I write in response to Geoffrey Cartridge's letter ("Clear English in short supply," June 19, page 8). First, I have a question for the author. Where can I go to get "neutrally-accented" English certification? I have heard this nonsense from various people, though the supposed "neutral accent" always mysteriously adheres closely to the speaker's native accent (quite a coincidence there).
I agree with the author that "it is necessary to practise conversational and grammatically correct English frequently to develop a proficiency in the language." However, in schools where this is not being done, it has much more to do with the methodology used in the classroom and the training (or lack thereof) in the teachers rather than where the teacher comes from.
A simple fact is that the majority of teachers in Taiwan don't know a gerund from an infinitive, much less how to teach proper grammatical usage. Because of this, various teaching methods emphasize "using the language rather than talking about it" (i.e., don't bother teaching the rules because the teachers don't know them anyway).
None of this has anything to do with accents -- the author's rather jaundiced perceptions notwithstanding. Ironically, the vast majority of teachers in Taiwan aren't even from the US, but rather Canada, South Africa, and Australia.
I have known and worked with effective teachers from these and other countries. I have also known and worked with complete frauds from many different countries. Accents can cause initial difficulties, but can usually be overcome as long as the teacher is an effective educator.
I find one of the author's comments particularly amusing and ironic: "English can be a strongly accented language, and even I, a `neutrally accented' Australian with many years of teaching experience, have difficulty understanding not only US English, but also South African, Indian, Scot and Irish-accented English." I have heard these very words often spoken about the accents of Australians.
Greg Hurst
Tainan
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
Much has been said about the significance of the recall vote, but here is what must be said clearly and without euphemism: This vote is not just about legislative misconduct. It is about defending Taiwan’s sovereignty against a “united front” campaign that has crept into the heart of our legislature. Taiwanese voters on Jan. 13 last year made a complex decision. Many supported William Lai (賴清德) for president to keep Taiwan strong on the world stage. At the same time, some hoped that giving the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) a legislative majority would offer a
Owing to the combined majority of the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), the legislature last week voted to further extend the current session to the end of next month, prolonging the session twice for a total of 211 days, the longest in Taiwan’s democratic history. Legally, the legislature holds two regular sessions annually: from February to May, and from September to December. The extensions pushed by the opposition in May and last week mean there would be no break between the first and second sessions this year. While the opposition parties said the extensions were needed to
RSS