few take more, usually by taking additional instruction outside school.
The national examination statistics can give a distorted impression, as a
high proportion of students repeat the Leaving Certificate (there is
considerable competition for university places) and often drop a subject.
>There is no second-level course that would allow students to skip a
>third-level course.
>
True. In fact, it is normal that teachers in third level colleges presume
that students have no particular prior knowledge of their subjects (which is
frequently true) and I know many university teachers who express the view
that they prefer students not to have taken the subject at second level.
PB
Paul Pfalzner
"Evan Kirshenbaum" <ev...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
news:v9hofx4...@garrett.hpl.hp.com...
> Evan Kirshenbaum <ev...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> writes:
>
> > The other difference between the US and Europe is that in Europe one
> > can (and often does for vacation) easily drive to a country in which
> > the dominant language is not your own, so there is both a reason to
> > become fluent and an easy way to immerse yourself. In the US, the
> > only languages that have this property are English and French, and
>
> Spanish and French, obviously.
>
Actually, in Canada, accents are more common than no accent.
In Toronto, 50% of the population are foreign born.
In Ottawa, we now have 44 different national cuisines available in city
restaurants.
I doubt there is any accent discrimination.
There used to be when the country was only French and English, when French
was looked down upon (speak white!).
Paul
Arcadian Rises
It sure does, but, besides a foreign accent, I might have some reading
comprehension problems, because this is what I understand:
1. There is no point in making any effort to improve your foreign accent. Ours
is an all imperfect world, so in the larger scheme of things, what difference
does it make one more imperfection? Why bother with elocution lessons when even
the TV newspeople speak with annoying accents?
2. You feel awkward because of your accent? Ah ken feehl your pain, it's like
going to the grocery store dressed in an Armani coat.
3. Accent is beautiful, let's celebrate our diversity, Vive la difference!
Here comes the most difficult part for me to comprehend:
>And as for accent, I'm one of the few Americans who distinguishes among
>"Mary", "marry" and "merry". Do you see me consulting an elocution coach?
>Never! But am I tolerant of people who pronounce "marry" and "merry" as
>"mairy"? You bet!
I could only come up with this interpretation:
English pronunciacion is a tough business, even for the native speakers.
Only the I, the Great White Father, know the meaning of Holy Mary, don't marry.
But I'm tolerant of all the more the merrier. I love you all troglodites alike
and you cannot live without me.
Peter Moylan
>But in any case, what *is* the situation in other countries?
>Especially other English speaking countries that have the same
>local/global lingua franca situation that we do. Do kids in the UK
>and Ireland learn foreign languages other than those of nearby
>European countries (or "domestic" languages like Welsh and Gaelic)?
>What about kids in Australia and New Zealand? Do native-English
>speaking kids in Singapore learn languages other than Chinese?
When I was in high school (Australia, 1959-64) the only foreign
language available was French. I think everyone did it for two
years, then the 'A' stream did a further two years, and for the
final two years it was optional. I myself took French for six years,
but by the sixth year the total class size was 4 pupils. In those
days, by the way, nobody even dreamed of teaching a second
language in primary school.
That was at a moderately small school in a small country town.
In the bigger cities, or if one was willing to take subjects by
correspondence (as I did for mathematics) it would have been
possible to take other languages. The next most common
language, after French, was German. Latin and classical Greek
were available, but hardly anyone took them. (Though I believe that
Latin had some popularity in some of the Catholic schools.)
Note that the choice of languages had nothing to do with
regional relevance. The languages taught were those traditionally
taught in England. We still took many of our traditions from
England.
Subsequently there was a downturn in foreign language teaching
in Australia, and many children went through school without
ever learning a second language. In recent years the fashion was
to teach several languages for one year each, which left the
children knowing nothing at all about any of them.
There has now been a slight resurgence of interest in pushing
language teaching. Private schools teach French, or German, or
possibly Italian, and government schools teach Japanese.
It's not yet certain whether any one child will manage to get
all the way through the school years before his or her chosen
language is scrapped through yet another policy shift.
We've never done much in terms of regional relevance. This
country has huge numbers of people whose parents or
grandparents came from Italy or Greece, but Italian and Greek
classes are missing from the schools. Now that the Italians
and Greeks have become fully Australianised we still have
plenty of people whose native language is not English, but
their languages are not being taught by the schools. Of course
it would be difficult to produce teachers fast enough to deal
with the language shifts in our changing migration profile.
Indonesian was taught for a short while, but was dropped due
to a shortage of teachers. Japanese has more of a chance, given
the way tourism is going, and in some regions Japanese is almost
essential if you want to be a bartender or prostitute. Again,
though, there's a shortage of teachers.
Australian aboriginal languages are not taught at all, except in
those few schools where nearly all the children are aboriginal
and where the local language still has some vitality. That's a
pity, I think.
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
See http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au for OS/2 information and software
R Fontana
[after quoting my previous posting, which I've mercifully snipped]
> It sure does, but, besides a foreign accent, I might have some reading
> comprehension problems, because this is what I understand:
>
> 1. There is no point in making any effort to improve your foreign accent. Ours
> is an all imperfect world, so in the larger scheme of things, what difference
> does it make one more imperfection? Why bother with elocution lessons when even
> the TV newspeople speak with annoying accents?
I'm not really saying that. I said that it's probably natural for a
strong foreign accent to become reduced in strength over time; but in
many cases this might be the result of an intentional effort to alter
one's accent. (Something similar can happen with native speakers who grow
up with strong regional accents but move to other places, or interact with
people who have very different accents.)
> 2. You feel awkward because of your accent? Ah ken feehl your pain, it's like
> going to the grocery store dressed in an Armani coat.
I do feel slightly awkward because of my accent, but I kind of like it
too. Unfortunately I don't have an Armani coat, or an Armani anything
(actually I think I might have an old pair of glasses by Armani, but I'm
not sure).
> 3. Accent is beautiful, let's celebrate our diversity, Vive la difference!
I basically do believe this. Just about the only accents I consider ugly
are the Northern Cities Vowel Shift (especially strong versions) and the
Nassau County (Long Island) accent, I guess mainly North Shore. Both of
those are native-speaker American accents. I have never heard a foreign
accent that I thought was truly ugly. Incomprehensible foreign accents
can be a problem, but that's different. I'm not sure that increased
comprehensibility means increased beauty.
> Here comes the most difficult part for me to comprehend:
>
> >And as for accent, I'm one of the few Americans who distinguishes among
> >"Mary", "marry" and "merry". Do you see me consulting an elocution coach?
> >Never! But am I tolerant of people who pronounce "marry" and "merry" as
> >"mairy"? You bet!
>
> I could only come up with this interpretation:
>
> English pronunciacion is a tough business, even for the native speakers.
> Only the I, the Great White Father, know the meaning of Holy Mary, don't marry.
> But I'm tolerant of all the more the merrier. I love you all troglodites alike
> and you cannot live without me.
Well (as Ronald Reagan used to say), I don't think there's any harm in a
little playful accent competition. But also if we few MINMINM Americans
were to all die out, it would be a tragic loss. And for all my dislike of
the Northern Cities Vowel Shift, it does act as a check on the expansion
of the dreadful cot/caught merger. Accent diversity is good. Accent
uniformity is bad (though I could probably live with everyone having an
accent just like mine).
mike_l...@my-deja.com
pe...@totally-official.com wrote:
> Evan Kirshenbaum <ev...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
> >But in any case, what *is* the situation in other countries?
> >Especially other English speaking countries that have the same
> >local/global lingua franca situation that we do. Do kids in the UK
> >and Ireland learn foreign languages other than those of nearby
> >European countries (or "domestic" languages like Welsh and Gaelic)?
> >What about kids in Australia and New Zealand? Do native-English
> >speaking kids in Singapore learn languages other than Chinese?
>
> When I was in high school (Australia, 1959-64) the only foreign
> language available was French. I think everyone did it for two
> years, then the 'A' stream did a further two years, and for the
> final two years it was optional. I myself took French for six years,
> but by the sixth year the total class size was 4 pupils. In those
> days, by the way, nobody even dreamed of teaching a second
> language in primary school.
>
>
> Note that the choice of languages had nothing to do with
> regional relevance. The languages taught were those traditionally
> taught in England. We still took many of our traditions from
> England.
>
because there are teachers, though most British people only ever visit
Spain (where they make fools of themselves as a rule, so perhaps it's
as well they don't know the language). Secondary schools try to provide
a second foreign language, usually German, for a minority of pupils;
and one of our three local secondaries offers Latin because there's a
teacher who likes doing it. My childrens' school used to offer Russian
or Japanese (pupils voted) in years 12-13, but had to stop because
there was no money.
Regional relevance or adult-life practicality have no influence
whatever on schools' choices. The historical accident that French was
in imperial times the most important modern foreign language means a
constant, though inadequate, supply of French teachers will perpetuate
the school dominance of French well into the present century and
perhaps even the next.
As with most educational failings, the British system can always cover
itself by using the products of independent schools to fill the gap. It
is not wise to criticise inadequate public educational provision, as
the argument is usually diverted (with the skill of long practice) by
politicians, schools, and educational theorists alike into accusations
of elitism, snobbery, knocking teachers or "being out of touch".
Grogn-ogn-ogn,
Mike.
Brian J Goggin
[...]
>It
>is not wise to criticise inadequate public educational provision, as
>the argument is usually diverted (with the skill of long practice) by
>politicians, schools, and educational theorists alike into accusations
>of elitism, snobbery, knocking teachers or "being out of touch".
"Accusations"? Are these supposed to be sins or crimes?
bjg
mike_l...@my-deja.com
Jens Tingleff
>
>Hi,
>
>I am thinking about taking speech therapy. I have a foreign accent,
>which if not all the times, but at time is hard to understand, or often
>misunderstood. The therapist I talked to, said that everyone who has
>taken such therapy has improved, but she would not say how much. Only
>putting it as "it's upto you, and your hard work".
Sounds honest enough ;-)
[..]
>years. So I am thinking that since I am not to old, I can teach myself
>to speak proper American English with therapy. Any advice would be
>appreciated.
I've never consulted speech therapists (or voice coaches), so I can't comment on
the likelyhood of success. However, I have spent more than 10 years as a
non-native speaker (mainly of English) and have a few observations about
accents:
- Some people have a very easy time adjusting their accent.
- Some people never lose a native accent.
(I fully expect that swathes of people to fall in between those two extremes ;-)
).
- It's not at all isolated to foreign speakers; I've met Texans living in
California some of whom have lost their accent completely and others who
retained their accent.
Best Regards
Jens
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On 18 Jan 2001 14:37:48 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum
> <ev...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
> >This may be a difference between the US and other countries. Here,
> >I'd guess that it's unusual for any reasonably sized high school to
> >offer fewer than three foreign languages (typically Spanish,
> >German, and French). The result is that since different kids take
> >different languages, there's less common ground and so less
> >perceived emphasis to stick with it.
>
> What is "reasonably sized"? My daughter's school has a total of
> about 300 "scholars" [sic] (boarding and day), but I think it's one
> of the smaller schools around. On the other hand, I don't know of
> many second-level schools with more than 1,500 students.
My high school had about 1,700 students divided into four grades (9
through 12, roughly age fourteen through seventeen at the beginning of
the school year). Our "sister school", the one that offered Latin and
Italian as well, was somewhat bigger. I don't see enrollment numbers
for the high school Josh would go to, but the district we're in, which
contains two high schools, has 2,900 students.
But as for what's "reasonably sized", I'd guess I'd figure "big enough
that, say, two thirds of the first-year students could fill two
classes of each. So, say, 180-200 kids per grade. How many years is
your daughter's school distributed over?
> It has been argued that the presence of Irish as a (more or less)
> compulsory subject on the curriculum means that there is less time
> for other languages. I don't know that that argument stands up
> terribly well, but I suppose there is some effect.
I can certainly see that, and it's one of the reasons that I'm
skeptical of claims of wide foreign language learning in countries in
which English is mandatory as a second language. There's only so much
time in a curriculum.
Let me see if I can describe what goes on here. (Bear in mind that
it's merely different, not necessarily stupid.) We have no national
educational standards or (I believe) education requirements. The
states (which all do have such requirements) tend to leave the
graduation decision entirely up to the individual schools, although
many are starting to insist on statewide minimum (and I do mean
*minimum*) competency exams, due largely to some schools tending to
certify students who were unable to read or add.
The individual schools and school districts have their own
requirements, but these typically involve passing a certain number of
courses in various subjects (e.g., 2 years of math, 2 years of
science, 3 years of English, etc.) with the pass/fail decision left to
the individual instructor.
The result of all of this is that the bare fact of having graduated
from high school isn't of much use and doesn't tell a potential
employer much other than that you were likely able to attend school
for twelve years without doing anything *too* awful.
Since there are no government-mandated national norms, the college
admission decision has to be based on something. One of the hallmarks
of a good admissions direction is a familiarity with pretty much all
of the high schools in the country, to know how to compare a
particular "transcript" (the list of courses taken and grades
received) from one high school with one from another. But other de
facto national norms have arisen as well.
Starting in their junior year, students who intend to go to college
start voluntarily taking tests. The main test required by most
colleges is the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). This is a timed
multiple choice test (with guessing penalty) of *very* basic math and
English skills, and it results in both a score (200-800 on each half)
and an indication of where the student ranks in the population. Most
schools use this to set a minimum eligibility requirement. (When I
graduated from high school there were two competing tests, the SAT and
the ACT, which also included sections on science and "social studies".
Some colleges required one, some the other.)
A year before taking the SAT, many students take the PSAT (Preliminary
SAT), which is the same type of test. This test is used for two
purposes. First, the results are given to all interested colleges,
resulting (if you get a good score) in a deluge of mail from colleges
who would like you to consider attending. Second, it is the
qualifying exam for the National Merit Scholarship, a government
education grant. (If you score sufficiently highly, you become a
semi-finalist and get to fill out an actual application. I made the
first cut but not the final one.)
In parallel with these very basic tests are tests that one can take in
particular subjects to impress the colleges you're applying to. These
come in two flavors. The first, now called SAT II, but, when I took
it, called "Achievement Tests" is similar to the SAT, but the
questions are closer to an actual test of what you'd expect a high
school graduate to know in a particular subject. They are given in,
let's see, English literature, writing, U.S. history, world history,
math (two levels), biology, chemistry, physics, Chinese, French,
German, Modern Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Latin, Spanish, and
"English Language Proficiency". The writing exam has a written
component and the language exams have a "listening" component. You
typically take these tests in groups of three. I took one set:
writing, math, and Spanish. Taking these tests can help with
admission, but I don't think most colleges actually require them.
For students who want to go beyond proving that they are justified in
graduating from high school, there are Advanced Placement (AP) exams,
which certify that the student has already achieved college-level
mastery of a subject. These are half essay/worked problem and half
multiple choice, are graded by people who actually pay attention, and
are graded on a scale of 1 to 5.[1] Students who intend to take these
courses typically take special classes, in which the college level
material is taught. Most colleges will give about a year's worth of
credit (or a little less) and placement in the subject for scores of 4
or 5 on these tests. There are 33 AP courses offered in 23 subjects:
art history, biology, calculus (2 levels), chemistry, computer
science (two levels), economics (macro, micro), English (English,
English Language, English literature), environmental science,
European history, French (language, literature), German, government
& politics (U.S., comparative), human geography, international
English, Latin, music theory, physics (two levels), psychology,
Spanish (language, literature), studio art, U.S. history, World
history
[1] I know they pay attention because on my Calculus exam I got a
completely wrong answer for one of the worked problems, but still
received a 5. Comparing my answer with others (who got a much
simpler one, it became apparent that I dropped a minus sign early
in the calculation but correctly pushed through to the (messy)
answer implied given the mistake.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Object-oriented designs are like
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |software development on drugs...you
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |take inanimate objects and bring
|them to life.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Craig Larman
(650)857-7572
Rosanne Gangi-Gaertner
this thread too much not to respond! I hope that I'm not repeating anything!
First on getting pronunciation help:
I agree with the writers who suggest that pronunciation coaching does have
merit. I am working as a volunteer in a program in NYC that gives both
visitors and recent immigrants to the U.S. an opportunity to improve their
English at a cost that simply covers the overhead of the program ($60 for 12
one-hour sessions). This is certainly a great opportunity to practice and
continue to learn English without dealing with private tutors. This may be
an option for Pakman if in the NY area (http://www.intlcenter.org/).
I'm currently in a Pronunciation Partnership, in which I'm working with a
student from Brazil on not only her pronunciation of the segments/sounds of
American English, but also the rhythm, stress, and melody of the language.
This can be as meaningful a marker of "accent" as anything else. We've also
been working on listening comprehension -- as she has become able to hear
the difference between her accent and mine (along with models on tape),
she's become more confident and competent in using English.
Another option is seeking out students preparing to teach English in TESOL
programs -- they can always use the practice and many would welcome working
with a learner. You can always post notices at local colleges to that end.
And, second, on U.S. accents:
Is there anyone on the group old enough to have been required to go to
speech classes because they spoke a less prestigious dialect of English
(though they were native speakers of English)?
I ask because my Dad, upon entering NYU in the mid-sixties, was sent to a
remedial speech class... his problem? Having a Brooklyn accent! One of my
professors, who I believe was also from the NYC/Northern NJ area was subject
to the same business at Columbia.
I'm currently teaching in NYC and truly relish the accent diversity here,
not only from native speakers but from more recent arrivals. I do understand
the desire to be understood unambiguously and the desire to avoid being held
back in business/career/etc. by changing one's speech. It's a shame that so
much prejudice still surrounds the way we speak (among other things!), but
it is an unfortunate fact of life that we need to keep working on!
Anyway, sorry for the long first post. I get a little too windy when I get
excited about something.
Cheers,
Rosanne
R Fontana
> And, second, on U.S. accents:
>
> Is there anyone on the group old enough to have been required to go to
> speech classes because they spoke a less prestigious dialect of English
> (though they were native speakers of English)?
I understand that Brooklyn College used to (perhaps still does) require
*all* students (most of whom were probably from Brooklyn) to take "accent
reduction classes", as part of the bachelor's degree curriculum.
> I ask because my Dad, upon entering NYU in the mid-sixties, was sent to a
> remedial speech class... his problem? Having a Brooklyn accent! One of my
> professors, who I believe was also from the NYC/Northern NJ area was subject
> to the same business at Columbia.
The irony is that such concerted accent reduction efforts seem to have
resulted only in the creation of a new, Frankenstein's Monster sort of New
York accent, characterized by traditional postwar diphthongs plus a
harsher 'r' than even the Beach Boys or Jan and Dean or Trickie Dick
Nixon could produce. This sort of neo-New York accent is perhaps best
exemplified by the speech of New York's senior Senator, homeboy Chuck
Schumer. Thankfully, this accent seems not to be present among post-Baby
Boomer New Yorkers.
R Fontana
> Let me see if I can describe what goes on here. (Bear in mind that
> it's merely different, not necessarily stupid.) We have no national
> educational standards or (I believe) education requirements. The
> states (which all do have such requirements) tend to leave the
> graduation decision entirely up to the individual schools, although
> many are starting to insist on statewide minimum (and I do mean
> *minimum*) competency exams, due largely to some schools tending to
> certify students who were unable to read or add.
I suppose New York was a pioneer here, with its notorious system of
statewide "Regents" exams taken by secondary school students. The Regents
exams were offered in May or June, a couple of weeks after classes ended.
These exams were, IMO, incredibly easy if you put in a few days' study
time, but I suppose they're not such a bad idea. I think if you don't
pass a certain number of these exams you can't get a high school diploma.
The venerable Barron's publishing house sold, and I think
still sells, compilations of years of previous Regents exams in small
red-covered books.
> The individual schools and school districts have their own
> requirements, but these typically involve passing a certain number of
> courses in various subjects (e.g., 2 years of math, 2 years of
> science, 3 years of English, etc.) with the pass/fail decision left to
> the individual instructor.
>
> The result of all of this is that the bare fact of having graduated
> from high school isn't of much use and doesn't tell a potential
> employer much other than that you were likely able to attend school
> for twelve years without doing anything *too* awful.
I think at one time it was thought to indicate that the person possessed
some minimal degree of literacy and arithmetic skills (i.e., what you're
supposed to get from completing elementary school), but I'm not sure this
is true any longer.
> Since there are no government-mandated national norms, the college
> admission decision has to be based on something. One of the hallmarks
> of a good admissions direction is a familiarity with pretty much all
> of the high schools in the country, to know how to compare a
> particular "transcript" (the list of courses taken and grades
> received) from one high school with one from another. But other de
> facto national norms have arisen as well.
>
> Starting in their junior year, students who intend to go to college
> start voluntarily taking tests. The main test required by most
> colleges is the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). This is a timed
> multiple choice test (with guessing penalty) of *very* basic math and
> English skills, and it results in both a score (200-800 on each half)
> and an indication of where the student ranks in the population. Most
> schools use this to set a minimum eligibility requirement. (When I
> graduated from high school there were two competing tests, the SAT and
> the ACT, which also included sections on science and "social studies".
> Some colleges required one, some the other.)
I think there is to this day some regional variation in the degree to
which one or the other exam is preferred. I don't think the ACT was taken
by anyone in my high school in New York, and probably a lot of people had
never even heard of it. I'm not sure, but I think the ACT may have more
influence in the Midwest than in other reasons.
[...]
> In parallel with these very basic tests are tests that one can take in
> particular subjects to impress the colleges you're applying to. These
> come in two flavors. The first, now called SAT II, but, when I took
> it, called "Achievement Tests" is similar to the SAT, but the
> questions are closer to an actual test of what you'd expect a high
> school graduate to know in a particular subject. They are given in,
> let's see, English literature, writing, U.S. history, world history,
> math (two levels), biology, chemistry, physics, Chinese, French,
> German, Modern Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Latin, Spanish, and
> "English Language Proficiency". The writing exam has a written
> component and the language exams have a "listening" component. You
> typically take these tests in groups of three. I took one set:
> writing, math, and Spanish. Taking these tests can help with
> admission, but I don't think most colleges actually require them.
I don't remember these tests (I would have taken them in 1984 and
1985 I think) being given in explicit groups of three, if that's what
you're saying; I seem to remember two being offered per test date (one in
the morning and one in the afternoon), so that
I think I took one of the English achievement tests on one date and the
American History and one of the Math achievement tests on another date.
What is true, I think, is that most students interested in applying to the
more selective or prestigious colleges would take no fewer than three of
these tests (probably most would take no more than three), and two of the
three would generally be an English/writing and a math test, because the
more selective or prestigious colleges generally required this for
admission. But you're probably right that most colleges don't require
them.
Does anyone know why they were renamed "SAT II"? It seems rather
peculiar to me, though I suppose it can be traced back to _The French
Connection II_.
> For students who want to go beyond proving that they are justified in
> graduating from high school, there are Advanced Placement (AP) exams,
> which certify that the student has already achieved college-level
> mastery of a subject. These are half essay/worked problem and half
> multiple choice, are graded by people who actually pay attention, and
> are graded on a scale of 1 to 5.[1] Students who intend to take these
> courses typically take special classes, in which the college level
> material is taught. Most colleges will give about a year's worth of
> credit (or a little less) and placement in the subject for scores of 4
> or 5 on these tests.
Yes, I took AP Euro[pean History] and some sort of AP English exam, both
of which were associated loosely with classes I (nominally) took during my
senior year. At college we got 2 credits (where a normal course was worth
one credit, unlike the system at most US colleges) for each AP test on
which a 4 or 5 was earned. This helped enable me to graduate in 7
semesters, which I suppose was a slight saving(s) of money, though not of
daylight.
Tom Deveson
>
>I understand that Brooklyn College used to (perhaps still does) require
>*all* students (most of whom were probably from Brooklyn) to take "accent
>reduction classes", as part of the bachelor's degree curriculum.
>
>> I ask because my Dad, upon entering NYU in the mid-sixties, was sent to a
>> remedial speech class... his problem? Having a Brooklyn accent! One of my
>> professors, who I believe was also from the NYC/Northern NJ area was subject
>> to the same business at Columbia.
My cousin grew up in Maryland. When he attended Columbia in the mid
1960s, he was called to account for what were termed 'substandard
regionalisms' and told to remedy them. The curiously forceful phrase
stuck in my head, and came in useful when my wife told me of how she had
been subjected to very similar treatment at Oxford, at about the same
time. Her Geordie accent and grammar [the old will/shall business I'm
afraid] were criticised by a tutor who told her that her linguistic
defects would limit her proper appreciation of the English literature
she was then studying.
I'm glad to say they both rose above this stuff.
Tom
--
Tom Deveson
RJ Valentine
...
[EK] Let me see if I can describe what goes on here. (Bear in mind that
[EK] it's merely different, not necessarily stupid.) We have no national
[EK] educational standards or (I believe) education requirements. The
[EK] states (which all do have such requirements) tend to leave the
[EK] graduation decision entirely up to the individual schools, although
[EK] many are starting to insist on statewide minimum (and I do mean
[EK] *minimum*) competency exams, due largely to some schools tending to
[EK] certify students who were unable to read or add.
...
I've snipped, well most of it, though it was pretty much on the money in a
slice-of-life sort of way. Lemme put a little context to it on both ends,
though.
When I was in high school (mostly in the late fifties) in New York, there
was an academic program that taught pretty much what the Advanced
Placement courses teach today. If you were serious about college, that's
what you took. On top of that, there were New York State Regents
examinations for the important subjects. If you passed enough in the
right proportions, you could get a New York State Regents diploma in
addition to the local high-school diploma. I've still got my PSSC physics
book, and a lot of more "modern" physics texts seem to have taken a lot of
illustrations from it.
In my older kids' day (roughly, Mr. Kirshenbaum's and Prof. Fontana's day,
too), bright kids were invited to take the SAT (not the PSAT) at the age
of twelve, when getting 700 on either half was remarkable. Anybody could
take the PSAT or SAT before the latest possible time and get an idea how
they were doing. At that time, AP courses were standard for the academic
program, and you just took the AP test in most every subject you spent any
time in, and you end up with a program that'd hold water for a selective
school or a program that'd give a year or so head start at a state school,
so you could have some hope of a decent education anywhere. (In the more
selective schools, it's not that important to cut years off the program.)
The ACT was there, and my oldest kid took it for fun, but the SAT seemed
to be the one that counted most places, plus a few "achievement" or "II"
tests.
Nowadays, though, they've also got the International Baccalaureate program
that has exams similar in scope to the AP exams, but they tend to be
two-year courses, and you're supposed to end up with a program that's
comparable with programs all over the world (and the exams and papers are
sent to other countries for grading, so Americans can't get away with
faking it too easily), and roughly equivalent to a community college's
associate degree, but with about the same year-or-so's worth of college
credit that you'd get if you took all the AP courses you could. I'm not
sure that any self-respecting high-school student in an academic program
should shoot for anything less than an IB diploma, any more than one would
have shot for anything less than a Regents diploma back in the old days
(both in addition to the local high-school diploma). (But it's not
necessary or particularly appropriate for students in a vocational
program.) There's probably information about it on the Web.
Another test that's available is the GED test (which probably stands for
something, but that something probably isn't worth knowing), which covers
_minimum_ high-school material for a high=school-equivalency diploma, and
for which there is a supervised and professionally graded _practice_ test
that takes about half the time as the real test. I suggest that practice
test for academically oriented students before they start seventh grade,
and I suspect that high grades on that then is a predictor of high grades
in an academic program over the next six years.
Robert Lieblich
>
> Hello all! I'm new to this group (and a bit of a lurker), but am enjoying
> this thread too much not to respond! I hope that I'm not repeating anything!
<snip much good, useful information>
> Anyway, sorry for the long first post. I get a little too windy when I get
> excited about something.
If your first post is typical, Rosanne, you go right ahead and say
as much as you want any time that you want. I for one found it most
helpful.
Who knows, you may yet become a Respected Regular, with all the
benefits that such status entails -- strangers calling you by your
first name, misunderstandings of what you're trying to say,
responses that you can't understand, insults. So much awaits you.
Jump right in.
Shahin Malekpour
"Pakman" gloomily wrote ...
> Having an accent, specially a Sub-Continental one is a handicap. Maybe
> if a person is rich and powerful, than it might not be, but I am none
> of that. My accent leads people to think of me as not knowledgeable
> about America and Americans. Something like "We Americans .. " or
> "In the US..", is very hard to swallow. People utter such ignorant
> remarks all time, and they only do so because they see me as a
> foreigner. Foreigners with proper american accents do not get these
> remarks. They are also more accepted and adjusted to by other people.
> And I don't think that having this accent is really a representative of
> my rich culture. It is rather comic and unpleasant.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You will know what a "comic and unpleasant accent " is when
one day in the middle of a bustling city street you run into a
lover whose company you coldly parted six years earlier, after
an intense and all-consuming relationship. And she, after all
those years, still looks the incarnation of Julie Christy when
she portrayed "Lara" in David Lean's Dr. Zhivago ... The woman
who nurtured the poet in the man in those bleak years. And
now, she has grown even more beautiful as she has matured.
Quirky as ever, she is dressed in a paint-stained blue boiler
suit, because she is decorating her future law practice. She
has just bought herself a sandwich for lunch. Reluctantly, you
both asundered from the embrace of an unending kiss that
transports you from the mayhem surrounding you. You prepare
to say something vaguely meaningful ... Instead, suddenly, you
are accosted by a drunk, aggressive and incoherent Glaswegian
beggar on the street who seizes upon the occasion to claim his
share of that precious moment! ... You never get the chance to
tell her how much you still loved her ... that you really missed her.
And If you did not suffer a heart attack on the spot, you may
as well be forgiven for thinking that you live to love another
day, and that you shall never hold that incidence as demerit
to disparage the good folks of Glasgow and their endearingly
incomprehensible dialect.
There is no such thing as "unpleasant" accent. Comical maybe,
but never "unpleasant. So long as one responds appropriately
to an occasion for communication. Timing is the essence of
style. Introduce that to your manner of speaking and benefit.
The comedy is the bonus ... help yourself to the laughter too,
when you have humorous effects on others. Say: "Is it the
way I speak that makes you laugh? ... Yes, I know ... I am gifted!" :)
In the case of maturer respondents, it may not be ridicule that
you are experiencing. In the case of less mature ones smile too.
There is nothing more "pleasant" and disarming than when
someone easily brushes off slight. It is hard ... we all have pride;
but it is worth it. Develop your sense of comedy and fight back
with wit and satire. The Hebrew people are renowned for this trait,
simply because they were oppressed for centuries. That quality
alone is amongst the most cherished gifts a culture can nurture
in liberating its spirit from the inevitable injustices of life. Be
creative.
Laughter is a natural response to errors, because it is salubrious;
because it is curative; because it is corrective. Claim your share if
you induce that quality in others. Norman Wisdom, after realising
that his posture and speech rose laughter, instead of despairing,
built a successful career upon his discovery. There is nobody
more ridiculous, more dangerous, and more in need of clinical
help, than one who takes himself far too seriously.
Shahin Malekpour
Simon R. Hughes
[snip]
> The irony is that such concerted accent reduction efforts seem to have
> resulted only in the creation of a new, Frankenstein's Monster sort of New
> York accent, characterized by traditional postwar diphthongs plus a
> harsher 'r' than even the Beach Boys or Jan and Dean or Trickie Dick
> Nixon could produce. This sort of neo-New York accent is perhaps best
> exemplified by the speech of New York's senior Senator, homeboy Chuck
> Schumer. Thankfully, this accent seems not to be present among post-Baby
> Boomer New Yorkers.
Strange; I don't remember reading that bit. Are you sure Percy didn't
add it later?
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://www.geocities.com/a57998/subconscious/
Quoting Usenet postings in follow-ups --
http://www.geocities.com/a57998/quote.html
R Fontana
> In my older kids' day (roughly, Mr. Kirshenbaum's and Prof. Fontana's day,
> too), bright kids were invited to take the SAT (not the PSAT) at the age
> of twelve,
Twelve? Sounds like a Doogie Howser sort of thing. There's also the
SSAT, something similar to which I took to get into my six-year high
school.
> when getting 700 on either half was remarkable.
I remember that.
Pakman
I know you are from Iran and you have been living in England for a long
long time. I am sure, there are lot of newly migrated Iranians where
you live, or probably some place where you might come into contact with
them. Let me ask you this, how do you look at them? what comes to
your mind when you meet one? Is that perception any different when you
meet a newly migrated Iranian who seems to speak excellen English, and
sounds British?
Rosanne Gangi-Gaertner
on 1/19/01 11:03 PM:
This is an interesting inquiry. I have to say that I am very fortunate to
live in a city in which there are many people from varied ethnic, cultural,
and linguistic backgrounds -- I encounter people from every corner of the
world on a regular basis (this may make my response somewhat biased).
My personal policy is to avoid making judgements about people until I get to
know them (no matter what their language proficiency). : )
That aside, I would not be surprised to meet someone who has recently
migrated to NYC who spoke English fluently, nor would I be surprised if he
or she used British pronunciation and/or vocabulary. It would not make me
favor someone any more or less than if he or she had any other accent.
Cheers,
Rosanne
Shahin Malekpour
"Pakman" wrote ...
> Let me ask you this, since you are decorating the accent so much.
Please do not confuse creativity with "decoration". Decorated
accent shows, and is subject to more ridicule than a natural
accent. I have a good English friend who insists on speaking
in an obviously affected public school accent. The amount of
taunting that he attracts from his fellow English friends could
deter a less resolute person from maintaining that manner. But he
persists, since it seems that he feels more secure by speaking
like that. I have grown accustomed to it and have no objection.
> Now I know you are from Iran and you have been living in
> England for a long long time.
Yes. I came to England to do my higher education when I
was already older than you (I was 22 and it was the second
half of the Seventies). Unlike you, at the time, I could not
string a correct English sentence together. And yes, I did
resent being treated like a retard on occasions in those early
years. But it was not my accent which was the problem ... it
was my use of English. At that age, I had a fine command
of the Persian language, my native tongue. I decided to do
justice to it by bringing my English up to the same level.
I have not given up hope as yet.
And please bear in mind that when you say a "long long" time,
it hardly makes any difference in helping one erase vestiges
of a natural accent. Ingrained muscle and brain memories
will persist in conditioning one's accent; although it softens
with time and application.
> I am sure, there are lot of newly migrated Iranians where
> you live, or probably some place where you might come
> into contact with them.
Where I live, regrettably, there is a dearth of my compatriots,
as well as a paucity of occasion to meet any.
> Let me ask you this, how do you look at them? what comes
> to your mind when you meet one? Is that perception any
> different when you meet a newly migrated Iranian who seems
> to speak excellen English, and sounds British?
My reaction, hopefully, will be one of rational sympathy for
the demands of the situation ...
Please allow me to indulge in the underlying aspects of
your questions:
Persian language is an ancient member of the Indo-European
family of languages. It is inflective, composite and very rich.
It is related to its younger branches that later thrived in the west.
The Persian language has a wide range of consonants; unlike
Turkish or Arabic. Arabic, for instance, has no sound for *G*
("In God we trust" in Arabic will be in jaad we trust); no *P* (that
is why over time *Persian* became known as Farsi, because
once the Arabs invaded Persia and imposed their Arabic scripts
on us, in their writing the letter P did not exist); no *ch* (chair in
Arabic will be kair); no *zh* (Zhivago will be Zivago), no *v*
(vacuum cleaner will be wacume cleaner in Arabic). And unlike
Persian which has the full range of the elements of grammar that
mirrors most European languages (save gender that does not
exist in Persian), Arabic only has three elements: noun, verb and
preposition. Adverbs and adjectives are created by inflection of
nouns and verbs. Arabic, a Semetic language and half-brother
of Hebrew, also specifies gender and has as a definite article: *al*
(unlike Persian).
Consequently, relative to the Arabs, Persian speakers, are
more adept at learning foreign languages by being able to
reproduce a full range of voices; particularly in European
languages. Indeed, many key words are shared: brother in
Persian is baraadar, mother is maadar, father is pedar ... and
many more which is outside the scope of our discussion.
And as for accent, Iranians have quite a recognisable one.
It is considered rather pleasant, because Persian speakers
are known to be possessed of soft and poetic voices.
Languages that employ guttural sounds would sound
harsh to an Iranian ear. And yes, indeed there is prejudice
in Iran in respect of foreign languages. Like Arabic. That is
why many Iranians dislike being taught Arabic at high school
(because we have Arab neighbours). But the overwhelming
majority of Iranians would rather learn English than Arabic ...
A language they still remember as belonging to the aggressive
invaders who tore their culture apart fourteen centuries ago.
Arabs burnt Persian libraries, treated Iranians like slaves and
forbade speaking in Persian, until they were drive out as
much as possible. They never succeeded in erasing the
unique Persian language. It is still alive and growing, thanks
to Iranians like the much loved Ferdowsi who lived a thousand
years ago. Arabs called Iranians 'ajam', meaning mute, a
racist epithet, because Iranians refused to speak in Arabic.
Arab conquest of Persia happened in the third quarter of
the Seventh century. Two centuries later, after the departure
of the Arabs, Iran experienced a remarkable cultural rebirth,
later to influence the entire Arab Empire and the renaissance
of Europe. Iran declined later after coming under weak and
corrupt rule of Turkish dynasties for four centuries, and the
advent of colonialism ...
If one loves something badly enough, like a language, one
excels in nurturing it into life by treating it like a growing art,
not a disease. Same rule applies to raising children. Although,
there are specimens known to treat children like a disease,
with horrendous consequences to the society.
Apart from wherewithal and apparatus of language, namely
the alphabet, grammar and semiotics, and the tongue muscle
and the cranial cavities and their condition, there is a question
of attitude and "culture" that influences the manner of one's
speech. That quality resides in the higher echelons of linguistic
anatomy. That is what I meant by creativity and "IMAGINATION",
rather than "decoration", or seeking clinical help to gain an
American accent(!) I hope this clears any misunderstanding.
In any event, I sympathise with you if you are experiencing
unreasonable discrimination because of your accent. Many
positive views have already been expressed on the subject
in this thread.
Regards,
Shahin Malekpour
Shahin Malekpour
"Rosanne Gangi-Gaertner" <ga...@signling.org> wrote in message
news:B68E9068.17C9%ga...@signling.org...
Here is a true story about the Use of English, as well as "accent" ... :)
When I lived in Tehran, I was brought up in a leafy suburb by
the foothills of the spectacular Alborz mountains in the north.
In those years, Iran and America were good friends. Tens of
thousands of American families happily lived amongst Iranians
(50,000 - 60,000 in numbers). There were probably more
Americans in Iran than there were Iranians in America!
Our neighbourhood was very popular with the Americans
who freely lived in peace and harmony amongst their
Iranian hosts who treated them with much love and respect.
It has to be said that the majority of the Americans were
family members of servicemen who were commissioned
to work in Iran during the, umm, ... that war in South East Asia,
and the Cold War. Iran was a critically important strategic link
in the 'Cordon Sanitaire' policy of containing communism.
Those Americans were mostly extremely folksy people from
small towns. Many from middle or southern states. One would
be hard pressed to find a New Yorker or someone from
Los Angeles or SF amongst them! But there were still a few
representatives from bigger cities or northern states; like north
Dakota, Montana, Michigan etc. There were also quite a few
sophisticated families of high ranking professionals, "advisors"
and businessmen. There were different races of America too.
It was actually a healthy mixture of Americans in that particular
suburb in terms of class, education and origin. I learnt a lot about
Americans because of that, and grew to know and like them as
I began to understand the differences and commonalities amongst
themselves, as well as with the Iranians.
Their behaviour ranged across the whole attitude scale: from
excellent to absolutely abysmal! But, in fairness, the overwhelming
majority of the Americans residing in our neighbourhood were
absolutely wonderful people.
I was in my early youth when I befriended some of the children of our
guests, mostly through their initiatives. They were generally from the
same class and upbringing as myself, and very curious about Iran
and its people. It was surprising to discover quite a lot in common
between the two people who appear to be intractably different; and
such a shame how things turned out in Iran. :(
...
Our opposite neighbour, unfortunately, was my erstwhile maths
teacher at high school. A lanky miserable bachelor in his forties
who lived with his mother. I disliked him because his unimaginative
teaching put me off maths permanently. Fortunately for him, I had
an interest in English; a subject in which I performed reasonably well.
It was fortunate for him because he rented his top floor to a lovely
young American couple from North Carolina in their early twenties.
But of course, the gentleman could not speak a word of English to
communicate with his tenants!
One day our door bell rang and someone ask for me at door. I was
then 20 years old and attended a technical college in Tehran. When
I went to the door, I found my old math teacher with the Americans
in attendance. I said hello, introduced myself and awaited the purpose
of the visit to be revealed. The Americans also introduced themselves
and seemed pleased to see someone of their own age as a neighbour,
especially one able to speak a reasonable English.
The math teacher said: "Shahin, could you please translate for me?"
... If there was ever justice in my life, that moment was an occasion
of it ... my useless math teacher who tormented me for two years
now needed MY knowledge in the REAL world!
"Yes", I said. He continued: "Could you tell these people that when
they use the toilet, not to put the paper in the toilet after use?!"
I looked at the quizzical visage of my new foreign neighbours
and blushed! Gee ... the ignorant man wants me to ask such an
embarrassing and stupid question for my first chance of meeting
the new neighbours!
It has to be understood that in Iran people wash instead of using
toilet paper. Most houses are fitted with bidet or hoses.
After a pause, I translated: "The son of bitch is asking not to put
toilet paper in the toilet!" The young couple fought to suppress
the eruption of an explosive laughter. John finally collected himself
and asked "why?" :)
I translated to the math teacher in Persian: "Why?" "Because it can
block the pipes!" I translated: "The b*****d is saying that it blocks
the pipes!" while keeping a straight as the math teacher strained to
understand what was being said.
By then the American couple had cottoned on that I was having fun
with the man. So, John said: "But tell him it is normal!" :) I replied:
"But this idiot isn't; he was my math teacher, I know!" At this point
all the efforts at maintaining a measure of decorum broke down and
the three of us fell into raptures of laughter, with the math teacher
standing there looking flummoxed. My revenge was complete! :)
Mercifully, that issue was resolved after I explained to the "teacher"
in excruciating details about the specific point of dissolution of
toilet paper in the water, and the improbability of it ever blocking
the pipes; much to the relief of John and June of course! :) The
math teacher later mustered up enough courage to ask for a spot
of shopping for him at the Americans' supermarket in Iran: Whiskey! :)
That kept him sweet and out of the way thence! :)
John, June and I became staunch friends after that. We travelled
a lot, went hunting and climbing together, and did many things
that the young people of the time got up to. I considered them a
little unsophisticated because they were disappointed that I didn't
listen to John Denver's songs! I was more into Pink Floyd and Led
Zeppelin type music then. But they were lively, friendly and happy,
and when they couldn't have children of their own, they adopted
two Iranian babies. I miss that lovely couple ... I left Iran before
them. They sent me taped messages until they returned to
America and we lost touch ... I still have one of those tapes
containing their friendly messages ...
I loved their accent. A sing song southern drawl. When I told
them I liked their accent they both laughed! They said that if
they spoke in New York, it would raise scornful snigger!
Years later, as I gradually manage to distinguish between
various American accents, I still prefer their accent to a New
Yorker's. Although a New York accent would equally hold my
interest. But, I still don't think it sounds as nice as a Carolinian. :)
Cheers,
Shahin Malekpour
---
>
> Cheers,
> Rosanne
>
Brian J Goggin
<ev...@garrett.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
[...]
>But as for what's "reasonably sized", I'd guess I'd figure "big enough
>that, say, two thirds of the first-year students could fill two
>classes of each. So, say, 180-200 kids per grade. How many years is
>your daughter's school distributed over?
[...]
Six: roughly ages 12 to 18. There are state examinations after the
third year (the Junior Certificate) and the sixth year (the Leavfing
Certificate). The fourth year (Transition Year) is not provided in all
schools (many go from Third year to Fifth Year); it has a wide
programme of non-examined topics, including work experience.
Each year is divided into two main groups, although the range of
options means that students may not be in the same group for two
successive classes.
My daughter's school is smaller than the norm and is unusual in
several other ways (not least in that it offers boarding).
>> There is no second-level course that would allow students to skip a
>> third-level course.
>Let me see if I can describe what goes on here.
[...]
>The result of all of this is that the bare fact of having graduated
>from high school isn't of much use and doesn't tell a potential
>employer much other than that you were likely able to attend school
>for twelve years without doing anything *too* awful.
To check my understanding, then: each school (possibly following rules
set down by its school district) sets its own curriculum and standards
and decides how those the reaching of those standards is to be
assessed.
So far, it resembles the way that universities here operate. But they
use a system of external examiners to provide some sort of checking
and quality control. [Note that I am not asserting that it is
necessarily a very good system.] Is there some equivalent in American
second-level schools? Or is there some other form of external
monitoring?
>Since there are no government-mandated national norms, the college
>admission decision has to be based on something. One of the hallmarks
>of a good admissions direction is a familiarity with pretty much all
>of the high schools in the country, to know how to compare a
>particular "transcript" (the list of courses taken and grades
>received) from one high school with one from another.
In such a huge country, that must be an extraordinarily difficult
task.
>But other de facto national norms have arisen as well.
>
>Starting in their junior year, students who intend to go to college
>start voluntarily taking tests. The main test required by most
>colleges is the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). This is a timed
>multiple choice test (with guessing penalty) of *very* basic math and
>English skills, and it results in both a score (200-800 on each half)
>and an indication of where the student ranks in the population. Most
>schools use this to set a minimum eligibility requirement. (When I
>graduated from high school there were two competing tests, the SAT and
>the ACT, which also included sections on science and "social studies".
>Some colleges required one, some the other.)
My daughter has taken the SAT. Two points suggest themselves:
- who stands behind the SAT (or SATs?)? Is it run by a commercial or
an academic body?
- it seemed to me to be closer in form to an intelligence test,
although requiring some academic knowledge in a limited range of
disciplines, and I thought (admittedly on the basis of a limited
acquaintance with it) that there were academic skills that it did not
test.
[...]
>In parallel with these very basic tests are tests that one can take in
>particular subjects to impress the colleges you're applying to. These
>come in two flavors. The first, now called SAT II, but, when I took
>it, called "Achievement Tests" is similar to the SAT, but the
>questions are closer to an actual test of what you'd expect a high
>school graduate to know in a particular subject. They are given in,
>let's see, English literature, writing, U.S. history, world history,
>math (two levels), biology, chemistry, physics, Chinese, French,
>German, Modern Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Latin, Spanish, and
>"English Language Proficiency". The writing exam has a written
>component and the language exams have a "listening" component. You
>typically take these tests in groups of three. I took one set:
>writing, math, and Spanish. Taking these tests can help with
>admission, but I don't think most colleges actually require them.
How then do colleges make their admission decisions?
Is there any equivalent of the matriculation exams that universities
here used to set (and still, to a limited extent, do), giving them a
selection mechanism of their own?
>For students who want to go beyond proving that they are justified in
>graduating from high school, there are Advanced Placement (AP) exams,
>which certify that the student has already achieved college-level
>mastery of a subject. These are half essay/worked problem and half
>multiple choice, are graded by people who actually pay attention, and
>are graded on a scale of 1 to 5.[1] Students who intend to take these
>courses typically take special classes, in which the college level
>material is taught. Most colleges will give about a year's worth of
>credit (or a little less) and placement in the subject for scores of 4
>or 5 on these tests. There are 33 AP courses offered in 23 subjects:
Again, who offers these courses and exams?
bjg
R Fontana
> My daughter has taken the SAT. Two points suggest themselves:
>
> - who stands behind the SAT (or SATs?)? Is it run by a commercial or
> an academic body?
It is run by an organization located somewhere near Princeton, N.J. called
ETS (Educational Testing Service), a private, non-profit monopolist, which
also puts out a number of other important standardized exams, including
the PSAT, the AP tests, the GRE (Graduate Record Examination, used for
admission to non-professional graduate schools) and the GMAT (Graduate
Management Admission Test, used for admission to MBA programs), as well as
the TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language).
> - it seemed to me to be closer in form to an intelligence test,
> although requiring some academic knowledge in a limited range of
> disciplines, and I thought (admittedly on the basis of a limited
> acquaintance with it) that there were academic skills that it did not
> test.
I think that's right. It doesn't directly test the academic skills and
knowledge that are learned in secondary school, though the Achievement
Tests (now euphemistically known as "SAT II") do.
[...]
> Is there any equivalent of the matriculation exams that universities
> here used to set (and still, to a limited extent, do), giving them a
> selection mechanism of their own?
I don't think so. Too much trouble.
> >For students who want to go beyond proving that they are justified in
> >graduating from high school, there are Advanced Placement (AP) exams,
> >which certify that the student has already achieved college-level
> >mastery of a subject. These are half essay/worked problem and half
> >multiple choice, are graded by people who actually pay attention, and
> >are graded on a scale of 1 to 5.[1] Students who intend to take these
> >courses typically take special classes, in which the college level
> >material is taught. Most colleges will give about a year's worth of
> >credit (or a little less) and placement in the subject for scores of 4
> >or 5 on these tests. There are 33 AP courses offered in 23 subjects:
>
> Again, who offers these courses and exams?
ETS, the monopolist who prepares the SAT, also prepares the AP exams. As
I recall, however, I took the AP exams at my high school, while the SAT is
only offered (i.e., administered) at a more limited set of official
testing centers.
See <http://www.ets.org/> for more information.
There are separate cartels which are responsible for the LSAT and MCAT,
standardized entrance examinations used for admission to
post-baccalaureate law and medical schools, respectively.
Linz
> For the last five years, I have been learning Dutch by listening and
> watching (no Dutch language classes - too lazy). I have learned as
> much from looking as by listening.
>
> Now I speak Dutch like a five year old. Hey ho.
But the average five year old is just about fluent in their language.
Be proud of yourself!
--
The thought that life could be better
Is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains
erilar
li...@lindsayendell.co.uk wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 05:15:59 +0100, Giles Todd wrote:
>
> > For the last five years, I have been learning Dutch by listening and
> > watching (no Dutch language classes - too lazy). I have learned as
> > much from looking as by listening.
> >
> > Now I speak Dutch like a five year old. Hey ho.
>
> But the average five year old is just about fluent in their language.
> Be proud of yourself!
I remember when I was first studying in Germany hearing some children
playing and beginning to admire their fluency before reason kicked in
and said "native speakers, dummy!"
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka erilar)
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
P&D Schultz
> I remember when I was first studying in Germany hearing some children
> playing and beginning to admire their fluency before reason kicked in
> and said "native speakers, dummy!"
I think it is remarkable that although they employ the dative case
correctly, they lie and feign ignorance if you ask them about that.
\\P. Schultz