Talk:English as a second or foreign language/Archive 1

Controversies concerning acronyms

Who uses EAL as acronym

This is the first time I have seen the term English as Additional Language (EAL) used. It makes logical sense, referring to both EFL and ESL, but I have never seen it used elsewhere.

And what about the field of Second Language Acquisition whose acronym is always SLA. Do you propose to change that to ALA?

EAL -- I have a masters degree in TESL (1996, University of San Francisco) and have been active in TEFL in China for ten years; I too have never heard EAL before. However, Googling "English as an additional language" I find it seems to be used it the UK. Maybe it is UK regional usage within our profession at this time. A valid Wikipedia page I think, even if not prefered usage to many. --Roger Chrisman 06:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In British usage also....EFT, ESL etc... Shouldn't that read "in non American usage" ?

Quite possibly.

No. It is UK usage. Australia, Canada and the US all use ESL. Gailtb 19:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This uncommon acronym as a title for this section creates a problem in creating links to this page. I mentioned the strong ESl program at my college (where the subject is called ESL) but the link doesn't work. It won't do to change my reference to EAL, since that's not what the courses are called, and since no one would know what I was talking about. I think this page should be entitled English as a Second/Foreign Language, abbreviated ESL/EFL, as this is the usage throughout the profession in the US.

To the anonymous editor above -- Two Wikipedia tricks I have learned. (I do not consider myself very proficient at all, just a learner.)

1. You can (and should, on talk pages such as this), leave your signature by typing four tildes ~

2. You can create a link within an article you are editing without using the word to which you wish to link. Again, you have to use a lesser symbol, this time the pipe. If you can't find it on your keyboard, copy and paste it from, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28links%29

I hope these hints help. BrainyBabe 13:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to merge with TESL

I propose merging the relatively short article on Teaching English as a Second Language with the more comprehensive (encyclopedic) EAL. They both contain similar lists of defintions, which run the risk of geting more out of sync and thus confusing. BrainyBabe 18:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There has been discussion about this article being named something other than EAL. Given that it appears to be only UK usage, that seems a good idea, although we'll then have to work out what to call it. Maybe ESOL would be best since it is used in all English-speaking nations, and then we explain the different usages. I'm very open to other, better ideas. I would like a title that doesn't include the word "Teaching" since it tends to restrict ideas about where learning can take place.

Furthermore, in practice, I think EAL is only used in the schools sector in Britain, and then to refer to ESL/ESOL type learning, rather than ESL/ESOL and EFL as the article states.

I definitely support the merger with the TESL article. I think a better name for this article might have prevented that one from being added in the first place.

Note also that the term ESOL is UK usage. I'm not aware of it being used in other countries where British /Commonwealth English is spoken. It also shouldn't be contrasted with American usage because that is exclusive. ESL is the term in Australia and Canada, both major centres, as well as the USA. (BTW, I'm an ESOL teacher in the UK.) Gailtb 19:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Gailtb. You were the editor I most wanted to hear from, as you have been most involved in the current EAL article, as far as I can tell. Somehow I had guessed that you were a UK ESOL teacher!

You are probably correct that the term EAL is confined to UK schools, because my substantial experience, not in UK schools, has not brougnt the term to my attention. I would prefer "English language teaching". Reasons: it is widely used, understandable to those outside the profession(s), and a good umbrella term. I accept, however, that it focuses on teaching, not learning. I don't think that limits the "where", as you suggest.

ESOL is an inherently confusing term, in that it is specific in British English but the umbrella term in North American English, and as such I feel it is not suitable for this title. BrainyBabe 19:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Your reasons for the ELT title are good, but I think the problem with that title is that it would encompass English language for native speakers as taught in schools, which I think we would agree that we don't intend to include here. Gailtb 20:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Is ELT really used, as an acronym or the phrrase in full, for teachiing native speakers in schools? Perhaps naively, I had assumed that it was called "English". BrainyBabe 20:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The term English language is definitely used in England - for example it is possible to take an A Level in English Language (which differs from English Literature). I wasn't really saying that English language teaching is generally used to refer to that, but just that it reasonably could be, and would be ambiguous. On the other hand, I've just seen the Language education article which is about non-native languages, so perhaps English language teaching could be used here, with a disambiguation statement. I'd also like to keep the idea that the terms are used demographically, for example a school could say they have 5% EAL pupils, without stating whether any specific teaching is taking place for them! Gailtb 21:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Another possible title might be something like ESL/ESOL/EFL. Trying to be all-embracing and non-contentious! Gailtb 21:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your continuing thoughts. I followed up your lead on the DELTA page and was surprised to learn that UCLES has re-named itself and that they are using ESOL to mean what I think of as EFL, namely the KET to Proficiency suite of exams and the bulk of the rest of their testing provision. The acronyms have just become EVEN MORE confusing, and I consider myself an insider!

So: what can we do to help the newcomer to the page or the profession? I think your suggestion of ESL/ESOL/EFL (plus ELT) as a page title is probably the best way to go, with every relevant acronym and expression redirected to it, except for TEFL, because that page has developed in a different direction (note my additions to its first para, to try to clarify and redirect; comments welcome).

Advantages: people who look up any one of the phrases or acronyms will be directed to this page, with maximum information concentrated on it. There will be only one list of ELT-related definitions on any Wikipedia page, to minimise confusion. Most people looking up one of the phrases will recognise at least one of the acronyms.

Disadvantages: no one will ever type into the search box the exact title we have agreed on. (Doesn't really matter.)

Suggested action: if no one comes up with a better name, or any cogent reasons for separation, within a few days, I will merge the two articles, rename EAL to ESL/ESOL/EFL/ELT, and create redirects to it. I haven't done any of these three things before, so it will be good practice. BrainyBabe 19:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. (I don't think there's much that's needed from the TESL article - I seem to remember it was very US-focused and not neutral.)

I only just found out about the UCLES rebranding, but knew about their renaming to ESOL. I don't know what the rationale was, but I can see the logic of using this term as the umbrella as happens elsewhere. And they have a separate suite of exams to meet the needs of ESOL in England/Wales/NI. Gailtb 07:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

agree, merge here Chris 00:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Please rename to ESL, if (as it appears from a cursory Googling) that is the most common name. See Wikipedia:Use common names. The name of this article has never been, and will never be, ideal -- and I recognize the good intent of the renamer -- but this current title is just too ugly to be endured. -- Visviva 05:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean ESL, or English as a second language? Note that the former has a number of other meanings. I agree though, that a simple name would be better. BTW, if you are googling to see which is most common, you should also look for the full name rather than only the acronym, i.e.:

"English as a second language" 19,700,000

"English as a foreign language" 4,300,000

"English for speakers of other languages" 556,000

"English language training" 524,000

"English as an additional language" 822,000

or we can search the abbreviation & English, without quotes:

esl english 28,500,000

efl english 6,740,000

esol english 1,920,000

elt english 5,660,000

eal english 909,000

Now of course Google results are not the only consideration, but I believe they are statistically significant. I think most people would agree that the distinction between these terms is pedantic at best. ESL would certainly make linking easier. --Dforest 07:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that ESL is not a common name everywhere. Here in the UK it is NEVER used, and its use would commonly be viewed as being either 20 years out of date or as offensive. I'm stating that quite strongly, but it is really a big no-no here. Gailtb 07:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm afraid I don't follow. Why on Earth would it be offensive? --Dforest 07:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The use of second language is considered offensive to learners because many of them already speak more than one language before they learn English. The article discusses arguments for and against this interpretation of "second language", but that's what the general view is in the UK.

I hope that makes some kind of sense even if you don't agree. I don't want to start a new debate about the rights and wrongs of this argument - I think Wikipedia is more about reflecting what happens in the world, so I'm just trying to give a fairly neutral explanation of what the general view is here. Gailtb 10:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that argument. I see. It kind of reminds me of how the supermarkets changed "10 items or less" to "10 items or fewer". But that made more sense!  :) I've never heard of someone actually being offended by this. --Dforest 11:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to come late to the discussion, but I also think the new title is a monstrosity. Mark^{your words} 10:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ho hum. I am glad this is getting debated, though I wish this discussion had happened a week or so ago! I accept that the current title is ugly, but there really seems to be no one expression that is understood and accepted instead. See my paragraph in the article (under Terminology) concluding with the old saw that the UK and US are divided by a common language. I thought, as argued above, that it doesn't affect the effectiveness of Wikipedia if the article title is cumbersome, as long as all the redirects point to it. Am I technically correct? Does anyone have any better ideas? Open to suggestiosn. BrainyBabe 13:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Title

The title of this article is extremely confusing and very, very, very long. It should be changed. Theonlyedge 23:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

See the lengthy discussion immediately above. I don't think any one who contributed to it loves the title, but it is the best we can come up with. If you can propose something better, taking into account all the previous possibilities that have not met with agreement, I would welcome it. BrainyBabe 14:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The title pretty much conforms with the new phrase in vogue in the US: 'English Language Learners'. Does anyone know how to correct the typo/punctuation problem in established wikipedia articles? Limited English Proficiency is incorrectly lower case -at the very least, languages should be upper case (Chinese, English, not chinese, english). see Limited english proficiency Dogru144 15:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC) My error: there is no Limited english proficiency article; it is simply a redirect to this article. The problem is: if you correctly capitalize these words you get no redirect! Dogru144 15:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this isn't really relevant since the article you are talking about just redirects to this article. If you ever need to change a title like that, use the following templeate at the top of the page.

{{wrongtitle|title=Correct title}}

where Correct title = corrected version of the title for the page

Good question, by the way. Chris53516 15:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. It is apparent, after a google check, that the overwhelmingly predominant pattern is for each of the beginning letters of Limited English Proficiency to be capitalized. I'll try your suggested repair protocol. Dogru144 16:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you need to change it? The article redirects here anyway. I wouldn't bother unless it occurs elsewhere. Chris53516 16:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

English language learning and teaching

Would that not-too-uncommon and reasonably NPOV title meet with general agreement? -- Visviva 11:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable to me and it would be good to get this discussion finally settled. What do others think? Gailtb 18:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A little unwieldy but it's an improvement over the current title. —Casey J. Morris 07:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy with it. What we have now (ie what I changed the previous title to) is much more unwieldy than the proposal, but it was intended to include as much as possible. I think this new suggestion is equally inclusive, and more elegant. BrainyBabe 16:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguous/Misleading Title Revisited

Perhaps I missed this in the above discussion, but how is the difference between learning and teaching English for learners who are native speaker and non-native speakers being conveyed by the current title? That's a crucial difference as the acquisition process for those sets of learners is not the same and it seems that in a zealous straining in order not to offend anyone at all, "second" and "foreign" have been eliminated without consideration of how to account for this difference in the title. The article clearly isn't about teaching English to native speakers of the language. It seems a general problem with something like wikipedia that some kind of interest group will gather and dominate a certain article and insist on terminology that adheres to their own agenda ignoring for example in this case that in the profession ESL, EFL and TESOL are still widely used, whereas "English language learning and teaching" is a title much wider than what this article covers.

In other words, the title seems to reflect a kind of revisionist agenda, that is revising the names of things as they are used in the profession in order to adhere to one's agenda of what one personally happens to believe in their version of an ideal world they ought to be called. Perhaps it is best to just have a title like ESL/ESOL/EFL (the two or three most widely used terms) and somewhere in the article note the objections (with citations!) of how "some" (I don't even know if this comment reflects most or even many of them) non-native speakers feel about the possible negative connotations of "second" or "foreign". People may consider a title for an article about "sportsmanship" for example offensive to women, but would you really advocate revising such an article to "sportsman/sportswomanship"? To follow through with such a principle would require numerous other revisions. Is marginalizing wikipedia into a revisionist entity really what we want to do?

Also, from the discussion, it seems a major decision such as the title is being left to biases of non-professionals. I say this because of the failure here to recognize the difference in language acquisition between native speakers and those who if not for the fear of "offending" people are outside of this article usually referred to as ESL or EFL (among other terms) learners.

If the idea was to get away from a teacher-centered title then perhaps the title might have been left as ESL or EFL. Many universities require international students below a certain proficiency to take classes in what they call "English as a second language". One of the two major test that such students usually take to determine this is the TOEFL, the F for "foreign". So I don't think there is any escaping these terms. That is simply what this kind of learning is called out there in the real world. If some have a problem with those terms that should be an issue for them to take up with the universities or testing institutions. Wikipedia, in my opinion, to maintain its objectivity and neutrality, ought not enter into that kind of debate but simply report what the consensus standard term(s) in use is(are).

The section on wikipedida conventions states that "generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity..." The majority of English speakers would not recognize the current title as what is called ESL, EFL etc. and which those who seem to have seized control of things here would like to rename this area of study as. Instead, that majority would recognize the current title as something much broader which also involves how native speakers of English learn their own language (First Language Acquisition). I can only surmise that those who opted to change the title are not informed enough in the field to know the difference between first and second language acquisition, and have unwittingly come up with a title that is at best ambiguous and at worst misleading. WC June 13, 2006.

ESL vs. EFL

There is also a problem about merging these two terms together. Not only here, but elsewhere, as well. It is mainly done for convenience. In the former case, learners most often happen to have access to a large pool of native or native-like highly skilled speakers with whom to converse, interact and from whom they can learn cultural things concerning the language. They are usually learning the target language in a country where that language is the native language. In the latter, quite often learners have no access to these kinds of speakers. An example of this would be a Japanese person learning English in Japan. That difference accounts for a great difference in the learning experience of these respective groups. This is a crucial difference but it is often muddied even in the field of TESOL itself. The introductory explanation in this article appears to lump them together ignoring this important difference.

Later in the article, there is the assertion that EFL can take place in any setting, in or out of the target language country. I was wondering whether the person who wrote this can provide a citatiion to support this claim or if this is from personal experience can tell us here in which English speaking countires they have heard EFL used predominantly or othewise in this way. WC June 13, 2006.