AE/BE We use these general labels: should we be more specific?

[gaer]

This may or many not be the correct place for my question. It may belong here because it addresses the problem of two terms we all tend to use rather loosely:

BE (British English)
AE (American English)

People learning English might easily come to the conclusion that there are two and only two respectable or official "kinds" of English.

As was discussed in another topic, English as spoken in England, Scotland and Wales is not the same. Yet most people assume that they are and that "BE" refers to English as spoken in all these countries.

What are the opinions of other people in the forum? Should we be more specific?

Gaer

 

[gaer]

Is it the case that Welsh or Scots would be proud of saying they are from Wales or Scotland rather than the UK? (When I was learning Enlgish in primary school, I was also told English people are very proud of saying they are from England. Is that true?)I need you to tell me the truth.

Please forgive me if my quesiton is not relevant to this topic. I'm now a keenest truth-seeker waiting for your detailed answers.

I live in the US. I can't answer for those who live in other countries, but listen to books several hours a day. This is not an exaggeration. In my opinion, Scottish and Irish authors, for example, do not write in precisely the same manner, not even in narrative.

Let me give you just one example of how things may differ. My mother told me, repeatedly, that "proven" is incorrect. According to one of her older relatives, the only correct form is "proved".

My information says that "proven" is the most common Scottish form. If this is true, I would think that the Scottish would be highly irritated to have people using English elsewhere delcare usages peculiar to their country wrong, inferior, sub-standard, etc.

This is my guess. I'm hoping to find out from people living in such countries how they feel.

Gaer

 

[. 1]

Yes.
If you are going to sub-catagorise English then you should be accurate.
We have posters that are obviously Welsh or Scottish or English but this is only obvious to a native English speaker and the many learners could be confused.
By the same token it should have become obvious that there are vast stylistic differences between states in the U.S.A. so perhaps some consideration should be made between Northern states and Southern states as there is between Eastern states and Western states.
Once you start to splinter English with labels there appear to be many labels required.

.,,

 

[gaer]

Yes.
If you are going to sub-catagorise English then you should be accurate.
We have posters that are obviously Welsh or Scottish or English but this is only obvious to a native English speaker and the many learners could be confused.
By the same token it should have become obvious that there are vast stylistic differences between states in the U.S.A. so perhaps some consideration should be made between Northern states and Southern states as there is between Eastern states and Western states.
Once you start to splinter English with labels there appear to be many labels required.

.,,

That is the main problem. It is convenient to divide English into AE/BE. It also causes some nasty problems from time to time.

On the other hand, if we sub-divide, how far do we go?

At least the AE/BE labels are usually accurate for spelling, since most people seem to conform to one spelling system or the other. But even here there may be more problems than I have realized. English spelling can be set for more countries than the US and England, obviously, and I have never experimented to find out what differences (minor or major) may exist that I have never noticed.

 

[Dimcl]

As a Canadian, I was taught BE in school and many of our newspapers and magazines, etc. continue to use BE (spelling, phraseology and more formal manners of speaking than AE) but our close proximity to the U.S. (especially our access to their hundreds of television channels) has certainly had an influence on much of our English, both in writing and speaking. We seem to have become a hybrid of both AE and BE. I think, though, for the purposes of this forum that the use of AE and BE is just a handy tool for differentiation between them. If we break it down into sub-groups, I want a category known as CE! Could get pretty confusing...

 

[gaer]

As a Canadian, I was taught BE in school and many of our newspapers and magazines, etc. continue to use BE (spelling, phraseology and more formal manners of speaking than AE) but our close proximity to the U.S. (especially our access to their hundreds of television channels) has certainly had an influence on much of our English, both in writing and speaking. We seem to have become a hybrid of both AE and BE. I think, though, for the purposes of this forum that the use of AE and BE is just a handy tool for differentiation between them. If we break it down into sub-groups, I want a category known as CE! Could get pretty confusing...

I agree, but this is exactly the impression I had. There is a strange blending that defies simple description. For instance, how do your "more formal manners of speaking" compare with parts of New England?

 

[paddycarol]

As a non-native speaker, I don't have much a say. But I do think it's unnecessary to sub-catagorise English. Because this is a common phenomenon-- at least, things are the same in China. Some of the words can only be understood by half of Chinese.(the Middle & North vs the rest part of china) You may take it as dialect, but in practice, it is more influential that any dialect. (things are quite complicated than I could say)

 

[Dimcl]

I agree, but this is exactly the impression I had. There is a strange blending that defies simple description. For instance, how do your "more formal manners of speaking" compare with parts of New England?

As you say, it's difficult to describe, Gaer. In Canada alone, there are dozens of different vernaculars, idioms heard in my part of the country that one would never hear in Eastern Canada (and vice versa) and formal/less formal manners of speaking based on socio-economic conditions, etc., just as is the case in Britain, the U.S., Australia et al. I would suspect (or hope) that most ESL students would understand the generality of the AE/BE definitions and that regional differences are to be assumed, just as is probably the case in their native languages and countries.

 

[paddycarol]

"I would suspect (or hope) that most ESL students would understand the generality of the AE/BE definitions and that regional differences are to be assumed, just as is probably the case in their native languages and countries."
I totally agree with you and that's why I made the above comment.

 

[Dimcl]

...that's why I made the above comment.

I think we were cross-posting, paddycarol or I wouldn't have repeated your thought.

 

[paddycarol]

I think we were cross-posting, paddycarol or I wouldn't have repeated your thought.

Yes, I know that. I just cite some of your words to shed light on my comment.

 

[gaer]

As you say, it's difficult to describe, Gaer. In Canada alone, there are dozens of different vernaculars, idioms heard in my part of the country that one would never hear in Eastern Canada (and vice versa) and formal/less formal manners of speaking based on socio-economic conditions, etc., just as is the case in Britain, the U.S., Australia et al. I would suspect (or hope) that most ESL students would understand the generality of the AE/BE definitions and that regional differences are to be assumed, just as is probably the case in their native languages and countries.

I think that those of us who do a great deal of communication and who "listen" (or read) carefully begin to express ourselves in a way that is nearly global.

For me it extends to spelling. I can't type "judgment". It's standard in the US, but I hate it. "Maneuver" looks wrong to me too. "Manoeuvre" looks correct.

The other day, in a lesson, speaking with my slightly South Floridian accent, I said, "Well, if you've got it, I don't need to explain it." Suddenly I did not know if this is what most of us say in the US. I THINK it is normally "gotten" here.

I think there is a certain amount of "cross-pollination" that takes place among those who communicate day after day with people from all over the world.

There are now hundreds of words that are "in my head" with at least two different pronunciations, words that I have seen and heard but do not use except rarely in speech.

ki LOM eter or KILL oh MEE ter

long-lived (give) or long-lived (jived)

AH rinj or OH rinj (orange)

LAW yer or LOI yer

FAR ed or FORE ed or FORE head

These may not even be good examples, but even at the age of 58, which seems pretty old to me, I am obviously being subconsciously affected by marvelous narrators. Eye-strain has caused me to listen more than ever before, and I'm not by any means unaffected by the different prounciations/accents I hear.

Does this happen to you (and others) at all?

Gaer

 

[paddycarol]

Another point I want to make is when an ESL student is learning English, he is not supposed to be just learning BE or AE, but CE, AE etc. Isn't this forum (to some extent) ESL students-oriented?

 

[cirrus]

My tuppence worth: I think they are useful labels in that they refer to standard forms. The regional variations in the UK and Ireland are quite marked. These are mostly differences in spoken language, be they syntax, sayings or pronunciation. What we have in common is how we write: we tend to use a broadly similar standard. I suspect the subtle differences within these written forms would only be noticeable to native or advanced ESL speakers.

 

[Brioche]

Another point I want to make is when an ESL student is learning English, he is not supposed to be just learning BE or AE, but CE, AE etc. Isn't this forum (to some extent) ESL students-oriented?

My suggestion is that initially ESL students learn one version of English, without confusing the issue with half a dozen variations.

Once the student has a very good grasp of AE, for example, she can start to learn about various regional variations.

When I was learning German, if they had tried to teach me Standard German, Berlin German and Bavarian at the same time, I would have gone nuts.

 

[maxiogee]

My view on this is that if one asks the people in a large gathering to split themselves by broad ages - the younger to go to one side of the room and the older to go to the other, there would be a bit of confusion at first, but eventually everyone would be on one side or the other.

Now, were someone to be brought into the room they might see some in the younger group who looked out of place, being visibly older than those around them, and similarly on the older side, there would be some young-looking people.
But, were the newcomer to be asked to make a guess as to what basis had been used to split the group, there is a strong likelihood that they would say "Age".

That's how English is - what we call British English has a load of variants, but they are closely allied. I occasionally need to say that some particular usage I mention is Hiberno-English, but I'm usually happy enough to have what I speak and write referred to as British-English, because that describes it to many people. Similarly, the concept of American English is a shorthand which covers many variants.

I don't see a problem.

There are times when we don't need discretion, and broad words can do to convey our meaning. Generally when I use the expression Hiberno-English I get a Pm or two asking about it. Were I to use Irish-English it would not be as close to the meaning of Hiberno-English because people see it as some from of pidgin between Irish and English.

 

[DramaQueen101]

Is it the case that Welsh or Scots would be proud of saying they are from Wales or Scotland rather than the UK? (When I was learning Enlgish in primary school, I was also told English people are very proud of saying they are from England. Is that true?)I need you to tell me the truth.

Please forgive me if my quesiton is not relevant to this topic. I'm now a keenest truth-seeker waiting for your detailed answers.

Being English myself, I do not usually feel that proud that I'm English... but I know that a lot of people are, and it is quite nice to know that there is a language used all over the world named after your native country!

I also know alot of Scottish people who are very proud to be Scottish and not English, and I know a few Welsh people who feel the same way, but everyone is different.

 

[Paulfromitaly]

I also know alot of Scottish people who are very proud to be Scottish and not English, and I know a few Welsh people who feel the same way, but everyone is different.

Exactly..I can see Scottish, Welsh and Irish people's reaction to the bad Italian habit of using English as a synonym of British..they are definitely not amused..

Back to the original question:
I might be way too fussy, but I like to know whether a term or an expression is typical only of a specific kind of English ( American, English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Australian, Canadian...) especially when it comes to wording rather than grammar.
It took a while for me to realise that, for example, buftie (Scottish) and langer (Irish) are often "obscure" words to everybody else but Scots and Irish.

 

[invictaspirit]

So far on this forum I have tried to use BrE as a term when describing genuinely pan-British vocabulary or grammar that we all share in the UK, and then only if I think it might differ from AmE.

I don't mind the odd slip by others, but feel irritated by the wanton and thoughtless use of 'English' to mean British in the media of some countries. The French media and French government officials very, very regularly speak of something called the 'gouvernement anglais' (Chirac says it almost continually) and other totally non-existent institutions such as the English military, English television, and occasionally and most offensively, public signs in France to 'English war cemeteries'. The use of 'British' is so correct in countries such as Germany and Holland (and many. many others) that Scots and Welsh might be forgiven for thinking that the French are deliberately trying to insult them. I am English...it shouldn't bother me...but I feel for the others and, to be honest, it seems wantonly wrong...not just a mistake or an old custom.

 

[Mockturtle]

I'm sure there are many expressions or words that are used in just one English speaking country or a particular region/state of an English speaking country. To distinguish them all, there would need to be hundreds of subcategories. However, I'm sure that is true of many languages and not just English.
As regards, nationality, I'm Welsh, and when people ask where I am from I usually tell them that I am British, but in 99% of cases, end up telling them I am Welsh because the usual reply is "oh.. you're English". And yes it is annoying when English is used as a synonyme for British.

 

[cuchuflete]

... it addresses the problem of two terms we all tend to use rather loosely: I don't use the terms loosely. As Cirrus, Maxiogee, and a few other people have stated clearly, BE and AE are useful and descriptive general terms. They do not attempt to be specific. They do not attempt to prescribe or proscribe usage, nor do they indicate distinctions among smaller regional varieties. They are broad categories, and useful as such.

BE (British English)
AE (American English)

Should we be more specific?

We have at least two conversations going on in this thread, one of which is about nations, and another is about the labels BE and AE. That's confusing and not especially useful in addressing Gaer's topic.

BE is not the language of any single country. AE is not the language of any single country. These terms are broad differentiators between two forms of the language that cross many national boundaries, and include both native and non-native speakers. As such, I find them useful, convenient, and clear.

When I need more precision, I can and do refer to countries or localities within countries. I can refer to register, age groups, ethnic variations, and whatever other factors influence a language. There are times when such specificity is a requirement, and there are times when BE and AE are adequate.

In describing people, one may say "youth" and "adults" and be clearly understood. When more specificity is required, one
specifies, eg., "men between the ages of 29 and 33" or "children under six years of age".

 

[Kelly B]

<Moderator note: Please restrict this discussion to linguistic issues. The political boundaries of Great Britain and the UK may be discussed here. Thanks.>

The distinction AE/BE may indeed be overly broad. Still, it is useful in a response when someone asks "which of these is correct?" Usually the person is learning based on one "standard" or the other, and he needs an answer consistent with that standard. It works well for general purposes.
We have many members who don't fit neatly into those categories, and when they weigh in with the specifics of their regions, the picture becomes a little more complete.

 

[mplsray]

This may or many not be the correct place for my question. It may belong here because it addresses the problem of two terms we all tend to use rather loosely:

BE (British English)
AE (American English)

People learning English might easily come to the conclusion that there are two and only two respectable or official "kinds" of English.

As was discussed in another topic, English as spoken in England, Scotland and Wales is not the same. Yet most people assume that they are and that "BE" refers to English as spoken in all these countries.

What are the opinions of other people in the forum? Should we be more specific?

Gaer

My take on it is that American English/AE/AmE and British English/BE/BrE refer to branches of the English language. Each has a standard dialect associated with it, Standard American English in the case of the first, Standard British English in the case of the second. Standard American English has no standard accent associated with it, while Standard British English has a standard accent associated with it, Received Pronunciation. Each standard dialect has a standard orthography associated with it.

These are not the only standard forms of English. In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language by David Crystal, a chart on page 111, based upon a 1987 article by T. McArthur, shows eight main regional or national standards (or standardizing varieties, where standards are developing):

1) Australian, New Zealand & South Pacific Standard English
2) British and Irish Standard English
3) American Standard English
4) Canadian Standard English
5) Caribbean Standard English
6) West, East and South(ern) African Standard(izing) English
7) South Asian Standard(izing) English
8) East Asian Standardizing English

I think the distinction between AmE and BrE is a useful one, because these are the two most influential branches of the language. In orthography, for example, other standard dialects generally follow one or the other standard form—although Canadian English, which once followed the British standard, can now be said to have its own standard orthography, from what I have read. And while AmE and BrE are often used as if they refer to the standard dialects, that is not necessarily true, since they can also be used when referring to nonstandard dialects: African American Vernacular English and Appalachian are AmE dialects.

 

[RuK]

My two cents: in both Britain and the US (and Canada too, I assume), children are taught a standard English in schools. That standard grammar and spelling is roughly independent of spoken variations; and in the case of BE and AE, those standards are distinct. So the division makes sense to me.

Surely BE can use proven, though?

 

[cirrus]

It can, although it is more often a Scottish term.

 

[gaer]

My two cents: in both Britain and the US (and Canada too, I assume), children are taught a standard English in schools. That standard grammar and spelling is roughly independent of spoken variations; and in the case of BE and AE, those standards are distinct. So the division makes sense to me.

Surely BE can use proven, though?

No, it's wrong.
Yes, it's fine.

(I'm kidding…)

Confused? It's another of those silly disputes! My personal opinion is that both "proved" and "proven" sound just fine in most situations. But beware those prescriptivist tests!

And as Cirrus said, my understanding is that "proven" has always been the preferred form in Scottish-English!

Gaer

 

[Mafe Dongo]

You are wasting your time discussing that. As an ESL Student, when I participate in the forums, I always check the "Native of:" in every post. I am sure every ESL student check, and then dicide whether or not the post can help.
Anyway..thanks for all the help I receive from every English Language Native Speaker!

 

[Pedro y La Torre]

The English used in Ireland (excluding spelling) is indeed very different.

We use the form gotten (I would have gotten a good grade if I'd studied etc.) of the verb to get, which I think most other branches of English use too as I've heard many Aussies and Americans using it. It appears the English don't use it though.

We use the verb to mitch (I mitched school today), meaning to play truant from school.

There are more I can't think of at the moment but I don't really like subdividing English into different categories because you can go so far as every region has different forms of the language. For instance why should there not be Yorkshire English, New England English etc.? Same thing applies to languages like Spanish.

To me there is one standard language and that's English!

 

[. 1]

To me there is one standard language and that's English!

Worth saying well said.

.,,

 

[gaer]

Worth saying well said.

.,,

I understand what you mean, I think, but this would be very misleading for anyone who is required to pass tests.

I suspect that both you and I would be considered "liberals". If I saw a paper that had a mixture of BE and AE spellings, for instance, I believe I would do no more than suggest that it would be better to pick one system or the other, to avoid criticism.

However, I have to admit that I would be a bit puzzled to see a strange mixture of AE only words and BE only words in the same text.

Gaer

 

[stranger in your midst]

Actually, as I mentioned in a previous thread, the French are very (too) good at distinguishing between varieties of English. For example, 'The Great Gatsby' is 'traduit de l'americain', and 'Trainspotting' is 'traduit de l'ecossais'.

 

[panjandrum]

The English used in Ireland (excluding spelling) is indeed very different.

We use the form gotten (I would have gotten a good grade if I'd studied etc.) of the verb to get, which I think most other branches of English use too as I've heard many Aussies and Americans using it. It appears the English don't use it though.

We use the verb to mitch (I mitched school today), meaning to play truant from school. [...]

The English used in different parts of Ireland is also very different - and I'm not talking North/South in particular. There are huge variations within fifty miles of me, in Belfast. None of them include gotten
All of them include mitch (though I believe it is now out of favour).

It might be useful if Pedro would be a little more specific on the location of his version of Irish English.

On the general topic of AE/BE, it appears to be generally useful for us, here, to make sweeping generalisations about AE/BE usage. It may be crude, but it is useful.

 

[Pedro y La Torre]

The English used in different parts of Ireland is also very different - and I'm not talking North/South in particular. There are huge variations within fifty miles of me, in Belfast. None of them include gotten
All of them include mitch (though I believe it is now out of favour).

It might be useful if Pedro would be a little more specific on the location of his version of Irish English.

I'm in Dublin. I think up North you maybe are more English English oriented as you are part of the UK but I don't know

I'll give you an example, here is a college e-mail I received from a lecturer a while back:

"Can the students who emailed me that they had not received Tuesday's lecture notes, please email me again to confirm if indeed you have gotten this email."

The verb to mitch is really the only one used to describe skipping off school down here, I've VERY rarely heard anyone say I skipped off today, just I mitched off or I didn't bother going.

 

[caballoschica]

Gaer, I agree with you. Also, stylistically, I do like some BE usages/spellings more than AE.

English is one language and there are many dialects. It wouldn't matter too much if someone wrote in more than one dialect. It's the same language. Though you might get a strange look if you said, "Y'all, let's give a smashing performance tonight!" I have never heard "smashing" used in Southern dialects.

I think students are smart enough to recognize the differences of dialect. It's not like they'll mix a dialect. I learned Latin American Spanish, but I can understand Spanish Spanish. I wouldn't be about to pronounce words like a Spaniard and never use vosotros, and I would never use vos instead of tú. I think it's the case in both Spanish and English that they have two major dialects, then many sub-dialects. English may even have a third major dialect with Australian. There are certainly many dialects in the UK, I would bet there are in Australia, and I know for sure there are in the US.

As far as people being proud of being English, Scottish, or Welsh, look at Andy Murray. He always wears a Scottish flag wrist band when he plays tennis and his fans have the Scottish flag face-painted on them or what not. Not the Union Jack. When Tim Henman is playing, English flags are flying.

to the original topic! Yes, AE and BE are useful! It's good to know the differences!

 

[Paulfromitaly]

... it would be better to pick one system or the other, to avoid criticism.

That's what I've always been told at college: although BE is the "kind" of English which is taught in Italy, teachers seemed not to be bothered that much when students'd switch to AE, as long as they wouldn't mix different spelling and wording up.

 

[gaer]

On the general topic of AE/BE, it appears to be generally useful for us, here, to make sweeping generalisations about AE/BE usage. It may be crude, but it is useful.

Panj, it is crude, very crude, but I believe it is very useful because it gives us two convenient "starting places".

Gaer