Aims without frontiers

In a slight departure from the language-based content of this blog, I'd like to draw your attention to a recent educational event that was rather more global its scope — involving participants from the UK, Finland and Switzerland.

Last Thursday, 14 September, I was invited by Veronika Mueller Maeder, my former colleague and boss at the Scuola Vivante school in Switzerland, to join her at Liverpool Hope University to attend a conference and to present the school's multilingual and multidisciplinary approach to learning, as exemplified by its Mare Nostrum documentary film, which Veronika, myself and the entire school community produced in 2014. The event was tenth annual conference of TeesNet (Teacher Education for Equity and Sustainability Network). The overarching theme of the day was essentially an exploration of the ways in which teachers might better incorporate the United Nations Development Programme's 17 global sustainable development goals (SDGs) and aspects of global citizenship into their teaching.

If you've never heard of the SDGs, you're not alone. Despite the promotional work involving the likes of Richard Curtis, Malala Yousafzai, Leonardo DiCaprio, Emma Watson and others, Dr. Harriet Marshall, leader of the Global Learning Programme, informed us that only 1 in 10 people in the UK had heard of them. We can only hope that maybe once our media have grown tired of focussing on issues of global division - Brexit and the posturing of certain world leaders with their weapons able to instantly destroy the planet — we will be able to discuss the admirable and essential SDGs in a way that arms future generations with the tools they need to secure a sustainable future for the planet.

So for the uninitiated, the UN's 17 sustainable global development goals, with their ambitious target of implementation by 2030, are as follows:

1. No poverty

2. Zero hunger

3. Good health and well-being

4. Quality education

5. Gender equality

6. Clean water and sanitation

7. Affordable and clean energy

8. Decent work and economic growth

9. Industry, innovation and infrastructure

10. Reduced inequalities

11. Sustainable cities and communities

12. Responsible consumption and production

13. Climate action

14. Life below water

15. Life on land

16. Peace, justice and strong institutions

17. Partnership for the goals

There were keynote speeches at the conference, such as the one given by the Director of Curriculum Development in Finland, Ms Irmeli Halinen, whose country's 2016 curriculum reform has incorporated feedback from over 60,000 students, works in partnership with, rather than issuing diktats to, local education authorities to teach and implement the SDGs at local level. Teachers in Finland, we were assured, "make it happen". And the country's longstanding reputation for academic excellence would seem to bear this out. Every teacher in Finland has a Masters degree and is afforded the autonomy and support to create inspiring lessons.

In contrast, UK-based educators and policymakers (including friendly Liverpool Labour MP and Chairman of the International Development Select Committee Stephen Twigg) appeared to recognise UK-specific hurdles. Everyone noted the struggle with, on the one hand, raising awareness of and government support for the goals; while also deciding how to best to bring the SDGs into the devolved education systems of the UK nations in ways that work within, rather than as an add-on to a crowded curriculum. In addition to presenting Mare Nostrum, I saw examples including a Norway-led student network of nine countries undertaking collaborative research, a nascent UK attempt to incorporate the SDGs into textbooks for Science and other subjects, and a lovely primary-level project to aid children's engagement with their locality, animals and coastline in southern England. 

It was heartening to see the enthusiasm of all the participants at the conference. The challenge now is for everyone to build on this activity at grassroots level by raising awareness of the sustainable development goals and global citizenship goals beyond the conference fraternity (and beyond national borders and constraints) in order for these aims to stand a chance of becoming a reality by 2030.   

Change the record - Part 2

Further to my recent Olympics-related post, the 2016 Rio Olympics are now over and the newspaper sports supplements are full of praise for Team GB's impressive tally of 27 gold, 23 silver and 17 bronze medals - and rightfully so. That's two more medals than at London 2012 and 19 medals than the target set for GB athletes.

As a result, we now know that Rio 2016 is the "first time a host country has increased its medal haul at the following Olympics", and that the event was Team GB's best ever Games. But at London 1908, over a mammoth contest lasting 187 days, Team GB won a whopping 146 medals. This now explains the nebulous descriptions "away Games" or "best performance at an Olympics in the modern era". Those calling it the "best ever Games" are clearly keen to dismiss 1908 as either too long ago or with too many variables, subsequent rule-changes or other differences meaning that no comparison with the Olympics of today can be made. Not that the media spend much time explaining such details, of course! Like the geek I am, I trawled through Team GB history for my own explanation.

The "best away Games" tag is simply shorthand for "best-Olympic-Games-ever-except-for-London-1908-which-went-on-for-six-months-so-sort-of-doesn't-count-really". So there you have it! I'll leave it to others to fill you in on how much each medal has cost relative to the funding for different sports, and the comparisons with China in terms of population, area and medals won. I stand corrected; Rio 2016 was Team GB's best ever away Games. Now let's hope the athletes and those whose names we don't yet know can do even better at Tokyo 2020.

Change the record

It's perhaps only natural that my propensity for pedantry should be heightened during Olympic coverage, given that I watch television more intently than usual during this particular sporting showcase. But the gaffes made by BBC commentators are just cringeworthy.

The first slip-up came during the opening ceremony. After the Greek athletes had been led out around the track (as is usual), the commentator remarked that the subsequent order of teams was awry. It was alphabetical — albeit not alphabetical in English. Maybe since London 2012 someone has forgotten that, just like the Olympics, the alphabet is not just for speakers of English! For example, in other languages, say, Portuguese and French, South Africa (África do Sul and Afrique du Sud in Portuguese and French, respectively) comes before Andorra in the list of countries.

Other infuriating commentator calamities come when, as if the achievements of athletes are insufficient in and of themselves; the jingoistic journalists change the record to reflect some kind of first gained in addition to the gold medal. One widely reported example came when John Inverdale, claimed that Andy Murray was the first tennis player to win two Olympic golds — a claim immediately corrected by Murray himself, as he rightly highlighted the achievements of Venus and Serena Williams (who have won four golds each). Murray is merely the first person to be a double Olympic champion in the tennis singles discipline. Oops!

Inverdale inadvertently ignoring the achievements of women in the immediate afterglow of Andy's triumph only serves to demonstrate the sensitivity needed when reporting the firsts or "first gold medal since ..." stories. We've now had Laura Trott and Jason Kenny winning golds to become the "first British woman to win four gold medals" and "winner of six gold medals to equal the tally of Sir Chris Hoy," respectively. As the golden couple are getting married next month, perhaps at the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo, if they successfully defend their 2016 gold medals; they'll become the first married couple ever to win gold medals at consecutive Olympics held in host cities that both end with the letter 'o'! How great would that be?

My point here is that the media spin to change the record for the sake of a new 'first' often detracts from or even trivialises the sporting feats being celebrated — as first female African-American to win gold in swimming, Simone Manuel, indicates:

"The title 'black swimmer' makes it seem like I'm not supposed to be able to win a gold medal or I'm not supposed to be able to break records and that's not true because I work just as hard as anybody else. I want to win just like everybody else.''

Athletes, like everyone else, just want a level playing field, literally. Anything that stands in the way of that fairness, such as an award, distinction or epithet seen to refer to the kind of inequality we should be striving to eradicate, is unhelpful. 

This includes the infuriating phrase "away Games". Rio has already been Team GB's best ever 'away Games'. The event has been held here four times in its 120-year history. Most Olympic Games are 'away games' for most of the participants! When and how did not hosting the Olympics on British territory become such a disadvantage? Were we expecting the host nation to win the lion's share of the medals in Rio? This distinction is a huge insult to any country without the means or luck to have been allowed to host the Olympic Games as often or at all! I wonder if reporters in other countries display the same sporting imperialism to create new records and statistics in this way. 

I understand that competition is fierce — and rightly so. But journalists and content writers have an important role to play in reporting achievements accurately and respectfully, so that the public see athletes not pigeon-holed by gender, ethnicity or nationality; but rather as heroes for all humanity.       

Clarity begins at Home Office

There are plenty of linguistic things I could rant about on my first blog post of 2016. Perhaps I could poke fun at Larry Lamb and the British Council's drive to get people in the UK to learn a foreign language while UK politicians continue to do the hokey cokey on the subject of the country's membership of the EU. Rather than looking outwards and promoting the benefits of stronger engagement with our European neighbours and their languages, many of our deluded politicians demonstrate how isolationist you can choose to be if you live on an island.

At a house party over Christmas, a friend's sister excitedly told me how her 12-year-old daughter had recently shown talent and enthusiasm for learning German. Should I ever meet the 12-year-old, I have been instructed to chat to her in German - which I would be delighted to do. This is how any language-learning drive should work. Don't tell working adults with established careers, families, commitments and other distractions to learn a few phrases a day in another language - tell and encourage 11 and 12-year olds! They have more time and a stronger motivation. It is only by training them to become language graduates in a decade's time that the UK will have any hope of addressing the UK's multilingual malaise and missed trade opportunities. The sad reality, of course, is that language learning is on the wane in schools and universities and few people seem to care.

But I won't rant about that! I won't even rant about the new idea that forcing members of non-Christian minority groups to learn English will be an effective tool in tackling segregation and radicalisation. It's a confusing proposal, given that segregation rarely occurs due to language alone. Secondly, the majority of recent evil acts or excursions falling into this category were carried out by those who seemed perfectly able to speak either English or the language of the European country where they were based. I won't even highlight the plight of the many UK-based TEFL teachers who, according to writer and broadcaster Michael Rosen, have been made redundant in huge numbers over recent years - only to witness this apparent volte-face now that the political elite have suddenly decided that teaching English is a good idea, supported by £20m in funding.

I won't rant about 10-year-old schoolchildren who live in terraced houses and who inadvertently misspell the word and spark major police investigations as a result. In fact, I won't rant about anything today because I think this embarrassing error by a government department tells us everything we need to know about how important languages are in the UK.

The Great British Shake-Off

"The whole world is full of refugees - just like you and just like me."

This is a line from the The Everlasting, a great song that I heard performed live by the Manic Street Preachers. The line has haunted me for several weeks as refugees, mainly from Syria, began arriving in Europe. Many people watched the news and wondered what they could do to help. People immediately organised marches and began collecting items to donate to those in need. The mayor of Liverpool, Joe Anderson, organised the benefit concert With Love From Liverpool on 19 September to raise money. The band Crowded House will also release their song Help Is Coming to raise funds for the cause. I've pre-ordered a vinyl limited-edition copy and bought two tickets for the Liverpool gig. A few clicks online to buy a couple of things is the least I could do. Some people have even offered refugees accommodation in their own homes. Germans, in particular, have shown humbling humanitarianism.

Many other people, however, are engaged in cynical semantic antics online to muddle the narrative by differentiating - unhelpfully - between the terms 'migrant' and 'refugee', presumably as a justification for their own inaction. Nigerian-American writer Teju Cole wrote a very helpful piece, Migrants are welcome, the second section of which explains just how irrelevant these labels are in this case. Yet the shoulder-shruggers in the Great British Shake-Off believe that we should put our own homeless citizens first.

Irrespective of any criticism of the UK government's response to this or any other crisis, its pledge to home 20,000 Syrian refugees over the next five years will reportedly be funded from the foreign aid budget; so will not affect any support for the UK's homeless at all. The response of private individuals to the plight of the refugees is a matter for them. As a result, the "we" in the pleas for us to first look after our own suddenly becomes a "you".

What have YOU done personally to help the UK's homeless this week? If you've constructed this UK vs Syria either-or scenario and are unsure of how to proceed, allow me to make a couple of suggestions. These are in addition to calling on your politicians to do more for the homeless - which you're obviously already doing:

1. Empty your spare room/home of all the items you no longer use, sell them and give the money to a UK homeless person to help them find temporary accommodation and help. In the interests of fairness to the Syrians; this person should have lost all their possessions and ID, and should have no access to sustenance, sanitation or state or charitable assistance of any kind. They should also have been forced to flee from a war zone here in the UK. They will have watched loved ones die, either at the hands of others, or else on a perilous journey across the whole country, lasting weeks or months before reaching a place of safety.

2. Having now created more space in your home, offer to house a Syrian refugee temporarily. Alternatively, you can buy the charity single, go to the gig or support the refugees in some other small way.

Is this what you mean by putting the UK first? If it is, then by your own rationale, you should put Syrian refugees second, surely? Or is the plight of thousands of displaced refugees even further down your list of urgent causes to support? Of course, many charities need our help. But if you firmly believe in supporting people in the UK at the expense of, not in addition to, others in desperate need elsewhere; may I respectfully suggest that while the rest of us do what we can to help, you find some other, anti-social media on which to air your unhelpful opinions.

Island of lost souls

Today, I'm returning to a topic I've written about many times before — the decline of foreign language learning in the UK. So I also apologise for repeating myself. But the situation is even worse than I thought. Take the case of export sales manager Sarah Grain, for example. The company she works for in South Wales does 70% of its trade exporting to European countries. However, she was unable to fill her most recent export sales position with anyone from the UK; describing the lack of development of foreign language skills as "soul-destroying".

This is surely the consequence of a sustained decline in modern foreign language learning for at least the last decade. The statistics make for depressing reading. According to responses received from 136 secondary schools as part of a recent study by the CfBT Education Trust, the number of students in Wales taking French and German at GCSE has halved between 2002 and 2014. The decline is blamed on numerous causes, including the perceived difficulty of languages compared to other subjects, the limited choice of subjects, and timetabling or inspection pressures. To my mind, these are all excuses made by those seeking to blame the seemingly fixed education system itself. This stance conveniently absolves them of any moral responsibility to stem the decline or put pressure on others in a position to take decisive action. 

Forgive me for focussing on my favourite modern foreign language (German). However, the fate of German, in particular, is indicative of the scale of the problem. Recruiting skilled German speakers in Wales must be difficult, given that the survey found that in 2014, just 114 candidates sat German 'A' Level. Germany is the UK's biggest European export market (11%) and globally, is second only to the USA (12%). Even Switzerland features in the top 20 UK export markets (1.7%), so German, French and Italian skills would also be useful to service that trade too.

But perhaps more worrying than the educational or economic aspects are the social ones. In the conclusion to the study of language trends in Wales, the outlook is bleak:

"Teachers' responses suggest that the majority of young people in Wales are neither aware nor appreciative of the benefits which skills in foreign languages and intercultural understanding can bring in terms of advantages for study, personal development and employment. [...] To stem the dramatic decline of Modern Foreign Languages in schools across Wales and to address the widely held perception that languages are unimportant and of little use will require concerted action at the highest level, in order both to address the systemic/structural challenges being faced by schools and to begin to tackle entrenched and unhelpful social attitudes."

(Modern Foreign Languages in secondary schools in Wales

Findings from the Language Trends survey | 2014/15, CfBT Education Trust, p.57) 

England has fared slightly better than Wales in the take-up of languages at GCSE in recent years, with entries rising in 2012-2013 by 19% and 10% for French and German respectively. Though this cannot even begin to address employment needs, which require higher-level language skills. The situation is likely to only get worse in the near future, given the referendum on the UK's membership of the EU that has been promised by 2017. The political narrative on EU membership has been largely negative for decades, skewed by scaremongering over a perceived erosion of UK sovereignty and an overly simplistic, unhelpful portrayal of the movement of people between EU Member States.

Anyone in the UK currently under 58 years of age has never had a say on UK membership of the EU. That may be so, however, unless steps are taken over the coming months to highlight the economic and social benefits of EU membership — which can and should be driven by a redoubling of efforts to positively promote foreign language learning in the UK and freedom of movement to Europe, especially for younger voters — the country's future position in or out of the EU, though determined democratically, will arguably not be based on a balanced assessment of pros and cons.  

Resistance is futile

After relocating to the UK from Switzerland, I now hope to start blogging more regularly again. I enjoyed reading of newscaster Alistair Stewart becoming exasperated at the use of the following English words and phrases:

"Actually" - Here, predictably, the writer assumes the term's meaning as a truth marker. But the less literal interpretation, that of merely foregrounding one proposition against others, is not explored.

"It seems to me ..." — as opposed to "I think" or "I believe" shows a much clearer difference. "It seems to me ..." introduces your own perspective while almost inviting other people to offer a contradictory viewpoint with other evidence. The alternatives are stronger, governed by the first-person subject "I", rather than the weaker, non-referential subject "it".

Alistair Stewart also rails against "almost unique". Rightly, he notes that the adjective 'unique' cannot be graded. Something is either unique or it isn't. But something that is "almost unique" accepts this. If two things are essentially identical apart from one aspect that one of them is lacking; then surely the deficient item would be 'almost unique'. The one-off status of 'unique' as a term remains ungraded and absolute. An instance of "very unique" would indeed constitute grading, though this is not the phrase being considered.

The writer dislikes the term "real people" and the overuse of the modifying adverb "incredibly". Again, these are examples of language users looking for ways to emphasise certain ideas in relation to others. Stewart may dismiss the phrases "real people" if he has never met people who act in a 'fake' manner, governed by self-interest. The implication is that "real people" are more like us: genuine and down-to-earth. 

'King for a day' Stewart is not amused by the verb neologisms "helicoptered" or "motorcaded". Coining a new verb from a noun is done often for effect or as a result of a perceived increase in a certain practice. Do we see more helicopters trips or motorcades to the extent that new verbs are required? Working within the 24-hour news environment, where every journey — and every breath — the politicians, dignitaries and celebrities take is broadcast; Alistair Stewart should know.

His final bugbear is the recent tendency for people to begin utterances with "So ..." with no causal reference to a preceding idea. I don't yet know where this phenomenon originated. Though perhaps by starting an utterance with "So ...", users documenting every detail of their lives in numerous posts on social media are continuing their ongoing personal narratives for the rest of us to follow.

New forms of language, especially these spoken examples, will be rooted in an emerging social practice or function not adequately served by current language use. Some new forms pollute the language; most enrich it. Individuals or news organisations seeking to stand out will use many linguistic devices to make an impact. As competition for our attention increases, this linguistic creativity will only accelerate. Resistance of it is a futile denial of the world as it now exists.

Home truths about language learning

Following the rather negative tone of my piece a couple of days ago, yesterday I woke up and read about one woman and her organisation in the UK with just the kind of international outlook I think the country is severely lacking. Bernice McCabe, headmistress of a north London school, advocated in a speech delivered yesterday that, regarding languages, teachers should go beyond "functional phrasebook competence" for their students, and should bring the outside world into the classroom in order to encourage students to become global citizens. Amen to that! She also said that teachers should be "a thorn in the side of British insularity and reticence". I won't argue with that, either.

However, I am alarmed if schools are reluctant to offer language qualifications because top grades are considered harder to achieve in languages than in other subjects. Surely this would constitute a de facto dumbing down of education overall. This would then be exacerbated if language exams were also set and marked differently – an idea she also welcomed to increase the take-up of languages. But do those educating the next generation honestly believe that the best way to improve language learning, standards and global awareness is to seemingly make exams easier?

Learning languages may indeed be hard. But if you want to be a global citizen, or you want to move to a country whose language is not your own, or you need to engage with locals beyond your functional requirements as a tourist; you quickly learn about hard work, humility and assimilation. McCabe seemingly recognises that lessons in a cosy UK environment won't help you if you lack the vocabulary to tell a barber how you want him to cut your hair; or how to sidestep geographical questions about your home country when you haven't a clue. Besides linguistic competence, skills in politeness and an appreciation of other people's culture and preoccupations are also required. These aspects are not covered in course books! So further tinkering with language exams seems to me to be at odds with these crucial additional aspects McCabe alludes to.

I've voiced these views before, I know. But future generations need to understand the value of being able to live and work in a different language; how it at least puts them on a more equal footing with the millions globally who do the same; how it might help them avoid an economic recession in their home country (as in my case) and how it enables them to debunk myths and about their mother country abroad. Learning languages changes you personally. You learn to engage with people, to be flexible, think on your feet and adapt your outlook and behaviour. These are skills that are acquired – not taught – as result of living in and using another language over time.

So, Mrs McCabe, hello – is it me you're looking for? I'd love an opportunity to tell others about these real-world benefits of language learning on my return to the UK. Where do I sign?

A state of blissful ignorance?

At the school where I currently teach, there's a bright, ambitious lad who is as keen on engines as he is on English. He often asks for my opinion on aspects of English life. He's a huge fan of the TV show Top Gear and, specifically, Jeremy Clarkson himself. Though I do not share his fascination with the man, I'm happy that my student has found a topic – or a vehicle, if you will – through which to express himself and his likes and dislikes in a language that is not his own. I'm even happier that while the BBC may broadcast Clarkson's shows over here; the presenter's opinions that are not voiced on an international platform seem less likely to be discovered by eager 14-year-olds in Switzerland.

We all know that Clarkson has been in trouble over language in the past, and has been threatened with the sack by the BBC. But I doubt that his latest comments will lead to that. He's reported to have taken aim at the Welsh language, this time; calling it a “maypole around which a bunch of hotheads can get all nationalistic”. Some people in England seem to like to denigrate things they have little or no knowledge or experience of. So spouting rubbish about their neighbour is just lazy and boring. Welsh is significantly older than English, and English itself is a historical mix of many languages – as we know. Under the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011, Welsh is also the only language that is de jure official in any part of the UK. English is merely the de facto official language. But why should such facts get in the way of a celebrity's right to rant in exchange for money?

How exactly the UN might even begin to implement his wider call to abolish some languages is anyone's guess. What an utterly ludicrous proposition! Could a multilingual version of the Welsh Not be introduced at UN level to punish people for using their native languages? Would all foreign loan words used in English also be banned (including 'penguin' – from Welsh – and words with Latin roots)?

Alternatively, Clarkson could concede that the UK's policy of foreign language learning being optional at GCSE level since 2004 is appalling. It does not justify the rejection of a multilingual world – full of cultures, histories, traditions and personal experiences that differ from his own. Respecting that diversity means engaging with it, whilst also recognising that imperialistic attitudes are one component in the constructed 'otherness' that allows resentment, fear and hate to thrive. So when I read such depressing diatribes with increasing frequency and I factor in the populist rise in anti-EU and anti-immigration sentiment, I wonder if the UK I left some four years ago has become a state of blissful ignorance during my absence.

Picking up people's insensitivity

Several months ago I wrote a piece here called A moment of clarity, focussing on the instant when a deaf woman was able to hear for the very first time. I return to the topic of deafness today, having read an interesting piece in The Guardian yesterday. On this occasion, a woman described her slightly different experience of having progressively degenerative hearing restored to normal levels after 20 years – again thanks to a cochlear implant.

The article caught my attention because it provided more insight into the personal gains and losses of the implant, as well as the adjustment required to start living a new life as a member of 'the hearing gang'. I find the issue fascinating because, as someone who suffers with tinnitus – and very slight hearing loss as a result; coping strategies when you miss a joke in a noisy room used to create the feeling of – partly self-imposed – social isolation the 'new hearer' describes.

But if we're honest, much of the small talk we feel obliged to engage in is merely a politeness ritual which, in reality, is fairly inconsequential. We could even be forgiven for thinking that the writer of the piece secretly enjoyed being able to 'zone out' from the exhausting task of trying to decipher so much content for such little reward. This approach seems entirely justified when well-meaning 'hearing' friends announce “It’s so good to be able to finally speak," provoking this response from the writer:

I'm still angry. They couldn't be bothered to include you before, so why should you bother listening now? What gives them the right to enjoy the benefits of your new hearing?

To me, that's no different to the school bully suddenly sending you a friend request on social media. It's an action designed entirely to make the other person – not you – feel better. The implant may be a signal to hearing friends that the wearer is instantly 'back in the room'; though for the individual concerned, it is merely the first step on a new journey – where even turn-taking in conversations is new territory. After all, as the writer indicates: how can she suddenly know what quantity of speech is appropriate in each situation? How does she know where to place herself on the secret scale that everyone else seems to understand? It's the scale that ranges from 'withdrawn' to 'monosyllabic', 'quiet', 'reserved', 'chatty' and 'bubbly' right up to 'self-obsessed'.

As she and others like her decide whether the implant represents a new sense or a nuisance, those of us with (almost) perfect hearing should celebrate this new-found social inclusion; while remaining sensitive to the scale of the adjustment involved. Though the more success stories we hear about cochlear implants; the more of these personal testimonies will be published. As a result, we will all gain a better understanding of that complex world between aural exile and full interaction that many people now have to negotiate – some of them for the first time in their lives.

Languages in a lamentable state (Part 2)

Earlier this year, I wrote a blog entry entitled Languages in a lamentable state – that state being, of course, the UK. This morning a BBC News article outlines renewed efforts to address the country's woeful inability to learn and use foreign languages and feel once again compelled to comment. So there's a cross-party group and we have phrases like "national recovery programme for languages" and "driving a languages revival" being bandied around. So far, so meaningless.

For once, at least, we now have a few figures to quantify the scale of the problem and proposals offered by the All-Party Parliamentary Group's chairman, Baroness Coussins, to tackle it:

"The UK economy is already losing around £50bn a year in lost contracts because of a lack of language skills in the workforce.

"And we aren't just talking about high-flyers: in 2011 over 27% of admin and clerical jobs went unfilled because of the languages deficit."

To me, these two statements perfectly illustrate the lack of understanding of the issues. We all know what the difference between a "high-flyer" and someone doing an admin and clerical job is, don't we? No, actually, we don't – and neither do the politicians. This is because, historically, the advantages of being able to use a foreign language competently and professionally are never outlined. As a result, investing the time required to learn a language to graduate level might even be seen as naive in some quarters. You can set up all the MPs' talking shops you like, it's now been fifteen years since I graduated; yet online job sites are still flooded with customer service positions (file under 'admin and clerical') offering the same £17k p.a. that they were paying in 1999. And if the country really is losing billions in lost contracts to the UK's multilingual competitors, then this is surely evidence that no-one in the UK really cares, anyway.

But fear not, foreign-language friends – help is on its way:

"The Department for Education said £350,000 was being spent in England in the next year to help primary and secondary teachers improve their teaching of languages."

Clearly we can spend the equivalent of around ten teachers' modest full-time salaries to cover the whole of England and the problem will go away. Get a good and enthusiastic linguist teaching in a primary school and you might – just might – have a handful of young people taking a foreign language at GCSE or 'A' Level a decade or so later. If you're very lucky, one or two may even study languages at university. But that's wishful thinking: 

"A spokesman added: "We are making it compulsory for children to learn a foreign language from age seven to 14, a move supported by 91% of respondents to our consultation on languages in primary schools."

The above statement shows that although just under half of state-school pupils go on to take a GCSE in a foreign language (itself an appalling statistic, especially when we don't know how many of them actually pass with a good grade); there is no intention to make studying a foreign language up to GCSE at age 16 compulsory. Numbers of students studying languages at university will continue to decline. So unless you can get young people with (pre-) GCSE-level French, German, Spanish or Italian to man the phones in customer service jobs, those contracts will still be lost and the state of foreign language learning in the UK will go from lamentable to, frankly, laughable.  

A whole new word

Earlier today, I stumbled upon an interview in The Guardian with the feminist writer Rebecca Solnit, following the recent publication of 'Men Explain Things To Me'. The book is her collection of essays, with the title being that of the first essay. The issues raised took me back to the Gender and Language component of my Linguistics MA, where – among other things – we looked at examples of how men and women talk to each other, the power balance between the sexes within spoken interaction, underlying assumptions and latent or blatant sexism.

Some years ago, Solnit's work and experiences provoked others to coin a new term of 'mansplaining' – a portmanteau word combining 'man' and 'explaining' – used to refer to the condescension shown by some men towards women in interactions. Solnit, the author of numerous books, described being on the receiving end of such treatment when, while at a party in 2003, a man sought to engage her in conversation with the following opening gambit:

"So? I hear you've written a couple of books?"

He then proceeded to gush about one particular book, interrupted by another guest who indicated (several times) that Solnit herself was its author. Online discussion boards carry similar testimonies of other women denigrated by and suffering ignorant men. But alongside these clear, unjustifiable examples of sexism, I worry that pinning one's outrage to a single neologism hinders rather than furthers the debate. It's similar to the issue that director Joss Whedon outlines so eloquently with the term feminist; in the sense that distilling a seemingly infinite number of experiences and perspectives into one term necessarily means that the term is ripe for misappropriation or the coining of related but trivial forms ('womansplaining', anyone?). We might even give a term the ephemeral status as a Word of the Year – such as this definition from the New York Times in 2010:

mansplainer: A man compelled to explain or give an opinion about everything — especially to a woman. He speaks, often condescendingly, even if he doesn’t know what he’s talking about or even if it’s none of his business. Old term: a boor.

Such developments and diluted interpretations only detract from the attempt to find a vocabulary and a voice to challenge forms of insidious misogyny in all areas of life. For me, 'mansplaining' is a manifestation of gendered roles in interactions, as identified in difference theory by Deborah Tannen and others; such that men seek to compete in interactions, whereas women seek to cooperate. That's not to say that such behaviour cannot or should not be altered once people's attention is drawn to it and its negative implications over time.

Considered debate of different standpoints is to be welcomed. But if genuinely experienced sexism is hijacked by the media or even added to the list of humorous terms along with 'testiculating' for example; then we will be no nearer to achieving the true gender equality that everyone deserves.


Rebecca Solnit's book, 'Men Explain Things To Me', is published by Haymarket Books,

ISBN: 9781608463862.

 

Celebrity deuce

We've all seen the wristbands, haven't we – the discreet, often neon-coloured bands emblazoned with the initials 'W.W.J.D.'? I was told that they enabled Christians to question their own behaviour at key moments and do the right thing by asking: "What Would Jesus Do?". If that helps them to make the right choice, then so be it. But when I first saw the bands at university, I personally disliked them as an outward sign of inner piety because my faith is my business. For me, it is not just another commodity to advertise, or a means of dividing the potential sheep from the free-thinkers.

I was reminded of this today as I read an article that could have added a new twist on the acronym had it been given the title:

W.W.J.D. – What was Jesus' dialect?

In the end, the BBC went with Who, What, Why: What language would Jesus have spoken?
and Reuters preferred Pope, Netanyahu spar over Jesus' native language. It depressed me that a hugely significant visit undertaken in the spirit of global spiritual tolerance could be trivialised by focussing on the comparatively inconsequential detail of the tongue Christ spoke in.

We believe that he read Hebrew, the educated language of scripture. He may also have had some knowledge of Greek; though he spoke to his poorer – presumably less well educated – followers in their own language, which was Aramaic. I am no statesman, nor do I lead millions of followers of a world religion. But I could have given the right answer to the question. This is because when I was 15, I was taught in Religious Studies at school that when he was crucified, Jesus reportedly cried out the words "Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani" (Mark, 15:34) – Greek words that are transliterations of the Hebrew and Aramaic words meaning: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

It would appear that both the Israeli prime minister and the Pope were right in their responses. So if the media are seeking to portray this brief exchange as two famous people intent on point-scoring rather than the pursuit of peace and mutual respect; then neither party has the advantage. It's what readers in the UK might call 'celebrity deuce'.

A word in your ear

Last Tuesday, I was sitting on the bus shortly after 7am, on my way to a day of teaching at school. The bus always stops at a certain place and the driver gets out and has a five-minute break for a cigarette. It's at this time each morning – after most passengers have got off at the train station – that the rest of us get to hear the breakfast show on the driver's radio. So far, so good.

The bouncy, booming voice of Cee Lo Green could be heard. I think he's great. But the radio was playing the expletive-laden original version of his 2010 No.1 'Forget You'. This made me laugh. Was I laughing because the only other people now on the bus besides me were two pre-teenage schoolchildren? No – I just couldn't believe that a popular Swiss radio station would decide to play the song in all its profane glory at 7:11am at all!

Given the rules governing the broadcasting of similarly offensive content on the UK airwaves – and how even an inadvertent slip-up can cost a DJ his job – I was curious enough to write to the station's Programme Manager for clarification of the Swiss radio station's policy. After all, I also noticed that on the station's playlist, the song was listed as 'FU'. I'm well aware of English swear-words losing some or all of their impact when they're used in other languages, though I was still interested in the response. I've translated it as follows:

"As a rule, we at [name of radio station] play songs in their original versions, not in their 'clean' versions made for the English or US markets. I am sure that English native speakers listen to the songs in a very different way compared to people here. It's significant that our listeners do complain about all sorts of things. Though no-one has taken any offence at inappropriate song lyrics yet – at least not in writing.

We've taken the 'FU' label directly from the cover of the single [cover image sent as an attachment]. Following your query, I've also had a look around at other [Swiss] radio stations. With the exception of a few small, private stations [named], they all play the original version."

I've removed the names of the stations mentioned. My intention here is not to point the finger. I made it clear that my e-mail was a query to satisfy my own curiosity. It was not a complaint. I admitted that hearing the song made me laugh.

So there you have it. You live and learn. I'm now prepared to accept that sometimes, apart from me, maybe no-one gives a f.... .

A moment of clarity

I know it has featured prominently on BBC News, though I can't let this news story slip into the archives without celebrating it here. Thanks to cochlear implants inserted a month ago and activated earlier this week, Jo Milne, a 39-year-old woman from Gateshead in the UK, is now able to hear for the first time in her life. Many other profoundly deaf people have this procedure and it is just as significant to them, as borne out by the many videos posted on YouTube. But thanks to Milne's mother, who filmed the moment on her smartphone, and the fact that the footage was picked up by BBC News, it has become a deeply moving event for us all.

In an earlier edit of the video, aside from her delight at hearing everyday sounds (light switches, running water, a ticking clock), Milne also shows us something very interesting about language. She was able to hear children's voices for the first time and, she was also able to hear what the Geordie accent sounds like. She seemed comforted by the fact that in her immediate vicinity, people sound the same when everyone else sounds so different. I'm intrigued to know how her own speech already has a slight Geordie twang. Do we really model our speech and accent based on the speech of others that quickly?

As a fan of all things to do with phonetics, I'd love to know what phonemes or aspects the speech therapists focus on first in this case. Is it the plosives (/p/ and /b/) and the other bilabial (/m/) – phonemes all formed with the lips but with different attributes (voiceless, voiced, nasal, respectively). Presumably from lip-reading and watching others, these would surely be examples of sounds that a deaf person would know where to produce (place of articulation), without knowing how to produce them (manner of articulation). Would experts then move on to minimal pairs and consonant clusters?

More broadly, in Milne's case especially, we can only speculate on just how, socially and psychologically a person adjusts to a new life of hearing, listening and responding, given that these functions have always been absent for them. It's no wonder that the first voice she heard seemed loud, initially. Any sound at all must seem loud in comparison to almost 40 years of silence.

Jo Milne's experience provides a moment of clarity – literally for her, and also for those of us watching the video with the gift of hearing. We recognise that we are privileged to be able to share in one woman's joy at something most of us take for granted.

Frankie says relax, don't do evil!

Thirty years ago, when Frankie Goes To Hollywood were storming the pop charts with their huge singles Relax, Two Tribes, and The Power Of Love; you couldn't move for a series of t-shirts emblazoned with 'FRANKIE SAY ...' slogans, and inspired by designer Katharine Hamnett. The bold slogans themselves have largely been forgotten, possibly because there were so many of them.

However, I was reminded of the craze when I read about the address of Pope Francis as he attended the annual vigil for the innocent victims killed by the mafia since 1893. I wondered whether his words would similarly be forgotten as quickly. His message was unequivocal, namely that those responsible for the murders faced a stark choice: "repent, or go to hell". So compare the headline chosen in Germany's Die Welt newspaper (translated as: 'Pope Francis warns mafia of the tortures of hell') with the choice of BBC News: 'Pope denounces 'evil, blood-stained' mafia'. My initial reaction at the BBC stance had me picturing His Holiness as a latter-day comic-book superhero – Captain Vatican, if you will.

According to The Guardian, he went on: "You have had a father and a mother. Think of them. Cry a little and convert." But however you word it, and whatever conscience you appeal to; calling for the renunciation of criminality – not to mention the power, control and vast sums of money involved – is as bold as it is idealistic. Nonetheless, the Pope's clear stance against these crimes, along with a show of solidarity with grieving families, is to be welcomed. Though where the perpetrators are concerned, I fear that Frankie, my dear, they don't give a damn.

Echo and the funnyman

Besides learning how to teach, if there's one thing that completing the CELTA course has revealed to me; it's how I approach what I do – how I try and engage students. My go-to English teaching handbook, a well-thumbed copy of Scrivener (2011:14)* warns against 'entertainer teaching' – the practice of a language teacher regularly regaling students with hilarious anecdotes. Now, unlike 'teacher' Robin Williams in Good Morning, Vietnam and Dead Poets Society, for instance; I cannot bring a glittering career in stand-up comedy into the classroom. Where appropriate, however, I can recall a relevant, funny event to keep students engaged, provoke discussion or bring some 'real-world' relevance to the content under discussion.

The teaching manuals and TEFL tomes also rail against the practice of echoing, where the language teacher repeats the target language that has been correctly provided by the student. At various points in my teaching practice on the CELTA course, I was guilty of this. However, my qualification is geared towards teaching adults. Some recent discussions with the children I currently teach finally revealed to me why I was previously oblivious to my penchant for echoing. Consider the following interaction between myself and a pupil (speaking German) on a day spent in the great outdoors:

Teacher: So, what did you see in the cave?
Pupil: Spinnen, ganz viele! (Translation: Spiders, lots of them!)
Teacher: Wow, you saw lots of spiders! Were they big? ...

As far as possible at the school where I teach, pupils are required to converse with me only in English. For my part, I am required to speak to all students individually and often, and at a level of difficulty close to their ability. But whereas with adult learners, who would no doubt feel patronised by me echoing their correct English utterance; the example above sees me translating a child's response as confirmation that they have correctly understood my initial question. It is merely their own command of English that prevents them – for the time being – from responding in the same language.

It should also be noted that I teach in an environment where learning in individualised and student-led. As such, teacher-led, time-bound conventional classroom teaching is rare. Teacher input serves primarily as a means of stimulating learners and providing them with the tools to discover and implement knowledge (including language) for themselves. Consequently learning opportunities arise in both formal and informal settings: within school, outdoors, in breaks during games of basketball or table tennis, as we cook and eat meals together, on the bus to and from school, as well as at public events.

So I'm becoming increasingly aware of different methods of teaching and learning – and their respective merits. It is obvious that group-based lessons with conventional, group-based outcomes are only applicable to a limited extent in environments where learning and progress are deliberately individualised. In such a setting, echoing may continue in specific cases. Whether my English anecdotes make me an entertainer or even a funnyman is not something I can judge.

* Scrivener, Jim (2011) ‘Learning Teaching: The Essential Guide To English Language Teaching’, Third Edition, Macmillan Education, Oxford