'ask' v 'aks' - any reason?

[ladywotlunches]

Rastamouse??

I was reminded of that gem this morning, as we were up later than usual and the cBeebies programmes my son usually likes had finished, and 'the mouse' theme tune started up. Bless him, he knows I hate it so much that he had the remote in hand before I said a word!! (Did go onto Milkshake though, but I don't mind Peppa Pig).

But I think one of the reasons I hated Rastamouse so much from the beginning was the 'ask/arks' issue. My son caught this from nursery too. Now he's 6 - and it seems to have disappeared (Inkmaiden - he's also at a school in Honor Oak, Fairlawn. Perhaps its there he's learnt to talk proper :) )

[Inkmaiden]

Yep, from Goose Green to Fairlawn!

[Saffron]

Gah! Peppa Pig is just as bad!! They pronouce it 'Peppar' instead of 'Peppa'. Plus the nearly ubiquitous use of 'have got' instead of 'have'. Oh the agony of it.

[Growlybear]

The use of 'would of' etc. really irritates me. My daughter's grammar and punctuation was excellent from a very early age, and I can still remember the look on her face when she showed me a correction that her class teacher had made to a piece of work in her English book at the end of Year 2. The teacher had actually crossed through 'I would have...' and written by the side 'I would of...'. I started looking for another school the next day.

[nunheadmum]

Sorry been away for the week but interesting discussion. It is one of those things that bugs me.....arks and other bad/localised grammar/slang. But at the same time, my mum was the same and made us speak properly - and I remember the hell I got at school for 'talking posh'. (Can't blame them really - talking 'Queen's English' when all about are speaking Glasweigan is setting yourself up for problems!)

I don't mind her being aware of it and using it at school. But I definitely will make sure she learns the correct way to say things and if possible, uses this at home and knows when it should be used.

On the point of good grammar - does anyone know a good, accessible reference book on grammar? At school I don't think we ever went past 'First Aid in English' in terms of learning grammar and a lot of what I know comes from learning other languages and therefore having to understand the English construct first. But hubby hasn't done that and we often try to work out what should be said and why and, all too often, fail miserably! Would be good to have a source of the rules but put in a way that your average non-English-language-graduate can understand.

[Saffron]

As an online reference, Grammar Girl website http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/ is a good source of information, and it's easily searchable.

[Jo'sEnglish]

In answer to the question about books, as an EFL teacher the standard text we use for Grammar is Swan's Practical English Usage. It's a bit dry though. Most EFL teachers starting out use Raymond Murphy's English Grammar In Use. This is a book with exercises for students but it is really clear and easy to understand. I know when I first started teaching I didn't really have a clue about grammar (being of the generation when they decided it wasn't necessary to teach any at school I had never studied it) and I used this a lot (and still do occasionally!).

Not so much grammar but an interesting read about language is Bill Bryson's Mother Tongue.

The grammar girl webiste Saffron mentions is American English, there are some differences in usage so please be aware of this.

Speaking as someone who teachs non-native speakers (my baby is too young to speak as a parent!) you need to be careful what you correct and what you let go. Children work out grammar quite organically and sometimes if you think about the mistakes they are making they are quite intelligent. For example, you often hear children saying things like "I goed there yesterday", which actually shows that they understand that a past tense is normally formed with "ed" (although there are of course many irregular ones!). As long as you speak correctly they will correct these things naturally themselves.

Accents are more tricky, peer influence is a lot stronger here! Even if you and your partner had very strong Liverpudlian accents (for example) if they grow up in South London they will have a south London accent. You can correct odd words and that but probably they will just learn to speak how you like with you and still speak like their friends with them! But then we all speak in different ways depending on the situation, don't we? And it is important for kids to recognise this.

In reference to using the -ing (not technically a gerund but I won't get into that!), as in the McDonald's 'I'm lovin' it', it isn't really American English (it is considered incorrect there I believe?) but more just wrong! State and emotion verbs aren't generally used in the -ing form. However, it may well be that it is an example of language evolving (although personally one I don't like!) 'Would of' is just plain wrong and something that really annoys me, I would also have taken my child out of a school that corrected that!!! Shocking.

(disclaimer to say please excuse any grammar, etc mistakes here, I'm trying to wrangle the baby at the same time as typing! Oh, and I love Rastamouse ;) So nice to hear differnent accents!)

[Saffron]

Jo'sEnglish Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In reference to using the -ing (not technically a

> gerund but I won't get into that!), as in the

> McDonald's 'I'm lovin' it', it isn't really

> American English (it is considered incorrect there

> I believe?) but more just wrong! State and emotion

> verbs aren't generally used in the -ing form.

> However, it may well be that it is an example of

> language evolving...

No, it wouldn't be considered correct in formal written English in the States, but it is a common and accepted idiomatic use in daily speech or informal written work there. I'm not sure if its origin is from the States, or if we're just more aware of it due to the ubiquity of modern American advertising and televsion?

Here's an excerpt from Grammar Girl on linguistic evolution:

Idiomatic Uses of Stative Verbs

According to the rule, ?I?m loving it? is not grammatically correct because it uses a stative verb?in this case, one that conveys emotion, love?in a progressive tense.

But, now we come to some idiomatic uses of stative verbs. You can conjugate certain stative verbs in a progressive tense in the right context. I can easily imagine one lady saying to another, ?Hey, Jean. I?m loving that new haircut!? On the other hand, it wouldn?t sound right to say, ?I?m loving my mother.? You?d say, ?I love my mother.? Another example might be the verb ?to hear.? This is considered a stative verb, yet native speakers will be familiar with the statement ?I?m hearin? ya? to mean ?I understand your point of view.? However, no native speaker would say, ?I?m hearing the concert.?

We all know that advertisements, song lyrics, and fashion headlines aren't the places to turn for examples of good grammar, but we also know that native speakers of English can get creative with traditional grammar, and that sometimes grammatically iffy phrases catch on. Language is constantly changing. Enough people seem to be using stative verbs in progressive tenses that we can probably say it?s becoming more accepted in popular culture to use them that way. That said, it?s still probably best for ESL teachers to continue to advise their students not to say, ?I?m loving it? or to use other potentially incorrect stative verbs in progressive tenses. ESL teachers should point out, though, that students will hear native speakers using stative verbs in progressive tenses when the moment seems right.

[dulwichgirl2]

Can I put a word in against the use of, "I was SAT when x happened".

Horrible and used by supposedly educated commentators as well.

[DiGio]

Jo'sEnglish,

you're right, it is not gerund, but Continuous form of a verb as I was taught, and you all here tell it is the spoken English. Good to know I laugh correctly when receive email from Commercial Director of HSBC asking me why was I needing him.

Anyways, so, what's wrong with written 'Et cetera' versus pronounced 'excetera'. My colleague here with perfect received pronunciation (i.e. what you call Queen's English) tells me it is just the English being lazy. Is it easier to pronounce 'ks' rather than 'ts' that drives the English to be so lazy? :)

Also, calling "I am loving", "I am wanting" idiomatic expression I believe is also incorrect, no? Idioma is a Greek word meaning special phrasing, and implies figurative meaning. For example, in English to pull one's leg means to tease the person, not literally pull the leg, or to kick the bucket means to die. Without knowing the idiomatic expression it would not be possible to have a meaning if the expression is translated into another language. I am loving means I love, I am wanting means I want - it means what it means, and just used in a wrong in-existent form.

I agree with I was sat instead of I sat, or 'Great fun was had by us' - why not just simple we had fun?

[gillandjoe]

I am new to this thread and have just read it from start to finish...

All the grammar stuff is very enlightening however, I would like to say that I find it very disturbing that the thinly veiled racist/classist comments about 'aks' and 'we was' have been allowed to continue unchecked. If you are too good for an area's regional verbal quirks then maybe its time you moved to an area that would satisfy your narrow-minded ideas about correctness.

And as for the comments about nursery costing so much that all nursery workers should speak 'properly' - umm, do you think that nursery workers tend to be degree toting individuals? If you don't like the way the help speak to your children then perhaps you should take care of them yourselves?

I seriously doubt that a teacher (who, by the way, only did one postgrad year to become a primary school teacher with an undergraduate degree in ANY subject - not necessarily an expert in English grammar!!) who made one mistake marking one piece work in one pupil's book for one subject warrants the outrage in this thread. I guess none of you make mistakes, grammatical or otherwise?!

Feel free to respond to this tirade, I love a good argument.

[Jessie]

My son - at aforemententioned Goose Green - has picked up many south east London accent features. I think it's lovely, innit. Otherwise yes, I'd move him elsewhere. Good post gillandjoe.

[Saffron]

DiGio Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Also, calling "I am loving", "I am wanting"

> idiomatic expression I believe is also incorrect,

> no? Idioma is a Greek word meaning special

> phrasing, and implies figurative meaning.

As defined in English, idioms can also form a style of speech or expressions natural to a group of people, ie regional speech or dialect and/or also including jargon.

[Coach Beth]

Agree with Jesse and GillandJoe. When I studied urban anthropology in university (many moons ago!), I wrote a paper on about region/local accents exploring how looking down on accents is a way of compensating for class insecurity. If you are secure in your class/status/self, people tend to feel less need to focus on differences in regional/localised accents and ways of speaking. Groups of people (tradionally the aspiring middle-classes) who are insecure about their status, people tend to seek ways of identifying themselves with what they perceive as a better class of people and put down others.

I am from Canada, specifically Nova Scotia in the Maritime proviences ~ and there are many differences in local accents/ways of speaking. Maritimers have a specific way of speaking and have certain 'grammatically incorrect' expressions. Here is a quote from the Vice Guide to speaking like a Maritimer.

'Past, present, and future verb tenses are erratically interchanged .... Maritimers will say, ?I seen the Batman movie this day,? with all the intended meaning of the former. Any maritime native reading this knows that I?ve only gently scratched the surface of a polluted swamp of a lexicon. At the end of the day no matter what part of Canada you?re from, the world will always make fun of us for living in igloos, riding polar bears, and saying ?aboot? instead of ?about.? - From the Vice Guide to speaking like a Maritimer

Anyway, I'm pleased my child (who goes to the aforementioned school with Jesse's son!) can fluidly move between different dialects & expressions in South East London, Canada and Geordie Land (his Dad is from Newcastle!). At seven, he already knows when it is appropriate to use slang and when it is appropriate not to. If he ever goes into acting, he will certaintly not need training in picking up dialects!

[westof]

I agree with the last few posts about the correlation between class insecurity & consciousness of accents.

All I'd add, is that some people do seem naturally able to flit between accents much easier than others. I'm thinking anecdotally of adult siblings I know who've had the same background (either regional or poshness) where one has been much better at adapting their accent to wherever they end up, while the other seems unable to change their childhood accent.

I wonder if it really is an annate ability, or whether exposure at an early age makes you more able to accent flip?

I suppose even siblings with a year or so's difference in age might have been exposed to different accents at different ages, or one may have been at nursery early while the other stayed longer within the family - would that kind of thing make enough difference?

[Jo'sEnglish]

Totally agree with the sentiment about accents. And gilland joe, I think in general it's a great post. However, I disagree with this:

gillandjoe Wrote:

> I seriously doubt that a teacher (who, by the way,

> only did one postgrad year to become a primary

> school teacher with an undergraduate degree in ANY

> subject - not necessarily an expert in English

> grammar!!) who made one mistake marking one piece

> work in one pupil's book for one subject warrants

> the outrage in this thread. I guess none of you

> make mistakes, grammatical or otherwise?!

Maybe I'm wrong, but I would think anyone with a basic level of education (let alone a University education, in any subject) should know that 'would of' is wrong, no? I also (and speaking as a teacher) feel it s very different making a grammatical or other mistake (which I do all the time!!) and correcting something which is right to make it wrong (which suggests that they don't know it's wrong). As a parent I would have been really annoyed at that!

I think there is an interesting point here about the difference between spoken and written language. In spoken language there are plenty of things that are said that aren't technically correct, due to regional speech or otherwise. But generally when written we expect language to follow the 'set' grammatical rules more closely. But, these rules do change over time, although more slowly than in speech. Language is always evolving, I suppose it is a question of wider society deciding where to be flexible and where not to be.

[DaveR]

" I would like to say that I find it very disturbing that the thinly veiled racist/classist comments about 'aks' and 'we was' have been allowed to continue unchecked. If you are too good for an area's regional verbal quirks then maybe its time you moved to an area that would satisfy your narrow-minded ideas about correctness"

Just to be sure I understand you - are you saying that "arks" and "we was" are correct English (in this area, at least), and that to suggest otherwise is racist/classist? If so, I disagree, and if my child said "we was" I would correct them.

[gillandjoe]

"Just to be sure I understand you - are you saying that "arks" and "we was" are correct English (in this area, at least), and that to suggest otherwise is racist/classist? If so, I disagree, and if my child said "we was" I would correct them."

Ha!

'correct English'=can of worms

I think that it does border on racist to say that 'Afro-Carribbean' verbal idiocyncrasies are not good enough for you or your child.

Feel free to correct your child's manner of speaking in any way you choose - I just don't think its right to come on a local forum complaining of 'local' dialect infecting your children - making the ssumption that no one on the forum speaks in the way you are so distasteful of. Can you not sniff some East Dulwich snobbery in that?

'Oh, its so funny how Afro-Carribean people and local teenagers can't say ask properly. I find it so annoying, don't you?'

[Scruffy Mummy]

Oh yes GillandJoe. Thumbs up - you are spot on.

[mrs.lotte]

I have never heard a child at Goose Green School say "innit" although doubtless some will. I have however heard plenty,including my own, say "isn't it that". I presume it was being suggested a number of posts back that children at Goose Green can't speak properly and those at Fairlawn can, if so it barely merits a response save to say that its absurd but perhaps I misunderstood the post.

I recall very well that when I was a child and moved from a northern city to a home counties village and adopted the local estuary English my mother constantly corrected me which simply made me do it more, it doesn't mean that I wasn't capable of speaking "properly". I agree that most children like many adults are capable of adapting how they speak to who they are with.

[Inkmaiden]

mrs.lotte, if you are talking about my "innit" post, you have definitely misunderstood- I was making the same point that you have just made about how children adapt their speech in different environments. I used this one saying as an example, there are many more. It was just an anecdote. This was also five years ago and loads of different phrases have come and gone since then, no doubt also adapted school by school. I'm a bit shocked at what has been made of a totally innocuous comment.

[mrs.lotte]

Thank you for your response Inkmaiden, happy to hear that I had indeed misinterpreted your post which now makes perfect sense.

[DaveR]

"Ha!

'correct English'=can of worms"

Again, I don't agree. Of course, language and usage change over time, and everybody uses different language in different situations, but that doesn't mean that it's snobbish or racist (or anything else negative) to recognise that at any point in time there is a broadly accepted correct form. As many people have noted, most kids will adapt, depending on the situation, and will speak differently to their friends as compared to their teachers, for example. But if you tell a kid that it's equally acceptable to say 'we was' in any situation you're not doing them any favours, IMO; you may not judge them, but others will.

[Saffron]

DaveR, I'd even expand that to say that there is a differece between what is accepted as correct and what is accepted as appropriate.

The progression of language is generally from oracy to literacy, where understanding of a spoken language is seen as fundamental before understanding of a written language can progress. Basically, children learn to speak before they learn to read. Therefore a thorough understanding of pronunciation, word order, and meaning is fundamental in order to attain a thorough understanding of written usage.

Returning to the OP's opening question, a child needs to understand the pronunciation of a spoken word in order to aid its later usage in written English, including a comprehensive understanding of when and why words are sometimes spoken differently. Indeed there may be multiple reasons why a word is different in one context compared to another.

However, as the OP's child is still very young, personally I wouldn't dwell too much on overtly correcting her. As previously suggested, one of the best ways to teach good oracy to young children is simply to repeat their statements back to them correctly when they mispronouce or misuse words. Unless there are other problems in the child's speech, the issue will likely correctly itself overtime. If not, then a speech and language therapist might be helpful.

Instilling an early love of books is probably also a good idea. Even though children may be too young to read all of the words themselves, listening to pronunciation and understanding speech patterns will help them develop their own linguistic skills. However, I would put the caveat on this, that you will reap what you sow: I have seen plenty of linguistic errors in children's books!

[Jo'sEnglish]

Just as an aside for anyone interested in the topic, there is a fabulous book by the equally fabulous linguist David Crystal called 'Listen to your child' (rubbish title!) which is all about how children develop language right from birth up to early school years. It's a little out of date (stuff about recording your child on a tape recorder) but still very relevant and an easy read for non-linguists too. I'd recommend it highly.