Justifying Euro-English

Next, I’m going to provide some arguments against Euro-English, and counterpoints to refute them. Because Modiano points out the main arguments against Euro-English and offers strong rebuttals, I have summarized them:

Argument 1: “There are no native speakers of Euro-English, therefore it cannot be identified as a variety” (2003).

Rebuttal: This is no longer a valid argument because English is used as a lingua franca among lots of NNS. They often use English more with other NNS than with NS. Using ELF with other NNS is more liberating because they can be themselves using English instead of trying to imitate a NS.

Argument 2: Euro-English exists as many forms and therefore trying to define it will fail.

Rebuttal: Varieties of English from native speakers, such as accents and dialects in England and Ireland are accepted as part of ones culture and identity, so it is not fair to not apply this also for users of Euro-English. RP is the standard English accent taught in England, although barely anyone really speaks like that.

Argument 3: The variety will be impossible to teach without a prescriptive standard (Modiano 2003).

Rebuttal: Modiano claims that the goal of Euro-English instruction is “to learn how English can be used by mainland Europeans in cross-cultural interaction” (Modiano 2003). He goes on to explain that the instructor, who is focused on how English is used in mainland Europe, doesn’t insist on imitating the idealized native speaker, but instead motivates students to develop communication skills (2003). Those students who do aspire to emulate a native speaker are free to do so, but this would be by choice that they make, not that they are forced into, which is different than in the past.

Читайте також:

<== попередня сторінка	\|	наступна сторінка ==>
What is Euro-English?	\|	Students’ needs

Не знайшли потрібну інформацію? Скористайтесь пошуком google:

Генерація сторінки за: 0.006 сек.