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
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