INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF LANGUAGES

WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

ENGLISH GRAMMAR STUDY DEPARTMENT

OF THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

Emilio Moceo PhD

Director of Studies

MESSAGE

Hello everyone,

I am glad that many of you are taking vision of this message. Our purpose is to teach and to address to everyone the difference of today’s English grammar language that in numerous occasions put barriers around real good students. Some of the students might not be aware about the grammatical differences that nowadays are in the English language. However, to teach future students to speak, read, write and understand English correctly, this International School of Languages provides adequate study methods in teaching correctly English grammatical differences to students that might also face difficulties understanding the structural cognition of the English language itself. To succeed in doing so, this school has the assistance of the University of Cambridge “English Grammar Press” and “English Grammar Vocabulary” teaching method. The school provides also courses for: Italian language, Italian Opera Lyric singers, Coreography and Opera Concerts, Electric Organ, Piano Lessons,

English - Italian – Japanese” language translations, Italian Culinary Art, Restaurants, Hotel and Hospitality Service Training.

For further informations, please do not hesitate to contact us.

See you soon!

Prof. Emilio Moceo PhD

Educational Studies Project in Languages Proficiency

I.S.L.

International School of Languages

Professor Emilio MOCEO (PhD)

Director of Studies

-----------------------

Problematic Report Issues in and of the English Language

PART I

Today's words are often illegitimate particles of the superficiality of the modern world.

It takes little to legitimate them: reading a news paper, listen to the news or reading a book. And here they are; quicly becoming words worthy to be adopted and printed on the dictionary. During my study I found out that a long time ago, though, only few words were able to pass by unaffected from the rigorous exams of the philologist which granted the “green light” or in other words to be used. However, I've always warned the use of some words, allow it only to be used in a logical way and to be used with judgement and determination and others, to be used extremely in a limited way.

Why do I say that? Because in reality all languages are half-caste by constitution. For example: 50% of the Latin language is constituted by Greek words and the English language is rich of Latin words and so on. In my opinion, what counts is the capacity of a language to absorb foreign vocabularies without being disarranged, because, the vocabularies attached to it, don't disarrange it, instead, the language disarrange the vocabularies. During my study and my research about grammatical differences, I searched invane if there was a legitimate language or at least a pure one. While researching it, I found out that the strict language it's a sort of immobility that follows fixed schemes refusing the real understanding of the actual language. English it's a beautiful language if it's properly understood. And for this reason, don't be afraid of making mistakes whether you are teaching, speaking or learning it. In my opinion, what I call "crystallized languages" live only in a “sterilized atmosphere of the literature” fighting for not being contaminated of the virus of practicality and semplification. There are indications of an Anglo-Saxon language which it is called: “Old English” often without a real base that put the present English speaking people in difficult positions and leave them with question marks around. Modern English has always been on the map. Since its ancestor; the Latin language. Latin was created to define the real meaning of a word and the modern English language was created as a literary language to model it in some facts extremely important and the language itself for to be spoken freely by anyone. That is why when you translate any other languages you'll need to go back to the Latin roots; the Latin glossary. By saying this, you don't have to be Italian to eat “spaghetti” nor I have to be English or American to eat “fish & chips” or “hamburgers”. Teachers and students are terrified of the mistakes they make when learning and teaching English and in my point of view, without reaching to extreme drastic circumnstances, we, as “professional teachers”, should exercise a warm control of the English language in favour of the students and at the same time, favouring the natural enrichment of the language itself. Again, in my point of view, the schools that should exercise a moderate purity of a language, ends up often to abdicate its own duty and ideologically it is uncomfortable. We need to recognize that the modern world through the constant development of the technics has forced continuous and unceasing mutations in the English glossary. When a teacher lacks of the structure and control without following the teaching criteria, being almost unaware of the logic, who and on what base and to which authority could supply precise language indications or at least advise? English is a language that evolves quicly and forces English speaking people to introduce hastily neologisms on the dictionary. But I ask my self: Is the dictionary the caretaker of the language? During my study of the English language I found out that a long time ago, words were carefully chosen and not always accepted. After all, it was an honor for a foreign word to be a part of the family of the English language. Nowadays a dictionary in general, picks up all words without any selective intentions and expose it to the imprudent consulter like food in the supermarket shelves. And after that, like it is natural, the word that it is appropriate at it is best, it is not chosen. I wonder if there is not what could supply the key of the lecture? In base of what principle will be individualized the real meaning of a term? I asked my self, maybe the real meaning it is hidding by a shade, because we don't sectioned the words to find out inside the roots or ending what it could become, instead, is left trapped in the discussions. According to its etymology, it is not anymore the word that determes the meaning, but, it is the context that suits the word at the right moment. It is the context that sanctify and redeem impurity. Yes, the context! This terrible levelling down has made all words similar to each other and interchangeable, putting by its side any other meanings. How can anyone claim to understand the difference if anyone teaches that there are no differences? If we arrive to the point to fear that even pure grammatical assertions could favour intollerance and racism? Then will never make it! If it is true that all men are equal, it is also true that not all of the words are equal infront of men. The one that judges, often makes violence to the logic, not choosing what is right, but, what it seems to be right, in fact, it is just the fascination of the words that enchants the listening judge. In my opinion however, to melt the doubts, we need to have two certainty: first, “the existance of the double possibility of the truth”. Second, “we need to be sure that this possibility can be individualized from the word itself”. The laxity of the modern linguist brings inevitably to the missing part of the stable point to which you can hold on to those that still have conscience of this situation. We are in an “era” of transition in which the new generation is by now deschoolarized and are cohabiting with the last chance of trying to understand the language and we, the “professional teachers”, have to help them to understand the language. Every possible doubt in the language is treated like a rare desease of which no one knows the cure. Every suggestion or advise don't guarantee to cure this “desease”. But, while treating the “homoepathic language” sometimes, a little reaction breaks out that could bring us to cure it. The creation of the “anticorps”, that in a language less metaphoric it is simply called” “instillation of the doubt”, have to bring back gradually the conscience of its own limits. Surely it is not a paradox: “the more you regress ignorance the more you understand your own limits”. It is now accepted by everyone that the English language is transforming itself in a more easy to handle language. For example: semplification of the forms, period to coordinate and not to subordinate, abbandon of the past simple, preference of nominal constructions instead of the original verbs, decline of conjunctions and God knows what else. All of this can be accepttable if it corresponds in a necessity of the language and not in a necessity of taking advantage. If the choice it's always difficult, it is obvious that to adjust the language to the demand of the people it is necessary to destroy all its grammatical aristocracy. Demagogue exists also in the language field. They make believe to the misinformed that the differences are only in the words and that the paradise it's another way of calling the earth “the promised land”. In addition, they claim that it is not important to understand but it is important to catch it. That, after all, it is a manual way of taking advantage of the intellectual reality that is the word. To the misinformed, however, it is sufficient to catch the word to be able to speak in every assembly. What it means, in reality, it is not important. However, what will it mean it is always on how to use it. You wondering why this report? I'll tell you! This report it's first of all a report of hope for those of you that teach and learn with dignity. In my point of view no one has the right to point the finger and say: that’s a bad teacher! Or, that’s a bad student! Instead, we have to be aware of the mistakes that are in the language and correct it.

---I have a dream---

------------------

MULTILINGUAL STUDIES PROJECT

Prof. Emilio Moceo (PhD)

CEO and Director of Studies

Teacher’s General Supervisor

I.S.L. International School of Languages

Multilingual Studies Project

Yamaguchi Prefectural Government Authority (Japan)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Foreign Languages and Literature

Shandong University (China)

-----------------------------------

emilio@la-mediterranea.jp

___________________________________________________________

NOTICE:- No part of the above mentioned report shall be copied or used without the authorization of the Author. Intellectual Copyright Law

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Educational Studies Project in Languages Proficiency

I.S.L.

International School of Languages

-----------------------------------------

Report Relation in Teaching English

The President, CEO and Director of Studies

Emilio Moceo (PhD)

PART II

Since language proficiency occupies a primary role in teaching correctly the subject that learns it, most schools that are related in these fields do not realize the importance of “Knowledge of Pedagogical Language Perceptions” of teachers whether they are “native or non-native” speakers. And it is of course, irrelevant being “native” or “non native” in the best interest of the student. For this reason I strongly believe that the distinction of “native” and “non native” is absolutely not important. Yet, I also think that if a teacher would not appropriately and correctly teach, regardless of being “native or “non native”, he will fail and would also fail to examine the effect to a correct teaching and also would be inappropriate and incorrect for the cognition of the students. I strongly believe that teacher’s knowledge of pedagogical language perceptions is more important than being “native” or “non native”. Moreover, to subjects in these fields, if a teacher teaches correctly it doesn’t matter where you classified him/her as “native” or “non-native”. Furthermore I strongly believe that the effect of the “native” versus “non-native” is not important. We have to also recognize that if one person is born in a non speaking English country but has a British or American passport, how would you call him/her? “Native” or “Non Native”? I believe that the secret to an appropriate teaching is the knowledge of pedagogical language perceptions of the teacher and his skills in teaching it, no matter what nationality he/her is. Therefore, to confirm this theory it shows also that English language derive from Latin and in which “Latin Language” is largely known and spoken in “NON English speaking countries”. (and in this case who would be better (for example) than an Italian teacher?) During my teaching examination as CEO and Director of Studies, I have supervised teachers of various nationalities that taught English language and I noticed also that what we might call “native teachers” couldn’t teach as correctly as “non native teachers”. I also noticed that teachers that has a good command and knowledge of other different languages have a larger perception to address students in a more appropriate way. Thus findings, also indicate that what we call “native speaker” is not necessarily predominant in these teaching fields and is also affected by lacking of correctly teaching English or known the structure of the English Language. These results were validated also among students that I taught, interviewed and learnt from “native speakers”

Furthermore I noticed that the effect of “native” and “non-native” it didn’t matter, but, the matter was the skill of teaching correctly the language it self among the appropriate methods of the teacher in teaching English. I also found that “native” or “non-native” did not account for differences in most perception domains. Differences are detected in language knowledge, good usage of it and outstanding teaching skills and ability. Therefore I strongly believe that “native speakers” and “non native speakers” are to espouse more confidence in teaching correctly the English language and be aware of perceptions to be able to teach the students correctly. Conversely, I also noticed that “non-native” speaking teachers reported to having better relations with their students and to feeling more confident in using also the local language to facilitate teaching and learning.Yet, I also strongly believe that there are no differences between “native” and “non native” when English it’s taught correctly and that is found in language knowledge skills and perception of the teacher when teaching categories related to language teaching and assessment practices to defining student’s knowledge of the English language. These analysis and my supervising experience, (regardless of nationalities) must produce a non division in teaching correctly the language and assure the appropriate cognition to students that learn English. I also interviewed parents and found that there are no division between “native” versus “non-native” teachers when a teacher is a “good teacher” and has the talents above mentioned. It is also observed, that emphasis in the language proficiency derive from the diction and perception skills of the teacher without devaluing the status of correctly teaching the language and without disregards subject matter knowledge components acquired in other fields of teaching expertise.

I finally recommend schools in need of good teachers (regardless the nationality) that teaching English practices should be conducted on the basis of correctly teaching, good command of the language, expertise and knowledge in teaching, rather than on “native speakers”.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------