The Very Heart of English?1
Reflections on culture, fluency and the native speaker’s head
prompted by the LDELC
By
Zsuzsanna Ardó 2004
www.ardo.org
Zsuzsanna Ardó, writer, linguist, translator/interpreter
in English and Hungarian is currently editing a book,
exploring how worlds are embedded in words across languages.
Whether your language is mainstream or 'exotic', if you'd like to
contribute an article on a word that poses an almost
impossible challenge to the translator, get in touch with
Zsuzsanna Ardó: ardo*at*pobox.com
Get the List of 5,400+ Translation Agencies Now!
No Recurring Membership Fees!
Longman.
The dictionary that reaches the parts other
dictionaries cannot reach.2
The LDELC claims
LDELC—i.e. The Longman Dictionary of English
Language and Culture (Longman, 1992a)
can, if we are to believe claims made about
it in the DELC information leaflet, get to
"the very heart of the English Language"
(Longman, 1992c) 3 (sic) and
"into the head of the native speaker."
The definite articles followed by singular
noun forms alert the careful reader: there
is no place for ambiguity or plurality here.
There is "the English language,"
or even "the Language,"
we can get to the heart of. There is also
the native speaker, perhaps even the
Native Speaker, whose head we
can peep into, courtesy of Longman Publishers.
These biological metaphors translated into
linguistic message communicate that, as far
as Longman is concerned, there is clearly
(?) a norm for the language (the English)
and a model for the speaker (the Native Speaker).
But what is this norm and model? Which English
and which native speaker? The DELC is diachronic
in its approach and yet, since it limits its
corpus mostly to the 20th century (Summers,
1991:8), most classics of English literature,
including Shakespeare and the father of English
Dictionaries, Samuel Johnson, certainly would
not qualify as native speakers since today
they would probably have to consult the DELC
more frequently than non-native speakers of
English. And which culture? Although the DELC
claims to provide equal coverage of British
and American culture, in fact the regional
target percentages according to Della Summers
(1991:8) are unequal: 50% British and 40%
American. And that leaves 10% (!) for Other
Regional English varieties, such as "Australian,
Irish, and African" (Summers, 1990:8)—in
this order and not mentioning, for example,
English in India, Hong Kong and so on. The
10% to 90% ratio suggests, does it not, a
value judgement on the assumption that "British
(and to some: American) English is superior
to the local variety." (Greenbaum.1990:81).
Clearly, some native speakers are a pinch
more native than other natives, let alone
non-native speakers of English.
The native speaker's head
Well, let us see. Apparently, you can get
to the very heart—whatever that means—of the
English Language only with a slight detour
via the native speaker's head. As you
may readily appreciate, this is not such good
news for non-native speakers of English. The
trouble is, it seems, that since non-native
speakers of English—such as most English teachers
and translators/interpreters—have to make
do, like it or not, with heads of their own.
Thus they cannot possibly achieve fluency
in English: no native-speaker head, no access
to the heart of the English language and therefore
no fluency—or so goes the verdict by implication
in the DELC info. 4
There is nothing very much to have a native-speaker-head-envy
about, judging by the cultural content of
the DELC. All the same, this predicament of
not having the right sort of head is no small
matter, to say the least. It has many implications
concerning the "mystique of the native
speaker" (Ferguson & Kachru, 1982).
One is professional: teachers or translators
without native-speaker head cannot really
be top quality however well qualified and
experienced. As one of the respondents (non-native)
of my survey put it with impeccable (native-like?!)
English, which paradox demonstrates in itself
the absurdity of the mystique: "At best,
I can be second best." (Ardó, 1992).
Another implication is economic: gatekeepers
are conveniently confirmed and happily justified
to continue discriminating in favour of native
heads. "I am afraid we have to insist
that all our teachers are native speakers
of English. Our students do not travel half-way
round the world only to be taught by
a non-native speaker (however good that
person's English may be)." (Illés,
1991; italics mine). It is however, the psychological
implication which may be the most destructive
of all. This is a predicament which is biologically
fixed—it cannot be resolved (unless with a
head transplant?), and in effect is fatal.
Fatal, since it seems to be a genetic deformity,
a "birth deficiency" stigma for
all non-native speakers of English. The students
of these poor invalids obviously cannot but
be hit even harder. Unless...
Unless... those of us not blessed with a native-speaker
head, or even the Native-Speaker
head, rush out and put ourselves, at an arguably
modest expense, on the life-support system
of the Longman DELC! Then, with enlightenment
on the current (and not so current) trivia
of British and American life, with luck, we
may be able to trade in our own somewhat second-rate
(since positively non-native) head for a native
one. Thus we may rest assured we are on the
right path to the nirvana of native-speaker
fluency.
Beyond any shadow of a doubt most non-native-speaker
English teachers will be relieved, or even
thrilled, to secure a copy of this book which
promises so much. (Can you hear the crowds
clamouring—"Yes, this is what we need.
Finally.")
And, undoubtedly, it will sell and sell.
What is more, the DELC is quite likely to
acquire some sort of gospel status: the "word"
of the native speaker. The handy, (large)
pocket-size native-speaker substitute—don't
leave home without it! 5
Almost like the real thing.
Almost, but not quite. This particular gospel
lacks permanence. This product of the ELT
industry and myth-making machinery is a highly
perishable one. There is perhaps nothing as
short-lived as trivia which in turn has implications
for the shelf-life of the DELC.
Therefore there seem to be two, perhaps disturbing,
implications to consider.
Commercial considerations
The first one is commercial and has to do
with marketing psychology.
Once the customer is hooked on the false sense
of security provided by the head of the native
speaker in the form of the DELC, sitting snugly
(and chances are less smugly than the full
body version) on his or her desk, in all probability
s/he will be an instant buyer of the updated
versions of these security boosters. And will
continue to do so.
This means that there will be reliable mega-markets
of non-native teachers and students of English
addicted to the DELC. Add to this already
massive market the not insignificant number
of expatriate natives who would thus hope
to ensure their native head is still the real
thing. And then there is the not quite 100%
native speaker who may have to consult the
DELC on various soap opera characters to satisfy
the non-native hunger for "fluency"
in English.
All in all, we have got a particular product
with an extremely brief shelf life but endless
production line, generating an ongoing perceived
need on the part of the consumer and therefore
revenue for the publisher at the same time.
Professional considerations
Envisage, however, the upshot of this process,
for a change, from a professional point of
view. This is the second, potentially more
sinister aspect to consider.
Now this has to do with the sort of assumptions
made about the learning process and the educational
value a dictionary, such as the DELC, may
have and who for. Furthermore, I would suggest,
it also concerns fundamental notions of what
ELT/TESOL is, or rather should be about. And
this in turn brings up questions about the
psychology of self-respect and insecurity.
And how what counts as knowledge is sanctified;
how fluency is mythologised. The insecurities
about the fluency and the identity of advanced
students of ELT/TESOL, including translators
and teachers, seem to have been undermined
rather than removed by this dictionary.
Prescription
Fluency
If we are to take the argument of the DELC
information material about fluency to its
logical conclusion, then it follows that even
an approximation to fluency is a distinctly
pathetic aspiration for an "outsider."
The eager anglophiles who take great pains
to acquire these elements of "fluency"
to emulate the native speaker may quite easily
find themselves acting upon hard-earned (albeit
second-hand) knowledge which may well be soon
out of date and no longer valid. This, in
turn, will mark their speech less native-like,
not more.
The Royal Family of ELT
It is also clear that ELT has moved yet another
step further away from professionalism: knowing
and teaching what Coronation Street may mean
is not a question of either linguistic or
pedagogic competence. It is neither a question
of training or experience, nor of education.
It becomes a hereditary question: it is based
on being born into circumstances which favour
fluency. Rather like into the Royal Family,
you are quite simply born into fluency.6
Nay, not even that shall suffice. You also
have stay in it and remain a loyal member
of it, immersing your royal self in and accumulating
"knowledge" which is ephemeral,
arguably subculture-specific, and not otherwise
of any particular value.
The conscientious, committed translator or
teacher are bound to feel their worst fears
confirmed. Not only is achieving "native-like"
fluency, as some like to call it, an uphill
struggle with no apparent end in sight, but
in fact this elusive notion (Rampton 1990),
these (royal) castles-in-the-air, is inaccessible
to all but the equally elusive native speaker.
Royal fluency
Fluency, then, cannot be acquired and maintained
in the non-native head. Fluency, in this aristocratic
definition of the Middle Ages, cannot be "appropriated,"
if you will, from the native speaker. It remains,
for good, the privilege and birthright of
the Native Speaker. (Phillipson, 1992; Widdowson
1992) The contents of this "royal fluency"
can be inspected in the DELC, quite like Hampton
Court and Windsor Castle. In the final analysis,
the acceptance of this particular notion of
fluency as asserted by Longman 7,
leaves but one option, whether reluctantly
or otherwise, for the self-respecting ELT
student and non-native teacher striving for
fluency.
And this scenario means that the non-native
speaker, however advanced, is reduced to strategies
such as collecting rows of native-speaker
heads. Better still, s/he can subscribe to
an (infinite) series of the DELC which promises
to provide a sort of comforting substitute.
And there will always be a new, fully updated
version to look forward to and polish one's
fluency with.
But is this indeed what fluency is all about?
Description
The paradox
The DELC is prescribed for advanced learners
of English; it guarantees "that all the
definitions are easy to understand"8.
Now one of the questions to ponder is to what
extent the prescriptive aspect may interfere
with the descriptive nature of the work. 9
Since a learners' dictionary is designed so
as to have a simple, direct and user-friendly
language, its language is defined by its prescriptive
purpose, as indeed it should be.
As the C indicates in the acronym, the DELC
is also a dictionary of culture however. Now,
culture is not a straightforward concept to
define by any means. Rather it "is one
of the two or three most complicated words
in the English language... mainly because
it had now come to be used for important concepts
in several distinct intellectual disciplines
and in several distinct and incompatible systems
of thought." (Williams, 1983:87). Nevertheless,
we can probably concur that, whatever it is,
it represents complex worlds of multiple meanings
and subtle nuances.
Therefore can the prescriptive purpose of
easy simplicity and the descriptive content
of subtle complexity ever be successfully
reconciled at the level of language? How can
a dictionary cum encyclopedia for learners
treat the highly complex interrelationships
of language, cognition and culture?
Rationale for selection
Yet it is not just the nuances that seem to
be somewhat problematic in the DELC. Some
of the problems concern, it seems to me, the
rationale for selection (Summers, 1991).
One may wonder why, for example, Saddam Hussein
features in this dictionary of English Language
and Culture, but Salman Rushdie, controversial
British writer does not, although the word
"fatwa" has become part of the English
lexis due to his "Satanic Verses"?
"Hampstead" has made its way into
the DELC but not "St John's Wood,"
the home of many famous artists, writers,
of the Abbey Road Recording Studio (not in
the DELC) made famous by the Beatles and visited
by flocks of overseas visitors (many of them
potential DELC users!), and the home of course
of Lord's, the HQ of cricket, "the most
important cricket ground in Britain"
(DELC, 1992), that most potent symbol of English
culture. Sainsbury's, Waitrose, Body Shop
yes—Holland and Barrett, Ikea, Cranks not.
Black Monday yes—Black Wednesday (that broke
the pound) not. Just how reliable is the selection
criteria, I wonder, that include Boulez, Britten,
Schubert but not Bartуk, Berg and Schцnberg?
How come Penguin and Virago are entries, Longman
is not?
If neither Hegel, nor Heidegger is included,
I understand; should both be excluded, I do
not say a word. But why is Hegel included,
and Heidegger is not? And what exactly is
the informative or pedagogic, linguistic or
cultural value for learners of English to
know that the three (!) first names of Hegel
were "Georg Wilhelm Friedrich"?
Whereas the popular British historian, A.J.P
Taylor, features only with his initials, which
only Taylor's contemporary natives, who normally
referred to him with his initials, will appreciate;
the non-native dictionary user will not see
the reason for this inconsistency. Would not
it be more culturally relevant to indicate,
however briefly, that hegelianism has to do
with a dialectic view of things? Or could
it not be at least cross-referenced to the
entry "dialectic" where actually
Hegel is mentioned?
The variety of entries in the DELC is remarkable
and indeed impressive. And yet, of course,
there are bound to be many words you will
not find if you make your business to use
the DELC, as it is suggested in its publicity
material, to "read between the lines."
Just to mention a few: DHL and Swiftair, low
boy and canterbury, apple cheeks and digital
sex, BBS, Squidgytapes and Camillagate. 10
What makes one wonder is that, for example,
both of these last words have featured very
prominently, and repeatedly, in all forms
of English speaking media, and have been much
discussed and joked about by native speakers.
So do you need to know these "valuable"
pieces of information to understand the jokes
and references to them? Yes. But would this
be, at the same time, a criterion for native
fluency in English? If so, tough luck—they
do not feature in the native head offered
by the LDELC.
The language of the explanations given is
indeed simple and easily accessible. Must
be granted, the Longman DELC team was working
in a particularly volatile historical period
when almost every day geographical boundaries
were arranged and rearranged, with labour-intensive
and complex cross-referencing implications
for the lexicographers, however computerised
they may be. It must have been tremendously
difficult to cope with it all—small wonder
if entries are sometimes not quite as informative
as they could be. For example: "Moscow
is the capital of the former USSR..."
but there is no mention of Moscow actually
being the capital of Russia and part of the
CIS.
Whose prejudice is it, anyway?
The DELC is a difficult, "interdisciplinary"
genre: partly dictionary, partly encyclopedia.
This raises the issue of the principled
decision-making for evaluative comments—and
the problem of inconsistent treatment of various
entries. Why is Audrey Hepburn "an actress
of great beauty" whereas Katharine Hepburn
is simply "an American film actress"?
And again: who took upon the judgement to
evaluate Prague as "the capital city
of Czechoslovakia (already out of date—surely
a "former" missing), a port
and industrial centre with many beautiful
buildings" and Vienna as "the capital
city of Austria, famous as a music and
cultural centre"? 11.
In stark contrast to both of these evaluative
entries, Budapest is, apparently, neither
beautiful, nor famous as a music and cultural
centre, in the Longman lexicographer's eyes
at least. It is simply "the capital and
largest city of Hungary, on the Danube river."—a
factual, geographical comment without value
judgement. Generations of millions of DELC
users may conclude from the way information
is highlighted in these entries that Vienna
and Prague may be, for example, preferred
locations to Budapest to learn more about
or visit. Such a comparison of entries of
identical categories—capital cities of similar
size and significance in Central Europe—may
give an interesting insight into the prejudices
of the lexicographers. It may also be explained
with the computer database used by the lexicographers.
But the computerised corpus was selected by
the lexicographers; what is fed into the computer
to constitute the final corpus as their point
of reference is in fact defined by their
view of what English culture is. Should their
particular definition be accepted, then the
DELC in turn, may be a reflection on how "English
Culture" views these cities, the "heart"
of these respective cultures and, inherently,
the people who live there. In any case the
problems of inconsistency and discrimination
remain and beg the question: whose value judgements
will the dictionary users potentially assimilate
and spread in their relentless search to emulate
native fluency? What may be the long-term
implications of a widely used "Bible
of English prejudices" with no balances
and context?
But instead of how the English see others,
let's see how they see themselves in the DELC.
The term "Ulster Unionist" you can
look up but not, perhaps significantly, its
counterpart cause so prominent in Ireland
and relevant to English culture: the Irish
Nationalist. "Falls Road" is listed
as a Catholic area but should not the political
affiliation, i.e. that Falls Road is the heartland
of Irish nationalism in Northern Ireland,
be also mentioned for the dictionary user
to be able to make sense of that entry? Similarly,
the entry for "Shankhill Road" does
not mention its symbolic value: that it is
the heartland of the Protestant, working classes.
The entry for these two significant areas
in English culture read almost word by word
the same, as if to pre-empt criticism. Word
by word, except ... except Catholic is mentioned,
Protestant is not, and there is no mention
of them being working class areas. The question
is: how can one interpret these entries about
English culture in any meaningful way with
such randomly sketchy information provided?
Is not "reading between the lines"
about the interrelationships of bits of information?
Does not any level of understanding have to
do with cross-referencing isolated references
in your mind? Surely, these items should have
been fully cross-referenced to each other
and the respective paradigms (Unionists and
Nationalists, UDA, UVF and UFF). Ulster Unionism
is defined in terms of Northern Ireland but
there is no corresponding entry for Nationalist
or Irish Nationalist in the context of Northern
Ireland with reference to the Catholic community.
The "Nationalism" and "Nationalist"
entries enlist Welsh, Scottish, Basque and
Chinese nationalism but, crucially, no reference
to Irish nationalism. Could this perhaps be
a slight sanitization of English Culture where
should one leave a bag unattended in the tube,
it is quite unlikely anyone but the security
police will touch it for fear of a nationalist
bomb inside it?
To read between the lines of a culture, it
is not enough to know who Maradonna, Madonna
and the Madonna are. When one has to look
up who these cultural cult figures are, one
arguably does not become more part of that
particular culture. In fact, having to consult
the dictionary about something that the target
community takes for granted, may just confirm
the dictionary-user's sense of alienation.
The process of text decoding with a dictionary
may in fact create a feeling of being an outsider
to the culture in which these entries carry
significant meanings. And even if one comprehends
the meaning per se, it is far from being the
end of the decoding process. To access the
actual message, it should be surely crucial,
should it not, to be able appreciate how they
are referred to—for example, approvingly,
or just the other way round?
Conclusion
Notwithstanding the concerns outlined in this
article, the DELC undoubtedly makes fascinating
reading, and one which is more often absorbing
than irritating. It is, at its best, an entertaining
encyclopaedia of mostly contemporary popular
symbols, mythologies and yes, trivia and ephemera.
Prejudice & Trivial Pursuit
That is, then, I would argue, what it should
have been published as in the first place
instead of trying to be something it cannot
be and attributing qualities to itself which
are theoretically so questionable. It should
perhaps simply be marketed as what it is and
what it is good at. It should also be packaged
and advertised as such, something like: "Encyclopaedia
of English Popular Culture." Or: "The
Essential Trivial Pursuit for Non-native Speakers
of English." Or even: "The Longman
Dictionary of Anglo-centricity"!? It
well may be closer to reality, more manageable
in size and easier to update. Might sell even
better?
Such a product would not be less but more
to the credit of its publishers. This especially
holds considering that the idea at the "heart"
of this dictionary is genuinely innovative,
imaginative and quite daring.
In fact the original idea is so good, it is
almost self-evident and leaves one wondering
why it has not been done before—similar works
by other publishers are bound to follow. Longman,
thus, is to be congratulated for thinking
bravely, taking the plunge, and stirring the
somewhat stagnating waters of ELT by recognising
a need and taking the risk of trying to respond
to it.
However, some of the very important theoretical
and practical questions outlined above remain
and should perhaps be seriously considered
for the second edition which is no doubt already
in the making. Why is it that an excellent
idea had to be blown out of proportion and
paraded under false pretences? Why is the
quality uneven and how about the inconsistencies?
Why is the visual material of a female illustration
editorial team heavily male dominated? The
list could go on... but most importantly:
why, oh, why could we not have been spared
the ideology of native-speaker heads cum heart-of-English
in the promotional haze? The short answer
may be that Longman does indeed know how to
reach audiences other dictionaries cannot
reach: by tapping a (mis)conception rooted
in psychological insecurities and theoretical
ambiguities.
The long answer, however, concerns the continuing,
considered debate of the complex interrelationship
of the kind of issues this article engages:
fluency, culture and native-speakerism.
Notes
I would like to thank Henry G. Widdowson for
discussions relevant to this article.
1
Reference to the text of the Longman information
leaflet on the Dictionary of English Language
and Culture (1992).
2
Author's allusion to the beer advertisement
slogan of the Dutch beer company Heineken
which makes a detailed entry in the new Longman
dictionary: "Heineken. The beer that
refreshes the parts other beers cannot reach."
Longman DELC (1992:613)
3
See Note 1.
4
The DELC is claimed to give the "full
explanations of the cultural allusions and
connotations needed by advanced students to
achieve fluency in English." (Longman
DELC info leaflet.) From this assertion it
follows that you cannot achieve fluency without
full understanding and knowledge—or perhaps
even emulation—of the target language.
5
Reference to the American Express slogan which
also finds its way to the Longman DELC.
6
The particular love-hate obsession of the
British public with their Royal Family distinctly
reminds me of the type and the quality of
the relationship between the native (British
in particular) and non-native speaker teachers
in ELT. I elaborate on this issue in more
detail in Ardó (1992).
7
See Note 1.
8
See Note 1.
9
Personal communication: I am grateful to the
Research Seminar Group, Institute of Education,
University of London for this particular point.
10
For the benefit of those readers who wish
to take a few steps towards "native fluency":
DHL and Swiftair: rapid mail services widely
used in business, especially to overseas.
DHL is the largest private international courier
service and delivers usually overnight; Swiftair
is part of the Royal Post Office;
low boy and canterbury: pieces of furniture—table
and holder for music scores;
apple cheeks: according to the Sunday Times,
George Soros (famous Hungarian born American
financier and philanthropist, not included
in the DELC) has those cheeks apparently;
digital sex: according to NHS information
leaflets, it is a form of sex with fingers
or toes whereby AIDS can be spread;
BBS: Bulletin Board System—a database system
where messages and data can be transferred
via modem;
Squidgy tapes: alleged recordings of intimate
telephone discussions between the Princess
of Wales and her alleged close male friend
who calls her Squidgy;
Camillagate: alleged recordings of intimate
telephone discussions between the Prince of
Wales and Camilla, his alleged close female
friend.
11
Italics and italicised text in brackets are
mine.
References
Ardó, Zsuzsanna (1992) "Professional
status and the status of the profession"
Unpublished ms.
Bowers, Roger. 1992. "Memories, metaphors,
maxims, and myths: language learning and cultural
awareness," ELT Journal 46/1:
29-38.
Ferguson, Charles. (1982) "Foreword"
and Kachru. Braj. "Meaning in
Deviation: Toward Understanding Non-native
English Texts." The Other Tongue:
English across Cultures. (Ed. Braj Kachru).
Oxford:Pergamon.
Greenbaum, Sidney. (1990) "Standard English
and the international corpus of English."
World Englishes, 9/1:79-83
Illés, Éva. (1991) "Correspondence."
ELT Journal, 45/1:87.
Longman ELT. (1992) Longman Corpus Network
information material. Longman UK.
Longman Dictionaries. (1992) "Longman
Dictionary of English Language and Culture."
Information material. Longman UK.
Phillipson, Robert. (1992) "ELT: the
native speaker's burden?". ELT Journal,
46/1: 12-19
Rampton, Ben M. H. (1990) "Displacing
the 'native speaker': expertise, affiliation,
and inheritance." ELT Journal,
44/2:97-101
Summers, Della. (1991) "Longman/Lancaster
English Language Corpus: Criteria and Design."
Unpublished ms.
Widdowson, Henry.G. (1992) "ELT and EL
Teachers: matters arising." ELT Journal,
46/4: 333-338.
Williams, Ray. (1983) Keywords. Flamingo
See also Zsuzsanna Ardó's Review of
Longman Language Activator published at TranslationDirectory.com.
This article was originally
published at Translation Journal (http://accurapid.com/journal).
Read
more articles - Free!
E-mail
this article to your colleague!
Need
more translation jobs? Click here!
Translation
agencies are welcome to register here - Free!
Freelance
translators are welcome to register here - Free!
Subscribe
to TranslationDirectory.com newsletter - Free!
Take
part in TranslationDirectory.com poll - your voice counts!
|
