English Teaching in the United Kingdom

OUR ENGLISH LANGUAGE

Have you noticed the new sound-disease on the media ? Hardly anyone can now say `oo', they nearly all say `eu'. But then they seem to be proud of it. They call it a regional accent. It isn't. A genuine accent can be accepted and maybe appreciated One learns the convention and then it does not irritate, though some regional sounds may always distress some people. It is the mixture which jars most. A person may be speaking more or less accepted English but suddenly say `flutt' instead of `flat'. And now is added `teu' for `too'. Most mistakes are in fact caused by laziness, fashion, lack of Education, or copying.

Mistakes on the media that I have heard in the last few hours alone have been: `Reely' for `really'; `teu' (or `tew')for too; `gewd' for `good'; `threw' for `through'; `clew' for `clue'; `primarily' (ugly American) ;and, of course `controversy' for controversy. `Cuepé' for `coupé' car; `fea' for` fear'; `hee' for `here' (from Australian soaps?); `peace' for `pierce'; `drawring' for `drawing'. (Lord Olivier was said to have invited a young actor to dinner who said this word wrong. Olivier then got up in the middle of the meal, turned at the door and said, "There is only one `rr in `drawing' and went to bed.

"We're paid for evrythink" for "We have paid for everything".
"We're paid" could mean we were paid.
That is what I mean about distinction.
An announcer: "He was bit on the nose". Was he, indeed!
"A simple criteria is - -"(Criteria is plural. Criterion is the single).
"There is concerns that -'
"It run out of steam"(meaning ran out). If enough people use the wrong 'a' sound, a grammatical error would set in and people would forget about past tense and say' run out' without even meaning 'ran' Thus does language begin not just to change, but to rot. New ideas, sayings, even slang can enrich our language. But that is different from sound; i.e. from bad example.

In my last book, Child Play: its importance for human development - (Jessica Kingsley 1995), in the language sections, I have stressed the importance of having proper, thoughtful agreed English pronunciation as it is a valuable International Language and there must be a sure basis for foreigners to learn. I have also joked about the wrong 'a' sound, for proper basic speech gives us the clearest distinction. That is why educated people helped it so carefully to evolve. Examples of the wrong 'a' are often heard in these two examples: `Buttered wives' (rather sexy?). Buttered babies(nice for breakfast?) A properly taught foreigner might indeed wonder what was going on in this green and pleasant land.

We may all have special sounds or usages that irritate us. My present hates are ' was sat 'and 'formidable' (Irish?) and 'temporarily(American) 'Was sat' is actually inaccurate. Generally what is meant is 'was sitting' (nice and comfy somehow, like knitting). "Was sat" infers the use of action or even force. He was sat upright i.e. helped, or forced, to do so. Also, I cannot understand why children should not be taught about singular and plural. It helps one in life : And why shouldn't they know about a noun and a verb? They might then see why you make a survey, but survey the scene; or make a protest, but protest violently and thus become a protester. Lie down (present) instead of ' lay down' (past tense, but increasingly used as present) , which would (oh dear) lead us to transitive and intransitive verbs. Are we allowed to mention such things these days ?

People who try to be funny about posh people often mock the word 'one' The so-called `Royal One'. I suppose it has its origin in the French 'on' , which we were taught had a meaning of 'they' . The Funny People tend to stress 'one' (as do children reading, where it occurs in script), thinking perhaps that it is numerical. In English, as in French, it should not be stressed, as it does not really mean the numerical 1 , it generally and paradoxically means more than one. So, in the jokingly spoken 'as one does' (usually, I am glad to say, not stressed) means something like 'as usually done by most sensible and cultured like-us-type-people, even you'.

Things seemed to change after 1945. As with many others, language did too. Understandably, there became a fear of talking properly, as(quite rightly)many people were being able to climb into positions which they might not have had the chance of gaining before the war. Perhaps people didn't want to speak like 'Officers' ? Anyway, everyone was being urged to follow and worship in a new Faith. Its name was Linguistics. It appeared to be based on - -" but language is always changing" . What it sometimes meant was "speak just how and as badly as you like, `cos with luck everyone will speak like me soon". The teaching of reading changed. Phonics was out. Projects were in. I remember, in lectures, being a bit naughty and mentioning "Look and see but still-not-be-able-to-say" method. All was with good intent, no doubt. Perhaps, everything being easier, it may have made some children happier.

It was in the midst of this and despite what I have written here, that my book Child Drama came out in 1954. In it, the intent was to suggest that there was (is) such a thing as a drama which is an art form of the child, in its own right, parallel to Child Art (Dr Viola, Prof. Cizek, Herbert Read etc. ). One leading newspaper said "Child Drama is not just a book, it is an event."

Older Heads were less sure. For, if you allow real Child Drama, then you allow child speech. How this worked in with what they had learned in the past and the new dangerous ideas being introduced in general, they could not yet make out, though many of them bravely tried. Younger teachers were enthralled but didn't know how to guide it. They hadn't been taught. This meant course after course to answer their need. For the comfort of some, who were terrified by what children said, or might say, in improvisation, Music and Movement had arrived on radio and then the Government document, Story of a school (somewhat late )came out. It was meant to outline the work of A. L. Stone at Steward Street Junior School in Birmingham, but was in the time of K. R. Scott. The photos were taken of children under Scott's care.

Having read this document and listened to the 'wireless' , HMI and some Heads, hoping not to have to allow improvised language, were always saying 'Don't you think Juniors ought to just do mime?' The answer is No. Children should be encouraged to speak and dance in Child Drama from the very beginning. They will speak in their own language - but clarity is important. And very interesting this can be. Often it has wonderful imaginative ideas and sometimes true poetic content. Teachers have to develop an ear for hearing and appreciating it. But there can be more formal training apart from this. Why not? It can sometimes be done in Child Drama too. Everything depends on the purpose of the lesson. If you want to release imagination and personal expression, you allow it full rein and don't correct. But it is quite possible to say "Today I may interrupt you, because the purpose of today's lesson is to watch out for clear speech and grammar." Just the same with writing: "In the last few weeks I have been looking for ideas and I haven't made any corrections, but today I shall be watching for punctuation and spelling". It was quite wrong to think that one was modern if only creative writing was used and hopelessly old fashioned if you ever corrected other things. Both can be taught side by side. Similarly with speech.

There is much to do with psychological release in creative writing and acting, which is outlined in some detail and at some length in the book, Child Play. But in any case, all of us need to learn to speak clearly and without fear, developing what I have called Language Flow. For communication is one of the most important things in life, yet in many places it is allowed and taught less than anything else. In some schools it is prohibited. They are still in the state and attitude: I said No Talking: Just keep your mouth shut and pass your exams Thus some of our cleverest children, expected to become leaders in some fashion or other, wherever they eventually go, are virtually incoherent.

I experienced the proof of this in setting up a wide test of Grammar and Comprehensive schools, going in at short notice (once they knew it was likely) and offering simple tests. In the so-called posh schools the results were lamentable. Later, during the years that the Child Drama Certificate Course was established, unexpectedly, many teachers in Senior Schools applied. The result was rewarding and, as one might expect, intelligent young people, given the chance, developed a clear, smooth, witty and charming flow; and short playlets, created in 10 minutes only, were some of the best I have ever heard. Storytelling too. Nevertheless, one Head, of the poshest school in one city, said "I don't know what you have been teaching my member of staff, but I hope you are not going to destroy our tradition in Literature" . I have sometimes wondered: why didn't he find out? I am sure there is less misunderstanding now.

My own conviction is that the teaching of English should be based upon the love of sound. Content and meaning follow. I have said elsewhere that children love sound when they go into school, they do not always love it when they come out. What have we done to them in the meantime?

English is one of the most useful and beautiful of languages. It would be a tragedy to let it die without care, or for some curious form of self defence. We should help our children to distinguish beauty from the mundane and to espy the difference between banal rhyme and true poetic utterance; together with better media example, at least a proportion of them might then hear the difference between `flutt' and flat and rejoice therein.