Principles, theories and methods of

effective communication (written

and oral) in general, and in a
management context
Principles, theories and methods of effective communication (written
and oral) in general, and in a management context
Understanding Individuals: Principles, theories & Methods of effective
communication
 

This section covers: 

 Principles, theories and methods of effective communication

 

Definition

The Oxford English Dictionary defines communication as "the imparting, conveying, or

exchange of ideas, knowledge and information'.  This can apply to words or body language.
 

Effective Communication

Lasswell introduced an important model of five levels of communication identified from his

experiences in the second world war, elements of which survive in more developed modern
models:

1.  Who: the source

2.  Says What: the message

3.  In Which Channel: through what channel or medium

4.  To Whom: the audience

5.  To What Effect: the desired effect??

 

The Five Ws

Lasswell's (1948) model has been further developed and modernised and is now referred
to as the 'Five Ws' and this model has been widely used, particularly when managing
change.  However, addressing the 'Five Ws' is an essential element of all communication,
getting this right is the first step in the process and is dependent upon what is required to
be communicated at the time.  This is particularly important when managing change in an
organisation.

1.  Who should be told?

 Everyone who needs to be told about something should be told.  It is advisable to relate the
communication to all as soon as possible.  Openness is the key to making everyone feel
involved (although there will always be some things which are not disseminated as widely
as others).  Where appropriate, communicate widely so that individuals are given the
opportunity to influence the process and local ownership is gained.  Barriers can also be
identified and overcome.

2.  When should they be told?

The time to communicate with relevant people should be carefully considered.  It might be
within a set meeting or a one-off arrangement.  If the communication covers a wide range
of people where possible it is desirable that discussions take place at the same time to avoid
confusion, spread of rumours or misunderstandings.  If internal and external stakeholders
are involved, internal staff should be communicated with prior to external stakeholders; this
is to prevent staff hearing from other sources, including the media.

Key communications should be made as soon as possible following a significant event or

decision.

3.  What should they be told?

Clear messages, related to the subject or problem.  In complex situations it is advisable to

create a shared meaning and understanding, this can be done by:

 checking back with the recipients through an iterative process

 let them ask questions
 asking for clarification of what they have understood being clear that words, behaviours
and symbols are not misunderstood or misinterpreted.
4.  Where should the message be conveyed?

Choose the most effective medium to get your message across, this could be in meetings,
seminars, press releases etc.  Make time to communicate properly, do not do it in the
corridor, in the toilet or the car park.  This leads to gabbled and garbled messages and can
contribute to the 'grape vine'.

5.  Who should control the communications process?

The most appropriate person depending on the subject.  If it involves external agencies
include the Press Officer.

The Message

William McGuire (1981) adds a further dimension to communication. Instead of having

only an X axis with Source, Message, Channel, and Receiver which he calls "input factors",
he adds a Y axis comprised of Attention, Liking, Comprehension, Yielding, Remembering,
and Action, which he calls "output factors."

  Source   Message   Channel   Receiver

ntion
 ng

mprehension

membering

on

 
 

Since McGuire combines the traditional S-M-C-R uni-dimensional model with factors on the

Y axis, we have a more sophisticated way of thinking about and analysing communication.
In fact his two dimensional matrix is useful for analysing the effectiveness of persuasive
communication both before and after the fact.

In addition to McGuire's dimensions there are also three other elements that are vital for
all social or business interaction through communication:

1.  Use of language: the understanding of what people hear can be changed by loudness,
intonation, clarity, use of jargon, aggressive words, and colloquialisms.

2.  Behaviour: in face to face meetings body language can affect the whole meaning of
communication, for example frowning, arms folded and legs apart, pointing fingers, looking
bored versus animated voice and eyes, smiling face and positive arm movements.   Charles
Brower summed this up in this quote…
"A new idea is delicate. It can be killed by a sneer or a yawn. It can be stabbed to death by
a quip and worried to death by a frown on the right man's brow."                      
3.  Other symbols, for example hand-outs, presentations, stage props, examples of work
etc.

Getting over the right message is complex as the meaning of the message may be:

 misunderstood
 misinterpreted
 misheard
 ignored
 perceived as irrelevant
 

Delivering the 'right' message

Careful thought on how the message is delivered is required, taking into account:

 What are we trying to convey?

 What are we inadvertently conveying?
 

Confucius wrote..

'If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant. 
 If what is said is not what is meant, then what ought to be done remains undone'.
 
Monroe's Motivation Sequence
Monroe's Motivated Sequence (1935), whilst written to support people making persuasive
speeches, is a useful reminder of the key as they are the same for all communication and
action. 

Attention Step

 Get the attention or your audience.  This can be done with a detailed story, shocking
example, dramatic statistic, quote, etc.  This is part or your introduction (in addition to
stating your thesis, giving a preview of your main points, mentioning your credibility, and
telling your audience why the topic is of concern to them).
Need Step

 Show the problem exists, that it is a significant problem, and that it won't go away by
itself.  Document your statements with statistics, examples, etc.
 Offer a clear concise statement of the need.
 This is the central idea.
 Tell them what you are going to tell them.
 Establish expectation.
Illustration

 Present one or more illustrations and/or specific instances to give audience idea of nature
and scope of the problem.
Ramification

 Use supporting materials, statistics, testimony, etc. to drive point home.

Pointing

 Point out how issue or problem affects audience's health, security, etc.
Satisfaction

 Offer solutions for the problem you have shown exists in the Need Step.  These are
solutions that the government or society as a whole can implement.  You must satisfy the
need.
 Includes:
Initial Summary
o State in advance what your main ideas are.
 

Detailed Information
o Discuss in order the information for each of the main ideas.
 

Final Summary
o Tell them what you said.

Visualisation Step

 Tell us what will happen if we don't do something about the problem.  Be graphic.
 Primary strategy is to project audience into future and accepting or denying your
proposals.
 In informative speeches this step may be used to suggest the pleasure that may be
gained from this knowledge.
 

Action Step

Required when action is an essential output. 

 Offer alternatives to your audience that they can do personally to help solve the problem
you have shown exists.  Again, be very specific and very realistic.
 Motivate staff to get out and do something!  Wrap up loose ends by giving a review of
points and restating your thesis, and then conclude the speech.
 

Models of Communication

   Model of 
 Communicatio    Advantages   Disadvantages
n

 time for the individual  the manager is likely to have

   One to one  the individual has the opportunity to more of a voice
voice clear opinions without the  open to manipulation
influence of others  only the leader gets the overall
picture
 time consuming

   Cascade  the message becomes diluted,

 can reach more staff incorrect or forgotten
 makes middle managers feel involved  some people will not hear the
message at all

 the team has more control over the

content of the decision and can
therefore ensure that the rationale  people respond in a private
remains intact capacity.  Is this enough if the
  One to one  there are fewer hidden agendas to going gets rough?  Will they
  endorsement  second guess and negotiate change their mind?
  within a group  it is easier to achieve individual  The evidence itself is subject to
commitment and with each rather less discussion than it
endorsement, to build a sense of a would receive in a larger group
collective bandwagon beginning to
roll
  might not be candid about the
obstacles and opportunities
 Ensures that the message is heard the  less likely to feel the need to
  Round table same by everyone defend their own corner
  management  Everyone hears the opinions of others  professionals often feel obliged
  led consensus  Open communication channels to disagree then then come up
with consensus
 difficulty in getting everyone
together at the same time.

 no leader to keep the

  Round table   Ensures that the message is heard the
communication focussed
  consensus for a same by everyone
 no control over the group's
  group decision  Everyone hears the opinions of others
activities
 Open communication channel
 potentially no outcomes
 
 

References
Lasswell, H. (1948). "The Structure and Function of Communication in Society." In Lyman
Bryson (ed.), The Communication of Ideas. Harper and Row
McGuire, W. (1981). "Theoretical Foundations of Campaigns." In Ronald Rice and William
Paisley (eds.), Public Communication Campaigns, Sage.
Monroe, A.H. (1935). Motivation Sequence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe's_motivated_sequence

The Flight From Conversation

By SHERRY TURKLE
 April 21, 2012
WE live in a technological universe in which we are always communicating. And yet we
have sacrificed conversation for mere connection.

At home, families sit together, texting and reading e-mail. At work executives text
during board meetings. We text (and shop and go on Facebook) during classes and when
we’re on dates. My students tell me about an important new skill: it involves
maintaining eye contact with someone while you text someone else; it’s hard, but it can
be done.

Over the past 15 years, I’ve studied technologies of mobile connection and talked to
hundreds of people of all ages and circumstances about their plugged-in lives. I’ve
learned that the little devices most of us carry around are so powerful that they change
not only what we do, but also who we are.
We’ve become accustomed to a new way of being “alone together.” Technology-enabled,
we are able to be with one another, and also elsewhere, connected to wherever we want
to be. We want to customize our lives. We want to move in and out of where we are
because the thing we value most is control over where we focus our attention. We have
gotten used to the idea of being in a tribe of one, loyal to our own party.

Our colleagues want to go to that board meeting but pay attention only to what interests
them. To some this seems like a good idea, but we can end up hiding from one another,
even as we are constantly connected to one another.

A businessman laments that he no longer has colleagues at work. He doesn’t stop by to

talk; he doesn’t call. He says that he doesn’t want to interrupt them. He says they’re “too
busy on their e-mail.” But then he pauses and corrects himself. “I’m not telling the truth.
I’m the one who doesn’t want to be interrupted. I think I should. But I’d rather just do
things on my BlackBerry.”

A 16-year-old boy who relies on texting for almost everything says almost wistfully,
“Someday, someday, but certainly not now, I’d like to learn how to have a conversation.”

In today’s workplace, young people who have grown up fearing conversation show up on
the job wearing earphones. Walking through a college library or the campus of a high-
tech start-up, one sees the same thing: we are together, but each of us is in our own
bubble, furiously connected to keyboards and tiny touch screens. A senior partner at a
Boston law firm describes a scene in his office. Young associates lay out their suite of
technologies: laptops, iPods and multiple phones. And then they put their earphones on.
“Big ones. Like pilots. They turn their desks into cockpits.” With the young lawyers in
their cockpits, the office is quiet, a quiet that does not ask to be broken.

In the silence of connection, people are comforted by being in touch with a lot of people
— carefully kept at bay. We can’t get enough of one another if we can use technology to
keep one another at distances we can control: not too close, not too far, just right. I think
of it as a Goldilocks effect.

Texting and e-mail and posting let us present the self we want to be. This means we can
edit. And if we wish to, we can delete. Or retouch: the voice, the flesh, the face, the body.
Not too much, not too little — just right.

Human relationships are rich; they’re messy and demanding. We have learned the habit
of cleaning them up with technology. And the move from conversation to connection is
part of this. But it’s a process in which we shortchange ourselves. Worse, it seems that
over time we stop caring, we forget that there is a difference.

We are tempted to think that our little “sips” of online connection add up to a big gulp of
real conversation. But they don’t. E-mail, Twitter, Facebook, all of these have their
places — in politics, commerce, romance and friendship. But no matter how valuable,
they do not substitute for conversation.
Connecting in sips may work for gathering discrete bits of information or for saying, “I
am thinking about you.” Or even for saying, “I love you.” But connecting in sips doesn’t
work as well when it comes to understanding and knowing one another. In conversation
we tend to one another. (The word itself is kinetic; it’s derived from words that mean to
move, together.) We can attend to tone and nuance. In conversation, we are called upon
to see things from another’s point of view.

FACE-TO-FACE conversation unfolds slowly. It teaches patience. When we

communicate on our digital devices, we learn different habits. As we ramp up the
volume and velocity of online connections, we start to expect faster answers. To get
these, we ask one another simpler questions; we dumb down our communications, even
on the most important matters. It is as though we have all put ourselves on cable news.
Shakespeare might have said, “We are consum’d with that which we were nourish’d by.”

And we use conversation with others to learn to converse with ourselves. So our flight
from conversation can mean diminished chances to learn skills of self-reflection. These
days, social media continually asks us what’s “on our mind,” but we have little
motivation to say something truly self-reflective. Self-reflection in conversation requires
trust. It’s hard to do anything with 3,000 Facebook friends except connect.

As we get used to being shortchanged on conversation and to getting by with less, we

seem almost willing to dispense with people altogether. Serious people muse about the
future of computer programs as psychiatrists. A high school sophomore confides to me
that he wishes he could talk to an artificial intelligence program instead of his dad about
dating; he says the A.I. would have so much more in its database. Indeed, many people
tell me they hope that as Siri, the digital assistant on Apple’s iPhone, becomes more
advanced, “she” will be more and more like a best friend — one who will listen when
others won’t.

During the years I have spent researching people and their relationships with
technology, I have often heard the sentiment “No one is listening to me.” I believe this
feeling helps explain why it is so appealing to have a Facebook page or a Twitter feed —
each provides so many automatic listeners. And it helps explain why — against all
reason — so many of us are willing to talk to machines that seem to care about us.
Researchers around the world are busy inventing sociable robots, designed to be
companions to the elderly, to children, to all of us.

One of the most haunting experiences during my research came when I brought one of
these robots, designed in the shape of a baby seal, to an elder-care facility, and an older
woman began to talk to it about the loss of her child. The robot seemed to be looking
into her eyes. It seemed to be following the conversation. The woman was comforted.

And so many people found this amazing. Like the sophomore who wants advice about
dating from artificial intelligence and those who look forward to computer psychiatry,
this enthusiasm speaks to how much we have confused conversation with connection
and collectively seem to have embraced a new kind of delusion that accepts the
simulation of compassion as sufficient unto the day. And why would we want to talk
about love and loss with a machine that has no experience of the arc of human life?
Have we so lost confidence that we will be there for one another?

WE expect more from technology and less from one another and seem increasingly
drawn to technologies that provide the illusion of companionship without the demands
of relationship. Always-on/always-on-you devices provide three powerful fantasies: that
we will always be heard; that we can put our attention wherever we want it to be; and
that we never have to be alone. Indeed our new devices have turned being alone into a
problem that can be solved.

When people are alone, even for a few moments, they fidget and reach for a device. Here
connection works like a symptom, not a cure, and our constant, reflexive impulse to
connect shapes a new way of being.

Think of it as “I share, therefore I am.” We use technology to define ourselves by sharing

our thoughts and feelings as we’re having them. We used to think, “I have a feeling; I
want to make a call.” Now our impulse is, “I want to have a feeling; I need to send a
text.”

So, in order to feel more, and to feel more like ourselves, we connect. But in our rush to
connect, we flee from solitude, our ability to be separate and gather ourselves. Lacking
the capacity for solitude, we turn to other people but don’t experience them as they are.
It is as though we use them, need them as spare parts to support our increasingly fragile
selves.

We think constant connection will make us feel less lonely. The opposite is true. If we
are unable to be alone, we are far more likely to be lonely. If we don’t teach our children
to be alone, they will know only how to be lonely.

I am a partisan for conversation. To make room for it, I see some first, deliberate steps.
At home, we can create sacred spaces: the kitchen, the dining room. We can make our
cars “device-free zones.” We can demonstrate the value of conversation to our children.
And we can do the same thing at work. There we are so busy communicating that we
often don’t have time to talk to one another about what really matters. Employees asked
for casual Fridays; perhaps managers should introduce conversational Thursdays. Most
of all, we need to remember — in between texts and e-mails and Facebook posts — to
listen to one another, even to the boring bits, because it is often in unedited moments,
moments in which we hesitate and stutter and go silent, that we reveal ourselves to one
another.

I spend the summers at a cottage on Cape Cod, and for decades I walked the same dunes
that Thoreau once walked. Not too long ago, people walked with their heads up, looking
at the water, the sky, the sand and at one another, talking. Now they often walk with
their heads down, typing. Even when they are with friends, partners, children, everyone
is on their own devices.

So I say, look up, look at one another, and let’s start the conversation.
 Language Register
Formal, Informal, and Neutral

Language register is the level and style of your writing. It should be appropriate for the
situation you are in.

Click Here for Step-by-Step Rules, Stories and Exercises to Practice

All English Tenses

The language register determines the vocabulary, structure, and some grammar in your
writing.
The three most common language registers in writing are:

 Formal
 Informal
 Neutral

We use different language registers for different types of writing, just as we speak

differently to different people. You would not speak to the President of the United
States the same way you would talk to your brothers.

To your brother: What's up? It's awesome that you came to visit!

To the President: Good morning, Mr. President. We appreciate your visit.

The formal register is more appropriate for professional writing and letters to a boss or a
stranger.

The informal register (also called casual or intimate) is conversational and appropriate

when writing to friends and people you know very well.

The neutral register is non-emotional and sticks to facts. It is most appropriate for

technical writings.

In articles such as these, we tend to mix the formal and informal registers to present the
information in an easy to understand and personal tone.

Let's look closely at the three most common language registers used in the English
language.

Formal Language Register

Formal writing is probably the most difficult type of writing. It is impersonal, meaning it is
not written for a specific person and is written without emotion.

Some kinds of writing are always written in formal English.

Formal writing includes:

 Business Letters
 Letters of complaint
 Some essays
 Reports
 Official speeches
 Announcements
 Professional emails

There are many rules for writing in formal writing. We will discuss some of the most
common rules here. When in doubt, check the rules in an APA style guide.

Rules of the formal language register:

1. Do not use contractions

Contractions are not usually used in formal writing, even though they are very common in
spoken English.

In formal writing, you should spell out contractions.

Examples:

In formal writing, you should use:

 cannot instead of can’t

 have not instead of haven’t

 will not instead of won’t

  could not instead of couldn’t

 is not instead of isn’t

These are just a few examples of contractions. See more contractions by following the
contraction link above.

Contractions CAN be used if you are quoting someone’s exact words in your

writing.

Example:

“Two-thirds of my eighth grade students can’t read at grade level,” the professor stated.

Keep in mind that an apostrophe does not always make a contraction.

Apostrophes are also added to nouns to show ownership. These are used in all language
registers, including formal.

Examples:

 children’s classroom
 professor’s report
 elephant’s trunk

2. Spell out numbers less than one hundred

Examples:

 nineteen
 twenty-two
 seventy-eight
 six

3. Write in third person point of view

In formal writing, we usually do not use first person or second person unless it is a quote.

Avoid using:

 I
 You
 We
 Us

Examples:

 You can purchase a car for under $10,000.

 One can purchase a car for under $10,000.

OR

A car can be purchased for under $10,000.

 You will probably see an elephant on an African safari.

One may see elephants on an African safari.

OR

Elephants are a common sight on African safaris.

 We decided to invest in the company.

The group decided to invest in the company.

4. Avoid using too much passive voice

In formal writing it is better to use an active voice.

Passive sentences:

 The bone was eaten by the dog.

 The research was completed by the students in 2009.

Active sentences:

 The dog ate the bone.

 The students completed the research in 2009. 

In 2009, the students completed the research.

For example, in a rule above I wrote, “Apostrophes are also added to nouns to show
ownership.”

I wrote this sentence in a passive voice.

To make it active, I could write:

“Additionally, add an apostrophe to a noun to show ownership.”

OR

“Use apostrophes with nouns to show ownership.”

5. Avoid using slang, idioms, exaggeration (hyperboles) and clichés
Slang is common in informal writing and spoken English. Slang is particular to a certain
region or area.

Examples of slang:

 awesome/cool
 okay/ok
 check it out
 in a nutshell

A cliché is a phrase that is overused (said too often).

Common clichés:

 too much of a good thing

 moment of truth
 Time is money.
 Don’t push your luck.
 Beauty is only skin deep.

6. Avoid abbreviations and acronyms

If you use an acronym or abbreviation, write it out the first time

When using acronyms, write the entire name out the first time it appears, followed by the
acronym. From then on, you can use the acronym by itself.

Examples:

 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

 Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT)

For abbreviations, write the complete word the first time, then use the abbreviation.

Examples:

 influenza => flu

 United States of America => U.S.A or USA
 tablespoon => tbsp.
 Kansas => KS

Do not use slang abbreviations or symbols that you would use in friendly emails
and texts.

Examples:
  LOL (laugh out loud)
 ttyl (talk to you later)
 
 &
 b/c (because)
 w/o (without)
 w/ (with)

7. Do not start sentences with words like and, so, but, also
Here are some good transition words and phrases to use in formal writing:

 Nevertheless
 Additionally
 However
 In addition
 As a result of
 Although

8. Always write in complete sentences.

9. Write longer, more complex sentences.

Informal Language Register

Informal writing is written in the way we talk to our friends and family. We use informal
writing when we are writing to someone we know very well.

Some kinds of writing can be written in an informal style.

Informal writing includes:

 Personal e-mails
 Phone texts
 Short notes
 Friendly letters
 Most blogs
 Diaries and journals

There are no major rules to informal writing.

With informal writing, you can include things such as:

 Slang and clichés

 Figurative language

 Symbols and abbreviations

 Acronyms

 Incomplete sentences

 Short sentences

 First person, second person, and third person

 Paragraphs or no paragraphs

 Jokes

 Personal opinions

 Extra punctuation (Hi Bob!!!!!!!)

 Passive and active voice

Neutral Language Register

We use the neutral language register with non-emotional topics and information.

Neutral writing is not necessarily formal or informal. It is not usually positive or negative. A
neutral register is used to deliver facts.

Some writings are written in a neutral register. This means they are not specifically formal
or informal.

Writing in the natural language register includes:

 Reviews
 Articles
 Some letters
  Some essays
 Technical writing

«It ain’t right, innit?» – About

language register in English
Posted on January 29, 2015 by SHIAR YOUSSEF

What is the difference between saying «it ain’ righ’!» (dropping your Ts at
the end of words) and «that is not right!»? Or between «innit?» and «isn’t it?»?
There is no difference in meaning. Both mean exactly the same thing. The only difference is in the level of formality and
‘properness’.

Linguists call this the language register, sometimes also referred to as tenor, tone or style.

Put simply, a register is a variety of a language used in a particular social setting, using certain words, phrases and contractions
that are not normally used in other settings (or if they did, they may sound strange or out of place).

For example, when speaking in a formal setting, an English speaker is more likely to use features of prescribed grammar, like
pronouncing words ending in -ing with a velar nasal instead of an alveolar nasal (e.g. «walking», not «walkin’»). Or she or he
may choose more formal words (e.g. father vs. dad, child vs. kid, and so on). She or he would also usually refrain from using
contractions like «ain’t».

It may sound intuitive but the differences between how one may talk on the street, with friends, during a job interview or when
writing formal letters and emails are amazing, even though it is the same person speaking.

This is why a register is a language variation defined by use, not user. The same person may use more than one register
depending on the context or social setting.

Indeed, the term «register» was first used by the linguist Thomas Bertram Reid in 1956, and popuarised in the 1960s by a group
of linguists who wanted to distinguish between language variations according to the user («defined by variables like social
background, geography, sex and age») and variations according to how and when the language is being used («in the sense that
each speaker has a range of varieties and choices between them at different times»).
Register should therefore be distinguished from other, identity-based types of language variation, such as regional and age
dialects, even though it often overlaps with them. It should also be distinguished from jargon, which is technical terminology
used for a special activity or by a special group, such as computer geeks, scientists, lawyers and so on.

One of the most analysed areas where the use of language is determined by the situation is the formality scale. The term
«register» is often used as shorthand for formal/informal styles. But many would argue that this is a simplistic definition, because
register is about more than just formality, as we have already said.

In one prominent model, Martin Joos (1961) describes five styles in spoken English: frozen or static register, formal, consultative
or participatory, casual and intimate.

Foreign speakers may find it difficult – especially if they are beginners – to switch between registers. This is called «code-
switching» in linguistics. That is why they may sometimes sound like TV presenters or politicians (i.e. very formal), even when
speaking to close friends. Or they may sound too informal, even rude, without intending to.

The only solution to this is to familiarise yourself with the social and cultural associations of words and expressions – which is
the basis of language registers. Reading and listening to popular culture, interacting with native speakers and so on.

And getting the register right will certainly get you higher marks in oral language tests such Toefl or IELTS!

Varieties of English

Checklist of features

English is spoken today on all five continents as a result of colonial expansion in the last
four centuries or so. The colonial era is now definitely over but its consequences are only
too clearly to be seen in the presence of English as an official and often native language in
many of the former colonies along with more or less strongly diverging varieties which arose
in particular socio-political conditions, so-called pidgins which in some cases later developed
into creoles. Another legacy of colonialism is where English fulfils the function of a lingua
franca. Many countries, like Nigeria, use English as a lingua franca (a general means of
communication) since there are many different and mutually unintelligible languages and a
need for a supra-regional means of communication.

English has also come to play a central role as an international language. There are a
number of reasons for this, of which the economic status of the United States is certainly
one of the most important nowadays. Internal reasons for the success of English in the
international arena can also be given: a little bit of English goes a long way as the grammar
is largely analytic in type so that it is suitable for those groups who do not wish to expend
great effort on learning a foreign language.

Present-day geographical distribution English is spoken on all five continents. With

regard to numbers of speakers it is only exceeded by Chinese (in its various forms) and
Spanish. But in terms of geographical spread it stands at the top of the league. The
distribution is a direct consequence of English colonial policy, starting in Ireland in the late
12th century and continuing well into the 19th century, reaching its peak at the end of the
reign of Queen Victoria and embodied in the saying ‘the sun never sets on the British
Empire’. For the present overview the varieties of English in the modern world are divided
into four geographical groups as follows.

British Isles America

United States (with African American

England
English)

Wales Canada

Ireland The Caribbean

Africa Asia, Pacific

West Africa South- and South-East Asia

East Africa Australia and New Zealand

South Africa The Pacific islands

The two main groups are Britain and America. For each there are standard forms of English
which are used as yardsticks for comparing other varieties of the respective areas.

In Britain the standard is called Received Pronunciation. The term stems from Daniel Jones
at the beginning of the present century and refers to the pronunciation of English which is
accepted - that is, received - in English society. BBC English, Oxford English, Queen’s
English (formerly King’s English) are alternative terms which are not favoured by linguists
as they are imprecise or simply incorrect.

In America there is a standard which is referred to by any of a number of titles, General

American and Network American English being the two most common. There is a
geographical area where this English is spoken and it is defined negatively as the rest of the
United States outside of New England (the north east) and the South. General American is
spoken by the majority of Americans, including many in the North-East and South and thus
contrasts strongly with Received Pronunciation which is a prestige sociolect spoken by only
a few percent of all the British. The southern United States occupy a unique position as the
English characteristic of this area is found typically among the African American sections of
the community. These are the descendents of the slaves originally imported into the
Caribbean area, chiefly by the English from the 16th century onwards. Their English is quite
different from that of the rest of the United States and has far more in common with that of
the various Anglophone Caribbean islands.

Those varieties of English which are spoken outside of Britain and America are variously
referred to as overseas or extraterritorial varieties. A recent practice is to use the term
Englishes (a plural created by linguists) which covers a multitude of forms. The label English
World-Wide (the name of an academic journal dedicated to this area) is used to refer to
English in its global context and to research on it, most of which has been concerned with
implicitly comparing it to mainland varieties of Britain and America and then with trying to
determine its own linguistic profile. Extraterritorial varieties are not just different from
mainland varieties because of their geographical distance from the original homeland but
also because in many cases a type of suspension has occurred vis à vis changes in point of
origin, i.e. in many respects the overseas varieties appear remarkably unchanged to those
from the European mainland. This phenomenon is known as colonial lag. It is a term which
should not be overworked but a temperate use of the term is appropriate and it can be cited
as one of the features accounting for the relative standardness of overseas varieties, such
as Australian or New Zealand English with regards to British forms of English.

The varieties of English both in Europe and overseas tend to show variation in certain key
features, for instance special verbal structures to express aspectual distinctions are common
to nearly all varieties in the developing world. Pronunciation and morphology features can
equally be classified according to frequency of variation in non-standard forms of the
language. To facilitate orientation in this sphere a table of those features is offered below
which typically vary among both mainland and extraterritorial forms of English. Note that
the variation in the area of lexis (vocabulary) tends to be restricted to two types. The first is
the presence of archaic words no longer found in mainland Britain, e.g. the use of bold in
the sense of misbehaved or wench as a non-derogative term for woman. The second type
contains flora and fauna words. Obviously those speakers of English who moved to new
environments were liable to borrow words from indigenous languages for phenomena in
nature which they did not know from Europe, thus Australian English has koala, kangaroo,
New Zealand English kiwi, etc.

Checklist of non-standard features of English

In the development of the language English has shown variation with a number of features
on different linguistic levels. In those cases where the variation has been between dialects
and/or sociolects and the arising standard the features in question have become indicators
of non-standardness. Consciousness of this is frequently present with speakers and it forms
part of what is sometimes called ‘panlectal’ knowledge of language, i.e. part of the
awareness of inherent variation in a language which people acquire with their particular
variety of the language in question. In English the indicators of non-standardness are chiefly
phonological but there are also morphological and syntactical features, the most salient of
which are indicated below. The standard referred to here is Received Pronunciation and the
variation applies chiefly to forms of British English.

Phonology

1) Presence of syllable-final /r/ card /kɑ:ɻd/

2) Lack of initial /h-/ happy /æpi/
3) Glottalisation of /t/ bottle /bɔʔḷ/
4) No lowering of /ʊ/ but /bʊt/
5) Short /a/ before /f, s, θ/ bath /baθ/
6) Use of /ʍ/ which /ʍɪwitʃ/
7) Alveolarisation of /ŋ/ walking /wɔ:kṇ/
8) Yod deletion in /ju:/ news /nu:z/ tune /tu:n/
9) No lexical distribution of /æ/ and /ɑ:/ grand /grand/, cancel /ka(:)nsḷ/
10) Short vowel distinction before /r/ fern /fɛɻn/ # burn /bʌɻn/
11) Unshifted long /u:/: town /tu:n/

Morphology

1) Contraction of am + not: amn’t or aren’t and of is + not: isn’t or ain’t

2) Use of /i:/ for /ai/ with possessive pronoun my
3) Use of demonstrative pronouns for possessive pronouns: them boys
4) A distinctive form for the second person plural: ye, yez, youse
5) Use of objective forms for subject, e.g. us for we, her for she
6) Unmarked adverbs (deletion of final /i:/): He’s awful busy these days
7) Differences between weak and strong verbs
8) Zero marking for plurals, often with numerals: He’s been here five year now

Syntax

1) Use of past participle as preterite: I done the work, I seen him

2) Verbal -s outside third person singular: The boys plays football.
2) Narrative present with generalised -s: I hops out of the car and finds him lying on the
ground
3) Additional aspectual distinctions such as the habitual: He does be working all night.
Perfective with participle after object: He has the book read
4) Double or multiple negation: They don’t do nothing for nobody
5) Use of for with infinitives: He went out for to get some milk
6) Deletion of copula and/or auxiliary: She a farmer’s daughter, He gone home
7) Zero subject in relative clauses: There’s a man wants to see you
8) Never as past tense negative: I never done the work (= I didn’t do...)
9) Lack of negative attraction: Anyone wasn’t interested in linguistics
10) Passive with get: His car got stolen last week
11) Different use of prepositions, e.g. on to express relevance: They broke the glass on me
12) Overuse of the definite article: He asked the both of them

English in the Philippines

English in the Philippines was established after the Americans defeated the Spanish in 1898
and acquired this country (and Cuba) as overseas territories. Until after the Second World
War there was a considerable influence of American English on public language usage in the
Philippines, a noticeable exception in the context of other South-East Asian countries.
With an area of some 300,000 square km and a population of over 85 million The
Philippines is a major country of the region, comparable to Malaysia but considerably
smaller than Indonesia.. Ethnically, the inhabitants of the Philippines are Malays who were
Christianised by the Spanish and today over 80% of the population is Roman Catholic. The
two official languages of The Philippines are Filipino (an Austronesian language, also called
Tagalog) and English, although only a tiny percentage speak it natively.

The Philippines are named after King Philip II (1527-1598) of Spain. The country was
discovered by the Portuguese navigator Ferdinand Magellan in 1521 (while in Spanish
service). Later tension arose between Portugal and Spain and in 1542 Spain re-claimed the
islands for themselves, naming them after its then king.
   
Indigenous languages
 Tagalog (stressed on the second syllable) is an Austronesian language (like Malay) and has
about 15 million speakers mainly on the northern island of Luzon and is the main indigenous
language in the area of metropolitan Manila. Tagalog is agglutinative in type and has a basic
VSO word-order for sentences without particular focus. The official language Filipino is a
form of Tagalog.

Cebuano is an Austronesian language spoken in southern parts of the Philippines by about

12 million people. The cultural history of sea trade led to the spread of varieties throughout
the Philippine archipelagos. There are other languages such as Ilocano and Bicol which have
several million speakers each.

Which variety of English should

you speak?
By Urszula Clark 
22 April 2014 - 17:00

Share this




'We need to recognise the roles and functions that different varieties of English fulfil.'
Photo © 
Marc Wathieu, licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0 and adapted from the original.
Ahead of UN English Language Day on 23 April 2014, English language and
linguistics specialist Dr Urszula Clark presents research  on variations in the use
of English and what these could mean for education policy and teachers of
English. Her live-streamed British Council seminar  is later today from 19:00 to
20:00 BST.

You are what you speak: place of origin most important identity factor

My research took place in the West Midlands region of the UK and looked at variations
in the use of English in creative spoken performance such as comedy, drama and
poetry, as well as in written texts such as letters to local newspapers, stories and poems
written in dialect.

The results suggest that people are increasingly and deliberately using English in a way
that identifies them with a particular place. They do this by incorporating  into their
speech a set of linguistic features drawn from a particular variety of English. In the West
Midlands, for example, people may pronounce ‘you’ as ‘yow’, use ‘Brum’ for
‘Birmingham’ and ‘cor’ for ‘cannot’ or ‘can’t’. By using features in this way, people
emphasise their place of origin over other factors such as age, gender, social class and
ethnicity.

Is there a ‘correct’ variety of English?

The research highlights how dynamic, fragmented and mobile the English language has
become. At the same time, the influence of traditional gatekeepers of ‘standard’ English,
such as the BBC, is weakening.

We live in a world where English crosses national boundaries and migration brings
people together from different backgrounds and cultures. Consequently, we are
probably more aware than ever before of the different ways we draw upon language in
relation to linguistic and socio-cultural contexts.

Even though English is used around the world for the purposes of trade, travel,
medicine and so on, it is an interesting fact that the majority of the world’s population
today is largely bilingual, if not multilingual, even in nations where English is the mother
tongue. In parts of Birmingham in the UK, for example, there are primary and secondary
schools where nearly 100 per cent of pupils speak English as an additional language; in
many others, 40 per cent is the norm.

The implications of this for education policy is that we can no longer speak of the
‘superiority’ of one variety of English over all others. Instead we need to recognise the
roles and functions that different varieties of English, including that of standard English,
fulfil.

Which variety of English should we teach?

A common and long-held belief among many in the English teaching profession is that
the best people to teach spoken English are ‘native’ speakers of the language,
especially the teaching of pronunciation. But we know from research that linguistic
variation is a characteristic of all languages, and all varieties have their own rules and
systems. Often these leak from one variety to another. Once we accept that English
comes in many varieties, such concerns become redundant.

Successful communication is more a question of understanding, and being able to

engage successfully, in the contexts of use rather than whether one is a ‘native’ or ‘non-
native’ speaker. This is as true of English taught in the UK as it is in other contexts
around the world.