# Is English no longer linked to England/UK?



## COF

The French language is strongly linked to France, German strongly linked to Germany, Russian strongly linked to Russia, Italian strongly linked to Italy, etc, yet it seems to me that no one links English to England any more.

If you go on sites like Yahoo Answers, or other sites with non-native speakers looking to speak with natives, it seems that in 90% of cases these people link English to being solely the language of Americans, even in countries like Italy and Spain.

It strikes me that in the modern day, the English language has no real cultural link to England, other then prehaps in Europe. South Americans regard it (unsurprisingly) as very much the language of the US, whereas Chinese regard it as the language of the US and Australia. Equally, French is spoken all over the world, yet it is still regarded as the language of France, even amongst North Americans where French is spoken natively.

I suppose I can't say I don't feel somewhat bitter about it, hearing Americans and other foreigners talking as if the English language was born on the American continent and they somehow speak the proper English over British people. I suppose attitudes like this are testament to the UK's relative insignficance in the modern day.


----------



## Joannes

Yes, I believe so.


----------



## DenisBiH

But isn't it interesting, while there still was a huge British empire, and while presumably English was still primarily seen as the language of England, people in Europe were far more likely to speak French or German as their second language (of science/culture etc). 

Since English spread in its use as the second language of choice of many Europeans primarily due to American cultural, scientific and other dominance it should be no surprise if many in Europe associate it first with the US, and then UK.


----------



## Ottilie

COF said:


> The French language is strongly linked to France, German strongly linked to Germany, Russian strongly linked to Russia, Italian strongly linked to Italy, etc, yet it seems to me that no one links English to England any more.
> .



French is also linked to Northern Africa ,Russian is also strongly linked to Kazahstan and Belarus,also with most of ex-USSR countries,German with Austria and Switzerland and so on.



> Since English spread in its use as the second language of choice of many Europeans primarily due to American cultural, scientific and other dominance it should be no surprise if many in Europe associate it first with the US, and then UK.


 I agree with you.  On the other hand I happened to hear very often in Moldova something like '' I cannot watch a movie if it's not translated, I don't speak American language''


----------



## DenisBiH

Now that you mention it, in schools here in Bosnia one usually learns the British English version, if I remember correctly we used Headway while I was in secondary school and most schools use British textbooks from what I've been told. But I'd imagine most of the learning that takes place outside classroom is American English (movies, music videos, sitcoms and yes the Internet), at least that was the case with me and people I know.


----------



## Ottilie

Talking about schools ,I haven't studied English in school ,but my sister did, and I used to read her textbooks and many lessons were like '' London Bridge ''  , ''The British museum'' and so on,no lesson in that textbook was linked to the US.


----------



## Nonstar

COF,
I think there are different approaches to English and then regarding it as original to the US or the UK. Speaking in a very broad way, to me, the reason is idiosyncrasy. Usually the people I see who link English as an originally North-American language are prone to a certain lifestyle, in a way, which "is" sleek and bold. This is my own perception of things, I tend to feel enamoured of the UK style, which is European and "old", traditional, cultivated, kind of romantic. People often regard UK stuff as boring, cold, stiff, royal and the US as an exciting, straightforward, cutting-edge way of life. I may as well be totally wrong, but then people who will be in touch with a different culture, nowadays tend to look for what they see as more exciting. Language schools leaflets will display a small flag to tell you what language they teach, mostly, the one for English is the Star-Spangled Banner. If someone sees the Union Jack, I guess it will not mean much to new learners. This is also part of people's disregard for knowledge. Long ago I was watching this program, on E entertainment TV, and they mentioned something about Catherina Zeta-Jones, that she was from Wales, a city (!!!!) in the UK. I don't think they said that in English, but the translator was oblivious of what Wales really is. That sums up to me. It all depends on how clear an image of things one wants to have, once you go deeper into things you end up finding out what they really are.


----------



## sokol

COF said:


> The French language is strongly linked to France, *German* strongly linked to Germany, Russian strongly linked to Russia, Italian strongly linked to Italy, etc, yet it seems to me that no one links English to England any more.


There are approximately 80 million Germans, 8 million Austrians and in Switzerland approximately 5 million are German native speakers (total population of Switzerland is almost 8 million). This makes a total of 93 million, plus a few hundreds of thousands in Southern Tyrol, Alsace, etc.

Even though of course it is incorrect to link German language with German nation and Germany solely it is not a big surprise that foreigners make this mistake (many do).

Proportions are vastly different in the case of English.
In Europe, British English still has a strong position - but this of course differs, dominance of British English might be weaker in some and stronger in other countries.

In Austria education still is _*predominantly*_ held in _*British*_ English - primary and secondary education is only in BE, only in higher education the different national varieties of English are taken into account (first and foremost American, naturally).

I don't know exactly how the situation is in Germany - but as I'm in book sales business I know that it is also predominantly BE, probably not as strongly as is the case in Austria but surely with heavy preference of the British variety of English language.

So at least in Austria and Germany English definitely still is linked primarily to the United Kingdom - and Ireland too, even (at least in Austria), as everything Irish is quite popular herearounds (there's no town which doesn't boast an Irish Pub of its own).


----------



## DenisBiH

sokol said:


> I don't know exactly how the situation is in Germany - but as I'm in book sales business I know that it is also predominantly BE, probably not as strongly as is the case in Austria but surely with heavy preference of the British variety of English language.





I'm looking at a list of approved primary and secondary school textbooks here in FBiH for 2009/2010 and it seems it's the same - Oxford University Press fighting an epic battle against Cambridge University Press, at least in secondary education.


----------



## sokol

DenisBiH said:


> I'm looking at a list of approved primary and secondary school textbooks here in FBiH for 2009/2010 and it seems it's the same - Oxford University Press fighting an epic battle against Cambridge University Press.



Yes, them of course, but there's also Pearson Education, Thomson-Heinle, Summertown Publishers and many more (their British branches obviously; many British publishers have American branches).

Also, there are some Austrian and German publishers in the English language market - and to my knowledge they're all using British English (exclusively even, or so I think).


----------



## COF

Nonstar said:


> COF,
> I think there are different approaches to English and then regarding it as original to the US or the UK. Speaking in a very broad way, to me, the reason is idiosyncrasy. Usually the people I see who link English as an originally North-American language are prone to a certain lifestyle, in a way, which "is" sleek and bold. This is my own perception of things, I tend to feel enamoured of the UK style, which is European and "old", traditional, cultivated, kind of romantic. People often regard UK stuff as boring, cold, stiff, royal and the US as an exciting, straightforward, cutting-edge way of life.



That opens a whole can of worms. In many respects you could quite argue say that British life is much more progressive and modern than American life. Ignoring the cities like New York and Los Angeles, I would say without much doubt that American life is more conservative and more "traditional", family values based than British life. That's not a dig at Americans either, I find their conservatism quite refreshing.

I suppose what it ultimately boils down to is that if you're unfimilar with a country and culture, you make your assumptions at face value. The Royal Family, period buildings, castles, estates, etc to someone unfimilar with the UK gives the illusion of greater conservatism and tradition than the US.


----------



## merquiades

I'm not sure I'd agree that English is no longer linked to England.  Throughout the world you look for the Union jack whenever you want to find a translator, multilingual staff, or the English option on an atm machine or a payphone.  Most of the teaching materials (books, manuals) are also largely UK oriented, and as mentioned before come from Oxford or Cambridge.  Are there any American school books?  Moreover, there is also a widespread idea that British is better than American, it's the original classy version. 
In France/Spain public schools and universities tend to strongly encourage British English, though I must say American language and culture is slowly creeping in.  What was once 100% British is now 75% or 80%. 
On the contrary, private schools like the French Grandes Ecoles, even more so if they are business or banking schools, are largely in favor of American English, so much so that they often require their students take American exams such as GRE, TOEFL, TOEIC, AME..
I would agree that outside formal learning/use, informal culture tends to be centered on America: TV series, music, movies, music, fashion.  Everything American is cool, British is classy. Not that it's based on any truth whatsoever, it's just some image or stereotype.  I guess it's seeing Prince Charles and their own UK focused formal high school teachers put up against Lady Gaga and George Clooney.  I don't know how that will pan out in the future.
I must say that personally I'm in favor of 50%/50%.  There is room enough for a language to be identified with two great countries (or more) that complement one another.  I think English wouldn't have grown to its privileged situation had either of the two elements been absent.


----------



## DenisBiH

There has to be a study about this. For example, while we did use British English in class in secondary school, including textbooks, many of us, including myself, tried imitating American English pronunciation. To this day, even after having done my Bachelor's in an environment where most spoke closer to what is considered BE (and definitely wrote BE), I still (personally) find American pronunciation 'neutral' (yes, I know there are many dialects in the US itself) and others, including British, as 'marked'. 

This may of course be something that can't be applied to other countries. For example, movies etc. are usually not dubbed but subtitled here, and the exposure to American English pronunciation can probably be somewhat greater than in those countries that prefer dubbing them (Germany comes to mind)


----------



## merquiades

DenisBiH said:


> There has to be a study about this. For example, while we did use British English in class in secondary school, including textbooks, many of us, including myself, tried imitating American English pronunciation. To this day, even after having done my Bachelor's in an environment where most spoke closer to what is considered BE (and definitely wrote BE), I still (personally) find American pronunciation 'neutral' (yes, I know there are many dialects in the US itself) and others, including British, as 'marked'.
> 
> This may of course be something that can't be applied to other countries. For example, movies etc. are usually not dubbed but subtitled here, and the exposure to American English pronunciation can probably be somewhat greater than in those countries that prefer dubbing them (Germany comes to mind)



Hi Denis.
I'm not really sure what you mean by neutral and marked.  It's probably really subjective. 
I think when you're exposed to any accent for an extended period of time, it starts to sound natural to you.
You have a good point. In countries that don't dub, there probably is more exposure to American accents.
But you know with DVD's and internet anyone can get original version nowadays. I even know someone who told me they learned American English by watching the entire season of Desperate Housewives.


----------



## DenisBiH

merquiades said:


> Hi Denis.
> I'm not really sure what you mean by neutral and marked.  It's probably really subjective.
> I think when you're exposed to any accent for an extended period of time, it starts to sound natural to you.




Well I guess 'neutral' as I used it would be your 'natural', but I don't consider BE or Australian English as 'unnatural', so I prefer saying 'neutral' here.  Simply, someone speaking British or Australian English causes a brief moment of thinking 'oh, (s)he's speaking British/Australian English', Americans generally do not, except maybe some accents clearly distinguishable even by us non-natives, such as Texan. But I agree, it is probably very subjective.


----------



## merquiades

DenisBiH said:


> Well I guess 'neutral' as I used it would be your 'natural', but I don't consider BE or Australian English as 'unnatural', so I prefer saying 'neutral' here.  Simply, someone speaking British or Australian English causes a brief moment of thinking 'oh, (s)he's speaking British/Australian English', Americans generally do not, except maybe some accents clearly distinguishable even by us non-natives, such as Texan. But I agree, it is probably very subjective.



Ok, I follow you.  Do you think American English sounds more neutral/natural to you because there's no dubbing in Bosnia?

I must say I always try to guess or pinpoint all accents, whenever I talk to anyone really, wherever they might be from.


----------



## DenisBiH

merquiades said:


> Ok, I follow you.  Do you think American English sounds more neutral/natural to you because there's no dubbing in Bosnia?



No dubbing + preponderance of content in American English + AE being the variety I was exposed to from a very young age. My own pronunciation started shifting somewhat to BE during my undergraduate studies, but it pretty much reverted back to my (bad ) imitation of American English once I got back here.



> I must say I always try to guess or pinpoint all accents, whenever I talk to anyone really, wherever they might be from.


 I think most of us non-natives work with fairly broad categories when thinking about English accents, a native should be able to distinguish them much more precisely.


----------



## merquiades

DenisBiH said:


> No dubbing + preponderance of content in American English + AE being the variety I was exposed to from a very young age. My own pronunciation started shifting somewhat to BE during my undergraduate studies, but it pretty much reverted back to my (bad ) immitation of American English once I got back here.



Yes it's all about exposure, isn't it?  In the end, I suppose TV, music, internet, films have more influence than book learning.



DenisBiH said:


> Are you a native speaker? I think most of us non-natives work with fairly broad categories when thinking about English accents, a native should be able to distinguish them much more precisely.



Yes. I forgot many non-natives cannot tell differences in accents.


----------



## DenisBiH

merquiades said:


> Yes it's all about exposure, isn't it?  In the end, I suppose TV, music, internet, films have more influence than book learning.




Here's a study that supposedly shows just how large the influence of subtitling can be (I'm still reading it). I'm not sure we should go as far as saying it's more important than formal education, otherwise everyone here would be speaking great English (which is not the case). However, it obviously does influence the English of those that do learn to speak it.



> We identify a large positive effect for subtitled original version as opposed to dubbed television, which loosely corresponds to between four and twenty years of compulsory English education at school.


----------



## Frank78

DenisBiH said:


> Since English spread in its use as the second language of choice of many Europeans primarily due to American cultural, scientific and other dominance it should be no surprise if many in Europe associate it first with the US, and then UK.



I'm not sure if the American culture argument still counts. America's reputation has badly suffered in "Old Yurp" during the last decade. And when it comes to music the most popular bands/singers always have been British: Beatles, Stones, Robbie Williams, Depeche Mode, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, Motörhead etc etc.



sokol said:


> I don't know exactly how the situation is in Germany - but as I'm in book sales business I know that it is also predominantly BE, probably not as strongly as is the case in Austria but surely with heavy preference of the British variety of English language.
> 
> So at least in Austria and Germany English definitely still is linked primarily to the United Kingdom - and Ireland too, even (at least in Austria), as everything Irish is quite popular herearounds (there's no town which doesn't boast an Irish Pub of its own).



I think it's about the same in Germany only two out of eight years I learnt learned AE at school. The are no rules at universities, it simply depends where your don is from.


----------



## merquiades

DenisBiH said:


> Here's a study that supposedly shows just how large the influence of subtitling can be (I'm still reading it). I'm not sure we should go as far as saying it's more important than formal learning, otherwise everyone here would be speaking great English (which is not the case). However, it obviously does influence the English of those that do learn to speak it.



Thanks a lot. It seems interesting. I think I'll have a look


----------



## Ben Jamin

merquiades said:


> Hi Denis.
> I'm not really sure what you mean by neutral and marked. It's probably really subjective.
> I think when you're exposed to any accent for an extended period of time, it starts to sound natural to you.
> You have a good point. In countries that don't dub, there probably is more exposure to American accents.
> But you know with DVD's and internet anyone can get original version nowadays. I even know someone who told me they learned American English by watching the entire season of Desperate Housewives.


 
I think I know what makes the foreigners think that the American language is "neutral" if they know the language from movies. The American actors tend to use an idealized "neutral" accent, if not asked to imitate a certain dialect or sociolect. When they play Texan cowboys, or Southern rebels, they use a "marked" kind of speech, but playing a "general American" they smooth out the excesses of local pronounciation. It seems that they speak a language close to Irish English. The British actors are always distinctive British upper or lower class, if they are not playing a regional character.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

COF said:


> The French language is strongly linked to France, German strongly linked to Germany, Russian strongly linked to Russia, Italian strongly linked to Italy, etc, yet it seems to me that no one links English to England any more.
> 
> If you go on sites like Yahoo Answers, or other sites with non-native speakers looking to speak with natives, it seems that in 90% of cases these people link English to being solely the language of Americans, even in countries like Italy and Spain.
> 
> It strikes me that in the modern day, the English language has no real cultural link to England, other then prehaps in Europe. South Americans regard it (unsurprisingly) as very much the language of the US, whereas Chinese regard it as the language of the US and Australia. Equally, French is spoken all over the world, yet it is still regarded as the language of France, even amongst North Americans where French is spoken natively.
> 
> I suppose I can't say I don't feel somewhat bitter about it, hearing Americans and other foreigners talking as if the English language was born on the American continent and they somehow speak the proper English over British people. I suppose attitudes like this are testament to the UK's relative insignficance in the modern day.



I wouldn't get too het up about it. English isn't even Wales's native language after all. 

More seriously, English is now spoken by something like 400 million plus natives. It long ago ceased being ''England's'' language. It has taken on a role similar to Latin in the Middle Ages and beforehand.

Given that American English is now the dominating dialect, and one which has influenced many of the world's languages, it's no surprise that America is now the country the English language is most commonly associated with.

Let's just hope people never start saying things like ''You speak really good American for a European''.


----------



## merquiades

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Let's just hope people never start saying things like ''You speak really good American for a European''.



Let's hope not.  Personally, it gets on my nerves every time I see "traduit de l'américain" (translated from the American) or "cherche un interprète américain" (looking for American interpretor) in France.


----------



## DenisBiH

Here's a study dealing with Sweden (another subtitling country, btw)




> ...nearly ninety per cent of the teachers currently offering instruction in the English language at the college and university level in Sweden speak and most likely teach BrE...Furthermore, there is every reason to expect the percentages to be even higher at the primary and secondary school level, where the number of Swedish instructors is proportionally greater than at the colleges and universities.




However, it seems that despite the fact that 90% and more English teachers in Sweden use BE, a large number of students think they're using something closer to AE:




> The first question, "In your opinion, does the English you speak sound more like British English or American English, or something else?" was followed by three possible answers, British English, American English, and Something else. Of 125 answers, fifty-six answered that they felt that they spoke BrE, fifty-three that they spoke AmE, and sixteen that they spoke something else...It is also interesting to note that a British colleague told me she considered the students, for the most part, to be speaking AmE.


----------



## merquiades

DenisBiH said:


> Here's a study dealing with Sweden (another subtitling country, btw)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, it seems that despite the fact that 90% and more English teachers in Sweden use BE, a large number of students think they're using something closer to AE:



I read your other study.  With the figures they give, there is no doubt that it is advantageous to have subtitles and get rid of the dubbing.  Sweden I believe was one of the countries that use subtitles with the highest level of English.  
Although I'm sure some Swedes speak BE others AE, most sound to me as if they are speaking something else.  Also a lot of people blend both together.


----------



## DenisBiH

merquiades said:


> Although I'm sure some Swedes speak BE others AE, most sound to me as if they are speaking something else.




Objectively speaking, probably yes, but in terms of subjective perception of English and linking it to this or that nation as it is being discussed in this thread, I believe it is significant that as many seem to think of themselves as speaking AE as BE, despite receiving formal English education almost exclusively in BE.




> Also a lot of people blend both together.


True.


----------



## merquiades

DenisBiH said:


> Objectively speaking, probably yes, but in terms of subjective perception of English and linking it to this or that nation as it is being discussed in this thread, I believe it is significant that as many seem to think of themselves as speaking AE as BE, despite receiving formal English education almost exclusively in BE.



Well, perceptions, that's another kettle of fish!  I've heard people say that if you make contractions in your speech you are speaking like Americans.  Others that this or that word, say automobile instead of car, or flat instead of loft, begin for start etc. you are speaking British style. For me it's relatively preposterous.  I don't know where those preceptions come from.  That's not really the way to identify with a country.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Frank78 said:


> I'm not sure if the American culture argument still counts. America's reputation has badly suffered in "Old Yurp" during the last decade.


 
I would argue that while America's _political_ reputation has certainly suffered during the Bush years, its _cultural_ influence is still very strong. For better or for worse, the vast majority of movies shown in Europe (with the partial exception of France) is American, the U.S. dominates European television imports, the backbone of the Internet is made up of American companies (including Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft, and various American news sites), teenagers everywhere tend to embrace American fashions, and so on. Perhaps even more tellingly, European media outlets and other companies are often quick to adopt various American techniques, so American-derived _form_ is frequently present even where American _content_ is not.

These aspects do not seem to be related directly to changes in the political popularity of the U.S.



merquiades said:


> I'm not sure I'd agree that English is no longer linked to England. Throughout the world you look for the Union jack whenever you want to find a translator, multilingual staff, or the English option on an atm machine or a payphone.


 
My impression is that this true more of Europe than the rest of the world. I would be surprised to see the Union Jack commonly used to represent the English language in, say, China, let alone much of Latin America.



sokol said:


> There are approximately 80 million Germans, 8 million Austrians and in Switzerland approximately 5 million are German native speakers (total population of Switzerland is almost 8 million). This makes a total of 93 million, plus a few hundreds of thousands in Southern Tyrol, Alsace, etc.
> 
> Even though of course it is incorrect to link German language with German nation and Germany solely it is not a big surprise that foreigners make this mistake (many do).


 
Even here in Slovenia, German-language brochures are often labeled solely with the German flag. Considering that Austrians are our neighbors (and Germans, despite being frequent tourists, are not), the practice of leaving out the Austrian flag has always seemed problematic to me.

In general, I dislike the practice of identifying languages with flags of their supposed "countries of origin." It's misleading (and potentially offensive) enough in the case of German, let alone languages such as Spanish or English!


----------



## 0m1

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Let's just hope people never start saying things like ''You speak really good American for a European''.





merquiades said:


> Let's hope not. Personally, it gets on my nerves every time I see "traduit de l'américain" (translated from the American) or "cherche un interprète américain" (looking for American interpretor) in France.



We no speak Americano!


----------



## sokol

0m1 said:


> We no speak Americano!


Mod note:

Indeed, English native speakers (those born and raised in the USA) certainly do not refer to their native language as "American"; their language is only referred to as "Americain/Americano/Amerikanisch/..." by _*non*_-natives, on occasion.

However, as interesting this topic is (in principle), it is *off-topic* here. Also there surely must already exist a thread about this, somewhere, in some forum.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Sokol I think he was referring to the major hit song _We don't speak (no) Americano_  that I think has been overplayed in every single holiday resort this summer!
(I don't think he was saying in real life that Americano is used like that) - at least I don't think so.

That's going to be stuck in my head now all night!


----------



## Lars H

Hej

Coming from a subtitling country, I notice that many young Swedes speak with a clear American accent - and of course use American words instead of British, where the two differ - which I find sligthly disturbing. Not for any political reasons whatsoever, but the tongue of England is - for better or worse - the original. But since our TV networks show more American shows than British, the "americanization" is inevitable.

On the other hand, one of the downsides with using a world language at your breakfast table, could be that other people will affect and change your language.
Any AE expression that differs from BE isn´t wrong, it´s only different. And then there is Indian, Australian, Canadian, South African, Jamaican English, and even in my country there are examples. Swedes don't say "cell phones". Instead we say "mobile phones" or "mobiles". Being too lazy to translate, we only pronounce a Swedish word in an English way...


----------



## Lars H

Alxmrphi said:


> When you say English way do you mean with the [aI] rather than the scwha + dark l like the Americans pronounce it?



L pronounced as in "file", although the intonation would be slightly different.

Many Scandinavians find out the hard way that not all brits speak as the do in Midsomer County 

But to be serious, the variations in BE are enormous. And some of them could be quite hard to grasp. 
For Scandinavians, that is not the case with American (recent immigrants and slang excepted). If this is a consequence of the vast spread within BE, the American strive towards simplification, or simply because Swedes/Scandinavians have heard more AE than BE, I do not know.


----------



## DenisBiH

The historical development of the dialects of England seems to show that this modern 'prestige war' between AE and BE is by no means the first time in history that one variety of English gained or lost prominence to another. For example, Mercian and Northumbrian losing ground to West Saxon in Old English era, and then again Midlands/ex-Mercian with northern elements gaining prominence in Middle English. See section 1.4.

Sorry for the slight off-topic.


----------



## Nonstar

DenisBiH said:


> Sorry for the slight off-topic.



Too late, Denis, I've called the thought police!


----------



## DenisBiH

Nonstar said:


> Too late, Denis, I've called the thought police!




What oh what has happened to our once proud and prestigious West Saxon? 



> Late West Saxon was the dialect that became the first "standardised" written English ("Winchester standard")...Late West Saxon is the distant ancestor of the West Country dialects.





> A West Country accent continues to be a reason for denigration and stereotype: "The people of the South West have long endured the cultural stereotype of 'ooh arr'ing carrot crunching yokels, and Bristol in particular has fought hard to shake this image off".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Country_dialects#cite_note-6


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Lars H said:


> Not for any political reasons whatsoever, but the tongue of England is - for better or worse - the original.


 
I would argue that this is somewhat of an oversimplification. Here's why:

1.) Several words and grammatical forms common in modern AmE are actually older (i.e. more conservative or "original") than their modern BrE counterparts.

2.) Perhaps even more significantly, thousands upon thousands of words in the English language, including quite a few everyday ones, were coined in the United States (or the original colonies) and later adopted by BrE. You wouldn't perceive them as Americanisms, but they are. If English had continued to exist solely as "the tongue of England", it would have remained a considerably more limited language in terms of lexis -- and therefore a language substantially different from what we now know as English (of any variety).


----------



## Alxmrphi

> A West Country accent continues to be a reason for denigration and  stereotype: "The people of the South West have long endured the cultural  stereotype of 'ooh arr'ing carrot crunching yokels, and Bristol in  particular has fought hard to shake this image off".


This stereotype is more alive than ever.
There is a woman in the Big Brother 10 UK final, she's from Bristol and is the favourite to win and she's been compared to a farmer by everyone, people in the show, people in real life and many many people in the media.



> 2.) Perhaps even more significantly, thousands upon thousands of words  in the English language, including quite a few everyday ones, were  coined in the United States and later adopted by BrE. You wouldn't  perceive them as Americanisms, but they are. If English had continued to  exist solely as "the tongue of England", it would have remained a  considerably more limited language.


Yeah I remember my first History of English book, I was quite surprised when I read all the words coined in American and then borrowed by BrE.
Actually, I just realised this book is only a few feet away from me, I'll see if I can find some example words. _(edit: advocate, placate, antagonize, telephone, typewriter, prairie, blizzard, jazz, joyride)_

There's also mention of a recent(ish) London Daily Mail article ranting about Americanisms and how no British person would understand them, these words are _rare (not cooked), commuter, tuxedo, intern, mean (nasty), dumb (stupid), enlisted, seafood, living room, mortician)_. 

How things have changed!


----------



## DenisBiH

Alxmrphi said:


> This stereotype is more alive than ever.
> There is a woman in the Big Brother 10 UK final, she's from Bristol and is the favourite to win and she's been compared to a farmer by everyone, people in the show, people in real life and many many people in the media.




Interesting. 



> The West Country. In a few ways, the speech of the West Country of England resembles American English more than other dialects of England do


Unfortunately only snippet view is available, I'd like to read more. It seems West Country dialect has played a role in the creation of American English (also see this and this)




> The first permanent English immigrants to North America settled in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607...The Jamestown colonists came mainly from England's West Country and spoke with the characteristic burr of these counties.


This too:


> The settlers further south in Virginia, however, tended to come from the "West Country" of Britain


Another example of why it's good not to raise 'originality' argument in this kind of discussions. Now someone could theoretically claim that American English is more original English than modern BE, a more direct descendant of the 'ould one', the West Saxon.


----------



## 0m1

Alxmrphi said:


> Sokol I think he was referring to the major hit song _We don't speak (no) Americano_  that I think has been overplayed in every single holiday resort this summer!
> (I don't think he was saying in real life that Americano is used like that) - at least I don't think so.
> 
> That's going to be stuck in my head now all night!



Yes indeed  

In my defense (because a strong case of pointless spam might easily be filed against me!), I did think it was an interesting usage of the word "American(o)" in reference to the language, especially because it feels fundamentally derogatory in that sense too, and it is as people have been saying, a (perhaps tongue-in-cheek) example of how outsiders view English (although the current pop track is in fact inspired by an older, altogether more serious 1940s song, but that's another matter entirely now!)

And ultimately I suppose having the song stuck in our heads is just the price we have to pay for academia


----------



## Lars H

TriglavNationalPark said:


> I would argue that this is somewhat of an oversimplification. Here's why:
> 
> 1.) Several words and grammatical forms common in modern AmE are actually older (i.e. more conservative or "original") than their modern BrE counterparts.
> 
> 2.) Perhaps even more significantly, thousands upon thousands of words in the English language, including quite a few everyday ones, were coined in the United States (or the original colonies) and later adopted by BrE. You wouldn't perceive them as Americanisms, but they are. If English had continued to exist solely as "the tongue of England", it would have remained a considerably more limited language in terms of lexis -- and therefore a language substantially different from what we now know as English (of any variety).



Good point, but one could still argue that if there is an area from where the original English stems, it would be found south of Scotland and nowhere else.


----------



## sokol

Lars H said:


> Good point, but one could still argue that if there is an area from where the original English stems, it would be found south of Scotland and nowhere else.


Well, I think whether British English is the "more original" English or not isn't really the point here.
The point is rather, or so I would see it: British English definitely (and originally) once *was* the _lingua franca_ of the entire world.

It isn't anymore, not solely - as its rival, American English, is gaining domains. In some regions AE might already be the only or at least leading variety (I think this is the case in Oceania - all over the isles to the Philippines, probably in parts of Southern America, and possibly elsewhere).

But Europe still is a stronghold of British English. Austria at least definitely is, Germany too as has been confirmed above, and Scandinavia also, Lars, even though you notice that AE already is significantly gaining among the young.

On a side note, I haven't noticed similar tendencies among the younger generation here in Austria - not really that is; but there could be an easy explanation for that one: most films get dubbed into German, subtitled films are reserved for those cinema theatres who pride themselves in showing only quality films (and visitors of those usually anyway favour BE as it is believed - still! - being more 'classy' than AE, probably a combination of old prejudices and new experiences based on the Hollywood film industry as opposed to underground British film scene: strangely enough, only few American underground films make it to Austria).
(But this should not develop into a debate about films: such debates have their place in the Culture Café - but please not here in EHL. )

Or anyway, I haven't noticed any significant switch to an American accent in the 'Austrian English' pronunciation. Of course 'Austrian English' isn't too close to British English in the first place, but basically it is 'british-y', or whatever.  Some might pronounce postvocalic 'r' where it isn't in RP BE but that's rather a mistake than American influence - and after all there are also rhotic British accents. Whatever, basically the pronunciation here is BE. Of course AE influence shows, but mainly in vocabulary (also in my kind of 'Austrian English', I'm sure ).


(PS: The debate about this song of course also is off-topic here, so please? ))


----------



## Lars H

Hej



sokol said:


> But Europe still is a stronghold of British English. Austria at least definitely is, Germany too as has been confirmed above, and Scandinavia also, Lars, even though you notice that AE already is significantly gaining among the young.



I think it is quite obvious that in subtitling countries/areas, the process of increasing impact of AE over BE will go faster than in other areas (German, French, Italian, Spanish etc). I have myself heard much more AE than BE on TV since I was 3 years old, and on a daily basis.

And yes, Scandinavia is still predominantly BE, but perhaps not for too long.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

sokol said:


> The point is rather, or so I would see it: British English definitely (and originally) once *was* the _lingua franca_ of the entire world.
> 
> It isn't anymore, not solely - as its rival, American English, is gaining domains.


 
But I'm not sure that BrE really was the world's _lingua franca_ at the time of the UK's greatest influence. When the British Empire was at its peak, Europeans were still taught mostly French as the language of international communication. Yes, people living in the British Empire spoke English, but the language had fairly limited status elsewhere -- at least compared with the present-day situation.

When my grandmother grew up in the 1920s and '30s, many people spoke German (a legacy of Austria-Hungary and an important regional language), some spoke Italian, and most were taught French in schools. English was essentially a non-factor, except among some members of the intelligentsia.

In Europe, English became truly widespread among ordinary people only after World War II, primarily because of American cultural, technological, financial, and political influence. (The United States was a superpower, whereas the UK, stripped of its Empire and facing economic decline, had become just another large European country. To young Europeans, the symbolic appeal of the U.S. was also very different from that of any other country.)

Yes, educational institutions tended to teach the BrE form, which theiy viewed as "more original," but I wouldn't say that that made BrE (and only BrE) "the _lingua franca_ of the entire world."

First of all, in may parts of the world, such as Latin America, English was never linked (solely) to the UK. Furthermore, even postwar Europeans growing up in the 1950s and '60s, listening to American rock on Radio Luxembourg or watching American movies, were strongly influenced by AmE. Rather than being a latecomer or a very recent influence, AmE existed alongside BrE even at that early stage -- precisely at the time when the English was becoming truly established as the world's _lingua franca._


----------



## Ottilie

English has never been nor is lingua franca of the *Entire World*.In the ex-Soviet Union lingua franca is Russian,in West and Northern Africa-French ,and so on.
 But English is,by far (regardless of its variation,BE,AE) the most widespread lingua-franca.
 Travelling abroad,because in Moldova the knowledge of English is not very high(especially in Western Europe),I've noticed that people speak American English(maybe the influence of media,films,music ).


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Alxmrphi said:


> This stereotype is more alive than ever.



Unfortunately so. There's not a more friendly English accent than that from the West Country. 

As an aside, I wonder did the pronunciation of the area influence the way the Irish speak the language? There were quite a few English settlers in the south of the country who kept their own Anglo-Saxon dialect/language all the way up to the 19th century, but I haven't been able to find much more on it.


----------



## sokol

Sorry for the simplification with claiming that (British) English had been the lingua franca of the "entire world". Of course this wasn't the case, not the way I formulated - please excuse the impreciseness, made because this wasn't the main concern here in this thread. 

Actually, there's an interesting phenomenon which I observed, and which might not be significant - but probably it is: I _*think*_ (or I've observed on occasion) that in European ex-communist/socialist nations, where English significantly gained domains after 1990 (at a time when influence of AE already was growing heavily), the proportion of AE is slightly stronger than in those European nations west of the Iron Curtain. (Yugoslavia is somewhat intermediate here too - not "behind" the Iron Curtain, but still communist.)

In Austria of course knowledge of English wasn't widespread in the early 20th century either - still, what English was taught then solely was the British version: all textbooks and dictionaries mainly relied on BE.

And this was still the case in the post-war years, up to the present day: of course, English plays a much more important role now than it did 30 or even 50 years ago, but it is still clearly predominantly the British variety which rules here, despite growing American influence especially in everything one might call "popular culture".

In former communist countries Russian played an important role before 1990; those domains it lost afterwards - as said, in my experience (I might be wrong) - are probably more influenced by AE even though those nations historically also were "predominantly BE".


----------



## Ottilie

sokol said:


> Sorry for the simplification with claiming that (British) English had been the lingua franca of the "entire world". Of course this wasn't the case, not the way I formulated - please excuse the impreciseness, made because this wasn't the main concern here in this thread.
> 
> Actually, there's an interesting phenomenon which I observed, and which might not be significant - but probably it is: I _*think*_ (or I've observed on occasion) that in European ex-communist/socialist nations, where English significantly gained domains after 1990 (at a time when influence of AE already was growing heavily), the proportion of AE is slightly stronger than in those European nations west of the Iron Curtain. (Yougoslavia is somewhat intermediate here too - not "behind" the Iron Curtain, but still communist.)
> 
> I
> 
> In former communist countries Russian played an important role before 1990; those domains it lost afterwards - as said, in my experience (I might be wrong) - are probably more influenced by AE even though those nations historically also were "predominantly BE".



You don't have to excuse,as you said,it isn't related to the thread
 I think we have to make a distinction between the ex-Communist and ex Soviet countries. In the ex-communist countries in Eastern Europe,English is lingua franca,while in the ex-Soviet states(Belarus,Ukraine,Moldova,Armenia,Kazahstan and so on) lingua franca is still Russian.
 In the so called ex-communist like Poland,Bulgaria,Czech R,Romania, I doubt there are many people fluent in Russian.
 So yes,after 1990 English gained the lingua franca status in those countries 

 Still,in my opinion,although in European schools they teach British English,maybe because of the films/music many people tend to speak American English,not to mention that the American accent for me it's somehow easier to reproduce/understand


----------



## Ben Jamin

Ottilie said:


> You don't have to excuse,as you said,it isn't related to the thread
> I think we have to make a distinction between the ex-Communist and ex Soviet countries. In the ex-communist countries in Eastern Europe,English is lingua franca,while in the ex-Soviet states(Belarus,Ukraine,Moldova,Armenia,Kazahstan and so on) lingua franca is still Russian.
> In the so called ex-communist like Poland,Bulgaria,Czech R,Romania, I doubt there are many people fluent in Russian.
> So yes,after 1990 English gained the lingua franca status in those countries
> 
> Still,in my opinion,although in European schools they teach British English,maybe because of the films/music many people tend to speak American English,not to mention that the American accent for me it's somehow easier to reproduce/understand


I lived in Communist Poland, and all the teaching materials used until the early 80-s was based on BE. AE based textbooks and sound materials were hardly available, and not used at schools (with some exceptions). 
I do not know the situation now well, as an expatriate, but I believe that the AE has not gained the upper hand yet, even if the teachers (and students) have now a free choice between BE and AE.
What concerns the fluency in Russian, the generation born after 1970 hardly knows any Russian at all, but among those over 40 there are several million people that can read Russian relatively easily and make a sensible (albeit simple) conversation in this language.


----------



## merquiades

Ottilie said:


> You don't have to excuse,as you said,it isn't related to the thread
> I think we have to make a distinction between the ex-Communist and ex Soviet countries. In the ex-communist countries in Eastern Europe,English is lingua franca,while in the ex-Soviet states(Belarus,Ukraine,Moldova,Armenia,Kazahstan and so on) lingua franca is still Russian.



Hi Ottilie. It seems completely logical for me that ex-Soviet states use Russian amongst each other.  Many of these countries speak similar Slavic languages anyway.



Ottilie said:


> In the so called ex-communist like Poland,Bulgaria,Czech R,Romania, I doubt there are many people fluent in Russian.
> So yes,after 1990 English gained the lingua franca status in those countries



A friend of mine from Romania told me French was most common there. 

Yes, French is also the lingua franca and official language of North and West Africa.

One big block you didn't mention was Latin America where obviously Spanish is the language of reference.

In Japan AE, India and Pakistan BE



Ottilie said:


> Still,in my opinion,although in European schools they teach British English,maybe because of the films/music many people tend to speak American English,not to mention that the American accent for me it's somehow easier to reproduce/understand



Actually, reading over all of these messages, it would seem that as a whole, the situation is quite balanced between BE and AE, perhaps with BE tending toward more formal use (book learning in class), and AE more informal (outside class) which all in all would mean the language is very much linked to both countries.  I must say, I'm very much happy about this. I didn't believe that would be the case.


----------



## Ottilie

merquiades said:


> Hi Ottilie. It seems completely logical for me that ex-Soviet states use Russian amongst each other.  Many of these countries speak similar Slavic languages anyway.



Only 3 from speak slavic languages anyway. The others speak Romance(Moldova) other Indo-European(Armenia), Turkic(Kazahstan,Azerbaidjan,Kyrgiziya,Uzbekistan) . For example in Moldova : Russian in Kishinev(the capital) it's spoken more on the streets than Moldavian(Romanian). 




> Actually, reading over all of these messages, it would seem that as a whole, the situation is quite balanced between BE and AE, perhaps with BE tending toward more formal use (book learning in class), and AE more informal (outside class) which all in all would mean the language is very much linked to both countries. I must say, I'm very much happy about this. I didn't believe that would be the case.



 Yes ,it depends on the person. I mean I met in the same country people who speak BE and others who speak A.E. I personally find BE more formal and appropriate when it comes to business talks,cultural/art talks and so on,but for some reason,for me the British accent is impossible to imitate; that's why I stick to the American one. Moreover,I have noticed that in the forums,people tend to write in BE


----------



## phosphore

sokol said:


> (Yougoslavia is somewhat intermediate here too - not "behind" the Iron Curtain, but still communist.)


 
Here is an inside information from Serbia, a former Yugoslav republic.

Most schools, I guess, use Oxford and Cambridge published coursebooks for teaching English. Primary and high school teachers, however, don't usually have a British (RP), but rather an American (GA) accent. University teachers, meanwhile, from what I've heard, do have a clearly marked British (RP) accent.

Students, on the other hand, don't have either a British or an American accent, they usually have a Serbian accent, but if it were to chose between those two, it is much more American than British. They pronounce the /r/'s in coda, they don't pronounce voiceless plosives as aspirated, they pronounce /ɔ/'s as /ɑ/'s and /əʊ/'s as /oʊ/'s.

When it comes to other aspects of the language, although the pronunciation is the most distinctive feature of British and American English, they are again more American that British. People would write center, theater, favorite, neighbor, rather than centre, theatre, favourite, neighbour, etc. The vocabulary might, however, be a mix of American and British words, because we don't usually know which ones are American and which ones are British, but with more American words altogether.

And this is all most probably due to the influence of American English through films, television series and music. There are only a few British series showing on local television, and I don't recall the last time I saw a British film. And besides there are relatively few British artists on the scene, they very often sing with an American accent.


----------



## Hulalessar

Since this thread is concerned with English as spoken by non-native speakers dialectal/regional/social differences both between and within North America and the British Isles are largely irrelevant. What is being contrasted is Standard American and Standard British English. When you compare the two you naturally home in on the differences, but doing that can lead to the impression that they are further apart than they actually are; you can lose sight of the fact that they are 99.99% the same.

There are what can only be described as minor differences in orthography. The differences in grammar are restricted to a few verbal forms and even fewer syntactic constructions. Differences in lexicon are more noteworthy, but are for the most part restricted to everyday matters and can be set out on a sheet of A4 paper. Whilst Standard American and British English have different accents, the list of words pronounced differently is also a short one.

Indeed, for both Americans and British, it is the accent rather than anything else that immediately identifies the origins of the speaker. The fact is that most-non-native speakers, whether they learn British or American English, will not acquire a native accent and accordingly will not be recognised by native Americans or British as speaking either American or British English, but simply English.

So, to ask whether American English or British English is more influential is really a non-question. English-as-learned-by-foreigners is English is English. Non-native speakers are all essentially learning the same language. They are drinking the same wine, but from slightly different shaped glasses. Any suggestion to the contrary is just hype from someone in the TEFL world looking to get you to sign up for his course.

The advance of English in Continental Europe from almost nowhere to lingua franca in a comparatively short time is an interesting phenomenon and, for the British at least, ironical in that it coincided with the loss of empire and general influence. I think it can only be attributed in part to American influence. Generalising somewhat, before the Second World War German was the lingua franca of Northern and Central Europe and French of Southern Europe.

Following the defeat of Germany, German inevitably lost its influence.

The reason for the decline in French in Europe is less easy to pin down, but is in no small measure due to the tendency of the French to insist that French is the perfect language and to feign not to understand anyone who does not speak it correctly, treating incorrect grammar and pronunciation as something approaching an insult. More importantly, with the increase in prosperity in the 1960's, countries like Spain became important tourist destinations with the majority of visitors coming from Northern Europe, few of whom spoke Spanish and only a few more French, but most of whom knew at least some English. It did not take the Spanish long to realise it would be a good idea to ditch French and learn English instead.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the former Warsaw pact countries had to decide which language would replace Russian as the first foreign language to be learned in schools. The economic importance of English was clearly an important factor in going for English.


 There is I think also an important psychological factor. The British, though they occasionally became embroiled in dynastic disputes, never sought to establish any sort of cultural or political hegemony over  There is I think also an important psychological factor. The British, though they occasionally became embroiled in dynastic disputes, never sought to establish any sort of cultural or political hegemony over Continental Europe, instead looking beyond Europe to its Empire. Accordingly, English carries no extra-linguistic baggage for most Continental Europeans.


----------



## DenisBiH

Pity we can't have videos on this board, I can think of a few YT clips that could illustrate ex-YU (or at least Bosnian) attempts at American English. Nevertheless, though not ex-YU, CNN's Bulgarian-born Ralitsa Vassileva is I believe close enough to serve as an example.


----------



## sokol

It's interesting to hear how strong the trend towards AE is at least in Serbia and Bosnia - or it is for me as it confirms a suspicion I already had. 

The thing is - there was a breach of tradition in Yugoslavia and its successor states, as well as there was in former Iron Curtain nations; and when there's a breach of tradition, a sharp caesura as historians say (dated 1989/90/91 and following years), one may be more open to changes - as I see it, AE gained in those nations after the political change much quicker than it did here in Austria where there was no such rapid change of culture, and where the BE teaching tradition as well was held up.

Teachers in Austria _very rarely_ actually have a RP accent, in fact the English accent of primary and secondary Austrian English teachers usually is gruesome (my first English teacher even pronounced all 'th' as /s/; but I've been told that, luckily, the accent of younger teachers is much better ); but what accent they have is some version of "Austrian BE accent".

In higher education however we've got also occasionally (or, at university, even _regularly_) English native speakers as teachers - and they of course use their accent when teaching, be it English or American or Irish or Australian or whatever. 
Also, some students choose AE on their own accord; I know one who did so because of her love of American films, and as she's now private tutor for (mainly) English she's of course teaching them an American accent.

So anyway, there's definitely a shift towards AE in Austria too - but notwithstanding our schooling system still is mainly (and in its lower stages even solely) relying on BE.


----------



## DenisBiH

> The thing is - there was a breach of tradition in Yougoslavia and its successor states, as well as there was in former Iron Curtain nations; and when there's a breach of tradition, a sharp caesura as historians say (dated 1989/90/91 and following years), one may be more open to changes - as I see it, AE gained in those nations after the political change much quicker than it did here in Austria where there was no such rapid change of culture, and where the BE teaching tradition as well was held up.


The thing is sokol, people here grew up with Rocky and Rambo etc. in American English, and that was before the breakup. I'm not sure there is such a large discontinuity here. Some discontinuity, sure, but a large one? I'm not sure.


----------



## sokol

DenisBiH said:


> The thing is sokol, people here grew up with Rocky and Rambo etc. in American English, and that was before the breakup. I'm not sure there is such a large discontinuity here. Some discontinuity, sure, but a large one? I'm not sure.


That reminds me of a boy called "Rocky" in some Yougoslav film.  (A good one actually, but let's leave that aside here. )

And yes, you've got a point; while countries like Bulgaria or Czechoslovakia probably (?) had Russian as obligatory first foreign language (I'm not sure about that, sorry if I'm wrong) situation was different in YU - also you could get American films much more easily than they could.

Also, you saw them most likely subtitled, right? Which would mean - same phenomenon as in Scandinavia, being exposed to American films in their original language makes for a bigger influence of AE than when films are dubbed (as is the case in Germany and Austria).


----------



## DenisBiH

sokol said:


> And yes, you've got a point; while countries like Bulgaria or Czechoslovakia probably (?) had Russian as obligatory first foreign language (I'm not sure about that, sorry if I'm wrong) situation was different in YU - also you could get American films much more easily than they could.
> 
> Also, you saw them most likely subtitled, right? Which would mean - same phenomenon as in Scandinavia, being exposed to American films in their original language makes for a bigger influence of AE than when films are dubbed (as is the case in Germany and Austria).




As for the foreign language, the choice in ex-Yu was, I believe, generally between English, French, Russian and German as mandatory foreign language. My mother had German, my late father Russian. I believe English was already gaining prominence in formal education before the breakup, I vaguely remember something about parents insisting their children be in a class that was to have English as the foreign language. A good friend of mine had French, I had English.

I think Russian pretty much disappeared after the fall of communism, French and German are still taught, but I don't know if as first or second foreign language. In my (post-breakup) high-school days, it way compulsory English, Latin and Arabic (my school was a special case there, Arabic is not usually a mandatory foreign language here) plus elective French, German (mainly for those who had it in primary school) and Turkish.

Yes, movies were subtitled as far as I can remember (I was born in 1980 so my recollection of those years is a bit blurry), and there certainly was no lack of American movies, but there was something else - few TV channels might have limited the exposure to English. We in Sarajevo had three (3) TV channels at the time of breakup, and the third was still a novelty. Of course, there was satellite tv, but even those who had it would have been exposed primarily to German channels. So, 3 TV channels + rented VHS + cinema.

Off topic: why the spelling "Yougoslavia" and not "Yugoslavia"?


----------



## sokol

DenisBiH said:


> Yes, movies were subtitled as far as I can remember (I was born in 1980 so my recollection of those years is a bit blurry), and there certainly was no lack of American movies, but there was something else - few TV channels might have limited the exposure to English. We in Sarajevo had three (3) TV channels at the time of breakup, and the third was still a novelty. Of course, there was satellite tv, but even those who had it would have been exposed primarily to German channels. So, 3 TV channels + rented VHS + cinema.


Well, exposure to English nevertheless still was higher there than in Austria, with almost everything being dubbed into German (except for a few foreign language cinema theatres in the bigger cities), and it certainly is today - as here in Austria we still get mostly dubbed films.

So it's only natural that, with higher exposure to English films and TV series, many of them from American origin, will lead to a preference of AE even if "classical" teaching still theoretically is more or less BE.

It might happen in Austria too, at some point in a not too distant future, but at least for now Austria still is predominantly "BE territory", so to speak. 





> Off topic: why the spelling "Yougoslavia" and not "Yugoslavia"?


Thanks for telling me about the spelling mistake.  I wrote it in French, see?


----------



## merquiades

Hulalessar said:


> Since this thread is concerned with English as spoken by non-native speakers dialectal/regional/social differences both between and within North America and the British Isles are largely irrelevant. What is being contrasted is Standard American and Standard British English. When you compare the two you naturally home in on the differences, but doing that can lead to the impression that they are further apart than they actually are; you can lose sight of the fact that they are 99.99% the same.
> 
> There are what can only be described as minor differences in orthography. The differences in grammar are restricted to a few verbal forms and even fewer syntactic constructions. Differences in lexicon are more noteworthy, but are for the most part restricted to everyday matters and can be set out on a sheet of A4 paper. Whilst Standard American and British English have different accents, the list of words pronounced differently is also a short one.
> 
> Indeed, for both Americans and British, it is the accent rather than anything else that immediately identifies the origins of the speaker. The fact is that most-non-native speakers, whether they learn British or American English, will not acquire a native accent and accordingly will not be recognised by native Americans or British as speaking either American or British English, but simply English.
> 
> So, to ask whether American English or British English is more influential is really a non-question. English-as-learned-by-foreigners is English is English. Non-native speakers are all essentially learning the same language. They are drinking the same wine, but from slightly different shaped glasses. Any suggestion to the contrary is just hype from someone in the TEFL world looking to get you to sign up for his course.
> 
> The advance of English in Continental Europe from almost nowhere to lingua franca in a comparatively short time is an interesting phenomenon and, for the British at least, ironical in that it coincided with the loss of empire and general influence. I think it can only be attributed in part to American influence. Generalising somewhat, before the Second World War German was the lingua franca of Northern and Central Europe and French of Southern Europe.
> 
> Following the defeat of Germany, German inevitably lost its influence.
> 
> The reason for the decline in French in Europe is less easy to pin down, but is in no small measure due to the tendency of the French to insist that French is the perfect language and to feign to understand anyone who does not speak it correctly, treating incorrect grammar and pronunciation as something approaching an insult. More importantly, with the increase in prosperity in the 1960's, countries like Spain became important tourist destinations with the majority of visitors coming from Northern Europe, few of whom spoke Spanish and only a few more French, but most of whom knew at least some English. It did not take the Spanish long to realise it would be a good idea to ditch French and learn English instead.
> 
> Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the former Warsaw pact countries had to decide which language would replace Russian as the first foreign language to be learned in schools. The economic importance of English was clearly an important factor in going for English.
> 
> There is I think also an important psychological factor. The British, though they occasionally became embroiled in dynastic disputes, never sought to establish any sort of cultural or political hegemony over Continental Europe, instead looking beyond Europe to its Empire. Accordingly, English carries no extra-linguistic baggage for most Continental Europeans.



HI Hulalessar,
I totally agree with you. I couldn't have written it better.

I agree that very few learners of English get to the point of having a real British or American accent.  They are just foreigners speaking more or less good English with more or less influence from their mother tongue.

However, as a teacher I talk to a lot of students (of all ages) and I can see where they've been.  If student A says "I kah:nt seem to find a flat" or B says "I gotta get outta here, man", their experience is transparent.  Maybe it's a desired affect, maybe they don't even notice it. But once in the while I get one that lays it on really thick. Every single thing they have ever heard or imagine to be typical BE or AE they throw it in and it ends up sounding unnatural (to me). 

Sokol, in my school, fluency in English is required after a 4 year program. The exams at the end of 4th year are demanding. No variant of English is imposed.  They have to listen to 5 hours of spoken English per week, make a report and keep track of what they learn.  There are numerous ways for them to listen to English, but most choose to watch American series. It's easier, they can do it with a friend, and it's fun.  I can see with the years the "to my mind"s, "I should say so", "Indeed I shall", "I must do that" that they learned in school start to evaporate and are replaced by "Whadaya think?" "Awl righty" "Awesome" etc.  In a skit I even had one that came up with "Bite me".  I wonder what series that is from? And these students (here in France) are not exposed to this until they are about 20.


----------



## Lars H

Hej!

Although UK have had very much immigration over the years, I believe that USA is even more a land for/of immigrants. This has meant that at any given point, a substantial part of the American population didn´t have fluent knowledge of English, 
which gave them no alternative than to speak a simplified - more straight forward - language.
The BE has probably not had as much impact from the flow of immigrants, so the development towards simplification has not been the same as in the US.

With this in mind, for a non English speaking foreigner, it should be easier to learn AE than BE without any real loss, because AE is of course perfectly understood also in BE spoken areas.

The value for the individual to learn the somewhat more complicated BE instead of AE is most likely not high enough, in cases there is a choice.

By the way, Australia had just had elections, and this was covered also in Swedish media. I noticed that the Australian Labor Party spells "Labor" wituot the "u", that is the American spelling instead of the British...


----------



## sokol

merquiades said:


> Sokol, in my school, fluency in English is required after a 4 year program. The exams at the end of 4th year are demanding. No variant of English is imposed.  They have to listen to 5 hours of spoken English per week, make a report and keep track of what they learn.  There are numerous ways for them to listen to English, but most choose to watch American series. It's easier, they can do it with a friend, and it's fun.


That's quite interesting.  Of course this most likely will swing it towards AE, over time.

In Austria there have been grave changes in exams too, while students weren't confronted extensively with spoken language previously (except that of the teacher, of course ) this will change in the next couple of years, when students sit for their exams of what is approximately equivalent (actually probably slightly higher) to English A-Level and American High School they _*must pass*_ in all four skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking).

For those new exams new textbooks have been introduced; I don't know all the textbooks which are on the market for the new exams - but I know the two market leaders, and they're both from British publishers (or rather, from the British English branch of British publishers): not Oxford and Cambridge by the way but Macmillan and Pearson.
And I would bet a fair amount of money that all or at least 95% of the other competitors (95% relative to the market share ) too rely on BE.

So while your reforms of English language teaching might introduce a swing towards AE ours here in Austria don't - AE will nevertheless gain importance (there's no doubt about that), but the teaching system, at least for now, still remains predominantly BE.




Lars H said:


> By the way, Australia had just had elections, and this was covered also in Swedish media. I noticed that the Australian Labor Party spells "Labor" wituot the "u", that is the American spelling instead of the British...


To my knowledge there's significant influence of AE on Australian English (oh, there's of course influence of AE on BE, but I think - and please correct me instantly if I'm wrong - that in Aussie English this influence is somewhat more pronounced. )


----------



## merquiades

sokol said:


> In Austria there have been grave changes in exams too, while students weren't confronted extensively with spoken language previously (except that of the teacher, of course ) this will change in the next couple of years, when students sit for their exams of what is approximately equivalent (actually probably slightly higher) to English A-Level and American High School they _*must pass*_ in all four skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking).



This sounds exactly like the system implemented in private colleges in France



sokol said:


> For those new exams new textbooks have been introduced; I don't know all the textbooks which are on the market for the new exams - but I know the two market leaders, and they're both from British publishers (or rather, from the British English branch of British publishers): not Oxford and Cambridge by the way but Macmillan and Pearson.
> And I would bet a fair amount of money that all or at least 95% of the other competitors (95% relative to the market share ) too rely on BE.



I think I know the books you are talking about. They are mostly BE, but some strangely use American spelling some times.  Honestly I really don't know of any EFL books from the USA on the market, and it's not for not looking either. We don't use books in our classes, but that's a unique problem in this country crazy about photocopies.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Australian English still retains the BE spelling for words like labour. The origins of the use of Labor, for the political party, can be found here.



> Labor or Labour?
> 
> A common query from new members relates to the spelling of the word ‘Labor’. The records tell us that, in the early days, the ALP was known as both ‘Labor’ and ‘Labour’. The report of the party’s federal conference in 1902 was spelled ‘Labor’; in 1905 and 1908 'Labour' and from 1912 ‘Labor’. This final change is thought to have reflected the influence of the then powerful United States labor movement, and especially the influence of Labor’s prominent American-born member King O'Malley. The change also happened to make it easier to distinguish references to the Party from the labour movement in general.


----------



## Lars H

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Australian English still retains the BE spelling for words like labour. The origins of the use of Labor, for the political party, can be found here.



I thought there was something odd with the Amercian spelling, almost provocative. Thank you for your explanation.


----------



## Hulalessar

Correction to my last post:

"...feign to understand anyone who does not speak it correctly"

should read:

"...feign _not_ to understand anyone who does not speak it correctly"

*Moderator note: Correction applied here.*


----------



## Istriano

I've opted for a Mountain West (Denver/SLC/Phoenix) accent which is close to conservative Californian (no Valspeak or Californian Vowel Shift).
My first teacher was from Denver and I like her accent.

The reason why people consider US English more neutral has to due with the fact that 75% of Americans have dialects/accents close to General American.

As for British English, in the Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Language we can read than less than 3 % of Britishers use the standard (RP) pronunciation.

I don't like watching British sitcoms because I cannot understand accents in it (from Cockney olroyt might [alright mate] to Scouse and Geordie). And Vicky Pollard's accent sounds like Dutch to me, I can't understand a word. 

Most British singers use an American accent when they sing.
I wish their actors would do the same in their sitcoms.

UK English can be classy and posh (RP/BBC), but it's not what I hear in British sitcoms/reality shows.
All I can hear are very displeasing accents (including Cockney and Estuary).

Many people say the best English in Europe is spoken in Ireland. I think it might be true, now when watered-down Cockney (aka Estuary) has become de facto the most broadcast language of England.


----------



## berndf

Istriano said:


> UK English can be classy and posh (RP/BBC), but it's not what I hear in British sitcoms/reality shows.
> All I can hear are very displeasing accents (including Cockney and Estuary).


*Moderator note: Well, many modern UK sitcoms deserve to be hated for reason which have nothing to do with accent. But be this as it may. This thread is not really about personal preferences for one accent or another. It is about with which culture and country the English language is most closely associated. I let this post stand as personal testimony but, please friends, stay focused on the subject and don't make this a discussion about which English accent is the most pleasant one to hear.
*


----------



## Malti

heh, this thread "England's accents are unpleasant." "The accents I don't mind, the /comedy/ on the other hand..."

In terms of the actual topic, I do find it interesting that Bild.de's English language version icon (http://bilder.bild.de/BILD/System/gfx/navi/flag.gif) has the US flag in front of the British one, even though the English language articles are in British English rather than American English. Seems a little contradictory to me (...which of course I wouldn't have expected from a news-source with such impeccable credentials). But I think it represents the wider trend well, that English's link to the UK is increasingly secondary. And the other time it feels really obvious to me is when installing programs, the installer language options. Usually there's only one English, and it's US, in contrast to the usually being a couple of Portugueses and Spanishes (and for one program, four separate Frenches for France, Canada, Belgium and Switzerland...still only one English).

I think that's where the focus should be regarding BrE, as establishing it as a variant with recognition on that level. Not aiming for dominance or anything, because that's already long lost.


----------



## Istriano

I would say USA flag for English and Brazilian flag for Portuguese is  pretty common these days when it comes to internet or software. 

 
In Europe, many countries favor the US spelling when it comes to military/N.A.T.O./defense things/documents
the same countries would use  the UK spelling for E.U. things/documents.

The last thing we need is that antiAmerican feeling about spellings like *organize *(instead of _organise_).
According to the Oxford Dictionary, *organize *(with a zee) is the original British spelling and not an Americanism.


----------



## Domhnuil

COF said:


> The French language is strongly linked to France, German strongly linked to Germany, Russian strongly linked to Russia, Italian strongly linked to Italy, etc, yet it seems to me that no one links English to England any more.
> 
> If you go on sites like Yahoo Answers, or other sites with non-native speakers looking to speak with natives, it seems that in 90% of cases these people link English to being solely the language of Americans, even in countries like Italy and Spain.
> 
> It strikes me that in the modern day, the English language has no real cultural link to England, other then prehaps in Europe. South Americans regard it (unsurprisingly) as very much the language of the US, whereas Chinese regard it as the language of the US and Australia. Equally, French is spoken all over the world, yet it is still regarded as the language of France, even amongst North Americans where French is spoken natively.
> 
> I suppose I can't say I don't feel somewhat bitter about it, hearing Americans and other foreigners talking as if the English language was born on the American continent and they somehow speak the proper English over British people. I suppose attitudes like this are testament to the UK's relative insignficance in the modern day.



Time marches on. I suppose you might say that British English is the mother tongue, even the grandmother tongue. The children have all gone their own ways, in a similar way to the Latin of the Romans. Even though the WW Web was invented by an Englishman, it is the economic power of the US that has made US English more widely used, and why not, English is as much their rightful language as it is here in England. They didn't steal it; they took it with them when they left these shores. AE is actually more archaic than BE. Words and expressions that have gone out of use in England are still in use in America. For instance 'Gotten' only used colloquially here. 'I guess' - used by Chaucer - and that typical Americanism, 'Goddam'. which has given way to 'Bloody' in BE, was common usage in English during the Middle Ages. The French called the English 'Les Godams'. So there you are. That's it in a nutshell. My only suggestion would be to reform the language by taking the best of all English speech and bringing it into the Twenty-first Century as one unified language.

I think what we are talking about is Standard American, or Standard British English. The rest hardly get a look in' Youngsters are taken up with the easy-going, more vibrant American lingo, but if they desire the quality of Shakespeare, Byron and Wordsworth, to quote only a few, then they have to read British English where they will find out that Wherefore art thou doesn't mean Where are you.


----------



## Domhnuil

Frank 78. I see you crossed out Learnt in favour of Learned. Learnt, as with such words as Dreamt, Burnt and Spelt, unless I'm much mistaken, are peculiarly British English.


----------



## ampurdan

I visited a downtown Barcelona big English Bookshop a month ago and I looked for American Publishing Houses. All of them were British. You could find of course American novels and American audiobooks, but all other learning material was published in the UK.

I would prefer that students in Spain were exposed both to British and American English, because they are both usual varieties which they are likely to work with. Preferably, I would expose them to many different accents.

Of course, they are not likely to acquire a native accent and it is not really necessary in most cases, but it is very helpful to understand them all.

And they are very different. Polite RP and GA forms may not differ that much (as I learn, I realize there are much more differences than I thought), but regional and informal expressions which make their way into everyday writing are certainly much more than those which an A4 sheet can take.

Anyway, even if I think some varieties of English are most "valuable" to know for a non-native, that does not mean that I link English to any specific country where it is spoken. I don't like the idea of regarding any given country's variety of any language as more valid or "true" than other ones.


----------



## Domhnuil

I suppose the reason why there are more British books in Barcelona is because we are both in the EU whether as individuals we like it or not. I myself have a half German Grandaughter living with her parents (my son) near Heidelberg. There is a lot of answerable content in your post, so I'll pick out just a few of the more important ones. Regarding different accents you would need to have been born into the language to cover even half of them, taking in all the first language countries. I've lived in Australia and spent over a year in New Zealand while visiting my other son and family. Most people in Britain, and probably America too, can't distinguish between the two, because the differences are minor. The main difference is in the way they both sound the I in Fish and chips - that is chips as in sliced and fried potatoes, not the American chips, which we call Crisps. The New Zealanders say it like Fush and Chups, while the Australians say Feesh and Cheeps. There are other differences. Regarding America, most people, even in the UK, talk of an American accent, but which one? It's an old and big country with many ways of speaking English. Coming back to Britain the main divisions are between Southern English, Northern English, Lowland Scottish, and Welsh - and Northern Irish, of course. Both Scottish and Welsh have their own minor Keltic tongues. Within the others there are many minor accents and dialects. As far as British publishers are concerned, even though they publish here I've noticed that some republish American books without actually changing to British English. The good thing about it all is that, apart from certain words, whichever English speaking country we live in, we can with little difficulty, understand one another.


----------



## L'irlandais

Domhnuil said:


> Frank 78. I see you crossed out Learnt in favour of Learned. Learnt, as with such words as Dreamt, Burnt and Spelt, unless I'm much mistaken, are peculiarly British English.


Both forms are correct in the UK.  Source :  BBC


----------



## Domhnuil

I would have imagined so, but it's better to have confirmation. I prefer the T ending because that's how I was taught. Maybe it's used more in the North of England where I originally hail from.


----------



## sokol

Mod note:

This thread is about English language; the last posts about Arabic and other languages have been split off to a new thread - please discuss similar situations with languages other than English there.

Thank you!
Cheers
sokol


----------



## Uriel-

Lars H said:


> Hej!
> 
> Although UK have had very much immigration over the years, I believe that USA is even more a land for/of immigrants. *This has meant that at any given point, a substantial part of the American population didn´t have fluent knowledge of English,
> which gave them no alternative than to speak a simplified - more straight forward - language.
> The BE has probably not had as much impact from the flow of immigrants, so the development towards simplification has not been the same as in the US.*
> 
> With this in mind, for a non English speaking foreigner, it should be easier to learn AE than BE without any real loss, because AE is of course perfectly understood also in BE spoken areas.
> 
> The value for the individual to learn the somewhat more complicated BE instead of AE is most likely not high enough, in cases there is a choice.
> 
> By the way, Australia had just had elections, and this was covered also in Swedish media. I noticed that the Australian Labor Party spells "Labor" wituot the "u", that is the American spelling instead of the British...



I've heard this theory expounded before, but it just doesn't hold up.

First of all, American English simply ISN'T any "simpler" than any other variety.  Standard English is almost identical throughout the English-speaking countries.  Slight regional variations and slang do exist, but you can read thousands of pages of text by writers from the UK, US, Australia, etc. and not be able to tell their country of origin.  Even the characteristic changes in spelling that mark an American are few and far between, as they only affect a handful of words.

Secondly, children learn languages largely from their peers, not their parents.  It's true that many immigrants to the US will never learn perfect English, or throw off their original accent.  But their children do.  I'm third generation American.  My immigrant great-grandparents never learned any English, despite living most of their adult lives in the US.  But my grandparents were fully bilingual, and indistinguishable in accent and vocabulary from any other Americans from their area.  My dad and uncle grew up bilingual and then lost the other language over time once they moved away, and I never learned it at all.  But I have been to the UK, and not found their dialect any more complicated than my own.

By the way, to whoever said Brits don't use contractions, no, they use them all the time.  Can't, won't, don't, etc. -- those are in common use everywhere.  The only major difference I've noticed is sometime we differ on which words to contract -- things like "I've not" vs "I haven't".  Contractions are frowned upon in formal writing on both sides of the Atlantic, but abound in everyday speech.


----------



## Lars H

Uriel- said:


> I've heard this theory expounded before, but it just doesn't hold up.
> 
> First of all, American English simply ISN'T any "simpler" than any other variety.  Standard English is almost identical throughout the English-speaking countries.



You make a good point, but I am not entirely convinced.

Still I would say that to me - and perhaps to many other non Anglosaxons - AE is perceived to be simpler to understand than BE.
First. I take for granted that the standards for what is to be seen as proper English are not by any means lower or even particularly different in the US than in Britain.

My perceptions maybe comes more from cultural differencies rather than linguistic ones. I've got the feeling (let me know if you disagree, correct me if I'm wrong) that Brits more frequently use understatements and irony than Americans, and they tend to use words like "exquisite" or "extraordinary" instead of "very good" or "really". 
Furthermore, enhancing expressions like "in deed" or "very much so", I do connect - right or wrong - more with BE. Obviously there is no problem to understand the meaning of "in deed", but being a non Anglosaxon, this becomes one extra expression to process. With "process" I mean "translate in your own head in real time so you can give a verbal response without any delay or hesitation".
And I see an expression like "use the restroom(s)" to be quite direct and clear, whlle "wash my hands" is more of a linguistic detour, an indirect expression.

Another possible reason for my perception might be TV. The main source of the English language in everyday life in Scandinavia is through TV. I think British TV uses a slightly more complicated language than American TV shows. 
If you compare the polite, graceful and somewhat circumstantial English spoken in "the Midsomer Murders" with the sharp oneliners from "CSI Miami", (two shows that I appreciate) I think you can see - or rather hear - what I mean.


This could very well be a difference which isn't representative on the language(s) as a whole. But this is one of the things that forms how we (non Anglosaxon) perceive AE vs. BE.


----------



## federicoft

COF said:


> If you go on sites like Yahoo Answers, or other sites with non-native speakers looking to speak with natives, it seems that in 90% of cases these people link English to being solely the language of Americans, even in countries like Italy and Spain.



Not here. In Italy English is still inextricably associated with Britain, even to a point where it goes without saying. 

Whether that is the first association that pops into mind or not it very much depends on context, but I guess the same is true everywhere. For istance, over here English language is almost synonimous with the UK for everything related to learning and teaching it.


----------



## Domhnuil

Good for you Fed. Just like Italian in England is mostly associated with Italy, we Euros must stick together against those goddam Yanks, or we're sunk.


----------



## Uriel-

Lars H said:


> You make a good point, but I am not entirely convinced.
> 
> Still I would say that to me - and perhaps to many other non Anglosaxons - AE is perceived to be simpler to understand than BE.
> First. I take for granted that the standards for what is to be seen as proper English are not by any means lower or even particularly different in the US than in Britain.
> 
> My perceptions maybe comes more from cultural differencies rather than linguistic ones. I've got the feeling (let me know if you disagree, correct me if I'm wrong) that Brits more frequently use understatements and irony than Americans, and they tend to use words like "exquisite" or "extraordinary" instead of "very good" or "really".
> Furthermore, enhancing expressions like "in deed" or "very much so", I do connect - right or wrong - more with BE. Obviously there is no problem to understand the meaning of "in deed", but being a non Anglosaxon, this becomes one extra expression to process. With "process" I mean "translate in your own head in real time so you can give a verbal response without any delay or hesitation".
> And I see an expression like "use the restroom(s)" to be quite direct and clear, whlle "wash my hands" is more of a linguistic detour, an indirect expression.
> 
> Another possible reason for my perception might be TV. The main source of the English language in everyday life in Scandinavia is through TV. I think British TV uses a slightly more complicated language than American TV shows.
> If you compare the polite, graceful and somewhat circumstantial English spoken in "the Midsomer Murders" with the sharp oneliners from "CSI Miami", (two shows that I appreciate) I think you can see - or rather hear - what I mean.
> 
> 
> This could very well be a difference which isn't representative on the language(s) as a whole. But this is one of the things that forms how we (non Anglosaxon) perceive AE vs. BE.



Trust me, although we have a reputation for blunt, non-flowery speech, we can circumlocute if we want.  And it probably depends on what shows you watch, if you are judging en entire part of the world through the limited offerings of syndicated TV.  I wouldn't do that, myself. (Having watched American TV all my life, I see just how much it deviates from normal everyday experience.)  But that said, I still don't see any evidence that the various dialects of English vary in linguistic complexity.


----------



## Lars H

Uriel- said:


> And it probably depends on what shows you watch, if you are judging en entire part of the world through the limited offerings of syndicated TV.



I wouldn't either. But, I think it's a fair guess that most non Anglosaxons do not spend time analyzing the similarities and differencies between AmE and BrE. They just speak.

And since - as I wrote before - TV is the most common way to meet English in the everyday life in subtitling countries/areas, its possible importance should not be neglected.


----------



## Domhnuil

As I've maybe said it before, and I'll say it again; there are many dialects in both Britain and the US. In Scotland they are thriving. Apart from the almost dead Gaelic these are actually English Dialects brought about by the Anglian kingdom of Northumbria, which reached up to Edinburgh - named after Edwin, King of the Northumbrian Angles. - mixed with some Norse (Scotland was riddled with Norsemen until the Battle of Largs which went in Scotland's favour). Scots aren't pure Scottish, being a mixture of Pictish, Irish Kelt, Briton, Norwegian and Angle. In England the old dialects are fast losing ground. Various accents remain, but the old words have mostly gone. In the US the different dialects seem to be thriving. Most haven't been watered down as in England. They seem to be little changed since the original settlers went from England in the 1700s. One instance in BE is the way A is sounded. What is classed as the typically English long A as in Path (Paath), or Bath (Baath) came in to the language after the first immigrants went over to America, but not before they went to Australia, S Africa, and New Zealand. It's only inthe south of england that this change came about. The North of England, being of old Danelaw stock, with Scotland, stuck to their guns and didn't follow. Therefore what is happening is that the original English language has been split into two main dialectic sections separated by 3,000 miles of ocean.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Domhnuil said:


> Scots aren't pure Scottish, being a mixture of Pictish, Irish Kelt, Briton, Norwegian and Angle.



Well that would be difficult in any case given that Scotland (Scotia minor) comes from the Latin meaning Ireland.


----------



## Domhnuil

Or maybe from the Egyptian Princess Scota the wife of Mil, and daughter of the Pharaoh Nectanebus?


----------



## berndf

*Moderator note: Please stick to the topic proper, which is: Is English no longer linked to England/UK?

If nobody has anything to contribute to the original topic of this thread we will have no option but to close it, to avoid posts going off-topic.*


----------



## Domhnuil

My point is that British English is where it was born. It has changed a lot from the original Anglo Saxon by infusions mainly from the Scandinavian countries. A/S and Danish, in those days were mutually understandable, but English developed much more rapidly taking in Norman French, ecclesiastic Latin, and pure Latin, plus many words from the Empire. It was during this development that colonisation began. The colonies, that is those that were colonised by British people, took, or were given, other names for the countries in which they settled, but these names merely covered up what they were - Britain overseas. That being so they were no different from the people they left behind, and, apart from recent immigration from non-British countries, they still are. I don't see the Americans changing all those placenames in New England, or changing the name of their language to American. England is the place where it was formed from a combination of Germanic tongues and however big and powerful the offspring become, Britain, that is England and Lowland Scotland, will always be the place that well educated people will primarily associate with developing English. You see we hold the trump cards, Beowulf (author unknown), Chaucer, Bacon, Shakespeare, Byron, Pope and Tennyson, to mention only a few great literary geniuses. It is quality, rather than quantity, that will keep BE on the world map. I don't include myself in that. I never had a good education having begun school at the age of five, missed a year during the worst part of the war, and left at the age of fourteen having muffed my chance of getting into college, so all I can do is watch with interest where it goes next.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> My point is that British English is where it was born


Sorry, but this isn't quite the story.
English wasn't '*born*' in England, that's not what happened.

English was brought to England in the 5th century from Western Europe, itself once mutually intelligble with Dutch / German, which was then the Western development of a language that used to be mutually intelligible with North Germanic, and East Germanic (Gothic).

The 'true' languages of England should be the Celtic languages, since they were present in England long long long long before Latin or English.
However, some points of yours I like and agree with, but that's probably because I'm British and share the same view in partial respects 
But the argument that it all started in England is flawed unfortunately. It's the place where writing developed in that language and we have references to refer back to.

It does annoy me at times how the American view portrayed on TV reflects this idea that we are 'a separate people' and all Americans are born American (which is probably contrary to how a lot of people view it) but the media does hold sway and... well, my OT bus just arrived..

There's a similar parallel in other aspects, not long ago we were discussing the Etymological Fallacy in English Only, and people* insisted* on reverting back to how a word worked in a different language before it was borrowed into English, and providing this as evidence for its current meaning today, when in fact, looking back at what it used to mean doesn't have anything to do with what it means now and provides absolutely zero evidence in favour of the meaning being that which it was when imported. I think a parallel can be drawn here, we can't exactly look back at the origins and argue that the situation is the same as it was 100 years after Britons set sail for America, to how it is now. Things do change and perspectives have to be updated.

In _that_ sense I think it's harder to deny that the tight link has been broken between English and England.
But we _can_ remain nostalgic all the same


----------



## sokol

Moderator note:

This thread is definitely not about whether British English is the "more cultivated" variety of English, or the "more original" one, or whatever. *This is completely beside the point here.*

While indeed in many countries this belief exists (if it is a consolation for you, Domhnuil, Austria is one such), in others this is not the case. To discuss the "cultivatedness" of a language - or whatever you'd like to call it - does in no way refer to the original topic of this thread which is: *Is English no longer linked to England/UK?*

I am closing this thread here, at least for a couple of days to give you a chance to cool down.
If anybody thinks there's still something left worth discussing, considering the *original topic*, please PM a moderator of EHL and we will consider re-opening.

Thank you very much for your understanding!

Cheers
sokol
Moderator EHL


----------

