追求正字正音正文法竟是語言霸權? 是非顛倒莫此為過, 語言文字是文化知識的載體, 如果沒有標準, 何來傳承文化? 如何溝通無阻?

如果有人不喜歡學人家的正統語言, 大可閉關自守,不必要人家遷就你不入流的鸚鵡學舌.

何謂標準語言

標準語言是指一種經過標準化 (standardisation) 的語言模式。以語言學者 Peter Trudgill (1999) 說法，語言標準化包括三個過程，分別是決策 (determination) 、編碼 (codification) 、及穩定化 (stabilisation) 。即是先選定某一種語言，將此語言格式化 (一般透過字典及文法書本將用法標明) ，再慢慢將歧異的用法消除。

可是一些社會語言學學者如 Phillipson 及Skutnabb-Kangas，將重點放在標準語言跟語言教學專業 (language teaching professions) 此特定關係上，以突顯一套語言，如何透過專業化而成為知識生產與輸出機制的組成，再透過審視此機制，以理解當今全球化下，全球物質及文化資源分配嚴重不平衡跟此機制的關係。

標準英語是英國的主流語言？

這是不對的，英國只有12- 15%人口使用標準英語，其他便因應其地區或族群分野而各有不同，如地區上有 Birmingham, Liverpool, Yorkshire, Scottish, 或 Welsh等各式英語；族群上也有如Cockley 這類被倫敦勞動階層普遍使用的英語。

此外，語言的使用並非一成不變的。例如說標準英語的英國人可能用上 Cockley 式的語彙，以便跟倫敦人打交道。從語言學角度，我們大多數人均有多於一種表達語言的風格，稱之為 “repertoire of styles” (姑譯作風格的類別) ，此亦和應標準英語只能被視為一種語言類別的看法。

而一些語言學學者如P. Trudgill, 更強調標準英語只能被視為英語此語言的一個類別 (a variety of English) 的角色，跟其他類別 (如上述的) 的英語沒有本質上的區別，只是更常用於官方與印刷媒體而已。

關於標準英語的迷思2

標準英語更有系統？

對於標準英語較其他語言更有系統、更有條理的說法也大可商榷。例如從音韻角度，英文字 ‘hill’ 及 ‘hammer’ 要發 ‘h’ 音，但 ‘hour’ 或 ‘eight’ 卻不可。

從語彙角度，標準英語要求一些動詞在 “第三身” 的情況下要加上 “s” 但另一些卻不用，而那個動詞要加 “s” 卻沒有必然規律，然而在英國一些地區，所有動詞在第三身時皆要加上 “s” ，在另一些地區卻全部不用；標準英語單用 “you” 以表示 “你” 或 “你們” ，但某些英國地區以 “thou” 及 “you” 以作區分；標準英語有 “myself” 而沒有 “hisself” ，雖然 “his” 本相應於 “my” 而 “hisself” 卻可見於某些英國方言。

從文法角度，一些標準英語用法也是無規律可言的，例如 “You had a good time, didn’t you?” 是對的，但 “You had a good time, hadn’t you?” 卻是錯的，雖然後者明顯更有規律，而且普遍使用於蘇格蘭。

社會語言學者 Lakoff 指出標準英語的一個重要特點是拉丁化 (latinization) ，源於十六世紀，英國在伊利沙伯女皇的帶領下國力日隆，為求國家能長久興盛，英皇室便將許多拉丁文的文法植入英語，以祈求能像羅馬帝國一樣強大，英語許多極複雜語法亦因而形成，而許多皇室英語偏離於大眾較淺白的英語亦與此有關。這亦說明為何標準英語常出現 “不規則” 的語法，為的是模仿那 “神聖” 的語言。

如何學習英語的迷思

Phillipson 指出，應用語言學的英語教學專業 (ELT English Language Teaching profession) 曾就如何更好地學習英語 (作為一種外語) 提出一些指引，例如該早些學習、由英語國家教師授課 (native speakers of English (主要指英美兩國)) 、以英語單一語言學習 (monolingualism (單以英語思考及表達))、及在不同課程以英語教授。

但Phillipson 同時指出，以上指引全未經深入驗証，同時又過份簡略，以偏蓋全。

(筆者在03至04就讀OU一科社會語言學，曾就以上問題進行問卷調查，獲30份回覆，當中過八成受訪者認同第一項，六成認同第二項，七成認同第三、四項。代表性雖不高，但也顯示港人對學習英語的一些傾向。)

英語較好由英語國家教師教授？

這也是很大疑問的。首先，英語國家教師可以是美國的、英國的、澳洲的等等不同國籍的教師，因他們國籍、背景的不同，其英語運用與教學模式亦可相距甚遠，這說明語言之運用必跟一時一地之文化背景互相扣連。

而英語國家教師的常見缺點，是他們未能深入理解異地學生的文化構成與社會模式。以香港學生為例，由於廣東話的語言慣習跟英語不同，以致香港學生常將 “n” 唸作 “l” 、 “wh” 唸作 “w” 、或 “th” 唸作 “d” (這些也是一些非英語國家學生面對的困難，即使法國學生，也常將 “th” 唸作 “d” 或 “t”)，對一些以英語作為母語的教師而言，學生的困難是不易理解的。

又例如，中文的句式是靈活多變的，以中文語法寫成的英語，外籍教師可能會感到非常費解。相反，本地教師更能明白學生的思考與語言習慣，困難與需要，從而也更能因應學生困難作出指引與教導，這是外籍英語老師所不能比擬的。

(雖然亦有意見認為外籍老師對學生的語文 “錯處” 表現更寬容，但這顯示的是本地老師對語文持有的態度問題，容稍後討論。)

I have always been trained to speak and write 'standard English', using your wording.
I don't think that whether it is 'a must' or not, it is just a standard, commonly recognised standard. Simply just like everybody would go to Beijing to learn Putonghua instead or Taiwan or Guengzhou! Or, I personally would prefer learning France in France than in Switzerland. It is not exactly the kind of discrimination you mentioned, but the will to learn the most 'traditional', 'standardised', 'correct' language. Of course, people in every country THEN developed their own 'ENGLISH' with local accents, but do we learn from them? Should we take such localised languages as the starting point of learning? Then, finally the 'so-called variations' would be out of everybody else's understanding. We should have an aim, which is to learn the 'real English', even if we can't achieve it, at least we are on the same track of anybody else in the world learning English (unless you are learning Singaporean English or Japanese English for the sake of communications with the locals there ONLY.).
Please comment on it whether you agree or not.

A.Pennycook 從另一進路，指出 “標準英語” 標榜的 “標準” 、 “正確” 與 “正統” ，顯示的不單是語言學問題，更是政治與經濟問題。英、美 (以致澳、加，甚或印度等國) 皆企圖標榜各自英語的優點，因英語教學已發展成重要的無煙工業 (English teaching industry)。比如英語教學的收入在八十年代已超越北海油田，成為英國非常重要的經濟支柱 (忘了是第四還是第五大無煙工業)。英語教學課程及英語教學教材每年正為英國帶來數十億英鎊收入，輸出外國英語教師的收入還沒有計算在內。而不論國內或國外對英語教師的需求，正紓緩英國因經濟型帶來的嚴重失業問題。

為確保各自對正統英語的文化霸權，英、美以致各國皆著力將他們的語文地位提高。如英國標榜他們的 “Queen’s English” 及 “Oxford English” 如何血統純正與優雅 (如 電影My Fair Lady)；美國則以荷里活電影，肥皂劇或電腦軟件將規範潛移默化。又例如，美、英兩國正以他們考核外地學生英語的考試作為最高權威的角力 (分別是美國的TOEFL及英國的UCLES) 。“標準英語” 角逐的不單是正統的名聲，而是那實在的財富與資源。

I think the politics behind languages is really hard to change, however, what is recognised by most people is the only question we need to ask. American English is the most widely used language in commercial environment, unarguably.
I just think that as long as everybody (or nearly everybody) recognise 'Queen's English' or 'Oxford English' as the 'standard', there is no way we should ignore it. Even if we are to develop our own 'variation' of English (perhaps called HK English, or Chinese English), we should or even have to base on it. That is reality, and mainly what I was talking about in my last response.

'Long time no see' is already adopted by the Americans as a slang la!
In fact, I don't mean to despite the influences of Chinese in the development of English. The problem is, no one (as I believe) can learn something 100%, so if people are learning different variations instead of one 'standard', more and more variations would appear until them become totally different 'languages' and can't communicate anymore! Base on one person's own accent and cultural background, learning the same type of language even from the same teacher in the same class would create different 'variations', so people should still stick with the 'standard' when they teach. I think that is the reason why we are 'forced' ( I don't agree with this point, I am not forced to, at least) to learn 'Queen's English' or 'Oxford English'.

何文匯如何死硬，
總比大陸「推普滅方」好。
大陸「推普滅方」，
又總比新加坡壓滅華語政策好。

Thank you for all your responses!
However, there are still some points I think people can't get.
If the reason we learn English is to communicate with more people in the world (with the assumption 'English is the international language' first, before we start this discussion, thanks!), what is the reason of developing a new 'dialect' or 'our own English'?
I mean we have to have something to start with, and to follow. Whether it is called 'Queen's English' or not, even one can call it 'King's English', oe maybe 'Charles' English', 'Diana's English' or even 'Camilla's English', that is not my concern. My concern is that we should develop our variation from one widely recognised, and more importantly, commonly understood 'stream' of English. No need to say (from the name people can tell) English should be, or at least was (at first it must be) the language of England, so why shouldn't we learn from their way?
There are some arguments about changes in languages and differences between English in different parts of England, I can't respond to them one by one. There is just some examples I want give here. In old (older?) English, people use thy and thee instead of your and you respectively, now we all accept the changes, why ask me to 'believe' in such a thing I know. Also, love spelt as 'luv' before. We still need to know about old English (when you read Shakespeare's and othe older literature), but people KNOW that things have been changing. In an example given by the writer, (s)he stated that in some places, all verbs needed to add an 's' at the end for thrid person singular. I know the locals there also know that this is a habit of them only, while they know what the 'standard' (I know some people are very sensitive to this word, but I mean the guideline, or the teaching materials, etc.) they need to use when sitting for public exams. I think exams like GCSE and GCE (O/A-level) would not only be taken by students from Oxford, Cambridge or maybe including London, right? Every student from everywhere in the whole UK takes the same puclib exams, so it is a mean to inform all British the 'standard' or 'what it is written in dictionaries'.
I am just worried if we don't stick with something commonly aimed at, we would lose the track very soon. Even in Japan, as the language has much less 'sounds' than in English (in fact a lot of languages), Japanese normally find it very difficult to speak the 'standard English', so they have a very unique way of speaking English, but they still aim to learn English well. If they are all satisfied with the Japanese English they speak, and teach the children to speak that ONLY, when more and more changes arise, I am afraid we really can't communicate with them in English one day. In fact, they just add new words (Japanese English pronunciations) into Japanese, but didn't make them 'formal English', similar to how we call 'bus' in Cantonese. Not to say that the Japanese are correct, but it is a way to prevent too big gaps appear between 'variations' of a language.
If you tell me, you believe the reason why Hong Kong people are learning English is that 'we hope to develop Hong Kong English as a new language' or even 'to replace local languages with the newly developed HK styled English', I think that's alright to take any form of 'English' as the standard (be careful, you still need a standard, otherwise, everybody in HK speaks a different kind of English, HK English can never be defined) to teach in school. But for me, it seems that all students in HK have to learn English because 'we should be able to communicate with foreigners', so the reason for my worries is shown.
It really depends on who you want to communicate with to decide what language you should learn. If I am to communicate with Colombians, I think I will learn South American Spanish rather than real Spanish.
I am not anti-diversification or ignoring the different accents in exist, but I am very sure that we need to learn from the 'standard' even though I understand what is 'language violence' and why people believe using the 'official English' means taking part in 'language politics'.
Of course, I don't know the point of view of the Government or the authority, I am just taking this issue at the practical level. But before going up to any other 'theoretical level', can we just consider what we need and why we need it?

英語教育工作者始終要向學生傳授某套（不是多套）英語。如果教材時而播出港式英語，時而播出Queen’s English或蘇格蘭英語或美式英語，只會令學生混亂。

以哪一種英語為標準，沒有問題，但我想，如果一所學校沒有統一的「標準英語」立場，英、美、澳、加、港式英語皆可成標準，那是否等於無標準？

如果一所學校要訂一個標準，又該根據甚麼準則呢？校長說美式英語，便以美式英語為標準？抑或由各英語老師，按照自己的成長背景，自由教授各人認為適當的英語？

這樣一來，小孩子可能會問：「為甚麼 colour 又對、color 又對呢？為甚麼上學年的英文老師說顏色的英文叫 colour, 這學年的老師又說是 color?」

何文匯當然讀過書,但恐怕與他的"死硬"是否"致命"沒有關係,讀死書的人大有人在.學而不思,罔矣.坦白說,我對何教授實在不無偏見,欣賞完他在港台的正音節目後(名字忘了),實在很難不對他沒有偏見
frostig,我很同意你說,學英語是為了與外國溝通.但我想,沒有人刻意製造所謂的"hk english",你或許不贊同hk english 的存在,但事實是,香港人的英文與其他地方的英文的確有所不同,這似乎已毋庸置疑.hk english的形成是自然的,我們也無需為而自卑

If you ask me, whether 'color' is correct or not, I would have to say that it depends on the context.
I am a supporter of 'pure languages'. Although I would use some English terms when I speak Cantonese or Mandarin, but it is just a bad habit, I know; and sometimes I really can't think of the term in Chinese, or I need the English word to explain something. Okay, that's not the point.
The problem is, if you are using 'British English' (just a name I use for convenience in this comment) in the whole passage, but then you write 'color', it is probably a spelling mistake. If you are using all American English spellings, 'color' is certainly correct, then 'colour' should not be accepted. Just like when you are writing in traditional Chinese, simplified Chinese words are 'wrong words' (think of 'black' in both traditional Chinese and simplified Chinese, then you know), the other way round it is also true. I am applying this logic to both myself and all my students (only tuition students, etc. as I am not a teacher), does it make sense to you? Hope you all can agree. It is not discrimination against another dialect, just to keep your own style. If you are 'pro-American English', fine! Please don't use words like labour, colour, honour, etc. etc. Vice Versa.

... using only one single language at one time, but not the mixture of two, three, four or even more. Of course it is okay when you do that for your reasons, or when you need to use a word in one language to explain something you don't know how to say in another. Sometimes it can also be good for having some fun or joking. BUT, it is not something to be used in formal circumstances, I believe. So, when you are writing an essay, of course I expect to see purely American English or British English, but not a mixture, like I expect to see all 'Simplified Chinese' or 'Traditional Chinese' in one essay, as words of the other format would be regarded as mistakes (at least I do).
Have I made my points clear?

So, thanks for your comment. Never mean to disagree with that. Just think this way. Both Mandarin and Cantonese are Chinese dialects, what do you think if a person mixes the two (not for fun, but really he mixes up the two things, and he even doesn't know himself) when he speaks? Or when he writes some traditional Chinese characters and some simplified Chinese characters (remember, for a lot of words, the simplified version is ACTUALLY another word in traditional Chinese). Then how can you tell what is a mistake and what is 'the other language'? I know the spellings of most words in both Americn and 'British' English, but I don't mix them up to use. That is how you know there are different 'dialects' in the world. Not mixing them and think they are 'one thing', but knowing the differences and know which one you like and want to use under different circumstances.