It will be hard to find a Dutchmen under 50 years old who is not able to understand and speak English. Dutch pupils in secondary education spend about 4 hours a week studying grammar, reading texts, listening to conversations and giving presentations, all in English and that for four to six years. They even study cultural and historical aspects of the English speaking world. Music, films and playing online-computer games all add to a better understanding of the English language. The quality of most Dutch vowels and consonants are quite close to the quality of many English vowels and consonants. Most of the time an English utterance produced with Dutch vowel and consonant qualities will still be easily understood by native speakers of English. Phonological interference does not automatically make a Dutchman’s English unintelligible. However, why is it so easy to recognise a Dutchman as being Dutch while speaking English? Would it not be worthwhile to try and achieve a near-native accent for our pupils and students?
The importance of a near-native accent. This talk will discuss whether or not it is important for EFL-teachers to try and achieve a near-native generally accepted accent for their students. The focus will be on the credibility of non-native speakers of English while speaking English in a globalising world, with a heavy or mild foreign accent. These days and in the future more and more non-native speakers of English will communicate with each other in English. For a native speaker it is not that difficult to understand a non-native speaker speaking English with a lot of local or regional phonological interferences. For two non-native speakers of different origin, both speaking English with a mild or heavy accent, it might be more likely that confusion about what is being said occurs because of the foreign accent. Research (Shiri Lev-Ari &, Boaz Keysar, Why don't we believe non-native speakers? The influence of accent on credibility, 2010) proves that a near-native accent adds to the credibility of the speaker. In the Netherland most EFL-teachers were trained to speak English with an RP or GA accent. As soon as they start teaching students in secondary education they accept “World English” and most teachers do not pay a lot of attention to pronunciation mistakes made by their students, as long as they can get the message across. During the talk the audience will be asked how important they consider a near-native accent is, what mistakes they accept and don’t accept and in which way teaching pronunciation is an issue in their lessons. Some sound samples with typical mistakes the Dutch make while speaking English will be presented and discussed to see if the audience consider them to be confusing or not. Then a strategy, using phonetics as a tool, will be presented to help correcting a few typical mistakes. session type : talk (30 minutes) Audience; EFL teachers & teacher trainers
MULTIFILE
Presentatie op congres The Sign Language Proficiency Interview (SLPI) is a tool for assessing functional sign language skill. Based on the Language Aptitude Test, it uses a recorded 20 minute conversation between a skilled interviewer and the candidate. The interview uses an ad hoc series of probing and challenging questions to elicit the candidate’s best use of the sign language in topics relating to the candidate’s work, family/background, and leisure activities. This video language sample is then analyzed to determine the candidate’s rating on the SLPI Rating Scale. The rating process documents vocabulary, grammar and discourse, and follows a specified protocol that includes specific examples from the interview. The SLPI is used widely in the US and Canada with American Sign Language, and one of the presenters has adapted it for use with South African Sign Language. The presenters have recently adapted the SLPI for use with Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). While the interview process is the same regardless of the sign language, two aspects of the adaptation for NGT required work: 1) modifying the grammar analysis to match NGT grammar; and 2) modifying the Rating Scale to align with that of the Common European Framework of Reference for languages (CEFR). This ICED presentation will include: 1) a thorough description of SLPI goals, processes and implementation; 2) modifications for NGT grammar; and 3) modifications to align with the CEFR.
Digital technologies in public spaces have become more prescient, capable, and invisible. As a result, the need to explain and mediate these technologies has become more urgent. Current processes for designing digital trust interaction protocols, visual languages, and interfaces for the urban environment have been dominated by governing actors: policing, government, and tech-companies. When communities are involved in the design process, their participation is limited to formats these organisations prescribe. By default, these designs exclude the lived technological experiences of communities that use the built environment. The outcome is a lopsided appraisal of digital trust, and designs that are insufficiently transparent and equitable– and as a result, not understood and embraced by the communities who must use them. This design-research aims to develop prototypes that include how urban interactive technologies are ‘lived’ in the spaces where they are implemented. These experiences will be teased-out through site-specific aesthetic and performative actions, which in turn inform the design process. The envisioned contribution includes ways of ’doing’ to the field of situated design, and concrete prototypes for alternative digital trust protocols, visual languages, and interfaces. By flipping the current approach on its head, this research argues that the practical and ethical departure points for addressing digital ‘trust deficits’ are already within the diverse communities who use the built environment.
