Identify and correct errors involving adverb clauses

(When human rights are the equal rights of everyone/Even though human rights are the equal rights of everyone/If human rights are the equal rights of everyone/Because human rights are the equal rights of everyone) , I don’ think criminals and terrorists can be included.

No one has less or more rights (if the next person does/than the next person does/because the next person does/when the next person does).

It’s not (when someone committed a crime/because someone committed a crime/though someone committed a crime/if someone committed a crime) (who are allowed to take away/when we are allowed to take away/that we are allowed to take away/which we are allowed to take away) his or her rights, to torture, to silence, to indoctrinate.

But all of the rights (to have/which all of us have/because of all of us have/when of all of us have) (though limited/when limited/if limited/because limited) to some extent and in some circumstances belong to criminals as well.

We have freedom of movement (although it does not/when does not/that it does not/if it does not) entail the right to enter the private property (because it belongs/that belongs/if it who belongs/that belongs) to our neighbors.

So the fact (when criminals’ rights are limited/of criminals’ rights are limited/that criminals’ rights are limited/as criminals’ rights are limited) does not set them apart from ordinary citizens.

It does not mean (whose human rights/which human rights/that human rights/more than human rights) are not equal anymore.

Human rights are equal (as soon as they are/with the purpose that they are/because they are/if they are) the unconditional property of us all.

We do not have to fulfil certain conditions – such as respect (because we must have for the law/though we must have for the law/as we must have for the law/we must have for the law) – (wherever we have them/since that we have them/in order that we have them/because we have them).

Unit 1-15. EURO-ENGLISH ACCENTS

Section 1. Guidelines for reading texts on the use of English in European education

By virtue of the considerable number of speakers English has in the world, and also due to the rich variety of its variants, English is more likely to be subjected to accented speech than any other language. The speech of non-native English speakers may exhibit pronunciation characteristics that result from such speakers imperfectly learning the pronunciation of English, either by transferring the phonological rules from their mother tongue into their English speech ("interference") or through implementing strategies similar to those used in primary language acquisition. They may also create innovative pronunciations for English sounds not found in the speaker's first language.

The text below looks at attitudes towards accents, with particular interest in the solidarity dimension (i.e. how much a person identifies with an accent) and status dimension (i.e. how much prestige is assigned to an accent).

A person’s identity is determined not only by personal but also by social identity. Social identity includes ethnic identity and originates from group membership which is established by self-categorisation. Accent and language are considered to be major determinants of social identity, and there has been a lot of research on the expression of social identity through people’s accents and their attitudes towards other accents. Below is an account of a research of a Swedish teacher Britta Larson Bergstedt on attitudes of non-native speakers (NNS) of English towards their own (ingroup) accent and other (outgroup) accents of English.

Text 1-15. EURO-ENGLISH ACCENTS

(After Britta Larson Bergstedt, Lund University, Department of Linguistics)

Research Interest

Like many other mammals, human beings are complex social animals that are fundamentally built to rely on the group for survival while still possessing the skills to endure alone. Although our metacognition skills may distinguish humans from other groups of mammals, our lack of, among other things, sufficient fur, has left us at a disadvantage in the natural environment and thereby even more dependent on a well-structured and effective social network. Individuals are fundamentally aware of the social hierarchy surrounding them and of their place in it. It is no wonder then, that upon meeting unknown people, we both consciously and subconsciously listen and look for clues displaying rank so that we know how to behave (Trudgill, 2000).

A person’s language often serves as a sort of index, or “scent marker” if you will, of one’s life by displaying geographical and social origin, as well as some of one’s ideas and opinions. It is apparent in the animal kingdom that scent markers, vocalizations, and similar cues incite a response in the listener and help to determine whether a stranger is friend or foe. As territorial animals, what kind of reactions do strange and different accents provoke within us, the listeners? Is our response based on previous contact with a particular group and the stereotypes associated with them? Does the amount of time we’ve spent abroad in general affect our reply? And without the sensitive olfactory organs of other mammals, how accurately can we actually identify these vocal “scent markers”?

Are we able to discriminate between them, and most importantly, do we truly recognize our own? As the world continues to contract, we have the opportunity to interact with more and more people outside of our own flock than ever before. How do we react to them and how will they react to us?

Purpose

The main aim of this study is to investigate the response of non-native English speakers, specifically, Swedish female students, towards European (female) foreign accents in spoken English. Are there differences between the attitudes towards different accents? In that case, is the difference in perceived Power, Solidarity, or Competence? What kind of hierarchy is created? How capable are Swedish high school students of correctly identifying a particular accent as coming from a particular country including their own? And does spending time in a foreign country affect the attitudes and judgements made?

Across the world

It is difficult to pinpoint the exact start of the English language’s rise to its current status of fame and fortune, but historians and linguists often link it to coincide with the start of the British Empire and colonization of parts of Africa, Asia and the Americas. English is the mother tongue of Great Britain, the United States of America, Ireland and many countries formerly gathered under the British crown. English is not, however, the world language with the most native speakers, but rather the one with the most total speakers (Svartvik, 1999). The global spread of English has quickly surpassed that of former power languages such as French and Latin.

English is not only the language of Shakespeare and Mark Twain; it is the language used around the world in air traffic control, travel, movies, music, business, science and technology. English is being used more and more frequently in the inter-communication between two, three or more non-native speakers; that is to say, the world is using English to communicate with each other, not just with America, England, and other countries where English is native (Smith, 1983). Although English continues to be the cultural language of native speakers, it has lost its cultural baggage abroad. It is commonplace to discuss politics in English without regard to the British or American standpoint and possible to protest, in English, against the influence of English upon one’s native tongue.

In Europe

While large portions of the globe came under the influence of English between the 16th and 19th century, this was not really the case in Europe. Not until after World War II did English truly begin to flourish, sweeping across Europe at an uneven pace, starting in the west and spreading eastward after the fall of the Iron Curtain. It was also around 1945 that American English began to exert a stronger influence than its predecessor from the British Isles. Since that time American English has dominated the European and world scene primarily through influence of media, technology and power while British English has predominated the educational systems. Internationalization and increased mobility have also played their part and as Cenoz & Jessner noted “It requires little linguistic sensitivity to note the omnipresence of English in Europe today”(2000). Currently English is one of more than 20 official languages of the European Union yet enjoys a privileged status as one of three working languages and as the unofficial status quo. Surveys financed by the EU have shown that it is the most used and most learned language with an entire 31% knowing English well enough to hold a conversation (Europa website, 2004).

Despite current and probable future opposition, English will undoubtedly continue to play an important role in Europe and in European cooperation.

In Sweden

In comparison with the rest of Europe, Sweden has long had an advantage concerning English. As some of the first countries in Europe to require English as the first second language learned, Sweden and other Scandinavian countries are well known for their proficiency. With ready access to quality educational material, British English was the standard taught for many years. This requirement has since been revoked and though still largely British-influenced, schools now teach American and other varieties of English as well. English is used daily in business, in higher education and even in many parts of public life.

Language and Identity

The English language is often considered a cultural byproduct and export of England and America – a language, like others, inseparable from its literature and history. In many universities and other institutions, the demand and desire exists that learners of a second language should try to produce as near-native pronunciation as possible. This has been supported by studies that have shown that native listeners respond more positively to lightly or unnoticeably accented speech. For the majority of learners, this task is impossible and therefore, the feasibility and need for this goal, at least in English, is being reevaluated (Dalton-Puffer, et al.,1997).

English today functions as an international language, a “free agent” in society. Released from cultural constraints, many non-native speakers agree it is no longer necessary to imitate the pronunciation (or other language features) of the standard varieties but instead have begun to mark English as their own. Accordingly, English in Europe is losing its foreignness and becoming nativized. This does not, however, deter from that fact that English still must be understandable, pertinent, and accepted by the community (Smith, 1983).

In Europe widespread use is leading to one or more non-native varieties dubbed “Euro-English” or European English (Modiano 1996, Crystal 1995 in Cenoz & Jessner, 2000) which differ from standard native varieties of English. These new varieties of Euro-English are similar to other “New Englishes” in that they are not the result of a pidgin but rather education and exposure. As Crystal (2003) mentioned, it is a divergent variety of English that appears when different nationalities communicate in English. They will adapt and modify their speech while still exhibiting features (i.e. interference) from their native tongues. If these speakers are European, the result is an original variety of Euro-English..

What makes these new varieties different from standard English varieties is the mother tongue interference normally called “errors” by native speakers and English teachers. Interference is not a limitation, a distraction, or a hindrance. Instead, these “errors” become standardized, regular and accepted as part of a nativised European English .

Another explanation for the appearance of “Euro-English” is the fact that language is the primary vehicle for a culture; it is the wisdom of centuries passed on and preserved generation to generation. When a language meets with death it is not replaced by a new linguistic culture but rather compromises between the old language and the new one, creating a new variety that is neither one nor the other (Kramsch, 1998). Certainly this is somewhat the case with the Euro-English varieties; in a similar fashion speakers move their language features and accent over into spoken English in order to stamp themselves as belonging to that particular group (and not a native English one) thus creating a new variety that is neither English nor their mother tongue - it is Euro-English.

Personal and group ídentity

Contradictory results like those above are not uncommon. They can be at least partially explained by the social identity theory which states that people will exhibit a preference for the variety of language that is associated with their most salient in-group. (from Lambert, 1967 cited in Bresnahan, et al., 2002). Both of these studies reflect the importance of one’s social network and of one’s personal and group identity. Identity is a term borrowed from the realm of social psychology and is defined as “a person’s mental representation of who he or she is” (Bernstein, et al, 1994). A person’s identity results from a basic tension between the necessity to be similar to those around us, group identity, and a simultaneous desire to feel unique, personal identity. A group is characterized by two or more people with not only physical but also functional interaction.

Groups are also important in establishing values and norms and therein impose a social impact on the individual depending on the strength, immediacy, and number of the group. Both personal and group identities differ along lines of gender and culture.

Group identity may be based on any of several possible factors; among the most salient factors are ethnicity, nationality, and religion. Trudgill (2000) expressed the point that people have a much easier time identifying themselves as Jewish or Black rather than Lower Middle Class. Language, however, “may be or may not be included in the group’s cultural bag. According to the subjective view, group members more or less consciously choose to associate ethnicity with language” (Appel & Muysken, 1987).

Не нашли, что искали? Воспользуйтесь поиском по сайту: