# "Standard" English



## kota

I'm coming across more and more forms of english. Surely, one of these must be considered standard english. Which is it?


----------



## A90Six

kota said:
			
		

> I'm coming across more and more forms of english. Surely, one of these must be considered standard english. Which is it?


To be regarded as Standard English, four conditions should, ideally, be satisfied.
Standard English is:

the English that is used now
the English that is used most widely
free of performace errors
English that is accepted as standard by people who use it habitually


----------



## panjandrum

kota said:
			
		

> [...]  Surely, one of these must be considered standard English. [...]


I'm tempted to ask why and leave it there 

There has never been one standard form of English.  Different forms are appropriate for different contexts, and of course American English, Australian English, British English, Indian English and Irish English are all different (sorry for those I have left out).


----------



## emma42

I disagree.  We use the term "standard English" a lot in these Fora.  There must be such a thing.  I would say it is the English generally accepted by educated people to be the "standard", which is extremely nebulous and I apologise.  Perhaps someone else can do better?


----------



## moodywop

Emma

This is how Standard English is defined in this essay by a British language scholar, Peter Trudgill:

_It is the variety of English normally used in writing, especially printing; it is the variety associated with the education system in all the English-speaking countries of the world, and is therefore the variety spoken by those who are often referred to as "educated people"; and it is the variety taught to non-native learners_

Trudgill considers Standard English as a "social dialect" - a controversial notion:

_At least two linguists have professed to find this statement controversial. Stein and Quirk (1995) argue that Standard English is not a social class dialect because the Sun, a British newspaper with a largely working-class readership, is written in Standard English. This argument would appear to be a total non-sequitur, since all newspapers that are written in English are written in Standard English, by middle-class journalists, regardless of their readership_


----------



## emma42

Excellent, Carlo.  Thank you.  Yes, I can see the controversy.  Originally (say, from Elizabethan times) standard English evolved from the English used by a social elite from the south and London, and that used by Oxbridge scholars and, I think, the higher clergy.  So, in that sense, it is a "social dialect".  However, can this still be argued now?  Not sure yet.


----------



## cuchuflete

Without consulting scholarly texts, and their inevitable citations of one another, and their ideologies and agendas, I would
describe standard written English as having these characteristics:

It has complete sentences that are in accord with current descriptive grammar rules. (Note: I did not include prescriptive grammars, which tend to be out of date as of the moment of publication.)

Conventional vocabulary usage.

Those are fairly broad and even vague statements. Standard English is fairly broad.  It allows for a huge range of stylistic preferences, while containing these within a framework of grammar, including punctuation and capitalization.

Colloquial English, as spoken, may be Standard, though it often takes liberties large and small with written conventions.

As to register, formal English is a sub-set of Standard English, and adds many constrictions.

Standard English attempts to adhere to norms which are in constant evolution.  There is no single governing authority to dictate what is and is not Standard.  Thus we have to rely on
our own shared perceptions of what is common and conventional for the written language.  It's a moving target, though one that moves slowly.


----------



## kota

I grew up being taught by my American language teachers in high school that Southern American English is standard English.


----------



## mariposita

Kota--
You say that you "have come across more and more forms of English..." Can you be more specific? If anything, with dramatically increased levels of literacy and education, I would guess that there is more of a standard across cultures, regions, and social classes than ever before.

I think to contemplate your question, we would need to understand what you mean by "different forms."


----------



## kota

In my job as freelance writer, I thought there were just the US and UK English to reckon with because these were what international clients were asked to choose by writing agencies.  Only these 2. Now, over here, I come upon Irish English and others yet. That's the reason I asked the question although I was made to believe that specifically Southern American English is standard. In cases of conflict, therefore, the standard English takes precedence.


----------



## cuchuflete

What is standard is, in large part, a function of audience expectations.  I have no idea what "Southern American English" means.  People of similar education in all parts of the USA write the same English.  There may be some differences in vocabulary, or frequency of use of some words, but the language is the same.  

I correspond with friends from southern states, and do not detect any regional variations that make their writing distinct from Minnesottan or Californian English, if such things exist.
Some set phrases are more used in Irish English than in AE.
That's not a variation in Standard English.  It's vocabulary. 

From time to time we have a new member of the forums who insists on writing, for whatever reasons, in a personal, non-standard form.  It's easy to recognize, just because it is different from the expected form that the audience, other members, are accustomed to.  It sticks out and calls attention to itself, thus distracting from communication.  Standard English doesn't do that.  Because readers and writers share a set of language expectations, the words are used to communicate information and ideas, rather than to attract attention to their own form.


----------



## kota

chuchuflete,
What are examples of these "personal non-standard forms"?


----------



## cuchuflete

kota said:
			
		

> chuchuflete,
> What are examples of these "personal non-standard forms"?



Wot R xamples? U can eezly recognize sum of them, i think.
4 xample, chatzpeke and intenshunal mizpellingz.


----------



## mariposita

Now I understand better. Thanks for the clarification. As cuchuflete says, there is not Southern American written standard. We all learn the same grammar, orthographical rules, etc. in school. Thanks to education, written English is quite standardized in America. I have never lived near Maine, and yet I don't detect any trace of foreignness in Cuchuflete's writing.

I would imagine that the same is true in every English-speaking country, however there are *minor* differences from one country to another. I once had a job converting articles written in Great Britain and India to an American style (that of the Chicago Manual of Style). There were very, very few edits that I had to make in the realm of grammar. Nearly all of the changes were related to orthographical and punctuation differences. Different philosophies about hyphens, for example. Some words that we make compound were split in two. That sort of thing. 

If it weren't for these very minor (and semantically insignificant) differences, I would have a hard time identifying the origin of a text. Sometimes a turn of phrase, certain sentence structure, or metaphor might betray the author's location, but this sort of thing could vary as much from person to person as it does from country to country.


----------



## panjandrum

OK - tracking back - or perhaps back-tracking - to/on my earlier post.
In my mind was the fascinating conversations we have here about the differences in usage, in meaning of words, in spelling, in vocabulary, punctuation, capitalisation - the list seems endless.

Taking a slightly different mental angle, though, it is somewhat amazing to find that in many cases it is impossible to tell from the English used in a post where the writer comes from. 

Ah go on, then, you're all going to tell me you can spot an Irish post a mile away

Ediot: Putting this another way - I agree with mariposita whose post snuck in before mine by a whisker


----------



## kota

Ha ha ha! My second time to laugh in this site.
Thanks, chuchuflete.

Yeah, you're right.
This surely is not the language of one educated. This kind can only be useful if you're characterizing one in a story and you use language to point out to this character's  cognitive level.

Let me laugh again, please.
Ha ha ha!
I think you're being funny, chuchuflete.


----------



## emma42

Kota - "yeah"???

And Cuchuflete is very funny.


----------



## kota

Sorry, emma,
Correction: Yes, you're right.

Now I know I came to the right site.
I'll be honing my skills with all of you here. Thanks.


----------



## emma42

I am glad you didn't mind, Kota! I am a bugger for telling people off for slang and chatspeak on the Forum. I _hate _chatspeak.


----------



## mariposita

emma42 said:
			
		

> I am glad you didn't mind, Kota! I am a bugger for telling people off for slang and chatspeak on the Forum. I _hate _chatspeak.


 
A bugger? Now there's some Brit-slang for you...


----------



## kota

Ha ha ha!
I really like you people here!
You police each other's language.
He he!


----------



## mariposita

It's all in jest. Vive la difference!


----------



## moodywop

panjandrum said:
			
		

> it is somewhat amazing to find that in many cases it is impossible to tell from the English used in a post where the writer comes from.
> 
> Ah go on, then, you're all going to tell me you can spot an Irish post a mile away
> 
> Ediot: Putting this another way - I agree with mariposita whose post snuck in before mine by a whisker


 
And I, too, was going to remark on the frequent near-impossibility of telling the national origin of native English speakers from their posts when I saw Panji's and Mariposita's posts. 

It made me think how wrong was the old prediction that AE and BE would gradually diverge more and more significantly (a prediction which I believe was made by many writers for a long time after 1776).

Going over Panji's and Cuchu's posts in this thread it struck me how I couldn't find any of the few minor spelling/grammar/vocabulary differences between AE and BE (Cuchu actually used a plural verb after _audience, _a supposedly British feature) which can be a clue to national origin.


----------



## maxiogee

emma42 said:
			
		

> I am a bugger for telling people off for slang and chatspeak



For the unaware… *bug* is a word loosely applied to all insects, and a *nit* is a type of insect. 
*Nit-picking* is a term used to describe someone who finds petty faults, searching for them as a chimp searches another chimp for nits and other insects.
*Nit-pickers* could possibly be described as *buggers*, but it is not recommended. Bugger has another, rather unsavoury, meaning.


----------



## ed800uk

maxiogee said:
			
		

> For the unaware… *bug* is a word loosely applied to all insects, and a *nit* is a type of insect.
> *...*
> *Nit-pickers* could possibly be described as *buggers*, but it is not recommended. Bugger has another, rather unsavoury, meaning.



Just for the record, for non-natives (or for natives lacking in the humour department)  bugger is not  etymologically entomological; it is directly derived via French from Bulgarian:

http://www.tv5.org/TV5Site/lf/merci_professeur.php?id=2686

This explanation covers all meanings, including the unsavoury ones.

Please excuse the French reference in English-only.


----------



## nay92

What is Standard English nowadays. Hardly anyone speaks it any more..i dont even know the proper meaning. Being only 14 all my class mates dont use Standard English and uaslly we are not corrected by English teachers, who some of dont speak or write in Standard Enlgish.

In Word Reference by comments are always being deleted for not being stanard English, i'm sorry if people dont understand them but i am very sure most English people my age would.

Oh and by the way, i know that there are proberbly millions of mistakes in my little speech and dont mind if people want to correct it!


----------



## TrentinaNE

*For the purposes of the WR forums*, standard language includes: proper punctuation (such as ending a sentence with one "." and ending a question with "?"), spelling correctly (including the use of apostrophes in contractions, e.g., don't), and following the normal capitalization practices of the language in which you are writing (e.g., italiano is OK in Italian).

Simply making yourself understood is not deemed to be sufficient for a forum that promotes language-learning.  

Elisabetta


----------



## petereid

Hi nay
Standard english should be understandable by 90% of English speakers. So it should be spelled correctly (according to reputable dictionaries) It should not use abbreviations such as text shorthand, (CU 2mro)  and avoid words which often have a short life such as:- "bling" "mingy" etc. And not use words which are specific to small social groups.


----------



## caballoschica

nay92 said:


> What is Standard English nowadays? Hardly anyone speaks it any more. I don't even know the proper meaning. Being only 14, all my class mates don't use Standard English and usually we are not corrected by English teachers; who some of dontsome of who don't speak or write in Standard Enlgish.
> 
> In Word Reference by comments are always being deleted for not being Standard English. I'm sorry if people don't understand them but I am very sure most English people my age would.
> 
> Oh, and by the way, I know that there are probably millions of mistakes in my little speech and don't mind if people want to correct it!


----------



## clairanne

Hi here are a few corrections for you. The idea is to learn to use English properly and I am sure no one will condemn you for being wrong, as long as you try your best, but we do not want "text" speak as you will see if you read the rules at the beginning of this forum. Nice to have someone young in here who is interested in language.



			
				nay92 said:
			
		

> What is Standard English nowadays? Hardly anyone speaks it any more..I don't even know the proper meaning. Being only 14, all my class mates don't use Standard English and we are not usually corrected by English teachers, some of whom don't speak or write in Standard English either.
> 
> In Word Reference, comments are always being deleted for not being standard English, I'm sorry if people dont understand them but I am very sure most English people my age would.
> 
> Oh and by the way, I know that there are probably millions of mistakes in my little speech and don't mind if people want to correct it!


----------



## nay92

Thank you everyone for bringing up my mistakes..it is way better then just deleting my post, it lets me see my mistakes and try and learn from them.


----------



## Estiben

To me, the closest thing to a standard English would be what is taught in broadcast journalism, but that varies from country to country. In the States, nobody talks like Dan Rather unless they have had specific schooling. I assume it works the same way in England or Australia?


----------



## elroy

Also:

_class mates -> classmates_
_by comments -> my comments_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I bet this is a can of worms that's been opened before. An American member corrected me today for saying that _I ain't listen_ wasn't English. She or He said I should have said it wasn't _standard_ English. Now, for me it wasn't any sort of English. _I ain't listening_ is English to my ear. _Je ne t'ecoute pas _means the same but is French, not English or even _standard _English. When a South Sea Islander says 'Oh _Massy, that choppy he's done finnish'_ he means, in pidgin, _Oh_ _Sir, that helicopter has broken down_. I would say he was speaking pidgin, which was a form of non-standard English. But _an cats are miow my window beneath _is not English, surely, even though most English people would understand it. I put _I ain't listen_ into the same category. The second line of the old song about a blackbird _'e be a blackbird that 'e be _is surely in English - you wouldn't want to change it or correct it, even though that subjunctive is peculiar to some parts of the country. Do you think I just sounded too authoritarian? or is it a matter of some people insisting on calling a spade a 'straight-handled instrument used for digging'?  Are Americans frightened of saying that if you make some sorts of grammatical errors you cease to use the language?


----------



## french4beth

This phrase is English. It is not formal, nor literary, but I understood the meaning, so it is informal and conversational. From a linguistic point of view, it's grammatically correct (subject+auxiliary+verb). It's slang. People make grammatical errors all the time (both native & non-native speakers), but it doesn't mean that they've morphed into some alternate language universe! Just my humble [American] opinion.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Thanks for the suggestion but it isn't informal, nor is it conversational.  Nobody would say _I ain't listen.  _They would only write it if their typewriter was on the blink or they were distracted.  I was trying to suggest, among other things, that the fact that an English person would understand it doesn't make it English.


----------



## xrayspex

_This phrase is English. It is not formal, nor literary, but I understood the meaning, so it is informal and conversational._

You'll have to explain it to me.  I understand what the individual words mean, but that combination of them is so ambiguous as to be meaningless (to me) without context.


----------



## Old Novice

Thomas Tompion said:


> Are Americans frightened of saying that if you make some sorts of grammatical errors you cease to use the language?


 
I think it would be better put that we are a more diverse society than most, and we've learned to communicate with one another even when the speaker's dialect is not our own.

That said, in my opinion it is pretty risky for anyone to generalize from one comment by one person to a conclusion about an entire nation. But that's just my view.


----------



## panjandrum

There are speakers of all kinds of English in this forum.
There are those who hold all kinds of views on English grammar from very prescriptive to very descriptive.

Over time, the forum has acquired, developed, grown into, a manner of expression that is comfortable for all those who are still here  
If I may have a go at a caricature, it relies on several quite important principles.
First, that many of those who come here are working towards exams in English, or are teaching English as a second language. For those people it is very important that we are clear about usage that is likely to be marked wrong by those with the power of pass/fail.
Second, that English is spoken around the world by all kinds of people of all kinds of circumstances.  As English is a language in continuous evolution we should be judicious about the way we describe usage that is alien to us. That doesn't stop anyone from expressing personal views about anyone's usage - provided it is done with respect and courtesy.

As one who comes from a part of the world with immense diversity of language - a cultural triangle with a bizarre pseudo-RP in one corner, Ulster Scots in another, and Irish in the other - all within a piece of turf less than 100 miles square - I understand Old Novice's point.


----------



## Violet Green

Thomas Tompion said:


> Thanks for the suggestion but it isn't informal, nor is it conversational. *Nobody would say *_*I ain't listen*. _


 
Hi there Thomas,
Can you be _sure_ that nobody would say it?
Violet


----------



## coiffe

Violet Green said:


> Hi there Thomas,
> Can you be _sure_ that nobody would say it?
> Violet



Exactly, and besides, how would you know from listening whether the speaker had said "I ain't listen" or "I ain't listened"? Are you sure you picked up that last near-silent phoneme? Would you consider it grammatical English (or just "English") if the speaker had said "I ain't listened"?

I think Panj is right to emphasize that we are trying to teach standard English here (and other kinds of English) to help a number of people pass exams. We often make distinctions as to what is slang, what is dialectical, what is formal and informal -- and finally, what is just ignorant or "bad" English. Personally I would say "I ain't listen" is bad English. But is it not English at all? I guess I wouldn't go that far ... too hard to define what is English and what is not. My wife is Russian and she constructs terrible sentences, but we talk to each other and understand each other. Are you saying that she doesn't speak English? At what point does it become "English," that she is speaking? Is a baby, gooing and gawing to her parents at the age of eight months, speaking English? At ten months? At 1 year? 2 years? When does it become English? Where do you draw that line? Is there some test out there, and a minimum score?

Now that I think about it, this becomes an interesting question even if you break down your judgment to a sentence-to-sentence evaluation. Okay, there is no overall test that demands a minimum score to determine that a person is "speaking English." What if you say instead: "No, it's a sentence-by-sentence issue. "I ain't listen," for example, is not English. But "I ain't listened" is English.

Okay, here are a few sentences to evaluate:

I been hearin' lots o' bad talk lately about you 'n your woman.
I've been hearing lots o' bad talk lately about choo'n your woman.
I've been hearing lots o' bad talk of lately 'bout choo'n your woman.
I been hearin' bad lots o' talk lately about choo'n your woman.

Is any one of these sentences English? And the others -- are simply, uh, not English?


----------



## cuchuflete

> An American member corrected me today for saying that _I ain't listen_ wasn't English. She or He said I should have said it wasn't _standard_ English. Now, for me it wasn't any sort of English.


I'm quick to agree that it isn't standard English, or anything near that.  Without context, I don't know whether it's a mispronunciation of something, colloquial, dialect, or whatever else.  I don't know, without context, if it is intended to be past or present tense, or something else.  I wouldn't judge a fragment like that.  I would ask for more information.

I recognize fine writing when I see it, but might have trouble telling someone why it is better than average standard English writing.  I know colloquialisms on sight.  Dialects and slang are identifiable.  I don't maintain a scorecard to rank the lower register forms of the language.  If they serve communication, in context, they are worth understanding.

If we take a phrase with grammatical errors and declare it "Not English", then what shall we call it?


----------



## winklepicker

U B E?
R, U B E?
E B O B E, E B
B E?
R, E B.


----------



## coiffe

Thomas Tompion said:


> Are Americans frightened of saying that if you make some sorts of grammatical errors you cease to use the language?



I don't speak for Americans, and you don't speak for Englishmen. We each speak our own opinions.

I lived in the southeastern United States for awhile. Was I horrified at some of the English I heard spoken down there? Sure. Would I be horrified now if I went back down there? Probably not. Over the years, and having gained some education, I've developed a broader view of the different kinds of English spoken around the world. Anyway, ignorance isn't a phenomenon peculiar to the U.S. alone.

Am I tolerant when I teach English? Well, there's tolerance and there's tolerance. I teach rules but I also have a descriptive view of grammar (it follows the observation of native speakers.). If I turned my nose up at every student who constructed gibberish when asked for a "real English sentence," I wouldn't have any students.

I think there are plenty of reasons to condemn American culture (or lack of it) without resorting to unsupportable accusations about linguistic precision. Look at the people in our government, for example. Isn't there enough grist for your mill just in that spectacle alone?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Violet Green said:


> Hi there Thomas,
> Can you be _sure_ that nobody would say it?
> Violet


 
'it' being _I ain't listen_

Hi, Violet,
Yes, I can be sure.  No English person I know would maintain it was English - _I ain't listening _is fine in many parts of the country: my argument is not with the _I ain't, _so let's take that out of it.  Could anyone in America seriously maintain that _I am not listen_ is American?


----------



## xrayspex

_If we take a phrase with grammatical errors and declare it "Not English", then what shall we call it?_ 
Jabberwocky? 

The problem *I* have with "non-standard English" is that some groups use that term as a shield to defend ignorance.  What's next?  "non-standard" behavior (as opposed to vandalism)? 

If non-standards are legitimate, what's the point of standards?


----------



## coiffe

Thomas Tompion said:


> 'it' being _I ain't listen_
> 
> Hi, Violet,
> Yes, I can be sure.  No English person I know would maintain it was English - _I ain't listening _is fine in many parts of the country: my argument is not with the _I ain't, _so let's take that out of it.  Could anyone in America seriously maintain that _I am not listen_ is American?



Now that I see your follow-up, it becomes clearer than ever than your question/challenge is not about linguistics.


----------



## Thomas1

Thomas Tompion said:


> 'it' being _I ain't listen_
> 
> Hi, Violet,
> Yes, I can be sure. No English person I know would maintain it was English - _I ain't listening _is fine in many parts of the country: my argument is not with the _I ain't, _so let's take that out of it. Could anyone in America seriously maintain that _I am not listen_ is American?


I saw examples of _ain't _being used as a substitute for _didn't_, so:
_I ain't listen_ can mean_ I didn't listen._

I don't know, however, how much it has to do with practical usage since I only read about this "phenomenon".


Tom


----------



## winklepicker

Is this the five-minute argument or the full half hour?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

coiffe said:


> I think there are plenty of reasons to condemn American culture (or lack of it) without resorting to unsupportable accusations about linguistic precision.


 
Careful.  I'm not condemning anyone or anything.  I'm asking a question about conventions of political correctness towards language in the US?  In the meantime I'm getting a lot of interesting answers about people's attitude to correctness in language all over the English-speaking world.  But please don't think I'm making accusations.  Attitudes are obviously different in different places and I want information.


----------



## mrbilal87

Thomas Tompion said:


> 'it' being _I ain't listen_
> 
> Hi, Violet,
> Yes, I can be sure. No English person I know would maintain it was English - _I ain't listening _is fine in many parts of the country: my argument is not with the _I ain't, _so let's take that out of it. Could anyone in America seriously maintain that _I am not listen_ is American?


 
You may not write it "I ain't listen", but I'm sure "I ain't listenin'" could be pronounced so as to sound almost like "I ain't listen". I agree that it may not be very common but I can't speak for some parts of the world, for it may actually be used by some people in some regions.


----------



## winklepicker

I ain't listen to any of your argufying.


----------



## coiffe

Thomas Tompion said:


> Careful.  I'm not condemning anyone or anything.  I'm asking a question about conventions of political correctness towards language in the US?  In the meantime I'm getting a lot of interesting answers about people's attitude to correctness in language all over the English-speaking world.  But please don't think I'm making accusations.  Attitudes are obviously different in different places and I want information.



There are three or four hundred million people here. Whose conventions are you asking about?

As for attitudes in different places, there are people in my apartment building, just as there are people in your neighborhood, who will call you a supercilious wanker and beat the crap out of you if you wave a grammar book at them. "American" vs. "English" is a non-starter.


----------



## Thomas1

winklepicker said:


> Is this the five-minute argument or the full half hour?


I was rather trying to show other usages of _ain't _than those so far presented. I see what Thomas is getting at and am not opposing his view.

Tom


----------



## Thomas Tompion

coiffe said:


> There are three or four hundred million people here. Whose conventions are you asking about?


 
Hi, Coiffe,  Let's start with you.  You couldn't say it, could you?


----------



## coiffe

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hi, Coiffe,  Let's start with you.  You couldn't say it, could you?



No, I wouldn't, nor would I teach it, and as a matter of fact, I would take time in class to shut it down. I'm probably a lot more sympathetic to your view _of the linguistic question_ than you think.

I'm also planning on leaving the United States because I prefer Europeans and I know I'll be a lot happier there than here, teaching English. So on a second scale, I'm probably _a lot more sympathetic_ to your views than you think.

Still, "American" vs. "English" is too nationalistic for my sensibilities, and I take issue with your initial question because you threw that race card into the mix. I'm not pro-American, but I definitely know a sweeping generalization when I see one. Those generalizations rarely get anywhere, except maybe to piss off a few people and drive away a few more.

I know standard English grammar (historical and modern/evolving) and I'm an advocate of teaching the rules. You can read my previous posts to see that. I'm 100% with you on that one. But if you're looking for a generalization about American standards, you won't get me to agree with one. There are slobbering idiots over here, and there are geniuses beyond your imagination over here. Generalizations are off the mark. There is no English vs. American.


----------



## mrbilal87

Okay, before this becomes a complete arguing match between American regional conventions and just plain English, allow me to just put in my Canadian two cents.

My non-American point-of-view in response to the original question would be as such: I don't think "ain't" is _ever_ standard English in most countries, in the sense that it wouldn't be appropriate in formal contexts. I also do not find it to be particularly common among speakers of Canadian English, at least not in this part of the country. I do, however, believe it is correct English and its usage depends on the context. In a conversation with my boss, for example, I probably wouldn't say "I _ain't_ started on the project yet". I also believe it's fine to teach it to foreign students as long as they're clear about the standard use of English and they understand that words like "ain't" are not acceptable in formal situations.

I've also read comments here from some English speakers that the use of such words indicates that that person is less educated. With much respect, I highly disagree with that idea. I feel that some people who speak that way may be very well educated, and may simply slip into informal vernacular when the situation calls for it. I do not think that how a person talks is all-around indicative of their level of intelligence.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.


----------



## Old Novice

Thomas Tompion said:


> Careful. I'm not condemning anyone or anything. I'm asking a question about conventions of political correctness towards language in the US? In the meantime I'm getting a lot of interesting answers about people's attitude to correctness in language all over the English-speaking world. But please don't think I'm making accusations. Attitudes are obviously different in different places and I want information.


 
Well, perhaps the problem here is an AE-BE difference. When you phrase the issue as you did originally -- "Are Americans frightened of saying that if you make some sorts of grammatical errors you cease to use the language?" -- I think many, and possibly most, AE speakers would take it as an accusation of some form of cowardice, which here tends to give offense, and particularly when made against the nation as a whole.

Perhaps this is not true in BE, and hence some of the comments in response to your original question are mistakes based on this difference. In any case, I appreciate the clarification.  

As to political correctness in language, people of goodwill can differ passionately on whether it is more of a positive or a negative development. I tend to think of it as positive on balance. On the other hand, I also tend to prefer "standard" forms of English, and whether I accepted "I ain't listen" as a dialect to be ignored or a mistake to be corrected would depend very much on the circumstances. I would never let my children get away with it, for example.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

coiffe said:


> Okay, here are a few sentences to evaluate:
> 
> I been hearin' lots o' bad talk lately about you 'n your woman.
> I've been hearing lots o' bad talk lately about choo'n your woman.
> I've been hearing lots o' bad talk of lately 'bout choo'n your woman.
> I been hearin' bad lots o' talk lately about choo'n your woman.
> 
> Is any one of these sentences English? And the others -- are simply, uh, not English?


 
Hi, Coiffe,  Would anyone in the US say the fourth?  It's the only one I'd have a problem with.  The first three seem fine.  'bad lots of talk' is not English as I know it, but it may be American.


----------



## coiffe

There is another distinction that might be made. TT's initial statement said "This is not English." True in some contexts, not true in others.

For example, when Antonio Banderas said "That's not a word" to Salma Hayek, in _Desperado_, we might have smiled in concurrence.

But in an English class, to define something as "not English" is more problematic. As my previous post (#8, I think) indicated ... where do you draw the line? My Russian wife works in a public place with thousands of customers, answering their requests all day long in her broken English. Is it not English? If it's not English, then how do people understand her?

Therefore I think the answer is different depending on the context. It's not serious for Banderas to say "It's not English." But it is serious for a teacher to say "It's not English" -- and the statement has to be examined closely.


----------



## mrbilal87

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hi, Coiffe, Would anyone in the US say the fourth? It's the only one I'd have a problem with. The first three seem fine. 'bad lots of talk' is not English as I know it, but it may be American.


 
Maybe I'm missing something here. I agree that the fourth sentence is rather strange and I wouldn't say it myself, nor have I heard it. But if in the U.S. the people speak English, how is the fourth sentence _not _English? I somewhat understand your point, but it seems rather strange that something could be American without being English. In Canada we have our own conventions as well, especially in some parts where French is spoken. Some people may speak English following French language syntax or vocabulary (for example: close the light/TV, take a decision) but I wouldn't classify it as "not English".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

coiffe said:


> Still, "American" vs. "English" is too nationalistic for my sensibilities, and I take issue with your initial question because you threw that race card into the mix. I'm not pro-American, but I definitely know a sweeping generalization when I see one. Those generalizations rarely get anywhere, except maybe to piss off a few people and drive away a few more.
> 
> But if you're looking for a generalization about American standards, you won't get me to agree with one.


 
I'm very sorry I started that particular hare. Many English people are frightened of calling garden forks garden forks, many more, perhaps, than twenty years ago. Some teachers are frightened of saying that anything is wrong, whether it's behaviour or a point of English. To say that a combination of English words isn't English seems to them authoritarian and insensitive. Many English people would rather say that the expression wasn't standard English, because that sounds less offensive. As an American member objected to my form of words, I wondered if this pc invasion of language was common in the US too.

I ain't mean to impugn the virility of the whole American nation.


----------



## coiffe

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hi, Coiffe,  Would anyone in the US say the fourth?  It's the only one I'd have a problem with.  The first three seem fine.  'bad lots of talk' is not English as I know it, but it may be American.



Again, you seem hell bent on making these distinctions between English English and American English.

There are books on that.

I'll defer, if that's your core problem. My parents' racism always mystified me because I couldn't figure out what precise percentage of blood was required to be called a "white" or something other than white. To me, this question about English English vs. American English is the same nonsense. And if you're barking up the same tree, with the same kinds of motivations, then I don't think you'll ever become an inspired ESL teacher.

I wrote my undergraduate thesis on Milton and my master's thesis on Shakespeare, and I was a Fowles fan for awhile too. I can't even think of any American authors that excite me, although I did like Joyce Carol Oates for awhile. But I wouldn't just go off in a condemnation of "American" -- there are about 40 billion tribes represented in this large country, you know. If you're just aiming at a chauvinistic condemnation, you should find another forum. English is too multivarious, as panj and the old novice have already pointed out.


----------



## coiffe

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm very sorry I started that particular hare. Many English people are frightened of calling garden forks garden forks, many more, perhaps, than twenty years ago. Some teachers are frightened of saying that anything is wrong, whether it's behaviour or a point of English. To say that a combination of English words isn't English seems to them authoritarian and insensitive. Many English people would rather say that the expression wasn't standard English, because that sounds less offensive. As an American member objected to my form of words, I wondered if this pc invasion of language was common in the US too.
> 
> I ain't mean to impugn the virility of the whole American nation.



No, that's not the problem. The problem is that your position is unsupportable, and so you are forced to resort to ad hominem (ad statum) remarks because linguistically, you can't answer the questions that have been put to your original claim.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

mrbilal87 said:


> Maybe I'm missing something here. I agree that the fourth sentence is rather strange and I wouldn't say it myself, nor have I heard it. But if in the U.S. the people speak English, how is the fourth sentence _not _English? I somewhat understand your point, but it seems rather strange that something could be American without being English. In Canada we have our own conventions as well, especially in some parts where French is spoken. Some people may speak English following French language syntax or vocabulary (for example: close the light/TV, take a decision) but I wouldn't classify it as "not English".


Hi, We haven't established that anyone in the States would say the fourth.  That's what makes the difference.  Don't you think the languages have evolved divergently for long enough now for them to be considered separately?  We have separate dictionaries now, and really need them.  Talk American in London or BE in New York and you risk frequent misunderstandings: e.g. an American friend told me he would call at ten in the morning.  I missed him when he rang because I was out in the street to help him find the house.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

coiffe said:


> No, that's not the problem. The problem is that your position is unsupportable, and so you are forced to resort to ad hominem (ad statum) remarks because linguistically, you can't answer the questions that have been put to your original claim.


 
I honestly didn't mean to be offensive by asking you to state your own opinion of the matter - that's the only ad hominem remark I can remember.  My position may be unsupportable but I'm not conscious of evading or failing to answer any questions, and my insensitivity extends to not feeling it to have been seriously under siege.  One problem may be that while I'm answering one question six more are posted.  Which ones do you think I can't answer?  And/or where are the inconsistencies?


----------



## mrbilal87

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hi, We haven't established that anyone in the States would say the fourth. That's what makes the difference. Don't you think the languages have evolved divergently for long enough now for them to be considered separately? We have separate dictionaries now, and really need them. Talk American in London or BE in New York and you risk frequent misunderstandings: e.g. an American friend told me he would call at ten in the morning. I missed him when he rang because I was out in the street to help him find the house.


 
That's interesting because, as a native speaker of Canadian English, I have no problem understanding what you're writing right now. I have no problem understanding Americans or Australians on the forum, and I'm sure you or they have no problem understanding me. There are also British people here and some of us watch British television, and we have few problems understanding what's being said. This is because we're speaking standard English right now. I agree that there are differences in standard English as well, but standard English is, in my opinion, largly understandable by the majority of English speakers worldwide. Perhaps if we switch into our regional vernaculars, that's when the misunderstandings are more likely.

But one thing I do agree to is that standard English is probably better defined according to the country in which you live. What's may be standard in British English may not be standard in North American English.


----------



## modus.irrealis

I agree with Thomas Tompion, if I understand him correctly, that there's a difference between usage that is non-standard English and usage that is just not English, even if it's made up of English words -- in fact I'd say lumping them together would be a little insulting because on the one hand you have non-standard varieties of English, which are perfectly complete, legitimate languages, while on the other hand you've got what in the end are plain old mistakes.

Of course, you can argue where to draw the line, and I'd suggest something along the lines that if it's a usage that's not attested among some community of native speakers of English, it's not English (so as to exclude broken English and pidgins based on English). So for me this ends up being an empirical question to see whether this usage exists somewhere or not. That's why I'd say it's better to err on the side of caution and say non-standard instead of not, unless you're sure (that might be pc-ism, but I'd say it's a good pc-ism). Take the _I ain't listen_ example. I agree that this could be a result of the fact that in some dialects, words can only end in one consonant, and so this would be equivalent to _I haven't listened_.


----------



## Old Novice

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hi, We haven't established that anyone in the States would say the fourth. That's what makes the difference. Don't you think the languages have evolved divergently for long enough now for them to be considered separately? We have separate dictionaries now, and really need them. Talk American in London or BE in New York and you risk frequent misunderstandings: e.g. an American friend told me he would call at ten in the morning. I missed him when he rang because I was out in the street to help him find the house.


 
I agree that it is absolutely standard in this forum to find differences in usage between BE and AE, and that these differences are often the subject of much discussion. I don't think that is per se a sign of anything but an interest in the language, which we all share (else why are we here?).

But there are also intra-nation differences. In the U.S., at least, there are groups with very distinct, and quite "non-standard" [defining the phrase in whatever way makes you the least uncomfortable] dialects. I read coiffe's four sentences as phonetic renderings of some of that speech. I think it is extremely likely that sentences that sound like this are used routinely by some groups, as their form of English.

So the question becomes, do you want a big tent or a small one? Do you want to draw boundaries around the way some people use English and say, outside the boundary isn't English? That seems to me to be less of a question of political correctness than of how you choose to define the word, "English". I've never studied linguistics, but it has always seemed to me that one of the huge advantages of English is that its tent is so large, with so many words and dialects from so many sources, spoken in so many places. So I'd vote for a big tent, and if street dialect in some neighborhoods sounds odd to "standard" ears, so be it.

But that's just my vote. Others are welcome to see it differently.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

coiffe said:


> Again, you seem hell bent on making these distinctions between English English and American English.
> 
> There are books on that.
> 
> I'll defer, if that's your core problem. My parents' racism always mystified me because I couldn't figure out what precise percentage of blood was required to be called a "white" or something other than white. To me, this question about English English vs. American English is the same nonsense. And if you're barking up the same tree, with the same kinds of motivations, then I don't think you'll ever become an inspired ESL teacher.
> 
> I wrote my undergraduate thesis on Milton and my master's thesis on Shakespeare, and I was a Fowles fan for awhile too. I can't even think of any American authors that excite me, although I did like Joyce Carol Oates for awhile. But I wouldn't just go off in a condemnation of "American" -- there are about 40 billion tribes represented in this large country, you know. If you're just aiming at a chauvinistic condemnation, you should find another forum. English is too multivarious, as panj and the old novice have already pointed out.


 
I agree with you that I will never become an inspired ESL teacher.  I am not a teacher.  I'm sorry you regard honest acknowledgement of the fact that different parts of the world speak different forms of English as offensive - you liken it to racism: you talk of my 'condemnation' of 'American' English.  I'm not for a second suggesting that BE is in any sense better than AE, just that there are important and very striking differences between the ways the languages have evolved, as is implied by the need for separate dictionaries now.  I admire a lot of American literature.  For example I hugely enjoyed Annie Proulx's Wyoming stories: they are in a language which I would scarcely recognize as English, but which I find very attractive, and which is I suspect very fine American.


----------



## cuchuflete

As modus.irrealis said, "Take the _I ain't listen_ example." Take it as presented, free of context.  We haven't been told if this is recorded speech, and if so, by whom, in what circumstances.  Is it something with a written context?

By itself, it looks bad, like a semi-literate attempt at English.  But might this be a statement by a non-native just beginning to learn the language?  We have no idea.  We know it's sub-standard, but to comment further on it in the absence of additional information is pointless.  

I have little use for most pc intrusions on language.  They often take what might be clear and direct language and muddy and obsure things with unneeded euphemisms.  Still, I see nothing pc about saying that a question about a context free fragment is provocative in a rather pointless way. 


After two and a half years of sharing these forums with English speakers and learners from all over the world, I am ever more convinced that most non-dialect communication among us is free-flowing and easy, because we share a single, common language.  I find it much easier to read a thread with Australian, Irish, English and American particpants, than one in which Cono Sur, peninsular, and Caribbean variants of Spanish are all in use.

Even the number ten joke, for it must have been that, was intelligible, if not particularly amusing.


----------



## emma42

coiffe said:


> No, that's not the problem. The problem is that your position is unsupportable, and so you are forced to resort to ad hominem (ad statum) remarks because linguistically, you can't answer the questions that have been put to your original claim.



I have to agree. Nobody has presented arguments based on political correctness (the American variety or any other variety), and to implicitly accuse other members of having done so (specifically Americans) is, in my view, an _ad hominem_ attack and a failure or refusal to address the _linguistic _nature of this discussion.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

emma42 said:


> I have to agree. Nobody has presented arguments based on political correctness (the American variety or any other variety), and to implicitly accuse other members of having done so (specifically Americans) is, in my view, an _ad hominem_ attack and a failure or refusal to address the _linguistic _nature of this discussion.


Woa there, Emma.  You need to substantiate these remarks.  People have used the word _euphemism _to describe this use of the word 'standard'.  I simply regard it as a pleonasm, which is why I didn't use it, and why I asked the question.  Do you think pc is invading our language?  Do you think insistence on talking about 'standard' English or 'standard' American as opposed to English or American is based on a real difference of meaning in either case?  This is the linguistic point I raised.  I never meant to attack anyone, _ad hominem_ or otherwise, and I actually can't see any ad hominem element in anything I've said.  You must enlighten me.


----------



## TrentinaNE

Thomas Tompion said:


> I bet this is a can of worms that's been opened before. An American member corrected me today for saying that _I ain't listen_ wasn't English. She or He said I should have said it wasn't _standard_ English. Now, for me it wasn't any sort of English.


I am the guilty party. Here is the thread referred to. As I wrote to Thomas privately earlier, I probably should have clarified that I was making a comment rather than a correction (blue probably would have been a better choice than read to convey that -- sorry!). Even so, his point still would have borne discussing here in the EO forum. 



> Do you think I just sounded too authoritarian?


Essentially, yes.  The individual words were all English, they simply weren't arrayed in a manner than makes sense to or is considered correct by many (any?) English speakers. To say something "isn't English" imples to me that the individual words themselves are not recognized as part of the English language. No biggie. 

Elisabetta


----------



## emma42

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm very sorry I started that particular hare. Many English people are frightened of calling garden forks garden forks, many more, perhaps, than twenty years ago. Some teachers are frightened of saying that anything is wrong, whether it's behaviour or a point of English. To say that a combination of English words isn't English seems to them authoritarian and insensitive. Many English people would rather say that the expression wasn't standard English, because that sounds less offensive. As an American member objected to my form of words, I wondered if this pc invasion of language was common in the US too.
> 
> I ain't mean to impugn the virility of the whole American nation.



This is the post to which I was referring, Thomas.  I have obviously misunderstood your intention, for which I am sorry.


----------



## panjandrum

On those graceful notes, it is time to draw this discussion to a close.  It has wandered far from its origins, and back again.  It has wandered far from the scope of this forum (which is English usage) and back again.


----------

