"Neutrally accented" English, as Geoffrey Cartridge describes it, seems to me to be a pie in the sky. Any definition of the term will be wholly subjective and unreliable as a means of legislating any sort of practical policy, at any scale. Simply because Cartridge was told he has "neutrally accented" English by one person doesn't mean someone else would say the same of him.
It is precisely because there's no possible way of establishing such a standard that children ought to be exposed to as many varieties of spoken English as possible, so that they may learn to remain vigilant while listening. I'd say the possibility of a student suffering for this is kept in check by an attentive teacher.
The reality is that, for quite some time to come, overcoming regional accents and grasping idioms (from flash-in-the-pan slang to oldies like "pie in the sky") will be aspects of communicating in English.
I would think that a student exposed to one kind of English exclusively, even Cartridge's "neutrally accented" strand, would have less of a handle on the language than one exposed to a variety of styles.
I'd like to add that reducing the end of English to a score on an examination is demeaning and detrimental to the language, its speakers, its teachers and its students.
Ryan Joseph Hudson
Taipei
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS