Lately, I’ve been giving more thought to the kind of English my mother speaks. Like others, I have described it to people as "br
oken" or "fractured" English. But I wince when I say that. It has always bothered me that I can think of no other way to describe it other than "broken," as if it were damaged and needed to be fixed, as if it lacked a certain wholeness and soundness. What best supports the inference that Tan believes nonstandard English is no less valid than standard English?
the reason for Tan believing that "nonstandard English is no less valid than standard English" is related to the fact that Standard English’ was considered as a form of the English language, universal or common in the nineteenth century. By the 1930s, however, it was associated with social class and was seen by many as the language of the educated. On the contrary, speakers from lower classes in the past and today, tend to use nonstandard dialect features because they are more likely to have left education earlier, have non-professional jobs and have no need to associate themselves with a ‘prestige’ way of speaking.
If you like to venture further, feel free to check out my insta (learntionary). It would be best if you could give it a follow. I'll be constantly posting math tips and notes! Thanks!
When talking about things that we did in the past but don't do now we can use the expression used to. The negative form, to talk about things which we didn't do in the past but do now, is didn't use to.
Used to and didn't use to are only used to talk about past habits. There is no present form. To talk about present habits we can use the present simple. When using these structures there are often two parts to the sentence, something about the past and something about the present.
