"Neutrally accented" English, as Geoffrey Cartridge describes it, seems to me to be a pie in the sky. Any definition of the term will be wholly subjective and unreliable as a means of legislating any sort of practical policy, at any scale. Simply because Cartridge was told he has "neutrally accented" English by one person doesn't mean someone else would say the same of him.
It is precisely because there's no possible way of establishing such a standard that children ought to be exposed to as many varieties of spoken English as possible, so that they may learn to remain vigilant while listening. I'd say the possibility of a student suffering for this is kept in check by an attentive teacher.
The reality is that, for quite some time to come, overcoming regional accents and grasping idioms (from flash-in-the-pan slang to oldies like "pie in the sky") will be aspects of communicating in English.
I would think that a student exposed to one kind of English exclusively, even Cartridge's "neutrally accented" strand, would have less of a handle on the language than one exposed to a variety of styles.
I'd like to add that reducing the end of English to a score on an examination is demeaning and detrimental to the language, its speakers, its teachers and its students.
Ryan Joseph Hudson
Taipei
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) has said that the armed forces must reach a high level of combat readiness by 2027. That date was not simply picked out of a hat. It has been bandied around since 2021, and was mentioned most recently by US Senator John Cornyn during a question to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday. It first surfaced during a hearing in the US in 2021, when then-US Navy admiral Philip Davidson, who was head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said: “The threat [of military
RSS