|
Post by Alan Palmer on Jul 30, 2008 11:01:11 GMT
In another thread I said:
That "rest of the world" is clumsy. It's important that we recognise that there are real differences between the versions of English used in the USA and in other English-speaking countries, but there's no simple description that can be used in the same way as "US".
Often we tend to refer to UK English, but that doesn't recognise Australian, NZ, Canadian, South African, Indian, etc., varieties of English.
"Commonwealth countries" or "former British empire countries" comes to mind, but isn't really suitable in my mind. Any suggestions?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 30, 2008 11:09:51 GMT
I suspect they are all different, so there wouldn't be a word that accurately lumps some but not all of them together, would there?
|
|
|
Post by Alan Palmer on Jul 30, 2008 11:25:43 GMT
I do believe, though, that there are two main "camps": US English and Rest Of the World (ROW) English. For instance, Noah Webster's influence didn't stretch much outside the USA.
We've got contributors to the board from across the globe , and it's important that their native variety is included in discussions of this sort, not lumped in with "British English".
Speaking of which, I don't think Jeff from Canada has (yet) migrated to this board has he?
|
|
|
Post by TfS on Jul 30, 2008 13:12:44 GMT
I do believe, though, that there are two main "camps": US English and Rest Of the World (ROW) English. For instance, Noah Webster's influence didn't stretch much outside the USA. We've got contributors to the board from across the globe , and it's important that their native variety is included in discussions of this sort, not lumped in with "British English". Where would we place the users of English as a second language which, of course, is prevalent in most of Europe and elsewhere? The English which is used here in Sweden is a happy mixture of US and ROW English without too much concern about the differences which arise in speech and text. On those occasions when I have proof-read English text, the first question which I had to ask was which flavour of the language was to be used. This was mostly met with a blank expression needing me to point out that there are differences between the two. Very rarely was I given an answer on the spot as various others had to be consulted as to what the company policy was on this subject with disagreement often resulting. In the end it usually boiled down to whether the person making the decision had studied English in the US or the UK or alternatively whether they were more familiar with, for example, the Australian version with which they had become familiar on a year's back-packing trip. We "others" are also users of English albeit not so deeply invovled in the more exotic aspects of the language unless through employment or academia or personal interest.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 30, 2008 13:44:03 GMT
We've got contributors to the board from across the globe , and it's important that their native variety is included in discussions of this sort, not lumped in with "British English". Oh, I agree, but I don't suppose they think of themselves as speaking "rest of the world" English! I think we just have to accept there is American English, British English, Australian English, Singaporean English and so on. And, of course, many varieties within each of those. If we're talking about "standard" versions of a language, I guess you could define it by reference to a standard reputable dictionary. American Has Merriam Webster, British has Oxford or Collins, Australian has Macquarie . What others are there? Wikipedia was surprisingly unhelpful -- I just updated its English dictionaries category, but there must be others, surely? Is there a dictionary of Ebonics?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 30, 2008 13:50:55 GMT
Is there a Canadian dictionary? TfS, Sue has spoken of " World English" before, hasn't she? Seems like a useful concept to me, and I think the Encarta dictionary tries to take this kind of approach.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Palmer on Jul 30, 2008 14:34:23 GMT
I agree that there can often be confusion caused to learners of English as a second language. I saw an example only the other day.
The lady who runs the ticket office at my local station is, judging by her accent, a fairly recent immigrant from eastern Europe. She does seem to have a good command of English, though. A couple of Americans (judging by their accents) bought tickets, and one asked where the nearest "garbage can" was. When he saw the puzzled look on the lady's face, the other American interjected "trash can" which didn't appear to help. Another person (presumably British) in the queue had to translate it into "rubbish bin", which she understood instantly.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jul 30, 2008 14:41:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by TfS on Jul 30, 2008 15:31:35 GMT
TfS, Sue has spoken of " World English" before, hasn't she? Seems like a useful concept to me, and I think the Encarta dictionary tries to take this kind of approach. I do believe she has and as a teacher of English as a second language, this would be close to her heart. Perusing the Wikipedia page, I find this: "A recent development is the role of English as a lingua franca between speakers of the mutually intelligible Scandinavian languages (Danish, Norwegian and Swedish). Older generations of Scandinavians would use and understand each others' mother tongue without problems. However today's younger generations lack the same understanding and some have begun using English as the language of choice" When I arrived in Sweden in 1967 without a word of Swedish except smorgasbord and Sverige in my baggage, I went to work at the Head Office of Scandinavian Airlines. This, understandably, was populated by a mixed bag of Danes, Norwegians and Swedes who all spoke amongst each other using their native tongue. For poor TfS ( Tony from Sweden, for those who may not know) who was not as yet a qualified fS, this was confusion supreme in trying to learn just Swedish. After 6 months or so I gave up and began the longer and more difficult but less frustrating process of learning all three languages simultaneously. This paid off as I was then able to converse with who(m)ever of the three nationals I met and proved its worth on occasions where I (the Brit) translated between a Dane and a Swede for example! Now the trend, as Wikipedia states, is for Scandinavians not to struggle with the other languages but to use the lingua franca of English. However the problem there still remains that there are differences and possible misunderstandings depending upon the particular brand of English being used compounded by "odd" pronunciations of words which are sometimes heard. The development of "World English" would be well worthwhile but from whence will come such support?
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jul 30, 2008 15:56:36 GMT
I wonder whether this "World English" is not so much a defined (sub-)language with a specific structure, as a "system" which allows whatever bits of English are known and are simple to be brought into use (wherever they were learned).
When we're used to one flavour (in my case English English), we spot the change when a piece of "alien" English intervenes. Speakers of English as a second language will be less sensitive to the variations (until expert), and just get on with understanding and making themselves understood. In a way, they're following a purer route (as descriptivists might say).
I mentioned bits of English that are "simple": I recall noticing, in Hong Kong, that people would "scold" each other, which seemed quaintly old-fashioned ... until I realised that the verb acts regularly, in its conjugations and subject-verb-object word order, so is therefore so much easier to handle than "to tell off".
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 30, 2008 16:30:12 GMT
The development of "World English" would be well worthwhile but from whence will come such support? Languages don't need support, just use. The force to develop World English will come (unconsciously) from all those using it.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 30, 2008 16:41:10 GMT
I recall noticing, in Hong Kong ... I may have said before that for a few years I did a lot of training (lectures, questions, discussions) in Hong Kong, Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. I noticed that many visiting Brits made no concessions to cultural variations in language, to their shame. Not only was their grammar very long-winded (even for me to listen to) and their points unfocused, but their vocabulary was (sometimes hilariously) British-centric. They were surprised when references to "BT" or "Channel 5" weren't always understood, and they indulged far too much in verbose management-speak: hard enough for me to make sense of "proven track records", "customer service imperatives going forward" and "funnel-management skills" (not to mention "hot buttons" and "low-hanging fruit"), but pity the poor second-language speaker. You could see many of them felt (rightly) that it wasn't worth translating!
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jul 30, 2008 16:50:17 GMT
I recall noticing, in Hong Kong ... I may have said before that for a few years I did a lot of training (lectures, questions, discussions) in Hong Kong, Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. I noticed that many visiting Brits made no concessions to cultural variations in language, to their shame. Not only was their grammar very long-winded (even for me to listen to) and their points unfocused, but their vocabulary was (sometimes hilariously) British-centric. They were surprised when references to "BT" or "Channel 5" weren't always understood, and they indulged far too much in verbose management-speak: hard enough for me to make sense of "proven track records", "customer service imperatives going forward" and "funnel-management skills" (not to mention "hot buttons" and "low-hanging fruit"), but pity the poor second-language speaker. You could see many of them felt (rightly) that it wasn't worth translating! I find this insensitivity quite odd, as I try to ensure that I tailor my presentations to the audience, not just in terms of content and complexity, but also in terms of language. And many figures of speech are well understood once people realise what they are. So "low hanging fruit" might elicit blank stares of incomprehension, but "What we call low hanging fruit" alerts them to the fact that it's a metaphor (is that right?) and it's significance becomes self-evident (at least in a society still in touch with its agrarian roots (pun unintended).
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 30, 2008 17:23:29 GMT
I find this insensitivity quite odd, as I try to ensure that I tailor my presentations to the audience, not just in terms of content and complexity, but also in terms of language. That's where you'd be different. The people I'm thinking of come armed with PowerPoint, a pre-prepared speech which (in their view) has served them well before, and armour-plated self-satisfaction. My consolation was that they miss out on the experiences available while travelling around the world and learn nothing because they take their pre-conceptions with them. Me, I had a great time! Did I tell you about the time when ...
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jul 30, 2008 18:22:41 GMT
the time when ...
I sat trying to chat with a friend in the lobby of a nicely-cool hotel, but drowned out for nearly an hour by the loud American businessman sitting nearby, telling his suited Chinese companion his full life story and commercial/social achievements.
When finally there came a pause, the poor companion, clearly making an affort to assemble a few English words, managed "You ... want ... drink?"
|
|