For most English language learners, the influences of their L1 and the cultural diversity with varying communicative codifications pose major impediments for the effectiveness of their “communicative competence” (Hymes, 1972). The influence of the mother tongue obviously creates a local dialectal form that needs strategic training to get rid of. The phonological variations between the L1 and English demand greater investments of time and efforts from both the learners and teachers in order to either transplant the newly acquired phonological system or assimilate it. Added to this is the confusion from the diverse opinions about the “standard English” dialect that has to be mastered by the learners, in spite of the absence of universal accords on so-called standard English anywhere in the world.

Many studies hold that teachers are more intolerant of the “accents” in English language classrooms. The teachers without a sound linguistic outlook―a comprehensive understanding about language―are more likely to be intolerant of other accents than are those with profound linguistic knowledge (Grill, 2010). The knowledge of linguistic and cultural variations can help teachers of English language learners be more tolerant of the different accents that they confront in classes with learners from diverse backgrounds. On the other hand, teachers seem to be influenced by the misconceptions of the policymakers, administrative personnel, and recruiting authorities in the academic context (Sterzuk, 2008). The long-established conceptions of the decision makers influence the teachers toward orienting themselves to become patrons of a specific dialect as a “standard dialect” or the “native dialect” that was conceived to be an indication of intelligence, status, and prestige.

The moment the policy makers, the administrators, the teacher recruiters, and the educators come out of the “native, correct, proper and standard English” syndrome and leave out the linguistic imperialistic trend, they may be able to see the real importance of language. They may be able to develop the linguistic outlook of the language and to advocate for intercultural discourse to establish international peace and cooperation among the nations that recognize English as the lingua franca. The local and regional dialects reflect their cultures. The imposition of a specific dialect as the instructional dialect in classrooms can stigmatize and marginalize the speakers of local dialects, leading to frustrations that are manifested in the form of international conflicts.

WHAT ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHERS CAN DO

A comprehensive understanding of some linguistic facts can improve the efficacy of teachers of English language learners in fostering the intercultural communicative competence that may not be reflected in their curriculum guides. Because English classes are the major dispensaries where global citizens can be bestowed with the required performance skills in a communicative context and where teachers are the operating surgeons who implant the new syntactical, phonological, and semantic rules, teachers are required to develop a broad-range linguistic view of language to display a high tolerance of linguistic divergence in the classroom. Teachers with a broad-range linguistic view understand that the primary purpose of language is to convey the information in an intelligible way. They can also understand the reasons behind the variations in accents and exhibit tolerance and respect for the other accents. Instead of being too sensitive to the accents with either a pronounced r after vowels or a dropped r, they can focus on whether the meaning is effectively transferred or not. The dialectal form that might once have been prestigious could become stuff for smirks and sniggers. The diverging accents that have been described as ‘heavy’ or ‘distorted’ or ‘bad’ or ‘disrespectable’ forms, when compared to SAE, could influence mostly the middle class populace that are quite sensitive to such societal variations as they play a great deal in bringing about economic changes also. Consequently the people in order to cope with the changes tend to change their accents and speech patterns too (Labov, 1972). The Charleston pronunciation, once a paradigm of emulation for many southern Americans, was equated to the ‘cockney’ in New York by many later. For example, replacing ‘r’ with ‘schwa’ or final aspirated ‘OH’ in words such as ‘poor’ and enunciating it as /puE/ or ‘PO’ when it is assimilated in phrases such as ‘poor folks’ (POfolks) or realizing it as PO-OH as it is done by some, it doesn’t take much longer to decode the intent in the expression. A broader linguistic view of language considers these dialects acceptable once they are intelligible (Kretzschmar, 2008).

A student from a different geographical region may addressing a teacher as ‘teacher’, or ‘Mr.X’ or ‘Dr.X’ or ‘Prof.X’ doesn’t make any difference until the intention in the expression reflects respect to the teacher (LeBeau, 2009). Evaluating the intelligence levels and acumen of a student based on a specific dialect is often problematic. Moreover, the Received Pronunciation in Britain, standard American English in the United States, standard English fostered by Euro-centric schools in Canada, or neutralized accent forms being advocated in India are all examples of manifestations of the perceived standards of English in different countries. The standard of a language is a variable that keeps on changing depending on the power structure of a region. For example, respect for some Asian English language learners can come not from performance but from economic status and how heavy or substandard or “distorted” one’s voice may be. For some people in Europe and the United States, respect may be a product of performance and the use of a particular accent (Bracey, 2001, p. 14). And for teachers of the English language, respect will be an outcome of their tolerance and respect for other dialects and cultures.

The other thing that the teachers of English language learners can be careful with is the selection of materials to use in the classrooms. For example, Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales and Andrew Lang’s version of Arabian Nights both have similar themes, but the differences are in the social milieus, the characterization, and the plot settings. The first one represents quintessentially European cultures and the second one reflects the Arabic cultures. When dealing with the English-language-learner classes that comprise Arabic and English backdrops, the teachers can consider the combination of Arabian Nights and the Canterbury Tales as the teaching content, and during the classroom discourse the teachers can highlight the differences and similarities that are culture specific and help the learners have a better understanding of the communication codifications and help them understand each other well so that preconceived stereotypic images can be altered.

FINAL WORD

Teachers are leaders in their classes and their goal is to create communicators for the world. Promoting linguistic democracy and fostering linguistic tolerance of regional dialects can establish bonds among peoples for ages. In general, intelligibility of a foreign dialect can be achieved in a short time. For example, when I had a student from Jidda, a Middle Eastern country, I couldn’t understand even a single word in the beginning. I really didn’t know whether he was speaking English. After an hour of attention and interaction, I understood that he was speaking English. After 2 days of interaction with him I was able to understand him. Later the student also improved his pronunciation and became more and more understandable. When teachers are skilled enough, they can understand a foreign or regional dialect, even with completely different phonological patterns, in 3 or 4 hours of interaction or at the most a week. And by using content familiar to the learner, a teacher can motivate and help the learner adjust slowly and smoothly assimilate into other cultural systems.

REFERENCES

Bracey, G. W. (2001). Why so few Asian American teachers? Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 14.

Grill, J. (2010). Whose English counts? Native speakers as English language learners. TESOL Journal, 1(3). doi: 10.5054/tj.2010.226823

Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics, pp. 282-293. Harmonsworth UK: Penguin Books.

Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

LeBeau, N. O. (2009). Teacher, can I call you “Teacher”? Essential Teacher, June 19.

Kretzschmar, W. A. (2008). Language in the Deep South: Southern accents past and present. Southern Quarterly, 45(2), pp 9-15.

Sterzuk, A. (2008). Whose English counts? Indigenous English in Saskatchewan schools. McGill Journal of Education (Online), 43(1), pp 9-19.

Dr. Srinivasa R. Idapalapati, idasrini@gmail.com,is an assistant professor of English and Dr. Senussi M. Saad Oraffi, orafisenussi@yahoo.com, is a university lecturer in English at Garyounis University, Benghazi, Libya.