I totally agree with you Walker and Uriel. The notion that no dialects are superior is purely linguistical and scientific. For the social hierarchy there are separate terms, like acrolect, mesolect and basilect.
To argue that people should not learn standard English, but speak and write their various varieties would not be science, but politics. That being said, the scientific evidence that no variety is inherently inferior can be a tool for political and cultural empowerment, like in 19th century Norway, where that fine scholar Ivar Aasen travelled around the country, listened to how the peasants spoke and scientifically proved that their various dialects were not corrupted, improper Danish, as was widely belived, but direct descendants of Old Norse. On that basis, he made a new literary language, Nynorsk, which made reading and writing much easier for peasants and gave them cultural pride and political zest. _________________ Wer fremde Sprachen nicht kennt, weiß nichts von seiner eigenen. = Those who don't know foreign languages, know nothing of their own. (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)
What Walker and Uriel are describing is called sociolinguistics — the study of the effects which society has on how language is used. This constitutes an integral part of linguistic studies, and would include study of how and why certain varieties become stigmatised.
However, although I recognise that much language prejudice and speech snobbery does exist in real life (and believe me, it works both ways in this country), I believe that it is important that linguists try not to have such prejudices themselves. Thus, in my view, I do not believe that the presumption that certain native dialects are inherently 'lazy' or 'improper' in themselves would be compatible with genuine linguistic studies.
I can, however, understand why Porthos has reached the conclusion that certain native dialects are simply 'lazy', even though it is a view that I could not possibly agree with. In contrast to at least Fredrik, Deborah and myself, he has made a conscious effort to modify his speech in order that it conforms more closely to what he perceives as 'standard'. Thus, he may view people who appear not to have made this effort as 'lazy'.
But as I mentioned above, language prejudice can work both ways. I speak RP, which is the traditional acrolect (i.e. 'higher social class' speech) in the British Isles, especially in England. I have generally found this to be a disadvantage throughout my life. In fact, many people have advised me to try to adopt the regional dialect of Birmingham — I haven't, though.
I speak RP, which is the traditional acrolect (i.e. 'higher social class' speech) in the British Isles, especially in England. I have generally found this to be a disadvantage throughout my life. In fact, many people have advised me to try to adopt the regional dialect of Birmingham — I haven't, though.
Why haven't you? Or rather, why do you speak RP in the first place? I asked you about your speaking RP four months ago just before I 'disappeared' and I missed your reply. Sorry, but I don't remember which thread it was. So I'm inquiring about it again. It seems odd to me that you should speak a dialect that's not your local dialect, especially since you say you've generally found it to be a disadvantage.
Perhaps he can't. RP is his native tongue. _________________ Wer fremde Sprachen nicht kennt, weiß nichts von seiner eigenen. = Those who don't know foreign languages, know nothing of their own. (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)
Porthos has essentially said that, although he knows and understands the reasoning found in linguistics, and although he actually wants to study linguistics himself, he still does not want to approach language from a linguistic perspective. He has not said that he disagrees with certain mainstream opinions amongst linguists and intends to justify this with further linguistic research. He has just said that he prefers to approach language from a viewpoint which he perceives as more 'practical' than linguistics (whatever that means).
Moi aussi je partage ton scepticisme et ta perplexité. D'autant que ceux qui accordent ŕ la linguistique un tant soit peu d'intéręt parlent — ou connaissent — plusieurs langues, en général. On trouve en revanche beaucoup de monolingues indécrottables parmi ses détracteurs.
Benjamin wrote:
To me, this seems bizarre, as do many of Porthos' attitudes towards linguistics — one minute he's wanting to discuss the diachrony, phonology and lexicology of Italian, the next minute he's saying that he actually prefers not to use linguistics for to study languages since he doesn't find it sufficiently 'practical'. This is an issue which he will have to resolve for himself: whether he is actually interested in linguistics, or not.
La confrontation avec l'inconnu provoque souvent ce genre de réactions paradoxales. Un mélange de fascination et d'aversion.
On the whole, I agree with Benjamin on the linguistic issue.
We (who are majoring in linguistics) learn at uni that all varieties of a language are equally valid and acceptable, social prestige or stigma aside. I see it that way, too, but I can understand that others, who aren't trained in linguistics, don't agree. I myself sometimes have doubts about the whole issue as I'm studying both linguistics and ESL / DaF. I feel like I'm suffering from a split personality disease because the opinions and interests of professional linguists and that of EFL/ESL teachers don't only differ but even collide.
As an esencially descriptivist myself, I advocate the more tolerant viewpoint of a linguist in all walks of life. However, it's sometimes difficult if not almost insensible. I usually avoid getting involved in any language-related discussion with lay people as I often get quizzical looks when I try to explain them that a non-standard dialect is not something inherently "bad" or "sloppy".
The same thing applies to the majority of language teachers. I daresay they display basically the same attitude towards non-standard dialects in the three countries I have spent my life (Hungary, UK, Germany). However, the situation is not the same in these three countries.
Hungary, as opposed to the UK and Germany, doesn't have a wide range of accents and dialects. To be more precise, we do have them but in a different way. First, there isn't so much difference between them. Second, people of the younger generation, even middle-aged people don't really speak with a thick accent. Speakers with a very noticeable regional accent are members of the older generation. So, we all speak *fairly* standard Hungarian, with occassional subtle differences. That may result in a really prevalent intolerance towards regional dialects. Most youngsters or even middle-aged people burst out in laughter when they hear someone speaking in a dialect. Sadly enough, teachers often do the same. (Fortunately, there is always exception.)
In the UK and in Germany you have an abundance of regional and social accents and dialects. Some of them are prestigeous, others are stigmatised. In Germany, as far as I'm aware, there isn't a firmly established belief/concept of the so-called standard. But most people can pick the ones they find "good" and "beautiful" and those that they find "unpleasant", "ugly" or even "undesirable". In the UK there are strange things going on...inverted snobbery for instance. The problem that was mentioned by Benjamin. Most people find RP "stilted", "snobbish" or "excrutiating" and some describe it as a "social handicap" (which is too harsh a word to use in this context). As a result of this, many people try to make their accents less posh, speak in a relaxed way as much as they can, and some even speak one class lower than they should be.
So, I've strayed away a bit, but back to language teachers. What I wanted to say is that most of them find non-standard varieties plain lazy, sloppy or uneducated. I don't agree with this in general but they have a point in terms of foreign language teaching. I also think that foreign learners should learn the "standard" patterns first. Most people learn a foreign language for practical purposes such as in hope of getting a good job. Job interviewers, as we all know, are usually not conversant with linguistic, therefore they immediately label a person using a non-satndard accent/ grammatical constructions as "uneducated" and thus incapable for the job.
At the same time it's essential that they should be somewhat familiar with non-standard accents and dialects as well. Even Standard English isn't spoken in its pure unadultered form in real life as it is on audio materials, in textbooks and under laboratory conditions.
Sorry for my long and tedious post, anyway. I had no intention of boring you to death.
_________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
Location: San Francisco, Noord-Kalifornië, Noord-Amerika
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 8:47 pm Post subject:
I'm a descriptivist (though I didn't know it until I learned the term after visiting language forums ) but I have no objection to teachers teaching the standard form of a language. What I object to is teachers telling their students that the standard form is the correct form of the language and that dialects are simply bad versions of the language.
I took a course to get a certificate in teaching English as a second language (which I might utilize someday). The attitude of my teachers was that you should always let your students know the difference between standard, nonstandard (i.e., nonstandard forms that native speakers use) and incorrect (i.e., mistakes that native speakers wouldn't make) English. The students should also be made aware that since nonstandard dialects are often stigmatized, they should know when it isn't advisable to use nonstandard English.
The attitude of my teachers was that you should always let your students know the difference between standard, nonstandard (i.e., nonstandard forms that native speakers use) and incorrect (i.e., mistakes that native speakers wouldn't make) English. The students should also be made aware that since nonstandard dialects are often stigmatized, they should know when it isn't advisable to use nonstandard English.
Then you had VERY good teachers, Deborah. _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
Contrary to what my detractors understand, I am not opposed to dialects but I think that their place is and should be consigned to the boundaries of the family abode. It has no place in the official domain.
I still believe that certain dialects are inherently superior. How do we determine this pecking order? We'll look at the amount of literary output that was created in that particular tongue. We'll analyse the precision of its grammar and syntax. We'll examine the natural lilt of the spoken tongue to see if it's melodious and pleasing to the ear. I don't mind saying this, but some languages sound unpleasant to the ear. It is politically correct nonsense when one solemnly declares that all languages are 'equally beautiful'; it's like saying that a musical masterpiece is as lovely as a trashy arrangement of a song that nobody listens to.
Linguists, in my understanding, examine different languages in isolation. They fail -or choose not to- understand the psychology of the speakers. They are blind to the social ramifications of speaking a certain language. To me, to speak a particular language is also to make a strong cultural as well as political statement. For example, I have refused to speak in Mandarin at times to monolinggual Mandarin speakers, choosing instead to give my replies in a Chinese dialect. This is my way of rebelling against the perceived superiority complex which Mandarin speakers tend to have at times. I have deliberately embarked upon this course of action despite being much better in Mandarin as far as my vocabulary is concerned.
So I really don't understand the academic debates which rage in the linguistic world. Yes, dialects must be preserved for they enrich our otherwise mundane lives. Just as an organism, no matter how small it is, has a role to play in the eco-system, each tongue no matter how lowly it is perceived socially, is a fount of wisdom and a source of knowledge for future generations. It is a badge of cultural identity for its speakers and it would be a shame if the centrifugal forces of the standard dialect prevails over its unorthodox forms.
But it is also erroneous to promote the theory that there is no such thing as a wrong grammatical structure. This is dangerous thinking. As it is, many people in the developed world are already functionally illiterate. From a government policymaker's point of view, you would not want to exarcebate this social problem by pontificating about the merits of unorthodox grammatical structure in the name of linguistic sovereignty. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Location: San Francisco, Noord-Kalifornië, Noord-Amerika
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 10:52 am Post subject:
Deborah wrote:
What I object to is teachers telling their students that the standard form is the correct form of the language and that dialects are simply bad versions of the language.
That was supposed to be:
What I object to is teachers telling their students that the standard form is the correct form of the language and that other dialects are simply bad versions of the language.
Location: San Francisco, Noord-Kalifornië, Noord-Amerika
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 11:30 am Post subject:
loic wrote:
I still believe that certain dialects are inherently superior. How do we determine this pecking order? We'll look at the amount of literary output that was created in that particular tongue.
I don't think this has anything to do with how a dialect becomes standard. However, people will always be drawn to writing in whichever dialect is the standard.
Quote:
We'll analyse the precision of its grammar and syntax.
As for the English language, each dialect has its own precise and consistent grammar. So what are you referring to in the standard dialect?
Quote:
We'll examine the natural lilt of the spoken tongue to see if it's melodious and pleasing to the ear.
If certain dialects are inherently superior and part of their inherent superiority lies in their sound, then we should all agree on which ones sound better. But we don't. I happen to think that Spanish is more melodious and pleasing to the ear than Chinese is. Does that make Spanish an inherently superior language?
Quote:
I don't mind saying this, but some languages sound unpleasant to the ear.
And that's a subjective matter.
Quote:
It is politically correct nonsense when one solemnly declares that all languages are 'equally beautiful';
That's a new one to me; I haven't heard anyone declare -- solemnly or offhandedly -- that all languages are equally beautiful. (Mind you, I'm not denying that you've heard it.)
Quote:
it's like saying that a musical masterpiece is as lovely as a trashy arrangement of a song that nobody listens to.
I don't think this is a good analogy, as it suggests that some languages are masterpieces and others are trashy.
Quote:
For example, I have refused to speak in Mandarin at times to monolinggual Mandarin speakers, choosing instead to give my replies in a Chinese dialect. This is my way of rebelling against the perceived superiority complex which Mandarin speakers tend to have at times.
I don't understand why you, of all people, would rebel against other people simply because they speak in a way that they feel that is superior.
Location: San Francisco, Noord-Kalifornië, Noord-Amerika
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 11:31 am Post subject:
Deborah wrote:
loic wrote:
I still believe that certain dialects are inherently superior. How do we determine this pecking order? We'll look at the amount of literary output that was created in that particular tongue.
I don't think this has anything to do with how a dialect becomes standard. However, people will always be drawn to writing in whichever dialect is the standard, simply because it is has been designated the standard.
Quote:
We'll analyse the precision of its grammar and syntax.
As for the English language, each dialect has its own precise and consistent grammar. So what are you referring to in the standard dialect?
Quote:
We'll examine the natural lilt of the spoken tongue to see if it's melodious and pleasing to the ear.
If certain dialects are inherently superior and part of their inherent superiority lies in their sound, then we should all agree on which ones sound better. But we don't. I happen to think that Spanish is more melodious and pleasing to the ear than Chinese is. Does that make Spanish an inherently superior language?
Quote:
I don't mind saying this, but some languages sound unpleasant to the ear.
And that's a subjective matter.
Quote:
It is politically correct nonsense when one solemnly declares that all languages are 'equally beautiful';
That's a new one to me; I haven't heard anyone declare -- solemnly or offhandedly -- that all languages are equally beautiful. (Mind you, I'm not denying that you've heard it.)
Quote:
it's like saying that a musical masterpiece is as lovely as a trashy arrangement of a song that nobody listens to.
I don't think this is a good analogy, as it suggests that some languages are masterpieces and others are trashy.
Quote:
For example, I have refused to speak in Mandarin at times to monolinggual Mandarin speakers, choosing instead to give my replies in a Chinese dialect. This is my way of rebelling against the perceived superiority complex which Mandarin speakers tend to have at times.
I don't understand why you, of all people, would rebel against other people simply because they speak in a way that they feel that is superior.
Contrary to what my detractors understand, I am not opposed to dialects
This suggests to me that you do not believe that you speak a dialect yourself, when in fact you do.
loic wrote:
but I think that their place is and should be consigned to the boundaries of the family abode. It has no place in the official domain.
So presumably you'd advocate that members of the Scottish Parliament speak 'Standard British English' (i.e. RP) whilst in session?
loic wrote:
I still believe that certain dialects are inherently superior. How do we determine this pecking order? We'll look at the amount of literary output that was created in that particular tongue.
This would favour languages with greater numbers of speakers. According to this criterion, Standard American English would come out as inherently superior to Standard Danish, for example. But perhaps you actually do believe that Standard American English is inherently superior to Standard Danish.
loic wrote:
We'll analyse the precision of its grammar and syntax.
What sort of analysis are you proposing?
loic wrote:
We'll examine the natural lilt of the spoken tongue to see if it's melodious and pleasing to the ear. I don't mind saying this, but some languages sound unpleasant to the ear.
I actually love the sound of Standard German, although I know that a lot of people don't. So what criteria would be used here? Popular vote? Referendum?
loic wrote:
Linguists, in my understanding, examine different languages in isolation. They fail -or choose not to- understand the psychology of the speakers. They are blind to the social ramifications of speaking a certain language.
To an extent, this is what linguists largely did in the first part of 20th century. These days, however, those other aspects are included, and come under the headings of sociolinguistics and (perhaps) psycholinguistics.
loic wrote:
For example, I have refused to speak in Mandarin at times to monolinggual Mandarin speakers, choosing instead to give my replies in a Chinese dialect. This is my way of rebelling against the perceived superiority complex which Mandarin speakers tend to have at times. I have deliberately embarked upon this course of action despite being much better in Mandarin as far as my vocabulary is concerned.
Like Deborah, I find this view absolutely bizarre — especially from someone who seems otherwise to believe that it is important to promote the so-called 'standard' varieties of languages. Actually, I see what you're describing here as comparable to me speaking German to monolingual English speakers as a kind of 'protest', which to me would be ridiculous.
loic wrote:
But it is also erroneous to promote the theory that there is no such thing as a wrong grammatical structure. This is dangerous thinking.
In West Yorkshire dialect, for example, the first person plural possessive adjective is 'us', which is different from the Standard English 'our'. So people from there say things like, 'that's us house', 'we'll have us lunch now', 'those are us books' etc. Do you consider that to be a 'wrong grammatical structure'?
Equally, many traditional text-book English prescriptive grammar rules (e.g. no split infinitives, no prepositions on the end of sentences etc.) came about as a result of people trying to apply the grammar of Classical Latin onto English as far as possible.
I still believe that certain dialects are inherently superior. How do we determine this pecking order? We'll look at the amount of literary output that was created in that particular tongue.
Measuring a dialect's "superiority" over another based on literary output is inherently biased against the economically disadvantaged.
Historically, the economic wealth of medieval and early modern London generated a class of affluent and well-educated Londoners who had the time and ability to pen novels, poetry, compositions, and plays and standardize their dialect in the process, while their less affluent counterparts living out in, say, Tyneside, didn't have those luxuries. So naturally, the dialect of Tyneside will be underrepresented in English literature. Had Newscastle been the the economic and cultural hub of England, we would probably be speaking and writing in English based on the Geordie dialect, while stigmatizing the London dialect as culturally inferior.
Deborah wrote:
I don't think this has anything to do with how a dialect becomes standard. However, people will always be drawn to writing in whichever dialect is the standard.
True. Even if someone were to deviate from the norm by writing entirely in dialect, a) what publisher would be interested in investing in such a venture, and b) what audience would be interested in reading it? So here you have a self-perpetuating situation where the standard will continue to dominate in literary output because writing in dialect is either unprofitable or generates little interest or publicity.
Contrary to what my detractors understand, I am not opposed to dialects but I think that their place is and should be consigned to the boundaries of the family abode. It has no place in the official domain.
It depends on which country and which region you are referring to. There are dialects which are inherently regarded as prestigeous in the areas they are widely spoken. Not all dialects are automatically stigmatised. An illustrative example of that could be the Bavarian dialect. Speakers of it are so proud of their dialect that companies even prefer job applicants with a Bavarian accent to others. I second what Benjamin said in connection with the Scottish Parliament, too.
loic wrote:
I still believe that certain dialects are inherently superior.
Inherently??? On what grounds would you decide that? I think it would be more accurate to say that some dialects are more PRESTIGEOUS, others are more STIGMATISED. Maybe it's just me, but I cringe when I hear the word "superior" in this context. It reminds me of times back in the 1930s...
loic wrote:
It is politically correct nonsense when one solemnly declares that all languages are 'equally beautiful'; it's like saying that a musical masterpiece is as lovely as a trashy arrangement of a song that nobody listens to.
It's a slightly fallacious argument, in my opinion. Music doesn't only have the function to delight but to express different feelings, too. This kind of music is not always a treat to listen to in a way as you expect, say, popular music to sound. Music can express sadness, fear, agony, suffernig etc. You might not consider it particularly pleasing to the ear, but if it fulfils it's function, it might be consiedered good music. Just think of Bartók, Shostakowich, Strawinski and so on.As opposed to that, if you hear a song which consists of maximum three notes, thus it wasn't an effort to compose, then what you hear is inherently bad music/music of low quality. No matter what a pleasure it is to listen to. However, it's another kettle of fish.
But speaking of languages, all of them are rich, all of them have its precise grammatical structures, all of them reflect the speakers' way of thinking and are equally perfectly capable of fulfilling their desired function, i.e. successful communication. As the old saying goeas, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, therefore the judgement of the beauty of a language is entirely subjective.
loic wrote:
Linguists, in my understanding, examine different languages in isolation. They fail -or choose not to- understand the psychology of the speakers. They are blind to the social ramifications of speaking a certain language. To me, to speak a particular language is also to make a strong cultural as well as political statement. For example, I have refused to speak in Mandarin at times to monolinggual Mandarin speakers, choosing instead to give my replies in a Chinese dialect. This is my way of rebelling against the perceived superiority complex which Mandarin speakers tend to have at times. I have deliberately embarked upon this course of action despite being much better in Mandarin as far as my vocabulary is concerned.
You seem to be contradicting yourself there. It is YOU who said that some languages were inherently superior. I fail to see why you object to people who regard their native dialect as superior.
loic wrote:
So I really don't understand the academic debates which rage in the linguistic world. Yes, dialects must be preserved for they enrich our otherwise mundane lives. Just as an organism, no matter how small it is, has a role to play in the eco-system, each tongue no matter how lowly it is perceived socially, is a fount of wisdom and a source of knowledge for future generations. It is a badge of cultural identity for its speakers and it would be a shame if the centrifugal forces of the standard dialect prevails over its unorthodox forms.
I agree most definitely.
loic wrote:
But it is also erroneous to promote the theory that there is no such thing as a wrong grammatical structure. This is dangerous thinking. As it is, many people in the developed world are already functionally illiterate.
Writing is different from speaking. Of course, you don't write exactly as you speak. Functional illiteracy has got nothing to do with regional dialects per se. You might be a dialect speaker but you might be able to read and write, and understand the standard variety at the same time. (Furthermore, a bad speller is not necessarily identical with a functional illiterate.) However, there are probably more functional illiterates among dialect speakers than among speakers of the so-called "standard". _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
However, there are probably more functional illiterates among dialect speakers than among speakers of the so-called "standard".
Indeed — because speakers of the so-called 'standard', like myself, have a considerable advantage in learning to read and write, compared to speakers of other dialects. Although English spelling is quite difficult to learn, that was the only challenge for me. Unlike many people, I've never needed to learn that certain grammatical features of vocabulary which seem perfectly normal to me do not generally occur in written English.
This is why I support a more liberal approach to writing English, which fully embraces the diversity in the grammar and vocabulary of all dialects. Thus, I believe that it should be considered acceptable for people from the Black Country, for example, to write something like 'aa bin' and 'yow am', instead of being taught that they should write 'I am' and 'you are'.
This is why I support a more liberal approach to writing English, which fully embraces the diversity in the grammar and vocabulary of all dialects. Thus, I believe that it should be considered acceptable for people from the Black Country, for example, to write something like 'aa bin' and 'yow am', instead of being taught that they should write 'I am' and 'you are'.
Wow. You are liberal to the extreme. I esentially advocate a liberal aproach towards language varieties but I wouldn't go that far. I agree on your proposal that people, say, from the Black Country could use a kind of orthography representing the way they speak, but it should be restricted exclusively to informal situations. Why? Not because I look down on the speakers of non-standard dialects. The reason for this is purely practical. Imagine what would happen if every single person in the UK were allowed to write according to the rules of their own native dialects in formal situations as well. Everything would go pear shaped for sure as speakers of one particular dialect might not understand the non-standard writing of an other dialect speaker.
My so-called liberal approach is thus restricted to the (not so) narrow confines of spoken language and informal written language only. _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
The reason for this is purely practical. Imagine what would happen if every single person in the UK were allowed to write according to the rules of their own native dialects in formal situations as well. Everything would go pear shaped for sure as speakers of one particular dialect might not understand the non-standard writing of an other dialect speaker.
Exactly! And this is precisely why it is important to have a standard! If it weren't for standards or accepted norms, we wouldn't be able to effectively communicate with one another! Imagine that. If no form of speaking or writing is inherently wrong, then I should be able to write like this, without any of you looking down on me:
Leenguishics ais a vary komplikated ishue. Akordin to sum a yall, wall shood bes able to tak however wes wants, cuz it don't mater, cuz yall edumukated folks is a bunch of snizobs. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
Leenguishics ais a vary komplikated ishue. Akordin to sum a yall, wall shood bes able to tak however wes wants, cuz it don't mater, cuz yall edumukated folks is a bunch of snizobs.
Wait a minute...it's clear on the whole and quite understandable except for the "edumukated" bit. "Snizobs" makes me wander, too...
I understand the words but DO YOU REALLY PRONOUNCE THESE TWO WORDS THAT WAY?
What about that?
"Linguistics is a very complicated issue. According to some of Y'all, we all should be able to talk however we wants, 'cause it don't matter, 'cause y'all educated folks is a bunch of snobs."
(I hope I've got it right as a non-American English speaker... )
It's standard ortography but still, the grammar is non-standard. What do you think of that?
I don't really know what say. I'm just playing the Devil's advocate...
_________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
) but I have no objection to teachers teaching the standard form of a language. What I object to is teachers telling their students that the standard form is the correct form of the language and that dialects are simply bad versions of the language.
