In at least 125 words, explain the differences between naturally acquiring English and mastering Standard English. Focus on three areas: differences in how each is learned;
characteristics of each variety; and
situations requiring use of Standard English.

Human beings are prewired for language. As infants we begin to learn language as the direct result of hearing it, not as a result of formal instruction. The process, called natural language acquisition, moves through a series of distinct developmental stages ending in basically adult-level language use in pronunciation and vocabulary in as soon as five years. The learner's language is profoundly influenced by language environment, including factors such as geographical region, ethnicity, and social grouping, all of whose characteristics shape the speaker's language use in distinct ways.

Mastery of Standard English, on the other hand, requires formal instruction. The focus is on getting everyone to use a single variety of English in public settings for sake of clear communication. Students must learn rules for how to pronounce and spell words and use them in sentences. They must learn how to speak and write English following specific forms and levels of formality, depending on the occasion and audience. They must learn how to read a variety of Standard English texts for a variety of purposes. Mastery of Standard English is an important mark of education and is expected of employees in the workplace and in a variety of other public settings.

many were disgusted, nauseated and shook their heads with disapproval upon finding out about the recycling of water process. however, they do not seem to understand that this process actually saves water.

although individuals may argue that it is unhealthy, and or unsafe to drink water that is "from toilet to tap" , the water is 100% safe to drink and involves forcing the water across a membrane, which "removes   any impurities, including viruses, pharmaceuticals and dissolved minerals" , according to paul rozin, a psychology professor who studies revulsion.

i agree that that the thought of drinking water that once ran through someones kitchen sink isn't quite appealing, but recycled wastewater is safe to drink. it also saves water. "the city produces nine million gallons a day" claims russell schreiber, the city’s director of public works.

recycled waste water has absolutely no health concerns whatsoever. when wastewater goes into a system, it's absorbed back into the ground. thus, it goes into a sewer system, then goes through a treatment process that removes contaminants before being released. nonetheless, there is no problem in drinking water that has been recycled.

"in drought-ed california, there are six state agencies that use wastewater that comes from an intellectual property source," according to the university of california, riverside. studies show that this water is completely safe to drink, however, it still doesn't mean people are going to happily pour it in a water glass.

researchers hope it "may make consumers more amenable to drinking recycled wastewater," extraordinarily, women who have a higher "disgust reaction" and make most consumer purchasing decisions.

oka

i think i seen this before