|
ESL Forum:
Techniques and methods
in Language Teaching
Games, activities
and teaching ideas
Grammar and
Linguistics
Teaching material
Concerning
worksheets
Concerning
powerpoints
Concerning online
exercises
Make suggestions,
report errors
Ask for help
Message board
|
ESL forum >
Grammar and Linguistics > GRAMMAR HELP!
GRAMMAR HELP!
|
|
lshorton99
|
I �m also from the UK (North East then South East Coast - does that confuse the statistics here? Actually, not really even the coast - can I saw from nearish the North East Coast then kind of close to the South East Coast?) and I see nothing wrong with �got him to pull over � - in fact once, a policeman did actually get me to pull over for speeding. Oh, the shame!
I also say policeman, only police officer if it �s in the book I �m teaching from! I �d go as far as to say that most people I know still say policeman. I �m also fairly sure that a lot of us do it because it �s politically incorrect to do so. I think a lot of Brits (and I may be generalising here - I can only speak for those I know), take pleasure in avoiding political correctness - that, or over-exaggerating it by saying things like �He �s vertically challenged � (short). I don �t think it �s taken as seriously in the UK as in the States.
That �s just my hypothesis - I have no hard data to back this up!
Lindsey
|
5 Jul 2010
|
|
|
almaz
|
|
Lindsey,
There used to be a time when Private Eye would refer to Manchester as �Personchester �. In fact, they still refer to the current Leader of the Opposition as �Harriet Harperson �. |
6 Jul 2010
|
|
|
lshorton99
|
almaz
That �s brilliant! I shall now do the same! I miss Private Eye!
|
6 Jul 2010
|
|
|
Zora
|
Perfectly acceptable in Canada too. The *police officer*  got Fred to pull over for speeding...
I am from Western Canada - Calgary, Alberta...
|
6 Jul 2010
|
|
|
missgvsyou
|
|
I often come across problems like these. Being American, I would say "pulled him over." But everwhere else in the world you could also say "got him to pull over for speeding." It �s just being more descriptive. I work in Korea where thankfully they learn Standard American English. Not that there is anything wrong with UK or basically everywhere else, It �s just that you don �t think about how different they are until you are actually teaching ESL. Also, I think that policeman is fine.
~Christi
Currently Korea
From Michigan |
6 Jul 2010
|
|
|
maali87
|
(to pull over ) is the correct answer  |
6 Jul 2010
|
|
|
yanogator
|
|
Well, Almaz, the US is a little wider than Scotland, so we see many differences between the English used in California and that used here in Ohio, or on the east coast. Here in Cincinnati, if you need someone to repeat something that you didn �t quite hear, it is common to say, "Please?". In most of the rest of the country, they would say, "Excuse me", "Pardon me", or the ever-popular "Huh?".
I �m happy to learn this about "got him to pull over" in British English.
Thanks,
Bruce |
6 Jul 2010
|
|
|
Jayho
|
|
mmm ... we generally use the US version in this case - pulled him over. But the other is perfectly acceptable.
Downunder, we use both UK and US English. |
6 Jul 2010
|
|
|
SueThom
|
Primarily in response to "almaz":
It �s nice that you do not find "policeman" offensive, but as I said, I do know a few people (not many and probably more women than men) who actually do find the term mildly offensive and more who, while not offended, do think of it as a dated term which is being (and should be) replaced with the term "police officer"--for both male and female officers.
(Note: Just out of curiosity, I perused our local police department �s website for a few minutes and discovered they use "officer", as far as I could tell. http://www.seattle.gov/police/ Also, every news article I looked up online in our local paper and CNN used "officer", too.)
This does not include everyone I know. I, too, know some who take great pride in being as politically incorrect as possible as often as possible.
There is, as we all know, a wide variety of English speakers with many different political and other opinions; it just depends with whom you �re talking at the moment, I think. I �m also aware that in some regions of the US there is less likelihood of running into people who have considered the implications and/or agree with the general underlying concepts of "policeman", "fireman", etc.
Gender inclusive language is supported by major textbook publishers and many professional and academic groups (e.g. American Psychological Association, Associated Press, Wall Street Journal) and many journals--law, psychology, literature, etc.--won �t publish articles that do not employ it. OK, so most of our students will never reach a level where this will be of any concern to them.
However, many colleges and universities also require gender inclusive language in their written work, so those students who hope to study in an English-speaking institution of higher learning may need to be competent in its use. Why teach them one way and then have them have to relearn it later?
Or maybe some students want a job with a US business. Policy manuals are increasingly being written in gender inclusive language and written business documents are more and more expected to be written in the same way. I �ve heard people who do hiring talk about how they notice when an applicant doesn �t use gender inclusive language and mark them down for it. Why teach students in such a way that we ensure they will be unwittingly less competitive in a global market?
Or maybe your students want to work in a business in their own country which interacts with businesses in the US. A business letter or email which doesn �t use gender inclusive language may not be off-putting to many, but do business people really want to give a bad impression to any potential clients if they can avoid it?
I �ve read that it �s not just English that �s grappling with this issue. Most cultures around the world throughout most of history have been male-dominated and our languages reflect that. Living languages change over time. Is gender inclusive language going to eventually be the norm in English? Who knows? My crystal ball doesn �t function very well.
However, as teachers, I think we owe it to our students to give them the best tools to succeed. This sometimes means not just defining the words, but also explaining the connotations, implications, etc. behind them. In some circles, for example, the use of the term "ain �t" is not only perfectly acceptable, but preferred. I would be doing my students a disservice, though, if I didn �t explain the potential--even probable--consequences of using it outside of those circles.
Well, obviously I have too much time on my hands this evening (I �m avoiding doing some odious housework) or I would never have bothered to type such a lengthy response! Thank you for your patience, my friends, in allowing me a place to voice some thoughts. It �s an interesting topic, I think, and sometimes following an interesting topic is more fun than cleaning the toilet.
Sue
|
6 Jul 2010
|
|
|
sp.watson
|
|
Interesting discussion, but I �m not sure where these US and UK versions originated. Admittedly, there are some differences between Am Eng and Br Eng, but personally I would say "the policeman pulled him over for speeding" and I am from the UK (mostly the north!)
Using "the policeman got him to pull over.." does imply something slightly different, e.g. that there was difficulty or effort involved, but it may also be used with equivalent meaning I think.
|
6 Jul 2010
|
|
< Previous
1
2
3
Next >
|
