Talk:Standard English

I disagree with the definition of Standard English you have published because it overlooks the fact that English is spoken outside the UK and does have a set of rules and vocabulary. I would like to submit my own interpretation of the definition: Standard English is English as is taught in schools across the world applying rules for grammer and vocabulary. It is used in schools, working situations, the government, and when speaking with someone of authority.

I removed the "many areas refer to American English" passage because I recently traveled to Italy. Any time somebody spoke English, they were obviously attempting Received Pronunciation (and the better English speakers came pretty close to it.) This leads me to believe that Received Pronunciation is what's taught in the schools of Occidental Countries.

It depends on the country. Received Pronunciation and, more generally, British English vocabulary, spelling, and grammar/usage are taught in most European Union countries, not least because British English is one of the official languages of the EU. American English (with a General American accent) is however the most common variety used in ESL classes in Latin America and, probably, also in Asia (China, Japan, etc.)161.24.19.82 17:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

---

If the concept of standard English is "fluid" then it doesn't exist. "Standard" implies something that isn't fluid. --Pauldanon 12:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If standard English is to mean anything, it must allow for the fact that the language is spoken outside Britain. Thus, the citation of the BBC as a reference-point isn't helpful. Standard English is, rather, the phenomenon (if such it is) which allows someone in London to read the New York Times and the Times of India without needing a dictionary. It also make possible telephone-conferences between New York, Delhi and London without an interpreter. This would not be possible among German speakers from various parts of the world if they used their dialects. --Pauldanon 12:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Opposition" as a source of linguistic change

The article previously stated:

However, opposition to these three varieties, which are often too closely associated with their countries of origin, has given rise to many local Englishes.

I edited this sentence because frankly, it is patent nonesense. Local varieties of a language arise as a result of many processes and causes, but "opposition" to an association with a particular country is never one of them. In the case of English, the processes that led to the many varieties of the language are clear (linguistic drift after loss of physical continuity with the base population of speakers, etc.). I edited the article accordingly. --Ryanaxp 20:54, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that American English (as we know it now) developed partly from a desire to disaccociate with Britain? Wiki-Ed 18:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Developed in what sense? In terms of "coming about", no, it probably had to do with normal linguistic processes that happen when you isolate a group of people and don't maintain heavy ties with them. In terms of being made officially different, perhaps you're correct, but in general linguistic change is about drifting habits, not conscious opposition. --54x 22:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

… that is considered the model for educated people.

I removed this from the first paragraph, put it back, considered a rewrite and ended up leaving it alone. There must be a better way of describing what "Standard English" is, but this is vague and expresses a point of view. I came to this page looking for a definition and only found a few clues. Paul Tracy_|\talk 21:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have only ever seen the phrase "standard english" used to distinctify from slang and American english. Of course this can't be publshed on this page (WP:OR) but I find it hard to believe that I have been misled all my life. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 17:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This page is a mess: English is, in fact, spoken outside the U.K. . . .

This needs a complete rewrite. I'll start tonight. -BrianinStockholm 09:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it ironic that this page was written using British spelling (e.g. "standardisation", "favoured", "recognised","colonisation", "centre") that would not be considered "standard" in the United States. Yet another evidence that there is no such thing as a single international standard for written English. 161.24.19.82 17:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Irony

Spelling mistakes in an article about Standard English. -Qa Plar 17:47 25th June 2006

Spelling errors are Standard in any language! - DavidWBrooks 17:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Not in Englosh! 03:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Standard English is as described on the previous page, it is a set of norms brought about to set and fix a language. It happens via the processes mentioned. It can be seen as prescriptive if you say someone speaks or writes 'non standard' english, however a standard English is a means of communication to prevent misunderstanding and ambiguity between everyone. It is a necessity.

English Language Student, 18th January 2007

Error?

English does not have a governing body (see Académie française, Real Academia Española, Nederlandse Taalunie) to establish usage.

Uhm, Oxford. Jachin 06:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OUP does not govern, define, or prescribe English. It only describes it. English is an evolving language and is not governed. 82.24.173.208 21:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing Conflict

The Wikipedia style manual states that different spelling conventions (American, Canadian, British, etc.) are acceptable in the Wikipedia. However, the style manual also says that: "Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader". A quick look at the "standard English" article reveals that it is written using mostly modern British (en-GB) spelling (e.g. "colonisation", "standardisation", "favoured", "recognised", and "centre"). For the sake of consistency, I edited the article then to change a single occurrence of "realized" (en-US or en-GB-OED spelling) to the now preferred en-GB form "realised". As far as I understand, that is perfectly compatible with and actually recommended under current Wikipedia style guidelines. Nevertheless, user Cultural Freedom seems to think otherwise and reverted the change I had made. I wish he/she could explain me why ! 200.177.13.136 00:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I should have explained. The article was originally written in American English, and I sloppily "returned" your one change to American English, without looking at the larger context of the new "stable" spelling of the article. I can drop this one. The truth is, the whole article needs to be rewritten. (See next.) --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-05-25 01:19 01:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

VERY POV

This article is EXTREMELY POV and either should be deleted, or rewritten without a British bias. First of all, it is written in British English. Second, it states nothing about how the UN actually uses a standard English, which is what some people now call American English. Also, look at my page for a proposal I've made about this whole controversy, because something needs to happen, fast.--PoidLover 16:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. I'm very busy right now, and am still not certain I won't to get back involved with Wikipedia (there are too many childish, hateful, angry Europeans here), but let's see what we can do. One thing, though, I don't think the fact that the article is written in British English needs to be seen as a problem, but the article certainly needs to talk about American English as another standard! --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-05-25 01:30 01:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

How do we make this less Anglo-centric? --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-05-25 01:35 01:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd tend to start with features English tends to have in common among the areas it's used in, (notably Europe, America, and Oceania) like the mostly consistent use of consonants. Mention various local and attempted standards as such, and notable differences in standards. Honestly I think this article could have a good deal of rewriting done to it, although it does have a lot of interesting facts buried in the PoV parts, too. You could probably throw in a bit of talk about attempts to standardise or reform English- (and suddenly my New Zealand spelling strikes me as ironic...) see such movements like the Simplified Spelling Society. --54x 22:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's time to remove the example of Standard English in the U.K. When we get exs. in Australia, the U.S., etc., then we can leave it in. Fact is, this article needs a complete rewrite. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-08-17 09:33 09:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)